It's About Time
Perspectives on the future of film, television, and more
We are one week into February, and I can now proudly report that I have finally finished the script for my next video.
My original plan was to publish it about three months ago, for reasons which will become clear when you see it. Not today, though, because although I’ve recorded the voice over, I now have to edit the darn thing.
If you want to get the video not only early, but totally uncensored by YouTube’s rather zealous copyright gnomes, you should become a paid subscriber.
Until then, enjoy some of these articles and videos I’ve been using to distract myself from my actual work. Be sure to read all the way to the end (which might be clipped off in the email), where you’ll find a short film I actually did finish.
Old School Beauty
First up, some video essays about cinematography.
This is a great video essay, largely about one of my favorite cinematographers, Dean Cundey. My only problem with it is every time the YouTuber cuts to himself, he doesn’t look old enough to shave, and it makes me feel super old.
This next video breaks down the animated camerawork in Beauty and the Beast—
Speaking of animation, the following isn’t a video essay, but I find translating “Holding Out for a Hero” to Old English absolutely hilarious, and I wanted to share it. Besides, the animation is fantastic.
If you enjoy that kind of silliness, Hildegard von Blingin’s whole channel is worth checking out.
Creativity Ain’t Easy
Moviewise continues his one-man crusade to separate the director from the film—
True art is difficult to make, but can anything be art? No. And
explains why we need to stop saying that—
Creativity is even more of a risk for a critic. When they step out of their passive role into actively making something, they open themselves up to being held to their own standards. Previous generations had critics-turned-directors like Peter Bogdanovich and Francois Truffaut. We’ve apparently got Patrick Willems and, as I recently learned via Social Matter, the Critical Drinker.
I recommend reading the whole article, but what really stood out to me about the generically titled Rogue Elements is that Drinker raised $370,000, and decided to make a 42 minute short film—literally the worst length for a movie.
Have you ever watched anything that was 45 minutes? No, you haven’t. It’s too long to be a short, too short to be a feature. You might be thinking that TV drama episodes are about 45 minutes, but those aren’t meant to be watched in isolation. (More on this below.)
With that amount of money, it would’ve been far smarter to produce three, even four short films—especially for someone who’s never actually made a movie before. Of course, this is the sort of mistake that could only be made some who’s never made a movie before.
Drinker now labels the short as a “proof of concept” for a TV series. Which one would normally call a pilot, but that’s not really relevant, since he originally pitched it as a short film.
Speaking of television…
Movies and TV are Different
I totally agree with
’s take on the folly of “cinematic” television—
It reminds me of something Frank Miller said about comics a long time ago—both mediums exist in time, in a way that movies (generally) don’t. Time passes for the audience between episodes/issues, and the creators have to take that into consideration. The very best use it to their advantage.
On the film side of independent production,
examines how distribution is changing in that sector, as well.
Me and My Little Film
After all of the above, I suppose it’s only fair to hold up to scrutiny my own short film, EXT. LOS ANGELES - DAY, which I made after being awarded an art grant for the princely sum of $1,000.