The Roundup:

Berlin: Symphony of a Big City
We watched the first part of it, the train entrance into Berlin. Some really great shots. Often we've been told that shooting vehicles doesn't create great motion, but this film certainly did. Aside from that, it was neat to see Berlin post-WW1 and pre-WW2.

Bronenosets Potyomkin
A very moving sequence. So many people died, and unlike many other movies, you really feel it. It seems odd, becuase some of the acting is way over the top, but you still feel what's going on. Apparently the sequence we watched wasn't in the original script, but came about while they were shooting the movie. Now I understand it's the most famous sequence of the film.

Metropolis
I saw the animé version of this one first, and was surprised at how exact the anime version was to this one. The sets and effects in this movie are stunning for the time. The acting was once again way over-the-top. All the early films really draw their acting straight from the theatre, with big facial expressions and everything emphasized. I particularly like the useless machines the people run. One is a circle with three hands in the middle, surrounded by lightbulbs. The operater simply points the hands to the lights that turn on. Apparently this is a gruelling task...

The Song Beneath me

This song was used by the speaker at Freedomize this evening, and I was stunned at how exact of an image it paints of Christians and Christianity. "Always willing, never able." That to me is the definition of modern Christianity. Am I very much a victim of this? More so than many I think.

How many churches want to feed the world, get rid of poverty, help the homeless, and much more? We set out with the best of intentions, but our 'misitry' is so boxed by our complacency. Again, I'm convicting myself as I write this. We are so happy to be dissatisfied. We pray for these big things, never expecting anything, and make a bigger deal of it, when only a portion is given. If you're a Christian reading this, how many of our personal prayers are like this: "I pray for the city of Toronto," "I pray for so-and-so," or "I raise up such-and-such." What exactly are we praying for, and what exactly do we expect? The words "I pray for" seem just as meaningless in prayer as saying to a friend in conversation, "I'm talking to you about this person" and then saying nothing more on the subject.

Perhaps that's a little too critical. There is the implied meaning that when we pray "I pray for..." we're actually saying something like: "give good things to..." or "help out with this..." or "comfort this person..." or "bring 'revival' to..." (I'll leave the topic of 'revival' to another day, but bring it up here only as an accurate example). So we are thinking that we are actually praying something specific, and not just blowing our wind at God.

But let me focus on the one example I brought up. A church I went to a few times in Toronto seemed to weekly pray the words: "We pray for the city of Toronto," and left it at that. Now the implied meaning was that God would 'move' in Toronto and bring all the things that come when God moves, revival, blessings, repentance, and a host of other 'Christianese' terms.

So did they actually expect revival? Or repentance? Come on. We pray it expecting God to do nothing. It would seem impossible that God would ACTUALLY listen to this, fix all of the problems in Toronto, and by next week we see 4 million people in churches in the city. Not this IS impossible, but certainly to us it seems that way.

And since we expect God to do nothing, we are overjoyed when He decides to give us more than our expectations, perhaps we get a new member at church, or the collection goes a little better than expected the next week.

Which brings me back to the line that moved me so much. "Always willing, never able." That's me to a 'T'. I write this, knowing that the response to what I've written is to actually expect God to do things (becuase He said He would, if we asked Him), to actually help other people, and love them with everything I have. And I'm terrible at this. And I don't feel like I'm the only one. People are justified when they make harsh comments regarding the 'good' the church has done. That's a terrible thing, and it shouldn't be like that.

Standing in the Rain

Chorus:
Standing in the rain, knocking on the window
Knocking on the window on a Christmas Day
There he is again, knocking on the window
Knocking on the window in the same old way

No use knocking on the window
There is nothing we can do, sir
All the beds are booked already
There is nothing left for you, sir

No use knocking on the window
Some are lucky, some are not, sir
We are Christian men and women
But we're keeping what we've got, sir

No we haven't got a manger
No we haven't got a stable
We are Christian men and women
Always willing, never able

Christ the Lord has gone to heaven
One day he'll be coming back, sir
In this house he will be welcome
But we hope he won't be black, sir

Wishing you a merry Christmas
We will now go back to bed, sir
Till you woke us with your knocking
We were sleeping like the dead, sir

Lyrics by Sydney Carter

Drunk City

I think I just took part in a very special thing, and I wish I'd realized it at the time. Got back into Peterborough this eve, went out to the Saphire Lounge with Kaite and the MUN people, went back to Lainy's, and come midnight went to a Halloween Scaryotype party (I went as a rugby player, since that's what I already had on)

So the party was hosted by the Drunk City people. Apparently they are a legitmately run commune in Peterborough, with artists, writers, students, etc. You have a job you pay rent, you don't, someone else pays it for you. They were described as a group of 'geniuses, who sit around and drink all day.' And upon talking to them, I think that was fairly true. A number of people were smashed when I got there. I had whole convo with a guy about the music industry and the film industry after he'd just taken a funnel. He was kinda in and out, but mostly in, so it was a fruitful talk.

