| Flogging this Journal for all it's worth! |
[08 Nov 2008|01:37am] |
Occasionally dabbling in that whole 'drama' thing, I am afforded the opportunity to make sweeping statements about people without regard to feelings or, indeed, whether such assertions have any basis in reality. Here's another one of them!
I'll admit. I was not an Obama believer from the get go. I was rooting for Hillary Clinton about halfway through the Democratic primaries. Then the BS started piling up. Lawrence Lessing made a decent argument (didn't seal the deal, but hey, at least it got my head straight). Eventually "He'll never make it" faded to "I hope he makes it" and metamorphosed into "Holy crap he's going to make it!"
Through that time, I got to hear the enlightened opinions of liberal Americans with a healthy dose of cynicism-chic explaining how "My country'd never vote for a nigger." (The unnecessary use of a racial slur clearly not speaking to the beliefs of the speaker, but throwing in a little superficial shock value to graduate from the 'truth' and enter the hallowed halls of 'hard hitting truth') And other such revelations.
And of course, the polls keep going up, his opponent continues to show us his worse side in the name of toppling the man, and right up to election day with a clear lead in the polls everyone still says "It'll never happen." Of course, it did, despite all odds the man showed us you can actually overcome conventional wisdom and the cynics should have been silenced.
Of course, they never are, they just need to go into hiding, and chances are, you may be one of them.
Everyone knows that people hate and fear change. You can try to control it by voting for it, you can wear the change costume with all your little 'alternative' friends, you can even leap head first into the opposite of what your parents did, and in the end, it's all another grotesque charade in our natural resistance to change.
Consider the latest manifestation of "He'll never make it." "He's probably going to get assassinated." Argue for it from a historical perspective, sociological, psychological, tie it up in as much gobbeldygook as you want, and I'll still show you a guy who's just found another way to say "Barack Obama can't be President." In many ways this is one of the most seductive arguments against the President Elect yet for the following reasons:
-It maintains the staus quo
-It absolves one of actively campaigning against such an easily likeable guy
-It carries with it the illusion of insight (especially with the aforementioned 'reasons')
-It can tap into the desire for conspiracy (there is no change as forces beyond control events)
-It extends one's time as kingmaker and ultimately addresses that death thing ("I, predicting his death, now have mastered death." Much like the anti-stratfordian usurping literary importance by christening [candidate of choice] as Shakespeare. This example being shamelessly pillaged from David Mamet)
Honestly, I don't CARE if you argue that this comes from your insight into how evil people are. How about a little self examination before we start diagnosing the rest of the species. I know Lincoln got shot. I know it happened to Kennedy too. Hell there was a plot to kill Roosevelt. Of course, folks wanted to kill Nixon, Regan, Gerald Ford and, come to think of it, just about anyone of note be it rock star, movie star or politician.
Can we please give the man a break? He's done so much already, he's proven just about everyone wrong about what is possible and he hasn't taken office yet! Are we going to have to wait until 2080 when he dies of old age and then say "See! Told ya he wouldn't make it! Stupid Obama, not able to beat death."
We've loved to see great men fall since the earliest days of drama. But please, can we at least let him build up his resume before unleashing the furies?
|
|
| Postscript |
[13 Sep 2008|12:59am] |
If you're reading this you have correctly assumed this journal is dead at least once.
Gone.
Finito.
No more updates.
Except of course, this entry. I think this page will exist mostly as a scrapbook of an idea that's 'journal worthy' until I return to some semblance of organization. Except that every attempt at such has usually stifled whatever was going to come out, and failed if I even tried to look past the lunacy. So far as this particular bit of web real estate I suspect it'll just dangle in the wind for ages until I decide to clip out the (alarmingly few) highlights and consign the rest to oblivion. I've too much pride to keep the whole thing up forever.
I can't help but wonder if the lack of organization comes from the fact that my interests have only continued to broaden and so, consequently, the means of expressing or sorting out ideas. I could find myself journaling simply because the 'old' ways (rather the new ways that have aged) have faltered a bit. Anyone who has had the misfortune to give me their number knows that I've no qualms of firing off a random text if it means expressing a thought. If only there were a colour coding system: Orange for 'spouting off, no need to reply' and Teal for 'will brood about the apartment for weeks over the fact this message was not replied to.' As it is, such nonsense can only be tolerated for so long and even those who I enjoyed many a bout of sillyness with have kind of decayed into crass vulgarity (this is, in most cases, a two way street).
I used to write many letters (at least electronic) to sort out ideas. Again though, expressing ideas to unresponsive accounts can only last so long. There are also still many notebooks, though those have fallen by the wayside in favour of reading more.
And I think, most importantly, I've begun to just ride whatever's running through my head at the time. The curious side effect of which has been a heightening of intuition.
Intuition seems to be remarkably undervalued today. I cannot help but see two symptoms of the mindset that brings this about. First, you will notice it is alarmingly difficult to get a straight answer from people. If you happen to have a mind for weird science, there'll inevitably be a tidbit about Quantum Mechanics that you've just got to share with someone. The pattern usually goes a) Mention some basic assumptions, b) State crazy fact, c) Give example of conclusion when combining a and b (usually with humorous intent). The reason for this is simple: I like knowledge. I think it is utterly foolish for someone to be drug around life by people donating their little opinions and remaining uncritical of supposed authorities. So the system is simple. If we begin with easy to understand concepts (a), we establish a groundwork. The knowledge is dispensed in b, for which there will eventually need to be critical thought if the exercise is to be fruitful, will require the assumption that I'm telling the truth, but the important thing here is that there is only ONE thing you need to check up on. Finally, if we combine the two, we get the reward of wasting time hearing Norman talk with a hopefully amusing anecdote.
Or to put it another way. I can either go:
1. Ramblingatamileaminutenotbotheringtoseeifyouevenreallygetwhat'sgoingonsoyouneedtohopethatIknowwhatI'mtalkingaboutbecauseyou'retotallyscrewedifyoudon't so then if morecrazystuffexceptthatthisisthenewinfoonlyyou'vetotallylostitnowbecauseyoudidn'tevengettheintro resulting in a conclusion you could care less about because I was speaking a language that exists entirely in my head.
OR
2. Okay, so we all know a is a, b is b and c is c right? Yes. Good, so if crazybusinessthatisn'tsobadnow then we wind up with absolute lunacy. And you know the crazy part? It's already happened!
Now, you go home, google crazybusinessthatisn'tsobadnow and confirm that, hey, that IS weird.
