Leaderboard

Joaquin Phoenix on the Oscars - "Pitting people against each other...It's the stupidest thing in the whole world. It was one of the most uncomfortable periods of my life, when Walk the Line was going through all the awards stuff. I never want to have that experience again."   This year, Oscars host said he hoped Joaquin was 'on his meds'. Very sensitive considering his brother River Phoenix died from a drug overdose.   Rain, Leaf, River, Liberty and Summer - you live up to your names. Seth you live up to yours.

i found the driftwood hack for the gh2 to add a lot more dynamic range and give a much flatter profile. i shot a full feature on the gh2 and the diifference between the hacked and non-hacked footage was drastic enough that we re-shot several scenes once the hack was installed. I was an early adopter of the gh2, and it took several months for the driftwood patch to come along. I expect a similar timeframe for the gh3 hacks. however, i'd say the gh3 is more than capable of shooting a dramatic feature straight out of the box. here's a link to some of the latest press for my film, the demon's rook, which was shot with hacked gh2s: http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/64283/exclusive-not-safe-work-artwork-premiere-demons-rook

Leang. Quite a powerful film within a moral framework and a clever ending.

Yeah, Leang, that was something! The first minute reminded me of a scene in a Tarantino film, where they talk about 'Like a virgin' and what Madonna might have been referring to ...

https://vimeo.com/57786264

  I recommend you read up on what's really going on and what the VFX issues are.   VFX companies are not blaming directors, even though it wouldn't hurt for VFX films' directors to actually know a thing or two about VFX.   The problem is the business model, how studios take the work to tax havens and force every company and workers to move with it, how they force VFX facilities to underbid and work at a loss, how they don't credit the artists who worked on the films, and no it's not caused by bad management, it's the nature of the industry and the overall disrespect it gets from the studios.   http://www.facebook.com/VfxSolidarityIntl         You'd be surprised at how much of the shot composition and editing in VFX sequences is actually done by the VFX companies, and many times after the DP is done with shooting the film and already off shooting another project.   And let's get this straight: YOU DON'T GET A CINEMATOGRAPHY OSCAR FOR LIGHTING A FLAT GREENSCREEN!   Tell me of a single DP that actually light his film's greenscreens... that's technical work, not artistic.     Both Ang Lee and Claudio Miranda were quite ungrateful during their speeches. They both tried to make up for it backstage, but backstage is just not the same thing, is it? Especially in a moment where the VFX industry really needs serious changes and all the attention it can get.

  If you are that easily offended, don't watch something hosted by Seth MacFarlane. That much is very, very simple. I didn't see it all, but he seemed pretty tame and generally came across as a likeable guy.   Joaquin's brother died from taking heroin and cocaine..... Hardly a "med" and hardly related to a very mild gag about Joaquin saying some strange stuff.   For all we know, Seth and Joaquin are good friends.

[attachment=437:anchorman_well_that_escalated_quickly_966.jpg]

  If Tarantino is subverting the traditional ideal of good / bad then he's doing so in a fictional portrayal of life, not reality. Films are a reflection of life and subverting the norm is part of art.   If it were a literal portrayal it would be boring and it wouldn't be as artistic.   Artists have a creative license. You can't go round telling filmmakers that they have a moral influence and therefore should fundamentally alter their films, their visions and their writing based on what is best for society. That leads to totalitarianism, where the film industry is controlled by moral guardians like it is in China - where everything different or risky that gets off the ground in the TV industry is crushed or censored by the government "for corrupting the society".   Look you can't fuck with society like this.   It is an organic thing, wildlife. Just as a documentary filmmaker wouldn't interfere with nature whilst shooting a piece on a starving elephant in the Congo, you wouldn't as a filmmaker take on the role of police or teacher.   Tarantino has given us characters.   It is up to us whether we accept them as role models or not.   Django is actually a pretty good role model for a lot of people.   He hasn't reversed the role of the "good guy" so that he has become a white-guy hating gun wielding savage. It is about freeing the repressed from their shackles and about speaking out for what you believe to be right and just. Those that don't do this risk becoming Samuel L Jackson's character in Django.   Even if there was concrete evidence of filmmaking subverting an entire culture and damaging society it is impossible to police, especially in the internet age. You can censor Tarantino, not give him that oscar or that accolade on the basis that he's damaging society somehow, castigate him and not give him the title as master like I have here - but what good would that do anyway!? The most irresponsible form of culture is not Tarantino's work far from it, and sometimes 'the cure' is worse than the ailment.

