cal godot

If you believe people should be required to learn gun safety in order to own a firearm, then you do agree with some form of gun control. No reason to make it mandatory for everyone - it would be a waste on the "anti-gun" people, after all. And why make the taxpayers pay for it via mandatory public education? If you want a gun, you gotta take a gun safety course. And that, buddy, is gun control. Requiring people to be safe (like locking them in cabinets away from children) with their guns is also gun control. If you are going to present statistics to make a point, present the actual numbers. Otherwise this "data" is as reliable as your critical judgment of a film you have not seen. (BTW, avoid the NRA numbers - they ignore accidental gun deaths. Stick with federal government numbers, which are about as close to accurate as you can get because the federal agenda changes.) Then you must desire some form of gun control. Or maybe the safe gun owners can shoot all the unsafe gun owners. That would solve the problem. Theoretically the safe gun owners would have better aim, so they'd be at the advantage during the gun fight. We can hire all the homeless people to clean up the dead damn unsafe gun owners. And then we've got a whole pile of guns for the safe gun owners, since gun owners for some odd reason tend to own far more than just one gun. I guess they've got a lot of enemies, or need a variety of choices when hunting big game in Sacramento or some such place. Of course even safe gun owners have accidents. So we'd have to keep shooting people when they accidentally shot their kids, wife, etc. And nobody can keep curious kids from finding the key or picking the lock to a gun cabinet, so we'd have to shoot the unsafe kid and his unsafe parents, who probably should have been home with their kids instad of out trying to makes ends meet. How can imprisoned criminals be the problem with guns on the streets? By all reliable accounts I've read or heard (several of my friends attended the LA premiere), Moore does not appear often in the new film. By many accounts, he is more vigilant with his facts in this film. I wonder: How can you criticize a movie that you haven't seen? Don't you have just a wee bit more integrity than that? Incorrect. Since gun rights advocates tend to claim that gun control advocates have no experience with firearms or are effete liberals who never went hunting, Moore's previous experience with guns and the NRA is highly relevant to his opinions about guns and gun safety.

Is anyone on this board attending the Allen Daviau 3-reeler preesnted by Kodak at the LA Film Festival on Saturday? I've never attended one of these things at the festival and am thinking of checking it out. Heck, for $10 it's got to be worth it. Anyone attending want to meet for coffee after? From the festival web site - www.lafilmfest.com (you can purchse tickets online): Allen Daviau, ASC, is considered one of the masters of the Hollywood film. He has earned five Academy Award® nominations for Avalon (1990), Bugsy (1991),The Color Purple (1985), Empire of the Sun (1987), and ET: The Extraterrestrial (1982). Join us for this memorable event as Mr. Daviau discusses his work and screens one reel each from: ET Empire of the Sun Van Helsing Sat, Jun 19 10:00 am DGA Theatre 1

I don't know whether to question your honesty, your sanity or your intelligence, Matt Pacini. You continually refer to "you anti-gun people." I'm not anti-gun. I'm a former gun owner and former NRA member. I sold my guns because I didn't use them or have need of them any more. I left the NRA because they took the wrong position, in my view, on things like armor-piercing ammo and automatic weapons. I do not and have never advocated a total ban on guns - I don't even advocate a total ban on "assault weapons" - just very strict controls, which the NRA opposes. (If it was up to the NRA, a would-be terrorist could buy his guns and ammo from a coin operated vending machine.) Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can read my post and discern these facts, as they are plainly stated. It's tragic that you feel the need to misstate my views or struggle with straw men to make your point. I'd find it insulting if I cared.

