the essential documentaries

We made the video for U-Turn with the incredibly talented @sethbogartofficial It is a simple and goofy video where we drive around in a plywood car and dance in front of a green screen. I have no idea why this video would be deemed too “sensitive” by @youtube The other videos of ours that have been restricted? That Girl, which is essentially a tour documentary that includes footage of us performing and sitting backstage. And Alligator, a video where we dance around in snow suits with woolly hats on. I can only assume that the content has been flagged by users who are homophobic and don’t want unassuming straight people to be turned gay by seeing us dance. What a shame.

Made with Instagram

“Despite its imperfections this photograph is proof that I worshipped at the foot of their altar, that I was baptized in the sweat spritzing from Robert Plant’s golden locks. The technical flaws are also an essential part of its documentary truth. The streakiness of the image speaks to the novice’s impatience. There are no true black tones in the picture to provide depth and drama, and instead of a glistening expanse of skin, Robert Plant’s torso appears murky and unsexy. But it didn’t matter.  Like any rebellious teenager of that era, I had scribbled my share of heartfelt poems and Dylan-esque songs, but while holding the camera in my hands I felt transformed, I had some idea of how I might be in the world, how I could proceed. I had become a participant observer.” – Mark Alice Durant, photographer.


Hey Eddheads! So we’re gonna start rolling out the hype train for The End soon but first I wanted to let you know what’s happening with the documentary.

So one of the goals for the Eddsworld Legacy fundraiser was to fund a “mini behind the scenes documentary about making the show”. Well… Over time that turned from a 10 minute BTS into a 40 minute monster all about the history of the show and everything that went into making it. Since it’s so spoiler-heavy we’ve held off on releasing it but I can now safely announce that it’ll be available for Legacy donators in mid March of 2016 (it’ll be emailed to you via IndieGoGo) and everyone else in June of 2016!

I’ll be releasing the documentary publicly on my (Tom here) secondary channel, DarkSquidge. The reason I’m doing this is because once The End is released, I’ll be unlisting the two Legacy vlogs (x/x) on the Eddsworld channel so it’s just the animations left. No more need for them once their purpose has been served. I also feel like it wouldn’t be appropriate to potentially book-end Edd’s channel with a documentary about - essentially - ourselves. I hope that makes sense. And before you ask, no, I won’t be monetising the video as it’s on my channel. I do not make money off of Eddsworld.

So yeah! Just a little heads up. Expect some news about The End very soon!

- Tom

anonymous asked:

Wait, what's going on with Luka Modric? What's infuriating? Girl, what's the tea?!

Ahhh… it’s a lot to explain.  Basically Croatian football is really corrupt and really broken.  One of the most corrupt figures is this guy: Zdravko Mamic

Mamic was the director of Dinamo Zagreb for many years (and became an advisor to the club once he stepped down) and while he was in charge the league bent over backwards to make sure they always came out on top.  He also created many shady transfer deals that put lots of money into his pocket. Croatian authorities have accused him and his brother of embezzling the equivalent of $17.3m of the club’s money since 2008 and not paying $1.8m in state taxes. Croatian media said they were suspected of taking undeclared commission fees from the sale of Dinamo players to foreign clubs.

As part of that investigation, Luka Modric’s transfer from Dinamo Zagreb to Tottenham came under question.  It seems like Modric and Mamic pocketed money from the transfer that they shouldn’t have.  When police questioned him, Modric turned on Mamic and told how corrupt and criminal he is.

Mamic is now having a trial for these and other criminal charges.  Today, Luka Modric was called as a witness to testify.  But rather than repeat the allegations he made to police he claimed suddenly to not remember anything.  Not what his contract was, not what he originally told police, not what the annex to the contract was that detailed how the money would be split, etc etc.  Basically nothing he said while on the stand was in line with what Modric previously said to the State Attorney and when the plaintiff presented parts of his earlier statement in which Luka said that Mamic had repeatedly promised him to receive a certain amount of transfers money Modric claimed he didn’t remember saying that, he must have misunderstood the question, he was tired, etc etc.  

Mamic is a criminal and his house of cards was finally about to fall down until Modric suddenly contracted amnesia.  He is one of the best Croatian footballers of all time, a hero to many in the country and today he chose to stand up for criminality and corruption.

