Contemporary Activist FillmmakersUse New Media Technology to Democratise Film Production, Distribution and Exhibition - Essay Example

?Visual Arts and Film Studies CONTEMPORARY ACTIVIST FILMMAKERS USE NEW MEDIA TECHNOLOGY TO DEMOCRATISE FILM PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND EXHIBITION Introduction Contemporary activist filmmakers aim to bring about social or political change in the public sphere. Through their work they transform perceptions, raise awareness and promote understanding about social and political issues. These campaigning filmmakers develop innovative methods based on ealier practices related to Third cinema that were associated with new production, distribution and exhibition practices. In the making of current cinema, these ideals have been considerably improved with increasing use of the internet and digital media culture. According to Eliashberg, Elberse & Leenders (2006: 658) the evolution of the motion picture industry has always centred around technological development. However, contemporary filmmaking is based more intensively on technological advances integral to all stages of the value chain. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate how contemporary activist filmmakers have tried to democratise film production, distribution and exhibition using new media technology. The Birth of Third Cinema Third Cinema is the term used for films addressing social and political situations in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Marxist ideas empowered revolutionary struggles against Neocolonialism that inspired Third Cinema, and have impacted film-making practice. An example is Karl Marx’s belief that it is not sufficient to interpret the world, it is important to transform it (Guneratne & Dissanayake 2003: 3). Until a few decades ago, the use of films as a revolutionary tool was delayed because of circumstances related to “lack of equipment, technical difficulties, the compulsory specialisation of each phase of work, and high costs” (Solanas & Getino 1997: 44). Advances have taken place within each specialisation, with the simplification of movie cameras and tape recorders, and improvements in the medium of cinema such as rapid film shot in normal light, automatic light meters, improved audiovisual synchronisation and the increasing availability of know-how. These have demystified film-making and extended its access to larger number of people in different social layers. Revolutionary film-making is based on cinema known as documentary, with its vast scope including educational films, or the reconstruction of a fact or historical event. The images document, bear witness to, refute or support the truth of a situation, thereby raising them to a level higher than that of a film (Solanas & Getino 1997: 46). On the other hand, Nichols (1985: 509) argues that “cinema cannot show the truth or reveal it, because the truth is not out there in the real world waiting to be photographed”. Cinema can only produce meanings, which need to be plotted, particularly in relation to other meanings. Hence, the filmmaker has to discover his own language on the theme, arising from a militant and transforming world view. “Pamphlet films, didactic films, report films, witness-bearing films – any militant form of expression is valid” (Solanas & Getino 1997: 47), and a set of aesthetic work norms cannot be laid down. Practice, search and experimentation underscore the activist filmmaker’s commitment to revolutionary cinema. This may include being a pioneer in struggling to highlight the theme, taking chances on the unknown and being prepared to meet with failure amid constant dangers. However, the “possibility of discovering and inventing film forms and structures that serve a more profound vision of our reality resides in the ability to place oneself on the outside limits of the familiar” (Solanas & Getino 1997: 48). Activist films and a public that is eager to view them necessitate new ways of distribution. In Latin America such as in Argentina, the films are exhibited in apartments and houses to audiences of around 25 people. Similarly, in countries such as Chile films are shown in parishes, universities or cultural centres, while in Uruguay the films screened in Montevido’s largest movie theatre to an audience of 2,500 people were received with impassioned anti-imperialism. On the other hand, on the continent the “possibility for the continuity of revolutionary cinema rests upon the strengthening of rigorously underground base structures” (Solanas & Getino 1997: 51). With the birth of third cinema, film as the medium of artistic communication makes it a significant revolutionary form of expression. New Trends in Film Production, Theatrical Distribution and Exhibition The present-day motion picture industry deals with critical, interlinked issues related to the three stages of its value chain involving the production of cinema, its theatrical distribution, and exhibition of the film following its release (Eliashberg et al 2006: 657). The development of a motion picture entails a series of creative decisions with far-reaching economic implications for all the stakeholders involved. In the case of contemporary activist filmmakers, their passion and drive to highlight social and political issues may far outweigh any profit motives. The story concept may vary from a general idea or “pitch” to a completed screenplay or “spec”. The benefits of digital technology also termed as new media transform the preproduction, production, and postproduction processes of filmmaking (Screen Digest 2002: 13-24). At the production stage, the potential advantages of using digital technology for movie producers are numerous. They