by Cole Abaius.

This is the fight of the generation. The proliferation of technology, the cost and the spread of “democratic filmmaking” have propelled digital to the forefront, threatening to end 35mm as a platform. As more theaters convert wholly to digital projection and “projectionists” only understand how to press a button to make the movie work, the 100-year-old medium of preference is losing out. Which is why Christopher Nolan gathered the most prominent filmmakers together to watch 6 minutes of The Dark Knight Rises.

As Gendy Alimurung writes in an absolute must-see article in LA Weekly evocatively titled, “Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film. But the Consequences of Going Digital are Vast, and Troubling,” Edgar Wright, Michael Bay, Bryan Singer and a host of other notable names were brought in for the “ulterior motive” of Nolan’s plea to save 35mm. Now, he’s fighting with ink. In the latest edition of the DGA Quarterly, the master filmmaker has some lofty words for 35mm and a strong dismissal of change for change’s sake.

Read the rest of this article from Film School Rejects.

Sign up now for your own FREE monthly subscription to “The Director’s Chair” filmmaking ezine and get the first 30 pages of my 238 page Film Directing Multi-Media Online course, “The Art and Craft of the Director Audio Seminar.”

by Mushfiq Ahmad.

Cinema is an extraordinarily powerful medium, much more powerful than television and newspaper. Cinema has been used all over the world to engender positive social change. In our neighbouring India, the film industry has done an admirable job by promoting communal and ethnic harmony, highlighting the ways of corrupt politicians, and pointing out other social issues.

In Pakistan, however, the medium has been grossly underutilised—never utilised in fact—for the purpose. Our filmmakers have miserably failed to do justice with their job because of their lack of creativity. They have stuck to the old themes of love triangle and family revenge without bothering about several other cancerous issues.

As a nation, we need films because 70 percent of us are illiterate and few of the literates like to read. In this scenario, there is a huge cultural void in our country that has made our people unimaginative. This unimaginativeness can be cured by developing a healthy film industry. Without giving convincing movies to our people, we cannot hope to make our people creative. And creativity is what makes a nation prosperous.

Read the rest of this article from The News.

Sign up now for your own FREE monthly subscription to “The Director’s Chair” filmmaking ezine and get the first 30 pages of my 220 page Film Directing Multi-Media Online course, “The Art and Craft of the Director Audio Seminar.”

This article was written by Kai Nagata.

Are you working to push the envelope in Canadian media? Can you think of ways to make the CBC better? Do you have a stake in a refocused public broadcaster with a solid plan for the future?

“Reimagine CBC” launched this week. The campaign is independent from the public broadcaster, and the message is a bit more subtle than your standard “save the CBC from cuts” (although big cuts now look inevitable).

Hatched by Internet freedom advocates Openmedia and youth democracy group Leadnow, “Reimagine CBC” is a big public brainstorm for anyone who’s ever caught themselves thinking out loud how the broadcaster could do better. It’s an online tool to gather ideas from real people, which organizers will then take straight to the CBC – and the CRTC.

Hundreds of submissions have poured in so far from across the country – and a lot of the suggestions have to do with improved online content. With the television market in turmoil, there’s a lot of enthusiasm for new ways of telling stories – new venues, more interactivity, more experimentation.

The CBC is a huge client for Canadian content – but right now the list of outside producers it works with is relatively short. Programming decisions come from the top, down. The Reimagine CBC team is trying to rock the boat a little, and they need help.

If your company or organization works in the Canadian arts & media scene – or is trying to shake things up – you might consider sponsoring one of the public events in Toronto or Vancouver.

(The Vancouver event has been confirmed for April 19th at the Vogue … no word on the Toronto schedule yet.)

These are big shows featuring lots of homegrown talent and a guest list full of innovators, taste-makers and content creators. You can email kai@genwhymedia.ca for more details.

by Laxmi Birajdar.

A powerful underground artistic movement is taking shape in a post-Taliban Afghanistan, said critically-acclaimed and award-winning Afghan filmmaker Siddiq Barmak. “Cinema is still not considered a part of Afghan art and culture by our government.

But our people love films. There’s a powerful underground artistic movement developing in Afghanistan as 75% of our society comprises young people who are looking for societal changes and creative breakthroughs after emerging from the ravages of wars,” said Kabul-based Barmak during a press interaction on Saturday. He was accompanied by film critic Latika Padgaonkar.

Read the rest of this article from Times of India.

Sign up now for your own FREE monthly subscription to “The Director’s Chair” filmmaking ezine and get the first 30 pages of my 220 page Film Directing Multi-Media Online course, “The Art and Craft of the Director Audio Seminar.”

by Adam Daniel Mezei.

The other day I was discussing the perils of the “democratized filmmaking era.” I outlined a few scenarios how the mere fact of having unlimited choice or unfettered access to contents, technology, and gear wasn’t necessarily all it was cracked up to be.

