I just think this is important to see because most of the time, they try to keep it away from us.

If you can't read it go here.

Note that this is almost 9 years old but still is the top hit if you want to check out this kind of information. What do you suppose they're doing behind all those closed doors?

There has been a silence on all things criticizing the big media corporations, those who control information and our access to it. I know it's off topic, but it needs some attention.

Here's an interesting article from 1997. 1997!

Ok, and a more recent article that will blow your mind. Did you know all of this stuff?

For those of you yet to be introduced to the phenomenon:

EARTH

What began on Discovery as Planet Earth has become a feature film event. I haven't yet seen the film, but the series was mind-blowing and it looks like their going to use some of the same footage.

If you haven't heard anything about it yet, I beg you, please go see it. I wish it wasn't being produced by Disney, but I think it's important nonetheless.

We take for granted the rest of the beings on this planet, especially now that we've isolated ourselves inside the world of the web.

Go outside, play in the sun, pet a dog and check out this film.

You know there's nothing good on TV anyway!

Some of the work people are doing at this school is amazing.

I've had the benefit of being in the editing labs at UNC for the past couple of weeks, investing myself in cutting our 16 mm film which I was Co-DP (Director of Photography). Being up there, I've been exposed to a large body of student films that range from "what the hell" to "holy shit" on the cool-o-meter.

This time in our lives in when we really get to do creative things because they are coming from within us, not because someone is telling us to do them. I'm really looking forward to what the future holds for our generation.

Hopefully (HOPE being the key word of our times), we can change the system. I've heard a good bit of talk about a revolution happening soon and I can't wait to be a part of it.

Things are no doubt crumbling to the ground around us. If there's someone responsible, it can only be the system. We can say human error has brought us to this point (greed, specifically), but the system perpetuates that human error and makes it desirable and easily accessible.

I'm not just talking about film now, but about everything. If, as a unified generation, we can refuse to compromise, things will have to change.

Oh, let me get off my soapbox, sorry.

What kind of films do you like?

Is it pretentious of me to call them films?

Can films actually change the world or am I blind?

Am I crazy for trying to enter a world that epitomizes nearly everything I think is wrong with the world?

Key question: Am I crazy?

These are the sorts of questions that bother me when I'm lying in bed trying to sleep. If there's anyone out there who knows the answer, I figure the internet is the best place to reach them.

My friend Taylor recently did a film project on Deus ex Machina and how we might've created it/him/her within the web.

So, here's my call. Let's see if it works.

David Lynch has this idea that ideas are like fish.

You can check out the video to see what he means, but if it doesn't quite make things clear for you, let me see what I can do.

Lynch has directed some of my favorite films, so I developed an interest in him a while back.

He is deeply into Transcendental Meditation and claims to be able to open his mind to his imagination at any time through the process. The mind, he claims, is like an ocean full of thought where things swim by without your control. The ideas are there, you just have to reach out and grab them.

Some people might just write him off as a loony, but I myself have a deep passion invested in investigating that "ocean".

If you watch Lynch's films, you get a look inside his mind. Anyone who can do what he does must be on to something.

For those experimental film fans - check out Inland Empire, it'll blow you away.

I've got great respect for Tarantino. He does what I dream of doing - writing and directing his own films.

Not many people get to do that, but because of his determination and talent, he opened the door for himself. Others like that are The Coen Brothers and... well the rest are slipping my mind. But that just tells you how few and far between these people are.

Those that find success succeed not only commercially but artistically as well, a feat that inspires me daily.

So anyway, to the point, here's an interview with Tarantino about writing. He's a pretty interesting cat.

For those too busy to check out the whole thing, here's a snippet to bait you into it:

How did Kill Bill originate?

It's coming from, in it's basic form, all of these different revenge genre movies that I was jumping off from. The Bride could easily be this cowboy character from this spaghetti western. She could easily by Angela Mao character Deep Thrust or Broken Oath. There's two characters that Japanese actress Meiko Kaji played. One was a character named Scorpion. She did about four movies with that, and she did a great revenge samurai movie called Lady Snowblood. She could be that character. You could keep going down the whole list, but she falls in that whole long line of hell bent for revenge characters.