So to get to my point.
The weird side effect of this method is that the 'a is a' portion is terminally long. People are simply unwilling to give any ground in a discussion. The inherent assumption is that you're going to pull the intellectual rug out from under them and they will actually be hesitant to agree the sky is blue just because they're scared you're going to make them feel dumb for saying "Are you retarded!? The sky is actually GREEN!"
Everyone wants to be the smart guy/girl in the room and so if you give no quarter in a discussion, they can't jump on you for a faulty assumption. Now, not only is this infuriating, because I already take forever to get to the damn point, it forces someone into one of two camps. Either one, they accept everything I say wholeheartedly, which is useless to me because I seek conversation, not disciples, or two, they implicitly insult me by assuming I haven't the intellectual integrity to make a point through more honest means. It also effectively paralyzes any debate and so nobody is enriched from the experience.
What does this have to do with intuition? Logic's tricky. Like many interesting concepts/words there is the common usage and the actual discipline. Everyone thinks themselves logical, but if we were to conjure up a capital L Logic we'll use this to refer to an individual's assumption of what the smart people do to make falsehoods seem true. Because clearly the smart people use every dirty trick in the book to make their point, and so by arming yourself against them you'll stand your ground. This is, of course, founded on the unreasonable assumption that anyone interested in a somewhat intelligent conversation is trying to trick you to gain the upper hand.
So while we're busy strip searching the poor magician before he's even announced what trick he's going to perform, we missed the really amazing opening act and have failed to realize he's only doing this to entertain us.
Likewise, intuition, that blessed ability to say "This is bullshit!", is completely ignored in the effort to either a) Beat the charlatans at their own game or b) In perpetuation one's own.
So I don't have to write everything down anymore. When I put a camera to my eye, I'll take a few photos and I'll just know they didn't really hit the mark. Then I'll walk by four boats, I'll quietly pull out my camera during an intense part of conversation, I'll focus on that right spot, and I'll just *know* that that's going to be the photo I keep out of the roll. Everything else was just clearing the system so I could take the one shot. In at least two of the aforementioned photos the resultant images weren't even the ones intended due to my technical limitations. Didn't matter. Frankly, didn't matter that they were completely ignored while lesser photographs were praised as great. Only when the final prints were revealed did the true gem reveal itself to the spectator.
It is easy to understand why this is. Removing, for a moment, the tendency towards Logic, the mere fact that you are pursuing paths ignored by your peers forces you to admit that you are actually responsible for most of the stuff that happens to you. You can let yourself be swayed by opinion, or you can press on with what you know to be true. Intuition only makes it scarier that not only are you responsible for yourself but you can't explain why you're right sometimes.
Yes such a method is fraught with pitfalls. It requires a mindset that will accept nothing but the truth. The more you lie to yourself, the more you will blame your failures on intuition. I try to run from the mystical as much as I can, but every photo that I'm supremely proud of has had a decisive moment where, just short of a voice screaming "NOW!" that I simply cannot explain. Unconscious forces telling me its an ideal composition. Sure, label it whatever you want. Presently I'm not interested in the what so much as how I can cultivate it.
The more you continue down this path, the more it will open you to a finer appreciation of some of your favorite things. I've a light background in the piano. Characteristic with my younger years, I was a very undisciplined student. So far as music is concerned, I have a particular attachment to the music of Trent Reznor. My rational side has confirmed this by having particular tracks I enjoyed later be revealed to have his involvement (Lost Highway tracks, Passive on A Perfect Circle's eMotive album, We Want It All by Zack de la Rocha, etc.). Doesn't matter that it was confirmed, what matters is that I liked what I heard, which is clearly intuition at work.
The next step to this is to apply the critical mind. I would like to take up music again. And it's interesting that when I have a select song I enjoy, with a little concentration I no longer need to pull out a pad and pencil and abstractly map out 'what's going on' but the song is internally dissected in my head and I can begin to appreciate the individual parts, almost like they were all lined up on a mixer for me. It's a very rewarding experience. I've yet to stick a note on paper, but I cannot begin to tell you how much more it's let me appreciate the music I enjoy (and this is from Coldplay to Classical... For the record, I think Speed of Sound is about as close as you can get to a perfect song).
Most importantly this applies to writing. Many writers are instructed not to listen to the critical voice and to just keep plugging at it... well KIND OF... All in all, not bad advice, but often falls into anything goes. I think an even greater skill is the ability to step outside the situation for a minute and ask "Why do almost all the mediocre short stories read the exact same way?" Critical faculties reveal "Almost all of them have a listless protagonist with a full unchecked e-mail box" or "Pages are dedicated to the most mundane of physical actions." But really, you begin the inquiry because it just feels different. I must confess I don't do that much writing anymore, and part of that is because I got so tired of grasping for every piddling idea that presented itself that did not have some inherently interesting theme. Hell, it doesn't even need to be a theme. I found Snow Crash fascinating in how Stephenson took the concept of virus, threw it through the prisim of his narrative and we got to see every facet of it from biological to technological. A virus, in and of itself, has nothing to do with Hiro's ability to deliver a pizza or why he's the world's greatest swordsman, but it anchors the story into interesting and relevant ideas.
It's kind of why I don't really care for the debate as to wether or not all readings are intended by the author. Does it matter? Am I any less enriched if the Platonic elements of Gladiator happen to be coincidence? If the hint of Nietzsche in The Dark Knight was just my obsession with the mad kraut? Turn off the targeting computer already you stupid farmboy!
I think almost every would-be writer would immensely improve by being forced. Not wishing. Not sitting down to 'really get serious this time.' Outright, kicking and screaming, magician falls from the sky and taints every last one of our psychologies scale forced to have one subject to think about. We'll be nice and say its the most fruitful (so, computers for one, burial practices for another). The subsequent writing can only stem from that single source and its total exploration. Overnight you'd see an increase in quality. The ones with a sense of taste would be able to identify central themes and make some truly worthy literature.
Of which this entry is not included. I've written myself to sufficent tiredness now and so I chop the entry off unfinished.
|
|
| Daft Punk's Electroma, or: why they serve alcohol in art cinemas |
[13 Jan 2008|01:11am] |
We shall begin with history.