But after thinking about the issue some more, I realized there might be people who don’t know what I’m talking about when I use the words democratized filmmaking. Like, is that filmmaking in the Western world during the Cold War? Is it anti-Communist filmmaking? Is it more of that White House newspeak? Terminology Time? What is it?!

What are some of the key characteristics of the democratized filmmaking era? What distinguishes it from the era which immediately preceded it? And is so-called “democratized filmmaking” better than what was, on the cusp, as we are, of a much brighter time in the world of indie film, or not quite so?

There are going to be debates about this, depending on whether the system has worked to your advantage. So what are some of these characteristics?

Read the rest of this article from Adam Daniel Mezei.

Sign up now for your own FREE monthly subscription to “The Director’s Chair” filmmaking ezine and get the first 30 pages of my 220 page Film Directing Multi-Media Online course, “The Art and Craft of the Director Audio Seminar.”

by Dr. Film.

I get a little tired of people telling me that Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made.  Don’t get me wrong; I love the film, but calling it the “greatest ever” seems a little hard to swallow.  I’ve seen a lot of Welles films, but certainly not all of them… I have to tell you that I don’t even think Kane is the best Orson Welles film.  I tend to like Touch of Evil better.  It seems a much more relaxed and confident film to me.

(For the record, I’m frequently interviewed by people who ask me variations on this… “What is your favorite film?”  “What’s the greatest film ever made?”  I don’t have an answer for this.  The greatest film ever made, and my favorite, is moldering in a can somewhere, waiting for me to find it.  I have a real weakness for auteurish films by obscure people like Max Davidson, Warren William, or Charley Bowers.)

Citizen Kane could hardly have been a bad movie if it tried.  Welles was a first-time director, but he was given a great cinematographer (Gregg Toland), a great composer (Bernard Herrmann), a great editor (Robert Wise), a great co-screenwriter (Herman Mankiewicz) and a great cast.  He was protected from studio interference by contract and they adhered to it.

Read the rest of this article from Dr. Film.

Sign up now for your own FREE monthly subscription to “The Director’s Chair” filmmaking ezine and get the first 30 pages of my 220 page Film Directing Multi-Media Online course, “The Art and Craft of the Director Audio Seminar.”

by William Bibbiani.

Most sequels suck. Most threequels suck more. But the third film in a franchise can sometimes surprise you.

These are the Top 25 Movie Threequels! (Part One)

These are the Top 25 Movie Threequels! (Part Two)

Sign up now for your own FREE monthly subscription to “The Director’s Chair” filmmaking ezine and get the first 30 pages of my 220 page Film Directing Multi-Media Online course, “The Art and Craft of the Director Audio Seminar.”

Today is November 11, 2011 (11-11-11) – Remembrance Day.

“Remembrance Day (also known as Poppy Day, Armistice Day) is a memorial day observed in Commonwealth countries since the end of World War I to remember the members of their armed forces who have died in the line of duty. This day, or alternative dates, are also recognized as special days for war remembrances in many non-Commonwealth countries.” Wikipedia.

To reflect on this day of remembrance, please leave any comments below on what this day means to you.

by Oliver Pfeiffer.

From a controversial horror featuring a sadistic bushranger, to a Melbourne-set gangster saga, to a raucous documentary on 70s Ozploitation flicks, you’d have to have your head buried in the outback to have not noticed the sterling work going on in Australian cinema.

And in case you thought Wolf Creek, Animal Kingdom and Not Quite Hollywood were some sort of fleeting mirage, check out the impressive directorial debuts from Patrick Hughes (the suspenseful neo-western Red Hill), Leon Ford (Griff the Invisible – a remarkable romantic ode to superhero flicks) or Ben C Lucas (Wasted on the Young – a nightmarish social networking thriller).

They’re all evidence of fine Aussie film-making talent that proves you don’t need special effects nor mega bucks to make intelligent, provocative cinema.

Read the rest of this article from The Guardian.

Sign up now for your own FREE monthly subscription to “The Director’s Chair” filmmaking ezine and get the first 30 pages of my 220 page Film Directing Multi-Media Online course, “The Art and Craft of the Director Audio Seminar.”

by Andre Seewood.

It would seem that the more different people tell the same lie, the easier it is for others to believe it as the truth.  I have already discussed in several articles and in my book, Slave Cinema: The Crisis of the African-American in Film, that there is a segregated relationship between how African-American films are funded, distributed and exhibited vis-à-vis how white American films are funded, distributed and exhibited.

It is this racially segregated and unequal relationship that aids in holding back African-American films (independent and commercial) from the narrative and stylistic advances often explored in white American and international cinema.  To understand this aesthetic segregation we have to first acknowledge that there is always –every year- a certain amount of white films produced and distributed for prestige (Academy Awards, international awards and noble causes) rather than for profit.

Read he rest of this article from IndieWire.

Sign up now for your own FREE monthly subscription to “The Director’s Chair” filmmaking ezine and get the first 30 pages of my 220 page Film Directing Multi-Media Online course, “The Art and Craft of the Director Audio Seminar.”