Really lovely, and remarkable that they resisted doing it in mock silent films style (flicker, scratches and the ever present improv piano).

Ebert: Ken is a member of the Alloy Orchestra of Cambridge, Mass., the leading group performing sound tracks for silent films. The Alloy appears at Ebertfest every year.

I'm old school enough to remember learning to edit on old uprights while wearing cotton gloves. It's so heartening to me to learn that Mr. Stuart has a working knowledge and appreciation for the origins and history of the craft of moving imagery. Almost anyone can learn to use a camera, it takes a story-teller to make a good film, Bravo Mr. Stuart and thank you Roger.

Best,
Cadenza

...this film is less than 10 minutes. Enjoy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_soy3K28OM

I kept waiting for that dog to take a dump in the snow. Excellent video!

Then what am I suppose to do now?
1.Favorited that video in my youtube account or simply closed firefox ,folded my laptop and take a chance of good sleep.

Music, therefore mood, by the incredible Trent Reznor...

certainly "neat" and well done. Hardly an Oscar contender.

This is a nice piece of impromptu filmmaking that Mr. Stuart should be proud of, but I think it's assinine to say it deserves to win the Academy Award. I'm not sure why the fact that it pays homage to Vertov's film is so important. Basically any footage of locations and people could be edited into a "Man With a Movie Camera"-type film, and the fact that the filmmaker has seen the Vertov film doesn't make him any more credible or his art any more sincere. For me, the allusion took away from the film, which was effective on its own merit.

I know it was probably just an expression, but saying it deserves to win the Academy Award for these two reasons presumes that there are no other shorts that have an even greater "wonderful quality" or pay homage in a more organic and interesting way or, God forbid, actually take a complex stance on some issue or fundamental human question. It just strikes me as a hasty comment that suggests hypocritical ideas about the craft of filmmaking. Many of Michael Bay's pre-Transformers films also displayed "unbelievable technical profiency" and he and the crew most likely were shooting with a strong idea of how they would edit and use sound, but he sure didn't deserve any Academy Awards for them.

Then again, the Academy selections are usually awful, so maybe this will be just as deserving as the other mediocre shorts selected this year.

This is great. Now I want to go find "Painted Sun in Abstract" -- the background music.

I'm absolutely astounded at the quality of this film. If there's any justice out there in the world, someone will give this guy a budget, because if he can pull this off on the relativity meager resources at his disposal, imagine what he could do with a crew.

The little dog is the best part. I could watch hours of that.

Mr.Ebert,

I think this film that I shot is on par with Mr. Stewarts film.
This film was shot on Christmas Day on my corner.
It is a portrait of Manhattan.
A short snapshot of reality and a testament to the human spirit.

http://tumblr.com/xgn14uk23v

Thanks in Advance
and
Happy New Year
Martin Malcom Henson

This! is! incredible!

I love the film. And I love Mr. Ebert's enthusiastic response, which is encapsulated in his questions back to Jamie: "What was the passage of time, start to finish? What did you eat, when did you sleep? How cold did he get?" HIs excitement and love of filmmaking just come through in wanting to know how Mr. Stuart made this thing. Heartening. Made me smile.

So what you're saying is a professional filmmaker with complete access to professional equipment and experience, cut together a sharp looking video. Imagine that.

Roger, you know what I love best about this video? It proves global warming is a scam.

I'm sorry, why am I supposed to care about this film?

That was duller than dirty dishwater, and I completely fail to see the point.

The fact that it is a shot for shot remake of another film, which was made eighty years ago when film was new and therefore has an excuse to be so boring (seeing anything on the screen was exciting!), knowing that fact should not be necessary for the enjoyment of the film. As far as I am concerned, the necessity of that piece of context to the enjoyment of the film renders it artistically invalid.

As far as I can tell, it's about as exciting as the B-roll for an intro for your local news affiliate's generic coverage of the latest "storm".

And seriously, even knowing it is some sort of shot for shot remake, why on Earth is that the sort of thing which should be praised? Is this not taking being derivative to its ultimate extreme? Sure, making a shot for shot remark of a favorite movie might be fun to do , but is it fun to watch ?

The answer is a clear "no" and therefore this cannot be considered a good film. It is nothing but auteur cinemist masturbation.

The dog in the parka is cute, though.

Really gorgeous, whimsical film, recorded as an afterthought but edited as a work of passion.
StephenRex: It must be so sad to see things only through a political prism AND feel the need to insert said viewpoint in an apolitical discussion. It must be such a heavy burden that consumes you. I feel so sad for you. If a snowstorm disproves global warming, a sunset must scare the daylights out of you (pun mos def intended)! The sun must be dead, right? Sheesh!

Oh yes, StephenRex! I forgot. If every idiot with "complete access to professional equipment and experience" made a film like this, there would be no need for the Scorceses, Coppolas and Kubricks of the world, would there? With a little training, we could all make films or paint or compose like the masters. God, your existence is bereft of any meaning, isn't it?

I also loved the film. It's always interesting how people will make uninformed comments to support their ideology, facts be damned. Mr. Rex, one of the side effects of global warming is MORE snow. You can look it up. I would cite a source if I thought for a moment that you would let facts interfere with your opinion.

The movie was artistic and very well done.

Wonderful film. And that it was shot, edited and finished in about a day is a testament to the author's skill. I really enjoyed it and hope it is considered for an Oscar.

As for the global warming boob SRex, there is no cure for you, sir. Please don't procreate.

