Anil Rao

Interestingly, Lynch was first choice to direct Return of the Jedi, but passed to do Dune instead. I'd love to see that version of Jedi and often think about it when the Sarlacc Pit scenes are on :)   As for the comment about whether Nolan enjoys making Batman movies, the answer is in the work, of course he does, that's why they are highly regarded. Like Kubrick before him, he is in a unique position of being able to craft what he wants, and he's earned it by the way he applies himself to his craft, it's like that of an auteur.   Spielberg is no such thing, he was always the guy you hired, and not much else. Look what Warner's did recently to get a bite out of Nolan's upcoming Interstellar with Paramount, which ironically was a Spielberg project to start with, they traded up the rights to the Friday the 13th series, so they could get a piece of the action!   Nolan is the modern day equivalent of what all filmamkers used to be, in a classical perspective, it was then about pushing possibilities, today very few are allowed to do that, as the meticulous planning studios give to marketing the snare of their ROI on three day estimates, that's what has killed the game or leading to the so called implosion... simple greed, what else is new?   The current chase for Global dollars aginst domestic is also driving what they want to make. i had an interesting meet with a US film company who told me they would be interested as long as the story would play better to an international audience rather than a US one, 80% of ROI is now making up the figures for US product, don't get me wrong, home grown isn't entirely written off, everyone will always be happy when a film works as WWZ has thus proven last weekend, it was almost written off within the industry with all it's so called miscomings being publically aired, but it blew away all domestic expectations when it took over $60m, but what is does internationally is where the money is being bet on.   Iron Man 3 even got it's own edit for China with new scenes even filmed for that market, so the trend really is to make your story work everywhere to get the Lion's share. I doubt a Lynch film has that power, it's great for the niche, just not for the masses and that's business I'm afraid.

Interesting and bang on...   Lynda Obst: Hollywood’s completely broken   When you stopped buying DVDs and started streaming on Netflix, Hollywood's economics changed. So did the movies   I was driving west in a classically horrible L.A. morning commute on my way to Peter Chernin’s new office in Santa Monica, thinking about our regular lunches back when he ran the studio and I worked as a producer there in the nineties. Peter, who is now building his own media empire at Fox and had been president of News Corp. for over a decade, was clearly the perfect person to ask what had turned the Old Abnormal into the New Abnormal. First of all, he was incredibly smart about the business. But more important, I now realized that during those lunches, he was the first to warn me that the proverbial “light ahead” was an oncoming train. It was way before things turned obviously grim. Since I was reliably churning out pictures then, I didn’t take his gloomy talk about piracy seriously. I just went around saying, “The landlord has the blues,” and blithely fell into the future.   Peter wasn’t exactly having a hard time making the transition. Once he decided in 2009 to leave the number-two job overseeing the News Corp. media empire, he became the biggest producer at Fox (one of the biggest anywhere), with guaranteed pictures and huge potential profit participation. His first picture was the tentpole smash Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and he already had three television shows on the air. More recently, he released the smash Identity Thief, with Melissa McCarthy and Jason Bateman.   The long drive got me thinking about the contrast between the struggling Old Abnormal producers (and writers) and the soaring New ones like Peter. It was discussed at a fancy-pants dinner party I went to a week before. “They’re completely broke,” said a studio head, when asked by me (of course) about how different things were these days. He spoke about famous players who regularly came to him begging for favors—a picture, a handout, anything. “Why?” his very East Coast guest asked incredulously.   I recalled his exact words as I sat in bumper-to-bumper traffic. “They have extremely high overheads,” he said to his guest with me listening in. “They have multiple houses, wives, and families to support. They’ve made movies for years, they were on top of the world and had no reason to think it would end. And then suddenly it did. They’ve gone through whatever savings they had. They can’t sell their real estate. Their overhead is as astronomical as their fees used to be. They’ve taken out loans, so they’re highly leveraged. It’s a tragedy.” His natty guest looked unsympathetic, so I tried to bridge the worlds between us. “Okay,” I said, “the Sudan is a tragedy. This is just sad.”   I understood that it was hard to sympathize with broke producers when so many families were being tossed onto their lawns by bailed-out banks that had bullied them into bullshit mortgages. Meanwhile, New Abnormal producers like Peter were  thriving, easily finding supersized tentpoles with the “preawareness” that was so craved by the New Abnormal, like his hit film Rise of the Planet of the Apes. That is because those films were so well suited to their sensibilities and ambitions. But Peter was more than just a successful model of a New Abnormal producer. He had green-lit the two biggest movies of all time when he was head of Fox during the Old Abnormal.   Peter had earned his top-down as well as bottom-up perspective on the business by working his way up through publishing, then TV, to eventually run both Fox Broadcasting Company and Twentieth Century Fox Film. He became Rupert Murdoch’s number two, overseeing the whole Fox empire, and shareholders clamored for the board to name him Murdoch’s successor. But this was a job designated by Murdoch to go to an actual heir, so Peter left to become a producer. He knew the business, as Joni Mitchell’s great old tune said it, “from both sides now.” More important, he was gifted with a brain both creative and financial in equal measure.   Peter’s offices are as close to the water as you can get without falling in. He came into the lobby to greet me, always personable, never grandiose, but still a bit larger than life. He is the humblest of moguls, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a strong ego— just not a damaged one. We sat in his Santa Monica office with huge plate-glass windows overlooking the Pacific, where he happily relayed that he rarely crossed the 405 East-West divide. When I asked for his help in getting to the bottom of all this, I was reminded of how tough-minded he is. Even though we are old friends (we went to high school together), he had no problem challenging my buried premises. Maybe they weren’t very buried.   “So how did we get here,” I asked, “where things are so different from when we started? What happened?” I leaned back a little on Peter’s comfortable couch, and he sat forward to say, “People will look back and say that probably, from a financial point of view, 1995 through 2005 was the golden age of this generation of the movie business. You had big growth internationally, and you had big growth with DVDs.” He paused to allow a gallows laugh. “That golden age appears to be over.” It was good we both could keep our sense of humor, the only way to survive the industry’s crazy carousel of wild ups and low downs. And this very carousel and its need for constant— bordering on psychotic—optimism to keep your projects going made it hard for a person like me to find a steady perch from which to see what was really going on.   Peter, however, had one. He seemed to be saying that the DVD market was critical to the life and death of the Old Abnormal. I knew the DVD profits were key, but it seemed to me like a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. “Why did those little silver discs go to the heart of the business?” I asked. “There have to be other key revenue streams.”   “Let me give you the simplest math,” he replied. “The simple, simple, simple math.”   Good, I thought. Because my friends and I are not so great at math. I can guesstimate the budget of a big movie to within a hundred thousand dollars by reading the script, but I can’t add the columns therein. “The movie business,” Peter said, “the historical studio business, if you put all the studios together, runs at about a ten percent profit margin. For every billion dollars in revenue, they make a hundred million dollars in profits. That’s the business, right?” I nodded, the good student, excited that someone was finally going to explain this to me.   “The DVD business represented fifty percent of their profits,” he went on. “Fifty percent. The decline of that business means their entire profit could come down between forty and fifty percent for new movies.”   For those of you like me who are not good at math, let me make Peter’s statement even simpler. If a studio’s margin of profit was only 10 percent in the Old Abnormal, now with the collapsing DVD market that profit margin was hovering around 6 percent. The loss of profit on those little silver discs had nearly halved our profit margin.   This was, literally, a Great Contraction. Something drastic had happened to our industry, and this was it. Surely there were other factors: Young males were disappearing into video games; there were hundreds of home entertainment choices available for nesting families; the Net. But slicing a huge chunk of reliable profits right out of the bottom line forever?   This was mind-boggling to me, and I’ve been in the business for thirty years. Peter continued as I absorbed the depths and roots of what I was starting to think of as the Great Contraction. “Which means if nothing else changed, they would all be losing money. That’s how serious the DVD downturn is. At best, it could cut their profit in half for new movies.”   I’d never heard it put so starkly; I’d only seen the bloody results of the starkness. The epic Writers Guild strike of 1988 was about the writers trying to get a piece of home viewing profits. It shut down the town for eight months, and estimates of what it cost the Los Angeles economy run between $500 million and $1 billion. They held out as long as they could, until all parties had bled out as if they’d been struck by Ebola. And still the writers got no piece of those golden discs. Then the writers struck again in 2007–8 for a piece of the Internet frontier, and won not much more than they did after the last awful strike, and we all watched its terrible and unintended aftermath play out during the recession and in the subsequent suspension of writers’ and producers’ deals.   “I think the two driving forces [of what you’re calling the Great Contraction] were the recession and the transition of the DVD market,” Peter said. “The 2008 writers’ strike added a little gasoline to the fire.” Well, at least my writer friends would be relieved to know that Peter didn’t think it was totally their fault, as some in town were fond of intimating.   He went on to say, “It was partially driven by the recession, but I think it was more driven by technology.” There it was. Technology had destroyed the DVD. When Peter referred to the “transition of the DVD market,” and technology destroying the DVD, he was talking about the implications of the fact that our movies were now proliferating for free—not just on the streets of Beijing and Hong Kong and Rio. And even legitimate users, as Peter pointed out, who would never pirate, were going for $3 or $4 video-on-demand (VOD) rentals instead of $15 DVD purchases.   “When did the collapse begin?”   “The bad news started in 2008,” he said. “Bad 2009. Bad 2010. Bad 2011.”   It was as if he were scolding those years. They were bad, very bad. I wouldn’t want to be those years. “The international market will still grow,” he said, “but the DVD sell-through business is not coming back again. Consumers will buy their movies on Netflix, iTunes, Amazon et al. before they will purchase a DVD.” What had been our profit margin has gone the way of the old media.   It hit me like a rock in the face. The loss of DVDs for our business had created a desperate need for a new area of growth. This was why the international market has become so important a factor in creative decisions, like casting and what movies the studios make. We sat in mournful silence for a second before I realized that Peter probably had to take a call from China and I should go home and take a Xanax.   But then Peter said the most amazing thing. A P&L, if you’re not a numbers person, is a profit-and-loss statement. Studios create P&Ls in order to explain to their financial boards, banks and investors how they are going to recoup their costs when they green-light films. It estimates how much money key domestic and international markets are expected to gross based on how “elements” (i.e., stars, director, title) have performed in the past in those markets, country by country. It also estimates how they will perform in various ancillary markets like DVD, TV, pay cable, Internet, airplane devices, VOD, handheld devices, etc., again based on past performance. If it all adds up to the amount of the budget or more, Go!   These are the quantifiers that studios use to rationalize their decisions, to put them on solid-enough financial ground on which to base predictions to their corporate boards. “So,” Peter said as I was about to leave, “the most interesting thing is what a few studio heads said to me privately about two years ago.” He stopped to smile. “None of them from Fox, of course.”   “Of course,” I said. I knew he was about to share something very inside with me. “They said to me, ‘We don’t even know how to run a P&L right now.’” The look on his face expressed the sheer madness of that statement. “ ‘We don’t know what our P&L looks like because we don’t know what the DVD number is!’ The DVD number used to be half of the entire P&L!” “What are the implications of that?”   He looked at me incredulously, as if to say, Haven’t you run a studio? Then he said very emphatically, “The implications are— you’re seeing the implications—the implications are, those studios are frozen. The big implication is that those studios are—not necessarily inappropriately—terrified to do anything because they don’t know what the numbers look like.”   Of course they are. They’re frozen, so the gut is frozen, the heart is frozen, and even the bottom-line spreadsheet is frozen. It was like a cold shower in hard numbers. There was none of the extra cash that fueled competitive commerce, gut calls, or real movies, the extra spec script purchase, the pitch culture, the grease that fueled the Old Abnormal: the way things had always been done. We were running on empty, searching for sources of new revenue. The only reliable entry on the P&L was international. That’s where the moolah was coming from, so that’s what decisions would be based on.   The Great Contraction explains the birth of the New Abnormal, and so many of the cultural changes that came along with it. Technology changes culture. Think of the way the all-embracing texting culture of the Japanese teenager created the first-person text novel (keitai shousetsu). The anonymous romantic accounts of teens written by texters were sent chapter by chapter as apps were being designed in real time to meet the needs of the growing audience. That birthed a genre that spawned “real” books and movies. Our industry reformatted itself with an application called “new revenue streams.” A crucial question of that app was “what stars play in foreign territories,” and the answer was, “whoever had a big hit there before!” Casting was not the only thing that technology changed, nor was the (disappearing) pitch. The big change was what movies get made.  

