I really like the protagonist, Becky Fuller, played by Rachel McAdams and relate to her as a bumbling, clumsy, workaholic type who survives day to day on sheer will power, but I don’t think that is what makes me love this film so much. There is one particular aspect of this film, very unusual for an American film, that I think makes it stand out as a great cinematic experience.

That aspect is that, while the protagonist has a boyfriend in this film, her sexual and romantic relationship with him is not the focus of the film. The film rather focuses on her non sexual relationship with a different character, Mike Pomeroy played by Harrison Ford.

At the start of the film she is barely surviving on enthusiasm and positive thinking, and he is a grumpy old cynical goat. They don’t completely transform in any way that would suspend disbelief. But in the way that opposites in real life often attract and then influence each other, these two characters learn to live with each other and enrich each other’s lives.

Check out the trailer for more details of the story:

I love having relationships like this is my life and they don’t have to be with boyfriends. I was very close with my younger brother growing up and when he died at only age 22, when I myself was only just 24, I was left craving as close to a replacement as possible.

My regular readers (I think I have one or two) will know that I struggle with American culture, despite being a native and thrive much better in Europe. One of the reasons for that is that I have found that American culture leaves far less room for non sexual love between members of the opposite sex than does British culture.

I adore the way I can hug and kiss my British male friends (even the hetrosexual ones) and tell them that I love them and that, in and of itself, is not interpreted as sexual. I greet them with bear hugs and walk arm and arm with them and it is not considered a come on. Here I can only do that with my gay male friends or I risk all kinds of trouble.

So it really upsets me that this film did not get more attention. I think that Americans can learn from this. Go on America, its ok, love someone that you are not going to have sex with, there is nothing wrong with it.

Oh, and do see this film, its really really good.

I did give it an unbiased second try however because when I first watched Episode I in 1999 I was clinically depressed and in that state I have actually failed to enjoy films that I later realised were beyond awesome, most notably Elf (2003). So I went hoping to enjoy the film, but I found it lacking.

I must give my usual disclaimer when I don’t like a film. This is not to say that it is a bad film or that was poorly made, just that I did not like it. I have to praise Lucas and crew for the job they did in creating the universe. For 1999, the ground breaking use of computers in feature film production produced highest production values one could hope for.

So why did I go see it again? Well, I have to say that my precise reason for seeing Episode I for the second and perhaps the last time, was that I was curious about the 3D version.

I first experienced 3D as a child when I saw House of Wax (1953) during a re release run sometime in the 70′s. I also remember as a child in the 70′s having my first 3D television experience. Yes, that is right 3D television! In the 70′s! I think it was Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954).

This was back in the days of red/green 3D. For that technology to work, all you need is the 3D version to be broadcast to a normal TV and the silly red/green glasses, which we all bought the previous week at the local convenience store.

It worked, but not for everyone. Interestingly and not surprisingly, red/green 3D is not effective for those who are colour blind. So recently, polarized 3D was developed and sparked a new run of largely gimicky 3D films.

**** For more on my opinion of 3D as a gimmick please see this contribution I made to another blog in 2010 3D A Director’s View

Please also see this entry by Jeffrey Buras 3D Is A Gimmick and this entry by Brian Morgan 3D Is Not A Gimmick ****

So I kind of swore off 3D for the most part. Two notable exceptions to the general rule that I really don’t very much like 3D films are Despicable Me (2010) and How to Train Your Dragon (2010), both animated films.

I recently watched Hugo (2011) and had a brief discussion on twitter with Josh Robert Thompson (@joshrthompson) about my opinion that 3D and live action don’t mix, and he recommended that I try watching a 3D film at the ArcLight cinema in Hollywood and a few weeks later I noticed Josh, a Star Wars enthusiast, was off to see Episode I for at least the second time in 3D, so I tweeted with him about the lack of gimmickry in Episode I, as a film not originally conceived as a 3D experience.

