Re: [videoblogging] Re: What Randy mann Said in the Videoconference last night.
interesting points. :-) the other side of this of course is that some do both, but that one practice might not need to come into the other (if that makes sense). the web as most of the 2.0 stuff shows, is ideal for serial practice/ production, small pieces, loose connections. about networks, joins, pathways and bite sized up to snack sized. this can and should work really well in doco, but as noted in some of the comments, a lot of doco practice is still about much larger scale works. So for me the questions are: 1. what would a web native video doc be? (Seth Keen is answering this one way, Florian Thalhofer another.) 2. how might this be combined with trad. doco? 3. blogs are already documentary, so what needs to change (in us or the maker) to think of it more formerly as documentary in the video mode? On 04/09/2009, at 9:18 AM, Jay dedman wrote: > And to flip it aroundwhat barriers keep videobloggers from > working on > longer projects like documentarians? > Rupert and I were just talking about it and he sent me this list ( > http://videoblogginggroup.pbworks.com/Barriers): cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: What Randy mann Said in the Videoconference last night.
> This all just comes back full circle for me what I was talking about in the > video conference - how do we bridge the gap between documentarians and > videobloggers? And to flip it aroundwhat barriers keep videobloggers from working on longer projects like documentarians? Rupert and I were just talking about it and he sent me this list ( http://videoblogginggroup.pbworks.com/Barriers): - 1) having an idea that you want to put energy into - 2) asking permission / rejection - the fear that people will not want someone videoing them and/or publishing it online - 3) respect/authority - the fear that people will ask who the fuck you are, and why they should talk to you. "Um, i have my own videoblog that's watched by, like, *dozens* of people!" - 4) self-consciousness - most people feel awkward about filming themselves, and feel awkward filming anything in public, or in front of other people, because they're drawing attention to themselves especially if they haven't asked permission - 5) law - with the police harrassing photographers & videographers everywhere, the position of legality of filming people and things is unclear to most people - 6) audience - you put all this effort into something, and it'll be seen by a few hundred people. to build an audience, you got to keep plugging away, and most people are doing it in their spare time - so in a way, you've got to have a) an issue or a subject that you're passionate enough about to keep pushing. There's a guy who writes an ultra-local blog in my neighbourhood - shepherdsbush.wordpress.com - and he has been working hard at it for four years to get 3000 visits a month. it's a real commitment, and most people are afraid of those kind of commitments. - 7) the technology - not as much of a barrier as it used to be, but still requires a level of confidence to follow a project through from start to finish - even a home movie. - 8) fear of failure - what if it's shit, or boring, or no one watches it? I must give filmmakers and documentarians quite a bit of credit for investing a ot of time in a project they believe in. Often with no guaranteed reward. Some of my favorite films probably never made anyone any real moneybut the cultural capital it created has been enormous. You do it because it has to be done. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Rox Darling
I saw Rox Darling's video tour of the Nimitz. Rox can you tell me how I can go on one of those tours? Thanks. Rodli Please view my pictures, video and sign my guestbook. thanks http://www.freewebs.com/rodli/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: What Randy mann Said in the Videoconference last night.
I know members of both American & British Academies, and they're the same. They give most of their DVD freebie screeners to their kids and friends, or toss them or leave them unopened. You only have to look at what wins - and even what is nominated - to know that the whole process is a joke, as far as artistic merit is concerned. It's about commercial success masquerading as artistic success, which makes it even more depressing that it influences what kind of films get made, and how they get made. On 3-Sep-09, at 6:16 PM, Markus Sandy wrote: > > On Sep 3, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Jeffrey Taylor wrote: > > > The holy grail for documentarians is an Oscar nomination or > > nomination for > > another award. Many of these awards require that the film only be > > seen on > > theatres in order to be nominated. As a result, the culture of > > documentary > > film-making will be geared towards traditional theatre presentation > > until > > the rules for awards begin to change. > > > > Hi > > That sure is a funny requirement considering situations like this: > > I have close friend who is a housekeeper for a member of the academy. > The academy member is a well-known actor who is semi-retired (i.e. you > only see him in reruns these days). He gets copies of *all* the > nominated movies delivered to his home in Marin, but has little > interest in watching them. My friend takes home almost all the movies > and watches them with her teenage kids (score!) and they tell her what > they like so she can tell him how to vote. Truth is, she knows a hell > of a lot more about film than he does; so I guess this works out for > the best. :) > > I wonder how typical this situation of proxy votes is and why we need > to carry on with grand illusions like the importance of theater > showings, especially when almost all the theaters in a place like Los > Angeles are almost impossible to book for an indie or docu showing (I > think there is only one indie chain left in LA today). > > FWIW > markus > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: What Randy mann Said in the Videoconference last night.