include improving efficiency of the utilisation of film shot, to providing greater control to producers on the entire process making it nonlinear instead of linear. That means, the scenes can be shot from various perspectives and in a non-chronological order, and the best shots can be used effectively for the narrative. On the other hand, potential disadvantages relate to the quality of digital images not being on par with that of analogue images and piracy concerns. Further, though digital video recording and editing equipment is less expensive, “it requires more frequent upgrading and makes producers dependent on software as well as hardware” (Eliashberg et al 2006: 658), and also necessitates different capabilities and skills. However, producers perceive digital technology as valuable to their work. Screen Digest (2002: 19) reiterates that it frees talent from the stranglehold of the elite members of Hollywood cinema. Further, internatioal reach is facilitated, with production tasks carried out in various locations across the globe. Theatrical distribution of a film follows its production stage. With the introduction of digital media, distributors allocate their advertising budgets more evenly across media vehicles. Internet-based sources share information on motion pictures and provide viewer reviews. Shortening the time gap between theatrical and nontheatrical windows proves to be beneficial to distributors. Soon after releasing the movie in theatres, releasing the movie digitally helps the film to reach local, national and international audiences simultaneously. The benefits of digital technology are greater as compared to the costs; however they present opportunities and threats for studios such as movie piracy and global sharing of electronic copies, and tend to change the types of movies made (Tyagi 2004: 335). Opportunities in the distribution stage related to digital technology include “the distribution and projection of movies in a digital format, without the need for actual film prints” (Eliashberg et al 2006: 652), providing studios with increased flexibility and cost savings in movie prints by operating with digital projectors. Exhibition in theatres significantly persuades the public on films they want to see. “How well and how long a picture plays in theatres has everything to do with its value in other markets” (Daniels et al 1998: 34). This is based on advertising, media attention and word-of-mouth communication generated by studios. Home widescreen television has not adversely impacted movie viewing at theatres. With major structural changes, film exhibition is becoming more concentrated and integrated, promoting the emergence of increasingly advanced players. The contract arrangements between distributors and exhibitors become increasingly efficient. Managing an exhibition chain includes various tasks besides procuring and scheduling films (Eliashberg et al 2006: 654). Digital cinemas without using any film reels, provide a superior image and sound quality that does not deteriortate over time unlike analogue movie prints. However, according to Eliashberg et al (2006: 657), “the costs of digital technology will continue to outweigh the benefits for exhibitors, at least for the foreseeable future”. That is, exhibitors will find that the costs of the digital technology equipment are high at present, as compared to the revenues from exhibiting the film digitally. According to Niemand (2003: i), new media technology is useful for filmmakers in all the three stages of the value chain; and also in marketing the film. She adds that the interactivity provided by the Web, along with its limitless choices such as using animation or real scenarios in creating and presenting cinema makes it a medium useful for contemporary filmmakers to experiment and reinvent cinema, and achieve its exhibition to a global audience. Contemporary Activist Filmmaking: Democratisation of Value Chain Christensen (2009: 77) conducted research on documentary films based on political activism and the use of digital technology. He investigated the extent to which the Brave New Films Production Company of Robert Greenwald and his Brave New Theatres employ a coalition model approach. This involves the combined efforts of film-makers, film subjects, film screeners, audiences and political organisers for increasing the effectiveness of grassroots political action through documentary activist films. Further, the author studied the contribution of digital or new media technology in enabling such a technique. He found that documentary films as political communication can overcome traditional media gatekeepers such as film distributors and film theatre owners, to reach a considerable number of viewers, thereby contributing to grassroots political action. Robert Greenwald, the Hollywood veteran filmmaker has become a front-runner, independent producer and director of several progressive leftliberal documentaries, over the past few years. His well-known documentaries include Uncovered: “The War on Iraq” (2003), “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism” (2004), “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price” (2005) and last year’s “Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers”. Greenwald’s company Brave New Films produced and distributed his subsequent documentaries “not to cinema chains, but to members of online grassroots organisations, who hold house parties at which the films are screened and follow-up actions discussed” (Haynes 2007: 1). Greenwald’s films such as “Walmart” and “Iraq for Sale” highlight the detrimental impacts of expanding corporate power on both the small details of routine life, as well as on the larger social