  I know where you're coming from with this Mark but to lay the blame at Tarantino's door is pointless.   The real issue is the unfiltered freedom of information brought about by the internet - but only when combined with a lack of values in society and parenting.   As well as every wonder, every horror is now accessible.   I personally think it should be up the person whether to open themselves up the horrors or not. The brutality, sexual violence, amorality, consumerism, vanity and worse.   It isn't the internet's role and certainly not the role of censors or the state to instil a set of values in people.   Values comes from the community and parents.   Most kids would rather not watch bloody gore and all the other horrible shit you can find out there - be it in a movie or on the internet. Making it commonplace doesn't legitimise it. Tarantino uses the N-word hundreds of times in the course of the film but it's such an integral part of the overall effect, to take it out or change the vile language would harm the characters, making the theatrical villains far less vile. Why water it down?   Tarantino is very clear with the comic parts that the joke is very much on the racists in this film. If it wasn't for the bad language and violence teachers would be showing Django in schools as a powerful and stinging condemnation of racism and discrimination. You are absolutely on the side of the good guys whilst watching this thing. It doesn't glorify the bad guys in the least bit. It completely dumps on the fascists from a great height.   Although I enjoyed it, Inglorious was pretty far from the masterpiece this is, because he didn't get the characters right. Didn't like Brad Pitt in it especially.   I think you should go and see the film Mark because only then can you really get it.   Tarantino's films all have a strong good vs evil element and a strong moral message, whereas something like Saw 5 just has a load of nasty sadistic violence for the sake of it. The real worry for society isn't Tarantino, if anything it is what kids can find readily on the internet at any time of day like Saw, Human Centipede - and MUCH worse. But again it is up to them and their particular set of values to switch off to it.   I am sure there will be yet another lost generation who doesn't, but regardless of whether the stuff is out there or not - it isn't the primary reason why they are so stuffed up in the head.

Criticisms of Tarrantino's films for violence and "shock" value are so myopic.  His direct influences for this film are thirty or more years old and as violent.  His films are influenced by European cinema, which is what influenced American filmmakers to be more graphically violent than was the standard here.  Even today, American horror movies are timid compared to European and Asian films.    If this kind of film violence was a bad influence on kids then the 1980s would have been a very different looking decade.  Somehow it wasn't.  Pointing fingers at movies is pure ignorance on many levels.

Is Tarantino a master? Well he certainly is post-modern (if we're still allowed to use this term) in his use of historical film pastiche - he carefully stitches together elements, whether they be stylistic or narrative in nature, culled from the film archives to make a new whole. Now some people say that he is simply a great copier of other people's work (Reservoir Dogs & Kill Bill being great examples - the former uses City on Fire as a template & the later is an amalgamation of numerous asian martial arts movies) & others claim his brilliance for homage.   Is he an original, progressive filmmaker? Probably not, since he isn't breaking new ground, but is constantly looking backwards to the past. Now, this isn't a bad thing & is his greatest achievement, since he educates his audience in the importance of film history & has helped a lot of people [re]discover films that would've either disappeared without a trace, or simply remained undiscovered. Where would Asian action films, such as John Woo's, be without him? Would their stylised 'ballets of death' have ever become as mainstream as quickly or at all? Hard to tell, but he sure helped! On another point he introduced me to the magnificent films of Wong Kar-Wai - who IMO is a true modern Master.   Is Tarantino in the same league as say Orsen Welles, who at 25 made Citizen Kane, which has nearly every single type of camera shot used in modern cinema. But he certainly is a master at the niche he has made for himself within the confines of American cinema.   On a quick note, he isn't subverting the 'Hero', he readily applies the 'Anti-Hero' as his main protagonist & this characterisation is a whole lot older in narrative story telling than Tarantino's application of it.   And does 'Art Imitate Life' or does 'Life Imitate Art'? I'll leave that up to you.   As far as the violence debate is concerned, this is very tricky ground since researchers simply can't sit a bunch of kids down & let them watch grotesque horror films or explicit acts of violence. These films aren't meant for children (this doesn't mean that they don't watch them) & research does point to the fact that they can have a lasting effect, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it will turn them into mindless killers. Sociopathic personalities are said to be 'genetically based but typically has environmental factors, such as family relations, that trigger its onset'.   Having written a PhD on Horror films, the one thing that becomes painfully obvious is that researchers can only determine the effect of such material after the fact & the inquest/research goes on, but there is still no clear cut answer. What we do know is that Fear & Terror are a part of our lives, and that we learn coping mechanisms during childhood to deal with such feelings - parental comfort/explanation/protection & dreams (nightmares) can play a role. What i would like to say is that making sweeping statements about the effect films have on society is to enter into a minefield & to suggest that society has become more violent as a result is to be completely uniformed about the history of our society. The research that i undertook suggested that the cities that we live in are less violent, than say Victorian times (& they didn't have violent films to watch). I got sidetracked into the Ripper murders & reported violent crime in the Whitechapel district of London - the Ripper murders were by far the worst, but certainly there were some pretty gruesome murders carried out on a daily basis, stuff that would make your stomach churn.   Killings, muggings, rape, child molestation/murder & gangs are not new phenomenon, they are as old as the cities we live - fact. Why are Human Beings so violent/aggressive towards each other? Well that's the eternal unanswered question, isn't it. To blame cinematic portrayals of violence as the main cause is to be simply naive & uninformed about the history of our society. The way the mass media try to scare us into believing a supposed truth is just a smoke screen to hide the fact about the true nature of ourselves & the authorities' ineffectual attempts to stem the problem - scape goating is such an easy option.    Sorry for the rant...