Side by Side (2012) User Reviews

An exciting cinema history session

[thaibm · 7/10 · 28 December 2012]

As a film student or just a movie lovers, you rarely got a chance to connect with cinema history, or meet with famous people in the industry who set the standard and created the masterpieces. This documentary gives it all in a friendly story telling mode that could benefit both professionals or just any random viewers

As much as it is about digital, it's equally about how cinema develop and what it would be like in the future. The documentary points out an interesting finding that it's the professionals, not the technology that drives the storytelling art forward. Each and every of them offer their best performance and artistry via the choice of techniques they made.

It's fantastic to see how filmmakers form different groups of opinions and stay faithful to it. While the film did not intend to come to any conclusion about future of cinema in digital or old style film, it clearly set up a basic understanding about filmmaking as a painstakingly process that require endless decision making based on personal visual creative interpretation.

A nice to watch movie for film students, especially those are fans of David Lynch, James Cameroon or George Lucas, the main speakers

Fantastic documentary for every film enthusiast

[oliviaharper · 7/10 · 18 August 2018]

Hollywood insiders are aware of a battle that has been brewing for quite sometime now: the technology to capture the image has two camps- film and digital and each are perhaps overwhelming the other. Film is photomchemical and the method by which cinema has been created and projected for all these years (since the late 1890). Digital cameras are new on the block and because they can do everything a film camera can but with less production costs, they are vying to be the medium every director chooses. Keanu Reeves questions industry insiders from top directors and cinematographers and gets a honest non biased overview. This is a good watch for anyone interested in the technical and "behind the camera" scenes of making of film and television. The documentary is precise and educative.

Enjoyable Documentary

[MattBrady099 · 8/10 · 4 June 2015]

"Cinema is like going to church for some people".

Side by Side is a documentary about film - specifically explores the history and implementation of digital and photochemical film creation.

Side By Side is a documentary focusing on the evolution of film and it shows all different film directors, cinematographers and writers and they share their own thoughts on the film and if it's getting better or worse. There's loads of big name directors in this documentary that tell you all about the art of film and the different type of camera work they used and how it made they film much better.

What really got my interested in this documentary is well, it's about movies and I love movies so I thought I would check it out to see what it's like and I picked a good one here, because in this documentary you get to see how there make the movies and how movies should be made according to these film makers. The whole thing is pretty much a opinion base and they give some interesting and quite unique answers that makes you look at some movies in a different way.

I was interested from start to finish. I was never bored while watching it and I never know that Keanu Reeves was a good interviewer, I mean he's such a cool guy and at times when he met these director's he had that happy child face on him, full of joy and was interest on what they were going to say.

Now for problems: During the documentary James Cameron talked about 3D and CGI and he pretty much talk about how it was part of a art form and how it worked in he's film, but after he said all that the documentary cut to 2 or 3 directors who said that it's the worse thing to happen to movies, and how it becomes the highlight of the movie and not the story or character's, I found it a bit funny how Jame Cameron really went on for what seems to be like a speech about 3D and CG and how it's a groundbreaking master class, and then it get's sh*t on by other directors and it's really funny. I think I would call that bad timing.

I wouldn't really call this re-watchable. It's a one watch kind of documentary that I probably won't see again any time soon.

If you haven't seen Side By Side then I say check it out. It's got some interesting facts and hearing the directors talk about what's wrong with movies today and how they did it better is spot on enjoyable.

Film or digital? You decide.

[JohnDeSando · 21 September 2012]

"People love great stories. They love to get into a world and have an experience. And how they get it—it doesn't really matter." David Lynch

Which do you prefer: photochemical or digital projection for your movies? If you're geeky enough, you really care; if not, like me, you want a great story and characters with a crisp image that complements the theme, regardless of whether or not it's film. As for 3D, I can live without it.

Christopher Kenneally's interesting Side by Side documentary presents filmmakers like George Lucas who claim celluloid is dead and those like Christophe Nolan who vow not yet to trade his "oil paints for crayons." The film does a credible job presenting both sides with a slight edge to a future of all digital and a pessimistic take on film as an eventual curiosity.

Among the talking heads are avatars of photography and direction with an occasional producer and actress to get closer to us viewers, who are never questioned even though we are the ultimate arbiters. But the experts have valid and provocative points: the film advocates tout its warmth and color possibilities while the digital dudes trumpet the ease, low cost, and creative infinity. The film does an entertaining job of presenting the sides.

Both sides agree archiving remains a pressing and often neglected issue. Although Martin Scorsese is at the forefront of saving film, no one else has yet taken the case of digital preservation with his passion. The documentary doesn't take enough time on this issue especially since I thought something like my external hard drive would already be in the mix. Not. Apparently even digital imaging can break down in storage.

Oh, well, I'm with Lynch: Give me a super story and beautiful image and let the geeks and gods work out the details.

A Nutshell Review: Side by Side

[DICK STEEL · 10/10 · 18 March 2012]

Film is dead, or is it? With major distributors in USA going digital this year in lieu of film, the death knell has been sounded that perhaps it's not too long before celluloid film projection is a thing of the past, and with it comes digital filmmaking, production, distribution and projection. But does it have to be that way, and can both mediums co-exist to satisfy the various sections of the creative market? Produced by Justin Szlasa and Keanu Reeves, the latter who was here in Hong Kong for a masterclass, Side by Side is the documentary written and directed by Christopher Kenneally, that deep dives into both sides of the equation.

