Why can’t they just both live happily ever after? I am sure
this is the question many filmmakers have been asking since the release of
director
Martin Scorsese’s new masterpiece,
The Wolf of Wall Street. In recent
years the rise of digital technology has restructured the film industry to
extent where conventional filmmaking is at risk of extinction.
Before the creation of digital cameras, celluloid filmmaking
was the only form of moviemaking. Even after the creation of digital cameras,
the power of celluloid film was still one of a kind. It had soul (emulsion),
unmatchable image resolution, a wide latitudinal range, and above all, it had
history. Film was superior on all fronts; it was the king of the jungle. Digital
was still centuries away; however, the medium kept growing, and eventually it
evolved into a much more sophisticated and reliable tool. For the first time since its creation, digital
was producing effective results that satisfied filmmaker’s aesthetic desires similar
to that of its predecessor, film. But like in every kingdom, there can be only
one master.
Digital wasn’t content with being just another option for making
movies; it was beginning to replace the hybrid method of using celluloid film.
Why? Film was more expensive to shoot on. It did not offer filmmakers the
comfort of viewing their work instantaneously because film negatives have to be
processed in photochemical labs. Workflow and distribution were also a bit more
complex than that of the digital medium. All these were some of the reasons
filmmakers decided to make the transition into the digital world. Once at the
peak of its career, celluloid film was no longer the formidable force it once
was, which led many to speculate its inevitable extinction in the near future.
However, film has proven time and time again that when called upon, it can
still deliver the goods, and so it did on The Wolf of Wall Street.
Martin Scorsese and director of photography
Rodrigo Prieto, ASC, decided to combine the best of both worlds on his epic comedy drama. In an
interview with
American Cinematographer, Rodrigo recalls that during
preproduction of the film he had carried out tests with several digital cameras
as well as film as a benchmark. He tried to understand the differences in
color, texture, and latitude of both mediums by shooting various scenes. When
he screened his results for Martin Scorsese, he states that Martin kept
pointing to the film results saying that he preferred them based on skin tones,
and color reproduction. The filmmakers then decided to explore the financially
disadvantages shooting on film would have on the movie, since the budget had
been created with a digital workflow in mind. In the end, they decided to go
with both mediums, tapping into the best parts of both worlds by using film for
majority of principal photography, and calling upon digital in low light
conditions. Both mediums served their master extremely well by producing
identical results that even the most trained eyes cannot quite differentiate.
This leads me to ask. Do you believe film and digital can continue to coexist
in the same world? I certainly do.
I read the blog post throwing the question that if the celluloid filmmaking can survive in the digital world. The writer, Olajide, brought the movie “The wolf of wall street” as a good example to answer this question. The director of this movie mixed the traditional filmmaking method and the digital one to bring the strengths from the both sides. The result seems to be successful. I wanted many readers, who are interested in the film industry, to read this interesting post. I used google Adwords to see what keywords people search the most on a daily basis by putting various words related to the post I think. According to the result, the keyword “digital filmmaking” is highly searched recording 720 monthly. Therefore, he can make the post more search friendly if putting the keyword “digital filmmaking” somewhere in the title.
ReplyDelete