Jon-Hebert Barto

These types of threads are fun to watch so I thought I'd start one of my own. I don't get angry at WHO wins as I'm rarely suprised by the oscar political sweepstakes. If you've read some of my posts in the past, finding I hate awards shows will be no epiphany. ( was that a prepositional phrase?) However, I do feel strongly about a few historical wrongs. RAGING BULL-1980 No oscar for best pic :o (and how could redford win over scorsese in the director sweeps?) THE THIN RED LINE-1999 No oscar for best pic <_< ( again, malick is taken down by speilberg...?) There are a couple threads where similar views are on display, but I find it hard to read thru some of the diatribes on art. (yes I've gone on tangents...I don't forget) So it would be nice just to have some folks list like, 2, maybe 3 films which they think got the MAJOR SHAFT UP THE REAR from mr. oscar. If not, no biggy. I'll play with, er..., by myself. ;) OH, yeah! Since the oscars are american lets keep it just that, american. Or at least english speaking. International film is great but way too wide for this oscar thread. Also, EYES WIDE SHUT SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST BEEN NOMINATED in 1999 !!!!!!!!!! :angry:

:mellow: I kinda always thought Kubrick took basic questions and made them complex. That is to say Kubrick had great intellect and infused this into the most primal, basic, timeless, etc. questions. Why are we here? Where are we going? What is it to be human?-2001 Also, commentaries on basic human experience... Family violence-The Shining Trust\Marriage-Eyes Wide Shut Primal desire\lust-Lolita We could go on and on and each of us would have a different take. That's what makes Kubrick so fun to exchange dialogue over. As a matter of fact, I don't even know if I believe what I just wrote. And that's it right there! The ability to constantly re-examine the work of this giant. Few film makers have this power to open up a little door in the back of your head and invite themselves in....I love it. :)

Sorry about that. Sad to hear, try to keep your chin up.

:blink: Uuhhhmmm, I think the consensus is...NO!!! No way in hell. I'm not trying to be rude, but surely you knew this before posting? I like to play, however, so here goes... The Vision2 stock has already been mentioned. Great stuff. Now, I've seen footage shot with this stock on the Pro8 classic (which is a ultra refurb'd excellent camera) and telecined at Flying Spot that, when played on a decent TV/monitor, looks real kick-ass. I mean rivaling 16mm. That is the absolute ceiling though! I may even be over stretching a bit. Super8 has many problems when compared to other formats instead of its own aesthetic merits. For example , I think 8mm looks much better in the telephoto end of the lens. Wide angle shots tend to "show off" the inherent grain. Blah, blah, blah... I love all formats, so beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If a story calls for it, Super8 is the way to go. Also, there is some footage in the archives by one of you guys shot with V2 if anyone wants to see...? :huh: BTW, I'm not advocating Pro8mm film stocks or recans. However they sell excellent, pretty much new, super8 cameras. They are expensive but have excellent resale value as well. Pro8 has been discussed before so please don't respond to any percieved hostility against the company. Some of you guys kill each other on the boards over this company... :lol:

SANTO QUOTE: I'm sure you'll hear a lot about that scratch. Somehow, it does something for the film. Maybe it's just me, but it adds a disturbing dimension -- this big gouge ripping through many shots. I concur. Makes it seem like an unearthed relic from the past...An artifact of the renaissance. PS: no one respond to me, "...there was no film at that time...", ok? I'm not a jackass!

People def have to know who the boss is. Remember the Project Green Light deal? Not one person respected the director because he didn't earn it. I'm not saying you have to yell or be mean, but "presence" is a must. If everyone on set thinks they are smarted than you (even if they are!) things get buggy quick. Wait a sec....Ummm, yeah, I think I mean what I said...Uh..