And who better than to interview those who have dabbled with both mediums? What made this documentary a compelling watch is Keanneally's ability to cover an entire range of topics related to this issue, tracing the history of both mediums, especially the digital one, and giving depth into backgrounds, reasons and rationale taken from those who have dealt with both old and new technologies. Having Keanu Reeves turn into the interviewer works in both levels of attracting the casual viewer into watching this, as well as on the interview front, made it easy for filmmakers to relate and open up to one of their own, as they talk about the medium, how it impacts filmmaking, and from acting in front of the camera, the camera technologies themselves, and the case for distribution and exhibition, weighing in on the pros and cons at every stage.

These filmmakers are none other than the who's who of Hollywood luminaries, such as James Cameron, George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Robert Rodriguez, Christopher Nolan, Danny Boyle, Richard Linklaer, David Lynch, Joel Schumacher, Steven Soderbergh, Lars von Trier, and both Lana and Andy Wachowski whom Keanu Reeves made the prolific Matrix trilogy. And it's not just directors, but also containing interviews with editors and cinematographers such as one of my personal favourites Wally Pfister, who together with Nolan stand on the side of celluloid, famously resisting Warner Bros' attempt to turn their lucrative Dark Knight projects into the digital or 3D formats.

While one may get distracted by the star studded lineup, we get to see how each are so passionate about the medium they believe in, and the compelling arguments they make for and against their case, listening from the horse's mouth of those who are in the industry, together with the satisfaction gained and challenges they face. For instance, like Fincher, digital filmmaking gave rise to cameras that can be designed to cater to the nature of the shots he had intended, without which films like The Social Network, or The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, cannot achieve certain shots or have the camera angles so desired. Everyone provided their own memorable soundbites when they engage in this discourse, so much so that you'd soon find everything that's being said becoming terribly sexy and seductive in their arguments.

But Conneally does an excellent job in not allowing any one filmmaker to run away with the presentation he so decided, allowing arguments to be made and the viewer to form his own conclusion. The pace moves at breakneck speed, hardly every pausing just like how digital filmmaking has directors almost never calling it quits because the medium has run out, as you the audience will definitely find an area in which you have little knowledge of, but thanks to this film and its incredible breadth adopted for its scope, you're bound to come out of it a little bit enlightened about the entire technical process, the evolution of filmmaking technologies, as well as gain new found appreciation for those who are so passionate in their filmmaking that it's automatically shown in the final cut they put out for projection.

No film related topic was taboo, as the documentary also took a look at archival processes, which contains a little bit of an irony. If there's a flaw to this wonderfully made documentary, it will be that its focus is still inherently Hollywood's own, since there is a distinct lack of interviews and gathering of content outside of Tinseltown. Perhaps an apt follow up to this would warrant a lot more interviews to be done with filmmakers around the world, but I'm guessing most of the responses will already have been covered by the mammoth scope here (and whose filmmakers are at the forefront of technology given geeks like Cameron), and at best appear as supplemental discs should this ever be released on DVD format sometime soon. Definitely highly recommended viewing for everyone, film buffs or otherwise, with great material yet to be seen in upcoming films included as well.

It's an ode to cinema,

[taifunu · 10/10 · 10 June 2012]

this film is. It's about marking a turning point in the history of cinema and raising awareness about it. Yes, it's a subject that's been discussed and bitched about for what, 10 years now, ever since Lucas proclaimed that film is dead. But maybe for the first time it brings all the opposite opinions together. Side by side. (Loved the editing - it was just like watching a tennis match) And for people like myself, 'civilian' moviegoers who while watching a movie often found themselves forgetting about the popcorn and instead wondering 'how it's made?', this film is like Christmas in June :) I mean, I've read a bit about film making; I've come across some of the terms and looked up their definition; I knew what a DP does; I've scratched a bit the surface of the whole wide world of movie making. But to have the main processes explained clearly, precisely and in a language I could understand, all this in a one-and-a-half hour film, was like... like attending film school but without the (almost always compulsory) elitism and snobbery ;) :D

And watching the documentary at a film festival was a special experience per se. It was shown in a small old-fashioned theater, with creaking seats and wood floors and velvet curtains and no air conditioning; and old theater where once I used to go watch old cinematheque movies in black-and-white. There was a bitter-sweet irony about it. The audience was formed mainly by film festival guests and film students; people with technical background in movie making, and a few lost souls like myself, who just wanted to watch the documentary we read so much about. And it was a joy to see them react to the technical jokes; to hear a few of them hoot when on the screen someone was talking about the operator and the DP losing their god-like status on the set, or to hear them snicker when Cameron rhetorically asks Reeves 'you've been on a few sets in your life, haven't you?'

It's a film about nostalgia and inevitability, with a very light note of sadness.

But this was just the first date, and I'm quite taken with the film, so I'd really like to get to know it better. You know, take it on a second date, then a third. I'll take it to the movies, the old-fashioned way ;) I'll wine it, dine it, maybe even take it on the obligatory weekend to Paris. It could be the beginning of a long lasting relationship. So, when is the DVD gonna be released ? ;) :)

A Fantastic Examination on the Transitional Period of Present Day Cinema

[Chrispy_G · 10/10 · 27 August 2012]

Cinema is in a state of transition. Film is slowly but surely being replaced and supplanted by Digital techniques. This is a rare gem of documenting because it has been made right in the heart of the transition.

