The Micro Feature

I have trouble thinking too big, even when I am trying to change the world. That sounds like a paradox of course, but what I am admitting to is a basic inability I have to really comprehend the inner workings of societal macro-structures. In that I include not only the running of countries and economies, but also large corporations. Though I do feel that there must inherently be something useful in large corporate cultures (as millions are employed by corporations) yet the impersonal nature, and betrayals of greed from them have left a bad taste in my mouth. I used to be one of the owners of my family business, Tech Pro, which was a small high tech scientific instrumentation firm. Though we had global scope, we always thought very micro in a sense. We focused on understanding our limited, but important customers, our few dedicated, and wonderful employees, and the technology that we invented and made. This didn't produce a large business, but did produce a profitable small one. This is not the way most people think of small businesses. Tech Pro was not a family store. It was computer science, material science and international business. Yet we were relatively small. This is a model that I think could apply to a number of businesses including our new business Nanotronics Imaging. The question I ask myself is whether in an age of instant media, it can also be an effective model for the movies.
Like so many people of the last hundred years, I grew up not only living with movies, but wanting to make them. I even studied acting, directed plays, and shot a television commercial. There is nothing unique in dreaming of being a filmmaker. It is though somewhat like dreaming of being president, or being an astronaut. Being a filmmaker has always been left to a very few. There have always been hobbyists, making home movies, or low budget features, but until very recently making a movie required a lot of money. Even now when talking to film producers, or listening to interviews an auteur will remark "this was such a cheap film. We made it for 10 Million". Of course it goes without saying that to do anything that cost a mere 10 million, you must either be working for an enormous corporation or already wealthy yourself.
Painters and composers have always been fortunate. If you had a canvas, some paints, or pen and paper you could do your art. I admit that even that was difficult for some artists, such as Van Gogh, who had to beg for housing, or money for paints. Still, the painter could express himself with a few easy to get tools. At least that has always been my impression. The reality for painters is however that they need to know a lot. They need to understand color, lighting, perspective, as well as have a unique vision in order to not just be doodlers but recognized professionals
For the first time in films history, the filmmaker is like the painter used to be. Nearly everyone can make a film. There are multiple sources for production, from HD Video to cell phones. There are also a growing number of distribution methods, which even at the beginning of this decade didn't exist. There is of course You Tube, and HuLu, but also Facebook and Myspace. There are cinemas that show films, computers to watch films, video on demand, and a growing amount of I-Phone content. So this is indeed an exciting time if you have dreamed about being a film maker. No longer are film makers reliant on studios, or even the film festival circuit. The one thing that we tend to forget though is that like the painter, anyone can do it, but it is not easy to do it well. Most people know this to an extent. They realize that they need to learn how to use the camera, and some basic editing software. They may even become very good at this. What is often missed however are some basics, which the great film makers of the past did an excellent job with. I am not an expert on filmmaking, but as a scientist, technologist, and amateur in film production, I have some opinions on how the micro budget feature might become a reality.
The following two areas that are not considered by many people to be mandatory, but that I consider being important to creating quality film:

1. Theatre and story – In an interview at the Apple Store in SoHo Francis Ford Coppola recommended that young film makers should not just shoot little films, but put on one act plays. I think this is an excellent idea. After all, Orson Wells started in theatre, and learned drama from learning Shakespeare. He learned how to work with actors while directing and acting in the theatre. Theatre uses cutting in a different way. The director allows the audience to see multiple things at once, because he has no choice. This makes you aware of composition in interesting ways. You tend to see where your eyes are repeatedly drawn to. The film director can use that experience to make choices for the camera.
   
2. Optics and lighting – An understanding of optics was a necessity for the film maker of the past. Only with understanding magnification, depth of field, and spectral variance could a film maker capture a quality image. With HD video, many assume that this knowledge is not as important. This has cut down on budgets, as directors are not as reliant on expensive cinematographers. This is a good thing of course, but the quality, in my view, has suffered. Films look like amateurs shot them. This could be compared to 19^th century naturist literature, except for a very crucial difference. The naturalist literature dealt with real life in more natural ways, but the writer was still an expert at his craft. Emile Zola was as artful as Victor Hugo, even though one was Romantic and one Naturalist. The reason is that the both understood writing. For an understanding of filmmaking, the tools need to be an understanding of how optics work, and how lighting can be exploited, and manipulated.
   

These two points may sound obvious, but I am not sure they are. I think that new film makers can learn a lot from the struggles of the founders of the medium, which were lab scientists in France and New Jersey, as well as story tellers who came from the stage. The most rewarding thing about living now however that is with knowledge, not money, a vision can be realized. There is no technical reason why a film needs to cost so much.

As I finish this essay, I wonder why I am writing this at all. I am not a film maker, and not likely to become one. The reason is that I am a romantic. I want to live in a time where humans have a unique and profound understanding of the universe and can create great art. I think that the ability to do a lot with a little does two important things. It makes it possible for more people to invent (or make movies), and it takes away a huge amount of financial anxiety. The anxiety that comes with raining and managing Millions of dollars not only prevents many people from doing things, but also makes those that do it often unhappy. So, I hope that someone can figure out how to do white balance on a cell phone, distribute it for free, and make a living. This is not yet possible, but only will be when the people making the cheap movies are better than the ones making the expensive ones. Lucky for them, most big budgets movies are not "Citizen Kane" anymore. There is certainly room for genius.