Which raises a further difficulty: By today's standards it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for an aspiring no budget filmmaker to make an actual film, let alone an actual film with any commercial value. Arguably the aspiring filmmaker's task is more difficult now than it's ever been. Modern technology has made the acquisition, storage, management, editing and distribution of theatrical or very near theatrical quality moving images orders of magnitude cheaper than it was a couple of decades ago. The belief this engenders is that without the enormous cost of film stock and the enormous cost of the specialist hardware and personnel to process and manipulate it, filmmaking has become more democratised, open/available to more people. This is an illusion, a false belief! Unless of course one also believes that modern film is purely about capturing theatrical quality moving images, which quite a few do actually appear to believe! In practice of course there are numerous other facets to filmmaking, many of which are significantly more important than just image quality. For example, what does the image quality matter, if the image you're capturing is a poor acting performance with poor make-up, poor staging, poor sound and music, etc? Modern technology has made little or no difference to the cost of some of these "other facets" and in some cases has actually increased the cost. This is because modern technology is always a two edged sword in filmmaking, one the one hand lowering the cost in some filmmaking areas and on the other raising specifications and ultimately audience expectations due to the "technology arms race"!
I agree with this, and obviously it isn't just about the tools that we're using but how you use them. Even if somehow nonfilmmakers were given the budget to make a film and all of the equipment, if the equipment isn't used properly then they won't succeed in making the film. These facets aren't only governed by money, but also by the skill of the filmmaker. In some ways filmmaking is more democratized because certain tools are becoming more affordable, but the skills that must be developed are just as difficult (if not more so) to develop as they ever have before.
For example, as far as I'm aware, all Hollywood films (not just blockbusters) currently in production have at least a 7.1 sound mix, the majority, if not all, will also have a Dolby Atmos mix and some will have a 7.1 mix, an Auro 3D mix and a Dolby Atmos mix. Even though a 5.1 mix is the minimum acceptable technical standard for a theatrical film, in practise the minimum for a Hollywood film is currently 7.1 and may even be or may soon be Dolby Atmos. Dolby Atmos is more demanding and expensive to make than a 5.1 mix and even a theatrical 5.1 mix is generally 10-100 times more expensive than say a stereo broadcast video mix.
Well this is true, but it's more relevant for the people who actually make the kind of big films that require these sound mixes (essentially only Hollywood). We should be aware of the specifications that are relevant to the films we are trying to make.
In practise, most/all no budget "film" makers use modern technology to make films which are effectively at least 2-6 decades out of date (because it's affordable and they usually don't realise that's what they're doing) but in virtually all cases these "films" not only don't achieve current distributor and audience minimum expectations/requirements but also often can't even be physically screened in modern cinemas!
True. I think that people that make these words should just be aware of what they are doing, and how it helps them reach the goal they set for themselves (some people are only hobbyists, and that's just fine).
I'm not sure I would go that far. Certainly it is usually indicative of poor and/or unimaginative video making but it's not necessarily the case. At the end of the day, a "film look" (however one defines that) is just another film/video making tool and as with all other filmmaking tools, it's effective use is dependent on it's meaning in conjunction with the other filmmaking crafts.
Well I would go that far, anyone who has a belief that there is even a "film look" is probably not having a nuanced enough view of cinema to make anything original or even to build on what was started before. My point is that there isn't a "film look." Is the "film look" the look of Michael Bay films, or
Citizen Kane or Jackie Chan films? They are all different film looks that serve different purposes. Trying to achieve a "film look" is a mistake because it assumes that there is a "film look" to begin with, and it doesn't take into account how the film's visuals are serving the film's form (usually a story).
My short answer to this would be: "Be careful what you wish for"! The longer answer is again quite complex, which I can deal with in part by responding to this statement...
Haha that's true, my "wish" that I made in my previous comment actually logically leads to an aesthetic that I hate for the most part!
1. Stories which depict whose social realities? There was a time when Hollywood could focus entirely on it's domestic market and therefore American social realities, that time has largely passed. Today Hollywood is a global corporation and the importance/dominance of the domestic market is declining. Although variable, today approximately 75% of gross box office receipts for most blockbusters comes from overseas. And of course, different countries/regions have different histories and different social realities. Without creating significantly dumbed-down, homogenised or formulaic stories, how does one write a story which pushes the boundaries of depicting the social realities of all the film territories simultaneously or even of just the most important territories?