Gatekeepers are true, film is often described as the hardest club to get into in the world, even all those people at Cannes officially are trying to get in. In the many meetings I have had, you gotta keep going you see, I found myself getting a door open to a very good company, a known company, tradewise that is.   A good old fashioned letter I wrote got me a callback. I went to see them, they loved my short work and said I sounded even better in the flesh, then the reality kicked in. They told me 'great, but we cannot help you', I said 'why' as anyone would, they said, 'we don't know you'...ermmmm, 'ok then we're here now, let's get to know each other'...'oh no, that's not how it works'...ok how does it work I say, ...'oh, someone has to recommend you to us then we can help'... and that's how it is folks.   You know that saying 'it's about who you know', not true, it's the opposite, it's about who knows you, and this lends itself so greatly to the now, to the self catering filmmaker, you make something special you can now put it out there on many platforms and portals, and if it is special and strikes a chord, everyone talks about, well actually it doesn't have to be special, you can film your cat taking a turd and falling out of a tree, put it on youtube and you suddenly have a billion hits... that's just crazy!   But once again we find ourselves having to squire through digital irk and ire to find anything good, so it's another slew of not so much gatekeepers but infinitely open gates! There has never been a sure way in to film, there is just your own way and you have to put heart and bloody soul every day to achieve it.   So enter everything and anything, get your work known and who you are. There again there is quite a lot of tosh, but do research. For example, look who the judges are. I entered a comp literally 24 hrs before the deadline, a comp I knew about for ages but they never announced the judges, plus I was in another country at the time. my work finished early and I got back to the UK and I saw the judges and they were all real filmmakers, as in people you know. So I quickly put something together and handed it in. I was astonished that I had won the comp whereas other entries had full blown crews and everything. But I believed in my idea and I knew the calibre of the judges, I also trusted my voice as a filmmaker and that is something you have to discover for yourself, I have never been good at following anything and have always been labelled as unorthodox and for being ahead of my time, all my filmmaking contacts can't understand why I have slipped through the net all the time, it's simple you need to find out which net to jump in, that's what I mean about research, that and following your heart are the most important to me.   http://www.londonscreenwritersfestival.com/four-nights-in-august-winners-announced-at-lsf-2011/   Having won that comp, it opened a few doors to me especially in the US. I now have a US producer helping me with my first feature becuase of that win. The comp ran again and is currently at judging stage, and again my entry has stirred a few boats in its comments section and is one of the highest rated, that alone earned me a UK producer and the short has it's first public screening at a film making masterclass this very weekend.   http://www.50kissesfilm.com/movies/neil-by-anil-rao/   Oh and for the record, I asked that particular company why they had agreed to see me if they couldn't help me, the guy told me that at the bottom of my letter I had written 'help me Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope', and that he was a Star Wars fan... that's why :-)  

