Jeff Bridges interviews Roger Deakins (thanks, J).

Classic Viz letterbocks (thanks, G).

Ten masters of the art form discuss filmmaking. Includes this comencement speech from John Lasseter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1333&v=tZ8I0NsfmCQ

Have you ever taken the Myers briggs test? Apparently it’s bullshit.

The 5-hour version of Apocalypse Now, anyone?

Tarantino interviewed by Brett Easton Ellis.

Some of these 53 things that thrill British people are rather nice (thanks, T).

And some very funny British tweets (thanks, D).

Little Spermaid? 21 Hump Street? Porn versions of proper movies.

Wildlife photographer of the year.

How to cut a cake properly (thanks, L):

Somewhat related: the scientific way to find Wally/Waldo (thanks, J).

Stunning collection of Pantone, 271 years before Pantone (thanks, D).

Slapdash supercars (thanks, J).

Bach’s Prelude Number One played with boomwhackers (thanks, G):

‘You’re a bagel, a French bagel!” (Thanks, G):

And some brilliant shit tattoos (thanks, G).

Beautiful horror film posters (thanks, J).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u-dxn8IgQo

(Thanks, Jon.)

Are they?

In this instance I’m talking about awards that are a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact: Oscars, Grammys, Cannes Lions, Sports Personality of the Year, Rear of the Year, BAFTAs etc.

Well, let’s take a look at the supposed pros and cons:

Pros

They serve to stimulate. In theory, other people who work in the industry being awarded see what gets the awards and it inspires them to greater heights in their own work.

They publicise the industry and work concerned, so that perhaps more people will be interested in becoming musicians, ‘rears’ etc. This grows the talent pool for future ‘better’ work.

They generate money for some people. For example, the advertising revenue created by the Oscars ceremony keeps the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences going all year.

Award dos are fun.

To many people they are proof that the awarded people are good at what they do, and therefore worthy of employment.

Cons

The idea that matters of opinion become matters of fact (eg: the winner of the Oscar for Best Screenplay is considered by many to be the best screenplay of that year) closes off avenues of creativity. People who are inspired by these works then believe that such work is what they should aspire to, leading to a repetition of the winning work rather than actual innovation. There is definitely an ‘Oscar’ type of film and, I would argue, a typical Cannes Grand Prix winner, which can only be a symptom of the dead hand of familiarity guiding the judges’ decisions

They clearly don’t lead to better work. Are the movies of the last ten years better than those of the Seventies? What about the music? Are ads better now than they ever have been? Of course not. So even with shoulders of giants to stand on and millions of awards to inspire us, the improvement is virtually non-existant.

Most are a thin, pointless sham, with no intrinsic value, and therefore a waste of money. Add up all the award entries and event organisations across the world and you have billions that could be better spent on feeding the starving or building the giant ark we’re all going to need when the Polar ice caps melt.

They have an importance that takes precedence over what the art is attempting to achieve. Call me cynical, but I have a feeling that some advertising creatives would rather win awards (ie, have the approval of seven people a bit like themselves) than have a 10% increase in sales (ie change the behaviour of millions). I also have a feeling people (possibly including Anthea Turner) have deliberately performed buttock-enhancing exercises to improve their chances of winning Rear of the Year. Both are sad states of affairs.

So what do you think?

Are awards a GOOD THING or a SHIT THING? (No comments suggesting they’re a bit of both/somewhere in between please.)

We like long build ups and disappointing drops (thanks, H):

The Miles Davis door (thanks, F):

This guy is happy to admit he doesn’t ‘get’ art (thanks, T).

Watch food being digested:

Marvellous Scottish humour (thanks, T).

Mash up by a director to introduce himself at a film festival (thanks, J):

Van Damme’s Kills (takes half an hour; thanks, J):

Dad jokes a-plenty (thanks, J).

This is funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKD5pKzzXvU&feature=youtu.be

Accidental vajayjay (thanks, T2).

Check this one out.

The comedy stuff at the beginning is interesting, but later on they discuss God, morality, language and all sorts of other things.

Enjoy.

UPDATE: forgot to mention that there are LOADS of great interviews on the You Made It Weird podcast. The Keegan-Michael Key one is very funny then very interesting.

And Tim’s greatest song:

Don’t want anything.

I was introduced to this young guy the other day, must have been mid 20’s.
I asked him what he was up to and he said “I want to direct”
I thought about that, the “I want to” bit.
I’ve come to a conclusion.
I think wanting to do something is probably the biggest single barrier to actually doing something. The psychological and literal mechanics behind wanting to do something are the polar opposite to those that would facilitate doing it. All the time you are wanting to do something there’s no way you’re going to do it.

In many creative fields there are one or two people who are so successful that they look as if they’re playing an entirely different game to everyone else.

For example, in the world of movies James Cameron is the only person who has produced (and written/directed) a film that has grossed over two billion dollars. But he’s done it twice. Over the recent history of film so many very smart people have spent so much money trying to create blockbuster movies that you’d almost expect someone else to have joined him on this list. How come the combined creativity and marketing muscle of Disney/Marvel/Joss Whedon couldn’t get Avengers up there? What about the Lord Of The Rings movies? Or Jurassic World? (by the way, I’m not talking about subjective measures of quality here; just the objective measures of popularity). No one comes close to Cameron, yet so many try.

In the world of pop music Taylor Swift somehow manages to be the only person who produces over a million sales in the first week of her albums’ releases. No one else does it at all – not Beyonce, Drake or Ed Sheeran – and yet she does it over and over again. There are lots of popular artists, why is her success so much greater, so consistently, than all those other smart, talented people?

In the world of books we have J.K. Rowling and E.L. James miles out in front of everyone else.

In U.S. radio, there’s Howard Stern and some other people I’ve never heard of.

In the tech world, there’s Apple, a very large gap, then everyone else.

So how do these people (and Apple) go so far beyond the top of their field?

Is James Cameron such a great reader of the zeitgeist, or human emotions, that he can tap into parts of us the rest cannot? Are Harry Potter and 50 Shades of Grey such amazing stories that they clearly go beyond all the other books in the marketplace? What about Taylor Swift? Is her music so much better than everyone else’s?

I’d argue that this has something to do with perceived quality: Swift’s music is really catchy pop; the technological craft behind Titanic and Avatar was (for its time) incredible; Howard Stern’s interviews are consistently more incisive, perceptive and entertaining than anyone else’s; Apple’s products work better and more reliably than those of its competitors.

But why so far ahead?

Sorry. I think you might be expecting me to answer that question.

I have no idea.

If you do, don’t be shy; that’s what the comments section is for.

29-minute chat with the great Roger Deakins (thanks, J).

Cool/interesting/creepy art (thanks, T).

Starting with Earth as a marble: the solar system to scale (thanks, J2):

Try some abstract browsing (thanks, J2).

How do boxers recover from the death of an opponent? (Thanks, J2.)

Tarantino’s foot fetish (thanks, J2):

The wonderful Ron Pickering:

Messi reacting to the Ronaldo movie trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfEdGPFsO6w

Some fine Chapelle (thanks, G):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSxZlS_EgiU

Creative Review has all the background here.

But I imagine most of the talk will be around Mr. Glazer’s weird and very wonderful idents.

Closer to Under The Skin than any of his recent ad work, this is an amazing collection of visuals in a narrative that makes just enough sense to confuse and delight in equal measure.

Nice one, Chris and John (and everyone else).

A Black Pencil is on the way.