Authored by: Rage on Friday, February 01 2008 @ 08:35 PM

Play it as a 24/7 loop (using CamTwist) on uStream. 

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: arthur on Friday, February 01 2008 @ 11:32 PM

Hey Bill...I sure can relate:

"Dear Arthur Adams,

Thank you for submitting music to SXSW in consideration for a  
showcase. This year, SXSW Music received and reviewed over 10,000  
submissions. Unfortunately, this means that we must turn down many  
artists. With that in mind, we will be unable to offer Blammos a  
showcase this year. Please be assured that your materials were given  
full consideration. We wish you the best in your musical pursuits.

Sincerely,
SXSW Music Festival staff"

Honestly the only way to get into these festivals (SXSW / CMJ / NoisePop) is through "who knows who" 
back-scratching and industry-climbing.  Unsolicited material really doesn't stand a chance no matter 
how good it is.  The percentage of films/bands that get a festival/showcase slot by "knowing" someone 
versus people who blindly submit is like 95% to 5%.  It's sad AND true.

You'll just have to suck more dick next year...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Nato on Saturday, February 02 2008 @ 08:24 AM

The competition must have been hella good, because "Digital Pampheteer" rocks...as much as any short doc about a poli-blogger can. Great editing, great production, and nice use of music, to boot.

After seeing the film, there're a lot of questions left in my mind, like how the guy makes money and integrates what appears to be a very reclusive endeavor into a real life, but maybe that's fodder for a follow-up. Anyway, hats off to you, Bill, and here's looking forward to the next production (starring a famous local band? What were they called? The Shirts? The Shorts? Something like that...)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Saturday, February 02 2008 @ 03:08 PM

After seeing the film, there're a lot of questions left in my mind, like how the guy makes money and integrates what appears to be a very reclusive endeavor into a real life, but maybe that's fodder for a follow-up.

Thanks for the kind words, Nato!  Steve gets paid to write for Salon and TPM along with occasional other paid gigs for outfits like The American Prospect, Washington Monthly, The Guardian UK, etc.  He also has a big enough readership so he can sell ads and actually make a little scratch that way.  I don't know exactly how much money he makes from his writing/blogging, but I don't think he sees it as a get rich quick scheme by any stretch.  A commenter at YouTube (was that you too, Nato? many similar questions) also implied a need on Steve's part to support a wife -- such 20th century thinking.  I can let Evening speak for herself, but let's just say she doesn't need Steve to support her.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Nato on Saturday, February 02 2008 @ 11:18 PM

'Twas me indeed, but it looks like I didn't communicate the "marriage" bit as I'd intended.

The point I was trying to make was, here's this guy, and we're introduced to his passion for politics and blogging, including the fact that it takes up to 12 hours a day (Every day? Week days?). To my mind, the two natural questions that pop up are "How does he pay the bills?" and "How does he balance a relationship with a significant other (who appears to be thanked and named at the film's end)?"

I understand that these questions weren't part of the film's focus (no pun intended), but given that the film hinges on Benen's relentless dedication, I felt we would have benefited from seeing whether this dedication makes Benen any money --AOT being a "good work" or a hobby-- and seeing whether the endeavor has any downside with, upside with, or otherwise complex interaction with his primary offline relationship, i.e., the wife. So, in 20th Century parlance, ix-nay on the "upport-say e-thay ife-way".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: evening on Sunday, February 03 2008 @ 11:15 AM

Hmmm, not sure how much I should respond or not, Nato (me being "the wife").

As Bill said, Steve doesn't need to support us.  As far as how much he makes, it wasn't until the last year or two that it was of any significant value.  I'll leave him to respond, if he wants, with more details (or perhaps not to leave suspense for a sequel!).  But in general, blogging is not lucrative unless you're a super big shot (like Atrios, Kos, et al).

As far as our relationship...it is hard for me to complain when I was the one who told him to start the blog :)  In all seriousness though, we've had a really good relationship before this, which I think helps a lot.  Plus, we work from the same home office, so it isn't like I don't see him all day.  Again, I'll leave it at that.  Not sure I want to go into our whole relationship here :)

I hope that at least helps answer some of your questions, Nato.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: evening on Sunday, February 03 2008 @ 11:21 AM

PS - We probably are hermits...we like our house and being in it.  Our social life consists of meeting Bill & Emily for coffee once a week, and if they have any parties we're there early (on time I should say) and leave early.  Otherwise, we don't get out of the house much.  We're not your ordinary folk :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: urbanrhino on Sunday, February 03 2008 @ 05:41 PM

I actually heard that due to the large number of submissions that they accepted almost exclusively films that originated on 35mm.

oh well

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Sunday, February 03 2008 @ 06:37 PM

Really Nate?  Where did you hear that?  That can't be true for shorts too, can it?  And docs?  How many 35mm docs get produced in a year?  I bet you could count them on 1 hand.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: AlexC on Sunday, February 03 2008 @ 08:46 PM

Thanks for uploading Digital Pamphleteer. It was all too brief. Do you think they would have accepted it if it had the word "blog" in the title?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: MarkS on Monday, February 04 2008 @ 02:10 AM

Sorry you didn't make it in :~((.

Keep up the good work.

Blank Inside. 35mm, or S16.

 

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: urbanrhino on Monday, February 04 2008 @ 03:03 AM

hmm--- good point. One of the guys out here in LA mentioned it to me.

i know that the films section on the sxsw site says that they are projecting 35mm and HDCAM this year and that masters should be provided in either format as well.

could just be a BS excuse someone mentioned to me

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Monday, February 04 2008 @ 03:29 AM

Yeah, the entry form asked if I would be presenting in 35 or hdcam and I put hdcam, thinking that I'd bump an hdcam copy if I got in. 

Are you going to sxsw, nate?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: urbanrhino on Monday, February 04 2008 @ 12:49 PM

I was looking into it the other day, though I'm probably gonna hold off on going. I'm still in LA for another week or so and booked for most of March DPing several shorts, a couple on film - YAY!

I'm trying to save the time for NAB instead because I want to be first inline to put a reservation down on a couple of the new RED Camera model.

[ Reply to This | # ]