Thursday, December 7, 2017

A TRIBUTE TO DAVID PENDLETON


Please join us for a Tribute to David Pendleton

Sunday, December 10th, 5:00pm 
at Harvard Film Archive 
24 Quincy St, Cambridge, MA 02138

I will be screening one of my films and 
saying a few words in honor of David, 
along with many other friends and colleagues.  




David, you are so deeply missed by everyone who had the pleasure of knowing you.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Premiere of Petrichor

WORLD PREMIERE!

PETRICHOR 

(2017)

16mm, color, silent, 15 min

(MFA Thesis Film / University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee) 

Screening this Sunday, May 21, 2017, 7:00pm


KENILWORTH SQUARE EAST GALLERY 
(1925 E. Kenilworth Place, Milwaukee WI 53202)
Free admission...Refreshments to follow


Shot on Kodak Vision 3 7203, 7207, 7219; Fuji F-64D; Eterna Vivid 160; Eastman EXR 7248 and EXR 7293 (quite expired).
 Print by Fotokem.


I had been dreaming of becoming a storm chaser for the past several summers. Since I was a child thunderstorms have always inspired a most delicious combination of revelry and terror within me. 

In the summers of 2015/16 I set out on a few of my own (timid) forays into storm chasing…hoping not so much to capture ‘the deadliest tornado’, but instead, portray, on film, some of the ethereal colors and impossibly dark atmospheres that are at the core of my fascination with this weather phenomenon.




On one level, the film is the narrative of a mid-western thunderstorm…with images of gathering cumulonimbus clouds, downpours, windswept landscapes…and a sense of progression. But there is also a willful subversion of this order, with a play of color fields, film grain, and flashes from a wandering mind’s eye. Finally, like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, we arrive at a locale that might exist only in dreams. 

My personal journey in making this film brought me to an unexpected feeling of childhood nostalgia…and a sense of mourning for a lost American landscape (a feeling not unrelated to the current horrors of the American political scene.)






Monday, April 24, 2017

Discovering Color Negative, An Introduction

Note: Everything in this writing regarding the filmmaking process and the particular visual qualities of film stock is from the perspective of viewing the film image directly, on a film projector; either camera original, or in the case of negative, a standard-lite, first-generation print.

Since the demise of Kodak's sumptuous Ektachrome 100D (7285) in 2012, I've been shooting quite a lot of their Vision-3 color negative stocks.*  The transition from reversal to negative was neither easy, nor welcome, however. After 30-odd years of finessing my cinematographic abilities, I was feeling pretty confident as long as there was reversal in my camera. But life is like that I suppose. There is never a right time to lose a material that is so central to one's artistic vision.

My relationship with color reversal motion picture film began in 1982 with Kodachrome 40 Super 8 purchased at a local King Soopers store in Littleton, Colorado. At the time, a roll of K40 would set you back $3.99, and processing, an additional $1.59. I don't know what lab did the processing for King Soopers, but the quality was bottom-of-the-barrel. Rolls often came back dirty and scratched, with less-than-inspiring color. Every once in awhile a roll was lost or destroyed, but King Soopers always happily supplied a new roll and a little note of apology. I was too young then to understand how film labs worked, but no matter: if it weren't for King Soopers, film might not have been such a feasible hobby for a teenager with a weekly allowance of ten bucks. 

At 18 I started film school at CU-Boulder and a year later purchased my first 16mm camera (a Bell & Howell 70DR) along with two rolls of Kodachrome 25. By then I had some ideas about film stocks, having been introduced to the stunning, beautiful, and challenging films of Stan Brakhage, Bruce Conner, and so many others. 16mm was a new and exciting animal and I couldn't wait to try to tame it.

Before I met Stan Brakhage face-to-face, I used to see him around "The Hill" (Boulder's retail district near campus.) My first encounter with Stan "in the wild" was while doing laundry at "Doozy Duds". Fearful of approaching him, I watched in awe/consternation as he solemnly sorted his underwear, socks, and shirts. My young mind had trouble reconciling the fact that one of the greatest artists of the 20th century did his own laundry. (Little did I know about the lives of experimental filmmakers.)

