old smithville burying ground, southport, nc, originally uploaded by minervacat.

We saw Sherlock Holmes on Christmas Day, and then again this evening; I flat-out adored it. It’s not Great Film, of course, but it was unbelievably gay and undeniably gorgeous, the latter of which being what captivated me the most.

What incredible art design that movie had; the use of color, in particular, was not subtle, but it was stunning. Irene’s red, the blue in all the Order’s quarters, the odd brightness of the circus performers Holmes pursues Irene through. It’s not a monochrome film by any stretch of the imagination, but color is used sparingly and then where the color pops, it pops, and the use of it was so deliberate and obvious that it worked. I haven’t yet figured out what exactly the color is supposed to mean; why red (besides the standard cliched femme fatale idea of it), why blue. Why red and blue together in Parliament at the end. But it’s there, and it sticks out.

It isn’t the same use of color that Burton’s Sweeney Todd did; there the red is obvious, the blood and the violence and the vengeance, but it’s a similar aesthetic. Choosing that color. Makes me want to sit down and have a long conversation with the art director, and with Guy Ritchie.

And the wide shots of London, growing and becoming what it is today — the idea of this movie being perched at the edge of an era of change and Holmes spearheading that change, executed in a perfect visual fashion. Everything centered around the Thames and the bridges. And, oh, the final shot of the bridge — if you’ve seen the film, you know the one I mean — the slow pan back to the wide angle shot, it’s simply stunning. Breathtakingly gorgeous and macabre. Which was a good summary of the movie for me: gorgeous and macabre, and exactly what I wanted.

And also, you know, kind of gay.

In Part One of this series, we encountered “Hello, Meteor!” – a commercial the Discovery Channel  (TDS) made during the 2000 commercial actors strike.  ”Hello, Meteor” garnered critical and commercial acclaim.  This success spurred TDS on to place more of their office staff in other commercials, including the now classic “Hello, Mosquito!” shown below.

.

.

The plot of James Cameron’s Avatar is not original. It is not even that clever. It’s downright predictable in fact. The “new” is usually overrated. There have been many great treatments of the same story, and Avatar is a masterfully told story. I would be amiss to not talk about the 3D technology, so I will discuss that first.

The new 3D technology is very well used. I caught myself from swatting a fly that was in the way of my view. The 3D is subtle and gorgeous. Simple scenes of actors in from with some action in the background are more realistic. The expansive landscapes of Pandora that define the movie are awe inspiring, just like seeing such landscapes in nature.

While the new views that 3D enables means that it will be here to stay, it is not as paradigm-shifting as the introduction of color or sound. Give it time to mature more, and I feel that it will become more common as it becomes cheaper and more cinemas have the projection technology in place.

While the cinematography is awe-inspiring at times, a film depends on its story. This film is about nature at its heart. The plot is humans are mining unobtanium from Pandora, a world inhabited by the Na’vi people, who are clearly modeled on the Native Americans. Just like the Native Americans, the Na’vi are not happy about their land being destroyed by the mining corporation.

*Possible Spoiler*

The corporation is trying diplomacy via the Avatar program, which enables humans to control manufactured Na’vi bodies. Jake Sully becomes a part of the program, and he slowly comes around to the Na’vi views. The Na’vi worship a nature mother goddess, who is embodied in every living thing.

*End Possible Spoiler*

The Na’vi view on nature is heart wrenching for me. It’s the year 2154, and there is “no green” left on Earth, where as Pandora is so lush with nature that it makes me want to go hiking. The Na’vi live in tune with their environment, and this life seems to be ideal.

There is a certain irony in this film holding up the native life style as an ideal, when this film could never have been realized in such a lifestyle. Similarly, the film is very anti-corporatism, when it is backed by one of the largest studios (Fox), which is in turn part of one of the largest media corporation (Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation empire).

Nevertheless, this movie has made me sit an think about how we interact with nature. I visited my grandmother’s house in rural Missouri today to see what my relatives had done to it. I was taken aback. As a boy, grandma’s had been the most nature I had experienced. I remember seeing all of the stars for the first time there. I remember long walks in the woods and seeing wildlife.

The house was an old farmhouse, but it has been completely redone. It could be my suburban neighbor’s house. I really missed the old house and what it symbolized for me. It was a place without modern conveniences, and now there is internet and cable TV.

I started thinking about all of the features of modern life on the drive home. Obviously, so much of it is unsustainable, but no one will give up their conveniences. Nor would they want to give up the advance medical technology or computers and such. I tried to think of the ideal fabric of society, but I am not nearly smart enough to figure that out in one drive. I’ll have to talk many walks and talk to others about it.

I highly recommend Avatar. See if for the beauty of the nature of Pandora. See it to make you think about nature on Earth. See it for the awe-inspiring cinematographic technique of 3D. See it for a great story.

If all goes to plan, next year we shoot on 16mm. I need to go down to the RMIT techs and figure out exactly what we’ve got to work with in terms of lenses, number of mags, and whatever else. I know we’ve got an Arriflex 16SR2 (as previously mentioned, ad nauseam) — but what I don’t know is whether the gate’s been modified to shoot super-16 or not. Of course, I’d like to shoot S16 ideally. whatever we make, it’ll be in 16:9, so shooting in 1.66:1 would mean using a much larger portion of film than cropping from 1.33:1.
And this brings me to a more important question: do we record our audio optically on the edge of the film? Can we? Should we?
This would automatically mean shooting in standard 16mm format, and heavily cropping into the frame to make our film 16:9. Sucks.. but RMIT’s camera may not be modified to shoot super-16 anyway.. I need to check. But is the quality of audio recorded to film sufficient? Does it cost more to process film when it also contains your audio? I’d say it would.. most likely..

