See Marwencol. That’s it. I can try to explain it to you, I can try to let you know how I feel about it, but you and can’t really talk about Marwencol until you see Marwencol.

Okay, I’ll tell you a few things about it since you asked so nicely. The film follows Mark Hogancamp, a man who starts his life over after being beaten half to death. Once he can walk and talk and read again, he begins to learn a few things about his former life, of which he remembers nothing. He was a drunk; a drunk who kept detailed and often horrific journals of his darkest moments. As he slowly tries to put his life together, the pain of dealing with his attack and coming to terms with his former self, he begins practicing his own kind of unconventional therapy.

Mark has built a 1/6th scale WWII Belgian town he calls Marwecol. It is populated with dolls who all have a real world doppelganger, people close to Mark in his everyday, full-scale life. He dresses the characters up, creates plots for them to carry out, and photographs their goings on. The level of authenticity Mark keeps the world running at is astounding. The guns soldiers carry have moving parts. He wheels around a truck full of character so that the truck doesn’t look like it just came out of the box. He wants everything to be as real as possible in Marwencol.

There is more to Mark’s story, a lot more. Director Jeff Malmberg had great access to all things Hogancamp, including his family, his coworkers, and of course the town itself. Narratively, the film progresses in a manner that keeps things interesting. Mark’s former selkf, and current one, has a lot of skeletons in his closet which slowly come out as the film goes on. I would have wanted more from the cinematography of the film, however. I realize it’s a documentary and the character profile here is of the utmost importance, but when you are focusing in on a 1/6th scale world it would be great to have some nicer macro photography. Perhaps I’m spoiled or asking the world, but given how beautifully twisted the town of Marwencol can become, I would love to have seen it more vividly. Like I said, the character here is key, and boy oh boy what a fascinating story Mark Hogancamp has. This is definitely one worth seeing.

You can learn more about Marwencol at the film’s Official Website. There is one more SXSW Screening on Friday March 19th, 1:15 at the Alamo Ritz.

[](http://www.candlerblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/03/ED2-Credit-AMANDA-LOCKHART.jpg)Wow, South by Southwest (SXSW) is one helluva whirlwind event. Luckily, between screenings my schedule allowed for a quick chat with David Bond, whose film Erasing David had its U.S. Premiere here last night. The documentary, which the director concedes is something of a sensationalist thriller, deals with the issue of modern privacy in a world where we are obsessed with sharing so much of our personal information.

In the film, David opts to “drop off the map” as it were. Two of the best private investigators in the U.K. are given his picture and his name, but nothing else. While the film crew follows them around, they must find David who is doing everything in his power not to get caught. Within hours of them beginning their assignment, they gather more information than he originally thought was possible. They even started a fake Facebook account for David, spoofing his friends into giving them leads to move forward on.

Lucky for us (or for me, really), the U.S. ranks much higher in terms of privacy awareness than the U.K. Surprisingly, the U.K. is the third worst country in terms of availability of private data in the world. Their competition? China and Russia. This may seem startling, but the U.K. does have CCTV cameras all over the country recording almost every public area. With facial recognition technology slowly being integrated with the system, David purports, it is only a matter of time before our social networks become meshed with state infrastructure.

The fact that this film is receiving such a warm reception at a conference such as SXSW says a lot about how much of a paranoid Luddite the director isn’t. After all, the Interactive wing of SXSW is where Twitter and Foursquare, a geo-location social network, were launched. All day long people are sharing their location, their thoughts, and perhaps even more sensitive data than they realize on their mobile phones as they wander about the Austin Convention Center. But as I said, Mr. Bond is no Luddite. He is simply more aware of these issues after his experience of making the film. It is his hope that the film’s audience will be more aware as well.

Erasing David will be screening again on Tuesday, March 16th at 11am in the G-Tech theater. The film is also available [VOD through Amazon during the festival](http://www.amazon.com/Erasing-David-SXSW-Festival- Premiere/dp/B003AQEZGG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=digital- video&qid=1268524363&sr=8-1). For more information on both the film and issues of privacy and information, you can check out the film’s Official Website.

