Michael Ryan

Hello Francesco and others, Jack Valenti had many great qualities, and perhaps his finest quality was, it's OK for two parties to disagree on a subject and still be great friends. I don't know how this has happened, but it seems that in today's world if you disagree with someone's point of view, they are the enemy. I didn't agree with everything that Jack Valenti did, but when you look at his body of work and the Hollywood issues that he fought for, it's truly amazing. It's OK to disagree with Jack Valenti. He was totally good with that. However, I would be careful not to dismiss a man's life based on one or two issues that you didn't agree with. The names of the filmmakers who respected Jack Valenti would read like a who's who of Hollywood for the last 40 years. He not only was a giant in the movie business, he was a great man who had real passion for people and filmmaking. Mike

Hello All, Just to add: There were lots of shows from the '50s that used KINESCOPE. Shows like Jackie Gleason's THE HONEYMOONERS used a process like Kinescope. Kinescope was the process of a 16mm film camera filmming a video monitor of what the TV cameras were capturing in the studio. I had heard of this process talked about over the years, but you can read all the reasons they did this if you google Kinescope. Mike

Hello All, Not especially a well-known name to the public, Jack Valenti was a giant in the motion picture industry. For 38 years he was President of the Motion Picture Association of America, and over those years he had a major influence on almost all aspects of movie making. Valenti was an extremely rare combination of Washington politics and had the ear of all the important players in Hollywood for a very long time (including all the big name directors). He was an aide to President Johnson in the '60s. With interest, I have been following his career for many years. He was a passionate speaker, interesting, knew what he was talking about, and could bring two opposite points of view together faster than you could say, "diplomacy." He had such a passion for the movie industry and he had a deep love for his country (and the right kind of love, not the, you are either with me or against me kind. He will be greatly missed and sadly, we will not see the likes of him ever again. Mike

Hello All, Wow, over the last few years I have read many, many questions about copyright on this forum and many others. I have found that most people fall into about three groups. I will provide the three answers that fit these three main groups. Please feel free to pick the answer that makes you feel the most comfortable and run with it. A) In the 21st century copyright really only is for large Hollywood studios and rich people. Everyone else is free to use music anyway they want from TV, CDs, books, magazines, radio, DVDs, movie theaters or just about any format you can think of. If you can't find your specific format above just ask your mom, brother, sister, guy down the street, postman or anyone on any forum site on earth. If they don't know, something called Fair Use covers you. Especially if you are a student or don't have much money or just because. B Music that you listen to, movies that you watch, books that you read...they are all owned by someone or some company. If you use them you have to ask permission. You will probably have to pay someone or some company money to use them. You will probably have to sign a form to show you have permission. C) Ask a good copyright lawyer. I don't know why, but good copyright lawyers don't ever post on forums. There you have it. Now wasn't that easy? Mike

Hello All, I have to agree with Andrew Koch. Watch Jimmy Stewart in Alfred Hitchcock's VERTIGO. That's all you need to know about film acting. I was glad to see the cast of NETWORK made some lists. I was an extra in that film and to see Peter Finch perform made my hair stand on its end it was that good. Also have some Super-8 footage (home movies) from that shoot, but...ah...don't tell MGM about that. Mike

Congratulations! Mike

Hello John, Keep posting. Your film wisdom, insight and knowledge is the best part of this (and other) forums that you post on. Keep on trucking!! You know that you have all our positive thoughts. Mike

Hello All, Just read some terrible news. Director Robert Clark (along with his son) was killed in a head on car crash by a drunk driver. Clark is best known for his classic A CHRISTMAS STORY. Terrible news. Please don't drink and drive. Drunk drivers take an awful toll out there on the roads. Mike

Hello Chad, I would encourage you to start thinking about making a short film. I have interviewed several small format filmmakers who have made really interesting and worth while short films for under $2.000 dollars. These filmmakers have poured their soul and their time into these projects. The results have been outstanding. It's really amazing what you can do when you have the will. These short films have only been seen by a few thousand people and will never have the press of ZODIAC...but, in the end, success is not always measured by the amount of zeros in a bank statement. Mike

