the matrix

I hate going to the library. I really like books though. But it's too time-consuming, and there's too many options. The pile gets too big, too heavy, and I tend to attract fines. And its not pretty like Metropolis or Readings or welcoming like Borders. I think a coffee shop would help.

Anyway, I went there on Monday. I got Liz Well's Photography Reader, Ansel Adams' The Camera, Caponigro's Adobe Photoshop Master Class (2003!!) a novel by George Orwell, and a couple of doco's on Ansel Adams and Bill Henson.

I should have only got one. But I knew I'd want more. I've been trying to read them... but I'm suffering from a mild case of infomania. It's ridiculous. Part of my interest and desire to do this project is to try and cure myself of this craziness... but I love it, I'm addicted to it. I tell myself I love learning but I think it's something more.


The process of reading textbooks is something I think I have to reaccustom myself too. Each page, paragraph, sentence, term lends itself the opportunity for associations and further thought. There's so much to consider, and you probably bring even more with you. The problem is in the pace. When reading textbooks, you control the pace at which you assimilate the information. The problem with that for me is that I'm too easily distracted. It takes a good narrative hook, or reward system, to keep me going. I'm a result of 21st century consumer society, always hungry for more, bigger, better faster! And I only just really realised that now. Which is proof enough for me. I feel a bit like Neo in The Matrix... less the Hollywood heroism and fighting a bit more apathy.


The novel is by Orwell, so its more nutritious in popular opinion than tv or film, but still junk food compared to Adams' The Camera (deceivingly simply title). But novels are narratives. I can handle them in length, because I know that's the format. Not as easy as a good magazine article, but ultimately more satisfying, in the same way watching the entire series of Buffy is so much more powerful than even the greatest character development in a wonderful film. There's a joy in the slow change, and its broken up by constant events.

Screen based media is another story. It's designed to flow. So much so that we psychologically can't, or really don't want to tear ourselves away. The role of the viewer role is so much more passive. I heard once somewhere (no doubt from a very unreliable source), that you have more brain activity while your asleep than when watching tv. That's why I got the doco's. I like the passivity. And perhaps that's the answer to my riddle.

Why do we love the screen? Beacuse we love being passive.


But that doesn't exactly fit with the whole gaming subculture...

like a rolling stone

Michel Gondry you're my hero.

I saw his clip for The Stones' Like a Rolling Stone again yesterday. It's not my favourite clip but one that's always intrigued me. When I started getting into film and editing a couple of years ago I was under the impression that it was created using two techniques:

- 'Bullet Time' from The Matrix; a series of still frames taken simulaneously, then played in sequence with a slower (generally) frame rate for film.
- Again, only still frames, morphed together.

When I watched it again yesterday, I realised I was only scraping the surface:

- The shots of the Stones, while confusingly constructed, appeared to have been manipulated frame by frame in Photoshop, using the smudge tool (I can't remember the name but the one where you can 'move' pixels as if stretching and pulling the image).

Anyway, I just found the answers to all of my questions :) http://www.director-file.com/gondry/promos.html

It's not just the incredible effects Gondry employs, its how perfect they are to communicate the story, an innovative, and genius. I actually feel disgusting, like I'm 'on the boat', when Patricia Arquette is walking home and the background can't quite keep up with her. I just really love Michel Gondry.

Watch it or buy it.