THE FUTURE OF SUPER 8

[Dcm]

I prefer looking to arguing. So here we go. Mister Maddin, take it away:

"Sombre Dolorosa"
http://www.ifcfilms.com/?CAT0=3127&CAT1 ... =red&BCLR=

"Sissy Boy Slap Party" (Saw this one for the first time today... yowza. Funny, but perhaps NSFW)
http://pv.ifcfilms.com/?CAT0=3127&CAT1= ... =red&BCLR=

"A Trip to the Orphanage"
http://www.ifcfilms.com/?CAT0=3127&CAT1 ... =red&BCLR=

[Santo]

I guess this begs the question, "What is style?"

I know a director here that creates projects with questionable results. I once asked someone very close to him about the director's haphazard method of working that resulted in such lackluster products. The reply was, "That's just his style, I guess." But I disagree. Making the same mistake over and over isn't "style", especially when better options are repeatedly presented to him that he ignores. Instead, it is simply an example of someone fighting for the right to remain ignorant.

Roger

This is actually the basis for Hal Hartley's "style" -- if the people who have been in his films and are candid about it are anything to believe. :lol: The guy started making features funded by his rich friends in college, and kept making films, never really knowing how to direct actors or anything else. In fact, he mimicks everything for them, line for line, and insists they do it that way. And everything else is done the same way, clumsy and badly done. Eventually if you keep going that way, maybe you luck out an make a movie which is pretty interesting. HENRY FOOL was pretty interesting. Ignorance can be bliss. But the rest -- wow, try and sit through NO SUCH THING for example. I wish I had a bunch of rich buddies financing my features on a lark. The "loan thing" on imdb is a crock.

As for Maddin's shorts, I can't be very critical. He's good at making shorts. They're fun. It's his features which are really trying to sit through beginning to end except for SADDEST, which was okay. Shorts are what he should be funded to do. Multi-million dollar features are beyond his grasp. And what's wrong with that? Nothing, I think.

[sarmoti]

Hey, If I'm not mistaken, I remember watching the bonus features of "Saddest Music in the World" and saw that he shot most of the film with an Arri SR3 16mm camera. The shorts is another story and may well have been shot in S8.

[Scotness]

I really admired "Dances with Wolves" but am amused at Cosner's attempts to try and repeat his success without having a clue what he did right the first time around. That is why failure is such a valuable part of the learning process. People that luck into success generally have a hard time of it later on when they are expected to perform on demand because they really don't have control over the medium.

Roger

Spot on Roger! This is the quote of the week I reckon

Scot

[mattias]

Who cares why he/she decided to use the quotes on the word trick?

as far as i can tell you're the only one who's mentioned it, so you're probably the only one who cares. i didn't even see it. why do you bring it up at all?

now, as for quoting levels in forum postings, that's of course a different thing altogether. the guy quoted me, and then started replying to some other post, which isn't a very good idea for obvious reasons. all it does is make the thread harder to follow, it wastes bandwith, and it puts my writing into a context where it wasn't intended.

/matt

[Scotness]

If I'm not going too far OT - alot of why I think Dances With Wolves was so good is the script - it argues itself out in the moment almost as if in real time - and you go on the journey with the characters every step of the way and feel it all the way - unlike other films say Imortal Beloved for instance which works through flashbacks and doesn't allow you to feel the sum weight of the story/themes. Not wanting to take away from Costner - because someone could have stuffed up the filming of it - but compared to other films I think they were already well out in front just because of the quality of the script to start with.

Scot

[MovieStuff]

Not wanting to take away from Costner - because someone could have stuffed up the filming of it

I believe, though I certainly can't prove it, that the elusive thing Cosner did right the first time was to let the people he hired around him do their job without interference. I don't mean that he didn't interact but his subsequent efforts seemed heavy handed, as if he were trying to force fit his concept of things into the production in a way that everyone would remember HE did it. Sometimes directors try too hard to prove themselves "in control" and, ironically, prove just the opposite by doing so. Lord knows I've done that, myself. I've since learned that letting go is often the best form of creativity because it invites the best of those around you. If you make them feel unwanted, then they take their good ideas and go make their own film and, suddenly, you find yourself competing with someone that has fresher product, unafraid to explore new concepts.

"No" is an easy concept to implement because it requires no proactive thinking. "Yes" is harder because it requires collaboration and the willingness to take risks. Some budgets are based on "no" while some budgets are based on "yes", and you can tell in the final results. It is the mark of a good director that makes a "yes" movie with a "no" budget, in my opinion.

