“Cinematic” is a word I am coming to loathe.
In my mind “cine” is short for cinema, so cinematic implies – like something you might see in the cinema. And for me the cinema has always been a special place, somewhere you go to be entertained. Somewhere you go for a great story, somewhere you go for incredible and memorable images. I’ve always felt very privileged to work in and around the film making industry, it is special.
I asked ChatGPT to describe cinematic to me and this is what it said:
When something is described as cinematic, it typically means that it:
-
Visual Grandeur: It has visually striking or grand scenes that are reminiscent of what you might see in a well-crafted film, often with dramatic lighting, composition, and movement.
-
Narrative Impact: It involves storytelling that is immersive and emotionally engaging, similar to the way a movie draws viewers into its world and characters.
-
Atmosphere and Mood: It creates a specific mood or atmosphere that feels like it could belong in a film, often with a focus on visual style, music, and pacing.
-
Scale and Scope: It might suggest a sense of epic scale or ambition, like the sweeping landscapes of a blockbuster film or the intense focus of a character-driven drama.
In a broader sense, “cinematic” can be applied to describe anything—from a video game to a piece of music—that captures the essence of what makes movies so compelling.
OK, that sounds great – epic, sweeping landscapes, story telling, grand scenes and dramatic lighting, I agree with ChatGPT.
But in reality cinematic now seems to means any video shot with a wide field of view, a shallow depth of field and slow motion. So often you come across a video with someone asking you to watch their cinematic film. I watch it in the hope of seeing something stylish, grand and dramatic, perhaps a film short, perhaps something new and interesting, a short story, something like a short version of something I might see in a cinema, something memorable or special.
But instead it’s almost always just a compilation of wide angle, shallow DoF, slow motion shots of “insert location” with a music backing. It’s great that todays cameras can do all of these things and each has a place in story telling or artistic pieces. Combining them can indeed be interesting and creative. But just because you shot your holiday video in wide-shallow-slow-mo, it doesn’t make it like a cinema film, it doesn’t make it epic, grand, dramatic or film-like. The addition of a vignette or brown/green grade doesn’t help either. It remains what it is, a wide-shallow-slo-mo video, little different to the millions of other copycat wide-shallow-slow-mo videos that are out their today (probably also with exactly the same “arri look” lut or grade). It isn’t film-like, film-style or cine like and rarely compelling, it is it’s own genre.
How many movies or feature films are shot almost exclusively with very wide angle lenses, almost every shot a slow motion shot and depth of field so shallow that practically nothing is actually in focus? Where’s the emotion? Where’s the drama or story telling?
Yes, each technique is used, but generally for very specific shots or moments within the film to create a moment of impact or change of pace. But when a video uses all of these techniques, often combined, for just about every shot it gets boring and when every video you watch does exactly the same as every other in the name of being “cinematic” it just starts to say – don’t bother watching this one, it will be just like all the others – yawn.
And it doesn’t stop there. Now we have manufactures selling cinematic filters, cinematic plug-ins, cinematic music, you name it, if you can prefix it with cinematic, manufacturers will making the term ever more meaningless. It no longer means epic, grand, dramatic, emotionally engaging, atmospheric, it is no longer to quote Chat GPT “ the essence of what makes movies so compelling”
Well Alister,I could not agree more.Its a term which has been abominated largely through the youthful enthusiasm of YouTube.Not disimilar to the over use of “awesum” and “bro” For those of us who lived in the 1980s UK ,they may remember when everything was “Turbo” from bicycle seats through washing machines to sports cars.It became meaningless. Alas the camera industry survives my selling hardware,YouTube ” influencers” being an important part.The art of Cinema hopefully remains largely in the visualisation of story telling and not in the hardware that enables it.
I’ll tell you what’s not Cinematic: GoPro or Smartphone video shot by an operator who has no idea about the concept of frame rate vs shutter speed.
The price of entry for making videos and films has come down a lot in 30 years and more people are coming in. I think the skill level out there for telling a story is about the same as it’s always been, some good and a lot average or less – it’s just that more people are putting up media on the web. The technology today is amazing and the new people eventually learn that unfortunately there’s no button or filter for storytelling.
A big part of the problem is that the newer cameras are easier to use, so less thought goes in to how to use them, less thought into constructing a coherent sequence or coming up with a new or different look or feel.
And it terms of learning – if copying exactly what everyone else is doing means learning, many learn.
But considering how many people now shoot video, very few actually learn the craft of film making and story telling. Very few actually understand the tools they are using.
I think people would tell a story better with a polaroid.
Well said. But the word has relevance.
I can still remember, at NAB, seeing my first HD image. The actors looked as if they were made of shiny plastic. Hyper-real, yet completely artificial and even creepy.
I’m glad, as a viewer, that creators recognize the value of dialing back the vividness which modern technology can provide, and if that’s called “cinematic,” I’m fine with that.
I don’t know what HD it was that you saw, but that is just poor production choices, nothing to do with HD itself. When you watch a feature film in HD on TV, very often these days shot with a video camera does it always look hyper real? Or will it look well crafted and contain interesting visuals. For a decade the Arri Alexa, an HD/2K video camera was used for countless films, but it only rarely looked terrible.
And cinematic isn’t just dialling back vividness.
I think we forget how vibrant cinema can very often be. La la Land, Samsara, Avatar, the Marvel franchise, Blade Runner………….
Go back even further The Wizard of Oz or many of the great Technicolor films were rammed full of colour and contrast.
It isn’t the format, it isn’t the color palette, it isn’t the sensor size, it’s how you use it.
It was Early HD; my point is that the term “cinematic,” though overused for marketing purposes, at least expressed a desire to avoid the “video look.”
I’m agreeing with you – with that caveat.
Well all it seems to mean now is an new type of video look, because it rarely looks like a feature film or cinema release.
Far from the first time I’ve seen thoughts like this aired! I do, and many I know would, totally agree with you too. Well said.
So right! Thx for that!
Sonys’ newest camcorder says what you mean and what most don’t understand. For example, the New Z200 can provide a cinematic look. That look doesn’t mean you are now shooting and recording as a cinemaphotographer.
Cinematic and broadcast base looks
Achieve the look of professional broadcast or film productions with ease. Use presets for S-Cinetone, ITU709, 709tone, HLG Live, HLG Mild, and HLG Natural, then adjust black, matrix, and other parameters as desired. Easily color-match your footage with content on Sony’s other broadcast and Cinema Line cameras.
How much of this will misinterpreted?