I haven't battled in a while either, it was good to get back into it!

Even though I bagged them for the battle I thought the beat/effects/flow worked really well in yours Jumar. The multis in your first were really good.

I'm glad you thought the style was interesting, I've been trying to put together a simularly toned album, electronic/wierd/shoegaze-y-ish hip hop thing with lots of lofi static sounds. In contrast to the battle rhymes my delivery is (I think) more chill and the lyrics (so far) are mostly nonsense, just sort of background noise.

To put it on the record though, I think your accent is dope!

This was pretty fun, I personally think P Tizzle did way doper. I haven't really battled since like.... the old old old audio battle I had here at GW with Dark Prophecy/ Cassanova. I still have that mp3 too.

But yeah, good battle!

http://www.zshare.net/audio/202221595ed0a091/

I keep real/ and entertaining/ spitting grave shit/
like I was off debating/ with the flow opposating/
from the core/ it's a proper dissing that I'm missing/
tiz objectives to rip wax on a mission for wackness/

checking up my myspace like non stop/
no resting like ya girlfriend when it's my cock/
I didn't bother/ too look up your site/
no rest for the weary/ at best your shits queery so/

I expect really/ to not bust a sweat/
the moves you've got written are soft/ caught spitting it raw /
and undercooked// one hundred percent/ nonsense/
and I prefer the beat to ya accent/

tizzle keeps it simple/ fickle rhyme schemes/
in live scenes/ misguide teens/ into thinking I'm lean/
keeping on the offensive/ and represent
shit that don't stop/ spits that won't rock/

risk a whole lot/ like mics at full speed/
crash and burn like whole lots of ses seeds/
guess I'd throw more/ just spit another line/
but in all honesty/ I don't wanna waste my time/

Some of it doesn't make sense but whatever that's just how I kick it.

I'm up for another round (that's sort of what I thought we were supposed to do, too).

So yeah, working on a second verse for (probably) some time later today.

Makes total sense when you think about it.

http://www.zshare.net/audio/200995442256a2e5/
EDIT: Might be a bit loud when the verse comes up. I mixed this on headphones so, I don't know, just warning anyone that it might be a bit loud.

p tizzle tha past tense of leave will-ya
please kill-ya mic/ go home/ and take ya broken beats with ya/
ya treading on the best kid/ I'm well with finess/
headin the other way quick when ya smell his breath/

head with his mothers way quick/ she's a mouth with a neck so big/
it's got four spines and contract lines/
wack shit live from his verses/ takes time to rehearse/
the wackest words I've heard in service/ for real/ just shut up/

i keep it grumpy/ this kid keeps it soft like gumby/
punches so wack they got bored/ got boards/ and crossed swords/
toss him in the fire/ I'm hot like shots fired/
in drum n snare rhythems/ crush ya limbs/ give em/

whats left of my victem/ p tizzle's rockin it/
not raps just cocks and shit/ exactly opposite/
of the an ar chistic/ ask for more flow/
got ridiculous laughs when he asked for one vote/

like yo this kidss wack/ whats the time on earth/
spits raw like lunchmeat before shit got served/
ya dissing the wrong kid/ ya spitting the wrong shit
the only thing they call ya writtens is nonsense/ for real/

I've already written my first response and will probably record it tommorow or the day after.

worrrrdd nigggggaaa

Also I'm willing to do an audio if P-Tizzle wants to also. I'll be using my Rock Band mic cause I'm dope like that.

I've got to check GW more often. :/

Was anyone kind of disturbed by how all the guilty (or maybe evil?) characters actually end up reasonably safe and unpunished for all their bad deeds, while all the innocent characters who had reasonable intentions ended up dying suddenly and usually in a cruel manner?

I thought the movie was watchable, I guess, but I though it kind of had this cold hearted outlook. The whole movie just felt really bleak to me. Or maybe I didn't expect it to be as dark a comedy as it was.

I'll admit it that it had its funny and surprising moments, though. Brad Pitt was by far the funniest character, in my opinion, next to the head of CIA guy. The machine that George Clooney builds was a great reveal, probably the funniest moment in the movie for me.

well for the starters the issue of racism should be very apparent in most people's lives. I don't think this film was an 'eye opener' to show that racism still exists. Secondly the director has completely spoon fed the audience in showing this. There's no subtlety in showing that racism is a big part of the film. All the characters have direct conversations about being racist and it's so damn shallow.

If you watch a film like No Country for Old Men you will see what subtlety is. The film has a face value of a B movie chase/robbery film, but also has many different levels that include other themes. For instance Sheriff Ed Tom Bell's Cowardice, the changing times of America, the comparisons of good and evil. Much like Kubrick's movies it has all of these themes tightly woven behind a plot driven story.

Crash is just a load of one dimensional characters out right talking about racism, whilst committing racism. There's nothing else to it than that. You can't really read much more into it because it's such a shallow film with only one purpose; to show the world that racism is still out there and it's not there. The problem is most informed people already know this and don't need a second rate film to shove it in our face.

