almost genius is someone who makes great stuff but is not independent and sells out for attention. maybe one in every 10.000 people. example is ceo of ibm or some famous film director. whoever is super powerful in the now.

genius is someone who makes great stuff but is independent of outside influences like attention. even though she/he uses the influences to build his own thing she/he is still not dependent on it. maybe one in every 10.000.000 people. example is stanley kubrick.

super genius makes nothing. she/he is too advanced to have interest in making anything. nirvana. even if she/he would make anything it would be too advanced to be recognized, understoor and accepted. no examples, we will never know abot them.

super genius should however not be confused with some crazy guy who talks nonsense. almost genius should not be confused with die hard wannabes. genius should be confused with almost genius.

these are just some silly random thoughts. i spend a lot of time training alone so i get these ideas. its entertaining to think about it and write it down. that’s all.

if you have any comments please email me.

there will be blood (imdb.com) is an ok film. long but remains entertaining. but it is a bad copy of kubrick‘ work. not only because of the music which is nice but not original enough for my taste. not after 100 years of film. it is the whole film – it is too much of a wannabe. not super pretentious but getting there. there is a feeling of a need for immediate acceptance and nothing with this feeling can trully be of any substantial value.

when i was a kid i played alto saxophone and i heard that many saxophone players avoided alto and moved to tenor because charlie parker was too good and no one wanted to compete with him. maybe this influence is still over the whole saxophone thing.

obviously i am no expert but in movie-making stanley kubrick has made movies closest to perfection. actually he made perfect films. against this standard i have to rate anything that is made. there will be blood rates very badly. as i said it still aims to please the crowd too much and this is always a loose.

that is why making movies is a super hard thing to do: there is so much stuff made and there is such a need to satisfy everyone that it is super hard to make movies of any value. at least it seems that way when i go to cinema or video store.

internet is a good option – it is still a place where you can set your own standards and be in your own game. or you could few years ago. now it is already starting to be very competetive. but hardly as competetive as film, and not to mention music and poetry. poetry especially which absolutely does not depend on technology.

it is hardest to be a poet.

alfred hitchcock is one crazy guy. his movie the birds (imdb.com) is both genius and crap.

birds is crap because its made in the 1963 and most of the stuff made back than is by default crap. they were not relaxed yet, and they still aren’t, to make truly fully awesome films. except for stanley kubrick who was trully 1000% genius (his only flaw was spartacus – crap which i like – and he admitted it himself).

birds is genius for so many reasons. shots, dialogue, casting… it is just so awesome i can not even start to explain how much i enjoyed it. exactly because it is made in 60s it is so great.

today it is not possible to make movies like that. environment is too commercial and i still have to hear o anyone as crazy as alfred hitchcock. i mean, he is amazing. i feel like i know the guy just from watching one film. there is so much of him in every scene, every second of the film.

thank you alfred hitchcock.

tippi hedren is super sexy and rod taylor has his pants way too high for my taste.