There are very few women (or racial minority) filmmakers in the first place, so any gender or racial criticism of filmmaking in general is going to seem biased against white men, as they are the majority of the trade. But many female filmmakers have been castigated for their films. Lizzie Borden has had her films banned and burned. Alison Anders chooses to make films about women and can hardly get them funded. Even though a man directed it, the woman-written THELMA AND LOUISE was criticized for its "unfair" and "inaccurate" portrayal of men. I could go on with examples of women filmmakers suffering various forms of persecution for their films, but it proves nothing: only someone with a twisted view of reality thinks women possess an advantage in the film industry. Again, not true. A lot of negative press was attached to this film even before it got made. Kim Basinger, who had verbally agreed to star, very famously paid $8.5 million to get out of the film. This was after the film had begun getting negative buzz for its supposed "violence against women." Madonna had also been offered the role of Helena, but turned it down due to the possibility of the film being perceived as "anti-woman." Sherilyn Fenn was very courageous to take the part, and look where her career went after it (as opposed to Madonna and Basinger). Then there was the ratings controversy over the film upon completion. The film was denied an R rating because of its content. This made headlines everywhere, especially in the trades, amd limited the film's distribution potential. Hardly "not a peep." Here's what Rita Kempley of the Washington Post had to say about the film: "A gruesome tale of obsessive love and mutilation, it's less a work of art, however, than a luridly stylish expression of female self-loathing.... a prettied-up snuff movie." You can't get much bigger of a "peep" than the WaPo. One big reason that feminists never united against it is that the film is a somewhat feminist examination of the common habit that men have of clipping women's wings, a darkly exaggerated version of the traditional male fantasy of keeping a woman tied to the home, not to mention the male spectatorship and voyeurism. It may not be well-executed (a matter of opinion) but according numerous statements from the director, who also wrote the script, this is indeed the intent. That some misinterpret the film as a "romance" which promotes the dismemberment of women says more about the people who view (or more likely, don't view) the film than it does about the film, its makers, or those who saw it for what it was: a perhaps not very well made attempt at dark sexual fantasy with feminist themes. Some even call it a feminist horror movie. Himself the subject of controversy in such matters. David Lynch has been called a misogynist throughout his career for the "treatment of women" in his films. So I wonder about the point behind this statement. Note also that Jennifer has not directed anything since (though she is said to have something in pre right now). SO it's not like she was rewaeded for her derring-do. Whatever.

Nice images, Francisco! Were you shooting 35mm or 16mm 7222? The effect you got from the 7218 is nice. You reduced contrast in post on the 7222 but did you require any tweaking in post on the 7218 to get that look, or did you just zero the color and leave it at that?

That's simply and laughably untrue and irrelevant. While China is certainly not the most free country on earth, even if all their policeman were executing people on a whim it would not come close to the civilian gun violence in the US. (Nothing like the web page of a gun nut - entertaining rants from well-armed peole always wake me up inthe morning.) Which is what Moore is talking about. Not cops killing civilians, but civilians killing civilians. In China, if you get shot, it won't be by your neighbor who is peeved you called the police on his loud party. It won't be a car of teenagers cruising and blasting for thrills on a Saturday night. You won't be standing on a sidewalk talking to your neighbor and then suddenly felled by a bullet that was fired into the air during a Fourth of July party seven miles away. You won't be filled with buckshot by a 16-year old who is tired of being bullied at school. That's the kind of gun violence (and gun/violent culture) Moore was talking about. As an exiled Southerner, long-time gun owner, and former decades-long member of the NRA (I withdrew when they backed armor-piercing ammo for automatic weapons, a.k.a cop killers), I'd love to see one pro-gun anti-Moore argument that stuck to facts. But instead pro-gun people often become unwound at the slightest hint that their "Constitutional rights" might be violated in the slightest. Pry my gun from my cold dead hand and all that. Which is not Moore's point, nor even suggested in the film: it's an inquiry, without many answers, into the question, "Why do we Americans seem more violent that comparable cultures?" (I'm not even sure comparing us to China, with its vastly different history and culture, is apropos, but comparisons to Canada and Britain and Australia are.) I liked "Bowling for Columbine," and I believe in private gun ownership. But we've got a problem in the US, and it doesn't appear to be going away on its own.

Speaking for myself, I don't own a Super16 camera, and the camera I do own cannot be converted to Super16. Were I working with a larger budget, you're right: I'd rent Super16 and be done with it. Actually, I'd probably just bump up to 35mm and solve every problem I could ever have. But sadly, I am not a wealthy person, and I actually want to keep my budget very very low even though it's not my money. My concern with aspect ratio is not so much the projection or presentation as much as my ability to frame the scenes the way I want to see them. The most likely way I'll ever get any theatrical presentation at all will be because I convince someone to rent a theater and 4-wall it for a weekend, or if I get lucky and place in a festival.

I got 5 400' rolls for $40/roll (incl shipping) so it's not a big loss for me. More of an experiment than anything. On the off chance that a decent result can be had, I'll shoot a short-short on it. If it's all crappy, the stock is destined for playtime only (or some local punk band's music video). John (or anyone): what would you suggest as the best approach to minimize the problems I'm likely to encounter with this film stock? I realize there's nothing that can be done about ambient radiation essentially fogging the film (short of hopping into my time machine, but it's in the shop) - but would I perhaps increase the black density by rating the film at 250 and having the lab process it as a slower film, i.e. less time in the developer bath? The plan is to spool off a bit (25-50 feet) of each can, then clip test them at the lab. If there's any hope of a usable image, I'll work with the lab on getting the best results. (Obviously any advice and guidance in the testing area/procedure is more than welcome.) BTW, I realize this is somewhat "unprofessional" approach with this film stock. But I'm inquisitive, acquisitive, and highly experimental - having only owned my 16mm gear for less than a year now & having shot only about 2000' of film in it so far (years of 35mm still, Super8, and video previously), I feel the urge to play as much as possible. When I get around to shooting something serious, I only use fresh sealed cans.

