The “Cinematic Look” – Part Two

Recently I wrote a post What Does “Cinematic” Even Mean Now? The idea for the post came from a conversation we were having in our mobile movie making group (Facebook).

Someone asked, “how can I make my footage look cinematic?” We’re talking about beginners here, mostly. But, you know, today’s beginners are tomorrow’s Spielbergs.

So I suggested people watch films. You know, great films from the last 100 years (or more) of film history. We got a bit of a conversation going, and everyone had a different idea of what cinematic was. So, Andrea suggested I write a post about it.

Well, we’ve had a huge reaction to this post, more than 3 times any previous post. Reading some of the reactions has inspired me to write a little more about why I wrote this post in the first place.

Before I wrote anything, first thing I did was google “how to make my video cinematic”. The example YouTube tutorial came up as Google top recommendation. And I’ve seen a lot of these. The guy has 1.3 million views and is selling a book on top.

My interest, here, is in how the web and its algorithms are narrowing down what gets seen; and what is perceived as “cinematic”. The same effect can be seen in other arts, like music, for example.

I think if Picasso had had to rely on the web for promotion, I think he would have been a very different artist. After getting 3 likes for his unconventional painting and “It totally sucks! You need to learn to paint dude!” he would have gone back to painting “proper” pictures, because it would have been the only way to make a living…

It’s not that these kind of feedback loops haven’t existed before. Of course they have – it’s human nature. People accept something is good because the majority of people they know say it is.

Now we buy something because it has a good number of high star ratings online. That many people can’t all be wrong, can they? And who has time to check the specs of every single thing you buy against the competition?

With those web algorithms, the effect of “it’s good because everyone says it’s good” is accelerated.

So what?

Well, wander speculatively into the future with me, for a moment. If the majority decide “cinematic” means bokeh effect, smooth shots, widescreen bars and simple grading effects, how long before cameras come with a “cinema effect” button? Once manufacturers achieve the effects “in camera”, everyone’s videos will end up looking the same.

If the algorithm analyses thousands of movies, works out which ones gets more views and which ones gets more likes, then replicates it in your camera, what filmmaker is going to turn that down?

At that point, the art of cinematography becomes valueless. Who needs the skill and creativity of a cinematographer when your camera is programmed to give you the shot fine-tuned to match precisely what the “audience wants”. A look which has been pushed by relentless YouTube tutorials. More and more filmmakers follow the 4 rules of the cinematic look, and their films then live or die on the filmmaker’s ability to accomplish that look.

I realise I may sound like an old sailor, lamenting the passing of wooden ships, because “they sure are more beautiful than these new metal ones”. Well, actually, the situation we’re in now is we have metal ships, but to encourage people to get on board we feel the need to make them look like wooden ones. Except we’ve decided to only take our inspiration from a 3 masted barque…

Getting Google-Eyed

Personally, I like to have one eye on the past and one on the future. I certainly don’t believe there’s any single look which a film must have to be “professional” or “cinematic”. But I come from a family of artists, so I tend to look at things from an artistic point of view, rather than a technical one.

Picasso sometimes used ordinary house paint, sometimes expensive oils. Presumably, it depended on what he wanted to achieve. Or maybe it was simply what he had to hand at that moment.

“It took me four years to paint like Rafael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.” – Picasso.

Why not learn from the past, without being obsessed with it, whilst occasionally trying something new? Because if a society’s culture doesn’t experiment and invent new ways, then that culture becomes stale. If everyone’s films start looking the same, and the same storyline is applied each time, then we might as well just watch one movie, on an eternal loop.

Is cinematography an art, or a technical expertise? I would say it’s a mixture of the two. In an ideal world, there would be a sliding scale from 100% art to 100% technical, and any point along that scale is valid (even if you don’t like it). Because for something to be an art form, it has to have some level of experimentation. If you’re not taking risks then, in my opinion, you’re practicing a craft.

It’s actually the artists taking risks who keep an artform alive. Creating new ideas for the YouTubers of tomorrow to copy, once they’re established as the new “cinematic look”.

Lens flares were considered an error by cinematographers, until films like Easy Rider used them to create a more authentic, documentary-style look. So, if YouTube existed in 1955, it would be full of videos telling you how to avoid getting lens flares, as they would ruin your footage and mark you as unprofessional.

I guess the question to mull over is, do you want to be one of the copiers and followers, or one of leaders and innovators?

Eager to learn more?

Join our weekly newsletter featuring inspiring stories, no-budget filmmaking tips and comprehensive equipment reviews to help you turn your film projects into reality!



