a thank you to Roger Ebert.

I'm pretty sure everybody that has had, at the very least, a sliver of interest in the movies and the language of cinema has a story to share about Roger Ebert.  

Whether it was about influence, or insight, or passion, or disagreement, Roger Ebert was big time.  

He loved movies so much, that it's inconceivable to think of any figure in these modern times, to exhibit the same anti-cynicism and commitment to cinema.  Almost all of us are in a sort of ambivalent love affair with movies these days.  For all the never ending enthusiasm and commitment to reach higher, there is always the death knell, the Holy Motors sign off.  Which was quite convincing by the way (btw ya’lls).

Somehow, both views fit.  But, it is fitting and sad, that Ebert, along with the rest of the classicist have now passed.  These were figures of what can be now called, "the good old days".  And we can cherish that, because its history has been written.  A place exists for the past.  It has happened, and it was witnessed.  The future however, is always a place of uncertainty.  Anxiety is birthed from the unknown.  And humans, given a dose of evolutionary psychology, always feel mixed about that which cannot be controlled.

The beauty of Ebert was that the man always committed to passionate thinking.  He was not afraid.  Nor was he afraid to change his mind.  

At his older age, he became a king of new media. With twitter, he could troll with the best of them.  His stance against video games as art was legendary.  Here was a man, not afraid of the consequences of thought, nor its expression.  Nor was he scared of being bullied for thinking.

Bombarded by children angered by an opinion, he pressed forward with what I can only assume was a grin.  Remember is beef with Vincent Gallo.  The man didn't back down from insults.  A classic game of "yo momma".  And he did this with a smile.  That's respectable. That’s heart.  

And no other critic could circumnavigate the mainstream all the while, championing the independent quite like Ebert. Who will ever have that leverage?  Who will ever care enough?

What a sincere love of something.  It was poetic to witness.  RIP Roger Ebert and thank you.  My mother thanks you.  She loved you.  

See you at the movies; home theater actually, because we all know that's where this is all leading, right?

facebook mortality.

I detached myself from the plug of social media’s major milestone intuition a few days ago.  My feelings are still intact.  I assume they will be.  I was never that active on Mark's (enter the classic ironic name droppin' styles)  site anyways.

These tools of interaction are very psychological in nature.  Their success directly calls to mind Pavlov and his dogs, salivating for A LIKE.  

Facebook obliterates the past, and makes the future impossible.  It sticks you in the eternal now.  Now and forever.  Which, without sounding pedantic, is different than the Eastern philosophical version of THE NOW.

The paradox being is that if your time is always spent, monkey down on the phone, you are the antithesis of NOW in one sense, but stuck in NOWness, till infinity in the dull, uninspired, technosapien sense.

I'm glad I've detached.  I like to remember high school as it was, and not some fatter, older, and eternal version of it. Plus, I don't give a fuck about your kids. (not true, I do.  they are all, mostly, pretty cute)

gritty handheld style it is not, asshole.

After watching a recent Hollywood film lauded as one of the great achievements of the year (the year would be last), I did what I do when I can't seem to figure out the hype from the fact.  At the very least, my facts against mediocrity.

So, I turned into some reviews to hear the voice of the critic.  Now, I only do this after the movie.  Mostly, just to gauge the critical zeitgeist and maybe to pick up on points that I neglected, or tuned out possibly due to bias.  In fact, often, I want to be proved wrong.  I want to be moved to believe that the movie was a masterpiece and I was just being an asshole, or plainly, ignorant.

So, after flipping through a couple of these eloquent reviews, one phrase stood out from the rest, breathing fire into the cultural void of existence. "Gritty handheld style" was this very phrase.  

Everytime I read something so asinine, I want to stop and call out to my maker.  But the fact that this was repeated in no less then 5 reviews in back to back succession makes me think, that sometimes, people are in a haze of automation, devoid of anything critical, analytical, or imaginative.  

Gritty handheld style in this particular case was nothing at all gritty.  What the fuck does this describe?  Realism?  Well, in this particular case, not at all.  Does it describe fortitude or determination.  No.  50 million dollars with the best technical minds around making fiction never ever fucking equates to GRITTY.  Ever.  (well, actually, there are a couple cases historically.  this is not one.  and I'm assuming, the budget never crossed the 25million mark) 

What it does describe however, is that all these clowns picked up the same description from wherever the hell, like 10 years ago, and decided to use it again, and again, and again, and thus removing any descriptive quality about it, in favor of press releasing a review.  In today's language, this just fucking blows.