I meant "deceased". I can't spell for s***! :P

There are alot of very good producers out there. People that have a possitive effect on the artistic integrity of films. I'm not taking sides with this post, just wanted to stick up for peeps like Bob Evans, Saul Zaentz, and even those smaller films to their credit like the now deseased Debra Hill. PS- I've already heard/read about Evans' worst half. He still kicks ass. :D

Rule number one of Documentary Club: Never shoot a Doc on a subject for which you already have a concrete opinion. No, really, you have the most valid point. And I'm sorry for bringing this (deeper) into the gutter. I think the thread topic was lost the day it started, however it is no excuse for me to go on a tangent. I still stand by all my posts in this thread, though. And it staggers me that some can make the kind of comments (..US was going to bomb Japan before the war even started kind of BS...) they make as "fact" in "correction" to anothers post with no facts of their own. That guy won't even defend his own comments.... My basic gist was to explain how I feel Docs are more and more cutting for dramatic effect in the same manner as narrative films. Thats what I mean when I say the films emote for the viewer. Kind of guiding them emotionally, not just factually. Who knows, its just my opinion. ANDY quote: This discussion has dropped a new low. From here on out I will remember that I logged on to "cinematography.com" and not some bully-pulpit blog.

I'm not really in disagreement over your statement. Not at all. I hope the little bugger does great. Some people or born with the propensity for great things given their environment. I would not say people are "born" for anything, however. I beleive great leaders are made not born. Situations help mold. I don't think you "ascertained" what I expected from my comments and would hate to think anyone is under the impression that I believe it is impossible for people to do certain things. I actually think it's funny we are being so serious over this. The bottom line is most people in this thread agree, IMHO. We just have differing philosophies that tend irk. At least I tend to irk people. Sorry. :D -Jonnie

Quote : Can`t wait to see the documentory! But some of you guys have some very seriously conditioned views that should be thought about twice before stating opinions as facts! Yeah, how about you take some of your own advice and link us some "facts" to "clarify" the USA was planning on bombing Japan before the war even began for us. Hard fact, none of this blog hearsay crap! Einstein wrote to Roosevelte in '39 informing him of the Nazi program to enrich uranium and that it might be a good idea for us to beat them to the bomb. So I guess between '39 and '41, when they attacked us at Pearl Harbour, we decided to take over mainland Japan via A-bomb attack? Please be so good as to educate me with documentation as I find this a stimulating topic! Even Howard Zinn wouldn't drop this low. We told the Japanese to give up or we'd use the gadget. They did not think we had it. Present day Japan even echos this sentiment as well as their desire for a scorched earth policy at that time. They told their women and children that if we landed it would be followed by rape and enslavement, hence the suicide rate of women and infanticide at their hands. I suppose you believe Roosevelte was killed by Churchill like the rest of the cool-aid chugging Zinn clan? Problem is you have no documentation. So post away and enlighten the masses....

Ok. I'll throw my 2 cents in... I think most who don't like it find that the film romanticizes the actual event. At least thats why I haven't seen it since the release. Like David said, soap opera. Kind of like those people who re-enact civil war battles. They have such a romantic idea of things. I personaly don't like that kind of story telling though I'm not offended by it. Just as I'm not offended by the romanticism of Gone With The Wind. As far as tech goes, well, its' a Cameron film. Nuff said.

Yes, this is very true. I can only agree. However what you describe are singular achievements. The alchemy of a true prodigious brain on its' own. The social complexities involved with filmmaking, from script to screen, can't even be equated to composing or deciphering. A 9 year old or 5 year old figuring a math problem are "natural" phenomenon not "nurture" phenomenon. Thats why we call them "geniuses". Social skills are bred by nurture as is the skill by which one can or cannot be successful in a wide peer environment. Can a child tell a story with pictures? Most certainly. Can a child write a coherent script? Most certainly. And all at an astonishingly pro level. But that is not the question. The question is how much smoke are these people blowing up our asses. ;) Actually, I don't even care anymore. Will I see this movie? Most probably not. Good luck little dude.

The teacher is Marc Henrich. Thanks for the advice, though. I've read some of those books, specialy the ones by Steven Katz. I've also taken classes...My problem is actually with the "Film Arts Foundation". They should tell people they actually teach activism in their classes. I know peeps who've taken a class or two, the ones that haven't been canceled due to low turnout, and they said it was like" Mao teaches film!" (and some of 'em even like Mao) Teach film and keep your politics to yourself. It's probably just a "city" thing, you can't get by it in San Fransisco. I was there to watch a screening of Bride of Frankenstein and the people couldn't even serve me coffee without telling me about their politics...Who knows...I even called them asking for info on income-to-student expenditure ratios and they refused. "..we're non-profit..." Um, yeah, so why can't you tell me? They don't say how much they get in donations each year and won't release the pay of their salary employees. But then again, I've never taken one of their classes and what I know from friends is all hearsay. If I really cared I could have found all that out since they are Non-profit. It has to be made available by law, I think. Who cares. I made a choice and it wasn't them..Also, I have no problem with San Fran. "the city" is a nice place to visit. Just don't go there when students get pissed-off or they'll stop the whole damn city from moving...