Once upon a time is a story told, an alternative would be also 'a long time ago in a galaxy far far'... you get the idea.   However today it's all about ...once upon a dime. There really isn't much difference to what happened with the financial deficit with what is being recycled again but for film, it's the same game play at work. Lucas and Spielberg are just being whistleblowers, pre-empting if you will, what is to come.   The infamous statement is that nobody knows anything in film land, and that is absolutley true, as all creativity is a risk, otherwise every film made would be a hit, and for the ones that do, for the ones who do so because in their hearts, it's only about possibilty... well they are the ones being denied right now, but at the same time, Hollywood failures are giving them other paths to follow, and that hurts us as a culture and as an audience.   I don't want to sound all Jerry Maguire as Steven Soderberg came across in his recent speech, as it was numbing that it led him to quit, however, for whatever happens, it is stories told, that equal stories sold and they need to say that to themselves everyday before starting their day. I love going to the cinema, I love being enlightened by a creative sermon delivered with passion and a need to connect with us no matter what genre or subject it is, but i find it harder and harder to find something worthy of that visit that I used to make several times a week.   I just don't want to see the day when it only becomes about peer to peer audiences, or singular views in the solitary bowels of tablets and at home by yourself.. No man is an island, and we need to watch a film with the many sitting beside us, where we are all naked (metaphorically speaking here) and removed and stripped of the suit of armour we all have to bs each other with outside the cinema, in our everyday lives, that's why it is so importnat as a construct of cultural and social cohesion. It's where we get enlightened by what I have always thought were the modern day prophets, allowing us to partake their visions and imagined concepts and ideas together as one being, which is what we all become when the house lights go down.   Cinema has the power in its ability to transcend that, that, that is traditionally known into that, that is not, the meaningful unknown, so that it again becomes known and so fourth, and we all learn together. If the sermon is delivered as a telling, a seed is planted in each of us, that we choose to grow, which is why we return again and again to that story.   I don't mean to expose my deepness here as I know a lot of people find it hard to fathom spiritual understanding of what connects us all, but it's like when Obi Wan explains the Force, cinema is exactly like that, in that 'It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.", that's exactly how I have always viewed cinema.   So may the force be with us, otherwise it all ends up like Alderaan :-)  

I didn't make it clear that the buyers I spoke to were from all over the world, they were more than willing to listen. I told them it was an urban thriller, all good, I told them it was set in London, all good, I told them it was about injustice, all good, I told them it was a multi-cultural cast... they were outta there LOL. To be honest I wasn't at all surprised. One thing you do when you come to understand film sales agents is understand the numbers, they now all have a universal processor which not only determines how much they will pay for a film but will also tell them what they are expected to make from it, it's actually quite scary when they talk to you about it, with a big grin on their faces, you are standing there watching your project being stripped of any artistic merit, any soul that might touch a persons heart and resonate with them, and are left being like a piece of sushi on those conveyor belts.   I am often dumbfounded by what I find is just normal today, in a lot of what we call a way of life, which is a total lack of quality control or oversight as basic values, what these people don't want to understand, is that they are in the business of creating film to sustain a fim business, and what filmmakers more often than not when starting out don't want to understand, is... that they are wanting to get into the business of making films as a living. What both need to get on board with, is how to help each other sustain each other. I remember at film school being ignored for 3 years because I said the forbidden words, 'the business of film', when what I should have said is, 'I want to make films that no one will ever see, that are about fruit decomposing over 24 hours, that I will then project in slow motion to deliver my artistic vision', that would have got me luvved up from day one, and played no doubt in the arsehole of the ICA!   Creative vision is all fine and dandy if you are spending your own money but the second someone gives you a pound or a dollar you will have to accept that opinion and deliver a return on that investment, that's what you are promising by accepting the investment to begin with. The films you make today must deliver the business and as previously mentioned, the mechanical only wants the formula and only the formulaic will be adhered to as it makes sense to support that, risk and lean management are what all these guys are about, your vision means nothing to them, the numbers do.   It is quite possible that maybe this outburst from Spielberg and Lucas should NOT be adhered to, and allowed to happen, only then they may wake up, well only for a moment before the next original idea gets exploited, and milked to death, afterall Steven Soderbergh recently quit because of the same reasons. You and I both know Andrew, creativity is risk and risk only! To step into the unknown is the excitement and when you do and it works then they all come following!  

Firstly there is a multitude of problems that were allowed to happen, that has had this announcement made and uncharacteristically these comments are made by the two people often associated with destroying Hollywood in the first place, whilst both Lucas and Spielberg created moments in cinema that yielded the terminology 'blockbuster', they are not to blame entirely.   The studios having let the dreamers of the 70s have their way, in order to stop their film industry falling apart, an industry that no longer knew what to do with the fast changing cultural landscape of the era, decided to play observer. In observing they saw a formula and took the reigns back, what they didn't observe is the 'why' and focused only on the '$' these films made. Having run much of the Hollywood gauntlet under this ideology worked until the era of todays audience kicked in, or more importantly speaking the age of the internet. Today audiences are in charge and the film industry is having to fight back against many other forms of entertainment on many different portals out there, what is making it worse in this 'tailored to my own choice' era, is that again the industry isn't wanting to understand or learn from, so they keep upping the event tentpoles and not the culture of what cinema has been for a 100 years.   Originality costs today, that is the fundamental reasoning behind remake culture, the last studio original fable was Inception and Nolan had to earn that, and did so with the ROI of TDK and the promise that he would also do TDKR. The same goes for Spielberg, just because he has made a lot of hits doesn't mean they will bow to him, the business is about the business of film, so for Schindlers List to be green lit, he had to sign for JP:Lost World and when you watch that film, you can tell right away his heart is not in it, in any of it, because he had to make it and not wanted to make it.   As for Lucas and his Red Tails nightmare, the business told him 'no one would be interested in that particular story, it was the business talking and he didn't want to listen, this was both right and wrong. Lucas accused the industry of being racist and this was a huge error on his side of reasoning, a little blind sided and more in line with a trouble maker, than as a bonafide reason. He should have understood what the industry was saying or just financed it himself, which he ended up doing.   At the Berlinale this year, I spoke with a lot of buyers at the EFM (European Film Market) as I have a UK thriller script set in the Afro Carribean UK community and even though it's not about the culture of these people, the first thing more than half of them told me was, we don't buy black stories, when I probed why, rather than assuming the worst, they said we cannot sell them, it was that simple, they were being truthful about sales which is what they do and they know what they are talking about, they were not being racist.   What is clearly missing and has been for a long time is what the culture of cinema used to be about that led to an industry being fruitful and now that there are signs of it becoming fruitless, no one wants to understand the hierarchy of the failure that has led to that.   If anything, the people, as in the audience, well they are in charge now right, not the studios, and are dictating what is being made by them. Good you might say on one hand, well actually it is bad on the other, because for every $1b, an empty and void of content Iron Man type movie makes, this only guarantees to Hollywood that that is what the people want, hence why they will only give their energies and resources to keep making them. However, if only those type of movies are shown, what choice do we have? It's a vicous circle, and until once more the industry collapes, and again they ask the creatives to give them back an industry again, it will be too late.   We cannot have the 70s again, and Hollywood cannot rely and hope the same can be repeated again, because those that can have gone on to other portals now to deliver them, furthermore, watching cinema and that magical artful experience of having a voice shared by many at the same time, a voice that matters first, is truly if not already lost right now.   A New Hope is more than needed, both culturally, creatively and most importantly, in alignment with an industry willing to listen and apply.  

