FILM MATTERS - GO TO KODAK AND HAVE YOUR SAY!

 

A MEDIUM FOR EACH ARTIST
By Nick Binetti

As a student of Carleton University’s film program, which is purely theoretical, and involves no hands-on practical work, and as a young filmmaker who has worked exclusively within digital mediums, I’ll attempt to present and discuss why film matters, based on my own unique perspective.

Since my early adolescence, the film industry, and indeed the world at large, has strived to move towards a digital landscape.  The rise of the internet and relative inexpensive cost of digital production has given countless filmmakers across the world a voice they otherwise would not have.  Growing up, I witnessed these results, these benefits, and found it difficult to believe that there were still people in the community clutching there Super 16mm, who felt that film was worth the time and effort for what now amounts to a near negligible difference.  I believed these people to be the contemporary equivalents of those who said that film wasn’t an art at the medium’s inception; those who believed the real cinema died upon the introduction of the talkie; those in the 1940s and 50s who viewed colour as too fantastical and brilliant to ever catch on in any major way; all the naysayers who have been slow to change in a world that never stops spinning.

Stan Brakhage

But there is one significant difference between these previous transitions and the move from celluloid to digital: while making a black and white silent film on celluloid might not garner the same audiences as, say, the next CGI dominant summer blockbuster (and, by extension, be less likely to be made), it was still possible for an artist to make a film true to their vision. With the digital revolution already well underway, it’s difficult to say if that will still be the case this time.

 

Professors in class have told stories of early Russian filmmakers scrapping images of film stock to recycle and reuse what little was available, and I fear this may be the future for all celluloid filmmakers. The number of manufacturers of good old fashioned celluloid film is dwindling, and who knows how available film stock will be 10 years from now?

Film and digital are completely different mediums, regardless of the fact that they’re often used for the same purpose.  The procedure of capturing a moving image on a physical film strip is substantially different than translating an image into binary, later to be interpreted by a computer program into a representation of the original image.  Celluloid requires much more finesse and dedication to get the shot you want, and the process in turn affects the product.  While, again, I can’t say for sure since I’ve yet to dabble in filmmaking outside of the digital world, I would imagine that the editing process - and the emotions the editor feels throughout - is drastically different when each frame in front of you is a physical picture that you had to measure and light meticulously for perfection - or conversely appreciating celluloid’s ability to occasionally capture the world in a completely different manner than we intended.

Film matters because it should be up to the artist, not the almighty dollar, to decide which medium he or she works through.  Art is very personal, and to have our cinematic options limited to digital, with constant codec and format issues, would be an atrocity.  The cinema will benefit most from an ecosystem composed of both celluloid and digital.  There is a place for both, we just need to remind people why film matters.

FILM MATTERS - GO TO KODAK AND HAVE YOUR SAY!

 

 

‘WAX POETIC’ – FILM!
By Patrice James

Film moves me, it grooves me, and it makes my thoughts flow.  
It’s natural, intense, filled with a luminous GLOW!
Those asking and questioning why, how, where, when;
have sold out to conformity; now keyboard NOT pen.
I was raised in a space and place fraught with trauma;
the medium of film allows me to expel and exorcize all my drama.

So, the question being posed, is why Film Matters?  Well, in this purportedly democratic world, where each person has a freedom of choice, why should certain things lose their appeal or relevance, just because the marketplace labels them as outmoded, unpopular or dare I declare OBSOLETE?  Well for me, an explanation for why film matters is not really necessary.  Art matters, and the independent artist’s ability to work within whichever art form or medium he or she desires as a form of creative expression is really what’s relevant.  There is not an absolute necessity for us to either apply meaning or worth to, or demand an explanation or a defense of all things; some things contain purely intrinsic value.   The medium of film is one such thing.

