CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Name: Paula Marie Celine M. Molina

E-mail Address: pmcmmolina@yahoo.com

Mobile #: 09985345087

Date: January 13, 2015

A. Title of Documentary: Side by Side

Year of Production: 2012

Genre: Educational, History

Length: 1hr 38m 58s

B. The Filmmaker: Christopher Kenneally

Background Information: Christopher Kenneally directed two documentaries,

namely: Side by Side (2012), and Crazy Legs Conti: Zen and the Art of Competitive

Eating (2004) as well as a short in 2009 entitled Looking Out For Number One which

he also wrote.

Published Reviews:

'Side by Side' review: Film is light on insight by David Wiegand

Published: August 27, 2013 on http://www.sfgate.com/tv/article/Side-by-Side-

review-Film-is-light-on-insight-4765746.php

Finding Drama in Newfangled Filmmaking ‘Side by Side’ With Keanu Reeves

Charts Filmmaking Advances by A. O. SCOTT

Published: August 30, 2012 on http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/movies/side-by-

side-with-keanu-reeves-charts-filmmaking-advances.html?smid=tw-

nytimesmovies&seid=auto&_r=0

Film dinos be damned by Lou Lumenick

Published: August 31, 2012 on http://nypost.com/2012/08/31/film-dinos-be-damned/

C. Theme, Premise, the Big Question

Was the Theme evident?

Yes, the theme was evident.

What was the Premise?

Change is inevitable.

Did it hold the documentary together?

Throughout the film, the history and differences between photochemical and

digital filmmaking were seen, unifying the various examples, filmmaker’s

opinions, etc. under the premise.

What was the Big Question?

Will digital filmmaking make photochemical filmmaking obsolete?

D. Tagline or Logline:

The documentary is about the history and differences between the digital and

photochemical way of creating films.

E. Structure:

Describe the overall structure. Classic? Mythical? Linear/Nonlinear?

As it is an educational and historical documentary, it mostly follows a linear

structure, basing it on the historical timeline of both the films and equipment that

the documentary was citing.

Was it well-structured? Supplied the information you needed when you

needed it?

Considering that the documentary was created for PBS (Public Broadcasting

Service), it provided information that the audience needed to keep up with what

technical jargon these experts were saying and it was structured well enough that

the audience is not bombarded with too much information at the same time,

instead giving out the necessary info needed for a certain segment of the film

before the interviews started.

Inciting Incident?

The film’s inciting incident was the entrance of digital film as a game changer in

the way filmmakers did their tasks on-set. Here, the opinions of prominent

directors such as James Cameron (Titanic) and George Lucas (Star Wars) were

shown.

Was the Conclusion/Resolution convincing? Did it answer the Big Question

satisfactorily? What did it leave you with? Or did it leave you wanting?

While the film did not take a side as to which process of creating films was better,

it seemed to come to the conclusion that yes, photochemical filmmaking will

become a thing of the past, especially with how technology is currently

progressing. This being said, the film also mentions at its conclusion that digital

filmmaking presents an issue with regards to archiving films and that the only

way to properly create an archival would be to transfer it onto film.

Well-paced? Exciting?

The pacing was proper for its type of documentary, it gave the audience time to

absorb and understand the information, examples and opinions the film was

giving them but didn’t drag the point on too much to make it boring.

F. Storyline

Did it grab you? Hold your attention? Was it engaging?

The topic in itself is one that has the potential to interest any person who loves to

watch films. The conflicting opinions among the various filmmakers were riveting

to watch as each one had credibility to validate his/her opinion on digital or

photochemical film.

Did it flow?

Yes, the story flowed well, properly discussing the turning points in the evolution

of late photochemical and early digital film with added inputs of different

cinematographers and directors. Eventually, discussing how digital film has

caught up to its ancestor and slowly improving on it.

Was it confusing? Interesting? Could you follow it?

There were times when it was hard to keep up with the technical aspect of it all

especially when they began comparing resolutions and dynamic ranges of the

different formats (http://nypost.com/2012/08/31/film-dinos-be-damned/) and I

assume that it would be even more difficult for audiences who might not have

been able to tell the difference amongst them.

Too simple? Too complicated?

The storyline is simple in the sense that you are acutely aware of the two sides

passionately debating over which was better.

How did the story move you? Did it make you think? About what? Why?

Film is a shared experience humanity has and so despite the technical jargon

that dominates majority of the film, the story was able to move viewers by

showing them the effort that goes into creating the films that they know and love

as well as by showing clips of different movies scattered from various times.

Added to these would be the characters and narrator who explain the history,

and the conflicts well enough for viewers who aren’t in the industry to understand

and comprehend just how big of an issue the subject matter is in the world of film

but wasn’t done enough for the viewers to properly care about the issue

themselves. (http://www.sfgate.com/tv/article/Side-by-Side-review-Film-is-light-

on-insight-4765746.php)

G. The Characters

Could you empathize with the Protagonist(s)? Why or why not?