Could you imagine if a documentary featuring major filmmakers had been made during the transition from black and white to color? This is essentially the modern iteration of that concept.

This film chronicles how digital filming and editing techniques have developed over the last two decades or so and have evolved from being a niche, low quality choice into a much more cost-effective, dynamic and comparable alternative to doing the same work on film.

Side By Side will only become more valued as the years go by. One day sooner rather than later film will be gone and everything will be digital. This will be regarded as more of a historical document than a film. It is a snapshot of the state of the industry as it makes the biggest transition it has ever gone through.

This is a true testament to the exponential times we live in and should not be missed by any cinema lover.

standing at the crossroads of cinematography: the digital v celluloid debate

[HelenMary · 10/10 · 2 December 2012]

Seen in the comfort of a small "traditional" cinema during Brighton (UK) Film Festival, glad I had searched to find a screening so as to see this as it should be seen. There were perhaps ?<50 others in the audience dotted around. Surprisingly, before the film was a Short about that particular cinema's Projectionist, how he started as a young man and how his job is changing since the good old days of film - a lonely and solitary process that was labour intensive - and now his expertise is becoming obsolete because of the increasing switch to digital where it's more about pressing a button. Apropos and rather poignant. Cue curtains; Company Films' Production of Side by Side with Keanu Reeves' opening narration in his clear, measured and reassuringly authoritative voice.

The film is a balanced documentary, incredibly well laid out, highlighting the informative in-business discussion surrounding the merits, disadvantages and progress in the increasing trend of migration from celluloid to digital film-making. At first dialogue is straight up "film or digital?" but as the process opens up and more is investigated following a pleasing linear train of thought, the Directors and other Film-Makers discuss the finer points of the debate ie the quality of the different media, how the variety of cameras have changed, how the industry has led development of new technologies (SONY in the vanguard), the effects of the change on actors' experience (with some amusing anecdotes), timing, budget, film colouration, editing and SFX/VFX. At every stage examples of the various films are shown with subtitle labels; whether a film was shot with a specific camera, on digital or film, what mm film etc, and with each interviewee his or her notable achievements are provided often with behind the scenes footage as they reminisce.

Christopher Kenneally's Direction is flawless, artistic and tight and his writing is succinct, understandable and unbiased. It isn't too technical for novices, but wasn't so basic as to feel dumbed down (the simplicity of the 'how a camera works' visual aid graphics were very brief and explanations of abbreviations were only explained once) and you got to see various methods and techniques of film-making - a real behind the scenes. Reeves asks leading questions of the film-makers that he interviews, he sits by the lens discretely often off camera, but prompts them and occasionally responds making it quite informal, watchable and even laugh out loud funny in places. It's certainly not a dry production and I noted that a lot of those interviewed were people that Reeves had worked with in the past, and a number of his own films ie Matrix and 47 Ronin (can't wait!) were used as examples.

Really absorbing, the 90 mins went quickly, and I came away animated and challenged mentally to think about it, with a greater understanding of what goes into making a film. I can't say I had appreciated various subtle differences that were being described, or understood the significance of some Academy awards as a result of new methods of film-making, had just taken films at face value so will look now with new eyes! On balance I saw that most were nostalgic about celluloid film, and don't want to abandon it completely, and worry about the artistry being lost but many see the inevitable progress with technology and the benefits, ease, cheapness and potential for development ie CGI, 3D and greater movement and intimacy for cameras in digital. Mention was made that with digital filming accessibility of the Industry has opened up as anyone can purchase a digital camera and a laptop and make a film now!

Brilliant, historically important film. I hope it gets the recognition it deserves as a snapshot at a crossroads in an industry that is 120 years old. On a light, flippant note, the breakthrough star of the film is the continuity "errors" of Keanu's hair and beard, much giggled about in Press interviews! ;-)

Still misses a key (technical) point about cinematography!

[sylvain-14 · 6/10 · 21 September 2012]

The takeaway in the documentary is given by Lorenzo Di Bonaventura when he says "everyone will eventually be making films but there will no longer be a taste-maker in the process." Sadly guests like Greta Gerwig ("Like, oh my God..."), or Lena Dunham ("I was afraid you'd have to be a dude who operates machines to do this job") are not taste-makers. If gender balance was an issue, it is regrettable that someone like Kathryn Bigelow was not interviewed instead. Testicles are not required to give expert insights into cinematography, but unbeknownst to Miss Dunham, operating machines and having taste, talent, and knowledge - craft as it was once known - were always the qualities that made film so special, and one can question the point of consulting philistines on a subject such as this one; after all, we already know what those who can't be bothered with technique prefer, and we already know why NYU film students shoot low-tech...

Similarly, Greta Gerwig coyly offers "We process digital like film, as if film is inherently better which is, like...arbitrary." Well…Arbitrary to your eyes, perhaps, sweetheart… On this pressing issue, it is paramount to hear what James Cameron, David Fincher, or Christopher Nolan and all their cinematographers have to say because they use cinematography deliberately and with savvy, on the other hand, the lesser able and technically challenged have already won the race to the bottom by making film emulsion irrelevant by default and I am not sure that their "I can't be bothered to operate equipment" view of the world matters anymore at this point.