****Josh Robert Thompson is a voice actor/comedian/puppeteer/impressionist based in Los Angeles. I highly recommend his podcast which can be found on his website www.jrtvoices.com ****

So a few days ago I went off to the ArcLight to see

Episode I just out of curiosity as to whether I could enjoy a live action 3D experience. And I did. I know I said I did not enjoy the film but that is not to say I did not enjoy the 3D experience.

At this point I should probably explain that anyone not in the film business who has the misfortune to ask me if I liked any particular film expecting a quick yes or no answer, usually immediately regrets having asked the question. For me, there is no such thing as a yes or no answer to that question.

Yes, there are perfect films, such as Pride and Prejudice (2005), and films which should never have been made such as Troll 2 (1990) but that is because of a large number of factors that come together in the case of those two films to produce a consistent result, albeit the exact opposite result for each of them.

So what did I not like about Episode I?

The script: I won’t bore the reader with an analysis rather refer him/her to the British (Channel 4) television series, Spaced (1999-2001), which pretty much covers my emotional reaction, and which everyone should see before they die anyway. (I believe Spaced is still available on Hulu.com to American viewers)

The costumes: they were ambitious and beautiful examples of clothing as art in many cases but many of them were too divorced from the Star Wars universe for me.

The characters: Jar Jar Binks… enough said…

What did I like?

As predicted by Josh (@joshrthompson), I loved the rotoscoped 3D experience. The one thing I remember about House of Wax from my 1970′s re release experience, was a red ball flying at my face that freaked me out. There was none of that business in Episode I but there were occasions when things moving in the foreground (in perfect focus in most cases) had a awesome impact but nothing flew at my face. Which I appreciated.

As I discussed in my 2010 blog contribution cited above, shallow depth of field and gimmicky use of objects flying at my nose in live action films often cause me to become literally, not figuratively, nauseated. So being able to enjoy a film without the fear of being sick was a a nice change.

I also noticed that with this film, for the first time, I did not have the problem of double vision. I don’t know if this is because of the glasses I was issued at the Arclight or because the film was rotoscoped rather than filmed with two cameras but logic suggests the former. The glasses used at the ArcLight were indeed, very different from those I am normally issued with at 3D films.

I had intended to wear my contacts, but forgot to so I had the usual glasses on glasses experience which in this case, did not pose a problem.

Ok, but before you go thinking I like 3D, I think it is still not for me. I enjoyed the experience of Episode I at the ArcLight, but I still found that my eyes tired quickly and I think there is no way to escape that polarized 3D lowers the light levels of the film.

For me, this is a deal breaker. As a photographer, I have a special relationship with light, shadow, and colour and the details these elements create. 3D interferes with this relationship too much for my taste. But as a technology, it is exciting nonetheless, and I am glad to have had this experience at the ArcLight.

Each time there is a new advance or nuance to 3D, I will probably check back in on the 3D experience. But for the most part I will leave it to those, like Josh, who enjoy it much more than I do.

Now, in the interest of not writing a book, I will just stop writing.

I considered very carefully just going back to somewhere in the central belt and getting back into the runners pool at the Beeb, but that would all but preclude the possibility of ever becoming a lawyer and I am not really prepared to do that. Plus, I don’t think I can afford, in the short term, to live in Scotland doing that sort of work.

For those of you who have not already heard the story, in order to become a solicitor in Scotland, where I attended law school, one must complete a two year training contract. And in order to do that, one must convince a law firm to take one on as a trainee.

To make a long story short, after three years, an LLM as a stalling tactic, about 200 rejection letters and about 20 interviews during which I repeatedly heard the phrase ‘why don’t you go to New York and make more money’, I was informed by the Law Society of Scotland that my post grad diploma (necessary for the training process) had expired and I would have to redo that year of education if I ever found a training contract.

Shortly before that I started having success with my writing and moved into filmmaking. So I just gave up. Fast forward, I found out I was Italian by birth and started working as a runner at BBC Scotland and life was good until my Italian passport did not come in on time, the Beeb had to let me go when my permission to work on my US passport ran out, I bounced back and forth between Texas and Scotland, and ran out of money…. So I slinked home to live near my mom in Austin, Texas. Closed the Scottish company, and opened a Texas one…

Then I just worked on the craft, all the while, hating Texas (Texas for the most part returned the favour) and trying to get somewhere else. I tried desperately to move to New York. I love New York because while Californians and Texans stab you in the back, New Yorkers stab you in the front. If they don’t like you, they tell you and you can all get on with it. You got to love that.

