Tim Sewell

From now on I will tell people that our 17 year old Honda Stream isn't, in fact, a piece of shit 'beater'. No. It's a 'collectible'!
I used to say that about our 22 year old Citroen ZX before I finally dumped it at the scrapper last least and got 125 euros for it 🤣

It probably seems a bit insensitive of us to announce that here, given your previous posts. I feel huge sympathy for Brazilians right now and feel very angry on your behalves about the asshole you've got in charge there - hopefully one day soon he'll face justice for what he's done (and hasn't done).

It probably seems a bit insensitive of us to announce that here, given your previous posts. I feel huge sympathy for Brazilians right now and feel very angry on your behalves about the asshole you've got in charge there - hopefully one day soon he'll face justice for what he's done (and hasn't done).

It probably seems a bit insensitive of us to announce that here, given your previous posts. I feel huge sympathy for Brazilians right now and feel very angry on your behalves about the asshole you've got in charge there - hopefully one day soon he'll face justice for what he's done (and hasn't done).

Me too - booked in for Saturday lunchtime.

I'm supposed to get my first dose of the vaccine this week so here's hoping we're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. 🙏🏻

But what's your point? Does anything that you've just posted somehow invalidate the idea that films generally reflect the cultures of their times? Does posting a poster of a movie set in the far future (then) with a female president, then a comedy about the problems caused by proscriptive gender roles - at the end of which the female president resigns when she gets pregnant - in any way counter an argument that all films are inherently political in that they either promote or condemn accepted cultural and political norms?
Or are you just doing that thing that climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, 911-truthers et al do, where they find one tiny portion of someone's argument that they can (kinda, sorta) 'disprove' as a way of discrediting that argument without having to expend the mental energy to actually engage with it and argue it on its merits?
Better to stick to microphones.

Well yeah, that really shows that I'm wrong when I say that films reflect the social mores of the societies that make them. Doesn't trade on sexist or heteronormative tropes in the slightest!

£50 camera ordered. Inspiration inbound.

Anyway let's go with this idea, I'll officially start the challenge on the blog at the weekend!

Well yeah, that really shows that I'm wrong when I say that films reflect the social mores of the societies that make them. Doesn't trade on sexist or heteronormative tropes in the slightest!

😂

I'll just add that I am in no way looking down on people who aren't in the 'actual' film/commercial industry. Most of the time I am not there either, and I'm doing corporate work or branded content for local businesses. The resources and gear available today make it possible to create amazing content even as a solo shooter.

However when it comes to improving, those times when I do step in to a larger crew - even if it's just a 1 day TVC shoot, are without a doubt the times when I learn the most.

 

😂

Well yes - there's a reason why, in the *actual* film industry, nearly every DP started as an AC, every gaffer started as a grip/best boy, every producer (actual producer, not exec) started as a runner, PA and line producer. There is absolutely no substitute for hands-on learning surrounded by people who really, really know what they're doing.

😂

Well yes - there's a reason why, in the *actual* film industry, nearly every DP started as an AC, every gaffer started as a grip/best boy, every producer (actual producer, not exec) started as a runner, PA and line producer. There is absolutely no substitute for hands-on learning surrounded by people who really, really know what they're doing.

Well yes - there's a reason why, in the *actual* film industry, nearly every DP started as an AC, every gaffer started as a grip/best boy, every producer (actual producer, not exec) started as a runner, PA and line producer. There is absolutely no substitute for hands-on learning surrounded by people who really, really know what they're doing.

