Herman's House

Last summer walking through my hometown I was accosted by a group of wealthy housewives wearing Ugg boots and overly priced bedazzled jeans. They were holding signs that read “Honk If You Like Puppies”. A woman wearing a shirt that read “Malibu Locals Only” shoved a flyer at me that had pictures of a one-eyed Shih Tzu, a dog that was deformed as a result of inbreeding, and the name of our local pet store with an X through it. They were outraged to find out that Pet Headquarters was buying their dogs from puppy mills. A woman clutching a white Chihuahua wearing a Juicy jacket that matched hers came up and asked me to make a donation to help stop Pet Headquarters. I have lived in Malibu my entire life and I was saddened to realize that this was the first protest or even real community gathering I had ever seen take place. There were less people at the city council meeting to try and stop the LNG (liquid natural gas) terminal that they were trying to install off of our coast that would have destroyed the entire eco-system.
After that day I forgot about the whole ordeal until my dad called me a few months later to let me know that Pet Headquarters had been shut down. These women had raised enough money to buy out the owner. The store now strictly sells gourmet cookies for dogs and pet clothing. I couldn’t believe they had succeeded. With a few flyers with pictures of abused dogs and “Honk If You Love Puppies” signs these women were able to raise enough money to buy out a prime piece of real state in Malibu. If they could do it for the one-eyed Shih Tzu’s of the world I figured I could do it, or at least try, for other people around the world who really are in need of help.
This experience reminded me of why I feel the need to make documentary films. Even if their efforts were only to save inbred dogs at least they were working for a cause. I have always loved documentaries because they made me feel like I was doing something worthwhile. But the more I watched them the more hopeless the world seemed. None of these films ever offered any answers or even hope. Some gave an address to where one could send a donation, but putting money in an envelope and sending it off to some country halfway around the world never seemed like much of a solution. I always found myself thinking if only more people knew about this maybe something could be done.
It wasn’t until I received the news that my friend Bob was killed in the Iraq war that I realized that maybe knowledge wasn’t enough inspire people to take action. Who doesn’t know about the Iraq war and still not much was being done to stop it. It wasn’t until I went to a USC student art show that I even found out he had died. When I walked into the gallery there was a large area on the floor covered in thousands of “Hello My Name Is” stickers on popsicle sticks sprouting from the floor like little flowers. There was a little explanation on the wall that explained that these were the names of soldiers who had died in Iraq. As I started to walk away from the installation I noticed a name I recognized. Robert Ayers. There it was amongst the rows of thousands of names. Robert Ayers. He was faceless and he was dead and I hadn’t even known. Suddenly every single one of those names meant something to me. They all had faces and they were significant.
A little while later I was asked to shoot a documentary on an art project that sprung up from the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The project was called Prospect 1. There was a picture on their website of a woman wearing a shirt that said “I am Herman Wallace”. This image was so powerful to me and I did not know why. I did not know who he was but his name meant something to me. Suddenly I remembered Bob’s name on the “Hello My Name Is” sticker. That image had been permanently burned into my brain. I knew then that I might have the opportunity to help save someone. I needed to find out who he was. It turned out not to be who he was but rather what he did that meant the most to me. It was the house that Herman built.
Herman Wallace isn’t an architect, but a former black panther. He isn’t even an artist, but a prisoner at the Angola Louisiana state penitentiary serving his life sentence. He has spent the past thirty- six years of his life in solitary confinement for robbery. His cell is nine feel by six feet and he is forced to spend at least twenty-three hours of the day within his cell. He is a part of the Angola 3 who were all put into solitary confinement for staging hunger strikes and sit ins to end the violence, rape, and segregation still going on within the prison walls. Upon hearing about his story a woman named Jackie Summel began writing Herman. After seven years of letters back and forth she asked him the question that started it all. “What kind of house does a man who has spent the past thirty-six years in a six foot by nine foot cell dream of? ”.
