Still haven’t had the chance to see the film, but I hope to soon. From what I’ve heard and seen, the cinematography and score is lovely, as well as Ford’s directing.
From ”The Age of Amateur Cinema Will Return,” an essay by Jia Zhangke:
For some reason, conversations about films always get people trapped into sentimental feelings. In order to get out of this mood, Tony brought up a new topic and asked me, “What do you think will become the driving force for the development of films in the future?” Without hesitation, I replied, “The age of amateur cinema will return.” This was the most truthful and vivid feeling I had, and I had been continually reinforcing my opinion every time I was asked about the prospects of films.
It certainly challenges the so-called professional filmmakers. Those who strictly follow professional principles and exhaustively describe the marketing ability they possess have long lost their power of thought. They pay too much attention to whether the film is good enough to reflect their professional competencies. For example, the picture should be as delicate as an oil painting, or the mise-en-scene is supposed to match that of Antonioni’s films; even the twinkling spotlight needs to be right on the face of the actor. They repeatedly fathom the professional mindset, cautioning themselves against any amateur act that breaks the established classical rules. Conscience and sincerity, which are crucial to filmmaking, are completely diluted by these facts.
“Mean to Me” is a minute short film written and directed by David McDermott and Peter McGough and featuring model Agyness Deyn and Linus Roache.
Huffington Post sums up the film’s style nicely: ‘Aesthetically-speaking, “Mean to Me” itself is a studiously detailed, 13-minute love letter to the Deco era: deep, rich, film noir lighting; ornate period opening titles; a dark Stravinsky score (characteristic of the time during which the film industry was transitioning from silent films to “talkies,” and still relied on classical scores to denote mood).’
Commissioned by Prada for its Spring/Summer 2010 campaign.
Interesting thought by Wee Ling Soh of the Shangaist: “While we get the bleak overtone, we see the perfectly attractive models and we’re amused by its accompanying surrealist art references, we wonder - if a film looks better when it is paused (flawlessly-executed visuals in almost every frame), is something seriously wrong? Perhaps models just are not actors and it’s best if they stuck with their actual jobs: Modeling.”
This afternoon we worked with the Steenbeck editing machines for the first time. We’ll be using them to cut our 16mm films shot on Arri S cameras.
The coolest part was, with lights all off, we started scrolling through the film, and the film was moving across to the other reel really fast, and all the individual pictures turned into motion. It was so quick! That’s probably a terrible description, but with a toggle of a switch, life was sparked into the image on screen.
Unfortunately, physically cutting film and taping pieces of film together was a lot harder than I had anticipated. I got a lot of air bubbles… my friend below had much better success though :)
Hokushin projector to test screen our movies in the editing room.
“The 180 degree rule is the most basic rule in filmmaking. There is a really good short primer on it here (thanks wikipedia!). I will attempt to explain it briefly for those who are unfamiliar with the rule, but mostly I want to talk about the fact that live action filmmakers break it occasionally, while in animated films (at least in my experience at Disney) it is considered a big taboo. On most of the animated films I’ve worked on it would never even be considered as a remote possibility, and I think that is too bad, because sometimes breaking the 180 rule can result in a better visual impact and can also enable you to get a great reaction shot that you couldn’t get otherwise.”
“Screw business!” you might say, but the reality is that filmmaking is a collision between art and commerce (even the cheapest of films will cost more than your average Mercedes). And within the context of Asian American films, the big elephant in the room has always been its business viability. “It’s a young man’s game,” a filmmaker once told me about Asian American films, “it’s fun to talk about representin’ and stuff until you get a mortgage.” And as a business it definitely makes no sense.
Unfortunately, Asian American (and independent) films aren’t quite driving audiences to theaters. Considering the economy, who would want to invest into something that has not proven profitable? Although this is the case, it’s admirable that there are filmmakers making sacrifices for their craft, as well as those looking for other ways to reach audiences. On that note, audiences need to show some support (and money)!
Apologies for being lazy and just linking to the posts, they are worth reading though.