{spotlight} feature reports

Elemental Films is the Glasgow-based production company behind One Life Stand, the first UK end-to-end digital feature. The multi-award winning success of the film and the acclaim it received for both technical and artistic achievement consolidated Elemental Films’ reputation as a pioneer of the use of new technology and working methods to enable feature film production in the digital realm. In this candid interview company producer, Owen Thomas, discusses the current state of digital filmmaking and suggests exciting new ways forward for this fast evolving medium.

David O. Selznick famously said that there are two kind of movies that make money – the very cheap and the very expensive. He was getting at the notion of value. This should be the prime consideration; is what you put on screen really worth what you spend to put it there?

If you can’t raise the budget for a shoot on film you may feel forced to use digital. There is another way of looking at this. Is your story based on people, or on the environment? If the latter, you probably shouldn’t be making it anyway even on a ‘good’ budget. If the former, why not positively choose digital? However much money you have, it will buy you greater value.

You can go super-cheap, concentrate on the bare essentials and, possibly, self-finance on DV – and probably never sell the film. The decision then is if the finished value justifies the effort (as a calling card).

If you can pre-sell and raise the finance and so flesh out the core with a choice cast and crew, fine locations, and beautiful photography would the added value generate more revenue to justify the budget and the debilitating interference? If yes, you can still positively choose digital in the form of high definition (HD), which has achieved a level of technical excellence comparable to film, but with greater inherent flexibility.

In general, everyone should consider digital. In the UK budgets are continuing to rise yet the market is increasingly contracting; the possibility of profit is diminishing almost to zero. With digital technology, however, producers can restructure the entire process, removing significant costs without harm and, in many other ways, adding value without expense. We can begin to return to a situation where risk becomes possible and the money goes on screen and not down the pan.

At the Digital or Die Debate in Edinburgh, Paul Trijbits expressed concern that filmmakers will adopt the attitude of ‘Don’t worry about the script or the budget, we’ll just shoot it on DV!’. Do you think that the relative speed and simplicity of filming with digital technology invites underdeveloped projects?

I think he’s absolutely right. I’m not sure though that some of the approaches taken to date by the Film Council will work to reduce this tendency. Several of the digital features they have been involved with seem to have stressed the apparently haphazard, supposedly verité style of production. Also, their financing of 100 digital shorts inevitably invites this approach, sufficient experienced oversight being impossible.

Over the past few years the perception has developed that digital is a rough and ready medium. This is however simply a consequence of it being almost entirely inexperienced filmmakers who have adopted the medium for lack of greater resources. Their films have frequently been made for their own sake and not to satisfy the market. It has not been sufficiently stressed that producing on digital – if a film is to please an audience - requires the exact same degree of talent and care as producing on 35mm.

Concerning development, it is undoubtedly the case that scripts have been weak, but that has been the case with many, many mainstream UK features produced conventionally. It is the lack of planning and aesthetic judgement apparent in the shoot that concerns me more. However strong a script may be, careless, unconsidered direction and editing will kill a film.

More to the point, if development is a problem throughout UK film production, are there ways in which digital could actually improve things? Many much more experienced people than me have stated that the problem with British films is that they are underdeveloped. I’m afraid I tend to feel the opposite; that they are overdeveloped. With films frequently in development for at least three years it is hard to see why taking even longer would help. If you can’t do the job in that time, God help you.

I have a strong suspicion that in many cases it is taking that long simply in order to kick sufficient life out of an original idea, such that no-one is afraid of it any longer. Budgets are now so high (relatively speaking) that nobody dares commit. If digital were properly committed to, taking advantage of the major cost savings of production re-design, then one could afford to commit earlier to scripts that retained much of their original freshness. Time and again it is the novel, eccentric British films that succeed. Yet no-one seems to learn the lesson. Now, with digital, we have the opportunity to actively pursue them without risking everything.

The New Cinema Fund is enthusiastic about digital filmmaking – do you feel it is because of a desire to empower filmmakers and seek out new talent or rather that any bad films which may arise will be much cheaper than the much publicised, expensive bad films for which recent UK filmmakers have been responsible?

