godthedog

the great cinematography/crappy story edition: 1. 'apocalypse now' 2. 'sunrise' 3. 'julien donkey-boy' 4. 'last year at marienbad' 5. 'the hidden fortress'

air supply.

the truth has previously been spoken: 'ran' = THE best shakespeare adaptation ever. i have yet to find someone who has seen 'ran' and disagrees with that statement. i had the good fortune of seeing a fresh new print of this in the theater a couple years ago, and the visual & dramatic grandeur of the whole thing are just overwhelming. i left the theater out of breath. that last shot is achingly beautiful. i've since seen it on my television, and it's still a great movie, but the experience just isn't the same. i also second the love for 'chimes', which gets better every time i see it. would easily crack my all-time top 20, and in some ways is even better than 'kane'. i remember watching branagh's 'hamlet' and shaking my head in embarrassment at some parts, but overall i quite liked it in all its campy glory. odd: i have a friend who just got back from london and saw a ton of shows, and his impression of the whole acting scene there was very negative, with a lot of them being very amateurish and tripping up on basic stuff like "projecting" and "not just standing there on the stage with your arms down." he did see one or two shakespeares there and was very underwhelmed by them, but i can't remember which ones exactly he saw.

i've never heard of it. i'm going to return some stuff to the video store tonight, i may try to look for it. the 1965 edition: 1. jules & jim 2. la jetee 3. the manchurian candidate 4. the man who shot liberty valence 5. vivre sa vie

you mean when you clicked that huge, 'rear window'-like lens into place on the camera, you didn't get this adrenaline rush of raw power and the urge to say "lock and load, motherfuckers"? that thing was like holding an extension of my cock, i felt like a man shooting with it. or maybe i just have issues. but i could've sworn that the canon has a '24 fps' option on it. if you're going for long focal lengths, short lenses and wide-angle shots i can see why you passed on the canon. i prefer shooting stuff that looks more flat and photographic, but that might suck the atmosphere out of a horror movie. polanski abused those wide-angle lenses like cheap whores in 'repulsion' and it terrified me.

when did celine and julie knock out aguirre? great performances by european actresses edition: 1. 'scenes from a marriage', liv ullmann 2. 'jules & jim', jeanne moreau 3. 'vivre sa vie', anna karina 4. 'persona', liv ullmann 5. 'amelie', audrey tautou

i have. and i think de niro is better.

incidentally, this is a better camera. the lens is better, the colors are bolder and the focal length is narrower (which makes it look more cinematic). it's also a monstrously huge camera that has to be assembled like a gun, so you feel like a complete bad ass whenever you strap it on. the journalism school here always uses the panasonic that you bought, and i never much liked the picture they got from it. that might just be from incompetent journalism students who didn't know how to use light or compose a shot, but i've also seen totally incompetent people get great shots with the canon (especially myself--i literally just had to have good weather and something interesting to point the camera at, and it looked gorgeous). i hope the powermac came with "final cut pro." if you're stuck editing your movie on iMovie or whatever generic default program the computer might come with, you may be hurting for options & for quality. if you don't already have a tripod, i HIGHLY recommend you get one. a good one. good choice on the mic. i don't know if this was included in the kit, but you may want to make sure you have a transformer to eliminate the camera hum. if you plug the mic right into the camera without a transformer, you will get a cleaner sound, but you'll have this strong whirring sound in the background of all your shots. if there's a lot of stuff sound-wise going on in the shot anyway it won't matter a whole lot, but it gets extremely annoying when you want to shoot a quiet scene and have that camera hum going. if you're shooting daytime footage outside, think about filters for the lens. when it's sunny or when you're shooting with a window in the background, it's really easy for the image to get blown out. i've never used them, cause i like the way it looks when it's blown out, but most people trying to do a professional-quality video don't like it. i don't know if you've already thought all this out or if you're going for some particular aesthetic or whatever, so that's just some garden-variety advice to take for whatever it's worth.

they couldn't pull that off, trips can't chain wrestle worth a shit.

this movie is why tony scott is my favorite hack. fun as hell to watch, hilarious, never gets old. willis & wayans's deadpan delivery just MAKES it (lines like "i think i fucked a squirrel to death" don't work unless you play it off like it's the most natural thing in the world and you're barely even thinking about it).

well, that caught on quick. GREAT shit. one of my all-time favorites. sell me on this one. i feel like i must've missed something cause i honestly don't see how it could be all that great, and i'm supposed to like slow, artfaggy stuff like this.

that edit is so much better than the actual post.

pimp me some kinks, i'm woefully uneducated regarding them.

from the "i'm a deranged superbitch" way to the "i'm a sexy librarian" way?

