Posted via email from antigob
Continuing on with the end of the world theme. Gif from the sublime If we don't, remember me.
Posted via email from antigob
We go way back; I grew up down the road from one of Britain few nuclear missile bases, and even though it was long out of commission by the time I arrived, there were plenty of juicy military targets nearby. If the bomb were ever going to drop, it would be on my doorstep.
So naturally I was fascinated by nuclear war. I found it amazing that grown-ups, who told me to sit up straight, be good and not lie, also had this whole system in place that could bring about the end of the world in about three minutes. ‘Oh yeah it’ll never happen – Mutually Assured Destruction – nobody wants that.’ ‘Good Grief!’ my Charlie Brownself would cry, ‘These people are blockheads, how could they be so casual about it?’ Especially as everything around me at the time seemed connected to this system: military jets in the skies, some of them flew by people I knew – even secret underground bunkers. One time I was riding into town looking out the window at the same fields I’d seen fly by a thousand times before, except this time a man was climbing into the ground. I remember doing that classic double-take thing you do when you rub your eyes. If I had a bottle of wine or something, I would have looked at the label before throwing it away, never to touch a drop again. But I was ten. I didn’t drink.Even so, I was worried my mum might think I was nuts, but I took the plunge and said as calmly as I could, ‘Mum, I just say a guy climb into the ground.’ ‘That’ll be Keith,’ said Mum, ‘it’s his turn to check on the bunker.’ She then explained how there was a network of similar bunkers across the UK, maintained by a specially chosen group of people from the local community – presumably a trusted clan who made sure the tins of beans were not out of date and there was enough toilet paper to survive Armageddon. Because should Armageddon come, another crew would have to ride it out, with clean arses and full tummies to re-establish civilisation using ham radio. I don’t think my Mum was part of this secret society, but it’s only recently I’ve come to learn I was closer to The Bomb than I realised – my granddad. In the fifties, he was the CO of ground crew for the V-bomber force, so part of his job was arming the nuclear bombs they would carry. I saw him recently, and he described the process of attaching the firing caps onto these big, rotund bombs. Now my granddad has seen some things, and has a whole library of amazing stories, but the fact a member of my family had been part of this organised management of the end of the world, made me want to know what he thought of it. ‘As you were arming the bomb, didn’t you think about what you were doing? I know you were doing your duty, but you had your hand on a weapon that should it be used would bring about the end of the world in the most terrible way. Didn’t you think about any of that?’He looked at me and said, ‘Yeah probably.’So here’s a loose link to a subject that’s gripped filmmakers all over the world – and me: six films about nuclear annihilation.
First off, the story of MAD, as told exclusively with government stock footage. Old people may recognise the Coldcut sample.
In the sixities, the Government commissioned the BBC to create a docudrama about what might happen if nuclear war was declared. 'Bad shit', said the BBC film and The Government promptly banned it.
If that wasn't enough, in 1984, the BBC were at it again - this time with a film called Threads. It features the most depressing end to any film anywhere ever. Basically, if the bomb drops, stand outside with your mouth open.
Meanwhile, in America, Reagan pursued his dream of encircling the globe with a network of lazer toting satellites.
Aside from the fact, there was no practical way to launch enough satellites/'water melon sized missiles'/whatever, to make it work, or that the whole project would need at least 10 years of research, SDI also violated The Outer Space Treaty, which was introduced precisely to stop this sort of thing. During the Reykjavik talks in 1986, Reagan's response to Gorbachev's concerns about the imbalance of MAD caused by SDI was to suggest that should the project be a success, the USSR would be given the technology as well, you know, to even things up so it's fair. I suppose it's only expected from the man who decided that 'nuclear war may be a bad idea', after watching The Day After Tomorrow (not that one, the one with John Lythgow in). Here's the controversial bit:
There were quite a few films like this during the eighties. In Canada there was Countdown to Looking Glass. This film took the interesting angle: 'what will the end of the world look like on television?'. A little shoddy and a bit like a telethon, so let's cut to the good bit eh? It all starts at around the seven minute mark.