In a rapidly increasing consumerist, hyper digitized, fast-food, fast-paced, quick-fix, homogeneous environment/society which demands that everyone has access to everything, no matter their professional acumen.  It is extremely refreshing to have access to original mediums and technologies that STILL demand great discipline, respect for process, a commitment to detail, and a reverence for craftsmanship, and artistry.  In my opinion if we cease to learn, appreciate, and respect existing knowledge, I’m afraid we run the risk of ‘reinventing the wheel’!  And one of the most obvious problems facing us in this ‘free-for-all’ reality is that there is a true lack of understanding about the ethos of film.  New technologies and new technology users are obsessed with achieving a filmic look or experience, without first having any true understanding about the medium itself, its origins, and its historical and contemporary relevance in motion picture capture/moving images.  So the language of film has become appropriated, ‘dummied down’ re-interpreted to satisfy a hyper-digital, purely consumerist driven creation machine; and in order for this machine to thrive and excel; Film mustn’t MATTER!

By my understanding; great art has never been informed by popularity or what’s in mode; genuine art sets the standard by which all else must follow.  Artists are the true champions and orators of cultural appreciation, social accountability and as such need to be equipped with a variety of tools through which they can create, express, and comment.  Film is one of the most tangible, and evolved mediums; it allows for both an experiential and profoundly inventive creative experience.  And so, film matters, because IT IS, IT CAN, IT DOES, IT WILL!

FILM MATTERS - GO TO KODAK AND HAVE YOUR SAY!

HIGH ON D-76!
By Sasha Vreca

For sometime now I‘ve been involved with the analogue medium; experiencing both a strong love and respect for the craft as well as a slight perplexion at times. This sentiment is apparently somewhat mutually expressed by many passionate amateur and professional artists working within this classic medium. With the market takeover of digital technology however, there seems to be some pressure to explain why we still practice this traditional process.  

 I was asking that same question at an earlier time when I was first initiated to the process. “Why bother” I would tell myself while tossing and turning a container of D-76 Developer with my 35mm film in it.  “Why bother going through this long process of measuring, shooting, developing, washing and drying; only to fail and repeat the whole thing over again. Such labour for a few images I haven’t seen or approved yet!?…this is madness!”

I was fast to change my thoughts on the topic when I first witnessed my long awaited image appearing out of darkness before me. There was an interesting moment of bliss as the silver halide crystals were being transformed and the pellicule began showing its hidden content. Or I might have just been high on the chemical vapours, but I digress.

LIVING BREATHING FILM by Christine Blais

This constant debate that exists between film and digital media seems completely irrelevant to me. While there might be personal preferences, one is not superior to the other. The way I see it is that they are two entirely different mediums that operate in completely different ways. As I’ve dabbled in both worlds, I can’t help but wonder why we feel the need to prove the usefulness of analogue film. It has wonderfully strong points that digital will never have the capacity of recreating. You know why? Because it’s not the same medium. It’s that simple. My observation does not merely refer to the aesthetics of film but more so to the processes and the experiences of working with film. 

The experience of filming with a film camera and the manipulation the film material allows for is something that digital media will never be able to offer. Personally I find that the pleasure of film is in the physical manipulation of the plastic medium. You can expose it, cut it, dye it, draw on it or even stick things to it. The beauty lies within the fact that the craft is a direct result of your handiwork. It wasn’t created at the push of a button, by software that has stock functions. You have to work for it and physically make it happen. 

A filmmaker who I look up to is Stan Brakhage. Now he took advantage of what the film medium had to offer and made some really cool stuff out of it. For example, Mothlight is literally a film collage where moth wings and other materials were pressed between two clear strips of film. Each object has a level of transparency which allows light to pass through. In Brakhage’s words,  "I tenderly picked them out and start pasting them onto a strip of film, to try to... give them life again, to animate them again, to try to put them into some sort of life through the motion picture machine." which is exactly what film represents to me. It is a medium that lives and breathes.  

IFCO's TRIM BIN: Discussions on Contemporary Celluloid Practices

"DARE TO BE CELLULOID IN A DIGITAL AGE: 21st CENTURY CELLULOID ARTISTS?"

