Are Wedding Shooters Filmmakers?

It's not a problem. What makes this site so great is that so many different people can come together and exchange ideas.

Think about weddings as a big set that only you really know about
 
Are wedding videographers film-makers?

Depends.

Many wedding videographers shoot ENG style. Some of the more creative minded shoot in a very filmic way. I shoot everything in a filmic way. One of my main sources of income is sports highlights and I get comments all the time... "wow that looks like a movie!" - I don't shoot it ENG style, I tell a story and use cinematic camera work and editing.

It's a lot more fun to make that way, and the end product is much better for it. People love it, too!

So that said... depends on the wedding videographer. They can be a film-maker, or they can be more of an ENG type....
 
It seems like a lot of this debate is centering on the quality and/or style of work being produced determining whether or not it is being created by a true filmmaker.

I would be the first to admit that the vast majority of wedding videos are crap. Just my opinion, but I think most of them suck. They follow the same boring formula, use the same boring music, have the same boring shots, and incorporate the same boring editing. Hell, even the fonts used in the titles are same boring old same old. But some really stand out. A few are masterpieces.

And I would say that is true of most of what comes out of Hollywood as well. In fact, in my opinion, the vast majority of Hollywood movies, indy films, TV dramas, etc are crap. I'm sure plenty would disagree. Some might say that MOST of the movies coming out of Hollywood are fantastic... only a few are crap. Ok. So, only those few aren't being made by real filmmakers? Just the one's we don't like?

My background is in journalism -- both as a writer and a photographer. Again, I think the vast majority of journalists out there, esp. in TV news, are awful. But except in the extreme cases where "reporters" have opted to write fiction posing as news (yes, they're out there) I'd be loath to deny them the simple title of journalist. Whether or not I respect their work doesn't really matter.

Like Filmguy, I pride myself in trying to produce wedding movies (yes, that's what I call them) with a cinematic style. While I like to think of myself as a filmmaker, I'm not sure my style has anything to do with it. I think of West Wing, for example, which remains one of the few TV dramas I will watch. They had a pretty set style -- what I would call very cinematic -- but from time to time would shake things up and shoot completely differently, sometimes as shaky documentary, once as straight TV news debate. Because their style switched to more of an ENG format, did they stop being filmmakers? I don't think so.

The definition of filmmaker seem pretty straightforward to me. I think maybe we're getting the debate confused between what makes a filmmaker and what makes a GOOD filmmaker.
 
I'd like to respond to the roll call by saying I'm a DVX user who will shoot the occasional wedding, but would much rather be working on commercials, short films or videos.
But if the price is right....
 
Someone that does weddings exclusively?! No...not a filmmaker. But, I think most of the people on here that do do weddings also do other types of production that would qualify them as filmmakers.
 
I vote for a dedicated forum where we can share ideas. I agree wedding videos tend to get formulaic, but hey - the bride doesn't know that. She gets a nicely done record of her day. Tha challenge is the fact that it is a real time event, and you better not miss anything, so you need to know your gear and be prepared.
 
Well, my take is this. First one needs to define the root word "Film" from here it can be seen to have a dual meaning:

(a) A form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence of images giving the illusion of continuous movement [1]

(b) Is a recording medium consisting of thin sheets or strips of transparent or translucent material, such as polyester or acetate, coated with a light-sensitive emulsion. Recording occurs by exposing the film to the light emitted or reflected by the entity being recorded. Film is also the medium used for microfilm recording (1.1.2). A photograph [2]


Clearly one needs to specify which definition they mean as "Film-maker", if it is the former then it can be said that indeed capturing reality and re-showing it and telling a story in the sense that it is technically Hes-"Story", in that case it would make him a Film-maker.

If it were the later then, the photons itself would be the Filmmaker, because it is the light that creates the image on the film medium, the cameraperson shooting would merely be the "Film-Operator".

Hehe I guess I'm just being cheeky about it :)

[1] http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&st...bwn?s=film&usg=__I0Rf7jOxr3vQk7nQ2KFDepydCU4=

[2] http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&st...rm1-1.html&usg=__1NpP0swbGoqcJm4aVkUEHRZrgzE=
 
Wouldn't the truest meaning of "film maker" be the guy who coats the plastic strips? The best name describing a movie maker or videographer would be motion photographer.

Are Wedding videographers film makers? No, refer to first sentance. Now, a wedding videographer may use cinematic techniques, but he is more of a documentarian, or at least an ENG. Personally, I think they are more like the news reporters in the Middle East with rockets and bullets flying. They are brave dudes, and I respect wedding videographers.

Now, if this wedding videographer was so inspired by his client's wedding, that he writes their story down, polishes out the rough spots, gets Julia Roberts to play the Bride and Brad Pitt to play the groom, and either films or videos it... he would be a movie maker.
 
I'm with Anhar. A filmmaker makes films.

If you define a wedding video as a film, then wedding videographers are filmmakers.

I tend to think that the general definition of "film", in the zeitgeist, is "a movie"; by that definition wedding videographers wouldn't qualify as "filmmakers" (does anyone buy a ticket to see a wedding video in a theater? Or rent one at Blockbuster?)

