Film director and installation-artist Peter E. Richardson carried a basic theme in presenting all his pieces, and it wasn't fully clear for me until the end. he made a point to say "all these (works) were done with not much money" but an idea. With good will, strong ideas, collaboration and tenacity you too can make films.
I find the current state of cinema turned upside with this phenomena of the world wide web; the fact that anyone can take a digital camcorder, editing software and an internet connection can make a film and distribute it. I think this phenomena is a big threat to the industry because distribution and packaging their own products are becoming less appealing to consumers.
The fact that the average consumer is becoming smarter in understanding how the film and music industry works is a greater threat. Technology seems to have allowed this freedom for anyone who chooses to to create and share.
In comparing Peter Richardsons talk to Katrina McPhersons, he said that his work would not have been possible without collaboration. While Katrina had stated that to a certain extent their was collaboration she really felt it wasn't at it's full potential, she was always telling people what to do. Now, is their a lot of collaboration between director and cast/crew?
I believe in the importance of collaboration- a system that is not well received in a school setting. Let me give you my personal example; at the University of Maine's New Media program we are required to take a computer programming course that teaches an outdated language called SCHEME. My teacher stressed that if we copy code or speak to more people outside our team we would receive a failing grade. I had written a piece of code that would give values to items and you could change the values by typing a simple command- for some reason it would not work and i couldn't figure out why- nor could my team. I attempted to ask a class mate (who i considered the smartest kid in the class) and he said he wouldn't look at it because of "academic honesty" and fear of getting in trouble. This mindset is fine if after college you want to become a good little citizen and become a slave to the man, but in the realm of New Media we encourage collaboration and do not look at it as cheating- especially if everyones common goal is to learn, understand, engage and change.
Peter was what I like to call a low-budget visionary film maker. He wanted to show everyone that to make a film you don't need a budget, while it might help, but it isn't necessary.
Steve- I'm not sure that this is so threatening to the industry, because Blockbusters still exist. While it has never been easy for the common Joe with a camcorder to make money off of a film, its still the same way. Filmmaking is not an easy career to start from the organic level, and I don't believe that its become any harder.
I'm not so sure how I feel about filmmaking anymore. I used to have a slight obsession with it, until I fell out of grace with the idea this past year.
I liked how Peter Richardson presented his pieces, but I, too found it hard to understand what his "theme" was; I really admired him for what he has done because for the past four years, I have also been a low-budget filmmaker...low-budget being, in my case, $0.00, and whatever I need I buy from my own pocket. I think that an idea (a GOOD idea) is really all you need to make a film if you have the right equipment, but that if you want to make a GOOD film, it requires much more than that. You need proper HD camera, lighting, a good set, talented actors...I learned this the hard way.
I agree with Stephen that perhaps because technology is making these things to available to the everyday person, the movie industry may suffer, but I think that the magic of the silver screen will always be there. While I'd like to say that my later films were good, after learning from doing so many, I know they are nothing compared to high-end Hollywood movies. However, this is not at ALL to say that you cannot make a good low-budget movie. It just takes a LOT of teamwork and collaboration between all different factions.
Will- Blockbuster doesn't make films, they only distribute films, movies and games after they are put on a medium that allows personal/home viewing. (ie DVD VHS CD). It will be interesting to see how well the company lasts-
The concept of open source or "pay if you would like to support this (product)" will be more common in the coming years. Established companys are realizing the benefits- including video game companies. Valve, (Half-Life 1 & 2) released their source code and a couple guys took it and made the popular online sensation Counter-Strike. this created a new product and people bought half-life in order to freely download Counter-Strike. Now that series has spawned a cult following. What if Valve had not done this? Would they have such a strong fanbase? Would people in the gaming community respect them as much as they do now (specifically for that act of respect and gratitude for their fans)? I can't say that it would work for the movie industry (how would it)?
Yes you can make good things with little to no money, it about your ideas and what you want to say. Steve I think that what will was trying to say in saying that there are still blockbusters is that there are movies that do come out and have had the huge budgets and are in the theaters for one week and are making record sales, that’s where Blockbusters, the renting store, got their name, anyways I agree with the two of you in the sense that he definitely made some interesting things happen with little to no budget.