The New Cinema Fund was established to identify and bring on new talent, even before the move into digital financing. It does not seem though to have been that adventurous, with apparently a preference for supporting filmmakers with something of a track record in features. It would be a shame if the developing low-budget digital strand is used to confirm this tendency, by ghettoising the able but inexperienced. It will also tend to reinforce the wider view that digital is suitable only for certain kinds of story. After all, there will always be scripts that demand substantial budgets, regardless of the format. If digital is firmed up as the cheap option there will be nowhere for the untried but ambitious to go.

On the latter point, I’d be delighted if bad films cost less. I’d be even happier if good films cost less. Whatever the NCF’s agenda - and I’m not sure they know yet – the late stirrings of interest in digital are positive. It is up to all producers and filmmakers to lobby for the direction they think it should go in. It has too often been the case in the past that new wannabe filmmakers have languished hoping for a ‘democratic’ handout. They have not been bold or aggressive enough in forcing the pace. Digital opens up a whole new realm of possibilities and the opportunity to stop behaving like supplicants. It is for filmmakers to take (or make) the money, not wait to be offered it.

Could it be argued that the process of digital filmmaking results in films being conceptualised in the editing room from a wealth of footage? Can this documentary approach to filmmaking carry over to narrative driven films?

How many different ways are there to make a film? Only one. The one that makes a profit – so you can make the next one. If you can do that based upon informal techniques, well done. I’m not convinced though it will work very often. Rigour is all-important in production. A hundred years of cinema have led the audience to expect certain elements in a film, a certain look, a certain pace, a certain structure. If you attempt to challenge these preconceptions too much you will go broke.

Digital undoubtedly affords higher shooting ratios. Whether this adds value depends, as always, on the people. At worst, slack and unfocussed direction leads to overshooting, in the vain hope that by throwing the camera around for long enough the necessary moment can somehow be caught. At best, with care and decisiveness, there are more takes of more angles of more scenes for an editor to choose from. This can result in a movie better than if it was shot on 35mm for the same budget.

At a deeper, stylistic level, the danger in adopting the ‘documentary’ approach is the failure to rise above realism. Cinema is more than ‘real’. Audiences pay their money to experience something ‘other’, something beyond the accurate, however honest and affecting that may be. A whole history of artifice and glamour is bound up with our experience of watching a movie, and appreciation of that is essential for success. If a documentary approach continues to intrude into feature films it will result in only one thing – the diminishment of cinema and the loss of the audience.

The critic Manny Farber has deplored this very trend by condemning “the image in which there is simultaneously a powerful infatuation with style and with its opposite – vivid, unstoppable actuality.” This however was in the context of the New Wave, in the early 1960s. And whilst audiences certainly appreciate the spontaneity and some of the originality that can result from a less rigid way of working, it needs to be restated that a documentary conception denies digital the potential to reflect the true glory and scale of cinema.

With the previous question in mind, can one assume that hours and hours of inexpensively shot footage will lead to hours and hours of expensive work in the editing suite, thus negating the economy of digital technology?

Not at all. The rise of the DV camera coincided with the development of the low-cost desktop NLE system. This has made editing cheaper and, more importantly, accessible. So, whilst editing for less, one can take longer. This is a huge creative advantage. More time can be devoted to getting the cut right, to experimenting with story structure, to getting the very best out of the material. In essence, the more spent time on the cut, the better the end result is likely to be.

That said, it is important to say yet again that the true economies of digital, exactly as for film, reside in the people using it. It is not the machinery, but the relationships that matter.

In an article entitled ‘Digital Dreams’ (PACT Magazine Jan 2001), Robin Gutch is quoted as saying:

‘In one sense any project can be shot digitally, but I wouldn’t say it would suit every film. The decision to shoot digitally must be driven by the director’s creative vision.’

Does this effectively limit the possibilities of digital film as a medium?

I do agree that any project can be shot digitally but Robin Gutch’s remit at the FilmFour Lab is limited to low budgets, so while his observation seems even-handed, he is not in a position to fully support a director’s vision, if that vision can only be realised for more than $1.5m.

