Does a film look really exist?

[randomname]

The more and more DSLR shorts I've seen produced, the more I'm wondering if there really is such thing as a "film look". During most of these, even though it does have the depth of field going for it (it seems like nowadays, someone shooting everything with a 1.4 wide open on a 5D is the biggest giveaway for being an amateur) I'm never under the impression that I'm watching a hollywood movie. The storytelling still sucks, the shot composition still sucks, and the sound still sucks; yet, I can watch a movie like bubble (shot all on DV) or mystery men (everything shot super wide and stopped down so that there is no bokeh) and never once think that it doesnt look like a film. Is it possible that the thing everyone is calling "the film look" is really just the sum total of the production values and amount of credit we as an audience are giving it?

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Great post!

I think the 'film look' is often mistaken as good film-making. Discussing image only, I'd say good lighting and composition are the dead ringers for success. Aspect ratio can help, although it's used as a crutch by poor filmmakers to make their horrible film seem epic or screen worthy... usually by making it 2.39 and etc. The same goes for shallow DoF. Most of the time it's used for no reason other than to mimic something the filmmaker thinks is a film look... not to serve the story, but to simply add a false sense of worth to a film.

Good film making is the film look. I know this because I can show you 1,000 celluloid motion picture films which all have a different look, different lens selection, different DoF, different film stocks, different formats, and different aspect ratios. They all have that 'film look', but all look nothing alike!

-Ryan


PS: a trained cinematographer can see nuances in the actual image which will give away the medium, but that is not what we are talking about here, are we?

 

[greymog]

I've said something along the same lines in another thread, that was putting student films under the spotlight. First off, good sound is really the make it or break it for me. This is because there are very video-esque films out there (horror films come to mind) where the footage is unlike celluloid in every way, and the sound is a monster.

Aside from that, and light, which is really important as well, and also aside from the SUBJECT, which is way more important, probably the most film-like thing about a film is the story and how it is told in front of the lens as opposed to behind it.

But more than that, and this is what people miss, is the honesty in judgment when exposed to the product. A product (or work of art in our case) is not only itself, but the situation in which people are exposed to, watch, react, who they are with, the context of the day they chose to see it, are all part of the work of art in question.

My answer to the other thread's question 'what makes a student film look like a student film' was 'the fact that it is exposed to you as a student film before you watch it'. The fact that you know (if applicable) that it is amateur, or student or low budget, or foreign (as is the case over here where I live), affects your judgment, and mine, and any audience member.

If I don't know that the film was shot on a DSLR, I probably wouldn't be able to tell, not for any lack of awareness, but simply because if I am not told it's shot on a DSLR, I won't look for those shortcomings. Granted, if one of them JUMPS out at me (we still have to do 'good' work) it is a giveaway.

I think a film 'look' doesn't really exist. The setting, the traditions do exist, and they translate aesthetically, but the range is so broad, that more than what we immediately associate with the experience of watching a 'REAL' film, as opposed to a foreign/dslr/amateur/student film, goes into play.

My vote goes to

performance (I would watch jack nicholson in anything before I judge, and i'll chalk it up as real no matter what it was shot on)
sound
light
and the aura of the work

I think people are trying to figure out how to gauge the cleanest reaction. Someone else (I'm so sorry I dunno who I can't remember but it is quote worthy) on dvx said that filmmaking is invisibility, if we do it right, no one should notice.

So I say, before one judges, did the creator of the work set up the project? Did he/she provide technical info and budget info before screening? Or did they just hit play?

You'll find that the film that was 'randomly' shown, where the director decided to 'just hit play', is the film that makes a harder impact as the story that it is.

I dunno if this contributes to the post, I guess I can sum up by saying that the film-'look' isn't really a 'look', but much, much more than that. It's a full-fledged aura.

The Mona Lisa is the Mona Lisa, that image is the same wherever you see it. I'm sure you'd agree that it looks much more powerful in the Louvre than it does on a tourist's T-shirt right outside the louvre. The film-look is credited to everything you're not in a position to 'know' before hand. It's the assumptions you take for granted, that in a good film, are shattered.

