Hi Rupert your points well made & well taken. I accept that to some extent I was arguing from the worms eye position of someone whose main interest is video on the net or in galleries & whose tastes run to the lapidary rather than the epic. Furthermore my position is too close to yours for me to want to, rather artificially, argue every dot of an i & cross of a t. Nevertheless, I think in my original mail was a slightly broader critique, which does extend, at least implicitly, to the cases you address. Eventually, what it comes down to is that those with the money & power are always going to be able to set the agenda, which in terms of the commercial cinema means this curious combination of bizarre oversimplification of any issue: love, death, war, whatever, together with the use of fantastically complex & expensive technology to present this pap as a kind of faux "realism". I'm sure we will see many folk make & distribute features on the net, on a tiny budget. I'm sure some of them will be wonderful and sadly I'm almost equally sure that, short of a radical reorganisation of society itself, such work will remain on the margins. I'm not sure however that I'm entirely unhappy about being marginal, given what isn't... best michael
--- Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael, you're so right about content trumping > visuals, and about > the more interesting stuff being done with lower res > kit. > > i've just sat for a couple of hours watching the > usual amazing array > of new posts in HD, DV, from phones, stills cameras, > Super 8. I feel > like I used to skip through more stuff a couple of > years ago, but > maybe I didn't. I consumed quite a lot then, too. > There's so many > people with skill out there, doing cool things with > the short form. > > What I'm also excited about, though, is that the > feature film was out > of bounds to most people for a long time, and now > it's not. > > And features are a hugely important art form - the > cinema's > equivalent of the novel. > > Previously, if you wanted to make one that actually > got watched, you > couldn't just prioritise content over aesthetics: if > it didn't look > like it was shot on at least 16mm, no one would > screen it, sell it or > watch it. So it was out of reach. > > Now, everyone can make a feature that doesn't *have > to* compromise on > aesthetics for reasons of cost. The can choose to > shoot something on > a low res camera, for sure - but finally, they can > also make the > other stuff. > > Partly this is just about distribution on the web - > and I'm sure that > even now people are happier to watch a feature > length film shot on a > low quality camera. But aesthetics - hi res or low > res - enhance the > audience's engagement with the content, and now we > have the > capability to craft high-end aesthetics > indistinguishable in quality > from Hollywood, in addition to the other stuff, *if > we want*. In > financial terms, film (particularly drama) is still > a long way from > music, art, writing or even theatre, which can be > practised at almost > no cost, but it's a lot closer than it was just a > couple of years > ago. That's an amazing, amazing, amazing thing. > Great, beautiful, > feature length stories will come to us from outside > the system. > > I'm looking forward to when people start posting > this exciting, > engaging longer stuff, even feature length, more > regularly on their > blogs. At some point this weekend, I'm going to try > and make time to > watch Blogumentary. And I have this new indie > non-linear hypervideo > feature-length film that I ordered on DVD called The > Onyx Project. > Sounds cool. Exactly the kind of thing that I want > to be able to see > online. > > Rupert > http://www.fatgirlinohio.org > http://feeds.feedburner.com/fatgirlinohio > > On 2 Feb 2007, at 08:47, Michael Szpakowski wrote: > > Hmm > I absolutely agree with the notion of making stuff > more available, more democratic but I *do* wonder if > there isn't a rather interesting compensatory > process > going on in us, as viewers, as the technical > possibilities improve - we adjust mentally & so even > though, never mind the latest HD camera, my six year > old Canon MV 300i produces stuff that would have > been > *inconceivable* twenty years ago, those with money & > the concentrated centralised resources, > corporations, > professional broadcasters &c, are always on the > whole > going to look better, *in purely technical terms* > because our mental bar is constantly raised by > whatever is cutting edge. > Its a bit like special effects. Of course nowadays, > when - what do you call it, where the motion is > screened at the back?- looks wonderful and clunky & > nostalgic & occasionally risible to *everyone*, I'm > also finding that I read computer generated imagery, > especially crowd scenes, with a much more cynical > eye > -the patterns leap out...& if that's true now then > in > 20-30 years the artifice will be completely evident. > (Best 'special effect' in the world ever? - IMO the > "coming back to life" reverse-thing in 'Orphee'. > It's > the poetry, not the technique) > So the point I'm making in a rather laboured way is > that a similar process is at work in "regular" image > making... > I think where the small independent maker of moving > image can score is in the content, in the broadest > sense ( I don't just mean what we choose to look at > but what we do with it & how). That's why some of > the > most interesting work I've seen is made using mobile > phone cams or fairly basic kit, or stop motion or > appropriated footage -you get my drift- but with > lashings of the poetic imagination that an industry > which is focus grouped to death & committed to an > entirely chimerical attempt to "replicate" the look > of > "reality" can't even begin to conceive of. > best > michael > > --- Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Looks amazing. I love Canon cameras - i have an > old > > Canon XL1. > > colours, low-light and lens all amazing. (even > > though I mostly just > > use my nokia or my kodak for vlogging.) > > > > Also saw this JVC on Videomaker.com's weekly vlog > > last week, > > announced at CES - costs more but full HD and 5 > > hours of hard drive > > recording: > > > > > http://www.jvc.com/press/index.jsp?urlid=MPPress&item=565 > > > > It seems incredible that AT LAST we can have this > > kind of image power > > in consumer hands. professional cameras with > lesser > > quality > > cost tens or hundreds of thousands just a few > years > > ago. 2 weeks > > ago, I saw a rough cut of feature a friend of > mine > > had shot on a > > shoestring. Visually *astonishing*, but shot on a > > £2k Sony HD in the > > middle of nowhere in Yorkshire. i've been waiting > > for this level of > > quality and price to come for so long - it opens > so > > many more doors. > > > > "to me the great hope is that now... people who > > normally wouldn't be > > making movies are going to be making them, and > > suddenly one day some > > little fat girl in ohio is going to be the new > > mozart and make a > > beautiful film with her father's camcorder > > and for once the so called professionalism about > > movies will be > > smashed - forever. and it will really become an > art > > form. that's my > > opinion." francis coppola, hearts of darkness, > > 1988. > > > > "the future is now! the future is now! the future > > is now!" > > > > Rupert > > > > http://www.fatgirlinohio.org > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/fatgirlinohio > > > > > > > > On 1 Feb 2007, at 23:39, WWWhatsup wrote: > > > > [looks good, 24p too, I guess street price will > be > > less] > > > > Canon Coming Out with $1,300 HD Camera > > > > High-definition cameras are slowly trickling down > to > > the > > point where they're affordable. And Canon, which > > makes > > some of the best non-HD camcorders, now plays in > > that > > market. The new camcorder offers real benefits > over > > the > > previous model. Our story has details on what it > > does and > > when it will be available. > > > > Canon Expands HD Line-up: > > http://ct.eletters.whatsnewnow.com/rd/cts? > > d=181-805-1-411-255402-45903-0-0-0-1 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > WWWhatsup NYC > > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > removed] > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