The trouble with giving the same platform to a non-discerning wannabe as to a seasoned chemist/artist - those who manipulate emulsion, and capture light on a highly sophisticated level, and treat it like a character in the film - is that the discussion quickly gets dragged down to the bottom of the pond by the least able and talented among the bunch— the schoolgirls and schoolboys who caught their break on a whim, so to speak— and are now using cameras to create the filmmaking equivalent of Hip-hop or finger painting (democracy for all, etc. -- the same story has already plagued art and music throughout the 20th century: a descent into the lowest common denominators becomes the norm…) This documentary is interesting, but quickly meanders into debates over whether or not a technician on a ladder is distracting to an actor, yet only lightly touches on a key technical point which is that the disappearance of emulsion photography is a vastly different problem from the fact that digital processes have undeniably improved delivery and visual effects, as well as distribution to many formats. They're significantly different issues and must not all be confused. The joyful experience felt in seeing the Blu-Ray copy of Michael Powell's The Red Shoes, or Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, for instance, indicate that older films, indeed, have never looked better thanks to digital remastering – all the digital processes involved in post production seem mostly like a blessing in this and many other instances, but only to the degree that the wondrous Technicolor/Ektacolor/Fujicolor/KodakVision film emulsions were so tangibly flexible, unpredictably alive, and beautiful – the digital process has simply served to reveal that original beauty and flexibility… But it had to be there in the first place. Those who are not able to "see it" didn't use to weigh-in when cinematography was seen as "voodoo," and that was probably for the best.

Cinematography itself is the stage at which artistry is either captured organically or condemned forever to pixel-uncertainty.

Finally, this documentary assumes that the world is divided into two camps: expensive Hollywood VFX pictures and low-balling "Dogma 95" street films – somehow, the discussion only appears to navigate those ridiculous extremes. Somehow, Christopher Kenneally and Keanu Reeves seem to forget to focus the conversation on "capturing the light, the tones, the hues in all their definition and organic life" for the many adult-age films that embrace a balance of well crafted stories and intimate humanity, and require to be shot using subtlety and delicate mix of artful, painterly light – that only organic emulsion seems to have been able to capture all this time -- with no visual effects in mind, and no special DI grading tricks in post production – just beautiful cinematography, thank you very much!

There's much more to be said in another film on the subject, no doubt, and the discussion must be even more technical and specialized - because bastardizing every topic in film for the comfort of rubberneckers is exactly what has gotten us into this predicament in the first place.

Required viewing for any film enthusiast.

[PopCulturedwithMovieMike · 10/10 · 29 January 2014]

Side by Side might just be the best documentary about filmmaking since Man with the Camera (1929). It's produced by Keanu Reeves, who also serves as interviewer. Reeves sits down on camera and has a discussion with some of the biggest directors of this era including David Lynch, Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, Danny Boyle, Steven Soderbergh, Robert Rodriguez, and George Lucas.

There are two main types of movie fans. The first kind go to the movies, or rent a DVD as a way to pass the time. They may know a few of the actors and possibly even the director, if he's one of the more famous ones. They consume the film in a very basic manner.

Then there are the people who know most of the actors, or they pay attention to the way a shot is composed, or they can appreciate certain lighting effects, or the pacing of the editing. These people are enjoying the film on a different level. Some would argue a level that was not intended by the filmmaker.

I belong to the latter, as I believe many of the people who frequent this website do. This is why I would like to recommend Side by Side to anybody whose love for cinema extends beyond the credits.

As a professional cameraman and editor, I find the subject matter that Side by Side deals with inherently interesting. I love learning about film, cameras, editing, lighting and all the components that come together to make a movie.

On the surface, Side by Side attempts to debate which movie making format is better, film or digital. The movie goes way deeper than just trying to answer this question. In fact, it goes through the whole workflow of how a movie is made. From how a camera works, to the cinematography, to the editing, to the color correcting, to the making of prints and the distribution of the film.

Even somebody who doesn't have an interest in the nuts and bolts of how a film is made will come away with a bigger appreciation for movies and all the work that goes into creating them. Even though I learned a lot of what was being discussed in college, or from other documentaries and by watching the extras on DVD's, I still learned a ton of new things from this film.

Side by Side does a nice job of laying out the pros and cons of both formats, but the film really focuses on the fact that the end of film being used to shoot movies is not a possibility, it's an inevitability. Technology has reached a point where it can no longer be ignored. Digital format was once looked at as inferior, but now it's on par if not surpassing what celluloid can accomplish. There's a certain sadness in hearing filmmakers talk about the death celluloid. Many of them are very nostalgic about the whole process of shooting a movie on film.

The ironic twist is that, as we move away from film and start putting more and more movies on a digital format, the process of storing and backing up the material is not reliable. It turns out that the best way to preserve a movie is to then transfer the digital format to celluloid. A true Hollywood story of redemption if I've ever seen one.

In the end, it doesn't matter if a film is shot on digital or celluloid. The only thing that matters is if a film tells a good story and includes memorable characters. Because of this simple goal, movies will always serve their purpose to entertain and inspire regardless of the format that is used to capture them.

Less Controversy over Invention of Fire?

[GeoPierpont · 6/10 · 13 June 2014]

After seeing James' Avatar I felt doomed for the future of film, given to special effects over script, character development, storyline, you name it. However, the screen was a feast for the eyes but so devoid of everything else celluloid has provided. I was very concerned until I viewed this documentary. What a collection of visionaries and representation of excellence in their respective fields!