They're shattered when you find out AFTER maybe, that some scenes were shot DSLR, or with natural light, or with barely any grade.

 

[Paul Hudson]

I agree 100% it all starts with the script, then comes great acting, spot on art direction and well conceived composition. Now we can even begin to worry about shallow or deep DOF. Without any of the three items mentioned above working well and in concert you may as well shot it on your Granny's VHS-C.

Now don't even get me started on sound! Poor location sound + bad post audio = an unwatchable film.

 

[Svart]

Of course the normal rules apply.

1. Story
2. Story plus good shot planning
3. Lighting/Sound
4. Location
5. Set design
6. Logistics
7. Camera


But the thing that really seems to be lost in translation is what isn't in a professional movie that is always in amateur films.

1. Too much of everything. Amateur filmmakers tend to overdo a lot of stuff. It seems universal in most of the student/amateur films I've watched. Too much dialogue, too much lingering on a subject or location, too many details trying to be covered in too short of a time period, etc.

2. Pacing. Amateurs/students tend to get their pacing all out of whack a lot too. They have scenes that are jammed full of details/dialogue and instead of focusing on the point and moving on they cut the scene down or make it too drawn out and it just doesn't feel right.

3. Strange situations. In an effort to define their movie and show how different it is from the mainstream(which kinda defeats the purpose eh?) a lot of the student/amateur films I've seen have poorly placed situations. Either they are overly quirky where nobody in the audience can relate or they are simply bland or just the wrong situation for the dialogue. This could also be a symptom of poor location too..

4. Excessive dialogue. Maybe it's just me but I can't stand a lot of student films because they seem to rely on excessive dialogue that seems like nothing more than a personal monument to the writer's prowess in his field. I suppose that it could also be an attempt to detract from the lack of location or set design, which is understandable considering the amount of money those can take to get right, but it's still poor planning IMHO. Nothing worse than a drawn out conversation in a boring location that has nothing to actually do with the dialogue, or a good location that draws too much attention from the excessive boring dialogue. Some of the best movies in history don't have much dialogue at all, they let the actions and locations work together in harmony.

5. Incorrect use of equipment/wrong tools for the job. I watched a student film from one of those "prestigious" film schools not too long ago. Overall it was decent and was one of the better full-length student films I've seen on a no-budget job. One thing that really messed with me was there was a couple street scenes where the talent was obviously on a street with mercury-vapor lamps however they were illuminated by what looked to be either flos or HMI in some high temp range. So one side of the talent is orange and the other is white/blue. The contrast really really really detracted from what was going on. It was like no attempt to color match was made.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

4. Excessive dialogue. Maybe it's just me but I can't stand a lot of student films because they seem to rely on excessive dialogue that seems like nothing more than a personal monument to the writer's prowess in his field.

On the script oriented fora that I frequent, and have read/reviewed scripts, this is one of the most frequently 'criticisms' I have... lots of dialog... I think it stems from the fact that 'writers' like to write... I 'write' because I don't have any money to pay anyone to get the ideas in my head on paper... and many people see 'dialog' as the place where they can write a lot.

For me, one of the most significant differences between Film and either a 'stage play' or TV, is the amount of verbage exchanged between the characters. For me 'film' is focused on the visuals, and while there's always the admonishment about 'good sound', for me dialog to the extent that I don't even need the visuals... is radio... not film... (My personal opinion is that TV followed the 'radio' mode and does have an awful lot of 'dialog' to make up for perhaps less money spent on sets/location/non-verbal features.)

 

[Svart]

Don't get me wrong, if a scene needs the dialogue it needs it. What gets me is when you get introspective dialogue or characters that talk to themselves, sort of explaining what they are doing for the audience, simply rambling or just unneeded dialogue.

Something along the lines of a make believe plot: A sad man walks down the street and runs into a friend along the way. I've exaggerated the lines a little bit for the sake of comparison.. But only a little bit..

Amateur:

Arthur walks down the street while Sigfried walks up the street. Their paths will cross.

