I noticed that during the discussion of Dogme 95 some people speculated on
the use of film v.s. video, and wondered wether film was the only accepted
choice when making a movie.
<"Why is a big budget film that is shot on 35mm with good lighting more
valuable then a small budget film that is shot on video? If I can't afford
oil paint does that make my charcoal painting less valid (or less of an
art)? ">
I think this statement kind of misses the point. Film v.s. video isn't like
oil paintings v.s. charcoal (or watercolor) paintings. It's more like low
quality oil paintings v.s. high quality oil paintings. It's exactly the
same thing, but one is of a higher quality then the other and thus creates
a more aesthetically pleasing effect.
There are, of course, a lot of beautifully shot video movies and a bunch of
ugly movies shot on film, but that can't hide the fact that video can never
achieve the magnificent look of film. Those people who make beautiful
movies on video could be making something even more spectacular ones on
film. A filmmaker who is forced to shoot on video is like a painter forced
to paint with a broken pencil. I'm not saying that this makes a difference
towards wether the film is any good or not, content-wise, but it does make
a difference on wether the film is good to look at or not.
|