ELECTROCUTING THE ELEPHANT (THOMAS EDISON, 1903)

Besides fake inventing the film camera, Thomas Edison was big into electricity. In order to prove Westinghouse and Telsa wrong, by showing the public how dangerous AC power was, he decided to electrocute an elephant that was causing a ruckus at Coney Island. It is believed that while Edison's people set the wires up, Topsy felt deep regret towards those she had harmed....

Okay. That last part was fake, but the rest is true. And here's the evidence......

ALMOST THERE

Blogging hasn't been a huge priority lately. For nearly a year I've been shooting a movie with my buddy E. Traeger. It's going to be about 45 min. long and I don't think I anticipated how long it would take to complete.

It's pretty difficult making movies, just in case you didn't know.

Anyway, below there is a link to a totally rough, unfinished, without sound effects, clip of our short motion picture. The title is FRAME WORK. It's about an inept screenwriter that dreams about the first and last day of a relationship he had with a girl named Anna. The only problem is, he can't wake up.

Here's a link to a little SPLASH PAGE I drew up for the the movie. Right now it's just apart of my personal website, but I should probably be starting a stand alone for the picture, right? Yeah. I know. We should probably focus on the editing and sound design first....

This clip will mean nothing to all of you, because it is out of context and unfinished. Hopefully, though, it is intriguing?

PLEASE WATCH THIS IN HQ MODE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT HD QUALITY

IT'S KILLING TIME, SORRY.

THIS IS A CONTRIBUTION

TO THIS

MONTH'S

LAMBLOGATHON

HOSTED ON THE LAMB

BY THE ALWAYS WONDERFUL

ME....

It's early on in Sam Fuller's THE BIG RED ONE when Mark Hamill says to Lee Marvin....

"I just can't murder."

Marvin's response...

"WE DON'T MURDER. WE KILL."

I always took this to mean that they weren't hunting people down maliciously. They just did what they had to. For the good of everybody. It was their duty to protect the things they loved.

Well ladies and gentleman. I'm here to tell you we have a duty as film lovers. I think it's time we killed film.

Yeah. I know. It's ridiculous. I love the medium too. But let's face it. It's already dying. We should just put it out of it's misery and just finish it off.

I went to see STAR TREK the other day (really enjoyed it, but that's beside the point). It was a digital projection. It wasn't stated on the schedule to be a digital projection. This, normally, would really upset me. Like the time I paid $10 to see 1931's DRACULA projected from DVD.

I, as a self proclaimed cinefile, always prefer to see a movie projected from the medium it was made on. I knew that the new STAR TREK film was shot on film so my proverbial panties got in a bit of bunch. But then I thought to myself quietly, as the production company logos started playing.

-All movies go through what's called a Digital Intermediate nowadays anyway. This means, the film is scanned into a computer, post-produced, then scanned back out to film. Isn't this pointless? The resolution is only going to as high as the original scan of the film, which in most cases is 2K, or roughly that of high definition. So, other than the flicker that supposedly puts us in a state of reverie rather than the hypnosis of video, I can't make an argument-

Then, the film started. And you know what. It looked pretty damn good. I'd seen movies projected digitally before, but most of them originated on a digital medium. This looked just as good, if not better.

Look, I'm not trying to start any fist fights here, okay? I still would pay $50 to see 2001 projected on 70mm. I get it. Film is beautiful. Film is great. But movies are lame nowadays and it's because lame people are in charge of movie studios.

Excuse me while I get on my digital soap box.

People with money are generally lame. Therefore, they greenlight lame projects. Think about all those creative people you know. Do they have cash? Enough cash to bankroll a feature film, shot on 35mm? Absolutely not.

Some people might have enough to shoot the actual film. Some might have even a little more to make a work print copy and even a final master print. That' s fine and wonderful. I'd love to see that persons movie. But how about enough to make 6,000 prints available for distribution? Wouldn't it be cheaper as a single file? Beamed from a satellite in outer space? Or a little hard drive that could be sent via UPS? Think about how many different kinds of movies can be shown in towns they never would play in, simply because it'd be cheaper.

Hell. They could be showing Gaspar Noe's new film in a small southern town right now! I'm sure they'd be thrilled..... (Seriously though, there is a kid in that town (or an adult perhaps) that's dying to see it. Why not make it happen?)

I understand it's drastic, but if we want to see new and interesting ideas come to light, it has to be on this young medium.

It's the only way people. As Nancy Sinatra would say, "Sorry 'bout that!"