Hey Andrew,   having shot my graduation film on S16 way back when, this may well be the camera I shoot my feature on. It seems to have been totally grounded up for a maker of films to use as opposed to anyone else, ie still photographer who may wish to shoot vieo etc, especially in the ergonomics. Whilsts others boast of this and that I have always felt that whoever took a practical and not technical lead through in their offering would win, this maybe that opportunity, alas still waiting to see if it fulfils a straightforward post workflow, which again is something all offerings should consider too.   :-)

Outstanding time and effort into this Andrew, but I still can't help but be floored by the GH2 in all the shots. The GH3, given it's a pre-model, looks whack next to it and even the BMCC didn't really stand out, your own cinemascope films shot even on the GH1 were far more gorgeous in their presentation, and that always has to be what this shooting game is only about... about how it makes you feel rather than what's under the hood. At the end of the day that is what only matters, what you craft, how you shape and ultimately, how you you see something, being the image maker, not what makes you the image, although to some extent that does matter :)

It's all about those islands the Japanese purchased from the owner of them and the Chinese who say they belong to China, but looking at the way the Chinese are behaving and their spiel from the reporters on the street, burning anything Japanese... it's all ridiculous. There is so much anger in the world today, people look for any reason to (forgive the pun) blow up, what's up with all that? Watching Pannys building on fire, could mean another delay to the GH3 then!

Hi, don't know if this is of interest, but my friend Rick Young who runs the Mac Video Expo in London and has always been down with BMD, made this video about the MFT Blackmagic Camera. :) [media]http://vimeo.com/49446586[/media]

[quote name='MaxAperture Films' timestamp='1347759294' post='18185'] Those are not tassles, they are the fan blade overlaps of the vertical bands from the folded parts of the curtains (that were probably intentionally graded to look blown-out). The motion blur of the fan image slightly darkens and picks up the curtain folds in the trails of the blades. It just looks like sloppy grading to me. [/quote] Yes, you are correct. However the blades do have some things hanging off of them to aggrivate the situation. Watch them when they have got past the windows light, anyway, moving on from tassles. I kept finding myself referring to Mann's [i]Collateral [/i]for some shots, after a few viewings. I liked the first car shot of him driving, obviously shot from the bonnet rig, that was very cinematic in the image rendering, as in it felt like a Hollywood shot, and not a videoesque one, also with some of the night shots, the backgrounds were very nice, but the blacks were pushed to be too dark, again just using Mann's film as a counter point, which I know is asking way too much of this. However I remember when Mann discussed the shooting of [i]Collateral[/i] (as to why he shot video), he said he wanted to see into the night. When she runs down the stairs to the train and gets into the cab, it looks like it wants to not see into the night, really dark. The grading really shows its difference when we get to the - trains in a museum hanger masquerading as a real station scene -, it goes really flat. However, again, all these are really superficial points in the overall picture, with it being a test camera and with what was put together, bells and whistles or not, we have a winner here coming our way very soon, and I can't wait. :)

ok, my genuine points to consider after watching this. 1. Watch the fans blades in the beginning, that was really shocking, unless they are all really furry, as I have seen fan blades with tassles before. 2. There is no demeaning here, the grading really is all over the place and that is not the fault of the camera now is it? 3. I'd like to know what is the budget of this, time frame of schedule and furthermore, look at how many people worked on it? This would negate a few things to consider, the first being if you are going to do this properly, give it all the quality it needs. I am not going to fault the craftsmanship as there is a considerable amount of blood, sweat and tears that goes into a production like this and especially with a short timeframe to accomplish everything, however, if this is an official Panasonic showcase why didn't they take the time to do it right instead of a rush job? More importantly, most of us are not going to have the kind of background support this demo utilises when working for ourselves, so that is not a real working example to use, to fairly showcase the camera, and even if we did, in all honestly I expected a better showcase, and not these kind of Ideal Home Exhibition demos, or shots of frogs close up you see on HD screens in Dixons. I watched this as a film first and it was just too hammy, now before the obvious reply to that will be, yes but it is to show what the camera can do, I say that is fundamentally wrong as an example to sell this camera and here's why... I want to be held by the idea, if this idea is to show the GH3 as a working tool for filmmakers and not just to start flames and wars amongst the online pixel peepers, then shoot it as a film and not a technical promo, then when one watches it, you can say to yourself, 'wow that was great', followed by, 'what!!!! that was all shot on a GH3', then you have proven the point. Philip made a film about a camera guy who collects cameras and it was awesome, then he told us at the Mac Video Expo where it was projected for us, that it was all shot on the NEX 5N, I was totally floored, that's the kind of example I expect to see. Even now when I think about it I can recall my wowness at watching it. When I made a short film for the French filmmaker [i]Luc Besson[/i], I shot it on a 200 line resolution security camera, the kind put outside your garage, I just loved the field of view, (which was very [i]Terry Gilliam[/i] meets[i] Jean-Pierre Jeunet[/i]) and the image the camera gave me. I had reworked the wiring so I could record the image to a DV Deck and shot my film as a film, as an idea I wanted to express. I then graded it at VTR (now known as Prime Focus) in Soho, by the legendary colourist [i]Tareq Kubaisi[/i] and it was screened in Paris, London and Tokyo. My point being here, is that I could have shot it on 70mm if I really wanted to, however I am a guerilla filmmaker, and by guerilla I mean that I want to push what can be achieved without all the bells and whistles that raise costs and still be held up as a validated professional piece of work.[i] GENESIS[/i] obviously has all the bells and whistles thrown at it and it's unfortunately speaking, not a good showcase for what it should be doing, which is telling a story that at the end of it, has us go wow and then unbelievable. They should have given this to Michael Mann and stipulated, off you mate and only by yourself, but he loves his Nikons too much ha :) Doesn't matter though, I am really looking forward to getting one of these, and if I had the added expenditure I'd feel the same about the BMCC, I'll be watching how that all develops before stepping in, but it's all good. Someone already said it before, but a new kid always stirs things up for everyone else to re-raise their game and that's better for all of us right? :)

Those who give inspire, those who take retire, small minds discuss people, average minds events, but great minds discuss ideas. Phil's a dude, Andrew's a dude and we are more the better because of them. Thank you to both of you, and keep marching, because the more knowledge we have, the better we can all get at being better, that's an achievement right? And that for me is only one thing, lifes great idea :)

This is the one I wait for :-) They need to send the first one to Vitaly, that way when it gets to the rest of us it will be much more improved!

[i]PhilipBloom.co.uk Think I am already over the raw in the Blackmagic camera. The workflow is so painful. The prores is fantastic though. Super flat![/i] What the word was going to be for most of us anyway right?

[Ruben gives Andrew a rough shove and starts yelling at Andrew in an alien language which Andrew doesn't understand] Dr. Fernandez: [explaining] He doesn't like your articles. Andrew: Sorry. Dr. Fernandez: [grabbing Andrew] *I* don't like your articles either. You just watch yourself. We're wanted men. I have shot for the United Nations and ESPN Polo on twelve camera systems. Andrew: I'll be careful. Dr. Fernandez: You'll be dead! Anil: [intervening] This little one's not worth the effort. Come, let me get you something, like manners for instance. [Dr. Fernadez shoves Andrew across the room and pulls out a 5DMK111] Bartender: No Canons! No canons! [Anil ignites his wisdom, severing Ruben's unjustified bashing] :D 'Maybe I might have gone overboard labeling the article as fanboyish, but I do read it, as I said as unnecesarily one sided.' With no due respect Ruben, administrate this... by making your first post an attack on the writer 'I bash the article because it is so biased towards a product.' and justifying it by applying a warped psychology of technical superiority 'I have shot with most of the professional cameras out there, from the venerable Arri 435s and SRIIIs to Alexa, Red One and Epic, practically all Cine Altas (F900, F35, F23, and EX1 and EX3), Phantom, and of course DSLRs.' over the laymen, tells me all I need to know about you. Another trollite and a way too obvious one, your utter disrespect in how you wish to address your point to an audience, of which is so bloody obvious to any one with half a wit, has no merit or standing. I stand before your greatness, you've shot for the United Nations, wooooooooooooooh... another bunch of misfits who allow genocide to happen everyday while they debate what pudding they will have for lunch. Andrew, you don't need any help or justification for what is and always has been from the beginning of EOSHD your views on things, and you should always return the respect of an expression that asks with diligence, nuance and curiosity why you have said that. Debate is about bettering ones standing, to acquire knowledge to be better, and discover a new way of seeing something I wake up for this and this site has always illuminated me in that aspect. What I find intolerable, is when someone believes that bullying with a get out clause is acceptable and it isn't.Forgive me for my sentiment on this but having grown up under a lot of hate I know where it strikes and how it gets away with it.

