Whether one is consciously aware of the underlying technical and resulting aesthetic differences or not, most people with a sophisticated eye can tell if an image is of higher visual quality than another. Since what we like is generally influenced by what we know to be good for various reasons, the measure of what makes images superficially beautiful is often defined by the works of artists we admire for their ability to communicate emotion through light and color. For most of us filmmakers these artists emerged from the Hollywood studio system over the course of the last 100 years. And while all of them have their own influences, preferences and working habits, their images have all been governed by the advancements and availability of imaging technology. You’ve probably heard the saying that when you give two directors the same script the resulting films will be completely different. Each director would choose a team of people both behind and in front of the camera to best help him or her materialize their unique vision of the story and inevitably this collective would largely influence the outcome of their production. But if both films were made with the intention to entertain a larger audience, which after all is the premise of most films, they too would be bounded by common denominators such as having an act-structure and a protagonist the audience can identify with. Even though this is a gross oversimplification of what makes films work, they are essentially triggering our deeply embedded sense and understanding of story which has been our main concept of escapism since long before technology allowed us to capture our dreams as images. The medium of film itself, like most technology is a conceptual derivative. So how does this relate to the ‘Film Look’? Well, a lot of people would probably argue that there is no such thing. Not because the term is often thrown around without having a collectively accepted definition of it but because most are unable to detect the common, style-forming technological influences in superficially different images. Take a look at the screenshots below. Do they look completely different to you?

Sure, all of these images differ in framing, lighting, aspect ratio and more obviously in the actual contents of the frame. All of these images have been subject to digital color grading, emphasizing the mood and tone of each individual shot. The one in the lower left for example has been treated stylistically different from the one directly above it, rendering the greens more muted brownish as opposed to the vivid greens above which have more cyan in them. In spite of these obvious differences all of these images have one thing in common. They look like ‘Film’. In fact, all of the above images have been either shot on or emulate Kodak Vision3 250D 5207 film stock so even though they may appear to be completely different from each other they are all filmic in the truest sense of the word. So besides the impeccable craftsmanship and creativity that go into color correction and color grading to get the most out of every frame captured by the cinematographer, it is this look the sophisticated viewer instantly associates with high quality, ‘filmic’ imagery. It’s not the software or plugins that are being used to achieve a certain look and it’s not a particular style like the infamous ‘Teal & Orange” or Bleach Bypass. Similar to a screenplay being uniquely interpreted within the framework of narratives , images can and should be uniquely altered based on an artists particular intentions and circumstances but within the bounds of underlying guidelines which are informed by established ideas that have proven to work both artistically and, in consequence, economically over long stretches of time. Like stories which have been structured in acts since ancient history, the look of movies is, to this day, largely influenced by the aesthetic characteristics of photochemical film. Narratives which lead to the experience of catharsis after the hero has overcome all obstacles to fulfill her desires at the end of act three can have many plots. And film has many looks. So if there was one common definition of the Film Look it would be one that describes the shared characteristics imposed onto high quality imagery by the aesthetic of analog film. The Film Look is not a look. It’s what is beneath it.