It was soothing to hear similar concerns expressed for any degradation of the art form and the emphasis on preservation was most appreciated. I truly am brought to the divine by the talents of many filmmakers over the past century and am thankful for this delicate discussion and candid interview. Kudos Keanu!!

Good Concept, But You Better Be A Die-Hard To Really Enjoy

[zkonedog · 4/10 · 5 March 2017]

I'm usually down for a good film-based documentary, so I decided to give this one a try as it looked like such an interested concept. While it was indeed a very intriguing subject, one has to truly be a hard-core film buff (the technical stuff) to really get into it.

The topic of "digital film" vs "celluloid film" truly is a fascinating one and deserves a documentary like this. Whenever a medium change is about to define any industry, it is always a turning point filled with pros and cons that must be discussed in order to obtain some sort of understanding. That concept is the high point of "Side by Side".

Sadly, I wish they would have made this doc a bit more "user-friendly" to those (like me) who wanted to see the comparison "in action". There is far too much "talking" and far too little actually comparison of the two film methods. Clearly, this was a doc made for not just film buffs, but more towards camera buffs who really get into the technical stuff.

The choice of Keanu Reeves as narrator/host is also a terrible one, as his dry, bland story lends nothing towards the excitement factor.

Thus, "Side by Side" will be a great little doc for those internally fascinated by film. If you are just a "movie fan", however, you can probably skip it.

Take a journey through he history of filmmaking with Side by Side

[rgblakey · 17 September 2012]

One of the most important things about a documentary is subject matter. If you do not have an interesting topic then you will not only get the viewers but you won't be able to keep them. The latest documentary film Side By Side does something a little bit different than most of this genre. It tackles a subject that those outside the industry may know nothing about but are affected by it nonetheless.

Side By Side takes a tour through the history of filmmaking through the impact that the rise of digital filmmaking has had. Featuring an impressive list of filmmakers including George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, Robert Rodriguez, David Lynch, David Fincher, Steven Soderbergh, Christopher Nolan as well as numerous industry professionals this film explores both the good and bad of this rise of the digital age through the creative eyes of those that make these films. For anyone that loves film this is a must see documentary. Not only do you see how it affected tons of different movies, but also how it changed the industry. With Keanu Reeves leading the charge interviewing the power house of Hollywood it delivers a different side of the world of imagination that we all love. In addition to getting a peek behind the curtain that audiences normally never think twice about, we are also given a look at who really had their hand in this evolutionary change and what films took these leaps. This is an effective film that works on many levels more than just a documentary on cameras. It tells the story of film processing, camera evolution, filmmaking, and a true chance for those that work behind the scenes to give their opinions and thoughts on this evolution, the good and bad.

There are some very emotional responses here that really show the love these filmmakers have for what they do and will offer a great inside look and should give you a new respect for the process and creators as well as the films themselves. Some feel this is the end of true film while others feel this is the birth of unlimited creativity, either way this film evokes an emotional response both on the screen and from the viewer which is what film is all about.

http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-dallas/bobby-blakey

Keanu and the Movie Revolution

[tabuno · 8/10 · 16 January 2019]

5 October 2014. As a documentary, Keanu brings a fresh style with his presence and perhaps access to some of the major directors and cinematographers of our time discussing the revolutionary changes from film to digital movie making. The editing, timing, and level of interest that this documentary brings to the big screen is appealing and informative. Keanu offers up some illuminating questions, bringing forth some openly authentic answers from some of the key players of our movie industry. This documentary is both historical and contemporaneous. It raises important questions regarding this big shift in how movies are made and the medium used. This is a fine documentary worthy in its own right as a film.

A Must For Anyone In the Creative Arts

[cinswan · 10/10 · 4 November 2016]

Christopher Kenneally, along with host Keanu Reeves and a myriad of directors and cinematographers interviewed for this film have done all of us in the creative arts, who find our tools and mediums altered by technology, a great service: they have described for us the benefits, detriments, and possible melding of past technologies with the new in the quest for achieving our goals of telling a story.

As a writer, I do rely upon technology – the computer, the internet – in order to publish my works as e-books. Do I disdain Microsoft's default font as Times New Roman? (as a former phototypesetter who used Times English 49, yes, I do; and even that wasn't my preferred font – Palatino was the most beautiful font family to my eye). Spell and Grammar Check in Microsoft? It's my comedy explosion…the descent of standard American English into the realm of not knowing when to use "who" or "that" astounds me still. But I digress.

This documentary, geeky and nerdy as it can be (and I love those things myself), shows how technology evolves to meet a creative need, is exploited to further meet a creative need, and how it also can fall short of the desired creative vision of those who use it. The film also serves as a history of how celluloid has been handled (and for a writer, this is so inspiring for me in terms of how to write), and how digital allows for visualizing people and events that otherwise would be difficult to achieve.

From Scorsese's description of fingers being sliced in the process of physically splicing (cutting) celluloid to achieve the desired result, to the cinematographer on "Laurence of Arabia" describing how a celluloid film cut created a dramatic transition that no writer, director, or actor could have done alone gives great credit to a medium that is around a century old – and argues for the fact that because there is new digital technology, it doesn't render it obsolete. Quite the contrary: one director points out that, without a knowledge about how film photography renders a finished (in the rough) project, digital film photography can fall short of what the cinematic experience in full requires – the intuitive sensitivity of the eye, which is, at the core of it, a subjective interpretation of experience. And isn't all creativity that?