😂

Welcome to show BUSINESS.  I truly hope you don't think you're entitled to have it work the way you want it to work.  You can easily find a niche in it, but if you're condemning the overall market, I'd recommend you pull back your angst a little.
I also worry that too many people conflate the modern diversity trend in filmmaking as solely a sort of social justice woke movement. (One they don't agree with, perhaps?)  I'd suggest anyone that truly believes the industry is going woke because they're compassionate humanitarians, simply ask themselves,  "In a global market what sort of movie has a better chance of appealing to as many people as possible?"  These are business decisions that might be championed as "woke," when, if anything, that woke-bragging is simply a useful marketing ploy to use after the thing is made to increase product awareness. 
Tail, dog, wag.  
As for Netflix, you're basically complaining that Netflix understands it demographic analytics.  Netflix has data vectors on it's viewers that understand modern life better than the people that actually live it.  I mean, c'mon now, the only reason for them to do that is if the entire organization would rather be racist than make as much money as possible.  They want a product they can use.  Offer it to them or, as you indicated, don't.
https://towardsdatascience.com/how-data-science-is-boosting-netflix-785a1cba7e45
Here's a hypothetical:  if it was somehow possible for Disney and it's shareholders to make 200 Billion $$ next year with a 3% annual growth by marketing to, say, aboriginal Pygmies, would they do that in a heartbeat and immediately ignore everyone else?

Unfortunately it's a feature of this world that when one wants other people's money to do something, one has to do it in a way they want. Submit your script, once you have a producer. It may well be the case that if there are no aspects to it that are exclusionary and they like it they'll be interested. Diversity doesn't have to be explicit as in - this character is a black lesbian - but the corollary is true - we can't have 'this character is white'.
At the end of the day, however, it may be better to try to find purely commercial funding for movies that don't fully satisfy the wishes and/or mission statements of publicly-funded bodies (which generally exist to fund projects that can't attract commercial funding).

I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case. There may not be any overt political content or intent, but any cultural product will reflect the politics and generally-accepted ethics of the society that produces it. If a society routinely ignores the experiences and existence, even, of - say - black women, then black women won't be cast because it will never occur to the creators that an individual role could just as easily be played by someone whose ethnicity is other than white. If, when I think of a doctor, I think of a late middle-aged white man - which would reflect my formative experiences of interactions with doctors - then unless I confront that intellectually I wouldn't even notice that I might be being exclusionary in my thinking.
Up until this year, the USA had never had a female Vice President, much less one of colour. If I had been in the happy position of casting a movie about the Presidency back in 1989, would I have even considered that possibility? If I had done and I had cast the role accordingly, would I have been subject to the same criticisms of 'wokeness' that are aimed at people who advocate for a black James Bond, or female Ghostbusters?
Likewise, the vast majority of mainstream films take it as read that the only model of political economy that can be considered normal is that of globalised hyper-capitalism. Any movie that takes that as its basis (which isn't even a decision that gets made) is inherently political, whether we like it or not, as it helps to perpetuate and normalise a system that many could argue, with some validity, is detrimental to both the planet's condition and the pursuit of human happiness. Likewise the countless movies set in suburban nuclear families whose members fulfil the genderised and economic roles expected of them without comment. I'm not saying that there should be comment, but one has to recognise that those movies, as a part of a popular culture, both maintain a status quo that many find stifling while at the same time excluding or invalidating the many alternative family models that we coexist with, or experience, out in the real world.
Shutter Island looks at, among other things, concepts of insanity, the treatment of the mentally ill, notions of personal autonomy and responsibility, corruption and medical ethics. It looks at those things in a period setting, but through the prism of more modern attitudes in those areas. It may not be a film about politics, but politics, past and present, inform its milieu in every possible way.

Not at all, otherwise I wouldn't have linked right to the article discussing it. They literally created quarantine centers where hundreds of thousands of people were made to quarantine, which contradicts your original point. Instead of acknowledging that fact you've decided to try and play semantics which doesn't even help your argument anyway. 
I don't even need to push a "Vermont narrative", the facts and statistics speak for themselves. 

Kudos to you for taking the time to respond to someone who is providing, as a citation, a post from someone called wank_666 - I really couldn't summon the energy.

Kudos to you for taking the time to respond to someone who is providing, as a citation, a post from someone called wank_666 - I really couldn't summon the energy.