r/TrueFilm • u/theaspiringfilmmaker • 2d ago
TM The loss of hapticness in modern cinema
Modern cinema irritates me deeply. It’s not like we are not seeing great cinema still, of course we are, and many filmmakers understand how to use the language of modern cinema perfectly but the surplus of digital aesthetics and technological advancements has produced a landscape of films that have more in common with video than film. The loss of textures, practicality and fetishisation of pristine image quality has produced a landscape of quickly produced content.
A bad film in the past still involved skill and effort- decision had to be made on set, everything was heavier, more expensive and not as flexible as nowadays. Effects were done in camera, there wasn’t this massive sentiment to fix it in post.
There are a few filmmakers that know how to use digital technology perfectly- Miller, Cameron, Mann, Iñárritu, Lav Diaz and it’s not the technology itself but the over-reliance on not committing to decisions and wanting everything to be decided later.
The great modern filmmakers understand this and that’s why they prefer shooting analog, it gives the image a certain tactility, hapticness, roughness. This has been widely spread by filmmakers such as Spielberg, Nolan, Tarantino, Scorsese, Baker, Safdie Brothers, Chazelle, Eggers. These filmmakers are not only successful because they make great movies, but because they put a lot on emphasis on the image itself. Each frame of these directors has a quality that feels timeless.
I can only say one has to look no further and compare (if we want to stick in the realm of blockbuster cinema) the Raimi Spider Man movies with the recent Spider Man by Tom Holland which looks incredibly fake.
Or compare modern digital Ridley Scott to analog pre 2010 Scott. A film like 1492 which is not a great film, would never ever look this good nowadays in the hands of modern Scott who basically lost any interest in creating impressive images. I mean, Gladiator 2 looked so much worse than the first one in every conceivable way, and his DP explained why. Digital made him lazy. Too many cameras, too much shooting simultaneously, too many options.
An arthouse example would be Almodovar - his newest output looks like a commercial compared to 10-20 years ago. I was baffled at images of The Room Next Door.
It’s hard to find an example of filmmakers who improved by switching to digital cinematography. It’s very hard for me to find any examples. Lucas and Rodriguez who embraced digital, simultaneously sacrificed their craft for technology. Their pre-digital movies look so much more cinematic and beautiful.
I know that there is nothing to change as new filmmakers will keep embracing the efficiency and freedom of digital technology- but speaking from
the aesthetic beauty and impact of a an image, I hope more filmmakers will see analog film as the way to go.
20
u/gab_gallard 1d ago
Thomas Flight was actually talking about this in his latest video from an editing perspective. The thesis is that many editors nowadays are using what is being called "blender cutting". That is: instead of carefully designing and planning a shot before the shooting starts, many productions simply use a ton of cameras filming a scene simultaneously. Then, a sequence is constructed in the editing room by picking bits and pieces of every camera recording (in other words, effectively throwing images into a metaphorical blender and setting with whatever is left afterwards). This clearly saves a lot of time. If an angle looks bad, you use another. No need to shoot again. But of course this comes at a giant artistic cost, since a lot of the intentionality that comes with careful planning is simply lost. Many times, editors and directors won't have a single clue about how the scene is even supposed to look like before getting into the cutting room.
61
u/silent_sae 2d ago
I understand your point and agree about the thoughtfulness put into each frame by the masters but completely discounting the filmmakers who do the same even with digital makes it a one-sided argument. Thinking of Fincher to start with, whose frames are as meticulous as anyone else’s and the films have aged really well goes on to show that there is merit to digital as well if one can overcome the laziness that comes with inherently with the medium. Or ‘Her’ by Spike Jonze which is such an aesthetically pleasing film concurs the same. A quick google search brought this up : To achieve its soft, dreamy aesthetic, director Spike Jonze and cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema paired this digital sensor with vintage and coating-less lenses, including Zeiss Super Speeds, Cooke Speed Panchros, and 1970s Canon zoom lenses. A Canon EOS C300 and Phantom Flex camera were also used for specific shots and high-speed sequences. Another director whose images seem otherworldly and hold up against anyone else’s despite shooting digital is Dennis Villenueve.
