(no subject)
The downside of digital
German media critic plays devil’s advocate
By Tilman Baumgärte, Inquirer
Last updated 01:21am (Mla time) 09/24/2006
Published on page J2 of the September 24, 2006 issue
of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
THE INTRODUCTION OF Affordable digital video cameras and the prospect of making films inexpensively and independent of big studio have stirred up a lot of excitement in the Philippine film community. Whereas traditional filmmaking requires huge investments in film stock alone, digital movie making-which accounts for 40 percent of last years local production-is possible for a fraction of the usual production budget. Therefore many Filipino filmmakers have, by themselves or with the support of the recent Cinemalaya festival or the upcoming CinemaOne competition, started making movies without relying on the resources of mainstream production companies. Some of their output, “Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros,” in particular, have reaped critical acclaim here and abroad.
Now, digital movies are seen as a way out of the local film industry’s usual fare of often formulaic productions. Many filmmakers, critics and fans anticipate a third “Golden Age” of Philippine cinema, with directors taking on new and untried subject matters that big studios would rather not touch. They hope that fresh narrative strategies and innovative ways of storytelling will breathe new life into the industry, which is currently in dire straits because of the dominance of American blockbusters and the curse of DVD piracy.
I am about to play the spoilsport here, or the devil’s advocate. I will argue that digital movie making is not magic pixie dust, and might actually be bad for Philippine cinema. In contrast to the current euphoria over digital movies, I will point out some of their shortcomings.
I understand perfectly well how important it is for Filipino filmmakers to find a cheaper way to make movies. And I was impressed by the variety and quality of the last batch of Cinemalaya entries. Nevertheless, I’d like to offer a dissenting opinion that I hope would be taken as constructive criticism.
Here, David-Letterman-style, are 10 Reasons Why Digital Filmmaking Is Bad For Philippine Cinema:
10) Digital just don’t look as good as 35-millimeter.
Despite arguments to the contrary, that’s just how it is, period.
9) Digital makes it too easy.
The fact that traditional film is an expensive medium has made many directors adhere to strict budgets. A lot of good and ever-popular films have been made with little money. Consider “The Bicycle Thief” or “Rashomon,” “Psycho” or “Chungking Express.” Manuel Conde´s “Gengis Khan” is also a great example-a local film with a low budget, but high impact on the viewer to this very day, simply because Conde consistently knew where to position his camera. At present, many film industries in the region, including South Korea, thrive precisely on this economy of means.
Many local digital movies show a dangerous lack of restraint that makes them dull and dragging. Many of the familiar weaknesses of Philippine films are made worse in digital movies: the director often relies too much on dialogue to tell the story, instead of focusing on the visual aspects of film. These films also make way for cheesy melodrama-actresses who look like models sob uncontrollably; sweaty men in undershirts shout hysterically; there are endless, tearful discussions and shouting matches; phoney tragedy and kitchen-sink drama rule.
8) Digital encourages sloppiness.
Movies such as the otherwise exciting “Rotonda” delight in constant violations of the line of action and other basic rules of filmmaking. This happened so often, that it was pointed out by veteran director Marilou Diaz-Abaya during the last Cinemalaya conference. While I do not mind violations of the rules taught in film school, I’d like to see good reasons when filmmakers ignore them. Yet, in many of the newer digital movies, the camera moves all over the place instead of being positioned in such a way that the viewer easily understands spatial relations in a given scene.
7) Digital breeds its own mannerisms.
Since digital cameras are usually small and easy to carry, many digital cinematographers have chosen to shoot in a quirky, rickety fashion. The handheld camera is the all the rage, allowing for shaky shots and super-quick pans and tilts, which are then linked together by jump cuts. While there is nothing essentially wrong with that, it has become a mannerism that gives many of these movies a uniform look. Filmmakers who use such techniques should be reminded that a lot of the Nouvelle Vague and Direct Cinema films from the ’60s, which were shot with 16-mm cameras, employed similar methods. Today, they all look contrived.
On the other end of the spectrum of digital mannerisms are endless, self-indulgent long takes or wallowing tracking shots. While I like a good long take or elegant tracking shot, the picture quality of most digital movies simply does not allow for that (yet). Digital video images are intrinsically flat. They do not provide the depth of field of the old panchromatic film stock that made the long takes in the works of Orson Welles or Jean Renoir so breathtaking. This may change soon however.
