Director of Iron Man tours his sets

Too cool...

Iron Man - On the Set with Jon Favreau

Giant Amazonian water lily

This is a beautiful time-lapse/nature bit. I was tremendously inspired by it.

Giant Amazon Water Lily
by omurap666

Maya Deren

Maya Deren is a female avant garde filmmaker from the 40's and 50's. I don't like some of her work but there is one in particular that i found quite cutting edge for its time. "At Land" is a very creative surrealist film, perhaps a bit too out there for some, but I love how it was edited and shot. The dynamic camera, and the quick editing is quite ahead of its time. But more importantly it mazximizes the beauty of film - Editing.

Maya stars and directs in "At Land"

PART 1:



PART 2:

Tarsem Singh's "The Fall" - and surrealism

I'm looking forward to seeing "Iron Man" and "Indiana Jones" but I don't think either of these films will be even in the same league as Tarsem Singh's "The Fall."

The trailer alone is probably better than both films combined. Tarsem's last film "The Cell" was dark, beautiful, and surreal. I, being a sucker for good surrealism, fell instantly in love with "The Cell." But alas, after 8 years he has finally made a second film!

This brings me to the subject of surrealism. I am of the opinion that filmmakers have not fully explored the surrealist genre. "The Cell" is quite the masterpiece of course, and a great study in its capabilities, but we could go further. I think surrealism actually translates better in film than a painting. Why? Well, because that is how we dream, we dream in "shots," and moving images. Therefore with the magic of filmmaking, anything could be done.

The challenge of course is giving surrealism meaning, and rendering it intelligible. But probably the real reason the genre of surrealism hasn't peaked is because of its challenging nature, to conseive of a world, to create a world that is so different from anything we have ever seen before or after, is quite a daunting task and not for the faint of heart. This is where the true talent lies. Perhaps this is why it took Tarsem 8 years to make his second film?

Imagine if you were watching a film where the rules you know, were constantly broken, this is what made "The Matrix" so amazing, and why the second and third film flopped. We love to watch the rules of our world be broken, thats why we are entertained by magicians. Imagine a film that like a good magic trick left you wondering where, how, even when its going, one in which only the extraordinary is seen. That would make a spectacular film. That would make a film worth remembering.


Tarsem Singh's "The Fall"



One more surrealist film that would be interesting to watch, unfortunately it will never be distributed.
Drawing Restraint 9 - with Bjork

Creature Comforts

Every once in a while I run across something so brilliant I think "I wish I woulda thought of that!"
This is one of those instances...

A clip from Creature Comforts about self image. It's super creative and very funny.

Star Trek behind the scenes

Remember reading rainbow? They had a cool episode on the behind the scenes of Star Trek the next generation.
The director is such a nerd! And the special effects guy is totally cool for using razor blades!

ON NUDITY IN FILM

Recently a matter of conflict arose between a friend and me. It regarded watching a film with nudity, and sexuality. I stated how I didn’t wish to see the film due to its nudity, and he was “not gonna reject a film automatically because of… those
elements.”

He is a Christian and I am a Christian and so an ethical dilemma arises. Is one of us right? Or is this a non-issue? Are we just disagreeing over which is better vanilla or chocolate?

Or does the Bible speak about the matter? Is there a Biblical example to be found in scripture? Also, what philosophical insight can we bring to the subject?

I have to admit his ambivalence to the matter shocked me. The matter caused me stand back and reflect on my own views. Why do I believe this to be a definite ethical issue, and yet he finds it trivial? I didn’t sleep until I had resolved the matter in my mind, and it is here that I am going to try to express very briefly the conclusion I have come to and how I got there. I pray that this will be a blessing to others who have wrestled with this issue themselves.





Isn’t’ Nudity in film just “art”?

Now I think that the obvious rationalization is going to be that nudity is “art” therefore its okay. The masterworks of art have nudity and surely they are not a sin to view.

This presents a fundamental question “Is the nudity of ‘film’, the same as the nudity of ‘art’?”

The fundamental difference between the nudity in film and the nudity in art is very distinct.

First let me define by what I mean when I refer to art. Art for the sake of this argument is the artistic creation of something. To define it simply, paint and canvas.

Film, can be also tied with photography, since they are essentially the same thing (film is just 24 photographs per second).

The fundamental difference with art and film is that art is only a representation of reality, but film “IS” the reality. With film you are not viewing a representation, you are viewing the actual thing. So when you see a film with nudity, you are seeing a REAL PERSON unclothed. Not a representation.

What if your wife walked into your house with her friends, and you had a fully naked woman standing in your living room and you were just sitting there staring at her? What do you think she would say? How would your wife respond after you explained to her it was just art? Wouldn’t this constitute as adultery in your wife’s eyes?

What would you think if you went to church and right on the center stage you saw the pastor and some woman simulating sex? Would you tell your invited guest “its okay its just art.” What passage of the bible would you turn to, to explain the biblical coherence of the act?

You may object and say that is real life but film is different. Well then what if I asked you to gather the kids and sit in your living room as I pop in a videotape of your wife completely naked kissing, caressing, and simulating having sex with another man. What would you do? What if while you saw another man touching your naked wife I told you “she is only pretending don’t worry its just art.” would this appease your mind?

You think this is outrageous? But that is EXACTLY what is happening, these women on the screen are not fake, they are real people, with husbands, with families, and children. And that is why film is different than art. The paint doesn’t have emotions, the paint is not a person. But an actor is a person. And they don’t seize to be any less of a person when the camera rolls.




Is nudity in film Pornographic?

