Recruiting for the Digital Revolution, one hater at a time.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006


TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING

Internet video is the new TV. I don't doubt it for a moment. But we're still some way off from knowing just how this is all going to shake down. Just check out the plethora of video sharing sites I compiled below, something that can only be considered a partial list (and I don't even bother mentioning the obvious YouTube or Google Video). Many of these sites you've probably never heard of, and many won't exist this time next year I suspect. In the meantime, enjoy the chaos!

www.veoh.com
www.revver.com
www.vimeo.com
www.green.tv
www.neave.tv
www.grouper.com
www.videoegg.com
www.atomfilms.com
www.eyespot.com
www.jumpcut.com
www.ifilm.com
www.vsocial.com
www.turnherefilmmakers.com
www.metacafe.com
www.brightcove.com
http://video.yahoo.com/currenttv
http://stage6.divx.com/
www.blip.tv
www.eefoof.com
www.lulu.tv
www.youare.tv
www.panjea.com

Sunday, December 17, 2006


YOUTUBE'S AMATEUR VIDEO REVOLUTION OVER ALREADY?

That's the conclusion drawn by Scott Kirsner in his interview with National Public Radio. You see, since CBS and the other major TV networks have got in on the YouTube game, videos like David Letterman Meets Borat are generating more views than 99.999% of the amateur videos out there. Kirsner argues that the vanguard of many artistic and technological revolutions have favored the amateur, but that "the pros" eventually enter the milieu and wind up dominating. I don't doubt that this is happening with online content. But I entirely disagree with Kirsner's headline proclaiming the end of the "amateur revolution." Because no matter how many hits David Letterman gets on YouTube, no matter how slick Internet video becomes (and the bar will be raised ever higher, as audiences demand better production values), the true nature of this revolution remains, at its heart, the simple fact that any individual with an Internet connection now has access to the same audience as these "pros." It's this access for amateurs, and not the volume of amateurs who survive competition from the pros, that forms the basis of this revolution.

The distinction lies in this: the amateur video revolution should not (and thankfully won't) allow for every mediocre video-maker to find a real audience, at least not enough of an audience to make money from yet to be determined revenue generators. That's not the revolution we should be contemplating. Because NBC can probably do a LonelyGirl15 better than anyone at home can. They can cast it and finance it and write it, using a hand-picked stable of Hollywood talent. And even more importantly, will we even want LonelyGirl15 anymore, or has the novelty of videos from attractive and vacuously insightful teenage girls finally worn off? Do we really want any more "Household Object Explodes In My Microwave" videos? The revolution is entirely contained in the fact that some content creators will rise through the long tail fray of a billion online videos to become bona fide hits, and they will arrive there without the help of Hollywood. Even if we watch more and more content generated by the big machine of Hollywood, we will still stumble on some kid--or some old lady for that matter--who has something fresh and original to show us. Talent will out. Whether that's a few thousand new creators or tens of thousands, the fact is that some artists, writers and filmmakers will find their way to our television every week who would never have got there through the traditional network television route. The free market of ideas will be determined by audiences and not by Hollywood executives.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the next wave of film wunderkinds all born of the digital camcorder, employing a "new look," a "new ethos," a style which only in retrospect will we identify as something important, just as we identify the French New Wave. I even predict a wider appreciation of film as art in general. We will simply become more film-savvy as audiences, even in spite of the proliferation of frat boy pranks caught on tape. Because we will also be exposed to innovative and original creations which Hollywood would never have considered making. And then, with our minds opened up, we'll hunger for more of that fresh innovation. There are certain "rules" for screenwriting and filmmaking, which Hollywood has refined to a science, and granted, these rules are often grounded in some practical realities that make for better movies. But as soon as it all becomes a "science" it also becomes repetitive--audiences are hungering for new entertainment (we're eating up movies on DVD and downloads at an exponential pace). So just watch as the increasing number of filmmakers come to prominence from outside the Hollywood system, as they entertain us even while stretching and breaking these Hollywood rules. Hollywood's trite re-hashes of yet another action thriller or romantic comedy will shrink ever further in the marketplace.

