Thoughts

curiosity.

in , , , , , , , ,

What drives us forward?  In our younger development, we were propelled towards things in large part, because of a little thing called curiosity.  The shapes, the sounds, the textures, the possibilities of the world elicited a feeling of amazement, and a need to find out.  It was a world of endless wonder.  Limitless in scope and full of options.  A simple turn of the head informed of new opportunities.  

Then we grew up.  John Cassavetes has an interesting quote about MAN when he turns of age, and in his time, it was around 23.  I can't recall it of the top of my head, and instead of accuracy, I will paraphrase for affect instead.  Basically, he says that people lose interest in discovery around their early twenties.  All that music that got you moving, or art, or literature, or movies that challenged you, or where worthy of further investigation, all gone.  You grew up.  You put on your 3 piece, and got on with life.  The pattern, set in stone.

But what happened to life?  Curiosity was exchanged for order.  It was sold to dogma.  In our time, this process happens a little later.  Maybe in your late twenties, but possibly into you're early thirties.  We give up our search, usually by blaming the lack of time.  

Now, of course priorities change.  You have a baby, we get married, we have a multitude of responsibilities.  Shit, you have to provide for yourself.  Something that our 16 year old, first world self’s usually didn’t bother with, nor fathom its complexity.  But, what happened to the search for wonder, amazement?  Where does it go?

Do we just crawl to our evolutionary predisposition?  Does biology dictate that curiosity is not of value anymore.  “I AM WHAT I AM”, we love to say, as if, cemented from the beginning of time.

Isn't that a counterintuitive remnant of our past human life?  And here, I inject blatant commercialism that might resinate, since millions of dollars where spent to get you to buy something, by first associating two very different things.  "Stay thirsty my friends."

​a light glistens.

​a light glistens.

reading.

in , , , ,

I'm always surprised to learn a great majority of people I come across only devote scattered time to reading short form articles or magazines.  I'm even more surprised (stupefied) to learn that individuals who are capable, do not read period.      

Even professionals; from nice suit and tie wearing lawyers, to some physicians, to a couple of sales execs, and from my side of it, people who do art as a "hobby", only commit to reading short form (web, magazine articles, etc).  You know, things that are easily skimmed, that do not require any of that analytical processing shit.

I say, art as "hobby", because I've yet to find a “full time” artist who doesn't commit to reading as a habit.  Mostly fiction I might add.  Same goes for the entrepreneurs I've come across.  They however, are strictly tied to non-fiction.  That’s just how they role.

People who I know, and whom amaze me most often, are also the ones who are avid readers.  And, they’re diverse readers.  They swallow up books, and they take notes, and they apply concepts into their own existence (if the particular type of book demands it).    

Look around yourself.  Find any correlation?  If not, go outside your circle a little.  Maybe being the average of your 5 closest friends is blinding you from others?  

​

The Filmmakers Paradigm

in , , , , ,

Filmmaking is a stressful form.  Waiting is the norm.  No matter how enthusiastic, prepared and persistent you are, there are times where you must wait.

But, there is also another option.  The DIY route; birthed from a punk rock attitude, great to relieve temporary anxiety, or, in some cases, to reign over control and defeat anxiety.  To feel in charge, less frustrated and more enabled.  To be what seemed denied to you in world of gatekeeping foundations.

However, the ceiling is limited in height.  Not always, but more so than not.  What is this ceiling?  Audience, scope, professionalism, hierarchy, name talent, etc, etc.  Of course, none of these matter if your art beckons you to create what you need.

In my eyes, both are valid.  It's the execution of either form that matters.  But, what also matters is your piece of mind.  And if you can find it with no money, then do it.

But, filmmaking takes time.  Lots of time.  So, just know that the time you take for one thing, takes away from the other thing.  And sometimes, that particular  car chase you have in your mind does not lend itself to DIY.

What do you want?