As you can see, I’m not liking the sound of optically recording audio.. because of the potential cost, because it would limit us to shooting in 4:3 and cropping, and because I’m not sure about the quality. So.. is there another option? At RMIT, we use Sound Devices 301 Compact Production Mixers, which are incapable of recording sound.. only mixing sound and sending it somewhere else.. usually the DSR-450 or other digital camera with 2 channels of recording onto dv tape. Obviously, that’s not possible in this situation.
I’ve come up with a ghetto workaround.. quite convoluted, but it might be worth it. In my hypothetical new scenario, we’d run our mics into the 301 mixer, as usual. The audio mixer would normalise the levels and send them out to *two* Marantz solid state sound recorders, one for left channel, one for right. One Marantz recorder would be set at a higher level than the other, so that if the audio clips, we can take it from the backup recorder.
Is this viable? Yes, I’d say so. But there are several complications/limitations. Obviously we’d need to slate absolutely everything, and mark everything quickly and efficiently, as we’re burning through precious film stock. And we’d need a larger audio crew.. One or two boom operators, an audio mixer, and a sound recordist running two Marantz recorders at once.
“Why do you need the audio mixer, why not cut out the middle man and record straight from the boom mics into Marantz solid states?”
There are two reasons. One: The Marantz recorders cannot accurately display audio levels. There’s a crude meter on the front, displaying your level as a series of large blocks.. it’s difficult to read and regulate. Two: The Marantz recorders are digital.. you have no head room above 0dB. There’s less risk of the sound clipping if it’s been normalised to 0VU at the audio mixer, which displays the levels much more accurately and has a better gain control.
The other consideration is mobility. Having your boom operator(s) attached to a sound mixer attached to a recordist operating two solid states at once may mean that the boom operators are tethered.. it would be difficult for the recordist to follow the action while also monitoring levels, etc. It may also be difficult to have so many audio personnel in cramped locations.. that sort of thing. But they’re limitations we can work with, I think.
We just need a tight crew.. and we need to establish shooting protocols in concrete, and know them back to front.
Something like:
The 1stAD announces that we’re going for a take — roll sound.
Sound recordist starts up both solid states and calls “Sound rolling.” or “Speed”
Clapper needs to be in position with the slate correctly labelled, he/she can call the shot number and take number (shot number should correspond with the recording number of the sound recordist’s files).
Camera should be focusing on the slate at this point, ready to roll.
Camera rolls, clapper claps, camera quickly reframes/refocuses.. Operator calls “Frame”..
then we’re ready for “action”.

...like a blonde bombshell, looks magnificent, but once she opens her mouth, game over.

For a movie to inspire me enough to add it to my vast list (link on the sidebar, if you wish to check it out) it needs to fit certain criteria. For example: Casino is in there because 1. I’m a sucker for a good gangster flick and 2. the dialogue was just brilliant (as with most Scorsese films); Hook is there because, even watching it today, I am brought back to my childhood with that sense of adventure and believing that, with just a little fairy dust and a happy thought, I can fly through clouds and duel with pirates; Wedding Crashers is there because it was original and smart for it’s time (even as a 14 year old kid, I knew that this was a light in the dark cave of poop humor comedies).

Avatar was a different story.

I went into this film with the lowest of expectations. I just couldn’t buy into the hype that Avatar was going to “change film forever”, even hearing about how James Cameron had to create his own technology to make the darn thing. I knew about the actual actors Mocapping the entire film. I knew that Cameron had been writing the script for over a decade until his technology could be realized. I’ve seen his movies, I’m a fan of his work (some of it being on my list), but I just didn’t want to believe the hype.

I feel it is my duty as one who claims to love going to the movies to state that I do believe James Cameron has succeeded in revolutionizing film for our generation.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t see the movie on IMAX, but I did shell out the extra money to see it in 3D and I actually felt goosebumps, seeing how amazing everything looked (from the military base our hero landed on, to the world of Pandorum itself). It’s the first time I could honestly say I felt as if I was looking through not just a window, but (as a friend cleverly put it) a portal into another realm, an achievement few films can claim, but all films should strive for. The effects were just magnificent, and truly magical (without spoiling anything, there is a scene where the main character is romping through Pandorum at night, and everything was glowing…I longed to be able to jump through the screen and see it all for myself).

Now, one more thing about the movies on my list are replay value.  I have to always ask myself if I’d be willing to pay to see a movie again.

Would I pay to see Avatar again? Absolutely not, for one reason (and most of you who have read reviews know what I’m going to say).

The script.

This script, which James Cameron had over a decade to work on and polish, just fell short of average. What I was hearing did not capture me as much as what I was watching. The story was just so bland and predictable. It’s as if he was watching the movie Pocahontas one day and thought “what if I made this about humans and aliens, rather than the British and Native Americans?” Sure, there was the occasional chuckle moment when the hero trips over himself, or is called a moron by the Na’vi (the “natives”), but nothing that truly captured, shocked, saddened, or inspired me.

If you’re still reading this, then here’s my final verdict: Avatar is, not only a beautiful movie, but an important one that you must see  in a theater at least once in your life. It’s one of those movies that they will replay in movie theaters 30, 40, maybe even 50 years in the future. You can almost say Avatar, like (possibly) Star Wars IV: A New Hope, or, dare I say, the first movie in technicolor (The Gulf Between), is more like an event than a movie. You just may find yourself telling your kid or grand-kid about where you were and what was going through your mind when you were watching Avatar in those things called movie theaters (assuming technology deems them obsolete, or they don’t exist due to world domination by our robot overlords).

I know I will…I’ll just have to finish my story with “…too bad about that script, though…”

Third verse, same as the first, Jackie is a punk, Judy is a runt. Entries 15-11, let’s go:

15. Up: The aughts have been pretty good years for Pixar– the studio has put out seven films in ten years, and of those films only one has displayed a poverty of creativity and wit (Cars), while the rest have been both commercial and critical smashes. Undoubtedly, they have contributed a great number of films for consideration on lists such as these, but for my money the best of their efforts hails from 2009: Up, simply put, is the finest film Pixar has produced to date, proof of the company’s continued evolution from the days of Toy Story leading up to the release of Wall-E. Ostensibly a children’s movie, Up finds plenty of time to be silly and yet it’s far too mature to simply be pegged as entertainment for kids; the opening sequence alone, a montage that tells the story of the life protagonist Carl shares with his wife Ellie, is far too real, and far too bittersweet, to be intended specifically for an audience of children. This is typical for Pixar, who never write their films for a single audience demographic, but Up perhaps best exemplifies their particular approach to filmmaking and shows how much they have improved their craft over the years.

14. Grizzly Man: In October, 2003, Timothy Treadwell’s passion  caught up with him after 13 years and killed him: Having spent more than a decade of living in the presence of fearsome grizzly bears, Timothy found himself in the wrong place and exactly the wrong time, staring down a starving bear in a season where food was more scarce than usual. An outside glance at Treadwell’s story suggests a severely disturbed young man whose fascination with ursus arctos horribilis led him (along with his girlfriend) to a tragic and sudden end, and maybe in the hands of another filmmaker Grizzly Man would have come to exactly such a conclusion. Werner Herzog, however, believes that Treadwell had a deathwish; when we see footage shot by Treadwell himself, wherein the obviously unhinged environmentalist states, “I’d die for these animals”, we start to see what the director is talking about. While we will never know for sure if Treadwell truly desired death at the claws of the grizzly bears he so desperately worked to document and, theoretically, protect, we can certainly appreciate the beauty of the footage he captured in his many years in the Alaskan wilds– and take heed of the cautionary tale Herzog weaves about obsession.