That's a good point, which is precisely why I just think that there's no reason for me or anyone else to hope that Hollywood makes films that depict American social realities or any social realities at all. If I want that, I'll have to look for more socially conscious filmmakers who are generally independent filmmakers (although every now and then there are some that come from Hollywood). Hollywood just doesn't serve the kind of dishes the OP wants, and it doesn't seem like most people demand this dish from Hollywood so the OP should probably look for another 'restaurant' if he wants that dish.
2. I would say that Hollywood does push the boundaries of aesthetics, just not necessarily those areas of aesthetics which you personally value. I previously (in another thread) discussed Michael Bay's demand/development of fluidity of movement of CGI characters in Transformers and that is certainly an example of pushing an aesthetic boundary.
Good point, and I contradicted myself. Of course Hollywood pushes the boundaries of aesthetics, especially in its style of intensified continuity, I just happen to not appreciate this aesthetic in most situations.
3. There is here another consideration which deals with the point you made about what Hollywood is trying to achieve and also the point about making films more relevant in different contexts, the small screen for example. It's an issue which has it's roots in the 1930s and 40s and is still a prime consideration of Hollywood today. Since the beginning of the film industry, one of the biggest issues had always been supplying the demand. By the mid 1930s the studios had developed an almost factory production line style of film manufacture to churn out films to meet the demand. However, by the end of the 30s it was also apparent that a new technology posed a serious threat not just to the growth of the film industry but to it's very existence. Why would people continue to bother going to the cinema if they could simply watch films in the comfort of their own homes on a television? Let's bare in mind that this was not just paranoia because many of the fears of the film industry did indeed come to pass. Today we take it for granted that we go to the cinema to watch films but that didn't used to be the case. For the first half of the C20th people went to the cinema to see the news, watch documentary shorts and also sometimes to see films! In fact, there were chains of cinemas which only screened the news (no films)! By the 1950s this once huge part of the cinema industry had effectively ceased to exist. So, the late 30s and 40s saw the opening salvo of technological warfare to improve the theatrical experience, keep cinema a step or two ahead of TV and thereby maintain audiences. Obviously colour was the most famous film invention we remember from this period but not so many are aware that on the audio side of things, EQ, compression and stereophonic sound were all technologies pioneered and/or invented for the film industry during this time. By the 1950s TV had become mass market in the US and cinema audience numbers started falling but the film industry was ready with a whole slew of new cinema technologies; Widescreen, Cinemascope, Panavision, Cinerama and early 3D, to name just a few. Some time later a way was usually found to incorporate the most successful of these film technologies into TV broadcast signals/home consumer equipment but by then, the film industry would (by necessity) have moved to newer, better technologies. This technological arms race is still very much alive and kicking today. So on the one hand, the film industry must keep rolling out new technology and film makers must employ and push it, to improve the cinema experience beyond that provided by TV/home entertainment equipment. If they didn't, there would be no logical reason to presume that cinemas or the film industry would continue to exist!! On the other hand, film investors and producers cannot afford to completely ignore the significant income generated from re-verisoning films into video.
Hence why I said above, be careful what you wish for, because a natural consequence of what you're wishing for could lead to the death of cinema/the film industry!
That's true, and it's actually a point I would always mention about why the cinema may be restored (the 'technology' race) but I think I changed my opinion. The problem is that there isn't really enough to justify going to the cinema. Movie ticket prices are high, and most people are fine watching films on streaming services. Not only that, but more sophisticated TV shows are serving the need for conventional moving image narrative with much more consistency than current commercial films. Is cinema relevant to mainstream audiences? I would argue 'yes' but in a very different way than it used to be. Media consumption is greater than ever, but audiences don't seem to care for distinguishing the specific media. Many people find spending time watching YouTube videos, watching TV shows, and watching films to satisfy the same entertainment purposes. At the same time, the movie theater experience is too expensive and too much of a hassle for many people.
So in a way, I think my attentions have switched from hoping that cinema survives as a form, rather than as a presentation format. Because it's important to recognize that cinema is distinctive for its form which is much different than the form of a YouTube video or the TV show, even when it is viewed on YouTube or a TV show. I hope that the film form survives, but the big screen experience I think is slowly dying, and will only really be valuable for certain cinephiles (like myself). And even though I watch a lot of films on the big screen, I admit that I rarely watch new Hollywood movies on the big screen because I just don't think it's worth it.
Yes, that's obviously one of the most important considerations for the professional film/video maker but one must also realise as a professional indie filmmaker or indie ProdCo that while the audience are the ultimate arbiters, they are not in effect the primary market! Before one can even gain access to a paying audience, one must first sell to a distributor and/or a broadcaster and that means one must first satisfy the demands/requirements (financial, technical and aesthetic) of these distributors or broadcasters. This obviously has (or absolutely needs to have!), a significant impact on the way in which required resources are identified and budget/time/knowledge is allocated.