fabric. They investigate the tensions between corporate profit-making and individual survival, as a form of social protest. The theme has been found again in recent films such as “Roger and Me” (1989) by Michael Moore, and “Super Size Me” (2004) by Morgan Spurlock. This re-occurring theme with its socially important concept is brought to the notice of filmviewers, by the contemporary activist filmmakers. Haynes (2007: 1) emphasizes how the production, distribution and exhibition of Brave New Films widens the efficacy of the films’ left-leaning messages, uniting and galvanising into action a diverse audience, towards undertaking grassroots activism on the issues. This is in contrast to the contemporary era characterised by declining participation in the more formal democratic processes of the country. Greenwald’s documentaries are distinguished by their straightforwardness with a cause and effect logic, and offer solutions to the social and political problems they identify, and generally fit into the ‘expository’ mode expressed by Bill Nichols (1991: 34-38). Nichols believes that though such documentaries take a particular stand in an argument about the world; they also maintain objectivity to meet spectators’ expectations. Robert Greenwald produced the movie “Unconstitutional”, and directed “Outfoxed” as well as “Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War”. He was able to quickly distribute the third film in 2003, to appear before the elections by using ground-breaking new production and distribution approaches (McEnteer 2006: 119). Greenwald used “existing social networks created by progressive grassroots organizations such as MoveOn.org, AlterNet and think tanks such as the Center for American Progress” (Tryon 2011). He organized house parties for audiences to gather and watch the film collectively, to promote critical discussion on the war (Haynes & Littler 2007: 26). The online distribution also helped to facilitate conversation about the issues raised by the film, thereby creating alternative spaces for discussion, similar to the house parties, states Goldberg (2003). The credibility of a documentary film’s argument may be reduced through subjectivity; thus audiences “may expect to engage more deeply with an issue or problem, than with any individual characters or protagonists” (Haynes 2007: 2). According to Nichols (1991: 29) the main expectation of the documentary spectator is that the desire to know will be gratified, hence the genre of documentary films fuels a requirement for information. Such conventions being related to ideology, they can change over time. For example, overtly politicised documentary filmmaking associated with Michael Moore’s more recent work reveals that objectivity is not being maintained over the past decade or so. The works of Moore and Greenwald differ in one or two key issues, but the most significant is the latter not using onscreen persona and voice-over address. Brave New Films productions are not objective, featuring certain segments that include quite overtly a core constituency of leftist activists. For example, in Walmart the main issues addressed relate to “welfare, unionisation, gender and racial discrimination, environmentalism, and the plight of low-paid workers in China, Bangladesh and Central America” (Haynes 2007: 2). “Iraq for Sale” is based entirely on anti-corporatist agenda; this is distinctive of Greenwald’s productions which usually end with seeking action from the audience. Some of Greenwald’s documentaries narrate a specific campaign, or project conspicuous success stories as in “Walmart”. Michael Moore’s first film was Roger & Me in which he documented the devastating outcomes from the closings of General Motors plants in the company’s birthplace and his own home town of Flint, Michigan. In the documentary, Moore accused General Motors of letting down long-term employees for financial profits overseas. The “Roger” in the title of the film was General Motors’ CEO Roger Smith (McEnteer 2006: 80). The documentary set the precedent for Moore’s works as huge financial successes, received several festival awards, and both favourable comments and fierce attacks. Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” which won an Academy Award in 2002 was the documentary which achieved the highest financial success ever, at that time. However, two years later Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” exceeded that achievement on its opening weekend. The documentary was released before the 2004 United States presidential election, and the anti-Bush Administraton film became a strong rallying point for both Bush supporters as well as detractors. Laskowski (2011) states that before the film “Fahrenheit 9/11” could be released in the United States amidst controversy, the original distributor Disney backed out of the deal. The controversy increased after the documentary received the Cannes Film Festival’s Palme D’Or award, the highest prize and distinction for a documentary after 1956. “No film has ever played such a prominent role in U.S. electoral politics” (McEnteer 2006: 79). “Fahrenheit 9/11” caused powerful reactions, which could be found in considerable outpouring in oppositional films, books, Websites, media denunciations against the documentary’s messages, and particularly against the maker of the film, Michael Moore. His Oscar acceptance speech in March 2003 during the Iraqi invasion condemned the president George W. Bush, referring to him as a “fictitious president” from a “fictitious election” who was leading the country to war for “fictitious reasons”. In the documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11”, Moore “highlighted the Bush family’s Saudi