I feel the following is the best part of his understanding and importantly, the right one too. [i][color=#444444][font=sans-serif][size=3]Many may be taken aback with the idea of spending $7,999 on this camera at first. [/size][/font][/color][color=#008000][font=sans-serif][size=3]But if you stop to think about what you WON’T NEED TO BUY – it can actually start to look like a wise investment.[/size][/font][/color][color=#444444][font=sans-serif][size=3] This camera comes ready to shoot. The ergonomics are great so you don’t HAVE to have a cage. You don’t need to buy an external audio recorder and synching software – this has XLR inputs (and stereo headphone jack as well as levels) with the handle. You don’t necessarily need rods, a matte box, and Neutral density filters – ND filters are built in. That alone is a savings of $1,000-$4,000 in that type of setup alone (but you can of course choose to buy a good variable ND filter for a few hundred dollars as opposed to rods and matte boxes and rod support.) You don’t need to buy and EVF and a way to mount it to your HDSLR. Same goes for an LCD – although both the Canon LCD and EVF leave a lot to be desired when compared to the Zacuto EVF and external Marshall monitors. All those accessories will still help those that want the best quality and versatility.[/size][/font][/color][/i] It was people, yes, people like you reading this, who defined the DSLR era not the companies right? They added a feature and thought nothing off it and it was exploited to a better purpose, (like SMS for phones, the last thing added and only added as a reluctant feature as all phone companies had argued that why would you text when you can call? So what turned out to be the main feature used by people on mobiles... yup SMS! Go figure.) it gave an unforeseen spike to many video camera enthusiasts and a lot of third parties caught the wind with their own offerings to supplement that movement, rigs, cages, monitors, sound etc. How many people who had only shot video on a consumer do it all out of the box camera, rushed out to think they could become so easily the next Vittorio Storaro after buying a DSLR? Who only then were shocked to be felled so quickly by the need to know how to use a camera first (in manual), without automations settings, and what other things were a necessary requirement in order to furnish those images like in a Vincent Laforet way? The DSLR movement reminds of the the dot.com boom, where everyone thought if they open a website they would become rich, again not knowing anything about SEO, banners, advertising and generally how it all actually works... What 'murky future' is, is a response that acknowledges that Canon and the like have recognised this movement but they won't be led or told what to do by them. They will instead gear their offerings the way they have always done, to apply a little by little, step by step. When you look at what all of you fetish about and are asking for in your list of demands, well if they gave in to that, what happens to them as a business, they'd all be out of business, that's what would happen. The C100 is a threat to the mainstream idea of DSLRs as viable kit for shooting video in a correct way. I'm sure that all of you like myself will have heard the following comment, 'What... that shoots video?' which has always greeted me when ever I pull out out my DSLR to shoot video. Because for the companies that make them, shooting video is an afterthought and every model that continues to be released with that form factor always will be... a stills camera that can also shoot video, which is first and what comes second. One could negate Canon were caught out unawares, however I don't believe that for a second, having secured immediately when it was announced the XL1 in the late 90s, Canon were leaps ahead of any adaptor-Letus set-up with their interchangeable lenses for video. We the adapters of this movement are all small fry compared to what they have achieved as a business and sustained as one for all this time which is their primary goal as a business. Normally all tech companies are about 15-20 years ahead of what they can bring to the table for the masses today. However, there have been many times rebuttals from consumers over having the best tech now, one of the most famous ones was video tape when the VHS standard by JVC in 76 was favoured over Betacam by Sony which was launched a year earlier in 75, however Betacam was the superior format technically, what happened to it, it became adapted for the pro market instead. Japan were experimenting with HD in the 70s and HD ready in the 80s. Unfortunately where we are at now, is that the whole blog/cam community seem only inherent in chasing the announcements of new tech and not actually using it for what it is made for. Everyone seems to be technically at war with each others opinions and understandings, equations and evaluations and arguing on that, is it really only Chung, Laforet, Bloom, Reid, Farges, Lee, who actually shoot anything in the world? It sure feels that way sometimes. It will only and should only ever be about what you shoot and what is the best tool to achieve that vision. I am a filmmaker for a living, I am a paid professional and not some sit on the web fence and throw custard pies at each other trollite. I will not use a BMD Cam for day to day event/vox pop/corporate work as I need a super fast turnaround, sometimes having to show that days shoot the next day at the same event. However for a feature film I will definitely look at it and what others are available to achieve what I need for that work and for what budget I have. I shoot/edit fast which is also why I am hired most of the time. So whatever time I can alleviate without compromising quality is mutually beneficial for me and my clients and they trust me on that. This C100 is Canons answer to all the nonsense and noise of the last few years, their XL1 which I loved (as well as Pannys DVX series) has evolved to become the C100 and as Laforet rightly states, it does bode a murkyness for DSLRs as video devices for the main stream/semi-professional. Of course we'll always be naturally pushing lo-tech to achieve high tech capabilities, but definitely for the user friendly idea of a high end camera for video that can allow you to become as close to a Storaro right out of the box and within a reasonable price bracket, without all the fuss of additional gubbins, that is what we are waiting for, and that is what the C100 is to some extent. I still believe in much lower priced tech and having a Guerilla attitude and always will do as a personal choice as that is what I have used all my working life and the achievement of The Blair Witch Project, which I know was more about marketing applications then how it was shot, is testament to what you can achieve, it's what you have to say, and not what you say it on that counts. Best A :-)

