In fact, if one looks at precedent, China will never buy from you. They'll copy your IP and sell it to their own markets.
In the same article Wallace goes on to say: "Rupert Murdoch, who in early 2004 gave a speech proclaiming that 'the potential for China to become a new global center for media and entertainment is slowly becoming more real.' But, by last September, one month after Beijing's decision to re-tighten regulatory controls on foreign media, Murdoch was publicly lamenting that News Corp.'s China business had hit a 'brick wall.' When it came to foreign media, he complained, China's political leadership was "quite paranoid about what gets through."
All this reminds me how television (and entertainment) is about so much more than television (and entertainment). And, re-emphasizes my point that we often undervalue and do not exploit one of America's great assets - its global economic dominance in entertainment and media.
Simon Cowell once remarked to Larry King when asked about the prohibition of "American Idol" like shows in China. Says Cowell:
"Well, because it's a democracy, isn't it? You know, I mean, it's the public voting. So you can understand why they're getting slightly nervous about it. Because it wasn't our show in China, it was the laughing cow, so-and-so, so-and-so competition. And the public got to vote. And suddenly there were demos, and it was democracy. And I think the government went, we don't want this. So then they put out a stupid comment like that. You know? It's that we must control the public. Crazy."
U.S. broadcasters, therefore, benefit from their economies of scale, and the United States dominates cultural copyright exports to Europe with a sizable trade surplus. In fact, the U.S. media and entertainment sectors are the only American sectors that boast a surplus balance of trade with nearly every nation in the world.
That deserves some kind of attention beyond our obvious and important polemics about these organs' social and cultural benefit. The U.S. media and entertainment sectors are undervalued assets in the American economic consciousness.
Creative copyright industries always engender a debate as to their cultural and social effect, and they should. But these industries are also the engine of our economic growth. We need to widen our understanding of the nature of our media and entertainment sectors so that our discussions about these sectors' legitimate economic benefit are not overpowered by our outdated ideas about creativity - the engine of our economic growth.
Multinational corporations have the scope and capital to market, and thereby distinguish their product from the glut of global competitors.
Certainly the trend towards segmentation or "narrow-casting" will continue with the expansion of world-wide cable and the Internet, and that expansion will create the space for creative IP produced, say, less expensively with digital technology.
Digital technology, however, will not disturb media firms' control over the organs of distribution. The question ALWAYS remains: Who reaps the benefits of copyright? Is it the content creator or the media firm that owns the intellectual property that the content creator sold to the distributor for a profit?
Indeed, media firms may be held captive at choking points along the distribution supply chain - a consequence of handing their brands over to stars or whomever - but media firms are more apt to forge strategic partnerships or acquire newer digital internet portals.
In an economic environment starved for content, the power does shift to the content creator or more specifically, whoever owns the copyright, but corporations are the ones most likely to benefit from this paradigm; because they can exploit their natural economies of scale.
Remember, even with decreased production costs, media and entertainments are still R&D (high cost, high risk) business models.
The myth of democratizing film-making is techno-utopianism.
The trend towards solving that vagueness is vital, because our economic growth is increasingly dependent on intellectual properties and creative industries.
State and Federal Government
"Decades of experience, creativity, and growth have made film production and distribution one of the most economically important industries in the United States," notes the 2001 U.S. Department of Commerce Report on Runaway Production, "[u]unfortunately, our official statistics are woefully deficient."
Current available data does not offer a precise picture of employment numbers for the full rage of professions involved in motion picture production or, for that matter, consistent measures of the industry's economic impact both regionally and nationally. Data available for production days and budgets is primarily collected by local film commissions and prone to irregularities and inaccuracies by default of naturally occurring idiosyncrasies in the measures and classifications used by those organizations.
In the absence of incentives or common effective measures, figures used are often volunteered by production companies and, therefore, in-audit-able or even suspect.
According to one film commissioner I spoke with, volunteered figures do not necessarily reflect actual monies spent in one's own region, especially when a production crosses state lines. In those cases, revenues accounted for in one state may be simultaneously accounted for in another state's revenue totals. Obtaining aggregate data at the national level is even more difficult.
Outside the specificity of film production, we may have begun to rectify our overall fiscal vagueness about the creative industries with the recent adoption of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) that replaces the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system originally devised in the 1930s.
The SIC system, although periodically updated throughout the last century, structured our economy on an obsolete industrially driven model. The NAICS identifies hundreds of new, emerging, and advanced technology industries, while reorganizing industry into more meaningful sectors--especially in the service-producing segments of the economy.
Advertising
The growing price and waning influence of advertising expenditure on mainstream television channels is a serious issue for many advertisers today. Intolerance about wasted ad spending is mounting. ROI is the today's advertising catch phrase. The linkage gap between producers and consumers of non-subscription broadcast content amounts to failure of means for assessing consumer preference with suppliers and network television was chosen by thirty-two percent of respondents as the worst medium for proving ROI, according to a study by Advertising Age.
Advertising, long the main revenue source for much of the media industry, is rapidly moving to the Internet, and shown by the financial success of sites like Google. This is part of the trend in advertising from "mass" marketing to "measurable" marketing. The interactivity of the Internet is driving the process of fragmentation for broadcasters, but has the potential to provide advertisers with information about the taste, preferences, and habits of consuming audiences. So the Internet offers advertisers a valuable advantage that mass media cannot provide.
Media and Entertainment
Many commentators have noted how inefficiently Hollywood does business. A studio will spend millions of dollars marketing a particular star in lieu of having its own brand only to toss that brand away at conclusion of a project.
There is no question that media and entertainment are by nature risky.
What I am suggesting here, however, is that there is a slow evolution towards efficiency measures in the media firm and entertainment firm business models. So for example, gaming firms reuse code from failed titles instead of starting from scratch with every title. Digital technology allows for greater fluidity and quantification in distribution, for example: In d-cinema the ticketing systems are integrated into the pre-show systems and concession stands, so business can see clearly what is working and what does not.
Outdated Views on Creative Industries
Most Americans are oblivious to the considerable role that content industries play in job and wealth creation - not only in terms of regional economic development and growing high-tech industry, but also in terms of U.S. global economic competitiveness.
So much of the discussion about media and entertainment, in my view, is overly politicized by both the left and right: "Hollywood is destroying America!" or "Advertising is destroying art by commodifying it." What I aim to do is open up a space for discussion that looks at these matters in wider context.
Creativity is Mainstream
In fact, the media, entertainment, and cultural copyright sectors create new jobs at a rate three times faster than the remaining economy. In 2002, these sectors employed 5.48 million workers and accounted for six percent of U.S. gross domestic product. These sectors also generated $89.26 billion in export revenue - surpassing every other category including automotive, aviation, agricultural, as well as chemical and allied products.
Foreign sales of motion pictures alone totaled $17 billion in 2002. The motion picture industry is the only U.S. sector that boasts a surplus balance of trade with every other country in the world; and the international sale of filmed entertainment plays a significant role in our nation's overall trade surplus in services.
U.S. sales of entertainment software also totaled $8.2 billion in 2004, and U.S. game designers exported an additional $2.1 billion the same year. Deutsche Bank forecasts that global revenue for game software will grow at thirteen percent annually over the next four years, while PricewaterhouseCooper projects that the U.S. media and entertainment industries will be worth $690 billion by 2009.
This development has hastened the transformation of the U.S. economy from one based largely on information and knowledge to one driven principally by creativity. John Howkins categorizes the creative economy to include fifteen creative sectors - such as research and development, software, design, and content industries like film, music, and video games - that produce intellectual property in the form of patents, copyrights, trademarks and proprietary designs. The annual global revenue for Howkin's fifteen identified sectors was $2.24 trillion in 1999. The U.S. share represents forty percent of the market with revenue totaling $960 billion. The U.S. share also accounts for more than forty percent of research and development, forty percent of television and radio, and thirty percent of film. Howkins calculates that core copyright industries will be worth $6.1 trillion internationally in fifteen years. U.S. dominance in these segments - more than productivity improvements related to new technology and new manufacturing methods - is responsible for much of the nation's global economic competitiveness since the nineteen-eighties.
Conclusions
Creative mystique has marketing power, but it can blind to our strengths and vital interests. Fundamental to solving creative inefficiencies is dispelling myths and understanding the nature of the creative process. Only then can we develop models or solutions that make those processes profitable and capable of sustained duplication.
In fact, the U.S. government currently employs Panavision's 300x compound zoom lens for military surveillance. According to an interview I conducted with Bob Harvey, senior vice president of worldwide sales at Panavision, federal contracts with the U.S. State Department are the fastest growing segment of Panavision's business.
