#integral film

[semi-interestingphotography]

Benny (BennyNikole)

Polaroid "Originals" monochrome

[welcometomyislandbitch]

Winchell's Donuts by Nick Leonard Via Flickr: Polaroid SX-70 Sonar Land Camera, Impossible Project PX 680 CP film. Las Vegas, NV. www.nickleonardphoto.com | nickleonard.tumblr.com

[simonh]

Untitled by Analog Kyle Via Flickr: MINT SLR670s | Polaroid 600

[janes-eyebrows]

Sooo you’re telling me Babygirl, Furiosa, I Saw The TV Glow, Saturday Night, Challengers & Gladiator II got zero Oscar noms??? Alien: Romulus got 1, Dune 2 got five but Emilia Pérez—I couldn’t even get past the first 20 min—got 13 fucking nominations?!?! FOR BEST SCORE TOO OVER CHALLENGERS AND ALIEN: ROMULUS! And The Brutalist that used AI to fake the Hungarian accents got 10?!

The Academy is laughable (derogatory).

[mistyheartrbs]

another thing about i saw the tv glow that fascinates me is the like...movement (transgression?) across mediums in that to begin with it's a theatrical feature film about a tv show. and when you think about it, while there are lots of tv shows about tv (30 rock, showtime's episodes) and lots of movies about the movies (singin' in the rain, la la land) there isn't as much crossover between the two as you would expect - few if any tv shows about movies, even less in the realm of movies about tv.

when isttvg came out in theaters, brigette lundy-paine made an instagram post with this caption:

which is a direct reference to a line their character says in the film - that the pink opaque airs on the young adult network right before they switch over to black and white movies for old people. (i'll have to double check if maddy says "movies" or "reruns" in the actual scene; i remember it as "movies" EDIT: it's reruns but my point still stands) and, for much of isttvg's runtime, it both operates in tandem with and against this notion - it's a cinematic spectacle, visually gorgeous to be sure, but the scale is very small, almost claustrophobic at times, in a way that says that the experience of watching this movie wouldn't be incredibly diminished if you played it on a boxy television in the middle of the night on basic cable (so long as you had somebody to watch it with)

but maddy's line is said with a surprising and youthful sort of disdain - the pink opaque is so different from the dumb nostalgia of their forebearers (with the same winking-at-the-camera irony with which a comic period piece notes the record-breakingly fast ten-mile-an-hour horse carriage or what have you - what they see as progress already obsolete in the eye of the modern viewer), and moreover it's in the exact medium it's meant to be viewed in. it's a tv show they're watching on tv (and in fact the impetus for owen and maddy to grow closer is owen specifically saying "i want to watch it live") - versus black and white movies, the original filmic spectacle, being thusly reduced to something smaller and lesser than they were meant to be. but of course that would never happen to our favorite Brand New television show, the pink opaque, which is super cool and is going to be relevant forever! nothing like that stuff for "old people." it's indicative of how prickly maddy is but it's one of the least sentimental sentiments of what is otherwise very much a love letter to the screen. it stands out!

(and we get even more of that with the streaming version of tpo later, but i'm getting ahead of myself here)

and it's further complicated by the fact that owen views the majority of the show via home-recorded vhs tapes, handmade gifts from maddy, forbidden things. the way you watch it matters too. the way you construct your relationship with this story. which in a way queers the viewing model too; he's literally watching the show out of order!

and now getting back into the horrendously depressing streaming scene, in which schoenbrun does the impossible and makes the phrase "soup party" upsetting, the convenience is what makes it wrong. transgression in the wrong direction. anybody can watch it. you don't even need a disc, owen/isabel says in voiceover, numbly. but instead of maddy's tapes, born out of connection/love (to a degree that neither of them even fully recognize yet), this version of non-normative/alternative access is something dictated by capitalism (it's also worth noting that the streaming scene is the only moment of overt product placement in the whole film, with the new flatscreen with the LG logo all but shoved in front of the viewer). owen/isabel flicks through the episodes lazily and languidly, landing in the middle on the mr. sprinkly episode. there is no effort involved anymore, none of the personal element present in maddy's handwritten notes ("season 2 finale: guaranteed to make you cry!"), just picking and choosing.

all this culminating in a movie about television, with a pseudo-wide release and enough buzz that it did moderately well as far as indie flicks go.

yet - inserting myself into the supposedly distant third-person analytical essay, as queer theorists are wont to do - i don't really think i would have been nearly as affected by this movie if i'd just watched it on like. netflix. if it'd had commercial breaks on late-night cable ("past curfew," as owen's parents repeatedly note) that's one thing, but the modern streaming paradigm doesn't really allow for that. seeing this movie in theaters forces you to go to the theaters. it forces you to sit with other people and view it together/separately. to walk out mid-credits and talk it through with your friend and look at each other and joke "(gasp)............we're secretly in another world where that dunkin donuts is two blocks away!" when the google maps app glitches out. you have to sit with it. you can't not sit with it. it took effort to get here, and you cannot so easily get it out of your head. it's a movie about tv. the medium doesn't fit like a glove. it barely fits at all. and you are left feeling like it's been much longer than a hundred minutes.

(i'd love to see if a24 has fun with merchandising once it gets a home release - if they sell a novelty vhs tape or what)

i think a lot of that is really something to look at. much like the film itself i do not have a conclusion to this essay.

