Here's something that bugs me

Re: Here's something that bugs me

I think the biggest problem with VILM is that it shares its first three letters with "VILE", and the subconscious connotation is there...

Anyway, for what to call yourself: if you make "movies", whether on video or film, you don't want to call yourself a videographer. That term has a very specific meaning, which is attached to weddings/events/news. Filmmaker is a pretentious title, but if like IAL you're a one-man band, it might be appropriate. The easiest and best titles to stick to are "Producer" and "Director".
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

what we are not is rhetoricians - at least most of us. i see the term as simply a reference to what you do, not what medium you use. some days my girlfriend paints, some days she works in textiles, some days she works in recycled album covers. I don't call her a painter, a textilist, or a albumcoverist; i call her an artists.
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

Yeah, I was thinking about that issue a little more... the thing speedbump said was that we're videographers, and others have said that those who shoot movies on video aren't CINEMAtographers, they're VIDEOgraphers.

But when I shoot film, I don't call myself a "filmographer"...

And when someone is performing cinematography, they're not recording on CINEMA, are they?

I think the term cinematography (or cinematographer) has more to reference HOW you shoot, rather than what you shoot on.  If you shoot a cinematic piece, using cinematic lighting and cinematic angles and cinematic art direction, then I think you are performing cinematography, whether you're recording to film or tape.

If you're documenting events such as birthday parties, weddings, speeches, news coverage, etc. then you are either a videographer or a filmographer, depending on what recording medium you're using (which, in this day and age, will be 99.95% video, so that's what the term videography should be applied to, and I think most people think of those types of events when they think of the term 'videography').  Back in WWII the newsreels were shot on film, but the shooters weren't "cinematographers", they were news jockeys, so probably they were called filmographers back then, I don't know...
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

Hi all-

I was thinking this topic was in the Cafe, not here, so I missed it for a few days. Must be the booze...

Apparently I'm in the incredibly tiny minority on this issue! Or should I call it the 'consensus-challenged grouping'?

Comments about rhetoric and pickiness are duly noted.

Taubkin:
So let's just leave our DVX's, grab old super 8's and then we can be called filmakers again! If you want to be so specific and literal, we should say the only filmakers in the world are Kodak and Fuji.
Click to expand...

I don't want to be that literal, and I can accept (grudgingly) that if your work ends up in a theater, in the traditional mode of being consumed by an audience as actual 'films' were, as Lucas wants to do, I can swallow the 'film' moniker. (BTW, I would argue that Lucas is no longer capable of making a 'film', any more than Michael Moore is capable of making a 'documentary.')

Carrington Benz:
"Film" makes me feel better inside & its what I say when I switch the dvx on " Im making films !!!" " yes - films! - I am a f***in filmmaker!!! " " making films!!" " " "FILM- MAKER - ME!" " "AND NO ONE CAN TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME!!" " I MAKE FILMS - yes im .. . making a film"
Click to expand...

Yeeeaaah... see. This is what bugs me. It makes me feel better to say that I set up my Arris to light the scene, when in fact they are Home Depot specials. See, that's not accurate. It bugs me. Yes, bugs me, it does. I ... am ... bugged ... by it.
:)

Terry_lasater:
I used to share that same attitude about 10 years ago. The term *film* has been used by the layperson to describe video originated material for years. I suppose it's just a holdover of terms used and widely accepted by consumers in the recent past (Super 8, etc.).

It's such an uphill battle trying to convince or educate someone of which terms are appropriate that I'd rather spend my time doing other things...™ like posting here.
Click to expand...

I hate the layperson. ****ing laypersons! These are the people who accept the verb 'to dine' to describe what customers do at a McDonald's. "Would you like to dine in or take out?" Hey, I'd love to dine in if you had any organic material worthy of the name. Oh, and SuperSize me!

Barry_Green:
And when someone is performing cinematography, they're not recording on CINEMA, are they?

I think the term cinematography (or cinematographer) has more to reference HOW you shoot, rather than what you shoot on. If you shoot a cinematic piece, using cinematic lighting and cinematic angles and cinematic art direction, then I think you are performing cinematography, whether you're recording to film or tape.
Click to expand...

One doesn't perform cinematography, not to put too fine a point on it.

I more think that 'cinematographer' is the East Coast movie industry term of art for what the West Coast Director of Photography does, yes?

Well, anyway, it's still about making great image-thingies, right? Hey, that's it! I'm an Image-Thingie-Maker! Now back to my 'Imagineering' of the next project...
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=news;num=1090255233;start=15#23 date=07/21/04 at 22:25:43]

And when someone is performing cinematography, they're not recording on CINEMA, are they?