The more provocative phenomenon however, is how Hollywood and video games drive the development of high-speed, high-resolution digital image capture, management, transmission, and display that have implications for fields where these advanced technological applications would be economically unviable to develop on their own.
Entertainment software has led to faster introduction and deployment of processors, broadband networks, and high definition disks like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. But, "IBM places value on chips made for entertainment software that goes beyond revenue and profits," says Dr. John Kelly, senior vice president and group executive for IBM Technology Group: "These chips help drive technology in other areas."
The Mercury Computer's CELL based blade server, for example, can handle the requirements of sonar and radar computation for military or scientific applications, because of its ability to process real time data streams. "The Cell BE processor was originally designed for the volume home entertainment market," says Craig Lund, chief technology officer of Mercury Computer Systems, "but its architecture of nine heterogeneous on-chip cores is well-suited to the type of distributed, real-time processing that will power tomorrow's digital battlefield."
The U.S. military is the primary global military power, and this hegemony is based on the ability of the U.S. Navy to dominate the world's oceans - due partially to the superior numbers and technology of U.S. naval vessels that are augmented significantly by U.S. dominance in space-based reconnaissance technology, made possible by entertainment software consumers and movie goers world-wide.
The Second Sight Podcast, © 2007 Alexa D. O'Brien, (27:52)
DOWNLOAD
The Second Sight offers insight and analysis on the media and entertainment industry - an often misunderstood or mischaracterized sector of the American economic and cultural landscape in the midst of its own technological and cultural shifts - from globalization and the emerging creative economy; to digital technology and the evolving aesthetic and nature of content; to the growing technological cross fertilization between media, defense, and medicine.
My name is Alexa D. O'Brien . For the next two months, we will focus our attention towards understanding the evolving nature of the below-the-line training cycle for motion picture technicians, in the face of both digital technologies and newer end to end digital workflows; and the coming of age, so to speak, of the game generation - the older cusp of which, now in their mid thirties, having finally entered their productive years as journeymen technicians and content creators.
Jendra Jarnagin is one of a handful of New York based directors of photography who has shot with the Viper. She has over thirteen years of professional shooting and lighting experience, and her cinematography credits include numerous commercials and over thirty short films. She also worked as a lighting technician on major Hollywood films and episodic television, such as "Sex and the City" and "Law and Order". Jendra recently collaborated on the recent Alexis Krasilovsky documentary, Women Behind the Camera, featuring interviews with camerawomen from all over the world. Jendra Jarnagin, shot, field produced, and directed the projects New York interviews: including Ellen Kuras, ASC; Sandi Sissel, ASC; Lisa Rinzler; and Giselle Chamma. I am pleased to have Jendra Jarnagin for a Second Sight Podcast interview. Welcome.
Jendra Jarnagin
Thank you.
Alexa D. O'Brien
Tell me about Women Behind the Camera.
Women Behind the Camera is a feature length documentary that has interviews...I think they interviewed over eighty women from all over the world. I am not sure the final count in the edit. Cinematographers, documentarians, journalists, camera operators, even some camera assistants...about their jobs in different countries and partly of course some of it deals with being a woman in that job.
What was the experience like listening to these camerawomen, because you are a camera woman yourself?
Watching the documentary itself was really exciting to, I guess, identify with how international the struggles of women in a male dominated field, but also the triumphs of women and the universality of the job, gender aside, that transcended international boundaries. There are interviews from India and Afghanistan, China, you name it, it's in there. It's really a unique film in that way.
Was there anything about that project...that as you were working on it...that surprised you...that you learned...that you didn't know before?
I had the opportunity to see a few rough cuts as the documentary was being shaped, so when the project was substantially longer than a feature documentary naturally gets paired down to. It was really interesting for me to see, I guess, the depth of experiences, and again, just the international side of it. I hadn't really though about that before. Being a New Yorker, I think about how things are different in L.A. and I am spending more time in L.A. and sort of feeling that out for myself, but the European women and the Asian women and everything like that, I guess, did surprise me.
What was one of the experiences that you heard in the process of either directing or shooting the interviews or in viewing the final product that you related to? Was there something that you heard from the women...that were involved...that were being interviewed...that you related to?
There is one quote in particular that Ellen Kuras often says. I have seen her on different panels and different interviews; I sort of follow her career; being a sort of a role model of mine. And my favorite things that she says is that when people ask her what is it like to be a woman in a man's job, she says, "Its not a man's job, it's my job." So that has always stuck with me as a much better way to define it, and it really doesn't have to do with gender. People think that it does because of...historically or traditionally, but that is definitely changing now, and the documentary definitely shows that.
Tell me a little bit about how you chose to become a cinematographer.
I was lucky enough to be invited into a gifted and talented extracurricular program in middle school and one of the choices was that we could spend one day out of school every month...one of the choices was to work at the local public access TV station. And I thought that sounded really cool. So I checked that box and started going there, and being twelve years old my options at that point for career choices were, you know, the things you hear about in elementary school, "I want to be a doctor, a lawyer, an astronaut, a fireman...when I grow up." But I walk into this TV studio and see all these interesting people doing all these really interesting jobs and I decided that day that I wanted to be a filmmaker. It took probably about three more years of learning about the process and the break down of job responsibilities for me to understand the cinematographer's role and that is when I realized that I didn't actually want to be a director, I wanted to be a cinematographer.
What was it about cinematography that you found interesting?
I had always loved photography and storytelling, and the visual storytelling aspect of filmmaking is what really appealed to me. It wasn't writing. It wasn't directing actors. It was interpreting the drama of the story through light and color and camera movement that really spoke to me, and I sort of considered...I kind of feel like it's my calling in life to be a cinematographer.
And do you feel drawn to any particular genre of filmmaking or are you more varied?
I am varied. I guess my favorite genre would be quirky comedies. I really like independent films that present things in a new and interesting way, that are not just sort of your generic romantic comedy, or your blockbuster action film. Though I think action films have gotten more sophisticated over the last few years. I really like the 'Bourne' movies and the way that they are portrayed visually is, I guess, far more interesting to me then to some of the earlier action films, which I find to be a lot more cookie cutter.
Do you think there are differences between men and women cinematographers?
I don't want to get in trouble for saying so, but I think there are. I think a lot of people, and other women that where interviewed in the documentary said, "No, that's rubbish." But, I do think that the generalizations of how women differ from me are pluses to being a cinematographer: That women are more emotional, I think makes women have the potential to be better artists; that women are more detail oriented; that women are better communicators; that they are more team builders, are all things that I think are beneficial in the role of being a cinematographer. Which isn't to say that a man can't be any or all of those things; but I do think that women are more inherently so...and that those are all real benefits.
What are some of the challengers that you face on your road to becoming a working cinematographer?
It's always challenging to consistently find the kind of work that you actually want to do. Sure there are all kinds of content and all kinds of projects out there, but the more advanced you get in your career, the more selective that you want to be...that you want to take on projects that are really going to reward you creatively. So I guess the biggest challenge is choosing to be an artist who works in such a collaborative medium is that we need to be chosen for projects in order to have the opportunity to express our art. So I have found that I need to feed my own soul between projects. Sometime you take a project that is more of a 'money job', or maybe doesn't turn out as well as you thought it would, and just that...that drive for creative fulfillment...if you are relying on the projects that you get chosen to shoot can be frustrating without taking that into your own hands, and finding your own creative work to augment that.
Do you think that the culture of shooting and filmmaking is changing, or do you think it is plugging along in the way that it has been in the last twenty years?
The rate at which filmmaking and the culture of filmmaking is changing is alarming. Well, I don't know if alarming is the right word. I don't know if it has a...if I really want to put that negative of a spin on it, but it is certainly more and more work to keep up with the changing technology, and to stay one step ahead be competitive, on the one hand.
One the other hand, I am interested in all of these new tools and technology. So I am finding that it is taking a lot more of my effort, and what would otherwise be free time between jobs, to just stay abreast of everything: trends, technology...and I don't really get to have time to do other things.
Even the way that we as filmmakers relate to each other...we are all just talking about the technology so much, because we are all so interested in it...that people don't seem to talk about the art as much any more. They don't talk about their creative challenges. Everyone really focuses on the technology.
On the other hand, I see the democratization of filmmaking that has gone along with the digital revolution, that there has been a devaluing of cinematographers, but of filmmakers in general. Especially with some of the marketing hype of some of the camera manufacturers...that it is portrayed and a lot of people have come to believe that anyone who can afford to buy a twenty five hundred dollar camera can go out and call themselves a shooter, or buy themselves a two thousand dollar laptop and a thousand dollar software package and call themselves an editor. People don't respect the experience, the knowledge, the talent in the same way that they use to when everything was shot on film...there was...it was all magic to people. Now a lot of people think that they can just do it themselves and they don't need to pay qualified people, or they don't understand the contribution that a real experienced professional can make to their production.