Apparently they don't give out the names of memebers, the location of the commune, or anything really. But I didn't know that till after, so I feel kind of 'honoured' to have been a part of this. Check out their galleries if you want. I think some are a little inappropriate, so if find some stuff offensive, don't say I didn't warn you.

In other news, I'm going to Model UN tomorrow, which I'm really looking forward to. Don't know what I'll be doing exactly, probably Crisis stuff for the Security Council. Apprently bombing a few trains in Dennmark, and maybe an Ethiopian war are on the agenda. And then...

ALAINA TURNS 19 AT LAST!!!

Happy Birthday!

Outreach?

So I think Artie is in need of some new strings. I can't remember the last time I replaced them. It seems kinda useless though, becuase I never play him except when I'm alone, so I'm the only one that ever hears him. All the same though, I think he deserves new strings.

He went through a little 'phase' of always going out of tune a month or two ago, but he seems to have grown out of it, and now keeps it together pretty well (except for his B stirng, but he's always been like that, and I've no idea why).

In other news, I got nominated to be Outreach Co-ordinator for IVCF. I agreed to let my name stand so now I have to start thinking about some outreach things.

Inspired by Dave B (since it seems this entire blog is living in his shadow), I was wondering about something akin to his "Theology Pub" but a little less exclusive to Christians. Basically, replace deep theological discussion with discussion loosely centered around something in the Bible. I think there's a lot of stuff in it that people love/hate/agree with/disagree with/etc., and it should be discussed! Example: Why the heck is God so 'murder-y' in the Old Testement? I don't know really. I'd like to though. The idea is that people can come, drink, talk about their own situations, struggles and journeys, and hopefully go away with a little more understanding, and a little more nachos in their belly.

So honestly, let me know what you think about this. Is this at ALL a good idea? I don't know, and I'm open to suggestion. If you're not a 'Christian' (and maybe we can talk about why I dislike that word at on of these things), leave a comment! And be harsh. If you think this is a petty, useless, offensive, narrow-minded converting tool, please let me know. Most of all, would you be interested in going to one of these things? KEY question. Worst thing would be to go ahead with it and end up with a bunch of Christians sitting at bar drinking root-beer patting ourselves on the back for our efforts. There's already enough of that.

Feel free to disagee

USE that comment button people! If you've seen any films I talk about, put in your own two cents. Or if they remind you of any films, talk about them (include a link to IMDB too if you can). If I write something you disagree with, comment on how wrong I am so that I can use my deleting powers. If you just want to talk about the wonders of Rising Crust pizza, feel free as well. I hate seeing '0 comments.'

Today's Gem:

If you had told me when I got out of bed today that my life would be enhanced on this day, I might not have believed you. Today, as a turning point no doubt in my entire career in film, I watched Michael Snow's Wavelength. You may know Michael Snow from his sculputres at the Skydome, or in the Eaton's Centre (I personally did not, and didn't even realize that those items were 'high art' so much as archetechtural accents).

One can only describe this film as 'moving,' in that it takes 45 minutes to move across a room (rougly 15 feet I imagine). BUT, and this is why the peice is so 'artistic,' we aren't actually moving at all. We are in fact sitting reletively still in our seats for the duration, save our fidgetting and gasps for life about 15 minutes in (which you will realize we have only travelled about 5 feet at that point). Nor is the film itself really moving... it is a formalist look at the ZOOM lens (ahh!), so the camera stays stationary. This means, that neither us, nor the camera is moving for 45 minutes. Yes that is correct. 45 minutes of nothing.

The only 'movement' you find here is the flim reel which we can equate to about 2,250 feet of film (2 minutes of film = approx. 100 feet). Now for all you Ryerson film students who read this (which I won't kid myself into thinking is that many), let's do some MORE math, even though we are BFAs. If 2 minutes of film, or 100' costs $24 to buy, and $39 to process, that means that this film in total cost................... (Drumroll soundeffects)........... $1417.50.