It’s infuriating because Modric turned his back on helping to build a case against a figure most Croatians hate.  And more than that, this whole thing is like a microcosm of the state of Croatian football.  The head of the Croatian FA is Davor Suker and he is terrible.  He favors certain teams and players, he attacks journalists and prevents them from doing their jobs reporting on the national team, he makes management decisions to fund his gambling habit rather than based on what would be best for the team, he openly admires Croatian ustase (fascist) leaders who committed acts of genocide during World War II, etc.

 The national team is coached by Ante Cacic who used to manage Dinamo Zagreb and is good friends with Mamic.  He lets Mamic have a lot of say in who plays for the national team and of course Mamic wants Zagreb players in so he can sell them and pocket more money.  He chose for his assistant Josip Simunic who was suspended from the national team in 2013 for leading the crowd in ustase chants and giving ustase salutes (which is basically the equivalent of a German player leading the crowd in Nazi chants and giving the Nazi salute) and has also helped fund a documentary that essentially argues that the extent of the Holocaust in Croatia is greatly exaggerated.

Maybe you remember a few years ago Croatian fans made headlines for burning swastikas onto a field or during the Euros the fans threw flares onto the pitch during a match?  Neither these or other similar instances are the fans expressing a fascist ideology or being stupid ultras; it’s a protest against the awful people in charge of Croatian football.  It’s an attempt to embarrass Suker, Cacic, Simunic etc.

There is so much more I could say on this topic, but hopefully that explains at least a little bit what is going on with Modric and why this is all infuriating.


HyperNormalisation (2016, dir. Adam Curtis)

It’s a highly disturbing, oh-too-significant, and rewardingly lengthy documentary essentially focusing on how politicians have truly failed the global public over the past several decades with not only their completely unwillingness to recognize more nuanced facts, genuine reality, and perhaps their own participation in creating political upheaval, but also with their complete dissolution to what actually is the reality of politics and the overall “real world,” choosing instead to manufacture and construct a “simpler,” more “good vs. evil” model for all people across the globe to follow, which completely oversimplifies the entirely too complex history of global relations between Western society and other parts of the globe, helping to give explanation as to why seemingly “out of nowhere” these more inexperienced, “charismatic,” and outwardly fascist people are coming into more dominate political and global power. 

Sacrifices of Andrei Tarkovsky: There's Cinema & There's the Cinema of Tarkovsky

Andrei Tarkovsky, a genius in life, a myth after his death. A great director who created his own world in cinema, totally understandable and yet much misunderstood. With time, Tarkovsky is becoming more and more of a legend, but behind words like “genius” or “classic” the soul of the artist tends to get lost. The soul which is alive in his movies.

Only seven feature films–Ivan’s Childhood, Andrei Rublev, Solaris, Mirror, Stalker, Nostalghia, and The Sacrifice–embody the cinematic vision of Andrei Tarkovsky, and yet, the weight of each is profound and exemplify a vast awareness for the art of cinema on both transcendental and technical levels to filmmaking. The beauty of Tarkovsky’s flowing images relies on the finesse of his direction and the charged significance brought about by his directorial choices, a significance that can only be experienced by the spectator. That is perhaps the key element that makes Tarkovsky a “genius” or “classic,” that his films gain their true worth through the audience’s experience of them–engaging the viewer through the visual and aural language of cinema builds the foundation of his films. The director offers the viewer not a story but a world, and one can only “understand” a Tarkovsky film by living it.

Many of the best filmmakers choose to drive their films not through extravagant direction but instead through very specific and unique choices that reduce cinema to its essential poetry. Stylistic filmmaking takes root in personality. This idea is echoed in Sacrifices of Andrei Tarkovsky, an essential one hour documentary on the life and art of the filmmaker, when we hear that “all his films together form one single film, the same aesthetic, same characters who talk about conscience” and that “he devised his own language.” As a filmmaker, Tarkovsky was aware that in art it is all in the details. His admiration for Robert Bresson must have been fueled by the fact that the two shared a similar philosophy to filmmaking: Bresson’s declaration that cinema is the art of having each thing in its place could have also been spoken by Tarkovsky himself.