13.  American Splendor: Is this, perhaps, the best comic book movie of the 2000’s? It’s no superhero movie– and for the best of the best of that genre, look no further than Spider-Man 2 or Hellboy 2– but this 2003 biopic about the life and times of curmudgeonly comic book everyman Harvey Pekar best captures the intended spirit of both its creator and his work, examining his life and art with a blend of fiction and reality as it weaves footage of the real Pekar within the narrative told by the film and, of course, Paul Giamatti’s transformative performance. While he lacks his subject’s liveliness, he fully encapsulates the cynical, humanist attitudes of the common man hero– and there is no doubt that Giamatti put on extra shlubb for the role as well. The film reconstructs the details of Harvey’s life, from his separate friendships with Robert Crumb (James Urbaniak) and Toby Radloff (Judah Friedlander) to his relationship with Joyce Brabner (Hope Davis), additionally covering major moments in his career– notably, his volatile late night and on-air confrontations with David Letterman. The film is frequently hysterical and often touching; much like the comic, American Splendor achieves both by drawing on the experiences of the mundane and the ordinary. Ultimately, as much as directors Berman and Pulcini make us laugh, their film most pointedly enlightens us with the harsh truth that most of us will lead lives that are overwhelmingly routine. If that epiphany is depressing to you, at least give American Splendor credit for being so boldly perceptive.

12. In the Mood For Love: Unapologetic romantic Wong Kar-wai’s finest film and most vividly told love story, In the Mood For Love is a period piece that transpires in 1960’s Hong Kong; Wong reflects his setting by eschewing more pointedly sexual imagery for the suggestive. Rather than show explicit love-making, he draws restrained body language from his actors instead, calling for use of innocuous gestures over more overt signifiers to build mounting sexual tension between his characters. The short story? It works. Films are rarely as sensual as this without getting into the specifics of sex, but the sexual chemistry between Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung boils over into every frame without ever getting more explicit than what can be relayed through what their eyes say. In the Mood For Love tells the story of two strangers, both committed in their own marriages, who walk into each other’s lives by mere chance. Over time, they develop a platonic relationship as they deal with their separate realizations that their spouses have been unfaithful to them. Seeking a way to assuage the emotional impact of the betrayals, they take solace in each other, kick-starting their own affair. Everyone is at their best here; Tony and Maggie are a natural pairing, and while they have both been excellent in films since, they have never been better. Most of all, Wong is at the height of his romantic powers, and Christopher Doyle’s beautiful photography immerses the viewer in the world in a way few cinematographers working today can.

11. Lord of the Rings: Not much is left to say about Peter Jackson’s triumphant adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s masterwork of fantasy literature; by producing even half-competent film renditions of the novels, Jackson would still have been successful, but each entry in the series is faithful and true to the books without ever chaining itself to the source to its own detriment. This is undoubtedly Tolkien’s work, but injected with Jackson’s ideas and sensibilities. It is also an extraordinary exercise in world-building. The Middle Earth of the novels is brought to life in stunning detail; even if the films aren’t your cup of tea, the amount of effort that went into creating the creatures, locations, and cultures of Tolkien’s fantasy universe goes above and beyond what other directors may have offered. Middle Earth is just so palatable here that you want to live in it yourself, or at least take extended visits– so long as it’s not entrenched in world war. With its sweeping overhead shots and wide angles capturing large-scale battles and fantastical vistas, the trilogy could easily have been empty spectacle. Jackson’s cast provides that ever-so-important human element that completes the effect and fully brings the world to life. The characters and actors are innumerable, from Elijah Wood as Middle Earth hobbit savior Frodo to the incomparable Ian McKellen as the archetype-defining wizened mentor and advisor Gandalf; to give appropriate praise to each would require another thousand words at least, but suffice to say that uniformly excellent acting from the cast is the last hook needed to fully pull audiences into the film’s world. Immersive, inventive, imaginative, and bold, The Lord of the Rings is an epic masterpiece and undoubtedly one of the greatest cinematic achievements of this decade.

I’m not a maths person. My brain doesn’t like thinking about which parameters are inversely proportional to what, or which variables change exponentially in relation to others… but I will. There’s a lot of maths to understand in cinematography, from MIRED shifts to logarithmic changes in light levels to adjustable gamma curves when shooting digital. And today I’ve found a new mathematical law that I don’t fully understand.. the Inverse Square Law. Despite not being able to grasp exactly what is going on with this rule, the implications of this rule are fairly great.

The rule applies to lighting, and involves the relationship between light intensity, the spread of light, and how rapidly light falls away. I’m not going to give you all the gory details about the mathematical formula, but from what I can gather: When you double the distance between your light and your subject, the spread of light increases exponentially, and the intensity of light decreases exponentially. When the distance is doubled, you’ve squared the amount of spread (so if your light covered 5 metres from 10ft away, it will cover 25 metres from 20ft away). When the distance is tripled, you’ve cubed the amount of spread, and the intensity is now a ninth of what it was before you tripled the distance. etc etc.

What does this mean in practical terms? It means that to get an acceptable exposure, there’s a tradeoff.. a decision to be made. A 200W KinoFlo 2ft away from the subject will give you the same light intensity as a 2k placed 15ft from the subject, or a massive 20k at 45ft, etc. All of these options will provide enough light to work with… the difference lies in the amount of falloff. Using a 20k from 45ft will illuminate a massive space around your subject evenly. The actors will be able to run and skip and dance all over the place, and the lighting will remain consistent throughout. This is great for continuity purposes. But for mood.. everything’s going to be flat.. there’d be much more contrast if you went with the KinoFlo, 2ft away from your subject. The light will fall away rapidly using this small fixture, creating darkness in the background.. tone, texture.. etc. Only problem is that your subject can hardly move. Move slightly forward and the light levels increase exponentially.. move slightly backwards and the light falls away in a similar fashion. To the eye, the difference may not seem too drastic, but on film, the difference may be 5 stops for example.. a huge difference (5 stops under would be just 3.125% of your original light level, and 5 stops over would be 3200% of your original level.. logarithms.. pretty messed).

So.. a larger fixture at a distance can be used to provide the same amount of light as a smaller fixture, but over a greater area. When considering what lights will be needed for a particular scene, the mood/look must be considered as well as the size of the area that must be lit, the degree to which actors must move, whether prac lights will be drowned out or interior scenes flattened by the use of large fixtures.. etc. It’s all a tradeoff. Small fixtures provide shadow and mood, but are terrible for continuity, and for anything involving lots of movement across large physical spaces. Large fixtures provide more even light, allowing great freedom to actors and ensuring visual continuity, but can potentially flatten a shot..

lots to think about, so many parameters. and they all interact with each other logarithmically according to exponential curves.. shit.