$1417.50

And I feel bad when I spend more than $10 on a meal. This guy just threw it into the wind.

Spolier for those who will actually watch this film (if my warning wasn't enough)

The actual point of the film, I percieve, is to be the worlds longest, and worst timed pun. The film is called 'Wavelength,' and indeed, over an extensive length of time, it eventually zooms in to a picture of waves. Who knew this guy was a comedian? Three quarters of an hour to get to the punch line. Perhaps this is why he never got his own sitcom.

All-Bran

Being in a film program, naturally many of us have worked with video before, and involved ourselves in other artistic endeavours. I've been seeing and hearing some stuff that other people have done and I've truly been floored. People here are amazing. The kind of work that they have put out is phenominal.

-In design class, one of my friends has put together some of the most amazing peices. Her art has been shown around, so I understand, and with good cause. Even though the prof seems to disagree with her on everything, her work speaks for itself. I guess 'he KNOWS that she gets it.'

-Two guys from my film prod class put together films on Archetechture for their first assignment, and the stuff they got back was phenominal. From these beautiful sweeping building shots, to these minute details that make their rushes look great.

-Another guy did a project for Skills Ontario (I'd never heard of it), and in 3 hours put together a commercial for eggs that was equal to or greater than ones on TV.

-One girl in my class has wokred tirelessly to come up with great footage (yeah, she shot a few times...) But all those efforts paid off. Her film shows such a refinement now.

In the wake of this, I think "Yeah, I had goo rushes for my last shoot, but that was a total accident."

[p.s.: the title has nothing to do with this post. It's just a name I saw when I looked around my room. Reminded me I need to buy some more All Bran through...]

Thought's from Pascal

"I wonder at the hardihood with which such persons undertake to talk about God. In a treatise addressed to infidels they begin with a chapter proving the existence of God from the works of Nature... this only gives their readers grounds for thinking that the proofs of our religion are very weak... It is a remarkable fact that no canonical writer has ever used Nature to prove God."

In fact, when I try and think of how the canonical writer tried to prove God, I notice that they didn't really try. It was just evident from their works. Now this can perhaps be taken with a grain of salt, since their was very little athiesm at the time, so there was less of a need to 'prove' God as it were.

Joe Boot said something powerful to this, and he speaks in a british accent, so it was very credible and intelligent. He explained how the search for God is often not a search to FIND God, but a search to prove nothing was ever there in the first place. People look for God out of spite, in hopes that they won't find him and can finaly lay Him to rest (speaking as one whose tried that road). Is it any wonder that these people find nothing, when they search with that as their goal?

I guess we try and 'not look' for God for a number of reasons, control being a big one. I myself have these huge control issues, and can imagine that others might as well. I like to own my life, the things around me, have my own fun, etc. Often I'm less excited to take responsibility for my choices, but I like having my own choice nonetheless.

I think people are afraid of an overwhelming conviction as well. Again, I as a Christian still can't imagine what it would be like if God laid out all my crap at once in front of me. But for the seeker, if they find God, what does God say to them? "You suck, but let's be friends?"

And then their is the whole issue of the pursuit itself. Often we like the hunt but not the capture. People are always trying to be so busy so that we won't have time to think about any bad things, or to avoid thinking about others. I know I have a habit of sleeping when things get too much for me. If I can't deal with something, I sleep, and hopefully won't think on it when I wake up (not that I've dealt with at all)

I'm not sure about all of this, and I don't want to make these sweeping generalizations. But I wonder if God really will prove himself to anyone who is actually looking for the proof. I know He did in my life, and I know He did in the lives of a lot of people I know.

So let's have less of this "I look at a tree and think, God must be real" and remember that nature is not a proof, but a display.

Movies for the weekend...

These are the movies that entertained me this weekend:

Inventing the Abotts
A sad movie, very easily considered a chick flick. But chick flicks can be good too. Liv Tyler is in it. I think I have a huge crush on her. She's like my ideal actress. Outstanding beautiful, very soft-spoken, sweet and innocent, and also funny. The mother in this movie was by far the strongest character.
As a side note, I screened this movie in Scarborough on the border of Markham. It took forever to get there. Stupid 69 North. Waited about half an hour in the rain for it.