Ok so the directors polled amassed to this top 10 :) [b] The 2012 Sight & Sound Directors’ Top Ten[/b] Thursday, 2 August 2012 [b]The 10 Greatest Films of All Time, as chosen by 358 directors including Woody Allen, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Quentin Tarantino, the Dardenne brothers, Terence Davies, Guillermo del Toro, Martin Scorsese, Olivier Assayas, Michael Mann, Guy Maddin, Francis Ford Coppola, Mike Leigh, Aki Kaurismäki…[/b] [img]http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/image/tokyo-story-1953-002-00o-2tn-two-woman-sitting_590.jpg[/img] [b] 1. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b8908e4"]Tokyo Story[/url][/b] [i]Ozu Yasujirô, 1953[/i] (48 votes; pictured above) Subtle and sensitive, Tokyo Story lets the viewer experience the tensions and demands that modern life makes on people – here family members—[i]Adoor Gopalakrishnan[/i] [b] 2. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b9450a5"]2001: A Space Odyssey[/url][/b] [i]Stanley Kubrick, 1968[/i] (42 votes) This is the film I’ve seen more than any other in my life. 40 times or more. My life altered when I discovered it when I was about 7 in Buenos Aires. It was my first hallucinogenic experience, my great artistic turning-point and also the moment when my mother finally explained what a foetus was and how I came into the world. Without this film I would never have become a director—[i]Gaspar Noé[/i] [b] 3. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6a7a801b"]Citizen Kane[/url][/b] [i]Orson Welles, 1941[/i] (41 votes) Welles’s feat of imagination in Citizen Kane remains dazzling and inspiring. Cinema aspiring to great art, political import – and delivered with unabashed showmanship. The fervour of the work is as excited and electric as ever. The thriller plot never disappoints—[i]Kenneth Branagh[/i] [b] 4. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b25bb2b"]8½[/url][/b] [i]Federico Fellini, 1963[/i] (40 votes) 8½ is a film I saw three times in a row in the cinema. This is chaos at its most elegant and intoxicating. You can’t take your eyes off the screen, even if you don’t know where it’s heading. A testament to the power of cinema: you don’t quite understand it but you give yourself up to let it take you wherever—[i]Pen-Ek Ratanaruang[/i] A true classic has to be both intimate and universal. To speak about cinema through cinema requires a voice unwavering in its passion and purity. 8½ speaks as much about life as it does about art – and it makes certain to connect both. A portrait of the teller and his craft – a lustful, sweaty, gluttonous poem to cinema—[i]Guillermo del Toro[/i] [b] 5. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b7bc1b8"]Taxi Driver[/url][/b] [i]Martin Scorsese, 1976[/i] (34 votes) A film so vivid, hypnotic and corrosive that it feels forever seared onto your eyeballs, Taxi Driver turns a city, a time and a state of mind into a waking nightmare that’s somehow both horribly real and utterly dreamlike—[i]Edgar Wright[/i] [b] 6. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b69562aa2"]Apocalypse Now[/url][/b] [i]Francis Ford Coppola, 1979[/i] (33 votes) Coppola evoked the high-voltage, dark identity quest, journeying into overload; the wildness and nihilism – all captured in operatic and concrete narrative, with the highest degree of difficulty. A masterpiece—[i]Michael Mann[/i] [b] 7= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6ab4237b"]The Godfather[/url][/b] [i]Francis Ford Coppola, 1972[/i] (31 votes) A classic, but I never tire of it. The screenplay is just so watertight, and Michael’s journey is one of the best protagonist arcs ever created—[i]Justin Kurzel[/i] [b] 7= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b9caca4"]Vertigo[/url][/b] [i]Alfred Hitchcock, 1958[/i] (31 votes) [These are the scenes or aspects I usually think about in the movies I have thought about most often…] In Vertigo, after he’s worked so hard to remake her and finally she emerges: hair dyed platinum, grey suit, misty lens. It’s her!—[i]Miranda July[/i] [b] 9. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6bb90873"]Mirror[/url][/b] [i]Andrei Tarkovsky, 1974[/i] (30 votes) I must have been around 13 when I first watched Mirror. This time I realised that there are films that are not even meant to be ‘understood’. It’s the poetry of cinema in its purest form, on a very delicate verge of being pretentious – which makes its genius even more striking—[i]Alexei Popogrebsky[/i] [b] 10. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6ae61fec"]Bicycle Thieves[/url][/b] [i]Vittorio De Sica, 1949[/i] (29 votes) My absolute favourite, the most humanistic and political film in history—[i]Roy Andersson[/i]

Whilst the point of this post was to address image construction and what we can learn from them, and not launch into the obvious tit for tat, I have to wholeheartedy disagree with the 'hard to appreciate with what's come after' or 'best of all time at their time'. What better films are you referring to and by what sentiment are you evaluating them under. These films were made by artisans who did not rely upon magic bullet or any other app or plug in or cgi, to achieve such greatness, that's what makes them so evocative for me. Without the digital tools of today or such easy editing applications to pick and choose from what magnitude could be reached by most people, very little. These films shine because they pushed boundaries, boundaries whether it was at the time of their making or not, wipe the floor of most films being outputed today. I liken them to having to work it all out and still make it work, amaze and awe, whereas today everyone can use a calculator and have the work done for them! Guess I'm just old school :)

