Ink

A grinning, soul-sucking Incubus from the low-budget film Ink, currently on Hulu.

Worth a watch--combining some of the better features of Run, Lola, Run (fast-forwarding and reversing through people's lives), The Matrix (kung fu protectors from another reality), Wings of Desire (the voyeurism of the disembodied) and a hint of the pre-director's cut Donnie Darko (eldritch forces swirl around suburbia).

A caveat, that tedg nails thusly:

The price they decided to pay was to put it all into the service of a profoundly syrupy confection of moral simplicity. family/child = good, money/career = bad. But one level higher it becomes coolly reversed. This is film, but the bad guys are the ones with the film presence. The saviors are a storyteller and a blind seer who never meet. The conflict is designed not to reflect real conflict, but something staged so that you can see.

It is an acceptable price. The storytelling is wonderful, just wonderful.

As for the bad guys, some creative use of low budget digital effects to create indelible images. The incubi, all male, sport '70s aviator glasses and square transparent shields suspended in front of their faces; these portable lens/monitors crackle and sizzle with CGI static and project jumpcuts of their moving features, suggesting some kind of time distortion. Terry Gilliam-ish but with a digital mashup vibe.

Afterthought: This would have been an arthouse hit a la Pi if anyone in the film biz had had the smarts to distribute it. The film found its audience through Torrent downloads and web buzz.

fundraisers: afc and rhizome

Paddy Johnson is having a fundraiser and I just made a contribution. A writer for a New York newspaper recently emailed me asking (i) why I thought people were attracted to Johnson's blog, and (ii) what she does that other people writing about art don't.
Here was my reply:

Johnson's blog blends thoughtful writing about art, news, humor, original reporting, lively comment threads, guest contributions, and "dish."
She was an immediate hit because she calls 'em like she sees 'em in an art world where everyone watches what they say.
She is also one of the few writers that can talk intelligently about two fields, art and new media, and their points of crossover.
This has attracted two large readerships that might not otherwise mingle.

Speaking of new media, Rhizome.org is also having a fund drive and I contributed there, too. (Just call me Santa.) Things I'd like to see happen there in the next year:

1. Redirect old posts to their new editorial numbers. Just noticed that sometime between July and December 2008 Rhizome completely renumbered its blog posts so "permalinks" to posts prior to that time period are broken (including many links from this blog*). No redirect, just a 404 message.

2. Restore reblogged content from the non-Rhizome web community. After its short-lived but vital "glasnost" era of guest editors and heavy reblogged content from non-staffers (around 2006 or so) Rhizome removed the reblogged content (including posts of mine) from their blog archives. Eyebeam also zapped years of guest content--what is going on? The Rhizome posts are still there if you dig for them, they just aren't coming up in the monthly archive.

*example of what happened when Rhizome changed its posts: My link to their article about painter Dan Proops used to go to http://rhizome.org/editorial/fp/blog.php/611 (see Google's cache of the post). This was changed to http://www.rhizome.org/editorial/297 (see my revised post, only because I happened to catch it). With the link dead the discussion makes even less sense than it does with it.

Update: Item 1 above has been fixed; regarding item 2, a browsable list of the reblogged content is in the works, per Rhizome.

corey, take off those glasses

Unqualified as this blog is to comment on Australian politics, our editorial staff favors the barely repentant kid who hosted a "destructive" street party over the nightly newscaster who is far, far too confident of her right to meddle, as seen in this YouTube clip. (hat tip aron and paul for what has all the earmarks of satire but probably isn't)

troubleshooting

"What type of problems are you having with the unit?"
"There is a sort of drift between channels."
"Drift? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about."
"The stereo image isn't stable."
"Stereo image? Again, you'll need to explain that a little better."
"The panning isn't fixed. One channel will suddenly get louder and the other softer."
"That is not a known issue with this unit. Did you [check all the other things that might be contributing to a wavering audio signal]?"
"Yes. It's only the analog outs that are a problem. I can ADAT the signal into another sound card and get perfect stereo from that card's analog outs. According to the specs there is some sort of 'servo-controlling' of the pan. Could that be out of whack?"
"No, no. That would be a hardware problem."
"I think we're talking about a hardware problem."
"OK, what about this? Is there corrosion around the output jacks?"
"Yes, I think there is."
"OK, here's your job number. Send the unit back to us for inspection, and write the number on the outside of the box."