I had the good fortune of working on the third season of Battlestar Galactica. Fans may recognize a surreal sequence of running around an opera house (unless, of course, our efforts were for naught. I haven't seen a full season yet). My greatest amusement was to find not one, but several bars scattered about the building. Now naturally the joke of the only way to get through some Wagner sprung to mind (and no disrespect. Shit DIES in those songs!) But I figured, surely it can't be there to tolerate the offerings. If one does not want Wagner, one simply waits for 'Schubert's sentimental viennese shit' and then goes. (I know, my naiveté is charming.) No, I imagined multiple bars for the WASPy husbands and housewives drug out to justify the cost of the tickets so that they could tolerate their company. And indeed, who is to say these are mutually exclusive ideas?
But on to the present.
Did I spend my Saturday at the Taboo sex show? I did not. Did I frequent my favorite Starbucks? I did not. Was I curled up with a good book? I was not. Was I getting my freak on at one of the many clubs available? The freak was off. Was I ten (and a half) inches deep then? I was not.
I was at the movies. Did I pick the movie directed by the man responsible for multiple cinema classics and has yet to direct a work I have not enjoyed upon viewing? I did not. Did I select an experimental film directed by a duo of electronic musicians at the Vancity theatre, thus requiring me to renew my membership from the LAST time I got burned there (my companion didn't talk to me for a month after. Literally)? Oh HELLS yeah! As you can see, my saturday nights go off!
The decision for Daft Punk's Electroma over Charlie Wilson's War was the box office attendant's mention that they had obtained a liquor license for that evening as the extra point to 'seal the deal' when I was hesitant about my expired membership. It worked, as I handed over my VISA without hesitation.
Now, again, it's fun to joke that you require booze to watch the movies at the Vancity theatre (with the exception of Cinematographer Style, which I saw as part of a workshop, and The King of Kong, which I didn't actually get to watch, but I will exclude from the list unless, upon inserting the DVD, it turns into a saw and eviscerates my macbook), but you always do so secure in the knowledge that the band would never release something braindead (unless you count Robot Rock... Or... Well, I mean, hell, pick your track really. I'm amazed I have such fanatic devotion to such a hit or miss tracklist. We can all at least rest easy with Da Funk... right? You know, their first single?), and that the rumors of critics running out of the screening at Cannes are clearly overstated due to the two nice writeups on the film posted on the bulletin board. As it is, I'm glad I ordered the red.
So far as I can tell, Daft Punk is pretty pissed off that I've downloaded all their music. Their revenge is Daft Punk's Electroma: Shots of People Walking.
I should maybe address the movie first by the points made on the writeups:
1) Beautiful Cinematography - Legend goes that they bought 200 copies of American Cinematographer before embarking on their endeavor. Now, I tread carefully, because this is about the only serious thing I have to say about the movie. I was actually doing the whole 'approving nod' head thing with some of the camera movement. It was sexy. But that accounts for 15-20 minutes of the 70 minute movie. Lighting? It's not bad. Indeed, some of it is unquestionably 'beautiful cinematography.' But I CANNOT help but find more than a few scenes of 'oooh... just a little bounce there...' 'Hey, you know, natural lighting doesn't mean you can't use any instruments.' I mean, I'm not going to go too far with this but after film school I wouldn't think it too optimistic of me to have produced similar quality (with the above exceptions excepted). This isn't really a statement on my abilities as a cameraman. It's a statement on how I think the movie reflects a cinematographer who had no previous experience save for 200 issues of American Cinematographer. 'Beautiful Cinematography' is our escape clause for when we're trying to justify the cost of a ticket to an obviously disappointing moviegoing experience. Did I think Zodiac looked good? Does American Gangster have beautiful cinematography? Yes and yes. Have I ever once mentioned them in conversations with friends not 'in the biz'? NO! As I actually bothered to read Nietzsche, the quote is not immediately available to me, but it brings to mind something along the lines of the measure of a man being the number of lies he has to tell himself. Yes, I feel for you, poor man who has been deprived of his hard earned money from the snake oil of marketing. I too have been caught many times by the same trick. But we must not sell our friends to this horrible beast. I have seen Daft Punk's Electroma, "and I only am escaped alone to tell thee."
2) Daft Punk's Electroma: They Hate You and Everything You Love, must be viewed in the cinema - This depends on your reaction Indeed, my survival was the recreation of Joel and the bots (appropriate to say the least) in my minds ear thanks to my choice to fully partake in the festival of Dionysus (the orgy's after I finish this post). I can only assume the suggestion to watch it in the cinema is because it is generally considered bad form to voice one's opinions out loud, or, indeed, run screaming, in a darkened theatre. If you watch it at home, you will probably turn it off. The robots want to become human. Their masks melt. They kill themselves. This takes 73 minutes. I'm trying to find out if they needed an editor, or a writer.
3) Daft Punk's Electroma: Revenge of the Nerds is simple - YES! That is NOT a good thing!
So what does one do when there's a small applause after the movie? You laugh. You laugh just like you laugh about 20 minutes in when you see the latex masks and you figure "oh, hah it IS a joke!" No, it's not... Well, I still think that part is. The rest is obviously a joke too subtle and obscure for all but the hipsters in their sister's size negative one jeans. And yes, I argued with them. When wouldn't I? I ask for one simple thing. A qualifiable reason to assume that this film is not coasting on the reputation of two highly talented musicians. The answer? Dude, you guessed it the second I said I saw the Daft Punk movie: "You don't understand it!"
I assure you, I do get it. I just liked the whole robots who want to be human story when it was called Blade Runner, and was, you know, good. I own the five disc collectors set! I could have watched a better movie for free, drunk AND pantsless! You can see why I'm so upset.
Faced with the impenetrable cogency of my arguement, we parted ways.
There really isn't much more to say. I got burned. I thought my art house credentials were in line what with the Bergman and the Fellini and the fact I watched, and really enjoyed I'm Not There despite the fact I've heard all of two Bob Dylan songs and know nothing of his life (I'm still trying to figure out if any of that is a prerequisite of the film). I mean, I'm Not There does avant garde exceptionally well. You don't feel alienated by it. It's not performance art. It's cinema. Good cinema. SHIT HAPPENS IN THAT MOVIE!
Shit does not happen in Electroma. You are paying to be part of a scene. You may pay to be part of that scene by purchasing Alive 2007, and actually get a work of quality.
So in the name of journalistic credibility I must develop a clever but unique scale of measurement. Thus, I present Electroma with 3 atoms, one for every moment in which something happens. Why atoms? Because it takes 10^57 of them to make up a star. While it took a mere ten monkeys on ten typewriters to come up with that lameass joke.
On with the orgy.