1. Global warming will result in more snow in some areas because water surfaces will not freeze in the winter, resulting in more moisture in the atmosphere. It can, in fact, be too cold to snow; therefore, warming will result in more opportunities for snow.

2. A single event, even a large one, is proof of nothing.

3. A warming earth will produce more large-scale events such as the East Coast snowstorm. The hotter the planet, the more disruptions there will be.

4. It is plain and simple fact that the earth's average temperatures have risen.

I wasn't going to engage this fool in this forum, but then I considered that someone else will read his comments and wonder if they might be true. You have to fight stupid wherever you find it.

I'm using an ipad to read this page and for some reason I can't "see" Roger's link to the silent film, but was able to "see" the other links, it must have something to do with HTML5 whatever that is.

So I searched on You Tube and found this:

Here is an iPad friendly link to the 1929 film:

Dziga Vertov's 1929 silent classic "Man With a Movie Camera."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ZciIC4JPw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I hope that is the right link, other iPad users may find it helpful.

Great post, as always, many thanks Mister Ebert.

This will sound hard to believe, but about a third of the way into the film, there's a brief shot taken through one of those plastic-strip scrims that grocers use to keep the weather off the outdoor displays. I saw it and said, by golly, that looks like Trade Fair — my neighborhood grocery. Well, it turns out it's not "my" Trade Fair, which is on 30th Avenue, but the Trade Fair on Broadway — not much more than a couple of football-fields way. Occasionally I do my shopping there instead. (Jamie later has a shot of the street signs at 33rd Road and Crescent Street — my wife Lindsay and I live at 30th Road and Crescent.)

What can account for this sort of instant recognition? There's absolutely nothing distinguishing about the scrim; identical ones hang in neighborhoods all over the city. And yet, something in the unconscious part of my brain recognized something in the image and clicked. It's an incredible, mysterious organ that lies inside our skulls!

Nothing more meaningful to say about this; it just was a real treat to see my neighborhood through someone else's eyes. And it was good and generous of you to help bring Jamie's work to a wide audience.

The music is an interesting choice; it seems very similar to the Alloy Orchestra composition on the Image Entertainment DVD version (to my recollection, anyway; the music in the embedded clip is an entirely different jazz track). I understand that Vertov composed a score for the film, but how closely did the Alloy score stick to Vertov's composition (assuming it even exists anymore)?

It seems that, to Stuart, the Alloy soundtrack is as much a part of the film as the 80-year-old images. However, Vertov and his confederates made films that were visually rhythmic without sound cues. In this film, nearly every cut is synchronous with some note in the score (much more so than Vertov's film w/ the Alloy track), resulting in a much different experience than you get with the sort of silent rhythm in Vertov's films, Ruttman's Berlin film, Ballet Mechanique, etc.

Alloy (along with other groups) is doing an awesome thing by helping keep silent cinema alive. I'm curious as to how this is changing people's assumptions about what silent cinema is, though. Up until a decade ago (or so), most of us were introduced to silent films with forgettable piano tracks.

A nice little piece, but Roger, an Academy Award? No offense, because I love your work and support of films, but you need to see more of the work that's being done out there on a daily basis by so many filmmakers.

Fine post - continue the great work in 2011!

I'd love to know how Jamie protected his camera and lenses against the snow and wind

Roger, et al...

You all might like this one as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H1SX5CiqWQ

It's about a Dunkin Donuts fire near here a few months ago, of all things. But the shots and the music together are incredible. Particularly the firefighter shots. It's not mine, and I don't know much about the person that made it, but I love it. Somewhat reminiscent of Kubrick and even Michael Mann to me.

More snow, less snow, what's the difference? Climate change has happened before and will probably happen again.

I love Man with a Movie Camera and I loved this, but I don't see why Ebert's all excited about the "unbelievable technical proficiency". Storyboarding means you don't need to hold the original in memory, not that Stuart's work isn't excellent. Thinking of how you'll edit while shooting isn't a rare act, nor is thinking about or choosing the music.

Maybe Mr. Ebert needs to take a stab at making a video himself.

And I pity the other live-action short makers who haven't thought of remaking an older film.

I understand the positive attention this short is receiving--the shots and editing are, after all, quite beautiful--but Mr. Ebert's awe is reminiscent of my grandparents' when they discovered email and smartphones. HDSLR cameras and powerful editing platforms like Final Cut Pro mean that anyone can inexpensively piece together B-Roll compilations such as this. If you don't believe me, try creating something yourself...you'll be surprised to find that all of us, not just Jamie Stuart or Oscar winners, are capable of making poignant and beautiful images.

Here's an example of praise-worthy photography taken by first-time camera users: http://expresartecolombia.wordpress.com/

Amazing. Could this be the start of the end of conventional movie making (I ask as I'm watching a tribute to Blake Edwards). I'm actually working on a documentary about the plantain and the Hispanic/Latin love of the fruit (yes it is a fruit) solely by shooting on my blackberry and iphone. For my documentary it's all about talking to people of my parent's generation who won't be around for much longer. When I find one -- I take out either phone and shoot. I've amassed quite a collection of soundbites. Trained in film -- edited on a flatbed, and before that on a super 8 editor. Remember those? -- I worked in the news business for many years, and I know how to shoot with editing in mind. (I was a news editor at WNBC in the 90s.) So congrats to Jamie for the foresight to shoot the dreaded storm that crippled NY (I have yet to leave my INWOOD apt) and even more back slapping to Mr. Ebert for bringing it to the everyone's attention. Jaime if Hollywood comes a calling -- please pick judiciously. Money has a way of killing creativity.