Other times I would see Stan dropping off or picking up his 16mm film from the developing counter at Jones Drug and Camera. (Jones was a Hill mainstay for so many years...and on a recent visit to Boulder I was grief-stricken to find it closed and converted to a Starbucks).

But back to 1989: I inquired at Jones about their processing...it was sent to Kodak and the cost was $36.99 per 100ft. (Ouch!) I wanted to be like Stan, but that price was out of my league. So I started researching alternative ways to get my Kodachrome developed. After some effort, I came across an ad in the back of Shutterbug for Dean's Grand Canyon Color in Arizona. I recall the lady who answered the phone seemed unfamiliar with 16mm (after all, this was well into the era of the camcorder). But after a little checking and a return phone call, she proudly informed me that yes, they could process it, and they would only charge twice the cost of Super 8...a very reasonable $12.50. 

I suffered what seemed like an eternity of anticipation/ butterflies during the week it took for those first rolls to return from their chemical sojourn in Arizona. When the package finally arrived, I can only characterize the ritual of threading up and witnessing those images as something akin to a first kiss; or first love; or first intoxication. It was physical...like the sensation you get in your solar-plexus during a roller-coaster ride.

Being well accustomed to the soft indistinctness of Super 8, my first viewing of camera-original 16mm gave me an almost visceral sense of both expansion and concentration. Yes, I had seen some incredible (and rare) prints of classic avant-garde films at CU...but this! This was camera original! Like finding a direct route to nirvana...veil had been lifted.

From 1972-2005, Kodak produced Kodachrome with virtually no change in formula. That might well be a record for any film stock and it is most definitely a record for a color stock. 16mm Kodachrome was available in two iterations: Daylight balanced 25 ISO and Type A (Tungsten balanced) 40 ISO.


My last roll of Kodachrome 16mm, exposed in June, 2009 (with Dwayne's twin-check number.)

There were interesting differences in color palette between the two Kodachrome emulsions. Nathaniel Dorsky summed it up most eloquently when he likened it to the plumage of birds: K25 was 'male' (intensely saturated, demanding attention) and K40, 'female' (subdued, less conspicuous).

Yet the inherent characteristics of the two Kodachrome emulsions underwent further (albeit subtle) changes depending on the lab that processed it. From the mid-80s to the mid-2000s, there were a number of 16mm Kodachrome labs around the world. Of those I personally used, Kodak Switzerland and Kodak Palo Alto were the king and queen, respectively. Kodachrome from either of these labs was simply perfection, with fine, gentle grain, spectacular saturation, and the most subtle tonal gradations. Dean's Grand Canyon Color produced a grittier/grainier, less-refined look with colors that tended toward the primary (In the early 90s, Dean's was bought out by Fuji Trucolor and remained relatively unchanged until closing in the early 2000s). There was also Kodak in Dallas; a mostly capable lab with sometimes spotty quality control (particularly known for the infamous blue scratches on Super 8). For a brief time, A&I Color in Los Angeles were running Kodachrome and were excellent. After the year 2000, digital still photography was really taking over and the labs were starting to close/consolidate. Dwayne's Photo of Parsons, Kansas became the last K-14 processor, running continuously from about 1996 until the chemicals were no longer available in 2010. I believe their processing machine actually came from Kodak Dallas, but their look was fairly different. However it was consistent through those years--somewhere between the 'true-grit' of Fuji and the areté of Lausanne/Palo Alto.






Occasionally I'd spice up my Kodachrome diet with a little bit of Ektachrome VNF "Video News Film" (1977-2005). VNF came in four different (and faster) speeds. In general, VNF produced a softer image with a rather nostalgic feel. The colors were subdued and the blacks not quite as deep. Color would be de-emphasized in daylight and vivid at night. It wasn't a 'realistic' stock per-se, and it could turn ugly if you weren't careful. VNF was Kodak's first attempt to engineer a film designed for video transfer rather than projection. Fuji also made their version of VNF. I only got to try it once when it was already quite expired. By the 90s I believe Fuji had stopped making any color reversal in 16mm.






