Ken Cangi

There have been several, although Weird Science still rallies for first place. The scene in which misfit bikers literally crash Gary and Wyatt''s party was physically hard to watch.

It was a leap, Jim. My apologies for the exaggeration. It was my oblique way of trying to steer this debate back into a constructive direction. As I said before, I look forward to the unveiling of a successful product, as it would benefit the entire industry. Best of luck with your project.

With all due consideration, Mr. Jannard, you publicly made a false accusation about a member of this board. Your apology was not only disingenuous, but clearly condescending. I can't help thinking that this might be a preview of how you will treat customers when they come to you with warranty issues, etc. Your comment was out of line and very unprofessional.

I think the nature of this debate brings to light the importance of Internet forums in general. Hitherto consumers would have been more susceptible to powerfully biased marketing from companies whose products hadn?t yet been released for public consumption. I do not agree with the assertion that Phil is heckling the Red Team, nor do I get the impression that he is specifically calling you liars. Red?s advertising is making some big - public - claims about a camera that is still under development. Phil?s concerns are valid, and he is not out of line in expressing them in a forum like this. Access to this type of open debate levels the playing field, giving potential consumers the opportunity to make more enlightened choices before committing to expensive purchases. This is less a matter of defending principle than it is an issue of practicality. As an indie filmmaker on a budget, who really hopes that your camera will produce the goods, but for whom tossing eighteen grand down the well would be a costly mistake, this type of debate, dialog, call it what you will, is indispensable to me. Of course this project is personal to you, as it should be. You are clearly invested, and there is a lot at stake. Consequently, I don?t believe that taking such a defensive posture is a productive marketing strategy. Phil is correct in that a better time to champion such claims would be when your camera is available for public road testing. Not that I believe for a second that your intention is to condescend anyone here, but calling someone with a valid concern a heckler, and then qualifying that assertion by saying that an unnamed, big studio director knows better comes off as an insult toward Mr. Rhodes and anyone else with concerns about your claims. Maybe a better strategy would be to keep your heads down until the gate is open. The proof will ultimately be in the images that your camera does or doesn?t produce. I personally have high hopes for your success, for obvious reasons, so I am looking forward to race day. Cheers, Ken Cangi

-The Pursuit of Happyness - Akeelah and the Bee - Children of Men - Hard Candy - All The King's Men These are my top five favorite films viewed within the past year - not necessarily released within that time.

Steve, I enjoyed the exchange of ideas. Good luck on your project. Ken

Steve, I just returned from a showing of Children of Men, and I'm curious to know your thoughts on Alfonso Cuarón's portrayal of the English as heartless barbarians, who herd and execute helpless immigrants. I am of course teasing you a bit, but I would like to get your opinion. BTW, The camera work was outstanding. The ambush and subsequent chase scene was riveting.

Comparing this movie to black face cinema is fanciful. Which act or acts portrays that to you? The violence? Are you suggesting that gratuitous violence did not occur in Mayan society? Are you further suggesting that it didn?t happen on a regular basis? Violence like that happens on a regular basis in all societies ? past and present. Maybe it was Gibson?s portrayal of ceremonial beheadings ? not like such a thing has ever taken place in an ancient society. A more realistic comparison to black face cinema would have been Caucasians as Mayans, speaking English in their portrayal of the Mayan Culture. Lets just say, for the sake of supporting your argument, that Gibson was trying in some obscure way to portray real life. Is it not possible that tribal wars like the ones on Gibson?s movie took place? Of course it is, because they still do in several cultures. So, honestly, Steve, from where are you drawing these conclusions? You are right about one point. Black Face Cinema was racist and inappropriate, but Apocalypto is in no way like Black Face Cinema. The notion is farfetched. It might not have been your intention, although you have managed to continually insult many. These are your words: ?Some people like it and yes it is true that I think those who like it are being bamboozled.? This film entertained me and several of my very educated friends. For the record, none among us believes that he or she was bamboozled. I honestly believe that insult was not your intention. I am merely trying to explain to you how it comes across. I should add one other aspect to this discussion, for clarity. I have spent the majority of my adult life in the mountain lifestyle. My new film company is devoted to filming documentaries about such cultures, as well as those who practice their recreations among them. I have dear friends from many of these cultures throughout South America and Asia. I even had a conversation with a friend in Salt Lake, who was born and raised in Tibet. He told me that some of the scenes were quite entertaining to him ? especially the scene in which the irascible warrior tells his compatriots that their friend is fu**ed, after having been bitten by the snake. I too thought that line was pretty funny. This is an interesting coincidence, because the endangered Andean Mountain Cat was the impetus for the logo of our company. I did, however, use my own pet as a stand-in, as recruiting an actual mountain cat would have presented quite the challenge. My point is that I am not insensitive to the plights of these distressed cultures. It?s just that eviscerating Mel?s Gibson for having drawn on one of them in order to create his storyline is a bit radical, in my point of view. Gibson is a storyteller, and he does it well. His last three films have proven that without a shadow of doubt. Ken