Hello All, The point of my original question was to make those who would want to become directors to stop and think for a moment. Is it really all about the German car and the house off Sunset Blvd? Or is it really about something more? There is nothing wrong with directors like Michael Bay. After all a popcorn salesman is an honest profession. What is it that you want to add to the history of motion pictures? Ask yourself now. Because after you have directed AMERICAN PIE PART 8 it will be too late. Hollywood is a game to be sure. Some, like Kubrick, could play much better than others. When director Frank Capra made IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE I'm sure he wanted a hit. I'm sure he wanted big press. But I think in the end you have to step back and look at the big picture. It doesn't really matter now...some 60 years later...if IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE was a big hit or got Capra invited to all the best Hollywood parties. That moment has passed for that film and it's players a very long time ago. What's important now is that it can still touch your heart and soul. And it will keep touching the hearts and souls of those who have not even been born yet. Capra has done his job well. He has added his voice, an important voice to the human journey. Michael Bay and David Fincher will make lots of money for shareholders and they will be the cause of some grand parties...but they will be forgotten. Think about the path you would like to take now. Don't just drift. Don't get me wrong, the Bay's and the Fincher's of the world are good at what they do. However, does the world really need more of the same? Mike

Hello All, A few weeks ago I viewed the documentary STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES. I have always thought of Kubrick as one of the best directors in film history. I have not always enjoyed his films, but I have always realized the ?importance? of each film. And as I grow older, some films that I revisit I have found myself enjoying them with ?different eyes?. So this is my question to all those new, aspiring directors out there. Is it in your soul to become David Fincher or rather Stanley Kubrick? Both are good directors. However, for me they both represent completely different ends of the creative universe. For me, Fincher is all about the here and now. The BMW, the A list Hollywood party. The goal of a big weekend box office. The celebration and the exploitation of the dark side of humanity (listen to his audio commentary on SEVEN). For me, he is the fast food for our minds. Stanley Kubrick. For me, Kubrick wasn?t about the A list. He wasn?t about the Hollywood party. His films were about the human journey. I believe he made films that were the celebration of what he had in his heart and mind...and those thoughts either connected with the weekend box office or did not. Kubrick didn?t exploit the dark side, but rather explored and tried to enlighten us (FULL METAL JACKET, EYES WIDE SHUT). Both are very good directors. Both have made great films. But they do represent two totally different directions in filmmaking. To those directors out there I think you should look inside and find what it is that you would like to become and not just follow the popular trend. In any event, what are your thoughts. Mike

Hello Rick, My memory isn't that bad. I was thinking about a feature film shot (all) in Super-8, then to 35mm and having a general theatrical release. Mike

Hello All, Many of you have heard about THE HALOGENUROS PROJECT on the internet over the last several months. In the current issue of SUPER 8 TODAY there is a very in-depth article on the short film and the incredible process the film was put through. While many Hollywood films use Super-8 film when they want a grainy, retro look, THE HALOGENUROS PROJECT wanted to find out how good Super-8 film could look. I have seen some of the results and one can only say they are spectacular. I think anyone who loves film and the technology behind it will find this a great read. Filmmaker Daniel Henriquez-Ilic's 9 minute film (with a 70,000 dollars budget) is really an incredible journey. Who knows, the idea of a "totally shot in Super-8" feature film is not so impossible as it might seem Mike www.super8today.com

Hello All, In the current issue of SUPER 8 TODAY magazine you can read about regular Cinematography.com forum contributor Bernie O'Doherty. Not only has this transplanted Irishman repaired just about every lens and motion picture camera around, he has also been nominated for a technical Oscar (and you thought he was only good with a glass of Guinness). Mike www.super8today.com www.super16inc.com (Bernie's site)

Hello All, The other night I watched a documentary on Stanley Kubrick. For me, his films were an odd mixture of hit and miss, but there can be no doubt that his films have left a big mark on the history of cinema. During the documentary they showed the lens he used to film many of the scenes in BARRY LYNDON. I was amazed to find out that all the candle lit scenes were in fact, only lit by candles. The look was incredible. Is it possilbe to shoot candle lit scenes of that quality with more normal lenses? Would this be easier with a digital camera? Kubrick also knew a lot of the inner workings of the cameras that he used. Are there any other filmmakers (popular) that pay the same kind of attention to this aspect of filmmaking? Thanks, Mike

