news
Fights are sometimes lame.
01/25/09 11:54 PM Filed in: Film Festivals
(Disclaimer: I fully realize that there is some layer of irony in this post. I just want to say that it's not intended to be the kitschy sort-of irony like when I proudly wear my Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift shirt to screenings of French New Wave films or listen to celebrity-made music. A friend once accused me of getting to the point where I don't know whether I legitimately enjoy something or enjoy it ironically. I assure you, this is not one of those instances. Really.)
(Disclaimer 2: The video described in this post was deleted pretty much as I was uploading this. Follow-up at the bottom)
So, I'm not even a month into the revamped blog here, and I already have to retract a statement. I'm not sure whether to be proud of that, or not. But in my last post I claimed that fighting was awesome, and that it brought a level of excitement to film fests that I felt was positive.
Well, I was wrong.
Today my twitter feed was all abuzz about slashfilm's reporting of the escalation of a feud between Chud's Devin Faraci and FirstShowing's Alex Billington. The two have had a "feud" (not really sure you can call it that) since Billington published a piece on how the new Batman movie was "revolutionary", Faraci did not agree. For those of you wondering, yes, this is a feud lamer than the Soulja Boy/Ice-T YouTube video wars of 08.
(For full disclosure: Here's my relations - I read slashfilm, I've met Faraci briefly at Fantastic Fest, and never really heard of Billington)
Slashfilm posted a video of the culmination of the feud - a somewhat drunken bitchfest between the two (I'll save you some time and tell you not to click it, but if you're bored [which shouldn't be an excuse] scroll down all the way). (Update: Video was removed)
This is what people are talking about today.
Meanwhile, Sundance has just wrapped up with not one of the award winners securing US distribution.
Let me repeat that.
At the premiere US Film Festival for discovery and purchasing of independent feature films, not one of the major award winners has secured US distribution rights. Not one. Shouldn't that be worthy of analysis? Is it because people aren’t buying? Did the films cost too much? Are there just too many good films out there?
Maybe we should be talking about the films that did secure distribution?
But that's not the topic of conversation today.
This lame argument is.
People are describing it as "epic" and "something that lives up to the Sundance hype". Today, I've seen more about this than a lot of films that I was interested in hearing about from the dance.
Now, let me take a moment and clear up why the previous fight is good and this fight is bad. In the fight involving Dowd and Anderson, the dispute was centered around a film at the festival and it brings up all sorts of interesting debates like the place of criticism at a festival and the power that it can hold and whether it's too much, etc. This fight takes a quibble from the internet and brings it to real life where it just makes it embarrassing for all parties involved - including the watchers.
I feel bad for the other internet-based journalists, this looks bad for everyone that this can attract so much attention over real topics.
In this fast-paced world of film, the internet has become a vital tool in getting the news and information fast and easily. Naturally the intersection of computers and movies attracts geeks (which I don't use as a pejorative) of all types, which has helped create some new superpowers in the film world (Aint it Cool), and a lot of resources (Cinematical), and venues (Hulu). However, with it comes the rest of the internet.
The debate at hand has a discourse at the level of YouTube comments. It's juvenile and anti-climatic, and petty. In other words, it's everything that an internet debate is (except that it doesn’t ever go into George W. Bush for no reason). Overly-long insults of a sexual nature that ends when somebody gets distracted.
Here, the sword of instant information comes back to cut us.
With no real news cycle, we're getting information as it happens. Unfortunately, sometimes, even at Sundance, nothing is happening. Behind every headline is weeks and months of preparation and build-up. When's nothing's announced, we get other things, some are fun, some encourage discussion, some are easily forgettable. That's fine. Sometimes the non-stories grow to insane proportions, like the Roger Ebert jacket-debacle of a few years ago. We're now treated to every step of a story that would never have been allowed in newspapers a decade ago. Reporting in this way quickly becomes petty.
And soon things become too incestuous. The internet allows us all some level of self-importance, and it's certainly not a foreign concept to the film sites. It allows for accountability, recognition and reliability. None of which are bad things. Sites recognize each other for good reporting and bad, helping us to filter out information. Then these things start to take precedence, as they have here. If the feud was between two nameless bloggers the story wouldn't have gathered any steam. But because of the established nature of the people involved... we get this. As the recognition of the people and their personalities grow, soon the focus is no longer on the films.
So, while this fight is super-lame and not worth talking about, the problems it suggests are: The film world, and independent film world especially, are semi-closed circles. Go to a film festival in New England and one in LA and you'll see a number of the same people, follow the news and you'll see a number of names that pop up time after time. With near-instant reporting on the goings on with these people, can we rely on our specialized media to remain reporters instead of gossips?
Not to say that gossip isn't a part of Hollywood, Variety has long-covered feuds within the industry. However, when it's Robert Evans and Francis Ford Coppola going at it ending with the re-editing of The Godfather, it's news, it's affecting a product. It's big players with consequences for a lot of people. This just keeps people on the internet posting comments over which site is better. Is this really where we're going? Will this sort of noise override the real stories?
So, there you go - a post on the internet complaining about people posting on the internet, and, a lot of words and focus on something that I say should be ignored. Yeah. That's right.