So I got attached to a, now defunct, New York feature film as a writer… which oddly ended me up at a film festival networking in Hollywood… and much to my surprise I resonated with the place… Yeah I don’t understand it either, other than to say that Hollywood/Los Angeles is full of an odd mix of people from all over so while this is not my permanent home, I can live there temporarily to achieve a goal.

Rewind to Edinburgh in September 2008, when I still thought the passport would come in and I would stay, for some reason that I really don’t remember, I registered with the State Bar of California. This is the first step to becoming a lawyer in California. I think I must have been attempting to do what I am now planning… To become a Scottish solicitor using a legal loophole…

I know right, the poetry of using a legal loophole to become a lawyer is almost worth it just to say that you have. You see if I qualify in any US jurisdiction, England will let me take and exam to re qualify as an English solicitor because American law is essentially English law. Then, because I have already passed my Scottish exams, I am almost certain that means I would at the same time be qualified as a Scottish solicitor, because it is just a matter of taking those very Scottish exams in order for an English solicitor to qualify in Scotland.

England has changed its rules now that you have to practice for two years in your US jurisdiction before you can re qualify in England, but it has been almost ten years since I got my LLB so what is a few more years… and I should make pretty good money in the meantime. Better than a trainee in Scotland anyway.

So here I go stepping off 1,500 miles and two time zones in the wrong direction. Why California? Only two states in the US are enlightened enough to allow someone with a degree from outside the US to take their Bar exams. California and New York. And as I said before, it was an attempt to move to New York as a filmmaker that ended me up in California, and I had inexplicably already started the process back in 2008 when I did not even know I was to return to the US.  So California has to be the place. Not to mention, I can barely afford to live in Los Angeles… Manhattan won’t be possible. And for my emotional wellbeing, I have to live in a city, it is the closest I can get to the European lifestyle I got used to.

I should take the exam in July and have solid plans to. I have just sent off my moral character determination application which should come back clear by October. They I just have to practice two years in Los Angeles and off I go back to the UK… I will only be about 42 or 43 at that point. There is probably no chance that I will do anything other than international entertainment law.

Life is what happens while you are making other plans. While I was planning to be a conveyancing solicitor in the Scottish Borders, in a frantic attempt to achieve that goal, I picked up a year of US law, a summer of Mexican Law, a Masters in Commercial International Law, an extra passport, and experience in the entertainment industry. If my American accent was enough to make them tell me to go to New York, all this extra baggage will ensure they don’t even answer my phone calls in any quiet corner of Scotland…. so there goes that dream…

I can only hope that flying back and forth between Edinburgh, London, and Los Angeles will be fun and exciting because that is probably what I will be doing from around 2014 until I retire…

The world has never been kind enough to me to just leave me alone… I don’t think it is going to start doing that anytime soon… Look out world, here I come!

Really? A major motion picture studio has THAT as a motto. I remember mumbling something like ‘Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say ‘Money for Money’s Sake’. And believe it or not, I was not yet involved in the entertainment industry when I had that reaction. I remember thinking that might, MIGHT, have been appropriate at one time but even as an avid enjoyer of independent and art house cinema, I could not recall any film that I thought of as fitting the description of art for the sake of art itself. I have now changed my mind.

Two days ago I went to see Tailor Tinker Soldier Spy (2011) and I really wished that I had been more prepared for what I was going to see. Believe it or not, I actually had only heard about the film through word of mouth. My British expat friends went to see it one night and I missed the outing so when my mom called about a week later saying she wanted to go see it, I jumped at the chance. Not knowing anything about the film production, other than that it starred Gary Oldman, I went off to it with the expectation that it might be a 300 million dollar budgeted Hollywood version. I think I was expecting something like the James Bond franchise. I just expected it to be designed to make lots of money. Apparently it is only in limited release right now and will open nationwide in about a week or two.