Zoolander
So after hearing great things about this film, I finally watched it. I like Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson movies, so this one was probably gonna be a good one. I was sad to see that Will Ferrel was in it (I'm sure I'm not the only guy on the planet who thinks he's not that funny), BUT I actually thought he was original in this movie, and not just trying to be dumb and 'over-the-top.' Which is odd, becuase this was probably his most 'over-the-top' character ever. But he was unique, and he fit the part. So it was good. The DVD menu is also very good. "Are you ready to press some buttons? And I don't mean in a psychomalogical way! This one is 'Play.' Now I know what your thinking, 'it's a movie, not a play.' [...] Special Features? I think it's my eyebrows!"

Amelie
Alright, so this one is most definitely a chick flick. But WOW. It is one of the most amazing scripts ever. I adored the main character, and all the supporting characters. It was interesting, witty, well-written, funny, well photogrpahed, and all around wonderful. Guys, watch this movie. Ladies love it, and it's alright if you do too.

My Secret Passion...

More and more I realize I may have a problem. I've got an addiction that can't be curbbed. I love the TTC and everything about it. I think it comes from my fear of Peterborough trasit, that when I came to this city, I was overwhelmed at how amazing urban transit can be.

Some Amazing TTC tidbits:

-Younge subway was Canada's first subway

-Toronto is the only North American city that has not abandonned its streetcars for publiic use.

-The TTC uses the same guage track for streetcars as it does for the subway. This is so they can use streetcars in the subway and can store subway cars on the streetcar track (though this only ever happened once)

-There has only ever been 1 major accident resulting in death on the TTC (aside from suicides)

-There have been countless suicides.

-The Bloor St. Viaduct, built in 1925 was orginally designed without the rail tracks beneath the street. But it's designer insisted that they be included, becuase he saw this bridge as the main connection over the Don Valley (which it is). Years later, when they would build the Bloor/Danforth subway, the rails finally got use, and prooved to be a worthwhile investment (the subway may not have been possible, as rebuilding the viaduct would be out of the question)

-Only one bus route does not connect to a subway station. All the rest do.

-For a period of six months when the Bloor/Danforth subway opened, the trains ran interconnected on the green and yellow line. On the Bloor line, every second train ran downtown via University and back up Younge again. That's where the seemingly useless "next train" signs come from. The connection of course still exists today, and if you travel north from Museum, you can see the tracks that break off and go into Lower Bay station, a now unused subway station.

-The Bloor subway was originally supposed to be on Queen St., but city planners saw development extending north, and decided that Bloor St. would be a better choice.

-Eglinton station is the only station where you can still see the original tiles used on the first subway line.

-There is actually a pattern to the Bloor Subway line colour scheme. Try and guess it! (Hint: Bay is the centre... go outwards from there)

-Toronto is one of the only cities in the world who is still looking into subway building. Many cities now opt for a cheaper Light Rail transit. But as the TTC has stated: "The subway is the spine of a transit network, with Light Rail acting as the ribs."

-Some subway lines we may see in the future:
-Spadina extension to York U and Steeles (this one is deffinite, as they have already drawn up the plans and done the assesment)
-Eglinton West (this one actually started consturction till the Harris Government pulled out. A 'cave' of a station exists beneath Eglinton West station)
-Sheppard extension to the the Scarborough RT and west to Downsview (this one should have been done a while ago)
-Downtown relief line (a much larger U loop going from the Danforth down wround to Union and up again near the other end of the Bloor Line)

Check out Transit Toronto for more tidbits like this.

A little history...

...because my midterm is tomorrow. (Why is he writing a blog if he should be studying? hmm...)

I watched a terribly depressing film today called Black Robe. Brilliant in its construction, but depressing in its subject matter. Long and short of it, A Jesuit priest goes off into the wildreness with some Algonquins to go to the Huron Mission. The Algonquins leave him stranded but a man and his daughter come back for them, are captured, get tortured, guy dies, preist gets to mission, converts town, town dies.

I was so torn watching the movie, but it was interesting in how it approached the topic of conversion, and how the Jesuit was transformed. He enters the wilderness with a single track mind: these people are savages and I need to convert them to my faith. But as the movie progresses, he comes to love these people who he is with. In the end, he baptizes all of the hurons after a most remarkable montage where we see how much he cares for these people. Sadly, the movie made it out to be a negative thing, but it was one of the most beautiful things I thought. This Jesuit, after having been through so much, truly loved the people he was with. And while the director (an athiest, even anti-theist) trys to film it in such a way that we are to be disgusted and dissappointed with the baptisms of the Hurons, I couldn't help but wonder why? Why was it perceived to be such a terrible thing? If he had forced baptisms, then yes it would be terrible. But he didn't. He loved the people he was with. He believed so strongly in a God that would save them, why would he keep that to himself? The Hurons asked to be baptized, and he was joyful in doing it. There was no 'hostile takeover of the soul.'