Thus, with Tarkovsky, we discover a filmmaker who possesses a unique voice that is able to express with great scope the poetic and artistic nature of cinematic storytelling. As Oleg Yankovsky of Nostalghia recites Andrei Tarkovsky’s words to him, we realize this to its fullest extent: What’s most important in Nostalghia is my art and my feelings, and we’ll have to shoot in one take a scene where you carry a candle which is a metaphor for what I’m trying to do in my cinema and maybe in my life too. I’ve always been uncompromising in my life, and this is how we’re going to shoot this scene, in one single take.

Journey through the life and films of a master filmmaker with Sacrifices of Andrei Tarkovsky. Friends and collaborators like screenwriter Tonino Guerra and actor Oleg Yankovsky give personal accounts of the film director while we also explore the locations of Stalker, Nostalghia, and The Sacrifice, witness how Tarkovsky worked with his actors and crew, learn that Solaris was his response to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, become aware that Tarkovsky rooted his personal life into his films like with Mirror, and so much more.

Tarkovsky’s short life was full of dramatic events, constant family problems, misunderstandings, and non-acceptance of his art, exile towards the end of his life. Tarkovsky sacrificed everything for art.

anonymous asked:

Here's the first episode of Rap of China subbed. /watch?v=K3ZFhjH9_5U It's really hard to find eng subs. There's 3 episodes out now. There's one rapper on there, Bridge (the one with the blondish dreads and ridiculous sunglasses), who has a whole short documentary essentially talking about how he's only in it to get rich because "that's what hip hop is about". Half of the rappers sit around on weibo saying the n word in their posts and songs anyways

I feel like most rappers only rap for the money. They don’t even care about their fans. But I’ll watch one episode & I’ll let y'all know how it is. I might get triggered & cringe while watching it…. sound like smtm but worse. -A

Writing this headcanon down for posterity: Tony Stark is a trekkie who gets into mock-serious arguments with Peter Quill, who is a die-hard Star Wars fan. Steve gets caught in the middle. Eventually he takes a third option and discovers he prefers Lord of the Rings. Bucky can’t understand why cowboys aren’t a thing any more. Gamora wants to know why Peter’s such a big fan of what is, essentially, an inaccurate documentary.

The new Amy Winehouse documentary, essentially: “Let’s blame her parents!” Presumably made by people who have never had to deal with a raging suicidal drug addict for a child. Hey, I loved Amy. I absolutely adored her music. But I can’t imagine what her mother and father went through having to deal with her. It’s shitty to blame them. She made her own choices, you know? Why rub salt into the wounds of grieving parents? How classless.

FYI, I went through something similar with my dad. Me (and my mum and my two sisters) tried to save him, but he simply didn’t want saving. He was crazy, in his own way. There was nothing we could have done. NOTHING.

So, yeah, Fuck this whole “the family could have done more” point. It offends me as a person. They were in an impossible situation. 

Filmmaking Wisdom from Robert Bresson

We are still coming to terms with Robert Bresson, and the peculiar power and beauty of his films, says Martin Scorsese who considers Bresson to be one of the cinema’s greatest artists. Another monumental filmmaker, Andrei Tarkovsky, agrees with Bresson’s importance: Robert Bresson is for me an example of a real and genuine filmmaker. He obeys only certain higher, objective laws of Art…Bresson is the only person who remained himself and survived all the pressures brought by fame. Meanwhile, Jean-Luc Godard, who along with his colleagues of The French New Wave was influenced by Bresson, claims, Robert Bresson is French cinema, as Dostoevsky is the Russian novel and Mozart is the German music.

Robert Bresson exemplifies the filmmaker of a simplicity that yields an elegance that then spellbindingly eclipses the traditional codes of film and its unique language: bringing each cinematic element to its essence allows Bresson to show beyond doubt that filmmaking is an art. All of this centers on the power of the filmmaker’s style. Bresson states, Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen. Filmmakers, follow your unique styles and spark your filmmaking passion with Filmmaking Wisdom from Robert Bresson, an extended and modified list of tips of cinematic goodness presented by A-BitterSweet-Life, and follow it with a viewing of The Road to Bresson, an essential one hour documentary on the master filmmaker. (note: Filmmaking Wisdom from… usually contains 5 filmmaking tips that are then touched upon. For this edition, the 5 tips have expanded to 7 and only the title of each touches on the insight. Why? Bresson’s own words suffice.)

