Another new experimental UltraPan8 film work by Chris Boni

[Nicholas Kovats]

Local Toronto cinematographer, Chris Boni, has debuted his second impressive experimental work on Vimeo shot with the Bolex UltraPan8 2.8 camera system, i.e. https://vimeo.com/52123151#at=0. Moody ambient sounds supplied by Healing Power Records, i.e. http://healingpowertoronto.bandcamp.com/

[Scotness]

That was okay but any chance of seeing a piece of narrative drama shot in Ultrapan? I'd really like to see it in that context as experimental films are pretty arbitary

Scot

[Nicholas Kovats]

"Aribitrary"?

Chris exemplifies the rich heritage of Canadian experimental film. The global filmmaking community can and does sustain both schools. Both have a rich filmic heritage.

What is your definition of narrative film? Both schools cover a broad spectrum. There is a subtle hint of elitism and/or credibility.

[carllooper]

Yes, Canada maintains a rich and important tradition of experimental film. One of the most famous practitioners I recollect from my youth is Norman McLaren. In high school we followed his ideas, using pins and markers to scratch directly into 16mm emulsion - whatever struck our fancy. The cool thing was that it didn't cost anything and you got an intimate understanding of the relationship between the physical medium and it's fundamental effects. Experimental films are a lot of fun, and are really quite special. They cut right through years of acquired habits from watching so much narrative film and TV. They break open the spellbound circuits that otherwise evolve.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ ... ental-film

But that said, I'm working on a quasi-narrative UP8 film. About 5-10 minutes.

C

[Lunar07]

Very nice work. He used both 2.8 and Super8 film?
I am still waiting for my camera

Local Toronto cinematographer, Chris Boni, has debuted his second impressive experimental work on Vimeo shot with the Bolex UltraPan8 2.8 camera system, i.e. https://vimeo.com/52123151#at=0. Moody ambient sounds supplied by Healing Power Records, i.e. http://healingpowertoronto.bandcamp.com/

[Nicholas Kovats]

Lunar07!

Please identify yourself in an offline message such that I may followup on your behalf. My direct email is "nkovats@gmail.com".

Regards,

Nicholas
Toronto

[Nicholas Kovats]

Carl!

Stop teasing us! Will you be utilizing a double system crystal sync method? i.e. Mr. Tobin Motor? I am publicly outing you, Mr. Looper.

Thanks for the quick response and I am hoping this whole thread does not digress into a huge experimental vs narrative debate. I am passionate about both. By the way..the incredible Norman McLaren was a passionate user of Kodachrome reversal as was many of the outstanding historical films of the NFB prior to the development of 16mm color neg stocks.

[carllooper]

I wrote a long comment on the vimeo site, but it disappeared. Network failure of some sort.

I wrote about the digital masking, that focused attention on the film's framelines. That thin line of either unexposed film, or where the frames overlap. But also how that apparent world beyond, withheld from view, becomes tantalising. When we eventually see a full frame it becomes something more tangible, in a very earthy sort of way. Very beautiful.

The word "arbitrary" has negative connotations, but it's otherwise a word that can be used. The arbitrary is very powerful. It allows a work to ellude intelligability, while maintaining or bringing into sharper focus sensibility.

C

[carllooper]

Carl!

Stop teasing us! Will you be utilizing a double system crystal sync method? i.e. Mr. Tobin Motor? I am publicly outing you, Mr. Looper.

Thanks for the quick response and I am hoping this whole thread does not digress into a huge experimental vs narrative debate. I am passionate about both. By the way..the incredible Norman McLaren was a passionate user of Kodachrome reversal as was many of the outstanding historical films of the NFB prior to the development of 16mm color neg stocks.

Yeah - my film making has become a really really slow process. Once upon a time I could make a film in a few days and have it screening in the local pub, with a local rock band, within a week. These days it's a very different story.

Anyway - I'm using a digital sound recorder to record sound. I was going to do crystal sync (with a crystal sync motor) but I'm using another idea now. Apart from wild sync which works fine I'm using a circuit that converts camera speed to an audio sync signal. A clapperboard for reference of course. In post I then adjust the sound to the film. The original purpose of this circuit was to facilitate a digital blimp (for camera sound cancellation) but it also works just as well for syncing sound.

I'm still interested in that Tobin motor though. There are some shots I need to do that need to run in sync with a digital camera, ie. at 25 fps.

C

[Scotness]

"Aribitrary"?