How much did you revisit these movies when you were writing?

Well, they had a tremendous amount of influence because I own all of those movies. Not these beautiful, Technicolor restoration prints, but like, my seventh generation bootlegs from New York's 42nd Chamber of Shao Lin in Time Square. That's where I had them all, and when I was writing this movie, I had the fortunate fun of being able to watch at least one Shaw Brothers movie a day, if not three, and the reason I was doing it is that I wanted to immerse myself so much in that style of filmmaking so that the things that they did would be second nature to me. It would be my style of filmmaking as far as this movie was concerned. I wouldn't have to think about it. I wouldn't have to be self conscious about it. I would've just known exactly how they woulddone it and I would decide do I want to do that too? Get that comfortable with the zoom because no one does zooms anymore, not like that. I wanted to get that comfortable with it and it worked so well that, to me, during that entire year, the movies that were coming out of Hollywood were like these weird artistic, fringe movies. I was like someone who lived in Hong Kong in the ‘70's. When you thought of movies, you thought of Kung Fu movies. The Shaw Brothers, the Shaw Scope Logo and then, the Feature Presentation thing which I grew up watching, I always hear that tune before a movie starts. That just lets you know right away where I'm coming from and just sit back and have a good time and know from whence this came.

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE!!!

I love films that explore the imagination. I just stumbled across this today and am excited beyond belief.

Tell me you grew up with this book too.

I am personally convinced that this man is the greatest actor of our time.

Now I know this is a popular opinion, but I think that many of those that claim it don't understand the full extent of his talent.

If you don't know much about Daniel Day Lewis, check THIS out.

Can't seem to find reality anywhere.

I had a conversation with a Documentarian the other day about an idea to make fictional stories have more weight... you know, like REALITY.

This all stems from my Full Frame experience, which I've gotta tell you, was rather life changing.

We came up with the idea of mixing our two genres, perhaps by using footage from reality to tell "Hollywood" type tales. Not that I want to tell those types of stories. It was just a conversation.

But then, freakily, Walt Disney comes up. The man himself.

When you go back and watch Bambi, notice the attention to realism. Then watch Planet Earth and see the personalities that each individual animal has.

Now go and check out Disney's Animal Stories.

Can't say I knew the man, but I don't get good impressions about him. That being said - what an ingenious idea!

I then turned to my Documentarian friend and offered a suggestion, "isn't that what narrative filmmaking is?"

To this he replies: "No"

After some thought, I agreed. Hollywood stories are lies - for the most part.

But a film I saw at the Festival: Carmen Meets Borat, was not. But it played out like it was written. That film has inspired me to work with reality.

Though don't get me wrong, I still think fiction is a good way to write to a "message", but however effective it may be, it can't hold a candle to reality.

I'm a hypocrite though. My next project is Sci-fi.

Check this breakdown out (Spec script sales in 2008).  

What do  you suppose that means?

According to various sources, there have been 23 spec script sales so far this year.

A spec script is what every writer dreams of selling.

It short for, as you might've guessed, a speculative screenplay.  This means an original concept, original story, original script.  For example, Juno.

The reason this is a big deal (besides the crazy amount of money the screenwriter makes), is that these purchases are examples of studios taking risks.  While they might be similar to old material, they are still original ideas, not Terminator 4.

The more specs that are sold in any given year, the more power the artist has.  Last year, 88 were sold.  So, for 3 1/2 months into 2009, 23 isn't that bad of a figure.  

Keep in mind that this doesn't mean they will all be produced - that's another matter entirely. 

Hopefully these numbers will continue to go up.  Fingers crossed!

Peace. 

THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT (CINEMA)

Film eras move in decades. It usually goes something like this - artists in control, studios in control, artists in control, studios in control. Why?

Well, it's a pretty simple dynamic. People get fed up with drama-rom-coms and demand new, more innovative material. This puts the power back in the hands of the filmmaker.

This new and inventive material then becomes profitable because, you know, it's good, and studios jump on the chance to finance it. It then goes capitalist, spouting things like "if it's worked before, let it work again," and the artist gets squashed (or forced to make films like Indiana Jones IV).