1) Necessity and a Precise Individual Creative Vision Lead to the All-Important Filmmaker’s Style and an Engaging Form of Cinematic Storytelling

“Cinema is the art of showing nothing.” I want to express things with a minimum of means, showing nothing that is not absolutely essential…My style is natural to me. You see, I want to make things so concentrated and so unified that the spectator feels as if he has seen one single moment. I control all speech and gesture so as to produce an object that is indivisible. Because I believe that one moves an audience only through rhythm, concentration, and unity.

2) Envision the Creative Filmmaking Process as a Cycle: Personal Vision Seeks the Emotions of the Audience to Reshape into a Film That Is a Unique yet Universally Emotional Experience

It is the inside that commands. I know that it may seem paradoxical in an art that is all about the outside…Only the conflicts that take place inside the characters give its movement to the film, its real movement…A film is the typical kind of creation that claims a style. It needs an author, a writing…What the director has in sight, is an effect to produce or a series of effects. If he is conscientious, his preliminary work will consist precisely of going back from the effect to the cause. Starting from what he wants to obtain, the emotion of the audience, he looks for the best combinations to create that emotion. It’s a path walked backwards, with choices and rejections, mistakes, interpolations, that fatally leads him to the origin of composition, that is to say the very composition.

3) A Filmmaker Must Ask, “What Do I Want to See, What Is It That Moves Me?” and by Becoming Both Spectator and Creator, One Is Able to Achieve a Film That “Affects”–to Move the Audience Emotionally, Understand What Moves You

Le public, c’est moi. I mean that if I try to represent to myself what the audience will feel, I can not help but to say to myself: The audience, it is I. So, one does not work for an audience. But what one tries to do should be able all the same…For we find, ultimately, the same chances of acceptance by the audience as a painter, for example, but after some time. Thus the other day someone asked me the question, “Do you believe that a single film of yours could affect people?” It can, perhaps, affect some people, but I do not believe that a single painting by Cézanne has made people understand or love Cézanne, has made them feel as Cézanne did. It takes a great many paintings!

4) A Film Ought to Reflect the Style of a Filmmaker without Imposing upon the Audience’s Experience of the Film: The Filmmaker Creates More than a Film, He or She Creates a Relationship between the Spectator and the Film

You must leave the spectator free. And at the same time you must make yourself loved by him. You must make him love the way in which you render things. That is to say: show him things in the order and the way that you love to see them and to feel them; make him feel them, in presenting them to him, as you see them and feel them yourself, and this while leaving him a great freedom, while making him free.

5) The Relationship between Spectator and Film Brings Forth the Cinematic Experience: The Filmmaker Should Allow the Viewer’s Imagination and Emotions Take Part in the Film’s Storytelling–Discovering the Story Is More Powerful than Simply Receiving It

The difficulty is that all art is both abstract and suggestive at the same time. You can’t show everything. If you do, it’s no longer art. Art lies in suggestion. The great difficulty for filmmakers is precisely not to show things. Ideally, nothing should be shown, but that’s impossible. So things must be shown from one sole angle that evokes all other angles without showing them. We must let the viewer gradually imagine, hope to imagine, and keep them in a constant state of anticipation…We must let the mystery remain. Life is mysterious, and we should see that on-screen.

6) All Filmmaking Choices Center on What Is Necessary for the Film and Its Engagement with the Audience: It Is the Film That Shines on the Screen, It Is the Experience of the Film That Is Felt–with Time, the Filmmaker May Become Memorable

To me cinema is the art of having each thing in its place. In this it resembles all the other arts. Like the anecdote about Johann Sebastian Bach playing for a student, the student gushes with admiration, but Bach says, “There’s nothing to admire. You just have to hit the note at the right time, and the organ does the rest.”

7) Filmmaking Is in of Itself a Life’s Journey: Cherish the Opportunity, Immerse Yourself in Each Stage, and Embrace the Poetry Behind the Making of a Film

My film is born first in my head, dies on paper; is resuscitated by the living persons and real objects I use, which are killed on film but, placed in a certain order and projected on a screen, come to life again like flowers in water.

 @khamalas​ posted saying “does parse also watch those bts clips or?” and I think the clear answer is yes. Because what good is having essentially a mini documentary about your ex ? ex best-friend? ex maybe if you don’t watch it.

So he watches them alone in his empty apartment with his cat and expects to be mad about everything he couldn’t have had but thats not what happens. 