​

Enter the POV.

in , , , , ,

True POV camera work is a relative staple in video games.  These games, often of the FPS (first person shooter) variety, imply a world as scene by the lead character, which by way of controller, is you, the player.

Similar to the field of vision of humans, we see exactly as the character does.  Some other information might be provided by the GUI (such as maps, weapons, etc), but essentially, you see the world through your eyes.  

Movies have used POV shoots as a supplementary technique for many years.  But, whereas it was a very difficult thing to achieve in Orson Welles world, it is easier to do in Gasper Noe's time.  The gear has gotten smaller.  The apparatus has changed.

In video games set pieces, we can move from a wide, to a follow, straight to a POV all in one movement.  

This camera flexibility and movement is the new norm in most Hollywood films.  In essence, the building of shot structure in a movie like BATMAN is rendered first in a computer.  It borrows heavily from video games.  But, a real world camera with real world actors can never be as flexible as the camera in a computer world.    

Now, here in lies a thought.  If, after all these years video games tried to be more like movies, what happens when movies try to be more like video games?

What happens when the story lines, graphics, writing gets as good or better than the movie version?  I'm sure many kids will argue that it already has.  

So, what now?  Its telling to note that the cost of the top tier tentpole video games cost as much or more then tentpole Hollywood films.  

At some point, the kids will stick to a world where there POV is in control, with options and feedback that a passive form like Hollywood movies cannot provide.  2 hours of passive entertainment versus 60+ hours of active entertainment.  You can argue that they are two different things, but, when both try to emulate one another, it becomes very hard to differentiate.

We need to get out of the passive.  We need to trust our audience a little more.  The short term gains from the sequel syndrome will have huge consequences in a few years.

​

Bias.

in , , ,

Just something to remember.  When we make decisions, a million years of evolution asserts its strength, often times taking the helm, because it thinks it knows best.  Experience on the plains have taught it well.  It deserves its status.

But, what served us 12,000 years ago might not be the soundest decision making apparatus.  

Think clear.  We have two consciousness working independently of each other.  When you don't have to fight or flight, use the more thoughtful one.

​

The WHY's man, the WHY'S, man.

in , , , ,

Ideas abound.  And so do scripts, treatments, synopsis's, scribbles, etc.  The challenge then and now has always been two fold (not true, but I like 2's).  Although, technology, access and credit cards make it a bit less strenuous at a certain threshold.   

A) The resources = Money, equipment, talent, time, etc.  

B) The "Why's".  Why do you want to invest the A's for the B's?  Be specific.  Search for the answer to the question, because this clears the clutter.  And, then you can judge whether the A is really worth the B for a particular project.

We can never predict the future.  You can write a 5 year, 10 year, 1 month, 7 month plan all you want.  And, I'll be the first to encourage it.  But, the world probably has other plans.  

You roll with it.  Don't put all your faith on a "singular" preconceived plan, one that is destined to change.  That's what life is.  One continuous ocean of swirls and currents and big FUCKING WHALES AND GIANT SQUIDS.    

Video Killed The Movie (at least for today)

in , , , , ,

Video is the new mainstream form.  I've been saying it for a few years now, but as it's producers have gotten more savvy with technology and techniques, they can mimic, but more importantly, innovative trends and styles in the visual medium at a hyper kinetic pace.  This is why individual music video directors are not as sought out as before.  Because, anybody with some visual map can do it.  And they are.  In droves.  You get the good and the bad, but, you get it all.  And fast.  And new, and fresh.  TV anyone?

That in lies the huge challenge for Hollywood and feature films in general (especially ones that really on novelty and gimmicks).  The human appetite for novelty knows no bounds.  And video quenches that thirst weekly, for 1/100th of the price.  Plus, for its consumers, hell, it's free.

That's why, in some weird essence, a movie like SPRING BREAKERS competes with RiFF RAFF and his once a week music videos (the man who I believe is the genesis of the film, even if it be subconscious).  RiFF RAFF has been around for a few years, doing videos which are in the same spirit of the feature film.  For people familiar with his work, the movie feels tedious and outdated.