Wow. The talent of the photography and editing...the beauty...the incredible speed in putting it all together...and Mr. Ebert's role in bringing it to the public all in about 4 days!

This is so impressive in so MANY ways. (And a special "thank you" to Mr. Ebert for the follow-up questions. Anyone with the slightest bit of filmmaking geek would be dying to know that. The artistry of photography and editing--and the incredible turnaround time--great story from start to finish.
.
Thank you both so much for sharing this. I hope Jamie Stuart's talent will get an "Ebert bump".

Sincerely,
Julie S.

This is an amazing little film. The pacing of the shots of this is impeccable. It really is a living entity without any explosions, chases ,CGI, or sloppy hand-held amateur shots.

... What dreck. Time to retire?

The best short film of the year might include elements such as plot and character.

I love the fact that he told Roger he had chicken noodles and Saltines. I asked the same question of David Lynch once, and he told me to "F$#^ off!"

Hmmm.... I hate to disagree ...but I do. This looks exactly like 500 other student films made every day somewhere in this country. The quick cuts, the cornball techno, the "homage" to some old film (so as to prove one's hipster ironic status).... I do agree that it has some striking images, but IMO is a bunch of snap cuts of images in the snow enough to merit an Oscar? Heck if that's the case, why isn't every Bela Tarr movie an Oscar winner? Tons of striking images in those films.....

Seriously, it looks pretty and as an homage it does a decent job. But IMO, it's just not anything special. With the modern age of digital video and computer editing software. Students pump footage out like that, edited very similarly , left and right. Heck go check out I think it's called vimeo.com (I may have that wrong) there's a ton of films like this (and many that are much much better)....

hold on, let me put my flame suit on! :-)

Great little film - the editing was precise and consistent. The little dog "motif" was provided a light moment.

As for the ideologically brainwashed DB - you sir, really need a reality check.

As a short visual poem, it's brilliant. Thanks, Roger.

I quite liked the film, and that is saying something when the expectations were so high going in.

I particularly loved the scene of the man on the motorcylce smiling as he drove off. A reminder of how there are small little triumphs throughout everyday. It gave me a feeling of well being in my core.

Bravo.

I completely enjoyed this film without seeing the 1929 piece upon which it was based. I started watching the latter and saw the parallels immediately, though. And goodness, yes, what a fantastic short film this is. Excellent work on Stuart's part. I hope the Academy nominators make note of it.

"I had a strong sense of film language."

Yes. Oh, yes.

Whenever I see a guy going out on his own and doing something like this, I have to say, "Good for him." But having done stuff like this myself and having filmmaker friends with videos that look like this, I have to say that while there's nothing wrong with this, there's nothing remarkable about it.

I think this Stuart does have a passion and a clue and could probably do a lot of great things. But-and I have no delusion that my opinion counts for anything other than that of an amateur filmmaker making my way just like Stuart, and for that reason, almost doesn't even deserve to be heard, since I'm just one of millions who may see this-but there isn't much artistry on display here, though I enjoyed watching and am now interested in seeing "Man with a Movie Camera".

I've done stuff like this and gotten recognition and jobs for it too. And before anyone accuses me of just being jealous, I have nothing to prove or lose. Good for Stuart for getting recognition for this. I wouldn't care if it was a shot of a brick wall for twenty minutes and was competing in the Oscars with a film I made for best short and won.

But if you know how to make something like this, it's second nature. That may be a very narrow view since I come with the baggage of having made videos like this myself, but there you have it. Stuart's talented and will likely go on to make better films than this, which I'm not even knocking-I just kind of think that people are fooling themselves into thinking it's remarkable.

I really enjoyed this film and I 'd like to thank you Mr. Ebert from small filmmakers.
For those of you who like satire I'd like to reccomend this film.
It is an off off Broadway play adapted for film with solid production values also shot on the Cannon D.

It is a fusion of musical theatre, Broadway noir and current tabloid culture.
written by highsoprano2008 at funny or die website just google " DEAD HOLLYWOOD BLONDES" or clickhere.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/454e321811/dead-hollywood-blondes-movie-trailer

It's a nice work with good composition and editing, and I like Ebert's enthusiastic and encouraging response, even if it's a little over the top. Oscar-worthy? If that were my film, I don't know if I would be flattered or insulted. Probably both.

Wow - you are so easily impressed. Any news shooter could do this in 1/2 an hour half asleep. It's not even white balanced in places!

Watch more movies, Ebert. Or get your eyesight checked. This is far from Oscar worthy.

Roger, I love ya, but this is akin to George Bush senior marvelling at the UPC scanner in a supermarket. Have you seen the quality hd video you can get fro
a prosumer SLR these days? Or how quickly a descent editor can cut on Final Cut Pro? Yes, mr. Stewart has editing chops, but we are not talking Murch here. Kudos to James for having a good idea and following through, but Roger, keep it in perspective.

A compilation of pretty shots, nothing more

quite boring and uninteresting

Right on the mark Roger. This is crystal clear as far as cinematography goes - and the story is persistent in exemplifying the human struggle - and overcoming it. I love the dog stuck inthe snow - CLASSIC.

Wow! So much great in such a small package! Like a tightly written short story. Thanks for sharing it, Mr. Ebert.

Lovely little film. I love the yellows that bleed in, and the conveyance of the peacefulness of a big snowstorm. And, yo, StephenRex, this kind of storm is pretty much what global warming predictions have in fact been predicting - higher atmospheric temperature means more moisture held in the atmosphere, means more snow and heavier rains. Same thing is going on in upstate NY with lake effect snow - more moisture, more snow. Syracuse has had over 6 feet so far, other areas more. i could go on and on, but the upshot is, no scam...but a lovely little film.