  • He learns stuff about Jack through the videos that he didn’t know because they have both grown up and Kent hasn’t talked to him enough in recent years to know them. 
  • He learns that Jacks pre game rituals are no longer the same, that he smiles differently now and Kent almost doesn’t recognise him until he laughs and then its the exact same as the way he use to when they were together.
  • He watches the mini games they play and Jacks still a sore looser even after all these years.
  • They do a trivia quiz and Jack is only marginally better at pop culture than he was 6 years ago, but since when is Zimms so good at history. Kent swears Jack never paid more attention in history than he did in high school but maybe that was just another thing he missed.
  • They do a gift wrapping challenge for christmas and all Kent can think about is all the horribly wrapped gifts he got through juniors and how it turns out that Jack got lots of parts of his life together but not that part. 
  • He learns that Jack still tapes his stick the exact same way that they made up together in juniors, the same way Kent still does as well. 
  • Slowly but surely Kent fills in the gaps about what he didn’t know about Jack, that he was a history major, that he once flipped a table over a board game, and waged war on a rival sports teams house. That his best friend goes to law school, and that his proudest moment from collage was walking across the stage to receive his diploma.
  • Jacks exactly the same but entirely different and over time Kent comes to realise that this Jack isn’t the Jack he fell in love with when he was 16 and maybe its for the better but it still hurts to know that Jacks not his.

Eventually Kent realises that he’s not the boy Kent loved when he was young, but maybe Kent can let him go if he knows there’s no going back now

anonymous asked:

What are some books that point out some blatant contradictions in the bible?

Not a clue to be honest, I don’t read many books. (I am dirt poor lol)
I know of books and I have found some free versions of some audio books but they tend to address (a specific) religion or arguments more than writing about biblical contradictions.

Though I suggest checking The Bible Skeptic on Youtube, if I remember right he has done some stuff specifically about biblical contradictions.
He essentially makes Youtube documentaries. :P

Sorry I can’t help you out with books, though!

anonymous asked:

How did you find out you were ace? x

My journey as an ace has been both long and short. I feel like it took me forever to find this identity, but absolutely no time at all to acclimate to it and join the community. I’ve heard of people who have struggled to fit in with the ace community, and I was fortunate in that I was never one of those people. I slid right into the community and claimed a space within it and didn’t budge for anything. I guess I’m just stubborn that way. :P

When I was younger, I assumed I was just a late bloomer. I tried dating, and hated it. It was so uncomfortable to be touched that way and the expectation that sex would come into it at some point only made matters that more daunting to me. I always knew sex was something I didn’t want. Even with celebrity crushes and such, it was only ever aesthetic attraction. I remember how it was with my first boyfriend. I was 16 years old, and every time he’d try to kiss me or put his arm around me, I’d panic. My best friend used to pull me aside and ask what was wrong because I just had this “look of extreme discomfort and fear” on my face every time. But, I was young, and I thought I’d grow into it. That lasted until I was about 19. The waiting for things to change, the self-assurances that I was just a late bloomer and if I stuck with it long enough I’d feel what everyone else was feeling. That never happened, though.

At 21, I started to accept that something was fundamentally different about me. I attributed it to intimacy issues and self-esteem problems (I’ve always been overweight, and that was a big point of contention in my self-image growing up). I read self-help books, I worked on my appearance and gained a sense of self-confidence. I tried dating again. It was around this time that I first watched the (A)Sexual documentary, and I think, on some level that planted a seed. At the time, though, while I related strongly to the stories of those in the documentary, I essentially thought I couldn’t fit into that because of the fact that I have a libido. So, it didn’t immediately click with me then. When I was 23, I started dating my ex, who over the course of our month-long relationship, coerced me into sexual situations that I did not want and manipulated me into feeling guilty for not reciprocating sexual acts on me. Every time this happened, I had panic attacks, and he would get angry. Our relationship ended because one night he didn’t stop when I told him what he was doing was painful.

After I got past the emotional and mental fall-out from that, I got back into research and reading. I read more self-help books, and tried dating more - always with the same disastrous outcome. Panic attacks and guilt and feeling broken. Finally, at 25, I decided to look into asexuality again and do more research, as that was what had come closest to explaining how I was feeling. Plus, I had gotten into Tumblr a bit by then and noticed that there was a pretty good ace community on here. I read through AVEN boards, blog posts, and advice responses. I learned that my libido was a completely separate aspect from sexual orientation. That I could be asexual and still have a libido. It was one of the happiest moments of my life. Truly. I think I cried.

