|
At our discretion, we will often go outside the realm of
digital documentary film, digital narrative film, and digital
documentary photography. We will allow, in fact encourage, the
discussion of everything to do with films and still photography
wherever it originates and wherever it lands. This can be in a
theater, on TV, a film festival, home video, DVD, VHS, a museum, a
gallery, the Internet, even from a foreign shore – although because
of the Web and the virtual world it inhabits, a foreign shore is
something that no longer exists.
We intend to be as inclusive and as ecumenical as we can. And with
that in mind, also as critical as our writers and we can be. If we took
the narrow view, the road to creative freedom would also be
unnecessarily narrow. We want to forge our own roadmap as a guide to
others in their struggle to bring forth their best effort. By doing
this, we might be on to something useful. For it is better to give
than to receive, especially in the realm of the highly competitive
and infinitely creative world of the image.
We want to include personal stories about filmmaking. Tell us what
drives you. Tell us how you overcome obstacles. Share with us your
frustrations in raising money to start and finish your film. Relate
your anguish, your frustrations and hopefully your triumph. We want
to hear from animators, musicians, and composers, those in dance. We
want to hear from the innovators and the traditionalists and those
trying to bridge both worlds. We all share the same dream. We should
share how to get there and how we got there. We want to know how you
measure success. Is it in the creative act? Is it in capturing the
image when shooting? Is it in editing with the latest equipment? Is
it how you judge the audience? Is it how the audience makes it’s
judgment about your work?
We want to make film reviews an important component of The Digital
Filmmaker. Reviews can open our eyes to other worlds, and guide us
to the place where we might find the unique, the unusual, and the
surprising message. No film is too small for us to review, though
some made by the adolescent boys who run Hollywood and produce,
mostly, purely commercial, action blockbusters are certainly bigger
than the films I have in mind. I understand that it is hard to
ignore popular entertainment, but I will do my best to make it
happen. These big films rarely mean anything. Special effects raise
the testosterone level of the constant audience of 16 year-old males
who never leave these theaters, where they set up camp waiting for
their next bloodcurdling experience. Though some might consider
these technical tricks good movie making, the often-clever
techniques creating over-the-top effects are meaningless. They have
no lasting value, except to the techno-nerd. Most of these are also
poor entertainment.
I do not subscribe to the old saw that a few hours worth of
entertainment absolves the filmmaker from creating anything more
constructive than a new version of a car crash. These films are here
today, and gone in three months. Then they show up forever on cable
TV. How is that for smart programming? At times, these films have a
vague or hidden message that reflects in their odd way American life
now. Despite that rare occurrence, they have no effect on our lives
other than their cost to make our cost to see them. Spend your money
elsewhere on films that may have a lasting effect. Thus, on this Web
site most of the major films by Spielberg, Stone, Scorsese, and
others will be off limits unless they offer something fresh.
Face it. Many films are bad. The creative urge that pushed the
filmmaker to start, and then complete the work is often weak or
misguided. When this happens, the audience ends on the other side of
the moon and the filmmaker either disappears or goes on to produce
more bad films. Yet, that the creative urge is alive is a tribute to
the filmmaker. Understand there is no magic formula for creativity.
It is up to us to say why the failure and to give the audience the
option of staying or walking away. For this reason, we will also
welcome divergent views of film generated by the reviews we publish.
Welcoming this does not guarantee publication. If a writer presents
an alternative view, I will not post it if it attacks the writer of
the original review. Opinions do differ and no one owns the rights
to critical thought. But I warn you, if what you write is only
emotional, and not a genuine critique, we will not post your
offering.
Speaking of films, we want to hear from you about films that
influenced you in any way that whispered in your ear or shouted in
your face, “Be a filmmaker. It is the art for you.” Everyone has
antecedents. It is important to know yours. Why did a film, or
films, a genre, a period or a director become important to how you
think, and thus create? Thinking this through in its small way may
aid other filmmakers as they, too, define their art.
Finally, at least for this session, there will be no idle posts. We
will judge each submission on clarity, creativity and originality.
We are waiting.
.........................................................................................................................
At NBC News for 35 years, Ron Steinman was bureau chief
in Saigon, Hong Kong and London, was a senior producer on Today and wrote
and produced for Sunday Today. At ABC News Productions, he produced
and wrote documentaries for A&E, TLC, Discovery, Lifetime and the
History Channel. He has a Peabody, a National Headliner award, a
National Press Club award, a International Documentary Festival Gold
Camera Award, two American Women in Radio & Television awards and
has been nominated for five Emmy's. He is a partner in
Douglas/Steinman Productions, whose latest documentary, "Luboml: My
Heart Remembers," aired on PBS' WLIW/21 and the History Channel in
Israel, April 29, 2003. He is the author of, "The Soldiers 'Story",
"Women in Vietnam," and most recently, "Inside Television's First
War: A Saigon Journal," University of Missouri Press, 2002. |
