2nd Unit DP work on The Goo Goo Dolls/Transformers music video
Current mood: accomplished
Category: Art and Photography
Here’s the work I did as a 2nd Unit DP on The Goo Goo Dolls/Transformers music video, "Before It’s Too Late." All the Chopper shots (wide and tight over the building) are mine.
Ford eulogized
Current mood: discontent
Category: disgusted News and Politics
Hey Kids,
It's me and I not only endorse this message, I wrote it.
It is considered impolite to speak ill of the dead, particularly just as they pass, but ask anybody, I'm not that nice a guy.
Gerald Ford took over the US presidency from an unapologetic Dick Nixon, declaring in his Inaugural Address that the National Nightmare was Over. A month later, he granted the sonovabitch a presidential pardon, absolving him of all his High Crimes and Misdemeanors in Watergate and his contempt for the Constitution he swore twice to uphold.
In doing this, Ford said that in spite of political consequences, he wanted to get Nixon off the front pages and move on. What happened was the opposite and his and the republicans in Congress undoing in the 1974 mid-term election and his failure to win a national election as one gaffe after another brought Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter to the White House.
My point is that in Pardoning Richard Milhouse Nixon, he stopped the Rule of Law in its tracts. Nixon was cautioned to resign when the Watergate story broke but only "cut and ran" after Articles of Impeachment were handed down from the House of Representatives. Nixon resigned to avoid trial by the United States Senate--again foiling the process proscribed by the US Constitution.
Recent history shows Bill "Bubba" Clinton facing his accusers--albeit in an extremely lawyer-like fashion--and facing them down over--let's face it--a blow job.
The current occupant of the Oval Office and the Veep that really runs the show over there--Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld both got their start in the Nixon-Ford Whitehouses--were also unelected first-termers as Supreme Court appointees. I am dubious about Democrats having the answers, but I've seen alot of evil and criminal republicans in my time. I wouldn't say Ford was among them. He played center for the Maizr and Blue football team of the University of Michigan. He was taught to block and take the hit for the man whose hands were up his ass.
The Man in the Hat.
Currently
listening
:
Driveway Moments
By
Various Artists
Release date: 18 November, 2003
ILLUMINATION: Lighting Tips and Pointers [published in Student Filmmakers magazine, August 2006]
At a recent lighting seminar in Hollywood co-hosted by American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) and the Digital Cinema Society (DCS), Michael Goi, ASC Vice President, opens his presentation stating, "There is no such thing as bad lighting."
Lighting is a tool, or collection of tools, that serves the story. Where to begin? Many, including George Spiro Dibie, ASC, urge students to visit museums and study the great masters. Look at the stories that unfold to the eye from canvas to canvas. Look for the source of light in the paintings. Note the shadows. See the depth come alive from the two-dimensional still work.
In one fresco at the Vatican depicting the Ascension, the sun in the sky appeared so real, one tourist asked his guide to show him the lamp behind the artwork but Raphael created the effect long before electricity. The feature, "Girl with the Pearl Earring" is a lighting tutorial showing Vermeer's creative process.
Look at daily life. Notice how a face is illuminated and falls off in darkness as a car motors through city streets. Subjects don't have constant light in nature. Clouds pass in and out of the path of that big key light in the sky. In a dramatic film, that light cue could build the tension of the scene. That's one possibility. What serves the story?
Goi darkens the sound stage and puts one light under the actress's chin lighting her face from below. When she reads her line, "I love you," Dibie jokes from the audience, "I don't believe you!" Goi then asks her to read the second line, "I'm going to kill you," and what looked at first glance to be terrible lighting instantly fits the script and serves the story.
Some films such as "Dick Tracy" and "Traffic" call for saturated, exaggerated, even cartoonish lighting and filters. Ang Lee's "The Ice Storm" was admired for being lighted so well, it didn't seem to be lit at all. Frederick Elmes and his crew took great pains to both capture and supplement natural light so as not to take the audience out of it. They served the story.