Couldn't agree more starbomb - no narrative, no story, no plot, no character. Nice YouTube video, nice to look at, but more than that... no, sorry! IMHO

Oh my gosh. This is the most amazing thing I have ever seen. It's nearly a record of the culture and functionalities of rural city life. Imagine how much knowledge this would give another intelligent race about us.

LOL!!! Wonderful work! The DOG....! It looked to me, liek if he could speak, he was saying "why the f**k did you put me HERE?! My balls are freezing!" Lol!!! Very nicely put together piece.

For those that are criticizing and "hating", here is an artist finding a constructive way to kill time in one of NY's worst blizzards on record. The man was just doing what photographers do (and doing it quite well) - capturing a moment.
Stop hating, comparing and criticizing. Just appreciate and enjoy! If you can't appreciate it - you always have the option to "turn the channel". The beauty of this society; OPTIONS.

Job well done!

Peace,
CJ5

oscar my ballsack, ebert needs to take a look at Vimeo, there's a ton of better amateur films that could easily be REAL Oscar contenders

Mr. Ebert, you should spend some time on Vimeo if you think this was great. There are masterpieces uploaded there everyday.

Great, now every two-bit filmmaker is spamming comments with their videos, hoping to get the Ebert Seal of Approval™.

This is a lovely little film, and shows true artistic and technical skill. Can't we just leave it at that, haters?

Academy Award? Haha! Nice pictures, but boring movie.
Jamie Stuart says: "The trick is to step into situations, often without a plan, and try to make it look like it was all planned."
- Yes, most amateurs do it like that, and that's why it looks like an amateur movie.

It's funny how so many commenters dismiss this with "Practically anyone could make something just as good" but they fail to link to anything just as good, let alone something this good that was shot and edited in two days.

Another commenter says there are images just as striking in many video games. I'd hope so, considering that most cinematic video games have budgets in the MILLIONS and are developed for months if not years with each image meticulously composed and programmed.

Also, LOL to the troll who says ROGER EBERT needs to watch more movies.

I agree with many comments here; the film is fine, but it's really nothing extraordinary. In fact, it's pretty boarding, and it's reminiscent of a style I've seen a thousand times before.
If anyone out there wants too see how easy this is, take a video camera, make sure you hold it absolutely steady, and take random shots of your city. Then, the secret/magic formula is to cut it to a nice piece of music. If possible cut on the beat some times, and if you really want to fool fools like Roger Ebert into thinking you're some kind of genius, buy your self a Glide track system for $200 and you'll have as good if not better shots than the ones you see in this video.
I do this for a living, and I shoot videos for real estate agents that are just as good as this one. Take a look at this recent video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lUGakVUow8

--hey, don't I deserve an Oscar award for this too?

Great film, editing and soundtrack. I've watched it eight times. And I'm sure I'll watch it again--not to mention, share it with many. I've never done that with an Academy Award short.

Go to Vimeo.com and you'll see tens of thousands (if not more) of little videos like this. Well shot and proficiently edited, I'll give you that, but it stops there. The world is stuffed full of these little pretty DSLR montage videos. For those of us filmmakers who grew past these video exercises long ago, mostly in film school, it's disappointing to see Ebert praise this so highly. I was pretty impressed too, a few years ago when I first found Vimeo (so I don't fault Ebert in his excitement if this is the first example of DSLR footage he's seen) but since then I've accepted these videos for what they are; totally vapid. Nobody wants to admit it, but with cameras like the 7D, any amateur can make something like this. The camera does 80% of the image work.

A sign of approval from the legend Roger Ebert would forever change the lives of struggling filmmakers like myself. And it's a punch in the gut that a film the is indicative of everything wrong with DSLR cameras gets this praise. Vimeo, and the thousands of videos like this, are pretty much considered an annoying joke to the independent film community; amateurs passing off their very basic understanding of amazing cameras as serious, professional work.

When you have nothing to say as an artist, you stay as distant from your subject as possible as to appear to have much to say. That's what happened here.

Actually the film is shot really well. Just really goes to show the power of documentary filmmaking and how simply one man can make a "movie" that probably is artistically better than half the feature films released this year.

(Warning: Shameless Self Plug) Kind of reminds me of the blizzard I got stuck in while filming a TV pilot this December in Chicago. I'm from LA, and "cold" to me is about 50 degrees, but Chicago Winter Cold sets the new bar for "cold" to me. Anyways, we were snowed in and we had the the space suit used in the scifi pilot just hanging out, so we decided to put it to good use on the streets of Chicago.... Enjoy! http://www.flickr.com/photos/codyman/sets/72157625585530592/show/

Like watching paint dry.