6) Digital could lower the audience’s audio-visual standards.
Most Filipinos are exposed to terrible audio-visual environment. I am not talking about the artistic value of movies, televisions shows etc, but about their visual quality. Many cinemas have second-rate projectors and insufficient sound systems, because the audience is undemanding. Reception for terrestrial television stations and cable channels is frequently bad. The picture quality of many VCDs, still the most popular medium for movies, is often worse than that of old VHS tapes. And the pirated DVDs, the primary source of movie entertainment for many Filipinos, are often faulty. Some of them are even filmed directly off a cinema screen, so the picture is blurry and the sound incomprehensible. Thus, the Filipino viewers have grown dangerously tolerant of low quality. Digital movies, whose images at times dissolve into large chunks of pixels during screening, could encourage this tolerance.
5) Digital will stigmatize local films.
If majority of local films were to be produced digitally, as some hope, it might add to the public perception that local films are generally cheap: “Di bale na, Filipino film lang naman ´yan.” I hear this ever so often. It certainly doesn’t help in the competition with the 100-Million-Dollar movies from Hollywood that are currently congesting most of the mall cinemas.
4) Digital could make Philippine movies less competitive internationally.
“Maximo Oliveros” was a success in international festivals despite being shot on digital video. The film’s visual style fit its gritty tale. Other films do not necessarily benefit from the “digital look.” I am sure international film festivals would pick up the Cinemalaya entry, “Batad.” By virtue of its story line, I can even imagine it in European art house cinemas-if it had not been filmed with digital video, which seriously spoiled some of the beautiful shots of the rice terraces and the Cordilleras.
3) Digital will make everybody an intern.
Popular actors, such as Eddie Garcia and Boots Anson-Roa, have worked for little or no pay in recent low-budget independent films. So have many other movie people-from set designers to boom operators. They continue to do so, and this is laudable. Many could be hoping to be elevated to work on regular film productions by accepting an honorarium, like an intern, for the mean time. However, once the major studios and TV stations see how inexpensively they can hire ambitious personnel, they may try to take advantage. Instead of coming up with innovative film ideas for themselves, they might just get independent filmmakers and their crews to work on their own low-budget productions, for lower fees.
2) Digital in the Philippines may come to mean art house cinema-without art house cinemas.
A lot of filmmakers in the Philippines right now are eager to produce films that are out of the ordinary. There could be an audience for those, but we may never know because, unlike in Europe, there is no art house cinema circuit in this country that will play them on a regular basis. The only venues for these movies are schools and universities that hold occasional screenings, or such festivals as Cinemalaya and CinemaOne. These festivals-which, indeed, do a magnificent job sponsoring new productions-should be careful not to breed a new species of filmmakers who produce exclusively for festivals, as some European auteur filmmakers do. New methods of distribution on DVD or via the Internet might provide alternatives to the traditional theatrical release. The series of CinemaOne films from last year, recently issued on VCD, is an interesting experiment in digital film distribution.
1) And finally: Digital cannot adequately depict the Philippine night
I don’t know any other national cinema where night scenes are given such importance as in Philippine cinema. Apart from the American film noir, Philippine movies must be among the darkest in the world. Consider the frequent reference to the pa-siyam (novena) lit by candles, or the attack of the aswang under a full moon, a gripping chase scene in the dark back alleys of Manila, or the lovemaking in a pigsty in “Himala.” In Philippine cinema the night is often among the principal characters. It can be haunting, as in Mike De Leon´s “Itim,” or full of pitch-black despair as in Lino Brocka´s “Maynila, Sa Kuko ng Liwanag.” It might ooze with sensuality as in Ishmael Bernal´s “Manila by Night” or serve as the appropriately gloomy backdrop as in Chat Gallardo´s “Geron Busabos.”
In no other area does digital cinema look as poor as in such night scenes, and there seems to be little improvement in this area, thus depriving Philippine cinema of one of its most important characteristics.
Dr. Tilman Baumgärtel is a media critic from Germany, who currently teaches at the UP Film Institute.
Copyright 2006 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
debate and discuss!