For some reason, chopping off the top and bottom of a 4x3 frame to create a 16x9 frame bothers me. Aside from the "how to" problems, which perplex me somewhat. Am I alone in this discomfort? Is this an absurd emotional attachment to two slivers of "wasted" frame? Or is it my typically human resistance to new ideas? Perhaps I should just stick with 1.33 - it was good enough for Godard (most of the time) and Ozu. But I find myself automatically framing 16x9, even in my mind, and it feels like a more natural frame. Plus, as a Pythagorean punk and Fibonacci freak, I'm deeply attached to the golden ratio, which at roughly 1.61 is closer to 16x9 than 4x3. (I think this is one of those notorious style vs. form vs. content issues.) Scotness, have you pretty much decided to go with framing 16x9 and then telecining thusly?

Does it follow that pulling or underexposing would reduce grain and contrast? In the curve graph you posted, is 6 minutes (the solid blue line in the middle) the "proper" or average time in the developer bath? From the little I know about curves, gamma, granularity, etc. (I am still, and always hope to be, learning), I think the blue line or perhaps even the red (5 min) reflect where I want to be in terms of negative density.

I just bought 400' of Fuji RT500 on eBay, and am thinking of buying more. (The stock is 7 years old and said to be frozen throughout its lifetime.) It's all part of my quest to shoot a whole bunch of color reversal films this summer. Questing, testing and having fun. I'm planning to push, cross process and otherwise experiment with the reversal for bigtime crazy film look wiki wiki. But alas, I can find nothing about this film via Google and Fuji web site. Do any of you wizards know anything about this film stock, particularly the details of reversal, etc? One of the web searches I did regurgitated this site in the Netherlands: http://www.super8filmlab.demon.nl/16mmrevprocess.htm Am I going to have trouble getting this film processed in the US? Are the film police going to whisk in with their helicopters and take away my environmentally unsound film?

What is inadequate about the anamorphic adapters being made for DV cams like the Canon XL-1? Is it the quality of glass? Or do you find the addition of a front-mounted anamorphic always detrimental? (I was thinking of trying the XL-1 anamorphic with my Scoopic, as they are both 72mm diameter.) How do you go about framing & shooting 4x3 as 16x9? Do you use a matte box and matte cut to the proper aspect? Is there perhaps some way to mark the frame lines within the viewfinder (which I supose depends on the camera)?

I am going for a very specific look, similar to early French New Wave - Breathless & Band of Outsiders in particular. I had begun by thinking of shooting a grainy color film (like Fuji Reala 500D) and desaturating to the point of almost being B&W. But the purist in me suggests, Why shoot color when you want B&W? (Seriously: aside from more ISO range in stocks, what are the significant advantages of this?) I'm also considering Plus-X, perhaps even pushed a stop. Soon as the camera is back from the shop, I'm shooting tests.

I'm thinking of shooting a film in B&W negative using Kodak's 7222 Double-X film stock. I was wondering if anyone here had experience with the stock and could share advice, tips, tricks, or anecdotes. I've shot B&W negative 35mm stills and a lot of B&W Super8, some 16mm color negative and reversal but no B&W 16mm (neg or rev) yet. I'm also curious about telecine and B&W film. But that may well be another thread, n'est ce pas?

The Canon Scoopic 16 MS is a great camera for starting out with 16mm. You don't have interchangeable lenses but you do have a great lens (12.5-75mm T1.6) with macro. The viewfinder is big and very bright. If you like such things, the auto-exposure is very responsive (if it's working properly, that is). My favorite thing about the Scoopic is the easy and fast laoding of 100' spools in camera. I'm not aware of any 16mm camera that is this easy to load. This feature has helped me out a great deal in some very "guerilla" situations. The 16 MS also has the ability to shoot 400' loads with the accessory adapter. It runs pretty quiet, too. I'm sure some here would scoff at it, but I've silenced the camera shooting 100' loads using only a thick blanket. With 400' loads it takes a lot more blanket. I've currently got it in the shop having 24fps crystal sync installed, settign me back some $500 so you can be sure I've tested the silencing bit. I acquired my Scoopic MS with the adapter and 2 400' magazines for $1000. It was a great deal, purchased from a DP so I didn't have to worry about getting it maintenance right away or major repairs. I see them on eBay occasionally for less than $1000, but that's without the 400' adapter, which can set you back quite a bit (if you can find it: they are not as common as the cameras). The lesser non-MS Scoopics are also good but do not take the 400' adapter.