What is driving that? Is it just simply the affordability of the technology? What do you see as driving that?
It is hard to say what is driving that. I guess attitudes and change in culture need to come from somewhere. I guess that there is just such a need for content that not every kind of content has the budgets for people to even consider paying anything more than what they have to. But it has become so competitive that people are willing to give it away, and as long as that continues to happen, people don't see the need to go beyond that.
What can an experienced cinematographer like yourself bring to a project that a kid who buys a camera can't? Give me an example....draw that out for the audience, so that they know what you mean.
Well I think in any job, having experience is a benefit to not having experience. To give a specific example: Going into a location and knowing how to light it instinctually, or drawing from your own experience could be a lot faster and a lot more efficient, than if someone needs to tinker around and find what they are trying to do. Also, in preproduction, an experienced person can put together a lighting package that will serve the needs of the production, without necessarily needing to order extra stuff, which they know that they are not to need because they have done it before. Also just better results that come from the confidence of having done it before, and I guess better communication and a more fulfilling creative relationship as well.
How is narrative changing...the aesthetics of narrative in terms of the movement of the camera and the way in which...I mean obviously lighting is going to be specific to the script, and what is going on and the mood that you are trying to create...but in terms of camera movement and it terms of editing, how do you think that that has changed, lets say, in the last fifteen years?
Well I do want to address what you said about lighting reflecting mood. I think that lighting trends do along with the camera trends as far as reality television and documentary being a more mainstream medium than it use to be as far as having mass appeal...are definitely influencing narrative filmmaking...where people think that in order for it to feel more 'real.' or more immediate that it should be this frenetic camera movement...this shaky cam trend that you see maybe in TV shows like "The Office" or things that are trying to have a 'mock-umentary' look to them, but the lighting as well...where people don't want...or not everyone wants a beautified look, or overly glossy look that has come to be interpreted as unnatural...like to have it look more real, people will often want to do things more intentionally sloppy and non glamorized.
So I do think lighting plays into that, and of course editing...I guess we have gone beyond the MTV generation but certainly the speed at which music videos and even still commercials...the attention spans of the audience...or at least the assumed attention spans of the audience...I think people tend to not give the audience enough credit...has affected the pace of editing, the number of shot to cover a scene, that you do not see people holding on a two shot in the editing the way that they use to, or staging the action within a wide shot the way that Woody Allen is famous for...even in some degrees Hitchcock. It is just a lot more, fast paced.
Tell me about the experience of working with the Viper and how it compares to more traditional acquisition for you?
By more traditional acquisition do you mean film or...?
I mean film.
I come a film background, and I still love film...and I really wasn't very interested in digital when I had a choice. Certainly if a project had to be done digitally and there was something about that project that I still wanted to do I understood that the budget was an issue...when budget was the main reason to shoot something digitally.
Only since the Viper, which I would say is probably the first of the next generation of extended dynamic range cameras...did I really feel like digital was a viable choice for narrative filmmaking. Without the extra information and the tonal range that these new cameras offer, I just found that it was...that shooting on video or the older styles of HD was just too much of a compromise visually and artistically and I do think that audiences do notice that, and there was definitely...I even hears a backlash from independent films trying to sell their movies that distributors...that distributors were far less likely to be interested in something shot on digital than they were something shot on film, no matter how good the movie was.
So the Viper...I really enjoyed shooting with the Viper and I didn't feel...when I started shooting with the Viper...that is when I really started to focus on the pros of digital acquisition versus the cons, and I had one epiphany in particular where I was shooting this scene...there was a movie that I shot some additional photography for, called The Wreck. I was not the DP for principal photography, but I did the reshoots; and there was this scene where...it was the beginning of the film...and it was the introduction of one of the principal characters and we shot him in a complete and total silhouette.
I thought that that was pretty bold for an exposure standpoint, and if I had been shooting film I would have, to be honest with myself I would have put a little more exposure into his face, because I would for fear of being fired, when the dailies came back...that the producer, the director, even the actor seeing that after the fact when it was too late would be like, "What are you doing? We can't see the actor's face. It's the introduction of this character you can't do that!" But because the director and producer were on set, and we did have monitoring capabilities on set, they could see what I was doing, and they really liked it. They signed off on it on the spot and that gave me more freedom to be more bold, and it was a liberating feeling that makes me, I guess more excited to be able to continue to do that in the future shooting digitally.
What opportunities, aesthetically, practically, in whatever way, do you see happening in the next ten years lets say with this new technology?
Well the new technology is exciting to me from a...you know, I always like learning new things...and there is a lot out there right now and I think that 2007 is sort of a figure of the sea change that digital acquisition became a reality as far as what filmmakers and cinematographers wanted it to be....instead of the tools that we are being made to use reluctantly.
So I am excited about were things are going, even where things are at now, that they weren't even a year ago, and I don't know if I have been thinking about how its artistically exciting more than the technologically exciting. I am a technical person and I have been thinking about it from the technical angle, but I am just taking the opportunity to learn as much as I can about all these new cameras as they hit the market or if possible, even before they hit the market to sort of position myself as on the cutting edge of these kind of things, and hopefully that will help edge me out of some of my competitors when I am interviewing for jobs.
So I guess I have been thinking of it more of a career strategy standpoint and not so much an artistic standpoint...I still love 35mm film. I still think that the organic quality speaks to our soul in a way that electronic doesn't. But just like with digital still cameras I do see that the writing is on the wall...that the image quality is approaching close enough...that that isn't the biggest factor, that that the pros outweigh the cons in terms of convenience, immediate viewing and even cost, though of course these fancy new cameras are not exactly cheap right now.
There is definitely a difference between high-end digital and 35mm film, in my opinion. How would you describe it for yourself?
It is definitely hard to define and hard to verbalize how film is different than even the best digital. All of the specifics that cinematographers have been defining over the years have been addresses in newer and newer cameras. I thought that digital couldn't look as good as it does today, and it does. We saw the 35mm frame size and depth of field characteristics with new cameras, such as the Genesis, the D-20, the Dalsa. The highlight detail was the worst thing about video and then that has been solved with all the new next generation extended dynamic range cameras.
Though we have pinpointed these things and they are being addressed better than any of us, well maybe somebody knew, but better than most of us thought would even be possible, there is still something about film; and I really don't know how to describe it, other than that it is organic...that it is beautiful . The subtleties of the color...maybe that is the only thing that I can still pinpoint as the subtlety of film, but I don't know, as we are being bombarded by more and more digital content, I don't know that the viewer will continue to see of feel the difference.
I think I feel right now film buffs, connoisseurs, people who love to go to the cinema: they can tell. They may be not able to articulate it, but they can tell. But as we have our big home entertainment systems and people are watching everything on DVD, and even television shows have gotten so good that more and more people are watching television shows instead of movies all the time. I don't know that, you know that that is going to continue to matter to the viewer. The only way that the viewer gets to speak their opinion is with their pocketbooks. So if people are still seeing digitally shot films in the same numbers in the same number of films shot on film then the studios aren't going to care.
Tell me what you are going to be working on in the near future.
My next project, I am really excited about. Its a short film, a kung fu action Film in 3D. It's called "Heavy Metal Ninjas in 3D". I think the title says it all. Of course shooting 3D is an opportunity that does not come around very often, so I am very excited about that. I am waiting to here about a feature...I don't have the job yet so I can't speak about it, and I don't want to jinx it either. I am also talking to someone right now about doing a documentary in New Orleans.
Awesome...well I really appreciate your time Jendra.
Thank you very much....apleasure talking to you.
Thank you. To find out more about Jendra Jarnagin visit her website at http://www.floatingcamera.com. To find out more about Women Behind the Camera visit http://www.womenbehindthecamera.com/ Until next time, this is Alexa D. O'Brien for The Second Sight.
But the real penance would not be complete if I did not take a lesson from Fox's Murdoch on "market retention". What, pray tell, do I mean? As Joanne Ostrow put it, the same cynical Hollywood "where plastic surgery is considered a sacrament" has now found that Christianity sells.
As some of you may know, I split time between Charleston, South Carolina and New York City. Yesterday, I received a direct mail post card from the FoxFaith company, itself. Obviously, I wasn't in New York.
Fox News Corp. discovered "long tail" marketing years before the term was ever coined by Chris Anderson. Rupert Murdoch, " Me love you long tail."
Where other media firms (Pixar and Disney excluded) have relinquished their brand to stars, Fox has not. You may have a political bone to pick with Fox News, but only because you are aware of their branding. The idea of "market retention" is actually quite foreign for many media firms in an age of the disposable branding.