[podcast]http://www.candlerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/candlercast-12 -david-bond.mp3[/podcast] [Right-Click to Download](http://www.candlerblog.com /wp-content/uploads/2010/03/candlercast-12-david-bond.mp3) • [Subscribe in iTu nes](http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=33487536 8)

Photo Credit: Amanda Lockhart

[](http://www.candlerblog.com /wp-content/uploads/2010/03/bjtaxi_print.jpg)The other day, director Miao Wang invited me to her Brooklyn home to discuss her new film, Beijing Taxi. The documentary follows three Beijing cab drivers over the course of two years leading up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. All working class locals, each character offers a unique perspective on the society that has seemed closed for so long to westerners. The film is an eye-opener for anyone who has ever wanted to take a closer look at China’s capital, even, as Ms. Wang explains in our interview, for the taxi drivers themselves. Beijing Taxi will have its world premiere next week at SXSW in Austin, Texas. For more details, you can visit the film’s official website. Listen in as we discuss the current state of China, the making of the film, and what bands Miao is most excited to hear when she heads to Austin for the festival.

[podcast]http://www.candlerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/candlercast-11 -miao-wang.mp3[/podcast] [Right-Click to Download](http://www.candlerblog.com /wp-content/uploads/2010/03/candlercast-11-miao-wang.mp3) • Subscribe in iTun es

Music Featured in this Podcast (from the Beijing Taxi soundtrack): • An Yang “??”

• Miserable Faith • Our Healthy Upward Ideals “????????????” - Sand • Together “???” - Sound Fragment

[](http://www.candlerblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/03/oscarglasses.png)

The statues are all distributed, the corks are all popped, and now it is time to talk about the 82nd Academy Awards in the past tense. We’ll get to who won, but first off I’d like to talk about who lost: the viewing audience. This has to be one of the worst awards broadcasts in recent memory. Overlong and underwhelming, the only thing interesting in the show was actually finding out who won, which is weird because that often takes a backseat to the rest of the spectacle.

Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were charming, albeit neutered, hosts. They farmed the opening number out to Neil Patrick Harris, which was predictably fine, but it seemed like a complete redux of his bouts as Tony and Emmy host. On paper it sounds poignant, but in practice it felt stale. I long for the days when Billy Crystal would superimpose himself into the top nominated films. I can understand the new hosts wanting to move forward with an original spin, only this felt like a step backwards.

I’m not going to dissect the interpretive dance number, or “Oscars 2: Electric Boogaloo,” as I like to call it.

I always tune in for the interstitial montages. There were really only two this year besides the traditional “In Memoriam.” The first was a John Hughes tribute, which was accompanied by a flock of the kids he made icons gathered on stage. The montage itself was probably the best part of the evening, capturing the essence of Mr. Hughes’ momentous career. It didn’t, however, dig any deeper than that, which is a shame. Back when Errol Morris was making these things there was a sense of storytelling to the montages. Even further back, Chuck Workman used to raise these clip-ups to another artistic level completely. Ah, the good ol’ days. The other big montage was a celebration of horror films. This was not nearly as successful as the John Hughes piece. Whoever made it relied far to heavily on clips from The Shining to get them out of creative ruts. Nonetheless, it was a fairly decent primer on horror films, but I’m sure fanboys and fangirls out there will protest.

It turns out spending time showing us all ten Best Picture nominees wasn’t all that much of a time-suck. The real gouge-your-eyes out moment came later in the night, when the awards for Best Actor and Actress were given out. Each nominee was treated to a celebrity pal toasting their careers and performances. Considering actors, and really all nominees, are supposedly being graded on a specific performance and not the breadth of their careers, the mini-retrospective monologues came off more obnoxious than celebratory. And let’s face it, four of the nominees are going to lose, so let’s move things along and get to the meat.

As for that meat: it’s a strange world where Sandra Bullock wins an Oscar for a mediocre performance in an even more mediocre film. All I can imagine is that the rest of the actresses up for the honor split the vote so severely that the safest bet, the middle of the road one, got the most votes. Mo’Nique was completely deserving of the Best Supporting Actress honor. Her speech featured a nice shout out to Hattie McDaniel, and this time it made a lot more sense than when George Clooney invoked the actresses name in 2006. Jeff Bridges looked like the happiest kid in the room, and Christoph Waltz still scares me after Inglourious Basterds.