We drove through Herman’s neighborhood in our light blue Chevy Malibu rental car. The eyes of men lining the street sitting in weathered lawn chairs outside their water damaged homes followed our car as we passed by. I wouldn’t exactly say they were happy to see us. The street was littered with used diapers and glass from broken windows and windshields. We pulled over in front of Jackie’s house and hesitantly got out of the car. There was a sign stuck near the center of an empty lot across the street. Probably where a house used to stand before the hurricane hit. The sign said in big red letters: Crime Committed Here. Then scribbled in black marker it went on to describe the murder that had taken place on that very square of land. There were some younger boys passing a football around further back in the field. I guess they were used to the signs that littered their neighborhood.
Jackie came out the front door and a young girl named Crystal pushed past us and asked Jackie if she could borrow one of her yoga mats so she could teach her friend. Jackie smiled and told her to go take as many as she wanted. Jackie had been teaching all of the children yoga. Crystal grabbed some mats and about five of the young girls ran off to go practice. She told us that these were all of her kids. We began the interview in her front yard. Her project was one of many in Prospect 1. Her project was the house that Herman built.
Through many letters and visits over the past few years Jackie had finally completed a small replica of Herman’s dream house. She told us that Herman was hesitant to do it at first because he knew he would never be able to see it. He could barely even picture it. He has spent the last thirty-six years in a room without even a window. I guess it had started as some sort of game or even a means of escape for Herman. Something to help him keep his sanity. I would guess that at the projects conception she had no way of knowing how many people Herman’s house had the ability to save.
We began to ask her questions about how the project began and why? Just simple boring interview questions, but as the kids ran in and out of the frame tugging on her “I am Herman Wallace” shirt, doing cartwheels, and showing off for the camera it all became very obvious. One of the little boys, Malika, tugging on her shirt chanted “wacky Jackie, wacky Jackie”. We asked him why he called her that and he just giggled and ran away. About five minutes later he returned with some books to show us. He explained that Jackie got them for him for Christmas and that he never liked to read before now. Some other boys that were across the street playing football in a dirt field came over to see what all the commotion was. One of them gave her a “What up” and walked in front of the camera. Jackie told him to “go put a shirt on because we weren’t trying to make kiddie porn”. He laughed and walked into her house to get some water. She was respected and adored by everyone in the neighborhood.
Even if Herman would never be able to see his house, with a little help from the community these children would. I panned across little pieces of Herman’s dream that were being built on the street where he grew up. In Jackie’s backyard there was a community garden for the children of the neighborhood. Some of the little kids pulled me over to a sign out front where all of their handprints were. Watching them point out each of their individual handprints for the camera was the highlight of the day. These kids were so grateful and excited about this little piece of land they could now claim as their own. This had not been possible before Jackie because Hurricane Katrina had washed the lead paint off of the houses and into the grass where the children played. Some of the children had already developed brain damage from exposure to the toxic soil. After three years the government has still done nothing to fix problems like these, especially in the poor neighborhoods. I can’t imagine the look on Herman’s face when Jackie was able to show him pictures of his dream becoming a reality.
Herman’s dream house is now in the process of being constructed. He asked that it be donated as a community center to help keep kids off drugs and give them a safe place to stay. It just goes to show that no matter how small your contribution anyone is capable of inspiring change. Starting an action creates a chain of reactions so even if I am only capable of making a short documentary film maybe someone will realize that change is possible no matter how small or seemingly pointless. This all began because someone heard of inmate 76759 living in solitary confinement and decided to write him in order to make him feel like a human being again. What started out as a silly game that helped him to escape his life in a dungeon will now be able to help hundreds of kids escape from theirs and even stay out of jail.
If people are tangibly confronted with the reality that there are places in the world where a child can become brain damaged, or even die just from playing in their back yard maybe something can be done about these places. For me, it was seeing Bob’s name among thousands in that student art exhibit made me realize how many young lives have been wasted. Maybe if someone sees this documentary that I participated in creating they will realize even the smallest of ideas can bring great change. Whether it be helping mistreated puppies or saving an entire neighborhood it is taking action that inspires action. My action is making documentaries.

