Let's talk about the "Netflix look."
Listen at the podcast providers of your choice.
There's a mountain of complaints that film geeks rail against mainstream movie making. The emphasis on intellectual property over new/fun ideas. The disappearance of former mainstay genres like rom-coms or comedies period. But one of the biggest go-to's is what's been dubbed the "Netflix movie" look, thanks in no small part to many of the offending movies being big-budget Netflix releases that somehow look like crap in spite of a pile of money being thrown their way. So why/how is that happening? There's a lot of reasons, that will involve a lot of background knowledge soooo, let's dig into how/why that happened and especially why it feels like it's happened so much more in recent memory. But first, let's address some things.
An Underlying Thing to Keep in Mind: Film Goes Through Visual Trends
Something to keep in mind, at least when it comes to the way movies look and feel, is that movies tend to go through visual trends for a number of reasons. Often times it's about technology ranging from the implementation of "Technicolor" which is a particular kind of color filmmaking to advancement in CGI and now digital filmmaking and alteration.
And that often leads to very distinctive visuals for movies from particular eras and regions, based on said technology. It's why American movies from the early 60s, which were typically bright Technicolor films shot on sets look so much different than French New Wave films that were shot on location in black and white.
And that often leads to very distinctive visuals for movies from particular eras and regions, based on said technology. It's why American movies from the early 60s, which were typically bright Technicolor films shot on sets look so much different than French New Wave films that were shot on location in black and white.
My go-to example is the post-9/11 high contrast era where horror, thrillers and big blockbusters often featured garish color grading to sell just how scary and gross everything was. A big reason why so many of the horror movies from that era feel so dated or all run together is because most of them adopted this visual style.
Roundabout way of saying that while this trend has been ongoing for the last five years or so, my hope is that this is a temporary trend. So with that out of the way, let's talk about how we got here.
Roundabout way of saying that while this trend has been ongoing for the last five years or so, my hope is that this is a temporary trend. So with that out of the way, let's talk about how we got here.
The Early Limitations of Film
One of the nice things about modern filmmaking is that almost anyone can make a movie now. Whereas previously you'd have to get a film camera, purchase film stock, figure out all of the production elements from lighting to sets on your own, and then either get someone else to, hand edit the film and sound before putting together a reel you can replicate and distribute.
And every one of these production elements could have a gigantic impact on how the movie looked, sounded and felt.
Larry Cohen, a beloved cult filmmaker, was famous/infamous for "stealing" footage, which meant that he would shoot in and around cities without permits. This in turn gave a lot of his cult movies with ridiculously concepts like a winged dragon attacking New York look and feel more grounded than they would otherwise.
Similarly, if you look at the original West Side Story film adaptation you can tell it was filmed on a set, whereas Spielberg's 2021 adaptation looks a lot more like it's taking place on actual city streets (even they clearly used sets as well).
Larry Cohen, a beloved cult filmmaker, was famous/infamous for "stealing" footage, which meant that he would shoot in and around cities without permits. This in turn gave a lot of his cult movies with ridiculously concepts like a winged dragon attacking New York look and feel more grounded than they would otherwise.
Similarly, if you look at the original West Side Story film adaptation you can tell it was filmed on a set, whereas Spielberg's 2021 adaptation looks a lot more like it's taking place on actual city streets (even they clearly used sets as well).
And finally, almost everyone who has ever acted in a beach scene will tell you that the sound is almost always shit due to the wind and waves and the dialogue usually has to be re-recorded in ADR sessions (additional dialogue recording sessions) to ensure the lines come through clear.
While a lot of these elements are evergreen (i.e. if you've ever wondered why the volume between dialogue and an explosion is so drastic in a movie you can blame bad sound mixing), a lot of the visual elements are more pliable nowadays thanks to digital tools and digital filmmaking. Which has been a mixed blessing to say the least.
The Shift to Digital
Digital filmmaking is a godsend for small budget, independent filmmakers. It means that directors like Sean Baker can make a movie on a iPhone on the streets of LA that kickstart their careers (as Tangerine did for Baker) without worrying about spending a bunch of money on camera rigs, lighting, sets and you can even edit the movie at home. It gives you a lot of shortcuts and saves you a lot of money. If you're about to make a film without studio support, more than likely you're going to film it digitally, which will in turn make it a lot easier to edit, touch up, synch with sound, and eventually distribute.
For big budget filmmaking, digital has the same exact appeals. You can cut on costs, make movies faster and theoretically make an equal product that you can pop onto streaming even faster one the effects work is done.
For big budget filmmaking, digital has the same exact appeals. You can cut on costs, make movies faster and theoretically make an equal product that you can pop onto streaming even faster one the effects work is done.
However, digital does have some notable visual drawbacks.
Broadly speaking there's a lot more natural depth to analog film images that digital filming and photography has trouble matching. The images are either fuzzier around the edges than they are on film or have a bit of a hazy glow to them. You can also run into issues like "digital noise" where the image gets less clear in low lighting or when you're compressing 4K footage down to something that the average television can play.
This is how you end up with films like Red Notice that look noticeably worse than movies that cost a lot less money to make. The effects don't blend. Every scene looks like it's through an Instagram filter. And then you're stuck watching Red Notice.
But hang on, I might hear you say, there's a lot of movies shot on digital that look great!
Why yes there are. Are there are notable examples of movies that spent a lot of extra time on the digital alteration to compensate for low lighting environments like Knives Out. So why do so many movies and shows still look like...that?
The Real Culprit: Time, Money and Care
In my opinion, the main reason so many movies don't look right comes down to a lack of one of three things: Time. Money. or Care. All of which can ensure your movie looks the way it is supposed to look.
