This film for SolarAid was shot on Mafia Island, Tanzania. We began shooting 30 seconds after meeting Athmani. I carried a small camera on a stick, and was accompanied by @Ralph_Greenland from SolarAid UK. Our translator was Irene Chalya from SolarAid Tanzania. It is essentially a vox pop. As filmmakers, we have a micro-footprint – in terms of resources, energy, mobility, cost – yet the images are cinematic and the sense of ‘being there’ is palpable.

Surprisingly perhaps, I think the sense of presence has to do with the editing than the footage. The first edit took a quite conventional documentary approach, with the subject’s voice wallpapered over by the translator. While this is efficient, it can often seem like the subject is just a vessel for information which needs to be extracted – which doesn’t really respect the subject as a person very much. And the subject fades into the background. Plus, there is a lot more to communication than speech.

As the edit progressed, there was a big shift in power from the viewer to the subject. It feels like a move away from conventional representations of Africa. Swahili is not simply and literally converted into English for the benefit of the viewer – who can be forgiven for forgetting the original speaker. Sometimes the viewer doesn’t even get a translation! You have to figure it out from gestures and context. The guiding principle is simply communicating as simply as possible. As a result, the text plays a number of roles: titles, subtitles, bullet points, non-literal translations, captions, and so on. Normally the tendency is to declare rules and stick to them. But communication is often far messier than this. We open up multiple channels. We piece things together. We translate and re-translate. Shooting pictures is another translation. Editing is another.

I feel there is the germ of a new attitude and approach here. It matters that the subject is Africa, which in a classic reversal of fate, is blossoming as the advanced economies stagnate. It also matters that SolarAid is different from most traditional charities. They have a social enterprise called SunnyMoney, for example, which sells high quality, affordable solar lamps as replacements for kerosene lamps, which are toxic and dangerous and keep people poor. They don’t give handouts. They are a new charity for a new Africa. I hope this short film becomes a significant step in representing this new world. We shot a lot of incidental film when we went to shoot A Long Wait. We want to bring as much of SolarAid’s work to people who may want to help. I feel this film reveals a path toward that goal.

TECHNICAL

This was shot on a Canon 550D with Technicolor CineStyle and Magic Lantern firmware, with a Canon 28mm f2.8 lens.

This batch of footage from Tanzania is the first footage I shot after changing how I set my exposure to accommodate Technicolor CineStyle.

Normally when setting exposure, like most people, I purposely clip the highlights to see what bits of the image to watch, and then pull them down in the waveform monitor until there is no clipping. With CineStyle, this ensured that too often I overexposed highlights in a really ugly way. So I reversed the procedure and started opening the image up from being underexposed. I stop opening it when the dynamic range stops expanding. Often after this point, final adjustments affect only mid tones, which can be tweaked to taste.

As a result of underexposing about a stop, the images coming out of the camera look pretty good. They are a bit flat, but very usable. The images don’t have the typical grey look of CineStyle footage. Of course, by underexposing, you get more noise. But that can now be handled by Neat noise reduction in FCPX, which seems to work fine on H.264 camera originals. Some noise reduction is going to be necessary anyway to repair compression artefacts in the camera originals.

Made by bradbell.tv in collaboration with @Ralph_Greenland @SolarAid

Watch more SolarAid videos
Watch more bradbell.tv films
Find out more about SunnyMoney

Cinematic documentary for a new Africa

]]>

This film for SolarAid was shot on Mafia Island, Tanzania. We began shooting 30 seconds after meeting Athmani. I carried a small camera on a stick, and was accompanied by @Ralph_Greenland from SolarAid UK. Our translator was Irene Chalya from SolarAid Tanzania. It is essentially a vox pop. As filmmakers, we have a micro-footprint – in terms of resources, energy, mobility, cost – yet the images are cinematic and the sense of ‘being there’ is palpable.

Surprisingly perhaps, I think the sense of presence has to do with the editing than the footage. The first edit took a quite conventional documentary approach, with the subject’s voice wallpapered over by the translator. While this is efficient, it can often seem like the subject is just a vessel for information which needs to be extracted – which doesn’t really respect the subject as a person very much. And the subject fades into the background. Plus, there is a lot more to communication than speech.

As the edit progressed, there was a big shift in power from the viewer to the subject. It feels like a move away from conventional representations of Africa. Swahili is not simply and literally converted into English for the benefit of the viewer – who can be forgiven for forgetting the original speaker. Sometimes the viewer doesn’t even get a translation! You have to figure it out from gestures and context. The guiding principle is simply communicating as simply as possible. As a result, the text plays a number of roles: titles, subtitles, bullet points, non-literal translations, captions, and so on. Normally the tendency is to declare rules and stick to them. But communication is often far messier than this. We open up multiple channels. We piece things together. We translate and re-translate. Shooting pictures is another translation. Editing is another.