Nestor's Light

In the film world digital advancements are being made faster than filmmakers can keep up with them. In the amount of time it takes to master a new digital camera or technology it has already become obsolete. There is a fetishization of equipment, placing technological prowess over aesthetic skill. This affluenza within the film world drives artists away from the language and practice of filmmaking and towards the technical means to fulfill their vision. While digital technologies can make filmmaking more approachable as an art form, many of the medium’s intricacies are lost due to simplicities afforded by digital cameras, such as loss of detail and color latitude. While these seemingly minor differences may not affect every filmmaker, for cinematographers it results in both a visually and emotionally dulled craft. Some major players within the film community, such as George Lucas, do not believe we have a need for celluloid film any longer. Cinematographer Néstor Almendros’ (1930-1992) work makes a strong case against the beliefs of Lucas, and his subsequent technophiles, because of his highly evolved understanding of cinematography and the true-to-life emotionality he is able to create using celluloid film.
Néstor Almendros understood how to work with his environment, and make the most of what was available. He knew how to manipulate light in order to evoke the most emotion out of any given circumstance or location. His work won him an Academy Award in 1979 for Days of Heaven. This film is best known for its amazing achievement of being captured almost entirely during magic hour. Magic hour is defined as the twenty or so minutes after the sun sets where everything appears golden. (See Figure 1)

Figure 1: “Days of Heaven Still” By Néstor Almendros.

Objects in the background become silhouetted while the subject’s faces are illuminated with golden light. Everything appears to glow in the last glimpse the sun.
According to Francis Truffaut, Almendros knew “How to reconcile elements both natural and artificial, timeless and dated, in the same frame. How to give homogeneity to disparate material. How to struggle against the sun, or bend to it’s will” (Trufautt viii). Almendros truly understood light. This is an art that has been lost in the digital age of filmmaking. The brightness of direct sunlight is something that a digital camera does not know how to process. In working with digital media true white, if over-exposed, will lose all detail and will become unprintable. When using film this problem is avoidable because of the flexibility of film’s latitude. When shooting on digital, because of the risk of over exposure, it is common practice to replace natural sunlight with an HMI (Hydrargyrum Medium-Arc Iodide) so one has complete control. However, the look of artificial sunlight rarely appears entirely natural. With digital film there is always a need to find a technological replacement for something that could easily be fixed by understanding light in all of its qualities.
The differences between celluloid and digital filmmaking are far-reaching, going beyond simply the physical production of a film. Film is advantageous, in that it gives the artist the greatest level of control in deciding the look of a film. When working with celluloid the cinematographer has three decisions to make that can drastically alter how the final product will look. The first choice in this decision making process is what film stock to use. Each film stock receives and interprets light in a different manner. In his book Film Lighting Malkiewicz explains, “The characteristics of the stock chosen will affect the color or tonal rendition of the image and the exposure levels…” (51). Beyond choosing a film stock the difference between celluloid and digital remains significant. The latitude (definition of the color spectrum, especially white and black tones) of film is much larger than that of digital. Almendros took great advantage of this spectrum while filming Days of Heaven, which this paper will elucidate further in its explanation of his technical practice. The third step, which involves choices in the development of the film, invites participation of the cinematographer as well. Malkiewicz clarifies some of these options; “The film can be processed normally, it can be forced processed, flashed, or otherwise manipulated to achieve a desired result” (51). There is nothing that can rival these aspects of film in the digital world. Sure, there are digital ways to try and mimic these filmic looks, but nothing quite compares to the look of film. Furthermore, the importance of understanding these aforementioned inherent processes of filmmaking is something that is overlooked in the digital world. Without this knowledge the quality of filmmaking and light sculpting is diminished. The importance of understanding every step in the cinematographic process is apparent in the work of Néstor Almendros.
Almendros was a master of light. He used his deep understanding of light to create pure and evocative images. In his book A Man With a Camera, he explains his unique approaches to cinematic lighting; “The images a director of photography records have less to do with technical trickery or special equipment than with sensibility. The main qualities a director of photography needs are plastic sensitivity and a solid cultural background,” Almendros explains. (Almendros 10). This attitude elevates his work above and beyond that of the modern cinematographer, who relies on equipment and digital effects to create emotion. In the article “Myth-making With Natural Light” in Movie Maker magazine Rustin Thompson gives his insight into Almedros’ art;
Perhaps he was just lucky to work in a time before digital enhancement, before the 12-second attention span, before special effects became more interesting to look at than the human face. But there is something more- he was always true to a light's source, true to the emotion evoked by the cast and color of light as it changed through the day. (Thompson 1)
His naturalistic approach gives way to a more artistic process. The art of cinematography is understanding the effects of light upon its subject, and using it to create a moment or an image filled with emotion. If one simply lights to key (exposing only for the subjects face) the potential power of the image is lost, and it becomes flat. Just as if a painter did not understand quality of light, the image would become lifeless.
There is an artistic freedom that accompanies film because of its great latitude. It allows a cinematographer to represent light in the same fashion a painter would, creating emotion through highlights and shadows, and choosing what to illuminate within the frame. Almendros’ work in Days of Heaven utilized natural light in this way. He often used paintings as a jumping off-point in his stylistic approach for his films. Andrew Wyeth’s painting, “Christina’s World” ( See Figure 2), was the major aesthetic influence for Days of Heaven.

