I was flipping through reviews for The Guardian, for some reason or another, and thought to myself, what the $@#& am I flipping through reviews of The Guardian for.

Now I find myself writing an entry on a French language word processor, and I'm thinking to myself, I don't understand a word of French. Ai laik'e za wrrrot'n sneeels. I try.

http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1895,2020837,00.asp

This is an article from Gardner, apparently a respected name in the world of IT. He makes the point that computer programming is going to rely decreasingly on the ability to "assemble functionality from components." In the future, corporations will build huge databases of small, patented samples of code that can be copied and pasted as required.

In every field there are individuals who find art in their work. Computer programmers pride themselves on being invisible to the end user; the greater the invisibility the greater the success. Perhaps a zen-like simplicity or sense of exploration are experienced by the user, and herein lies art. The interesting thing with computing is that speed has increased to the level where efficient programming is not necessary; optimizing code for a given architecture is as meaningless as choosing the color of the cars laid out for a monster truck.

For film, there are those who are loath to say what they do is art. I was driving home with a DP, and he asked what my plans were for the future. I explained to him that I was hoping to reach the level of creating my own art. Instantly he and the Producer began to scoff. Art = buzzkill for the industry.

It's a matter of survival. Cheap access to digital tools has enabled a new generation of video-makers that are capable of rapidly producing interesting content. This combined with increasing competition for consumer attention, a gradual decline in interesting projects, and the lack of bankable directors has caused trepidation in the industry. We stand at a point now, one we reached a while ago, where the practice of "assembling functionality from components" has led to increased production quality but decreased quality.

Luckily, nobody goes to see a movie based on its quality. We go because of a marketing campaign. Our reaction to a movie is largely determined by both our imagination sparked by the marketing campaign, and whether or not the actual movie was as good as we imagined it would be. As the first single-cell organism rapidly evolved by mutation and survival, so too does the industry evolve. As it grows in complexity, mutations are slowed and failures are increasingly apparent.

$100 million is not a budget for risk. $100 million is the budget of calculation. That money pays sustains 1,000 highly skilled people for months at a time. With so many lives invested in a project, the ability to take risks is decreased. Even the most talented director relies on storyboarding, pre-visualization, script revisions, massive pre- and post-productions, shrunken production times, and a host of other creative barriers on a big budget film. There are people who can thrive in this system. The Wachowski brothers, Spielberg, Scorsese, Lucas, Raimi all excel at the metered complexity of the blockbuster. Kubrick practically invented this system with 2001. He proved that managing complexity with mathematical precision and planning produces greatness when greatly conceived.

Unfortunately, the evolution of a marketing campaign given equal consideration as the movie has led studios to invest their focus on finding and enhancing components best suited for market consumption. This has been effective for years, churning out crapfests that land people in seats. Recently, video games, television, music, dvd's and the Internet have been winning the battle for attention. Do you care about a lame-ass Lost Boys rehash with putridly pretty Hollywoodites and their likewise plastic companions? Do you want to drop $10 to sit down, watch 20 minutes of advertising, then sit through the "assembled functionality" of Top Gun, A Few Good Men, Internet porn videos, and Ashton Kutcher?

The scene from Mulholland Dr. comes to mind. The one with Naomi Watts auditioning with a 60-something actor, giving the old man a thrill-ride for the part. Replace Watts with Kutcher and you're in Hollywood at the pitch for The Guardian.

It's a personal question as to whether or not you believe that every idea that can ever be conceived is fundamentally already conceived, but having conscious access to a library of information that can be cut and pasted into a movie guaranteed to produce a minimum return is a new world. I'll be the first to bare all and cop up to my evolutionary sins. I paid for and watched The Island. I have my reasons, they are good, but I helped nobody.

Michael Bay movies make me feel more confident as a filmmaker. Like taking a laryngitic donkey to Karaoke.

I think that there are always new ideas, but genesis happens at the level of chaos and struggle. Around the Bay definitely has created things I haven't seen before. We're all working together for hummus, pitas, and hoping that with the combined talents of some solid actors and superfantasticultracool cameramen something unique will be born. But that's not all. Order now and we'll throw in a free Book Page Notifier at no additional fee.

I do find myself trying to scan my knowledge of films for ideas to frame and compose my shots. But that's natural and the cool thing is it doesn't work on this kind of set.

A million ideas I would love to write endlessly about, but those that talk the most have the...

Mua Deeb!
We'll bring wormsign the likes of which GOD has never seen! Muhaha!