Roger

[audadvnc]

For future, would all internet writers please refer to the following source for use as a standard reference ....

Later,
m

Yikes - I'd spend the rest of my life reviewing my posts. I'd never be able to post again!.

Or is this some clever plan to hog the bandwidth for yourself?

[Scotness]

I believe, though I certainly can't prove it, that the elusive thing Cosner did right the first time was to let the people he hired around him do their job without interference. I don't mean that he didn't interact but his subsequent efforts seemed heavy handed, as if he were trying to force fit his concept of things into the production in a way that everyone would remember HE did it.

With DWW could this be because he was so busy being an actor/director he relied on others so much?

As far as his other films goes - I always took Waterworld to be a product of him going through a mid-life male-menopause crisis

Scot

[ccortez]

"No" is an easy concept to implement because it requires no proactive thinking. "Yes" is harder because it requires collaboration and the willingness to take risks. Some budgets are based on "no" while some budgets are based on "yes", and you can tell in the final results. It is the mark of a good director that makes a "yes" movie with a "no" budget, in my opinion.

Well put. I just had this very (pained) discussion with my current directng partner. He's never collaborated on anything in his life. I, quite the opposite, have spent most of my life in ensemble theatre. (Scotness, i think you and I have some background in common.)

For the last several years I've mostly been directing. But theatre is not, as they say, the director's medium. My strengths are building a team of people, committing to a common and inclusive vision, and getting the hell out of everyone's way. I mostly work with actors on emotional fundamentals like given circumstances, objectives and tactics and then on physical fundamentals to externalize those concepts. So that's pretty hands on, but I'm not giving any line readings. (I'd get physically assaulted.) But I let the set and costume designers and mostly everybody else do their work and trust they'll bring back something cool.

Most of the time they bring back something I never would have thought of and it makes the piece better whether I like the idea or not.

I think people who have never directed before get it in their heads that their job is to visualize every visual and auditory nuance that will happen on the screen -- to imagine the entire movie. And they end up doing things like Santo described, Hal Hartley giving actors line readings. (I don't know HH and have no idea if he actually behaves this way.)

The magic of collaboration happens when the personality and inventiveness of each and every crew and cast member enlarge the vision of the piece. One person dictating a film to a couple dozen cast and crew does not a collaboration make.

Good thread.

[super8man]

I admit it...I have a vested interest in Gregg's Reference Manual.

As for bandwidth, who cares...with all the spam out there, the last thing I am concerned with is bandwith on a message board - that is Andreas' problem and he can manage it far more effectively than I. Sort of like California mandating ozone plans at huge costs to consumers when in the end it would simply be better to tax people directly...but I digress...my bandwidth overloadeth...

I think the ultimate answer to this post is (and the topic WAS "the future of super 8"):

Super 8 will never die...you will lose interest in it long before that day ever comes. Be it from old age, family additions, or wealth, you will simply move on to other things.


Cheers,
m

[francis]

two films were apparently shot on s8 in the 70s. i hope i have the title right:

songs of ceylon
blue water white death

both were blown up to 35mm and released.

anybody who things video is so great should have a look at the 20minute video made by the vice prez at http://www.tapehouse.com it explains why film is the superior medium. mabye they have it online.

[PITIRRE]

"BLUE WATER WHITE DEATH" was shot in 35mm, you can have more info at http://www.lafcpug.org/interview_taylors

[mattias]

As for bandwidth, who cares...

do i have to spell everything out for you? just read what i write. all information you need is in there. locking onto an arbitrary word in a post and start writing a reply based on that only makes you look stupid. and if you actually did read my post and honestly thought it was about bandwidth, then you *are* stupid. why don't you just admit that you completely misunderstood my first post and made a fool out of yourself?

oh, and it's really hard to follow your post since you don't use quoting to indicate what you're replying to in the different paragraphs. see what i mean by the difference between *use* of bandwidth and *waste* of it now?

/matt

[audadvnc]

My apologies. On review of the thread I begin to see the pitfalls available in the forum quoting option. Chalk it up to newbie ignorance of forum etiquette.

On Super-8 : I shot a roll of PlusX of the ice houses on Lake Minnetonka yesterday. People sit on the ice and fish for fun here. They're fishing for muskies - the legal limit is 40", which means every fish they keep is even bigger. Don't dangle your toes in the ice hole - if they don't freeze off they may be devoured.