Figure 2: “Christina’s World” By: Andrew Wyeth, 1948.

The silhouetted distant farmhouse in the background is re-created in Days of Heaven. One of the most beautiful parts of the film is the delicate mirror-like sky that alludes to the sky in “Christina’s World”. Almendros explains that, “Blue sky…makes landscapes look like picture postcards or vulgar travel brochures. Exposing against the sun for the shade produces a burned out sky white and colorless” (Almendros 170). This look was possible to achieve because of the latitude of film. The sky turned a washed out white-gold with large luminous clouds lined with grey. Even though it was overexposed, allowing the faces to have shadow and luminosity, there was still definition. This look would be impossible to achieve with a digital camera, which does not have the same capacity for interpreting whites.
A cinematographer cannot utilize light to its fullest capacity when the machine receiving it cannot comprehend all of the information it is being given. Federico Fellini stated, “Films are light” (Malkiewicz 1). If this is true what does it mean for film, when light is no longer pure, and is obscured by digital processing? In her book New Digital Cinema; reinventing the moving image Holly Willis explains, “With analogue video recording the images is quite different. Rather than hitting the emulsion, light strikes a censor, such as a cathode ray tube (CRT) or charged coupled device (CCD), which momentarily captures a representation of the light” (Willis 5). Light in its true form is altered during the process of digital capturing. When capturing on film light is directly hitting the emulsion so there is no need for translation of light and no room for interpretation. This allows for the cinematographers exact vision to be translated directly onto the film. In digital cinema some of the artist’s vision is lost through a game of “telephone”. Information must be passed and translated numerous times before it is finally stored in the machines memory.
In order to make a great film both story and image must work together to create a visceral experience for the audience. The technical process of digital cameras makes it extremely difficult for the cinematographer to know exactly how light is being processed by the camera and therefore how it will be projected back to an audience. George Lucas refuses to acknowledge some of these major setbacks in the digital world. While the job of a cinematographer may be to realize the director’s vision, his or her own artistic vision can be lost when the director believes this is their sole purpose. Lucas has been quoted as saying, “The medium that I’m in – and that most people are working on at this point – is the story telling medium. For those of us who are trying to tell a story, the agenda is exactly the same. It doesn’t make any difference what technology you shoot it on” (McKernan 31). This point of view puts images second to story when in fact one cannot stand without the other. It is the job of the cinematographer to deliver images that provoke visceral feelings. Significant emotional force is lost when their vision is obstructed by technology.
Digital cameras are more readily available to a larger quantity of people allowing more films to be made, but as the number of films being made rises, the amount of effort being put into these films declines. The invention of an affordable and portable camera is something that people have longed for since the inception of filmmaking. Jean-Luc Godard dreamed of “a 35mm camera that would be small enough to fit into the glove compartment of a car.” A camera he would be able to use to “sketch” ideas with (Willis 19-21). Now that this fantasy of convenient cameras has become a reality the pitfalls of “sketching” ideas have become apparent. Digital tape and micro-chips are so affordable in comparison to film stock that people do not find the need to limit themselves in the amount they are shooting. The availability of the medium does not call for the same kind of mastery of craft that film does. This results in less planning and preparation for a project because if something does not work, it is possible to erase and start over with no financial penalties. This reduces both the quality of the images themselves, as well as the fundamental vision of the project.
