Category: Uncategorized

More people should check out eripsa’s Summer Project. It’s something cool in the way of science fiction.

There you go:

http://googlespeaks.blogspot.com/

A few things one [adult swim] is getting pretty awesome on Saturday nights Samurai Champloo is a good one and on the 28th of May they will be all anime (rhyme) back to the solid action which is cool if that’s your thing.

So I just used a piece of paper to pick some turkey from between my teeth I of course ate the piece of turkey is that gross? Seems perfectly okay. And as a counter point is it impolite to wipe the spit off your lips when you’ve been kissed? If the answer to either of those questions is yes then I might be in trouble.

Everybody craves applause . . . except comedians.

It just occurred to me as I embarked on the same sequence of events with the hope of achieving different results that I was being insane. This is the common definition I guess. Yet I’ve found myself doing many things like this and what is to be said? Am I nuts? Sure but not because of these reasonably inane things. I think that the complexities of technology and such that the speed with which this society is moving are driving all of us a bit insane in this way. What’s the best way to get a computer that is inexplicably not working to work? Restart it. Okay sometimes that works sometimes it doesn’t there is a rationale behind this action but it is usually a hully gully approach toward solving a problem that does not have an immediate solution. And what about the principle of persistence? The if first you don’t succeed adage? Perhaps it’s too wordy to say: “try try again but do it differently”. Still, it seems to me that in life there are many scenarios and situations where the results will vary and do vary dependent upon many factors and that we mortals in our infinite ignorance might always miss something.
Perhaps this insanity is a bit inevitable though I suppose it works only in a retroactive sense to attempt something with a priori expectations can only take one sofar. It is insane to do something that you know won’t work but you never really know any results until after the event has occurred and it is at this time that one is insane; not for taking the action or even having the expectation since this expectation is simply a skeptical assertion against previous empirical data. Rather the insanity comes from not understanding the results and not showing due regard toward the further validity of that empirical data to test this data is a human prerogative to dispute the results is simple insanity but to expect the same results for what is seemingly the same situation is in many cases is just as insane since it is not necessarily in our power to eliminate the aspect of uncertainty. Taking a hard line semantic approach, the point is moot since the same actions and circumstances is not seemingly the same, it is the same. On paper, in words, insanity is clear but in the real world I just don’t think that is the case.

Charlie Rose had NY Times writer Sharon Waxman on tonight talking about a new book she wrote where she deals with the directors of prominence in the 90’s it’s called Rebels on the Backlot and it seems interesting. For what it’s worth here’s the Amazon link which has some reviews and such.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060540176/qid=1114758020/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-4121204-0168861

have at it what you will world!