The exploration of how digital technology expands ability to film at all (in difficult location circumstances) and in creating unknown worlds is just as fruitful to understand as the "10 minute cut" that the celluloid film canister requires. Actors and everyone else get to take a breath and come back to a scene anew, a great asset to the creative process. On the other hand, being able to continuously "film" someone in a challenging location without cuts also has advantages.

In the final analysis, the title "Side by Side" says it all: both media are essential to the creative process when it comes to storytelling through a "film" media. Reeves' project underscores this by showing many examples of films shot on a variety of cameras. The cameras, back to geekdom, get center stage, as they should – the technology any of us use to create our work is vital to getting our work out to others.

This film needs to be in the library of anyone in creative arts who finds that technology is impacting how they do what they do. On the one hand, "the better is the enemy of the good". On the other – new and old can walk forward side by side and expand the creative output of us all. As a writer contemplating having my work adapted for cable/streaming, I know that both technologies, and knowledge of them, will be essential to storytelling that will make the work memorable to all viewers.

Isabeau Vollhardt, Author, The Casebook of Elisha Grey series

A fascinating dissertation on a quiet revolution in cinema

[eatfirst · 7/10 · 15 September 2013]

This feature length documentary tackling the subject of the move from film to digital in the movie world has been made with supremely auspicious timing, arriving at what may well prove to have been the pivotal moment in cinema history when the momentum of change tipped the balance away from essentially a century old format and into a digital world new and uncharted. Made even a year earlier or a year later, this may have been a very different beast.

Presented largely as a talking heads style debate with some of cinema's leading directors and cinematographers, Side By Side gathers the thoughts and feelings of those, old and new to the industry, who are living and working inside the guts of the machine and seeing their world changing irrevocably with every passing day. It's a dry and somewhat specialised topic to be sure, but for anyone interested in the history, future, technology and aesthetics of cinema, I highly recommend it.

a fascinating, educational, and important documentary about celluloid and digital cinema, but also an homage to film's past, a look at its present, and concerns for its future

[tbmforclasstsar · 10/10 · 30 August 2012]

Newsflash: if you aren't aware, as many average movie-goers may not be, there is an incredible change happening in the world of cinema that has become the proverbial snowball down a mountain side for the last 15 years. The signs are evident for everyone, however. The growth in films presented in 3D and the amazing advances in visual effects are two very obvious hints to this change. And though it seems like the difference in choice between one and the other, it is a choice that has an effect on every part of the filmmaking process, distribution, and watching experience. This is the transition motion pictures have from the celluloid film to the digital capture form, and it is the subject of the incredibly fascinating documentary Side by Side.

Directed and written by Christopher Kenneally and narrated and paneled by actor Keanu Reeves, Side by Side searches out the ways digital cinema has become the new staple in the film world, the science behind these changes, the discussion of the art form, and how this transition started to take place. It is not a documentary trying to persuade us one way or another, or even saying that there is a right and a wrong. It displays the facts as facts and gives us the opinions of a series of individuals who couldn't be more credible.

This may be the major drawing point for anyone to see this film. Here is a short list of some of the major individuals that give their professional insight on the subject of this film: directors Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, David Lynch, George Lucas, Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, Steven Soderbergh, Danny Boyle, Robert Rodriguez, Lars von Trier, and Andy and Lana Wachowski, and cinematographers Michael Ballhas, Dion Beebe, Michael Chapman, Anthony Dod Mantle, and Wally Pfister. This group is also joined by several other directors, DPs, editors, actors, producers, execs, and color technicians to give us a well rounded look into the effects digital film has had in cinema.

What is so well done in Side by Side are the conversations with these major players in today's and yesterday's cinema. We get to hear deep confessions about making films, passion in the individuals who make them, and the cases for both sides of the argument. While the argument of film vs. digital essentially comes down to convenience and money, there are definitely deeper reasons than this.

For example, directors like James Cameron and George Lucas confess over and over that the films they make are just not possible with celluloid film. When you look at a film such as Avatar, a film that takes place in the jungle for more than three quarters of the film, it is the reality that not a single moment had been filmed in the jungle that really hits you. Watching Cameron go to work on large sets with blue screens all around him helps you understand the amazing technological advancements that were needed for a film like Avatar. It makes you realize that films like this aren't possible without digital cinema.

But this also brings up the argument against digital. Sure, Avatar may look pretty and be fun to watch, but it is actually all fake. Essentially, none of what you see is real. Does this take away from the film experience? Cameron argues that the same could be said about an Indie film where someone stands on a street. Sure, everything in the shot is real, but there are thirty people behind the camera watching it happen and boom mics and equipment all around. He essentially argues that film, whether it be Avatar or Taxi Driver, has always been as fake or real as you want to imagine it.

To read the rest of the review (IMDb form too short) visit: http://custodianfilmcritic.com/side- by-side/

Does it matter HOW you film a movie? The pros and cons explained to us viewers by several brilliant directors and photographers.

[imseeg · 7/10 · 3 June 2020]

This documentary is fun to watch for those viewers who are interested HOW (and IF) the technical qualities of movie making could influence the artistic end product. The pros and cons of filming digitally instead of on oldfashioned analog film is explained to us by many brilliant (truly the best of the world) directors and photographers.