People, who are a damn sight smarter than Disney thinks they are, get tired of this again and the cycle repeats.

Believe it or not, those guys we blame for the "blockbuster" era (it started with Jaws) were actually independent filmmakers at one time. They flourished in one of those "artists in control" periods but eventually fell victim to the big 'ol $.

However: hope!

I believe we are currently in a state of flux, where power is changing hands. And in the digital age, I think we might just be able to hold on! It is up to 'we, the people,' to 'have it our way'.

I encourage you (and myself, damn it) to be an active member in the community, film or otherwise. Get your voice heard.

Let's be independent again!

Peace.

A little pot humor for all those fans out there.  Not only is this impressive technically, but it nails what this "spoof" film would look like.  I almost want them to make it now!

It's Full Frame Folks!

This weekend, I had the extraordinary pleasure of watching brand spankin' new documentaries in Durham, NC.

I'll tell you what, it was a rollercoaster.

Literally, 3 films on thursday, 4 on friday, 6 on saturday and 4 on sunday. Whew!

Documentary filmmaking has opened my eyes to the possibilities of film. This is probably somewhat excited by the high I'm feeling right now from watching so many, but I don't think my enthusiasm is anywhere near decay.

I saw things that shocked me, surprised me, moved me and made me roll with laughter - and it was all REAL.

As a narrative film enthusiast, you might only imagine what a shock to my system this was. Not that I didn't understand the power of the Doc - I'd just never been exposed to them in this way before.

Here's a list of what will (or most definitely SHOULD) blow up.

The Cove

Burma VJ

The Yes Men Fix The World

and my personal favorite, though you can't find much info about it - Carmen Meets Borat

I believe that The Cove will be this years An Inconvenient Truth, except it's better. Much better.

If you're down with awareness, give these films a look.

Peace.

"Are you a Dreamer?"

Waking Life is a 2001 film written and Directed by Richard Linklater (Slacker, Dazed and Confused, Fast Food Nation).

It was shot with hand-held video cameras, then rotoscoped animated on G4 computers. We're talking low-budget here, folks.

This animation style essentially refers to painting the individual frames of live-action material. The effect is a very trippy, semi-real, pushed down the rabbit hole experience. The best part about it, however, is that the original quality of the footage is of little consequence, meaning it can look professional even if shot on your cell phone.

This film is post-worthy for several reasons, but mainly because of its subject matter. Rarely does a film ask you to question so many things without giving you an enforced narrative (i.e. The Matrix).

Its documentary/experimental art style is is a class by itself.

It forces you to ask the question - what is our waking life? Could it be a dream as well? What, if anything, is reality?

If you like existentialism, check this one out.

Peace.

"...what gives a place its specificity is not some long internalized history but the face that it is constructed out of a particular constellation of social relations, meeting and weaving together at a particular locus...Instead then, of thinking of place as areas with boundaries around, they can be imagined as articulated moments in networks of social relations and understandings, but where a larger proportion of those relations, experiences and understandings are constructed on a far larger scale than what we happen to define for that moment as the place itself..."

- Doreen Massey

As you read this, I bet you're asking - "now, Tim, how does this relate to film?"

Or maybe you're not.  

But that's besides the point, cause here I go anyway - Many filmmakers choose to make films about places, focusing on them as central characters.  Woody Allen, for instance, has said in interviews that his film Vicky Cristina Barcelona was based on his desire to personify Barcelona. 

I think this is a sentiment that is investigated pretty effectively in film.  When you think about it, rarely is there a film that could take place in any other place than where it is set.  

While of course there are some aspects that limit what film can do, I would argue that aside from physical travel (which costs just a bit more than $8 per-experience), it is the best way to experience a foreign space. 

Not only does the film physically show you locations, but it also often investigates cultural norms and intricacies of those places.  

Consider then that we choose people as the subject of our films, and the quote by Massey can be directly applied. 

I choose to delve into this topic becuase many people are in the habit of criticizing films these days for misappropriation.  Slumdog Millionare, for instance, is heavily critiqued for glossing over child abuse and violence with the guise of a story about love. 