Moviemaker’s Master Class by Laurent Tirard relates a number of interviews done with many modern day directors in the world of feature narrative cinema. I knew that this book would have information of the practical and subjective nature. I took it as my prerogative to be an active reader clearly differentiating the practical common sense duties of a director with those more subjective approaches taken by the individual director giving the advice.
I noted that most talked about a grammar of cinema as it related to shooting a scene and establishing good exposure and composition. Rightly so most noted this material as fundamental and not detracting in anyway from the art of cinema. Much like an athlete it seems that these fundamentals in cinema are the key. It seems to me that it is only by understanding the rules and in some instances the science of cinema that one can work efficiently to create something novel.
It is that which follows the fundamentals, these subjective approaches and the commonalities amongst many of the directors that compose schools of thought about: acting, shooting, scripting, and any other elements that come together to make up what could be called the autuer theory of cinema. Most of the directors were from a more recent period in cinema as such there were many common approaches they had such as treating the script as more of a guide and not becoming locked into what is written on the page in terms of acting and even shooting. I was amazed at how many directors spoke of showing up on set early to figure out the shots for that day. Some liked rehearsal with actors and many did not. Some treated the material on a more conceptual level while others were working from the human story level.
All of the directors seemed a bit awkward trying to verbalize the more specific aspects of why they do what they do and toward what ends they are striving. Cronenberg, Goddard and others all spoke of the process as something that is self explanatory and in many ways self reaffirming. That is to say they realized what they did while they did it and realized how to do it because they were involved in the production. Many admitted that this sense of process and this approach to making a piece of work is not possible to learn in a classroom at a film school. In the world of art where the product serves to justify the artist there must be artful production and so it goes with cinema.
Older more established directors like Scorsese and Allen spoke about the system and the practical realities of producing work. The struggles to create something that is marketable while still being independent and the difficulties of working in a system that is even more so now driven toward profit from high investment blockbusters over smaller more personal films that could still be done to make a profit if the infrastructure was there to support such films.
I continued to find subjective commonalities as I read further into the book. I would say most directors spoke about making a film that they were happy with one where the final results served to satisfy their desires to put that story on celluloid. None of the directors disregarded the audience but most did not treat the appeal to an audience as something they were particularly worried about. I must then ask myself: what does it mean to be self serving as a director? Is this a bad thing or just something that works if you have talent? That is can talent be defined as an artist’s ability to connect with a number of people sufficient to justify his product as something representative of humanity? OR is this just what makes it art? People see it but they do not like it, then is that art without talent or just crap? OR is all art intrinsically crap until it is justified by the appeal of a group an audience?
This book got me going on a number of recent and recurring questions of both personal and philosophical relevance. Stepping outside of the emotional appeal of the subjective artist’s journey I think the place to start is at a more practical root. If I define the problem as such: I want to make a narrative feature movie. What does this mean? It has to have a story. Something has to happen. Even a wayward nihlist’s tale will have something. Keeping vague, this something can be just about anything but since it is preconceived it will be contrived, certain elements of “reality” will be disregarded or simplified time will pass as you wish it to and not as it does and characters will not be whole human beings but archetypes characterizing the roles that serve this something. That is not to say that the something and the resultant characters cannot be complicated. This complication must be coherent to the audience otherwise the piece will become confused and it will fail OR possibly worse be a successful misunderstanding that is ultimately unsatisfying to the director and creator. Why? Because it is not about monetary success (even though it is) it is about communicating an idea, a feeling, a question, once more something. Does this make cinema glorified propaganda? Hell yes. Historically Western theatre traces back to the Greeks to the concept of a ritual whereby the audience would watch something that would move them to catharsis and provide them with peace of mind. Once more this is also contrived and too a point subjective one person’s tragedy might be another’s comedy.
What is significant about cinema being propaganda if it does not spout specific political arguments or beliefs? The unfortunate truth is that the act of being apolitical is a political one. Perhaps we might elucidate a theory about how this notion of how talent relates to audience and success and art. Looking at an audience is more about demographics. It is not difficult to see why a “chick flick” appeals to one spectrum and why a sci-fi action thriller appeals to another spectrum. I use the word spectrum because I realize the overlap in demographics and the overlapping appeal of certain works. Ah different people and I might go so far as to say that everyone gets something unique from a movie. It might be a 99.9% common reaction amongst a group of friends but then to attempt to quantify this sans any sort of scientifically quantifiable data is ridiculous. They may have the mega-Fonzie some time in the future but for now we just have to keep on with this sense of subjective coolness.
Does this inevitable subjectivity of human experience aside from all the demographics then make the propaganda of cinema a moot point and if so does that in turn make talent and art something that is indefinite? I suppose it does. So what makes a director talented a person worthy to be in this book? Consistency of appeal, adherence to obsessions (Lynch’s place holder for ideas I guess), a clear understanding of the fundamentals of cinema, and the employment of all of the above in a patterned way, since humans are creatures of habit, which in a circular way arrives back at appeal. Now you have the autuer the signature look and feel conceptual material (obsessions) and look specific to a director if for no other reason than that is what he likes to do and so far it has been what his audience has liked to see.