If you are anything like me, then every so often – when the winter wind blows clean and fresh from the north – you are overcome by nolstagia for the halcyon days of the 2000 Screen Actors Guild Commercial Actors Strike, when those selling things on television had to do without actors because actors who acted in television commercials wanted more money for their labor, the major studios wouldn’t give them more money, and so they went on strike.

Commercials got made and were broadcast without professional acting, and sometimes the results were simply wonderful.

The Discovery Channel used accounting and technical employees to act in a series of commercials that have since become legend, the first of which I feature below.

.

.

.

AHHH!!!   THE ATMOSPHERE!!!!  AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!

.

LIGHT IS THE RAW MATERIAL OF A CINEMATOGRAPHER. When I was pre-poducing the Cotton-Top documentary there were a few decisions I had to make regarding the ‘look’ of the film. This relates to how the pictures are going to look and, consequently, which sources of light I was going to use.

LED Litepanels MicroPro used for Fungi-Cinematography (Photo by D.Schmidt)

First of all, taking on account that I was going to be in the field for  only 3 weeks, I knew that I would have to deal with the light of any given environmental conditions. Additionally I didn’t want to give the images an ‘artificial’ look. I wanted to use natural light sources as much as I could  and thus trying to capture the ‘light mood’ of the subject.

A recurrent situation we faced was the canopy diffused light inside the Tropical Dry Forest. The light was usually dim and its color temperature varied rapidly from green shades to yellow and red.

In Colombia’s Caribbean coast the days are normally bright and hot; if, as a cinematographer, I am able to translate this sensations through images I would consider myself somewhat ’successful’… Seemingly, set up time and overall production cumbersomeness shouldn’t be an issue.

But lets get to the point. I needed a lightweight and reliable lighting solution that could use daylight or tungsten balanced. The versatile LED Litepanels MicroPro were the ideal tool so I included two of these in my production bag.

Here is a list of what I valued the most of these LED lights:

• Compact size and lightweight.
• Battery powered (six AA).
• Adjustable color temperature using filters (1/4 CTO and white diffuser included).
• Variable intensity with a dimmer.
• On-camera support included. Mounts on the camera’s flash shoe.
• No external cables.

Additional to the LED lights there were other tools/techniques I used to enhance  cinematography.

ISO: The Canon 7D works really well under low light conditions. I shot several sequences at ISO 1600 and they still look beautiful. It is important to keep in mind that noise/grain is a consequence of ISO so you have to expect the footage to be a little bit ‘grainier’. I personally don’t mind the grain as long as I capture the lighting atmosphere of what I am shooting and it becomes the aesthetic of a sequence.

Screen capture of footage shot at ISO 1600 with only natural light coming through a window.

Diffusing light: ambient light can sometime be harsh and difficult to control. Shooting indoors and using doorways and windows as light sources can be very effective and good looking.

Using the diffused light of a door-way can be very effective. (Photo by D.Schmidt)

High-Watt bulbs: although I didn’t get the chance to use the, inside my production bag I had two 200Watt bulbs. These would have been ideal to replace bulbs that were in lamps or ceilings. Sometimes I like the warm and yellowish look of tungsten lights. A 60Watt bulb, however, is rarely enough light. This solution is cheap and easier than carrying huge light kits.

For this production I didn’t use bounces or professional light sources but they are also vital tools for good cinematography.

I hope this is useful and please let me know if you want me to expand on any of these tips.

Federico

Yes, you are reading right.

And the ones, who know me, might not actually believe…but, it is tri-tra-true! I have been making lately my homepage, more of a blog that functions as page and not even sannekurz.com yet – a little baby page, that will be filled bit by bit with condensed versions of my work.

And: It does snow on the page…how much do I love this…and it is there especially for my snow addicted friend Sabina Paisa who probably will be sitting in stiff glowing summer heat now.

Have a look!

As I’ve often mentioned (purely as a matter of pretense), I often lecture to non American audiences. With minor exception I lecture in English.

The noted internet social analysis and general media maven, Joseph Bleckman, sent me this link that shows what non English speakers hear when they hear Americans speaking.  It isn’t a very loving or kind parody, but it is pretty funny.

You can also sat that cinematographer is the director of photography or DP. They are the head of the whole camera department and their job is to capture the photographic impression of the vision of director. Their job includes all aspect of camera-work like camera shots, movement, angles, filters, filmstock (video, 16mm, 35mm), lighting, composition etc. He is called as the back bone of director. It means writing in light; the term cinematography is understood as the art and processes of recording visual images for the cinema and then developing those images in a laboratory. Therefore, it has as much to do with lighting and photography as it does with film.

Skills and Education:

There are a few skill sets that require becoming a true cinematographer:

Lighting- Study lighting. In every day life, see how light works to set a mood. You should understand how to work with lighting to get the most out of your shots.

Your Eye- You will need to fully envision it in your own mind first before the camera captures a shot. Now, this is one skill you need to develop.

Technology- Stay up on the new photographic technology.
No one would be able view any of the many television programs, commercials, or movies without cinematographers. If you have an interest in this exciting field, read on to learn educational requirement, job description and job outlook information.

Study the Past- Study all movies and just find out what it is about certain shots that will work for you and learn how they accomplished it.

If you are interested then please ask your queries here.

]]> http://jeffkolada.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/avatar-review/ Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:18:26 +0000 jeffkolada http://jeffkolada.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/avatar-review/

So I seriously had doubts about this movie. I had doubts about the “amazingness” of the 3-D, doubts about the story, and I really didn’t think it could live up to the hype that was made around it. But damn, this movie is good. Despite the 2 hour 40-minute run time I could have sat through another hour.

The main reason I went to see the movie was for James Cameron’s new 3-D technology. I have always been a believer that 3-D is a fad that will die, but after seeing this I can see real merit behind it. Instead of pop-in-your-face 3d where things randomly pop off the screen, this technology creates a sense of depth in the image. It was really amazing. Focus is created with depth, so it feels like you’re standing next to a conversation. I still have no clue how this works other than the ridiculous camera rig that Cameron and DOP Vince Pace created mimics the movement of human eyes, shifting not only focus, but angle between the two.

And the star-studded cast definitely helped the film in my opinion. I was definitely thrown off a bit by Joel Moore, and kept picturing JP from Grandma’s Boy. But with Sigourney Weaver, and my favorite badass chick Michelle Rodriguez you can’t go wrong.