[/quote]

To take that idea a step further, while photography is traditionally associated with a chemical process...all it means is "written with light".

Although the record of silver halide and electronic pixel are different processes, the result can still be called photography in each case, right? Thus, a DP could essentially work in any motion capture medium and still be called a DP. For an alternate name, you could easily use the British term of “lighting cameraman” without ruffling film feathers.

I think cinematographer still suggests a specific medium, and I kinda like it that way.
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

I see your point. I guess what bugs you is the same thing that bugs me. To call yourself a filmmaker is pretentious. That's much worse than being technically innacurate. Well I was worried sick about it a year ago, and if people asked me what I did, I answered I was studying "Audiovisual Arts". That's the new name my filmschool adopted, and I was going to stick to it. Then I realized that when I said it, always worried no to sound too pretentious, I always came off insecure. And when you are trying to enjoy your nights out and girls ask what do you do, it's kinda of a bummer say this uninteligible title and then explain it. So I realized screw that, I'm going to say I am a filmmaker. And not even student. Just filmmaker. I make films in film school. They are exhibited to an audience (in school, at least), and that's what I want to do for the rest of my life. Filmmaker, simple. Once I realized that, I realized the term filmmaker does carry an impact to culturally chalenged girls that you can use sometimes, and if someone thinks I'm pretentious before meeting me and knowing me, I don't give a damn anymore. I have the truth on my side on that.

Tecnically, this discussion was hot ten years ago, and was dropped by the intelectuals who started it since it doesn't get anywhere. So I guess high industry pro's still shield themselves behind it to say we are less worthy then them because with work in video. I guess that's all there is to it.
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

[quote author=taubkin link=board=news;num=1090255233;start=15#26 date=07/22/04 at 09:29:45]So I realized screw that, I'm going to say I am a filmmaker. And not even student. Just filmmaker. I make films in film school. They are exhibited to an audience (in school, at least), and that's what I want to do for the rest of my life. Filmmaker, simple. [/quote]

EXACTLY Mr. Taubkin!

And if anyone has a problem with that, it's THEIR hangup, and not yours.

When talking about profession, you are what you do, not how you do it.

If it were all about how you do it, a lot of people in the world should probably call themselves a "Lousy." :)
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

[quote author=speedbump link=board=news;num=1090255233;start=15#24 date=07/22/04 at 07:01:13]
Terry_lasater:

I hate the layperson.  ****ing laypersons!  These are the people who accept the verb 'to dine' to describe what customers do at a McDonald's.  "Would you like to dine in or take out?"  Hey, I'd love to dine in if you had any organic material worthy of the name.  Oh, and SuperSize me!
[/quote]

Why the hostility?
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

You guys remember that dude who ran around to all of the sites proclaiming he invented the word VILM? LMAO what a kook.

I like the term:

Filmmaker
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

I just would like to know in five years when 'film' is no longer used and SD or HD or HDTV or BLUERAYHDTV is the standard in Hollywood due to its cost effective nature and 'film like quality'(24p)

Will all the "filmmakers" be out of work. Because if the movie houses finally agree to accept digital projectors why pay distrupution for film? why not have your daily's emailed to the studios when your off location?etc.etc.

We might have to look at film as a concept because by this time it will no longet be in existence.

If You Are Concerned Just Ask Francis Ford-
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

By "filmmakers", do you mean the people who physically manufacture film (like Kodak and Fuji employees)? Obviously if film declines in popularity, then there will be layoffs.

As far as people who make movies (whether on film or digital) there won't be much of a change. Sure the job of camera assistant will change, and there won't be much need for a magazine loader, but other than that everything's fairly much the same... at feature film budget levels you'll actually likely be employing MORE people, including video techs, someone to administer the video tent, whatever...
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

I guess I'm looking at it more as a matter of semantics. There is obviously a stigma attached to the title of 'videographer' whether it has to do with quality, style, or just the vision of a big doofy guy in a tuxedo vest producing bad work for your cousin's wedding.

I think that there is a new movement among creative people working in the media of 'video' who would rather group themselves creatively and artistically among the idea of 'film' or 'film'making. Simply because they are using a newer and more cost effective media does not mean that they are not attaining the same level of production quality, artistic style or vision. Again, the entire reason for producing cameras with 24p capability is that they look like film. I think if an artist wants to call themself a 'filmmaker' to define their work conceptually, then they certainly should, as the connotation of 'videographer' is still a negative one, and may always be.