Then the end
But what about us kids eh? All these films were for adults, surely there was some sort of Newsround style report? Yep, Raymond Briggs, When The Wind Blows. The book was created as response to the handy Government pamphlets that started appearing in libraries in the early eighties suggesting all you had to do was lie under a door to survive the end of the world. I take it all back, this fiilm has the most depressing end ever - an old couple - like your grandparents - slowly dying of radiation sickness as they recite the Lord's Prayer.
Here's a skateboard video to cheer you up:
It's a good job none of this will ever, ever happen eh?
Posted via email from antigob
How I was going to make my film? And 'make' in the sense of what style I’d shoot it. There are a number of ways to skin a story.
The most basic, is to shoot the action with a narrator voiceover. Most news reports use this technique (although not exclusively): you see some stuff and a journalist explains what’s going on over the top. It’s quick, simple and overcomes any editorial problems you might have – such as not having enough footage. But it’s fairly prescriptive, a bit old-fashioned and a technique cheap Channel 5 docs use. I didn’t want that. The other way is with a presenter. If you have a good one, they can transform a film. Jonathan Meades is a great filmmaker who consistently manipulates the format of on-screen presenter to great effect – although his recent films have been more conservative in their style. It would be easy to dismiss his insightful studies on culture and topography as having limited appeal, but he regularly pulls in viewing figures of three million: roughly the same as Match of the Day. There’s a whole YouTube channel dedicated to his work and a great boxset too. Jonathan Meades on brandingLouis Theroux is another good proponent of this technique. Some find his small-child-walking-in-on-his-parents-having-sex interview technique grating, but I think he’s pretty good, and not afraid to look the fool either.Louis Theroux: ‘So you’re a former Nazi Lowrider in love with a Jewish man?’The advantage of having a presenter is it’s their job is to look after the interview. That might sound obvious, but it’s surprising how much you miss when you’ve got to worry about the sound, light and whether the manager of the Tesco Metro in shot is going to cross the road and hassle you. Should your subject say something controversial, your presenter is there to jump on it. Louis Theroux does this extremely well – in fact you could say it’s his MO.I’m a good interviewer, but I didn’t have the confidence to present. I’d have a go now. But at the time I had everything else to worry. So I settled on a Direct Cinema style.Direct Cinema could be best described as fly-on-the-wall. The action unfolds before you and the narrative is carried in the way the film is edited. As I’m editing now, it’s clear my film is not a true Direct Cinema doc, like the work of Frederick Wiseman.The characters in Wiseman’s films do not talk to the camera, they are unaware the camera is there. This is an extremely hard style to pull off because you have to film an enormous amount of footage to construct a story. I didn’t have the experience or the time to do this, so I decided early on that I would have Nigel talk to the camera. Wiseman’s method is also extremely difficult to do because people are now media literate: if there’s a camera trained on someone, they moderate their behaviour. And it seems to be that documentary’s appeal, and to an extent, measurement of success, is how well a filmmaker breaks away this façade. Here’s an example of when it’s done well with the most media literate bunch of people about: Metallica. Some Kind of Monster: Defences up Some Kind of Monster: Defences down There is a problem with this approach. Your focus as a filmmaker can become clouded. You start thinking your job is to ‘find the true story’ – the story your subject is unwilling to reveal. But there may not be a conspiracy to uncover – and it’s worth remembering that if there is, it ‘s quite likely to be beyond your imagination should you find it. But arriving at a shoot with a preconceived idea is the wrong way to make a doc. You ask leading questions; you edit with an agenda. My idea was to simply follow Nigel around and ask him questions. I decided to do shoot in a loose Direct Cinema style and have my subject (Nigel), tell the story with VO and sound bites.Posted via email from antigob
<p>UNDERCITY from Andrew Wonder on Vimeo.</p>
Whether you agree with the methods, this is a super tense documentary. Looks beautiful too.
Posted via email from antigob
I found a couple of albums back home. Unfortunately, the photos were fused to the cellophane, so I had to shoot through them - hence the reflections. I think these were all taken in Sharjah in 1978. I would have been about 18 months.
Posted via email from antigob
Posted via email from antigob
This has been doing the rounds in ad circles, mainly because this sort of case study is all too close to the truth.
Posted via email from antigob
I’ve been on my holidays, so it’s been a bit quiet round here. But while I was away I read these beauties:
Fup by Jim DodgePosted via email from antigob