|
October Commentary from George Spiro Dibie Lazy
And Shallow Press Is
They should have put that label on an article published in the Calendar section of the Los Angeles Times on September 12. The headline read, “One Director’s Take on the Latest Digital Camera” and was written by Patrick Day. The story was based on an interview with Robert Rodriguez and two marketing executives for Sony. It was mainly written in question-and-answer format. The story augmented a review of Once Upon a Time in Mexico. The film was written, directed and photographed by Rodriguez, who also composed the music and “chopped” (his word for edited) the images. The review by Manohla Dargis said, “If the filmmaker had given us beautiful images or impressive technique in place of people and story, the movie’s impersonal quality would be tolerable. But, the poorly lighted video cinematography lacks texture and subtlety, and the lurching construction feels as if it was edited with a blender.” There isn’t a shred of evidence in Day’s story that he did any independent research or questioned any claims made by Rodriguez or the Sony executives. Day asked, “Does this camera almost do the cinematography for you?” Instead of saying that’s a stupid question, Rodriguez said he didn’t have to use as much equipment or a light meter, and he didn’t worry about whether the “soup” at the lab would be the right temperature. It isn’t worth repeating his entire answer. Remember, this is the same director who told another Los Angeles Times reporter that he never knew the true color of an actor’s eyes until he saw them on a high-definition monitor. Rodriguez said, “Shooting on film is like painting with your eyes closed…you don’t get to see if you got what you wanted until the next day…and a lot of times you don’t.” Day could have picked up the phone and called a few cinematographers, and someone at a film lab or two, and asked for reactions. Rodriguez also claims that shooting with film requires extra time because cinematographers don’t know what they are going to get. One of the Sony executives noted that his company’s high-definition video camera was “very, very close to film” and it is more efficient. “To people like Robert it’s not a hobby…it’s a business, and he has to be productive,” he said. “Shooting in film is very much like improvisation… sometimes, if you are lucky, you get the results right. There aren’t many people in this town who are very good at it. With digital, the average hit rate becomes higher.” The dangerous thing about this disgraceful reporting is that if you repeat lies, often enough people are going to believe them. Whose fault is it? Do I blame Rodriguez? No. Do I blame Sony? No. I blame lazy and shallow journalism. I believe the editors of the Los Angeles Times bear the final responsibility. You can read my letter to Day and his editor. I urge YOU to let them know how you feel about this issue. For Bret Israel, Senior Calendar Editor, email to calendar.letters@latimes.com For Patrick Day e-mail to patrick.day@latimes.com You can also fax letters to (213) 237-7770. When you’re writing to express your outrage, please e-mail a copy of your letter to us. As always, I look forward to your comments and suggestions. Please e-mail them to me. George Spiro Dibie, ASC
|
You
know those warning notices they are required to print on packages of
cigarettes about how smoking can be dangerous to your health? How about
requiring the Los Angeles Times to label their stories about
the film industry? Warning: This article was written by a lazy journalist
so the story is shallow and misleading. It may be dangerous to our
art form.