---
[Edit] - And another thing. Why serve booze at an art cinema? Honestly, the thought of a glass of wine or eight to enjoy the pretentious drek that gets peddled around there pales in comparison to the thought of smashing an empty can of Labatt's against my forehead while watching Troy. Theatre owners take note.
|
|
|
[04 Jan 2008|11:32pm] |
What can I say? It's been many moons since last I wrote to you all. I blame it in part to my LJ widget dying on me for one reason or another. But how could I neglect my new and improved VIEWERLESS LJ in this two thousand eighth year of our Lord.
First off, I can proudly state I have stuck with my writing commitments. I fight long and hard. I can starve myself, sleep deprive myself and otherwise 'get medieval' on me, and nary a word be committed to page. But for whatever reason, sheer force of will holds me. I think I was especially amused by today where I literally said 'go NOWHERE' until the outline is done.
I'd write, like, a paragraph at most and wander around. And I'd go to the bathroom 12 times every hour. Then e-mail looked good. And if e-mail's okay, why not download a Genesis emulator? A Genesis emulator with Gunstar Heroes in fact.
And to give you a degree of how utterly painful this project is to work on, I not only started playing Gunstar Heroes, but beat the game! A task I did not accomplish back in middle school when I was actually into videogames.
For celebration I intended to crack open The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick (specifically set aside for my day's work). The catch was that I woke up feeling very ill this morning and took much longer than necessary to complete the day's tasks, a fact revealed to me by the fact my head felt like it was filled with honey this evening. So I opted for celebratory tea and a little poetry instead.
But why bore you with the details of the day? This is the new year for new things, and so I offer to you fruits from the outside world.
---
Players of the game, or would-be players of said game would do well to avoid the club. It is a trap! They would do well to visit the McDonald's next to the club first, for there they would see things no man would brave willingly. All the marks and imperfections are laid bare. If you're particularly unfortunate you'll see the table manners of that creature you would have been asking if she could name a pair of dogs after an 80s pop duo in the dark. The McDonald's beside the club confirms that the object of your affections is, in fact, cro-magnon, before they become the object of your affections.
Let he who hath understanding and all that...
---
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=lMnN17tQ_-0
|
|
| Yes, still here |
[21 Nov 2007|01:03am] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Modwheelmood - Things Will Change |
] |
I Find Your Lack of Faith Disturbing is a really freaking awesome blog.
Does anyone really wonder why the writers are able to rally popular support? Well, you know, getting screwed is usually enough. As a whole though just look at the equation (this is, of course, supported only by conventional wisdom because I have seen first hand the quality of some WGA material. Suffice to say, much like my own department, there are the elite, the sandwich eaters and a million shades of grey in between... most usually bearing the unmistakable scent of Hellmann's):
1) Writers are being screwed because the brass does not appreciate the power of the written word.
2) Writers are fed up being screwed and see the opportunity to get something back.
3) Brass don't back down due to logic that brings us to #1
4) Writers walk
5) Brass wonders why they are being crushed
My question to you is with such a wonderful show of solidarity may we see our proletariat utopia in which the writer and actor are paid most handsomely for their efforts so we below the line figures may cry with dismay "what do you MEAN it doesn't work when we do it!?" when it comes time for our contracts? May we see larger parts of the hyperbudgeted pie go towards us groundlings?
May I suggest we look to the record industry for the answer. Interscope is leaking talent who are quite openly declaring no interest in signing with any label. We may then look specifically to iTunes which has launched the first feature to get exclusive distribution on that platform. Will we be going to the studio for our budget? Or in the age of the RED will we be going to our bank?
I will answer by forgoing the lengthy post I had in mind and spending some quality time with my Moleskeine.
---
Modwheelmood is a most excellent band. Their release Enemies & Immigrants EP is available for a mere six dollars on the iTunes store. Naturally I expect you to pay five for The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust first. But for those who followed the advice the first time, check out Modwheelmood.
For what its worth, I suspect its wonderful music for doing terrible things to your significant other to. As opposed to my normal recommendation of 'God Given' and 'Meet Your Master' from Year Zero. Variety is the spice of life.
|
|
| Another Reason to Hate Reality TV |
[25 Oct 2007|12:07am] |
WGA West Status--(Los Angeles)
The Writers Guild of America West has voted overwhelmingly, 90% to endorse strike action should its leadership and negotiators deem job action necessary.
Variety reports that voter turnout was high with nearly 50% of the membership, more than 5,500 members casting a vote.
Both employers and the WGA reps had predictable responses to the exercise in democracy. WGA Leadership called it “historic” and “impressive” and gratifying while the Studio’s chief negotiator, Nicholas J Counter III took a more blasé, ho-hum approach characterizing it as predictable. “ We are not surprised with the outcome of this vote, given reports of how this election was conducted. Our focus is on negotiating a reasonable agreement with the WGA," responded Counter.
---
Biz to English dictionary: FUUUUUUUUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK
|
|
|
[18 Oct 2007|01:01am] |
A few items of note:
1) I seem to be completely centered by work. Everything else really is supported by it or background to. Consider that even in writing, I've only seen fruits through the more methodological approach that came from my trainee days.
2) It occurred to me subtly, but there was a trait among a group of people I used to associate that has given me thought for the past little while. There is, sadly, unfinished business in both cases (where I always prefer a clean break). The trouble, and trait, come in the fact that there's this infuriating arrogance in that they will always wait to be called on. The dilemma, of course, is how to resolve unfinished business while not satisfying the very trait that has led to the break? The answers are rather simple:
-Don't give a flying fuck what they think. If they want the 'last word' of 'they called me' they're welcome to it. The drawback here is that the dilemma is actually more about my desire not to see them again being greater than my wish to tie up loose ends.
-Rest in the knowledge that, like everyone else I've broken ties with lately, their lives will remain stagnant while mine blooms. But the point here is not to _hurt_ them. I'd take a far more active role if that were the case. This actually comes out of a profound sense of disappointment, and a desire not to associate myself with such things anymore.
-Recognize that even this train of thought means they continue to affect me and develop new rules of engagement that account for this and permit me my closure.
3) I have my big list of movies I need to watch before writing again. I really wish I could be more disciplined in this regard.
4) I've fallen asleep twice already and these points are less coherent. I'll try to close off with a proper wrap up:
I think the past few months have been a glimpse into how my life will continue to shape itself. I think the biggest turn will be my acceptance of my state as opposed to striving for attachments that I only hope I can maintain now because I've not experienced them. It could be a good life, just a DIFFERENT one.
|
|
| A is for... |
[15 Aug 2007|11:04pm] |
| [ |
music |
| |
10 Miles High - Nine Inch Nails |
] |
Once upon a time I was associated, as DoP to a short film. Like most short films, nothing became of it, though its progenitor still considers it to be 'in progress.' I, however, am not a feature of this project anymore, though not due to any falling out.
