Over the weekend I went and saw the movie Amelia, directed by Mira Nair and starring Hillary Swank in the title role. The film was alright. The aerial photography was beautiful and everything looks great. The art direction and the costumes all work together to put you in the 30s. But the story itself feels anticlimactic; it kind of coasts along but it never soars. I think it is safe to say that 99.9% of people know what happens to Amelia in the end, so there’s not a whole lot to build up to, but still I think she’s interesting enough that in the hands of a different director and writer this movie could have been a lot better. I felt a little like I did after seeing Valkyrie last year. After that film I wanted to write the producers and tell them, “I know they don’t kill Hitler, so stop trying to convince me your movie is a thriller and supposed to keep me guessing! There’s no guesswork here!”
Alas historical movies continually get made, and it seems that filmmakers like to take the approach that people don’t know their history, so they spell it out, which just makes me feel a little insulted.
Now coincidentally, tonight on the news, there was a short story pointing out the box office success of the film Paranormal Activity. It is the number movie in the country right now, with a total gross so far of about 33 million. The estimated budget was $15,000. It stars a handful of unknown actors. It was written, directed, and edited by one person. The total cast and crew listed on Imdb is about 25. In contrast, Amelia had a high-profile award winning cast and crew, yet made (granted this is only its first opening weekend) 4 million. According to the news program I saw, it had a budget of $100,000 million. It’s got a ways to go before it even breaks even.
There’s a lot of contrasting points that could be made between the films. Paranaormal was shot on a very low budget, Amelia a typical high Hollywood budget. Paranormal was shot in digital, Amelia was shot on 35mm. Paranormal plays off a documentary storytelling style, Amelia is a standard classical Hollywood bio-pic. You could say that the difference between these two movies is a generational gap in how to make a movie. Low budget films are finding ways to distribute themselves cheaper and more easily than ever before now, with greater success than ever.
This relates directly to what Shirky talks about in Here Comes Everybody. In the opening story about the lost cell phone, we see the power of group effort as people rallied behind Evan’s efforts to get his friend’s cell phone back. As people found his site through word of mouth, some marketing, and probably some random findings, they connected and communicated. Group effort is not new, and Shirky recognizes this, he just notes that the modes of how the group forms have changed/are changing. For cult movies, the distribution of the film is usually limited. However a ‘cult following’ develops mostly out of communication, by word-of-mouth. Someone sees the movie, they tell their friends they like it, and pretty soon the movie gets a reputation and it’s still talked about for years to come. Now with social networks, people can self-promote to their followers until the sun comes up, via something like Twitter for instance. Then someone else can RT (retweet) and thus promote them to a new set of followers and the cycle continues...
Shirky explains how group formation and group promotion is easier than ever with the internet. And he seems to have great faith in people to not only form groups but act on them. All this organizing happens outside established institutions. I think the main point of the book is that community can work easier than managerial corporations with these new technologies. There is a downside though. On the one hand, independent films can be promoted easier with fewer pricey advertisements. Bands can put their music up through creative commons or free downloads and thus gain a fan base without ever coming near a record company. People can find other people who share their interests and communicate and collaborate with each other. In the best examples, people collaborate and bring about social change and act out in the world like ARGs or the recent PAC-We.Then again groups can form that are malicious to their members, like the pro-anorexia groups. It seems that it is in their right to have websites under free speech, but to what degree is that ok? I don’t think Shirky really addresses these kind of issues where group formation is harmful to others.
But when it comes to the state of movies at the box office. When a $15,000 independent movie can find itself at a film festival and be seen by Spielberg and thus hit theaters nationwide to make millions and millions of dollars, I have to wonder what the future state of film promotion will be. The amateur film can be made better and easier than ever, and can compare to the high-tech big productions of Hollywood films. (I mean something like the Canon 5D Mark II is visually stunning at a fraction of the price of most film cameras). So maybe even an institution like Hollywood isn’t safe from this social change that is occurring with internet revolution. (yup, i’m starting to think revolution now)
Monday, October 26, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
From Habermas’ “Public Sphere” to DeLuca & Peeple’s “Public Screen”
In this shortened version of Habermas’ outlining of public sphere, we get a definition of the concept public sphere as: “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed.” The concept is that in a public sphere, people assemble together as one acting public body, leading to public reason which contrasts to the governing state body. It is essentially organized discussion, creating public consensus which then can in turn influences political action. Habermas also argues that with the historical change from a feudal constitutional society the public sphere was able to come about and as it did, public broadcast media like newspapers played a vital role.