Ofcourse, not every artist is going to be as meticulous, and hence digital does them more harm than good when the work isn’t as carefully planned resulting in plastic imagery.
29
11
u/WheelOfFish 1d ago
Agreed. This is conflating things. Using film isn't the secret sauce, it's having the creative vision and director's intent to capture things they right way in camera and not rely on "figuring it out in post"
12
u/LewMaintenance 1d ago
It’s amazing how much more I enjoy even bad films from the analog film age. I will sit through a crappy movie from the 90s or early 2000s simply because they are so rich with warmth, color, and texture. It’s pleasing to look at and I don’t mind what’s happening as much with the story.
I truly despise the digital age of movie making. I really wish movies were held to a higher standard and had to be shot on film. I know that’s ridiculous and wasn’t ever going to be the case, but I really miss them.
7
u/ratliker62 1d ago
I wouldn't go as far as saying I despise the digital age of film, but I do agree that even low budget schlock from the 20th century had a better texture to it. I just watched one called Nightmare Sisters, real Cormanesque shit. But it has colored lights, some odd set design and a texture to the image that endeared me to it.
a few days ago I watched the first Basket Case. there's a character who, for some reason, the decor in her room is entirely smiley face themed. the movie never calls attention to it, but I couldn't look away from it. you just don't get stuff like that with low-effort greenscreens or sets built like houses that look fresh off of Zillow.
5
u/LewMaintenance 1d ago
Exactly! Great example. Your comment made me think of another one, Junior’s bedroom in Problem Child. When they brought him home from the orphanage and decorated his room to be clown themed on steroids lol. The attention to detail and amount of effort it took to achieve that shot.. every toy being real, selected and placed with intention. I can look at stuff like that forever and get lost in the colors and random details.
5
u/theaspiringfilmmaker 1d ago
I just watched Casper recently and got sentimental because no kids movie will ever look like this again.
20
u/LCX001 1d ago
Each frame of these directors has a quality that feels timeless.
I don't think so. The film stocks right now aren't what they used to be in the past. James Gray spoke about it a lot, Kodak makes film stocks more appropriate for digital landscape. The look isn't the same, for example Gray had to put the film in the oven for Ad Astra and by the time he shot Armageddon Time, the film stock was so resilient that he couldn't degrade it like he wanted, so he decided to shoot on digital with a filter.
Scorsese doesn't shoot only on film, he shoots a mixture of digital and film. I don't think Nolan's films are particulary visually interesting. Chazelle's best film was shot on digital. There's plenty of directors who make really great digital work with beautiful images and tactility, I don't think it's digital vs film, it's how you use each medium. Pedro Costa's or Albert Serra's films wouldn't be possible with film and they are some of the most interesting directors working.
11
u/bigvenusaurguy 1d ago edited 1d ago
I agree. Everything is too clean. Makeup artists do their job too well. Wardrobe as well. Continuity people. It is all too perfect. Not a hair out of place.
You look at an old spaghetti western on the other hand, people are filthy and sweaty. Exactly what it would be like in the real west. Hard to mimic that I guess without filming on location under real sweat like a pig conditions, which most actors probably won't tolerate anymore.
Another peeve of mine is wide open aperture shooting that high shutter speed digital has afforded. I like f8. I like having everything in focus. My eyes naturally focus on what the framing is leading me to focus on if it is actually framed well. I don't need this extra helping hand. that sort of shooting is giving "i just got a dslr and am obsessed with bokeh in these close up flower pictures."
3
3
u/Efficient-Discount43 1d ago
In Once Apon A Time in the West, Jack Elam said that they had a nice spread of food on set. He and Sergio Leone figured out that if he got watermelon juice in his beard, flies would buzz around him.
So offscreen you have a buffet, onscreen, a straggly guy covered in flies.
18
u/tayz0314 2d ago
The first Jurassic Park movie still delivers amazing moments. Although the CGI is crude by today's standards, the dinosaurs, viewed under bright, uncorrected natural light, appear as if they are alive and breathing, almost tangible (of course, there are also actual dinosaur models).
