 |
 |
|
Marco Filiberti, film director.
“Novelties will come from a medley of different languages”
 I
have formed my opinion on what the digital is and the most probable scenario
in the next few years.
I’ve never shot in digital, first of all because of my stylistic
choices. It is very important for film directors to have their own “visual
grammar”, even at their debuts. Otherwise, what’s the point
of deciding to tell stories via images?There is no scope for the digital
in my job presently, because I’ve worked out my own “visual
morphology” based on themes and forms of expression irreconcilable
with the digital technique.
But this doesn’t mean I’m against the digital.
The digital is a double-edged sword: for example, it is risky to choose
it for strictly financial reasons.
Director choosing it before embarking on such a great undertaking as film-making
cave in to rules that will impose serious and crucial constraints on their
range of expression.
I condemn such a choice.
I’d rather film directors wait some years before producing theirs
films, for if the film was thought of to have its story, characters and
events translated into images in a given way, accepting to shoot in digital
would be too demanding a compromise.
On the other hand, if they start off with their own themes and “grammars”
that can be expressed in such a way to fit the digital, then it’s
all right.
Obviously one of the pros of the digital is that it
slashes costs. If at the beginning of your carrier your expressing needs
match the digital requirements, then it’s good.
Certainly even those having completely different experience like me will
have to face the digital sooner or later.
There will be greater and greater scope for the digital
in the future scenarios, and increasingly often in prestigious cinematographic
works.
Apart from a few isolated exceptions like Lars Von Trier, now it looks
like this technology is still dependent on a sort of "off" film-making,
sometimes really experimental, sometimes just pretending to be such.
In the future it’ll play an increasingly important role, but I think
the development of high definition has great surprises in store for us.
Concerning my work and my expression needs the high definition has left
much to be desired so far.
Even if from some points of view the digital has wonderful
surprises in store for us in optics, the visual function film has and
has had is irreplaceable.
I’m not against the digital in itself.
Actually, I’m planning to make a film that could be shot partly
on film partly in digital. Most probably, there will be a medley of languages.
The languages of 35mm film, digital, hand held camera, video clips, advertising,
are all visual morphologies that have become part of the viewers’
common heritage.
There will be interesting medleys of such languages and they could have
pleasant surprises in store for us.
What frightens me is the digital “holding the whip hand” for
merely financial reasons.
In such case using the digital wouldn’t be the
result of a strategic choice worked out and thought of by directors who
managed to write a film script suitable for the digital expressive means.
It would mean adapting one’s work to one’s own or the producer’s
financial needs.
It’s worthwhile mentioning the current Italian production scenario
as well.
There no longer are talent-scout producers spotting and investing in new
talents thus enabling them to accomplish their work. Very often the recent
spread of the digital is simply due to the fact the film-making industry
hasn’t much money.
Obviously the digital enables young film-makers who couldn’t find
the necessary funding to have a go at film-making.
On the other hand, if they have their training on that format they risk
ending up envisaging film-making on a small scale, which can be very dangerous.
The recent history of Italian film-making, even of 35mm
film-making, has proved that such exaggerate minimalism has lead us to
provincialism and to produce films unable to match even the dramatic dimension
of cinema, which is its exclusive component and what made it popular.
If it has become the 19th century’s most popular art, this is also
because it is spectacular and visually rich, unlike theatre which is much
more binding in such respect.
So it’s good to try several directors, it’s bad that these
miss the chance to have their 35mm film training.
Film-making is expensive, the most expensive existing
art. When you start shooting and you shoot on film, you know that each
take costs you a lot, and this gets you to feel a huge responsibility
for what you are creating, which obviously arouses much tension. Training
in this “school” builds up sounder film-making awareness.
The idea I got when working in different schools is that people handle
this low-cost means too lightly, as they know that even an improper use
of it would have less serious consequences.
I think the cinema industry must keep its attention threshold very high,
a sort of 'danger zone' in using such an expensive tool.
Film-making is one of the few forms of art giving birth to a star system:
people working in the film industry have a different attitude to life
from people doing any other job in the world.
Film stars have always and absolutely been the least “down-to-earth”
people, living in the screening and projection dimension.
All these facets would collapse with the digital. And I think this is
a danger.
Moreover, training on film develops visual awareness
of optical tools, of the work done with the director of photography, which
certainly the digital does not.
There is a lot of talk about research on this new means but as a matter
of fact often this word simply disguises a streamlining of film-making
operational procedures.
Such a use of the digital makes everything more unimportant thus losing
the sacred relationship between cine camera, film, set and actors, unless
film-makers develop a new awareness that I still can’t see, not
even in the so-called 'Dogma' language, the one which has made more progress
in this direction.
The digital language is absolutely unripe and confused:
what worries me is the development of a new authorial language doesn’t
hinge on any entrenched culture.
What I can see around now is just lexical superficiality and people feeling
unconstrained to resort to this means essentially because it enables them
to save money.
In all fields of artistic production there has always been a fight between
really, genuinely and completely talented people and superficiality, improvisation,
bad taste and lack of ideas: maybe it is advisable to limit the danger
of a bad film-making increase, not only but first of all by getting people
to understand that artistic commitment also implies heavy financial commitment.
By this I don’t mean that all movies shot on film
are good and those shot with other means are bad. I just think time is
still not ripe to develop a mature authorial and visual awareness appropriate
to the means provided by technology now.
What I have seen in high definition up to now cannot
absolutely replace 35mm film. It’s not enough.
It’s not enough if compared to 35mm film, but if we need another
paradigm, then, let’s find it. For the time being I feel we haven’t
got one yet.
|
|
 Filmrecording
initiatives, partnerships
and contributions: from time to time, reports on our active involvement
 
Exclusive interviews
by Bianca Medeccia
 
Technical instructions
|
|
