David Lynch has partnered with shoe world god Christian Louboutin to promote a special, very limited edition of ladies’ footwear. Appropriately titled “Fetish”, the project started out as a photo essay by Lynch, documenting an extremely serious pair of Louboutin heels. After unveiling the images at Paris Fashion Week, Lynch and Louboutin developed five sets of shoes, as well as five sets of prints of Lynch’s photographs of otherwise-naked models wearing the shoes, to sell to collectors. Louboutin creepily described the collaboration thusly:

The models wore these unwearable shoes with natural grace. Their very white skin, very dark eyes and bright mouths melded with Lynch’s aesthetics…As is his habit, David Lynch made it into a décor populated with shadows.

More “Fetish” images here and here. Via Shake Well Before Use.

On today’s edition of FilmCouch, Paul and Kevin referenced Errol Morris in their discussion of Charles Ferguson’s even-tempered (yet incendiary) documentary, No End in Sight. So I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t point you to the most recent post on Zoom, Morris’ New York Times blog, which he filed this past Wednesday. Perhaps this is where it should be noted that although technically, Zoom is published in blog format, Morris is really using it as a platform to release long, critical essays on photography about once a month.

The August installment is about the infamous image of the hooded figure standing on a box at Abu Ghraib. Morris has done much research and rumination on this subject, as his next film, S.O.P.: Standard Operating Procedure, uses issues surrounding representation and photographic evidence as jumping off points to examine the events at Abu Ghraib within the larger context of the war on terror.

In this latest post on Zoom, Morris discusses a bizarre case of mistaken identity associated with that photograph. One Iraqi prisoner, who was given the nickname Clawman, told the NY Times that it was him under the hood; he even, according to Morris, “printed business cards with a drawing of the hooded-man displayed next to his name.” Later, it was discovered that Clawman was not actually the man in the photograph–the soldier in charge of watching him said that Clawman was never placed on a box, and in fact was a large enough man that “If Clawman had been put on a box, he would have crushed it” — and the NY Times published a retraction.

Morris explains that one of the reasons why Clawman’s story was able to fly was because the Times ran a photo with their story in which Clawman’s own, slightly deformed left hand was cropped out of frame. The actual photo of the man in hood is blurry and his fingers appear to be curled in. If you saw it juxtaposed with language professing it to be a photograph of a man with a deformed hand, you’d that claim accept at face value. As Morris puts it,

Photography presents things and at the same time hides things from our view. It allows us to not-see at the same time that it allows us to see. But language plus photography provides an express train to error.

The photograph should be a constant reminder of how we can make false inferences from pictures. And of how pictures and language can interact to produce falsehood.

The problem was not a lack of research. Yes, there was archival material that could have cast suspicion on the claim that Clawman was the Hooded Man. But the mistaken identification was driven by Clawman’s own desire to be the iconic victim, to be the Hooded Man, and our own need to believe him. It is an error engendered by photography and perpetuated by us. And it comes from a desire for “the ocular proof.” A proof that turns out to be no proof at all.

You can read the full story here. At the end, Morris thanks readers for their feedback and says he “intends to respond”, so if you have a question for the man you may want to leave it in the Zoom comments.

We love it when two previously-blogged topics collide. According to Anthony Kaufman, filmmaker Jem Cohen (whose collaboration with Patti Smith I posted about here) sent out an email today asking friends and colleagues to join him in protesting proposed changes to New York City permit regulations for amateur photographers (which I wrote about previously here). As Cohen explains, the proposed changes (which would make permits necessary for any shoot involving more than two people and a hand-held camera that lasted over thirty minutes) would severely limit DIY photography and film/video making in the city:

The fact is that we simply CANNOT predict where, when, and how long we are going to film or photograph; we CANNOT afford expensive liability insurance policies; we occasionally NEED to work with other people or to use tripods to support our gear. (The regulations would, for example, effectively rule out a great deal of time-lapse photography which depends on tripods and cannot possibly be done with time limitations of 10 to 30 minutes, as well as the use of large format still cameras and long lenses).

One of Michael Bloomberg’s greatest successes as mayor has been his promotion of local film and television production. By offering some amazing tax incentives, the Bloomberg administration has re-established NYC as a feasible shooting location for indies. Kaufman says the proposed regulations would tarnish the city’s reputation as a haven for filmmakers pretty significantly. “If the New York Mayor’s Office of Film and TV really cares about New York as a vital indie filmmaking center,” he writes, “They need to stop putting in effect procedures that help Hollywood productions and cripple the low-budget mavens that once made this city the artistic capital of the world.”