No matter what technique is used finally it will always be the creative ingenuity of the director/photographer, which will make a film great or not. BUT there are definitely different ways that the old film and the new digital techniques can influence HOW a movie is being PERCEIVED by the audience. And THAT is interesting. Martin Scorsese for example, stated that because of digitization (CGI) youngsters (below 20 years old) dont believe ANY image in a movie to be true anymore, lowering the emotional impact a movie can make on a young viewer, compared to people at the early birth of film, who ran out of the theater, when they saw a steam train approaching on the silver screen (true story).

Another aspect of digital movie making is that it is cheaper. Some folks will like that aspect (producers especially), but actors started complaining after the introduction of digital filming, about the endless, continuous shoots, whereas with the old film, one was restricted to 10 minutes of film shooting and then the film had to be replaced, forcing a natural pause.

I am not a tech geek person, I simply love the better looking digital images in the theaters and on the tv. BUT, digital movies can be copied easier and therefore do become more of a throwaway product nowadays, with so many movies distributed via the internet (Netflix etc). Back in the days of old fashioned films, (seventies / eighties) I saw less movies, but the impression they had on me was much bigger. Unfortunately when a movie was rubbish in the seventies/eighties, that negative impression lasted longer as well, for as today I can easily select dozens of other pictures to watch instead of the rubbish picture I saw earlier. And this abundance of available movies is only possible, because everything has been digitized.

More similar kind of philosophies about digital movie making can be seen and heard. Quite interesting and fun to watch, with many examples from classic movies and their brilliant makers...

good coverage of a sensitive issue

[maloy_1 · 8/10 · 24 August 2013]

Sadly, as a person who has been a part of the filmmaking process for a long time, a lot of what was discussed - the end of celluloid, and the watching of movies on phones, is true. However, the bright side for me, is that there appears to be two schools now for film appreciation. There are twice as many people in the world now as there was in the 50's. people obviously still want to watch films-stories of US. There will always be a place for quality that is best viewed on a big screen in a room bigger than the living room. Humans sharing an experience with other humans, watching a story made well, hopefully , won't disappear. There has been a lot of growth and accessibility for 'pop' film...reality shows etc. That's fine. Change is good, I welcome it. A problem with digital is that product is made too much by ONE person. The great thing with film is that the product like a symphony contains input by a lot of people. Digital pictures are often too narrow and predictable since the technology allows one person to have so much say in the result

A Great Documentary For Movie Fans

[leonblackwood · 7/10 · 17 June 2013]

Review: This documentary is for all of the movies fans that want a deep insight into the history of the movie format change throughout the years. Keanu Reeves chats with some of the biggest directors, producers etc. which excludes George Lucas, Martin Scorsese and the man that can't seem to do anything wrong, James Cameron. I definitely learnt a lot from this film about the digital format and how it changed the how movie world. People don't really think about how far we have come when it comes to movies because we just want to see a good movie, regardless how it comes to the big screen. This film will shock you when you hear about the preparation and fine detail that the directors and the rest of the crew have to go through just to entertain us. Educational!

Round-Up: One of the great things about this double DVD set is that you actually get to see the full interviews with all of the amazing movie makers. I did get a bit lost with some of the interviews because I didn't know what he hell they were talking about, with all of there movie jargon, but by the time that you come to the end of the film, you feel like your right in there with the professionals. Keanu Reeves seemed a bit out there, but I don't think that the film makers would have felt comfortable chatting to someone who didn't know what they were talking about. I'm not usually one for documentaries, but this has opened my mind.

Budget: N/A Worldwide Gross: N/A

I recommend this movie to all film lovers that want a deep look into the history of movie making. 7/10

A fascinating look at modern cinema as it undergoes its most earth-shaking technological transition yet.

[shawneofthedead · 8/10 · 7 February 2014]

Even the most ardent of movie-goers might be unaware of the extent to which seismic technological changes have swept through Hollywood in the past twenty years or so. Of course, they would likely be aware of the debate over film versus digital: the question of whether the trusty, treasured method of shooting movies on celluloid is slowly becoming a thing of the past, with digital technology improving in leaps and bounds every day. But cinema enthusiasts who aren't personally familiar with the workings of a movie set might not understand just how much the digital revolution has shaken things up in the industry, fundamentally altering the power dynamics, work flow and structure within any given director's creative team.

Side By Side - a fascinating, insightful documentary facilitated and produced by Keanu Reeves - delves head-on into this knotty issue. Speaking to some of the world's top directors, from James Cameron through to Christopher Nolan and Martin Scorsese, Reeves teases out some of the untold joys and quiet tragedies of the seemingly inevitable shift from old-school film to new-fangled digital. He consults, too, some of the world's finest cinematographers - from Wally Pfister (Nolan's Director of Photography, or DP, of choice) to Anthony Dod Mantle (Danny Boyle's go-to guy) - as well as a host of other people affected by the change: editors, colourists, VFX artists, producers and camera manufacturers.

