Technology has always been the main threat of tradition. The core essence of the filmmaking industry has not evolved because of changes in the audiences, ownerships or content. It has evolved because of the technological push given by the modernizing world, affecting the audiences, ownerships and content. A new medium that promises faster and more exciting editing, more flexible sound recording, and beautiful visual effects has arisen within the past decade . The digitizing of film production and distribution is threatening traditional filmmaking and changing the content of films.
[...] The ownership of creative ideas and property has subtly shifted from the independent director to the commercial retailer. By securing the marketing of a film so early in its development, the industry has commercialized the ownership of the movie. This great change is the result of a rise of popularity in digital home entertainment. Though ownership is commercialized, because the market for the movie is secured, the content of the movie can focus on profitability as opposed to marketability. Commercial Freedom of Content The corporation's goal is to make money. [...]
[...] When altering the image, the cinematographer alters the image in its entirety- letting the film automatically create an image without the intervention of human manipulation.[4] With the forthcoming of digital filmmaking and digital special effects, it is this essential role of the cinematographer that is altered. The cinematographer now has total manipulative control over the aesthetics of the imagery. The film no longer captures an image, but captures a canvas on which the cinematographer may paint. This new role of the cinematographer is the essential change in filmmaking brought by the digital era. [...]
[...] This ability has given rise to many more quality independent filmmakers.[8] These independent institutions, with independent content in their films, portray a sense of professionalism. Through the use of enabling technology, the films seem to embody a sufficiency worthy of profit. Because of digital video, these institutions could produce “films that, on a smaller scale, replicate the exploitation marketing and box-office performance of the major studio high-concept event pictures.”[9] Corporations eventually took notice and bought out many of these previously independent companies. [...]
[...] The digitalization of filmmaking is not beneficial for any aspect of film tradition, but it has sufficiently aided in the rise of the independent film industry. The benefit of having radical ideas that are owned by a corporation is perhaps best known by Michael Moore: you're going to attack a big bad corporation in your film, it will help to have another big bad corporation in your corner.”[14] Works Cited Basuroy, Suman and S. Abraham Ravid. “Managerial Objectives, the R-Rating Puzzle, and the Production of Violent Films.” Journal of Business vol no.2, pt (2004): S155-S192. [...]
[...] Emergence of Filmic Artifacts: Cinema and Cinematography in the Digital Era.” Film Quarterly Vol No (2004): 24-33. Prince, Stephen. A New Pot of Gold: Hollywood Under the Electronic Rainbow. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons “Romancing the Disc.” Economist February 2004: 57 “Sustaining Sponsors.” 2005 Sundance Film Festival Dec < http:> Geuens, Jean-Pierre, Digital World Picture,” Film Quarterly, Vol No (2002): 16. Prince, Stephen, A New Pot of Gold: Hollywood Under the Electronic Rainbow (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2000) Prince, Stephen, Emergence of Filmic Artifacts: Cinema and Cinematography in the Digital Film Quarterly (2004): 26. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