Filmmakers working in the 50s, 60s and 70s had the delight of many, many reversal stocks from Kodak as well as a panoply of material from Ansco/GAF, Agfa, Ferrania/3M, Fuji, Perutz, Orwo and probably several others I haven't heard of. Most of these companies were either out of the film business or concentrating on still photography by the early to mid-80s, thanks to the ubiquity of the camcorder. Perhaps I will go into greater detail on those historical stocks in a future post.

I believe the alchemic nature of film manufacturing and processing is a major element in the delightfully varied visual landscape of film-based cinema, but it is far from the only factor. There's also the camera and lenses with their respective quirks (especially evident in equipment that is more than half a century old)...But ultimately it comes down to the individual behind the camera and at the editing bench. Gesture and personal idiosyncrasy are the unifying touches in this witches brew of alchemy...an artist must become the gatekeeper of (and conduit for) this unpredictable zone between science and superstition (as Rod Serling might say). How else could one explain the near-infinite visual variations in the history of cinema? 

At first glance, the recent generations of Kodak color negative (Vision-2 and Vision-3) seemed to represent the final nail-in-the-coffin for alchemy in cinema. It appeared Kodak had finally achieved cold uniformity and computer-like precision in a process that had been, until now, subject to so many uncontrolled variations. (In case I haven't been clear enough up to this point: the artist film--as opposed to the commercial film--do not reject, but rather embrace these variations, and utilize them for meaning.) 

On the other hand, commercial producers see something like film grain (god forbid) as an obstacle to the effective portrayal of soap, or sex...or whatever it is they're trying to sell. Kodak appeared happy to oblige, boasting of the Vision series as 'optimized for digital scanning' (in layman's terms: having color that was neither here, nor there). Kodak also claimed improved intercutability; that is, the idea that there would be no difference in 'look' between the different film speeds in the Vision series (an almost outright lie, as I will explain in part 2.) These changes, when combined with Hollywood's all-consuming love affair with the 'digital intermediate', meant there weren't many enticing examples of the Vision series to go by. My own small trials Vision 2 were pretty halting as well.

Though I'd managed to stockpile about twenty rolls of Ektachrome before it was sold out, 2013-14 proved to be bittersweet years (with emphasis on the bitter). Kodak was in bankruptcy and I was even more worried there would be no film at all by next year. If they managed to survive, I wondered how I was going to be able to work with such (seemingly) soulless stuff as Vision 3. 

Every time I loaded a roll from my dwindling supply of Ektachrome, it was a little death

(To be continued).

*Kodak announced the re-birth of Ektachrome for the fourth quarter of 2017: read about it here

**And Film Ferrania is (re)building a film factory for the next 100 years of analog film...with color reversal promised as a first product   


Tuesday, November 17, 2015

A Trip Down Memory Lane

San Francisco in the 1990s was a youth-heady time where personal cinema oozed juicy and ripe with potential.


No where more so than at Total Mobile Home microCINEMA...and each lovingly hand-made calendar will remain forever burned into my visual memory. 

This reminiscence by Christine Metropoulos sums up the atmosphere of the times quite beautifully: A CINEMATIC REVERIE IN FIVE PARTS: VISIONS OF VENUES IN THE 1990s (excerpt).

Thanks for the memories, David Sherman and Rebecca Barten!

Monday, November 16, 2015

Reprint of AMIA piece

This article was first published in The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image ArchivistsSpring 2012 issue. Though I am currently shooting color negative (due to the demise of Ektachrome in 2013) Film Ferrania is on track to manufacture a new color reversal film stock within the next year.



AT THIS MOMENT


I’m a committed color reversal filmmaker. I started shooting Super 8mm when I was twelve. At twenty, I discovered 16mm Kodachrome. Sometime later, I made a private commitment to explore the film medium until the end of my time here on earth.