Arthur:

"I've been around. I've seen things that can't be unseen. My unfortunate circumstances have driven me to unthinkable places and I've come back changed. Today I wake to find my dog looking at me in the ways I've seen others look at me. He knows I'm not the person I used to be. He knows I'm not myself. He knows. The only one that understands me is Sigfried. We are kindred. Our bond is of steel and sweat that cannot be broken by time and distance. We are one in the same."


Sigfried:

"Arthur has been around. I've seen his face since we were children playing in the crisp spring breeze on the shore. I've seen him change for the better, then fall. Fall from the graces of the establishment and still hopefully cling to his life, at least the illusion of his life. It's not right what life has brought to his doorstep and then proceeded to ram itself into his home. His heart. It hurts to think of his potential, the one that was taken from him so long ago. I cannot, will not, see this happen again. Not on my watch."


Arthur to Sigfried:

"Sigfried, my friend, my brother! How are you on this fine day? Your presence makes my day brighter. Your existence reminds me of the things of this world that cannot be moved, like mountains of old that have weathered eternity with dignity and grace."

Sigfried to Arthur:

"Arthur my compatriot and companion, the mortal things of this world could not interfere with our meeting today. It's fate. It's divine intervention. Joyous am I that we cross paths and live once again to complement each other's being in this mortal coil. Celebration is not enough for this occasion it seems."



Professional:


Bob walks down the street while Joe walks up the street. their paths will cross.

Bob:

"Joe, whats happening man? Wanna catch a beer and the game at the tavern?"

Joe:

"yeah sure, lets go"

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Something along the lines of a make believe plot: A sad man walks down the street and runs into a friend along the way. I've exaggerated the lines a little bit for the sake of comparison.. But only a little bit..

Amateur:
....

I do you think you need to amend that 'Amateur' label, and make it 'Amateur/EuropeArtFilm'...(The latter being what many 'film school' students are subjected to as 'the quintessential of 'Film Art'...)

 

[Olaf99]

OMG I laughed through this! I'm an amateur and will make sure to steer clear from the dialogue trap! Most of my films have had little dialogue but, I must admit I've been guilty of almost all the rest of the pitfalls. Particularly lingering too long. I find that my mistake isn't in the editing room but in the direction of my actors during filming. I need to direct them to act briefly with a beginning, middle, and end to each scene where appropriate. I realize my shortcomings in the editing room and curse myself every time I watch those scenes!

 

[Jon Starr]

I think you're right, the 'film' look isn't something achieved only by frame rates, DoF, and the film grains. It's everything that comes together. Especially light, composition, framing...

The most important aspect in terms of 'looks' is reason. Why are we at a close-up? Why a long shot? Why a dolly? Why a shallow DoF (this is a big one)? Why why why? If there's no reason, then it shouldn't be done.

Having a close-up, at 1.4, super tight, has to have a reason. Maybe the subject feels isolated, claustrophobic, like everything is falling on this person. So we have a short DoF to blur out the background and put the CU of the subject as our focus. Close us off from the world. But if the only reason is to give a cool 'film' look, then they fail.

 

[Svart]

OMG I laughed through this!

Awesome. That was my intention, to add some humor to this. It's not a negative critique at all, it's a fact-finding mission. Everyone is guilty of screwing stuff up, even the guys who make loads of money doing this stuff. It's just that as you read, watch, listen and learn, you see things you should avoid.

Like making movies. Avoid it at all costs if you are not ready to put your 100% into it. It's addictive and more expensive than booze. It's hard work. Much harder work than I ever expected. It sucks the life out of you, empties your wallets and kills the home life. It's also one of the most rewarding things you could ever do.. if you can finish it. A friend and I are currently making a festival film and it's been over a year of planning, plotting, planning, spending, planning, bitching, planning, whining and lots and lots of drinking. And that was just getting the logistics and money stuff ready. The easy stuff is the creative stuff like writing, directing and storyboarding. The rest is the time consuming stuff that really makes or breaks a movie. It's also the least talked about and least understood, simply because it's the boring and tedious stuff that nobody wants to do and can seriously suck the will out of you if you let it.

If there's no reason, then it shouldn't be done.

