what is the difference between a film and a home video?. i seem to be at a loss!
This debate will continue to rage as opinions differ which standard is better but i would rather address the real issu between 'home video' which is our defininition of our movies and the other universal standard for movies.
The little i know and observe in our efforts towards producing commercials and or films is that it lacks ART. By ART i mean the elements and techniques that make the filmaking experience exciting and fulfilling. If you are a reader of comic books,lover of cinema( which i am) and other visual aesthetics, i think you can intrinsically tell what works or what seems ridiculous.
Our people put a lot of effort into what they do, they try to buy the right prosumer level video cameras, work crazy hours, purchase bootleg software, but then the ART which is that language of commuicating visual ideas is missing or done in a slipshod way. Very fluent speakers of the art know how to transit from one scene to another, how to tell the story ,get emotion from a scene, understand the effects to use, the image they create and so on . I am sure many of us can remember specific scenes from favourite movies and how it affected us. Its that residual knowledge that many of us use to make decisions on quality and appeal for any other film we watch. I think that ART is what our francophone friends may understand a little better though they can make some really boring movies.
I would think we just need to know those techniques and apply it to what we are already good at,story telling.
It would be a start and by the way, the guys doing music videos in Nigeria are ahead of the curve on that . They have techniques in their stuff that and many films don't have.
There are good things being shot on video but you generally do not get respected as a filmmaker if you remain in video. Examples like George Lucas or Michael Mann who shot in HD are slightly incorrect because the kind ofcamera kit they were using is the budget for most Nollywood films and besides they were accomplished in the filmmaking on 35mm before experimenting in video.
I recently heard the renowned experimental filmmaker Su Friederich (http://www.sufriedrich.com/) speak in Philadelphia. She was visiting Temple University’s film program and gave a guest lecture about her work. After showing some clips from her most recent film, The Head Of A Pin, shot exclusively on video, she explained that she has officially made the so-called “switch” and is not going back to shooting on film.
Su summed up her reasons for the conversion by saying that, having made a number of films and achieved considerable success, she still had a hard time finding funding her films. At the age of 50, she’s sick of spending her life savings every time she wanted to make a new film. For her, video changed all that. For just $12, she says she could shoot for a few hours instead of cleaning out her bank account for the same amount of footage. And she’s willing to accept the differences in aesthetic between film and video for video’s convenience and accessibility.
Su cited other, more specific reasons for converting as well: the disappearance of the NEA and other film funding sources; diminished amounts of grant money being awarded (e.g. a grant in the 1980s that would award $300, 000 might now be closer to $30,000); increased competition for the remaining number and amounts of film funding; and, of course, persistent rumors about film’s impending death once digital technology is improved.
I found her conversion (and her justification of it) all the more significant given the amount of her work that relies on the qualities of celluloid (i.e. scratching the film’s emulsion, optical printing, etc.) for its visual style and overall impact. If someone like Su Friederich is willing to make the switch, I imagine many more “accomplished” and veteran filmmakers will soon cross over to the “dark” side of video.
Shooting in celluloid gives it that sharp contrast feel yet grainy in a way, in terms of picture quality. You're right. The koko lies in the theme, script, storyline and cinematography. But then, the picture quality celluloid/film offers as compared to home video plays an integral part in the cinematography and sh*t like that.
So you think it's the celluloid that makes Amazing Grace a good movie?
How ridiculous. It's the theme and the script and the acting and cinematography.
Celluloid is just an expensive medium whose resolution is equivalent to HD video. The meat is in the content.
Shooting in film vs shooting in video makes little difference to the quality of the resulting VCD or DVD.
And you can shoot film quality on video (for cinema projection) by using an HD camcorder like the Cinealta.
I like this topic
Becos anytime I dey watch Naija drama na so so laugh i dey laugh. Na comedy them just dey act Imagine I dey watch one drama one day the microphone wey them dey use just dey surface for the screen. the thing dey so funny try watch their accident scene you go trip the cars no dey jam but people dey die Na god go help Nigerians wey they buy those drama
FILM AND VIDEO
The reason most video looks nothing like a film you would see in a cinema is because the footage wasn't shot using actual film. The majority of blockbusters in cinemas use 35mm film to record all the images whereas most amateur film-makers, at most, can afford a video camcorder.
35mm film costs a fortune to buy and a fortune to run (we're talking hundreds of thousands of pounds/dollars). The reason they are so expensive? Because they are some damned good!
Film processes the picture information in a completely different way to video. It works in the same way as 35mm cameras (before the dawn of digital megapixel bollocks) except instead of capturing just one picture, it captures many, many pictures every second.