I would argue that it's precisly because it focuses on love that makes it so great.  It doesn't hold back - what you see is brutal and unnerving.  But, like real life love prevails, even in the face of these horrible, disgusting things.  Danny Boyle suggests that there is humanity behind the face of evil, but that we're so consumed with the negative that we can't see it.

People reacting negatively to it is just another example of this. 

I know my points aren't solid, so someone please disagree and let's talk.

Peace.

This is freakin' hilarious.  Maybe a bit off topic, but so what, it's worth it. 

Elmo is my second favorite resident of Sesamy Street, Snuffleupagus my first.  What about you?

Check this out.

David Hayter, scribe of Watchmen, had this to say.

"This is a movie made by fans, for fans. Hundreds of people put in years of their lives to make this movie happen, and every one of them was insanely committed to retaining the integrity of this amazing, epic tale. This is a rare success story, bordering on the impossible, and every studio in town is watching to see if it will work. Hell, most of them own a piece of the movie.

So look, this is a note to the fanboys and fangirls. The true believers. Dedicated for life.

If the film made you think. Or argue with your friends. If it inspired a debate about the nature of man, or vigilante justice, or the horror of Nixon abolishing term limits. If you laughed at Bowie hanging with Adrian at Studio 54, or the Silhouette kissing that nurse.

Please go see the movie again next weekend.

You have to understand, everyone is watching to see how the film will do in its second week. If you care about movies that have a brain, or balls, (and this film's got both, literally), or true adaptations -- And if you're thinking of seeing it again anyway, please go back this weekend, Friday or Saturday night. Demonstrate the power of the fans, because it'll help let the people who pay for these movies know what we'd like to see. Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again."

Hayter was the voice of Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid.  That means that he means buisness. Support ingenuity.

Peace.

It's gonna be a long one, folks. Bear with me, I've got a lot on my mind.

I know I promised to stay out of the mainstream, but damn if it isn't still a prevalent force in my life. So I must digress... again.

Watchmen. It's a film about superheroes in a hyper-desensitized dystopia and what happens when the most fowl parts of society are allowed to run rampant and unfiltered. Those that hate it will HATE it. Those that like it will LOVE it. And as always, there are justifiable sides to both.

If, as an average movie-goer you walk into the film with no expectations, you will probably be disgusted. The incredible violence, the hate, the rape and the hopeless message will leave your 

stomach in knots and you might leave wondering why you paid money to sit through such torture.

Heed this warning. You absolutely NEED to be prepared for this film. If you have the time (and it's worth it), read the graphic novel - it plays out pretty much frame-for-frame on film. You will also be familiar with the story, the characters and the message, all of which will add immensely to your experience.

Those than pan the film will refuse to see past what is presented on the screen. They'll see the violence against women, men, children and resulting combinations of the three as disgusting and unworthy of depiction. And at a purely superficial level, they certainly have a point.

"Why", they might ask, "do we need to see these terrible things? What is the point? We've all seen it million times and we KNOW it's horrifying! The only thing the filmmakers are doing is propagating images that support and endorse everything that is wrong with the world and we've had enough!! Things must change!"

Committed ideologists of all stripes will picket, leave the theater and demand for refunds.

I've heard reviews spouting "Hollywood at it's unbearable worst," and more specifically, "This despicable trash will find an audience among sad sociopaths, deranged pseudo-intellectuals and brutalized, immature men of all ages. I just hope that there aren't enough of them to make it a hit. If there are, God help cinema."

See, I wasn't kidding.

As someone who has chosen to dedicate their life to studying the media, good OR bad, I feel it is my responsibility to encourage these people to step outside of their bubble. I'd like to suggest that how they feel is precisely how they're supposed to feel. I think the problem lies in the fact that they don't choose to ask WHY they were meant to feel that way. They jump at the opportunity to ruin the film's credibility without giving it the thought that it truly deserves.

This is a big concept film. The original novel won the Hugo Award for excellence in science-fiction and is widely regarded as one of the most influential novels of all time. It is the only graphic novel to transcend the limits of its genre, and is the only "comic" on Time Magazine's 100 best English-language novels from 1923-present.