Let's start with time because that feels the most self-evident.
When folks look at the most recent CGI heavy movie and wonder why it looks like crap, I always encourage them to look at the time between the end of filming and when the film is ultimately released.
Dune Part 2 has received near universal acclaim for its production design and visuals when it was released in early 2024. It ended filming in December 2022. Which means Denis Villeneuve, the editors and effects team have over a year to create and sand down the effects rough edges to make sure that everything looked as convincing as humanly possible on the big screen. And that's a big budget production that put a gigantic emphasis on physical sets and practical effects.
The turnaround time for the last Avengers movies, both of which were shot on digital and feature expansive CGI heavy battle scenes? Less than a year. And while I enjoy those movies, there are a lot of rough edges in the effects heavy sequences that could've been ironed out with a few more months for the visual effects artists.
As much as film geeks are slamming on the "uninteresting" visual choices made by John Chu in Wicked, they still took their time making the first film and were done with lion's share of the filming in July 2023 (about a year and a half out from the release date).
They also spent the money on sets, costumes and lighting that makes the digital artists jobs a lot easier.
Dune Part 2 has received near universal acclaim for its production design and visuals when it was released in early 2024. It ended filming in December 2022. Which means Denis Villeneuve, the editors and effects team have over a year to create and sand down the effects rough edges to make sure that everything looked as convincing as humanly possible on the big screen. And that's a big budget production that put a gigantic emphasis on physical sets and practical effects.
The turnaround time for the last Avengers movies, both of which were shot on digital and feature expansive CGI heavy battle scenes? Less than a year. And while I enjoy those movies, there are a lot of rough edges in the effects heavy sequences that could've been ironed out with a few more months for the visual effects artists.
As much as film geeks are slamming on the "uninteresting" visual choices made by John Chu in Wicked, they still took their time making the first film and were done with lion's share of the filming in July 2023 (about a year and a half out from the release date).
They also spent the money on sets, costumes and lighting that makes the digital artists jobs a lot easier.
Money and care go hand in hand in my book. Because what a studio or filmmaker dedicates their budget to, has a gigantic impact on how the film comes out in the end.
I'll use the John Wick franchise as an example. The John Wick movies are a benchmark for quality R-rated action filmmaking, from top to bottom because that team spends the time and money to do the following:
- They train up their actors as much possible to limit the use of stunt doubles. Keanu especially.
- They shoot on location and either use the actual location or craft physical sets.
- They take time to set up distinctive lighting and shots for each of their locations to make them visually appealing with or without the bullets flying.
It's one of the rare action franchises that is celebrated for its cinematography (aka how the movie looks). It also helps that their lead actor is Keanu Reeves and Reeves is not only dedicated to doing as much of the stunt work as he can, but also well known for low salary demands.
Whereas a lot of those Netflix productions spend so much money on the name or exclusive rights that a lot of those production design elements, including stuff that would really help shoddy digital images like lighting, go by the wayside.
Whereas a lot of those Netflix productions spend so much money on the name or exclusive rights that a lot of those production design elements, including stuff that would really help shoddy digital images like lighting, go by the wayside.
Now I know I'm punching on Netflix a bunch here, but this is the case an awful lot of studio/streaming made content. The emphasis is on the names, not the concept/story. And a lot of the time, you can tell.
All of this feeds into the "care" category which I'll loosely define as the legwork and forethought that goes into making a movie or show.
All of this feeds into the "care" category which I'll loosely define as the legwork and forethought that goes into making a movie or show.
To summarize with abandon, it takes a lot of upfront work to make a good movie. A single good shot in a movie requires planning the shot, getting the actors and scene correct, often picking the right time of day, ensuring that the lighting is correct for the image you're trying to craft and successfully capturing it.
And sometimes you need to use shortcuts or digital help to work around production issues.
What I think is happening now is that digital filmmaking and tricks is being used as substitute for time, money or care. It means we get a ton of films that all look and feel the same because they're being made by the same group or studios with the same digital cameras that have to get the final files to off to their studio as quickly as possible and they already spent most of their money on the actors, so you're not getting the lighting you wanted, or the set designer or the editor you really like.
And sometimes you need to use shortcuts or digital help to work around production issues.
What I think is happening now is that digital filmmaking and tricks is being used as substitute for time, money or care. It means we get a ton of films that all look and feel the same because they're being made by the same group or studios with the same digital cameras that have to get the final files to off to their studio as quickly as possible and they already spent most of their money on the actors, so you're not getting the lighting you wanted, or the set designer or the editor you really like.
Which is a shame because we have a bunch of recent examples of why giving filmmakers time and money to make something complete with a distinctive vision works so well.
The 2023 movie world was ruled by "Barbenheimer." Two highly anticipated blockbuster releases from big time directors, Greta Gerwig's Barbie and Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer. Both had budgets over $100 million dollars. Both spent about a year in post-production. Both put a heavy emphasis on practical sets/effects. Both gigantic box office successes that were nominated and won a number of awards including Oscars. Pretty much an ideal turnout for a film project like that.
Barbie was shot on digital and Oppenheimer was shot on film. And while you can make arguments for aestetic prefereces between each film, both movies look great and captured a distinctive look and feel.
Barbie was shot on digital and Oppenheimer was shot on film. And while you can make arguments for aestetic prefereces between each film, both movies look great and captured a distinctive look and feel.
The problem, as it almost always is, is not the technology being used. It's the application of the technology. If you treat digital filmmaking as a shortcut, it will be reflected in the end result. And right now, a lot of people are starting to notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment