Side By Side (2012)

As a film-lover and as an opinionated nerd who loves a good debate/discussion/argument, I was greatly looking forward to watching Side By Side. A film where Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorsese, Robert Rodriguez, David Lynch and countless others weigh in on the pros and cons of digital filmmaking versus the classic celluloid approach? Sounds like catnip for cinephiles! I went into this film expecting multiple interviews on the subjects of digital cameras and shooting on film, but what this film offers is so much more than that.

Couched within this central debate is a chronicle of the digital filmmaking movement, from the hesitantly-received early days of Chuck & Buck and 28 Days Later, to its wider and wider acceptance via films directed by the likes of David Fincher and James Cameron. This film was a nice stroll down memory lane, reminding me of what an exciting and frustrating time the 2000s were. How far we had come in such a short time. In the span of just a few years we went from a few indie films being shot on grainy camcorders to “Did you hear? Digital cameras are going to take over! Film is dead. George Lucas said so!” Almost a decade later we know that wasn't exactly the case, but scary times they were nonetheless.

This film also covers more than just the advent of digital cameras. It focuses on all the different aspects of moviemaking that went digital over the last decade ie: editing, on-set playback, digital color grading and digital projectors. You are able to get a sense of how it affected not just directors of photography, but also how editors and visual effects artists had to adapt (whether they wanted to or not) to the new challenges of this new technology. Suddenly, directors were able to keep the camera rolling longer (thus allowing more creativity with their actors) and theatrically trained actors were reveling in the lack of standing around time. No longer having to worry about the dollars being spent every time a film was running through that camera resulted in new relaxed moods on set, and cinematographers were given greater control than ever thanks to digital color timing. So what if you didn't hear, "Cut!" as much?

Though much is touted about all the varied directors who contribute their thoughts in this film, it's the thoughts of the cinematographers that I found most interesting. Certainly detractors of the digital wave get their share of screen time, but I was immensely fascinated by the well-reasoned advantages that were pointed out regarding various digital production details. While I may not be the biggest fan of the way early digital films look, I understand the appeal of how much easier certain aspects of shooting became. For example: being freed from cumbersome film magazines and camera equipment made Steven Soderberg's jungle-based shoot for Che much easier. Like I said, you might watch this expecting just a debate about whether film is dead or not, but you’ll be getting SO much more.

My personal stance on the subject (one that thankfully is shared in the documentary) is this: Why does there have to be a debate? Why can’t they both be an option? It should simply be a filmmaker’s choice which way to go. The dynamic range of the image, the ease or cost of production, how much imagery you’ll be handling with digital effects, etc. There are benefits on both sides. This film’s information on the history of film and the explanation of various aspects of digital technology is very accessible and well laid out, so whether you’re an informed film nerd or casual viewer with no knowledge of filmmaking, you’ll totally understand what’s being discussed at all times. So sit down with a few friends, watch this film, then grab some coffee after and debate the night away.