In this summer's blockbuster, "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" Dariusz Wolski and his crew made the most use of natural light to bring a sense of the real and the possible to the sea epic fantasy. Wolski confided to an audience after a screening that his regret or cringe moments lay in the blue screen shots necessary for soundstages to blend with the lighting shot at real locations.
Tips and Pointers:
Pour over artwork and other films. Study the lighting and consider how it serves the story being presented.
Assess with the writer, director, and art department during pre-production what is the visual goal of the script and KNOW that script. Fight to put the majority of your budget in the images to be seen by the audience.
Do not fall in love with a particular piece of equipment, a particular shot or the heroics it took to accomplish a shot. It is easier and quicker (and therefore cheaper) to set a large lamp and then flag, scrim and diffuse it down rather than to re-light. Re-lighting costs time, tension and can sap the energy of the actors to be lit.
Further, to work quickly, attempt to use fewer lights and let them do double/triple-duty (or more) with bounce cards, reflectors and bounces off non-traditional surfaces such as tables practical to the set and stray plywood placed out of frame for a warmer bounce.
Experiment when and where possible, but have a plan from pre-production. Storyboard with the director. Find talented grips and gaffers and treat them like gold. They are instrumental in realizing the director's vision which should be to serve the story.
Remember the wisdom of Michael Goi, ASC on illumination as a tool of visual storytelling. Find what the script calls for because there is no such thing as bad lighting.
VIDEO TECHNIQUES: The Shutter [published in Student Filmmakers magazine, July 2006]
Formats and platforms are just part of the new and ever-growing lexicon for filmmakers now. The fact is that producers have been looking for ways to deliver their product to theaters with greater ease (and less weight) than stacks of cans of film. While I join the chorus of those who love the organic look of real film, HD and video work are becoming more accepted as the markets chant "Faster! Better! Cheaper!" For up and coming filmmakers, video is the way to get your product shot, edited and screened to advance your career. There are tools to give your video production more of a film look.
"Shutter-bug" was a common term for those who just couldn't take enough pictures. In the last decade, as video cameras are continually pointed at computer screens, the shutter control was seen by many operators as just another "bell & whistle." Now many have found the use of the new shutter's "clear scan" to match the speed of the VDT (video display terminal) invaluable for syncing up and thereby removing the pesky floating line or bar in the viewfinder. But let's look at the old shutter speeds from 1/100 to 1/2000.
These drop a frame of black every-so-many frames to create a sharper image. This is particularly useful in sports photography as we see the action in distinct "rapidly moving still shots," i.e.: motion picture. This is how we can let the viewer at home see the rotating seams of a pitched baseball as it leaves the pitcher's hand moving--curving, sliding or knuckling--towards the plate. We all see what the batter is desperately trying to see. One of the great advantages of the shutter is the sports slow-motion replay.
The advantages/consequences are the effect on the depth of field. We clearly see Kobe Bryant going to the hoop as the background blurs behind him. This adds to the desired 3 dimensional effect. The cost is that focus is even more critical. Also, the higher we set the shutter speed, the more light we require. This takes us to shutter opportunities outside the sports arena.
Ever find yourself shooting in a cramped room? If you can get enough light on your subject, you can employ the shutter to separate the subject from the background (and foreground). If there is no room or time for a backlight, this can be a quick save.
A word of warning: Beware of fluorescent overhead lights. If you leave the overhead fluorescents on, you may come back to the edit bay with an odd strobing over the subject's face. Even properly lit (and not lit), if our subject animates their gesturing hands will appear to strobe across the screen. Even with film on the large projected screen, we've all noticed a stuttering as the camera pans a scene. File this under advantage/disadvantage decision.
Shutter speeds or employing the shutter at all should be considered as part of the overall camera test. It is an element along with lighting, makeup, film-stock lenses and camera that ought to be evaluated in pre-production from the storyboards.