The film is okay, nothing special, but the really fun part of this posting is the global warming comments. I assumed the first guy was half-joking, but the fools who follow seem dead serious. Honestly, Kevin Trenbeth, one of the leading Global Warming climate scientists in the world, ten years ago said that soon snowstorms in England would be a mere memory, and our children would not have any actual experience of snow other than movies and TV. And yet England for the last three winters has had huge snowfall covering almost the whole of the UK. The point being that in marginal climates where it just barely gets cold enough for snowstorms to form and drop a load, such as the UK and New York area, they thought warming would make snowstorms obsolete. And yet obviously the opposite has happened. Same thing with tropical storms. Gore and others famously predicted a massive increase in tropical storms, such as Katrina, and yet the opposite has happened. We are at a 30-year low in tropical storm activity worldwide. So now they are switching gears and claiming that their theories actually predict greater snow. But in New York and UK? Hardly. And so they change their theory again and call snowstorms "climate disruption". But snowstorms are a natural part of climate, not a disruption of it. New York has always been hit by storms like this every now and then. It's a disruption to humans who live there, but not to the natural climate. And those who say that weather is not climate are quite right, except that they are also claiming that this weather event, like the heat wave in Russia and floods in Pakistan over the summer, were signs of "climate disruption". You can't have it both ways. Tell a straight story and stick to it, and if reality goes the other way, pay the price and eat crow. Stop pretending everything in this world is caused by human beings.

The film is okay, nothing special, but the really fun part of this posting is the global warming comments. I assumed the first guy was half-joking, but the fools who follow seem dead serious. Honestly, Kevin Trenbeth, one of the leading Global Warming climate scientists in the world, ten years ago said that soon snowstorms in England would be a mere memory, and our children would not have any actual experience of snow other than movies and TV. And yet England for the last three winters has had huge snowfall covering almost the whole of the UK. The point being that in marginal climates where it just barely gets cold enough for snowstorms to form and drop a load, such as the UK and New York area, they thought warming would make snowstorms obsolete. And yet obviously the opposite has happened. Same thing with tropical storms. Gore and others famously predicted a massive increase in tropical storms, such as Katrina, and yet the opposite has happened. We are at a 30-year low in tropical storm activity worldwide. So now they are switching gears and claiming that their theories actually predict greater snow. But in New York and UK? Hardly. And so they change their theory again and call snowstorms "climate disruption". But snowstorms are a natural part of climate, not a disruption of it. New York has always been hit by storms like this every now and then. It's a disruption to humans who live there, but not to the natural climate. And those who say that weather is not climate are quite right, except that they are also claiming that this weather event, like the heat wave in Russia and floods in Pakistan over the summer, were signs of "climate disruption". You can't have it both ways. Tell a straight story and stick to it, and if reality goes the other way, pay the price and eat crow. Stop pretending everything in this world is caused by human beings.

I'm not expert enough to debate its Oscar©-worthiness; it seemed like countless other slice-of-life kinds of short films I've seen, with the obligatory monochrome, pan-up and pan-down stuff, and so on. And I won't judge it as an homage (though I thank Mr. Ebert for clueing me into a film I'd vaguely heard of, but never seen).

I was glad I watched the first time without listening (trying to imagine what the music track would be); the soundtrack and its relentless broken-octave thing (and dissolving into ironic reverb-land at the end) reminded me of many a short-film soundtrack from the 80s, which in turn reminded me of countless "electronic studio" college-campus concerts from the early seventies.

You want something interesting? Post the video with a challenge to any interested composer turn out an accompanying soundtrack (even with a 24-48 hour deadline); you'd be amazed at the diversity and originality of what might be submitted. Or, just post the raw footage, and invite others to re-cut....

//just my two cents; I still did enjoy this as a nice change from the recent TV footage.

I and a few other viewers here could care LESS whether this is a Coen Brothers masterpiece or a piece of backyard YouTube crap!

Would somebody just (please) step up to the plate and and tell us stupid noobs here, how the hell you keep the snow and water and condensation and bad weather shit off of the lens' and camera during a shoot like this?

I don't care if this guy (and his/or whoever's bulldog) is the next Hitchcock.

I want to shoot video in a blizzard! How do I?

Dan

Thanks for sharing that, Roger! That was wonderful to see.

To Jamie Stuart: Bravo!

I share the sentiments of the dissenting minority, in feeling this film while very pretty, is hardly much else. It's all style, and little substance.

It's actually rather insulting. As a documentary filmmaker, with six feature projects under my belt, I find Jamie's comments that he gave his shots little planning, and made them seem planned, says all to me that is wrong with cinema. I've struggled, sweated, froze my fingers, put in long hours, getting up early, staying up late, all in pursuit of The Shot. I put SO MUCH thought into my films, considering, planning, composing, capturing each shot for maximum effect, to communicate in a visual manner both pleasing to the eye, and exciting to the mind. And so it is insulting to find all my work is apparently for naught, for now Jamie Smith and his little film with no admitted thought gets plaudits by Roger...and for what?

New filmmakers are far too obsessed with surface, style, flash, what have you. They buy their toys, these DSLRs, 35mm lens adapters, and a tripod slider (for those slick moving shots), and make it all so pretty and cold and sterile? But what is actually being said? Little. This film is blatantly derivative of Vertov. Now, there is nothing wrong with basing something on another's work. It's the foundation of creation. Leone borrowed from Kurosawa, who borrowed from Ford and Shakespeare who borrowed...

Yet they built upon and added to those achievements. This film does not. It merely evokes, and badly, completely missing what Vertov was trying to say, and simply appropriating his style for maximum effect. It reeks of hipster. My god, it even ends with a god damn fade to monochrome. When Jack Cardiff first achieve this shot, it was to delineate between the worldly pleasures of Earth and the banality of Heaven. In this film, is says...nothing.

That says everything.

I do think Roger should continue selecting films to show. There ARE works out there of true accomplishment, who deserve, and NEED recognition, which Mr. Ebert is able to give.