I would argue that it deserves a place alongside novels like 1984 and Brave New World.

The world is suggests is one of absolute chaos. But, like 1984 it is based in a reality that we recognize and can readily envision. If you take the worst aspects of our society: racism, sexism, war, oppression and hate, then amplify them to the extreme - that's the setting of Watchmen. Consider this and it will come as no surprise to you that the resulting film is as brutally violent and depressing as it is. 

Through the lens of this hyperbole, the ultimate question is asked: Have we become our own wost enemy?  And if so, is the only way to eradicate the problem to, well, eradicate it?

Who can answer that question, if in fact anyone even has the right to?  Alan Moore leaves it in the hands of superheroes; the guardians of our society.  Not so different than our elected officials. 

But that's tangential. 

The real question, posed perhaps to those aforementioned reviewers, is why can't you handle the truth?  These images, scenes we've all seen before and continue to see everyday on our local news stations, are presented to us in a hyper-stylized, yet plainly matter of fact manner.  To react with disgust is natural.  But does that merit condemnation of the film?

Think for a moment about what making you feel that way would accomplish.  If the film's central message is that things need to change before they culminate solely in:

Then isn't that a message to be comended?

Let me try to clarify this picture.

Ozymandias, considered the world's smartest man, makes the final decision in the end of the film.  For those that have yet to see it, I won't ruin it, but as you can see, his bases this descision on his only connection with the world - TV.  Perhaps a comment on the media?  I'd be interested to see what people think about this. 

I'm suggesting that the over-the-top violence and anger portrayed in the film is in fact a self-referential critique.  We are supposed to ask, "THIS is what media has become?"  

Isn't the media the ultimate marker of a society?  Out of all of the things we create, the media is how outsiders will come to understand us (even historians in the future - you think they will look past what has been recorded, or even be able to?).  

All of the things people criticize this film for are the things the filmmakers were trying to point out.  Yes, you're all right, it needs to change!  But this effort should be appreciated, not neglected. This reaction may, however, be inherent in the overall goal of the film.  In that case, it has certainly worked.

What I'm offering is, of course, an interpretation.  Take it for what it is.  Agree or disagree, it makes you step out of the box for a moment and consider that maybe there is a shred of intelligence in Hollywood, however hard that might be.  

So I've said a lot, and I'm sure there are points that I've skipped since this post was written over a long period, so help me out with this.  Start a conversation if you're interested.  

This is what I do.  Or try to do anyway.

Peace.

OK, so check this out.

You all know Tarentino, right?  Well, have you also heard of the flick he penned that was directed by Tony Scott, True Romance?  Supposedly, Scott had originally shot and cut the film the way that it was written, but then got cold feet over the 'answers first, questions later' style that Tarentino is famous for.  He thus edited it chronologically, which some believe ruined the film.  No other (legal) cut exists.

There's a discussion to be had here over who has the true authorship of a film, the writer or director, but we'll save that for another time (as a writer, you might could guess as to my stance).

While researching for a project, I stumbled upon a torrent proclaiming to be the "Tarentino-Cut of True Romance".  This, of course, piqued my interest.  

As it turns out, the person who uploaded this new cut was also responsible for editing it.  It is then, a fan-cut version of the film, using the original screenplay as a guide.  The guy even went into the DVD extras and reinserted scenes that Tony Scott had taken out.  Talk about dedication.

I haven't seen it yet, but that's only because it has not finished downloading.  I'll tell you how it compares soon.

Again I have to praise the internet for allowing this kind of thing to happen.  If, as it proclaims to be, this is a comprehensive re-cutting of the film, then power has indeed changed hands.  If you are unsatisfied with a film, do it yourself!  Granted, you can't exactly change the way they shot it, but editing is just as crucial a component, if not more so.  The sky is the limit!

Though I imagine this guy will be hunted down by IP lawyers, I have to congratulate his passion and ingenuity.  These are the kinds of doors being opened to our generation.  

I'm excited, are you?

Peace.

Wendy and Lucy.

If you’ve ever had a dog, this movie will upset you.