I am getting the impression that you are much too close to the topic of Mayan Culture to see this movie in the positive light of entertainment. Your statement suggests that David and I are to be added to that "bunch of idiots", because we clearly don't see this from your perspective. I don't mean to speak for David; his own words did that clearly enough. This is a fictional story, based - loosely - in the time period of Mayan Civilization. Jaguar Paw et al are fictional characters in a fictional story, and in spite of the apparent cliches, some of us idiots were still able to enjoy it for its pure entertainment value. Again, looking to Hollywood, on any level, for historical insight is an exercise in futility. Moreover, whether I care at all about the current state of Mayan culture, or not, my feelings have not been influenced in any way by this film. Seeing this movie, for me, was like reading a fictional action novel. Ken

It is obvious that Gibson wants to give the film an air of authenticity. The website says that. That is called marketing. Marketing and claiming historical accuracy are apples and oranges. Including a blurb on Mayan Culture creates a point of interest for the potential moviegoer, which is marketing - quite successful to, I might add. Again, I defer back to my original post, wherein I said that anyone mistaking this movie for fact would be naïve at best. It is entertainment, which is sometimes, as David suggested, meant to be thought provoking. It succeeds at both of those things, IMO. With all due respect, Steve, this is quite a stretch. Civilizations prosper or fail based on their intrinsic strengths and weaknesses. The Mayan culture is no different. It didn?t take the American Black community long to figure this out. In a few hundred years, they have gone from shackled slaves to a thriving economic and political force in the same country in which they were originally enslaved. They have earned that respect. They chose not to lie down and take it. The Mayans, on the other hand, were the rulers of their own civilization, and they still failed. This fact cannot be discounted. Being a neophyte in the profession of ?moving? film, I do much more listening than talking. Given the wealth of technical, working knowledge on this website, I would have little to offer, outside of lighting experience and a knowledge of the physical and technical characteristics of celluloid, per se, so I generally assume the position of student. This On The Big Screen thread, unlike most of the technical threads, is about movies in general, so this style of topic seems appropriate for this thread. Well said, David. I think your evaluation is spot on.

In my last post, the sentence: "In subsequent chapters, terms like:" is not supposed to be in Italic print. It is a heading. My apologies.

Movies are generally about more than one specific thing, although that does not, by default, mean that they are claiming historical accuracy. As for your comment about images being not erased from my mind, many movies - real or utter fiction - have left indelible imprints on my memory. I looked at the entire website, and I saw no indication that it was trying to present historical truth. Here are some quotes from the synopsis: " From Academy Award winning filmmaker Mel Gibson ("The Passion of the Christ," "Braveheart"), comes APOCALYPTO: a heart stopping mythic action-adventure set against the turbulent end times of the once great Mayan civilization. When his idyllic exsistence is brutally disrupted by a violent force, a man is taken on a perilous journey to a world ruled by fear and oppresion were a harrowing end awaits him. Through a twist of fate and spurred by the power of his love for his woman and family he will make a desperate break to return home and to ultimately save his way of life. Visceral, thrilling and boldly thought-provoking, APOCALYPTO is directed by Mel Gibson, produced by Gibson and Bruce Davey and written by Gibson and Farhad Safinia, who co-produces. The executive producers are Ned Dowd andVicki Christianson. The behind-the-scenes team, who spent intense months shooting in the jungle and recreating a spectacular Mayan kingdon of soaring pyramids and mysterious temples, includes" Blah Blah Blah......... In subsequent chapters, terms like: - " Though he began his career as a charismatic film idol............................................................................ .................................he has become just as well known as a major American director with a penchant for intense storytelling." - " If Gibson's vision for APOCALYPTO was going to come to life, the director knew he would need actors who would make the story feel completely and utterly real, as if it were unfolding in the here and now." The site writers are very careful to include qualifying words and terms (in red) to insure that we know this is a fictional account. I had no problem recognizing this. Your comment about 70% of the population not having a college education infers that not having a college education precludes that group from possessing common sense. Insinuating that non college-educated people are too ignorant to recognize this film as fiction is condescending - not that I am convinced of your having meant it that way. Unfortunately, it comes off like that, to me.

It was indeed an action film, although hardly run-of-the-mill. That is not to say that the plot was in any way complex. I also enjoyed the look of the Genesis. It suited the fast-panning chase scenes. As I've said before: It's a look. It is not film, nor does it need to be for better or worse. Don't get me wrong. I love the look of film. I always have, but I also get bored always seeing the same thing. This film clearly had a different look, and it was, in my and many other's opinions, a good look. I was entertained by this movie, although not nearly as much so as from all of the silly rhetoric over it. In one breath, people are saying that Mel Gibson shouldn't be taken seriously, but what I see is that he has easily been able to tug at the proverbial goat, if you know what I mean. Cheers, Ken