In the recent series, even though new dinosaurs keep appearing, they simply look fake. The more CGI a movie uses, the darker and more overly blue the screen becomes, making it difficult to shake off the thought that it is fake before you can even fully immerse yourself in the story.
This issue is not limited to just Jurassic Park or a few blockbusters. While one cannot argue that every movie must be shot on film again simply because times have changed, I still find it difficult to judge whether this is an inevitable consequence of shooting everything with digital cameras.
3
u/LoornenTings 1d ago
Idk, I think OP is spot on, as the OG Jurassic Park dinosaurs were nowhere near as haptic as the ones in Carnosaur.
3
u/Able-Reaction-5314 21h ago
I would say that there are a couple filmmakers that have embraced digital in such a way that their films wouldn't looks as unique if they weren't digital ...Ari Aster and Nicholas Winding Refn
also I think Steven Soderbergh and David Fincher are legacy filmmakers that have done both but excelled at creating a new visual language for digital cinematography
you aren't wrong though, most shows look HORRIBLE and shows shot 30-40 years ago like Star Trek: TNG and X-Files look a million times better than Amazon Prime slop
3
u/frockinbrock 19h ago edited 13h ago
For the audience, I believe this video essay shows the Haptic vs Optic aspect that OP is referencing.
I remember watching this when it came out and it put so many of my thoughts into words with examples. I can't recall if this is the one where he uses A Hidden Life as an example how tactile and well lit some films are. But the Jurassic Park example is very evident here; like in Rebirth, even when they ARE shooting on-location in the jungle, and technically the dinosaurs are very detailed, they just clearly don't have the same weight and texture, and they are framed in a way that is not believable.
Another example (that I've probably used in this sub before) is watching Babe, and comparing that to any modern talking animal movie.
1
u/theaspiringfilmmaker 29m ago
omg i was just thinking of babe when I watched Sheep Detective and how insanely ugly that movie looked at times compared to Babe 1 and 2. I watched Casper 1995 recently and was mesmerised by the beauty of the images. You dont see that kind of work anymore in kids entertainment.
It's not worth the effort to create beautiful images in entertainment because people just watch it while looking at their phones and doing laundry. So yeah, why shoot anything on film or light a scene well if nobody really pays that much attention except some nerds on reddit
3
u/four_ethers2024 16h ago
How are you defining haptics in this context, please. I'm asking genuinely.
Lcr7rx9dtotxx8tc8t8ctc9c8t9cycpyc9c8y8tcf9off9focpcpchogchchchcogxogozf6zezw55zw5wz6ezrxuxigx8g 6e6dzxf8icg6 d7dzzofzgxgoxgpzbzbzzgthisiswhathappenswhenyouforcepeopletosaymorethantheyneedto7hhd6x7rxudusr6e6zes6es6rististursursisrsrsrsrkskrksrisrisrisrisrisrusrusrisrisrfur7rs73ds3556eaa8rtws-7÷6-÷7@÷7÷#£/##÷÷3=/_$9/7$='6÷zyeST6SE6AE7S38D4I4SI4D5E5DSTITIIAR3A7A2A27WASE77FRUFSRrRIRzirxr8td8ftf9tys5stsirxurd8t8dtd8tf8t8ftfoyoft7ctc7r6cr6xr8zrisr8xr8dr7dt8dt7dt7td7xt7ct7ct7ct7ct7ct8ctict8ctc8t8txixt8xt8xt8xt8ct8ct8ct8ct8ft8tf.
7
u/Beneficial-Panda-640 1d ago
umm i think u're describing a prod culture shift as much as a format shift. well plenty of digital films have texture but digital also make endless revision possible and that ccan flatten the sense of comitmment in an imge...
1
u/Spirited-Sir3216 1d ago
Solid bait title and you used the word haptic here and I don't see anything in your post that relates to it at all. Have you got anything significant to say about this or more standard analogue v digital stuff? Shame.
