Chaplin at Keystone, consisting of “Making a Living,” “Caught in a Cabaret,” “Mabel’s Busy Day,” “The Masquerader,” and “The Rounders” (all 1914).  directed by various directors, with Charlie Chaplin, Mabel Normand, Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, Chester Conklin, Al St. John, Minta Durfee. 

These films come from Chaplin’s first year with Mack Sennett’s Keystone studios — he had not yet fully developed the tramp character, and that character is little in evidence in these films.  Chaplin plays a blackbeard type of character in one, a drunken rich guy (apparently part of Chaplin’s stable of characters when he played the English Music Halls with Fred Karno).  In “Caught in a Cabaret,” we have something approaching the look of the tramp, and we see that same figure in “The Masquerader.”  He isn’t quite the tramp, who is much more down and out, but is rather a figure on the make.  The jokes and pratfalls here have more to do with Keystone than they do with Chaplin.  We do see an occasional delicate use of the cane, a quick tilt of the head, the smile that we’ll see a lot in Chaplin’s later work.  And as the drunken rich man in “The Rounders,” we see something of the balletic quality (we also see it from Arbuckle) that will become very much a feature of Chaplin’s later persona.  None of these one and two reelers is particularly remarkable, and the copy that Kino made their tapes from is much in need of restoration — I’m sure Kino got the best available copies, but they are still very inferior visually.

The Gaucho (1927), dir. F. Richard Jones, with Douglas Fairbanks (The Gaucho), Lupe Velez (the Mountain Girl), Joan Barclay/Eve Southern (the Girl of the Shrine), Gustav von Seyfertitz (Ruiz, the Usurper), Mary Pickford (the Virgin Mary)

I’ve seen some commentators consider this Fairbanks’ best film.  It is the one that has a serious message, that of redemption.  I think that rather like Chaplin’s sentimental flights of fancy in some of his films, with angels and the like, this film is bogged down by that sentimentality.  Give me the action figure, who is much more in evidence in Robin Hood, Don Q, the Son of Zorro, and the Three Musketeers.  In those films, the hero is able to be moral and adventurous.  Here, Fairbanks plays an outlaw.  Admittedly, he is an outlaw in a society beset by a tyrant, the evil Ruiz.  It is clear how evil Ruiz is, as he shuts down the miraculous shrine on the outskirts of the land, where people receive miraculous cures from the waters.  Still, this is a hard drinking, hard smoking Fairbanks.  He’s just as vigorous as in the other films, but only becomes a moral figure when he is converted after being inflicted by something akin to leprosy.  He is cured, and saved.  That saving makes the film too preachy, and undercuts the unmitigated joy Fairbanks clearly takes in action.

This film is notable in that Mary Pickford makes a couple of cameo appearances as the Virgin Mary in visions by the shrine.

So after a lot of good luck and the donations from a select few people, we have the proper equipment for sound mixing.

Colour-grading is going well.  We expect to begin sound mixing by the end of the month.  Right in time for 2010.

Here are some photographs of our recent donation:

And for individuals who know audio equipment, a closer look:

Once and for all facing the peeping Tom who videotaped her in the nude and then posted the videos online, ESPN sportscaster Erin Andrews testified that her ordeal still haunts her.

“I have nightmares,” she told the Los Angeles court Tuesday, according to the New York Daily News. “I walk in crowds and I see him in my peripheral vision. When I’m alone in my house, I have fears that he’s going to walk inside and hurt me. I don’t know him. I’ve never met him. I don’t know why he chose me. But I hope he never sees the light of day again.”

Illinois insurance manager Michael David Barrett, 48, who was caught in October on charges of interstate stalking, came clean in court that he followed the 31-year-old sideline reporter to hotels in three different cities in 2008, installed tiny video cameras in her hotel-room peepholes, and posted the videos he made online.

Barrett avoided looking Andrews in the eye, the newspaper noted.

Under the plea agreement he’s made, he’s probably looking at two years in prison in return for his guilty plea. But Andrews argued for the full five he could potentially be slapped with at his Feb. 22 sentencing, saying that the incident has left her life in tatters – and herself subject to awful comments from sports fans.