Conducted every 10 years, the British Film Institutes Sight & Sound magazine asks many of the leading commentators around the world on cinema, to name their top ten films. Whilst this always brings about an enormous debate about what is the best in the same way pixel peepers obsess over what is the best camera, I wanted to focus on what we can learn as image makers from these films. Cinema is first and foremost an emotive medium based around what we see, and what is absolutely aghast to me is how little is learned from how you can compose and construct an image to matter and stir the soul, something new filmmakers don't seem to ever grasp or ever want to understand. Whilst every picture tells a story, telling a story moving pictures is an art, a science and has a deep philosophy and psychology behind it. The German's and the Russians gave us the language of cinema, the language that is still vital and important today, however the image placed next to an image is only as powerful as what the image itself is saying to begin with. In watching the films on this list, you will be enlightened and gain an important education and thus after that, will see how you shoot your own films and images with a vast improvement. An improvement that happens because your mind has been open to new points of view and something you will never learn from a book or a school. Enjoy them, as they are amazing, and even if they are not to all tastes, you will be bettered for doing so. :) [b] The Top 50 Greatest Films of All Time[/b] Wednesday, 1 August 2012 [b]846 critics, programmers, academics and distributors have voted – and the 50-year reign of Kane is over. Our critics’ poll has a new number one.[/b] [img]http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/image/vertigo-1958-012-madeleine-bouquet_590.jpg[/img] [b] Introduction[/b] [b]Ian Christie rings in the changes in our biggest-ever poll.[/b] And the loser is – Citizen Kane. After 50 years at the top of the Sight & Sound poll, Orson Welles’s debut film has been convincingly ousted by Alfred Hitchcock’s 45th feature Vertigo – and by a whopping 34 votes, compared with the mere five that separated them a decade ago. So what does it mean? Given that Kane actually clocked over three times as many votes this year as it did last time, it hasn’t exactly been snubbed by the vastly larger number of voters taking part in this new poll, which has spread its net far wider than any of its six predecessors. But it does mean that Hitchcock, who only entered the top ten in 1982 (two years after his death), has risen steadily in esteem over the course of 30 years, with Vertigo climbing from seventh place, to fourth in 1992, second in 2002 and now first, to make him [i]the[/i] Old Master. Welles, uniquely, had two films (The Magnificent Ambersons as well as Kane) in the list in 1972 and 1982, but now Ambersons has slipped to 81st place in the top 100. So does 2012 – the first poll to be conducted since the internet became almost certainly the main channel of communication about films – mark a revolution in taste, such as happened in 1962? Back then a brand-new film, Antonioni’s L’avventura, vaulted into second place. If there was going to be an equivalent today, it might have been Malick’s The Tree of Life, which only polled one vote less than the last title in the top 100. In fact the highest film from the new century is Wong Kar-Wai’s In the Mood for Love, just 12 years old, now sharing joint 24th slot with Dreyer’s venerable Ordet… [i]Ian Christie’s full essay on changing fashions on our new poll is published in the September 2012 issue of Sight & Sound, available from 3 August on UK newsstands and as a digital edition from 7 August. [url="http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/polls-surveys/greatest-films-all-time-2012"]See Nick James’s poll coverage introduction[/url] for details of our methodology. Texts below are quotations from our poll entries and magazine coverage of the top ten. Links are to the BFI[/i][i]’s Explore Film section. [/i][i]The full, interactive poll of 846 critics’ top-ten lists will be available online from 15 August, and the Directors’ poll (of 358 entries) a week later.[/i] [b] THE TOP 50[/b] [b] 1. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b9caca4"]Vertigo[/url][/b] [img]http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/image/vertigo-1958-007-00m-ro9-scottie-madeleine-embrace-in-front-of-waves_590.jpg[/img] [i]Alfred Hitchcock, 1958[/i] (191 votes) Hitchcock’s supreme and most mysterious piece (as cinema and as an emblem of the art). Paranoia and obsession have never looked better—[i]Marco Müller[/i] After half a century of monopolising the top spot, Citizen Kane was beginning to look smugly inviolable. Call it Schadenfreude, but let’s rejoice that this now conventional and ritualised symbol of ‘the greatest’ has finally been taken down a peg. The accession of Vertigo is hardly in the nature of a coup d’état. Tying for 11th place in 1972, Hitchcock’s masterpiece steadily inched up the poll over the next three decades, and by 2002 was clearly the heir apparent. Still, even ardent Wellesians should feel gratified at the modest revolution – if only for the proof that film canons (and the versions of history they legitimate) are not completely fossilised. There may be no larger significance in the bare fact that a couple of films made in California 17 years apart have traded numerical rankings on a whimsically impressionistic list. Yet the human urge to interpret chance phenomena will not be denied, and Vertigo is a crafty, duplicitous machine for spinning meaning…—[i]Peter Matthews[/i][i]’ opening to his new essay on Vertigo in our September issue[/i] [b] 2. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6a7a801b"]Citizen Kane[/url][/b] [img]http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/image/citizen-kane-1941-001-00o-czj-susan-great-hall-jigsaw_590.jpg[/img] [i]Orson Welles, 1941[/i] (157 votes) Kane and Vertigo don’t top the chart by divine right. But those two films are just still the best at doing what great cinema ought to do: extending the everyday into the visionary—[i]Nigel Andrews[/i] In the last decade I’ve watched this first feature many times, and each time, it reveals new treasures. Clearly, no single film is the greatest ever made. But if there were one, for me Kane would now be the strongest contender, bar none—[i]Geoff Andrew[/i] All celluloid life is present in Citizen Kane; seeing it for the first or umpteenth time remains a revelation—[i]Trevor Johnston[/i] [b] 3. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b8908e4"]Tokyo Story[/url][/b] [img]http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/image/tokyo-story-1953-001-00m-utg-noriko-shukishi-facing-sky_590.jpg[/img] [i]Ozu Yasujiro, 1953[/i] (107 votes) Ozu used to liken himself to a “tofu-maker”, in reference to the way his films – at least the post-war ones – were all variations on a small number of themes. So why is it Tokyo Story that is acclaimed by most as his masterpiece? DVD releases have made available such prewar films as I Was Born, But…, and yet the Ozu vote has not been split, and Tokyo Story has actually climbed two places since 2002. It may simply be that in Tokyo Story this most Japanese tofu-maker refined his art to the point of perfection, and crafted a truly universal film about family, time and loss—[i]James Bell[/i] [b] 4. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b41d658"]La Règle du jeu[/url][/b] [img]http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/image/regle-du-jeu-la-1939-002-00n-lcs-chaos-in-kitchen_590.jpg[/img] [i]Jean Renoir, 1939[/i] (100 votes) Only Renoir has managed to express on film the most elevated notion of naturalism, examining this world from a perspective that is dark, cruel but objective, before going on to achieve the serenity of the work of his old age. With him, one has no qualms about using superlatives: La Règle du jeu is quite simply the greatest French film by the greatest of French directors—[i]Olivier Père[/i] [b] 5. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b7568ee%27"]Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans[/url][/b] [img]http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/image/sunrise-1927-001-husband-wife-boat-in-reeds-00m-lfc_590.jpg[/img] [i]FW Murnau, 1927[/i] (93 votes) When F.W. Murnau left Germany for America in 1926, did cinema foresee what was coming? Did it sense that change was around the corner – that now was the time to fill up on fantasy, delirium and spectacle before talking actors wrenched the artform closer to reality? Many things make this film more than just a morality tale about temptation and lust, a fable about a young husband so crazy with desire for a city girl that he contemplates drowning his wife, an elemental but sweet story of a husband and wife rediscovering their love for each other. Sunrise was an example – perhaps never again repeated on the same scale – of unfettered imagination and the clout of the studio system working together rather than at cross purposes—[i]Isabel Stevens[/i] [b] 6. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b9450a5"]2001: A Space Odyssey[/url][/b] [img]http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/image/2001-a-space-odyssey-1968-002-00m-rnw-astronaut-adrift_590.jpg[/img] [i]Stanley Kubrick, 1968[/i] (90 votes) 2001: A Space Odyssey is a stand-along monument, a great visionary leap, unsurpassed in its vision of man and the universe. It was a statement that came at a time which now looks something like the peak of humanity’s technological optimism—[i]Roger Ebert[/i] [b] 7. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b54abdf"]The Searchers[/url][/b] [img]http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/image/searchers-e1956-001-00o-18t-ethan-burnt-cabin-dress_590.jpg[/img] [i]John Ford, 1956[/i] (78 votes) Do the fluctuations in popularity of John Ford’s intimate revenge epic – no appearance in either critics’ or directors’ top tens in 2002, but fifth in the 1992 critics’ poll – reflect the shifts in popularity of the western? It could be a case of this being a western for people who don’t much care for them, but I suspect it’s more to do with John Ford’s stock having risen higher than ever this past decade and the citing of his influence in the unlikeliest of places in recent cinema—[i]Kieron Corless[/i] [b] 8. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6a21d217"]Man with a Movie Camera[/url][/b] [i]Dziga Vertov, 1929[/i] (68 votes) Is Dziga Vertov’s cine-city symphony a film whose time has finally come? Ranked only no. 27 in our last critics’ poll, it now displaces Eisenstein’s erstwhile perennial Battleship Potemkin as the Constructivist Soviet silent of choice. Like Eisenstein’s warhorse, it’s an agit-experiment that sees montage as the means to a revolutionary consciousness; but rather than proceeding through fable and illusion, it’s explicitly engaged both with recording the modern urban everyday (which makes it the top documentary in our poll) and with its representation back to its participant-subjects (thus the top meta-movie)—[i]Nick Bradshaw[/i] [b] 9. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b754db651"]The Passion of Joan of Arc[/url][/b] [i]Carl Dreyer, 1927[/i] (65 votes) Joan was and remains an unassailable giant of early cinema, a transcendental film comprising tears, fire and madness that relies on extreme close-ups of the human face. Over the years it has often been a difficult film to see, but even during its lost years Joan has remained embedded in the critical consciousness, thanks to the strength of its early reception, the striking stills that appeared in film books, its presence in Godard’s Vivre sa vie and recently a series of unforgettable live screenings. In 2010 it was designated the most influential film of all time in the Toronto International Film Festival’s ‘Essential 100’ list, where Jonathan Rosenbaum described it as “the pinnacle of silent cinema – and perhaps of the cinema itself”—[i]Jane Giles[/i] [b] 10. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b25bb2b"]8½[/url][/b] [i]Federico Fellini, 1963[/i] (64 votes) Arguably the film that most accurately captures the agonies of creativity and the circus that surrounds filmmaking, equal parts narcissistic, self-deprecating, bitter, nostalgic, warm, critical and funny. Dreams, nightmares, reality and memories coexist within the same time-frame; the viewer sees Guido’s world not as it is, but more ‘realistically’ as he experiences it, inserting the film in a lineage that stretches from the Surrealists to David Lynch —[i]Mar Diestro Dópido[/i] [b] 11. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6a68bd9d"]Battleship Potemkin[/url][/b] [i]Sergei Eisenstein, 1925[/i] (63 votes) [b] 12. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6a439bc9"]L’Atalante[/url][/b] [i]Jean Vigo, 1934[/i] (58 votes) [b] 13. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6bfd1ebb"]Breathless[/url][/b] [i]Jean-Luc Godard, 1960[/i] (57 votes) [b] 14. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b69562aa2"]Apocalypse Now[/url][/b] [i]Francis Ford Coppola, 1979[/i] (53 votes) [b] 15. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6a498bd1"]Late Spring[/url][/b] [i]Ozu Yasujiro, 1949[/i] (50 votes) [b] 16. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6a44b82c"]Au hasard Balthazar[/url][/b] [i]Robert Bresson, 1966[/i] (49 votes) [b] 17= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b5b6382"]Seven Samurai[/url][/b] [i]Kurosawa Akira, 1954[/i] (48 votes) [b] 17= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b2deaa5"]Persona[/url][/b] [i]Ingmar Bergman, 1966[/i] (48 votes) [b] 19. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6bb90873"]Mirror[/url][/b] [i]Andrei Tarkovsky, 1974[/i] (47 votes) [b] 20. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b6036b6"]Singin’ in the Rain[/url][/b] [i]Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly, 1951[/i] (46 votes) [b] 21= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6a6e45a7"]L’avventura[/url][/b] [i]Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960[/i] (43 votes) [b] 21= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b049967"]Le Mépris[/url][/b] [i]Jean-Luc Godard, 1963[/i] (43 votes) [b] 21= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6ab4237b"]The Godfather[/url][/b] [i]Francis Ford Coppola, 1972[/i] (43 votes) [b] 24= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b752105a2"]Ordet[/url][/b] [i]Carl Dreyer, 1955[/i] (42 votes) [b] 24= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b8485aac9"]In the Mood for Love[/url][/b] [i]Wong Kar-Wai, 2000[/i] (42 votes) [b] 26= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b3ec3fe"]Rashomon[/url][/b] [i]Kurosawa Akira, 1950[/i] (41 votes) [b] 26= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b7433c1"]Andrei Rublev[/url][/b] [i]Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966[/i] (41 votes) [b] 28. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b8379038e"]Mulholland Dr.[/url][/b] [i]David Lynch, 2001[/i] (40 votes) [b] 29= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6bf3bbfd"]Stalker[/url][/b] [i]Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979[/i] (39 votes) [b] 29= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b76b0507b"]Shoah[/url][/b] [i]Claude Lanzmann, 1985[/i] (39 votes) [b] 31= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6ab42667"]The Godfather Part II[/url][/b] [i]Francis Ford Coppola, 1974[/i] (38 votes) [b] 31= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b7bc1b8"]Taxi Driver[/url][/b] [i]Martin Scorsese, 1976[/i] (38 votes) [b] 33. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6ae61fec"]Bicycle Thieves[/url][/b] [i]Vittoria De Sica, 1948[/i] (37 votes) [b] 34. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6aae85f3"]The General[/url][/b] [i]Buster Keaton & Clyde Bruckman, 1926[/i] (35 votes) [b] 35= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b0544c6"]Metropolis[/url][/b] [i]Fritz Lang, 1927[/i] (34 votes) [b] 35= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b39fc24"]Psycho[/url][/b] [i]Alfred Hitchcock, 1960[/i] (34 votes) [b] 35= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b73116007"]Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles[/url][/b] [i]Chantal Akerman, 1975[/i] (34 votes) [b] 35= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b7d2993a2"]Sátántangó[/url][/b] [i]Béla Tarr, 1994[/i] (34 votes) [b] 39= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b3b75b7"]The 400 Blows[/url][/b] [i]François Truffaut, 1959[/i] (33 votes) [b] 39= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6a90d39d"]La dolce vita[/url][/b] [i]Federico Fellini, 1960[/i] (33 votes) [b] 41. [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b9d14d8"]Journey to Italy[/url][/b] [i]Roberto Rossellini, 1954[/i] (32 votes) [b] 42= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b2b59cc"]Pather Panchali[/url][/b] [i]Satyajit Ray, 1955[/i] (31 votes) [b] 42= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b76e98a5c"]Some Like It Hot[/url][/b] [i]Billy Wilder, 1959[/i] (31 votes) [b] 42= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6ab03131"]Gertrud[/url][/b] [i]Carl Dreyer, 1964[/i] (31 votes) [b] 42= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b310bc0"]Pierrot le fou[/url][/b] [i]Jean-Luc Godard, 1965[/i] (31 votes) [b] 42= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b3291db"]Play Time[/url][/b] [i]Jacques Tati, 1967[/i] (31 votes) [b] 42= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b7a39630e"]Close-Up[/url][/b] [i]Abbas Kiarostami, 1990[/i] (31 votes) [b] 48= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6f24787d"]The Battle of Algiers[/url][/b] [i]Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966[/i] (30 votes) [b] 48= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b8b29dbb3"]Histoire(s) du cinéma[/url][/b] [i]Jean-Luc Godard, 1998[/i] (30 votes) [b] 50= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6bbb8e51"]City Lights[/url][/b] [i]Charlie Chaplin, 1931[/i] (29 votes) [b] 50= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b94daff"]Ugetsu monogatari[/url][/b] [i]Mizoguchi Kenji, 1953[/i] (29 votes) [b] 50= [url="http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b7b9372f0"]La Jetée[/url][/b] [i]Chris Marker, 1962[/i] (29 votes)