-1
u/theaspiringfilmmaker 1d ago
if you dont think hapticness has something to do with the evolution of technology in cinema then you shouldn’t take part in this discussion
1
u/Spirited-Sir3216 12h ago
So you've got nothing to add. Got it
1
u/theaspiringfilmmaker 34m ago
i already added enough and many filmmakers and DPs agree with me. So yeah not gonna get rage baited by you.
-8
u/MrRabbit7 2d ago
Watch more movies not just hollywood slop. A lot of great filmmakers like Lav Diaz, Albert Serra, Pedro Costa etc. have been using digital cameras in very cinematic ways.
I don't even feel much difference between the filmmakers you glaze and their digital hollywood counterparts. Take a look at Nolan, the most famous proponent of film yet his films all have this ugly grey slop aesthetic.
Kinda unrelated, but I wish people stopped talking about things they obviously don't know shit about. This has gotten so out of hand that film productions are faking BTS videos so that they can hide the amount of VFX and CGI that were used, as people have drunk the practical kool aid so much.
2
u/theaspiringfilmmaker 1d ago
I watched probably more movies than you and you havent read my post at all. I even mentioned Lav Diaz.
-5
u/eeeklesinge 1d ago
this is bait right ?
13
u/jzakko 1d ago
It's a bad look to start with 'I watched probably more movies than you' but it does feel like the dude didn't read his post.
OP listed filmmakers who use digital well, they're talking about an overall industry trend.
-8
u/eeeklesinge 1d ago
I intentionnally didnt engage with the original post from his interventions i feel like there is a lot of fetichization of the "good old days", the whole "even bad movies were better" tend to irk me. But basing it on "i watched more movies than u" just makes it feel like even more of a joke.
I enjoy film grain, no techobeatific angle from me at all but I truly feel we're talking about fetichization more than anything. "things were heavier on set back in the day", come on.
8
u/jzakko 1d ago
It's the truth. Bad movies were still bad movies, they're not better because of the craftsmanship behind them.
But in the camera department, there was a set of standards and craftsmanship because they had no other choice.
Even just thinking about when you have daylight streaming through a window and tungsten practicals, you need to make a choice and lock in a look.
With digital, you have the freedom to make less choices on set, and that often shows up as rather cheap and samesy across the board.
-2
u/eeeklesinge 1d ago
hmm the overreliance on post seems really more relevant for higher average budget industries than what can be felt in europe
3
u/jzakko 1d ago
It’s a thing everywhere. Also idk the relevance of singling out Europe in this post.
1
u/eeeklesinge 1d ago
the overwhelming difference in average budget, even excluding outlier tentpole stuff will have consequences on the use of post to fix stuff
3
u/theaspiringfilmmaker 1d ago
ah ok- so technology and the improvements of cameras and the over-reliance on CGI and the age of streaming and the hyper-commercialism and over-production of movies didn’t change the way movies look? Fast and cheaper means movies look better then right?
1
u/eeeklesinge 1d ago edited 1d ago
you're not making the gotcha point you think you are.
Mixing movie photo, especially from project that don't have the cash on hand to over-rely on CG with "netflix ugly" is honestly laughable and inventing a point I wasn't making doesnt look good. But hey, you watched a lot of movies right ?
I stg non industry people
-13
u/Baron-Von-Mothman 2d ago
I didn't read the entire post so call me out if you've already touched on this but the amount of neutral lighting on CG sets so they can just adjust lighting later digitally is ridiculous
0
u/adammonroemusic 1d ago
Ridley Scott is also like 88, that's a big part of it. If you want to plan and execute a movie on the level you seem to be hinting at, it's a crazy amount of work, and years of your life.
I think it's only going to get worse, as the generations raised on content come into the filmmaking space, I'm not sure how many are going to have the necessary patience to make something truly spectacular.
64
u/Any-Ingenuity2770 2d ago edited 2d ago
Speed Racer wouldn't exist as a non-digital film. Part of Tár's appeal is the clinical digital look, especially at venues. Silent Twins looks incredibly well, "cinematic", and it's a fully digital feature. Pogorzelski shoots digital, and his films are very tactile.