When it does, I am not sure how large the advertising budget will be. It is not designed to make money from the looks of it. It appears rather to be a craft film based on the novel written in 1974 at the height of the Cold War. I must say, it was not what I was expecting but I was very much pleasantly surprised!

***From this point there may be plot spoilers. If you have not read the book or seen the film. Read at your own risk.***

First off I had to adjust my expectations. I arrived all hyped up and almost felt like I had attention deficit. This is because the film, in every aspect, appeared to be one that was actually made in 1973 when the film takes place. I just kept thinking ‘But Gary Oldman was not in his fifties in 1973′ such was the illusion.

It was really distracting. And the pace was that of a film of the period. The editing was slower, there was no gratuitous or unrealistic action. The tension came from the script, worst of all you had to actually pay attention, there were no photographic or sound effect punctuations such as quick zooms or epic sound effects to point out what the important information was. You just had to pay attention.

Worse still, I hated the 70′s. I was born in 1972 and did not have a very happy childhood. What’s more I was born with a highly developed sense of style into an unfortunate decade in which everything was frankly, ugly. I have many theories as to why. Perhaps after years of drug abuse in the 60′s people were just depressed and loved ugly things. Perhaps there was a desire to produce designs that had never been produced before… because they were ugly. Whatever the reason, aesthetically speaking the 70′s and I just did not get along. I don’t think i even cracked a smile at anything design related until 1984. So my initial felling, after the surprise wore off of course, was that I did not like this film.

But even in this transitional state of deciding this film was not for me I really loved that it was made. I loved that someone endeavoured to and succeeded in creating something out of its own time that really felt like the time in which the action was placed. I have an upcoming short that does this with the noir film genre and I can only hope I have been as successful and the makers of Tinker Tailor.

But even when I thought I did not like this film, I loved it as an example of what Britain has to offer film. Because I started my career in the UK, I really ally myself more with British film than American. One thing that struck me is that the whole attitude in the US is geared towards the ‘box office’. You never cast anyone without asking ‘What’s his box office?’. Across the pond you tend to be a little more concerned with who is right for the part. The reason for this is simple. Film and television in Europe are tax funded and art is still a very big consideration. In the US, everything is privately funded. If it does not make money, it will not be made.

Its not that there is no consideration for money, it just is not the first thing in one’s mind. For instance the tax funded BBC includes programming that I would never watch but for every program that has me reaching for the remote, there is one that I want to watch that I know from my former flatmate’s reactions, not very many others do. I can’t remember the number of times I was banned from the tv and had to watch something in my room on iplayer because I was overruled.

So as I was sitting there, not really enjoying the film, I was smiling to myself, absolutely delighted that it had been made. I was marveling at the production design which made me want to be sick simply because it really did look like the 70′s and wondering if the Director of Photography purposely used grainy film and old lenses or if the look was achieved entirely during the post production phase. And then something happened. My brian turned on. I guess it was because I was analyzing the production aspects but suddenly I was thinking about the plot of the film and it is a very complicated one.

Suddenly I was was really enjoying the film (just wishing it was placed in a more aesthetically pleasing decade) and by the time it was revealed how the wife of one of the characters was used to distract him, I was riveted. I think I may have even uttered an audible gasp. All I can say is go see this film, just be prepared to think. It is very old fashioned that way.

I have noticed in the past that many of the films I used to enjoy in the 70′s and 80′s, I no longer can sit still for because my attention span has shortened due to the fact that I constantly multitask. A typical day for me is listening to some sort of ‘tv’ on the internet while answering emails, changing music on my ipod with one hand and texting someone with the other. I rarely carry out a phone conversation without using the internet on the phone at the same time and often when I do actually turn on the television, I am streaming something from YouTube at the same time, constantly adjusting the volumes to be able to switch my attention back and fourth.

One of the reasons I hate to drive is that I can’t, in good conscience, do that without giving it my full attention. If I walk or take the bus, I can be listening to music, web surfing, and writing something in my head at the same time. But watching this film took me back to my previous ability to just sit and fully engage with a film that required every bit of my intelligence to be active and on high alert.