Interactivity
In terms of interactivity, television can have a relationship with the internet that film cannot. Reality TV is obviously interactive, but I think ABC's LOST, with its fake websites that supplement the show's mysterious characters (see Charles Widmore's "Race Around the World") is the best example of the potential for the Internet to change the nature of traditional tv drama.
Newer interactive storytelling structures include foureyedmonsters.com and lonelygirl15.com.
Then, of course, there is the obvious growth of user generated content for channels like YouTube and CNN.
Deconstructing the Image
Consumer digital technologies have planted into the aesthetic psyche of younger viewers a noticeable comfort with the mainstream degradation of the image. Just look at "mockumercial" ads aimed at the under 35 demographic. Patricia Winters Lauro writes in the New York Times that
[s]traight direct-response pitches hardly ever work anymore, and increasingly agencies have turned to spoofing their own industry to attract viewers long enough to deliver a new message...Direct-response advertising as a genre is especially appealing to parody because it's "so cheesy," Mr. Jendrysik said. It is an inside joke that the public gets, he added, even the GameTap target audience of 25- to 35-year-olds, who may be too young to recall the '70s pioneers like Ronco, K-Tel or Ginsu knives.
This degraded image aesthetic was driven primarily by the need for lower cost production with the world wide expansion of cable, but it works with younger viewers because they have become consummate consumers of electronic stories. And, their aesthetic is as much about the cost of production as it is about 'deconstructing the image'.
Inversely, prime time television markets and produces its programs more like blockbusters, trying to capture mainstream audiences, fractured by multiple distribution platforms.
Heightened Experience
Theatrical audiences increasingly demand "high imaging" with 3D and CGI (an outgrowth of the gamers demand for a "heightened experience"). Mark Chiolis of Thomson Grass Valley inquires in my interview with him:
"Today there are a number of thought provoking questions that are being asked. What happens when there is a true RGB 4k (there isn't one today) sensor that rivals, if not exceeds, that of today's film stock? One of the arguments for film is that people like the "look" which includes the grain and movement through the gate. What happens when the "game-boy" generation takes over? Having grown up with "video" is this the "look" they want to see? Will they have a different set of standards to compare to?"
Roleplaying
Some say the subject matter of today's emerging content is generally solipsistic and passive - an outgrowth perhaps of the the gaming generations relationship with the anonymous web or with media itself. But, look at the bleeding edge technology and science of virtual reality. Look at the studies of the psycho-physical effects of these media tools on users in medical and defense research. Passive is not the right word to describe this relationship.
One cannot understand this evolution in content unless they have a MySpace or Facebook page and love it. Why? There is a freedom of movement in the field of archetype and symbol that enables both artist and audience to observe without disclosure, absorb without acquisition, and create without the demand for conclusion. The repetition of archetypical representation uncovers both artist's and audience's collective mythologies, thereby revealing: The anonymous is personal.
Renowned urban planer Richard Florida notes that the fundamental social and economic changes that underpin the creative economy, demonstrate that in "virtually every aspect of life, weak ties have replaced the stronger bonds that once gave structure to society. Rather than live in one town for decades, we now move about. Instead of communities defined by close associations and deep commitments to family, friends, and organizations, we seek places where we can make friends and acquaintances easily and live quasi-anonymous lives. The decline in the strength of our ties to people and institutions is a product of the increasing number of ties we have."
How have television and new media influenced the sensibility and subject matter of creative content? I see the primary relationship the game generation is exploring, is with the media itself (I am not talking about the news media, I am talking about media itself). They are deconstructing the "sitcom" and "documentary" and even the "commercial brand".
You may consider video games passive. They don't. For them it is an exploration with identity by roleplaying. "Reality shows" are the obvious outgrowth of their propensity for role-playing, a study of the dramas of personality. As one writer I spoke with remarked, "Entertainment is always flirting with reality. It seems that things that don't aim to be thought of as real do a much better job. Verisimilitude, it's what it's all about."
Absurdity and Secular Mysticism
Is there a common thread in the subject and structures explored by newer creative content, a post-post modern sensibility? They have a desire for authenticity coupled with a disdain of "truthiness" and even traditional ideology. For dramatic content and docu-reality, they create satire. Like dissident antipoliticians from the former Czechoslovakia, who used satire and absurdity to highlight the fact that in a postmodern consumer society the "line of complicity runs through each of us," this new American generation distrusts political grandstanding and even traditional forms of organized politics. Hence, the popularity of so-called no brow satires like South Park, The Colbert Report, and The Daily Show.
The playwright Heiner Mueller once remarked that the potency of theater in his native East Germany was based on the absence of other ways of getting messages across to people. "As a result," Mueller says, "Theater here has taken over the function of other media in the West," before now. While the never ending surface chatter of talking points and double speak on both the left and the right continue to erode the value of words, they also inflate the space between the lines.
In the midst of the secular mundane, their relationship between identity and media is increasingly portrayed as mystical, interactive, and "high touch". I see this exploration in movies like Adaptation and I Heart Huckabees.
Brand as Lifestyle
Take MTV's Virtual Laguna Beach as an example of the evolution of brand: how the concept has extended itself into the realm of branded communities in the digital age. Gamers (the generation under age 35 and including generations X and Y) have grown up in a world saturated by brand so that the phenomenon is now a vehicle for personal expression and identity beyond the ostensible confines of a corporate mandate (well, except their own).
Commentators like Rob Walker (see the NYT's article, "Brand Underground") elucidate well on the social phenomena. However, they tend to look at the expression as another failed modernist attempt to beat the system. Hand me the cyanide, the revolution is over and we lost!
Boomers are wired to view creativity as a choice between "selling out" or "sticking it to the man" and the quest for the great society as a dogmatic battle between the mediocrity of relativism and the virtue of absolutes. To use former bohemian terminology, today's generation does not have that hang up. "They have relatively little generational consciousness," writes David Brooks, "because this generation is for the most part not fighting to emancipate itself from the past." The suggestion is provocative considering that while "the baby boom included the largest U.S. birth cohort to date, the game generation will ultimately outdo the baby boom in size, in scope, and presumably in influence," notes John C. Beck and Mitchell Wade in their study of the game generation's influence on organizational values in business. "The total size of the game generation is already greater than the baby boom ever was," and the whole generation of gamers, "including X and Y and letters to be named later-simply approach the world differently than their predecessors."
Globalization (from the point of view of the valley)
The game generation take globalization for granted and the growing trend towards crossover cultural content from other traditions: for examplem Bollywood and Japanese Anime illustrate this point. Unlike their predecessors, these younger electronic media consumers are more likely to digest cross-cultural creative content - for example, Japanese anime - as automatically and unselfconsciously as they would their own. In fact, for this demographic, international content, is viewed as more 'original' than 'foreign'; because, as authors John C. Beck and Mitchell Wade have pointed out in their study of the effects of the game generation ethos on the culture of business, this birth cohort takes both globalization and the consumption of electronic media and socialization in all its forms as automatically as they would their own. In other words, they look at globalization from the viewpoint of the valley rather than the hill top, and they also view electronic media as an extension of themselves and their own culture - even if that interplay is couched in a verisimilitudinous role-play with their foreign counter-parts.
(But that, perhaps, is for another blog post.)
The Second Sight Podcast, © 2006 Alexa D. O'Brien, (26:35)
Today, we are talking with cameraperson, John Clemens. For seventeen years now, Clemens has ac'ed and operated for directors of photography like Lance Acord (Buffalo 66 and Lost in Translation). His most recent work with Acord was on a Mercedes Benz spot that Acord shot and directed. John has also worked with Joseph Yacoe, known for his commercial and music videos work. Clemens most recent job with Yacoe included a hair product commercial with Penelope Cruz. Director of photography, Darren Lew, who has shot commercials for the likes of Clinique, Versace, Nike, and Adidas, and who began his own career as a still assistant to renowned fashion photographer, Steven Meisel, has said of John Clemens:
"I have never worked with a camera assistant who had it more in his blood than John. He has got a sixth sense for focus and a working method of military precision and consistency, it is no wonder he works with the greatest DP's from all over the world. His skill goes beyond the technical--he quietly contributes to the art of camera work each time we work together everyone else becomes second best after working with John."
John Clemens' credits include Buffalo 66, Naqoyqatsi: Life as War, and Requiem for a Dream. I am honored to have John Clemens on the line for a Second Sight pod cast interview.
Hi, John. How are you?
John Clemens
Good. How are you doing?
I'm good, thank you. John, why did you become a camera assistant?