Owning the simple, quality tools of amateur moviemaking (wind‐up camera, non-scratching projector, hot splicer, etc.) is easier today than when I started. They’re unobtrusive fixtures in my life and were built to last. Their effect on the psyche is far-reaching, however. The need to make films frequently springs to life in a reverie of hedonism, so much that even food or sex can’t compete. Projecting a color reversal original induces a superb high or, if you’re lucky, hallucinations.

I relish the anxiety of waiting for the film to come back from the lab and still get butterflies when I thread up a new roll. I can’t explain what kind of films I make. I’m an amateur with a day job. My films are public displays of affection.

Nearly ninety years after the advent of 16mm, I am aware how strange this lifestyle may seem. There are other mediums better suited to graphic imagery, but the sensual qualities of color reversal are what free my imagination. The definition of boring is trying to capture how the world really looks; capturing how it feels from an ecstatic state is profoundly interesting.

The ability to shoot, project, and edit from the same roll is a marvel of portability and economy. To work with color reversal is to sculpt elements forged in the explosions of distant stars at bargain‐basement prices. In skilled hands, color reversal film doesn’t have to resort to trickery. One of its gifts is a gritty, but otherworldly, perspective.

Yet I have doubts about cinema and myself. Is it wrong to dedicate oneself to the pursuit of beauty while there is so much ugliness and injustice in the world? Using film today is a willful partnership with uncertainty. It’s a corporeal dance with death but without the glamour. And I do understand the appeal of digital technology. Being a simulation of the corporeal, it affords some protection from doubt and a hint of immortality.

Making a print is the beginning of a more grown‐up effort, as my role shifts from pleasure seeker to preservationist. I do it because I’d like to share my work with a wider public. Someday I may project only my originals, accepting that they may be quickly destroyed. For now I accept the less‐than‐perfect materials we’ve been given.

Kodak’s Color Internegative II film (32/7272) is a high‐resolution print stock designed for low‐contrast color reversal originals. Yet a large majority of 16mm films have been made on projection contrast original, particularly those of interest to archives. In my work, every shot should be timed for maintenance—no change in color balance, no density correction, no scene matching. For this reason, I have learned to time my originals by eye, at least as a way of communicating my desires to the lab’s timer.

My sainted lab graciously humors me with a special internegative treatment: the lightest post-flashing combined with a 1.5 stop pull process. This is one bit of trickery that works and will greatly expand the limits of shadow detail, without compromising density. Shadows are the hinterlands where a large part of the magic of reversal occurs. Nathaniel Dorsky takes it even further. For him, a print can never be more than a facsimile. His reversal‐based films are edited to the qualities of the facsimile, not the original. He makes an internegative of many times more footage than the finished film and chooses only those shots that “translate” for the final cut.

A movie camera and body working in tandem can channel the subconscious. One could not set out to invent this rarified system on purpose. Its very lack of sophistication demands that you mean what you shoot and shoot what you mean. This is a form that exists at this particular moment, on this particular planet, due to an impossible confluence of factors.

Like many, I mourned the death of Kodachrome. My Bolex and I became one with it over the years. I almost never used my light meter with it. Kodachrome was the standard by which other films were judged. Its colors were forged in molten steel, and its blacks were more alive with shape and dimension than any 3‐D production.

Kodak then gave us Ektachrome 100D (7285)—a modern, “T‐Grain” emulsion. It is a happy film stock at first, and I’ve had to struggle to pull up the stakes of Kodachrome’s moodiness. But the initial amusement‐park rendition is not superficial; there’s a youthful wisdom there, in contrast to the stoicism of Kodachrome. I’ve learned to coax 7285’s subtleties to the fore. And I believe, as Stan Brakhage once told me, they are my subtleties—particularities of color that belong to no one else. This is one of them most profound mysteries of film, and it cuts across all genres: how so many people can use similar materials yet come up with such an infinitely shifting palate of possibilities. I guess that would be the definition of art.