I miss that.

According to IMDB stats it looks as if the film has made back it’s budget but that is not always enough to cause a film to be seen as successful by those who fund them. I can only hope that even if it does not make bank for investors, this film will be seen as a wonderful example of film as an art form and that more, similar productions will go ahead.

So that you won’t be taken off guard by the film, here is a link to the trailer. In it you will see what I mean by the look of the film but unfortunately, the trailer uses quick witted editing and epic sound effects in a way not seen in the film. Pity. You will just have to go see the film to know what I am talking about then.

In contrast to the Tinker Taylor trailer, check out this trailer for The Conversation (1974) which is not entirely devoid of such techniques but relies much more on dialogue for the film and narration.

Where is Peter Cushing When You Need Him?

As I was watching the latest Sherlock Holmes film, I found myself profoundly disappointed for many reasons. The production design was over the top and lacked realism, the new face of Holmes, as a tormented genius, got my hopes up but was over played, and the story was weak and too weird for my taste.

Perhaps my standards are too high. Sherlock Holmes is one of my favourite fictional characters of all time and having lived in the UK for many years, I think I felt a little disappointed that so many Americans were used in the film to play English characters, including Holmes himself.

Having worked in London frequently, I remember using the Baker Street tube station where some of the architecture is still Victorian and the platform walls sport tiled silhouettes of the great detective with his signature hat and pipe. Thinking back I always thought of that silhouette as being that of one actor who played Holmes better than anyone in history, Peter Cushing.

Most Americans have seen his work in Star Wars but don’t know his name. Every time I direct a character who is evil, I make Star Wars required homework and I ask my actor to pay special attention to Cushing.

What makes Cushing so great? His use of emotion, or lack thereof. Evil feels but does not emote. Hatred emotes, hatred is warped love, based in actually caring about the object of one’s hatred. Evil is the enjoyment of indifference.

Watch the clip below to see how Cushing delivers the line ‘Charming to the last.’ And even when his character, Tarkin, becomes frustrated and angry, this emotion is held behind a mask of indifference, emotional control, and anticipation of the suffering of others. Also note Cushing’s awareness of his lighting.

That clip shows what I believe to be the pest performance of all time by the best actor who ever lived. Every screen actor should study this performance. (since writing this in 2009 I learned that during this scene Cushing was wearing fuzzy slippers because the boots made for his costume were too small. And he still managed to play evil this convincingly)

Sadly Cushing died in 1994 and there will never be another actor quite like him. As proof that this performance comes from a unique mix of talent and hard work born out of professionalism, take a look at the real Peter Cushing, unlike Tarkin, Cushing was a cute and cuddly old man who emotes genuine kindness. One can hardly believe this is the same person.

Also, in this clip notice his awareness of the needs of the studio cameramen as he only partially stands to shake hands with Terry Wogan. Cushing is the kind of actor directors dream of.

At the request of @extrafriends I am reviewing the latest Twilight film. Before I start my review, I would like to make the comment that as a filmmaker myself, I have the greatest appreciation for anyone who makes films and I know how difficult it is to get right. One can work very hard indeed and still come up short.

That said, I think that The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part One (2011) was not as successful as the filmmakers might have hoped. At the time I am writing, the latest installment in the Saga has a 4.8 out of 10 rating on IMDB so I don’t think that it will be a surprise that I found it lacking.

I should note that I am not a Twilight Saga fan, though I did very much enjoy the first film. I think the reason that Breaking Dawn did not seem the same to me is that the whole premise, of a human girl falling in love with a vampire, fits well within the framework of a teen film, but is less suitable for the very serious adult themes that the saga is now moving into.

***From this point on the review contains plot spoilers***

At 39 years of age, I am not exactly the target market of the saga, but I really enjoyed the first film because one can always enjoy a great teen film. The topics covered in teen films are simplistic and often fall into the category of idealised fantasy and that is something that anyone who has ever been a teen can relate to. Ever since I saw the high school film Clueless (1995) at the age of 20, I have found it quite easy to enjoy teen films even as an adult. Though the idea of a dangerous vampire really being a misunderstood, deep feeling, good person seemed naive to me, I was quite happy to remember when such a premise would seem truthful, and just enjoy the film.

