I was recently interviewed for a research project on “film look” – a topic of constant debate among filmmakers.
The central question is simple What makes something cinematic?
Does it even have a cinematic look?
Filmmakers have debated this issue for years. It all started with the first launch of large-sensor digital SLR cameras, which brought a new level of image quality to the public.
Suddenly, everyone can capture shallow depth of field in high resolution. This look was previously only found in films shot on 35mm film.
During this brief period, the word “cinema” became almost synonymous with shallow depth of field.
Put on a long lens, open the aperture as wide as possible, press the record button, and you’ll get cinematic images.
Or so many filmmakers think…
It wasn’t long before the internet was flooded with endless “movie” videos that were anything but. Sure, they’re capable of capturing a shallow depth of field, but this look has become ubiquitous.
At this point, shallow depth of field is definitely used more in YouTube videos than in actual feature films. Many of the latter are happy to use deep depth of field wherever it makes creative sense.
As a new generation of filmmakers begin to realize this, many are wondering – what on earth is it? What makes something cinematic, if not depth?
Soon after, the next trend emerged: 3-axis universal joint.
For the first time, DIY filmmakers can capture tracking shots as fluidly as a Steadicam shot. Filmmakers inevitably repeat the same cycle, thinking this is the key, and end up overusing it.
And then it happened again with the drone.
The latest technology should bring Hollywood-level on-air coverage to the masses. It just brings more overhead shots to wedding films primarily.
We’ve seen this pattern repeated time and time again. A technology has emerged that allows filmmakers to capture footage reminiscent of major motion pictures.
But as the technology quickly becomes the de facto standard, it no longer feels special once it’s in use.
This has led many filmmakers to believe that there is no such thing as a film look. They argue that if it cannot be defined by the tools we use, it does not exist.
This is a theory.
Mine is different.
I’m pretty convinced that the cinematic look does exist.
But I also believe that the only tool you have to achieve this is your own mind.
Because only one thing really matters to the look of a movie:
intention.
Any project with true artistic intent can transcend film. period.
A black screen combined with great sound design can create a cinematic effect.
Movie clips shot with old DV cameras can be made into movies.
A no-budget film without any camera movement can be cinematic.
This has nothing to do with the technology used. It’s definitely not a matter of how much money you spend…
There are countless movies on Netflix that cost millions of dollars to make, but they aren’t movies at all.
There are some wonderful short films made for zero dollars circulating on the Internet that are making theaters happy.
The only difference is intention.
True artistry leads to cohesive choices in story, casting, cinematography, editing, music, and a thousand other variables that constantly intersect.
All of this combines to form something greater than the sum of its parts, elevating it into what we call a cinematic experience.
So for anyone who needs a reminder…the answer is not at B&H or Amazon. It’s in your brain.
If you want to make art, the film part will fall into place.
For exclusive filmmaking articles every Sunday, sign up for my newsletter here!