I feel there is the germ of a new attitude and approach here. It matters that the subject is Africa, which in a classic reversal of fate, is blossoming as the advanced economies stagnate. It also matters that SolarAid is different from most traditional charities. They have a social enterprise called SunnyMoney, for example, which sells high quality, affordable solar lamps as replacements for kerosene lamps, which are toxic and dangerous and keep people poor. They don’t give handouts. They are a new charity for a new Africa. I hope this short film becomes a significant step in representing this new world. We shot a lot of incidental film when we went to shoot A Long Wait. We want to bring as much of SolarAid’s work to people who may want to help. I feel this film reveals a path toward that goal.

TECHNICAL

This was shot on a Canon 550D with Technicolor CineStyle and Magic Lantern firmware, with a Canon 28mm f2.8 lens.

This batch of footage from Tanzania is the first footage I shot after changing how I set my exposure to accommodate Technicolor CineStyle.

Normally when setting exposure, like most people, I purposely clip the highlights to see what bits of the image to watch, and then pull them down in the waveform monitor until there is no clipping. With CineStyle, this ensured that too often I overexposed highlights in a really ugly way. So I reversed the procedure and started opening the image up from being underexposed. I stop opening it when the dynamic range stops expanding. Often after this point, final adjustments affect only mid tones, which can be tweaked to taste.

Camera original compared to final graded image

As a result of underexposing about a stop, the images coming out of the camera look pretty good. They are a bit flat, but very usable. The images don’t have the typical grey look of CineStyle footage. Of course, by underexposing, you get more noise. But that can now be handled by Neat noise reduction in FCPX, which seems to work fine on H.264 camera originals. Some noise reduction is going to be necessary anyway to repair compression artefacts in the camera originals.

Made by bradbell.tv in collaboration with @Ralph_Greenland @SolarAid

Watch more SolarAid videos
Watch more bradbell.tv films
Find out more about SunnyMoney

Invisible Children raise some important questions about charities, fundraising, filmmaking and international politics in this hair raising satire about a charity that uses the power of Michael Jackson and the Broadway musical to get through to the kids.

After I scraped my jaw off the floor – or as the British say, ‘unsmacked my gob’ – I realised that this is a movie about me. This is what *I* do. Never mind asking the charities I work with whether they have been working on their song and dance routines, I make fundraising films. And to my discredit, I have never considered the genre of comedy musical. If this goes viral and gets 100 million views I’m going to have to re-evaluate everything I do.

Later, in a more sober light, I reflect on the fact that I don’t really do *any* genre films for charity clients. So perhaps not getting around to the musical is not such a failure. Nonetheless, I feel shaken and unsure of what I’m doing now. I feel we should be discussing the implications of Invisible Children Global Night Commute Musical but I don’t honestly know where to begin. And I’m tired from spending all last week thinking about the implications of Kony 2012 campaign video, and the curious criticisms of haters. (irony)

Is it funny?
Yes.
Is it meant to be?
Yes – but not creepy WTF funny.
Should all charities learn to sing and dance?
I guess we can only say, “If it gets millions of views. Yes. Put on your dancing shoes. And I’ll hire a crane.”

I seriously regret not feeling capable of any critical insight about this video, but I find it difficult to regard it as a ‘charity video.’ Suddenly I realise I don’t know what essentially defines the genre of charity video. This is my bread and butter. I should know this stuff.
Does it need an ‘ask?’
No.
Does it need to spend much time talking about the subject of the charity?
Probably a good idea.
Or can it just be about the charity itself?

Everything was so much clearer last week. Kony 2012 was fascinating and phenomenal. There was much to discuss. It was so easy to grasp and evaluate. This is like a jabbing a fork into a wall socket.

Again and again.

Via Boing Boing.

PS. I just realised what’s wrong. The charity are actually singing and dancing THEMSELVES! They are a boy band. They are not miming songs. They are undoubtedly writing them. Recording them. And then making the video. It’s a music video. Eureka! The essence of a charity video is one in which the charity do not sing.

Kony 2012′s musical comedy soul

]]>

Invisible Children raise some important questions about charities, fundraising, filmmaking and international politics in this hair raising satire about a charity that uses the power of Michael Jackson and the Broadway musical to get through to the kids.

After I scraped my jaw off the floor – or as the British say, ‘unsmacked my gob’ – I realised that this is a movie about me. This is what *I* do. Never mind asking the charities I work with whether they have been working on their song and dance routines, I make fundraising films. And to my discredit, I have never considered the genre of comedy musical. If this goes viral and gets 100 million views I’m going to have to re-evaluate everything I do.