The problem with the current installment in the Twilight Saga is that, while it is directed at a teen market, it is not a teen film. The saga has moved to the point at which the main characters of Bella, a human, and Edward, a vampire, are getting married and making a decision about whether Bella should herself become a vampire. No matter how you sugar coat it, this is not a light subject, ergo this is not a teen film.

The bad IMDB rating suggests that at least part of the target audience felt the same way.

In addition to the subject matter departing from the romanticized storyline of the first film, the story also felt very contrived and took some convoluted twists and turns that reveal what the saga really has become, a soap opera. I don’t want to get into too much detail in case those who have not seen the film are still reading but I will also add that with one exception, the results of the convoluted plot created drama that just did not make for a satisfying story. If you are interested in what that exception was, please tweet at me @annelabarbera and I will let you  know what it was.

The technical bits:

Just as fair warning, from here on if you are not a filmmaker, you are in danger of becoming very bored if you continue reading.

As someone who often works as a Director of Photography, I found myself thinking that I would have made some different choices. I felt that the film was over colored, causing the film to look cartoonish. I also noticed that, though the themes in the film got much darker and less romantic, the lighting of the film looked more like a romantic comedy than the first film had. This lighting combined with palad make up, actually did nothing for R Patz’ looks and his looks are a very big part of what the franchise banks on. I also noticed some scenes that used chroma key compositing that was less than fully successful.

Additionally, I thought the costume, hair and makeup reflected the look of a much smaller budget than the film actually had. Overall the film had the look and feel of an episode of Beverley Hills 90210, while it explored themes as dark as those to be found in the likes of Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992).

I would have preferred darker colouring, a more grany film stock, and larger, moodier sets.

It had me thinking that the Twilight Saga simply is not my favourite vampire story. I think vampires belong, in crusty old castles in Europe with very little sunlight, not in beach houses in Brazil, or in British Columbia for that matter.

Tweet

Shortly after I knew I would be coming to Hollywood for the festival, I found out that a festival pass which guarantees me admission to every event and screening was available for only $100!

Coming from Austin, Texas where passes of that nature cost upwards of $1500, I jumped at the opportunity to spend a weekend in LA watching some of the best Independent horror films out right now.

So far I have been to the Opening night party and day one of filming (I did miss the first film due to the infamous 405 traffic) and I have to say I think I have found my festival.

I have already fallen in with a regular crowd and feel like part of it. This is why I love smaller, more exclusive festivals over the more crowded ones you get in Austin.

It is wonderful to feel a part of something that few know about and that pulls a crowd of professionals and enthusiasts rather than hoards of people who are just trying to get a glimpse of an A lister.

The festival is run by Denise Gossett and reminds me a lot of the Brancage Film Festival which I attended on the channel island of Jersey a few years back and of the Bafta events I used to attend in London. There is a feeling of being part of something that has not yet been discovered.

Shriekfest is small, exclusive, intimate, and you don’t feel that pressure you sometimes get at a large, crowded market festival. It feels like a tucked away corner of quiet sanity in a town know for it’s side show atmosphere.

With the quality that Denise delivers with Shriekfest, I am sure that some day it will be as large as those festivals that invade my current hometown of Austin, Texas and my former home, Edinburgh Scotland, but for now I am enjoying being part of a small in crowd who are intimate enough to remember each other.

I am also loving Los Angeles. Except for a short time in 1989, I have never been to LA or Hollywood. It is hard to avoid the nutty touristiness of Hollywood by Shriekfest is affording me the opportunity to step out of the madness into a quiet corner where people are enjoying a great horror selection put together by Denise.

Whilst in LA for the festival, I have a feature shoot going on in Austin which I am keeping in contact with by phone. That feature is a horror and I can’t help but wonder if we will get picture lock in time to submit to Shriekfest 2012.

That is all for now. I will be back with a full review after I return to Austin!

