President’s Desk
If ever there were commandments regarding the ASC’s approach to cinematography, here they are:
1. Technology is a tool that works in the service of creativity.
2. We embrace any and all technologies that help us better achieve our vision.
And then there’s the one that seems to be beyond the grasps of a lot of people outside our organization, to wit:
I’ve expressed these sentiments at least a dozen times during the run of this column, and
I’ve explained them thousands of times to people I’ve encountered in my travels. It’s not overstating
the importance of these statements to say that everything we do flows from them in one sense or another.
Though our society is overwhelmed with examples of willful ignorance, the motivation behind them is something I’ve never
understood. Most people are lazy and will accept what they’re told or what they read without serious question. They can’t be
blamed for having been denied an opportunity to learn, but it’s another thing entirely to resist that chance when it lies within easy
reach.
The March 20, 2006, issue of Time magazine features an article by film critic Richard Corliss titled “Can This Man Save the
Movies Again?” The piece begins with the usual wide-eyed admiration for emerging technologies and is brought to a boil by a
poorly informed contempt for proven hardware and methods. And of course, there’s the requisite perpetuation of certain inaccuracies and misconceptions, along with a good dose of celebrity posterior-kissing. You’ve heard it all before on innumerable occasions,
so I won’t bore you with details. Mr. Corliss, who is a true film aficionado and should know better, apparently never contacted
anyone averse to spouting the familiar palaver. He also neglected to include the views of anyone who might bring a less biased
perspective to the table. Par for the course. Beyond the pages of the publication you are now reading (and perhaps one or two
others), it appears that journalism and a reasonably honest appraisal of the state of our art form are an incompatible mix.
Why, then, doesn’t anyone ever ask us, the customers, the end users, the artists, what we demand of digital technology?
Maybe this will help:
We need a universally interoperable system of color management. We need a digital printer-light capability. We need
cameras that are durable, smaller, lighter, unencumbered by cables, and engineered to do the same thing every time out. We need
a realistic plan that will facilitate the introduction of a digital-projection system to theaters around the world. But before that, digital projection needs improvement in black levels, contrast, resolution and color space. What we don’t need is more hype of the sort
that appears in Mr. Corliss’ article. That just creates unrealistic expectations that ultimately hold back the progress the article so
desperately claims to espouse.
But there is one point Mr. Corliss makes — albeit unintentionally — that concisely validates what’s expressed by those
commandments listed above. With reference to the spectacular nature of the Imax format as a possible lure to bring audiences back
to theaters, he states, “… there’s no conclusive evidence that the billions it would take to go digital would be repaid by a box-office
surge.” He then quotes Kurt Hall, president and CEO of National CineMedia, the marketing arm of AMC, Cinemark and Regal Entertainment Group, who says, “Our research shows the audience generally isn’t going to pay more and isn’t going to go more.” My
point precisely. To paraphrase a presidential campaign slogan from the 1990s, “It’s the story, stupid.”
Let’s not fool ourselves. A microscopically small portion of the public and the industry cares about us and what we do. Good
cinematography, while complementing many wonderful films, has never been the thing that draws crowds to bad films. And lessthan-stellar shooting has never harmed some of our greatest hits. Even at this late date, the play’s the thing, and it always will be.
It’s also a given that we must be superb masters of the tools we use. Absent that, the true essence of what we do — our
taste as expressed through the application of technology — is rendered moot. Audiences may not be able to articulate or deconstruct their response to cinematography, but if we slack off in our vigilance over the development of new items, our artistry will
suffer and they will begin to notice. And instead of marking the beginning of the end of what we do, that will be the end.
Richard P. Crudo, ASC
President
10 May 2006
American Cinematographer
Photo by Douglas Kirkland.
3. New is not synonymous with improved.