While some were a bit put off by Sandy Powell’s acceptance speech when she won for Best Costume Design for The Young Victoria, I thought it was one of the most refreshing moments of the evening. She praised the costume designers who make non-period pieces, essentially imploring the Academy to vote in their favor more often. This has long been a sticking point of mine: the more frill and lace a film has the better chance it has of winning costume design. Modern pieces require a careful hand as well, so she’s right; the Academy should rethink who they give this award to.

I had Quentin Tarantino pegged for Best Original Screenplay, mostly because I think Inglourious Basterds lives up to the award’s title so well. Mark Boal brought us The Hurt Locker so the award is certainly well-deserved, however I have a feeling it will be the kiss of death for him. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the next mind-blowing Boal penned script. Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire is certainly an innovative adaptation, plus its written lineage is right there it it’s ridiculously long title. Congrats to Geoffrey Fletcher, on that note.

I’m skipping a lot, I know. They’re threatening to play me off…

Finally, we now live in a world where a woman has won an Oscar for Best Director. Fourth time’s a charm. This truly was a momentous occasion. Ms. Bigelow did a phenomenal job with a very difficult film. Unlike a multi-(hundred)-million dollar spectacle like Avatar or a coming of middle- age piece like Up in the Air, The Hurt Locker is a loose cannon. It could have gone horribly wrong in another’s hands. There is very little story to the film, no relatable antagonists, and the driving theme of modern masculinity trickles out instead of bombarding the audience. The only thing that could wrangle such an unstable project is the steady hand of a powerful director. It is a cinematic achievement and deserving of all the honors it racked up last night. Congratulations to all.

So there you have it: perhaps the worst Oscars in over a decade. They went for glitzy but they landed on chintzy. It was long, it was boring, but dammit, I’ll be back next year to tune in for another show, hoping against hope that the broadcast will return to its former glory.

[](http://www.candlerblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/03/allfive.png)

I’ve been mostly quiet on the subject of the Oscars this year. Instead of throw my hat into the race, I’d like to offer up what I’ve noticed of the ways my friends and colleagues have approached the subject. After all, it is basically the Super Bowl of film events. So insane has the madness surrounding the Oscars become, that there is an entire swath of calendar, getting longer and longer every year, known as “Awards Season”. In the end, I encounter a few interesting characters in real life and on the web every year surrounding the Oscar madness. Here’s a peek at who they are.

The Predictors


Nostradamus know-it-alls. Pontificators. Armchair zen-masters of all things AMPAS. Sure, in the past week the web was rife with tipsters helping you fill out an office pool, but the truth is that there is that you can rev up the prediction machine as early as you like. I have trouble believing that the whispers of Sandra Bullock’s nomination were driven by seasoned journalists and critics. More likely it was clever marketeers trying to nudge Academy voters. But let’s pretend news outlets and bloggers started the early talk on their own. The whisper became a shout, and would you look at that: Ms. Bullock is considered the front runner in a race with the likes of Helen Mirren and Meryl Streep. Although I never reviewed it, I did see The Blind Side and all I can say is that it’s a topsy turvy world where she gets in a nod in a category with only 5 slots.

The Beancounters

[](http://www.candlerblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/03/beancounter.png)I played this game a few weeks back with my [Oscar Infographic](http://www.candlerblog.com/2010/02/04/82nd- academy-award-nominees-graphically-explained/). Much like Major League Baseball’s sabremetricians (look it up), an army of analysts has popped up around the Oscars. On Friday, the New York Times featured an analysis of 75 years worth of data, predicting the winners based on what awards they have garnered throughout the awards season. This is basically the equivalent of political polling, determining how people will eventually cast their ballot based on prior evidence. The truth remains that members of the Academy will vote however they please. It’s tough to think so black and white about something as subjective as cinema, which is why I never go for this stuff. I think this year’s nominees turn most logic on its side anyway when the frontrunner for Best Picture, Avatar, has been seen by over 3000 times more people than the second runner up, The Hurt Locker.