Chris exemplifies the rich heritage of Canadian experimental film. The global filmmaking community can and does sustain both schools. Both have a rich filmic heritage.

What is your definition of narrative film? Both schools cover a broad spectrum. There is a subtle hint of elitism and/or credibility.

If you think there's a hint of elitism it's only because you're insecure about what you're doing 8O You shouldn't worry so much about what people think. And just so you know what I think - I think experimental film is a perfectly fine and valid form of film making - but I do believe that alot of what ends up in the frame is there by chance. That doesn't mean it's wrong - and it can be quite beautiful - but I work on films where more of it (but not all of it) is there by intention and it's with examples of this that I'm interested in seeing this format under - probably for no other reason than that's what's relevant to me.

Why is that relevant to me - the same reason I'd rather see a Van Gogh painting than a Jackson Pollock one - it's speaks to me more of humanity than the universe.

So anyway don't be so touchy it doesn't help your artistic cause ~ if there are ever examples of narrative films in Ultra Pan please post the link - and good luck with what you're doing

- And my definition of narrative films is just the normal every day one

Scot

[Lunar07]

Make sure to get the very latest model:
TCS TXM-20Ba

[..................]
I'm still interested in that Tobin motor though. There are some shots I need to do that need to run in sync with a digital camera, ie. at 25 fps.

[Lunar07]

Ok!

Lunar07!

Please identify yourself in an offline message such that I may followup on your behalf. My direct email is "nkovats@gmail.com".

Regards,

Nicholas
Toronto

[carllooper]

If you think there's a hint of elitism it's only because you're insecure about what you're doing 8O You shouldn't worry so much about what people think. And just so you know what I think - I think experimental film is a perfectly fine and valid form of film making - but I do believe that alot of what ends up in the frame is there by chance. That doesn't mean it's wrong - and it can be quite beautiful - but I work on films where more of it (but not all of it) is there by intention and it's with examples of this that I'm interested in seeing this format under - probably for no other reason than that's what's relevant to me.

Why is that relevant to me - the same reason I'd rather see a Van Gogh painting than a Jackson Pollock one - it's speaks to me more of humanity than the universe.

So anyway don't be so touchy it doesn't help your artistic cause ~ if there are ever examples of narrative films in Ultra Pan please post the link - and good luck with what you're doing

- And my definition of narrative films is just the normal every day one

Scot

Hi Scot,

it's interesting what you say about the relationship between Van Gogh and Jackson Pollack. But I don't know if experimental films are any less humanist (or any more about the universe) than any other film. Or any less intentional. Is Pollack's work less intentional than van Goghs? I don't think that's the case. There is a huge consistency in Pollack's work. How is that possible if his work isn't intentional? What causes that consistency?

Re. touchiness - I think we're all a little touchy on these things. It's inescapable.

One of the experimental narrative films I made caused an actor I showed it too, to go off his head in a violent rage. He started shouting at me that I don't care about my audience - that I was an artschool wanker, and so on. Of course, he was an extreme case, but I've had many seemingly "normal" people approaching me with the same sort of rage - if slightly more constrained.

Are these humanists? I guess so, but no more and no less than myself or anyone else. Or to put it another way I don't know why those who are into "normal narrative" are more human (or humanist) than anyone else.

With the "humanists" who want to punch my face in, I do my best to settle them down and explain to them in a more calmer setting, that they are sort of right, that I am an "artschool wanker" (I am!) but that I don't know how to make the films any other way - which is partly true. I mean I do know how to make a "normal" film (I've worked on a few in my time), but when I come to actually making my own films, I think what's the point in being conventional: why waste the time, energy and money?

C

ps. Here are some papers of mine if anyone is interested:

http://www.academia.edu/2062058/Image_and_Presence
http://www.academia.edu/2025838/Transce ... Empericism

pps. one of my intellectual heros is Gilles Deleuze, who advocates story telling in the cinema - but not at the expense of the experimental. Experimental cinema is the foundation of all cinema. What were the great pioneers of cinema if not experimental! They had nothing to go off. They had to invent the cinema. And narrative film making was an important achievement of early cinema. It wasn't at all obvious how to make a narrative. They had to experiment. To find out how the cinema works, or can be made to work. I believe there is still a lot more to discover. New ways of making a film, whether narrative or otherwise.

[Scotness]

There is a huge consistency in Pollack's work. How is that possible if his work isn't intentional? What causes that consistency?

I imagine that would just be down to a similar technique in how he made them.

Re. touchiness - I think we're all a little touchy on these things. It's inescapable.

I kind of agree but criticism of how something is being done is not criticism of their right to do it ~ most people can't step away and see things with that much perspective.

However the great irony here is I wasn't even criticising that experimental film - I did say most of what's in experimental films is arbitrary - which I stand by - but that's an observation not a slight - that's just an assessment of the technique involved in making them.

I asked to see this format in the context of a narrative film - because that's the context I would use it in and I'd like to see how it performs there so I can consider if I'd like to use it. To start accusing me of elitism is I think being unnecessarily touchy ~ and is hardly a way to more widely promote the use of this format.

I certainly don't think proponents of experimental film are any less humanistic than anyone else ~ I'd just like to see the format in a form where it can communicate the humanism to me.

You said

what's the point in being conventional: why waste the time, energy and money?

the answer to that is so people can understand you! I have no problem with experimental form and content and have certainly done plenty of that in writing but you don't want to end up one of those people who is afraid of being understood. There are plenty of poets and visual artists who are happy to hide behind an obtuse form and try and garner accolades for their "genius" ~ if only the rest of society would understand

So in summary I'm not saying any of it's wrong - just not what I'm into and I'd like to see the format in terms of what I'm into so I can decide whether or not I'd like to use it ~ hardly elitist - and the rest is just thoughts on art format and technique.

Scot

[carllooper]

... So in summary I'm not saying any of it's wrong - just not what I'm into and I'd like to see the format in terms of what I'm into so I can decide whether or not I'd like to use it ~ hardly elitist - and the rest is just thoughts on art format and technique.

thanks Scot.

we're always being critical in one way or another. Whether explicitly so, or under the guise of "impartial observation". But either way this is a good thing anyway! There should be more criticism - not less! It's just a question of to what extent one wants to elaborate one's criticism. How to pose it.

the answer to that is so people can understand you! I have no problem with experimental form and content and have certainly done plenty of that in writing but you don't want to end up one of those people who is afraid of being understood. There are plenty of poets and visual artists who are happy to hide behind an obtuse form and try and garner accolades for their "genius" ~ if only the rest of society would understand

I've heard this argument quite a lot. Indeed it was the exact same one my raging actor friend bellowed out in my kitchen for the whole suburb to hear. But films that are difficult to understand aren't necessarily ones being made by a self proclaimed 'genius' (ie. some ego driven film). In my case it's not as if I intend to produce a film that nobody can understand and that people would therefore think I was a 'genius'. Who even thinks like this anyway? On the contrary I do my most to make my work entirely understandable.

But there is a big difference between being understandable and being conventional. These are not equivalent terms. While a conventional film will arguably always be understandable, an understandable film isn't always conventional.

The issue is whether one wants to play it safe or not. If one just wanted to be understandable then sure, one can make a conventional film. But what is the value in any "understanding" created by a conventional film? Indeed I'd argue there is no understanding created. There is just a repetition, or worse, a weak representation of understandings already created by other works.

I asked to see this format in the context of a narrative film - because that's the context I would use it in and I'd like to see how it performs there so I can consider if I'd like to use it. To start accusing me of elitism is I think being unnecessarily touchy ~ and is hardly a way to more widely promote the use of this format.

Yes, the charge of "elitism" by Nicholas is just his melodramatic way of provoking some more thoughts out of you!

"Experimental" films are not immune to the criticism I'm putting forward. One can be just as derivative in an "experimental" work as in any other work. But then I'm not sure one should call a derivative work "experimental". My understanding of the word 'experiment' is that you are trying out techniques/ideas/etc which you don't necessarily know, in advance, whether they will work in the way you are thinking. You have a strong intuition they'll work (of course), but not the hard evidence. But if you are just reproducing something you've already seen in some other film then you already can see whether it works or not. You might fail to reproduce it of course, but in a sense you've already failed before you've even exposed any film, because at best the work will just reproduce something you already know works. Interestingly a lot of films can still manage to become fresh and interesting even if they do start from the basis of reproduction and derivation. It's the nature of photography to create something unique anyway! And there is a lot that can happen in the process that adds to that. I'd just advocate not making it harder to produce a fresh and interesting work, by simply starting out with a position against convention in the first place. But certainly not against understandability.

Understandability isn't necessarily something guaranteed. But nor should it be guaranteed. Some things you might want to express, that should be no less an object of expression, can be inherently difficult to understand. It's something that you struggle to make understandable. Of course no matter what I do in my films, my dog Daisy still doesn't get it.

C