My earlier essay on this topic. We live in strange age. We are being overloaded by images of different kinds every minute or even seconds. We live in a world which is being mediated or put in Baudrillard term - the world is being simulated. The capitalist' democracy made all gear (cameras, recorders, cellphones with cameras) available to the great number of people. It might sound like a dream for all those artist they struggled to get their gear only a dacade ago. Thus, it is not suprising at all that so many people try their hand at film-making these days. But this great number of people engaging in moving images can be in some ways counter-productive as well. The recent digital revolution changed the film industry on all levels. You do not need to buy a filmstock and pay for its developement anymore! You just buy a memorycard and you can record as long as your memorycard is capable of. You do not have to be worried about unaccurate exposition and unprecise framing. You can easily fix it during editing or simply reshoot the scene again and again until you are satisfied with it. You can change the sensitivity of your "film" by pressing a button. You have immediate preview of your footage. And so on. It is clear that all these new improvements help film-makers to cut down a budget of their film. The same regards the distribution circles. That means film-makers today do not have to fight for their place on silver screen at cinema. In the age of internet we can easily distribute our films on-line and share them with friends and new audiencies. We can say that since digital revolution to produce and distribute a movie has never been easier and cheaper. And one would expect that these new conditions will have wholesome influence on young amateur cinema. But unfortunately instead of more progression on the field of moving images we can encounter doldrums and seal off form of young cinema. These problems are not new and unknown to filmmakers' community. In 1959 Jonas Mekas complained about young cinema of his age. He argued that those films are made with money, cameras and splicers instead of with enthusiasm, passion, and imagination. Even though film cameras and splicers are not being used anymore as they have been replaced by digital cameras and computing video editors, the lack of creativity and enthusiasm is still(!) striking. As in 1959 we can encounter that young aspiring film-makers are only preoccupied with gear instead of with a creativity and search for new ways of expression. I do not dismiss the importance of technique and its aesthetical influence and importance on film’s image. But the shorts of today’s young film-makers could be described as over-technical and over-professionalized. One of the cause of this problem is wrong inspiration. All these young film-makers try to imitate the “big” cinema. This imitation of hollywoodian aesthetic is wrong because it blends two absolutely different approaches to cinema. The most powerful weapon which amateur film-maker posses is its freedom because he is outside of traditional circles of production and distribution. Unfortunately most of them do not realize this fact and try to break in or imitate these circles. And so they are raping theirs own film roots and independency. This whole approach is not only wrong but idiotic as well. In a case of “big” cinema the following words of Guy Debord are relevant more than for any other human activity: "The spectacle is capital to such a degree of accumulation that it becomes an image.” Put it in another words the capital is the main source of hollywood aesthetic and intersection of the whole process of making a movie. Money is primary concern of Hollywood, not the creativity and search for new ways of expression. It is well known that Hollywood has traditionally been mediocre in its form. While so-called Off-Hollywood cinema, avant-gard, independent and amateur film-makers were experimenting with film forms. One of the reason is "because we can” and they do not give in the dictate of capital and public acceptance. Freedom and need to create must be the primary motivation of independent film-makers. But all the camera panning, over-stable shots, sliding, flawlessly pure image and seamless editing which are being used so often by young film-makers create polish and slick films and this aesthetics has nothing to do with freedom. It is based on false and artificial aesthetic of Hollywood cinema. Such a form adopted by young independent filmmaker is imprisioning him in corrupt world. It is smoothing the edges of his very unique way of seeing a life. From a free and independent film-maker he has become just a worker of cinema who is not fulfilling his true inner vision but the expectation. One does not have to be Stan Brakhage or be in pursuit of destruction of every possible convention to call himself an author. This approach would not be good either. The most important attribute of film-maker is to be aware and genuine. Thus it is crucial to avoid “making”. The only right way is to film. Jonas Mekas was calling for new generation of film-makers, and I’m calling the new generation to stop “making" and begin to film. To pursue their inner and sublet feelings and visions.