The issues that coincide with an infinite supply of digital space are accompanied by a lack of understanding the constantly evolving equipment in digital media. These digital video technologies can act as a crutch for thoughtless filmmaking. In his book The Motion Picture Image Barclay explains, “In the end, regardless of the equipment at one’s disposal, individual skill is still far more important. An advantage is to be gained by using the latest device only is that device can justify its application in the eyes of the user”(211). There are so many options that it is difficult to know which one is best suited to your project, and beyond that the correct way to use that specific technology. Filmmakers are no longer taking the time to gain a full understanding of the equipment they are working with because when using a digital camera very little effort and skill are required to produce an image. In contradiction to working with film stock where the cinematographer must have a developed knowledge of the camera and how it interprets light.
Although one hundred years have passed since the invention of the first film camera, no technological advancements in the digital world have been able to compete with film’s original format. Barclay addresses this point in The Motion Picture Image,
… The most recent digital video cameras continue to strive to achieve a film-like image by means of complex circuitry and increasingly higher resolution CCDs, and thus the situation can be called paradoxical because one is trying to replace a medium which is still superior to that which is the implicit replacement itself. (210)
Although this book was published in 2000, this sentiment now rings true more than ever, when there are those out there trying to call film an obsolete form.
Celluloid film and digital cameras are two completely different mediums. There is no need to eliminate film from the movie making process simply because new technologies have emerged. Last year USC’s School of Cinematic Arts made the transition from teaching film to strictly teaching digital, as demanded by George Lucas in exchange for his donation. Students will no longer be learning the art of filmmaking on film. This is not so say that learning the technological advancements of film is not important but there is no reason to eliminate the very medium it was founded with. In the book Digital Cinema McKernan includes an interview he had with George Lucas back in 2001. Lucas states “I think that I can safely say that I will probably never shoot another film on film. It’s the same issue with digital editing. I’ve been editing digitally for over fifteen years now, and I can’t imagine working on a Moviola again” (30). It is impossible to compare celluloid film to working on a Moviola because they are not of the same category. Film is a medium, not a tool.
The digital process, although easier, with fewer decisions to be made and less knowledge required, cheapens the emotional power of a film. There is no reason to eliminate the medium for filmmaking that allows the cinematographer the widest range of possibilities. Admittedly, there are certain advantages to digital filmmaking, however, there is no reason the two mediums cannot coexist. When analyzing digital technology’s replacement of celluloid film in today’s film schools it is helpful to look at artistic mediums taught in different schools. At the advent of acrylic paint, oil painting was not ignored simply because it was more complicated to work with. The mediums produce very different looks, and different artists may prefer one or the other for aesthetic reasons, just as with film and digital mediums. Néstor Almendros exemplifies the finesse of great cinematography that cannot be achieved using digital cinema. Néstor truly understood and dedicated himself to his craft. Digital media will continue to evolve and outgrow itself while film remains steadfast in its verisimilitude.

Works Cited
Almendros, Néstor. A Man With A Camera. Trans. Rachel Phillips Belash.
New York: First Printing, 1984.
Almendros, Nestor. “Days of Heaven”PhotoOfilia.Files.Wordpress.comAug.2008
http://images.google.com.
Barclay, Steven. The Motion Picture Image: From Film to Digital.
Boston: Focal Press, 2000.
Days of Heaven. Terrance Malick. Richard Gere. Brooke Adams. Paramount Pictures. 13 Sept, 1978.
Malkiewicz, Kris. Film Lighting. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1986.
Mckernan, Brian. Digital Cinema: The Revolution in Cinematography, Post Production, and Distribution. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
Rustin, Thompson. “Myth-making With Natural Light” Movie Maker. 30 June
1998.
Truffaut, Francois. Introduction to A Man With Camera, by Néstor Almendros. New York: First Printing 2000. viii.
Willis, Holly. New Digital Cinema: Reinventing the Moving Image. Great
Britain: Wallflower Press, 2005.
Wyeth, Andrew. “Christina’s World”. Photo. 1948.
http://images.google.com
2.5 prompt: Make an argument for or against a single, compelling “advancement” in your artistic field in relation to preparation, practice, process, aesthetics, theory, and/or technology while utilizing an artist or an artistic movement as a case study.