I think it's pretty obvious that Crash isn't trying to subtle or naturalistic. To quote Ebert: "Haggis is telling parables, in which the characters learn the lessons they have earned by their behavior." The bluntness of the characters serves a purpose, and I think it helps to presents the films commentary. I already attempted to explain why it was more than a "racism is still out there" message in some of my previous posts, you could read them if you wanted to.

Just to discuss a bit: The film is an examination of (1), the consequences of racism (or maybe I should say the consequences of making a judgement about anyone or thing, whether that judgement is good or bad), (2) the blurred line between right and wrong, moral and immoral, (3) how the world and environment around them has shaped the judgements of the characters portrayed in the film.

Some examples: The fact that every character is portrayed as either good or bad at first, but then quickly changed. One of the initial scenes has Ludacris and the other guy discussing about racism as they exit a coffee shop or something. I watch and make a judgement about them: they're two seemingly normal guys, even intelligent, thoughtful, until they rob a car from two people at gunpoint. Every character is portrayed at some point as both moral and immoral. The film even asks itself why these characters are racist. I remember Matt Dillon, a morally empty character at first (he sexually abuses a woman he pulled over), until we see how he cares for his sick father, who can't get insurance. When his father's HMO officer denies him medical care, Dillon throws a few racial slurs at her. Racism is a product of anger, but what connection does racism have to anger? Even later we see Dillon save the life of the same woman he groped, does this still make him a despicable character, despite him saving a life?

I think looking at the films message as "racism exists" is more so the opinion of the uninformed viewer than the informed one. Trust someone who reads into and analyzes a good majority of the films he watches: while the films characters can certainly be shallow at times, the film isn't. I don't think a film that asks so much of its viewer can be.

I didn't think the film did anything but point out the bloody obvious

Maybe there could be more of a discourse if you explained what you thought was so obvious?

Also, I was implying that an escapist film like Iron Man is much more easier to digest than a film which, at its least, attempts to communicate a message which not everyone will find pleasant.

I just got really irritated when everyone said they liked it mostly for the crazy original multiple stories converging plot thing, when it had been done so much better prior. Like in Amores Perros.

Actually, Robert Altman had created what is now called the "hyperlink genre" with his ensamble cast films (Nashville, The Player) long before Magnolia, Traffic, or Amores Perros made them popular. Personally, I'm a bit skeptical on the value of using interconnected stories, mostly because it's become a bit of a gimmick in films nowadays, a selling point for "artsy" or "intelligent" cinema.

Also, I'd just like to say that I think Crash used the "hyperlinking" device really well. I think it was the best way to show the varying points of view of the characters and flipsides of racism, being racist and being the one the racism is directed at. It was an interesting dynamic, mostly because the racism happened between the main characters which, while not always sympathetic, had their reasons for their narrow mindedness. It really highlights the complexity of racism.

But then again, maybe I just watch movies differently than most people do on GW. I mean, it's hard for me to believe this movie didn't make anyone here think about racism and how it has affected the modern day society. When I saw the movie it really made me think about why these characters were the way they were, and the film really shows the characters as people who have their reasons to be racist. It made me think of the way racism has shaped who these characters were, which stemmed on to thoughts about how racism has shaped me and the people arround me.

But you know, whatever the fuck! Maybe I should go watch Iron Man and be entertained for two hours! Cause then I wouldn't have to think about all the terrible stuff that happens in the world!

Just as general note I guess: don't let Crash discourage you from seeing Paul Haggis' other film, In the Valley of Elah (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478134/). It was really slept on film when it was released, maybe because the rest of America was angry with Crash winning an Oscar.

And I guess, just to chime in, I thought the movie was actually pretty good. Yes, it is a tad pretentious, some plot points are a little too coincidental for my taste (although, I think that was to make the story more "fable like), but I don't think that makes Crash a terrible film. I think a lot of people really misinterpreted the movie. It's not a movie that says "Everyone is racist, so bah." I think it's a movie that shows the consequences of racism; how the judgements you make about a person based on a generalization, the way they look, how the media has portrayed them, can often be tragic.

It's kind of ironic. Once everyone started claiming it that Crash was terrible, overrated, and not worth any of the Oscars it won, a lot people would preemptively judge it before they even saw it. I guess it pushes the films point home, since a lot of people missed out on a pretty good movie. Call it movie-ism, I guess.

Roman, have you seen the movie The Ninth Configuration? It reminds me of some of Kubrick's stuff for some reason.

I think The Ninth Configuration is visually much different from the typical Stanley Kubrick movie, but I can see a connection of themes between them: insanity, the military, black humor. It's funny because I really didn't think anybody knew about this great movie. The DVD cover is what really caught my attention when I borrowed it from the library.