The Hurons died. The were killed by the Iroquois. This is how the movie ends (sorry to ruin it). We see a picture of a cross against a sunset, and the text telling us how all the Hurons were killed. If this text had been ommited, it would be a very different movie. But we can't mingle with the facts. Is it upsetting? Yes. I'd like to believe that God raised the Hurons up and made them a great and mighty people who would conquer land and such. It seems like that's what we should expect right? If they're going to be Christians, God better bless them huge.

But again, (and maybe this is what was so depressing to me) I ask myself, why? Why should we expect this for them? Jesus WAS God, and he didn't conquer any land, wasn't a 'great and mighty' person in his day, and died in the most horrible fashion I can imagine (read into the process of crucifixtion if you doubt this).

I don't know the story, but maybe the hurons knew this verse: "To live is Christ, to die is gain." It's been one of those 'background' verses in my life for a while. I liked how sounded, when I would say it out loud. But this film opened it up in a new way for me. It's hard for me to understand, becuase I see the death of the Hurons as a terrible, unfortunate thing. But really, in the Christian scheme of things, death is hardly a negative.

That's my mind for now. I'd love to watch this film again. Maybe I'll get the chance.

Now I really have to study for my midterm.

It's Tired in Here

First off, the after school program for Urban Promise was a ball tonight. I love those kids SO much. I'm beginning to see some of families more, and getting to know them a little bit, so i'm excited about that. But mostly, I'm excited that the kids shout my name when they see me come to the school now! That makes life as a whole worth it I think.

In other news, I got my footage back for Assignment #2. I had a nice seredipitus effect. I thought my lenses were misalligned (which they were for one shot when I noticed it, and being that I hadn't opened the camera at all, assumed they were misalligned for the extent of my shoot) so I rewound all my film to shoot again (figuring nothing got exposed).

But, as it turns out, my first shoot DID get exposed. So it should look like a mess right?

Not true, as it would seem. For my second shoot, I changed my idea to just 'milk' and did all my shots of mil against a black background. So now I have these images of pouring milk, and dripping milk superimposed perfectly over moving images of swings and slides and merry-go-rounds.

It is actually quite nauseating. Which is great!

Got Milk?

So assignment #2 is coming along well I'd say. There's a lot of trust when I'm filming, beucase I'm torn between reshooting in case a shot doesn't turn out, and trying to conserve the film itself. Ultimately, there's little reason to reshoot, becuase you could 'assume' you shot it wrong all day (and believe me, I do). It's SO different than video, where you can immediately go back and see what you've done. I have to wait till Wednesday morning to see how my shoot went, and then decide if I need to shoot again or not.

So that's my 'film student' schpiel.

In other news, I'm questioning dropping choir. It seems to be a big inconvenience on my monday evenings, the quality isn't spectacular, and I don't really 'mesh' with the people there (seeing as how they are all seniors mostly). But I like singing. hmm...

Thoughts?

Pitman

read this: http://www.gravenrecords.blogspot.com/

the one entitled "Where the Fantasy Ends"

Yes I found this on Dave's blog, but brilliant work none the less.


Ironically, a Barenaked Ladies song just came on. A great one too. I remember in grade two, our teacher asked us to name some musicians we liked, and one guy said the Barenaked Ladies, and was repremanded. So I assumed they were some fringe 'punk' or 'grunge' band. Who knew how amazing they were. Listen to Call and Answer. That song is brilliant.

Tomorrow I start filming for my biggest project to date: "Motion Camera Assignment #2." With my vision in place, and my goal clear, I am about to produce what will easily be one of the most thought provoking and nauseating films man has ever seen. I see an academy coming my way, but I will try and act humble when accepting it.

Films I've watched at Ryerson in the past week:

The Mechanical Ballet
An abstract peice which uses a lot of motion, some mirrors, and interesting editing techniques.