T-REX!

I was lucky enough to be put into a fantastic group of people including Clara Liu, Caroline Mak, and Katy Reid. We named our group T-Rex, a spur of the moment inspiration. The name of our project is "Memories" or at least I think it is. That is the thing about our project, it was like a game of telephone. Nothing was ever concrete we used different modes of interpretation to express ourselves never really having any rules or guidelines. Being a group of four girls with very different artistic interests it was difficult to find a way to combine all of our talents into one meaningful project. It all started with Caroline. Individually we had to submit a memory to her, we never told each other whose memory was whose or anything beyond what was in the emails we sent. Next Caroline took all of our memories and interpreted them in her own way by combining them into a 1 person monologue. The project was then passed onto Clara whose job it was to animate the story to fit her interpretation of these memories. It was my job to film Clara animating in order to bring my artistic vision to the piece. This was one of my favorite parts. It was really great to watch Clara and see how she was processing these memories. She would read a piece of the text that Caroline had passed along to us and then suddenly a brilliant idea would pop into her head. Half the time I did not know what she was drawing but in the end it all came together in a really amazing way. I couldn't believe the powerful images she was able to come up with right off the top of her head. After I was done filming her animations I uploaded the footage and sped it up so everyone could see her process and how each image was drawn. I decided to speed up all of the footage instead of selecting only certain parts to show because I feel that the quick paced movement of her hands and the way the images just seem to appear on the page fit our project better, in a quirky chaotic sort of way. Next we passed everything along to Katy who did a wonderful job acting out every ones memories in class. Overall it was a really great experience. It was so interesting to see how each artist was able to interpret the same idea in their own special way.

Artists Statement?

While walking through the Los Angeles County Museum of Art I came across a placard describing the intentions of a modern artist whose name has unfortunately slipped my mind. The placard read; “The work points to but does not claim to provide an understanding of his intentions or meaning.” At first I was outraged about this statement. It’s just a wordy way of sounding conceited and self-important. I am still not sure whether or not it is meant to be funny but somewhere in it is a truth. Upon further contemplation this artist statement began to make perfect sense.
Most times the intention of an artist is unclear in the finished product. The intentions we start with change and take shape as the work progresses. The beautiful thing about art is that during its production it takes on a life of its own. At least I have found this to be true of my art. All I can strive to do is to create something that will be meaningful and provoke thought in others. I have no way of knowing whether these thoughts will reflect my initial intentions, but I can be sure that my intention is to always be honest.
I believe there is always something new to learn and there will always be unique stories to be told, film is the perfect outlet for this need of mine. The honesty of the medium is what appeals to me immediately. When the shutter opens and closes, imprinting time and space on a little strip of film, I express myself better than ever and with vivid reality. There in nothing the can fully encapsulate nuances of life quite like film.
In his writings, Dziga Vertov argued for presenting "life as it is" and "life caught unawares" which tend to be the most interesting moments in life and in film. There is nothing more beautiful than capturing the candor of real life. When embarking on any filmic endeavor I never know what the end result will be, or what I will gain from the experience. However, right from the start I know that my goal is the truth. I feel through film I can create openings into different experiences of thinking and feeling. I aim to create tension between images and narrative, sound and space. My expectation of my own work would be to provoke different ways of thinking about normality’s of the human experience.
I try to aim for making something both universally and individually relevant. If I can create something that speaks to someone, even if it is just one person, then I have made a new connection. This connection never would have existed without that specific work of art. Reaching out to an audience, offering a unique insight opens new portals and creates new ways of thinking. There is nothing trite about using conventional ways to trigger new experiences.
.Films are just small threads that connect human experiences. Me to my viewers, viewers to subjects and so on. It can help people better understand their own struggles or joys.
And now that I have voiced my own conceited and self-important view I too would like to provide a disclaimer; My artists statement does not necessarily uphold my intentions or claim to provide an understanding of modern art.
Here is a photo I took recently that I thought captured a very honest moment. This man is named Leonard Knight. He built "Salvation Mountain"

