no devil lived on

Back on the 7s

So I think I might have figured out what I'm going to use this journal for, and that's discuss my love of cinema and what I continue to learn about films, acting and film making. For those of you that don't know, I'm quite the film-nut. While my chops at understanding it as an artform are, shall we say, a bit underdeveloped, I have had a great passion for movies since I can remember.

As I've wandered my way through these last three years of college working for a degree that I seriously doubt and ultimately don't care if I ever use specifically, I have done a great deal of soul-searching trying to figure out what it is that I love to do that I could in some way make a living at. If you would have asked me four years ago, my creative passions were merely hobbies. I enjoyed the performing arts, but never seriously considered making a go of them career-wise. My mind was set with one question as I entered college: What can I do that I will earn a decent living? My initial answers were attorney or politician, seeing as I thought I would either follow the family trade or pursue my interest in political affairs.

Fast forward four years and one presidential election later, I've discovered that my passion for politics is merely a passing interest. Sure, I enjoy discussing politics, history and war, but after having such a headache dealing with school and the election, I have decided that it's time for a break. It has been during this time, that I have began flirting more and more with the idea of working in the film industry be it as an actor/director in C features and industrial films or as a production assistant on a multimillion dollar studio blockbuster.

ultimately, I would love to be an actor, writer, director and an editor. I really want to be the driving creative force behind a movie. But I suppose people in hell want ice water, too. I know what my odds are of ever making it big: slim to none, and slim is bleeding to death on my white carpet. I don't want to be a critic, because although I have very strong opinions, most of them are based on intuition rather than knowledge. I think it's easier to be a better than average director than it is to be a critic of similar caliber. Don't ask me why, it's just another one of my conclusions that I may have haphazardly jumped to.

Right now I'm focusing on writing and directing. Why? Because, right now I have to be self-reliant. I can't afford a professional crew, actors ... well anything at all really. Everything would have to be filmed on location, and what little crew I had would mostly be volunteers. With whom whatever profit would be made would be shared to a certain point.

Another reason why now is as good a time as any to become a filmmaker is technology. Before, even shooting on 16mm and Super-8 was costly. Film is expensive, and getting the film processed is even MORE expensive. Now we have readily available, hi-definition digital cameras. A $4,000 camera, with the right lighting and post-production editing can looks as professional as you want it to be, and with the advent of digital and Hi-Def cameras, blowing the aspect ratio from digital to scope distorts little, and costs even less. Digital cameras record pictures at a 1.78:1 (16x9) aspect ratio. Standard aspect ratio for feature films is in the realm of 2.35:1, so when stretched to scope the hi-def picture is only stretched by roughly 7.5% of it's normal aspect ratio. Now while that's nothing earthshattering or even new, what makes these different can be summed up in one word: Dailies.

Dailies are the raw footage right out of the can, processed and reviewed by the director on a daily basis. However, getting film processed (developed) requires a good bit of money if you can't develop the footage in-house. However, with digital footage and the right video card and software, your computer can be used to view dailies, not to mention edit and render video and effects. Basically the digital age cuts down on how many people it takes to make a movie. Now it is relatively easy for a small crew to make feature-length films with a fraction of the cost normally incurred by shooting on film. The only down-side being digital and film don't exactly do the same thing. It is nearly impossible to get a quality film look out of digital footage. Fortunately, this is changing rapidly.

If you've seen Star Wars Episodes II or III, Sin City, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Once Upon A Time In Mexico, Spy Kids 3D or The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl in 3D, then you've seen a movie entirely shot on a digital format. These movies prove that digital is a viable format for feature films. This should NOT to be confused with shooting completely CGI worlds with a green screen. All of the aforementioned films might have led you to believe that's what I meant, and they were intended to. The one film I left out that might surprise you that it was shot on a digital format is 28 Days Later, a cultish Zombie horror film straight out of the UK. I mention this because I know when I watched it I thought it had been shot on film. Nothing led me to believe otherwise until I had a conversation with a few friends and one mentioned that the entire thing had been filmed on the DV platform.

Now, it should be acknowledged that the cameras used to film said movies were much more expensive than any aspiring film maker such as myself is willing or able to shell out to buy. They were made with professional equipment, just simply not on film.

The current generation of "prosumer" (a low grade professional style product sold through consumer outlets) cameras include the Panasonic DVX100a, the Canon XL2 and the Sony HDV-FX1. These are the top of the line consumer models for the aspiring filmmaker, or low-end commercial or industrial film producer. Of the three mentioned, only the FX1 is able to shoot in hi-definition, a feature which at this time may be overrated. I'll admit that even I'm attracted by the words "HIGH DEFINITION" but what it really boils down to is, "Does the camera do what you want it to do?" The answer: No, not really. What I want, what I really want is a good alternative to Super8, and 16mm, that I can get dailies without having to develop. Because, let's face it, it'd be a lot easier and faster to make a movie when you can see what you get in the can.

As you can probably tell, I've done a decent amount of research into this. The fact is that I have an obsession with cinema, and I want to be a part of something that I love so dearly. What was a hobby has grown into a monster, and to tell you the truth, I don't want to turn out to be the next movie geek on "Beat the Geeks" Like I said, I don't care if I make industrial films, I just want to make movies.

posted by bumbletbw @ 7:08 AM