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.