This particular project has been guided by a poor producer brought on after the fact who continued to string along the unwitting filmmaker, continuing to mire the production into 'greater ambition' (read: more expense) and delivering no real progress towards securing funding for the project as it came to him, let alone the new directions.
"That's wonderful, get to the point."
My own departure was never officially requested. This producer deemed his own choice of director of photography to be superior and the filmmaker simply started referring to this other individual as the DoP rather than I. Truth be told, I was quite happy to be free of fantasy land, but naturally a little resentful at not being informed.
So, for those who don't know, I have my first A camera gig (three weeks after the upgrade I suspect this more a reflection of their desperation than my ability :) ). It is a source of extreme amusement that it turns out I will be working with my replacement before the Citizen Kane of Homemade Abortion Films will.
|
|
|
[14 Aug 2007|01:54am] |
I'm going to dig up an old word and throw away its meaning:
Showmanship.
I think this is lost in at least most of the theory of film production if not its practice. To be definitive I need to bend it to my will.
It seems there's a perception that there are movies of 'social significance' and there are those for the purpose of entertainment. Once in a while there are shows that cross over, but they kind of become subgenres. Either 'entertainment films that stumbled on to a social message' or 'social films which happened to be entertaining as well.' (I also realize I'm basically summing up the plot of Sullvian's Travels here).
I think this is silly. First, nobody kid yourself. The big silver is expressly designed for surprising and delighting the merry mass. If your movie isn't designed to that end, keep it off the fucking screen. But mercifully, these categories are not mutually exclusive. The writers are just lazy.
It is here I return to showmanship. A 'socially conscious' film should provoke a "hey wait a minute..." response upon reflection, as opposed to "yes, Nazis ARE evil!" The showman knows he's working with dynamite, and will be sure to give you what you paid for, while uncarting a few of his more intellectual wares.
Enter: James Cameron.
I have not seen a James Cameron film I did not thoroughly enjoy (I've not seen Pirhanna II). I also think his first film holds its 'message' out on its sleeve the most. I mean, between "There is no fate but what we make for ourselves" and the entire epilogue at the end, the cards are more or less on the table. As it is, none of it comes off as cheese (an even greater accomplishment due to the fact everyone is suffering from the 80s fashion), and the show happens to be an absolute masterpiece. Just, I don't think anyone can walk away from the show and not be profoundly concerned with our capacity to destroy ourselves (same deal for T2. Edward Furlong says it out loud if you aren't paying attention).
What about the other shows? Aliens for instance. Sci-Fi war movie. Hudson's got the best lines, the "get away from her you bitch!" fight is fantastic, there's fire and guns and spaceships and blood and creepy things and swear words. Who doesn't love aliens!? "What are we supposed to use, harsh language?" Seriously, walk away and don't come back if you don't like Aliens.
Ahh, but what of the filmmaker's important mission to instruct us in the ways of the world and point us towards the light? I would suggest this element is also in Aliens, and so remarkably well suited it is completely missed.
Remember that in the first Alien film the company was completely anonymous. Remember too, that Aliens is a film from the 80s. Concerns over the corporation take the form of Burke and 'The Company.' And this element became a source of antagonism for the following two Alien films. Simply put, the 'socially conscious' element of the film is completely transparent because it is true to the material and became part of the canon.
That's how it should be.
James Cameron knows what movies are about. The proof of that statement is but a Roger's Membership away. Best of all though is that he's intelligent and socially conscious, so we happen to be blessed with both a master technician and storyteller. I think the split between 'social' and 'entertainment' exists simply because specialization has gone to such an absurd end that the writers are pompous, the directors are tone deaf, and writer/directors need to choose what camp to be in.
Consider the final example because it also happens to serve as a decent example for getting inspiration. James Cameron has stated that he got the idea for Strange Days after hearing the Rodney King verdict. It makes the concept of writing a screenplay along those lines simplicity itself. Consider the questions posed regarding privacy and authority raised by the Rodney King verdict. How do we address them? For a science fiction film, you can create the technology that provides a much more black and white example, and spin your tale, thus providing your audience with the distance required to tackle contemporary issues.
In fact, it is that very train of thought that led me to this possibility regarding the origins of stories:
Cinema hates cliche. I think basically because it's possible to write an eloquent cliche, and the public isn't all that well read to begin with, a novelist will have an easier time with it. The camera is merciless. It may look pretty, but we'll still have seen that scene a hundred times over (this is why Tarantino knock offs don't work).
So consider the first ('cliche') impression of how to make 'the social drama:'
I'm worried about the electric chair. I'll make a story about a guy who gets condemned to the electric chair, and someone falls in love with him, and there's a question of his innocence, but he dies anyway and everyone finds out they killed the wrong guy. And then they'll know that the electric chair is bad. (But does the gas chamber cause global warming? Electric chamber? Now we're on to something!)
I hate to say it, but I also think that's why some of the 'bold new voices' of the indies were popular for a while and then vanished without a trace. The story above can be guessed scene for scene within the opening minutes because almost everyone up here thinks the death penalty sucks. Now, if we saw a pro-death penalty version, it'd be unique. Not necessarily better written, but we'd certainly be caught off guard. It's not to suggest there isn't talent to be found among 'minority' filmmakers. I actually think there's as much talent to be found among the 'minority' (whatever the hell that MEANS anyway. These distinctions run from race to ideology) as there is among 'majority' filmmakers. That is to say: very little.
But, consider that if it were an issue that required a distance, one could create a scenario similar to the one we imagined for Strange Days, and make a rather compelling film which, at its heart, shakes one's assumptions about the death penalty. You probably won't get an oscar nomination, because critics and awards shows prefer to have their job done for them, that is, reheated cliche. Remember what won best picture two years ago? Exactly.
How then to make a modern drama? I actually think it is in this realm you use your imagination. It's bizarre, and I'm probably not articulating it well, but I really think the onus is on the creator of the 'fantasy' (being science fiction or period or whatever scenario) film to keep it relevant. That is, you can pull something from the headlines, and then coat it with a layer of fantasy. It's the modern day that requires a degree of ingenuity and fabrication. For instance: Dead Ringers. Or my favorite comparison: The honest muck of Narc as opposed the tidy, sanitized Training Day.