The Newsmakers

[](http://www.candlerblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/03/newsmaker.png)This year is interesting because there is some actual news to report in advance of the Awards broadcast. When Nicolas Chartier was caught e-mailing Academy members asking for Hurt Locker votes, the so-called blogosphere turned the whole event into primetime news. The producer is now barred from attending the event for breaking Academy rules by directly soliciting votes. The plot is thickened by the fact that after The Hurt Locker was nominated for Best Picture, Mr. Chartier had to petition AMPAS to be considered an eligible recipient of a statue should the film win, since tradition has mandated only three producers can ever receive the statue for any top film. What a great story! Except that it has very little to do with movies. I wouldn’t blame you if you fell asleep during my little explanation because it really is such a footnote. Personally, my favorite non- movie related Oscar tale happened in 2000, when 52 statuettes were stolen from a loading dock in a suburb of Los Angeles, only to show up two weeks later in a trash can. Come on, that’s way more interesting than some guy rooting for his film via e-mail.

The Bandwagoners


You’ve picked a film, and you roll with it. I can jibe with that. After all, I always root for my baseball team even when the odds are severely against them. However, you’ve got to come out of the reverie for a little bit if you expect to have a decent discussion about the awards playing field. This tends to get pretty silly in the technical categories, where most people have no idea what criteria are actually being considered and perhaps just pull the lever for their favorite film. Do you know the difference between Sound Mixing and Sound Editing? If not, you’ll probably still fight to the death that Inglourious Basterds is going to take both if that’s your first love this season. Cheers to you, but maybe dig a bit deeper to figure out what you’re cheering for.

The Too-Cool-for-School Awards Nihilists

[](http://www.candlerblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/03/coolforschool.png)“There is no respect for artistry…” “The Oscars are just a marketing ploy to push DVD sales…” “If they respected the best films they’d nominate Jim Jarmusch for…” blah blah blah. I hear this all the time. The truth is that our entire industry, top to bottom and side to side, would not function as well as it does without the Oscars. Think about it: without the Oscars there would not be the bounty of awards shows for every facet of filmmaking, including the Independent Spirit Awards. And if you think those are just as dumb, then there will never be any convincing you of any jury-based rewards system for cinema. If you’re fine with that, then shut up and don’t tell me who should be nominated for Oscars because you don’t believe in awards, remember? Every single accolade in this business suffers from the same kind of silliness and politicking that the Oscars do, it just looks different. If you think a Palme D’Or or a Golden Lion or a BAFTA holds more weight than an Oscar, that’s fine. You should just recognize that getting those awards requires one to play the same kind of game.

[](http://www.candlerblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/03/JeremyHabash.jpg)

How can I explain what the New York Sephardic Jewish Film Festival is? It’s very name is so local and yet its scope is entirely global. I suppose I could start by explaining what is meant by “Sephardic.” Allow me to generalize. Here in New York City it is pretty common to boil Jews down to one of two stereotypes: the Orthodox and the nebbish. These are Ashkenazi Jews who, thanks to a sordid history of European emigration, took root here en masse around the turn of the 20th century. Ashkenazim are basically the shtetl Jews; the Fiddler on the Roof Jews.

That film is perhaps the ultimate Hollywood pontification on the Jew, an image of a people that is, for better or worse, an accepted truth. Sephardic Jewry, who hail from Spain, Northern Africa and the Fertile Crescent (among other places), have almost no image in American cinema. In fact, in America, little is known of this “other” kind of Jew outside the confines of the Jewish community. Sephardim observe different dietary laws (sometimes), speak a different dialect of Hebrew, observe different customs and have a rich history of art and literature that is speckled with influence from the various cultures in which they have existed. How fitting it is then, that there should be a New York Sephardic Jewish Film Festival, to both celebrate and educate us on these Jews who perhaps don’t fit the mold of the mainstream. A festival for the other other.

