The downside of digital

German media critic plays devil’s advocate

By Tilman Baumgärtel
Contributor
Inquirer

Posted date: September 24, 2006

THE INTRODUCTION OF Affordable digital video cameras and the prospect of making films inexpensively and independent of big studio have stirred up a lot of excitement in the Philippine film community. Whereas traditional filmmaking requires huge investments in film stock alone, digital movie making—which accounts for 40 percent of last years local production—is possible for a fraction of the usual production budget. Therefore many Filipino filmmakers have, by themselves or with the support of the recent Cinemalaya festival or the upcoming CinemaOne competition, started making movies without relying on the resources of mainstream production companies. Some of their output, “Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros,” in particular, have reaped critical acclaim here and abroad.

Now, digital movies are seen as a way out of the local film industry’s usual fare of often formulaic productions. Many filmmakers, critics and fans anticipate a third “Golden Age” of Philippine cinema, with directors taking on new and untried subject matters that big studios would rather not touch. They hope that fresh narrative strategies and innovative ways of storytelling will breathe new life into the industry, which is currently in dire straits because of the dominance of American blockbusters and the curse of DVD piracy.

I am about to play the spoilsport here, or the devil’s advocate. I will argue that digital movie making is not magic pixie dust, and might actually be bad for Philippine cinema. In contrast to the current euphoria over digital movies, I will point out some of their shortcomings.