Later, in a more sober light, I reflect on the fact that I don’t really do *any* genre films for charity clients. So perhaps not getting around to the musical is not such a failure. Nonetheless, I feel shaken and unsure of what I’m doing now. I feel we should be discussing the implications of Invisible Children Global Night Commute Musical but I don’t honestly know where to begin. And I’m tired from spending all last week thinking about the implications of Kony 2012 campaign video, and the curious criticisms of haters. (irony)

Is it funny?
Yes.
Is it meant to be?
Yes – but not creepy WTF funny.
Should all charities learn to sing and dance?
I guess we can only say, “If it gets millions of views. Yes. Put on your dancing shoes. And I’ll hire a crane.”

I seriously regret not feeling capable of any critical insight about this video, but I find it difficult to regard it as a ‘charity video.’ Suddenly I realise I don’t know what essentially defines the genre of charity video. This is my bread and butter. I should know this stuff.
Does it need an ‘ask?’
No.
Does it need to spend much time talking about the subject of the charity?
Probably a good idea.
Or can it just be about the charity itself?

Everything was so much clearer last week. Kony 2012 was fascinating and phenomenal. There was much to discuss. It was so easy to grasp and evaluate. This is like a jabbing a fork into a wall socket.

Again and again.

Via Boing Boing.

PS. I just realised what’s wrong. The charity are actually singing and dancing THEMSELVES! They are a boy band. They are not miming songs. They are undoubtedly writing them. Recording them. And then making the video. It’s a music video. Eureka! The essence of a charity video is one in which the charity do not sing.

charity:water helps us imagine if New York City’s water supplies were like much of the developing world. If you want water, you pick up your jerry can and walk for miles to get it out of the Central Park reservoir. And the water is dirty.

I have to enthusiastically say, I do love the creative approach where we get to put the privileged of the world in unprivileged circumstances. It has the same appeal as last-man-alive-in-the-world scenarios, like The Quiet Earth (below). WaterAid did a campaign using this approach, where Londoners had the toilet facilities of the developing world. I forever imagine a man in a suit with a brief case stumbling though an Ethiopian wasteland.

I like this approach for a number of reasons. It’s always a bit surreal – or near-future sci-fi. And it’s emotional. There is the sense of indignity demanded by the circumstances, but there is also empathy for anyone in these circumstances. Since it appears we need to empathize before we can help others, the job of the film is helping the viewer to concretely imagine what it is like to be in the shoes of another. Instead of suggesting, “Imagine you are in their shoes,” the film can simply show us: “you are in their shoes.”

A more typical approach will focus on the people we want to help, rather than the people we want help from. It would describe the problem in a realistic rather than imaginary way. And viewers would need to work harder to empathize. They don’t share the same circumstances or social context. It’s easier to think: this wouldn’t ever happen to me. (I have actually met people, who argued: I cannot respect the destitute (they smell bad) because I could never be destitute myself.)

I also like the way charity:water call this a PSA, or Public Service Announcement. It’s not a commercial for charity:water. It’s a public service: by the way, a billion people don’t have clean water and you can help. (And someone has left their lights on in the parking lot.) Why not? It’s a good attitude to take. Of course, on TV, it’s a direct response commercial restricted to web response. And on the web, it’s a direct response film. It tells you what charity:water do and links to their web site. (Imagine if you could click a link on a TV ad!) It’s a PSA more consistently than it is anything else.

Charity films | Imagination, empathy and giving

]]>

charity:water helps us imagine if New York City’s water supplies were like much of the developing world. If you want water, you pick up your jerry can and walk for miles to get it out of the Central Park reservoir. And the water is dirty.

I have to enthusiastically say, I do love the creative approach where we get to put the privileged of the world in unprivileged circumstances. It has the same appeal as last-man-alive-in-the-world scenarios, like The Quiet Earth (below). WaterAid did a campaign using this approach, where Londoners had the toilet facilities of the developing world. I forever imagine a man in a suit with a brief case stumbling though an Ethiopian wasteland.

I like this approach for a number of reasons. It’s always a bit surreal – or near-future sci-fi. And it’s emotional. There is the sense of indignity demanded by the circumstances, but there is also empathy for anyone in these circumstances. Since it appears we need to empathize before we can help others, the job of the film is helping the viewer to concretely imagine what it is like to be in the shoes of another. Instead of suggesting, “Imagine you are in their shoes,” the film can simply show us: “you are in their shoes.”

A more typical approach will focus on the people we want to help, rather than the people we want help from. It would describe the problem in a realistic rather than imaginary way. And viewers would need to work harder to empathize. They don’t share the same circumstances or social context. It’s easier to think: this wouldn’t ever happen to me. (I have actually met people, who argued: I cannot respect the destitute (they smell bad) because I could never be destitute myself.)