The story of the movie was also really cool. I had heard negative things about the plot, but it provided an interesting look at what it would be like to control another being from your body. Very similar to The Matrix in control method, but instead you are linked to a living being. Also gave a pretty deep shot at how we are destroying the living places for animals and others in our search for money and riches.

And the CGI in this film absolutely blew my mind. Im intersted in how much of this movie was shot in Hawaii versus in a studio with green screen. All the avatar characters were amazingly lifelike, the expressions and movement were human. And then just the sheer amount of backgrounds and locations that had to be created, and the monsters, machines, holy crap. Just blown away. And no matter how cartooney the still frames you see online look, you get lost in this dreamworld that they are in. You start to believe in everything around. It’s kinda amazing.

So I’m admitting I highly doubted Avatar, but James Cameron blew me away. Go see it in the theaters in 3-D before it leaves.

Just love this title: If It’s Purple Someone’s Gonna Die The Power of Color in Visual Storytelling by Patti Belantoni, $39.95 paper. Back in stock this wonderfully visual guide to the use of color in the movies.  Designed for the filmmaker-cinematographer. But all of us fans love it too.

I just got home after seeing Avatar with my son.  Was it the best film I’ve ever seen?  No. Will I see it again?  Very much yes.

I can’t stop thinking about this film – and that, for me, is a sign I’ve seen something meaningful.  With minor exception, it is honest and deeply experienced emotion that separates Cameron’s science fiction/fantasy films from every other film within that quasi-genre.  Avatar’s main character is a shattered man, a soldier who lost his legs in battle and really has nothing to live for.  Something that cannot be described in words happens when we see him wake up in his avatar for the first time.

No animated characters – computer generated or otherwise – have ever expressed so much honest emotion or engendered so much audience identification as the creations Cameron has given us.  As I said, I can’t stop thinking about the film, and I am anxious to see it again.

But, even so, the 3D was really, really annoying and was a gimmick the film could have done without.   It has to do with how human binocular vision works to focus on things close and far away.

In the real world, everything is in focus. We shift our focus continually by moving our eyes back and forth – closer together for objects close to us, and farther apart to focus on objects farther away.  Try it yourself. Hold up a pen a foot from your face. Look at it, and notice that, while the pen is in focus, everything else behind it is blurry. If you shift your focus to something farther away, the pen in front of you will become blurry.

To work successfully, 3D movies must show everything in focus. We, the viewers, shift our focus, creating the illusion of depth.

2D films don’t do that.  The camera replaces our eyes and focuses on whatever objects the director wants us to see, leaving the rest blurry and out of focus.

Foreground, clear; background, blurry.

Accomplishing clear, universal focus in any shot takes a whole lot light – which cost money – and special lenses – which cost even more money.  Sometimes a really clever director shows off by creating clear focus for all objects within a certain shot, but it is so rare that every time it happens it is noticed as exceptional.

Orson Wells did it in Citizen Kane. In a very famous scene  Charlie Kane is typing in the foreground – his form totally in sharp focus; in the background – far off in the distance – Hezekiah (Joseph Cotton) enters through a door, and he is in sharp focus, and stays in focus as he walk forward towards the camera.

The technology to accomplish this did not, at that time, exist. Wells did it using a split screen. He shot himself typing using perfect light and sharp focus. After that, Wells shot Joseph Cotton walking towards the camara. Then Wells joined both pieces of footage side by side to make it look like it was happening in one shot.

An even more spectacular example is this scene from Citizen Kane showing three different people at three different distances from the camera – all in sharp focus:

But, as already pointed out, this sort of sharp focus throughout a shot is hard to do and is rare, so rare and expensive that even James Cameron couldn’t do it. It is apparent that Avatar was shot like a conventional 2D movie and that converting it to 3D was clearly an after thought.  The scenes devoid of computer magic were shot like any other movie – which means focus shifts within shots. Close things are clear, the background is blurry, unless it comes into focus because someone enters the room, or for some other reason.

Close, in focus; background, blurry.

When 2D is converted to 3D, the viewer keeps trying to shift focus from close to far like they would do in the real world, but the blurry backgrounds stay blurry, and that can be – and was – really annoying.

But most of the movie is fully computer animated, and that means everything can be in focus to allow the viewer to shift from object to object enough so that the 3D is far less annoying, and even enjoyable, enhancing the experience.

Was Avatar the best movie ever made? No.  Will it change the way movies are made?  Not likely. Was the story original? No, but it was a story worth telling and wonderful to watch being told in such spectacular fashion. I am definitely going to see it again.

But when I do I am going to see it in 2D.

I’ll let you know what happens.

.

http://static.reelmovienews.com/images/gallery/avatar-movie-poster.jpg

What makes a movie a good?  It’s a straightforward question with a surprisingly straightforward answer: whatever you think makes it good.

Over the last few years I’ve come to the full realization that my extensive film school background has amounted to little when it comes to deciphering what makes something “good” on the popular level. We like to think that the opinion of someone who has seen thousands of different kinds of movies somehow accounts for a more qualified opinion, but this is truly not the case. Sure, it may provide someone with the ability to articulate their opinions and provide a historical or cultural context for their statements…  but really it makes no difference, as the court of public opinion always wins in the end. Thus there is a kind of acceptance needed when making a statement that you believe to be true, but fully recognizing that it’s nothing more than like, your opinion man. So here’s an opinion:

I don’t think James Cameron makes good movies. So there.

Oh don’t get me wrong, he’s a hell of a technical filmmaker. I’m not just regurgitating the popular rhetoric you see everywhere. This is going off all that “trained opinion” nonsense mentioned above. The guy simply “gets” cinematography. He knows how to line up the camera subject with enough spacing for the eye to process the movement. And he’s THE great editor of big budget action films (1, this is a really good footnote). With those two abilities he stages some of the best action I’ve ever seen on screen. Not in WHAT necessarily happens, but instead HOW it happens. I also greatly admire his commitment to creating full, tangible worlds and staying true to his vision. He is never half assing it and you can always be assured that movie goers get their money’s worth. This is to be admired. But as I have just lauded him with superlatives, we must always consider the whole filmmaker if we are going to speak to his merits. These are just aspects of his proverbial “game” and can in no way assure a singular, fully-formed piece of goodness from anything he does.

For example, he cannot write a screenplay. This is fine. A lot of great directors can’t do it. Spielberg never could and the dude is considered the best. Tim Burton famously insists that he has no idea what makes a good script. The problem is that Cameron thinks that he can write a screenplay. And proceeds to do so stubbornly.

It really is a shame that Cameron seems to have the brain of 12 year old. Sure, he’s a really smart 12 year old who is super-duper into perfectionism and computers and stuff, but all his films operate on in extremely juvenile plane of interest. And if you’ve ever heard anything about him as a person he’s operating on a 12 year old social level too.