CHECK YOUR BALANCE: The Founding Fathers versus Mob Rule
Category: News and Politics
"CHECK YOUR BALANCE: The Founding Fathers versus Mob Rule"
Who can argue with Yogi Berra? I once heard NBC's Bob Costas relay a rarely told "Yogi-ism." A young pitcher on the New York Yankees staff wished to curry favor with the eventual Hall-of-Fame catcher. Knowing that Yogi was Jewish, he referred to a piece in that day's New York Times that announced that the new mayor of Dublin, Ireland was also Jewish. "Imagine, Yogi, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, a Jew!" Yogi reportedly turned his eyes skyward and smiled, "Only in America!" If America stands for any one thing, it stands for HOPE. People from foreign lands have been flocking to these shores with Hope in their hearts since before 1492. When Thomas Jefferson et al sat down to frame the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they continued to hope for a better future. Knowing that the future they were setting in place would be handled by human beings with all their foibles, they put the concept of Checks and Balances into place amidst the three branches of the new Federal Government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Just as video photographers must check their black balance and white balance to assure proper colors throughout the spectrum, our government of, by and for the People must keep its balances checked as well. In a country so polarized as the United States, balance is a tricky proposition. There are forces looking to gain an upper hand and turn it into a death grip on those who would oppose them. They would use the means of the previously oppressed towards their ends of oppressing. What is a press corps owed by a few corporate interests to do? America holds out a Hope for civilized behavior. We hope that courtroom proceedings may find truer justice with more deliberation than a lynching mob. While the axiom that the Law is like sausage--you really don't want to see either one being made--may be true, it is preferable to the horror of Mob Rule. Especially if you are not part of the mob. More often than not, this is where our Judicial branch comes in. There have been isolated cases of bravery from the Executive Branch--none moreso than the administration of Abraham Lincoln--but the court's greatest challenge is to stem the tide of the fervor of the moment (particularly when that moment has been ingrained over time). It was an enlightened Supreme Court that struggled with and eventually overturned the segregationist Separate-but-Equal policies in the South. When then Governor George Wallace stood in front of the schoolhouse steps in Alabama, he not only had the power of his National Guard behind him, in his mind, he had the vindication of the majority of the white electorate. Now the Religious Right in that state fight to replace monuments of the Ten Commandments at their courthouse. They cite that this is the majority view; ignoring the Founding Fathers' cornerstone of Separation of Church and State. They argue against what they refer to as judicial tyranny. Constitutional scholar, Jonathon Turley told National Public Radio, "The great irony is that the finest moments of the judiciary always come when they're the most unpopular. We don't really need them during good times. We don't need them them when they're agreeing with what we want. They earn their keep when they actually turn us down, when they stand in front of the majority and say, 'You just can't do that. '" Yet in California some of the electorate, powered by the initiative process recently replaced a career politician with an action hero movie star. Court challenges were not timely nor powerful enough to block the historic recall election of October 2003. Though motions are still grinding through the justice system, a new administration is in place in Sacramento. Unlike the current occupant of the Oval Office, at least Arnold actually won an election. For a less political analogy--though no less controversial--we can look to recent developments in our National Pastime. All-time hit leader, Pete Rose has finally partially confessed to betting on baseball in hopes of attaining admittance to the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. At the 1999 All-Star Game at Fenway Park in Boston, a majority of fans voted Rose to the All-Century Team. The applause when his name was announced was indeed the loudest and longest amid such greats as Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Ted Williams. Yet so far, the commissioners office has kept faith with the bravery of Bart Giamatti who banned Rose from the sport for life. Americans are a very forgiving people, but Pete Rose is the Richard Nixon of Baseball. Like Nixon, he would not admit to his misdeeds. In the present, he only slightly confesses in the interests of book sales. Baseball has another great ballplayer banned form the Hall. Unlike Pete Rose, not only did he not write a book to promote himself, he could not even read. In the 1919 World Series, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson's high batting average and errorless play in the field for the Chicago White Sox (later dubbed "The Black Sox" after the gambling scandal surfaced) showed no signs of throwing the games for the gamblers. (Recommended viewing is John Sayles' film, "Eight Men Out.") Jackson's only crime must be that he didn't rat out his teammates. While Rose's accomplishments on the field of play surely qualify him for Cooperstown, this writer could only imagine him considered for Baseball highest honor five years after the induction of "Shoeless" Joe.
REVERSE ANGLE: When News Breaks, Can We Fix It?
