The two feature films I’ve directed so far were both shot on different formats. Old Man Dogs (1997) was photographed on 16m film and projected on a film release print in theaters. Dangerous Crosswinds (2005) was shot on 24P mini-dv tapes and projected on DVD into theaters. For me, and probably the crews of both films, it’s impossible to think of either film without also thinking of its particular shooting format. For most low-budget indies the format is forever linked to the project as much as the music or actors, etc. And that’s fine. We slave over our production budgets and ultimately decide that we’ll shoot in whatever format we can best afford. That’s the reality.

But does it matter at all to audiences? As long as a film is well lit and the dialogue sounds good I’m not really sure it does. It’s not that I don’t believe film-goers can notice a visual difference (I’m sure they can if a side-by-side comparison is made) but do they care? Would the various critical responses to both films had been any different had Old Man Dogs been shot digitally and Dangerous Crosswinds on 16mm? I’m willing to bet no. Any Q&A session that I’ve ever been a part of has always focused on the film’s storytelling, music, themes, and so forth – and nothing about any technical matters. Michael Moore’s Roger & Me is a 16mm film and his latest films have all been digital but he’s all about content. And even though we may think otherwise, most narrative filmmakers like myself are first and foremost about content. The subject matter, the characters, the music – these factors dwarf any technical factors. Not to mention that good old fashioned believeable acting goes a long way in my book. I recently saw a trailer for a well-publicized short film which was shot with a RED camera but the acting was so over-the-top that it destroyed any of my interest in ever seeing the film. Good direction/strong acting shot on videotape is still preferable to aimless direction/bad acting shot on film.

I’m pretty certain that our two next features, Death & Glory and The Murder of the Lake, will be shot in High-Definition video.  There are countless HD shooting formats to select from (HDV, DVCPRO HD, RED, etc.) and I’m sure that, as opposed to film, a HD format will be a better fit for our production budget, type of shooting schedule and distribution/screening plans.

One of the first questions filmmakers generally ask when they first learn of a local or indie film being produced is “What did they shoot it on?” Which leads to the question - is the shooting format a part of the film or just an accessory to the film?

There’s probably no correct answer as viewing films is obviously not an exact science; no two opinions are identical. The definition of what makes a memorable film is not stuck in stone. For some people the look of the film is more important than what the film’s about. For others it’s all about characters, story, themes, etc. You might not be able to put up with fifteen minutes of my favorite Wim Wenders film.

Yet I sometime I feel that we filmmakers get far too preoccupied with such technical matters; first and foremost we are suppose to be telling a story. Not to mention that I’d wager that the majority of filmgoers (who in many cases have paid to see your film) could care less about your shooting format – they just want to see a film’s that in focus and has dialogue that they can hear properly without straining (no small feat sometimes for a low-budget indie). Audiences are thinking characters/plot and not how cool RED cameras are. 

But for filmmakers it’s impossible for us to imagine such films not being forever linked to their format. For example, when I think of Mike Figgis’ Leaving Las Vegas I immediately think of the 16mm graininess. In that case I think the 16mm feel is an accessory to the film. But the digital video in David Lynch’s Inland Empire is definitely a part of that film, as integral to the story as the characters in it - it’s not remotely close to Lynch’s 35mm Blue Velvet. Another question would be to wonder if a film like Werner Herzog’s recent HD documentary, Encounters at the End of the World, would have a different feel if it had been shot on 16mm film like his documentaries of the 1980s? They probably do look somewhat different if you screened them side-by-side but isn’t Herzog all about the originality of the content? I’m pretty sure he could care less about what we filmmakers think about his shooting format. Herzog’s not making his films to be studied by professors in film school nor should he.

Two weeks ago I re-visited my short story collection The Winter Thaw.  At the moment it includes the following eight short stories:

Blue Trucks & Mountain Bikes
The Hands that Fed the Dog
Fifteen Minutes on a Park Bench
The Depot Road
Meeting Franklin Pierce
The Three Murders of W. Clark
Two Weeks of Perfection
The Birch Tree

I find it difficult these days juggling my writing schedule between this collection and the two screenplays (Death & Glory and The Murder of the Lake) that we plan to film soon. But my thinking is that the gratification that will hopefully come with a book release can only help in making the two films a reality that much sooner. We’ll see how it goes…