Follow Up: The video in question was deleted as I was putting this up, which does add a nice dimension to all of this - when something like this does catch on, when it does pick up steam, and it becomes a distraction, the site can easily remove the video. Slashfilm’s Peter Sciretta pulled the video because he felt that it was not good for anyone involved. He was not pressured by anyone. I leave this post up because I think the comments on the reporting that goes on are still relevant, even if the post is not live.
(Disclaimer 2: The video described in this post was deleted pretty much as I was uploading this. Follow-up at the bottom)
So, I'm not even a month into the revamped blog here, and I already have to retract a statement. I'm not sure whether to be proud of that, or not. But in my last post I claimed that fighting was awesome, and that it brought a level of excitement to film fests that I felt was positive.
Well, I was wrong.
Today my twitter feed was all abuzz about slashfilm's reporting of the escalation of a feud between Chud's Devin Faraci and FirstShowing's Alex Billington. The two have had a "feud" (not really sure you can call it that) since Billington published a piece on how the new Batman movie was "revolutionary", Faraci did not agree. For those of you wondering, yes, this is a feud lamer than the Soulja Boy/Ice-T YouTube video wars of 08.
(For full disclosure: Here's my relations - I read slashfilm, I've met Faraci briefly at Fantastic Fest, and never really heard of Billington)
Slashfilm posted a video of the culmination of the feud - a somewhat drunken bitchfest between the two (I'll save you some time and tell you not to click it, but if you're bored [which shouldn't be an excuse] scroll down all the way). (Update: Video was removed)
This is what people are talking about today.
Meanwhile, Sundance has just wrapped up with not one of the award winners securing US distribution.
Let me repeat that.
At the premiere US Film Festival for discovery and purchasing of independent feature films, not one of the major award winners has secured US distribution rights. Not one. Shouldn't that be worthy of analysis? Is it because people aren’t buying? Did the films cost too much? Are there just too many good films out there?
Maybe we should be talking about the films that did secure distribution?
But that's not the topic of conversation today.
This lame argument is.
People are describing it as "epic" and "something that lives up to the Sundance hype". Today, I've seen more about this than a lot of films that I was interested in hearing about from the dance.
Now, let me take a moment and clear up why the previous fight is good and this fight is bad. In the fight involving Dowd and Anderson, the dispute was centered around a film at the festival and it brings up all sorts of interesting debates like the place of criticism at a festival and the power that it can hold and whether it's too much, etc. This fight takes a quibble from the internet and brings it to real life where it just makes it embarrassing for all parties involved - including the watchers.
I feel bad for the other internet-based journalists, this looks bad for everyone that this can attract so much attention over real topics.
In this fast-paced world of film, the internet has become a vital tool in getting the news and information fast and easily. Naturally the intersection of computers and movies attracts geeks (which I don't use as a pejorative) of all types, which has helped create some new superpowers in the film world (Aint it Cool), and a lot of resources (Cinematical), and venues (Hulu). However, with it comes the rest of the internet.
The debate at hand has a discourse at the level of YouTube comments. It's juvenile and anti-climatic, and petty. In other words, it's everything that an internet debate is (except that it doesn’t ever go into George W. Bush for no reason). Overly-long insults of a sexual nature that ends when somebody gets distracted.
Here, the sword of instant information comes back to cut us.
With no real news cycle, we're getting information as it happens. Unfortunately, sometimes, even at Sundance, nothing is happening. Behind every headline is weeks and months of preparation and build-up. When's nothing's announced, we get other things, some are fun, some encourage discussion, some are easily forgettable. That's fine. Sometimes the non-stories grow to insane proportions, like the Roger Ebert jacket-debacle of a few years ago. We're now treated to every step of a story that would never have been allowed in newspapers a decade ago. Reporting in this way quickly becomes petty.
And soon things become too incestuous. The internet allows us all some level of self-importance, and it's certainly not a foreign concept to the film sites. It allows for accountability, recognition and reliability. None of which are bad things. Sites recognize each other for good reporting and bad, helping us to filter out information. Then these things start to take precedence, as they have here. If the feud was between two nameless bloggers the story wouldn't have gathered any steam. But because of the established nature of the people involved... we get this. As the recognition of the people and their personalities grow, soon the focus is no longer on the films.
So, while this fight is super-lame and not worth talking about, the problems it suggests are: The film world, and independent film world especially, are semi-closed circles. Go to a film festival in New England and one in LA and you'll see a number of the same people, follow the news and you'll see a number of names that pop up time after time. With near-instant reporting on the goings on with these people, can we rely on our specialized media to remain reporters instead of gossips?
Not to say that gossip isn't a part of Hollywood, Variety has long-covered feuds within the industry. However, when it's Robert Evans and Francis Ford Coppola going at it ending with the re-editing of The Godfather, it's news, it's affecting a product. It's big players with consequences for a lot of people. This just keeps people on the internet posting comments over which site is better. Is this really where we're going? Will this sort of noise override the real stories?
So, there you go - a post on the internet complaining about people posting on the internet, and, a lot of words and focus on something that I say should be ignored. Yeah. That's right.
Follow Up: The video in question was deleted as I was putting this up, which does add a nice dimension to all of this - when something like this does catch on, when it does pick up steam, and it becomes a distraction, the site can easily remove the video. Slashfilm’s Peter Sciretta pulled the video because he felt that it was not good for anyone involved. He was not pressured by anyone. I leave this post up because I think the comments on the reporting that goes on are still relevant, even if the post is not live.