Category: News and Politics
"REVERSE ANGLE: When News Breaks, Can We Fix It?"
On the morning of Halloween 2003, a large contingent of the press core waited outside the Van Nuys courthouse while the trial of actor Robert Blake went through its motions upstairs. Court TV had the pool feed assignment for video and also had a live set along the walkway. Mr. Blake had arrived earlier. Flanked by plain clothes Sheriff's Deputies and Detectives, the defendant said little on his entrance and so we waited outside and prepared a press conference area for post-hearing remarks. It was a chilly Friday morning. It was another assignment. Then the situation changed. First, I heard two blasts that I quickly deduced to be louder than just a backfiring automobile. I hit the record button on my camera which was set for the distance and lighting of our makeshift press conference. I trained the lens in the direction of two men by a tree. I adjusted the focus and the iris as the tape continued to roll. The sounds from a handgun continued to blast. A man in a khaki jacket who was later identified as William Strier was (allegedly) shooting another man in a suit at close range approximately thirty feet from me. The man in the suit was later identified as attorney Gerald Curry. During the gunfire, television camera operator of the Court TV crew, Danny Diaz walked, while rolling tape, up to within ten feet of the action. The shooting stopped and both men walked away, Diaz trailing the alleged shooter. Many people will tell you that they know had they will react in a given situation. I often wonder how their expectations compare with their actions in real time. It is one thing to armchair quarterback. It is an entirely different experience to be in the ball game. My instincts were multiple and conflicting. While I did roll and captured the video and audio, I did not know at the time if what I was seeing with my eyes was real. Was this guerrilla film-making? How foolish to do it so close to the Van Nuys division of the LAPD. Was this a man "gone postal?" Would the gunman turn around at fire at my friend and colleague, Danny Diaz? Were we all in danger? Could we be next? It was all very surreal. Attorney and reserve Sheriff's Deputy, David Katz identified himself and then clothesline tackled the alleged gunman. He was quickly handcuffed and under arrest. I ran to see Mr. Curry now on the ground on his back. The smell of his blood in the air. While watching my tape and the tapes of the Court TV cameras shows that the episode began and ended quickly, my experience at the scene was that time expanded into some kind of wormhole. Seconds seemed to take minutes. Although I have been in some precarious situations before--the 1992 Civil Unrest aka "Rodney King Riot" comes to mind, I had forewarning and a chance to mentally/psychologically prepare and plan. This story came seemingly out of a late October blue sky. What are the responsibilities of the media? Are we merely there to record events as they unfold before us? Is there a point when we should retreat to safer ground to shoot another story another day? Should we put down our cameras and assist? Recent history holds some opinions. There were photographers at a drowning who stopped being cameramen and jumped into the water to rescue the victims. During the 1996 Presidential campaign, GOP nominee Senator Bob Dole of Kansas started to fall off of a raised platform when two still photographers put down their cameras to catch the fall of the candidate with their hands rather than their lenses. Doubtless that there are countless other examples. Where do we draw the lines? Are there really lines to be drawn? Often the situations, like life itself, are fluid. The story continued as more press arrived even after Mr. Curry was wheeled to an ambulance. As happens so often lately, the media turned on itself. Danny Diaz was center stage of another press conference after having been questioned by authorities. After another camera crew and an anchor from "Celebrity Justice" came on the scene, I found myself on the other end of cameras facing reporter's questions. Upon my return to the studio, a crew from NBC network was there to interview me for "Dateline" about the shooting in front of my footage. I had already been booked to go live that afternoon for "Countdown" on MSNBC. As I waited, I saw myself appear regularly throughout the KABC-7 afternoon newscast. The next day was spent preparing for 90 seconds of airtime on "The Big Story" on the Fox News Channel. What light could I really shed on that day beyond what my camera had recorded? The whole event puts me in mind of the speculation mill that cranks up when, for instance, an Alaska Airline jet crashes into the Pacific Ocean. While it will take months for the NTSB (National Transportation & Safety Board) to ferret out the cause of the accident, television news programs race each other to jump to unfounded conclusions. When the definitive answer actually arrives, it is rarely the lead and all-consuming story that it was when pictures either recent or "LIVE" were plentiful while facts were in short supply. Technology has been driving the business for sometime. We go "LIVE" because we can. We go "LIVE" because some consultant has convinced the News Directors that those four letters on the screen will make the viewers sit up and take notice. We go "LIVE" at the scene of something that occurred sixteen hours ago, but we're "LIVE!" We've all heard the classic reporter track at stories like this: "Shots rang out...." As of Tuesday the following week, a TV crew was still combing the corridor and doing "reporter-involvement" stand-ups from behind the tree that Gerald Curry had used to fend off the bullets. One passerby mused that it was only a matter of time until they interviewed the tree. While this case grinds its way through the justice system and the microwave and satellite trucks all speed to the next live shot location, this story has a momentary happier ending. Mr. Curry and all of us in attendance outside the Van Nuys Courthouse that day may not be "LIVE" but are alive.