I primarily became a camera assistant...I was studying photography. I studied photography my whole life. I was in college at the time, and I just felt like I wasn't getting enough of both film and photography in college. So, I left college and eventually, a number of months later, became a production assistant with hopes of moving into the camera department.
What was one of your first projects as a camera assistant?
I guess one of the most memorable projects...Sandy Hayes, a wonderful steadicam operator, had called me up to assist for him on a music video that we were doing. This was early on, and we were shooting, Hype Williams was directing, and I met Mike Garofalo on the set, and from that day forward I went to work with Mike as well as a second AC, and things just really flourished from there.
Sandy Hayes credits include Garden State staring Natalie Portman. In 2006, Hype Williams became the recipient of the MTV Lifetime Achievement Award, and his more recent work includes music videos like Kanye West's "Gold Digger" featuring Jamie Foxx. Mike Garofalo's has also been around for years, and his more recent credits include "Dave Chappelle's Block Party."
What is one lesson that stands out for you as you were rising through the ranks of the camera department?
Just maintain, stay focused. Be very even keeled, and try to keep your ears open. Listen to the director, director of photography, assistants and the other crewmembers as they are communicating; and in essence, they are all trying to get the job done, you know, fulfill an idea that is being put forth to them.
Tell me about one of your more challenging jobs?
You know, they have all been challenging in certain respects...in their own respects. Looking back on it, I sort of still get a little nervous on Buffalo 66, due to the fact that we were shooting Ektachrome film for that project, and we were doing clip tests for each scene; but ultimately we had most of the...I would say 90 percent of the movie in the can without developing a single stretch of film for dailies. So, that was probably the most nerve wracking project I have worked on.
How do you handle stress on a job?
At this point, I try not to get stressed out about much. Stress just adds another level that you really don't need to think about in the process of doing your job. You know, occasionally you will be thrown a loop...thrown into a situation where you are really fighting yourself...and stress really works against you, when you are trying to figure out an answer to a problem in a certain situation.
You mentioned Buffalo 66, are there any other projects that stand out in your memory?
You know, there are just so many to be honest with you. Looking back, I would really have to think at length to try to pull out the one that really sticks in my mind. They have all played a really important part through out the years.
I mean going back, Sandy Hayes and I had the opportunity to work on Woodstock, the Barbara Koppel documentary, that still hasn't been released yet. Sandy and I were on one of the crews that were send out to pick up and photograph three days of the festival all on our own; and that was just a real thrill, especially with my love for music videos as well as music.
Why do you love music videos?
You know, that is a great question. Probably, because I remember the first time MTV came on the air over cable; and it was just a point in my life where I was at the right age, very into music, and then it was really groundbreaking to have these wonderful commercials for songs that you absolutely love. Ultimately that is really what drove me into the film business. I really wanted to spend the rest of my days making music videos.
We seem to be at another crossroads in terms of the nature and aesthetics of content...what do you think about what is going on in music videos or shorter format for Internet distribution?
I think it is all very exciting. I mean, there are still a number of music videos being made, lots of features, lots of commercials. In terms of the advent of the Internet, you know, more and more, we are shooting stuff that is both for television, for commercials before movies, feature length movies in theaters, as well as for Internet content. So, it just provides, in my opinion, another great opportunity to work in the film business.
Is there a common denominator that all great AC's share?
I guess with anything you chose to do, I tend to believe that you choose to do something because you are really passionate about it, not so much because of the money. The money is not necessarily secondary - it is nice. Don't get me wrong. But, ultimately you have to be happy with what you do, and I think if you are passionate about anything, ultimately you will be successful.
Why are you so passionate about photography or cinematography? What is it? Have you thought about that? Do you know why you are passionate about it?
You know, I have been passionate about photography ever since I was a child; my grandfather teaching me photography, color photography, black and white photography. It has always been just a part of my life. So, other than that I really can't tell you much more, why I am so passionate about it, except that it has always been such a part of me.
Do great ac's approach their job differently or do they all sort of approach the job in the same way?
I would imagine that somebody who is successful at what they do, tend to do things just a little bit differently. They have a different approach, different style, different personality, a different way that they see things. I would imagine, more often than not, that would be the case. Back to being very passionate, enjoying their job very much, being a part of the crew and the film making process. Honestly, I fell that that is ultimately what makes a great ac, a great gaffer, a great director of photography. Just having a great passion, a great source of pride, you know, in their craft.
Has the training cycle changed since you began your career?
No, I don't think it has changed that much. It is interesting because there is no specific training cycle, so to speak. Some people come through camera houses. Some people come out of film school. Some people just....myself I was a stage manager at Peter Corbett and Co., and, you know, for example on the weekend when the stage was closed, I use to go over there and play around with the cameras and do some shooting there. So, it's just a matter of...there are so many roads to Rome. There are so many ways to approach the jobs, as well as your background...background in education and personality. Taking that all into account, I wouldn't say there was a generational difference with becoming an assistant cameraperson.
So, if I understand you correctly you wouldn't say that there are major differences between your generation and the one that is coming up now.
No, I don't think so. There is definitely lots more opportunities. Well, lots of opportunities for an assistant to hone his skills and gain the experience. They are still shooting both lots of independent and higher budget films. Music videos are still being photographed. We live in an age where cultures can get enough information, and couple that with the fact that we are now working video as well as film, it seems like the opportunities are just ever so abundant, in terms for working technicians, artists, in the film business.
I have heard from several older professionals that the younger generation coming up seem more afraid to admit when they do not know something. Some have even gone so far as to characterize that propensity as a form of arrogance. Would you respond to that?
I would respond to that, it depends on the person's experience in the film business for starters. I would imagine that perhaps, not so much the arrogance but the naivety of the people not seeking any sort of advice. You know, I would imagine that they are a lot less experienced within the film business. I would take a guess at and the reason being is because the film business overall is a communicative art form and the people making it, the best projects ultimately turn out with how well the crew members are communicating on set. The flow of ideas within the set, from the top from the director, down through even the production assistants. As much as anyone would deny it, it is a very collaborative form of art and communication. So, you know, I would just imagine that the lack of experience, it just boils down...a by-product of that lack of experience would boil down to the lack of communication between the different technicians on set. I wouldn't...it seems to me to be a very large call that it would be a little bit arrogant, you know. I wouldn't be able to say that that particular example is a matter of arrogance as much a s a lack of experience, more than anything.
I often think to myself that there are so many different forces changing the culture of below the liners from one of craftspeople who goes through a formal apprenticeship to a culture of technicians who very often approaches the job from the point of view of perhaps self education, perhaps climbing the ladder faster than their predecessors, would you comment on that?
You bump into a situation where someone jumps a rung on the ladder or whatnot, but ultimately it is the relationships that you have within a business, that you have formed through out your lifetime even...not just in art school or, it could be a social gathering, or it could be someone who is self-taught could possibly have made their own movies and just excelled in a certain craft whether it being shooting, focus pulling, you know. Again, it brings us around to that there are a lot of approaches into, you know, any particular type of filmmaking. If you wanted to narrow it down and say whether it be commercials or you have to be a little more specific in terms of you know what kind of work is being produced. But ultimately it is a funny system in how, you know, very experienced ac's, very experienced craftspeople, tend to do larger budget type shows, quite possibly. That is not to say that somebody with less experience wouldn't be invited along as well.
What I hear you saying is that the skill set or even art remains the same, it is the tools that change...
To a degree. You know like any craft, you need to learn new tools on a daily basis, you know. It is a wonderful thing there is always going to be change. There is always going to be new tools, better tools. There is also going to be tools that are not better, but they fit a particular application for a different look or a different situation. You know, it is an ever evolving process, you know, not too much stays the same these days; although things within the film business tend to be a little bit slower changing. If you look at how memory and computers, and computer systems and how quickly they change and how quickly you have to learn new systems, the film business is still offered new film stocks, new lenses, new cameras, new technology, all the time, and that is an evolution of any given thing. And it keeps it exciting and you have to not only reinvent yourself, but, first and foremost, you have to relearn and along with relearning a new tool, film stock, camera et cetera. Ultimately, the new tools create new possibilities for new looks and new projects and new ideas of how to approach a new shooting style or situation, and it is quite a growing bit, it keeps the business growing with fresh ideas as well as a lot of new tools are culturally based. Different filming styles are based on what is happening within pop culture, and not to throw away old cultural filming values, but just to give you an idea of the ever-changing possibilities that you are handed on a daily basis.
How has digital technology changed the aesthetics of motion picture imaging?
From my perspective, it has given a whole other opportunity to stylize as well as capture imaging as well as to present ideas in essence of director, director of photography as well as the technicians. So it is a wonderful opportunity, it is a wonderful new tool and it has at times, it has very specific applications, if you are going to video Internet. It just opens up many more doors for opportunity within the business.
