|
March Commentary from George Spiro Dibie A Conversation with Robert Rodriguez and Daniel Pearl This issue of ICG Magazine includes an article based on a conversation with our members Robert Rodriguez and Daniel Pearl. It addresses a response by Rodriguez to my October 2003 editorial commenting on an article published by The Los Angeles Times under the headline, “One Director’s Take On the Latest Digital Camera.” The Times article was based on an interview with Rodriguez and two marketing executives from Sony in conjunction with the release of Once Upon a Time in Mexico. The film was an auteur performance for Rodriguez, who earned credits as writer, director, composer, cinematographer, and also for “chopping” (his word for editing). The reporter was Patrick Day, who wrote much of his story in question-and-answer format. One of his first questions was, “Does the camera almost do the cinematography for you?” According to Day, Rodriguez responded by saying that 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, when he used a digital camera. Day attributed a direct quote to Rodriguez, “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 also quoted a Sony executive, “…shooting in film is very much like improvising…sometimes if you are lucky, you get the results right. There aren’t many people in this town who are good at it. With digital, the average hit rate becomes higher.” It wasn’t the first time that The Los Angeles Times has quoted Rodriquez addressing this issue. In a front page article, published on July 11, 2002, Rodriquez was quoted saying, “With film, you get 60 percent of what you want. In film, cinematography is the art of guessing.” The next paragraph, which was unattributed, said, “Each mistake, each reshoot, eats up time and money. The shoot-and-pray cycle is nearly erased with digital cameras, because the images can be viewed instantly.” Before I wrote my editorial, I sent a letter to Day and his editors pointing out that the unsubstantiated claims they printed were potentially damaging to our art form. I also asked why they didn’t question the claim by a marketing executive saying that we aren’t very good at “guessing.” We offered to introduce the editors and their journalists to credible and artful cinematographers, who could intelligently address the issues they conjured up and reported as facts. I never received a response. My subsequent editorial was headlined “LAZY AND SHALLOW PRESS IS EASY TARGET FOR HYPE.” It took issue with the editors of The Los Angeles Times who apparently never asked their journalists how they verified the veracity of claims they reported as fact. Rodriguez responded with a long and passionate letter. He said, “I absolutely share your disappointment in The Times article, but I certainly don’t share your dismay… this sort of lazy reporting simply comes with the territory…Writers have continually taken comments of mine and people I know out of context, paraphrased, and then slapped quotes on them to get their articles down to length or to sum up what they think the point is…when you get questions like, ‘So does this camera almost do the cinematography for you?, you know you are fighting an uphill battle.” The problem is many people still believe what they read. The Los Angeles Times has misinformed the public, insulted our members and everyone else who cares about our art form. We have offered the editors and all other journalists, who care about the truth, a standing invitation to provide access to credible sources of information about our art and craft. If they have a shred of pride, they will read our interview with Pearl and Rodriguez, apologize to our members, and accept our invitation. As always, I look forward to your comments and suggestions. Please e-mail them to me. George Spiro Dibie, ASC |