Historically, public sphere is associated with the “coffeehouse discussions” where you see groups assembling for debate and discussion. It was open, disregarded status, and based on rational thought with a goal of reaching consensus. Although on the surface the sphere is understood as open and free to anyone, of course it wasn’t like modern society. The sphere was free to white educated middle class males as far as my understanding goes. But that aside, the public sphere is still where the people have the position to influence action and influence the governing bodies. Other important historical events that you see as the public sphere emerges is the growing idea of a separation of church and state, which arguably only came about after the Reformation and the idea of a person having an individual and direct relationship with God, taking away much of the power of the Church.
The public sphere has and is continually changing. It was once about a physical space that could be occupied, now there are fewer coffeehouse meetings. Media was once just a source of information, but as the capitalistic society grew, the more the media realized it’s value as another capital-making system through advertisement and news-managing. If you follow along the arguments of intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, the broadcast medias [newspapers, news stations] are purely a medium of “manufacturing consent.” They exhibit the news in the interests of their monetary-backbone, the corporations who own them. In our society, the majority of media is controlled by a few companies, and their interests correlate with the products of their medias.
In my past studies, I came across this concept of public sphere through “From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the Lessons of Seattle” (2002) by DeLuca and Peeples, which looks at the transitioning of the concept of public sphere with the onset of new media. They use the common definition of public sphere as an open, public, physical space where public opinion is formed. The transition is that public opinion is formed out of a new, pseudo-physical “public screen.” They talk about how the way information is shared nowadays, that you can’t really distinguish between public and private spheres. The separation between public and private is slimmer because of the mobility of our technology, as you can carry the “screens” with you. This new way of information transfer is based around the inception of new media.
One of the other points to DeLuca and Peeple’s argument, is that events can be staged for the screen, as another way of manufacturing consent, or just drawing attention to something. “Image Events” can be very persuasive, cause the public to empathize with an event, or make them hardened against a subject (like violence). Image events exist to ask the public to watch and to see their point of view. And the audience isn’t just an objective public observer, but they are immersed in the images and thus will form an opinion of the situation. DeLuca and Peeples talk about the 1999 WTO protest and riots in Seattle in their article. The media predominantly showed images of violence instead of debate and delegation, which does grab the attention of the viewers, so whether that’s good or bad, it is successful in getting viewership. Not as much information was given to the public as the event happened so any kind of hope for public consensus is lost.
The contributions of new media to the public sphere are varied. For one thing, “screens” are widely available, and can lead to instantaneous social action. Social movement can happen much more rapidly than ever, and be more widespread. There is also some difficulty in getting social action to spread, like for instance when the topic of action is against established structures which people are hesitant to change. New media doesn’t work face-to-face, it does not necessarily occupy a physical space like the public sphere did. With the screen you don’t have to necessarily plan or produce flyers or anything tangible. There are less limits on who can be a member of the public screen - basically anyone with a screen. And anyone can be both a sender and a receiver. This can be seen in the alternate reality game “World Without Oil" where the spectators were also producers.
Do these differences lead to more consensus? Hard to say. The principles of how people come to a consensus don’t necessarily change with new media, however it does lead to more shared information, and increased availability of information. When working at it’s full potential, the screen works like the media used to work, as an information sharing medium. There is still a danger that the screens can become what old forms of broadcast media have, and there can still be bias in the information, and still some consent manufacturing. The ability to be more free though, is still there, and that is a positive difference.
Historically, public sphere is associated with the “coffeehouse discussions” where you see groups assembling for debate and discussion. It was open, disregarded status, and based on rational thought with a goal of reaching consensus. Although on the surface the sphere is understood as open and free to anyone, of course it wasn’t like modern society. The sphere was free to white educated middle class males as far as my understanding goes. But that aside, the public sphere is still where the people have the position to influence action and influence the governing bodies. Other important historical events that you see as the public sphere emerges is the growing idea of a separation of church and state, which arguably only came about after the Reformation and the idea of a person having an individual and direct relationship with God, taking away much of the power of the Church.
The public sphere has and is continually changing. It was once about a physical space that could be occupied, now there are fewer coffeehouse meetings. Media was once just a source of information, but as the capitalistic society grew, the more the media realized it’s value as another capital-making system through advertisement and news-managing. If you follow along the arguments of intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, the broadcast medias [newspapers, news stations] are purely a medium of “manufacturing consent.” They exhibit the news in the interests of their monetary-backbone, the corporations who own them. In our society, the majority of media is controlled by a few companies, and their interests correlate with the products of their medias.
