l33tbro

The French New Wave were all too different to generalise like this. Godard and Rohmer (or Resnais) could't be more different really.

It was actually the previous generation of French directors that they were all reacting against - who were making somewhat pretentious literary adaptation films. You can read about it in Truffaut's 1954 essay 'A certain tendency in the french cinema'.

Neorealism was actually a fairly minor influence - as none of the new wave directors were social realists. But older, maverick French directors like Bresson and Melville were much more influential, as it was their freewheeling sensibility which united all the new wave directors and sent them hurtling off in different directions.

Do you think our attention spans are not getting worse?

> the young generation ... are the biggest indicator as to where things are heading.

They sure can be. But young people around me in the early 2000s were into rap-metal, buying ringtones, and using ICQ or IM. These obviously were not great indicators of what would happen in the near future.

In my experience it just comes down to time and competing priorities.

Would I love to deep dive into my fuse box and learn how to rewire it? Very much so. But the limited free time I have needs to go into side projects and life goals.

I say this having just come out the other side of a long period of learning how stuff in my house works. While it has certainly been satisfying, I'm looking forward to just paying people to do things in future so I can focus more on what compels me.

Sure, but what is your point? I never said the early French New Wave films didn't do well in their native homeland.

My point stands that there were 'name' directors that excited the public long before the auteur theory.

What about Hitchcock? Lang? Sturges? Von Sternberg? Welles?

Directors enjoyed top-billing prior to the articles and films by the Cahiers du Cinéma critics. While they made a huge contribution to the form of cinema, how many people really saw Breathless or read Hitchcock/Truffaut?

New Hollywood was mostly egged on by whip-smart critics with a wide circulation like Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael, who further elevated the director as artist in the public mind. The studios followed suit and thought they could make a buck with these prestige films, until there were too many self-indulgent flops.

Did you really just post a Yeats poem in response to some feature changes on Instagram?

Sounds like you guys have a lot of fun. I love it.

I've not been diagnosed, but I think my problem with 'journalling' is that it is far too rigid and structural.

When I put pen to paper in the morning, I am letting my absolute freak flag fly and engage in something that is much more akin to automatic writing.

While journalling no doubt seems to work well for others, I get so much more out of unleashing a torrent of blab or blah and seeing what meaningful stuff pops up. It is just a guaranteed way for the fog to lift from my brain, as I quickly get to the heart of what's bothering me.

The only thing is posterity. Once I'm done, that paper is pretty much burnt after reading - as nobody needs to see that shit. That means it's a little more difficult to track internal progression or regression.

Meditation and qigong were great with slowing things right down as well - but not as immersive and long-lasting as brain purging.

OT - but the insistence on italicized type for this article is rather bizarre. No other USC article I've ever seen follows this formatting.

The author makes your point that there are plenty of smaller voices out there. However the commissioners and platform owners are no longer so incentivised to find and promote those voices.

While it's great to go out and see interesting local stuff - we also need mainstream entertainment for when we are not at those spaces during the other 99 percent of our time.

This is the author's point: the revolution was previously televised. Original films, 'alternative' music, street press, small publishers, etc have all but vanished from the cultural landscape.

This has lead to a kind of stagflation of shite. A cultural blight where the sameness of cultural product grows and becomes harder to break out of.

A company I've done work for has an 80 percent germination rate by shooting seedballs into the dirt.

They later return to the site via GPS data to monitor and verify their success.

https://dronedj.com/2022/01/07/airseed-technologies-works-to...

I took a vacation last year and purposely didn't look at anything online apart from checking work email occasionally. It was so beneficial and it made me feel like I was coming back to somewhere I hadn't been in a while.

If you're interested, I'd definitely recommend taking some time to step away from browsing all day.

Use the Nitter extension. Or browse private mode. Problem solved.

Tape is still what many use to archive project files and the daily rushes for feature films. Certainly more robust than the multiple drives that get used in post.

There are far better and cheaper optionsavailable.

I recently bought a Mackie 1604 for a hundred bucks. It's from 1993 and they were basically designed to fall off buildings. Super transparent and likely to outlast this thing due to being much more operable. Not as pretty or quirky, but that doesn't really factor in to my use case.

For stereo compression, you can get a brand new Really Nice Compressor for a couple of hundred bucks. Steve Albini has these in his studio, so that alone should indicate their high quality.

That actually makes sense. Watches are a status item and, as OP (pardon the pun) points out, Teenage Engineering is a bit of an aspirational/hipster brand.