I also like the way charity:water call this a PSA, or Public Service Announcement. It’s not a commercial for charity:water. It’s a public service: by the way, a billion people don’t have clean water and you can help. (And someone has left their lights on in the parking lot.) Why not? It’s a good attitude to take. Of course, on TV, it’s a direct response commercial restricted to web response. And on the web, it’s a direct response film. It tells you what charity:water do and links to their web site. (Imagine if you could click a link on a TV ad!) It’s a PSA more consistently than it is anything else.

I really love this movie from Oliver Wilkins. Using film to allow people to express themselves with paper and markers and sticks is brilliant. The high end medium amplifies the message of the low end medium. The filmmaker plays the role of enabler and distributor of the message, rather than appropriating it suit their own agenda. The people own their own voice.

And the voices are so creative! I particularly liked the graphic design with the timeline of pictures of US presidents listed on the left, and the Egyptian timeline of pictures of Mubarak, Mubarak, Mubarak on the right.

There is no music to stir particular emotions or increase the apparent pace, nor is there any need for it. There is a quiet distance that allows the viewer to connect with the people in the movie in a very direct way. This is supported by the point of view of the people in the film, who tend to look directly into the lens. For many, I imagine they were expecting to have their photo taken, as the film was shot with an SLR camera. Indeed, HDSLRs (High Definition SLRs) played a significant role in recording the demonstrations as the cameras are relatively small and look like photo cameras.

For more, read the back story on DSLR News Shooter.

This video also reminded me of Stop the Clash of Civilizations, an earlier movie from the charity Avaaz from 2007, which now seems slightly prescient.

HDSLR Film | Tahrir Square, Cairo

]]>

I really love this movie from Oliver Wilkins. Using film to allow people to express themselves with paper and markers and sticks is brilliant. The high end medium amplifies the message of the low end medium. The filmmaker plays the role of enabler and distributor of the message, rather than appropriating it suit their own agenda. The people own their own voice.

And the voices are so creative! I particularly liked the graphic design with the timeline of pictures of US presidents listed on the left, and the Egyptian timeline of pictures of Mubarak, Mubarak, Mubarak on the right.

There is no music to stir particular emotions or increase the apparent pace, nor is there any need for it. There is a quiet distance that allows the viewer to connect with the people in the movie in a very direct way. This is supported by the point of view of the people in the film, who tend to look directly into the lens. For many, I imagine they were expecting to have their photo taken, as the film was shot with an SLR camera. Indeed, HDSLRs (High Definition SLRs) played a significant role in recording the demonstrations as the cameras are relatively small and look like photo cameras.

For more, read the back story on DSLR News Shooter.

This video also reminded me of Stop the Clash of Civilizations, an earlier movie from the charity Avaaz from 2007, which now seems slightly prescient.

A fascinating 30 minute cultural history by Douglas Rushkoff on the fundamental incompatibilities between the internet and commercial brands. Insightful. Fun. A sound approach to internet marketing. Very refreshing. Tastes great!

Rushkoff writes:
“I gave a talk last year at a conference that turned out to be less about social media than social marketing. I got really tired of listening to brand managers talk about their “Twitter strategies,” and by the time my closing keynote came around, it felt like I had watched the corporatization the net recapitulated over the course of the afternoon. Thus, this rant, expressing the core themes Life Inc. in twenty minutes.”

Stephen Downes summarizes Rushkoff’s talk:
“Mass marketing – branding – was created in order to simulate the human connection we used to have with the people with whom we used to have peer to peer interactions.” It is the outgrowth of two centralizing inventions that characterized the industrial: common currency, which requires that people work through banks, and the chartered corporation, which was granted the right to certain types of production. So instead of working and accumulating wealth themselves, people worked for corporations and accumulated wealth in banks. Mass media, in turn, was created in order to support mass branding. And in time we came to value those images more than other people. But then we got the net, which reinstates the possibility of peer to peer interaction. And we’re talking with each other about what we, as a society, are going to become. And brands don’t have any place in that conversation. Because peer-to-peer conversations tend to be about facts, and branding is about myths. People don’t talk about the ‘Keebler Elves’, the myth that was substituted in place of a cookie factory; they talk about how cookies are made, who makes them, whether they’re organic, etc.”

Rushkoff | Branding Doesn’t Work! So Now What?

]]>

A fascinating 30 minute cultural history by Douglas Rushkoff on the fundamental incompatibilities between the internet and commercial brands. Insightful. Fun. A sound approach to internet marketing. Very refreshing. Tastes great!