It was nominated, along with The Wrestler, Rachel Getting Married, Frozen River and Ballast for the Independent Spirit Award for best picture.  Having seen it just last night, I’ve got to agree with the sentiment.  While The Wrestler won, that picture has Darren Aronofsky and Mickey Rourke behind its name.  Wendy and Lucy was produced by Todd Haynes.  Have you heard of him?

My plug for Haynes – he hit the film biz a little too late (the 70s were more apt to his style), but definitely belongs among the auteurs from the 80s.  He’s responsible for Poison, Safe, Velvet Goldmine, Far From Heaven and I’m Not There (the film about Bob Dylan).  If none of those films ring a bell, they should.  As an openly gay filmmaker, he has been touted as one of the preeminent voices in the “queer cinema” movement.  His first film, Superstar, used Barbie dolls instead of actors to tell the story of Karen Carpenter (who died of anorexia in 1983, when she was 32).   It stirred up controversy and due to legal issues with the music (she was half of the music duo The Carpenters) exists only on the internet.

Take a look if you have the time.  It’s a bit disturbing.

But anyhow, he obviously believed in W&L, and for good reason.  The film touches on some tender issues without being overly political or arrogant.  It has the pacing of a Van Sant film and the personality of Thomas McCarthy.  It is, like many films, a blip in the life of its characters, but we still follow the journey without reservation. 

It is a movie about people.  Not to say it doesn’t have a message, but when the message consumes the movie (I’m looking at you, Doubt), it becomes about something else entirely. 

So often these days we are taken for rides that entertain rather than involve.  It’s nice to see a film that does both.  At only 80 minutes, the film doesn’t ask for much of your time, so check it out if you have the chance.  I’d be interested to see what people think, especially those of you who aren’t often exposed to the world of independent cinema.

This movie got me all emotional, but then again, I’ve had a dog that looks and acts almost exactly like Lucy, so it may be more of a personal thing.  Let me know!

Peace. 

Yup.. I did alright.

17 for 21, though I think it could be considered out of 20 because of my foreign shot-in-the-dark. 

You know, I kind of wanted to be wrong.. It's no fun for the Academy to be so predictable.  I did win some prestige points among friends however, so I guess I have to thank them for that.  

I know there's been some debate over this, but I thought the show was FANTASTIC.  It was everything it needed to be and more--I was thoroughly enthralled for 3 hours and I can't even sit through the Superbowl, though I suppose that's not saying much. 

Gay rights are being pushed to the forefront by art and I couldn't be more pleased.  I was being pessimistic, arguing that there was no way they'd include a scene from Milk in the montage of love scenes, but then they proved me wrong.  Now that we've got gay men in the spotlight (Props to Sean Penn for his biting acceptance speech), Women must not be far behind.  This is an era of CHANGE and I'm thrilled to be a part of it. 

The best part of the show, far and away, was Penelope Cruz's acceptance speech (for an award she was not favored to win).  If you haven't seen it, here it is and watch it quick because copyright infringement is bound to come crashing down.  

What a beautiful, unfiltered display of humanity.  It was a good night.

Peace.

OK so I have to do it… here are my OSCAR PICKS!!!

Best Picture – Slumdog Millionaire

Best Male Actor – Sean Penn for Milk

Best Female Actor – Kate Winslet for The Reader (probably my favorite actor in Hollywood at the moment)

Best Supporting Male – Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight

Best Supporting Female – Viola Davis for Doubt (some internal debate about this one… I like Marisa Tomei as well, and Viola’s part was, oh, only 5 minutes long.. but damn if she didn’t knock it out of the park)

Best Director – Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire

Best Original Screenplay – Dustin Lance Black for Milk (though I quite liked Happy-Go-Lucky)

Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Published or Produced – Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire (or Doubt, but I think Slumdog will sweep)

Best Cinematography – Anthony Dod Mantle for Slumdog Millionaire

Best Editing – Chris Dickens for Slumdog

Best Art Direction – Donald Graham Burt and Victor J. Zolfo for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Best Costume Design – Michael O’Connor for The Duchess (I haven’t seen Australia however)

Best Makeup – Mike Elizalde and Thomas Floutz for Hellboy II: The Golden Army (if it doesn’t win, it deserves to)