Film has a naturally sharp yet somehow smooth appearance to it. It has a natural "grain" effect and other such "blemishes" which actually make the picture look rather quite nice.
However, video on the other hand - everything is digital these days. Images are compressed onto tapes, the image is sharp but lacks any detail. Cheaper camcorders offer really crap colour reproduction, poor performance in low light and so on. In short, they will never match 35mm film. Sure new high-definition camcorders are appearing on the market (at a price!) which are slowly closing the barrier between video and 35mm, but we're still a long way away.
Difference b/w home Videos and Movies:
It's quite clear that an average Nigerian or Nollywood director is hustlin 4 just one thing; Money. They are not
interested in that word in quotes "MOVIE" A film that moves you, Just take a good look at the movie MATRIX, not so
many pple understand the film but Many many pple have watched it just for entertainment sake and that should be a
director's drive not money,
If the Nigerian directors orientation/mentality will change concerning the so-called home videos then we will have a
course to smile while watchin Nigerian movies,
Nigerian Actors and Directors Pls stop COPY COPY and draw from the God given creativity inside u!
I like Gbade's 'definitions' of films and home videos. He has allowed both his academic prowess and personnal loathing of the Nigerian movie industry to feature in it prominently.
In as much as it is traditional to educate ourselves on topics of mass interest, I believe from time to time, we should allow people know from what point of view we are speaking. I will never risk adding anything else in an attempt to address the question asked, I would rather tag along with Gbade's views, to make myself vulnerable to more attacks from people who always choose to sit on the fence. are u one?
Gbade, I am not saying you are wrong.
I am saying that the replies should be rational.
If Emeka Enyiocha speaks with a thick Igbo accent, you don't blame him, because the director should know better.
If a film is bad, the director is not competent.
If actors are sweating in their palatial homes, the director is to blame for failing to make sure that the place is well ventilated.
If Genevieve Nnaji and Rita Dominic don't know how to play the daughters of rich men, the director is to blame for not directing them well during rehearsals.
They don't do enough enough rehearsals before shooting and they also rush their takes and end up rushing the editing as well.
Is it not hypocritical to to say you agree with Gbade and you also drool over Ramsey Noah, Jim Iyke, Pat Atta, RMD and rave about Genevieve Nnaji, Omo Sexy, Rita (Who say I dey bleach?) Dominic and other Nollywood stars?
Seun explained it.
Nollywood electronic good traders never pretend to copy Hollywood or Bollywood. Because, from the beginning, they called their B-movies home videos until the actors and actresses started growing wings posing and posturing as film stars with thanks to Naijarules and Nairaland for making them celebrities in the global village.
Put 90% of them on the live theatre and they will fail to deliver their lines.
It is only in Nigerian movies I see men who are over 30 acting as kids, because they are midgets.
But for how long will they continue to act as little kids?
But, the problem of Nollywood is not the confusion over film or video.
But the general abuse and misuse of the film industry that has made them not to even qualify to be screened at Cannes where other African countries have been screening their films for years.
Nigerians made so much noise about Dangerous Twins and other popular Nollywood movies, but none of them passed the screening tests at the major film festivals in the world.
Even where there were video categories, Nigerian home videos did not qualify for screening.
You see actors playing rich men sweating profusely in their palatial homes and drinking cheap Five Alive juice and other cheap drinks. And trained eyes see that these actors and actresses cannot act, because Genevieve Nnaji and Rita Dominic cannot act as the daughters of a rich man. They talk as they have been talking from their days in the ghettos of Surulere.
Emeka Enyiocha acts exactly as he behaves at home with the same thick Igbo accent in his English.
Paris Hilton is from a very wealthy family and she is acting.
But can you see any daughter of Tejuosho, Ibru or Igbinedion acting in Nollywood?
The camera is not the issue.
Home videos in the traditional sense are family movies recorded on $500 camcorders - like "my daughter's first birthday", "our son's first steps", "our daughter's 16th birthday", "our daughter's graduation" et cetera.
Film is a format used to create all international movies in prehistoric times.
The two are now converging. ($50k) camcorders are often used in movie production these days. E.g. Star Wars.
Home videos are those daft, imbecilic, slow, stereotypical "movies" Nollywood makes. They are basically shot with cam-corders and any photographer/ video-recorder hustling by the roadside can be the director of photography of any of this slow "movies".
Films- movies shot basically with celluloid (e.g american movies), they are more technical, and the crew is more professional.
Films are usually released in theaters and afterwards on dvd and vhs.
Home videos are released straight away to vcd and are basically worthless piles of crap
Nollywood home video - "eh chibuzor, we have displeased the gods, we have to consult the dibia"
2 year old baby - "Aaargh, my ears are bleeding!!"