For anyone who loves movies, this documentary is a delight. It's a treat to hear from the many people who have laboured in dark rooms and behind the scenes to bring us silver-screen magic (itself a term intricately tied up with the old-fashioned capturing of an image on celluloid). Boyle explains how he came around to the concept of manoeuvrable cameras; Cameron and George Lucas plump heavily down on the side of editable, instant 'immediatelies' (rather than the dailies of yore); Nolan maintains his commitment to shooting with film. Joel Schumacher, too, who hasn't made a film since 2011, has a few particularly resonant things to say about the role that technology can and must play in service of art (and vice versa).

But, on top of finding out where each director stands on the issue, Side By Side also looks at how the digital revolution has affected the job of the cinematographer. Once in almost full control of the final image captured - one that had to be processed overnight and could only be viewed the next day, with minimal edits possible (barring reshoots) - the cinematographer had immense power on set. But, these days, feedback is instantaneous, and directors can tell right away if what they've shot with digital cameras is good enough. There's a lot of gentle heartache and nostalgia that can be found in the film as directors and cinematographers alike talk about cameras that can now capture more details than ever before and screens that can display images as they're being shot.

If you're not a big fan of tech-speak and finding out the inner workings of Hollywood, Side By Side could prove to be a challenging watch. It's frequently quite dry, burrowing into technical details and minutiae that might puzzle or frustrate casual viewers. There are a few great tidbits sprinkled throughout - including an absolutely brilliant anecdote featuring Robert Downey Jr and his frustration at losing the downtime afforded by the changing of the magazines in film cameras - but these might not be enough to tide everyone over.

Anyone who's ever been a tad confused about the film vs. digital debate will find plenty in Side By Side to think about. There are a few messages in the film: one of them, bleak though it may be, concerns the death knell that has apparently begun to ring for shooting on film. It's lamentable that this particular art form - difficult and frustrating though it may sometimes be - is slowly dying out, but it's inevitable and, as many of the directors here argue, necessary.

But the core message - the one to take home with us - has to do with the power of cinema and the stories it tells us: everyone interviewed by Reeves participates precisely because they love the movies as much and as deeply as we do, and want to do right by them. In that sense, Side By Side celebrates as much as it mourns the advent of digital technology, while demonstrating that, even as the industry moves towards its future, it will always be inextricably linked to its past.

Nice doc, but hardly recommendable for a general audience

[adamscastlevania2 · 4/10 · 17 October 2014]

(36%) A documentary with its sights clearly focused more on film aficionados than the typical causal movie goer, which is both the films strength and weakness. Its strength lie in that it knows most people out there will care very little if a film is shot digitally or using film so long as it looks good and is entertaining/well made/both, so it does not really go after that type of film fan at all. This really is much more of a technical and opinion based affair that you really need a genuine interest in the inner workings of film industry to really get anything out of, and if you don't then I'd advise you to watch something else.

A Side By Side Comparison Of Shooting On Film & Shooting Digitally

[CinemaClown · 9 August 2013]

An immensely intriguing tour of the evolution of filmmaking process in the cinematic medium over the years, Side by Side is a side by side comparison of the two formats of crafting a motion picture that's available to filmmakers today; first is shooting on photochemical film which has been in use since the dawn of cinema while the other is shooting digitally which dominates the industry at present & has made the traditional film stock an endangered format.

Directed by Christopher Kenneally, this documentary presents Keanu Reeves as the questioner discussing about the evolution, impact & innovations the film camera has made since its creation and joining him in the discussion are Hollywood's esteemed directors like Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, Richard Linklater, David Fincher, Christopher Nolan & many more plus it also asks the opinions of various cinematographers, editors, VFX supervisors & others as well.

Side by Side provides a thorough examination of the history of 35mm print while also capturing the dawn, rise & revolution of digital format in the past two decades which as of today threatens the very existence of traditional filmmaking format. We get to see strong proponents for both formats, each presenting very valid arguments when it comes to the benefits & limitations of both film stock & digital recording in things like ease of use, economy, flexibility etc.

On an overall scale, Side by Side beautifully covers the still ongoing battle of the superior format in the film industry today and my only gripe with it is that it's only 98 minutes long. Even though in my opinion digital cinema seems to be a valid choice in the long run, IMAX has given film stocks a fresh breathe of life, and if only both formats can mutually co-exist then it's a win-win situation for the industry. Extremely gripping, highly entertaining & downright informative, Side by Side is a must-watch for every cinema fan out there.

A terrific documentary on what might be called 'the death of film'.

[MOscarbradley · 8/10 · 3 December 2014]

Don't let Keanu Reeves' involvement put you off, as it almost did me. "Side by Side" is a terrific documentary that examines the differences between the use of traditional film and the development of digital photography. It's mostly made up of talking heads, primarily directors and DPs, but their passion and enthusiasm for the medium is infectious. There aren't too many examples of the uses of either and often the film seems more like an excuse for why digital is preferable to film; it's almost a valedictory to film and that depresses me. Younger and younger audiences are growing up knowing only digital and are losing out on the beautiful, pain-staking imagery of over a 100 years of film.

I admit film fades and great movies have been lost but give me the black and white glories of Gregg Toland over a lot of what we are seeing today anytime. Is there room for both? Of course; art is all-embracing. I know I'm old-fashioned in my love of old movies and that, in time, the digital revolution will probably, (hopefully), produce masterpieces as great as "Citizen Kane" and "Psycho". I love high definition and the clarity of well shot digital films but for me it will never match the thrill I got seeing for the first time D W Griffith's "Intolerance" (1916) on a large cinema screen.