Andrews has described the situation as nightmarish before, in her one-time interview with Oprah Winfrey. Worst of all has been the lingering fascination with the story, and the implication some made that she was somehow a party to the crime, she said.

“I just felt like I was continuing to be victimized,” she said in the TV interview. “I did nothing wrong.”

View The “Erin Andrews Peephole Video Tape” Here

Once and for all facing the peeping Tom who videotaped her nude and then published the videos online, ESPN sportscaster Erin Andrews testified that her ordeal still bothers her.

“I have nightmares,” she told the Los Angeles court Tuesday, according to the New York Daily News. “I walk in crowds and I see him in my peripheral vision. When I’m alone in my house, I have fears that he’s going to walk inside and hurt me. I don’t know him. I’ve never met him. I don’t know why he chose me. But I hope he never sees the light of day again.”

Barrett avoided looking Andrews in the eye, the newspaper noted.

Under the plea agreement he’s made, he’s probably looking at two years in prison in return for his guilty plea. But Andrews argued for the full five he could potentially be slapped with at his Feb. 22 sentencing, saying that the incident has left her life in tatters – and herself subject to awful comments from sports fans.

“I just felt like I was continuing to be victimized,” she said in the TV interview. “I did nothing wrong.”

View The “Erin Andrews Nude Peephole Video Tape” Here

Finally facing the peeping Tom who videotaped her naked and then posted the videos online, ESPN sportscaster Erin Andrews testified that her ordeal still bothers her.

“I have nightmares,” she told the Los Angeles court Tuesday, according to the New York Daily News. “I walk in crowds and I see him in my peripheral vision. When I’m alone in my house, I have fears that he’s going to walk inside and hurt me. I don’t know him. I’ve never met him. I don’t know why he chose me. But I hope he never sees the light of day again.”

Under the plea agreement he’s made, he’s probably looking at two years in prison in return for his guilty plea. But Andrews argued for the full five he could potentially be slapped with at his Feb.

Andrews has described the situation as nightmarish before, in her one-time interview with Oprah Winfrey. Worst of all has been the lingering fascination with the story, and the implication some made that she was somehow a party to the crime, she said.

“I just felt like I was continuing to be victimized,” she said in the TV interview. “I did nothing wrong.”

View The “Erin Andrews Nude Peephole Video Tape” Here

Robin Hood (1922), dir. Allen Dwan, w/ Douglas Fairbanks (Huntingdon/Robin Hood), Wallace Beery (Richard I), Sam de Grasse (Prince John),  Enid Bennett (Lady Marian), Paul Dickey (Guy of Gisbourne), Alan Hale (Little John).

This is the third of the costume dramas produced by United Artists featuring Douglas Fairbanks — he had been in The Mark of Zorro and The Three Musketeers earlier.  It has a lot in common with Musketeers, and something in common with Zorro.  It has the big sets just like Musketeers, and that’s a good thing — lots of places for Fairbanks to demonstrate his athleticism.  He is also part of a greater band, rather than a totally solo figure  — Fairbanks looks best as the star of a team.  He also has a double identity (sort of) like in Zorro.  Of course, here, both as Huntingdon and as Robin Hood, he is an athletic figure, the king’s right hand man.  When he returns to England to set things aright, it looks as if he is chickening out of the Crusades, and the king loses faith in him for a moment.  But he never plays the part of a coward or a fop, as he did as Don Diego.  The set design of the castle was quite outstanding, even though much of the great hall was done with a painted glass panel.  It looks impressive, and that’s what matters.  Lots of sword fights and leaping around, well done as always.

One thing that I don’t understand — why the story veers from the Howard Pyle version of the legend, which we get in the 1939 version — why is Robin Hood the second in command to Richard, rather than a Saxon knight, who comes afoul of royalty because of his Saxon blood?  And there is nothing to explain why Robert, Earl of Huntingdon, is now Robin Hood — in the legend, he is Robin of Locksley, and so Robin Hood when he takes to robbing the rich and distributing to the poor.