Late last year, I had the pleasure to record a documentary interview with former Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential Nominee, George McGovern. He was getting quite a bit of press following his open editorial letter in the New York Times and his cover article, "The Case for Liberalism" in the December 2002 edition of Harper's. The setting was a quaint house in bucolic farmland under the Big Sky of Montana. The senator was pleading his case that the Bush administration re-consider its path towards war in Iraq. Although it might have seemed that his view was in the minority, sales of that month's Harper's would attest otherwise. As the interview progressed, he recalled his days in the United States Senate. He "reached across the aisle" to a GOP counterpart, Bob Dole to draft and pass a bill that became the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) Program. Perhaps it is merely nostalgia, but it seems that the government and the nation as a whole behaved in a more civilized way then. This fall a majority of California voters decided to recall Gray Davis from the office of governor. A plurality have dubbed Arnold Schwartzenegger [sp?] to replace him. This comes on the heals of the closest Presidential Election in recent memory. One that was decided not by the electorate, but by the US Supreme Court. The White House may have acted aloof about this special election in the Golden State, but Mr. Bush was clearly gloating over his party's statehouse gain at a recent GOP fundraiser. Ever since Newt Gingrinch became the Speaker of the House following the 1994 mid-term election, there has been less "reaching across the aisle" and more shouting over it. It is tempting for partisans to point to the other party for the recent failure of compromise. There is another seemingly silent, yet ever present actor on the stage: the media, specifically television. Some time ago Congress, in an attempt to open itself to the people in an expanding cable universe, created C-SPAN. This was to be a non-partisan window for the electorate on the workings of Capitol Hill. However, the speeches became more pointed. Something akin to the "shock-jock" patter of morning drive time radio moved the orators to preach to their camps on extreme sides of divisive issues. The pattern continued as only recently discredited, arch-conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh became the number one voice on the public's airwaves. In a climate where Mr. Limbaugh is so beloved, General Electric owns NBC, CNBC and MSNBC; where the Fox News Channel initiated the Florida recount; where television stations merge within the same market so that more news outlets are in the hands of fewer corporate heads, there is still a knee-jerk reaction against "The Liberal Media." I believe that my interview with the former Senator from South Dakota was properly set. He was a voice in the wilderness. He spoke with a quietness that comes from clarity away from the heavy loud machinery that has sadly become politics-as-usual in our time.
"This is the City, Los Angeles, California." That's the way actor, Jack Webb introduced the 1960's campy cop drama, "Dragnet." There have been interesting relationships between cameras and the Los Angeles Police Department throughout the years. Like any long-term relationship, the pendulum of love and hate has swung at varying oscillations.
Recently, I was dispatched without a reporter to cover a shooting along the Harbor Freeway in South Central. I attempted two approaches to get close to the scene and was rebuffed both times. "Get out of my crime scene," bellowed one uniformed officer, though I was clearly far from any such area.
It has been my recent anecdotal experience that law enforcement, especially the LAPD, has made it a practice to put the press perimeter far away from any crime scene whenever possible. Looking back, we have seen period movies depicting photographers traipsing through blood stained floors. I am glad that forensic science has improved and respect the need to secure evidence. My question is simply why must we, the Fourth Estate, be restricted to no view at all while citizens are allowed free access?