Sadly, this limitation - which in the case of the Lab is explicit - appears implicitly to constrain the vision of the wider industry. For the reasons noted above digital continues to be regarded as inherently inferior to film. Even though current product must, of necessity, be delivered on film irrespective of acquisition format there is a great wariness of digital investment. My simple conclusion is that this is a fear of the unknown, that however often it can be demonstrated that some form of digital is fully competitive it is still too new to be trusted.

Filmmaking is a notoriously conservative business. Only when a successful multiplex breakout hit is achieved on the model that can already be identified for digital production will anyone sit up and consider major investment in the broadest range of stories.

A small point to note is that increasing numbers of expensive (non-UK) films are going through a full digital process, even if not having been shot on tape. Examples are Amelie and Oh Brother Where Art Thou? These were shot on film then scanned to high definition resolution digital data for post-production, and then transferred back to film. The obvious question, is why they were not originated on HD tape? Simply because that was too big a leap into the unknown.

Gas Attack received funding from Channel Four’s documentary budget and its director wanted a documentary look to the film. Can digital filmmaking escape the documentary look which Chris Cooke feels is appreciated by audiences:

‘There’s a fluidity to the DV process, from filming through to distribution. People know it’s within their means and audiences pick up on the documentary immediacy. It’s more instantaneous, more familiar aesthetically.’

Or, in addition to the previous question, can digital filmmaking escape the inevitable link with television production?

The convergence of technologies can’t be denied. After all, what is now described as D-Cinema evolved out of broadcast technology. But implied in the question is the assumption that Gas Attack was conceived of as a piece of cinema, when in fact it was wholly a television production, a drama-documentary. This reflects a recent trend towards television programmes becoming ‘cinema’ after the fact, which perhaps has less to do with the programme-maker’s intentions than the aspirations of the commissioning bodies to promote certain productions beyond their original status in order to access Lottery feature film finance. Given the sway of television companies over the funding of theatrical features and to a limited extent, the inclusion of TV drama at UK film festivals, this can become problematic, since television writ large absolutely does not confer cinematic qualities on a work.

How we break this linkage, I don’t know. But it is not just digital production that is suffering, it is the whole film industry. Scripts for feature films are being developed against a background of television support. This leaves projects stranded between media and, consequently, compromised.

One Life Stand and Gas Attack have been awarded the Best Achievement in Production Award at the British Independent Film Awards in 2000 and 2001 respectively. Some might say that this implies a slightly patronising regard for digital filmmaking – it presents a situation whereby filmmakers are lauded for producing a film in a medium which is held to be somewhat inferior to traditional methods. A sort of ‘didn’t they do well, considering…’ attitude. What is your opinion?

I’d like to see it another way. Raindance always described the award as ‘the most bang for your buck’ prize. I like that. It recognises the achievement of the team in the context of film as a business. Too often awards are given for the slightest and least plausible reasons. There needs to be more emphasis in this country on the skills required to get films made irrespective of the availability (or not) of public funds. There is very little enterprise apparent in our film producing culture – to an extent due directly to the existence of the public funds.

I certainly don’t believe the award has deliberately been given to two digital productions, attempting to demarcate the bounds of possibility. More that, once you get over the hurdle of finding some money and believing it to be enough, the awards demonstrate how little good storytelling is contingent upon a large budget.

Naturally, I like to think One Life Stand stands up as a movie in its own right and might therefore have been nominated in other categories, as reviews suggested it deserved, but I recognise the need for festivals (and juries) to give prizes to films of more prominence at the same time as recognising the merits of work without marketing support. These are the political and economic realities of the system and it is not for any producer to complain, but to get on and cut the deals better next time.

David Mackenzie was quoted in last month’s Sight and Sound, from the transcript of the Digital or Die debate at the EIFF, as saying that ‘One of the great hopes for the creative future is amateurism’. Given the accessibility of digital filmmaking to inexperienced filmmakers, do you think a sudden glut of digitally produced films could have a negative effect on the medium as a whole?