Rushkoff writes:
“I gave a talk last year at a conference that turned out to be less about social media than social marketing. I got really tired of listening to brand managers talk about their “Twitter strategies,” and by the time my closing keynote came around, it felt like I had watched the corporatization the net recapitulated over the course of the afternoon. Thus, this rant, expressing the core themes Life Inc. in twenty minutes.”

Stephen Downes summarizes Rushkoff’s talk:
“Mass marketing – branding – was created in order to simulate the human connection we used to have with the people with whom we used to have peer to peer interactions.” It is the outgrowth of two centralizing inventions that characterized the industrial: common currency, which requires that people work through banks, and the chartered corporation, which was granted the right to certain types of production. So instead of working and accumulating wealth themselves, people worked for corporations and accumulated wealth in banks. Mass media, in turn, was created in order to support mass branding. And in time we came to value those images more than other people. But then we got the net, which reinstates the possibility of peer to peer interaction. And we’re talking with each other about what we, as a society, are going to become. And brands don’t have any place in that conversation. Because peer-to-peer conversations tend to be about facts, and branding is about myths. People don’t talk about the ‘Keebler Elves’, the myth that was substituted in place of a cookie factory; they talk about how cookies are made, who makes them, whether they’re organic, etc.”

In an information economy, the currency is attention.

It appears this morning Wikileaks.org was censored for publishing the United States diplomatic cables leak last week. Under pressure from Senator Joe Leiberman, Amazon Web Services, who were hosting the site, pulled the plug.

Wikileaks is no more.
http://wikileaks.org/

Oh, no, there it is.
http://213.251.145.96/

And there:
http://46.59.1.2/

WikiLeaks is a conduit. It is a tool that allows people to anonymously and securely leak information. It ostensibly makes whilstleblowing less dangerous and more likely. WikiLeaks is not a newspaper, with an editor and journalists and ad sellers.

A popular tweet from John Perry Barlow ripples across the internet.

The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops.

It seems the most pressing issue of concern is internet censorship: The New York Times is in the same position as WikiLeaks. Other countries involved in the scandal simply censor the internet. That’s what the US government is now trying to do. In the UK, Wikileaks partnered with The Guardian. There’s little to suggest the leaked information would have come directly to The Guardian, rather than through the Wikileaks conduit.

In any case, what a fundraising opportunity! The need is great. The issues are emotional. There is global attention. In an information economy, when you are at the centre of a global arguement about the internet, government censorship, and freedom of speech – you’re the money. Some people are boycotting Amazon for caving in to pressure from the US gov.

Of course, the fascinating question is whether censorship in this case, really has any chance of succeeding. It is likely to bolster massive support for WikiLeaks, give it financial and legal muscle, and win the hearts of free people everywhere ;-)

You can download all the WikiLeaks site via BitTorrent, which you might want to do as a matter of principle or protest.
http://thepiratebay.org/search/wikileaks%20site

Wikileaks needs to replicate itself and it’s information and grow. That will take money. Communites of fundraisers are undoubtedly snapping into action at this moment. Datacell has pitched in hosting a donation page for Wikileaks. People can also donate here to Wikileaks. And here is a comprehensive list of WikiLeaks mirror sites. That’s a bunch more sites to shut down.

I began writing about the closure of WikiLeaks because it was exciting and fascinating. There’s much at stake. Hard lessons will be learned. But then I watched some raw footage, evidence from Iraq, of a helicopter machine gunning a small group of photographers – people carrying cameras, people like me – and then machine gunning the ambulance that came to pick them up! It’s easy for the public conversation about the issue to slide into trivial diplomatic embarassments, as if anonymous, secure publishing of evidence were akin to paparazzi. The issues are fairly self-evident.

I saw the video I mention above on a WikiLeaks mini-site containing evidence around this particular video: “5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad — including two Reuters news staff.”

The young man who leaked the video is Pfc. Bradley Manning. He faces 52 years in prison for leaking evidence of war crimes. Donate to the defense fund.

Termination of WikiLeaks

]]>

In an information economy, the currency is attention.

It appears this morning Wikileaks.org was censored for publishing the United States diplomatic cables leak last week. Under pressure from Senator Joe Leiberman, Amazon Web Services, who were hosting the site, pulled the plug.

Wikileaks is no more.
http://wikileaks.org/

Oh, no, there it is.
http://213.251.145.96/

And there:
http://46.59.1.2/

WikiLeaks is a conduit. It is a tool that allows people to anonymously and securely leak information. It ostensibly makes whilstleblowing less dangerous and more likely. WikiLeaks is not a newspaper, with an editor and journalists and ad sellers.

A popular tweet from John Perry Barlow ripples across the internet.

The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops.