Hello All, I just wanted to add a bit of a reality check here. I'm a writer and I have been covering the world of Super-8 for over a year now and I just wanted to point something out here. I'm not connected to Cinelab and I'm not here to make excuses for them. Everyone doing business in the Super-8 world are small companies. They don't have huge staffs, they don't have huge profit margins, they don't have huge bank accounts to buy all the equipment they need. However, what these Super-8 compaines have is lots of passion for film and filmmakers. I think many readers would be surprised to know that many big names in the Super-8 world are really doing this for the love. They could stop tomorrow and make more money doing just about anything else. When you have a problem with a Super-8 company, always,always give them a chance to fix the situation. They really want your business. They really want to keep you as a customer. Are they going to be able to fix the problem right away, get back to you right away? Probably not. That's the nature of a small company. I know it's difficult, but we have to give these guys a little slack. Many of these companies really do a fantastic job supporting the Super-8 format and without them what would happen to Super-8? Mike

Hello Joesph, Check out www.framediscreet.com Really excellent attention to detail. You can check out examples of the transfers on the site. Excellent rates. Highly recommended. Mike

Hello John, Keep thinking those good and positive thoughts. We are all sending you good vibrations as often as we can. Mike

Hello All, Thanks for all your comments. Now, remember this was all for fun. If you shoot film or video or love your PC or your Mac, that's just great. More power to ya! Sometimes we just need to sit back and laugh and for no other reason than it's funny. Mike

Hello All, Check out my I'M A MAC spoof. Only this time it's film vs. digital video. Follow the link to my film blog at CHARLIE DON'T FILM www.charliedontfilm.squarespace.com Enjoy. Mike

Hello Jonathan, Check out www.super16inc.com Perhaps the best lens repair shop in the U.S. Mike

Hello Dory, Welcome to the wild, wild ride that is the world of Super-8 filmmaking. First off, you MUST check out www.onsuper8.org This is a great site that has loads and loads of current Super-8 information. The type of camera you should get really depends on what you want to do with it, but if you are looking for long film times I would check out Double Super-8 cameras (DS8). Hard to find, but you can get up to 200 ft of run time on one reel of film. Great black and white films and color 100D film which is very good. Also check out SUPER 8 TODAY which is a magazine that has lots of Super-8 articles (www.super8today.com). Mike

Hello All, For those of you who have been reading and following SUPER 8 TODAY, you will be glad to know that the magazine has been spotlighted on Kodak's U.S. website. click here: www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/s8mm/cottrill.jhtml check out the SUPER 8 TODAY website at www.super8today.com Mike

Hello All, I was just watching the trailer for THE GOOD GERMAN on the internet. Even with the compression I thought the cinematography was really fantastic. Great black and white. I can hardly wait to see it up on the big screen. Here's a question: I have read that the film was shot using vintage lenses and equipment. Is it possilbe that an old lens can have a "personality"? Can it really capture light that would remind you of a certain era? Or is that kind of a thought overly romantic? Will a '40s lens remind you of that time and a '50s lens of that era and so on? The cinematography in THE GOOD GERMAN is the kind of thing that just BEGS for an in-depth article in AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER. Mike

Hello David and others, First off I have to say that I'm not against digital video or for film. I enjoy watching the "film look" of real film or the knock off "film look" which can look very good as well. However, for me, motion picture film is still the champ. And as in the real boxing world, if you want to take the title away from the champ, you not only have to be as good as the champ, you have got to be much better than the champ. David, I have a lot of respect for you and your work. It's also totally fantastic that a real member of the ASC takes the time to answer our questions and give out excellent information. However, I have one comment. Over the last several months whenever you answer a question in the area of film vs. video, I don't know if you realize this, but your posts feel very slanted towards digital video. And because you are a member of the ASC to many of the people who post here I believe that those same people would believe that is the general feeling of all the members of the ASC. I know I've read interviews with several other members of the ASC who are very pro film and very anti video. David, do you have any ASC stats as to how the membership comes down on this film vs. video issue? Mike