But what about the films? I was only able to see three films from the fest. I would like to tell you about two and the third I will review before it’s snow=postponed screening. The first film I watched was a documentary called Salvador by Nissim Mossek. Stylistically, the film is very weak, which is to say there isn’t much style at all. It is a procedural accounting of a shipwreck that occurred 70 years ago. Salvador achieves its goal of relating the facts to you with interviews, photographs and found footage. Through all of it, a small group of “Salvador” survivors meet and journey, for the first time in over a half century, back to their homeland of Bulgaria.

The tale itself is full of intrigue and adventure. As the Nazis gained power in Bulgaria, it became increasingly difficult for Jews to leave the country. Enter Dr. Confino, an accidental one-man Zionist enterprise. After receiving little help from the Zionist movement, whose resources were stretched thin, he took matters into his own hands to purchase ships and organize clandestine voyages to Palestine, where the Jewish homeland was being built. After many successful journeys, things get a bit hazy depending on how you look at the facts. Confino replaced his best ship, which had trafficked many a Bulgarian Jew, for the “Salvador”, a vessel considered shoddy at best. Intended to take around 100 Zionist youths across the sea, the manifest more than tripled before it left for Palestine, creating a recipe for disaster, which occurred off the coast of Turkey.

About 5 kilometers south of the Turkish fishing town of Silivri, the boat capsized and the struggle for shore began. 238 of the 352 people on board drowned. So harrowing was the event that to this day, local fisherman refer to the waters where the ship went down as “the sea of the Jews.” What’s so amazing is that this is only where the adventure begins. Remember, these Jews who were fleeing from the Nazis now find themselves shipwrecked in Turkey. Many did make it to the Jewish homeland eventually, and the film clearly tells their tale. Early on, one of the survivors proclaims that no one cared about the story back then, and that this film is the first to take on the subject of the Salvador. It’s true; in 1940 a shipwreck in Turkey is but a footnote to the ground-shaking news that came out every day. The story of the Salvador is so riveting it sounds like it would make a great movie. Whether that movie should necessarily be a documentary or not, I’ll leave up to you to decide.

The second film was another documentary called Children of the Bible, by Nitza Gonen. This time we have a vivid portrait of rapper Jeremy Cool Habash, an Ethiopian émigré whose mission is to teach young Ethiopian Israelis about their heritage. The history of Ethiopian Jewry and their introduction to Israeli society could fill volumes, but this film tries to focus in on one man’s mission to teach through music. The short of it is that many Ethiopians feel displaced in Israeli society where some question their Jewish roots. Branded as outsiders, many youths turn to American “gangster” culture; to drugs and violence.

Enter Mr. Habash, who raps in Hebrew and Amharic. He believes that young Ethiopians should celebrate their heritage rather than try to fit into the culture that surrounds them. He teaches kids the meanings of their Amharic names and tells them many stories about what life was like for him in Ethiopia. The film has many moving moments, like watching the kids perform a rap they wrote about how they want to grow up, or seeing Jeremy return to Africa where he acts like a stubborn child to a family not his own. There is footage of a rally to give equal religious authority to the Ethiopian rabbis, called the Kesses. Children of the Bible serves as a really interesting introduction to Ethiopian Jewry for anyone interested.

So there you have it: films for the other other. Perhaps Children of the Bible could be considered a film for the other other other. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to see any other films, so I can’t speak for the rest of the festival. Some screenings have been recheduled due to snow, so check out their website to see what is still coming.

Certainly new media has changed the way we approach filmmaking, but how does that mentality actually manifest itself? To find out, I talked to Todd Tue of Milk Products Media this week. Where once makers would upload their work to the web in hopes of gaining exposure to head down a traditional distribution path, Todd is now finding that the internet may be the best outlet for his work, period.

The bulk of our conversation is about Milk Products’ latest documentary endeavor, a feature film about a family owned and operated dairy farm in Ohio. You can view the short documentary on Vimeo right now, then head on over to their Kickstarter page to learn more about the feature they plan to make. As Todd tells me in our interview, the fact that over 10,000 people have already viewed a short piece he made is pretty satisfying, but he hopes they will get to make the full length story. Listen in as we talk about making films on the cheap, bringing some creativity to paying gigs, and why it is such a great time to be making media.