Of course, I'm exaggerating to make some point.  But, we cannot turn a blind eye to this phenomenon.  It exists.  Just today, I watched a well made, action POV music video that is buzzing the net. Comments include, "best thing I've ever seen", or "hollywood can never touch this".  Of course, this happens almost weekly and is a by product of internet hyper hyperbole. And, once the surface of the video is scratched, the novelty wears off quick.  But, the savvy generation has seen it, internalized it and moved on.  

You can no doubt see that this is where the wellspring of ideas originate these days.  And, by the time Hollywood or some indie director rips it off and places the same scene in a larger context, it's already old news for the next generation.  They've seen it, experienced it, and moved on to about 20 other new things.  This generation doesn't place the same importance on scale as they did before.  In the game of originality, who done it first is as important as who done it better.

For feature films to keep a footing in its proper place, it must rely on it's core strengths, that of unique storytelling, expression and originality no matter how difficult. The rerun, sequel game is not a long term strategy.  If it is, ruin is almost guaranteed.  Once the nerds turn away because there favorite comic book video game is better than the movie, well, then what?  You don't think that's going to happen?  

Long form films must also adapt to a faster distribution strategy.  One that keeps it fresh in a market that changes faster than a blink of an eye. Certainly not an easy task.

​

The Cosby's vs Tarkovsky

in , , , , ,

Does size and scale matter in how we perceive works of art?

How about in cinema?  

It seems that a certain threshold is subjective, but that in the majority, a standard must be reached before subjects are comfortable enough to identify said object.

In the case of cinema, this is the budget threshold, which most often refers to production value.

Although we have seen a large influx and adherence to lo-fi in almost all areas of media (music, video, design) it seems that its consumption is temporary and best served on short segments.

The feature film is altogether a different animal.  When we think of scale, does the medium of film in this day and age, have any rights to claim itself to art.

I'm sure this might get your blood boiling.  but give it a good swirl in the noggin.  

Movies are, and always will be a business masquerading as pop-art.  Once this distinction is made, our reaction to it is clearer. After all, is Tarkovsky any more arty than The Cosby show?

The answer of course is yes, but it becomes incredibly difficult to define properly.  And if so, to what degree and who gets the rights to final assessment?

Much Ado About Nothings

in , , , , ,

I spend the least amount of time I can these days going through feeds that refer to filmmaking.  

Ironically (wrong word here), filmmaking is the thing I spend most of my time doing. I just try not to pay attention to the daily "news", since I think it's a destructive habit in the long run.  Especially in a field that naturally cycles so slow. (this is obviously changing, like in every human endeavor)  

The latest fad.  The newest thing.  Something happened in crowdfunding.  Panasonic released a new 10k digital camera.  So and so just released her 10th film.

All this constant noise.  All this to do about nothings.  I think it's better to focus on the task's at hand.  In front of your face.  Or, your family.  Your world.  Your puppy. Take care of that first.  And when some time is left over, get better at other things.  

The rest of it, what Ted Hope happened to say today, or what's in the latest post at Filmmaker Mag, or what gang sign Justin Bieber threw up today  (see what I'm saying) probably doesn't matter in the big picture.

Now, I'm not saying that stuff isn't important.  It is, it's domain knowledge.  You might benefit from it.  But, not everything second.  Probably not everyday.  And, if you're trying to make a mark, like a real lasting one, why thread in the water with all the other fish?  

A little bit of Charlie Munger, Charlie Parker, and Charlie Brown will get your head clearer then your retort at someones latest blog post about NO-BUDGET FILMMAKING or HOW TO WRITE A SCREENPLAY IN 60 MINUTES.  

Stay original.  Don't worry about the noise.  Don't worry about the grain.  Grain is beautiful after all.