That's true, but distributors are also thinking about the audience, so they're kind of related.
IMHO, that would depend on both the individual program and the individual student. Although virtually always flawed (often severely), all formal film programs/courses just provide an opportunity for learning. How and how much a student takes advantage of this learning opportunity and actually obviously learns varies from student to student. Many students expect film school/university to "spoon feed" them, just like at high school but higher education works differently to compulsory education and the responsibility for learning is very much on the student rather than on the teaching staff, which is one of the reasons why the staff at higher education establishments are not called "teachers". For this reason, some who go to film school feel it was invaluable and others think it was a complete waste of time/money, even those who went to the same film school at the same time!
That's a good point, it really depends on the student to choose how to use his/her education when making films. And I think a lot of the people that lack success are those that still look to be "spoon fed" by professors so they don't ever make films of value because they only try to please the professor and only understand film as a medium in the way that the professor understands the medium.
1. 2001 was obviously re-versioned many years ago into broadcast video and was subsequently re-versioned for VHS, then DVD and then again for BluRay. Originally it was made as a 4-track stereo mix (35mm) and a 6-track mix (70mm). In 2001 (the actual year!) it was re-released for the cinema on 70mm film but by then cinema technology had moved on and the original format sound mixes could no longer be played in cinemas. So, it was re-mixed in theatrical DTS format (at considerable expense I would imagine). However, theatrical DTS format is not supported by DCP, so while the visuals could easily be scanned into DCP format, the DTS re-mix would be more of a problem and the original mix even more so. Even cinemas which still have actual film projectors are very unlikely to have the necessary DTS theatrical playback equipment. In other words, does 2001 still even exist as an actual viewable film or is it now only a video (and a master film copy in a vault somewhere)?
That's true, there are many different versions of the film. The film does exist though because I watched a 70mm print of it at the Museum of the Moving Image, so I'm pretty sure it does exist.
2. "Won't soon be forgotten" by whom? I contend that it's already been forgotten by many, if not the vast majority of today's cinema goers and even if it were still possible to screen it, the vast majority would find it slow and boring.
When I say "won't be forgotten," I mean that it won't be forgotten by people who appreciate cinema as something more than just ephemeral entertainment. It is possible to screen
2001: A Space Odyssey, this summer I went to the Museum of the Moving Image and watched it on a 70mm print, it was screened three times. Every showing was full. But yes, most film goers today would find the film 'slow' and 'boring.' Most of these film goers probably don't have appreciation for film as lasting art in the first place, in my opinion, they are missing out, but I don't care too much because they get satisfaction from the films they watch in ways which satisfy them, so I'm happy for them even though I think they are missing out. But I think that a lot of film goers also just don't give older films, or 'arthouse' films a chance. I showed the film to my brother who generally only watches new Hollywood films, and he loved it. I also showed it to my father who has similar tastes to my brother, he didn't get it, but I'm glad he gave it a chance.
Adding these two points together, no matter how great a masterpiece 2001 is/was, in all probability it is no longer either technically a theatrical film nor a commercially viable piece of cinema. I agree though that it won't be forgotten by film buffs/critics/makers/etc., anytime soon and maybe never, depending of course on what happens in the future. It maybe that the entirety of the cinema industry is forgotten by everyone except historians in a century or two, if the film/cinema industry ceases to exist.
It is a theatrical film, you would be surprised how many films are (although they are not screened as often as new films for obvious reasons). In any case, when I say that
2001: A Space Odyssey won't be forgotten, I am also not necessarily referring to the film version, I mean in any version. But even then, this particular film is always mentioned as a "must-see" on the big screen because it really makes great use of the big screen experience (and I agree with this after having seen it on the big screen!). I think that as long as cinema is appreciated by cinephiles, critics, filmmakers,
2001: A Space Odyssey is one of those films that will probably never be forgotten, it's so entrenched in the canon and it's made by a director with so many canonized works that I doubt it'll just lose its reputation.
On another note, I just want to mention something that I think you already know about me. I'm not one of these 'film' fetishists that really only want to watch movies on 35mm film or 70mm film. One of my best experiences watching a film was watching Hou Hsiao-hsien's
Flowers Of Shanghai on a new 35mm print, but in general I don't mind DCP, I really care about the big screen experience when I can have it, but I'm less picky about DCP vs. film (especially when a lot of films are just in bad shape). I'm also not much of a big screen fetishist, I'm fine with home theater if its my only option (which it usually is for the kind of films that I watch, but thankfully I moved to NYC where there are many arthouse and repertory theaters, but then I have no money haha).
