Shawn Murphy

I don't think they're related (at least not directly), if you go to the Wexler Video website you can see the founder is Bob Wexler and if I'm not mistaken their primary emphasis is in video, not film. Plus in the film, which if you haven't seen it I highly recommend, Haskell is shown discussing the eventual sale of most of his gear.

If you ever get a chance to watch "Tell Them Who You Are", about Haskell Wexler's relationship with his son (shot by his son), there's two scenes that show a lot of the equipment he apparently acquired over a long career, but being the beginner that I am I can only guess that his amount of equipment was the exception.

nice, I loved the deep red in the clouds near the end. Any particular interval settings, and how long did it run for?

I get to see Akeelah next Monday here in Seattle!

According to IMDB it was the SONY PD150. I've seen several blowups from the Panasonic DVX and they were worth seeing on the big screen nonetheless: Lonesome Jim and November were shot with the DVX, and the doc Murderball was as well, though I haven't seen it yet so I guess it will have to be on the small screen for Murderball. I'm actually very curious to see how David approaches this visually, I think there's still so much that can be done with creative lighting and in the digital transfer stage that hasn't been done yet with DV (or hasn't been seen yet on the big screen that). Here's a Lynch comment on the PD150 from an article: "Lynch also spoke of his new film in production, Inland Empire, starring Laura Dern and Jeremy Irons, which is shooting with a Sony PD150. "I discovered DV making small experimental films for my Web site and fell in love with the medium because it's so lightweight. It gives you so much freedom with a much smaller crew [and] longer takes and you're able to do things you can't do with a film camera," Lynch explained, adding wryly, " It has this thing called "automatic focus" that is great. It makes film cameras seem very absurd. DV is not up to the quality of film right now but it's getting closer and closer. We've done tests for Inland Empire and it looks very good."

np ;-)

Actually I have seen a Fisher, and a Panther, and a number of the other larger 35mm rigs, what I haven't seen is one called a "Modern", which is what Bob said he had, hence the reason I said "I assume this is a rig that's not easily unmounted". Are you saying the 'modern' that Bob has is of the same weight/load capacity as a Fisher, etc?

I assume this is a rig that's not easily unmounted? With mine (not a 35mm or a seat), I never leave it standing/sitting on the wheels and track for very long, I always take it off the track and stand it on its side.

What is "sash", do you mean the wire mesh/screen for windows?

Thanks for the follow up, greatly appreciated info. I guess whenever you have a group of people making these kinds of decisions (festival entries, Oscars, etc), there are always elements of politics and "other factors" that come into play. For example, I'm watching the featurette on the making of Brazil that deals specifically with all the troubles Gilliam had getting his cut released in the states, and as many know, he showed eventually showed his cut to the LA Film Critics who then gave Brazil top honors, while the NY critics basically panned it. Regardless, it's always nice to hear opinions expressed intelligently and descriptively. Thanks again.

I don't mean to belabor this point, but I really want to encourage well articulated constructive criticism and commentary of films, cinematography, editing, etc., and as such I hope we all discourage generalizations like "I don't like this", "this film is bad", etc. ..most of the time what is deemed "good" or "bad" is subjective, and when someone critiques our work we might find it useful if they speak specifically about what they did or didn't like, and why. So, are you saying that you also felt that there were "Seemingly endless takes of nothing", and this is why you believe the committee should have passed on the film? I look forward to seeing the film and finding out for myself it it's a just case of stylistic aesthetics or perhaps I might find it altogether annoying or boring, but at what point can I honestly say it was so "bad" that it shouldn't have made it into a festival? (I ask sincerely)

http://www.putfile.com/ http://video.google.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.zippyvideos.com/ http://www.internetvideomag.com/ProductRev...oHosting102.htm

] Do you have a trailer? If so there are number of places I can recommend for posting/hosting the file, but the entire movie without significant compression is far too large for streaming, what's the running time?

...do you have a link to some footage from your entry?

I've never seen Brown Bunny, but I have read many of the reviews, critiques, and praise, so I have to ask, are you using Brown Bunny as your lowest common denominator because you honestly believe Gallo is a poor filmmaker/storyteller? Or is it because the subject matter and his approach to filmmaking/storytelling isn't to your liking? There's a big difference between poor filmmaking/storytelling/cinematography/editing/ etc and styles of filmmaking, indeed there are many films that I just don't find interesting, some of the classic European "masters" as a matter of fact, but I would never suggest that they are "bad" films or not worthy of Cannes or and festival, they're just not my 'cup of tea'. Good luck on your entry and do you have a link to some footage? ~Shawn