A Study in Choreography for Camera
By Maya Deren, an experimental filmmakker in the 1940's, 50's. Some really brilliant transitions in it. Very fluid. As Ms. J would say 'It has nice fluidity.' This was a spur of the moment film, inspired by a guys pitch.

Artificial Changelings
A New Media installation actually, with 4 stages: Close up, direct address, dream/trance, and Time Tunnel. Totally didn't get it, so I won't even try.

Jer. 8: 4-9

Yes it's in the morning, and yes I have class tomorrow. But this hit me like a tonne of bricks:

"Do people fall down and not get up?
Or take the wrong road and then just keep going?
So why does this people go backwards,
and just kepp on going - backwards!
They stubbornly hold on to their illusions,
refuse to change direction.
I listened carefully
but heard not so much as a whisper.
No one expressed one word of regret.
Not a single "I'm sorry" did I hear.
They just kept at it, blindly and stupidly
banging their heads against a brinck wall.
Cranes know when it's time
to move south for winter.
And robins, warblers, and bluebirds
know when it's time to come back again.
But my people? My people know nothing,
not the first thing of God and his rule."

This is from The Message, which is not a study Bible by any stretch, but I love how Peterson translates this into common english, like I would speak it myself.

What grabbed me was the line, "No one expressed one word of regret, not a single 'I'm sorry' did I hear." It made me realize how little I say sorry for so many things, and how often I say it for others. I go to bed many nights knowing I've missed so many opportunities to just share lives and love people, and be loved, knowing that this is exactly why God got me up that morning. But I realize what an immense task that is (from my current position), and rarely appologize for it, becuase I feel I'm justified becuase of the audacity of the task.

And really, is it THAT audacious? Love people. It doesn't sound like it would be hard, not considering everything there is to gain by doing it. I study becuase I have knowledge to gain, I work becuase I have money to gain, I eat becuase I have energy to gain. And yet I don't love, even though I have people, friends, and relationships to gain. And really, that was MOST important to Christ. He didn't worry about the eating or the working.

I say this, I KNOW this is how I should be, so let's see what happens when I wake up tomorrow.

Oh Rudolph...

I have to pitch my second film idea tomorrow. "Using a moving camera, make an abstract film that clearly evokes a physical sensation."

Inspired by a recent episode in which my thanksgiving dinner came up the way it went down, I have chosen nausea as my sensation. Here's hoping I'm not the only one who will say hello to his food twice.



In other news, there is only one seat in the lecture hall for Concepts & Theories that gets internet. Two seats to the left of me. Interesting...

Why I might want the internet in lecture? Don't know. In fact, I don't want it, becuase my laptop batter last for 2 hours with wireless turned off and the screen set to it's darkest anyway, and the lecture is 3 hours. How I've been able to make it through ever lecture is somewhat of a miricle. No dead battery yet.

Sorry there was nothing more interesting today

[edit: I wrote the title, then totally didn't explain it. Rudolph Laban was a 'movement theorist' (tell your parents THAT'S what you want to be when you grow up!), and ironically, his theories helpped in conceptualising my idea for my pitch. Shout outs to all the Musical Theatre people...]

Gettin Dziga with it

Being a university student, more specifically a Bachelor of Fine Arts student, I seem to have a lot of time on my hands. So it was about time I got one of these that I actually use.

Just to explain the title a bit, "Man With a Movie Camera" is a 1929 film done by Dziga Vertov. It was the first film I really appreciated in my program at Ryerson. It's a soviet peice, designed to show the movement of a day in the life of communist Russia. Some people put an electronic soundtrack to it a few years back, and it's quite good.

Some other films I recomend:

-La Jeteé
The movie that inspired Terry Gilliam's "Twelve Monkeys." Made by Chris Marker, who is some sort of 'guru' of film. Ironically, the whole thing is still photography except for one brief moment. That being said, I'm trying desperately to find it somewhere. Let me know if you see it!

-An occurance at Owl Creek Bridge
An old Mystery Science Theatre 3000 episode based on a short story by Ambrose Beirce. Not as thrilling as La Jeteé, but a neat twist. I think they are coming out with a feature film of this in a year or two.

- The Fall of the House of Usher (both the 1928 version and the 1960 version)
The first one makes my head spin that they made it without any computer technology for compositing and stuff. The next one makes me laugh, becuase Vincent Price is hilarious in the creepiest way possible. Check out Tim Burton's first animation, Vincent for a better understanding of this guy. It's on the Nightmare Before Christmas DVD, which I'm happy to loan you!