THE LIFE OF FILM by Roger D. WilsonThere has been a lot of talk lately about the demise of film and film laboratories closing down and Kodak going bankrupt, I find it hard to believe that Kodak will ever close down; the company will just re-structure itself and re-define its focus. Now with all of this talk the question has come up: Why still use film. It’s interesting to see this question being asked about film when 10/15 years ago many film artists working with film were asking the same question about video. For years filmmakers used the comment: film just looks better then video and that’s why I choose to use it. Well I don’t believe this comment can be used any longer, video has come a long way and I would not be surprised to see someone who has used film for many years mistakenly pick out a production made on video and label it as a film

As a film artist my passion has never been just about the look of film, my passion has been for the medium of film itself and the process attached to it. Film artists are going to continue to use film because they have a passion for it and the process involved in making a film. I think it’s very much like someone who loves music and prefers to listen to vinyl records, or musicians who still release their songs on vinyl. For my birthday last year my son gave me Robbie Robertson’s new CD “How to become Clairvoyant”; now this CD is also available on vinyl. For Christmas my son bought me Bob Dylan’s “Bringing It All Back Home” on vinyl. I have played the vinyl record more then the CD and it’s not because I enjoy Bob Dylan over Robbie Robertson, I also own on vinyl Robbie Robertson’s “Fallen Angel” album, which I also listen to more then the CD.  I choose to listen to the vinyl records over the CD because the process of listening to vinyl is more pleasing to me. I get more out of it and this is how I feel as an artist working with the medium of film.

A time will come where fewer artists are using film as a way of expressing ideas and stories, however with the artists who have this passion for film and the process will continue to use it and love it. I can not use video and it has nothing to do with the look of the medium. I grab a hold of film and I manipulate it, I twist it, shape it and mould it into an art form that can not be duplicated the same way with video. When labs stop creating film prints then filmmakers will create their own prints and when labs close down filmmakers will process their own film and if Kodak decides to stop making film, which I truly believe will never happen, but if it does, filmmakers will find a way to make it themselves. An art form will only die when we let it.
 

BEING CELLULOID! by Patrice James

In the 21st Century, and more and more as we move towards a hyper-digital reality, there appears to be a manic movement towards relegating celluloid motion capture into obscurity! It used to be that independent video artists and digital producers felt a great sense of pride in differentiating themselves from filmmakers, because the unique elements contained within the technologies themselves was instrumental to the manifestation and structural make-up of the art piece itself.  Now fast forward to the here and now, and many digital producers want to be called “filmmakers”, even though they’ve never ever handled ANY actual film format or filmmaking equipment.

Even as the creative environment has morphed over time to become more and more inclusionary, especially in the field of media arts – where video, digital, new media, audio and film are supposed to co-exist harmoniously; there seems to be a sort of subversive rhetoric around celluloid production.  In my personal opinion, I see no need for there to be any ongoing negative discourse between filmmakers and digital producers, especially in an independent creative environment.  There’s room on the playground for all of us!

Understandably naysayers and seeming opponents to the advancement of celluloid production appear to be obsessed with the demise of the medium. As various film labs begin closing across Canada, and Kodak (USA) declares Chapter 11; industry pundits and digi enthusiasts are calling for celluloid practitioners to hoist their “white flags” in defeat! “Down with film; long live digital”!

I can make these broad assertions or observations, because I am frequently engrossed in conversations with media artists, arts administrators and film and television industry professionals, who are completely out of touch with the idea of artists who still wish to, maintain a thriving celluloid practice.  I’ve had to sit through the following exchanges:

“Do they still shoot films on film? I thought everything we see on screen is DIGITAL”? Industry Professional;“Why do you guys support film anyways? It’s a dying MEDIUM! Media Arts Colleague; “Why should we fund your programs, when we’re already supporting several such programs in the Region”? Possible Funder; and“I predict that you won’t be able to find film stock ANYWHERE pretty soon”! Industry Service Provider.

The most disappointing thing about having to fight for the right to retain a celluloid art practice in a commercial digital production world is the lack of unity there seems to be within the media arts itself.  In Canada we’re really lucky to have arms length supports systems whose main goal it is to provide access through funding to independent artists and arts organizations across disciplines.  I’ve heard from various international visiting artists that they wished their homelands would offer the same level of support to independent artists.  One of the main impetuses I perceive for Canadian independent artists having access and support from these arms length entities is to allow for ongoing proliferation of innovative, creative, barrier breaking artists to work in their own voices, within their art form(s) of choice!