Are you referring in part to the immediacy of digital technology vis-à-vis film?
To a degree, I mean I was reading an article...that is one of the main reason's Roberto Rodriguez really enjoys shooting digital is the immediacy of it, the immediacy of being able to play back a particular scene to see if that was a selected take for him or if he would like to do it again. There are some people who are very into the immediacy of it. My experience with it so far, we are in the midst of doing an HD project right now both in New York and New Orleans and San Francisco, and we haven't really had the need for the immediacy. To see the exposed image that quickly, actually we have photographed everything and then we have handed off the tapes to the editor. We haven't even taken a look at them. It is a commercial, although that shouldn't mean too much. We are not playing back anything. It is documentary style. So, you know, for some people it would be a matter of the immediacy of capturing on video. More often than not it really boils down to multi-camera shooting, whether it be for broadcast as well as it seems that there is a feeling that...there is a feeling that there are the economics of shooting video as opposed to shooting film. And I haven't quite figured out the economic yet, it doesn't seem to make sense for me. So, I really cannot make a judgment call on that.
How has optical technology changed or advanced for cinematography in the last decade?
Being the purchaser of new motion picture lenses I can attest that they are just... the technology on the glass is just so superior, whether it be computer-designed elements within a zoom lens for example, or within a prime lens. Lens design these days is so far superior and complex, probably due to the computer. Lens coatings and the technology that laid down those lens coatings on a lens for the same reasons, are much more advanced. You know, they are constantly striving for lenses with better resolution, better optical quality, better physical performance in terms of moving gears, and moving elements within each other, and lenses that are faster, are longer, and have in essence a better minimum focus on them; and all these just add to the experience and improvements within the image capture on both motion picture cameras as well as video cameras.
Has the workflow change with higher end digital technology, whether it be HD or larger chip cameras?
Not too much for the camera assistant. You still have the same issues, or the same workflow, not necessarily issues, but that is more part of the job: maintaining the camera in a good working order, making sure the focus is coming up and is collimated correctly both on the lenses and the cameras. You do have a back focus issue on some of the Sony cameras, the Panasonic cameras, but ultimately the workflow is the same. You are maintaining the cameras so they work properly, and they will for the long run, and they hold up very well. You are maintaining the focus, and that the lenses are calibrated properly. The same situation on motion picture cameras. The workflow on set: you are still getting marks, you are still pulling focus on them, and the lens manufacturers have done a wonderful job with making film style lenses for the video cameras that make it that much more comfortable as well, both comfortable for the assistant and the operator. But as well, to somewhat give a more filmic depth of field to the video cameras. Ultimately, the only thing that changes within the workflow is you most of the time you'll have a...on the Sony and Panasonic cameras, smaller chip cameras that are manufactured by Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, you will have a digital imaging technician to keep a better eye on your color rendering as well as your highlights and low lights, to make sure that you are within the boundaries of capturing those highlights and lowlights and everything in between. Panavision and Arriflex have done a wonderful job with their two video cameras, digital HD cameras that they came out with, that maintain the exact workflow of the film cameras that are being utilized today. There is no back focus issues on them. The menus are relatively the same as, you know, a standard thirty-five motion picture camera. So, they have done a wonderful job in maintaining the workflow on their end. So, overall with the question that you have asked: the workflow is, I would say, is still the same regardless of which cameras you are shooting ultimately your responsibilities haven't changed.
I recently spoke with a director of photography who made the point to me that with digital technology there are so many more variables in the digital work flow that affect image quality. Do you think that that is a fair thing to say?
I think that is truly a fair thing to say. For example, with film you are using...just a small number of film stocks, whether it be Fuji, Agfa, or Kodak. And with experience with those film stocks, you can narrow it down quite well and pinpoint the look that you want to achieve. Now with the digital HD cameras there is no flat-line between the...there is no starting point for example within...even from camera to camera, but let me not jump ahead of myself, there is no baseline between a Sony, a Panasonic chip and even within the same series of cameras. There are little anomalies inherent within each camera that it is hard to gauge a baseline off of. They are good in giving you the tools necessary to change those little nuances whether it be between cameras within a particular manufacturer or a cameras from different manufacturers. But ultimately there is a little bit more work in coming to a known with digital cameras as there is with film and the experience that you have with a certain film stock for example, so there is a...the tolerances are squeeze down a bit on you.
John I really want to thank you for your time today.
Oh, thank you Alexa. It has been a pleasure. Have a good day.
In his prescient and aptly titled book, The Rise of the Creative Class, urban planner Richard Florida identifies the emergence of a new economic and social class of "thirty eight million Americans roughly thirty percent of the entire U.S. workforce, whose creativity is the driving force of our nation's economic growth." [1]
The key difference between the creative class and other classes, according to Florida, lies in what they are primarily paid to do. Those in the working and service classes are paid to execute according to plan, while the main economic function of the core of the creative class - which includes people in science and engineering, architecture and design, education, arts, entertainment, and the media - is to create new ideas, new technology and/or new creative content - in other words intellectual property. [2] In addition, around this creative core, exists a broader group of creative professionals in business, finance, law, health care and other related fields, who engage in "complex problem solving" that involves a great deal of independent judgment and requires high levels of education or human capital. [3]
The creative class in the United States today is larger than the traditional working class. The service class, totaling fifty five million workers or forty three percent of the U.S. workforce, is the largest of all. The growth of the service class, according to Florida, is in large measure a response to the demands of the 'creative economy'. "Members of the Creative Class, because they are well compensated and work long and unpredictable hours," writes Florida, "require a growing pool of low-end service workers to take care of them and do their chores." [4]
I have outlined the work of others as it relates to the creative economy elsewhere on this site. Here is a quick summary of three of its important aspects:
John Howkins categorizes the creative economy to include fifteen creative sectors - such as research and development, software, design, and content industries like film, music, and video games - that produce intellectual property in the form of patents, copyrights, trademarks and proprietary designs. The annual global revenue for Howkin's fifteen identified sectors was $2.24 trillion in 1999. The U.S. share represents forty percent of the market with revenue totaling $960 billion. The U.S. share also accounts for more than forty percent of research and development, forty percent of television and radio, and thirty percent of film. Howkins calculates that core copyright industries will be worth $6.1 trillion internationally in fifteen years. U.S. dominance in these segments - more than productivity improvements related to new technology and new manufacturing methods - is responsible for much of the nation's global economic competitiveness since the nineteen-eighties. [5]
More Americans work in art, entertainment, and design, than as lawyers, accountants, and auditors. [6] In the United States, professional artists, writers, and performers have increased three hundred and twenty-five percent from 525,000 in 1950 to 2.5 million in 1999. [7] Graphic designers outnumber chemical engineers by four to one, and more Americans are directly employed in film production than in the steel industry. [8]
In many respects, the demands of the creative economy have flattened the business model of most major industry sectors, requiring firms to capitalize on the greater efficiency gained by the creative factory and subcontract manufacturing systems - translate that as outsourcing.
Stephen Barley has noted in The New World of Work that the entire economy has moved towards a more horizontal division of labor and hyper-specialization among firms.[9] "The digital business environment that Kodak is transitioning to is more horizontal in construct" says Antonio Perez, CEO and President of Kodak: "It requires alliances, partnering and, to a certain degree, acquisitions to move quickly into new markets." [10]
A natural outcome of this development is a "horizontal labor market" - with people tending to move laterally instead of vertically. "Climbing the corporate ladder is not much of an option," writes Florida: "Perhaps because there isn't as much of a ladder in many of today's leaner, flatter firms - and it is liable to shift or vanish before you're halfway up." [11] In fact, Americans now change jobs on average every 3.5 years. This figure has been declining steadily for every age group. Workers in their twenties switch jobs on average every 1.1 years. [12] The phenomenon is also coupled with a tendency towards hyper-specialization among individual occupations, just as it is among firms. Those "in authority no longer comprehend the work of their subordinates," notes Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Friedman in The Horizontal Society, because occupations themselves have evolved into "clusters of domain-specific knowledge." [13]
The game generation - the older cusp of which are now in their mid-thirties - have come of age professionally and technically in the midst of this evolving labor market, which is evermore dependent on them to act as the "work horses" in their respective creative sectors. "In most Creative Class occupations," writes Richard Florida, "people manage their careers by 'front-loading' - working excruciatingly long and hard at the outset of their professional lives in the hopes it will pay off in greater income, marketability and mobility later." [14]
Moreover, people today not only tend to identify themselves with their occupation or profession instead of the company that they work for, but they also bear more of the responsibility and risks for their careers. This means individual workers invest more of their own time and resources into education and skill acquisition now than any other time before.