The notion that anyone with enough desire to make a movie can pick up a DV camcorder and do it is now well established. So, precisely because the issue of accessibility is a given, much of the current debate over digital filmmaking is already outdated and, as such, I can’t agree with David. There is no future in amateurism. If you can’t persuade an audience to pay to see competently-made, high budget features, how can you persuade that same audience to watch amateurish self-expression in the guise of cutting edge cinema?

It is strange how often people claim that all that stands between a potential filmmaker and a large audience is the availability of a camera. Obviously, that is like claiming that all that comes between me (for instance) and a best-selling novel is a pencil. People pay to appreciate the skills of a team they could never contemplate being part of. No-one argues with that in sport, or during by-pass surgery.

Last year there were 115 UK features produced - mostly on film - but of which roughly only one-fifth went into distribution. Nobody considers the remaining excess of undistributed films as having a negative effect on the market, so the notion of a similar glut of unseen DV movies having an adverse effect seems unlikely. Indeed, in 35mm terms, it is the quality of the released films that gives cause for concern.

At any rate, the streets of our cities aren’t exactly crowded with camcorder-wielding wannabes. The technology exists but, as we’ve always maintained, it takes more than technology to make a movie. The determined few may choose to make DV movies as an entry to the industry, in a similar way that shorts are made as calling cards, but it won’t have a negative effect. All that will happen is, like for film, there will be a surplus of digital product no-one wants to buy. Or watch. Or ever hears about.

‘The people at the cutting edge of digital film aren’t interested in distribution to multiplexes or arthouses…’ – Chris Cooke. While it can’t be denied that there is a demand for filmmakers for digital technology (for financial or aesthetic reasons) is there a market for their exhibition? Are digitally produced films niche driven – for website exhibition or festival circuits? And if so, what do you feel can be done to change this?

It’s easy to claim you don’t want a big audience, if it doesn’t want you. There’s an odd idea that all that matters is making the damn thing. It isn’t. What matters is a lot of people see it and like it. Then, that they pay you for it. Unless you don’t mind not eating.

Film production does not exist in a vacuum, even when Daddy pays. Sales are as important as scripts. That means an engagement with the established industry whether you like it or not. The trick is determining the balance of interests you can accept (and stay in production). What counts is the story you have, the money you want, the money you raise, and how you spend it.

Where digital is exciting is in the way the balance shifts. It doesn’t have to change what you make, only how you make it. At first sight a lower budget might seem simpler to raise. In fact, it may make things harder because financiers, perversely, may associate higher costs with lower risks (and more fees). But you have the choice and these new relationships will continue to refine themselves.

For me, the only valuable outlet is the cinema, be it multiplex or arthouse. Only with this in mind is it possible to contemplate continuing this great tradition of ambitious popular entertainment. All else follows; the moment you abandon the claim on a large public audience, Cinema dies.

The internet - so what? One day it will be as good as television. And, just as watching movies on TV or video can be great entertainment, so the internet will have its place. But unless a film is made first and foremost for the big screen, with all the ambition that implies, it will never be much of a draw on the small screen. Remember scale, spectacle and magic do not reside wholly in budget or location. They are concomitants of soul. Without aiming high, how deep can we go?

Festivals have their place in promotion, in building a critical mass that leads to commercial exposure and greater revenues, but they have no value in themselves if one is trying to build a business. You don’t get paid in Cannes.

So, if you want to spend a lifetime making movies, and not just polishing your grudges in the pub, you need to get out and sell them to the industry, to get them in the cinemas. Thus, digitally-produced films are no more niche driven than their celluloid counterparts. Indeed, in the UK, where the vast majority of films have a limited budget, with no ‘names’, and marginal marketing, most are niche products in global terms. The deal is rescaling those modest budgets even lower, using digital production, to better reflect the realities of their likely revenues. Like it or not.

With reference to the previous question, do you feel that distributors and exhibitors are willing to embrace digital technology?

Over the last year, we’ve had many conversations with sales companies, distributors and exhibitors in the UK and abroad. Privately, there’s an acknowledgement of the inevitable rise of the digital film, that sooner or later, the industry will have to engage with digital production. Publicly however, they continue to sit on the fence. Financiers and distributors need to be convinced that digital can deliver movies as mainstream in production values as conventional production. And that the odds on profit will be higher.