Based on this, I would say that there are moments, when by pure choice; some artists would choose to assimilate various art forms.  In the same vein, I do not believe assimilation when forced, to be in the best interest of anyone.  Additionally, conforming to whatever prescribed norm, technological or otherwise, is the “in thing” at the moment, is not a practical way to ensure creative artistic development.  I understand that we live in a highly commoditised, pseudo egalitarian world, where everyone who purchases the newest technology is immediately considered an artist, even though most of the time; they have no real interest in learning about the original foundations of their adopted art form.  I also however can discern the sham behind the democratization of art making and see it for what it is! 

Independent Celluloid artists are in for a bumpy ride in this new hyper-digital reality, because many people DO NOT wish to differentiate between film and digital production, projection and distribution. Not on an institutional, industry or sometimes even independent art sector level.  And now with the advent of social media tools like YouTube, Facebook, and even Twitter, married with instant gratification digital production technologies; I mean you can shoot a “film” on your cell phone, and then upload it to one of these sites, and maybe, just maybe; you’ll make it to the OSCARS”! And, to top it all off; you shouldn’t expect to be compensated for your work, unless you’re a famous filmmaker that is!

The good news is that, Canada does have one of the strongest systems of support for independent artists worldwide!  These systems are thusly based on inclusivity of most art forms and artistic mediums across disciplines. These systems have additionally afforded independent artists, the rights and freedom to create outside of commercialized industry models. 

And for now, and maybe ONLY FOR NOW; it is these types of systems which will allow filmmakers, to “Dare to be CELLULOID in a Digital Age!”            

Film! Digital! Film! Digital! My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad! by Dave Johnson

I think the whole argument is becoming really tired....and yup childish.  Why do people get caught up on such a ridiculous argument? Let’s just cut out all the fat and look at the bare essentials. Both are used for similar purposes...cinema; documentation; art; science. Why are digital producers so quick to cut down the use of film when they are openly and perpetually trying to make the digital medium look like film!? Let’s face the facts; the digital medium will never be able to replicate the aesthetics and workflow of film! Film is, was and always will be beautiful. The digital medium...not so much. But, it has come a looooong way and, I must admit, can look great. There have been some mainstream productions which were shot with the new ARRI Alexa (top of the line 5k HD camera) and they have had some pretty convincing results. BUT!

This is Hollywood. In the world of the big “H” anything can and will look great. I too dabble in the 1’s and 0’s of the digital form.  Now let’s look at the main downfall. Anyone and their dog (literally) are making their own “films” with a digital camera. This essentially will be the decay of cinema as we know it! But when writing on a tangent I think I must stick with one argument at a time.

The argument in question is about what is better. Stop the argument! For the purposes of this rant I will defend the medium I prefer to practice. I think we should start celebrating the uniqueness of Film! The elements of film which can never be replicated! This, to name a few, is the richness of color, presence of random grain, scratches...depth of field! Film is tactile...you can scratch, paint, dye, work with the aesthetics of hand processed film, degrade or deteriorate emulsions and the list goes on. With video/Digital and HD, you cannot do this. With digital video you can play with exposure and, until recently, you can “replicate” depth of field.  I guess what I’m trying to say is that Film will never die; it will always remain a unique and important art form unto its own. All artists who choose to have a practice using Celluloid will never let it die....besides all the hipsters will think its cool man.

"It's the Process" by Matt Joyce

I grew up surrounded by videos. I owned hundreds of them – VHS movies or videos of films. So, to me, the words ‘video’ and ‘film’ were largely synonymous. As a spectator all I saw was the final product, which I called a ‘film’, and the closest I got to the medium was dissecting my VHS tapes. These were my prized film reels, endless loops of magnetic tape. I just assumed from the word that movies were shot on something called ‘film’ though I had never seen a film camera before. So when my friends showed up on the scene one day with a camera, which spat out VHS tapes, I said, ‘Okay, let’s go make a movie’. As you can see, I was not a techie. In fact I didn’t even know what the word ‘medium’ meant until I took Media class in grade 11.

