 | The plea bargain is the moment when the case pivoted from the story of what Polanski did to Samantha Gailey to the story of what the system did to him. Polanski’s detractors focus on the first, his supporters on the second, but the two are interwined, and both were shaped by the influence of Polanski celebrity. |
✖ Via The New Yorker: “The Celebrity Defense. Sax, fame and the case of Roman Polanski” by Jeffrey Toobin, Dec. 14, 2009, p. 57 Excellent article on the subject : Toobin makes an explicite effort to restrain himself to the presentation of hard (legal) facts.
Jeffrey Toobin is a staff writer to The New Yorker. He is also “the author of five books, including The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, which won the 2008 J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize” (TNY). Check his official website. |
↳Shareskandalon
Feb 26 link notes
journalism
celebrity
film
filmmaker
law
justice
United-States
culture
sex
girls
 | ― I know it’s hard, Miles, but try to think of this experience as a miracle of science.
― A miracle of science is going to the hospital for a minor operation, I come out the next day, my rent isn’t months overdue. That’s a miracle of science. This is what I call a cosmic screwing. And then where am I anyhow? What happened to everybody? Where are all my friends?
― You must understand that everyone you knew in the past has been dead nearly two hundred years.
― BUT THEY ALL ATE ORGANIC RICE! |
✖ Via Sleeper, Woody Allen, 1973 Full script available over at Script-O-Rama. |
↳Shareskandalon
Feb 25 link notes
art
movie
film
filmmaker
future
science fiction
food
health
life
death
past
evolution
 | Film-makers have got better and better at constructing shots so that their lengths grab our attention,” says James Cutting, a psychologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. He analysed 150 Hollywood movies and found that the more recent they were, the more closely their shot lengths tended to follow a mathematical pattern that also describes human attention spans. |
✖ Via New Scientist: “Solved: The mathematics of the Hollywood blockbuster” by Ewen Callaway, Feb. 18, 2010 Professional website of James Cutting, author of the study. Full PDF of the study (James E. Cutting, Jordan E. DeLong and Christine E. Nothelfer, “Attention and the Evolution of Hollywood Film” Psychological Science, XX(X) 1-8, published online on Feb 5, 2010).
Interesting study (it’s far from being the first scientific attempt at explaining box office success), VERY BAD TITLE from the New Scientist. Nothing was “solved”, for at least two reasons.
1) Some common aspects were observed in 150 movies, after the fact. Therefore, the study could have the value of a good but limited deduction. Its inductive and predictive potential still needs to be demonstrated.
2) More importantly, one won’t be able to find any satisfactory description of what a “blockbuster” is in this study. In fact, there isn’t any mention of the word “blockbuster” in it. Instead, one will notice a normative effort to classify a number a films according to a certain number of criteria :
“We chose 150 films, 10 released in each of 15 years, every 5 years from 1935 to 2005. The Supplemental Material available on-line provides the complete list. Assembled from information in several on-line databases, the films from 1980 onward were among the highest grossing of their year and the earlier films were among those with the largest number of viewer ratings on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb; http://us.imdb.com). The films were also chosen, as best we could, to represent five genres—action, adventure, animation, comedy, and drama— although their distribution could not be uniform because of vagaries in Hollywood production and changes in social milieu and viewers’ taste. Genres were defined by the first-designated category for each film on the IMDb.”
Same problem with the title Neatorama chose for the post they published about the story : “The Code for Making Hollywood Blockbusters”. But Neatorama is no weekley international science magazine… |
↳Shareskandalon
Feb 21 link notes reblogged from AUSTIN KLEON : TUMBLR
art
communication
film
movie
blockbuster
science
critic
mathematic
study
identity
 | PLAYBOY: How much did you get into calibrating your movie heroine’s hotness?
CAMERON: Right from the beginning I said, “She’s got to have tits,” even though that makes no sense because her race, the Na’vi, aren’t placental mammals. I designed her costumes based on a taparrabo, a loincloth thing worn by Mayan Indians. We go to another planet in this movie, so it would be stupid if she ran around in a Brazilian thong or a fur bikini like Raquel Welch in One Million Years B.C. |
✖ Via Playboy : “James Cameron: Playboy Interview” by Stephen Rebello, Dec. 2010. |
↳Shareskandalon
Feb 15 link notes
filmmaker
movie
film
girls
sex
humor