connections and characterized George W. Bush as a corrupt clown” (McEnteer 2006: 79) and repeated deceiver, thereby enraging his critics. The filmmaker and his documentary became well- known symbols of a country deeply polarized on the war. Controversies such as America’s war on Iraq form selling points for documentaries and help in their distribution, funding and award winning, therefore achieving a wider global audience. The United States government’s food regulatory agencies USDA and FDA have been shown to be in collusion with the nation’s food industry by filmmaker Robert Kenner in the film “Food, Inc”, 2008. He reveals the highly mechanized underbelly of the food industry, which is hidden from the American consumer. The nation’s food supply is in the charge of a few corporations that are more profit-oriented than concerned about “consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, the safety of workers” (Press Notes 2008: 2), or about environmental sustainability. Further, the documentary reveals that on one hand food stuff of a high quality is made available, but on the other hand, new strains of e-coli the harmful bacteria also causes illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually. There is a high incidence and wide prevalence of obesity and diabetes besides other health conditions caused by convenience foods, improper diets and a lack of exercise. The documentary features interviews with experts, and seeks to reveal shocking truths about what people eat, how it is produced, and other factors. Globally, media are becoming democratised. The tools of production for creating digital content such as podcasts, discussions, blogs, multiplayer games, are increasingly powerful and easy to use, yet less expensive. Distribution is also less expensive and easily carried out. The Internet is a global platform, the most important element for the future. Consumers’ role is evolving from passive to much more interactive (Gillmor 2006). Even after activist documentary films have left theatres, social media is deployed to create a sense of community, engaging around a social or political issue that continues to exist. Transmedia techniques can help social documentaries particularly when interactive elements are used to engage with users through discussion forums. Similarly crowdsourcing is undertaken, using interactive aspects to draw from the talents of their audience, both in making documentaries and in extending their reach. Thus, transmedia not only engage in storytelling across several platforms, but also use transmedia models to imagine new modes of engagement with the audiences to induce their active involvement in co-producing the film (Tryon 2011). On the other hand, Mosco (2005: 1) argues that it is a myth that new media technologies can bring about revolutionary changes in society. The author notes that the Internet has been celebrated because of its potential to democratize media, thereby allowing any person to become a publisher or to gain access to alternative perspectives. However, such myths are not necessarily false, since they enhance our awareness of new technologies, impacting how they are used and discussed. Further, discussions of the web obscure the extent to which media consolidation takes place, and an inclination towards social media and other forms of digital media can also indicate a genuine desire for community and democracy. Thus, the alliance between documentary activist films and social media reflects larger cultural desires. Transmedia documentary supports political activism as seen in Franny Armstrong’s environmental documentary, “The Age of Stupid”, 2009. Pete Postlethwaite plays a librarian in the year 2055. He is an Archivist who scolds humans as ‘stupid’ for permitting global warming to take place. Different events causing climate change are revealed including Hurricane Katrina, and other narratives which the filmmaker weaves together skillfully. The film “aggressively asserts the urgency of combating global warming” (Tryon 2011), and strongly criticises corporations that employ harmful environmental practices. The documentary posed a difficult challenge for Armstrong to fund and distribute the film. Therefore, Armstrong sought assistance in funding and other stages of the value chain from audiences by means of crowdfunding techniques. From the pre-production stage the author was able to engage audiences and could get crowd support for the film and the cause associated with it. Participatory production of the above film also “ensured that the film would receive another boost when it came time to promote and distribute the film” (Tryon 2011). Armstrong expected that crowds who viewed her film would also provide the film with free publicity through online blog posts, tweets, and other forms of word-of-mouth advertising. These collaborative activities are similar to existing institutions such as “NGOs and other advocacy groups including MoveOn.org and Greenpeace, in order to leverage their networks to build an audience for the film” (Tryon 2011). The use of these methods formed the basis for filmmaker Reiss (2009), to refer to “The Age of Stupid” as the future of film, film culture, film distribution and advertising. Conclusion This paper has highlighted how contemporary activist filmmakers seek to democratise film production, distribution and exhibition using new media technology. The emergence of third cinema, and the new trends in film production, distribution and exhibition using new media technology have been examined. Further, contemporary activist filmmaking democratisating the value chain has been found to reduce the costs involved in cinema and to increase the access to films by larger numbers of