How this relates to new media and art is in away related to how it relates to the economics of making a project. As artists or filmmakers or installation artists we work with limitations to help us in our attempt to create something interesting. So by being limited by how much money you have to spend it limits you on how you create your art, your film your, space. It’s always interesting to see how people create some very innovative things when they are limited by money.
Its not always about the money for some people, its sometimes about the money, but not always, but it is always about the way that you feel when you’ve created something interesting, even if that something is only interesting to only you.
I enjoyed Peter Richardson's presentation very much because he shared how he came up with his ideas and what he keeps in mind while making certain projects. One of my favorite aspects of Peter was how he logged all of his ideas into books for possible later use. This is something I have thought about doing for a long time because I will come up with an idea, not write it down and completely forget about it after a short period of time. I also like how Peter mentioned that there sometimes is two types of works that he does, one that "pays the morgage" and the other where you are free to do whatever you like, like tackle one of the ideas you've written down in your "idea book." This will most likely be something most new media and media-eaque majors run into where they will need to do work/jobs that will pay the bills whether its something they like or not. Then after earning some money, you can go and spend it to pursue other ideas that you have.
Steve brings up a great point of how collaboration - an incredible tool to help those expecially in our major learn more in a shorter period of time is not well received in the school community. The class Steve refers to is a class that I have taken as well and like most people have struggled with it. I have been in a similar situation where I've needed to look at somebody else's work to better only to better understand the criteria but of course no one was willing to share or explain because it's considered cheating. Those who fall through the craks fall very fast and deep in such an environment.
Having these special sessions is interesting because each person works in a different field (or at least a different approach) to certain new media relatives such as film.
RE STEPHEN // In some ways the average consumer is becoming smarter just because of situation (plus companies are trying to make it easier to pull in certain customers), but in some ways things are getting tougher too because the technologies have to be more complex to aid to the needs of others. It's one of those "both true and false" sort of deals. I do agree that people are doing more by themselves. I know I have fixed a bunch of computers myself and saved myself a lot of cash because of it.
Also, new media (esp. here) puts a huge emphasis on collaboration, which I think is great because me being a very sociologically minded person, i see collaboration as acceptance of each other, and the more we work in groups the more we know our peers and society. Besides that point though, good collaborations are often times hard to find. I know in high school I was always the one who did the work, even in college I would say half of the time i did all of the work. In Peter's situation, he obviously had like-minded and ambitious people willing to work on these projects because they pumped out working projects.
I am a huge fan of low-budget film-making. A lot of my favorite films are indie (which most had a budget of more than $0 , but still). I watch a lot of crappy B horror flicks that obviously had little budget - and they are just more fun to watch. One of my favorite indie film companies is Troma - who have been making indie horror/cheese films for over 25 years. The founder Lloyd Kauffman is just a genius. Their last project was funded solely by him, and they have stayed studio free for over 25 years (no blockbuster, etc. etc.) -- so there is something to be said about that kind of perspective. For one, they can do whatever the hell they want (which I am sure the freedom is something that any indie film maker basks in -- including Peter).
Money can only effectively give us two things when it comes to film -- A.) Clarity (picture, sound, quality overall -- HD, etc.) B.) special effects -- this is the big one because it usually masks bad plots and horrible acting if something visually interesting is going on. That's why it is easy to spot an indie film that is really bad because if it doesn't have plot or good acting or something interesting, then there is nothing to hold your attention.
There are def. a lot of sacrifices when it comes to low-budget film making. I was at the Hope Festival recently and the Maine Activist Film Network was there, and the guy at the stand was saying he works 40 hours a week as a volunteer. You have to absolutely love what you do, and have some sort of extra income in order to support needs (shelter, food, etc.). I think I would be happy if i had enough to live sufficiently and was doing something I love because at the end of the day it is passion that keeps you going, not money -- and if it is money, then it's an elaborate facade -- the ultimate hoodwink on yourself.