Absolutely right. I was watching a student film the other night and noted how many dolly shots were un-needed. It was seriously starting to make me feel a little like being on a boat.. always moving around. It reminded me of that craptastic Battlefield Earth, just totally un-needed dolly shots, angles, movement. Add in the uninspired acting, the bad blocking, the bad framing and its almost like they tried to do every DON'T in this list..

 

[polfilmblog]

I'd say that the film look is the video look, not.

 

[Wilbur Eddings]

My top two would be Pacing and DEFINITELY Sound!


Dialog, ambiance and music bed are not to be underestimated!

El cheapo, crappio maximus B-Movie Casio keyboard strings played behind reverby room dialog can make the best blocking and lighting on the best camera and lenses look like total shite!

Do yourself a favor sometime, hire an Uwe Bol movie and turn the sound down. It's like watching a different movie!

Batman Begins and Dark Knight are examples of how it should be done. The sound design is mind blowing - everything looks and feels bigger!


You can have as much dialog as you like if your pacing is right. (Good sound also helps a bunch!). Tarantino is a master at this. His movies talk your ear off but he keeps the pace and setting very energetic.


I've seen a ton of movies with dodgy focus, some weird and awkard angles but still immensely enjoyable if it sounds good and the pace is good.




Some random thoughts:

Some typical mistakes I pick up when watching some student films:

Herewith a Scenario:

George and Jim meet at the bar after work.


Amateur:
There is hardly anyone in the Bar besides George and Jim. (Extras? Who needs em!)

You have that funny low frequency vibe at different pitches when each of them delivers their dialog. (Usually a fridge or something in the background that was left on or not buzz tracked).

George looks like he just got a revelation from God because his face is glowing from the key light. (Too lazy to bounce the light so lets fix it in post lulz).

Jim has half his face in shadow and a random painting in focus somewhere in the background. (Set design? wossat? Change lenses for the reverse? Hell Naw!)

There is no music playing in the background - it's a Bar.

If there is music, it has strings in it. - It's a BAR, not an Opera house! (Unless it's a soapie or a drama of course).

Professional:
It looks like a Bar, sounds like a Bar, moves like a Bar... It even has a waitress or Barman swinging by to interrupt the conversation.

I think the difference between the 'Film Look' and the amateur look is that the Bar is as Bar-ish as possible - Ciggy smoke included - in the Film look whereas it looks and feels like a Set in the amateur version. Heck, you can get the real thing to look fake if you light it wrong and the sound sucks.

0..02c

 

[dtjohns1]

I used to get caught up in all that "film look" stuff until I thought to myself why not just make it look as good as possible instead. I think so many people get so caught up in making digital look like film and end up degrading their image in the process instead of just embracing digital as its own format that has its own aesthetic value and running with it from there. Instead of the "film look" try and find the "best look" with what you have and spend the extra time focusing on things that "actually" make your film look more professional which is "talent, locations, sound, lighting, basic camera rules, etc.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Having a close-up, at 1.4, super tight, has to have a reason. Maybe the subject feels isolated, claustrophobic, like everything is falling on this person. So we have a short DoF to blur out the background and put the CU of the subject as our focus. Close us off from the world. But if the only reason is to give a cool 'film' look, then they fail.

I got a present for my birthday of a series of Hitchcock films from his 'early days', the 30's to the 40's.

One of the items that was noted in the 'interview with Hitichcock' (Bagdonavich & Hitchcock) was Hitichcock's statement about framing/shooting. He didn't really look at the 'framing' that the DoP had set up... he picked DoP's that 'matched' his style. But his direction was 'close crop' for 'close ups', and in terms of the 'shot', no need to show a actor walking from the desk to the door, and out, for example, just show rising from the desk, and next shot in the hall, (or whatever is next). In the 'close crop', his view was anything else was wasted space...

So, in his 4:3 (Academy format) B&W one can see 2-shots, where each of the character's head is within the frame, but there's no 'excess' (cropping so tight to cut through heads/faces, etc, really had not come into vogue...). But even in the 50's widescreen format, he still did not allow much 'headroom' as well.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

randomname,
bitching about DOF is like bitching about the salt in a soup. The problem is not the salt but the fact that most of the DSLR shooters know so little about cooking that they throw some salt into a pot of water and do call their creation soup...