So let’s actually get into AVATAR in relation to this topic. Having just seen the movie earlier yesterday, the thing that sticks out most in my head is how all the characters often swear in the silliest, 5-th grader like mentality. Really. The swears are the absolutely point of each line when they are uttered. They’re the joke. For example say there’s a big reveal and a pause: “Oh SHIT” or during a fight scene our witty dialogue is “take this BITCH!” The words are capatilized cause ever actor is so emphasizing these swear words that’s it’s like they’re delighted by their guts to swear. That’s because that’s exactly what Cameron is doing. It’s a PG13 movie and he’s using these swears in such a juvenile and silly manner that the entire theater was eye rolling  and groaning. I also fully recognize that these moments are completely harmless, but it’s just so prevalent and on the nose that you can’t help but get the full window into Cameron’s mind… the guy has a 12 year old ‘s sensibility to swearing.
He also has a 12 year old sensibility when it comes to military ideology, politics, ecology, and socialization. Sure that super advanced 12 year old brain converts these things into logical setups complete with a fully realized set proper nouns for his movie, but that doesn’t change that this is the most obtuse kind of rhetoric and analysis. The entire construct of the plot is the most in-your-face allegory of American imperialism I have ever seen. The details are hilarious: a precious resource, “unobtainium.” A earth goddess who you can actually hear through trees. References to modern warfare tactics that are literally thrown in to hammer home the Imperialism comparison (but in hilarious fashion, are the complete wrong use of those words). And make no mistake about this “original” story, it’s just Dances with Wolves in space. I’m talking beat for beat the same movie with 3^rd act battle thrown in. Hell, throw in some Star Wars, Dune, and vast array of other films to be grossly aped and you have AVATAR. And let us not forget the short story he absolutely and totally ripped off :

Seriously, you got to see this cover:

http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/21297/1/WHAT039S-THE-LATEST-CLASSIC-SCIFI-CAMERON-RIPPED-OFF/Page1.html

Beyond that there is the fact that every single character in the film is the most broad and ridiculous stereotype possible. And no, not in a scenery-chewing, fun and self aware meta way that guys like Cronenberg and the Coens are absolute masters of. This is Cameron. And his characters will be willfully fucking obtuse. The general is absolutely insane, invasion-happy beefcake. The head scientist is stuck-up, military-hating, granola tree hugger. The guy in charge of it all is an aspergian dickhead who only wants his profits and to get at the precious resource beneath the Na’Vi’s home (not to mention work on his putting game… ugh). The girl Na’Vi who connects with the earth is nothing more than the infamous Noble Savage stereotype. And our main character, the jarhead marine, is nothing but the uneducated white man, who must learn the ways of the lesser people and connect back with the world. Now, all these stereotypes could be just fine for the movie. Actually, you use those five stereotypes and you’ve got all your angles, themes, and conflicts covered so that might not be a problem at all. You got your base. You just have to find away to make it organic.

Cameron don’t do organic. Nope. This is balls out broad. The idea of badassery. It’s all posing and posturing. Like 12 year old suburban kids starting “gangs” or that weird thing Japanese teens do where they literally pose to look cool. This is the cinematic equivalent of whatever the hell that is. And it’s laid on thick. This is cartoon villainy and college freshman idealism. And it kills the movie. (2)

So okay, we have some broad 12 year old dumbness. So what? Lots of films do that and are embraced by millions.

True. I’ll take Cameron’s logical filmmaking and epic scope any day over the parade of nonsensical trash and litany of directors who simply seem to have no interest in making good movies… but not by all that much.

The central problem is that Cameron makes these big action movies as if they’re actually prestige pictures. As if he’s making the singular profound statements for all man kind. Really, it’s just soaking in that kind of hubris. Once again, coupled with his real life obnoxious persona you start to get the idea of just what Cameron is all about. It’s all up there on screen, readily apparent. This is the stuff of the inane.

So obviously, I didn’t like AVATAR, right?

Actually, I kind of enjoyed it.

Devin Faraci over at CHUD, who evaluated the movie in far better terms than I have, made the excellent point that your ability to enjoy AVATAR fully depends on you ability to get into the designs. It sounds like a strange comment but it’s wholly accurate. The film takes a turn after the first act and essentially becomes a world viewing sequence where the viewer is brought along on a 40-60 minute tour of Pandora.  And unlike Devin, who was not able to get into the design of the creatures, I eventually went along with it. And when this all happens, the film soars.

I should note that this is largely due to the 3-D, which works amazingly well. It gives Pandora a real sense of depth and texture. You not really emoting FOR the actors or anything, but you’re emoting with them as they emote with Pandora too (you can surmise this works best because Cameron is in love with the world he created as well, and it shows). In particular, the first flying sequence with those pterodactyl thingies I found to be the most exhilarating part of the movie. This whole chunk of the film is enough of a cinematic experience for me to recommend it to anyone.  It just works.

But eventually this too must pass and the film heads into heartbreak mode/final battle sequence. Of course that’s when the wheels fall off. Not for any good reason either. This was always what was going to happen and you knew it was coming. Hell you can predict every single moment of this movie beat for beat, but that’s okay.  The real reason the wheels fall off is you realize you just spent the last hour on the cinematic equivalent of a nature walk and there was no actual story to begin with. Thus the climactic battle is taking place and I’m sitting there not caring if anyone lives or dies. This is not my usual modus operandi either. I’m an empathetic motherfucker when it comes to my movie protagonists. I actually found it a little distressing: “I was just enjoying these two and now I don’t care?”  Really, there was just nothing there to begin with.

Just hollowed out tropes and clichés desperately hanging onto the sublime skill of action filmmaking on display. It all looks fantastic. I just didn’t care.

To wit, if there was one word I would use to sum up this “game-changing” “action epic” called AVATAR, the word would be… pretty.

It is a very pretty movie. Which might be considered highly insulting to a movie that is trying desperately to be so much more. But it doesn’t have a single idea of how to transcend its base qualities or indulge in nuance.

And no, I’m NOT saying I need my big action movies to have Merchant Ivory level subtext or anything. I’m just saying they need something that transcends the basic archetypes into something resembling good movie entertainment. Like Ironman’s delightful sense of humor and organic characters. Like The Dark Knight’s moral complexity and stunning performances. Like The Lord of the Rings sense of balance and scope. Even Star Wars works because Harrison ford just kills it as Han Solo. These were all popular, epic-feeling movies that used certain strong qualities to move past the archetype and become a good movie for the popular consensus.