Your question, regarding what Gibson was trying to say, is an interesting one, because I have heard several different interpretations from people with whom I've discussed the film. Although, we all agree on one thing: The movie, regardless of its historical accuracy, was entertaining. It was also a pleasant departure from most of the formulamatic, big budget films currently coming out of Hollywood studios. As for Apocalypto's violent interpretation of ancient Mayan culture, I don't understand why everyone is surprised and/or offended. This film is not a documentary. It was made for "E"ntertainment. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive at best. It is no different than most big-budget films, which draw on history in order to develop their storylines. Lets not forget the old John Wayne westerns, in which the Indians were almost always Caucasian actors in war paint. Ridiculous? Of course, yet still entertaining. I think the political correctness of this society has reached a dangerous point, when we look to Hollywood films in order to develop our knowledge of politics and history. Why would anyone hold Mel Gibson to any standard of insuring historical accuracy or, for that matter, possessing any sensitivity toward the issue of racism? Kermit The Frog has more integrity in that regard. My advice to audiences it to lighten up and just enjoy these films for what they are. If anything, we should be more offended by the prices of movie theater popcorn and beverages. Ken

My take is that he was referring to the reading audiance, and aspiring filmmakers in general, when he made that statement. It's probably true that he would have had the budget to afford a $90'000.00 video camera, but then how would the budding indie maker, when reading such an article, relate to it. The daily rental rates alone on such a camera would eliminate some of the freedom that Lynch refers to. I think he is reaching out to artists who might not consider taking a serious stab at movie making, because of the belief that expensive equipment is a requisite, and telling us to just pick up what we have in front of us and concentrate on exploiting our creative skills. Who would have ever thought that a film like Blair Witch Project would have found such wide distribution?

I read your comments several more times, and I still came away with the same message. For the sake of maintaining camaraderie, lets just agree to disagree amicably. Maybe the next topic will bring us closer to the middle. Cheers, Ken

On the contrary. I was looking for nothing. I read your post and responded to your words, and you are attacking me for having an opinion. I am comfortable with how I addressed you, and I am sorry that you have chosen to view my comments as a personal afront. That was not my intention. Statements like "Really Ken, just what is your trip?" lead me to believe that you might be a bit too attached to your own point of view at the expense of tolerance toward those of others. At any rate, I didn't come here for a confrontation. I came here because I enjoy the dialog and opinions of so many of the people on this site - regardless of whether or not I agree with them or they with me.

With all due respect to the apparent sincerity of your comment, I have to argue that the definition of "spectacular images" is in the eye of the beholder. Moreover, Lynch's growth in this medium is seen as such by more than a few movie-savvy people. The success of his images is in their style and execution. The material on which he imprints these images is neither better nor worse than film - just different. Some movies work better on film, and others are better suited to digital. For those of us, who weren't alive during the golden age of b&w cinema and only know it through the look of scratched and endlessly spliced footage, that look is what many perceive as having been the look of real life in that era, when, in fact, what those people saw was more like what video portrays today. Having been what I refer to as a "film snob" for years, movies like Apocalypto, Collateral, and Miami Vice have finally opened my eyes to the validity of digital imagery as a new and distinguished movie look. I have to say, especially because of Apocalypto, that the look is growing on me. Regarding your "impugn his roots" comment, I think that you are being judgmental and unfair. Lynch owes no debt to the institution of film. No maker does. He is a visual artist in an artistic medium, in which he has successfully created a following. It is also presumptuous of anyone, who doesn't personally know Lynch, to say that he does not appreciate the historical roots of film, nor should that should matter. Such behavior would seem sycophantic of the movie industry and not representitive of the trail blazing personality of David Lynch.

I just saw this film last night, and Scorsese did not disappoint. Twists, camp humor, drama, and a brilliantly executued, character-driven style have essentially insured this film's place among movie classics. I found nothing lacking in this film. The lighting, camera work, tempo, continuity, editing, and acting quality were right on the mark for this particular picture. It is too easy to say that something should have been something else, because we all have our our visions of what a film should be, but films are an expression of the person or persons who created them, and the only way to really appreciate them is to view them without the distraction of impinging our own POV. I have watched more than 180 big budget films this year - many of which were mediocre at best - and this film stood leagues above them all. Nicholson's facial rendition of a rat was priceless. I hope we haven't seen the last of Scorsese.

Does anyone have an idea what caused the severe grain (noise) and crushed shadows in that film? It was apparently shot on two DVX's, and I was wondering it the poor resolution had something to do with the film-out process, or if it was just a result of poor settings. The effect was similar to what one would get when shooting in very dim lighting conditions. Here is an article with the DP talking tech about how he used the DVX: http://www.screenmag.tv/equipped.aspx?eid=404. I'm wondering if I might have gotten a poor DVD copy of the fim.

Thanks for the info, Joshua.

They are a standard item at any Woodcraft store. You can buy five or more of them for about ten dollars. This is the closest store to you: http://www.woodcraft.com/stores/Default.as...p&zip=91601

Refer to Dan Coplan's article Over/Underexposing Video http://www.dancoplan.com/

Here is a reference link that might help: http://www.warmcards.com/digital_camera.html

Is there a way to accurately calibrate my dvx100b without a WFM and patterns?