Best Original Score – A.R. Rahman for Slumdog

Best Original Song – A.R. Rahman for Slumdog

Best Sound – Tom Myers, Michael Semanick and Ben Burtt for Wall-E

Best Sound Editing (wait, these are different?) – Richard King for The Dark Knight

Best Visual Effects – I think Benjamin Button will win but to see Iron Man get it would be cool

Best Animated Feature – Andrew Stanton for Wall-E

Best Foreign Language Film – Vals Im Bashir (shot in the dark—I unfortunately haven’t seen any of these)

Best Documentary – James Marsh and Simon Chinn for Man on Wire because it’s about the Twin Towers

…And I haven’t seen any of the shorts, so I’d feel bad betting on them.

I’ll post later to either boast or concede. 

Enjoy watching all the beautiful people!

Peace. 

Wanna see something weird?  I bet you do.

Here’s MORE by filmmaker Mark Osborne.

(URL if the video goes wonky: http://www.gethappy.com/watchmore.html)

This short film was nominated for an Oscar (you see I’m getting in the spirit), and it’s a supreme example of stop-motion “claymation”.  For those of you who don’t know, the process behind such magic is incredibly tedious and requires frame-by-frame manipulation.  An ordinary scene is filmed at 24 frames per second, so in order to recreate that look and feel, animators have to draw (or in this case mold) 24 scenes for a mere second of screen time.  Whoa.

Oh, and guess what?  Osborne has another film nominated this year… heard of Kung-Fu Panda?

Hurrah for the Academy!

This year, the powers that be have decided to nominate the very, very independent film Frozen River in the Best Screenplay and Best Actress category.

Directed/written by Courtney Hunt, this nomination marks a very important step in the film-going community, not only for independent film, but for women filmmakers as well.

If you’d like to take a look at the genesis of the film-

http://www.indiewire.com/article/oscar_09_frozen_rivers_courtney_hunt1/

Women used to be extremely prominent in the industry.  In fact, in film’s early years (1910-20), women basically owned the writing process.  Names like Gene Gauntier, Mary Pickford, Anita Loos and more dominated the scene—Pickford was at one time the highest paid actor/writer in Hollywood (making absurd amounts—in today’s dollars, close to $173,000 a WEEK). 

Since then, and I mean that literally—since the 1920s—woman have taken an apparent back seat.  Sofia Coppola hit it big with Lost in Translation in 2003, but she is Francis Ford Coppola’s daughter (I don’t mean that quip to mean any ill-will towards her, it’s just a fact).

So here, in 2009, to have a film directed/written/conceived by a woman in the running for an Oscar is big news.  Even though it shouldn’t be, but that’s another matter entirely.

I just saw it a couple nights ago.  I wouldn’t give it the highest recommendation, but I really did enjoy it.  It felt more real to me than the rest of the Oscar fare. 

Give it a shot.  Then watch the Oscars.

Peace.

A bit about internet piracy…

I’d be a hypocrite if I completely denounced the whole piracy fad, so I won’t.  Instead, I’d just like to point out a few things.

I don’t feel bad for movie executives or big companies – their only goal is to make money.  In fact, I’ve heard tell that the biggest companies aren’t going to be producing as many features simply because they want to focus their time and energy of films that are likely to become blockbusters or franchises. 

There is no room for art anymore.  I don’t feel bad for stealing their movies, but considering the quality of their work, those are rarely the ones I seek out online anyhow. 

I think the internet is a place where we can defeat that capitalist trend.  I’ve done some research and found several hosts that support the distribution (illegal or otherwise) of art-house films through sites like The Pirate Bay and other P2P hubs.  I’ve downloaded films that haven’t been released on DVD, films that only exist on VHS and films that are completely out of the social register.  This, while still considered “illegal”, is a completely legitimate and beneficial use of internet piracy. 

Not that my sanction means much when you get caught.

Unlike music distribution, films are not “performances” that can be replicated by an artist again and again at different venues.  Thus, unlike the P2P music sharing trend, filmmakers don’t necessarily benefit from you seeing their work for free on the computer… or do they?