I have to say that when Bloomys documentary on Camera Bodies about that collector guy was projected at his Mac Video Expo presenation, IMHO the quality of the image totally blew me away, I was expecting him to say it was his RED, when he said he shot it on the NEX 5N everyone gasped. It was the first time in a long time that I veered to be impressed by what he shot it on as well as what he shot.

Well hello dear sir right back at ya ;) , it's nice to be back in the welcome embrace of your throes! And I know it was a figure of speech and that you are indeed balanced, albeit with a gruff and growl here and there, but that's good :) One thing I always respect about you Andrew is that you, unlike others with similar lines of thought online, are not afraid to intertwine in their opinions an aspect of a better way, to push for greatness, that's what makes you stand out for me. I want to know that someone gives a shit about this and not just tells me about the obvious, and only one kind of person delivers that pro-quo and that is a creative person and no one else. I am very sorry to hear about Spike, but if you loved him as you do your artistry, then he had a great life. Best always and continue to lead the charge :)

Andrew, don't cry too much dude. You don't have to justify anything. Stand up for reasoning by all means, as you have done again with passion and eloquency above, however don't fret too much about the goaders, that's what they want. It's so easy to see who has the dilligence and is being pro-active with their probing assessments and deconstructions, however, it is even easier to see who is just wanting to wind people up but trying to be clever but not really... and of course you need to know what your technology is capable of, in order to match what you wish to do with it creatively, but as you have already stated, it's only some and the direction of their questions and to what points they raise, enlightens us all as to who is a goader and who is probing to gain the best tool for the job. :)

I cannot stress it enough, we are in an age finally where only how you see something is what matters, and having the courage to go out there and make it happen, not what you use to see it on. The GH2 proves that, not just by being mentioned here, but for what I also, like Andrew, have fought long and hard to manifest in people who want to be filmmakers, it's your idea and nothing esle that must permeate everything you do. All these online forums and opinions, 99% of them only are intrested in specs and technical point scoring against each other, none of them are interested in using the toolset to define something else, the actual purpose of why they were made to begin with! If an audience can take a film shot on video to a $100m at the box-office, then that should be your wake up call, and if you hadn't woken up after that, then you never will. Keep pixel peeping. I'll just shoot :)

This was awesome, I loved the retro feel and more to the point it was cinematic and felt like an era of when cinema was only cinema. Well done really :) Best wishes Anil