CompuServe Messages

Paul: >Which is proof that no matter how you push the film's pace in post you cannot salvage an actor who delivers his lines with sizzling prozac passion. Regardless of how he looks in underwear doing the splits between the washer and dryer. <laugh>< ROFL! Hey, look, Paul–they didn't hire Jean-Claude for his *acting*, they hired him for his high kicks! (Sez the man who groans through his wife's watching of WALKER, TEXAS RANGER every week, "Honey, Chuck Norris can't ACT!!!") >I've been searching for the ellusive place on CIS and AOL where fora deal with content. I can't find it. Where is the DTV 'form culture'? Those who take DTV gizmonics completely for granted? Maybe 'showing off' amazing digitals is what it's really about. Doesn't DTV have an impact on production beyond post? I think so.< Well, Paul… y'see, it's like this: "content" is kinda like religion–it's between you and your muse. While it's easy to discuss what piece of equipment or what trick will give you what effect, it's a LOT harder to objectively discuss what content is valid (& LOTSA censorship issues arise from that!), or how to *make* content valid (f'instance, as a creative artist I prostrate myself at James Cameron's feet and cry, "I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!"<g>–even though there are a LOT of people who think all he's about is slick violence and 50s science-fiction novels). I don't think "style" is all it's about, nor do I think most other videomakers do, really–it's more a case of how do you determine *which* content works, and what style best serves the content, unless you see the completed project? (I guess it's like the Joker said–"It may not be art, but I like it!" <g>) >These things certainly showcase the technology of DTV, but they are demonstrative (and worshipful) of a mechanical process — not a story. >For example, where are the actors in DTV movies one downloads from CIS? Aside from the obvious 'beginning, middle, and end' components which are seldom present, I'm suprised at the dearth of characters. There are few stories here. Yet, the DTV phenomena are major entertainment influences.< Part of the reason for this is because the first people who get into new technology are those who've been looking for "a better mousetrap", not people who want to reinvent the very notion of rodent control. Those who *do*–the genuine artists–have a hard time understanding at first just what the new technology can do for them, until they see what the "better mousetrap" crowd (us, I guess) does w/it, which starts them thinking… I've had this experience repeatedly w/an artist friend of me–I'll explain a concept to him and he just won't get it, until I show him something that utilizes that concept. THEN, he's off to the races, imagining all the things he can do w/it! >I don't think you were very far from the mark when you noted that perhaps style =is= the content. And that may not be bad; just different.< Actually, Paul, what I think I meant was that you need a *marriage* of style and content (and a marriage where the style *serves* the content) to do effective work. Style w/out content is simply an empty bag of flashy effects, content w/the wrong style is disorienting, and content w/no style is BBC filmmaking <g>! (I hope there isn't anyone from the BBC here, or I've just let myself in for a MAJOR flaming…) Just a few thoughts, Tim