Israel seems to have a relative degree of immunity when it comes to subverting UK pol. Anyone ever see the investigative journalist piece of the Zionist group trying to subvert the UK Labour Party? They had a journalist go undercover for 6 months recording all kinds of things they weren't meant to:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ceCOhdgRBoc

There was only minor fallout from this incident, and I imagine it will be the same here.

Good critics aren't 'prescriptive'. They are scholars of various media who elucidate where a new piece of work sits with in an artist's oeuvre, or the larger canon that the work is contributing to.

While some self-anointed blogger critics might have certain ideas about what they wish an audience would watch, an actual critic's (broadsheet paper, industry trade) only job is to contextualise a work in the larger bodies of genre, medium, and culture.

> User reviews are retrospective: how much did they actually enjoy watching the movie.

How can ANY review not be 'retrospective'? In fact, probably the majority of film criticism speaks to how much or little the critic enjoyed a film. Pauline Kael (probably the most incisive and celebrated American critic in film history) built a legacy based pretty much on how much she much she enjoyed the film.

> I think a very interesting graph would be so see to what extent critics prescriptions are accurately forward-looking to viewer attitudes.

Why do critics and audiences have to have the same opinions? I this is the fundamental misunderstanding and wonky premise of the article.

I think you might mean 'content collapse' here instead of 'context collapse'? They're both terribly clunky terms, but the article defines the former as the homogenisation of all content due to it sharing the same screen.

'Context collapse' I understand as the merging of our pre-online identities (who you were in various contexts) into one authoritative identity due to ubiquitous social networks.

I think you may be misinterpreting him. Didn't he say don't re-use words in the context of unnecessary jargon and buzzwords, as it gets boring reading the same superfluous words?

What about my alcoholic friend I've known for 20 years that is destroying his life and lashing out at me right now because he is sick? Or my heavily depressed friend of 30 years who I sat with on the weekend? Not everything is about extracting maximum personal happiness. Friendship can also be about service.

Because valuing close friends through the lens of what personal gain they may yield is more than a little sociopathic?

Then why do they frame connection in terms of a habit that yields "unlimited upside" and prevents you from missing out on opportunities?

You are absolutely right that people are different, but this person comes across a little transactional and an exemplar of the Zuckerborg meme.

How much property the elite class own has little to do with it. Politicians love housing prices going up because it means more money (debt) flowing into the economy through new loans / fractional reserve banking. This eventually increases consumption in other areas and increases GDP. Government is then able to say "hey look how well we're managing economy" when facing re-election.

'One More Time' was antares also.

I'm also aware of what a vocoder is - even own a couple.

They clearly mean the shitty vocal artefacts from pitch correction software pushed to the extreme. That's really not in the same paradigm as multi-take / double-tracked vocals.

While pitch correction software is used subtly in a lot of recordings, OP is obviously meaning the sound that started with Cher snd Daft Punk in the early 2000s, and is now ubiquitous on modern radio.

I'm considering getting a decent camera, or even going back to my old Iphone honestly. The images it took were so much more photorealistic than my current Iphone. It's like modern Iphones oversaturate everything and add trashy these unrealistic colors to things like the sky. I've tried to capture beautiful sunsets, but even by adjusting exposure I still cannot nail what was once so easy to get.

I even wonder sometimes if is using some kind of algo adding colors based on what it thinks things should look like? Don't know enough about this stuff.

This article and many of the comments here are mistaking color grading for being the culprit, when it is mostly production design. Grading is obviously the post processing of images, but production design is how the colors are organized to be shot.

Within this current fad, production designers have taken color theory and color symmetry to the extreme and bled all of the primary colors out of what is shot on set. Of course there are accent primaries left in, but they have this down to a science right now and it is why everything looks so perfect these days.

Cinematographers even will gloat about capturing "everything in camera, man" and only having only tweaked minor things in post. Roger Deakins supposedly shot the last Bladerunner like this, where there was little to no grading in the organic scenes.

While I think it's definitely better to get stuff in camera from a craft perspective, this obsession with applying the extreme uses of color theory and winnowing everything down to lifelessness is just so, so boring.

In the 90s things were a little more random and films had a range of colors that lacked symmetry. It felt real! But after the whole teal and orange phase of the 2000s (vomit), people took that same kind of reductionist thinking and broadened the palette ever so slightly.

Lol - I can see how that could be construed that way. No, I'm definitely no NIMBYist. But I think character of neighbourhood is really important, and I think it is definitely possible to do these kinds of developments in harmony with the existing landscape environment.

Probably well exemplified by Frank Lloyd Wright in the mis-century who created what he called 'usonian' homes. These were small block specific homes intended for workers that were completely in keeping with the surrounds.