But, with that said, short film filmmakers don't get their works seen there either (usually), and they're definitely filmmakers. There are Oscars for short filmmakers. But that cuts both ways, because there aren't Oscars for wedding videos.

I've seen some wedding videos that play out like films. And some that don't. So maybe the way to say it is "some wedding videographers approach it like filmmaking"?
 
Barry_Green said:
So maybe the way to say it is "some wedding videographers approach it like filmmaking"?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that imply having control over the outcome? Now, I'd buy that IF as the B&G are about to kiss, Ninjas start swinging in, and Uzis spraying everywhere... Then I'd call him a Film maker.
 
K,

My 2 cents.

First off, it seems that "Film" has become one of those terms that has unfortunately or fortunately become synonymous with any sort of motion picture presentation. A lot of people jump at the chance at calling themselves "Filmmakers" for whatever reason.

Out of respect to my old school mentors who had to agonize cutting negatives, budgetting their project by each dissolve and each fade, each foot and each inch, I like to say filmmakers work with film. I never had to do that. It's always been tape for me. That debate could go on forever.

Here in L.A. it's competitive. We get a higher ticket and we pay a higher price. Large companies offer film and video packages. Little companies like myself still shoot with a minimum of 3 DVX's a Kessler Jib and an Arri Softbank IV kit at the reception. It can be fun, it can be hell. Much respect to all of you that make it happen with the one take and weather the hell when Mr. Murphy bites Yo Ass!!!

Funny thing on my site, www.planetzaya.com, the 2 examples up there I love. They have their problems, they have their shining moments. I do my best and don't get complaints. Side note I just thought of, I had no house audio feed to lean against on both.

I guess my final word on the debate would be for me that budget is the main factor holding back a wedding video from becoming a film. Couples don't want to expand the budget to include profiles to further develop their story. They just want the event covered. Sooo....although I do approach the ceremony cinematically, at the end of the day, doing the "FAMILY GREETINGS", Ya feel like an event videographer and not a filmmaker.
 
Capt Quirk said:
Wouldn't that imply having control over the outcome?
Click to expand...

You may not control the outcome but the vast majority of the time you know the outcome before you start shooting - a couple gets married.

If you define a filmmaker as someone who makes films then there are very few filmmakers on DVXuser.

If you define it in the way it is shot and edited [their technique] I'm not sure that makes a film either, you have after all omitted an important part, the story.

Barry probably said it best -- maybe it's in the way some wedding videographers approach it.

The audience knows the outcome of this story before you ever begin telling it, just like Titanic. No matter what technique or style, or camera [film or video] for that matter, if the wedding videographer simply documents the even, even if they edit and add effects etc., that's event videography and not story telling.

However, if its produced with the intention of telling a story, the videographer has a specific shot list that helps communicate a beginning, middle and ending and they shoot just what they need then why wouldn't that be considered a short film.

The barrier to entry for wedding videography is pretty low so there are a lot of people who purchase a couple of an inexpensive DV cameras and their favorite NLE, hang out a shingle to get business. But to do it right takes a lot more equipment and experience and I've seen some wedding videos that were 10 or 15 minutes long costs $7k and told the story of their wedding in a way that couldn't have been told any other way. Those are the ones I'd classify as short films...
 
I don't think that calling someone a filmmaker should be some kind of status level. Just because you made a short film, that doesn't make you better than someone who has shot weddings highlights. There are as many bad short films out there in the world as there are bad wedding videos.

take this example: ESPN shoots and edits football highlights. NFL Films shoots and edits football movies....does that make NFL Films more professional than ESPN?

There are alot of hacks out there doing both kinds of productions, so I don't think its fair for someone to make a statement like "Oh, he's just a videographer, he's not good enough to be a filmmaker."
 
Gulager did weddings? Now that is a scary thought. Watching him on Project Greenlight, I had strong doubts about him, and then I watched Feast. I laughed so hard, it was a great flick- for entertaining.
 
I don't see the media used being the determining factor. George Lucas & Steven Soderbergh make features on digital media. I don't think anyone would dispute that they are filmmakers. Many documentaries are shot on video. Does that make them any less compelling?

So it has to come down to content. Is the wedding day simply being archived or is the couples story being told. A story requires creative decisions to be made prior to the wedding day, behind the camera on the wedding day and many choices in post after the wedding day.

The same process that is required for making a feature or a doc, in a modest way, is also practiced by talented people creating a wedding story. I think the question may be - can a wedding story be art?

I think if Da Vinci had little prep time, a model whose Mom thinks she is an expert at painting portraits, and had a week or two to finish his masterpiece while holding down a full time job, he probably wouldn't have been considered an artist either. I guess what Da Vinci and Wedding Professionals do share in common is they both were / are hassled by the Clergy. ;)

Some who tell wedding stories are indeed filmmakers, maybe a few are even artists.

I shot a number of weddings in the past. I choose the archive route. I made money and had time for my family. I wish I had focused on telling the couples love story to be shown at the reception. No wedding day pressure, higher percieved value, and the ability to control the action, lighting, camera placement, retakes, etc. Plus the extra revenue from the video projection rental and staging required for the story to be seen at the reception.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top