Nolan in India: Cinematographers compare grains to pixels

To mark director Christopher Nolan’s visit to Mumbai for a series of events that espouses the use of celluloid, we ask six cinematographers if they are nostalgic for film or happy with the practicality of the digital medium

March 29, 2018 08:59 pm | Updated April 02, 2018 03:30 pm IST

Christopher Nolan, the maker of modern classics like Memento , Insomnia , The Prestige , Inception , The Dark Knight trilogy, Interstellar and Dunkirk , arrives in Mumbai, with celebrated visual artiste Tacita Dean, to unspool a celebration of celluloid this weekend. The duo will be headlining the three-day event presented by Mumbai-based Film Heritage Foundation — Reframing the Future of Film — that will spotlight the medium of photochemical film.

Who could be more intimate with film than a cinematographer? To mark the celluloid celebration, The Hindu asked the ace names in the business about their memories of it, the transition from film to digital, how grains compare to pixels, the challenges of the two mediums, the possibility of their co-existence, and, most importantly, how to rewind to film and reposition its importance in this aggressively digital world. We got some eloquent, passionate responses and well-argued critique:

Ayananka Bose : “…there is something unique about the way silver reacts to light.”

My last film venture and first digital venture were the same film — Student of the Year (2012). I shot all the scenes on film; all the sports sections were on digital. It was a conscious decision taken to embrace the inevitable transition to digital. It seemed like the death of film was a certainty and it was important to adapt. Each format has its own advantages and disadvantages. Film cannot be beaten, there is something unique about the way silver reacts to light. Film is unbeatable when it is shot on film and released on film. The negative is done full justice when printed on positive.

We have adapted to the new looks that digital offers us and have made it the new standard. The mystery of what the final image will look like has vanished in the day of digital since [image-making] it’s instantaneous. At an emotional level I miss the smell of the emulsion, the sound of the Maltese cross [provides the intermittent Geneva movement that stops each frame of the continuously moving film in front of the picture aperture, where it can be projected] running at 24 frames per second, the aura and mystery that would surround a can of exposed raw stock.

I miss the respect surrounding the craft of cinematography as today everyone is a cameraman with an iPhone. I am sceptical [about rewinding to film], it feels like a huge conspiracy theory to have pushed [in] all this digital technology. When so much has been invested by all how do you go back and recover this investment? Why or how would one go through buying film cameras or repairing film cameras all over again?

I question one basic thing: we shoot on film and then convert to digital. Are we not killing it right there? Perhaps it’s better than shooting on digital but does this process really outweigh it? As an environmentally aware person I would support digital [as] film can be quite environmentally unfriendly.

Sudeep Chatterjee : “The uncertainty added to the magic”

I trained on film and shot right up till Guzaarish (2010) on film. It was with Dhoom 3 (2013) that I went into the digital zone. But we still shoot like film. The round strip of film, the sensor would have changed but the job is still the same—to visualise and bring a scene alive. Do I miss film? Yes, in a romantic kind of a way. And I think the element of choice should be there—shoot this on film and that on digital. Both should co-exist. The new film I am shooting for right now, I would have preferred to do it on film.

I like things to be organic. Film makes things more palpable, the connect is richer. Digital is better from a practical point of view. You can see the image right away. The uncertainties and guess work get taken away. But that uncertainty added to the magic. That is what cinema is all about. Human errors add to the magic, add life to the processed film. It also required you to be more disciplined. The moment was very precious. With digital you can keep rolling. The sanctity of the shot gets taken away. There is no need for rehearsals either.

Shaji.N.Karun : “It was almost like murder, what they did to film”

I held out till the National Award-winning film Kutty Srank (2010), resisting the digital onslaught, until it became almost impossible to make films. It was only in 2014, with Swapaanam that I finally bid goodbye to film.

Most of the labs in India had closed down. The equipment had all become digital in just a few years. All this was part of wilful moves made by the big companies who had invested [in digital technology]. They had to get back profits for their investment. It was almost like murder, what they did to film. A beautiful technology was wiped out so fast. It is a perfect subject for business management experts to study. There is a lack of standardisation right now in digital, especially in the image reproduction systems.

I like the hidden details in films, the element of physical contact and ‘spirituality’, which I associate with the whole process of working with film. A huge devoted team that was part of this has disappeared. The still photographers in the film days used to shoot about 100 stills, now they give you 10,000 stills, as if they are unsure of the moment they wanted to capture. The argument that digital had democratised filmmaking is not always right. Democracy should be for the creation of a better, intelligent society, which is not always happening in this case.Celluloid will make a comeback; it disappeared as a result of an artificial, manufactured crisis.