[spocksjuul]

star trek: the motion picture is one of my favorite movies ever but it’s such a hard sell Like ok yes it’s way too long and everyone is wearing jammies and the main villain is a cloud. But you don’t understand at the end they save the world with the power of love and it’s great. where are you going

[frail-simulacra]

possession (1981)

[andromeda3116]

people actually went on about how game of thrones made it socially acceptable to be a fantasy nerd, as though the lord of the rings movies hadn't been released less than a decade earlier and left far greater cultural ripples and i am just

got may have made the adults feel better about liking fantasy, but lotr got into the kids' heads when they (we) were just young and impressionable enough to be absolutely transported and emotionally rewritten by don't you leave him, samwise gamgee and my brother, my captain, my king and and rohan will answer

lotr was rewriting entire generations' brain chemistry long before asoiaf and so obviously it's not fair to compare any post-lotr fantasy novel to it, and each book series was trying to do different things within their own spheres and so that also is not a fair comparison, but in terms of the cultural impact of the adaptations that came out within a decade of each other, saying that it was game of thrones that made fantasy mainstream is baffling

game of thrones could only run because the lord of the rings movies laid the path, and i will die on this hill

[horrorcitos]

my life’s mission is to personally fight osgood perkins for continually making horror movies that are so close to being spectacular but never quite make it there. nothing on earth is as frustrating as almost

[jdmorganz]

JEFFREY DEAN MORGAN as The Police Chief in The Integrity of Joseph Chambers (2023)

[equalperson]

by the way, I would like to note that I immediately don't trust you if you agree with the statement that "idiocracy is a documentary/real/a prophecy/etc."

the entire premise is idiocracy is based in eugenics, specifically the idea that poor and disabled people reproducing will lead to the downfall of society, particularly if upper-class and abled people aren't having even more children to wash us out.

do you really think society's biggest issue is that poor/disabled people have too much power?

do you really believe that the people in power--or humanity as a whole--is mostly intellectually disabled, all while people with ID are still disproportionately likely to be abused, raped, and incarcerated, among many other outcomes that can only result from their total lack of systemic authority?

earlier, I came across a post on r/idiocracy of a developmentally disabled boy destructively stimming in public. almost all of the comments were saying he shouldn't be allowed outside and should be tased or otherwise harmed (note: he was also black) for his behavior. do you really think a black, severely disabled, 10-to-13-year-old is your oppressor, your "idiocracy?"

or are you just scapegoating disabled and otherwise marginalized people as the source of society's ills, simply using "intellectualism" and "anti-consumerism" as an excuse to encourage mass violence against us?

because of course the issue isn't the rich trying to get richer. it isn't bigotry. it isn't capitalism or any other oppressive system. it's too many damn disabled children burdening you with behavior you don't want to see, and too many disabled adults burdening you with criticism you don't want to hear.

[frank-olivier]

The Birth of an Industry: Fairchild’s Pivotal Role in Shaping Silicon Valley

In the late 1950s, the Santa Clara Valley of California witnessed a transformative convergence of visionary minds, daring entrepreneurship, and groundbreaking technological advancements. At the heart of this revolution was Fairchild Semiconductor, a pioneering company whose innovative spirit, entrepreneurial ethos, and technological breakthroughs not only defined the burgeoning semiconductor industry but also indelibly shaped the region’s evolution into the world-renowned Silicon Valley.

A seminal 1967 promotional film, featuring Dr. Harry Sello and Dr. Jim Angell, offers a fascinating glimpse into Fairchild’s revolutionary work on integrated circuits (ICs), a technology that would soon become the backbone of the burgeoning tech industry. By demystifying IC design, development, and applications, Fairchild exemplified its commitment to innovation and knowledge sharing, setting a precedent for the collaborative and open approach that would characterize Silicon Valley’s tech community. Specifically, Fairchild’s introduction of the planar process and the first monolithic IC in 1959 marked a significant technological leap, with the former enhancing semiconductor manufacturing efficiency by up to 90% and the latter paving the way for the miniaturization of electronic devices.

Beyond its technological feats, Fairchild’s entrepreneurial ethos, nurtured by visionary founders Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, served as a blueprint for subsequent tech ventures. The company’s talent attraction and nurturing strategies, including competitive compensation packages and intrapreneurship encouragement, helped establish the region as a magnet for innovators and risk-takers. This, in turn, laid the foundation for the dense network of startups, investors, and expertise that defines Silicon Valley’s ecosystem today. Notably, Fairchild’s presence spurred the development of supporting infrastructure, including the expansion of Stanford University’s research facilities and the establishment of specialized supply chains, further solidifying the region’s position as a global tech hub. By 1965, the area witnessed a surge in tech-related employment, with jobs increasing by over 300% compared to the previous decade, a direct testament to Fairchild’s catalyzing effect.

The trajectory of Fairchild Semiconductor, including its challenges and eventual transformation, intriguingly parallels the broader narrative of Silicon Valley’s growth. The company’s decline under later ownership and its subsequent re-emergence underscore the region’s inherent capacity for reinvention and adaptation. This resilience, initially embodied by Fairchild’s pioneering spirit, has become a hallmark of Silicon Valley, enabling the region to navigate the rapid evolution of the tech industry with unparalleled agility.

What future innovations will emerge from the valley, leveraging the foundations laid by pioneers like Fairchild, to shape the global technological horizon in the decades to come?

Dr. Harry Sello and Dr. Jim Angell: The Design and Development Process of the Integrated Circuit (Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, October 1967)

Robert Noyce: The Development of the Integrated Circuit and Its Impact on Technology and Society (The Computer Museum, Boston, May 1984)

Tuesday, December 3, 2024

[scoop16]

Bullitt...1968

[simonh]

Untitled by Analog Kyle Via Flickr: MINT SLR670s | Polaroid 600

[thestarlightforge]

I cannot f—ing believe the TVA kidnapped Deadpool.

The TVA

tried to PRUNE

DEADPOOL

[tales-from-the-frame]

Soul Eater by Takuya Igarashi / Atsushi Ōkubo (2003-2013)