I suppose it started with Space Tourists, or perhaps with Executive Producers (the kind with lots of private money and no professional contacts), and proliferated with reality TV ‘stars’ in the naughtys, but what has me thinking about this particular topic right now is the whole FCPX fiasco that myself and other (perhaps former) Final Cut Pro editors have just gone through.

For those of you who have been spending millions to hitch a ride in space for the last few months, I will fill you in as concisely as possible. Basically, FCP editors were anticipating the launch of Final Cut Studio 4 back in April when the consistent rumours that the suite was going to add Shake into Motion, thus blowing out of the water the one program Adobe had that was superior to Apple’s, namely After Effects, were replaced with very credible leaks that what was really happening was that the guy who f***ed up iMovie had been monkeying around with Final Cut and the new release was alarmingly similar to the 2007 version of iMovie, a version so bad and widely rejected by the public, that despite it’s price tag of $0, Apple had to give away a previous version for free to stop the riots.

By June we got definitive news and some had even bought this new version of iMovie now named Final Cut Pro. My first reaction was denial and then a sense of ‘how could they do this to us’. Then I went into business mode. Like my own industry, the tech industry is a business first though this is often difficult to remember. I looked at it from Steve Job’s perspective and then it made sense.

When Apple first got into the business of editing software, they were a small company and a boutique product appealing to a small user base made sense. But post iPod, iPhone, and after the renaming of the company from Apple Computers to Apple Inc. in 2007, can we really expect them not to want to lay off the team developing a product that has only 20,000 users? Doesn’t it make sense to get out of the business of professional editing in favour of the exploding customer base to be found in ‘pro’sumer editors potentially numbering in the billions.

The only question that remained for me was why transfer the name Final Cut Pro to a program that is an enhanced version of iMovie and for which iMovie projects are the only ones that are reverse compatible? Why the nominal fiction?

And then it hit me. Professional tourists. For years people with a bit of money to spend had been splashing quite a bit of cash on Final Cut Studio because they wanted to buy a place at the table. My first purchase of Studio 2 was second hand from just such a purchaser. She had bought it thinking that having the pro tool would make her a pro and quickly learned that not having the pro skills rendered her pro tools useless. I was able to purchase Studio 2 which cost at the time around £800, for only £400.

In contrast, when I first started and was still developing my skills I bought as old an upgradeable copy of Final Cut Express as I could find for £49 off of eBay and upgraded for £50, under cutting the retail price of express by almost £100. This is what pros do when they start out. I only looked to upgrade when I had my basic editing skills in place an was in need of colouring, transcoding, and motion graphics tools.

This idea that to be a pro you must buy professional products is a decidedly consumer driven idea. As a director of photography I was once given the option of shooting on a RED camera with unpaid labour or using my DSLR with paid pros on my team and I actually pleaded against the RED in favour of a team of pros with skills. Of course I would love to have a RED or ARRI with skilled labour but given the choice, skills trump equipment.

For instance if one were very motivated and had enough skilled people, one could accomplish a ‘bullet time’ effect with a bunch of pinhole camera obscura. I am not saying it would be easy or look as slick as the effect did in The Matrix (1999), but it can be done. In fact, for me, a mark of professionalism is a hesitance to pad the budget with expensive equipment just because you can get your hands on it in favour of careful consideration of the abilities of those on one’s team.

So this brings us back to Steve and his decision to call a souped up version of iMovie, heretofore free with every Mac, by the name of Final Cut Pro. Once I got over the shock and settled into editing professionally on Adobe products I can only see this as pure genius from the perspective of a man trying to attract large numbers of consumers who want to buy a ride on the professional train.

I have used FCPX in the shop and I can say that what it lacks in professional features, it makes up for with a very shallow learning curve. Within hours I think someone who has never edited before can find their way around some pretty impressive presets and make some really cool videos. And there are enough presets it might even take the world six months to get tired of them. For most people that is well worth the $299 price tag and as an added bonus they get to be told they are a pro a believe it for a while.

Genius Steve. This truly changes everything.