For those interested, here's a short film I made earlier this year. I PLANNED the shots and thought it out. It took TIME and WORK to make, and I didn't have an expensive DLSR to do it. In fact, this film was shot with an 8 year old point and shoot, and cost 80 dollars to make:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdB4B_OZXmY

This film just turned the miserable blizzard of 2010 into something wonderful. That's great art, Absolutely nominate it for an Oscar.

Roger Roger... Why do you give away suspenseful movie plots? as in, ""Salt" (PG-13, 100 minutes). A damn fine thriller. I Angelina Jolie stars as a CISA agent fighting ingle-handedly to save the world from nuclear destruction" I thought thrillers were supposed to surprise the audience.

You did the same with Lost In Translation" on TV - never forgave you for that! I can't read your reviews now before seeing a movie...

I'm not expert enough to debate its Oscar©-worthiness; it seemed like countless other slice-of-life kinds of short films I've seen, with the obligatory monochrome, pan-up and pan-down stuff, and so on. And I won't judge it as an homage (though I thank Mr. Ebert for clueing me into a film I'd vaguely heard of, but never seen).

I was glad I watched the first time without listening (trying to imagine what the music track would be); the soundtrack and its relentless broken-octave thing (and dissolving into ironic reverb-land at the end) reminded me of many a short-film soundtrack from the 80s, which in turn reminded me of countless "electronic studio" college-campus concerts from the early seventies.

You want something interesting? Post the video with a challenge to any interested composer turn out an accompanying soundtrack (even with a 24-48 hour deadline); you'd be amazed at the diversity and originality of what might be submitted. Or, just post the raw footage, and invite others to re-cut....

//just my two cents; I still did enjoy this as a nice change from the recent TV footage.

When I saw the film and the resultant comments I thought of how Americans have so much time on their hands! My wife had me view the film saying that this would be something I would do with my D3000 Nikon. She's right! It is a good study for a University project. Focused, clean slice of someone's take on his neighborhood. Nothing more. Happy New Year everyone! Oh Ebert, I sure miss your former partner Siskel.

The DSLR filmmaker, who has been shooting and editing in relative anonymity may have Roger Ebert to thank for shining the spotlight on our art. We can only hope that “Idiot With a Tripod” will be looked upon as the film that brought the new media filmmaker out of the “niche” category and into the masses. However If like many films of the viral genre this turns out to be a here today gone tomorrow phenomenon, born out of the perfect storm of news worthiness and artistic expression, then we will just have to wait for the next “Idiot With a Tripod” to give us our wings.

Read more of my thoughts about this short as well as a link to another equally as compelling short about the blizzard at the following link.

http://snipurl.com/1r699r

Ebert: Jamie Stuart may labor in relative anonymity, but I've tweeted his work before, most recently his "NYFF48."

It was nice to look at, but honestly I didn't even make it through without scanning. Props to the recognition he received, but maybe Ebert should log on to Vimeo...his mind would be blown if this is his reaction here!

Nice film.

I too shot a 2min short film in the UK when the snow fell incredibly hard last month.

I would appreciate any interest you have in viewing it: http://vimeo.com/17217630

Best,
Steve

The film is not bad, but not really Oscar worthy to be fair.

If that were the case, how on earth do I get Rodger Ebert to rave about my short film? I too made a short film in 24 hours in the month of Nov 2010.

I don't live in NY, just a small fishing town in East Yorkshire (UK). I don't have a fancy new camera, just a 2nd hand (5-year old) Sony Z1, and a (5-year) old G5 Mac, with FCP Studio 2.

I'm unemployed (for over 18 months), and I believe I have enough talent to be getting somewhere. I could really do with the support of the general public and also the people in a position to help me.

Please do take the time to view my 2min snow themed shot film:
www.vimeo.com/17217630

Nice film.

I too shot a 2min short film in the UK when the snow fell incredibly hard last month.

I would appreciate any interest you have in viewing it: http://vimeo.com/17217630

Best,
Steve

Mildly interesting, but Oscar-worthy? Hardly. It probably doesn't even qualify for an Oscar, since, according to the Academy, "A short film may not be exhibited publicly anywhere in any nontheatrical form, including but not limited to broadcast and cable television, home video, and Internet transmission, until after its Los Angeles theatrical release, or after receiving its festival or Student Academy Award." In other words, unless L.A. movie-goers paid to see this film, or unless it won an award PRIOR to being posted on the web, the filmmaker is out of luck.

Kudos to Mr. Stuart and Mr. Ebert. Lots of technewave film out on the web every day. Short, tightly edited, stories that occur without extensive plans, but with much creative imagination in framing shots, choosing clips, editing and music selection.

'Crews' of one bring stories to millions. Can't beat that formula.

Hollywood should reawaken to the creative imagination used in this emerging art form. Most current 'films' are best appreciated by just watching their two minute trailer - nothing more fills the two hour void at the cinema.

- 5random1 @ YouTube

we are entering an ice age.

It is a very nice film, no doubt about that.
But what I find utterly fascinating - not surprising, not anymore, but endlessly fascinating all the same - is the vertiginous, literally overnight, jump from anonymity to worldwide "fame", as flimsy and ephemereal as it may be (and I am not saying his will be).
This man's life and future work have been changed, possibly forever, in less time that it took him to produce the film - which is saying something,

We've all seen it happen many times by now, yet it doesn't cease to amaze me.

By the way, I was bored during a blizzard here last year and cut together audio of Tourettes Guy and Mel Gibson yelling at his girlfriend into a video. Reward me, academy!