Wallace Beery was a strange choice for Richard — a big lug of a guy, he doesn’t seem very royal — a tugboat captain, yes, king, no!  That choice does make for a great contrast with Sam de Grasse as John, who is small and rather frail looking, and clearly someone not given to athletic endeavor.

The Three Musketeers (1921), dir. Fred Niblo, w/ Douglas Fairbanks (D’Artagnan), Leon Barry (Athos), George Siegman (Porthos), Eugene Palette (Aramis), Nigel de Brulier (Richelieu), Marguerite de la Motte (Constance), Adolphe Menjou (Louis XIII).

Following hard upon the success of The Mark of Zorro (1920), Fairbanks produced this costume piece based on Alexandre Dumas’ novel of the same name.  With this film, I think Fairbanks really hit his stride.  It’s not that he didn’t demonstrate his athleticism in Zorro, but it gave him less of a field in which to demonstrate his athleticism.  Also, there is something in the characters Fairbanks plays that call for him to be a part of a larger group.  In Zorro, he is on his own — he gathers the caballeros together at the end of that film to confront the corrupt administration of California, but that happens only at the end.  Here, he is a member of the ultimate group (“one for all, and all for one”), and that adds something to the tone of the film.  In addition, there are plenty of stairwells and rooftops from which Fairbanks can leap.  And this film, unlike Zorro, where Fairbanks plays a dual identity, here we have Fairbanks as D’Artagnan able to simply be his athletic self.  Throughout the film, he is bursting with energy, including a comic scene where a poor tailor tries to fit him for a new set of clothes.  Only in one moment, after a long fight, does he appear fatigued — and kudos to Fairbanks for that scene — filmmaking doesn’t move from one shot to another, but scenes and shots taken out of sequence.  And so Fairbanks, though he appears quite tired, was not tired when he shot that sequence, but gives a great sense of fatigue.  The supporting cast is excellent, and de Brulier, as Richelieu, maintains a stillness that sets of Fairbanks’ active persona quite well.  Adolphe Menjou in an early performance as the king, and Eugene Palette, the deep-voiced actor of the 30s (he plays Friar Tuck in 1939’s The Adventures of Robin Hood), is almost unrecognizable as Aramis.

The film takes some liberties with the book — we have a happy ending for D’Artagnan, rather than a bittersweet one — in the book he loses Constance, and no hint of Aramis’ ultimate renunciation of the life of a musketeer for the religious life.

Not too sure if we can do it, but we’re giving it a fair shot.

This afternoon and evening, Andrew Yorke and Kevin Michael were hard at work with the initial stages of colour-grading.  These were the results:

It’s actually starting to look like a real movie now.  More updates as they come.

Raw Footage [on left]       Colour-graded Footage [on right]

In my years on this earth I have seen a few changes in the way we store media. My first recollection is the vinyl 45 record. I played my children’s songs on my little record player; I believe it was a show & tell. This little player was like the prelude to videos for me! I would pop in my Hansel & Gretel film strip, put on the record and sit back and enjoy the show. I even had my friends come over and watch the show with me for .10 cents! Yeah I hustled back in the day.

As I got older and the obsession for my little green friend faded away, I got my first stereo! It was a simple little JC Penny record player that came with a tape deck and an 8-track deck! I will confess 8-Tracks were already on their way out when I got this stereo, but I couldn’t wait to try the tape deck. With the rise of rap around this time, the tape came in handing. Began to make my first mixtapes based off what the radio played.

The ear of the tape lasted for a minute, phasing out the vinyl as my medium of choice. Why should I buy vinyl when I can cop the tape and play it in my walk man? I can’t listen to the new Cool J record on the bus when it’s vinyl. I need that tape in my life!

Soon, however the tide changed once again! Tapes became so 80’s and what was hot was the compact disc. Similar to a record in the fact that you could go straight to the song, skip all that fast-forwarding and rewinding! But now you could put your favorite song on repeat for hours. First cd I copped was A Tribe Called Quest’s ‘Low End Theory. ‘ What a way to usher in the new digital age.

But as we know seasons change and fads come and go like Hammer pants. Once Napster fell in our laps things would never be the same. MP3’s and similar files are the choice these days in our quest to fill up that iPod! We now have thousands of gb’s of storage at our disposal. We went from a few minutes, to years worth of music playing without hearing the same song twice. What’s next, chips that we can place into our bodies for our listening pleasure?