It seems the most pressing issue of concern is internet censorship: The New York Times is in the same position as WikiLeaks. Other countries involved in the scandal simply censor the internet. That’s what the US government is now trying to do. In the UK, Wikileaks partnered with The Guardian. There’s little to suggest the leaked information would have come directly to The Guardian, rather than through the Wikileaks conduit.

In any case, what a fundraising opportunity! The need is great. The issues are emotional. There is global attention. In an information economy, when you are at the centre of a global arguement about the internet, government censorship, and freedom of speech – you’re the money. Some people are boycotting Amazon for caving in to pressure from the US gov.

Of course, the fascinating question is whether censorship in this case, really has any chance of succeeding. It is likely to bolster massive support for WikiLeaks, give it financial and legal muscle, and win the hearts of free people everywhere ;-)

You can download all the WikiLeaks site via BitTorrent, which you might want to do as a matter of principle or protest.
http://thepiratebay.org/search/wikileaks%20site

Wikileaks needs to replicate itself and it’s information and grow. That will take money. Communites of fundraisers are undoubtedly snapping into action at this moment. Datacell has pitched in hosting a donation page for Wikileaks. People can also donate here to Wikileaks. And here is a comprehensive list of WikiLeaks mirror sites. That’s a bunch more sites to shut down.

I began writing about the closure of WikiLeaks because it was exciting and fascinating. There’s much at stake. Hard lessons will be learned. But then I watched some raw footage, evidence from Iraq, of a helicopter machine gunning a small group of photographers – people carrying cameras, people like me – and then machine gunning the ambulance that came to pick them up! It’s easy for the public conversation about the issue to slide into trivial diplomatic embarassments, as if anonymous, secure publishing of evidence were akin to paparazzi. The issues are fairly self-evident.

I saw the video I mention above on a WikiLeaks mini-site containing evidence around this particular video: “5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad — including two Reuters news staff.”

The young man who leaked the video is Pfc. Bradley Manning. He faces 52 years in prison for leaking evidence of war crimes. Donate to the defense fund.

There has never been a better time in history to make a movie. Over the past few years, advances in camera technology, as cinema moves from analog to digital, have led to cameras that shoot images comparable to a Hollywood feature at perhaps 5-10% of the cost. Similar advances in computers bring comparable visual effects capabilities to the average person. These developments are similar to the democratisation of editing at the beginning of the decade. In the past 10 years shooting, editing, colour grading, visual effects, and basically free HD distribution and communications have been democratised, pushed within reach of individuals with a passion for cinema.

Budding filmmakers no longer have an excuse not to make a movie. Hollywood no longer has a monopoly on our imaginations.

Like much of the press about Monsters, this Mark Kermode interview focuses on the visual effects angle: Gareth Edwards created the 3D monster and all the visual effects in his bedroom. (We can say that because he has a studio apartment :-)

I think the camera angle is at least as interesting.

This micro-budget movie was shot in a very guerilla style by Edwards on a Sony EX3 with a Letus Ultimate 35mm adapter. There was a crew of a few. They shot in Mexico. Locations were selected as they came upon them. The two leads were the only actors in the movie, the rest were real people. Much of the acting and shooting was improvised, created on the spot. They were tiny, light, flexible and agile. If they couldn’t get permission to shoot in a location they’d selected, they’d move across the street.

This is a completely different spirit of filmmaking to Hollywood, the mecca of cinema that has taught everyone that everything has to be big. Big productions. Big crews. Big budgets. Big stars. Big special effects. Big trucks. Big trailers. Big, heavy, inflexible and slow moving.

Shooting is typically about controlling the environment. In a BIG shoot, with a big budget, you can control pretty much everything. That’s the value of big. Almost complete creative control over the shooting environment: actors, space, light, sound, weather, and so on.

The tiny, guerilla style approach is more adaptive. In a tiny shoot, with a small budget, you adapt to pretty much everything. You work it into the story. You think on your feet. It’s the man with a movie camera model. Edwards embraces and promotes this model, which is familiar to the HDSLR users among us. As far as I’m concerned, Monsters might as easily have been shot on an HDSLR, for it was made in the same spirit. Camera technology has simply moved on so much in the last 2 years – to HDSLRs and beyond.

I find this approach to shooting very exciting and liberating. We now have cameras that are capable of creating beautiful filmic images in available light. Previously we had cameras that could produce adequate, although cold, hard, and cluttered video images, *if* you lugged a lot of lights. And found somewhere to plug them in. And got a permit. And got in line. And filled out a form. And attended a planning meeting and a pre-planning meeting. Hurry up and wait.