The trend is particularly acute among new media professionals, who, according to Rosemary Batt and Susan Christopherson of Cornell University, spend an additional 13.5-hours per week obtaining new skills - all of it unpaid. This has become an individual responsibility, "both because the interactive nature of computer tools allows new media workers to learn new skills at their own pace and within their own learning style, and because formal learning programs have not kept pace with skill needs in this fast-changing industry." [15]
In fact, digital technology has transformed 'economies of training', so that "the training cycle is now longer than the life cycle of the devices in use," says Bill Drury Senior Consultant formerly with IBM EMEA, when I interviewed him this year: "That means companies cannot afford these long training cycles any longer." In the new labor market, it no longer pays for companies to invest significantly in developing their people's skills and capabilities.
Consequently, the game generation has different organizational values and attitudes about professional roles than their predecessors. In their groundbreaking book, Got Game, John C. Beck and Mitchell Wade argue that entertainment software itself has shaped the organizational ethos of gamers and profoundly influenced how they approach their work - well beyond the scope of those influential meta-forces mentioned above like hyper-specialization and the flattening of the labor market, both of which have emerged from the creative economy and the obvious technological convergence of digital technology and business.
One first has to comprehend the profound penetration of entertainment software usage among individuals under the age of thirty-five. This demographic has spent "billions of dollars, and billions of hours, in the virtual world[s] created by these machines," and despite the prevailing boomer amnesia on the subject, games, like the television to boomers, "are a universally shared, technology powered experience." [16]
According to the Entertainment Software Association, the average age of a gamer is thirty-three; and despite assumptions to the contrary, thirty-eight percent of gamers are women:
"Adult gamers have been playing an average of twelve years. Among most frequent gamers, adult males average ten years for game playing, females for eight years...The average adult woman plays games 7.4 hours per week. The average adult man plays 7.6 hours per week. Though males spend more time playing than do females, the gender/time gap has narrowed significantly." [17]
Beck and Wade also add: "One survey found ninty-two percent of children ages two to seventeen in the United States have regular access to video games, and eighty percent of U.S. households with children have a computer...And games, unlike computer and Internet usage, are not limited to the socioeconomic elite." [18]
Video games are big business. According to Beck and Wade, "Today's game market is huge because nearly every kid is involved." [19]
"Electronic Arts, now part of Standard & Poor's 500 Index, earned $2.5 billion in 2003 and more than the combined revenue of the year's ten top-grossing movies. [20] Nintendo's Mario series of video games has earned more than $7 billion over its lifetime - double the money earned by all the Star Wars movies. [21] Sony's Everquest, with 650,000 registered players who stay online an average of twenty-two hours a week, at thirteen dollars a month, that adds up to about $101 million a year in revenue from subscription fees alone." [22]
Secondly, according to Beck and Wade, video games are powerful training tools:
"The game's complex, nearly cinematic images and multilayered sound tracks give players the feeling of total immersion. After all, the game responds almost instantly to any action the player imagines, and other players (whether live or computer generated) respond to them in real time. Even the environment shapes itself to match the player's skill level. The game generation grew up in this world of immersion and instant response. Naturally the exposure has an effects. What gamers learned, among other things, was how to manipulate electronic information...Compared to the activities that pregamers grew up with, for instance, the game generation lives in a world that is incredibly responsive. And that's not real life...Yet it is perfect for training. (Even the U.S. military-a culture that knows a few things about training - recognizes this. As far back as the 1980s, on Atari technology, the Army used a modified commercial game, Battlezone, for armored gunnery training. A variant of Doom has been used to train Marines in urban combat.)...The game world is a giant, accidentally created machine for giving kids an enormous number and range of choices and then immediately showing them the consequences of what they choose." [23]
This responsiveness has made gamers more focused on value-added than their predecessors. According to Beck and Wade, "All that experience with video games has made these people passionate about added value. You have to look closely, at first, to see that passion. Initially, what you see is the value gamers put on skill...They understand that their only real job security comes from their capabilities and continued productivity.[24]
A corollary of the authors' argument is that the game generation's propensity for role-playing is partly responsible for the dot com era, just as much as the flawed business models of the firms headed by these 'Sim City" CEOs were responsible for the bubble; for, the game generation believes that as long as they have the right tools, they will can do and be anything. Beck and Wade write:
"The biggest danger, however, is that the game generation's passion for adding value can be so easily misconstrued. When we first started reviewing these survey results, we found the word arrogant coming readily to mind. The tendency of twenty-something gamers to describe themselves as experts for example, can certainly seem that way. But when we connect their focus on skill and expertise with their desire for professional respect and their willingness to be paid only for results, we sense a different pattern." [25]
No industry sector is immune to these developments - including film production and post - although the effects are more apparent in the latter. I would argue that the breakdown of the traditional apprenticeship system in media and entertainment content production is a result of this trend toward a more horizontal labor market, the emerging creative economy and the ethos of the game generation.
Granted, film production has always relied on "domain specific knowledge" between departments. Even intra-departmentally, the division of labor is quite specific, although customarily cumulative in breadth. This division of labor is part of the traditional apprenticeship system. "It's always been an industry of apprenticeship," says Bob Harvey, Senior Vice President of worldwide sales at Panavision when I interviewed him this year, "and people grow up from being loaders all the way up in the camera department, and I think all the departments. I don't know if that's going to continue and that's too bad."
"Many of the individuals who participate in an entertainment production would refer to their skills as a trade, notes the 2001 Department of Commerce Report on Runaway Production, "Traditionally, practitioners often developed their trades in a union environment, which facilitated an individual's development of the necessary learned skills through apprenticeships and on-the-job experience." [26]
The dramatic increase in worldwide demand for cable content coupled with the high production cost inherent in the creative industries, or "Baumol's disease", has lead to an amplified need for cost-effective digital production, a growing trend towards production outsourcing-translate runaway production-and a concurrent rise of non union production over the last fifteen years. These are transforming the below-the-line labor market from a culture of tradesmen to a culture of technicians.
As I already noted this phenomenon is keener in postproduction, where transition to digital technology has been more apparent and complete. "The changes in the tools that are utilized to perform these post-production functions," notes the 2001 Department of Commerce Report on Runaway Production, "have presented opportunities for new post-production markets to appear with newly trained workforces that have bypassed the historical "apprenticeship" programs that have existed in Hollywood for many years. This new workforce consists of individuals who have attended technical schools or government-sponsored programs that provide the required training to operate the new generation of equipment."[27]
Just as the flattening labor market of corporate America has seen a trend towards self-education, so too has the labor market of below-the-line technicians. Part of this is a result of the increase in electronic acquisition and the advance of digital acquisition and post technologies. "In the past, when you got into the film industry, very often it was from art school, or you went to a school and studied photography or film. You seldom went to liberal arts schools and got into the industry. Some did, but not very many. I think that changed with your generation," said Director of Photography, Michael Falasco to me last year: "Everyone absolutely believes that they can take Avid courses and Final Cut Pro and come out and be editors."
This is evidence of the erosion of the traditional film training cycle discussed above. According to the 2001 Department of Commerce Report on Runaway production, historically
"[T]he learning curve associated with developing the skills to become an on-line editor was substantial. As such an editor was required to understand and work with up to 20 different types of manufacturing equipment, all with different user interfaces working in conjunction with one another to create the desired effect. Today, computers utilize common user interfaces and software tools to combine many of these tasks. This has greatly reduced the learning curves associated with becoming an on-line editor. This reduced learning curve, when combined with formal training through government-sponsored school programs, has allowed many foreign production centers to be able to gain the necessary expertise to staff productions with local workers at a substantially lower cost than having U.S.-based workers travel to the foreign production site. This has increased their ability to attract foreign production, and these trends are continuing today."[28]
Ripples are also felt in the world of production, especially in the cable TV market, where the demand for low-cost content is insatiable. Lower cost digital cameras and editing equipment have made production cheaper and lowered the barriers to market entry. This lowers capital equipment costs and the labor requirements for low-end production. For television broadcasters, the lowering of production costs has made it more economically feasible to produce docu-reality content aimed at narrower audience segments.
In terms of high-end digital cinematography, one of the obstacles towards seeding the future is access to the tools - in other words, getting one's hands on the equipment. "They need access to be able to learn how to use it and how to get the best from it," says Steve Shaw of Digital Praxis, "The most difficult part at the moment is getting hands on experience [with high-end digital acquisition]."
