(Above: Bella regrets buying a 7D so close to the launch of the 550D)
People have many varied opinions on the HDSLR revolution, some criticise the hype. The most regular line is that a good camera by itself doesn’t make a good film and that ‘content is king’.
That’s easy to say. But I don’t think it’s that black and white.
It may seem cliched now with the passage of time, but The Blair Witch Project and 28 Days Later were shot for very little money on primitive first generation DV cameras. The grainy look added to the edgy mood of the film, it was an artistic choice as well as a financial one. But conversely you couldn’t shoot a film like Lawrence of Arabia on a DV camera and still expect it to have the same emotional impact. Emotional impact is not just generated by actors and the script – it’s in the power of the framing and everything in terms of how a shot looks.
Part of what controls that is the camera technology.
The fact that 28 Days Later had a more edgy horror look because DV looked a bit rubbish is proof that technology heavily influences the content and you cannot ever ignore it.
It’s not about just content, or just technology. It’s about both, and the best film makers understand both. Kubrick loved technology. James Cameron is obsessed by it. Nearly all the best film makers are.
That is why it really gets my goat when people say on forums that the only thing that matters is content. That ignores 50% of the art form. The unique character of a lens, shallow depth of field, 24p and anamorphic widescreen all have their part to play creatively in generating the mood of a film. These are the tools talented film makers uses to implement their vision. If you take away his tools, you compromise his vision.
Of course, technological limits can sometimes encourage creativity, but the point is if the camera doesn’t deliver an attractive image and has a ‘feel’ which is inflexible, certain artistic expressions you need can be dulled.
Even though on it’s own it’s a powerful story, Avatar would not have been as good had it been shot entirely without cutting edge 3D cameras and the latest CGI – this is a film designed FOR 3D. Cameron rightly considered this technology as part of the artistry of his craft and he got it right. Tim Burton’s latest film, Alice In Wonderland is an awful film, and it’s also shot in 2D to be converted to 3D in post production. Here is a film from a once great filmmaker which is poor in both artistic worlds – not just the script, but also the technology. To watch a 2D film with 3D tacked on doesn’t add to it’s mood or impact, it’s just irritating. That’s why filmmakers must understand technology. I’m not saying Burton doesn’t, and it hurts to criticise him – but all the technology does in Alice is distance the filmmaker (and the viewer) from the film rather than bring them closer. Ironically it feels like a film made by a machine.
I think the aim of a filmmaker is to remove distractions, so that the viewer can interact with the film more closely. Hitchcock was a master at this. The generation of a mood hypnotises the audience, hooking them onto the events of the story. Because they’re not distracted by grainy DV, or poorly framed shots, events have a greater impact. The emotional thrill is more direct. That some events suit grainy DV is not the point. The point is that you need a versatile camera capable to deliver more than one kind of film. Sound is also hugely important.
Shallow depth of field doesn’t just look ‘pretty’, it can open up a creative avenue, extend the vocabulary of film and be used in all kinds of clever ways to express the scene. Furthermore some shots are capable of having beauty which impacts on an emotional level in addition to whatever the scene’s content is. This is also very important, and something that the camera plays a large role in. 24p can be relevant to the mood of the film, and therefore influence how the viewer emphasises with the movie. Aesthetics feel is linked directly to our emotions. Smooth 30p video has a futuristic and clinical emotional feel, whilst 24p is more akin to how the human eye sees things naturally. The eye does not move smoothly, rather it jumps jerkily between attention hotspots in your field of view. You may feel a bit silly but try panning your neck from the left to right and try a smooth pan with your eyes of the room, it doesn’t work. It’s nothing like camera motion in 30p.
I enjoy film because it’s a combination of the artistic and technical.
The aim of technology is to deliver the emotion of the content as closely to the human mind as possible.
So in my book, content may indeed be King but the camera is most certainly Queen.
