overhauling the paradigm

“the paradigm needs an overhaul. how can you make non-commercial films for tens of millions (sometimes pushing 100 million) and expect to turn a profit?”

have not seen it but would point out ‘creation’. here is what is certainly a beautifully made movie that couldn’t draw an audience if you gave the popcorn away free. it probably costs several millions (at the very least) and may never play. how can anyone have thought a movie about darwin and his wife would fill seats?

grab a digi-cam and some actors and make your movie for pocket change. if you can get some investors, great. otherwise, start with a good script, work for nothing, turn in a good movie that’s really truly scary, funny, moving, whatever it is you’re going for (as long as it’s commercial), and pull in an audience, with, hopefully, a modest profit in the end. repeat as necessary.
posted by Alan Green on September 20, 2009 at 8:44am PDT

and this is also true:
The problem is that none of these movies are actually “independent films.” Yes, they might have been funded independently, but they were created with sufficient budgets with the intent that a major corporation would distribute. Well, what exactly does that mean? It means that these are small-scale studio pictures that the studios didn’t have to take a funding risk on, that’s all.

Independent film got bloated. The budgets went too big. The movies became too commercial.

Instead of independent film being the incubator of new hungry talent and independent voices, it became a place for established talent to make smaller films that get them awards and “street cred.” In other words: it stopped working because it got its priorities mixed up.
posted by Edward Wilson on September 20, 2009 at 12:09pm PDT

the future of cinema is the stage

"I also have the idea of making a play AROUND a movie- like hamlet was in the Wooster group"

this is dropped in the middle of my personal writing - it strikes me now, because this is precisely what reed farrington was talking about yesterday: five kids get to choose a movie they want to be 'inside of' and he's going to help them do this --
he's creating the future audience for the new form! i love it.

i should send him my little six sentence twitter essay - the future of the cinema is the stage.

did i write about his St. Joan?
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/deeplyvocal/2010/01/19/passion-project-joan%E2%80%99s-story-room

paranormal activity

a brilliant film. i need to write about it. i need to write henry about it.

if you google SSSS and HDTV you'll find all the theories on this

here's the sight where I found this:
http://proliberty.com/observer/20090118.htm

the article contains, among other observations:
"Newsweek magazine reported July 30, 1990, that the U.S. military successfully deployed "Silent Sounds" through the FM frequency radio band used by the Iraqi army after Saddam’s military communications system had been destroyed by coalition forces. "According to statements made by captured and deserting Iraqi soldiers….the most devastating and demoralizing programming was the first known military use of the new, high-tech type of subliminal messages referred to as ‘ultra-high-frequency silent sounds’ or ‘silent subliminals,’" Newsweek reported.
Once system-wide conversion to HDTV is made, the silent sounds that neutralized the Iraqi army can be planted into the minds of Americans enjoying the crisper images and richer sounds of digitized TV. Through HDTV, "Big Brother" will be able to order troops to invade the homes of America and begin seizing weapons, food, valuables and maybe even children while our people are absolutely paralyzed for no apparent reason and can do nothing to defend themselves, their families and their homes."

US Patent #5,159,703 which describes the "Silent Sound Spread Spectrum (SSSS)," was developed for military use by Dr. Oliver Lowery of Norcross, Georgia and granted on Oct. 27, 1992.

SSSS, or "S-Quad," is described in the abstract as, "A silent communications system in which nonaural carriers, in the very low (ELF) or very high audio-frequency (VHF) range or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude—or frequency—modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally, for inducement into the brain, typically through the use of loudspeakers, earphones, or piezoelectric transducers. The modulated carriers may be transmitted directly in real time or may be conveniently recorded and stored on mechanical, magnetic, or optical media for delayed or repeated transmission to the listener."

In layman’s terms, this device, this "Sound of Silence" simply allows for the unwarranted implantation of specific thoughts, emotions and even prescribed physical actions into unsuspecting human beings"

actually, turning over analog to hidef TVs has been in the works for at least two decades - more, really. I remember going ot conferences on this at NAB conventions when i was a trade reporter in the early 80s. it took this long because the standards around the world were all in conflict, with America's being the lowest.

someone wrote back to a youtube video about this:
"regarding the switchover to HDTV and the converter boxes. It has nothing to do with SSSS. You are reaching. I have Lynx 24 bit192k converters and the best spectrum analysis software available. There is nothing extra there. Period. If you want to chase mind control science look into the reason for the 60 HZ refresh rate for a 30 second framrate. You are kind of retarded and have no idea what you are talking about."

a couple of interesting toronto wrap-ups

this sent by paul rachman -

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/2009/09/19/toronto_film_festival_winners_and_losers/
anne thompson's one of the few real reporters on the film business, indie and otherwise. she says the festival sale paradigm is utterly over - but some comments are less despairing (see below)

from ed halter
http://www.artforum.com/film/id=23763
(ed being one of the few people who uses the word 'multi-channel' correctly :)
including the sideline - art/experimental film wrap up - and he - adn the festival, apparently - make this distinction between the 'art/installation' work, which he foudn weak, and the more traditional abstract 'experimental ' still-shooting-on-film work, as in the kind of thing i saw last night -