As told to S.R. Praveen

Anil Mehta : ‘The bench mark for image making in cinema remains film’

For image originators, digital almost caught up on us from the back, meaning that digital projection and DI (digital intermediate) came first, then digital origination of images. Digital cameras meant for cinema also took a while to evolve. Here’s the gentle irony; the benchmark for digital was always the ‘film image’ or the ‘filmic look’. It still is the preoccupation with most cinematographers.

I resisted using digital [until] I felt digital cameras had reached a certain level of sophistication in image making and ergonomics. Then, the movie chose the medium; Highway (2013). A road movie where I would be in inaccessible locations, filming long hours and takes, would have little or no ‘lighting gear’, would work into the late hours of the evening and night. Digital suddenly felt right for that particular film. We worked with a fabulous camera that Sony made, called F 65; it was a friend on this tough journey. The transition was friendly, so, in that sense, I am not ‘nostalgic’. The bottom line remains; that till digital was able to mimic film it was not worth it. The benchmark for image making in cinema remains film.

Digital is a way of life now. The infrastructure required to support traditional filmmaking is collapsing, which makes originating on film a difficult choice in India. If the market forces would allow the infrastructure to exist, I am sure cinematographers would take the option based on the nature of the movie. It is so charming to watch a film like Carol shot on 16mm and see the dance of film grain. One medium never replaces another. Film is not going anywhere till commerce dictates otherwise.

Some myths about digital have been deconstructed. It is not cheaper; hardware and software updates negate that. The change in habitat has changed attitudes; directors are rolling many more hours of raw footage; digital bleeds endlessly, analog/organic coagulates faster. It is not faster because the endless options slow down decision making. It is not faithful because every viewing device is running on different parameters and the parameters are always changing. Since change is the only constant; digital will be our playground in the future. However, it would be tragic to lose film along the way.

Rajeev Ravi : “Only a privileged few still hold nostalgia for celluloid”

Is material so important for art? Content of the art is more important than anything else. Digital has made filmmaking easy. Of course, there will be quite a lot of below par works being made. Let them do it. People will choose what is good. I recently shot a film with a simple A7S II camera, which was of immense use while doing interior shots in Kamathipura. I wouldn’t have been able to do that earlier.

Who is watching in celluloid nowadays? Digital viewing in India has increased manifold in the past couple of years. People here are struggling to survive. They don’t have enough money to spare in the theatres. Are we going to preach the greatness of celluloid to them? Only a small section of people, a privileged few, still hold nostalgia for celluloid.

The two parts of Gangs of Wasseypur (2012) were my last works on celluloid. I made the shift with Monsoon Shootout (2013). I love shooting on celluloid but there are the practical and political sides of the issue.

You shoot on celluloid, you transfer it to digital and then you watch it on digital. If you are consuming it on digital, what is the point? Also, working on celluloid might be more expensive now. One technology is over and we have transitioned to the next. You might be nostalgic about a certain technology, but among the common people who watch movies on their mobiles, it does not matter.

As told to S.R. Praveen

Santosh Sivan : “Film is like oil and digital acrylic”

The [technology of] image captures keep on changing. Like a painting is an original, in photography the negative is the original and in digital it is like a flame can make original copies. I had experimented with digital in still photography and I did try and blend the two in Urumi (2011). Later I did Thuppaki (2012) totally digitally, a first for a big film. The decision was [taken] because we had to use multiple cameras and [execute] candid captures with actors in crowded Mumbai streets.

Digital is more immediate. There is flexibility in cameras in that you can have them rigged literally on anything. Film has an organic quality to it. It’s kinder to faces, it has living grain and it captures the subtle colours. And, of course, it is nostalgia! There was always this waiting period after filming, when the film would be processed and printed and then screened. There was more discipline in filming, since film was revered and it was expensive too. So there was a lot more focus from everyone on every take. Film is like oil and digital acrylic.

The best bet is a blend of the two. Digital platforms have displaced film projection in theatres. It would be interesting, as it’s done by some in the West, to shoot on film, then scan it to digital, and embrace the best of the two worlds. I did try to use film and visited Cine Labs in Slough, U.K., where they still process it. Even in the new Mani Ratnam film [ Chekka Chivantha Vaanam ] that I am currently filming, we did try and figure possibilities of using film. Unfortunately the [lack of] processing plants and easy access to film changed our decision.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.