For all the peeps who looovvvve this film then I have an even better one for you. "Triumph Des Willens". I'm a liberal at heart but this crap is about as fair as Bushs' tax plan !!! PRO-PA-GAN-DA. Plain and simple. If we believe that film is truth at 24fps then we MUST stand up against this kind of garbage even in the face of our own beliefs, whether we believe in a "documentarys' " thesis or not. Documentary has no place in the mind control business no matter how subtle it is. Film whats there, don't edit for emotion, and get the hell out of the cutting room. Let what you actually filmed affect the viewer and allow them to emote, not your editing style and what you left out ,or put in at a "perfect" time. America is going down the crapper fast enough without allowing ourselves to succumb to malipulative media. We keep drinkin' the cool-aid from either side of the aisle and we'll end up pissing our own bed....

Maybe I'm a poop-head but I can't stand award shows for any artistic endeavor. We might as well pit Van Goghs work againts ....well, hell, whoever else's work!!! "...and this year the award goes to Starry Night..." "...for best pigmentation in an oil painting the award goes to..." Screw all that nonsense. These shows are there for hollywood peeps to watch there own work in a mastubatory way. It's all about "I" and "me" and "we", and I say "we" in the "WE WON" kind of way. I'm glad that Jack Nicolson said "..and the winner is..." becuase that's the truth. The oscars are a political sweepstakes that make me want to vomit. Sorry for being crude and bringing this down to an ugly and unprofessional level. This is the way I feel. That also goes for the so-called Independent Spirit Awards. If you get money from Fine Line Pictures your film ain't independent, baby!!! People like J. Pheonix, " I like doing indy films. I just did one for fox searchlight..." Yeah, owned by Fox news and Rupert Murdoch whom Pheonix claims to hate. These people talk out of their collective asses all the time. Come to my Global Warming/Green Energy party next week and maybe you'll leave next week with an award!!! It is not about congradulating each other on their well done work but about feeling oh-so-cool and with-it and"I'm right, f*** the fly over country..." Ok, I see this post is getting waaayyy off topic so I close saying this: I understand that not all people in Hollywood are jerks, and being a "jerk" is subjective. However, the Oscars are a grand carnival, a street parade of hypocrites. P.S. I did watch it and must echo the soon-to-be motto of the Oscars, " It's hard out here for a pimp...". You're damn right it is!

Saw it about two days ago on another site...love it. I saw a 16mm doc on Jochen Pieper shot the same way, being narrator as voice of subject on historical facts. I love these "unearthly" feeling films either doc or short narrative. Your film is quite unique and provoking. Your film is most def dreamy! It is like I am transported into anothers strangely beautiful dream, or nightmare as it might be... One critique. You could have used a pop-stopper in front of your mouth during the recording session. Just to cut down on the sharp edges of the "pops" anyones voice makes when recording. However, the style in which the material was read can't be beat ! Fantastic. It single handedly made the images become dreamy. If you had Larry Hagman read it the film would suffer greatly, if you see what I'm trying to say. Can't wait to see more of your stuff. Thanks for posting this, it made my night that much better!!! -Jonnie

This kid can't be making all the shots...He is obviously a talent, but come on! There has to be something going on behind the scenes. Call me jealous, paint me blue but I smell a little B.S. I find it hard for a 9 year old to fully grasp complex dramatic emotions and then explain it in a way that encompasses all things going on in the overall arc of the story...!!?! "He is such a genius that I had to work in his film," Jackie says. "He is constantly thinking about his next shot, constantly innovating to make it better. He is only nine years old, but he is sure about what he wants from his actors." ....and maybe more publicity for your own career? Put a kid or a monkey behind the camera and people will talk creating that magic word called "HYPE"... Please tell me I'm not the only one here who laughs when I look at that pic of him peering into the viewfinder.. I think it is cute, admirable, lofty, encouraging,...alot of things. But I have to see a finished product and even then I'm not convinced until I see unedited behind-the-scenes footage of this kid runnin' the show. If I'm being too harsh please tell me. I already know I'm jealous. This is just too much for me to swollow in one sitting...

