[Frameworks] Letter to other Filmmaker Artists

[Matt Helme]

I shoot DV cause i love the look. It's not film and it's not analog, it has a 
special look all it's own.
Matt




________________________________
From: Mark Toscano <fiddybop at yahoo.com>
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 2:12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Letter to other Filmmaker Artists

Doug - 

I say keep shooting as long as you can shoot, and finishing on film as long as 
it's possible.  Many of us are doing that.  Many of us are doing digital work 
too, but that's because many of us see the two as distinct motion picture 
media.  Some folks conflate the two, as if there's an either-or to the equation, 
or as if digital is the logical or inevitable "successor" to film.  That's a 
disservice to both media.  They're both fascinatingly unique.  Anyone who 
poo-poos the idea of working in film as somehow Luddite/out-of-touch/kidding 
oneself/a waste/not-with-the-times or whatever, doesn't know what they're 
talking about.  Really it's a simple choice of media based on one's own personal 
interest/temperament/taste.  And many folks do both, and work out amazing ways 
to engage each medium on its own terms, like Fred Worden or any number of other 
people.  Most people wouldn't think that a still photographer sticking to 
photochemical processes is a
technologically backward loser.  Or a painter working with paint?  Or a 
calligrapher?  Anyway, I'm laboring the point.  It's its own medium, simple as 
that, and equally valid as digital.

My own feeling has been that digital will certainly overtake film almost fully 
as the dominant industrial/commercial application for motion pictures, but that 
film will likely remain at the very least as a small-batch artisanal medium.  
Motion picture film does have a lot more to overcome in this regard than still 
film in terms of its attendant technology, but I think it's doable.  Separately, 
I'm more worried about the continued availability of high quality film for 
archival preservation/restoration purposes, but that's somewhat of another 
issue.

As for money saving ways to work with film, it depends really on how you define 
what filmmaking is to you, and what "end product" you want to end up with.  If 
ideally you want to end up with a 16mm projection print with sound on it, then 
of course it'll cost a bit more.  If you work silent, that's much cheaper 
already (no sound costs, no optical track).  Some folks just shoot reversal and 
project the original, taking as part of the work the fact that it will 
deteriorate a little bit with each projection, living itself, which may 
eventually result in it being unshowable.

If you get friendly with someone at (most likely) one of the smaller film labs 
out there, maybe you can get them to make you a cheap daylight spool of print 
stock to shoot in the camera instead of camera stock.  It has an extremely low 
ASA and you can get some weird visual results doing that.  B/W print stock can 
look cool shot in the camera too.  You just have to be careful if you're using 
polyester stock (all color print and much b/w print is polyester), it will break 
your camera if you get a bad jam inside.  Just listen carefully to the camera as 
you shoot it, and stop and check it out if it sounds weird at any point.  
(Related to this, you might try contacting all the film labs in southern CA to 
see if anyone might be hiring.  This would certainly give you privileged access 
to film equipment and services.)

I also lament the lack or at least diversity of options once available, even 
though I think a number of the stocks these days are pretty nice.  But on a side 
note - working in the archival field makes me constantly aware of all the 
technologies, film stocks, etc. that one can't take advantage of these days.  
Used to be you could assemble your positive original picture roll and just get a 
one-light reversal print off of it for relatively cheap.  If you had sound on 
mag, you could (at many labs) get the track electroprinted on the print without 
making a track negative.  The lack of extra steps like internegative, track 
negative, etc. made this a lot more doable for artists on tight budgets.  Not 
whining, just reflecting.

You might have to compromise a bit, or just be extremely patient in order to 
keep working in film, but there's no reason to stop.  I just brought some super 
8 I shot months ago to the lab, because I could finally afford to pre-pay the 
processing for these rolls, which were not for a specific project and therefore 
seemed a little less urgent.  Sometimes you gotta wait like that.

As for your film Palms, did you send it to Filmforum yet?  As I mentioned, we'd 
love to see it.  And there are definitely other curators and festivals who would 
be happy to look at unsolicited work like yours in consideration for screening.

Hope this is useful,

Mark Toscano






      
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20100720/606ce6fd/attachment.html