I’m not sure if you are familiar with film’s auteur theory, but it’s rather simple: it’s the idea that films made by a particular person of group of persons reflect an authorship, much in the same way that an author writes a book or a musician assembles a body of work.  In other words, the film represents the intent and directorship of an individual’s ideal or a group’s collaboration.

I think a recent popular example of this, however lighthearted and commercial, is the explosion of the Judd Apatow-Seth Rogan-Freaks and Geeks series of films (including, but definitely not limited to, Pineapple Express, Superbad, Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, etc.). 

I would argue that this ideal, when put into practice, results in some of the best films I’ve seen. 

Illegal downloading, as a jumping off point, is tailor-made to advance this type of filmmaking.  Say, for example, you download a film (perhaps it has even been offered as a free, legal download) by a particular auteur.  Word of mouth buzz, if the film is worthy of it, spreads across the internet.  The next time they release a film, it’s in theaters, and they already have an established fan base that is likely to go and support their film.  It’s a lot like the approach some musicians have been taking, but it requires a slightly different approach considering the methods of distribution.

You could argue that this could create a sort of exclusivity in the market, making it harder for no name talent to get their work heard, but I think it’s exactly the opposite.  When you let public opinion decide what will succeed or fail (as opposed to leaving it in the hands of the big-wigs and pencil-pushers), it opens the door for anyone with a digital camera and some dedicated friends to break into the limelight. 

This is a socialist view, I know, so it would only work under the most optimal, uncorrupted conditions, but I think it is something worthy of consideration.   

If you haven’t ever tried to follow one filmmaker’s work, I would highly recommend it.  You might have to sit through a lemon or two, but you will undoubtedly notice themes and styles that will intrigue.  I’ve found that doing this also humanizes the whole process a bit, making films more approachable and easier to love. 

For a pretty supreme current example, I’d suggest Gus Van Sant.  I’m pretty sure he’ll come up in our discussion again soon. He rocks my world.

Film Suggestion – Coraline - (commercial I know, but it's damn nifty)

See it in 3D!!

Peace.

Welcome!

Welcome to my BLOG.  It won’t be pretty, it probably won’t be coherent, but I’ll be damned if you don’t get anything out of it.

What I’m attempting here is to provide the every-person with a platform upon which to begin their jump into the world of film-as-art, rather than film-as-not-art, if you know what I mean.  I won’t succumb to the follies of pretension, because I can’t tell you She’s Just Not That Into Me isn’t art; I’m neither qualified nor willing to make that judgment.  To me, all film is art to an extent, there are just some things I’d rather not watch.

You have to remember though, here at the outset of this adventure, that film is a business just like any other business.  It began with a marketable product and will inevitably end with a marketable product (or unmarketable I think, if it’s ending).  This dictates pretty much everything you see, whether it is “independent” or not.  Somebody somewhere had to decide that whoa, this is a good idea or that whoa, this could be our “big break”.  Unfortunately more often the latter than the former.

But!  Don’t despair just yet, because there are people out there who manage to subvert (and even manipulate) this capitalist path, and those films/people are who I wish to dedicate these page to.  I won’t constrain my efforts to purely current cinema, so forgive me if I tread in places that seem unfamiliar to you, but trust me, I’m coming from the same place.  I will do my best to provide a context that will guide a discussion of these films and filmmakers, as per the title, film.culture.etc.

The etc. part is where I’ll let personal opinion interfere, even though I suppose you could make the case that this entire blog is a personal opinion.  But more importantly, the etc. is my excuse for going off-topic and venturing to places outside the world of traditional film.  Things I find that intrigue me, or that I hope might intrigue you, I’ll post.  If I’ve stretched the limits, curb my enthusiasm and I’ll steer us back on course.  We’ll smooth out the bumps together.

To end this  introduction, I’ll leave you with a recommendation; something new that will hopefully entertain as much as intrigue.  I went to high school with one of the main characters and both the director and cinematographer graduated from NC School of the Arts (and have gone on to become great commercial successes too; see if you can find their most recent collaboration).  This, their debut feature, was shot in NC. 

The film this week: George Washington.  

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0262432/

Peace.