Monday, December 11, 2006











Making Movies From Anywhere

Truly democratized filmmaking means that aspiring writers and directors don’t have to move to Hollywood anymore. And there’s no better example to prove the point than Steve Balderson, a filmmaker who studied at the California Institute of the Arts before returning to his small hometown of Wamego, Kansas, where he set out to make movies. And good movies too. Balderson’s Firecracker, produced with his father and friends, made it onto Roger Ebert’s list of favorite films for 2005. (I bought the DVD and loved it.) But perhaps more to the point for the digital revolutionary, Balderson also made a documentary, Wamego:Making Movies From Anywhere, which chronicles his experience financing and shooting a feature film from a small American town, including a few brushes with Hollywood heavyweights like Dennis Hopper. He’s selling the doc for “free + $15 shipping,” which seems quite reasonable to me. While Balderson shoots on 35mm, his underlying philosophy is distinctly DIY and an inspiration to any digital filmmaker. And while a film released a year ago might seem like “old news” to all of us used to worldwide marketing blitzes from the majors, it sometimes takes a bit more time for self-distributed fare to gain market momentum. I wager you’ll be hearing more about Steve Balderson in the months and years to come.

Sunday, December 03, 2006


What the World Needs Now Is More Digital Filmmakers

"More digital filmmakers you say?" Yup, that's exactly what I said. Even in the face of tens of thousands of films being created every year, a multi-fold increase over the number of films shot five years ago (forgive me, I don't have the accurate stats, but there's little argument that, thanks to digital, film production has increased exponentially in the past few years--just ask film festivals who generally received up to 50% more film submissions this year over last). And yes, many, many films being produced by every college kid with a 24P camera are dreck. But there's a political, moral and philosophical reason to keep as many hands on as many cameras as possible. Especially in Canada. And that reason is the shocking concentration of media ownership in so few hands. The Canadian Senate's Transport and Communications Committee concluded that "the concentration of ownership has reached levels that few other countries would consider acceptable." There are single corporate entities that own newspapers, high-speed internet providers, television stations, satellite communications companies, and more, all within the same Canadian regions. When corporate ownership is this concentrated, the possiblity for corruption starts to become a probability. I mean, how does a journalist criticize the content of a television program when the journalist's boss owns that television program? When ownership is that concentrated, the power over what the citizens read and hear becomes disconcertingly vulnerable to manipulation by singular corporate interests. And that's just what the Senate's committee thought too. "[W]e feel that the fewer voices that are out there, the less the public is served," says Senator Jim Munson. Peter Murdoch, Vice-President of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada is a bit less diplomatic: "It's not just outrageous or appalling. It's scary."

Meanwhile, the media mega-conglomerates are insisting they need to exploit "convergence" in order to survive the competition of things like Internet video and other forms of online entertainment. And the Canadian government seems to be buying into that argument. Please read Antonia Zerbisias's article (printed in one of the few remaining Candian media sources not owned by Bell Globemedia) to get a sense of how some journalists are finding these developments as frightening as I am. And the irony for the big corporations is that the concentration of media in so few hands only encourages, and indeed necessitates, more individuals to get out there and make movies, to write blogs, and deliver podcasts, in order to satisfy the need for diverse opinions and ideas. The same can be said for every country in the world--artists, writers and filmmakers have historically been relied upon to give us a wake up call whenever we need one. So please, I beg you dear reader, shoot more shitty movies.

Friday, December 01, 2006


Where Moguls Fear to Tread...

...so go I, the digital filmmaker. Wired has an interesting article on Hollywood's aversion to "true" science-fiction. After Aranofsky's The Fountain failed to deliver big box office, movie studios take it as another sign that "traditional" science-fiction (rather than the action and effects-driven vehicles like Superman Returns) is a genre which doesn't offer a return on investment. But as the Wired article also points out, "Studios are in the process of figuring out how to reach...the "native digital" audiences, sci-fi fans that grew up online and who now spend their time at YouTube and MySpace."

Well, I say who better to figure out what reaches the "native digital" audiences than the "native digital" audiences themselves, i.e., you! With fascinating and compelling fare like Primer, a sci-fi film shot for $7000 or Firefly Pete Marcy's brilliant feature shot on a DVX100 for $5000, I believe that the most original "traditional" science-fiction--science fiction that values ideas over effects--is truly the realm of the digital filmmaker. "Cyber-clones, go forth and colonize. Leader out."