"Easy to miss beneath these several layers of hubbub is the fact that TIFF—unlike Cannes—also sustains a less flashy but undeniably healthy subculture devoted to experimental cinema. It’s six-show Wavelengths sidebar feels like its own festival-within-a-festival, consistently packing the Art Gallery of Ontario’s Jackman Hall with disciples of formally rigorous fare: Wavelengths-goers this year included programmers from simpatico events—like Toronto’s Images Festival; Windsor, Ontario’s Media City; and Sundance’s own experimental New Frontier section—and curators from MoMA and the Pacific Film Archive, in addition to numerous like-minded filmmakers. Though multi-format, 16 mm is the series’ ruling gauge, with most entries functioning well within the neo-structural-materialist aesthetic that seems to currently define so much of the celluloid-centric avant-garde: In addition to new work by heavyweights like Harun Farocki and Jean-Marie Straub, lesser-known standouts included Karl Kels’s 35-mm rhinoceros strobe Käfig (Cage, 2009); Coleen Fitzgibbon’s restored optical-printing palindrome FM/TRCS (1974); and Klaus Lutz’s Titan (2008), a marvelously designed silent triple-superimposition seemingly time-warped from the age of Tzara and Huelsenbeck. (Sadly Titan’s maker, a New York–based Swiss expat artist, died only days before the film’s premiere.)

Less cohesive was TIFF’s Future Projections slate, an uneven selection, scattered throughout the city, of moving-image work from the art world. Though there were some successes—notably Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s mysteriously quasi-allegorical Phantoms of Nabua, keenly black-boxed at the Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art, and Candice Breitz’s artist talk previewing her new multi-channel work Factum, which premiered at her solo exhibition at the Power Plant later in the week—elsewhere, there were oversights in execution. Cinematographer Christopher Doyle’s video from his installation Picture Start, an already-dubious best-of reel from his work with Wong Kar-wai and others, looped in a curtained corner of INDEXG gallery off of a defective DVD, its image streaked with horizontal distortions. To draw attention to Bell Lightbox, planned as future TIFF hub, artists’ videos were screened nightly on the construction site with weak and ill-placed projectors that rendered the minute details of Marco Brambilla’s intricate Civilization, for instance, all but impossible to discern."

from anne thompson comments:
"the paradigm needs an overhaul. how can you make non-commercial films for tens of millions (sometimes pushing 100 million) and expect to turn a profit?

have not seen it but would point out ‘creation’. here is what is certainly a beautifully made movie that couldn’t draw an audience if you gave the popcorn away free. it probably costs several millions (at the very least) and may never play. how can anyone have thought a movie about darwin and his wife would fill seats?

grab a digi-cam and some actors and make your movie for pocket change. if you can get some investors, great. otherwise, start with a good script, work for nothing, turn in a good movie that’s really truly scary, funny, moving, whatever it is you’re going for (as long as it’s commercial), and pull in an audience, with, hopefully, a modest profit in the end. repeat as necessary.
posted by Alan Green on September 20, 2009 at 8:44am PDT

and this is also true:
The problem is that none of these movies are actually “independent films.” Yes, they might have been funded independently, but they were created with sufficient budgets with the intent that a major corporation would distribute. Well, what exactly does that mean? It means that these are small-scale studio pictures that the studios didn’t have to take a funding risk on, that’s all.

Independent film got bloated. The budgets went too big. The movies became too commercial.

Instead of independent film being the incubator of new hungry talent and independent voices, it became a place for established talent to make smaller films that get them awards and “street cred.” In other words: it stopped working because it got its priorities mixed up.
posted by Edward Wilson on September 20, 2009 at 12:09pm PDT"

tutorial for realtime 25-monitor workflow

Hi Julie!
Long time no write, sorry. But hey, I have no excuse other than the
drone of daily stuff. Pretty lame, but there it is.

Meanwhile, I just came across this tutorial which has some very cool
tricks that, for me, are extremely cool to have in the tool bag. Of
course as I watched it I could not help but think, wow, if Julie
doesn't already know about this, she will want to!

I guess this is based on me assuming you're always looking for ways to
simplify and powerize the complex multi-screen work flow. I'm also
assuming you're using Final Cut Pro, and you have the suite which
includes the program Apple Motion (version 3 or higher). If that is
the case, have a look at this short video:

http://www.blip.tv/file/1938873/

The guy explains how to quickly build a multi screen wall and move it
around in 3D space if you want to.

What is extra cool about this tutorial is that the guy takes into
account the problems of sluggish software with tons of video source
material running simultaneously and the need to render stuff. The
solutions to these problems are very clever and very cool to know
about, although the first time you see how it is done it seems like
there are a bunch of buttons to push and sliders to slide, which is
true, but it is all documented and clearly saves massive amounts of
time compared to doing things in a more pedestrian manner.

Consider this: This tutorial video runs 21 minutes, and everything
that needs to be done to move a wall of 25 video monitors through 3D
space with all of the window dressing that goes with it is done "real
time" as we're watching the video. Other than the time needed to
select the source material (which has to always be done anyway of
course), then you're looking at a major time save. AND the clever way
that the selected source material is compiled and added to the project
not only makes it very manageable, it also makes the render time of
the finished piece extremely fast!

So, if you're not already familiar with this video and the techniques
presented, I suggest just watching it through once to see how the work
flow goes and how the results are accomplished, and then watch it a
second time to take notes and start experimenting. Along the way it is
clear that one can make a number of changes to the work flow to
accommodate changes to the overall number of video sources one might
want, as well as any moves or changes to perspective one wants to
change. This tutorial shows a block of like sized "monitors", but with
a few tweaks one could also incorporate various size monitors, a
different background, etc.

Check it out!

More later,
- Archy

SO LONG FAREWELL.... in mash-up!