In my past studies, I came across this concept of public sphere through “From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the Lessons of Seattle” (2002) by DeLuca and Peeples, which looks at the transitioning of the concept of public sphere with the onset of new media. They use the common definition of public sphere as an open, public, physical space where public opinion is formed. The transition is that public opinion is formed out of a new, pseudo-physical “public screen.” They talk about how the way information is shared nowadays, that you can’t really distinguish between public and private spheres. The separation between public and private is slimmer because of the mobility of our technology, as you can carry the “screens” with you. This new way of information transfer is based around the inception of new media.
One of the other points to DeLuca and Peeple’s argument, is that events can be staged for the screen, as another way of manufacturing consent, or just drawing attention to something. “Image Events” can be very persuasive, cause the public to empathize with an event, or make them hardened against a subject (like violence). Image events exist to ask the public to watch and to see their point of view. And the audience isn’t just an objective public observer, but they are immersed in the images and thus will form an opinion of the situation. DeLuca and Peeples talk about the 1999 WTO protest and riots in Seattle in their article. The media predominantly showed images of violence instead of debate and delegation, which does grab the attention of the viewers, so whether that’s good or bad, it is successful in getting viewership. Not as much information was given to the public as the event happened so any kind of hope for public consensus is lost.
The contributions of new media to the public sphere are varied. For one thing, “screens” are widely available, and can lead to instantaneous social action. Social movement can happen much more rapidly than ever, and be more widespread. There is also some difficulty in getting social action to spread, like for instance when the topic of action is against established structures which people are hesitant to change. New media doesn’t work face-to-face, it does not necessarily occupy a physical space like the public sphere did. With the screen you don’t have to necessarily plan or produce flyers or anything tangible. There are less limits on who can be a member of the public screen - basically anyone with a screen. And anyone can be both a sender and a receiver. This can be seen in the alternate reality game “World Without Oil" where the spectators were also producers.
Do these differences lead to more consensus? Hard to say. The principles of how people come to a consensus don’t necessarily change with new media, however it does lead to more shared information, and increased availability of information. When working at it’s full potential, the screen works like the media used to work, as an information sharing medium. There is still a danger that the screens can become what old forms of broadcast media have, and there can still be bias in the information, and still some consent manufacturing. The ability to be more free though, is still there, and that is a positive difference.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Man o' Manovich...
One of the questions Manovich discusses, is what makes new media different from old media? He points out that scholarship has yet to define new media (at least in the ways he feels it should be defined as) and he proceeds to explain some basic principles of new media. He talks about new media as ‘objects’ which exist in some kind of numerical data. There is modularity between the different parts of new media. New media is created through automation. There are variable versions that can exist of new media. And finally, new media can be transcoded.
Manovich talks about new media in a revolutionary sense. He argues how just as the printing press and the photograph each had their own revolutionary culture shifts, new media is the current catalyst of cultural revolution in the present-day. He seems to argue that this new media revolution is more far-reaching. He says compared to the press and photography, “the computer media revolution affects all stages of communication, including acquisition, manipulation, storage, and distribution; it also affects all types of media -- texts, still images, moving images, sound, and spatial constructions” (19). Then later when he’s talking about the metalanguage, he says “it will be at least as significant as the printed and cinema before it” (93). It seems like Manovich puts new media at the same level as the printing press and photograph sometimes, and then at others he seems to favor new media as being even more revolutionary. This is something that stuck out to me as I was reading, and which I will present a few thoughts about.
On the first quote I inserted, I feel like the same statement could be made with both the printing press and the photograph. The printing press allowed for storage and distribution of knowledge in ways more profound than pre-press. Printing can be easily manipulated - insert a type-block here, rearrange there...Next thing you know you have the “sin” commandments. The spread of literacy affected how language was acquired. Photography affected the way we communicate, as they say “a picture tells a thousand words.” Clearly, photography can be distributed and manipulated (especially, even more so).
Manipulation is not a new concept with the transition from analog to digital, as many of us have pointed out in our previous blogs. The issue is the frequency of ‘retouching, but I think the existence of manipulation even in analog is proof that the technology is just an enabler to the ideology that drives the need to retouch an image. I guess I take the angle that a technology is how you choose to use it. Why did the first movies look like plays? Why did computer technology follow in the footsteps of cinema, which followed in the footsteps of photography?