"Man in a Blizzard" is fascinating for it's technical prowess and the speed of its production, but it just didn't connect with me. There is beauty in the shots for sure and the sequence with the dog, the camera and the bike is rather good, but all throught it I could only think of that Bob Goldtwaith joke from the Rodney King era: "If you ever see me getting beat up, put the damn camera down and help me!"

I guess I'm more of a plot guy. If anything I should thank both Ebert and Stuart for introducing me to "Man with a Movie Camera", which was a wonderful surprise. Happy New Year!

Reading through these comments it is frustrating not to have them filmed as a video of their own. Certainly they are interestingly all over the map--getting it...not getting it...not thinking there's anything to get...using the film to make your own inaccurate and off-topic political point (here, re: global warming)..

It would be a very fun little video about the diverse ways people respond to art.

P.S. Am I really the only former film student who has a broadcast-quality camcorder, edits with Final Cut Pro, and looks at this and says, "Wow, wish I could do that!" rather than, "Oh, any skilled hobbyist or film student (like me and my friends!) could do the same or much better."

People are exactly like this in museums, too. It's sad and funny all at the same time.

JulieS.

I trust Roger's judgment because he's seen an awful lot. When he writes about what he sees, he teaches me how to see the world, or at least the world on film.

Comments here criticizing Roger's praise of "Man in a Blizzard" are filled with jealousy. Some say doing something like this is not so hard with digital cameras and software editing programs. Several advise Roger to go to Vimeo and assert that in praising the film, Roger's a victim of a snow job. I very strongly suspect Roger has visited Vimeo before, but I don't know.

None of the short videos and films referenced in the comments above are anywhere as good as Jamie Stuart's film; I looked at them all. He took his pictures very well and then edited them together extremely well. The still images at the beginning and the moving images towards the end shift from diagonal left to diagonal right with a nice rhythm. Cutting back and forth among the car, the dog, and the motorcycle stuck in the snow tells a nice story.

This isn't easy to do, but Jamie Stuart made it look easy. That's why its art, not just craft.

So he is in fact a 'pro' filmmaker already, which kinda takes the magic out of it..I thought he was just a regular person who happened to make an awesome film.

Its still nicely done of course.

Had this been shot on film, it may have been memorable. However, the flatness and sterility of the capture on the video medium made it...flat and sterile.

Pretty good but not astounding short film. That said, give it an Oscar. Come on, if Sandra Bullock has an Oscar, this deserves one too.

I saw one filmmaker (who had a very cool stop motion film he linked to) get jealous. The rest seem to shrug their shoulders, since this isn't nearly the feat of filmmaking Ebert is saying it is. I mean, no, it's not that hard. You do have to have technical proficiency to do it and a lot of practice to do it as fast as he did.

But tat stop motion that one filmmaker linked to, as well as a flippin' real estate video that another showed, were better than Man in a Blizzard. Again, good for Stuart. I don't even personally like the video since it's just got a bunch of tricks I've done plenty of times. I'd probably admire it more if I hadn't been an amateur filmmaker for a few years now. In fact, I'd probably want to emulate it.

I guess I'll stop posting since I've already made my point, which isn't that important anyways. It's not surprising that other filmmakers say that, no, this doesn't require some dazzling level of skill. It's actually pretty straightforward.

The Canon 7D is a great camera and has a large sensor, which is really good for capturing video in low light. That was one of the biggest feats we saw on the video, and that wasn't an accomplishment of Stuart, but of technology. Stuart made a smart choice in buying it, the lenses, and the track to dolly it. Good for him, and he'll likely make better stuff than this because he's obviously capable of it. This is what you make when you have a few hours in one day to shoot and then edit, nothing more.

But dazzling skill, or whatever term Ebert calls it? I've seen music videos from amateur filmmakers that look great, and it's not even because the filmmakers are particularly skilled. The cameras can just handle such better range of colors, contrast, and low light levels. Then I've seen movies from those same guys that are absolute garbage that even Michael Bay's movies don't approach.

I guess its' weird trying to argue that Stuart's film (though I don't necessarily like it) isn't bad or that he isn't talented; just that saying it deserves accolades and awards is ridiculous and silly, anymore than I should get awards for videos where I play pranks on my family (the vision! The execution!).

It's really good. However, I'm currently on a Film and Television course at college and see work that's equal to and indeed better then this coming from fellow students ALL of the time. It is nothing special. And to say it deserves an Oscar at all is farcical, and especially for, as you say “paying homage to "man with a movie camera"". That is simply ridiculous. I see no evidence of this homage anywhere within the piece. The two are both observational pieces indeed, but that's where the similarities end. It is a lovely piece of work, extremely well edited etc. But come on! Oscar worthy it is not.

This for instance is an observational piece by one my fellow class mates made in First year. It was made In Ireland and not only documents its location, but speaks through image about the impact of the declining Irish economy on that location. The student is, unlike Jamie Stuart, NOT already working in the industry with years of knowledge and experience behind him. The piece of work was also shot on a Sony HDV V1, which creates a picture nothing near as beautiful-looking as a 7D does as those aren't available to us in the college. As you can see, despite these facts, the work is pretty similar and of a standard not too far removed from each other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUXkPcycACQ

The best art stimulates conversation. Jamie Stuart's work is a winner.

Ebert should check out the work on Vimeo. This is undoubted a nice peace. Comment, 'neat,' appropriate. Beyond that, just crazy talk. There are hundreds of videos I would call 'better' that can be found by accident on Vimeo. With original music nonetheless. Ebert must have have been feeling rather lonely or sentimental to get all worked up about this vid. Cheers to the maker though and fine work on clean editing and appropriately framed angles and shots; proportions. Some of the wild white balances, mix matched are distracting and not in a good way. I am glad not to see any old film scratches are 7D degradation. I can only wonder why, with nice night light scenes, the 7D and it's glorious potential for bokeh was all but ignored. I digress, and should close my mouth and let the real professionals do the reviewing I suppose.