There were no clear Protagonists and Antagonists in the film as it was a

comprehensive look at the difference between two kinds of films.

Was there a clearly defined Antagonist?

As stated above, no there were no clear Antagonists in the film, just two parties

with different opinions and views on a particular way of doing something.

How did the characters move you?

The best thing about majority of the characters in the film was that they were all

clearly passionate about the topic. You have George Lucas who is unabashedly

pro-digital, stating that photochemical film is now a thing of the past and that all

filmmakers should switch to digital. And on the other hand, you have Christopher

Nolan, one of today’s most respected and most popular directors, who feels that

35mm film is still the best way to create films. So to see these characters talk

about what they do with passion encompassing every word that they say is truly

moving. (http://www.sfgate.com/tv/article/Side-by-Side-review-Film-is-light-on-

insight-4765746.php)

Were they interesting?

As I stated in the previous paragraph, the passion bleeds through the character’s

statements and since you have opposing opinions from two equally passionate

and credible parties, so yes, they were interesting on their own but even more

interesting pinned against each other.

Did you care what happened to them?

I cared more about what was going to happen to the industry they were in rather

than the characters themselves, not to say that I wasn’t emphatic about the

characters’ plights but the documentary didn’t create too much of an emotional

connection between the characters and the audience, taking a more objective

and distanced look at them.

Did they make you think?

With the different opinions of the various characters, the audience’s own opinions

tend to change as the movie goes on because they are also persuaded by the

character. But eventually, as more information is given, the audience’s opinion

becomes more solidified as they are forced to compare and contrast these two

parties adding of course, one’s own bias (in my case, it would be digital film as it

is the medium I have grown up with)

H. Visual Storytelling

How did you learn about the characters? Did the filmmaker ‘show’ or ‘tell’

you? How did he/she ‘show rather than tell’?

As I stated above, several of the characters were already known to the audience,

these characters were also used to invite audiences to watch the documentary

once it aired on PBS. A few examples of these characters would be: James

Cameron (Titanic), George Lucas (Star Wars), Christopher Nolan (Inception,

Memento), Martin Scorsese (The Departed, Shutter Island, The Wolf of

Wallstreet) and David Finch (The Social Network, Fight Club). But there were

also characters who are prominent figures within the film industry but were not as

well-known and so using the “famous” characters as a sort of introduction to the

film and then having the other key filmmakers expound on what they were saying

and then eventually adding their own critiques and opinions was a good way to

show the audiences the story.

Could you ‘see’ the story well enough?

It was difficult to see a proper story amidst the more prominent “debate” that was

going on in the documentary, and the story itself was more of a historical take on

the advancements of technology and the films using them.

Were the ‘pictures’ clear, concise, meaningful? Did they ‘show-tell’ the

‘story’ well enough on their own?

Majority of the ‘pictures’ were interview clips, changing angles between just the

characters and then the characters with Keanu Reeves in the same shot. The

story was told more with the use of the hand gestures and facial expressions of

the characters interspersed with archival footage and technical footage

(animated clips of what the equipment would look like inside, etc.).

How did what you ‘see’ move you? Why?

Seeing the history of something that we as human beings unknowingly consume

on our day to day basis is always eye-catching and moving. To know that we

have come a long way from what was past and yet still trying to cling onto it as

seen in the way that the various filmmakers, especially those who are more, for

lack of better term, experienced in the art. We see the equipment of the past,

films used to show the movies in theaters slowly disappearing and the production

of them ceasing is moving to see.

How did what you ‘see’ make you think? About what? Why?

As a student of film, seeing the comparisons of the qualities between recent

movies created on both digital and photochemical also made me think about

which of the two would be better. With the visual comparisons, one can see that

there are subtle differences between the two and as someone who would end up

being a part of the business, it is definitely something to mull over.

I. Visual & Aural Analysis

Choose one major plot-point segment and analyze the connotative

(emotional, suggestive) aspects. Cite what the documentarist has selected

to show, what he has decided to emphasize and how he has created that

emphasis.

Chosen Segment: The Climax in which Digital Film finally began to par with and

to some extent, in the creation of 3D films, become better than its ancestor.

Here, filmmakers who previously seemed adamant that photochemical film still

reigned supreme started stating that digital film was improving and with the

appearance of RED Digital Cinema’s cameras, they adapted to digital. Kenneally

showed snippets of the 2008 film, Che, as well as interviews of the film’s director,

Steven Soderbergh talking about what digital cameras were doing better than

film cameras at the time and eventually showing behind-the-scenes footage of

the film, highlighting the ease they carried around the cameras. Eventually, they

gave several other films and prominent directors as examples.

Describe the effect of the camera angles in the segment you have selected

in terms of the power relationship between subject and viewer.

The camera angles in this film, not just in the segment, were very stoic in the

sense that you could tell that it was just a camera on a tripod facing the

character, and that’s just about it. There are shots where the camera is placed at

the side of the characters’ faces and aren’t steady but they are too few. It makes

the subjects seem somewhat unreachable to the viewer.