On Sep 3, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Jeffrey Taylor wrote: > The holy grail for documentarians is an Oscar nomination or > nomination for > another award. Many of these awards require that the film only be > seen on > theatres in order to be nominated. As a result, the culture of > documentary > film-making will be geared towards traditional theatre presentation > until > the rules for awards begin to change. > Hi That sure is a funny requirement considering situations like this: I have close friend who is a housekeeper for a member of the academy. The academy member is a well-known actor who is semi-retired (i.e. you only see him in reruns these days). He gets copies of *all* the nominated movies delivered to his home in Marin, but has little interest in watching them. My friend takes home almost all the movies and watches them with her teenage kids (score!) and they tell her what they like so she can tell him how to vote. Truth is, she knows a hell of a lot more about film than he does; so I guess this works out for the best. :) I wonder how typical this situation of proxy votes is and why we need to carry on with grand illusions like the importance of theater showings, especially when almost all the theaters in a place like Los Angeles are almost impossible to book for an indie or docu showing (I think there is only one indie chain left in LA today). FWIW markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: What Randy mann Said in the Videoconference last night.
The holy grail for documentarians is an Oscar nomination or nomination for another award. Many of these awards require that the film only be seen on theatres in order to be nominated. As a result, the culture of documentary film-making will be geared towards traditional theatre presentation until the rules for awards begin to change. I personally feel that this is suppressing the art of documentary film, and hope that the motion picture academy and other orgs will relax these requirements in order to give documentarians more opportunity to distribute and make money from their work. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Jay dedman wrote: > > > > This all just comes back full circle for me what I was talking about in > the > > video conference - how do we bridge the gap between documentarians and > > videobloggers? > > > > Their content isn't all that different. They have similar editing > workflow > > conversations. Our art forms are not that different and if anything are > > converging. Rupert was talking about doing filmatic screenings of > > videobloggers works in a theater like format. They're trying to get their > > content to the web. I am going to refrain from using the phrase > Transmedia - > > because it will keep being rebranded and frankly terms like that drive me > > batty - but essentially its all converging. We're all artists - as much > as > > the 'new media journalists' want to be, and essentially are - > journalists. > > It all ends up on a screen (they just vary in size) its just a matter of > us > > all helping each other out to get it on the screen we want it to be on - > if > > not all of them - best we can. > > Thoughts? > > Ive long wondered why documentarians and filmmakers have been the > slowest to adopt these tools and distribution. Ive heard the reasons > but they seem bogus. I'm tired of money always being the problem. No > one is ever just gong to give you money without you first being bold. > > I agree that "videobloggers" can definitely share an understanding of > the online worldwhile more more formal "filmmakers" can share the > process of gathering and telling a story. > > Id love to see a bridge created between the two groups. > > Jay > > -- > http://ryanishungry.com > http://jaydedman.com > http://twitter.com/jaydedman > 917 371 6790 > > -- Jeffrey Taylor 912 Cole St, #349 San Francisco, CA 94117 USA Mobile: +14157281264 Fax: +33177722734 http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor http://videocampsf.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: What Randy mann Said in the Videoconference last night.
> This all just comes back full circle for me what I was talking about in the > video conference - how do we bridge the gap between documentarians and > videobloggers? > > Their content isn't all that different. They have similar editing workflow > conversations. Our art forms are not that different and if anything are > converging. Rupert was talking about doing filmatic screenings of > videobloggers works in a theater like format. They're trying to get their > content to the web. I am going to refrain from using the phrase Transmedia - > because it will keep being rebranded and frankly terms like that drive me > batty - but essentially its all converging. We're all artists - as much as > the 'new media journalists' want to be, and essentially are - journalists. > It all ends up on a screen (they just vary in size) its just a matter of us > all helping each other out to get it on the screen we want it to be on - if > not all of them - best we can. > Thoughts? Ive long wondered why documentarians and filmmakers have been the slowest to adopt these tools and distribution. Ive heard the reasons but they seem bogus. I'm tired of money always being the problem. No one is ever just gong to give you money without you first being bold. I agree that "videobloggers" can definitely share an understanding of the online worldwhile more more formal "filmmakers" can share the process of gathering and telling a story. Id love to see a bridge created between the two groups. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