Another aspect of the new training cycle is simply the lack of uniformity amongst the large chip cameras and the increase in variables that affect image quality along the digital supply chain. "When I was coming up," remarks Director of Photography Michael Falasco:
"[C]ertainly everyone knew original negative because we were production people. If you worked in a duplicating house or an optical house, then all of a sudden you had to learn inter-negative, and you had to learn CRI, and you had to learn inter-positive, and black and white pan masters, and every one of them had different gammas, everyone of them had different curves, so that always seemed like a lot....but you only had three or four stocks to choose from, you had three or four duplicating stocks, and then a handful of print stocks so you really could learn all you needed to know about them. Now at any given time a shooter has the choice of a dozen different stocks to work with and the same in duplication, and even now when your making a digital intermediate you have 2K, 4K, and 6K shortly...I just read an article by a European DP and he was talking about why he liked the Master Primes, and he quoted three or four very aesthetic things. There was no specific technical stuff that he quoted about any of them. What that said to me, 'If you took four of these, if you took the Master Primes the Optimo, the DigiPrimes, and the E Series and you shot on any given stock which is so good these days, and you transferred on a Spirit or you transferred on a C-Reality or you laser scanned like Amelie and that was at 2K and now they have 4K and 6K; it's almost impossible, it's imperceptible to say this particular thing is result of the contrast of the DigiPrimes when there are so many other high tech variables that happened within the work flow.'"
Beginning with my generation of film technician, access to viewing film dailies for the apprentice technician decreased in inverse proportion to the increase in electronic acquisition. This fact alone functions as a hole in the traditional film training infrastructure. Certainly one of the biggest misunderstandings about large chip cameras is the fact that one lights them like motion picture film. That requires the expertise of a skilled lighting technician. In most respects the skill sets are transferable. Moreover, people often forget that lighting for motion picture is not merely about exposure, but also an important part of storytelling.
Beyond the changing nature of content brought on by new media, there is evidence of an evolving aesthetic, arising from the introduction of lower-cost digital acquisition and post technologies and the evolving ethos of the game generation in relation to these tools. That fact alone will have a continuing effect on the nature of content and the training cycle of below-the-line technicians: As Mark Chiolis, Senior Marketing Manager of Thomson Grass Valley's Strategic Marketing and Business Development Group, remarked in an interview I conducted with him earlier this year, "Today there are a number of thought provoking questions that are being asked. What happens when there is a true RGB 4k (there isn't one today) sensor that rivals, if not exceeds, that of today's film stock? One of the arguments for film is that people like the "look" which includes the grain and movement through the gate. What happens when the "game-boy" generation takes over? Having grown up with "video" is this the "look" they want to see? Will they have a different set of standards to compare to?" For now, the subject is outside the scope of my essay, but I look forward to investigating this matter in the coming weeks.
The older cusp of the game generation (now in their mid-thirties) have entered their productive years as journeyman technicians and content creators. These technicians and artists came up in an infrastructure married to film but sleeping with video, an infrastructure infiltrated more and more by electronic acquisition and digital post - the result of the explosion of world wide cable and the desire to stem the rising cost of production. (A corollary phenomenon would be the growing outsourcing of production and post, and the changing nature and aesthetic of content in the form of docu-dramas, generated by professionals and users alike, and advanced CGI.)
I remember having the opportunity to compare formative experiences with Dedo Weingert, inventor of the dedo light, at a lighting expo one rainy night in New York City five years ago. One of the biggest differences between my own and Mr. Weingert's apprenticeship he saw the film dailies of almost everything he lit.
The reason I got to spend so much time talking with Mr. Weingert? No one showed up to the event, except myself and a few other below-the-line technicians. In fact, one executive at a nother prominent rental house in New York City recently mentioned to me that attendance at seminars has been declining over the last few years. This phenomena, according to elder technicians, is evidence of the arrogance of today's younger generation.
Ultimately, the generational gap is symptomatic of larger forces and better understood in context: These are the advance of digital post and acquisition technologies, the evolution of the below-the-line training cycle and infrastructure, the emerging ethos of the game generation and its influence on culture and business, and finally both globalization and the creative economy as it relates to media and entertainment.
Today digital cinematography and digital end-to-end workflows are reaching critical mass. The culture war I came up in between film and "video" has given way to hybrid projects with newer digital formats that incorporate the best of both worlds. The change is liberating for me because I am a member of the game generation. The newer tools are more natural to my sensibilities, even though they complicate the creative process with an increase in technical variables that influence image quality along the digital supply chain.
Rather than inundate you with a dissertation on these matter I have decided to break my thoughts down and post them in easily digestible gruel (just kidding!) courses. By months end you shall understand why monkey brains are a delicacy. And lucky for you, the meal will be topped by an even better dessert - pod cast conversations with highly respected below-the-line technicians.
Reality television especially of the type that is integrated with the Internet or with direct viewer response is also part of the evolving trend towards interactive media with the younger demographic. Interactivity is part of the gaming generation's fascination with role-playing.
According to John C. Beck and Mitchell Wade, in their study of the gaming generation's attitudes towards business, entertainment software has trained this generation to expect a heightened relationship based on immediate rewards or consequences with media and the world at large. I believe this ethos towards role-playing and interactivity is seen in the form of reality-based shows like "American Idol" and the "Apprentice". With advertising in turmoil on broadcast TV, reality shows - like "American Idol" or even Tommy Hilfiger's less successful "The Cut" - take product placement well beyond a can of Coke enjoyed by our favorite television show's character. "Idol was simply a marketing tool for me to sell records," says Simon Cowell on "Larry King Live. "The show was one thing but it was actually my record label, which was the most important thing. So, my background is I run a record label, and I still run a record label and that's really my passion. Of course, the real winner of "American Idol" is Cingular Wireless.
Cingular has an exclusive deal with the show's producers that let customers text their votes instead of trying to call in on busy lines. In Season Four last year, 41.5-million text votes were sent in; Cingular charges between $19.99 per month for a text package with 2,500 messages included and 10 cents per message on a pay-as-you-go plan, meaning the company raked in as much as $4.15-million in text messaging fees from American Idol votes alone last year. When the Apprentice was at its peak, Ad Age writes that Yahoo's product placement was a solid success: "After the ice cream challenge during the second season, viewers were told to go search Yahoo, and within three hours of the end of the show, the term 'Apprentice Ice Cream' was the third-most-searched term on Yahoo that day. By 5 o'clock the next afternoon, the ice cream was sold out," says Yahoo VP Jim Moloshok.
And the results kept coming. After the Levis challenge, "[f]our days after that episode ran, viewers were still searching Yahoo avidly for 'Apprentice Jeans' to get a copy of the catalog. And "Apprentice Jeans" was still ranked No. 1 among Yahoo Web searches," AdAge reports. Using secret tracking devices, Yahoo discovered that "The core demographic for the ice cream was 21 to 34 years old. For the jeans, it was 35 to 44." Yahoo VP Moloshok says, "If you can complete the loop, product placements like Mark Burnett is doing are one of the most effective ways to get people engaged with a product."
CNN Exchange is the news network's online destination for viewers to submit their own video, photos and stories for potential publication online and on air. The user-generated news reports -- which the network has coined iReports -- will endure the "same extensive vetting process CNN employs for all content that goes on air or online," according to a statement announcing the program.
"User-generated social content is a thing of the future," said Greg D'Alba, exec VP-chief operating officer for ad sales and marketing, CNN Ad Sales. "We just have more affiliates now."
Mr. D'Alba said CNN gets 23 million unique visitors a month and 60 million free video streams a month, up from 30 million six months ago.
"There's such a strong trend for personalization and telling stories from personalized view," he continued. "Love it or hate it, user-generated content is revolutionizing the news business. ... This is an example of where the ad opportunities are."
This gives copyright owners leverage because success as a broadcaster depends upon securing ongoing access to the the rights of distinctive and attractive programming. So, the bargaining power of television rights owners has increased.
The growth in pay television has lead to bidding wars for attractive content from sustainable producers and inflated the cost of programming rights. Sports is the perfect example, and trends show that sports franchises have moved from mainstream channels to pay channels over the last few years in increasing numbers.
With direct payment, costs for outbidding terrestrial rivals are simply passed on to the viewer. Advertiser-supported broadcasters cannot do this. So the growth of subscription funding is inevitably shifting not only audiences but also economic power away from advertising-funded channels to pay-television operators. This trend is clearly reiterated by Kagan Research today, Broadcast TV Networks Grab Two-Thirds Of Sports Ad Dollars Despite Cable's Gains
Forgive me readers, for I have sinned. It's been over a month since my last blog entry. For penance, I promise to watch FoxFaith's new Christian thriller, Thr3e. As Jeff Shannon of the Seattle PI writes, "If 'Thr3e' is any indication of what we can expect from the emerging trend of studio-funded faith-based movies, we may find ourselves wishing "The Passion of the Christ" had been a box-office bomb." Have faith Jeff!