Around that time, the term ‘digital video’ started appearing in conversation, and I remember first seeing memory cards being tossed around. Photography students running through the halls like someone just died. I didn’t get it. All it did for me was to make me think a little harder about what ‘film’ meant – how was it different from the stuff in those tapes of mine? In retrospect, thank god digital arrived when it did because I could have easily entered my adult life without ever knowing what ‘analog’ meant. Jokes aside, I inevitably ascribed to the consumer understanding of motion pictures; soon, in sight, in mind, digital was the only medium around me. Sure I learned a certain degree of digital terminology just by living in this world but I never delved into it. Despite offering a practical skill, it didn’t seem hands-on to me.

It felt elusive and intangible. I saw all the creative controls as existing behind a layer of complex technology. And since most tasks on a computer were already a mystery to me, I gave up and stuck with acting. It wasn’t until a few years ago, after being baffled by the fact the cameras on the local ‘Movie of the Week’ shoots had no film cartridges attached to them, that my final question was answered – there’s no such thing as high definition ‘film’!

To this day I have never shot on film before. No surprise, I’m sure. I’m a kid of my generation. Throughout my scattered experiments with videography I’ve never even come in contact with any part of the original filmmaking process. However, my frustration with the intangibility of digital technology has made me often wonder about the lure of ‘film’. Despite having no experience with the medium, I have accumulated thoughts, feelings and ideas concerning this potent medium we call ‘film’. I’ve just spent the last four years in university studying the theory behind filmmaking, which has played a significant role in channeling these thoughts. But it wasn’t until I first studied Norman McLaren, that I finally entered into the mystery, riveted by this image of a man alone in the dark with one little light examining his reels. There was something inherently special about this process of making a ‘film’.

Though I had never connected with celluloid in this way before, I somehow intuitively understood that ‘film’ would suit me. I saw myself alone in the dark, overlooking a flat bed of trims, pieces, all my raw ingredients spread out in front of me. I could see my elements. I could touch the pictures I’d created, hold them in my hands in their native state. It’s a sensory thing – the chance to be physically connected every step of the way, watching my film take shape inch-by-inch, frame-by-frame. From that moment on I knew that the two, ‘film’ and ‘video’ were completely different in terms of creative process. The vision of a band of die-hard filmmakers, purists who wouldn’t switch over to digital if their life depended on it, suddenly made sense.

I know now that there is a unique bond forged by working with tangible media. Whether it is Norman McLaren or Steven Spielberg, there is something that intrinsically binds these artists to the film medium, regardless of depth of field or questions of aesthetic preference. What I have heard thus far for choosing ‘film’ is the conviction that there is something in this hands-on experience of making ‘film’. As Roger D. Wilson (independent filmmaker) says, and it seems to me now the essential truth, “it’s the process”. This felt reality of being inside – of bodying the creative act – cannot be realized any other way.

“I Am Human” by Irina Lyubchenko

Have you noticed that capitalism converts rebellion into a viable commercial product? Hippies, punks and Che Guevara have all been assimilated into an infrastructure of consumerism. It appears as if film’s becoming ever less profitable in this new digital economy; its role in the market place is being slowly re-conceptualized in order to accommodate new markets for celluloid. Film, being less widely used, becomes marginalized and considered more as an alternative than a standard. Film is a tool for revolt, a non-conformist weapon in a digital age. There are a variety of new products being made that attract with their exaggerated “filminess”.

The grain and distortions caused by lens, uneven speed and imperfections oppose themselves to the refined superficiality of digital images.  It feels that film has to prove its right for existence by emphasizing all that is considered filmic. It reminds me of a popular sci-fi theme of robots, cyborgs and other techno creatures trying to be human. However, in our inverted scenario it’s humans trying to be human. The “filminess” of film has become a popular product and I am rather convinced that its demand will be satisfied. I am also tempted to predict that one day soon this rediscovered novelty of film will fence its market territory and, possibly, it will be the time for digital technologies to prove their right for existence. In the end, nobody could ever predict we would have film, video and digital technologies a little more than 100 years ago. We can’t know what ways of image making are awaiting us in the future. However, my future is with film, because I am not trying to be human, I am human.