I don’t imagine the Hollywood studios will ever approach the level of obsolescence of the record companies, when the means of music production and distribution were democratised, and news stories first used the ‘in a bedroom’ angle. Hollywood will always be able to bring big budget values to a movie. Hollywood does ‘big’ and ‘global’ very well. But there will be more movies for me. I like movies from all over the world. Hollywood is the film equivalent of top 40. A bit safe. A bit corporate. A bit nostalgic. A bit dull.

So, yah. You can do visual effects in your bedroom. Here’s how:

References:

Monsters
http://www.monstersfilm.com/

The Culture Show, 2010, episode 15

Check out Shane Hurlbut’s, Keeping It Small

Also check out, Tiny Furniture, shot on a Canon 7D HDSLR.
http://www.tinyfurniture.com/

Monsters and the end of Hollywood

]]>

There has never been a better time in history to make a movie. Over the past few years, advances in camera technology, as cinema moves from analog to digital, have led to cameras that shoot images comparable to a Hollywood feature at perhaps 5-10% of the cost. Similar advances in computers bring comparable visual effects capabilities to the average person. These developments are similar to the democratisation of editing at the beginning of the decade. In the past 10 years shooting, editing, colour grading, visual effects, and basically free HD distribution and communications have been democratised, pushed within reach of individuals with a passion for cinema.

Budding filmmakers no longer have an excuse not to make a movie. Hollywood no longer has a monopoly on our imaginations.

Like much of the press about Monsters, this Mark Kermode interview focuses on the visual effects angle: Gareth Edwards created the 3D monster and all the visual effects in his bedroom. (We can say that because he has a studio apartment :-)

I think the camera angle is at least as interesting.

This micro-budget movie was shot in a very guerilla style by Edwards on a Sony EX3 with a Letus Ultimate 35mm adapter. There was a crew of a few. They shot in Mexico. Locations were selected as they came upon them. The two leads were the only actors in the movie, the rest were real people. Much of the acting and shooting was improvised, created on the spot. They were tiny, light, flexible and agile. If they couldn’t get permission to shoot in a location they’d selected, they’d move across the street.

This is a completely different spirit of filmmaking to Hollywood, the mecca of cinema that has taught everyone that everything has to be big. Big productions. Big crews. Big budgets. Big stars. Big special effects. Big trucks. Big trailers. Big, heavy, inflexible and slow moving.

Shooting is typically about controlling the environment. In a BIG shoot, with a big budget, you can control pretty much everything. That’s the value of big. Almost complete creative control over the shooting environment: actors, space, light, sound, weather, and so on.

The tiny, guerilla style approach is more adaptive. In a tiny shoot, with a small budget, you adapt to pretty much everything. You work it into the story. You think on your feet. It’s the man with a movie camera model. Edwards embraces and promotes this model, which is familiar to the HDSLR users among us. As far as I’m concerned, Monsters might as easily have been shot on an HDSLR, for it was made in the same spirit. Camera technology has simply moved on so much in the last 2 years – to HDSLRs and beyond.

I find this approach to shooting very exciting and liberating. We now have cameras that are capable of creating beautiful filmic images in available light. Previously we had cameras that could produce adequate, although cold, hard, and cluttered video images, *if* you lugged a lot of lights. And found somewhere to plug them in. And got a permit. And got in line. And filled out a form. And attended a planning meeting and a pre-planning meeting. Hurry up and wait.

I don’t imagine the Hollywood studios will ever approach the level of obsolescence of the record companies, when the means of music production and distribution were democratised, and news stories first used the ‘in a bedroom’ angle. Hollywood will always be able to bring big budget values to a movie. Hollywood does ‘big’ and ‘global’ very well. But there will be more movies for me. I like movies from all over the world. Hollywood is the film equivalent of top 40. A bit safe. A bit corporate. A bit nostalgic. A bit dull.

So, yah. You can do visual effects in your bedroom. Here’s how:

References:

Monsters
http://www.monstersfilm.com/

The Culture Show, 2010, episode 15

Check out Shane Hurlbut’s, Keeping It Small

Also check out, Tiny Furniture, shot on a Canon 7D HDSLR.
http://www.tinyfurniture.com/

The revolution never gets tired. I’m constantly amazed by the power of the internet to empower individuals and small groups in new ways.

One recent case, Aiden’s Monsters:

A 5 year old American boy was recently diagnosed with leukaemia. His family set up a blog so they could share the experience, keep people informed, thank people, and so on. When he is getting chemo, Aiden spends a lot of time drawing. At the beginning of October they began selling prints of Aiden’s drawings on Etsy, in order to raise money to pay private medical bills.

The response has been overwhelming. Aiden’s drawings are now backordered 6-8 weeks. Several communities jumped on board to help out, including people from Reddit, and Regretsy, and Etsy. And they also take donations.