How is it idiotic? Oh wait, people are saying Choken was banned for responses like this. Maybe you should be banned too! the complete idiot's guide to godthedog's posting

you like the 90210 drama. choken's banning brings the 90210 drama. therefore, chocken's banning has a positive effect on you. sass GAVE the true answer for why he banned choken, in the bitching thread. "an answer i don't agree with" does not equal "no true answer." EDIT: my bad. scratch that.

this is just idiotic. there are more civil and subtle ways of making one's point. if you feel so strongly about dames's tyranny as to compare it to hitler, then leave.

this "excessive non-contribution" criterion is kind of a dangerous thing, and could feasibly be used to ban guys like rudo, inc, myself, and even agent. any forum this large is going to have a healthy amount of people who regularly post non-sequiturs, and a healthy amount of threads that wander off-topic. it's just the natural order of things in a "choken one.........banned?" thread to get posts like nobody's going to jump on curry for posting that, and nobody jumped on me for turning the "marney's gone" thread into the "let's celebrate 'the real world san diego' " thread. maybe it's because people who post more substantial things have a certain special license to go off-topic without repercussions, but i think it's just a matter of who is personally annoyed by whom. everybody posts fluff, it's just a matter of whether you find that fluff interesting and entertaining, or if you find it annoying. i find birds in the hotel's fluff to be EXTREMELY annoying but i'm not going to call for his banning, because i post more fluff than he does and it doesn't matter whose fluff is more interesting. maybe one could ban him for the "excessive stupidity", but what's really the qualitative difference between stupid fluff and clever fluff? i think choken should be a one-time-only case for the sheer AMOUNT of shit he did, i don't think the same logic should be applied to anglesault or zsasz (both of whom do make some meaningful contributions, despite the shit they start).

robert johnson - "little queen of spades"

he does a version of "everlong" that's better.

for the record, stanley kowalski > travis bickle. i'd go so far as to say his 'streetcar' performance was also better than 'on the waterfront'. uses his body as a tool possibly better than anyone else i've ever seen and he says every single line with a scary amount of believable conviction, especially when he yells at blanche about being called a polack. gave me chills. i still voted for de niro overall, but i'm just saying.

john coltrane - 'first meditations'

'gimmie shelter' - shitty boring first half, but the second half was great. nice feeling of bad vibes & chaos going on during the altamont concert, awesome "happy accident" photography (with that frightening shot of mick jagger trying to sing with an extremely creepy guy standing right next to him onstage & staring at him). it's too bad they didn't get any decent footage before the day of the show. 'mystic river' - biggest disappointment i've seen in a long time. just tried to do way too much and didn't know how to fit all the pieces together. it's a domestic drama about grief and dealing with tragedy! no wait, it's a detective story with a murder mystery! no wait, it's a gangster movie! no wait, it's an allegory about cycles of violence! just...ugh. the story kept finding new footing and trying to pounce on that & take it in another direction, and as a result just completely lost focus as a whole. after a while i stopped caring.

robert johnson - "32-20 blues". done deadpan, frightening lyrics. eric clapton - "running on faith" (unplugged). good slide guitar stuff, & clapton getting emotional is always good. tom petty - "don't fade on me". not a great SONG, but a perfect trebly-acoustic sound with the bare 12-string guitars & whatnot. neutral milk hotel - "two-headed boy". great imagistic lyrics. bob dylan - "it's all over now, baby blue" (live 1966 version). greater imagistic lyrics. velvet underground - "candy says". great nonimagistic lyrics, chilling sound. cowboy junkies - "sweet jane". very dreamy, especially the refrain. cat power - "satisfaction". sultry and disturbing delivery that completely changes the meaning of the song. i tried to give you some variety there, but i think i failed.

it's always about you, isn't it.