I think contemporary settings are really where it is ripe for movies of 'ideas' so long as they remain entertaining. Like, "this interests or concerns me... how might I realize it?" Then you run with your good sense of drama, as opposed to some lip service to 'little t' truth, and show us a new world. I think the same approach to 'fantasy' (again, blanket term for other settings) runs the risk (though obviously these are more guidelines than universal truths) of being like every fantasy geek's invented world that has every last detail of every last commoner's dinner plans in their magical land, and carries no pertinent information. And if you ever try to realize it, it inevitably contains an hour of exposition dedicated to making SOME sense of "where the hell are we?" and "why is everyone acting so weird?" Remember kids, Blade Runner had ONE opening crawl.
---
Okay, now the funny thing is I actually started this entry just intending to write the following piece. I was sorting out some ideas in Starbucks and basically defeated myself before I even finished writing the idea. I like this. Some may sit and seek to defend their precious theories of 'everything is horror' or 'action films cannot represent real life' from all comers. But I think a flash of insight, or a new perspective's become a bit of a drug for me. It's probably why I've so vigorously rededicated myself to reading. So it seems that the defeat of any of my previous assumptions about film are a cause for celebration. I mean, after all, its mysteries are continuing to be unraveled before me, as opposed to growing stagnant.
I guess that's the one bonus of relative ignorance. Common sense is always around the corner to keep things exciting :)
The entry read:
Evidence of the most singular path to defeat "There are simply genres that do not suit science fiction. Take romance..." Even excluding The Fountain (which can be argued. Jurassic Park has biological elements, but is not a work of science fiction for example), the potential for such a combination is enormous. A love story in which the protagonist may recreate a loved one through electronic or biological means? The only reason love story wouldn't fit sci-fi, is the same reason it wouldn't fit any other genre: its cliched. No, you cannot make a sci-fi boy meets girl movie. You have to make it: father of the savior of humanity meets mother of the savior of humanity and defends her from a technological nightmare in the form of 'the other Austrian politican™.'
|
|
| A thing or two about contrast |
[11 Aug 2007|02:11am] |
I'm always hesitant to write this sort of thing because I suspect it comes off daft, at best, and worst pretentious. Suffice to say this is not my grand contribution to aesthetics, nor is it especially practical photographic advice. Like just about every time I have to write this preface (or forget to) I'm trying to sort out this whole thing in my head.
I am especially fond of flares. Glaring ones at least. A little nick of light that softens up your contrast is no good, and a missed 'spot' on the lens from an unseen source is still pretty unsightly. But a full on 'why are you shooting that lamp' photoshop flare is pretty sexy.
Much like the shadows in Brando's eyes, shooting in silhouette, using video and every other 'don't' that has been toppled over by our enlightened age (best to ignore the writing).
One special reason I like flares are because of what they do outside the normal function of a light. In it many of the imperfections of the technology are revealed, thus, flares will be different depending on the format. For instance, a flare on a CCD can (though not always, for instance, I could not find this on a still camera that uses a CCD) result in a thin coloured line coming from the flare. I understand CMOS chips do not display this (sadly, I do not have access to this equipment. My suspicions lead me to believe the line is limited to motion pictures, but am uncertain as to the difference between still and motion video for flares. Likewise, my understanding of CMOS is that the flare is not there because it does not use a 'bucket brigade' like a CCD. The real lesson here though is that it always comes down to testing). 'regular' Spherical lenses will display a rather 'traditional' flare while anamorphic will give a rather appealing horizontal line. Likewise, with the aforementioned still camera, I noticed a tremendous difference between the flares at F4 and F22 (the latter looking like there was a star filter on).
Everybody knows photography's heart is light, and so I think part of the appeal to this flare business is that it is analogous to looking at God (there's really no 'genteel' way to put it. The Creator sounds high-falootin' and The Good is too Platonic. The other Captial G will suffice). Perhaps it is my present reading of St. Augustine, but most accounts of the divine usually seem to center around an indescribable unity (naturally, associated with light) and the witness' imperfection in relation to it. To me, this makes good sense.
Consider our encounter with God both in more literal and interpretive accounts. Literally, God is quite inconceivable. It'd suggest the mighty tomes, their many interpretations and the odd scuffle that result make that fact pretty clear. In this sense it would be the same as pure light, indecipherable. Is it my apartment wall? The Sun? A pasture that's just grossly overexposed? You'd never know. Thus, most present authors speak of God in relation to themselves (you know, because Augustine sure is contemporary and all), and most of them find themselves wanting (the ones who don't reveal themselves to be by virtue of the claim). Likewise, through gazing upon the source through a lens, we no longer have this illusion of objectivity and instead return to both the imperfections of the technology and the inherent beauty of light. Consequently both are made appealing through their contrast.
This is nothing new. It's been restated a thousand times in many forms from The Stoics to Eisenstein. I'm sure those of you who saw Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, would agree it's a bit exhausting to watch. My complaint was that it's one truly fantastic action sequence after another, each one getting bigger and more elaborate, but it doesn't let up. Compare this to Collateral which largely takes place in a cab. A thrilling show on its own, but when they get outside it's quite heart-stopping.
Contrast is a key component on its own. Be it screencraft or photography. It is contrast which will determine if my scene is night or day (barring, you know, the sun being in the shot or something) and it is contrast that will allow me to form an opinion of the character's actions. But I think it is because it strikes right at the heart of the whole enterprise that I set the flare aside from these all. We can know everything about the viewer through the imperfections the light reveals.
|
|
|
[09 Aug 2007|01:33am] |
Here's a fun experiment for you folks to try. It dawned on me I've never really left resembling 'last requests' should I cease to be. It's a puzzle that actually keeps unfolding itself right down to 'where is the proper place to leave such a thing.' As this presently falls under recreation (though, until I get something better, consider this it!) LJ seems appropriate. Now lord knows what this says about the writer:
1) I'm sorry for the mess.
2) The desktop computer is, without exception or perusal to be completely erased. Likewise for my Digital8 tapes. Anything to be kept resides on my DVDs, laptop, and/or iPod.
3) The contents of the iPod and laptop are free game. Sadly, there is not much literary value, but run with what you like.
4) My remains would ideally be cremated and reincorporated into nature in the cheapest and most expedient way (sadly I've not done much research into this. What becomes of ash? I'd love to be in the sea, but I don't think there are many ash eating sea creatures. Or land creatures for that matter).