1. That’s a Futurama quote if you’re in the know you get a bonofide no prize which is a Marvel Comics Stan Lee joke.

I’ve noticed that the new fad in phraseology is to say about the most miniscule of things that one is “over it.” I find this to be perplexing since that phrase is usually used only after a protracted and emotionally exhausting relationship between two people has come to a definitive end. So now we have people being “over” their half eaten sandwich and so on and so forth. What does this say about the society when such a previously intense and firm statement can be used about the most inane of endeavors?
I don’t know. But it is funny. I think people in this politically charged and stressful time are just advertising their apathy in such a way that emulates a self-conscious child craving attention. To say I’m not scared usually shows that fear is a factor. To say “I’m over that . . .” Is to say that at some point you were not that it meant something to you. A sandwich is a good meal, the sustenance that I can get from it is about as much as it means to me it is not comparable to the love of another person or my stakes in some college team taking it all the way at the final four. I don’t mean to think that the priorities of people using this phrase are out of whack (it is just a fad and I’m sure I’ll jump on the bandwagon soon enough) but the use of this phrase ad nauseum shows a clear fear on the part of people to be sincere about what they do value.
The way I see it the two alternatives are that people become addicted to every element of their lives such that they are no longer over (definite) things but rather much like a person in some annoymous program are constatly recovering (ambiguous) from things. OR (and I prefer this one) people move on to an even more absolute phrase declaring: “that sandwich is dead to me” and so on and so forth.

Honestly, how I feel right now:
I can’t negotiate this world to get a win, ever.
I can’t figure out a way to deal with people and be one at the same time without alienating myself.
No one thinks I’m funny except myself [though I enjoy having such an exclusive audience]
I get all the shitty feelings and none of the good ones. [Frankly I believe there are less of those to go around these days so I don’t take that all that personally]
Nothing is a good substitute for actually being happy. [Nostalgia, whatever]
I don’t feel better after a good exercise. [Just tired]
For me it’s usually about a girl or a videogame. [hey in a world this shitty I’ve got my priorities]
I accumulate a great deal of wrath from being ignored [I respect everyone else enough to pay attention even if I don’t care oh well off to the high rocking horse for me]
That’s enough for now. [If all else fails go watch TV]

In an age where there are more ways for people to communicate it seems that communication of both the inter and intra (why not) forms is not better. It is still incredibly difficult to organize and get things accomplished. Hell is other people and this is why. Seems easy to dismiss, everyone else’s faults of organization. I know I’m only as capable as my ability to consistently communicate effectively while demanding (and let’s face it when it comes to getting things done that’s ultimately the way) the attention and respect of those with which communication is needed.

With this attitude everything becomes some kind of harsh battle to tame the chaos of other people’s hang ups and lives. It profits not to have six different ways to contact a person if they aren’t really ever there. Once again no one gets it, no one likes it and definitely no one cares about your difficulty in getting it done. [whatever it is who cares]

The alternative is a solitude surrounded by this chaos which is only less terrifying than a complete detachment from the external; a bleak loneliness that in the end we all must face. Though for some it is the sole experience of existence the only way while others get to occasionally enjoy some kind of seemingly spontaneous joy of human interaction.

People are people, nothing seems to change, and it keeps repeating.

The impossibility of compatibility and the imperfect nature of communication seems to make interpersonal interaction frustratingly fruitless so often to encourage a hard edge approach to how one operates in life.
If like some [me] you do not have the personable wit and intrinsically likeable personality to make you a good leader and pleasant company, than it makes more sense not to fight this and to focus on this hard edge approach.
To embrace the alternative . . . that short of failing at the accomplishment of your own goals you must find a way to negotiate the seemingly adversaries nature of the society to achieve the results you want. In this search there is a true solitude.
It’s . . .the human condition, the Existential dilemma that arises from our perceptive abilities exceeding our rather primitive physiology and emotional makeup. In the end it kills everyone on some level but if you want to make some money off it just remember:

“You’re an artist and no one understands you.” – Meh