[469 Interview] The Flicker of Creativity:

   Pip Chodorov is a Professor in the Department of Film at Dongguk University and a leading figure in experimental filmmaking. He explores the creative possibilities of film by pushing beyond traditional cinematic norms and emphasizing the materiality of the medium. Chodorov believes that the unique artistic freedom and experiences provided by analog film cannot be replicated by digital technology, and through his work, he continues to expand the boundaries of cinema as an art form. His commitment to hands-on experimentation with film has inspired a new generation of filmmakers to rethink the role of film in the digital age.

Q. Please introduce yourself.

   My name is Pip Chodorov. I am an experimental filmmaker originally from New York. I have been living in Paris for many years, and for the past 11 years, I have been living in Korea.

Q. Can you explain what experimental films are?

   Most films tell stories, but experimental films do not focus on narrative. Instead, they offer visual experiences. You can think of them as being more like poems. While traditional films are like novels, experimental films are like poetry. They can be anything. It is similar to painting. Even if a painter is working outside traditional boundaries, you would not call them an “experimental painter” just because their work is not on a canvas. In the same way, film can be anything, and experimental films push the boundaries of what cinema can be.

Q. What are the biggest differences between digital and analog filmmaking? How do these differences impact the film making process?

   When you work with a material, it is like being a painter who uses watercolors, oils, acrylics, or even finger paints. A sculptor works with clay, wood, or plaster. Similarly, in filmmaking, you create images with a medium. Film is a physical medium. It is made of plastic and its emulsion contains crystals and salts, which come from the Earth. The process is like getting a sunburn at the beach—when light hits your skin, it changes color. Similarly, when light hits film, a physical process occurs. With digital filmmaking, there is no material involved. It is a very different experience because nothing physical is changing, aside from the flow of electrons.

   When you work with film, you engage with your hands, chemicals, light, and darkness, constantly thinking about the machines and the physical process. But with digital, it is different. You are primarily focused on the image as a virtual construct. I believe that working with a tangible material like film can inspire you in ways that digital does not because the physical process affects your creative thinking.

Q. Although digital filmmaking has gradually replaced analog filmmaking in recent years, why do some filmmakers still prefer the analog method?

   It is not that filmmakers prefer it; it is just that film is filmmaking. Without it, you are making video. There are people who enjoy working with film, but we do not call it “analog” because video, whether analog or digital, is a signal, like sound. It is a flux, so it can be either digital or analog. But with film, you are working with a photochemical material, not a signal, so the term “analog” is not used.

   Many filmmakers enjoy working with film because it is what they like, what they grew up with, or simply what they are used to. It is also cheaper and offers a unique experience. For instance, when shooting on film, you only have about three minutes of footage, and once it is used up, you cannot continue shooting. With digital, you could shoot for hours, but you would still need to review and store the footage.

   Another reason for choosing film is preservation. A film can last 200 years just sitting on a shelf, while a hard drive lasts only 5 to 10 years. With digital, you must do a lot of work to preserve the file, but with film, the image is much more durable. If you drop a hard drive or try to plug it in 10 years later, it may not work. Hollywood studios usually shoot digitally, but they still make a film copy for long term preservation. Despite shooting and editing digitally, they store a film copy in a vault to preserve it for 100 to 200 years.

   An additional issue is the ecology. People think that film uses a lot of plastic and chemicals and makes waste while digital is somehow greener because you can store it in “the cloud”—but you have to remember that the cloud is a mountain full of hard drives requiring electricity and air conditioning and constant backups, where hard drives are systematically swapped out and junked, so it is extremely costly and wasteful, much more than a few rolls of film.

Q. How would you assess the symbolic meaning and social impact of digital vs analog filmmaking in modern society?

   When movie theaters were converting from 35-millimeter projectors to digital projectors, this was forced by the government in different countries. They were given grants and offered projectors and other things. But the 35-millimeter projectors were not broken. They still worked perfectly well. However, due to the industry, they were pushed to convert to digital. The companies that make digital equipment lobbied the government and pushed the government to push the movie theaters to convert. The truth is that digital projectors were actually more expensive. They cost much more than film projectors, and digital projectors cannot be easily repaired. Film projectors only need a screwdriver to change the lamp, making them very easy to fix, and they last for 100 years. But video projectors last only two, three, or four years. Then, they were pushed to upgrade from HD to 2K to 4K. It was always about spending more money. It is really a capitalist plot to make money for companies like Panasonic and Sony. With film, you do not need to spend money. After you shoot it, the film is there. You do not need hard drives or files. It is a capitalist effort to push people to buy the new thing, the new computer, the new phone, the new camera. The cameras I showed you are from the 1970s and they still work fine. But do you have a digital camera that is older than five years? It does not work anymore. You have to get a new one. This is the problem with capitalism. Film comes from the Earth. You can mine the salt, develop the film with onions, salt, and coffee. You do not need to buy anything. But the world we live in wants us to always buy things. That is the problem, and everyone is brainwashed. Everyone is brainwashed into thinking that digital is better, but it actually is not. The resolution is not as good as film and it does not last as long.

Q. As a filmmaker or director, which method do you prefer digital or analog filmmaking and what are the reasons behind your preference?

   I do not have any digital camera because I cannot afford it. You can buy a film camera for 200 dollars, but a good digital camera costs 2000 dollars. I have never really cared to try a digital camera because I like the image I can create with film. The process of working with film feels more authentic and connected to the material world. Additionally, I do not like sharing my images digitally. There is something more communal and intimate about watching a film projected on a big screen. I prefer to invite people and use a projector to display the film physically. When I have seen digital projection and film projection, I am more attracted to the film projection because there is a flicker. Film projectors have a shutter, so 24 times per second, the light is cut off as the film moves, creating a flickering effect. Digital projectors do not have any flicker, and the brain reacts completely differently. The illusion of motion that the flicker creates is entirely different, and it is more exciting physically to the brain than watching a digital image.

Q. How do digital and analog methods provide different creative opportunities in experimental filmmaking?

   When you talk about experimental, you are talking about using the medium in ways it was not originally intended to be used. For example, you can take a film and scratch it. Hollywood does not do that. Experimental filmmakers are curious and think, “I wonder what it would look like if I put the film in urine or hang it from a tree for six months.” So, you are always trying new things. It is always about the question What if? What will it look like if I do this or that? With film, there are many ideas you can get from the material. But with digital, since you do not know how it works and you cannot open it and play with it, it is very difficult to do experimental things with digital. Most people who make video art stage an idea, create performers or colors, and think about the image, but they do not think about the material itself. With film, filmmakers have a lot of things they can do with the material, whether it is the camera, the film itself, the chemicals, or the projector. You can take the lens out, do things with the projector, and even experiment with shadow play using no film at all. You can do anything. But with digital, it is much harder to find ways to experiment with that material because it is just pixels in red, green, and blue light. There is no physical material to play with.

Q. Is there anything else you want to talk to us about?

   I think when you are starting to learn film, it is essential to have access to equipment and work with the material because all great filmmakers used it. It also provides a limitation, such as having only three minutes of film, which encourages creativity. Additionally, working with film is anti-capitalist because you are not relying on big corporations, and it is something you can do by hand. For these reasons, I am very supportive of young filmmakers shooting on film, and it is part of a global movement. More labs are opening around the world where people develop their films by hand. The reaction against digital media is that people want to shoot in every other way. Ultimately, when you shoot on film or with a video camera, you capture the real world. But with artificial intelligence, you are not capturing anything real. It is just a digital world.