Jason Maeda

Bordwell is always great, and a pleasure to read. If nothing else, the fact that he would choose these directors for his examples clearly sets him apart from the pack. jk :ph34r:

True enough about New Yorker films...bad dvd's. i'll look for the Greek titles. While you may be right about Tarkovsky's long takes,I think you might have picked a bad example. Something BIG happens in that shot for the main character. The point of that scene's length is first to show how hard it is for the character to get across the pool without letting the candle go out, and secondly to give the audience ample time to question his resolve in doing so. The whole shot serves as a counterpoint for the scene where his monk-like friend burns himself to remind people of their spiritual duty. As a matter of fact, I'd be interested in comparing the length of the two shots. One films a man walking across an empty pool holding a candle and is considered too long, the other a self-immolating man in the middle of the city. I'll have to check it when I get back to Manhattan but I'll bet the death scene is longer. Perhaps Tarkovsky wanted to test our faith in cinema. jk :ph34r: p.s. My Grandmother's family name is Arvanitis.

"Brave Thespa" is an appropriate nickname. jk :ph34r:

Although I disagree with you completely regarding Tarkovsky (have you watched his films?) you are right on about Angelopoulos. This film is unique in that it presents landscapes as stage scenery, as in for a theater production. If you want to be completely overwhelmed by cinematic perfection, check out "landscape in the mist". I think it's from 1988 and the dvd is definitely from New Yorker. wait i'll find it at the voice. here you go: http://www.villagevoice.com/screens/0550,a...n,70947,28.html jk :ph34r:

someone may have said this and if so i'm sorry, but my best friend's dad is an emergency room physician and early in life he taught me to switch to a second pair of shoes half way through every work day. if you try it once you'll never go back. jk :ph34r:

Furthermore, ancient Greek is a much more efficient language than our own, as is modern Greek. For example, Leonidas's famous reply of "come and take them" to the Persian demand that the Greeks give up their swords and shields is, in Greek, a two-word sentence: "Molon labe". Keeping an English-language script as succinct as possible seems appropriate. As for speaking in a vaguely British accent and having perfect, full-body wax jobs, I don't know how accurate that is. :lol: jk :ph34r:

John, keep fighting and stay positive, always focusing on recovery. My family's thoughts are with you as we too fight cancer. Much love and respect, Jason Kollias

"There is such a tendency to visually dumb movies down for what is, agreeably, an artistically incompetant audience (I am talking about the USA, of course). " First of all you spelled "incompetent" incorrectly. The irony alone should help shame you into avoiding making sweeping generalizations like this that manage to be simultaneously offensive and innacurate. I went to your website for additional if unnecessary ammo for this post but found it, appropriately, not working. To avoid future embarrassment, please do not accuse a huge and varied population of "artistic incompetence", especially when arguing the importance of a Hollywood film based on a cartoon. jk :ph34r:

i had it happen today with a digital point and shoot. i was shooting into the sun, which was caught tightly between trees, and the flare went sideways. i thought to myself "that's odd"... hope that helps, jk :ph34r:

i've seen few good photographers make good filmmakers, and the opposite is even more true. usually, and i'm pretty much writing this without thinking about it too much ;), photographers start rolling and can't sit still...they're zooming and moving and all of it for no good reason. dp's grab a still camera and just take a boring ass picture with no story, no "definitive moment". jk :ph34r:

he was better with sound than anything else. jk :ph34r:

Looks pretty silly but I'll also be first in line to check it out so... I was actually standing on the hill in Thermopylae where the last of the Spartans died. there's a pretty cool statue of Leonidas and the famouse plaque. it is overwhelming to stand on that spot...we're all reading left to right still because of these men, if you know what i mean. Does anyone know if the decent thermopylae book "gates of fire" has been optioned? it would be great to contrast with this cartoonish version. jk :ph34r:

ok now i get what you meant...sorry. "But personally I don't like this; "five six eight" is way more of an 8 than a 5.6" Yeah i think i see what you mean, but what I'm suggesting is that in my line of work if i'm off by a couple tenths (especially with polaroids or chrome) it's the difference between being good and terrible...hired or fired. the bottom line is that if i get a reading of f5.6 8/10ths and i set the camera for f8 it's going to be wrong. "five six eight" doesn't mean f5.6 or f8...it means 5.6 and 8/10ths. then again, when I shoot documentary work on super-8 or 16 i'm just guessing exposure most of the time...often i'll show up to a location, walk around and take some readings, write them on my hand and work off those until the light has changed significantly enough for me to start reading again. so i guess in many cases you're right, i'm not distinguishing between readings of a couple tenths. jk :ph34r:

o.k. huh? jk :lol:

""five six eight" is way more of an 8 5.6 than a 5.6 ----" huh? Besides, it's kind of hard to yell out "five sixth and, like, most of a semi circle!" jk :ph34r:

just off the top of my head, a good example of looking for a change of f-stop in the tenths: metering the overall ambient falling on the subject's face gives f8 3/10ths. you then add a little on camera flash fill light (a "doinker" we call it - i think it refers to the imaginary sound the it makes) over the camera and if from the same place you now get an f8 4/10ths or 5/10ths you've maybe got a nice little fill in some situations. jk :ph34r:

In still photography 1st assistants routinely judge natural light exposures by eye...usually with negative film but also with chrome...although that can get pretty hairy. I can usually get a pretty good exposure that way. The real trick is to guess exposures for a photographer who is running in and out of shade and pointing the lens in all directions, with moving clouds in the sky, and different film speeds, lenses and cameras around his neck...plus you are trying to turn the aperture ring while he's doing all this and he doesn't want to be touched...oh yeah and occasionally you are the only available assistant so you are loading the cameras on the fly and shading the lens from the sun at the same time. With strobes it gets a little tricky but you learn to remember what a certain power setting, from a certain distance with a certain modifier will read. I guess the point is that with lots and lots of practice anything is possible. As far as the original question goes, we read out readings like so "five six eight" means f5.6 and 8/10ths. "eleven three" means f11 3/10ths and so on. In other words, tenths matter. jk :ph34r:

"most filmgoers are up the street watching "mindless violence" at the local multiplex, just like I stated in my "silly" reference to "lowbrow" American culture." All I'm saying is that they're waiting in long lines for sex and violence all around the world. You guys are going to have explain where all this "highbrow" culture is being celebrated in the streets. jk :ph34r:

ha ha ha...thanks David!!! Seriously, though. We are all victims of lowbrow work, and we are all culprits as well (well, I am and I know a lot of others are...heck I don't know anyone who isn't). I saw Miami Vice, I know it's crap but I loved it. Seriously the original trailer was like a hundred times better than the film and I gave them (whoever "they" are) 25 bucks for two tickets plus the phone order charge, and still walked away without regret. I just think if we want to "demand" anything from hollywood we have to do it by either asking the government to get involved (no thanks) or by running a studio ourselves or by refusing to buy its products. Me? I can't stop myself! "At least you're not stuck waiting in long lines." That's a really good point. And when did they turn the AC down in chain theaters? If I have to sit through Lord of the Rings part III or whatever I want my outer extremities to be blue when I walk out! jk :ph34r:

Let's not argue about what is "art" and what is not, especially if we are going to resort to ridiculous notions of differing degrees of national "culture". To call American culture "lowbrow" as someone did on this thread (I'm sorry do lesbian schoolgirl undercover task force fantasy films count as Lowbrow?) is just silly and factually incorrect. Nations from all over the world produce great and terrible films every year. I've been stuck in enough cities all around the world on jobs to have seen some really crappy television and film. Hollywood is an enormous industry center. The studios which comprimise Hollywood are obligated to earn profits. When the entire world stops throwing money at hollywood, they will make different films. When people in France, Korea, Belgium, Brazil, South Africa, India, Switzerland and the rest of the culturally superior world grow tired of horror/torture flicks, then Hostel 2 will lose it's enormous funding. (was there already a Hostel 2?) In the meanwhile we should strive to support our local short run film houses. I live at them here in Manhattan and I've got to say, it's alarming how empty they are. There's nothing quite as sad as driving for four hours to Cambridge to see Mizoguchi at the Harvard film Archive, expecting long lines and excited intellectuals, only to find about 12 people in the whole theater, most of whom leave dissapointed because they think Japanes film means Kurosawa, which really means American film. I mean, my own father, who is a brilliant man and quite cultured (for an american...ha ha ha) didn't know who Ozu was until I said "Tokyo Story". Film has the disadvantage, like television, of being an entertainment form for the masses. In this wonderful democratized culture we must bear with many products aimed at a very wide swath of the population. Other options are all around us, but it is our job to seek them out and support them. Even in Maine where I grew up people are constantly complaining about the lack of cultural opportunities. These people are wrong and I prove it every time I go home. Hell, I saw Cache in Portland. That film is all "highbrow"! Christ it's only highbrow: highbrow at the expense of substance! Uh oh I think I've gone too far again! Happy hunting, jk :ph34r:

"I think you should be able to walk out of a movie in the first 30 mins and get some if not all of your money back . Maybe then hollywood would try harder." I've been refunded my money before, and if they won't give you cash they almost always will give a free ticket for the future, like what Brad received. I think a lot of the complaints I hear about Hollywood films stem from a wishful desire for Hollywood to produce art, when the first objective of a big studio is (and must be) to make money. If people will go to see "titanic" two or three times then unfortunately that's what the studios will have to make. I hear an equal number of complaints regarding two issues: the lack of quality art coming out of "Hollywood", and how hard it is to support one's self in this business. I don't think we can honestly make both of these complaints at the same time without being guilty of asking for too much!!! :-) jk :ph34r:

I suppose I've lit just about every big celeberity actor or model I can think of off the top of my head. They have run the full spectrum from total jerk to class act. Oprah still sticks out in my mind as being a total sweetheart. Pam Anderson was...fun. To be honest, very few were really horrible to work with but the people who get burned seem to be those who enter the meeting with expectations. I think beyond professionalism and common politeness I have always treated celebrities just like anyone else and they have responded with returned respect. One very famous male actor who has published at least one book of photographs told me I was lighting him incorrectly while we were on set. It kind of pissed me off but what can you do. I could understand if he had seen a polaroid he didn't like but this was just based on where I had placed the lights and cards etc. I think years of everyone telling you how great you are is bad for the soul. jk :ph34r: btw, interesting story about Max Von Sydow. I've heard of him doing things like that. I also heard that Alec Guiness was from the same hard work, no ego mentality. Winners like that bring respectability to what can sometimes be an unhealthy workplace.

ian, i agree with you. i have always been let down buy his films, which to me succeed only in somehow managing to feel heavy-handed while at the same time having almost no meaningful content. interesting side note: my ex was an actor in one of his films which forced me to sit through an excruciating seiries of shorts. jk :ph34r:

no problem jonathan, it's as easy as cutting and pasting the list i already typed on page 1 of this thread: crash 2006 million dollar baby 2004 return of king 2003 chicago 2002 a beautiful mind 2001 gladiator 2000 american beauty 1999 shakespear in love 1998 titanic 1997 english patient 1996 braveheart 1995 then again i see what you're saying. "braveheart" really was a masterpiece. jk :ph34r:

gladiator...return of the king... it's ok to make a fun movie that makes buckets of cash. its ok to have an awards ceremony to honor that. but the oscars are hardly worth discussing for lovers of film as art. watch "titanic" and then watch "landscape in the mist" and then never watch the academy awards again. jk :ph34r: