Thanks to Milo for providing this. I love strange media.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/gijoe.html  ¶ 09:17

 
I planned to be spotaneous today. J. had a day off of work, we each had our things to get done, but I decided early in the day to let whatever happened...happen.

We had a wonderful lunch at Phan's, and then spent the afternoon enjoying the weather by the lake. Later in the afternoon, we went to Rochambo for some tea, ran into S. and chatted a bit, then came home for a midafternoon nap, then got ready for our evening's festivities.

I got nothing done that I'd intended to.

I love that.  ¶ 18:48

 



Bhuddist monks in the alley behind Pham's Palace.









We were down in Veteran's Park today. A brief bit of Indian Summer.
  ¶ 18:28

 
The motion light is on.
I look out the back door, expecting to see a raccoon or possum.
Instead, my favorite saucepan is lying upside down in the middle of the lawn.  ¶ 08:03

 
Your movie needs to be good.
Your production needs to move fast.
You need to make it for cheap.
You can only have two.

If it's good and fast, it's not going to be cheap.
If it's fast and cheap, it's not going to be good.
If it's good and cheap, it's not going to be fast.  ¶ 22:36

 
Back when I was doing sculpture, I did a television piece where I had coffee grounds as lines on a mirror. It referenced the coffee ads that were running at the time with the tagline "Hold on tight to your dreams" and showed caffeinated individuals doing all kinds of active things. Today, I ran across an ad campaign for Lavazza, which shows similar themes. Click here to take a look.  ¶ 12:36

 
Background
I've had a number of interesting realizations over the past few weeks, and once again, a lot of disparate elements are coming together because I've finally been able to name something that I've been fascinated with for years. Social software, very broadly, is any software that allows multiple users to connect with each other. It's developed from the relative simplicity of listservs and BBS software to todays chat clients and Match.com.

Like all good things, it starts in the 80s
I've been online since I joined GEnie in the late eighties. I subscribed to, and participated in, a number of roundtables on various music, art, and social topics. I'd read William Gibson and was intrigued by the notion of cyberspace. Granted, Gibson's vision of the place was more technologically savvy than a text based bulletin board, but the concept was basically the same. I could sit in the comfort of my office and communicate with users from around the world, exchanging ideas. The world suddenly seemed a lot smaller to me.

GEnie started jacking up their rates and eventually I switched to another ISP. No longer able to access my roundtables, I used e-mail to keep in contact with friends I'd made. Flash to today, when computers and internet access are starting to be as prevalent as television.

Addicted to Social Software
Since September, I've been involved with a number of online communities, and most active in Friendster and tribe.net (see aside). I've met a lot of cool people, am corresponding with a number of wonderful artists, photographers, filmmakers, and writers locally and around the world, and it's inspiring to me to see and discuss what they're doing in their own communities. It was during one of these interactions in the past month that it hit me: writing my thoughts is much more natural for me than speaking my thoughts. Writing is my preferred method of communication.

Retrospect
There's all these things I know about myself, and in light of the above, I'm seeing them as related.

• When I write, I revise as I go. It takes me longer than normal to complete a single page, but when that single page is finished, I'm happy with what it says and how it's said, rarely going back to do anything more than minor tweaks or spelling corrections. My first draft is usually very close to my last.
  
• In my writing, I've often spent an inordinate about of time working through the subtle nuances of specific words (e.g., struggling over whether 'will' or 'can' is more appropriate to the situation).
  
• I believe that there is usually a perfect way to express a thought so that it's understood well by a majority of people.
  
• I frequently find myself thinking "I wish I would have said ---- instead."
  
• When speaking, I tend to find myself talking ahead of where my brain is. I tend to talk before I think through exactly what I'm saying and how it's going to be heard in the context of the situation.
  
• When speaking, I tend to use the phrase, "Wait, let me back up..." quite a bit.
  
• If I'm in a situation where I'm talking to someone and feel like I'm not being understood, I tend to completely lose my train of thought and lose the ability to communicate effectively.
  
• I feel that I can be most effective when communicating in writing.
  
• Given the choice, I prefer e-mail to phone calls.
  
• Until I get to know someone, I'm often quiet and reserved.

So what does it all mean?
I prefer to edit my thoughts. Not because I don't think you can handle them, not because I'm trying to hide something from you, but because I want to make sure that I'm fully understood. I want to make sure that my thoughts flow logically from point A to point B to point C, and the manner in which I kae those points is as clear as I feel it needs to be. After all, if I don't need to re-explain what I've already said, it's more efficient communication.

Ahh, there's that efficiency again. That whole INTJ thing manifesting itself in my communication style. Efficiency = effectiveness = efficiency.

If given the choice to talk or to write, especially in situations where the stakes are high, I much prefer to write. It gives me the opportunity to think about what I want to say and, more importantly, how to say it. Those first impressions of my thoughts are very important to me, and I feel that I can do a much better job of choosing just the right words, concepts and analogies when I can revise. Once spoken, words are hard to retract. Picking a phrase that's almost perfect could get me in a world of hurt, while a written thought about which I've had time to reflect and revise as appropriate has less potential for coming back to bite me in the ass.

So I write. I revise. I feel it gives me a better opportunity to reflect what's really in my head because I'm freed from the "am I saying this right?". I feel that I end up being more authentic with my thoughts when I can go back, delete, and revise to say, even more precisely, what I need to say. Like I just did.  ¶ 09:36

 







Room full of digital photo geeks
  ¶ 09:19

 



Self portrait while driving



Note the multiple lens reflections in the mirror. That's my favorite part.
  ¶ 23:04

 
My mind
is on edge
constantly
aroused and at the ready

My mind
is easily insulted by the overly obvious
and can out-ruminate
most
with one lobe tied behind it's back

My mind is questing
for an enticing,
exciting interplay
of equals

My mind
is my
erogenous
zone  ¶ 08:01

  And Chris sent the following archive of downloadable video clips.

http://www.open-video.org

Thanks, Chris!  ¶ 14:08

 
"We have to start taking responsibilities for our actions rather than blame the whole gender because we either fucked up or ended up dating fucked up people."

I like that. There's a script in that... :)  ¶ 10:42

 



Escuela Fratney, Milwaukee, WI

  ¶ 21:27

 
The night was windy, tiny tornados of dry leaves skittering across the plaza.

He emerged from the rehearsal hall, sheet music tucked under his arm, and fumbled with his Sport Walkman, trying to fit the earbuds in place.

The radio station was just beginning the broadcast, and he smiled quietly to himself as the opening strains of the Fifth crackled across the airwaves.

A door closed.

In his mind, he heard a woman cry.

He thought of Sharon whom he'd left this morning, never to return.

It was a Shostakovich evening, and he revelled in the angst.

Winter was near.

inspired by the '8 sentence story' thread

  ¶ 11:48

 
Another interesting thing I ran across on the web. Escher's "Relativity" done with Lego bricks. http://www.lipsons.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/escher/relativity.html.

http://www.lipsons.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk includes a pretty comprehensive lego site.

Some people have too much time on their hands.  ¶ 12:49

 




  ¶ 21:24

 
Every day, I'm going to take one photo I'm proud of.  ¶ 18:21

 
I dreamt that J. got rid of the green couch in lieu of a Crate and Barrel couch she's been eyeing. It's about a year old, and she gave it away to a friend from work. I was upset because a.) it was my favorite couch, and b.) she could have at least sold it to recover some of the cost of the new one.

I spent time online trying to find the couch at Pier 1, until I realized that we'd gotten it at the La-z-Boy store. I decided to go there in person and see if the same model was still available for purchse. If nothing else, I'd get it to put in my office.

The salespeople were less than helpful, in their salespeople sort of way. I knew exactly what I wanted, but they kept trying to sell me other styles, more expensive fabrics...I was not having a good day.

As I walked back to the room where my bag was, a man in khakis and a blue oxford shirt started massaging my shoulders. He asked if I was stressed. I said yes. I tried to communicate with my tone that I really wanted to part of any conversation with anyone at the moment. He said he could tell that I was stressed. I'd obviously not communicated my desire not to interact, and that made me even more stressed.

We got to the room where I was keeping my bag, and he sat on the floor. He asked if I only produced features. I felt sheepish taht I was in such a foul mood around someone who wanted to talk film, and warmed up to him. I told him what I did; he said he was a professor at Columbia college. I gave him my card.

I was upset that the Coca-Cola I'd poured into my shoe had been sitting, and had a faint taste of rubber and sweat as I took a sip.  ¶ 07:32

 
Each fall, Jennifer and I try to make a pilgrimage to Horicon Marsh for a Sunday afternoon hike. These photos are from this year's excursion.








Look closely. Jennifer thought it was an injured snake. It's a snake eating a frog. Tastes just like chicken!





My favorite self-portrait this year



Another self portrait that I kinda like

  ¶ 20:12

 
I stumbled across this last night...
http://www.bibalex.org/...

Of particular interest would be the downloadable catalog of films...

Thanks!  ¶ 13:38

 
http://www.phallus.is/

'The Icelandic Phallological Museum is probably the only museum in the world to contain a collection of phallic specimens belonging to all the various types of mammal found in a single country.'

thanks to Smoooochie  ¶ 09:31

 
Tuesday evening, I went to see Matchstick Men, a film about which I'm still torn. I usually have reservations about seeing anything Hollywood, and this was no exception. But it had Sam Rockwell (as Frank Mercer) in it, of whom I've been a fan since Box of Moonlight. On the flipside, it had Nicolas Cage (as Roy Waller), of whom I've not been a fan since his wooden hand twitched in Moonstruck. There's also the Ridley Scott factor. I've been a fan of his since the Chanel No. 5 commercials in the 70s, and even though it was a Hollywood film, he can sometimes pull off some decent stuff. Hell. Look at Blade Runner. So I wasn't sure about the movie, and had I not had a few spare hours to kill, I probably would have waited for the DVD.

What worked was the character depiction and development. Scott's strong suit is his expertise with visual storytelling, and tends to use visual information about the characters to help us understand what they're all about (the way he should). Roy is a con man with various OCDs, tics and phobias. Having just finished reading Motherless Brooklyn, about a small-time hood with Tourette's, it was quite interesting to see this concept played out on screen.

Plotwise? It was an interesting premise. The whole notion of a con-man, or con artist rather, who suddenly needs to take care of a 14-year-old daughter he didn't know he had is intriguing. The moral dilemmas Roy must face (revealing his 'job' to his daughter, teaching his 'job' to his daughter, revealing his daughter to his partner, whether or not to get out of the business now that he has a daughter) are compelling, and I was interested to see how he handled them.

The ending, however, leaves a little to be desired. I think. I'm not sure where I am on the ending. Basically, you come to find out that the enitre film--the daughter, the last big operation, everything--was a con by Roy's partner to bilk him out of the fortune he'd made in his years as a flim-flam man. A Brilliant con at that. Reminiscent in the setup of Fincher's The Game or The Sixth Sense.

Even the way Roy handles the swindle is brilliant. Earlier in the film, he rationalizes his profession by explaining that everyone he took money from willingly gave it to him. And now, with all the events leading up the con, he willingly gives his money to Frank. He approaches it very karmically, and I respect that.

My biggest problem was the ending. In the final moments of the film, preceded by a 'one year later' intertitle, we see Roy as a carpet salesman, then going grocery shopping, the home to Kathy, the grocery store clerk who's been flirting with him throughout the film, whos' cooking dinner, pregnant (probably barefoot, too, but that's another essay).

It was just another example of Hollywood not allowing us to sympathize with and get to like a criminal. He has to turn his life around and go straight in order to remain sympathetic. He has to get a woman and get a real job. He can't just continue to be a criminal, or worse, go back and swindle Frank again to get his money back.

We've reduced a wonderfully complex character to the expectations of convention. The only way for him to survive is to settle down with a loving woman and get out of the business. Far too simple a solution, and one not nearly as complex as the realities of life which had been established earlier in the film.


  ¶ 05:38

 

Swarms of ladybugs  ¶ 21:15

  The Internet. So Much Data. So Much of it Useless
But if you don't know Chimpography...
http://www.nerfect.com/tmoc/tmocmain.html

Thanks, Milo!
  ¶ 15:43

  An innovative use of technology. If you have too much time on your hands
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3167312.stm

Thanks, Chris!  ¶ 15:24

  Swarms
It's Indian Summer today. The temperature is above 70, I've got the window in my office open, and I'm watching the swarms of ladybugs out the window. Down on the porch, they're quite numerous on the walls.

I don't remember this many ladybugs in the past. There seemed to be an explosion of them our last year on Lake (1999), especially during Indian Summer week. Someone told us that they were attracted to the warmth that buildings absorbed, and were clinging to it during the day in a feeble attempt to stave off winter.

Sunday afternoon, we saw a woolly bear caterpillar by the garage. I've never seen one of those in the city before. That's a sure sign that fall is here and winter's on its way, though I can't remember if a narrow or wide stripe signals a mild winter. No matter, it looked pretty even to me.  ¶ 14:14

  Tree of electronic music in flash
Thanks to Neuronaut!
http://www.ishkur.com/features/music/index.htm  ¶ 21:16

  I received this today, and being the passionate advocate for independent film that I like to think I am, feel the need to drop this into my blog for the world to see.

For those of you unfamiliar with the organization, The Independent Feature Project (IFP) (http://www.ifp.org) is a not-for-profit service organization dedicated to providing resources, information and avenues of communication for independent filmmakers, industry professionals and independent film enthusiasts. It is committed to the idea that independent film is an important art form and a powerful voice in our society.

So am I.



Dear Friends and Members of IFP:

On Tuesday, September 30th, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) announced a ban on "for your consideration" VHS and DVD copies of feature films. While we support the MPAA's desire to curtail pirating - the stated caused for the ban - we believe that this untimely move will greatly threaten the ability of a diverse group of films (chief among them independents) to be seen by the majority of members of the Academy. [Refer to http://www.mpaa.org/jack/ for the MPAA's official press release.]

The Academy campaigns-and subsequent nominations and awards-for such films as "Boys Don't Cry," "Far From Heaven," "In the Bedroom," "Monster's Ball," and "Talk To Her" brought increased public awareness and box office revenues for these diverse and quality films. Screeners to the Academy are key to those campaigns. How else would Academy members see or even hear about films that were not in wide release and did not have large prints & advertising budgets?

We wanted to make sure our members are informed of this new policy, and of the negative consequences for independent films, so we've attached a compilation of press clippings that have appeared this last week. IFP is working with independent artists and companies to help reverse this hasty decision by the seven major studio heads (represented by the MPAA).

If you have not personally contacted the MPAA or the seven major studios to express your opposition to this issue, we encourage you to do so. Letters should be addressed to the attention of Anne Caliguiri, Public Affairs, or Jack Valenti, President and CEO.

Motion Picture Association of America
15503 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, CA 91436
phone: 818-995-6600
fax: 818-461-1575
E-mail: hotline@mpaa.org

If you are member of the Academy, we encourage you also to write to President Frank Pierson to express your concern.

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
8949 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
phone: 310-247-3000
fax: 310-859-9351
E-mail: mailto:publicity@oscars.org

Please share this message with your colleagues. It will require the entire community's support to make a difference for the upcoming awards season.

Sincerely,
Michelle Byrd and Dawn Hudson
Executive Directors, respectively of IFP/New York and IFP/Los Angeles


----------------------------------------------
Attached articles follow
----------------------------------------------

Screen Daily.com

Hollywood independents in shock as MPAA screener ban rewrites Oscar game

Jeremy Kay in Los Angeles
30 September 2003

Studio-affiliated members of the independent film community claim their chances of success in the upcoming awards season could lie in ruins now that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) proposal to abolish preview screening tapes looks likely to be pushed through this week.

The specialized divisions of the studios - Fine Line Features, Focus Features, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Miramax Films, Paramount Classics, Sony Pictures Classics, United Artists and Warner Independent Pictures - will all be forbidden to send out screeners under the new system now that their studio parents have agreed to a proposal by MPAA head Jack Valenti.

It is understood an announcement may come as early as today (Sept 30) after a Los Angeles press report last week said all the major studio heads had been in talks with representative body the MPAA.

An MPAA spokesperson insisted there was no change in policy as of yesterday and declined to comment further, while nobody at any of the studios was prepared to comment, but the panic in the independent community was palpable.

The so-called indies have already suffered a blow with the shortening of the Oscar season by a month, offering fewer chances to their smaller films to benefit from nominations exposure.

If the screener dictate is made studio policy, as is now inevitable, the Oscars would essentially be returned to the domain of big budget studio pictures which could pay for exposure at the expense of the independents. Ironically the rules would of course not apply to the genuinely independent independents - Lions Gate, Artisan, IFC Films and Samuel Goldwyn Films among others - who can continue to send out screeners if they so choose.

While the MPAA move is purportedly driven by a desire on the part of the studios to prevent 'screeners' from being copied illegally and disbursed, many were shaking their heads yesterday and saying that the revenues derived from Oscar campaigns would be wiped out and that the studios were trampling on smaller pictures.

According to a range of people who agreed to speak to Screendaily on condition of anonymity, the move would rob non-studio films, film-makers and stars of the necessary exposure required to drum up support among Academy Award voters and their corresponding members in other awards bodies.

Many of their thoughts and concerns were echoed by Dawn Hudson, the executive director of IFP/Los Angeles, who agreed to go on the record.

"This would be really harmful to the independent film community. In many ways the independent film nominations over the last few years have given the Academy the legitimacy of having quality film," Hudson said.

"To rule against screeners means those Academy members may now not see a significant portion of this year's awards contenders.

"If screeners hadn't been sent out in recent years I don't think Halle Berry [ Monster's Ball ] and Pedro Almodovar [ Talk To Her ], for instance, would have been nominated."

Without any official comment, the air has been buzzing with speculation. Many were asking how the specialty divisions could just stand by and watch as Lions Gate, Artisan et al send out screeners to Academy members while they could not. And what would the penalties be if they did?

Similarly, while it makes sense to stop piracy of big-budget titles like the Matrix pictures or the Lord Of The Rings trilogy from screener distribution, is piracy really an issue for intense dramas like 21 Grams or foreign language titles held by studio companies like Valentin, Les Invasions Barbares and I'm Not Scared (owned by Miramax) or The Triplets Of Belleville, Bon Voyage and Goodbye, Lenin! (by Sony Classics)? These are the films which will clearly suffer, as awards voters will be driven to screenings of big studio pictures.

Smaller distributors argue that with a plethora of films in the mix during awards season, tapes are important ways for voting members to catch up on a film they may have missed during its qualifying run.

By contrast the major studio's contenders generally go on wide release for a lengthy time, offering plenty of opportunity to be seen by voters.

However, as publicists in Los Angeles rushed to book more screening rooms to cope with the possible increased demand from voting members, there was anger and concern.

"With the way the studios are controlling things it's like we've gone back to the late Seventies," one said.

"This could have deeper ramifications than Academy voters not getting their tapes," another added.

"We need to send out tapes to critics before interviews, agents and managers will be upset because their clients may not get seen in one of the year's stronger films and so it goes on."

Meanwhile the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences - the body whose members vote on the Oscars - issued a statement yesterday stressing it was not involved in the decision

"The Academy has absolutely nothing to do with studio screeners," it read. "We do not provide our membership lists to the studios, we do not mail out the tapes on DVDs, we do not facilitate their distribution in any way.

"We have always urged our members to see the films on the big screen the way they were intended to be seen and to base their judgments of the achievements contained in the films on those viewings and not to vote based upon an image seen on the television screen."

-----------

The New York Times (on the web)

Filmmakers Criticize Move to Curb Piracy
By BERNARD WEINRAUB

Published: October 2, 2003

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 1 - Independent filmmakers strongly criticized on Wednesday a decision by the Motion Picture Association of America to stop sending out copies of new movies in advance of the awards season in an effort to halt piracy.

The Independent Feature Project, which represents 9,000 independent filmmakers, said that the decision would severely hurt independent films and filmmakers.

In recent years, studios and independent companies have distributed copies of new movies on DVD and videotape before the Academy Awards season, to enable voters to watch the films at home instead of going to a theater or screening room. The so-called screeners have been especially beneficial to smaller independent companies, which cannot compete financially with the big studios but have earned numerous Academy Award nominations because many voters saw their films at home.

On Tuesday, the motion picture association halted distribution of the screeners in an effort to curb piracy, a growing concern among studios.

The director Robert Altman said in a phone interview that his own films, like "The Player" and "Gosford Park," as well as acclaimed independent movies like "The Piano," "Shine" and "Boys Don't Cry," would have failed to receive Academy Award nominations and would have suffered at the box office had advance copies not been available to voters of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

"The members of the academy would not have seen these films," Mr. Altman said. "There's so much opposition to this. I've been on the phone all day. It's got to get overturned. It will create this separation between two kinds of product: studio product and independent product."

"It's just a stupid assumption that this will stop piracy," he added.

The Independent Feature Project said in a statement that the ban on screeners was an "ill advised and hasty course of action." The group said that there were ways to stop piracy, including watermarking and individually numbering screeners so that those who seek to pirate films can be traced.

"We're very sympathetic to the issues of piracy," said Dawn Hudson, executive director of the Independent Feature Project/Los Angeles, "but the ramifications of this action by the M.P.A.A. are extremely damaging to the independent film community. They have just created more obstacles for independents to reach an audience."

---------

Variety.com

The battle of the ban
Coalition of foes plots to restore screeners

By DAVID ROONEY
Date in print: Thurs., Oct. 2, 2003, Gotham

NEW YORK -- As the ramifications of a studio-backed MPAA ban on Oscar screeners sank in, specialty division heavyweights and indie producers met in unprecedented conclaves Wednesday to discuss urgent counter-measures.

United Artists president Bingham Ray instigated a closed-door sit-down with Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, Focus co-prexies David Linde and James Schamus and Sony Pictures Classics co-chairman Tom Bernard. New Line was also represented, while Par Classics' Ruth Vitale and David Dinerstein were on a phone line. Fox Searchlight and Warner Independent Pictures did not attend and the heads of those companies have been contacted.

Ray declined to discuss the outcome of the meeting but said a joint statement outlining strategy from the participants will be issued this week.

The distribution honchos are expected to meet again to explore all possible avenues of action.

Per participants at the meeting, they are not alone in their opposition to the MPAA ban on screeners. Talent agents are irate about the ban on behalf of their clients -- many of whom are on an Oscar-nom commission basis; and foreign rights holders are already fretting because they feel their Oscar contenders' potential in their respective markets could be damaged by diminished awards cachet.

Meanwhile, IFP/New York exec director Michelle Byrd marshaled producers like Killer Films chief Christine Vachon, This is That topper Ted Hope, and GreeneStreet founder- prexy John Penotti to formulate a response to the MPAA edict.

"Our country was founded on a series of principles including looking out for the little guy," Hope fumed. "This is a case of seven mega-corporations getting together and looking the other way from the little guy, enacting a rule change in the middle of the game. What this is, is corporate domination."

The statement that resulted from the IFP huddle condemned the MPAA's ban and stressed several key points:

* The last-minute policy change will seriously diminish the diversity and quality of indie films immediately and the mainstream film industry in the long run; by undermining their Oscar potential, riskier and edgier films will not be made;

* Given that most piracy comes from outside the U.S. and from in-theater taping, the least likely culprits -- Academy members and other insiders -- are the ones most likely to suffer;

* Specialized divisions and the actors and directors whose careers are often made by their releases will become even more vulnerable in what is already a tight marketplace; the public will be the major loser, being ultimately deprived of more artistically daring and challenging films.

Industry supporters who stand behind the IFP statement include Robert Altman, Steve Buscemi, Selma Blair, Bill Condon, Ira Deutchman, Jonathan Sehring, Hilary Swank, Chloe Sevigny, Fisher Stevens, John Waters, Ed Pressman, Ross Katz, Anthony Bregman and Tracey Ullman.

"This is such a smokescreen," said Vachon, who produced Oscar-winner "Boys Don't Cry" and last year's multiple nominee "Far From Heaven."

"It's clear people are getting pissed that every year the independents are getting the lion's share of the recognition. There's not a doubt in my mind that the bigger issue here is to refocus attention on big studio movies."

"Just like the networks are all up in arms about HBO walking away with Emmys year in and year out, it's the same thing with the studios," Hope added. "If someone actually wanted to do something and had a modicum of the principal of fairness, you could announce something like this and allow people to provide an alternative. But there's no real alternative now to market and publicize your specialized films."

Oscar history of the past 10 years is peppered with examples of specialized films on limited release that came to Oscar voters' attention predominantly via screeners.

"I'm somebody who's made it all the way, I've been able to be in the game largely because of screeners," Vachon explained. "There are places where Academy members live where my movies don't even get to. For some of the smaller releases, this is really elitist. It's saying 'If you don't live in New York and L.A., too bad for you.' "

GreeneStreet's Penotti pointed out that "In the Bedroom" would never have scored five nominations and the resulting commercial boost without the backup of Academy screeners to heighten visibility.

"The film was released around Thanksgiving in an extremely limited platform release, so while critical response was interesting, there weren't a lot of places to see the film," he explained. "Up until around the middle of December we were in only two or three major territorities and for sure not in the secondary markets yet. We relied on Miramax's diligence in getting out screeners and using that as a major tool to create internal buzz about the film."

One of this year's sacrificial lambs stands to be "American Splendor," a critical favorite from HBO Films that has gone out through Fine Line and hence is subject to the no-screener rule. "We sold 'American Splendor' on the promise of a great push and an Academy campaign to capitalize on our late-summer release," said Hope, who produced the film. "Everything was in position to do that and then they change the rules at the end of our theatrical run? It's so crazy that there's been no discussion on this."

"This is clearly an economic issue, beyond the fact that it's an artistic issue," Penotti said. "It's hard enough in this marketplace to get people's attention, and taking away one of our major tools for the reasons that are put forth, we just do not buy it."

While the IFP group shares MPAA and studio concerns about piracy, the statement calls the ban on screeners an ill-advised and hasty course of action, pointing instead to other solutions. These include watermarking and individually numbering copies to enable piracy perpetrators to be easily traced, or cracking down on the real sources of piracy in labs and duplication facilities or theaters where illegal taping occurs.

"Piracy is a serious issue and we proceed at our own peril if we don't learn from the music industry's experience," said producers rep John Sloss of Cinetic Media, which was involved in the packaging of indie pics like "The Station Agent," "Capturing the Friedmans" and "Pieces of April."

"But I'm not at all convinced that screeners are a primary source of piracy," he continued. "If that is the MPAA's motivation, I'd be interested to see some connection between the dissemination of screeners and actual piracy."

Some industryites are suggesting that producers -- who are not bound to abide by MPAA rulings -- should organize their own screener mailout.

However, most of the players questioned believe any such move would be severely sanctioned by the Academy and subject to thorough investigation.

Indie producers agree that the question at stake is not merely awards prestige but commercial viability, and that a narrowed Oscar field will result in decreased production of non-studio fare. "The bottom line is, one of the reasons companies like Killer attract big talent because there's a possibility of being able to jump into the Oscar race," Vachon said. "If you take that away from us, for some of these movies you're taking away their only hope of being made. I think it's devastating."

"If these films can no longer compete in an even playing field with the big studio releases, then they just won't get made, they won't get acquired and thus the great roles won't be available to the Halle Berrys, Marcia Gay Hardens, Hilary Swanks, Billy Bob Thorntons of the world," Hope echoed. "And what will we end up with? We'll just end up more mainstream."


---------

Los Angeles Times -- latimes.com

Studios' Art-House Execs Seek to Block Ban on 'Screeners'
October 2, 2003

By Lorenza Munoz and John Horn
Times Staff Writers

Executives of the art-house divisions of the major film studios met in Manhattan on Wednesday, seeking to derail a ban on sending out DVDs and videotapes to Hollywood decision-makers for awards consideration.

The ban, announced Tuesday by the trade group representing the seven major studios, prevents smaller, low-budget films and the talent behind them from getting the recognition they need to succeed, critics say.

"This could be disastrous," said Ted Hope, producer of the film "American Splendor" and a member of the Independent Feature Project/New York. "Not a single specialized release will be marketed effectively this year. It's so frustrating."

The movies, known as screeners, are sent out in the fall and winter in hopes of winning support for Oscars and other awards.

The ban was needed to combat film piracy and will not be rescinded, Motion Picture Assn. of America President Jack Valenti said Wednesday. Of the 68 films sent out last year by the studios, he said, 34 were illegally copied and distributed around the world.

"My mission is to keep movies from being pirated," Valenti said. "I have no choice."

The ban applies to the seven major film studios that comprise the MPAA and their art-house divisions, but not production companies without a major studio affiliation.

Angered by the ban, executives from the art-house units of six of the seven MPAA studios - Miramax, Fine Line Features, Focus Features, Sony Pictures Classics, United Artists and Paramount Classics - met either in person or via teleconference at Manhattan's Four Seasons hotel to strategize on getting the ban rescinded for the coming awards season, a participant said.

Over the next few days, the executives will hammer out alternative solutions, including anti-piracy methods such as "watermarking" the DVDs and tapes.

Watermarks helped Vivendi Universal Entertainment find and prosecute the 24-year-old insurance underwriter who posted a preliminary version of "The Hulk" on the Internet.

Executives at Oregon-based Digimarc Corp., which developed video watermarking technology, said the cost of adding the markers would be insignificant.

"The solution is ready, and it's been thoroughly tested," said Chief Executive Bruce Davis.

But Valenti said watermarking only provides a method of tracking down culprits. He also said any rebellion by art-house divisions was "an internal problem."

The Screen Actors Guild and critics groups issued statements Wednesday criticizing the ban.

Times staff writer Jon Healey contributed to this report.

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

----------

Indiewire.com

Indies and Specialty Chiefs Mobilize Against Screener Ban by Valenti and MPAA

by Eugene Hernandez
October 2, 2003

The ban on awards season screeners remained a hot topic for some here in New York on Wednesday as the heads of the studio specialty divisions met to discuss the issue and a large group from the independent film community weighed in to denounce the move by Jack Valenti and the Motion Picture Association of America.

The chiefs of the Indiewood companies, who were brought together by United Artists president Bingham Ray, met during an unprecedented meeting on Wednesday afternoon in New York but were tight-lipped about their discussion for now.

Reps from all of the Indiewood companies, except newcomer Warner Independent Pictures, participated in the closed-door conversation. Among those in attendance were Ray, Miramax chief Harvey Weinstein and deputy Rick Sands, Sony Pictures Classics co-president Tom Bernard, Focus Features co-presidents David Linde and James Schamus, Exec. VP Marian Koltai-Levine from Fine Line, and David Dinerstein & Ruth Vitale from Paramount Classics who joined by telephone from Los Angeles. A rep from Fox Searchlight was reached after the meeting. While the chiefs would not discuss the meeting on the record, one company head told indieWIRE that the group would issue a statement today or tomorrow.

Also in a New York, a number of people in the independent film community came together to support a statement issued by Michelle Byrd, head of IFP/New York, on behalf of the indie film community. The group issued its statement "to condemn the MPAA's ban on 'for your consideration' VHS and DVD copies of feature films," calling the decision by Valenti and the MPAA an "ill advised and hasty course of action." Among those who signed on in support of the IFP/New York statement were many of the organization's board members, including Steven Beer of Greenberg Traurig, Ed Carroll of IFC, Ira Deutchman of Emerging Pictures, producer Nelson George, and Carole Radziwill.

Others from the New York film community who have signed on as supporters of the IFP/New York statement included Killer Films producers Christine Vachon and Pam Koffler, as well as Ted Hope, Anthony Bregman and Anne Carey of This Is That, GreeneStreet's John Penotti and partner Fisher Stevens, along with Ed Pressman and John Schmidt of ContentFilm, Jonathan Sehring of IFC Films, directors John Waters and Robert Altman, Rachel Cohen from Artisan, producers Lee Daniels, Sarah Green, Ross Katz and Susan Stover, screenwriter Bill Condon, writer/director Peter Hedges, and actors Selma Blair, Steve Buscemi, Hilary Swank, Chloe Sevigny, and Tracey Ullman.