The situation with exhibitors is still more uncertain because, whilst they have been willing to support trial screenings using digital projection, cinema chains have yet to reach agreement with distributors and studios as to who is prepared to invest in the refit of screens. Indeed, until common standards for delivery and security are agreed for all the links in the distribution chain are established, widespread digital delivery remains a distant prospect. Beyond that, serious concerns may arise over developing monopolies in distribution as a result of digital integration.

End to end digital cinema (D-Cinema) will happen, but I have no doubt that in the main little will change in the way that Hollywood will continue to dominate the industry.

If a filmmaker has actively chosen digital technology for aesthetic reasons, will the film be compromised if it must be transferred to another format for exhibition?

I’m not much concerned with filmmakers choosing digital for aesthetic reasons, if by that you mean attempting a new ‘look’. The audience is not interested in visual experiments (they know what video looks like anyway) but in good stories, beautifully told. My interest is in creating classic cinema for less money. The question for me is better expressed by asking if a transfer to film is a technically compromised process.

The short answer is no. Our tests, and those of other pioneers, have certainly satisfied me that a properly shot digital movie, carefully transferred, can be at least as satisfying aesthetically as one originated on 35mm. I’m not saying you can achieve that having shot on DV, but this is the trade off between budget and opportunity. The result may feel different from viewing the movie electronically, but it is far too early to judge which will be preferred en masse. I happen to prefer digital projection of our HD masters to the 35mm print, as does the director. Our cinematographer prefers the print. No-one is right.

One Life Stand was shot on DV and has never been transferred to film. I suspect, however, that were it to be transferred it would actually look better than when digitally projected. Top end digital projectors are designed primarily to display high definition images and can introduce harshness into a low resolution image. A film transfer can blunt the hard edge of a video image, whilst still much improving contrast, brightness and colour.

I suspect the question follows from the promotion in some quarters of an idea that digital is a competitor to film. It is nothing of the sort, and those who suggest this are frequently people as narrow and self-serving in their view as the film purists who deride digital simply because D W Griffith didn’t use it. Digital is just an opportunity. As is film.

Is digital filmmaking an entirely new kind of filmmaking, in both method and medium, or is it simply a cheaper way to make films?

It’s not an entirely new kind of filmmaking, but digital can be a more efficient way of making better films if the potential for imaginative production is exploited. Story, budget, technology, and skills cannot be separated. More than that, these concrete elements can’t be divorced from the realities of financing. Digital offers the potential for a major restructuring of all these elements and their relationship to the whole.

Over the last decade, the UK film industry has witnessed an unprecedented growth in the level of state subsidy for production, yet there’s little evidence to suggest that subsidy has helped to create a self-sustaining business.

The situation is clearly untenable, with companies juggling many projects for many years, each in a state of suspended animation (‘development’). Eventually, maybe, one gets financed by pre-selling rights, with top-ups from broadcasters and the state, and perhaps raising revenue through tax schemes and shelters. They arrive at the absurdity of compromised, complex, multi-partner co-production agreements for what are the most modestly budgeted pictures. It’s a zero-sum game, since by the time a project reaches principal photography, producers have forfeited any practical ownership and hence have no participation and no way of reinvesting in their future projects. This creates a vicious circle, where producers have come to rely wholly on public subsidy for survival. In effect they’ve become wage slaves, competing for the limited subsidies available.

By exploiting the creative and cost benefits of digital, there is at last some hope that producers can break the circle and begin to retain some ownership of their properties; they can reduce the number of voices they must listen to and scale back their dependence on state subsidy. The choice is simple – either we can continue to work under the existing system, where production occurs on an ad hoc basis, after long gestation, with almost entirely unprofitable results, or we can determine to get movies made with the new tools at our disposal, on lower budgets and shorter timescales, and consequently with better and more rewarding results.

As we always say, life’s too short not to make movies.

Owen Thomas, Producer,
Elemental

www.elementalfilms.co.uk

www.projectx.uk.com

<< Back to 'Feature Reports' index.