Filming with Fiscal, (and Those Who Want In)?

Right-o!

So let's think of an action sequence, because action takes place in three shots:

1. The Set-Up: Let's say this shot is a person standing.
2. A Conflict: Let's say this shot involves a man running toward the camera, (we're going to edit and imply this person is running toward the person in shot one).
3. The Follow-Through, (Result): It is implied man in shot two has punched to the ground person in shot one.

Now:

If shot one has a longer duration than say shots two and three. The definition changes than say if we had a sequence where shot one and two was edited quickly and shot three had a longer duration.

So picture this:

If shot one has the longer duration than say shots two and three.

Shot one creates a realist tension, building to an abrupt, (and I say this because both shots two and three become brief of Conflict and Result) conclusion.

But:

The definition changes than say if we had a sequence where shot one and two was edited quickly and shot three had a longer duration.

The beginning sequence becomes abrupt, and the Result, (person getting punched), becomes more impactful.

Does this make sense?

__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage

Yeah, it does, actually. It does. You just lost me earlier when you talked about the aesthetics of aesthetics, the existentialism of aesthetics, etc. Blah blah blah.

I wish people could understand me better scientifically the way you can understand such complicated things like this - then maybe I won't have to deal with crybabies fussing at me for making jokes about upping your medications.

This seems so overly complicated, though. If you ask me, the surefire way to make a movie that stands out above the rest is just to find ways to emotionally overpower your audience. I suppose thinking about the durations of the shots helps, too, but... where do you go from here? What do you want to accomplish now? Are there any films you've done before? Oh wait, yes there are, I saw them. I liked the one with the clouds. But it was just... clouds. And music. I like clouds, though. I really do. They're amazing. But I wonder how you'd fare if you tackled something more complex, something more like an actual movie.

All these movie projects that I see people do... I know people are trying to experiment and shoot things in a sophisticated, unique way, but to me, it just seems like people are fiddling around with the camera, but not actually creating anything meaty. Cameras are not violins. They're not pianos. I say learn the basics and experiment as you go along. Make a couple of stupid things and if you've got natural talent, you'll eventually improve at what you do. All the great directors and writers and everything -- they have natural talent. I don't believe you can turn yourself into Hitchcock, for example. You have not lived these people's lives - you've lived your own life. Everything you film will be based on your own perceptions and whether or not they work with an audience is up to your talent and chance. I say stop worrying about all the technical aspects and just do - and revise if necessary.

I'll explain that too eventually. Just give me time.

As I said, water under the bridge, forget about it.

It's really not that complicated, one must simply be aware of what shots will mean based on their duration which is kind of film making 101. I've made narrative films in the past, (if that's what you mean by "actual movie"), they have their own place, no doubt. But I'm interested in solving the bigger cinematic problems. And the even greater problem of bridging the gap between avant-garde and mainstream.

Like I've mentioned, narrative stuff is easy. It's making advanced cinematic propositions palatable to everyone that's the harder problem, and one I'm interesting in devoting myself to.

Hmm. Well, I might be in the wrong thread, then. But I like the sound of avant-garde.

Second Cinematic Problem:

Here is the logic of Catch-22 and a decipher:

E = Excuse
I = Insane
R = Request

Premise One: (E=(I and R)
Premise Two: (I= No R)
Definition of Implication: (Not I Follows No R)
De Morgan: (No (I and R))
Modus Tollens: (No E)

For the sake of making a Catch-22 an aesthetic in an of itself, rather than a by-product of a script or a result of a stated premise. I am now looking for ways of making this logical paradox an aesthetic in an of itself. I haven't yet found a solution, but bear with me and give me some time to figure it out.

Alright, I think I need some people to bounce things off of for this next problem. So I'd like it if perhaps we can define the nuts and bolts of terms:

Define: Excuse
Define: Insanity
Define: Request

Are excuses and requests rational?
And insanity irrational?

If excuses and requests are rational statements, what differs them without context?

It seems to me the rationality of excuses and requests is not only context dependent but also content dependent not some innate attribute of the categories "excuse" and "request."

I'm also not quite sure what your aim is here. It seems to me that trying to formalize these concepts into a logically consistent model that also accurately represents how they're used is futile. These concepts just aren't atomistic logical objects that are well defined like concepts in math. The first problem that comes to mind is that an excuse could also be a request ("I didn't have time to finish" can mean the same as "can I have more time?" by implication, for example).

I guess I'm just not following what you're goal is. Is it to formalize these categories for the sake of describing them or just to see what peculiar abstracted form the end result will take (something like Raymond Roussel's rule-based novel)? Or something else?

http://fishyvb.something-fishy.org/a...p/t-70449.html

This has given me a somewhat better idea of what I'm going for linespalsy. Although I do think you are correct now. However, I think I'm coming very close to solving this now.

I have come to my own interpretations on the subject of "A Catch-22 Aesthetic", this is how I perceive it in mathematical terms, though I'll provide it verbally after this:

1 isn't a rational function, it's a constant. A rational function is one that can be written as a ratio of two polynomial functions, while a rational number such as 1 is one that can be written as a ratio of two nonzero integers. My point is that terms like "rational" in math has a specific meaning which is not the same as "rational" in the phrase "an irrational attempt at x." I think this arbitrary mixing and matching of meanings of the same word is why a lot of your statements here are sounding confused. My suggestion is to choose one method of explanation or the other (math equations or English) for the explanations rather than attempting to map them onto each other.

I guess my point is that saying "((1-1) = (-1+1))" is an equivalent statement to
"((Stylistic Realism) = ((Dada) + (Realism))" is nonsense.

This is bonkers. Just shoot a porno. I'll watch.

I want in on this.

Now, I live in Belgium, so I assume since DSM is organizing this project that he will cover all my travel expenses for this larger-than-life project. Seeing as I will need to be productive on the very day I actually set foot on American soil, I will need to fly in first class so as to get a comfortable night of sleep on the 10 hour-ish flight. Naturally, I will also require some form of accommodation once I've arrived. So if Fiscal or DSM could let me stay in a guest room, that would be awesome. I would sleep outside if you supply me with large enough quantities of liquor to numb my body from the cold.

Nah, j/k guys, looking forward to seeing the end result.

Definitely do porn if you guys are all gonna get together with liquor. Brodinski works out.

I'll just do the filming then. I'm confident that I'm straight as a board, but I don't mind saying that a man is well-groomed or hot or whatever. So I guess I won't have a problem with filming two grown men performing bedroom acrobatics.

But that's for another thread.

I do remember you telling me that you thought Jake Gyllenhaal was hot (am I allowed to say that?) That has always turned me on about you, Brodinski -- or, at least, made you more special to me around here.

Let's hurry up with that "another thread."

I will completely agree with you on this Linespalsy. But this is kind of how I function in general. My mind sees patterns in all things. Math is film, film is math, English is math, math is English, everything exists within everything although the issue I find is, like you said, has it's own definite terms. I'm constantly trying to find how these terms all fit with one another when the rhetoric isn't the same but the ideas are all there. Please excuse me, I'm honestly trying to make it have sense. I completely understand where I'm getting my inspiration from, and I can see the results in my head. At the same time, I do realize this mix-matching creates confusion, and that is no fault of others but my own. I'll continue to try and make it less confusing.

I gove you permission to use my amazing non patented, quick cutting, non edited camera tchnique. Back in the early seventies I had to take an art class and had to do an art project of some sort and I can't draw so I took my father's old movie camera and filmed some dufus feeding pigeons in the park. And instead of moving in closer in a tracking shot, I stopped the camera, took a quick shot, then moved in closer, stopped the camera again three times until I was up close then panned as a bunch more birds flew in to get the food. It looked fantastic and when it was screened in class received big applause for what was like fifteen or twenty seconds. The rest of the movie was completely boring and sucked.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Looking at my last two posts I might come off as too critical of the way you think. I didn't mean to suggest you should "conform" the way you think in math metaphors, or that your or that the very idea of using them at all is bad. I guess I just don't understand if the mapping of logic to film is the point of the exercise or just how you're trying to explain it, but I won't harp on your internal consistency anymore.

I didn't know that you made Home Alone 2.

Sorry Dog Star Man, but i cant really understand much about what you're saying... For me, making a good film requires 2 things: Passion and Intuition. I don't really see the need for film to be so mathematical or scientific in its approach. Cinema is for everyone (not the elitist), and that is why i continue to go back to (obscure) Asian films because i see that many independent Asian directors have so many meaningful things to say which we, as the Western audience, have so much to learn from. I'll try to stick around a while longer to familiarize myself with some of your theories though.