Aiden’s family essentially set up a charity for Aidan, in a matter of weeks, using off-the-shelf internet components: WordPress, Etsy, PayPal. It’s true the fundraising proposition is compelling – single recipient (concrete), small child (innocent), illness (act of god), donor gets something physical back (hand-made drawing) that connects us directly to the recipient, richness (metaphor: monsters, cancer). It’s concrete. It’s direct. It’s DIY. And it’s hugely emotional and affecting. It’s a simple story. It’s fast. It’s authentic. It’s simple. It’s personal. It’s rich. And you get something back which is unique, which embodies the story, which is the mark of the hand of Aiden.

Aiden’s Monsters

]]>

The revolution never gets tired. I’m constantly amazed by the power of the internet to empower individuals and small groups in new ways.

One recent case, Aiden’s Monsters:

A 5 year old American boy was recently diagnosed with leukaemia. His family set up a blog so they could share the experience, keep people informed, thank people, and so on. When he is getting chemo, Aiden spends a lot of time drawing. At the beginning of October they began selling prints of Aiden’s drawings on Etsy, in order to raise money to pay private medical bills.

The response has been overwhelming. Aiden’s drawings are now backordered 6-8 weeks. Several communities jumped on board to help out, including people from Reddit, and Regretsy, and Etsy. And they also take donations.

Aiden’s family essentially set up a charity for Aidan, in a matter of weeks, using off-the-shelf internet components: WordPress, Etsy, PayPal. It’s true the fundraising proposition is compelling – single recipient (concrete), small child (innocent), illness (act of god), donor gets something physical back (hand-made drawing) that connects us directly to the recipient, richness (metaphor: monsters, cancer). It’s concrete. It’s direct. It’s DIY. And it’s hugely emotional and affecting. It’s a simple story. It’s fast. It’s authentic. It’s simple. It’s personal. It’s rich. And you get something back which is unique, which embodies the story, which is the mark of the hand of Aiden.

Full details at Hitler tries a DMCA takedown – There are hundreds of parodies of this “Downfall” clip. The studio, Constantin Films, has ordered takedowns of some of them, and eventually even had this parody removed from YouTube. In this clip, Hitler is the producer, and his lawyers tell him why he can’t do a DMCA takedown and how the EFF could stop him. He desperately searches for other ways to protect the movie.

Made by Brad Templeton, an EFF board member (but releasing the video on his own.) This video educates about intellectual property issues and parodies the actions of the studio using the very clip they are censoring.

I’m a fan of the Downfall parodies. My favourites include Philip Bloom’s Mr Hitler not happy about the Canon 7d although you really need to be an HD-SLR geek to get it.

Downfall takedown parody

]]>

Full details at Hitler tries a DMCA takedown – There are hundreds of parodies of this “Downfall” clip. The studio, Constantin Films, has ordered takedowns of some of them, and eventually even had this parody removed from YouTube. In this clip, Hitler is the producer, and his lawyers tell him why he can’t do a DMCA takedown and how the EFF could stop him. He desperately searches for other ways to protect the movie.

Made by Brad Templeton, an EFF board member (but releasing the video on his own.) This video educates about intellectual property issues and parodies the actions of the studio using the very clip they are censoring.

I’m a fan of the Downfall parodies. My favourites include Philip Bloom’s Mr Hitler not happy about the Canon 7d although you really need to be an HD-SLR geek to get it.

The secret to Farmville’s popularity is neither gameplay nor aesthetics. Farmville is popular because in entangles users in a web of social obligations. When users log into Facebook, they are reminded that their neighbors have sent them gifts, posted bonuses on their walls, and helped with each others’ farms. In turn, they are obligated to return the courtesies. As the French sociologist Marcel Mauss tells us, gifts are never free: they bind the giver and receiver in a loop of reciprocity. It is rude to refuse a gift, and ruder still to not return the kindness.[11] We play Farmville, then, because we are trying to be good to one another. We play Farmville because we are polite, cultivated people.

Read more Cultivated Play: Farmville via MediaCommons.

Farmville: Gifts are never free

]]>

The secret to Farmville’s popularity is neither gameplay nor aesthetics. Farmville is popular because in entangles users in a web of social obligations. When users log into Facebook, they are reminded that their neighbors have sent them gifts, posted bonuses on their walls, and helped with each others’ farms. In turn, they are obligated to return the courtesies. As the French sociologist Marcel Mauss tells us, gifts are never free: they bind the giver and receiver in a loop of reciprocity. It is rude to refuse a gift, and ruder still to not return the kindness.[11] We play Farmville, then, because we are trying to be good to one another. We play Farmville because we are polite, cultivated people.

Read more Cultivated Play: Farmville via MediaCommons.