Peter Bogdanovich "Sacred Monsters"

I recently attended a lecture by Peter Bogdanovich at the UCLA Hammer Theater. For those of you who don't know as well as being a director he is also a well acclaimed film historian who has interviewed, as well as developed close friendships with actors and directors ranging from Martin Scorsese to Orson Welles. One of his more famous works is "Who The Devil Made It" is a book consisting of interviews with sixteen different directors.
This lecture he lovingly titled "Sacred Monsters" was a more in depth look at a few of the directors from his book. I was expecting the lecture to be a bit dull simply because that is usually the case with two hour lectures. Fortunately I was absolutely wrong. Although Bogdanovich spent the entirety of his time on stage talking about different characters he had encountered in his life, I think he turned out to be the biggest character of all. Bogdanovich's impersonations happened to be spot on. One of my favorite parts of the lecture was him discussing one of the first times he met Alfred Hitchcock. He told the story acting out both his part as well as that of Hitchcock.
Bogdanovich explained that Hitchcock had taken him out for drinks one night for an interview at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. They both got into the elevator to finish the interview in Hitchcock's room. Right as they stepped onto the elevator Hitchcock turned to Boddanovich and said ''Well, it was quite shocking, I must say there was blood everywhere!'' He continued to go on explaining the gruesome details of this event all the way up 25 floors. All of the other hotel patrons on the elevator pretended not to be eaves dropping. "There was blood coming from his ears and from his mouth". Right as the elevator doors open Hitchcock says "And do you wanna know what he said to me?" The elevator doors open and shut once before people finally began to exit. Once everyone had exited Bogdanovich asked what the bloody man had said and Hitchcock replied "Oh nothing, that's just my elevator story." It seems to me that nothing could better explain Hitchcocks theory that suspense is always superior to shock than this little anecdote about him.
Bogdanovich was able to do this with every person that he spoke on. I feel that I learned a great amount about the film world right down to the fact that even Cary Grant was self conscious about his looks because he felt that his "nostrils were the size of parking garages". It was a great experience that I would recommend to anyone with the opportunity to see him speak again.

WHO IS HERMAN WALLACE?

Since I spent my last essay explaining my trip to New Orleans and my interaction with Jackie Sumell I figured it was a good idea to explore her art a little further. I definitely learned a few things myself... I guess provocative would be the best way to describe her. In 2001 in a protest against Bush's Ban she shaved off all of her pubic hair as well as collected zip lock bags full of it from anonymous supporters. Bush's Pubic Enemy No. 1. It was this project that gained her the recognition needed to carry out "The House That Herman Built"
As I mentioned before Herman Wallace is a man who is being held in Angola State penitentiary for armed robbery. He has been incarcerated for over 30 years with most of that time spent in a 6x9 foot cell. During Herman's time in prison he was wrongly accused of murdering a guard during a peaceful protest to help end the segregation and racism taking place in the prison. He still has not been released and has no chance at parole. (You can read the whole story and history of the prison on the website under "statements"). Jackie's activism through her art has raised a lot of attention about Herman's situation along with rest of the Angola three. She is an inspiring woman who has dedicated her art, and her life to helping others.
Whether you find her projects gross or inspiring they definitely aren't easily forgettable. It is my belief that art is meant to inspire change and growth. Whether you use your art to grow yourself or to help the growth of a more tolerant and thoughtful world. Jackie Sumell's art exemplifies this notion.


Here are some photos I took of Jackie in the neighborhood she started the community center in.