A disclaimer here: This is all conjecture on my part. I have no sources. Whenever I have tried to engage an officer in off-the-record conversation, I hear only the party line. Nevertheless, I point to one event that changed much of how the police, the courts, and the news media have conducted themselves and interacted with each other: O.J. Simpson.
Every television station and network in this town fell over each other to put a microscope over this celebrity case. For over a year, file tape of the crime scene investigators washed across TV monitors. News organizations' budgets were busted. (I remember referring to the defendant as "O.T." Simpson due to all the overtime pay we all were collecting.) The defense "Dream Team" used some of the footage to poke enough holes in the prosecution case not only to allow the criminal case jury reasonable doubt, but to sully the image of "The Thin Blue Line" as the nation watched.
Now, it often takes a helicopter or some very creative land angles to get any view of police activity. Photography is virtually prohibited at the downtown Criminal Courts Building. Coincidence? Granted that the police of our fair city have a difficult job to do. They have legitimate duties to secure evidence, protect the rights and privacy of victims, and serve their function in the justice system. The press also has legitimate duties to inform the public, even to serve as a watchdog. It has fallen on our profession to keep an eye on our public servants, even if--or especially when--it could cast them in a bad light. History is loaded with episodes of the problems that grow with unchecked power.
THE FREELANCE DANCE: Part Two--Loyalties and Choices
Category: Jobs, Work, Careers
THE FREELANCE DANCE: Part Two--Loyalties and Choices
The television news workplace changes constantly. Many changes spring from technological advances: live capability via microwave and satellite, portable editing facility in the news van, and telco links to government buildings and sport arenas. Many other changes come from accountants and executives watching "the bottom line." A result has been fewer staff positions and more freelance, per diem, and daily hires.
"Faster. Better. Cheaper." is the chant of corporate America. A wise engineer once pointed out to me that these are diametrically opposed vectors, but that doesn't stop the management mantra. They want a collapsible roster that can expand when the need is high and shrink whenever possible. Still, there are advantages that video shooters can enjoy. While full-time staff will complain about the schedule of their days on, days off, times and vacations, a freelancer can pick and choose their schedule. Need a vacation? Take off. (The down-side here is that unlike your staff counterpart, there is no vacation pay.)
Which begs the question of money. Most outlets pay a higher rate per hour or per day to daily hire employees as compensation for no vacation pay, no sick pay, and no insurance/retirement benefits. It may not even out, but that's the playing field--level or not--that per diems play on. The other big money question, honestly, is, "What's the rate?" A freelancer can choose to work for the highest bidder or a style of production that suits his/her talents and leanings.
Where do the loyalties lie? This is a central question seldom acknowledged by either those scheduling freelance employees or the freelancers themselves. This really comes into play when more than one outlet wants a particular daily hire on a particular day. Now the ball is in the per diem's court. Sometimes, schedules permit you to take both gigs, referred to as double-dipping. The danger here is that the first job may not end on time leaving you in a panic to rush to the next appointment.
More often, schedules simply conflict and choices must be made. Most people go by a "first come, first served" approach. That is: "I book whoever calls to book me first." But what do you do when the second or third call is for a higher rate of pay and/or longer duration of work? Many schedulers of lower paying companies understand the freelancer's predicament and deal with you cancelling a work call. Yet, in spite of the conditions stated above, some schedulers take a cancellation personally and may drop down or even remove your name from their call list. Here, the freelancer finds him/her-self between a rock and a hard place. Where is your loyalty? What is your choice?
It may have become cliche to remind ourselves that, "On a deathbed, no one wishes that they'd spent more time at the office," although it has the advantage of being true. The message handed down is that the company is loyal to the freelancer for a day, a week, or whatever. Certainly, while on their payroll, one should give the best effort to tell an effective video story. (Many reporters prefer "dailies", stating that they "go the extra mile.") Good work itself should beget more work. When making any choice in life, it is best to keep the proverb in mind, "To thine own self be true."
accomplished
discontent