There have been so many parodies of Soderbergh’s indie monster sex, lies, and videotape that I may mess myself. Some are funny, but the format pretty much stagnates after every sitcom on the planet has done one. Yes, the film was and is a huge success. Making 24 times its budget of 1.2 million in revenue, and getting that sweet Palme d’Or [it's a golden palm leaf, whudathunkit] at the Cannes meant Soderbergh had his in to the industry. Having watched it, I can say a few things which stuck.

Ann is the clueless, virtuous prude who eventually gets her own
Cynthia, her sister, is a right cheating bitch, but she’s real about it
John, the husband, is a devious, lying prick
Graham is a bit odd, and perhaps too simpering for me, but weird fits with weird, I suppose

Yeah…but, how many people do you think go running around obsessing about how great and happy things are? …Being happy’s not that great. The last I was really happy, I got so fat.
My assertions of the obvious aside, I enjoyed the movie. Lawd, get some of that late 1980s fashion. It centers around how people connect and disconnect in the context of sex and relationships. The opening scenes show Graham, with his long blonde locks driving his car. This segues, via voice overlap into Ann speaking with her therapist. Clearly, she is thinking about things (evidenced by her pondering on where all the trash will go) and their conversation goes on to reveal that her past therapy sessions have centered around not wanting to be touched by her husband.

But lately, I’ve just been kinda curious about how things have slacked off
Ann’s therapy session is intercut with scenes of her husband John having a roll in the hay with Cynthia, Ann’s sister. Ann alludes to John’s friend, who is to stay in the house with them. Graham arrives at the house later on in the evening, when John has not yet gotten home. As he removes his bags from his trunk, we see a quick shot of the handycam in a box. Graham grills Ann inside about her marriage to John.

That would make me a liar
Over dinner, we see that John and Graham used to do a lot of the same things in college. Talk turns to Graham’s not having a real place to stay, and John and Ann discuss finding an apartment for Graham. Ann and Graham make plans to go apartment shopping the next day while John’s at work. ‘At work’ — oh, the bastard.

You said that I should never take advice from someone I haven’t had sex with, right?
Over lunch, Ann and Graham get to know each other better. Graham, we find, is in need of Viagra, and Ann doesn’t feel that sex is all it’s made up to be. Meanwhile, John has reorganized his appointments to have Cynthia over. Him.

The interviews are about sex
Ann tells Cynthia about her new friend, and Cynthia encourages that she pursue a furthered relationship with him. She looks for her lost pearl earring (DUM DUM DUMMM). Ann makes a visit over to Graham’s place, interrupting his B.O.S. with a homemade videotape. Altogether too openly, in my opinion, Graham confesses his odd passion for videotaping women talking about sex. Ann makes a wise departure.

Ok, I’m recording
Cynthia makes a trip over to Graham’s place to try and find out what got her sister “so spooked,” and being the “extroverted” girl she is, ends up making a tape of her own. We find out via phone conversation between her and her sister (a popular medium of exchange, character-to-character, and story-to-audience, throughout this movie) that she masturbated for the camera. Cynthia’s sexual encounter began from a young age, and she aint none too bashful about it.

I called you last Monday at 3:30 and they said you weren’t in…where were you?
Ann confronts John at night about his recent absences from her life. She asks if he’s having affair, and in typical (kudos-worthy) cheatingbastard form, John turns the conversation around, and induces Ann’s pity and guilt. Later, John and Cynthia are together about to knock boots when Cynthia tells John about the notquitesex tape she made. Cynthia calls off their relationship, and declares that she finds Graham more trustworthy than John.

John and Cynthia have been..fucking.
Ann finds Cynthia’s missing earring under the bed as she is vacuuming. Lights go off in her head, and she dons some skinny jeans and vamooses over to Graham’s place. Here, her simple life is evidenced to fall apart, coinciding with the suddenly dynamic nature of her libido. We see her beginning a tape with Graham.

