When is a film not a film?

Joe Shaw

Joe Shaw

Well-known member
There’s an interesting debate taking place online at the moment about the very nature of the word ‘film’. What constitutes a ‘film’? Now that the majority of people technically shoot video, is the word still valid? With the advent of mass user generated content drowning the internet, what delineates a film? Is it all not just content? The fact that this debate is happening across various websites, forums and social media channels is in itself a thoroughly modern phenomenon and indicative of the way things have changed.

When is a film not a film?

To answer this question I wrestled with various definitions. Then I actually started to reflect back on my own personal journey, my own history with various cameras, films and film-making to see where that would lead me…

http://www.joe-shaw.co.uk/2010/03/when-is-a-film-not-a-film/

Please read the rest of my blog and if it speaks to you then comment.
 
To me, in this modern age of digital cinema, a film is anything that is not eye witness news and tells a story, not just shows you what happened.
Grabbing your video camera to shoot a birthday party - video
Setting up some lights, getting a tripod, editing it down - thats filming the party.
 
A film is not a film when the scrubbing bubbles soak in.


Seriously now...

A film is not a film when it's home-movies, news, reality tv type production... but if some event takes place that transforms those invents into something more... such as that birthday party becoming part of a larger point in a production (death in family, etc.) where we follow A STORY... then it becomes PART of a film.

A film tells a story.

That's my bottom line... a film is a not a film when it does NOT tell a story.
 
'A film' is in the eye of the beholder. Like 'art' it is not a word amenable to rigid or universal definition.
 
Sad Max said:
'A film' is in the eye of the beholder. Like 'art' it is not a word amenable to rigid or universal definition.
Click to expand...

This was the ultimate conclusion of my blog. But I think the realisation I came to was much more than that - (from the blog)

We stand on the brink of a revolution in film-making. The bar for entry has been lowered to the ground. The differentiating factor from here-on in is story. Because I believe that the greatest purpose for film-making has, and always will be, as a vehicle for telling great stories. Fictional stories, true stories it doesn’t matter – narrative, documentary, corporate, wedding – they are all about telling a good story. We have a collective responsibility to use the tools available to us to tell great stories – to remember the fearless kids inside all of us who were enthralled by the magic of film and not the equipment behind it. If you have a great story, no-one will question if it’s a film or not, no-one will worry about the camera that shot it.

We have a world of possibility in front of us. So let’s seize it with both hands and together commit to being better.
 
To be honest I've seen this debate and hate it when it comes up. It's right there with film vs digital debates. It usually sparks when some film student (shooting on film) is a newbie online and says 'like my teacher says, films are only films if it's shot on real film!', then a debate sparks, usually ending with what I agree with:

Film came about in the era when the only medium to shoot on was in fact film. Now it's just another word for movie, motion picture, etc.

I honestly don't think there's this big universal question of 'what's film?' as if asking 'what's art?' It's just film is a film.

As for needing a narrative, I don't agree. Experimental films are films, even the crummy ones without a narrative in sight.

BTW, I'm a film student shooting on 16mm film. I still consider my video projects to be films as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top