Konvas are about 60 decibles. 15 or so less then a CM3. The sound recording process I mentioned above would actually work better with a Konvas......They have that "friendly noise" which is easier to cover. Less action against the human vocal dimension. Hugo, go to commiecams.com to read up on the Konvas if you want. Great site, great cameras. I'm just saying, all things being equal, that I'd probably get the CM3 if the price is right. You didn't even mention using the camera for sound so I don't know why I volunteered that info ...? I get off track sometimes... As the MOS it is I just feel less sketchy with a CM3 over a Konvas. But then again there are tons of people who kill in the name of those cameras! It just seems that every one I've conversed with who purchases those things always pay through the nose getting it where they want to film with. Cleaning, refurb, ect.

I gotta see this kids reel....

There is a thread in general discussion much like this. Kubrick made sure it looked good both ways. I agree about the emotion of those "tighter" shots becuase of the 1.85 aspect in some parts. Cowboys' death scene comes to mind..."I can hack it.., I can hack it...." However I like the slow-mo shots of the sniper blowing 'em away at the end more in the 4x3. If Kubrick wanted us to watch it in 1.85 then that is what we should do! :P I have a feeling we will never tire of these " Kubrick Discussions". No one in film history has been the source for so much artistic dialogue between professional and fan alike.

The framing for his last three looks better 4x3 than the cropped theatrical releases, to me. I saw Eyes 4 times in different theatres and every time the film looked a little muddy. Why they can't show 'em with the complete neg. in mind is astonishing!!! Are the public that crazy and condescending? I guess they'll never re- release The Wizard of Oz again... I saw that in a huge theatre in New York (?) I think and it looked fabulous in all it's square glory!!! I wish people weren't so widescreen-sentric! What would people say if they went to see "M"? It's 1.19:1 !!! They'd freak out...

Just goes to show how PC everything is. Our news agencies are now reffering to people of darker complections (or black) from all over the world as "african American". Hmmmm, I wonder if black people in south afria or brazil or anywhere know that they are now americans or for that matter would appreciate this ? I think not... Stupid PC! At some point it makes everyone look dumb! Reffering of someone as "black" or "white" is not offensive. It's HOW the word is said. I can say "hey, you" and make it sound as if I'm telling you to go f*** yourself.

If the price is right and the gear is good then by all means purchase this bad-boy!! I would not say the Cameflex is anywhere near the Konvas! Much better !!! Better electrics, VS, you don't have to worry about it taking kodak perf film or not, no special cores needed for certain mags, etc,etc,etc. Konvas' are great cams but for a limited uses. Like B-cam MOS. I helped on a film that used a CM3 for the entire short ! We barneyed the cam and recorded ambient room specific noise with the camera running then shot the scenes with all the dialogue. In post we used noise filtration for the camera specific sound to come up with a "noise profile". That with the barney and directional mics reduced the camera noise on the final version to almost nil ! We could make it out if we REALLY tried to on certain speakers in certain scenes but no one else noticed. Not even other filmmakers or sound men....So in this sense you could even use the CM3 as an A- cam. Of course nothing beats true blimped sound cameras.... :D

Unfortunatly, converting a Konvas of any make or model is expensive. About $5,000 US dollars. No , I am not kidding. There are places you can go for this, like Aranda (?) in Australia. I believe they are a member of this site so keep watching this thread to see if they post. In the meantime I'll tell you what I know... It does NOT greatly diminish the noise level of the Konvas. As I said, it is expensive. You basically have to fabricate new parts and refab existing ones. The movement is completely rebuilt !!! The 1m is not the camera I would do this to....maybe a 2M or 7M. They at least have crystal control and are a little bit newer. Remember that the electronics of russian cameras are limited and will one day fail for good!!! Converting a 1M cost too much for this type of camera, IMHO. I like Konvas' and stick up for them plenty, but I just want to give you my .02 . The cost ratio is just too high for this particular camera.... Sell your 1M and save some more dough for a Eclair Cameflex. They are also known as CM3 and something else I forgot... ;) These cameras take the techniscope transition much better and have a good track record with this upgrade. THX-1138 and American graffiti were filmed with this package...and lots of talent! Again, Konvas' are great, sturdy little buggers but it just doesn't make much sense to me. It's like putting a Yenko Camero engine inside of a Rambler. Like I said, keep an eye on this thread and Bruce may give you better info....