I remember the experience. The SFA theater was a relic of thirty years earlier. It had one of those popcorn machines that popped the corn right in front of you and dumped it out into a large glass container. Watching it pop was part of the entertainment. The sign out front was neon, from the classic cinema days of the 50′s. The ticket was probably only one dollar, two at most.

Last week when I watched it for the second time I did so on my iPhone, rented off of iTunes for $2.99. In 1982 I watched a cutting edge film, made with cutting edge technology in a forum that was an ode to the past. The second time the forum was cutting edge and the film itself had become a relic. In 1982 I don’t think I was even yet aware of the coming home video format and any suggestion that I would one day watch this film on a phone, that was not even plugged into the wall would have sounded like the plot to the next big scifi hit that I might go to the cinema to watch.

At that point I had only once seen a modem that worked with a phone. You dialed a number and when it made funny noises you put the handset on a cradle and let it scream at the modem until you connected to something. It was for my uncle’s business and I really did not find it interesting at all. I thought it was boring. I discounted it entirely.

Fast forward and my phone connects to a site that lets me download and watch a film. That would have gotten my attention. And I find myself watching this film that was so cutting edge, so tomorrow, so exciting. It was about computers. In 1982 I had never even operated a computer. I had seen them but at that time they were not for kids. They were mostly for businesses. Fast forward to 2011 (just the mention of a year like that would have sounded scifi back then) and I see the film and it’s message as old, about simplistic outdated technology, nostalgic, and naive.

Not to imply I did not enjoy it, I loved it. It helped me remember a younger me and a bygone era. Doing so helps me understand who I am and the value of that can not be understated.

I was struck that the central theme of the film reflected a fear of computer technology and a disconnect between how we related to this new technology and how we previously lived our lives. We had to learn to replace people with technology. A personification of programs reflects our difficulty in digesting the idea that programs do work and yet are not people. The idea of ordering something to do work and destroying it or rewriting it if it did not work right was a disconnect from the times when all work was done by people who had to be treated with respect and who were not disposable.

This naïveté is adorable in it’s cluelessness but admirable. We could learn from this attitude today. Now rather than relating to computers as if they were people, we all too often relate to people as if they are machines. We shout at people for not being perfect, people are fired without a second thought. People are treated as disposable.

I find a comparison to Tron Legacy (2010) instructive. The plot of Tron is far more sophisticated. The fear expressed in Tron Legacy is far less naive, it is the fear of the self. And a healthy dose of that is something we should all have. Computers were never something that could hurt us, only we can.

Yes, as I detailed above, the computer age has brought negative changes in how we treat each other. But computers did not do this, we did. We feel more powerful when we treat people as disposable. Computers gave us a taste of that power and without realizing it we transferred that to our relationships with others.

WE did that. And we can reverse that. In Tron Legacy, Clu, who was part of Flynn divided out when Flynn was too young to understand the value of imperfection, terrorized the Grid, treating the most beautiful, organic programs as a threat to his desired perfection. A perfection that Flynn himself had ordered before he knew of the future arrival of organic, imperfect programs.

In the real world there is a Clu in all of us. A desire to be perfect and ‘normal’, but as we grow up we realize the elegance of imperfection and begin to celebrate it. As a society we should go back to the way we understood the world pre computer age.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t advocate the loss of technology, rather an understanding that it’s perfect, black and white binary way of understanding the world works only for a computer, not for how we relate to each other. Ones and zeros make computer thoughts nearly perfect but binary code lacks the beauty of imperfection that lives in the human mind.

We should celebrate the imperfection of those around us, not punish it with harsh words, road rage, and over medication, and rejection.

I think the most powerful part of Tron Legacy was Flynn’s quiet assessment that Clu was not an enemy in need of destruction, rather a part of himself in need of acceptance. We have to recognize and accept our imperfection before we can accept it in others.

In 1982 I was wrong about modem technology. By 1993 I had my first one and by 2010 I owned the ultimate blend of computer and phone technology, the very device upon which I watched Tron for the second time in 2011. But in 1982 we had one thing right, we feared the perfection of the computer rather than the Devine imperfection of the human being. Perhaps the message in Tron is not so outdated after all.