7 comments:
Film director and installation-artist Peter E. Richardson carried a basic theme in presenting all his pieces, and it wasn't fully clear for me until the end. he made a point to say "all these (works) were done with not much money" but an idea. With good will, strong ideas, collaboration and tenacity you too can make films.
I find the current state of cinema turned upside with this phenomena of the world wide web; the fact that anyone can take a digital camcorder, editing software and an internet connection can make a film and distribute it. I think this phenomena is a big threat to the industry because distribution and packaging their own products are becoming less appealing to consumers.
The fact that the average consumer is becoming smarter in understanding how the film and music industry works is a greater threat. Technology seems to have allowed this freedom for anyone who chooses to to create and share.
In comparing Peter Richardsons talk to Katrina McPhersons, he said that his work would not have been possible without collaboration. While Katrina had stated that to a certain extent their was collaboration she really felt it wasn't at it's full potential, she was always telling people what to do.
Now, is their a lot of collaboration between director and cast/crew?
I believe in the importance of collaboration- a system that is not well received in a school setting. Let me give you my personal example; at the University of Maine's New Media program we are required to take a computer programming course that teaches an outdated language called SCHEME. My teacher stressed that if we copy code or speak to more people outside our team we would receive a failing grade. I had written a piece of code that would give values to items and you could change the values by typing a simple command- for some reason it would not work and i couldn't figure out why- nor could my team. I attempted to ask a class mate (who i considered the smartest kid in the class) and he said he wouldn't look at it because of "academic honesty" and fear of getting in trouble.
This mindset is fine if after college you want to become a good little citizen and become a slave to the man, but in the realm of New Media we encourage collaboration and do not look at it as cheating- especially if everyones common goal is to learn, understand, engage and change.
Peter was what I like to call a low-budget visionary film maker. He wanted to show everyone that to make a film you don't need a budget, while it might help, but it isn't necessary.
Steve- I'm not sure that this is so threatening to the industry, because Blockbusters still exist. While it has never been easy for the common Joe with a camcorder to make money off of a film, its still the same way. Filmmaking is not an easy career to start from the organic level, and I don't believe that its become any harder.
I'm not so sure how I feel about filmmaking anymore. I used to have a slight obsession with it, until I fell out of grace with the idea this past year.
I liked how Peter Richardson presented his pieces, but I, too found it hard to understand what his "theme" was; I really admired him for what he has done because for the past four years, I have also been a low-budget filmmaker...low-budget being, in my case, $0.00, and whatever I need I buy from my own pocket. I think that an idea (a GOOD idea) is really all you need to make a film if you have the right equipment, but that if you want to make a GOOD film, it requires much more than that. You need proper HD camera, lighting, a good set, talented actors...I learned this the hard way.
I agree with Stephen that perhaps because technology is making these things to available to the everyday person, the movie industry may suffer, but I think that the magic of the silver screen will always be there. While I'd like to say that my later films were good, after learning from doing so many, I know they are nothing compared to high-end Hollywood movies. However, this is not at ALL to say that you cannot make a good low-budget movie. It just takes a LOT of teamwork and collaboration between all different factions.
Will- Blockbuster doesn't make films, they only distribute films, movies and games after they are put on a medium that allows personal/home viewing. (ie DVD VHS CD). It will be interesting to see how well the company lasts-
The concept of open source or "pay if you would like to support this (product)" will be more common in the coming years.
Established companys are realizing the benefits- including video game companies. Valve, (Half-Life 1 & 2) released their source code and a couple guys took it and made the popular online sensation Counter-Strike. this created a new product and people bought half-life in order to freely download Counter-Strike. Now that series has spawned a cult following.
What if Valve had not done this? Would they have such a strong fanbase? Would people in the gaming community respect them as much as they do now (specifically for that act of respect and gratitude for their fans)?
I can't say that it would work for the movie industry (how would it)?
Yes you can make good things with little to no money, it about your ideas and what you want to say. Steve I think that what will was trying to say in saying that there are still blockbusters is that there are movies that do come out and have had the huge budgets and are in the theaters for one week and are making record sales, that’s where Blockbusters, the renting store, got their name, anyways I agree with the two of you in the sense that he definitely made some interesting things happen with little to no budget.