I'm sorry to disagree Mr. Ebert, but I've seen at least a thousand better shorts at YouTube by complete amateurs that could put this one under the table in less than 30-seconds.

Not sure what the hubbub is about. This is merely a montage of images that could have been constructed by any amateur. A good short has something to say. This had nothing but some interesting shots of the snow. Ebert has made questionable calls in the past. I'll chalk this up to one of them.

Here is an example of local talent so amazing it will bring tears to your eyes. Chicago Marathon 2010, shot and put together by my little brother, Steve Connell.
Mr. Ebert and Jamie, watch this and weep. Who knew it could be so poignant. http://vimeo.com/15747034 or on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdVZBJ2zBHo

Academy Award material too!

Karen, proud sister

Nice hommage.
It made me think of The man With a Movie Camera and the genius simplicity of film.
This is good, the vertov film was genius, dazzling virtuoso genius. The two films though show that it takes only mere talent to exploit the technique.and that technology is secondary.

Just wondering -- having school equipment available, I've never actually shopped for video equipment. A quick wiki search for "Canon 7D" returned what appeared to me to be a still-photography camera rather than a video camera. Would anyone with some time on their hands be willing to give me a quick explanation? Thanks :)

I see that someone in this comment section has already used my initials.... hm... Well I'm DB too.

Ok so, Man in Blizzard was really good. Jamie Stuart is awesome for making this movie, documenting creatively a blizzard that recently took place and bringing to it his professional photographer's eye and experience. It's cool, it's admirable, it's neat, it looks good, I like it, it's awesome. But Academy Award worthy? Really? First of all, it's a wing-it production. Jamie Stuart, equipped with technical expertise and professional equipment, did something artistic with what he had in a short amount of time. It's impressive and it deserves attention, but it's the type of thing that videographers do all the time for clients all around the world or for themselves. It's well above your typical consumer Average Joe iMovie production, but it's the same principle, just with more experience and more technical mastery. The film displayed Stuart's skills in cinematography (even though the use of the up-tilt became redundant in some of those first shots), and in editing. What about writing, lighting, casting, sound design, directing, producing, etc.? Maybe I'm jaded by the commercials I see every day on TV that don't get academy awards, but to me, this just doesn't seem to rise significantly enough above the ocean of professional videographer work that already exists to be deemed Academy Award worthy.

Whether or not it deserves an Oscar is neither here nor there: it's a superb piece of work shot under difficult conditions and all credit to the film maker.

The other rather sad revelation has been the amount of third rate tat shamelessy promoted by a procession of wannabees and has beens off the back of this post. Talk about misplaced egos...

I enjoyed the film, and would agree that there are thousands of filmmakers doing the same exact work in the same turnaround. I think it's great that Mr Stuart has been singled out of the many and should be embraced as an example of how there is a world outside of hollywood that can tell stories effectively without all the studio type resources.

That said, this was shot and cut in 1 day. The concept was improved. Not Oscar worthy but definitely a VMA? lol

Enjoy
"C'est La Vie" - By Steel - Dir. Nathan Letteer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8J9b-UqSLk

Mr. Ebert;

I was in NJ when I saw Jamie's short on YouTube. What is amazing is how he had the composure to film and plan this shoot, when most people on the east coast were concerned with the traveling conditions and their own personal safety. I for one survived the 'blizzard' of 2011. I did have two little video cameras with me; but they were in the trunk of the car we hired to get me to my brother's house in New Jersey. In the trunk, as the driver kept saying; "Aren't they going to start to plow the roads", and we were concerned about getting stranded in New Jersey. ( A typical 50 minute drive; turned into a 3 hour adventure) It was dark, bleak, with white out conditions; rough filming conditions. Thumbs up to Jamie for documenting it all!

Congratulations to Jamie on his film and all it's success; and to you Mr.Ebert, for recognizing us emerging filmmakers.
It was a pleasure to see you at this past HIFF in Honolulu.

Aloha,

Bob Ferguson
Filmmaker/Photographer
Honolulu, HI
youtube search word: fergfilm
"Life in a Day-Honolulu"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfdyB20lTb4

amateurish

Oh come on Raaawb...there is NO comparison between your kitteh pictures and "Man in a Blizzard" aka "Idiot With a Tripod." Yes, you have an adorable Siamese there. But the result looks like something someone randomly put together using iPhoto and iMovie. There was thought behind what Jamie Stewart did. There were ideas there. And it was shot well and edited well.

Give Scooby some scritches under the chin for me, OK? And you need to go out and shoot. Lots and lots of shooting. I know I'm not at Mr. Stuart's level, so that's what the short makes me want to do. Get out and shoot some more.

Probably more indicative of the fact that the high-budget crowd is trying to regain their sould than anything else. I suppose all those 45-55s have finally found the internet and handheld. Possibly, they like the jumpcuts mixed with simulated 80s doly shots. Maybe someone from LA finally found a city with snow and has connections to the film biz. Who knows.

Here's what I know. This is a decent short. To say it's Oscar-worthy is disingenuous. The Oscar hasn't been remotely interesting since digital video grew up 10 years ago. Visit Vimeo any day of the week and you'll see work from kids all over the world that blows this away. That fact is simply can't be debated.