Suddenly, I’d found this community of people who understood me, even though they’d never met me. We’d all gone through this same set of experiences, and there was a name for it. I absorbed everything I could get my hands on (and continue to do so). Then, after a couple of years of that, I started this blog so that I could try to help others in their paths and further this community that I’d found my home in. I went to conferences where I met other aces in person for the first time and I remember standing there with a group of people after a session, going “I’m surrounded by strangers who don’t feel like strangers”. I could walk up to any one of them and immediately have something to talk to them about. It was beautiful, and it continues to be beautiful.

Discovering the Magic of Editing

Unlike all the other art forms, film is able to seize and render the passage of time, to stop it, almost to possess it in infinity. I’d say that film is the sculpting of time.

In our profession, everything depends on the extent of how interesting you make your narration.

- Andrei Tarkovsky

The power of a film rests in its approach to storytelling. The way in which a film communicates its story to the audience and how it engages that audience with its arrangement of images and sounds is of the utmost importance to the filmmaker. Thus, editing or “the invisible art" becomes the foundation of a film’s narration. Being unique to the art of cinema, all the layers of the film meet in the edit to hopefully create a cinematic work that captures audiences.

Cinefix’s Most Memorable Editing Moments of All Time presents a list of ten films that portray the function and power of the invisible art. From The Godfather to 2001: A Space Odyssey, the list of films shows how editing can captivate audiences and glorify films as timeless works of art. "Skilled editing is as effective in the creation of a good film as a writer, director, or performer. Though often overlooked, editing brings shots together to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts. These ten movies are a fantastic illustration of just how important editing can be.”

Learn, explore, and discover the art of editing! Watch Inside The Edit’s The Editor, a short video that beautifully explains the role of the editor. While showing the complexity of the process, it too emphasizes how with editors and editing, “The less you notice our work, the more successful we have been.” Follow the video with the essential documentary on editing The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing and more!

And don’t forget V.I. Pudovkin’s Film Technique and Film Acting: the Cinema Writings of V.I. Pudovkin, an obligatory read for all filmmakers and one that Stanley Kubrick described as, “The most instructive book on film aesthetics I came across…”

The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing explores the one thing that filmmakers from Andrei Tarkovsky to Orson Welles all agree on: what distinguishes cinema from the other art forms is editing. The documentary explores the history of film editing, the process, and the manner in which it evokes emotions in the viewer. Filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese along with editors like the aforementioned’s own Sally Menke and Thelma Schoonmaker illustrate the innovations in editing that began with D.W. Griffith while investigating the reasons behind a cut and the importance of the relationship between each image.

Akira Kurosawa and the Art of Editing

Akira Kurosawa possessed a masterful awareness of the filmmaking process, and those working close to him considered editing to be among his greatest talents. The renowned director even declared that he would shoot a film simply to edit, because for him editing was the foundation of a film and the most creative and interesting part of the process. The following words on editing and Phil Baumhardt’s Profiles in Editing: Akira Kurosawa exemplify the filmmaker’s profound understanding of “the invisible art” while the latter closely studies Kurosawa’s editing style and techniques in Seven Samurai.

Constructive Editing in Robert Bresson’s Pickpocket

In Constructive Editing in Robert Bresson’s Pickpocket, David Bordwell explores two forms of the invisible art: analytical editing and constructive editing. Each resolves the issue of space within the image. Citing the works of filmmakers such as David Fincher, Sergei Eisenstein, and Wes Anderson among others, Bordwell shows how in analytical editing the filmmaker orients the viewer into the scene by breaking space into several shots, starting with a master shot and moving into tighter ones while always respecting the 180 rule, whereas in constructive editing the filmmaker builds up the scene or “narrates” with a series of shots that act on the viewer as “impressions.”

The Magic of Editing: The Rule of 6 with Walter Murch

You have a cut in a film, from one thing to another, what makes it work? In an ideal sense, what would be the perfect cut?

Walter Murch answers his question with The Rule of Six and explains them in-depth. The Rule of Six are as follows, with the first three being of the utmost importance and latter three seeing a diminishment in importance: 1) Is it emotional or is it true to the emotion of the scene? 2) Does it tell a story or advance the story? 3) Does it fit with the overall rhythm of what is being established? 4) Do we know where the audience is looking–eye trace? 5) Does it consider the problems of 3-dimensional objects in a 2-dimensional world–2D Plane? 6) Are the people and objects in the space moving coherently?