How this relates to new media and art is in away related to how it relates to the economics of making a project. As artists or filmmakers or installation artists we work with limitations to help us in our attempt to create something interesting. So by being limited by how much money you have to spend it limits you on how you create your art, your film your, space. It’s always interesting to see how people create some very innovative things when they are limited by money.
Its not always about the money for some people, its sometimes about the money, but not always, but it is always about the way that you feel when you’ve created something interesting, even if that something is only interesting to only you.
I enjoyed Peter Richardson's presentation very much because he shared how he came up with his ideas and what he keeps in mind while making certain projects. One of my favorite aspects of Peter was how he logged all of his ideas into books for possible later use. This is something I have thought about doing for a long time because I will come up with an idea, not write it down and completely forget about it after a short period of time. I also like how Peter mentioned that there sometimes is two types of works that he does, one that "pays the morgage" and the other where you are free to do whatever you like, like tackle one of the ideas you've written down in your "idea book." This will most likely be something most new media and media-eaque majors run into where they will need to do work/jobs that will pay the bills whether its something they like or not. Then after earning some money, you can go and spend it to pursue other ideas that you have.
Steve brings up a great point of how collaboration - an incredible tool to help those expecially in our major learn more in a shorter period of time is not well received in the school community. The class Steve refers to is a class that I have taken as well and like most people have struggled with it. I have been in a similar situation where I've needed to look at somebody else's work to better only to better understand the criteria but of course no one was willing to share or explain because it's considered cheating. Those who fall through the craks fall very fast and deep in such an environment.
Having these special sessions is interesting because each person works in a different field (or at least a different approach) to certain new media relatives such as film.
RE STEPHEN // In some ways the average consumer is becoming smarter just because of situation (plus companies are trying to make it easier to pull in certain customers), but in some ways things are getting tougher too because the technologies have to be more complex to aid to the needs of others. It's one of those "both true and false" sort of deals. I do agree that people are doing more by themselves. I know I have fixed a bunch of computers myself and saved myself a lot of cash because of it.
Also, new media (esp. here) puts a huge emphasis on collaboration, which I think is great because me being a very sociologically minded person, i see collaboration as acceptance of each other, and the more we work in groups the more we know our peers and society. Besides that point though, good collaborations are often times hard to find. I know in high school I was always the one who did the work, even in college I would say half of the time i did all of the work. In Peter's situation, he obviously had like-minded and ambitious people willing to work on these projects because they pumped out working projects.
I am a huge fan of low-budget film-making. A lot of my favorite films are indie (which most had a budget of more than $0 , but still). I watch a lot of crappy B horror flicks that obviously had little budget - and they are just more fun to watch. One of my favorite indie film companies is Troma - who have been making indie horror/cheese films for over 25 years. The founder Lloyd Kauffman is just a genius. Their last project was funded solely by him, and they have stayed studio free for over 25 years (no blockbuster, etc. etc.) -- so there is something to be said about that kind of perspective. For one, they can do whatever the hell they want (which I am sure the freedom is something that any indie film maker basks in -- including Peter).
Money can only effectively give us two things when it comes to film --
A.) Clarity (picture, sound, quality overall -- HD, etc.)
B.) special effects -- this is the big one because it usually masks bad plots and horrible acting if something visually interesting is going on. That's why it is easy to spot an indie film that is really bad because if it doesn't have plot or good acting or something interesting, then there is nothing to hold your attention.
There are def. a lot of sacrifices when it comes to low-budget film making. I was at the Hope Festival recently and the Maine Activist Film Network was there, and the guy at the stand was saying he works 40 hours a week as a volunteer. You have to absolutely love what you do, and have some sort of extra income in order to support needs (shelter, food, etc.). I think I would be happy if i had enough to live sufficiently and was doing something I love because at the end of the day it is passion that keeps you going, not money -- and if it is money, then it's an elaborate facade -- the ultimate hoodwink on yourself.
Post a Comment