And with AVATAR, the prettiness, world-building, and actioneering almost get it there. But Cameron just relishes too much in the Archetype.

Almost.

Footnotes

(1) Let us speak for a moment about what editing truly is: there’s a popular notion that good editing is when you notice really good cuts and stylizations and juxtapositions. This notion fully feeds into that awards season it’s not “Best picture” or “Best acting” or “Best editing”, but instead “Most picture” “Most acting” and “MOST editing”. That’s why the Bourne films always win. Because it’s the only tangible thing an untrained eye can gravitate toward. And that’s totally understandable. The paradox is that great editing is truly invisible. Cuts in action that blend so seamlessly it feels like a perfect flow.  This is especially significant in action films. And Cameron and his rotating cast of editors are masters of the invisible cut (the rotating cast means that’s it’s really just Cameron doing most of this stuff).

(2) I should at least point out that I thought Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana did their fricken damndest to make it all work. In fact I thought they were both rather good in their roles (extensive mo-cap and animation to boot). But there’s just no saving the inanity of it all.

ADDENDUM

A) I always argue that the reason Titanic was so beloved was because (obviously) it was the perfect storm for girls and (not so obviously) because the music of that film is so amazingly beautiful that you simply had to swoon with it. The music was what transcended that movie from being a horribly forced allegory of class struggle and tragic romance into a movie that actually had some legs to stand on. There is a reason that soundtrack went on to become more iconic and referenced than that actual film, which was sort of just a moment in time.

B)Mr. Beaks over at AICN made an interesting note that even with all the problems with the movie, the cinematic world still needs Cameron.  And they need him to be successful. The need guys like him and Spielberg to go huge, push technical boundaries, and stretch budgets. And I think I agree, but it is an uneasy bargain for me.

C) Reader Kevin linked a positively great article in the comments section below about Cameron written by David Foster Wallace. Everything he says about T2 and the approaching Titanic, can completely be said for AVATAR. http://www.theknowe.net/dfwfiles/pdfs/Wallace-FX_Porn.pdf

trekky records christmas at the cradle, originally uploaded by minervacat.

A couple of months ago, I watched Moulin Rouge for the 57th time, because I stumbled across a discussion somewhere on the internets about the cinematography and art design of the film; it’s a movie I love desperately and have always thought was lovely from an aesthetic point of view, but I’d never really considered the actual details of that aesthetic before.  Then shep. and I watched it again on Thanksgiving, and I was struck again by just how stunning an achievement design of that caliber and scope really is.  Whether or not you like it as a movie, or even as an aesthetic — the scope of the project was huge, and it’s perfectly executed to the last detail, and that’s worth considering as art, if nothing else.

It’s the same as when I was having my Tim Burton shift back in the fall.  It isn’t my aesthetic, but it is an aesthetic, an artistic view considered and committed to, and that’s worthy.

In addition to my utterly useless BA in English, I have a slightly less useless BA in Theater — specifically, I have a BA in Theatrical Technical Design.  Sets and props, mostly; I lack the patience and skill for costume design, and I’m utterly petrified of heights so light design was right out if it meant I had to hang my own rigs (I can break down the specs and details of most light hangs, but ladders and catwalks? No thank you.).  And for a brief minute toward the end of my college career, I considered getting an MFA in scenic design and moving to Los Angeles to try and make a career of set dressing or art directing in Hollywood.  That plan fell by the wayside when I actually visited Los Angeles and realized the entire city made me want to kill myself (sorry, Thea!  I am glad someone loves your city, but it is not me; that place made me crazier than anywhere else I’ve ever been), but the idea of it.  The idea of it wasn’t a bad idea, really.

I am trying to learn to love promo photography for bands.  I’ve discussed my dislike for it repeatedly here, as well as my attempts to make peace with it.  (I like to look at it, I just don’t want to do it.) But I am still working towards an enjoyment of it, and I think making my peace with the idea of band photographer (for smaller bands with little money) as art director is a place to start.  I tell bands that I’m neither their mom nor their art director; they need to be able to make decisions and committments and stick to them for me to work with them.  But — maybe I shouldn’t shy away from that art direction.  I have training in it, or at least background and skills that could be put to use in that way.  I’ll never be able to work with a blank slate, but ideas.  Ideas I can maybe start to do.

And maybe that’ll get me to a place where promo photography doesn’t make me so frustrated and left feeling unsatisfied and annoyed.

Lani was kind enough to buy me Who Shot Rock and Roll for Christmas, and I plan to spend some good time with it this weekend. Other people’s aesthetics, don’t you know.

(I mean, ugh ugh ugh Tim Burton, how so amazing? Article about his MoMA retrospective here.)

Last update: December 20th.

WHY to release Firmware Updates?

Adding and improving functions and features via firmware updates on current Canon cameras would be a very smart and important action from a business point of view.

MAIN REASONS

• 5D Mark II has huge potential inside not exploited yet, that leaves lot of “room to move on” whenever you (the manufacturer) want.

• Canon has a product that has no competition (until now): a Full Frame sensor camera with Full HD capabilities that can really be used for serious Video and Cinematography purposes (along with its great still capabilities). Canon has been in this situation for more than 1 year. This is very significant and also a unique case in a very long time.

•  Obviously with firmware updates customer satisfaction will increase notoriously. But what is even more important to any company: when customer satisfaction increases, sales are bigger and the loyalty to the brand also increases. Loyalty is a key factor for the long term company profit. Especially in a high competitive market area such as digital cameras.

• It is much more convenient to “refresh” a camera (of this level) and then get more profit from it (already designed and already in-production model) adding features and functions than “leaving it as is”, getting lower value over time and being surpassed by competition.

• This “refresh” can be easily made via firmware update, because the camera does have the possibilities inside, with insignificant costs to the company when compared to designing a new whole camera with its own firmware (and all the processes and very big costs that imply).

• Customers have already demonstrated the huge interest on this camera and these improvements. Just remember all the requests for Manual Control, STANDARD 24/25/30p modes and frame rates, and all other features being requested to Canon. Please check here and here.

• The Filmmaking Community (Amateurs, Professionals and even Studios) has adopted the 5D Mark II far beyond anyone could have expected (Canon included). This camera has been selling like almost no other camera in the past for over 1 year at the same price since its release date. So, improving and adding features will broaden the usage scope, keeping big sales on it.

• The addition of FILMMAKING features (like those achieved by Magic Lantern Project) is a hidden “card” that Canon CAN use if they want to make this camera more competitive, especially when competition arrives. We know that Nikon has learned a lot of Canon’s “mistakes” on the past. Even Panasonic has, and probably many more companies.

The following is what has been most requested by thousands of Canon customers around the world.