Right-Click to Download • Subscribe in iTune s

Photo Credit: Mary-Claire Runchey on flickr.

[](http://www.candlerblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/02/cop-out-movie-image-31.jpg)Cop Out confirms that Kevin Smith is a brilliant writer but a mediocre director. There are plenty of belly laughs in this wayward film, but the plot trickles out too slowly with an antagonist that is hardly worth the time. Tracy Morgan’s comic muscle flexes wildly, and Bruce Willis is delightful as the deadbeat straight man, so the laughs abound. When you’re not laughing, however, you’ll probably be looking around the theater wondering why everyone slapped down the price of popcorn in the first place.

Artistically, the film aims for Beverly Hills Cop but falls closer to Dragnet. The real problem is our bad guy, Poh Boy, a Mexican drug lord with a penchant for pricey sports memorobilia. His “tweak”, if you will, is that he speaks like Baby Huey and is named after a sandwich. Otherwise, he’s just a drug dealer like any other: heavily armed and cocksure. I’ll get to our ludicrous heroes in a moment, but I need to stress that this movie could have been saved with a better baddie. The jokes flow like beer at a bachelor party but nothing holds them together. There is no reason not to clip this movie up into a couple of YouTube replays.

Anyway, let’s head to Tracy Morgan, who plays Paul Hodges, the lovably goofy detective. His comic gift is difficult to define, but it is a force to be reckoned with nonetheless. He has mastered the art of the non-sequiter, the rant, and the rage. The running joke that surrounds all of his characters is that they are terminally out to lunch, until you realize that a vulnerable heart beats beneath the blunder-prone exterior. One moment that stands out in particular is a scene where the team takes a non-English speaking witness to a Mexican restaurant for some translation. As the girl recounts a tale of horror entirely in Spanish, Paul listens, slowly and guiltily shoving tortilla chips into his mouth. With each crunch, the belly laugh gets harder to resist.

Sitting across from Mr. Morgan in that scene is Bruce Willis as Jimmy Monroe, the Hardy to Paul’s Laurel. Mr. Willis is no stranger to comedy, but we get to see his masterful straight man on full display here. Whenever he is off alone tugging on his own plot threads, Mr. Willis is serviceable enough, trudging through the weak plot surrounding Jimmy. It is when you get him together with a screwball like Morgan that the fireworks fly. Again, I’ll refer to the scene in the Mexican restaurant. Without his eagle eyes starting down Paul’s social ineptitude, the joke simply doesn’t work. We close the laughter circuit with nothing more than a glare.

Another thing that makes that scene work is the editing, perhaps the unsung hero of comedy. There are a handful of laughs that come entirely from smartly placed cuts, and I am happy to report that the editor was none other than director Kevin Smith. Sure, I may slight his directing, but the fact remains that the man knows how to cut a laugh or two. Towards the end of the film, a creeping gunman’s surprised reaction exploded the theater with laughter. It is carefully placed laughs like this which elevate the film, at least a bit, into something worth laughing with (not at).

So perhaps it is unfair, a cop out (I’ve made it this far without saying it), to place all the blame on Mr. Smith for the film’s overall mediocrity. Certainly, Robb and Mark Cullen, who wrote the thing, should take the brunt of the criticism. It’s difficult to tell. This is a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be. Of course it’s a comedy, but the level of goofiness is never quite decided on throughout. Perhaps Mr. Smith didn’t take the silly factor far enough. More than likely, however, is that the story just flat out sucked. Writing funny and writing plot can be very difficult to do at the same time. Unfortunately for us, Mr. Smith is gifted at both while both Cullens may need to work on the latter.

A few other strands are worth mentioning. The score, by Harold Faltermeyer, is a lesson in aural hilarity. It strikes the perfect balance of homage and parody, something the rest of the film failed to do. Sean William Scott shines as a third musketeer wedged between Paul and Jimmy. Kevin Pollak makes for a decent police foil to Mr. Willis, however his sidekick, Adam Brody, does nothing to impress. As Hunsaker and Mangold, the duo adds little.