Explain the effect of using long show, medium shot (including two-shot or

three-shot), close-up and extreme close-up.

There were a lot of close-up shots in the film, to show how passionate the

character was about the things that they were saying. Medium shots were used

to establish a more “casual” feel between the character and the film’s narrator,

Keanu Reeves. The long shows (mostly used for the technical aspects)

emphasized the importance of the equipment being used by the filmmakers.

Do particular colors in a shot carry special meanings? What kinds of colors

stand out?

There aren’t too many particular colors that would carry meanings in this film, as

it is mostly just interviews spliced with archival footage, clips from movies and the

behind-the-scenes of different films.

When is the image simple and when is it complex and what does that

connote? Does the filmmaker provide “context” for the person in the

foreground in relation to what or who is in the background?

The image is simple when you have almost nothing else except the subject in the

shot, this would be to bring into focus the importance of what your subject is

doing and/or saying, with the regards to this particular film, majority of the shots

are simple: the interviewee and the background of whatever room it is they are

filming in, because the essence of the film is what these people are saying, their

opinions and thoughts on the subject matter. The images are complex when the

filmmaker wants to showcase various things happening around the subject, here

the complex images are shots of film studios or behind-the-scenes footage of

various films showcasing the equipment that the narrator is currently talking

about.

When are conventionalized objects—flags, an identifiable kind of clothing,

a way of standing or looking, a setting such as a slum area, a child

begging, a beautiful sunset— used to convey particular meanings

recognized across a society. How are feelings coded into sequences?

These objects are used to hit the emotions of the viewers, a flag would almost

always connotate nationalism, slum areas bring out an air of compassion or

empathy, etc. These images, feelings and emotions are used to drive home the

messages a film wants to give out to its audience, or to make them rethink their

own lives.

How does the visual and aural presentation of the material affect the

meaning we get about the people, places, objects and action that is seen in

the segment being analyzed and how the meaning builds up in the entire

documentary?

A lot of the shots in the film, as I stated before, are very formal and somewhat

detached, especially when it is simply the character in the shot and this, I think is

what the documentary could have done better on. With jargon-heavy dialogue, it

would have been better for the film to have had shots that would make the

characters seem more emotional and relatable, the visual presentation kept the

viewers at a safe distance from the characters, begging the question: why would

everyday people care about the issue?

How is sound used in the segment? When does music (if there is one other

than in the location itself, i.e., musical scoring) come in? Is the music

instrumental or vocal?

Sound in the segment, is used to accompany the opinions of the interviewees.

The music used in this segment are instrumental scores of some of the films that

these experts were a part of.

If voice-over narration - describe it (tone of voice, “voice-of-God”? How

does this affect your viewing of the documentary in understanding the

issues? Is the documentary better served without the narration?

Yes, there are voice-over narrations but it was interspersed with the interview

clips as it is Keanu Reeves who conducts both the interviews and narrations,

creating a better flow between the transitions. As narrator, one of the tasks was

to properly explain the technicalities like the equipment or jargon used by the

experts in the interview, therefore the documentary would not have been

successful if it were not for the narration.

Does the filmmaker make use of sound effects?

Yes, the filmmaker used background music during the narration, interviews and

dramatization, and of course the music, dialogue and sound effects that are a

part of the movie clips shown in the documentary (i.e. Slumdog Millionaire,

2008).

J. Filmmaker’s Intentions/Viewpoint

Were his/her intentions and viewpoint clear? Why or why not?

The intention of the filmmaker was to highlight the differences between digital

and photochemical filmmaking and to show how filmmakers are debating on

whether or not the latter would become obsolete. He was to retain a neutral and

unbiased position, only using his power to become a medium to the audience.

And I would like to think that his intentions and views were made clear. Despite

the larger number of filmmakers more comfortable with using photochemical film,

Kenneally had a more or less equal amount of filmmakers representing both

sides of the issue ensuring that none of the sides would have greater weight in its

content and credibility. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/movies/side-by-side-

with-keanu-reeves-charts-filmmaking-advances.html?smid=tw-

nytimesmovies&seid=auto&_r=0)

K. Genre

Did the documentary fit comfortably into a particular genre? Which one?

No, it did not fit comfortably into one particular genre.

If not, was it a combination? Which ones?

It was a combination of a historical and educational genre.

Was it a hybrid ‘new’ genre? What would you call it? Why?

I don’t particularly think that it’s a “new” genre, as there are several types of films

that could fall under both categories (i.e. National Geographic’s Nasca Lines: The

Buried Secrets, The Lost JFK Tapes: The Assassination, etc.)

Works Cited List

Lumenick, L. “Film Dinos Be Damned.” New York Post. 31, August (2012). Web.

Scott, A.O. “Finding Drama in Newfangled Filmmaking: ‘Side by Side’ With Keanu

Reeves Charts Filmmaking Advances.” New York Times. 30, August (2012). Web.

Wiegand, David. “’Side by Side’ review: Film is Light on Insight”. San Francisco Gate.

27, August (2013).

.