Canon Managers and Executives should take this list very seriously (and before Nikon) for further Firmware Updates. This is a big and free list of ideas on how to improve the camera with all the benefits mentioned above. Including them would make this camera unbeatable for a VERY LONG time.

LIST of FIXES & IMPROVEMENTS

▪ Frame Rates as in 7D
29.97 / 25 / 23.976 fps: STANDARD 30/25/24p modes.

▪ 720p mode at 29.97 fps
It will allow LONGER video recording time before reaching the 4GB file size limit.

▪ Improve AF contrast detection algorithm and/or add Focusing Aids
Magic Lantern has done a lot on this, and proven it is extremely useful, even essential. See additional Filmmaking features.

▪ Digital Zoom Video mode
To record on video a smaller area of the sensor as “digital zoom”. Very useful.

▪ 1:1 Crop Sensor Video mode
To record a native 1920×1080 area of the sensor, which extremely minimizes “jello” effect and eliminates aliasing issues/artifacts. This is possible in a similar way how Zoom level x5 and x10 works, but recording on video what you see on screen. This function could be part of the above one.

▪ 720p mode at 59.94 and 50 fps (if hardware possible)

▪ File Spanning function
A new file is automatically created when 4GB is reached without stop recording.

▪ “EDIT” option in playback mode
This would allow Cut and Save part of recorded video clip. It is available on 7D and P&S cameras.

▪ More frames in Bracketing mode
For still photography. Very easy to fix.

▪ Auto ISO in Manual mode
For still photography, improved and with selectable limits.

▪ “REMAP” hot & stuck pixels function
This will save Canon Technical Support LOT of money and time. It is an essential feature. We still don’t understand why it wasn’t already implemented.

▪ Live Histogram for video mode

▪ Remote Start/Stop video recording using cable release (if hardware possible)

▪ Full HD through HDMI output while recording (if hardware possible)

▪ Dropped Frames Bug
FIX. This happens sometimes when changing Aperture AND in normal situations without changing anything

▪ Exposure shift / flashing
FIX. This happens sometimes when zooming

▪ Audio Manual Gain for video recording
Very easy to fix, and essential for acceptable audio recording.

LIST of additional FILMMAKING features

Hugely demanded and used (until now only via Magic Lantern)

▪ Control of focus
▪ Peaking, false-color and edge detection on LCD
▪ Focus Assistance
▪ Focus rack
▪ Focus stacking
▪ Zebra stripes (video peaking)
▪ Manual gain control (audio)
▪ On-screen audio meters

… and LOT more features that has already been proven to be possible (and VERY useful) by Magic Lantern Project.

They are helping thousands of users on filmmaking jobs, and Canon could do even a better implementation of them via Firmware update. That would be another BIG BANG to keep big sales on this great camera.

▪ Focus Assistance System / Focus Detection Area
It would tell (in LiveView mode, and in real time if possible) when a specific area of the frame is in focus or not. This feature would be very helpful and very much appreciated by filmmakers.

▪ Magic Lantern’s New Features Request:  Check them here, you will get very good and creative ideas on new features.

As we said before, we really hope Canon Managers and Executives take this list very seriously (and before Nikon) for further Firmware Updates.

It will indeed benefit not only Canon customers, but also the company.

It would make this camera unbeatable for a very long time.

It’s strange to think that only a few weeks ago I was writing about Thanksgiving and now Christmas is around the corner. I’m not going to talk about Christmas.  Christmas is being talked about by far too many people right now anyway. But I feel, because of the holiday and the new year, this strange urge to purge myself of negativity, to walk away from old fears and start anew.

This summer I directed 15 episodes of a web series called Grimm’s Reaper, which will  be premiering on January 2^nd (more to come on that). I learned a lot about directing actors, about directing in general, about seeing one’s  vision come to life.

Here are some things I learned about myself:

*I am far too cooperative. I listen to everyone’s ideas and I often start to question my own in light of them. I’m not saying you shouldn’t listen, because you should. It’s part of what makes a good director better. But when you begin to let other ideas eclipse your own, there’s a problem.

*I didn’t have a clear enough idea of what I wanted. Sometimes, letting the director of photography tell you how best to block your actors is okay, because he knows where the best light is, where the best angles are, etc. But you have to be the one to make the final decision, and I didn’t do that nearly enough.

*I was indecisive, and this made my actors realize that they were the ones in control. Now, I am not talking badly about actors because I am one, but we are not supposed to be in control. We compromise the integrity of a film when we get too much control, and I gave my actors too much control.

Here are some things I learned about directing in general:

*You have to learn how to make it seem like you are giving everyone what they want, even when you aren’t, to get what *you* need. Remember, as the director, you *are* the most important person on set, so you have to find a way to make your vision come to life, no matter what it takes. The reason I say you have to make it seem like you are giving everyone else what they want, is because when you are not  paying actors, you cannot afford to be aggressive or mean. You have to be nice. You have to be caring. And you have to give them what they want to get what you want.

*Some actors don’t like to play characters with ugly personalities – they want to be the funny one, they want to be the one that everyone loves. Not all actors can be this person – some have to be the villain, some have to be the coward, and you as the director had better make sure you have an actor who is willing to do this before you get on set, because working with an actor who doesn’t want to play their character is one of the more difficult things you will ever do.

*You have to know how to talk to your actors. You cannot say “Be Happy” or “Be Sad” and expect them to give you what you need. You need to give them something that can help lead them to those emotions – you need to give your actors an ultimate goal and an action. As your director I may tell you to try and “shame” your co-actor,  but then I’ll ask you why you are trying to do that – what does your character gain from shaming someone else? These are the questions your actor must be asking himself before you can make any progress.

So how does one who is like me – indecisive, too cooperative, and too vague – get on set and have confidence? It’s difficult, and I’ll be honest, my confidence left the building towards the middle of the process. But I understand a lot of things about myself that I never would have learned had I not gone into this process. And we emerged from our insane shooting schedule with a product that I feel is quite beautiful and inspiring for other independent filmmakers. Please check out the Grimm’s Reaper blog for more information on the show and we’ll show you the awesome product we come out with.

This is one of the oddest little music videos I’ve ever seen. That said, I think the unusual methods used to animate it, and the merits of the song itself, are compelling enough to show this to my viewers. For some reason it reminds me of a dark(er) and (more) surreal descendant of Smashing Pumpkins’ ‘Tonight, Tonight’ video, seen here.

More probably though, this music video can trace its cinematic roots to this video, ‘Megalomaniac’, by Incubus.

Either way, you have a very respectable pedigree of influences. Not a very original music video, but certainly eye-popping and surreal, which is something I like to see in music videos.