What's The Difference Between A Film And A Home Video?

This debate will continue to rage as opinions differ which standard is better but i would rather address the real issu between 'home video' which is our defininition of our movies and the other universal standard for movies.

The little i know and observe in our efforts towards producing commercials and or films is that it lacks ART. By ART i mean the elements and techniques that make the filmaking experience exciting and fulfilling. If you are a reader of comic books,lover of cinema( which i am) and other visual aesthetics, i think you can intrinsically tell what works or what seems ridiculous.

Our people put a lot of effort into what they do, they try to buy the right prosumer level video cameras, work crazy hours, purchase bootleg software,  but then the ART  which is that language of commuicating visual ideas is missing or done in a slipshod way. Very fluent speakers of the art know how to transit from one scene to another, how to tell the story ,get emotion from a scene, understand the effects to use, the image they create and so on  . I am sure many of us can remember specific scenes from favourite movies and how it affected us. Its that residual knowledge that many of us use to make decisions on quality and appeal for any other film we watch. I think that ART  is what our francophone friends may understand a little better though they can make some really boring movies.

I would think we just need to know those techniques and apply it to what we are already good at,story telling.
It would be a start and by the way, the guys doing music videos in Nigeria are ahead of the curve on that . They have techniques in their stuff that and many films don't have.

There are good things being shot on video but you generally do not get respected as a filmmaker if you remain in video. Examples like George Lucas or Michael Mann who shot in HD are slightly incorrect because the kind ofcamera kit they were using is the budget for most Nollywood films and besides they were accomplished in the filmmaking on 35mm before experimenting in video.

Hi Seun,
Tunde kelani now shoots DV,  he's the one of the few real Director of photography who understand the process of filming as it should be done. He now shoots DV by his own admission for economic reasons,  and ease of use. Don't be fooled, his real career and the respect that attributes to it come from the work he did in celluloid. Watch 'white hankerchief'
If you decide to do a film now and decide to show it to a gathering of your peers internationally, you'll understand the limitations DV poses to it being properly appreciated. You might even have a great subject matter but you'll find that DVhas certain issues. Now that said, i am not knocking DV, (its a great format) video and celluloid have their place on the rungs of quality.But the difference between the 2 is quite clear. Not even HD is close to the quality of celluloid now.
If you need to know more  and are really interested in filmaking there' a fantastic book by Robert Rodrigez( Sin City, El Mariachi, Desperado,etc) called 'rebel without a crew'. It's about all the frustrations he went through to make his first film and how he became a top hollywood director straight out of 3rd world mexico.