If you want to join the protest, click through for the contact info on Anthony’s blog. The Mayor’s office is allegedly accepting feedback on this issue until August 3.

Who Loves the Sun has been showing at festivals around the globe the past year, including two screenings at SXSW earlier this week. Corey Marr, the film’s producer, joins director Matthew Bissonnette to talk about budgets, being Canadian, and filming on an island. For more on Matt and the ideas behind the film, read this recent SpoutBlog post. You can also visit the official movie site and the film’s MySpace page.

K: What have been the primary ups and downs in making and distributing Who Loves the Sun (WLTS), from a producer’s point of view?

C: It certainly has been an adventure. I think the two highest highs were getting the phone call from telefilm that they were investing in the film, and arriving on the first day of principal photography and seeing all those people and trucks. Plus, no one drowned that I know of. The biggest down was having to make a huge insurance claim because one of our cans of film got fogged. And using the porta-potties was never pleasant. On the distribution side, the film comes out in Canada on April 6th, and we are currently working on US and foreign sales, so ask me again in a few months.

K: How much did the movie cost to make?

M: about a million and change canadian, which is like about five hundred american dollars.

K: How did you keep costs low?

M: we tried to keep costs low by being mean and cheap. however, in my limited experience, once you start working with people who aren’t in your immediate family, stuff just gets expensive: folks gotta eat! in some ways, it seemed we had more time on Looking For Leonard[Bissonnette's first film], and that was a really, really inexpensive movie. i mean, we made that one out of spit and scotch-tape.

K: What ended up adding expense to WLTS?

M: greedy price gouging by oil companies, who were cynically using the cover of their iraq war, nearly sunk us. canada is a big place, so we did a lot of driving. oh yeah, setting the film on an island and shooting on water didn’t help. so cost overruns were half dick cheney’s fault, and half mine.

C: Matt is being a bit hard on himself. the way our financing worked out, we actually had mandated days that we had to shoot across two different provinces. So a story that is ideally suited to one main location turned into about six or seven different unit moves. I\’d lay 10% blame on funding bureaucracy, half on cheney, and the rest on matt. It’s funny, though, because now that it’s done, it’s strange to think of it being done in any other way.

K: Tell me more about the funding, and in particular how it helped to be Canadian.

M: telefilm canada, manitoba film and sound, and christal films (our cdn distributor) kindly paid for the film (helped along by cdn tv sales at tmn and movie central) …i love all those people. i mean, i really really love them.

C: and we can’t forget the Canadian Television Fund, a television pre-sale to showcase, and our awesome Canadian tax credits.

K: What has the marketing/distribution process been like?

M: well, since the film comes out in canada april 6th, and the us theatrical is still up in the air, we haven’t really gotten too far into that mess yet. In general, i always want people to spend more money, and to market the thing for what it is, if that’s possible.

on the festival level, the getting it out there level, reaching out to the people via the internet level, corey has been doing a real good job. these days, with a bit of hard work, it seems you can put your thing into the world, even if you don’t have much cash, or insider status, or what have you.

K: What has been your experience at film festivals?

M: i really like most fests. i enjoy the audiences, and seeing where people are at regarding film in particular and the whole ball of wax in general. i don’t have super faves, don’t care if it’s big or small, but sxsw, los angeles and london will always have a very special place in my heart, as they gave us our first breaks [with Looking for Leonard and WLTS].

K: Corey, what is your background? How did you get into film production?

C: My background is in advertising, having worked at a number of ad agencies, both on the creative end and on the strategy side, but never really being satisfied with either one exclusively. Probably something to do with my megalomaniac complex, and probably one of the reasons I got into producing. Plus, I have always been fascinated by the permanence of film, and art in general. WLTS is my first feature length film.

K: What are you focusing on these days?

C: Getting ready for the Canadian theatrical release (April 6th), working with our sales team in the US, and building an online community for the film. you too can be our virtual friend. just visit us on myspace, iklipz and imeem, as well as the facebook group who loves the sun-the movie. and, of course, on spout.com. I’ve also been developing some new projects, including two features with Matt. And none of them takes place on an island.