I want out of this marriage
Ann comes home to a worried John, and tells him that it’s over. Still trying to play the bewildered, sprung-upon husband, John asks why. He loses his cool when he realized she has been at Graham’s, and worse, made a tape. He speeds off to Graham’s

I fucked Elizabeth, before yall broke up
Getting to Graham’s place, John slugs his ‘friend’ and throws him out of the house and finds Ann’s tape. We find that she talks with Graham about “his problem” of being a pathological liar (something too familiar to John) and tells him that, however he may feel about things, she is part of his problem, and he a part of her life. Graham turns off the camera as he and Ann settle into the couch.

It is raining
John encounter work troubles, and it is implied, via call from his superior that he is about to be fired. Cynthia and Ann reunite briefly, when Ann brings a plant to the bar Cynthia bartends. She goes over to Graham’s placethe two sit on the porch, a new couple.

It’s so interesting thinking about this movie as being independent cinema at the time, because it LOOKS so nineties like everything else did at the time. The outfits and characters could all have been lifted out of a sketch from Seinfeld. And yet, thematically, it was groundbreaking, and the formula would work today and still be indie gold. Shots like Ann’s waking up in the middle of the night to gaze upon Graham as he sleeps are reminiscent of the waking shots in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, to me. Nothing really happens; it’s just a moment of introspect. And I have to rewind my mentality of the film’s reception to what it would have been 2 decades ago, and yeah — it’s depiction of sex and relationships in a more than shallow manner is so much more involving than plot-centric movies common to classical Hollywood movies and blockbusters. I can more easily connect with the lecture we had about independent film distributor Miramax, having seen this film, which boosted the company’s credibility and put a winner under its belt.

Tramp, Tramp, Tramp (1926), dir. Harry Edwards, with Harry Langdon (Harry Logan), Joan Crawford (Betty Burton), Tom Murray (Nick Kargas).  This was the first feature in which Harry Langdon, the last of the four great silent comics, starred.  When he hit the scene, he was touted as the next great thing, and expectations were that he would be the new Keaton or Lloyd (Chaplin was largely seen as out of reach).  I have to say — I’ve never got that.  He is certainly a capable enough comic actor, especially playing the hapless innocent which was his comic persona.  According to the film’s storyline, Harry is the son of a poor shoemaker, unable to compete against the giant Burton Shoes.  To save his father from bankruptcy and eviction, Harry agrees to take part in Burton Shoes coast-to-coast walking race.  Of course, he is already in love with Betty Burton, who is the face of Burton Shoes on all their billboards.  Of course, he is destined to defeat the world champion walker, Tom Murray and win the girl and the prize money.  Like many silent comedies, the plot is largely an excuse for set scenes — Harry hanging for his life on a fence, Harry in a town beset by a cyclone.  These episodes were humorous enough, though I couldn’t help feeling that I’ve seen this done better — Harold Lloyd did the “thrill comedy” better than anyone, and Buster Keaton did a much better job with gale force winds in Steamboat Bill, Jr. In addition, I never understood how it was that Harry could get the girl in any of these films.  I guess the idea is that the women fall in love with his haplessness — the maternal instinct kicks in.  I just don’t buy it.  Harry, in his film persona, is like a little kid — can’t see any woman falling in love with that.

The story goes that, as Harry did well in this comedy and in  The Strong Man (1926) and Long Pants (1927), both directed by Frank Capra, he got a big head about his star power and alienated those who had made him a star, stepping out on his own, but that he was incapable of helming a movie production, and faded into obscurity.  As sound movies came in, he was also at the mercy of film technicians, who did not help his image.  That may be true, but I think that he just wasn’t of the same caliber as Chaplin, Lloyd or Keaton, and that’s why he failed.  That demise may have been hastened by the coming of sound and his alienating co-workers, but I think his career was going to be short-lived in any case.

The video (wonderfully restored by Kino Video) was paired with a short film, “All Night Long” (1924), dir. Harry Edwards, with Harry Langdon (the Boy), Natalie Kingston (the Girl), and Vernon Dent (the Rival).  The 20 min. film was itself a collection of some shorter routines, told in flashback about WWI.  It was largely the same type of film as Tramp, Tramp, Tramp.  Again, I don’t fully understand his appeal.  It was nice seeing a younger Vernon Dent (often the bad guy in the Three Stooges shorts) as the Rival here.