"This last minute policy change will seriously diminish the diversity and quality of independent films immediately, and the mainstream film industry in the long run," read the IFP/New York statement, "Oscar consideration is a primary motivating factor behind the funding of riskier films, those of more serious content, films with ambitious narrative aspirations. Lacking Oscar potential these films will not be made."

The statement went on to add that Academy members and insiders are the least likely to pirate copies of films, and said that in-theater taping is the primary mode of illegal distribution of films. While the organization said that "the independent film community shares the concerns of the MPAA and its seven conglomerate signatory members when it comes to the serious financial consequences of piracy," the group added that it calls upon the MPAA to consider two courses of action:

- Require all screeners (both DVD and VHS) to be watermarked and individually numbered so they can be traced and the perpetrators prosecuted.

- Crack down on the real sources of piracy: whether they be labs and duplication houses where films are processed; theaters where the overwhelming majority of illegal taping for duplication occurs and/or private individuals who chose to disregard intellectual copyright laws.





===============================================

You have received this announcement because you are a member of IFP. If you wish to no longer receive important IFP announcements, you can be removed from the IFP mailing list by replying with "Remove" in the subject line, or by contacting your local branch of IFP.

- Sign up for email:
http://www.ifp.org/members/account.php
- Change your email:
http://www.ifp.org/members/login.php
- Become a member:
http://www.ifp.org/members/membership.php
  ¶ 00:17

 
Today is my least favorite weather of all. It's in the 40s and rainy. Eeew.

Of course, with President Bush in town this morning, there were a number of demonstrations downtown, and I was there capturing some footage for B.'s project. Spent about two and a half hours in the cold and wind, then the drizzle, then the rain.

Got some decent shots, but it wasn't a terribly impressive turnout by protesters. It was the typical handful of people protesing about the war, women's rights, economic policies, etc., and it broke up once the rain started in earnest.

I'm also bitter about this freakin' rule restricting parking in front of my own house the first Friday of every month from 8am to 2pm for street sweeping. We only have one side of the street upon which we can park, I'm parked about a block away, and pretty much got soaked walking from my car to the house.

Now I'm damp and cold, and ready to go somewhere and get a bowl of soup for lunch.

  ¶ 12:16

  Will the real Dan Wilson please stand up?

http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/~dwilson/
http://www.canadiancreative.com/ccsite/prose/dan-wilson.shtml
http://www.danwilsonshow.com
http://www.danwilsonmusic.com
http://www.pitt.edu/~ciddeweb/STAFF/wilson.html
http://www.fin.ucar.edu/orgcharts/dwilson.html
http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/w/Wilson:Dan.html
http://cgm.engr.ucdavis.edu/people/personal_pages/dan/dan.html
http://www.ri.ac.uk/DFRL/D.Wilson/
http://www.reidphotography.com/danwilson121401.html
http://www.lasiktx.com/MeetDrWilson.html
http://www.diviningmind.com/deviceless-dowsing.html
http://www.wlsc.edu/users/sports/FOOTBALL/dwilson.html
http://www.kidsrunning.com/columns/brownbagdanw.html
http://www.mission.net/cgi-bin/view_admin_bio.cgi?maintid=210
http://katabella.sumobaby.net/profiles/danw.php
http://www.lubbocknewhomes.com/2003/danwilson.shtml
http://www.tampaimprov.com/comedianinfo.asp?comedian=11
http://www.oregonfarm-ranchrealty.com/dan.html
http://www.100megspopup.com/msdannyfan/danny.html
http://www.iww.org/culture/biography/DanWilson1.shtml
http://www.danwilson.com/
http://www.pfi.iastate.edu/OFR/Wilson_E-Huts.htm
http://www.shacfleet.com/my_index/dan.htm

I have too much time on my hands late in the evening.  ¶ 02:51

  Six Degrees of Me
It's fascinating. Through M. & J., I've recently joined Friendster. The concept is simple. You're connected to your friends online, and through them, you're connected to their friends and their friends' friends, and so on, and so on, and so on...

I first heard about Friendster earlier this year on NPR, but when I checked it out, it struck me as more of a dating site. In recent months though, it seems to be getting a reputation for a networking, meeting-activity-partners type of place as well.

Out in LA, I found my housing through craigslist, an amazing classified ad posting service that relies on the goodness of humankind for its success. Founded in San Francisco (of course), it's available in several large urban markets around the country.

Combine the warm fuzzies of craigslist with Friendster, and you've got tribe.net. It's like friendster, but in addition to linking by social networks, you're also linked via interest groups, or tribes. Lots of San Franciscans there, lots of fabulous discussions, and I'm met a bunch of cool people. Thanks to M. for directing me there.

It's interesting to watch my network grow (127,000 on Friendster, 2500 on tribe.net), and it's like Six Degrees of Dan seeing how I'm connected to all these other people.

Of course, if you prefer Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, go here.  ¶ 08:49