Fair points, Michael. Maybe you're right about indie stuff remaining on the margins. BUT my heart naively hopes that when the majority of people use the internet to watch things on their main TV, the mainstream 30/60/90 min formats will die off and a large amount of content will be in 1/3/5/10 min slots. This (as well as YouTube & other web video) might help give people a sense of unease at how phoney and banal most TV drama and documentary is, and fuel a demand for more real programming from real people worldwide, unfiltered. This may not ever become the "main stream" - but there will surely be a much larger number of people choosing alternative content than there is now? And if all that indie material is open-source, with real connections and communication possible between audience and creator... its yet more incentive for people to watch and to make.
Dreaming about these things is important, and it's too depressing to think that they are just dreams, or that the audience, given the choice, would not change their habits much. It's also too depressing to think about how hard big business will fight to hold on to their old model and keep their audience, instead of embracing and adapting. But that's probably what'll happen. It *is* what's happening already with the whole net neutrality debate, I guess. That podcast reading of Free Culture that I wrote about earlier includes a section on how RCA successfully fought the invention of FM radio for decades (and drove its inventor to suicide) because of the threat it posed to their AM empire. All depressing - but maybe, *maybe* TV viewing habits will change a little in favour of more independent content when internet and TV hardware properly merge in the average home. Rupert On 3 Feb 2007, at 22:55, Michael Szpakowski wrote: Hi Rupert your points well made & well taken. I accept that to some extent I was arguing from the worms eye position of someone whose main interest is video on the net or in galleries & whose tastes run to the lapidary rather than the epic. Furthermore my position is too close to yours for me to want to, rather artificially, argue every dot of an i & cross of a t. Nevertheless, I think in my original mail was a slightly broader critique, which does extend, at least implicitly, to the cases you address. Eventually, what it comes down to is that those with the money & power are always going to be able to set the agenda, which in terms of the commercial cinema means this curious combination of bizarre oversimplification of any issue: love, death, war, whatever, together with the use of fantastically complex & expensive technology to present this pap as a kind of faux "realism". I'm sure we will see many folk make & distribute features on the net, on a tiny budget. I'm sure some of them will be wonderful and sadly I'm almost equally sure that, short of a radical reorganisation of society itself, such work will remain on the margins. I'm not sure however that I'm entirely unhappy about being marginal, given what isn't... best michael --- Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael, you're so right about content trumping > visuals, and about > the more interesting stuff being done with lower res > kit. > > i've just sat for a couple of hours watching the > usual amazing array > of new posts in HD, DV, from phones, stills cameras, > Super 8. I feel > like I used to skip through more stuff a couple of > years ago, but > maybe I didn't. I consumed quite a lot then, too. > There's so many > people with skill out there, doing cool things with > the short form. > > What I'm also excited about, though, is that the > feature film was out > of bounds to most people for a long time, and now > it's not. > > And features are a hugely important art form - the > cinema's > equivalent of the novel. > > Previously, if you wanted to make one that actually > got watched, you > couldn't just prioritise content over aesthetics: if > it didn't look > like it was shot on at least 16mm, no one would > screen it, sell it or > watch it. So it was out of reach. > > Now, everyone can make a feature that doesn't *have > to* compromise on > aesthetics for reasons of cost. The can choose to > shoot something on > a low res camera, for sure - but finally, they can > also make the > other stuff. > > Partly this is just about distribution on the web - > and I'm sure that > even now people are happier to watch a feature > length film shot on a > low quality camera. But aesthetics - hi res or low > res - enhance the > audience's engagement with the content, and now we > have the > capability to craft high-end aesthetics > indistinguishable in quality > from Hollywood, in addition to the other stuff, *if > we want*. In > financial terms, film (particularly drama) is still > a long way from > music, art, writing or even theatre, which can be > practised at almost > no cost, but it's a lot closer than it was just a > couple of years > ago. That's an amazing, amazing, amazing thing. > Great, beautiful, > feature