Svart,
in your example a pro would actually cut the scene as it doesn't really ad anything. If you want they to have a conversation in a bar then simply place them in the bar - that way you cut yourself 1/3 of the day from the shooting schedule and don't shoot meaningless scene that had no arc in itself.


j1clark@ucsd.edu,
What you are saying about European Films is just plain wrong. Truth is the European films require more life's knowledge from the viewer. You might have a scene with two people staring at each other silently and if the viewer knows anything about life they he/she will know that those people are in love. Now, a 14-year old boy who never got to experience love just yet to understand the emotions in the scene watches this scene and cries out "What the hell is going on!?! Those people are only looking at each other not saying anything!" This is where Hollywood film being created for people with very limited understanding of life comes in and not only show two people starting at each other but also one of them saying "I love you!" so that everything is clear. With that clarity though you miss out on certain magic of life as often the silent moments mean the most. Now just because you have those inept student filmmakers trying to emulate the European style and often failing miserably doesn't make European films bad. Going back to my soup analogy, just because you got all the ingredients to what you think would make great soup doesn't mean that you will make one (especially if you haven't done one before)

 

[Svart]

Svart,
in your example a pro would actually cut the scene as it doesn't really ad anything. If you want they to have a conversation in a bar then simply place them in the bar - that way you cut yourself 1/3 of the day from the shooting schedule and don't shoot meaningless scene that had no arc in itself.

Ha! Absolutely true (probably)! Most likely a scene like this won't be needed, but maybe it might depending on what happens around it and how the feeling of the film might change as you view what you've captured.

 

[Ian-T]

I've said it before but I think people are using the term "Film look" too loosley when they probably mean "cinematic." Aesthetically most of these DSLRs do NOT look like video...and/or film. They have their own look. Heck...even film nowadays don't look like film anymore. Aside from that I think all we are left with is the substance in between( ..lighting...audio...framing...etc...etc...). I've seen film that actually looked like video.....with and without the substance.

 

[Svart]

I've said it before but I think people are using the term "Film look" too loosley when they probably mean "cinematic." Aesthetically most of these DSLRs do NOT look like video...and/or film. They have their own look. Heck...even film nowadays don't look like film anymore. Aside from that I think all we are left with is the substance in between( ..lighting...audio...framing...etc...etc...). I've seen film that actually looked like video.....with and without the substance.

yeah, look at "soap" operas. They have a distinct look that screams "video" although they are using many of the same cameras that are used for movies.. It's mostly the lighting and blocking that are different.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

randomname,
bitching about DOF is like bitching about the salt in a soup. The problem is not the salt but the fact that most of the DSLR shooters know so little about cooking that they throw some salt into a pot of water and do call their creation soup...


Svart,
in your example a pro would actually cut the scene as it doesn't really ad anything. If you want they to have a conversation in a bar then simply place them in the bar - that way you cut yourself 1/3 of the day from the shooting schedule and don't shoot meaningless scene that had no arc in itself.


j1clark@ucsd.edu,
What you are saying about European Films is just plain wrong. Truth is the European films require more life's knowledge from the viewer. You might have a scene with two people staring at each other silently and if the viewer knows anything about life they he/she will know that those people are in love. Now, a 14-year old boy who never got to experience love just yet to understand the emotions in the scene watches this scene and cries out "What the hell is going on!?! Those people are only looking at each other not saying anything!" This is where Hollywood film being created for people with very limited understanding of life comes in and not only show two people starting at each other but also one of them saying "I love you!" so that everything is clear. With that clarity though you miss out on certain magic of life as often the silent moments mean the most. Now just because you have those inept student filmmakers trying to emulate the European style and often failing miserably doesn't make European films bad. Going back to my soup analogy, just because you got all the ingredients to what you think would make great soup doesn't mean that you will make one (especially if you haven't done one before)

Patryk is like Batman busting through a skylight. Love it.