I call for an indefinite ban, and personal banishment for any hee-haw that uses the phrase, "gritty handheld style" to describe anything related to a film.  They can however, use it to describe their latest iphone video of there cat licking its nuts.  As long as the phone is not locked down on a tripod, and that it is in fact, gritty by definition.

sipping on that bullshit budweiser.

A scary thought has been buzzing through the brain of late.  I contemplate the poor condition of pop music.  Much too often.  Then, i try to forget the thought.  I rationalize this as older man talk.  That type of shit OLD people did when they talked about The Stones, or Chuck Berry, or Zeppelin, or The Clash.  Actually, did they talk about The Clash that way?  Fine, the Pistols, or Public Enemy.  Whatever.  Enter any rugged new style that scared the fucking cardigan wearing wiseman out his granny panties.

So, let’s traverse to modern day.  We are certainly in the post-post music era.  A little bit of this, a little bit of Dylan, mixed with what Prince did in 84, and a touch of that band nobody has heard of, and a dropping of The Cure.  Yeah, that's what's up.  Repeat with looks, repeat with style.  

But Pop is a little different.  It's always been.  We always whine about it.  At this point however, mainstream is ALL STREAM ALL THE TIME for most people.  From the Rhianna to the Chris Brown shit, to Lady Gaga doing the next level impersonation of Madonna, to Justin T, the easy to digest negative 10 MJ (whom I find totally harmless and interesting at least).  To the most asinine lyric writers on earth, and the multitude of studio tricks and disingenuous manufacturing of controversy to push a BRAND.

And, of course the semblance of what was once termed HIP HOP.  The form that is finally falling of the mainstream mountain that it's held for the last decade.  I don't even want to discuss the state of that form.  It's beyond repair for the most part, which is great.  From the ashes comes the voice.  Hopefully, some of these nimrods come to understand that rich Italian designers find it hilarious that some hood brother’s ultimate desire is to be buried in one of his stores.  I mean, what reach, what determination.  

Kool G Rap talked about being a gangsta.  So does Rick the character plagiarizer Ross.  But, so did NWA.  And, that had the same effect as punk rock.  It was a reaction.  Rick Ross is not a reaction towards anything.  Who is he rebelling against?  What is his skill?  Ghostface on the other hand, is a natural storyteller.  He is skilled at something.  He is a character of his creation.

But, coming back to my point.  Am I the grumpy old man whining about the horrid state of mainstream music?  Do i not get it?  Maybe, but to my defense, first, I'm not that old.  Second, mainstream pop is horrendous.  However, at the other end of the musical spectrum, people are releasing amazing music constantly.  The niche’s are being taken care of.  So, how does this happen?

The world has entered the REALITY TV REALITY, without even batting an eyelash.  It’s cool though, SHINE BRIGHT LIKE A DIAMOND ya’ll!

coffee vs juicers in space.

View fullsize

​why must you betray coffee?

curiosity.

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.

space.

This little optical trick turned out very interesting.

reading.

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 name of the game.

FYI, we have two projects in post, a feature in pre-prod, and a good 5 other projects in development.  

Stamina and patience: Two extremely difficult things to endure when we are forced to rely on external things.  

But, sometimes that's just the name of the game.

The Filmmakers Paradigm

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?

The INTERNET Learning Center

Tom:     Yo man, that shit was cray.
Jerry:   What do you mean?
Tom:     Like that shit was straight cray cray.
Jerry:   OK.
Tom:    Shit was bonkers. Bananas.  Nuts.
Jerry:   Cool.
Tom:     No man, you're not getting it.
Jerry:   Explain it to me.
Tom:    Man, GOOGLE that shit dummy.      

Enter the POV.

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.

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.

Work and Money

I will come back and revisit this when I'm not on the run.

And full disclosure, this is the second time I'm using my phone to update.

In any case, this is a tricky subject when it comes to the creative fields. And what I mean is, not the second job kind of thing. Or the weekend warrior kind of thing.

No, the, "I'm not sure I want to put my name on that kind of thing".

I have a simple answer. Don't.

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

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.