Because Film is Next

I have many friends in the filmed entertainment industry working at all levels of production and in just about every department.  Some of them follow my blogs with interest, others just to be nice, and others I suspect wonder why I bother at all.  There are many reasons why I choose to focus on matters related to the digital age, but even if I didn’t care about politics or social issues, I’d care for this reason alone:  because film is next.

Technically speaking, the digital distribution of filmed entertainment, both legal and illegal, is roughly 15 years behind music. Acceptable quality streaming, for those who care about quality, is less than five years old, so we’re still on the leading edge of digital distribution and the inevitable convergence of TV and Web for the majority of viewers. While small-town theaters like the one I’m working with try to raise funds for the costly conversion to digital projection, many wonder if the next generation of viewers will even bother going to big-screens in the future.  At the same time, we see some exciting but challenging developments in DIY film production that both the Web and consumer electronics industries are only too happy to champion.

I know that my contemporaries have experienced massive shifts in work-for-hire on small productions (e.g. commercials, industrials, cable TV) in the last few years.  In general, the day rates for crew members and post-production professionals have not only not kept up with the cost of living, they have actually gone down in many cases.  Among other factors, the flood of affordable, easy-to-learn, digital products has reduced the value placed on professional skills, and many professionals are expected to perform the job of 2-3 people for the rate of one.  This trend really took seed in the early 1990s with the development of non-linear, digital editing, which gave rise to concepts like the Preditor, a hybrid Producer/Editor.

On the other end of production, as high-quality digital cinema has really broken significant barriers with cameras like the Arri ALEXA and Red, the demand for experienced professionals in every department actually increases in concert with improved resolution and complexity of dynamic workflows. As cinematographer Steven Poster indicated in my interview with him last week, at the level at which he works, digital is more complex and more expensive for a variety of reasons.

I don’t know this for sure, but my sense is that neither my colleagues in the big, studio-model game nor those in the purely indie universe are spending a ton of time considering the future of film in the digital age. But I believe now is the time to pay attention, and we’re fortunate to have the music industry to study for guidance.  I know it’s popular, even among artists in the business, to bash the big boys; but my concern is that the pros and cons of organizations like the MPAA, for instance, are really beside the point with regard to the many issues worth examining for the filmmaking community.

Let’s accept that our industry has its political arm, and so does the Web industry (in fact they’ve just announced a new and powerful lobby) and so does the consumer electronics industry.  Let’s assume that each multi-billion-dollar industry is out to serve its own interests and that this is politics and business as usual.  Not that we should ignore these things, but I do believe too much attention in this direction results in generalizing and polarization, which doesn’t serve the community of creators nearly so much as it serves one industrial interest or another.  For instance, it doesn’t make sense to me to be an indie filmmaker who outright rejects all of the efforts of the mainstream movie business, when many of our interests are utterly aligned.

Film production, distribution, and marketing is multiple times more complex than music; and no matter how anyone chooses to spin the data on the effects of the digital age on the music industry, the bottom line is that fewer professionals in that business are making a living than were doing so fifteen years ago.  As such, I am unsatisfied with the premise that threats like online piracy are merely a challenge to be met by changing business models.  I hear this generalization from Web-centric voices all the time but have yet to imagine a practical way in which what they’re selling does not mean the end of a sustainable, thriving industry that produces one of America’s leading exports.  (Either that, or Google wants to be the new movie studio.)

I’m open to hearing ideas from film professionals — people who know how to budget, produce, and actually make motion pictures — how any of these “new model” mantras make sense.  But when I look at journalism, which still struggles; I look at music, which has sustained big losses; it’s hard not to believe that film really is next. I think now is the time for more filmmakers to be discussing these matters and I would love to hear from any of you.

“Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.” by Masnick

Okay, this video is three years old, but it’s still relevant because it represents a persistent, underlying faith in an “economic model” that enables even well-meaning people to think they’re doing the world a favor by pimping for the Web industry.  What Mike Masnick, editor of TechDirt, says in this video is that if your business makes a product that can be converted into a digital file — a movie, an album, a TV show — that the natural price for that product is zero.  Moreover, if you fail to understand why this a good thing, it’s because you’re “unwilling to embrace new opportunities.”  In other words, the basic premise of Investor + Producer = ROI may still apply to making iPads, but it no longer applies to the music or motion pictures that might play on them.

I know I’m not the economic futurist Masnick is, and maybe I just have a knee-jerk reaction to white boards, but if I saw this same video fifteen years ago, I’d assume it was satire.  Sadly, no. Masnick actually believes what he’s saying here, and he reflects either the belief, or at least the PR talking points, of the tech industry he represents. And when you engage a firmly-held belief in a debate on policy (let’s say regarding the digital exploitation of creators), your opponent is only pretending to talk about the details.  In a nutshell, you can’t have a debate about how to solve a problem with someone who believes the problem doesn’t exist.

UPDATE:  As if on cue, read this article by Adam Lipsius from the Huffington Post.

Talking Digital Cinema with Steven Poster (Podcast)

While it’s true that affordable digital cameras and editing software have put impressive means of production into the hands any boot-strapping filmmaker with a dream, digital filmmaking at the highest end of TV and motion pictures is actually more complex and more expensive than the days of celluloid-only production.  As part of my focus on digital cinema, I interviewed cinematographer Steven Poster (ASC) via Skype in Los Angeles.

Steven has more than 50 credits as a Director of Photography. He has served as president of the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) and is currently the National President of the International Cinematographer’s Guild (Local600/IATSE). Steven has also been on the forefront of technical and creative examination into the use of digital cinema technologies.