Always reflect on Walter Murch’s Rule of Six while editing your films!

V.I. Pudovkin and the Cinematic Art

Vsevolod Illarionovich Pudovkin was an influential Soviet director who developed theories in film technique. For Pudovkin, the film is directly related to what the eye sees and so the camera lens becomes the mechanical eye of the viewer, the eye to the film’s story.

He writes, The lens of the camera replaces the eye of the observer, and the changes of angle of the camera—directed now on one person, now on another, now on one detail, now on another—must be subject to the same conditions as those of the eyes of the observer.

Thus, the story rests in the cinematic narrative of the film, its language, and here comes what could be his greatest influence on cinema: his theories on editing. Evan Richards presents V.I. Pudovkin’s 5 influential editing techniques in this greatly informative short video. You will find these techniques in all films, making this video a must-see.

Wait! Hold Up...

So clearly we have to make some assumptions while watching Carmilla. Some are simple like believing vampires exist or that the fact that everyone in the show speaks English with Candian accents even though they’re in Austria where the official language is German. But there are some other assumptions that we’re suppose to make that we don’t always think about. Like the fact that we’re essentially Silas Campus. Or the fact that Laura edits and posts her videos herself. Also supposedly Laura doesn’t post her videos as a dramatic story to keep us at the edge of ours seats, she posts these videos as a journalist who’s job is to keep Silas Campus up to date on ish.

Now there’s a difference between a journalist and an author or a screenwriter. A journalist can add flare and drama to their stories to bring their work to the next level, but their main goal is to give facts and tell important, affecting stories. But here’s the thing, while Laura does have a lot of journalistic feature to her videos, including her SNN updates and the board debates and whatnot, she also has some very non-journalistic features. For example:












Now all of these examples are scenes that happen at the end of a video and then get picked right back up again at the beginning of the next video. Which leads us to another assumption: Laura tapes something, let’s say on a Sunday, then edits it and posts two separate videos on Tuesday and Thursday. So she purposefully posts videos with cliffhangers for her Silas Campus viewers…

Ponder this with me. Laura, the aspiring journalist, posts videos with cliffhangers, making us wait days in between, even though she has the rest of the information right there for us and could easily post it.

Imagine if other journalists or news sources did this.

“A major fire has engulfed the town putting many lives at risk, including firefighters and innocent civilians. Now I have the casualty list right here so please tune in on Thursday to hear the names.”

If you saw that on the news, you’d probably flip your shit.


Now of course we could just say Laura is a terrible journalist and move on. But I want to bring your attention back to this:

So why is Laura editing her videos with so may cliffhangers?

Well here’s my theory: this isn’t just some journalistic feature for Laura, this is about telling her story. Laura wants to tell her story…FOR POSTERITY!

What I’m saying is that Laura isn’t trying to be a journalist like we have assumed; Laura is trying to tell her story so she won’t be forgotten. She wants her story known and told for generations. She wants to leave a dent in this world. She doesn’t want to be wiped away as if she was no one, as if she was nothing.

So here’s what i’m thinking: I heard somewhere that we don’t fear death as much as we fear no one noticing our absence. Laura is telling her story, in this video documentary essentially, so people will notice her absence. And I think Laura fears this because she knows what it feels like to barely remember the presence of her mother.


11 essential environmental documentaries you can watch on Netflix right now

6. ‘Gasland’

Thought that was it for fossil fuel analysis? Oh, how wrong you were, readers. What list of environmental documentaries would be complete without the Academy Award-nominated Gasland?

A close look at how communities are affected by natural gas drilling and the fracking process, it’s the best way to learn how to talk about hydraulic fracturing at your next dinner party/in front of the water cooler/to seduce a political science major.

Read the full list | Follow policymic 

It’s happening – the Soundgarden story will soon be the subject of a feature documentary film. And you can help. As we dig deep into our vaults, we ask that you, the fans, dig into yours.

Personal photographs, bootleg video and audio, collected concert posters – your rare piece of music history could be the missing piece we need.

If you want a chance for your memento to become a permanent part of Soundgarden history, send a description of what you’ve got to with the subject “Soundgarden Fan Submission”.