length stories will come to us from outside > the system. > > I'm looking forward to when people start posting > this exciting, > engaging longer stuff, even feature length, more > regularly on their > blogs. At some point this weekend, I'm going to try > and make time to > watch Blogumentary. And I have this new indie > non-linear hypervideo > feature-length film that I ordered on DVD called The > Onyx Project. > Sounds cool. Exactly the kind of thing that I want > to be able to see > online. > > Rupert > http://www.fatgirlinohio.org > http://feeds.feedburner.com/fatgirlinohio > > On 2 Feb 2007, at 08:47, Michael Szpakowski wrote: > > Hmm > I absolutely agree with the notion of making stuff > more available, more democratic but I *do* wonder if > there isn't a rather interesting compensatory > process > going on in us, as viewers, as the technical > possibilities improve - we adjust mentally & so even > though, never mind the latest HD camera, my six year > old Canon MV 300i produces stuff that would have > been > *inconceivable* twenty years ago, those with money & > the concentrated centralised resources, > corporations, > professional broadcasters &c, are always on the > whole > going to look better, *in purely technical terms* > because our mental bar is constantly raised by > whatever is cutting edge. > Its a bit like special effects. Of course nowadays, > when - what do you call it, where the motion is > screened at the back?- looks wonderful and clunky & > nostalgic & occasionally risible to *everyone*, I'm > also finding that I read computer generated imagery, > especially crowd scenes, with a much more cynical > eye > -the patterns leap out...& if that's true now then > in > 20-30 years the artifice will be completely evident. > (Best 'special effect' in the world ever? - IMO the > "coming back to life" reverse-thing in 'Orphee'. > It's > the poetry, not the technique) > So the point I'm making in a rather laboured way is > that a similar process is at work in "regular" image > making... > I think where the small independent maker of moving > image can score is in the content, in the broadest > sense ( I don't just mean what we choose to look at > but what we do with it & how). That's why some of > the > most interesting work I've seen is made using mobile > phone cams or fairly basic kit, or stop motion or > appropriated footage -you get my drift- but with > lashings of the poetic imagination that an industry > which is focus grouped to death & committed to an > entirely chimerical attempt to "replicate" the look > of > "reality" can't even begin to conceive of. > best > michael > > --- Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Looks amazing. I love Canon cameras - i have an > old > > Canon XL1. > > colours, low-light and lens all amazing. (even > > though I mostly just > > use my nokia or my kodak for vlogging.) > > > > Also saw this JVC on Videomaker.com's weekly vlog > > last week, > > announced at CES - costs more but full HD and 5 > > hours of hard drive > > recording: > > > > > http://www.jvc.com/press/index.jsp?urlid=MPPress&item=565 > > > > It seems incredible that AT LAST we can have this > > kind of image power > > in consumer hands. professional cameras with > lesser > > quality > > cost tens or hundreds of thousands just a few > years > > ago. 2 weeks > > ago, I saw a rough cut of feature a friend of > mine > > had shot on a > > shoestring. Visually *astonishing*, but shot on a > > £2k Sony HD in the > > middle of nowhere in Yorkshire. i've been waiting > > for this level of > > quality and price to come for so long - it opens > so > > many more doors. > > > > "to me the great hope is that now... people who > > normally wouldn't be > > making movies are going to be making them, and > > suddenly one day some > > little fat girl in ohio is going to be the new > > mozart and make a > > beautiful film with her father's camcorder > > and for once the so called professionalism about > > movies will be > > smashed - forever. and it will really become an > art > > form. that's my > > opinion." francis coppola, hearts of darkness, > > 1988. > > > > "the future is now! the future is now! the future > > is now!" > > > > Rupert > > > > http://www.fatgirlinohio.org > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/fatgirlinohio > > > > > > > > On 1 Feb 2007, at 23:39, WWWhatsup wrote: > > > > [looks good, 24p too, I guess street price will > be > > less] > > > > Canon Coming Out with $1,300 HD Camera > > > > High-definition cameras are slowly trickling down > to > > the > > point where they're affordable. And Canon, which > > makes > > some of the best non-HD camcorders, now plays in > > that > > market. The new camcorder offers real benefits > over > > the > > previous model. Our story has details on what it > > does and > > when it will be available. > > > > Canon Expands HD Line-up: > > http://ct.eletters.whatsnewnow.com/rd/cts? > > d=181-805-1-411-255402-45903-0-0-0-1 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
