Long Live Film, Film is Dead
By Paul Mendoza
April 12, 2003 9:00 p.m.
Film might be at the end of its reel.
Replacing the familiar clicking of films past is the hum of
computers and digital cameras. Artists, distributors and theater
chains are growing increasingly interested in digital cinema, with
one organization or another holding its own digital cinema
conference every month (the next one’s on May 3rd and
sponsored by Independant Feature Project/Los Angeles, if
you’re interested.)
But amid all this talk of monumental change, the UCLA School of
Theater, Film, Television and Digital Media remains tentative
toward these signs of the times, and it remains to be seen what
will become of film in the age of ones and zeros.
The advantages of digital filmmaking are clear: it’s
entirely self-contained, easy to use and most of all, dirt cheap
compared to traditional film. Many major directors have already
crossed over, like George Lucas (“Star Wars, Episode II:
Attack of the Clones”) and Robert Rodriguez (“Spy
Kids”), who both use 24p high-definition cameras that match
the frame rate of 35mm film cameras. UCLA Film School does not have
any high definition camera equipment at present, but its addition
seems imminent.
“I’m sure the school will move in (the digital)
direction. It’s inevitable. It will have to,” said
Fabian Wagmister, associate professor in charge of UCLA’s Lab
for New Media. “Just four or five years ago, we didn’t
let many of the projects be shot in DV (digital video). And, now, I
would say half of the projects in the school are shot in DV. It may
take another year, another five, but I think there will come a time
when every film will be completely made digitally.”
Not if film students have anything to say about it, though.
Surprisingly, these newest entrants into the film community, a
generation reared on VHS cameras and MTV, seem to be the most
passionate about keeping film the way it is: on film.
“It amazes me,” said Jonathan Kuntz, a visiting
professor in UCLA’s Critical Studies department and a
professor in Los Angeles City College’s Production
department. “I would’ve thought the young film students
would be into the new technology, but it’s just the opposite.
They see the virtues and beauty of film. I guess it would be fair
to say a lot of film students around the country prefer film,
although they are being trained in both digital and film
techniques.”
Guido Silei, an international film student at UCLA, has worked
with both digital cameras, like the XL-1, and 16mm film. He’s
pleased with both.
“It depends on what you want from a film,” he said.
“If you want to look at the content, I understand when a
young independent filmmaker makes a movie on digital film. You can
say something, spending not a lot of money. Of course, I prefer
film. I think it’s more related to the magic, to the art that
we love.”
However, most of the magic and art we see on the silver screen
today is a combination of raw film footage and digitally created
effects. Of all the steps in film creation, post-production is, far
and away, the furthest along in terms of digital technology.
Software, like the editing programs Avid and Final Cut Pro, are
versatile new tools that can work with traditional film, and new
programs like Massive made the climactic battle scene at
Helm’s Deep in “Lord of the Rings: The Two
Towers” possible, creating the Uruk-hai battalions among
other things.
“The truth of the matter is, modern film is a combination
of the elements,” said Kuntz. “Post-production is
virtually all done digitally. In “˜Lord of the Rings,’
both film and digital combined to a great effect, I think.
It’s not like they’re incompatible.”
Self-proclaimed “film freaks” like Silei, however,
are not completely satisfied with the new tools, arguing that the
reality and texture of film will always trump digital creation.
“When you see “˜Lord of the Rings,’ and you see
all these puppets and these big, huge armies, you can see
they’re not real. If they were real, you would have seen the
difference. They are realistic, but not real,” Silei
said.
“The look of the image (on film) is much better,” he
added. “It’s more beautiful. It’s the color, the
rendition, the texture, the shades, the quality, the details. You
have those in digital, but it’s much worse.”
UCLA’s film school continues to value the craft of film,
as it is one of the few schools remaining in the Los Angeles area
that still requires first-year directing students to shoot their
projects with 16mm film.
“There is still a strong belief in the material of
filmmaking having to be film,” said Wagmister. “So you
have an old guard of people here who want to defend that format.
Slowly, reality changes, and you have to adapt and you have to move
on with what’s current. I’m sure the school will
slowly, but surely move in the direction of digital
filmmaking.”
Film schools like UCLA’s seem to be some of the last
remaining proponents of film, but may be tempted to cut costs by
replacing film completely with digital tools, leaving a
century’s worth of craft on the cutting room floor.
Even Kuntz, known for his enthusiasm for high-quality film
prints in his classes, acknowledges the inevitability of digital
filmmaking as the new industry standard.
“Film has had a good ride,” he said.
“It’s been around for more than 110 years. It’s
an amazing span of time for any technology. Some things don’t
last 10 years, let alone 110. Still, film still looks better on the
screen. I would still bemoan the loss of film, but I think
it’s just a matter of time before video achieves film
quality, and I hope it does.”
