tyger, tyger, stalk and kill

last week's science has a couple of papers on the bio-energetics of two species of big cats, cheetahs and pumas. i think a few of y'all might be interested for different reasons. (...and those what interested are but lack access might be visited by the journal fairy.)

science is also running a news story on the papers, but like the papers, it's behind their paywall. ( some key bits )

the cheetah paper mentions that their peak metabolic output -- which they keep up for a few seconds -- is ~120W/kg. for an 80kg slob like me, that would be a ~10kW output. while i should be able to put out more than that for the fraction of a second it would take my muscles to burn through their ATP, i'd probably fall over dead from that sort of sprint. OTOH, my top isn't made out of rubber and my tail isn't made out of springs, which does give the cheetah a slight advantage.

keyword-laden title: more keywords in subtitle

hearts of darkness: a filmmaker's apocalypse has the sort of title i expect of the worst sort of bottom-feeder movie, the kind where the title is supposed to mislead people into thinking it's a recent blockbuster. it's actually a documentary about apocalypse now, and it's even the official one, including both interviews with francis ford coppola (FFC) and using eleanor coppola's (EC's) footage documenting how AN was made.

( moderate spoilers for both AN and HoD:etc )

but yet FFC persisted, and the result is brilliant. the documentary is itself exceptional, mostly because it has both EC's intentional documentary film and a lot of "accidental" documentary footage of how the movie was made: raw movie footage, random still photos from the production, shots from cameras that weren't used, and a fair number of bits and pieces from where the cameras kept rolling after a scene was messed up. so, it's well above a typical talking-heads-and-illustrative-material documentary.

i found the talking-heads parts above average too. the intentional and accidental footage provides a lot of confirmation that the people being interviewed are telling the truth, which gives credence to the rest of what they say.

HoD:etc and jodorowsky's dune make an interesting study in contrasts about film-making. both are about visionary directors attempting to make Great Art, both directors wanted extravagant productions with the expense and complexity that entails, and they both faced the huge hurdle of getting somebody to pay for their movie. but AN was famously made and jodo's dune, well, wasn't. taken together, the two documentaries give some answers.

i'll mention just one: the major hollywood studios wouldn't touch either one. jodo never convinced anybody to give him even the relatively small amount it would take to shoot some test scenes. FFC couldn't convince the hollywood money men either, so he paid for his own movie. i don't know if jodo wasn't that rich -- FFC had made his megabux off the godfather movies, and i have the impression from jodo's dune that holy mountain did quite well, but maybe it wasn't the same scale -- or if jodo didn't want to spend what money he had. regardless, FFC's willingness to make a huge bet -- actually, a series of them, and he'd have been broke and homeless if the movie failed -- got his movie made.

conclusion: if the system's busted, work around it. jodo was willing to go entirely against convention with how he was going to make his vision, but he didn't apply any of that creativity to where the money might come from. FFC and EC -- who willingly agreed to put all their property up as collateral to make her husband's art -- did, and that got them a movie.

so: if you're an apocalypse now or FFC fan, you should watch HoD:etc. the same goes if you're interested in how movies are made. (i happen to be both an AN fan and interested in the business.) and if you are interested in movie-making, then it becomes worthwhile to watch jodo's dune also, despite my previous non-recommendation. most movies are never made, and while i can't say either one of these movies is typical, i think some of the reasons why one and not the other apply more generally... and this pair of documentaries gives some of those reasons.