A sex scene in a film is more than just viewing an image. I think a sex scene in a film may be even more pornographic than the standard pornography, because they are not just communicating the act of sex, but they are also causing you to identify with the characters and psychologically participate in the act. In my mind there is no question that they are the same.




What then does the Bible say about nudity?

Nudity comes in two forms I believe. And they are categorized in their purpose or intent.

First, there is non-sexual nudity. Non-sexual nudity would include images like those of the holocaust, images that do no evoke a sexual response, or at least are not intended to.

The Bible has many examples of this, but the most pronounced is the one God commanded his Prophet Isaiah to walk around naked to prophesy how the children of Israel were to be taken captive and hauled to Babylon naked, and barefoot (ISA 20). There is also David who danced naked (2 Sam 6), Jesus was probably crucified naked, and there are many more.

So we can clearly see that non-sexual nudity is not considered a sin.



The second form of nudity is sexual nudity, or nudity with the inherent purpose of causing arousal.

Let me begin by stating that sexual nudity is okay, and was created by God. Sexuality is a sacred act between husband and wife, all other forms of sexuality outside of marriage are a sin.

In Leviticus 18, God commands not to look at the nakedness of all relatives, this has sexual overtones of course.

Ham saw Noah his father naked, and it was considered a great sin.

Also Jesus very clearly states:

“But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Mt 5:28

Lust refers to passion, covet, or desire.

Clearly then it can be stated the act of imagining sex, or desiring to have sex with, or lusting over a woman is a sin, whether clothed or not.

Therefore it can be said that if you watch a film and you are sexually aroused, or lust over the characters in the film, nudity or no nudity it is a sin. And since the purpose of sex and nudity in movies is to cause one to be sexually aroused, I believe this to be a sin.


You may argue that you are not being sexually aroused by watching a nude woman having sex, if that is the case then I supposed you will have no trouble convincing your wife to accompany you to the strip club, might as well bring the kids, since there is nothing “wrong” with it. Since you aren’t being “sexually aroused.” Tell them its an art project.


Even the world make’s a distinction regarding nudity, you don’t see porn rated G – for general audiences. You also can’t tell the judge that the nude photo’s of underage kids is art. As a matter of fact they may put you in jail longer for making a remark like that.

More Jurassic Park - Shot by Shot

I enjoy studying films and analysing them, and what you see here is all of the shots for the second scene of Jurassic Park. This is like a storyboard of the film, only its exactly what they shot. I find it very revealing to see how many set-ups it took to make a scene happen. I have more than a few of these of different films and will post more in the future. So here it is for your viewing pleasure.

This is scene 2, notice the small amount of coverage - 6 setups including the one inside the cave.... This scene shows you why Spieldberg is king.... notice how he introduces the lawer in a reflection shot, just doing a tilt like that adds so much! Also notice the cave shot though its only one setup! And lastly see the benefits of two shots.

Ultraviolet, Brick - Coming Soon

ULTRAVIOLET looks amazing! For a second though I thought I was watching Resident Evil 3. This film is what Aeon Flux was probably supposed to be like. Although some of the green screen stuff rendered the film very fuzzy it seems like. Still though there is definitely a great sense of style.



BRICK also looks pretty cool. Could this actually be a indie film worth watching?

"End of the Spear" Review

I saw the new Christian film "End of the Spear" yesterday. Lets start with what the critics are saying, here are some excerpts:

Boston Globe, Wesley Morris
"Not an emotional powerhouse so much as a dutiful public service announcement."

Chicago Tribune, Allison Benedikt
"...a childish and visually repetitive movie, ham-fisted, proselytizing and overtly simplified."

E! Online,
"Religious movies are not known for their artfulness, and this one is no exception."

Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman
"...atrociously scripted and edited..."

End of the Spear never quite shakes free of presenting the Waodani as the mysterious other — barbarians waiting to be civilized. The missionaries don't hang around long enough to do it, but the movie, which is atrociously scripted and edited, carries out the mission for them, turning Mincayani (Louie Leonardo), a surly and handsome Waodani leader, from killer to saint without making psychological sense of either.

The percussive score pulses and soars like music from a generic jungle flick (it falls into a musical category that Variety recently called "orchestral with ethnic elements")....The characters, however, are not as exhilarating or well conceived as any of the action sequences are well choreographed. This is too bad because the true story is such a fascinating convergence of earnestness and incivility.


Unfortunately I think the critics are justified in their comments. However I personally thought the film was the best Christian film made to date. There were problems with it however and I think the critics all pointed it out in their own way. Here is why I think the critics didn't like it, I remind you though I didn't find the movie laughable like the left behind films.

The film is deliberately manipulative, there is no question. And even when watching it, I felt like they dumbed the story down for me. The POV of the film was misplaced I felt. It had a huge potential to be something greater. I think that is the central fault with the script, the story was told from a kids perspective, but we never knew what the kid wanted, or why he was relevant really to the story. Also we saw no clear motivation for any of the characters, and the film did feel like the Christians were the ones that were in the wrong, like we conquering them. I think one of the critics pointed that out.

Now for the good. The Indians were incredible, I felt like they were real, it felt documentary -esque. The film didn't feel that embarrassing to me, and I think the critics were biased somewhat when viewing the film. But maybe they weren't. This however proves that only way to win Hollywood is through the back door. I think really the fundamental flaw of the film was it didn't really know what its purpose was. That's why one of the critics called it a public service anouncement. It's kind of the difference between reading the facts and dramatizing the facts. But again I recommend the film. And if you are a Christian you have to see it, its mandatory, its in the Bible. "thou shalt support your Christian filmmaker" 1 Timothy 25:17.