DIGITAL CINEMA

QUICK TAKES: MOVIES AND POPULAR CULTURE

Quick Takes: Movies and Popular Culture is a series offering succinct overviews and high-quality writing on cutting-edge themes and issues in film studies. Authors offer both fresh perspectives on new areas of inquiry and original takes on established topics.

SERIES EDITORS:

Gwendolyn Audrey Foster is Willa Cather Professor of English and teaches film studies in the Department of English at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Wheeler Winston Dixon is the James Ryan Endowed Professor of Film Studies and professor of English at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Rebecca Bell-Metereau, Transgender Cinema

Blair Davis, Comic Book Movies

Steven Gerrard, The Modern British Horror Film

Barry Keith Grant, Monster Cinema

Daniel Herbert, Film Remakes and Franchises

Ian Olney, Zombie Cinema

Valérie K. Orlando, New African Cinema

Stephen Prince, Digital Cinema

Dahlia Schweitzer, L.A. Private Eyes

Steven Shaviro, Digital Music Videos

David Sterritt, Rock ’n’ Roll Movies

John Wills, Disney Culture

Digital Cinema

STEPHEN PRINCE

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY PRESS

New Brunswick, Camden, and Newark, New Jersey, and London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Prince, Stephen, 1955– author.

Title: Digital cinema / by Stephen Prince.

Description: New Brunswick, New Jersey : Rutgers University Press, 2019. |

Series: Quick takes: movies and popular culture | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017060273| ISBN 9780813596273 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780813596266 (pbk. : alk. paper)

Subjects: LCSH: Digital cinematography. | Motion pictures—History—21st century.

Classification: LCC TR860 .P78 2018 | DDC 777—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017060273

A British Cataloging-in-Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

Copyright © 2019 by Stephen Prince

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher. Please contact Rutgers University Press, 106 Somerset Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901. The only exception to this prohibition is fair use as defined by US copyright law.

∞ The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.

www.rutgersuniversitypress.org

Manufactured in the United States of America

FOR SUSAN

CONTENTS

Introduction

1. Cinema as Construction: Then and Now

2. Reasons for Realism

3. Cheating Physics

4. Beyond Cinema

5. Everywhere and Nowhere

Acknowledgments

Further Reading

Works Cited

Index

About the Author

DIGITAL CINEMA

INTRODUCTION

On May 9, 1893, Thomas Edison’s kinetoscope had its public premiere. It was a peep-box device permitting a single viewer to look inside at a brief strip of film running over a light source. Intermittent motion and a shutter brought the sequential images to life. The image was not projected, and only one viewer at a time could sample the show. In this regard, the device did not have much longevity. The future of movies as a mass medium would be based on projected images viewed publicly by large audiences.

But we should not conclude that the kinetoscope and its single viewer are artifacts of cinema’s prehistory. Time has doubled back on itself. In the digital era, solitary, small-screen viewing experiences are common. Mobile devices such as cell phones and tablets are today’s counterparts of the kinetoscope, affording viewing pleasures and forms of spectatorship that need not be shared as part of a group. In the digital era, cinema has assumed myriad forms, and its viewers encounter it in numerous ways and contexts. It was not always so. For much of the history of cinema, it had a defined shape and location. One left the home and entered a public space to see flickering images projected on a large screen. It was a collective and social experience.

And yet, though the interval between the kinetoscope and mobile video streaming is a long one, cinema itself has continually been reinvented. Filming and projection speeds were variable during the silent era until sound required that they be fixed and standardized. Black-and-white was the default medium for realism until color took its place in the middle 1960s. The shape of the projected image went from square to rectangular, and sound, when it finally arrived, went from a monochannel optical track to multichannel and digital formats. The machinery of cinema has been refined, upgraded, and altered, but for most of its history, it remained a photochemical medium in which a strip of film went from camera to lab to projector and thence to public viewing.

In the digital era, film has all but vanished, and in these pages, I wish to look at some of the contours and contexts of this vanishing and ask about its consequences. To what extent is cinema’s reinvention in the digital era a game changer? Does it represent a decisive or definitive alteration to the medium as compared with earlier eras? Does electronic image creation and distribution represent a new order of change for the medium compared with the earlier revisions to its technology?

Exploring these questions, I take a prismatic approach. The angle of view, the conclusions reached, and the tone of discussion shift across the chapters, moving from conservative and reassuring to a more radical and bleaker outlook. Chapter 1 considers the relationship between cinema’s analog and digital eras with regard to image creation and design. To what extent is the relationship between these eras one of continuity or rupture? In what ways does digital filmmaking build on and import image-making practices from the photochemical era and its storytelling conventions, and in what ways are we in wholly new territory? To answer these questions, I trace the factors and conditions that clarify the nature of cinema’s analog-digital relationship when construed at the level of the image and its creation.

Chapter 2 examines cinema within a realist context and asks how concepts and methods of realist image making have persisted in the digital era. Realism is, arguably, a foundational concept in cinema that orients filmmaking practices and provides a framework within which viewers make assessments about movies and their images, stories, characters, and representations of familiar worlds. Within film theory, concepts of realism have been tied to photography, to photochemical imaging and the ways that a photochemical image is said to contain visible traces of those things that were before the camera. In a digital world, pixels are protean and are not fixed in the way that a photochemical image is. Darkroom printing uses a fixer as the final stage in stabilizing the printed image and finishing it. No such comparable stage exists in digital imaging, which means that digital images can be endlessly altered. Does this mean that realism fails to operate or operates differently when images are electronically generated? Chapter 2, like its predecessor, finds that the continuities between the analog and digital eras are persuasive and strong.

Chapters 3–5 construct an alternative point of view about the relation between analog and digital. Chapter 3 examines how the digital era has enabled filmmakers to overcome the physical limitations that prevailed in earlier eras of filmmaking. These limitations were imposed by physical resources and by filmmaking equipment, and they restricted filmmakers in their ability to transcend physics in the depiction of characters and story situations. Filmmakers cheat physics today in numerous ways that can be more complex, ostentatious, or blatant than before. This practice, which is widespread, brings both advantages and disadvantages to contemporary filmmaking and has consequences for the ways that filmmakers, critics, and audiences feel about representative works. Cheating physics has become routine in the digital era, offering both blossom and blemish.

Chapter 4 looks at the emergence of a limit point for cinema, the appearance of a new medium that challenges cinema and its promise to deliver to viewers visual experiences that are supremely immersive and optically enveloping. For most of the history of cinema, it was the reigning champion at providing audiences with a projective illusion in which their experience of inhabiting a representational world was impressively persuasive and convincing. Virtual reality, however, has taken this experience to levels of perceptual immersion that go far beyond what cinema has provided. I examine the relationship of cinema and virtual reality with regard to medium characteristics and to their abilities to handle narrative, and I ask whether these might be one medium or are fundamentally different from each other. To the extent that the latter is true, cinema has a competitor that goes much further in providing projective illusion, a competitor and to some extent a replacement that the digital era has enabled.

Chapter 5 offers the most radical revision of the conclusions reached in chapters 1 and 2. It looks at the many ways that viewers encounter movies today and therefore at the means by which movies are distributed and circulate throughout culture. The shift away from a photochemical medium has entailed much-bigger changes than the loss of film. These include the loss of hard media formats in cinema, music, and literature. They have been replaced by licensed electronic content available as digital streaming or downloads. On the one hand, streaming makes many things accessible for viewers, and it is cheap and convenient. But it also threatens to erase much of cinema’s past and makes continued access to classic works more unpredictable and precarious than it was during the eras of hard media. Moreover, the physical resources required by the emergence of a global electronic culture may be environmentally unsustainable. In this regard, the digital matrix in which cinema now exists may prove threatening both to the medium’s past and to its present continuity as a means for archiving human experience.

The perspectives that I am offering about digital cinema shift across the chapters in ways that I hope will suggest some of the topic’s complexity. The kind of answers that one gives to questions about the relation between analog and digital cinema depends on the lens that one uses to frame the questions, the places that one looks, and the angle of view that one takes. This is prismatic and appropriately so because it is much like cinema itself. Cameras tell true lies about the world and about what they show. In my prismatic shifts of view across the chapters, I have tried to capture some of these truths and some of the myths.

1

Cinema as Construction

Then and Now

Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park (1993) was not the first film with digital visual effects, but its box-office success made it the one that caused Hollywood to sit up and take notice. Those digital dinosaurs were revenue heaven. Over the film’s lifetime, Jurassic Park earned more than $1 billion, and, of course, it spawned numerous profitable sequels. It seems reasonable, therefore, to ask a couple of questions in relation to the film and to what it may signify for cinema at large. If any single film can be taken as a benchmark, a historical marker gesturing toward that moment when cinema’s analog identity and heritage gives way to a digital future, is it Jurassic Park? Or might it be Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones (2002), the first high-profile blockbuster to be shot digitally? In a larger context, what is the relation between cinema’s analog past and its digital present? Is this relationship best understood as one of continuity or rupture? Is there an analog/digital divide, much as there was with silent and sound cinema?

The idea of a divide tends to suggest that a break has occurred between modes, eras, or technologies. Sound filmmaking did replace silent cinema; digital image capture has largely replaced shooting on film. But in significant respects, the transition from film-based to digital formats has been slower and more gradual than was the industry’s conversion to sound. Twenty years before Jurassic Park, computer graphics had appeared in Hollywood movies in the science fiction films