charles pappas

The Slow Death of Hollywood https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywood?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMDEwNDcsInBvc3RfaWQiOjgxODYyLCJfIjoiSHdIQXciLCJpYXQiOjE1NjI3MDA1NDgsImV4cCI6MTU2MjcwNDE0OCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTExNTI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.b8NC4YJVESPkFZQRoJZ5b8QDnjb-6WFM7kRIsx-Skng i.e., Hollywood labor, not capital. Somewhat off-topic, but a wider view.

This thread, including the links, has turned out to be an extremely valuable one (pun intended) and perhaps it will be continued and more light shed on film finances. As regards the tax credits, apparently huge percentages of the cost of films could be deducted from an investors personal income tax, taxes due to income from other jobs or businesses completely unrelated to the film. Clearly, the higher ones income from their primary occupation, the more the movie tax benefit would benefit them. (The "starving artist" would see very little benefit.) No wonder this scheme was ripe for corruption.

I have a question about composition after viewing the above still. (The question does not relate to T. Win's set-up as he used multi-cameras and I don't know where any of the cameras were.) Let's say I had a single camera and wanted it pointed as shown in the above photo and let's say the actors were in their normal "starting posture" in the above photo, ie, they would bob back and forth but always return to the "starting posture." Would I want to move the table (and the and the background table) either way a few inches so that the actors faces were in the door window panes and not in the wood mullions? It seems to me that I would want to move the table slightly, but I can see a case for not doing so, and wonder if there are authoritative opinions or answers?

In theory, theory and practice should be the same. In practice, no.

Your film strikes me as an individualistic "tone poem," of a film made by someone wanting to exercise and express his creativity and technical aptitude. The film is in a sense beyond criticism, unless it shows glaring technical flaws or it is so long and/or self indulgent that the viewer, however sympathetic and open-minded he is, is turned off. Your film is perfectly fine technically and short and personable enough to keep at least me turned on, so no, there can be no criticism Now, if the film had an obvious intent, such as to convey a conventional narrative plot, or you had included a statement of purpose like that you wanted to show all the hues of blue or to increase the public's awareness of dolphins, then the film could be approached on those terms.

I would not say that I "made," a movie unless a couple of criteria were met. I would have had to have directed the film or been the creative ramrod behind it, such as producer/line producer, or producer/screenwriter. Secondly, the film preferably must have had some sort of public or quasi-public exhibition, or, less preferably, be accessible on-line to the public and the public would be able to locate the film on-line without previously having known it existed (Amazon Prime or Netflix as opposed to throwing it up on You-Tube, unless the filmmaker had an actively promoted You-Tube channel.) Exceptions made if a Hollywood studio sits on your film. By those criteria I have two, maybe three, films.

Thank you Evan and let me say that I think you guys as a team of craftsmen (actors, director, DP, lighting, sound, editing, etc.) have the techniques down well enough that your success in the conventional narrative feature film sense, if that is a goal of yours, will depend on the stories you choose to tell and how well you tell them. Technically, I think your team is ready.

Again, this was meant as a compliment not a denigration. I agree that the lightning was appropriate to the subject matter and environment in that it appeared to be hard and aimed directly at the set of actors who were portraying cruel murderers giving each other the "third degree," interrogation. I only call it controversial because on the film sets I've seen lit every light lamp is bounced off a wall, a ceiling, a beadboard or foil or a reflector unless it is aimed directly through scads of gel or scrim or is a tiny eyelight. Of course I exaggerate for effect but I do suspect many DP's would be on the verge of a heart attack if they walked on a set and saw a bunch of lights aimed directly at a set, even if they knew the subject matter and environment and the intent of the director. Having said all that, I could be wrong about what I remarked about DP's finding it "controversial," (it is based on very limited experience) and more significantly I could be wrong that you used direct lighting - it could all have been bounced for all I know.

Related to maypoles and May Day, The Wicker Man with be playing at the Austin Film Society 4/26 to 5/1.

I was writing the long clarification below but Mark Dunn put it more succinctly, and it was definitely a compliment and not sarcasm: The first comment was meant to be jokey, because it seems that most filmmakers, after listing their crew, and in the case of major projects, listing hundreds of crew members, also feel obligated to add a "Thanks," section to the credits which would typically list from 15-20 people to sometimes several hundred thanked souls. (Additionally, there are sometimes also "Special Thanks," sections in the credits.) In the case of your project, you could have thanked your parents, siblings, wives/girlfriends, people who looked at the script and commented, people who looked at the project at various stages of completion and commented, the providers of the cards, cigarettes, bottles, cups and glasses, etc., providers of the table and chairs, other people who gave you moral support and encouragement for this project or in general, providers of the space you shot in ...

First of all, thanks for not thanking anyone in the end credits. In my opinion, the acting, editing and direction were fine. Good sound. The lighting might be considered controversial; I liked the apparent fact that you weren't afraid to point a light at someone but others might find it too bright and shiny. I found the script and setting (I assume it took place in Hell) to be a bit on the cliche-y side, with nothing striking me as especially profound (with one exception, see below), but the script held interest, gave each actor their time and did its job. I much appreciated the segment in red - its was short and sweet, didn't beat the viewer over the head and once it was over you let it be and didn't mindlessly repeat that motif. Excellent, and also elevated many many notches for viewablilty due to the use of 16mm. Thanks.

password wont work

Yes, thanks, now i remember pic-sync, although I wouldn't have been sure if it was 16 or 35, but it is 35. One now on sale on ebay, see below. Way too much for me, would have been willing to spend a couple $100 or so on a 35mm type moviescope if such were available. If anyone can thing of a work-around let me know. 35MM ACMADE FILM EDITING EQUIPMENT EDITING MACHINE PIC SYNC PROJECTOR MOVIE ARRI Condition: -- Time left: Time left:5d 20h Wednesday, 6:46PM Price: GBP 2,250.00 Approximately US $2,960.78 Buy It Now-

Why was there never the equivalent of a 35mm Moviescope viewer? (Or was there?) It is frustrating to have rewinds, splicers and gang syncs, but no viewer option. I can imagine that the feeling was that any parties shooting 35mm would have the resources to at least have an upright Movieola, was that it. More importantly, are there any work-arounds? Thanks.

????????