Ken Cangi

Richard, I think agreeing to disagree is where we are at. You sound jaded by your system. If sink or swim is your flavor of choice, you could always relocate to L.A. It's a pretty sure bet that questionable films won't get funded there. While we're pulling numbers out of thin air, I would venture to assume that 70% of the US congress has little or no idea where our tax dollars are actually being spent.

Film funding should relate to filmmaking, which is about the makers and making of films - not the subject matter as it does or doesn't pertain to the country that made it. As I said, this film won high praise in the industry, and it came from Canada. That is good for your reputation. The special effects for 300 came from Canada. That is also very good for your growing reputation as a film community. How can you not recognize that? Again, that was not my observation of Canadian voters. Where did you come up with that percentage, because it sounds like a wild guess to me? If you really want a film made about your country's heritage, then do what the rest of us indie makers do - go sell yourself and your project to independent backers who believe in your project enough to back it. In the meantime, why pick on the publicly-funded projects that are creating credibility for your local talent?

Richard, I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of taxpayer-funded filmmaking with you, because it will get us both nowhere. I am, however, curious about why you feel that a film has to be about the country and people who produced it, in order to qualify for public funding. From what I can tell, this is a good film, and it's nominations for some serious awards seem to corroborate that. How can that hurt Canada? I also don't understand your premise that the taxpayers of Canada are suckers. My experience with average Canadians is that they are very aware of what takes place within their government. You vote your party leader into power. As Prime Minister in a centralized system of government, he is less likely able to be influenced by big money. Parliament members see to that. That, in my opinion, is the beauty of your system. You don't run the higher risk of having corrupt Senators and Representatives sliding earmarks into law under your noses. My point is that when you vote in a party leader, you get, for the most part, what you voted for. Consequently, if you don't like the outcome, you only have yourselves to blame for it.

What distinguishes this from an innocuous tantrum are two things. The first, although still just a word, was his publicly referring to Ms. Tomlim as a c-nt. That was a demonstration of abject disrespect for a member of his cast. The second, which clearly crossed the line, was his physical display of anger. Tossing objects, such as lights, around the set subjected his cast members to possible, physical injury. I am surprised that this idiot hasn't has his ass kicked more often.

Your original complaint regarded government-funded "short" films. I see that you've amended that to be "bad" films. Are you inferring that they are one in the same? Just curious. Then get out of the film industry, and sell real estate.

Would you prefer that our goverments bilk us for money to fund their expedient, bullshit wars? Ya know, George Bush came into office on a crusade to toss aside arts and liberal arts, in our higher education system, in favor of creating a predominately business oriented curriculum. I can't say that he is solely responsible for the change, although I call tell you the the paradigm shift toward turning some of our major universities into glorified trade schools had done nothing to enhance American intellect. These degree factories pump out armies of IT grads, who know little or nothing about political science, history, human and social psychology, and liberal arts in general. Most can't even form a competent sentence. If a society teaches nothing but business and economics, then the only inspiration that we will have to look forward to is work, work, and more work. That's a great scenario for the ones pulling the strings, but it does little toward enhancing the quality of life and awareness within a society? Is that possibly what you mean by the better good? Moreover, what makes you think that very powerful social messages cannot be portrayed in fifteen minute films?

Thanks, Richard. BTW, You guys up there know that Canada is the best kept secret in North America. Sorry to blow your cover.

I lived in Montreal for a year, and my wife and I are seriously considering moving back there or to BC. She is a dual citizen of Canada and the United States. She and her family were born and raised in Montreal, and they still live there. I realize that the taxes are higher, although I have weighed the quality of life, politics, and healthcare against living in the US, and this place is becoming less able to measure up, IMO. As for Utah, I have only been in SLC for two seasons, and I can't wait to leave here. What this place gains in a lower cost of living, it dreadfully lacks in cultural diversity and general quality of living, unless you are a child-breeding, right wing, religious fundamentalist. The mountain landscape here is beautiful, although in no way more so than BC. I have lived in more than a dozen major cities in this country alone - including NYC, Miami, L.A., Altanta, and my hometown (Boston), so my comparison is not based in ignorance. Anyway, none of this was meant to provoke an argument with you, Richard. I am just trying to make the point that Canada has some distinct advantages when it comes to addressing the bigger picture. The United States has become, IMO, a society of instant gratification and self indulgence. It is every man and woman for his and herself. I am not going to go off on a political diatribe, but I think the state of this country is pretty clear to anyone who has been paying attention for the past few decades.

With all due respect, Richard, this is the same attitude that has forty-five million hard-working people without healthcare in the United States. It is, in my opinion, a narrow-minded way of looking at things. From where I'm standing, public funding of the film industry can only help you in the long run. The more business that comes to Canada, because of its reputation for high caliber talent, the more opportunities there will be for individuals like yourself. Unlike in the United States, competitive climbers throughout many European countries are government funded. Consequently, Europe has a much higher concentration of top-flite climbers. I see this in many aspects of life.

300

That might have had more to do the professionalism of the actors.

Oh how I love the Internet. It is the great equalizer. For so many years, celebrities were portrayed to the world as being intrinsically above common behavior. The Internet summarily exposes them for what they really are - normal human beings with common behavioral habits.

Ten Grand is pretty steep if you have to purchase it yourself, not to mention the hardware to drive it. Sounds like a serious program. http://www.thinksecret.com/news/finalcut6.html

Hi Sam, I am also a PC user, and I have no interest in changing over to Mac, so my options eventually boiled down to Avid or Vegas. I did extensive test driving of Final Cut Studio, Avid Express Pro, and Vegas7+DVD Production Suite , and I chose Vegas. It does essentially everything that Avid does, and it does it in a much more user-friend way. Avid, on the other hand, is one of the two industry standard NLE's so it is probably the way to go if you are planning on a job in post-production. I am an indie filmmaker, so editing is done in my studio. I am confident that anyone that I eventually hire, who has a working knowledge of editing, will easily adapt to Vegas. People will tend to bias the NLE that they are used to, so you are best off to test drive them yourself. Vegas sometimes gets pushed aside because of its lower price, but don't be fooled. It is a powerful program, and, if you were to build a Sony package comparable to FC Studio, the price would be basically the same. The other big benefit of Vegas is that it is made to work well even on under-powered machines. The learning curve on Avid is higher, but it also a great program. Be prepared, however to invest in an expensive system on which to run it properly. As I said, you must consider your future roll in post-production. Are you going to mostly edit your own films, or are you planning a career in commercial post-production? The best way to decide is to spend some time on each program, via trail versions. Best of luck. KC

I can see that you probably intended the three-image thumbnail as one, although it looks like a mistake. It gives the impression that there will be three different clips. I also agree with Bernhard in that you should de-interlace the footage. You are, afterall, advertising yourself as a cinematographer, so technical errors should be addressed. Good luck with your site. Cheers, KC

I can't tell whether or not Lily Tomlin was just being temperamental or if she had reached a severe level of frustration, although the director's behavior gave a pretty good indication that it might have been the latter. There was no excuse for his outburst - not under any circumstances. It was his job to keep the situation under control, and, from what I saw, I would wager that he lost the respect of everyone on the set. He would have been much better off calling for a break so that he could try to resolve the issue with Ms. Tomlin in private. He put her in a very bad spot by losing his cool with her in front of the entire set. Her demeanor in the car is a clear sign of that.

I agree with David. Unless this effect is available in a Photoshop type program, it is definitely b&w that has been hand hinted.

I just saw this film on DVD. I agree that Crowe was not the best candidate for this particular role, although he started to pull it together in the second half of the film. I thought the lighting, overall, was very attractive, although the desaturation to cool tones in all of the London scenes didn't work for me. I imagine they were trying to create a feeling of contrast between London as cold and inharmonious and Provence as a warm and inviting, although the effect seemed overused to me.

Is this class part of a full-time film program, or do they only offer it as an extra credit art class? The reason that I ask is that trimming a budget for an extra credit class isn't as critical as removing a crucial component (like film) from a full-time program.

I know that I am running the risk of encouraging Cesar, but he is either the knothead that he appears, or he is a comic genius. Even his website has the faintest scent of troll on it. I can already see Jannard rolling his eyes at my little conspiracy theory. What the hell. I'm always up for provoking a little comic relief. It's not as though "Cesar Rubio" - sounds like a name that a debt collector would make up - didn't ask for it.

It's went from the red planet to the twilight zone. I'm pretty convinced that this guy, in spite of his elaborate website, is a troll. He can't be for real.

This situation has officially earned the status of soap opera. I have received several Emails since yesterday, asking me if Jim Jannard threatened me with legal action. Maybe these people were trying to warn me, or they possibly had nothing better to do with their time. Let me set the record straight for anyone who thinks Mr. Jannard is making threats. He has in no way threatened me. He asked me why I had written what I had in a few posts, and he told me that he was bothered by it. He told me that he loves filmmaking and that he is passionate about this project. On that note, I offered him my apology for the unfriendly words, and I offered to post my apology on this site if that would assuage his concerns. He thanked me for the gesture, and then he offered me an invitation to check out his new camera. He was a perfect gentleman in spite of my inconsiderate posts. That is all of it. There is nothing intriguing about any of this, so my suggestion is that you all let it go. His camera will be available for testing very soon, at which point the mystery will have been put to rest. As for you, Cesar, I have met some ignorant dolts in my time, but never one with the uncanny ability to display it with such arrogance. Your propensity for violent outbursts is obviously the result of your not having the intellectual and emotional capacity to manage anything more than tying your shoelaces. I want to make something very clear to you, so listen carefully. If you want to threaten me, I will be in attendance at NAB. My photo is on my website, so it shouldn't be that difficult for even you to find me. If and when that meeting takes place, I welcome you to make these threats to my face. If that option doesn't appeal to you, then I strongly suggest that you shut the f--k up and stay as far away from me as possible. I hope for your sake that I have made myself clear.

Always the master of insight. I don't know what we'd do without you, Cesar.

My studio office number is listed on my website. I actually prefer it that way, because I want people to know that I am available and accountable for the things that I say and do. Cheers, Ken

I just received a phone call from Jim Jannard. He was very frustrated about having been implicated with the Red hype that has been so prevalent on this site for the past few weeks. He stated, emphatically, that he has no professional association with Chris Kenny and the others, nor is he personally acquainted with them. He asked me why I would make the comments that I did, and I explained to him that I had done so for two reasons. I wanted him to know that, if it had in fact been him behind it, his tactics were not gaining him any respect among many on the site. On the other hand, if he had nothing to do with it, then hopefully the radical fanboys would get the message and give it a rest. In retrospect, even if the latter were the case, as it seems to have been, I realize that it still was none of my business and that I could just as easily have ignored that particular thread. In that regard, I want to apologize to Chris Kenny. He has as much right to his opinions and interests as does any one of us. I asked Jim why he would care at all about what I had to say, and his response seemed sincere. He told me that he did not care what anyone thought about his advertising, but that he resented being called a liar. I can relate to that, and, in light of our conversation, I feel that my posts were not fair to him. Consequently, I want to publicly apologize to Jim. Notwithstanding my unfair posts, Jim was polite as well as gracious enough to invite me over for an in-depth demonstration of his camera. He did not at all strike me as a person who would resort to the tactics of which he was accused. Again, please accept my apologies, Jim. Regards, Ken Cangi