5) A memorial will prove difficult as my ties seem spread across the globe.Whatever the case, I would hope 'Right Where it Belongs' by Nine Inch Nails (With Teeth) is played. Other candidates are 'And All That Could Have Been' and 'Leaving Hope' from the album 'Still' (I TOLD you the important stuff would be on the iPod).
6) I'd hope any remembrances would stay away from 'he said' in preference of 'he did.' That, or I just be forgotten. I'd prefer to be remembered for actions (the few of them), and I'm sufficiently paranoid that I'd hate notes to be compared. Oddly enough, the thought of an oral history of deeds is quite appealing. But memories are, of course, not my business. I should have kept better track of my legacy :)
7) Somebody please say something witty (even inappropriate!) on the news of my demise. It'd suck not to see at least one smirk.
|
|
| Sour Times |
[09 Aug 2007|12:25am] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Closer (Further Away) (Closer To God) by Nine Inch Nails
|
] |
Things are dying in Vancouver.
I haven't written something of substance in as far as recent memory reaches.
My present hopes are in Shakespeare oddly enough, and this making a decision to either be consumed by work or operating despite it. It's just frustrating that unless I can break out of the writing slump, the decision is not mine.
On the plus side, Boards of Canada's a really good group.
|
|
|
[07 Aug 2007|11:54pm] |
Romance c/o Google Translation:
Mon chéri, si j'avais dix esprits et dix langues, comment a osé je commencent à décrire votre beauté ?
Vos cheveux sont comme une chute d'eau montante en cascade. Comment est-ce que je peux m'approcher sans noyade ? Comment est-ce que je pourrais tourner loin de votre majesté ?
Dans vos yeux il y a toute la richesse de l'est. Choses immédiatement étranges et merveilleuses. Solomon non égal dans toute sa richesse a pu les acheter toutes.
Vos joues sont comme deux pomegranates. Quoique je n'aie pas vraiment aimé le mélange de jus de pomegranates, je pense que le vrai fruit est vraiment bon.
Vos lèvres sont comme deux pétales fleur. Et quand elles s'ouvrent même le rossignol doit passer dans le silence pour entendre la beauté de votre voix.
Votre cou est comme une tour. Troy non égal dans elle force a pu apparier une citadelle comme vous.
Tout ceux-ci et plus que je parlerais de, mais mon ordinateur n'est pas assez rapide pour calculer votre beauté. Venez, laissez-nous vont à un endroit foncé et sentent la chaleur de nos corps obtenir plus chaude et plus chaude.
---
It's so on.
|
|
| On Witnessing the 10 year Revision of the AFI Top 100 |
[07 Aug 2007|12:19am] |
The AFI has published their revision of 100 years, 100 movies. A few notes:
-As long as Citizen Kane remains the unquestioned darling boy of the critics it will be the victim of the unfortunate dualism of Citizen Kane: the concept, and Citizen Kane: the film. For the Kane haters, do what I did to get converted and see its influence on Olivier's Hamlet. For the lovers, may I suggest you put down your textbooks and pick up Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, and The Bad and the Beautiful.
-The inclusion of The Godfather, Raging Bull and Schindler's List in the Top 10. I do think The Godfather is a masterpiece, a true tragedy, thus I have no issue with its placement in the Top 10. But so high, and the simple inclusion of Raging Bull and Schindler's List (again, while respecting their merits) into the pantheon gives one pause and forces a quiet "They don't make 'em like they used to..."
-Anecdotal note: To those who object, I direct you to Gone With the Wind and encourage you to show me equivalent heights and depths in either of those selections (again, two works I enjoy, but if the name of the game is to rank them, then rank them I must)
-The inclusion of so many contemporary films, and the specific titles chosen at that, are a disgrace.
---
I don't ask that they bottle ambition, or that they give motivation in a pill. But it would be really nice to know why somedays it just 'clicks' and other times it's a chore to write and the results confirm your suspicions it was an off day.
What is equally maddening is that as many times as I've proven to myself 'just writing' solves this dilemma, I've also proven to myself that when I 'know' it's not gonna work, it hasn't.
Nevertheless, I return to the forge.
|
|
|
[06 Aug 2007|10:22pm] |
|
The drawback to ignoring someone for too long is that eventually they prefer your silence.
|
|
| Doing my part for Pride in the City |
[05 Aug 2007|11:38pm] |
Norman: "Man there sure are a lot of gay people out tonight"
Source who requested to be nameless (you all should know anyway): "You're unbelievable..."
I celebrated the apparent 'must see event' of the year by reading about the truly mad directions computers were going ten years ago (lord knows where they are now!). I have a vision in which God finally reasserts his control over the universe litigiously by slapping us with copyright infringement. We have only ourselves to blame.
So, to atone for my earlier sarcasm and refusal to wear colour today, I present you all with a truly magical discovery from YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6bGW4ShpNU
Enjoy
|
|
|
[31 Jul 2007|04:37pm] |
Michael Antonioni AND Igmar Bergman dead!?
Oi vey.
|
|
| Celebration of Light: Canada |
[29 Jul 2007|02:03am] |
Canada's entry in the Celebration of Light was nothing short of the greatest fireworks display I have ever seen in my life. And translink tried to destroy it twice.
I arrived to the show ten minutes late due to the disaster that was skytrain service for the event. However, I happened upon one of the most unexpectedly beautiful ways of watching the display. If you direct your attention to the reflections of the windows, not only do you get the full body of the explosion ricocheting off the wall of concrete, but you get to see a fractal display of the show in the reflections of all those varied windows. The only thing missing was the music, which was an almost criminal delight once I got in earshot.
A display so incendiary it occasioned this little bit of anonymous piss and vinegar:
YES there's a fucking difference. If you two'd step outside the tiny box of your reality for just one second you'd stop coming off as cynical assholes and get the added bonus of finding out why people care about this shit.
---
Following the display of course I got to see the true logistical nightmare that is post-fireworks. You know how clever people usually make plans after an event to let the rush die down for things? Turns out the lineups for the skytrain last literally hours, and so it actually pays to wait in that insufferably long line. When I came back an hour later it was two blocks LONGER (and I almost got mugged).
In the end it occasioned another piece of transit wisdom. After catching a bus to 29th station (which I actually got off at Renfrew), I defied the instructions of an attendant telling me there were no trains to New West and managed to snag the last one to the fortress.
Remember kids, people survived the destruction of the world trade center by ignoring the instructions not to go in the elevators.
|
|
|
[22 Jul 2007|10:30pm] |
I might have found another way to keep this thing up to date. I think I mentioned before that I found I was running into the problem of so many different outlets. Once upon a time it was LJ and it suited me just fine. Of course, now we have Facebook and MySpace and, a major difference from now and LJ's 'heyday', I'm actually focusing my urge to press keys into stories rather than entries.
What I have noticed though is that many of my writings of a more technical nature have basically come through in letters to friends which always struck me as odd. I don't especially want to turn LJ into a technical manual, but I'm not gonna lie, I almost love writing ABOUT the technology more than the actual study of it. It is this fact that leads me to update today, thus 'finding another way to keep this thing up to date.'
I cracked a video problem that'd been plaguing me for several months. It'd actually gone to a point I'd put a bounty on its discovery, though it appears only to have served as a reminder of how actively disinterested many of my associates and former associates in the field they professed a desire to work in. An unfortunate state of affairs, but one I've largely dealt with since film school. The only difference now is that I've not really made an effort to keep in touch with them.
I think the thing that really got me, was that on this show there is a guy who did, quite literally, the things I suggested to several people to get inside the machine and see how it works. I've tried to talk to him whenever they're downtime or a break, and it's such a breath of fresh air to talk to someone who is actually interested in the field and making it happen.
I've listed my holy trinity of filmmakers (Stanley Kubrick, James Cameron, David Fincher), but I think I can find a thread even if I expand to my musical interests: Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, Nine Inch Nails. All people who are technical masters, hell, innovators whose works, along with their many aesthetic merits, basically stand as testaments to the possibility of their various technologies (consider: Tom Jenkinson's blend of studio/reality in Ultravisitor and his custom designed Reaktor modules, Aphex Twin's analog only Analord series alongside, hell, the entirety of Drukqs. Stanley Kubrick's famous story of using the NASA lens on Barry Lyndon to the lesser known story of the adapter for the zoom lens on A Clockwork Orange. James Cameron has gone from low budget apocalypse to innovating 3D. David Fincher, even if we ignore the commercials and music videos ('Only' anyone?), has gone from the masterpiece that is Se7en, to countless photorealistic CG effects to his use of the Viper in Zodiac. Trent Reznor I only truly began to appreciate how far he pushed his own field when I heard a coworker describe the initial reaction to Pretty Hate Machine. Though personally, it's making digital sound so beautifully imperfect on With Teeth. That and the unfolding wonder that is Year Zero, may the hiatus end, or I find whatever secret lies in the wallpaper!)
So the cracking of that mystery has definitely been the high point of my weekend. Another step closer to being able to bring my own contributions to the field. Best still, it came after a weekend of studying some of the basics again. It continues to remind me how exciting it is to be able to work when HD stands alongside film. The reading I've been doing has not been on Final Cut or After Effects. Probably the most useful has actually been the Ansel Adams book on photography. You're kidding yourself if you think you can thrive in the digital realm without understanding the principles practically every DV user has been trying to emulate since it ceased to be embarrassing to have a show that originated as a bunch of numbers.
It's quite difficult to explain how... I guess giddy is the best term for it this stuff makes me. Consider the lens. A piece of glass that will bend a quantity of light and focus it on your film plane (for lack of an appropriately format neutral term). But inside it already an infinite variety of creative choices. First, what kind of lens in the first place. How much light will you let this lens bring in? Where will you focus it? Like many creative decisions, many wrong answers (infinity is a way to go...), though sometimes the unexpected will be the most satisfactory. For instance, what if I were to adjust that aperture to expose to that nice background instead of the actors, letting them fall into silhouette (of course, on a professional note: obviously this decision is being made as the DoP and usually the 1st AC's going to PHYSICALLY adjust the iris, but just bear with me for the purposes of gushing about the technology and correctly assume I'm not advocating rogue assisting).
So much development, so much care, so many options and we're only one component in. Hell, we're not even starting at the beginning. 'Visualization' aside, there's a very practical reality of what you'll be putting in front of that lens (from actors to filters) and what kinds of light are hitting it. The camera itself is a wonder of engineering and now sometimes the choice of camera is equivalent to a choice in 'film stock.'
Why bother worrying about the 'film look' when there are so many possibilities you're trying to HIDE! Look at interlacing! Motion artifacts! These things have their own unique beauty. There are flares completely unique to CCDs. Like any technique, you don't want them in every frame of your show. And no, not every project calls for images torn apart by the elements I've mentioned. How about 60p video played back at the same speed? It looks like reality only ten times more real. Once upon a time a deviation from a consistent framerate was a mistake. Now we're screaming for handcranks back on the cameras so we can run them backwards over footage we've already shot.
Even the idea of filtration. This is a fun one for me because it always plays with my assumptions. When one looks at a filter, the common assumption is to say it's 'adding' something to the picture. In reality, it is taking everything away but that which you see. Common sense would tell you that you should know this by virtue of the name 'filter' and yet it still tickles my brain every time. I get to live the experience over again too with my renewed pursuit of music. I have to quietly smile at myself every time I put on a lowpass filter to 'add' to the sound.
It is at a point now that not only will a mastery of the fundamentals of the technology yield stunning, possibly even innovative results (after all, bet it handcrank or crystal sync, you're still putting film through a gate and that's as basic as you get), but they will inform and enhance your use of the new technologies that you eventually adopt into your workflow. Pythagoras made a little instrument out of string and wood so he could pluck it at different lengths and listen to his perfect ratios. You now have many strings on a really awesome looking instrument that can be plucked or strummed for similar effects and THEN you can throw those through the computer for even more control if you so decide.
I think the final benefit of all this is that it's allowed me to appreciate whatever I look at or listen to even more. I finished The Iliad the other day. There are many great things in that book and many ideas that came racing through my head. But for some reason the simple structure of keeping Achilles back for so long and then bringing him out in full glory gave me an immense sense of contentment. When he did take the field it almost gave me pause simply to say "and it could be no other way." The Iliad is much, much more than the timing of Achilles, but it is a technical feature of the work that allowed me to gain an even greater understanding of story in general, not just that particular one.
I think that's why I get so frustrated over the fact there seem to be so few people with common interests in Vancouver. Even the mighty facebook revealed that, apparently, I am significantly unique in my tastes. Bizzare. Or maybe I'm just not looking hard enough. Either way, I've more than enough material to keep me busy in Castle New West on my own for a while now, and that's assuming work is not forthcoming.
Who knows, maybe I'll even get another entry in.
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
systemchalk's journal