So there you have it. Cop Out is heavy on the laughs but low on cohesion. Mr. Smith really should have taken the reigns on the script and refined it to a point that it was ready for the big screen. Which is not to say it’s a film with no value whatsoever. There are at least three moments where milk will shoot out your nose, which is a fairly high amount of big laughs in a single feature. So check it out and laugh until it hurts, just don’t expect much of anything to happen in this film.

[](http://www.candlerblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/02/press-boxee-stacked.png)This week we’re delving back into the world of tech for a nice chat with Andrew Kippen, VP of Marketing for Boxee. For those who are unaware of Boxee, it is a free piece of software that allows you to experience any kind of digital content, be it local or streaming, from the comfort of your couch. It is available for Windows, Mac, Linux and AppleTV, and they will soon be releasing the Boxee Box in conjunction with D-Link. If it is still unclear what Boxee is, first go to boxee.tv and click around, maybe install the app. Then listen to the podcast to hear why this scrappy little company is on the front lines of a major media distribution revolution.

This summer, Boxee plans to roll out a payments system. Imagine, if you will, paying only for the channels you actually watch instead of dishing out around $70 per month for hundreds of channels you don’t watch. Better still, given the openness of the web and Boxee, almost any content maker can get in on the fun. As has become painfully honest to networks and studios over the years, you know longer need to be a major corporation to create content that people want. With the advent of digital workflows, content creation is already democratized. Boxee is working to even the playing field for content distribution.

I’ve said too much already. Click and listen, and tell us your thoughts on Boxee, streaming video, and the media revolution in the comments.

[podcast]http://www.candlerblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/02/candlercast-9-boxee.mp3[/podcast] [Right-Click to Download](http://www.candlerblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/02/candlercast-9-boxee.mp3) • [Subscribe in iTunes](http: //itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=334875368)

I am excited to announce that the candler blog is going to cover the 2010 SXSW (South by Southwest, for the uninitiated) Film Conference and Festival in Austin, Texas. With a shiny press badge and a dream in tow, I’ll be bringing you all the news and reviews from Austin, and I couldn’t be more excited.

Of course, trips like these are quite an expensive endeavor for a blog, so I’m asking for your help in getting to Austin. [Please click through to my Kickstarter Project](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/poritsky/the-candler- blog-covers-sxsw-2010), where I am trying to raise $500 to defray the costs of the trip. You will find a longer explanation over at kickstarter (and in the video above), but this money will essentially cover approximately half of the expenses for the trip. The candler blog is (and shall remain) a free publication, but as you may guess it’s not free to operate. Any help you can offer is extremely appreciated.

I don’t expect you to give me something for nothing. Besides the coverage on the candler blog you’ll be getting, there are also some pretty nice rewards for different levels of giving. Everyone who donates $5 or more will be included in a “Thank You” post listing his/her name and a link to the website/charity of his/her choosing. Up the donation to $10 and you will get your name and link put in the candler blog’s blogroll, which runs up the side of the home page, for 6 months. For $50 or more, you can get a 30-day 200x200 ad on the candler blog that will run during SXSW. I can tell you that traffic will be significantly higher than usual during the festival, so this is a great opportunity to reach an extremely diverse, motivated audience.

I skipped a price on purpose. For $25 or more, you get a 2 DVD collection of all 8 published Candlercasts at CD Quality (I’ll mail you the discs with the files on them). When the podcast goes on the site it is in a highly compressed audio format so it can stream easily and download straight to your iPod/iPhone with ease. These master recordings are crystal clear, and really sound nothing like what is on the web. Maybe that’s not enough for you? On the second disc, you will get the full, unedited, epic Bests of the Decade podcast that I recorded with Sunrise Tippeconnie. Originally published as 4 trimmed down podcasts, this lengthy discussion features clips that were never broadcast online. Please check out the full roster of Candlercasts on the site to see what you’ll be getting.

Nothing has been more exciting for me than watching the candler blog grow over the last year. At this time last year, I never would have dreamed I’d be able to waltz into a fest like SXSW with a press pass in tow. But here I am. None of it could have been possible without you, the readers. I thank you for your visits, your comments, and your support. 2010 is off to an exciting start, and I can’t wait to bring all kinds of great content this year.