Sprout is fantastic. However, the intro to the film is terrible.I’m a big fan of soundtracks evoking a feel in films. The intro song is a jazzy number that gives you the feel of a detective movie. It totally is the wrong song for the opening of a very organic film. I think it should be a slower song to ease the viewer into the experience and crescendo into the next song(which was great by the way). Also in the intro Thomas Campbell has a little narrative like he did in The Seedling. It’s going along fine until he starts saying “We as surfers…etc.” First off, that sounds so much like something Bruce or Dana Brown would say. It’s like Campbell is trying to make a connection with us when he really doesn’t need to. We are surfers, that’s one of the reasons why we are watching this. My girlfriend had a problem with the political message involved but that didn’t really bother me. One more problem I had. I like when Campbell uses time lapse photography, however he overkills it in Sprout. Of course that is only my opinion and it isn’t worth anything but I am a struggling (just graduated) video editor so I tend to be a little more critical. At the screening, they mentioned that Campbell was in NY still working on it so if anybody knows how to get this to him, that would be great. I tried contacting him but I could only get it to some art guy that sells his art. Please let me know what you all think. Thanks
I can’t wait till this film comes out in OZ!josh.
Right now Sprout is very much a work in progress,I talked to a freind who is on the tour with Thomas and there working on it every day, so will see what the final product comes out like.
fella, you are hardcore.i am barely a surfer but really liked the film, even liked the music. thomas, if you are reading this, don’t change a thing. don’t pack up and go surfing here in ny either, it is flat. go to campbell apartment and order a very expensive cocktail cause, well the reason it obvious. then enjoy the remainder of your time in manhattan not worried about that project that took you 4 years to make – look at th elast 4 weeks like cramming for the MCATS, they will only confuse you. thanks for a great film. also, one last bit of advice, don’t listen to one ioto of advice schmucks like myself have for you, we know nothing and will only muck up your film.
DITO Tim my very thoughts.KP.
I know a couple of young film makers who use digital formats, and the trend (if there is one) they used was to have screenings while still fine tuning the editing and audio sound track. I think that’s great. Also, the criticism of Campbell work is Ok. W/out it, it would be a pretty mundane world; not everyone likes the same art, that goes for film too (or is it video?). I for one, love Campbell’s work, it’s got originality in a time of copycats. I’ll also say that I love to watch surfing to bee-bop jazz and Delta Blues, you can have the 2cord moshpit stuff. I’m eagerly awaiting the West Coast swing this fall, I’m sure it will be dialed in by then, and as tradition has it, the Lobero audience hooting loudly.
If you have to nitpick then the cartoon stuff was less than exciting. Many people went for drinks during that segment.
The “shaka PSA” was super funny though.
I was more than happy to sit through what may be outtakes. Beautiful film.
About a year and a half ago, I randomly stumbled upon the “Giant Robot” art gallery in West LA on Sawtelle, off Olympic, and they had some a nice Thomas Campbell book (can’t remember name) with some of his artwork. Also, had plenty of other books and literature on creative young artists/photographers of similar genre. It’s nice how art and surfing have always had an appreciable intersection. Very interesting.
What’s funny about your thread is you give him all this advice about “not worrying about it, don’t change anything, go have some drinks”…and after all of that you say don’t listen to any advice anybody gives.
I think it is a fantastic film, I liked all of the jazzy numbers in the film except the first one. It didn’t fit in my opinion. I just mentioned all of my complaints in hopes of seeing what other people thought and in hopes of maybe if they got back to Thomas Campbell he would think about them. Sometimes when you work on a project for a long time (4 years) you get biased by many other factors of the piece. Sometimes you lose the bigger picture and that is where outside non biased sources can help. I just wanted the film to be the best that it can. Maybe that is where it is at right now; maybe not.
I am sick and tired of digital cameras and punk music surf videos. This one is very unique and I’m glad it was made.
" A small pod of California log sliders."
About enough said when it comes to Campbell’s dialog.
monkstar – i am teasing you – funny though –
Campbell shot on 16mm film…almost everything is edited nowadays on non-linear digital editing systems, including feature films. AVID and Final Cut Pro are the two most well-known. Almost no one actually cuts film anymore…
check the Stecyk skull board in the Ancell photo above…
What is the big deal about 16mm film anyway? Computer programs can give video the same look and video is much cheaper and produces the same quality if done by a pro. At least it does not seem to be that different. Is the 16mm just the cool factor or is there really a difference?
I don’t know too much about editing, but 16mm film seems like a polished board with its gloss coat and resin tints…
I can’t wait to see the Sprout, i really enjoyed The Seedling.
I think there is much more skill involved in exposing & processing film; less chances to recoup mistakes and a history of great film makers to emulate. They both have there place…but when we say films we must be clear that we don’t mean Video.
epac:
Is that Thomas Campbell’s artwork in the picture? I remember seeing those AK toting hula girls in TSJ a while back but can’t remember if he was the artist. Since its attached to this thread I’m guessing that it is but I thought I’d ask anyway.
j.
Composition, detail, and storytelling are the main factors…the camera and choice of medium is merely the tool.
That said, up until recently, film has had a major advantage over video in terms of what the human brain perceives as “artistic”. The characteristics of film are such that, when shot properly, it transcends how we perceive reality and offers something beyond, which then paradoxically endes up feeling as “real” as your hand in front of your face.
However, new advances in digital video, and post-processing, are rapidly closing the gap between the two mediums, to the point where the right video format in the hands of a talented artist or skilled technician is nearing what film represents. The day is approaching when it will be difficult to distinguish between the two. 24P frame rates, and to a lesser extent, what is known as progressive scan DV (30 frames of non interlaced video per second), have a decidely “filmic” quality. An alternative to the hyper-real crystal clear video of the nightly news Beta footage and handheld prosumer cameras. I’ve been shooting for years on a Canon GL-1 in the “frame movie” mode. It’s certainly not film, but it looks nothing like standard sharp DV footage. Much more verite and ‘artsy’, somewhere between film and video.
Digital cameras approximating 35mm cameras are being developed, as well.
But it is certainly true that video, regardless of the look, has an immediacy that film does not. This unfortunately can lead to less effort on the part of the shooter to see what is around him. When you don’t have to worry about wasting precious film, you have a tendency to roll on everything. Shooting on film forces the shooter to consider his shot choice and composition very carefully…this often can be seen in the finished project.
Lens choice plays a role, as well. Until recently, multiple lens options for video, aside from the expensive broadcast cameras (Beta), has been limited. This too is changing rapidly, giving videographers further tools to broaden their artistic visions.
So your saying video is irrelivant as an artistic medium?
No, that’s not what I said at all, immediacy has it’s own artistic relvance, but just a silver gelatin museum quality photographic print carries it’s own aesthetic value BEYOND the content, so does properly shot 16mm film.
A sunset is beautiful no matter what, shoot it on 16mm and then on Hi-8 and compare…the subject matter of both is the same, a thing of beauty, but the inherent qualities of film (depth, shadow, movement, etc) will register deeper with most viewers.
Film tends to “breathe”, while video is genrally rock solid. There are many technical reasons for this, but the end result is that film generally is recognized as a more artistic medium but most human brains.
Also, my first line laid out my thoughts on that…
“Composition, detail, and storytelling are the main factors…the camera and choice of medium is merely the tool. ”