So two things to report

1. ‘VIDEOTAPE’ is nearly cut all the way through.  It took a lot more time than we expected, but we were attempting (possibly haphazardly) to be perfectionists.  Or something like that.

But yes, after that we’re moving on to colour-grading and audio mixing.

We have all of our colour-grading equipment set up and ready for use.  We have 3/4 of our audio equipment ordered, but the last part (our speakers, ironically) will be in soon.

Kevin Michael spent the majority of the weekend setting up this place quite well.  Took a lot factors into account, and came out with something.

which comes to our second part:

Ladies and Gents, the xteamartists studio

We’re making progress.   And we’re seeing some genuine results.  Suffice to say, we’re quite excited everyone.  Thanks for keeping up with us and stay tuned.

The news will keep getting better

Remember this guy?  He gained his fame back in 1996 with his epic videotaped suicide.Ricardo Lopez mailed an acid-spraying letter bomb to Bjork, which was intercepted by police before landing its way into her hands.  The police also found 18+ hours of video footage, which was later edited down by Danish director Sami Saif into an hour and forty-five minute documentary .  Below is a link to view the unedited suicide tape.  It’s pretty disturbing, and if you listen at the end you can hear the blood pouring from his head after the gun shot.  This video is NSFW.

http://theync.com/m011108bjork.shtml

Sex, lies, and videotape (Soderbergh 1989) is a mind-blowing example of an indie film that helped Miramax Studios start the indie film renaissance.

The story is that of a dysfunctional marriage and the events and emotions that lead it to its breaking point.  Andie MacDowell plays an orgasm-starved housewife named Ann who regards sex as overrated.  Her portrayal of the melancholy, sedated mindset of an adult person who is trapped in the ridiculously repetitive, tedious life of domestic care (no offense to anyone who disagrees) with nothing else to do and no sexual release, to put it quite bluntly, scares the living hell out of me.  Peter Gallagher plays her detestable husband, John Mullany, a character who is just short of pure evil; there’s really nothing about him for the audience to identify with, other than (obviously) men who cheat on their wives.  In that sense, he’s relatively two-dimensional, but the portrayal is frighteningly realistic.  Ann’s sister and John’s paramour Cynthia is played by Larua San Giacomo.  Cynthia is a hedonistic extrovert.  Finally, James Spader plays Graham, a soft-spoken, unique former-pathological liar who was friends with John in college.

Soderbergh truly showed genius when he created these characters (or perhaps I should credit the actors.  For the moment, the distinction is irrelevant), which is half of the reason I mention them more than just in passing.  I was profoundly struck by the realness of the characters.  I know real-life Cynthias, Anns, and Johns in my hometown.  The suppressed sexuality of Ann, the fuck-conventions, aggressive sexuality of Cynthia, and the white-entitlement that John exudes are all very base, undiluted representations of very real personalities.  I think the somewhat southern accents of Ann and Cynthia also help bring the familiarity home for me, especially combined with the very 90’s aesthetics in fashion, hair, furniture, and technology that I remember from early childhood.

The second half of why I am spending so much time talking about the characters themselves is that they are one of the main facets of its indie aesthetic.  The introspection of Ann and the all-around weirdness that is Graham especially shout art house cinema.  Another contributor to this anti-conventional aesthetic is the conspicuous lack of soundtrack (at least mostly; there may have been a few notes here and there, but I don’t remember them if there were).  I imagine that if you clocked it, the minutes of silence would be fairly close in number to the minutes of dialogue.  This sparseness, in contrast to most movies which have to be making some kind of noise or another every single second, draws the moviegoer in, holding his or her attention captive with no intentions of mercy.

This movie gained an instant place on my favorite movie list.  It had my emotions on the hook; it plucked the string and I felt what it wanted me to feel, when it wanted me to feel it.  I felt what the characters felt.  I was wide-eyed and paying close attention every second, waiting to see what happened next.  I don’t exaggerate; this was a quietly intense movie.  I can’t say a single negative thing about it.