Trailer Page Revamped
Advertisement
Coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world

TOP STORY:

High speed munching

By posted 1 year ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • StumbleUpon

Kids might be snacking experts (see yesterday’s post), but let’s admit it. Many adults also find snacks very tasty–and addicting. The cover story on this month’s Wired magazine, “Snack Attack,” is all about “bite-sized entertainment” and how one-minute media is affecting our culture.

The six-spread magazine feature is laid out as a series of snacks, to mimic its topic. Frankly, it gives me a bit of a headache and leaves me feel scattered and distracted. I guess that’s the point. Anyway, among the bite-sized articles:

- “403 Ways to Slice a CD ” (demonstrating how an album isn’t an album any more–it’s an opportunity to dice songs);

- “Sitcom to Bitcom” (about how former Arrested Development star is making a short-form comedy series for Innertube, CBS’ new broadband channel); and

- “4 Wii Microgames: When a Quickie Is All You Have Time For” (about Tetris alternatives that last a few seconds).

Probably the most applicable piece for Spout is “Let’s Do Snacks: A veteran film producer on why Hollywood must adapt to the short-form age.” Peter Guber, CEO of Mandalay Entertainment Group and host of AMC’s Sunday Morning Shootout, writes “It’s not written in the Bible, ‘A movie shall be two hours.’ Someone made that up to sell theater tickets.” This, of course, is true. Paul and I at Spout have lamented in earlier posts that short films aren’t more available outside the festival circuit. (Here’s a previous post on short films, and another, and another.)

But Peter Guber goes on to write: “With technology, the very definition of a story has changed. It used to mean an actor and a script. Now a story is a 15-second, no-dialog clip of someone running across the street.” Hmmm. I’m sure I’m not alone in questioning this. But while many people might question whether a 15-second-no-dialog clip is a story, I would argue that it always has been a story. Technology doesn’t have the power to change the definition of a story, it only changes how we’re able to tell that story.

Guber’s very short article ends by saying that all of Hollywood is “scrambling to construct a new model to profit from these bits and pieces…” but “…if people are thinking this is the end of Hollywood, they’re wrong. This is a whole new beginning.”

I’m very curious to see what direction Hollywood runs in with this new beginning–along a fast track to simply “profit from these bits and pieces,” or along a more meaningful path, that values art and storytelling that can still enrich our lives, just in shorter amounts of time.

(Also check out the “Top 10 Reasons We Like Lists.” Spout loves lists, too!)

Film School in a Box

By posted 1 year ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • StumbleUpon

Ah, the age-old debate: Do you have to get a formal education to succeed in the arts? From painting and poetry to song writing and filmmaking, successful artists have done it both ways–with school and without. (Unsuccessful artists have done it both ways, too.) Either way, the bulk of the learning emerges from doing, right? And formal programs are so often lagging behind what’s really happening in the field. Of course, we all know that one of the most valuable things to gain from going through a program is connections, but are they worth the college debt? Especially considering that few people find the arts to be a lucrative career path?

As a writer, I have struggled with these questions myself, so a headline in yesterday’s New York Times caught my eye: “Where’d You Go to Film School? In My Bedroom.” The article points out how a formal education in filmmaking can seem even more pointless in “the era of miniDV digital video cameras, Final Cut Pro editing systems and YouTube auteurs with development deals.”

But now there’s something in between a formal education and the clueless dive-in-head-first approach–filmmaking tutorials offered on DVDs and CDs. On one level, it’s super exciting to think that you can gain some level of expertise and direction without wasting all the time and money on school. I’m a big fan of figuring out what your story is and then telling it, without a whole lineup of excuses that do nothing but set you back. (I’ll tell it after I get my degree, or after I save X amount of money, or after I move to New York…you know the drill.)

At the same time, while it’s important to just tell your story, maybe knowing how to tell your story is the thing you can’t learn off a DVD. Maybe you need another human being–a mentor–to ask the right questions and push you in the right way. Maybe you need someone experienced to help teach you how to weave together your narrative and the technical aspects in an engaging way. Here’s how a film professor quoted in the Times article put it:

Tom Denove, vice chairman for production in the film, television and digital media department of the film school at the University of California, Los Angeles, contended that educational software often misses the real point of making a film: the inherent power of a narrative.

People at Denver: AJ Schnack and Michael Azerrad

By Kevin posted 2 years ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • StumbleUpon

Beginning with the premise that “the whole truth is the best truth, AJ Schnack and Michael Azerrad made the film Kurt Cobain About A Son. Schnack directed, using the audio from 25 hours of interviews Azerrad did with Cobain for the book Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana. I had a chance to talk to them about how they used the film to show Cobain as a real person seperate from the superstar icon, and how one of their goals was to break the “rockumentary” mold.


powered by ODEO

Starz Denver Film Festival, Spout podcast, Kurt Cobain About A Son, AJ Schnack, Michael Azerrad