We are on the verge of a new film culture and infrastructure.
Today’s guest post is from Chris Dorr.
Isn’t it curious in this age where more moving images get created and distributed digitally that there is this group of people who still call themselves “filmmakers”? It seems a term that is so archaic, so analogue, so yesterday’s news. But is it any of these?
I think filmmakers look for three opportunities that truly define them as filmmakers.
They are:
I don’t even know what this was for, This was for something on WNYC called “Egg” produced by Jeff Folmsbee. but I do know that my friend Dan McGuire was also heavily involved in the shooting and editing of it.
I co-founded Good Machine back in 1990. We made a lot of good films and had some good times too. Iget a big kick out of seeing glimpses of folks from so long ago: Mary Jane Skalski, Heta Paarte, Glen Basner, and James Schamus and Ang Lee. Nothing like seeing those gigantic computers and roladexes too. Too think we could make a film without an iPhone…
It also feels so fresh to me. The same drive and ideas that made Good Machine a good idea back then, holds true to this day. Everything is new again. We founded that company on the idea of a no-budget film fund (okay micro-budget in today’s vernacular) could make money and build a better mousetrap in the process. That, and the fact that I had a good long list of directors who needed some help. Both those things still hold true.
Although I must admit I no longer have a Che poster behind my desk, although the Obama “Hope” won works as the same sort of litmus test.
Okay this is old news, but it is still DAMN F’N relevant!
In 2005, via the MacArthur Foundation, Henry Jenkins released this white paper, pointing out that:
Schools as institutions have been slow to react to the emergence of this new participatory culture; the greatest opporitunity for change is currently found in afterschool programs and informal learning communities. Schools and afterschool programs must devote more attention to fostering what we call the new media literacies: a set of cultural competencies and social skills that young people need in the new media landscape. Participatory culture shifts the focus of literacy from one of individual expression to community involvement.The new literacies almost all involve social skills developed through collaboration and networking.These skills build on the foundation of tradi- tional literacy, research skills, technical skills, and critical analysis skills taught in the classroom.
What Jenkins goes on to point out is needed among students, is also very much needed by anyone working in the film business, or desiring a full appreciation of today’s film culture.
The new skills include:
Play — the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving Performance — the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery
Simulation — the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes
Appropriation — the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content
Multitasking — the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details.
Distributed Cognition — the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacities
Collective Intelligence — the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal
Judgment — the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources
Transmedia Navigation — the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities
Networking — the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information
Negotiation — the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms.
I want to make sure my son has all these skills in his arsenal as he starts middle school. That said, if I ran an undergrad film school, this training would be part of the core curriculum. At the grad level, it would be an entry requirement.
My interview for Film Courage made their top ten of the month. I seem to be perpetually stuck at number 5; I guess that is truly Middle-Of-The-Road, eh?
They’ve clearly got at least four people far more interesting than I, so check them out. You can find Jamin & Kiowa Winans of INK there, and Sobi’s Zak Forsman & Kevin Shah, amongst a slew of others.
Today’s guest post is from James Fair. I follow it with a note of my own in regards to the same subject. James is a lecturer and filmmaker based at Staffordshire University in England. He graduated from Bournemouth University and University College Dublin. He believes that recent activities within his three universities point towards a fundamental difference in educational approaches towards filmmaking.
Two events happened quietly in the back rooms of a couple of English universities last week that indicate an interesting direction that is emerging within film disciplines of British universities; Staffordshire University decided to partner the 72 Hour Movie (link: http://www.72hourmovie.com) project at the Melbourne International Film Festival and Bournemouth University closed the first round of entries from alumni for a £100k budget film project (link: http://www.bsma.ac.uk ). These extra-curricular projects are flagships designed to illustrate just how relevant their courses are to industry, to future students and industry alike.
Nothing is unusual there, as many universities internationally have sought ways to engage with future students and industry in a variety of disciplines for years. However,
Today’s guest post, like yesterday’s, is from filmmaker Michael Barnard. Yesterday, he covered how we slipped into our embrace of “free”. Today, he writes of the deadly results.
I used to read Daily Variety online religiously. Now I don’t. When I click on my fifth article (or whatever the tipping point is) and am denied access, I resent it. Yet, I know that if Daily Variety does not succeed somehow, I am either going to have to become my own journalist (“JOURNALIST”, not merely an observer or repeater) or I am going to have to rely on agenda-laden, word-of-mouth bloggers.
This situation is also affecting indie filmmakers. Indie filmmakers have to deal with the very worst form of free: theft by piracy. They have to deal with distribution outlets that want their films for free. Even REDBOX, with their $1 DVD rental kiosks, a pet peeve of mine, is an enemy of the indie filmmaker.
The success of REDBOX comes from ripping off filmmakers. In fact, you have to admire REDBOX for achieving something few ever have:
Today’s guest post is from filmmaker Michael R. Barnard. Michael had written to me on Facebook after I had tweeted about the end of film industry trade papers. I felt he had some interesting thoughts on the subject, and the bigger issue for filmmakers on the “free” economy. Today’s post is 1 of 2, with tomorrow’s set to look at the inevitable end from the culture’s embrace of “free”.
The New York Times reports on the malaise hitting the very-important-to-Hollywood trade papers, especially Daily Variety. (See online at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/business/media/15variety.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesmovies)
Daily Variety is suffering the fate of many news publishers (even the New York Times), but attracts attention because of its reactions to its problems. This important trade paper recently fired staff critics, now favoring freelance critics. The paper is also one of the first to duck behind a paywall. You can no longer read the entire paper online free.
Everyone, including me, chafes at this.