The Soundgarden film is being produced by Banger Films, makers of the essential heavy metal documentary Metal: A Headbanger’s Journey (2006), SXSW Audience Award and Juno-winning Iron Maiden: Flight 666 (2009), Grammy-nominated and Tribeca Audience Award-winning Rush: Beyond The Lighted Stage (2010), the “doc opera” Super Duper Alice Cooper (2014), as well as the biggest-ever TV series on metal and hard rock, Metal Evolution (2011).

The Road to Bresson: Cinema Is a Question of Feeling

Bresson has been able in his work to raise cinematography to the level of comparable older art forms and genres, Andrei Tarkovsky expresses at the opening of The Road to Bresson, an essential one hour documentary on the master filmmaker Robert Bresson. An exploration of what makes Bresson such a monumental presence in cinema, this documentary is designed to shed light on the films and filmmaker’s style of Bresson while documentarians Leo De Boer and Jurriën Rood attempt an interview with the reclusive film director.

Investigating the profound touch Bresson has on the art of cinema, The Road to Bresson is layered with quotes from Bresson’s celebrated Notes on Cinematography, excerpts from his films, interviews with Tarkovsky, Louis Malle, Dominique Sanda, and Paul Schrader, and footage with the filmmaker himself. During the press conference for L'Argent at 1983’s Cannes Film Festival, we witness Bresson’s humor and defiance to run-of-the-mill expectations from films. When asked why he makes films that frustrate the spectator, he answers, “What spectator are you talking about?” Bresson epitomizes the autonomous author whose self-determination brings forth unparalleled cinematic works. He follows his vision, intuition, and own set of rules for filmmaking. His simplification of film elements is directed to reveal cinema not as a canvas for popular moviemaking but as a unique art form that generates an experience for the spectator. The cinematic experience is the all-in-all. As he further expresses at Cannes when speaking about emotional weight being more fundamental to a film than intellectual comprehension, It’s not a question of understanding, it’s a question of feeling.

Metteur en scène or director. The point is not to direct someone, but to direct oneself. - Robert Bresson

With only 13 films in 40 years, Bresson was able to touch the heart of filmmaking. Along with the foundation of a film being an emotional experience and simplification being a compelling approach to the language of cinema, he was well aware that engaging the audience is a necessity that allows the spectator to participate in the film’s storytelling. An excerpt from Notes on Cinematography as shown in the documentary declares, “Accustom the public to divining the whole of which they are given only a part. Make people diviners. Make them desire it.” If Tarkovsky feels that Bresson is one of the few to have succeeded in achieving simplicity in film–Of all the artists seeking simplicity and depth, he is one of the few to achieve this in his work. That is essential. We all seek simplicity. All serious artists seek simplicity, but only very few achieve it. Bresson is one of the few who succeeded.–then Bresson is also one of the few who succeeds to carry out within his films this truth about filmmaking: The power of a film rests in the emotional experience it stirs within the engaged audience, and it is the experience of the film that generates the meaning and truthfulness of the work.

Watch, learn, and absorb this essential documentary on filmmaking and Robert Bresson: The Road to Bresson.

anonymous asked:

On your opinion what are the best/essential documentaries to watch?

i usually refer people to the great site nonfics to check out their recommendations, but here is a list of some films i like too:

  • HARLAN COUNTY USA (free on hulu)
  • anything by the maysles brothers (GREY GARDENS, SALESMAN, GIMME SHELTER, etc)
  • CRUMB (terry zwigoff’s documentary about the cartoonist robert crumb)
  • F FOR FAKE (orson welles)
  • godfrey reggio’s films (KOYAANISQATSI, etc)
  • CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS (andrew jarecki)
  • DEAR ZACHARY (make sure you’re in a good mental headspace for the saddest fucking movie of all-time)
  • any werner herzog (GRIZZLY MAN & LITTLE DIETER NEEDS TO FLY, etc)
  • NIGHT AND FOG (alain resnais; best film about the holocaust ever made)
  • SANS SOLEIL (chris marker)
  • errol morris movies (THE THIN BLUE LINE is my favorite)
  • in more recent years, i like MAN ON WIRE (2008), PRODIGAL SONS (2008), MARWENCOL (2010), THE ACT OF KILLING (2012), and everything from the harvard sensory ethnography lab (SWEETGRASS, LEVIATHAN, MANAKAMANA, etc)