I believe that as filmmakers, audiences, and preservationists, it is always in our interest to vocalize those ideas that might get us branded as “artsy,” “impractical,” and “crazy.” In years to come, these ideas will be more important. I hope it won’t be too late. I’m heartened to see a few younger people discovering the sensual delights of vinyl records, black‐and‐white photography, and filmmaking after having known only a simulated reality. After all, a life without a little hedonism is hardly worth living.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Article by Carson Lund

A sincere thanks to Carson Lund for his very generous writing on my films.


Direct link to Carson Lund's Blog: 


"Are the Hills Going to March Off"--A First Exposure to the Films of Timoleon Wilkins... February, 2014

Friday, February 21, 2014


A First Exposure to the Films of Timoleon Wilkins...

As subjects, roiling water surfaces and bokeh are fairly played out in lyrical/personal/diaristic 16mm Bolex filmmaking. That Timoleon Wilkins manages something like a fresh take on them says a great deal about the level of his sensitivity. Among other things, Los Caudales (2005) features dozens of seagull’s-eye view close-ups of lapping water on high-contrast black-and-white reversal stock, the resultant image a defamiliarizing dance of bright white dots and squiggles on a jet-black surface. Parts of Quartet (In Camera) (2009) study permutations of light photographed through telephoto lenses, and instead of an anarchic sprawl of light blobs, Wilkins achieves something closer to the balletic choreography of Len Lye’s films, albeit in a far more muted and unpredictable register. It bears mentioning that this is only a fragment of the material Wilkins finds fit to turn his camera toward.

Educated under the tutelage of Stan Brakhage at the University of Colorado and far from quiet about his admiration for and familiarity with filmmakers like Nathaniel Dorsky, Bruce Baillie, and Bruce Conner, Wilkins sits pretty squarely in the romantic tradition of avant-garde cinema, the strand of underground filmmaking that valorizes the cameraman as a soloist with a unique ability to imprint his or her own subjectivity on the camera eye. Up to a point, Wilkins benefits from the acknowledgment of such ancestry. For one, it’s part of what brought him to Boston in the first place, Dorsky being the relatively fashionable commodity that he is, at least in the bone-dry marketplace of contemporary experimental cinema. (Rob Todd’s continuing obscurity, on the other hand, needs to be corrected.)



Still, Wilkins’ work creates distinct impressions. The most conspicuous of these is tied to his status as a lifelong citizen of the West (Colorado, Mexico, and Los Angeles are the touch points I’m aware of), the landscapes of which inflect his films to a significant degree. If Peter Hutton’s New York Portraits, sublime as they can be, are quintessential expressions of the cramped geography of the East Coast, Wilkins’ films achieve something similarly archetypal with regards to the openness of the West. Big skies, sacred-seeming cloud formations, vast plains, elongated highways, wandering cattle, and vast beaches are all subject to scrutiny. Land merges into sky, thunderstorms erupt (or are merely implied to erupt through inspired aperture futzing), and Wilkins’ camera follows telephone lines along the highway as if to celebrate the freedom of movement afforded by the landscape. In my own experiences out West, such ample space means feeling liberated from staying too long in one place; movement becomes a texture of life.

Made between 1998 and 2010, Lake of the SpiritsLos CaudalesThe CrossingQuarter, and, especially, Drifter—all of which were shown at the Harvard Film Archive’s recent tribute to Wilkins—evoke this restlessness. Four of them are silent, yet the dynamism of their montage and the diversity of their images generates a tone more exploratory than contemplative. Intermittent flashes of bright light (or perhaps merely blank leader, it’s hard to tell) act as optical refreshment as well as ways to transition between rushes of abstraction (bokeh, light leaks, water surfaces, objects photographed and/or processed in such a way that they become unidentifiable) and sections of documentary-like observation (flowers, landscapes, sparingly used human faces). In posing these two representational extremes side by side, Wilkins is constantly seeking their points of intersection, the moments where the banal turns into something magical. Edited largely in-camera—that is, conceived as a linear flow of images in conjunction with the filming stage—these films are therefore documents of Wilkins’ thought processes while shooting them—the flickering of his consciousness, if you will. And they are unbelievably beautiful.  -Carson Lund