Also, I really think the director of The Ninth Configuration, William Peter Blatty, is his own mini-auteur in a way. The only two films he's directed, this and The Exorcist 3, are both really interesting and have an great atmosphere to them. Both are really worth watching. I also remember reading that they were both connected storywise, as one character is mentioned in the other film. I never really picked up on it but it is interesting to have two seemingly unrelated films share the same virtual world.

On topic, does anyone enjoy the cinematography in the later Kubrick films as much as I do? I remember the scene where the astronauts find the monolith in 2001, the camera points at these lights which create this interesting looking fades on the film. I remember seeing them in A Clockwork Orange and The Shining too. Like, the lighting is always super good, despite some things looking very much like a movie set. Maybe it's the crazy retro decor and patterns that make me like it too?

I saw this like 7-8 years ago, wasn't it made in like 75? I spose there hasn't been many 'good new horror' posts though so far enough.

Yeah I kind of just ignored the top post in the "recent" aspect...

Whatever. :/

Define "oldbie."

oh shiiii-

One genuinely unnerving horror movie is Cure by Kiyoshi Kurosawa (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123948/).

You can read about it on imdb. It's a really, really good serial killer film, involving a detective trying to find the connections between unrelated murders performed by unrelated people, only connected by the carving of an X on the victim. Very creepy and hypnotic. The director is most famous for his film Pulse, which was remade in the US a little while ago. I've been a big fan of his work and I think he's a lesser known modern auteur. Most of his movies are good horror films but this one I think is my favourite. His films always have this great tension which he builds and builds but never release with a shock scare. It's really exciting.

Another that comes to mind: Don't Look Now (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069995/).

This film also has a very creepy mood to it. It is set in Italy and is about this couple who happen to keep catching glimpses of what looks like their dead child around the canals. The only other film I've seen by the director, Nicolas Roeg, is Bad Timing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080408/) with Art Garfunkel, which is a pretty good drama, but completely unrelated to Don't Look Now. Both films are really worth checking out, though. I'm just mentioning it because he hasn't made anything horror-ish since.

The third and forth recommendations might are both by the same director, Peter Weir: Picnic at Hanging Rock (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073540/), and The Last Wave (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076299/).

Both films feel very similar to each other. Picnic at Hanging Rock is set in the 1900s and is about a group of schoolgirls who dis sapear into a rock formation during a school trip and fail to return. The film follows the townspeople as they try and find the girls. Really creepy and eerie.

The Last Wave is about a lawyer who takes on the job of defending some aboriginals in a murder case. He begins to have premonitions of a world disaster in his dreams, which he finds are connected to the tribal aboriginals and their concept of dreamtime. It's a very surreal films where time loops onto itself and they tension of probable disaster is really scary.

Also I want to note that these films might not fit everyones idea of horror, there's not a lot of blood and guts or zombies or monsters. Their much more psychological so they might not be for everyones taste. But I don't know, I liked them so maybe someone else will also.

Cinemek is a 35mm lens adapter for digital cameras. It works by allowing you to attach a variety of lenses to the end of your digital camera, giving you more control of the depth of field than the stock lenses for the camera would. I've never used one so I don't want to expand to much on it, because I don't know to much about it. I know that there a variety of 35mm adapters available commercially and that some people actually put them together themselves. There's also a bunch of nuances to the footage, like it being recorded upside down, the lenses need to take in more light, stuff like that. Here's a forum with more information on them.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=113

Here is also a forum on the site which has a lot of footage from the DVX, some with adapters and some without. Some of the footage is really good, but some of it can look terrible too. Good looking footage usually depends on getting the right exposure, framing properly, color correcting, etc. But here is the site with more user posted footage:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=12

I haven't bought a DVX or anything, I've only used it on some shoots, but I've always felt that if I had the money I'd probably get it and trick it out. It's a pretty expensive investment though. Most people I know who have it are videographers who make a living using it so they make a return eventually if they work enough, you know?

I still think HD doesn't match up to film stock, it just has that 'classic' look and your film will look 10 times better than any DV imo

Film is way more complicated than digital in many ways. I can't particular say much about super 8 footage, but when I shot 16mm film for school there was a lot of speculation involved, especially since you couldn't really see what you were shooting and the only way to make sure you had the right exposure was to measure the light with a light meter. You also had to make sure you were getting the proper film to shoot with depending on the lighting situation, different films and filters were needed depending on whether the light was coming from the sun outside or from a light fixture. It was just a big pain in the ass really. I can't really imagine someone investing in expensive film rolls and a film camera and lenses unless they had some previous experience with it or they just have some money to burn. Of course, if you want a film with a "super 8" style then I think it would certainly be worth the investment, if the film calms for it.

Anyway, I wouldn't discredit DV so quickly, as both DV and film can look ridiculously beautiful, but if its properly shot. One somewhat famous example (on dvxuser.com at least) of great DV cinematography is this short film, SIMILIO shot with a DVX-100 and Cinemek35 lens adapter.

http://www.macgregor.autoecstasy.com/similo._english.h264.mov