I have a hard time seeing a new media as being anything profoundly different than previous mediums. The printing press was an new media in its day, and there will be some other kind of new media in 2 years, 10 years, 20 years. In my opinion ideas rarely, if at all, just fantantiscally and radically change from the previous. And if they are so different, they’re not going to be understand in the moment by any sort of mass of people, because most people don’t accept beyond their capacity of knowledge. Originality is the building upon previous work, using different parts to create new whole. But the important thing is that those parts exist and came from something before them. Movies wouldn’t exist without photography and theater, which wouldn’t exist withought painting, and the simple need of humans to tell stories. “There’s nothing new under the sun.” New media is different than old media. Digital is different than analog, but they’re both ways of communicating, of creating, distributing, and translating knowledge.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
I’ll say one thing about this class’ readings: nothing is as simple as it seems, this weeks especially. In some ways I found Manovich an easier read than others we’ve had. The language seems easily understood, but then I found myself reading something and being like, “yea, yea that makes sense, wait, what did he really mean there” and then I would have to re-read. Maybe it was because I kept starting to read at 10-11 pm the last couple nights, when I was least mentally strong. Maybe it’s because I’m not used to talking about databases and interfaces and feel a little like I’ll never fully grasp these concepts. This blogging thing is helpful though. I really like reading everyone else’s blogs before going to class; it's a nice jump start to Parry’s lessons.
Manovich talks about new media in a revolutionary sense. He argues how just as the printing press and the photograph each had their own revolutionary culture shifts, new media is the current catalyst of cultural revolution in the present-day. He seems to argue that this new media revolution is more far-reaching. He says compared to the press and photography, “the computer media revolution affects all stages of communication, including acquisition, manipulation, storage, and distribution; it also affects all types of media -- texts, still images, moving images, sound, and spatial constructions” (19). Then later when he’s talking about the metalanguage, he says “it will be at least as significant as the printed and cinema before it” (93). It seems like Manovich puts new media at the same level as the printing press and photograph sometimes, and then at others he seems to favor new media as being even more revolutionary. This is something that stuck out to me as I was reading, and which I will present a few thoughts about.
On the first quote I inserted, I feel like the same statement could be made with both the printing press and the photograph. The printing press allowed for storage and distribution of knowledge in ways more profound than pre-press. Printing can be easily manipulated - insert a type-block here, rearrange there...Next thing you know you have the “sin” commandments. The spread of literacy affected how language was acquired. Photography affected the way we communicate, as they say “a picture tells a thousand words.” Clearly, photography can be distributed and manipulated (especially, even more so).
Manipulation is not a new concept with the transition from analog to digital, as many of us have pointed out in our previous blogs. The issue is the frequency of ‘retouching, but I think the existence of manipulation even in analog is proof that the technology is just an enabler to the ideology that drives the need to retouch an image. I guess I take the angle that a technology is how you choose to use it. Why did the first movies look like plays? Why did computer technology follow in the footsteps of cinema, which followed in the footsteps of photography?
I have a hard time seeing a new media as being anything profoundly different than previous mediums. The printing press was an new media in its day, and there will be some other kind of new media in 2 years, 10 years, 20 years. In my opinion ideas rarely, if at all, just fantantiscally and radically change from the previous. And if they are so different, they’re not going to be understand in the moment by any sort of mass of people, because most people don’t accept beyond their capacity of knowledge. Originality is the building upon previous work, using different parts to create new whole. But the important thing is that those parts exist and came from something before them. Movies wouldn’t exist without photography and theater, which wouldn’t exist withought painting, and the simple need of humans to tell stories. “There’s nothing new under the sun.” New media is different than old media. Digital is different than analog, but they’re both ways of communicating, of creating, distributing, and translating knowledge.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
I’ll say one thing about this class’ readings: nothing is as simple as it seems, this weeks especially. In some ways I found Manovich an easier read than others we’ve had. The language seems easily understood, but then I found myself reading something and being like, “yea, yea that makes sense, wait, what did he really mean there” and then I would have to re-read. Maybe it was because I kept starting to read at 10-11 pm the last couple nights, when I was least mentally strong. Maybe it’s because I’m not used to talking about databases and interfaces and feel a little like I’ll never fully grasp these concepts. This blogging thing is helpful though. I really like reading everyone else’s blogs before going to class; it's a nice jump start to Parry’s lessons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