With more and more of the top silver screen studios embracing 24p HD (ie Lucas, Rodriguez, etc) should they not be called filmmakers?
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

Besides, almost every music *video* we like is shot on film. Believe it, by people who call themselves filmmakers. The same goes for publicity film directors. If a guy that shoots a baby playing for an insurance commercial on 35mm can call himself a filmmaker, what about me, who shoots short films on video to be screened on a dark room for an audience? Or Michael Moore, for that matter. Just because he shot HD, isn't a 3 hour feature more a film than a 15s Mc'Donalds spot you are going to see on TV?
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

this post has turned into that old chestnut again  ::)

the old age long film vs hd or digitial debate.

you only have to log onto the super8 forum & tons of other " real film "forums to see huge long threads on this subject.

I think film is on its last legs - its just too expensive to carry on  :(
HD will be the medium that every filmmaker will advance to - its only natural that theatres will soon go digital & so the art of filmaking also. I am also a musician / producer & since the advent of software synths & fast macs with 250 gb's - I can have hundreds of fantastic sounding analog keyboards in my unlimited digi virtual studio - all inside my g5.

I see music as 10 years ahead of film & video media - so check 10 years from now.
we are just now getting into film look cam's ala 24p etc - just think 5/10 years from now :o - im very impressed by the dvx as it is - as are lots of cinematograhers / directors all around the filmmaking community have expressed here.

It is filmmaking & will continue to be filmmaking even when celluloid fades out - it really is a great time to be making films right now.

You still need to have filmmaking talent - whether its hd or film or mini dv - you still have to edit well & shoot & direct - so it really doesn't matter about the medium - as - I think most here would shoot on film - if they could "afford" to   ;)
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

[quote author=Boomerang link=board=news;num=1090255233;start=30#35 date=07/31/04 at 05:36:41]I guess I'm looking at it more as a matter of semantics.  There is obviously a stigma attached to the title of 'videographer' whether it has to do with quality, style, or just the vision of a big doofy guy in a tuxedo vest producing bad work for your cousin's wedding.

I think that there is a new movement among creative people working in the media of 'video' who would rather group themselves creatively and artistically among the idea of 'film' or 'film'making.  Simply because they are using a newer and more cost effective media does not mean that they are not attaining the same level of production quality, artistic style or vision.  Again, the entire reason for producing cameras with 24p capability is that they look like film.  I think if an artist wants to call themself a 'filmmaker' to define their work conceptually, then they certainly should, as the connotation of 'videographer' is still a negative one, and may always be.

[/quote]

I think it's funny that people give this so much thought..I have to admit, I have thought about this myself. Quite happily and proudly, I call myself a "videographer." I shoot video, but for some reason, I hate to use the word as a verb..."let's video that" "should we videotape that?" worse.."video-ing"

If you suck, you suck. If you are good, you can call yourself anything you want, and people will still know you are good.

Just as there tons of crappy films and filmmakers out there, there are loads of crappy "videographers" around.


If you need a word to elevate yourself, you need to go out and practice.
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

[quote author=Pookiehead link=board=news;num=1090255233;start=30#38 date=08/01/04 at 09:44:19]If you need a word to elevate yourself, you need to go out and practice.
[/quote]

Touché.

In brazil, to avoid the word video used as a verb, we (Genious) elected the difference: Recording/Filming. How dumb is that. When people tryed to convince me that it wasn't about pejudice, and that semantically the distinction was correct, I replyed: "Film is a very thin piece of material. Either celuloid or magnetic tape, they both are films. Recording, is imprinting something with information. I can record on tape, on film, on paper or on a hard drive. So kiss my filmaker ass and good luck studiyng your Film-Nazi terms."

People stoped arguing with me and many stoped inviting me to their birthdays. Win-ner! ;D
 
Re: Here's something that bugs me

I say "Im a freelance music VIDEO director"

even though I pretty much produce all my moves myself, the word director still holds enough kudos.

I do however say "Im making a film" when clearly, Im shooting a video, the words have lost all meaning to me.

Also two points: If your casual family man picks up a supre8mm camera and starts shooting wobbily home videos of his dog's water bowl he is not a film maker just because he's shooting onto film.
Just as I have seen some breathtaking work by people shooting on video who clearly were to my mind "filmmakers"

I still dont know what Im going to do about my slowmotion and letterboxing issue.

I have a nightmare I shoot the FILM in 25p, go to edit and the slowmotion looks like ass, then I add letterboxing to get that nice "film border effect" and televisions all around the country resize and distort my picture to fit and i "never work in this town again" ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top