people. Contemporary documentary filmmakers portraying social and political activism use alternative modes of distribution and exhibition by creating online web series, which continue to exist without the deterioration that occurs in film reels. The evidence indicates that digital technology is more advantageous for producers, distributors, and exhibitors significantly reducing the costs of prints and distribution. It facilitates the exhibitors enhancement of the customer experience and consequent higher ticket prices. If the film is distributed online and consequently viewed digitally, the costs are almost negligible. Similarly there are cost savings in the print’s theatre preparation, alternative and flexible programming possibilites such as live events and interactive films and new advertising possibilities. Eliashberg (2006: 657) supports this view, and adds that its downsides include the expensive investment in digital projectors with expected short lifespan, requirement for facilitating technology such as data storage and satellite dishes, as well as operational and service support. The works of contemporary activist filmmakers such as Robert Greenwald, Michael Moore, Robert Kenner, Franny Armstrong and others were examined. They seek to make a positive difference to the world by speaking out against injustice in various forms. Greenwald’s Brave New Films deserves appreciation for attempting to break a Republican monopoly on powerful symbols such as the individual, the family and the nation. This is supported by Haynes (2007: 10) who states that the organisation has played a significant role in attempting to reconstruct the declining levels of social capital in contemporary United States society. It is concluded that new media technology democratises the processes of film production, distribution and exhibition extending the reach of cinema across the globe and to all people in a multilayered society. ------------------------------------ Bibliography Christensen, C. (2009). Political documentary, online organization and activist synergies. Studies in Documentary Film, 3 (2): pp.77-94. Daniels, B., Leedy, D. & Sills, S.D. (1998). Movie money: Understanding Hollywood’s creative accounting practices. Los Angeles, California: Silman-James Press. Eliashberg, J., Elberse, A. & Leenders, M.A. (Nov-Dec 2006). The motion picture Industry: Critical issues in practice, current research, and new research directions. Marketing Science, 25 (6): pp.638-661. Gillmor, D. (9 March, 2006). Technology feeds grassroots media. One-Minute World News, BBC News. Retrieved on 20th December, 2011 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4789852.stm Goldberg, M. (2003). Now playing in 2,600 home theaters: Bush’s lies about Iraq. Salon. Retrieved on 20th December, 2011 from: http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/09/uncovered/ Guneratne, A. & Dissanayake, W. (2003). Rethinking third cinema. London: Routledge. Haynes, J. (Autumn 2007). Documentary as social justice activism: The textual and political strategies of Robert Greenwald and brave new films. 49th Parallel, 21: pp. 1-16. Haynes, J. & Littler, J. (2007). Documentary as political activism: An interview with Robert Greenwald. Cineaste, 32 (4): pp.26-29. Laskowski, N. (2011). Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11. Jump Cut. A Review of Contemporary Media. Retrieved on 20th December, 2011 from: http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc47.2005/MMoore/index.html Martin, M.T. (1997). New Latin American cinema. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press. McEnteer, J. (2006). Shooting the truth: The rise of American political documentaries. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. Mosco, V. (2005). The digital sublime: Myth, power, cyberspace. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Nichols, B. (1991). Representing reality: Issues and concepts in documentary. The United States of America: Indiana University Press. Nichols, B. (1985). Movies and methods: An anthology. The United States of America: University of California Press. Niemand, E.C. (2003). Reinventing cinema: A perspective on the implications of the Internet on the cinema industry. Dissertation for Master of Arts, Department of Drama and Film Studies, University of Pretoria. Retrieved on 20th December, 2011 From:http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-11082004-134651/unrestricted/00dissertation.pdf Press Notes. (2008). Food, Inc. A Film by Robert Kenner. A Magnolia Pictures Release. Retrieved on 20th December, 2011 from: http://www.foodincmovie.com/img/downloads/Press_Materials.pdf Reiss, J. (21 September, 2009). The Age of Stupid is the future of film. The Huffington Post. Retrieved on 20th December, 2011 from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-reiss/ithe-age-of-stupidi-is-th_b_293361.html Screen Digest. (2002). Report on the implications of digital technology for the film Industry. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Creative Industries Division. London, The United Kingdom. Solanas, F. & Getino, O. (1997). Towards a third cinema: Notes and experiences for the development of a cinema of liberation in the Third World. In M.T. Martin (Ed). New Latin American cinema. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press: pp.33-58. Tryon, C. (2011). Digital distribution, participatory culture, and the transmedia documentary. Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media. Retrieved on 20th December, 2011 from: http://www.ejumpcut.org/trialsite/TryonWebDoc/index.html Tyagi, R.K. (2004). Technological advances, transaction costs and consumer welfare. Marketing Science, 23 (3): pp.335-344. Read More