Hollywood has always been great at telling a story. It hasn’t been as good at telling that story when the story is quite complex, preferring to boil things down to the essentials – the hero, the villain, the basic plot. This has worked well enough that it influences how we think and act as a society and in our individual lives. We’re so used to seeing a Hollywood story-arc that we expect this same drama in our own lives and work to make it so, seeing patterns where there are none and elevating ourselves as heros/villains in some greater narrative; but if there is a greater narrative, we’re surely just bit players in it, given the billions of us this story must encompass.

You can see the wish for a Hollywood story arc in how we think of the recent financial collapse. We demonize scapegoats such as Bernie Madoff (who was a guilty man) and try to pin the blame for the whole mess on bankers, or perhaps if you have a different political outlook, you pin it on homeowners who won’t take personal responsibility. In reality, the economic mess we’ve found ourselves in is quite complex, and while there are guilty parties, there are many of them and too many to make this a neat and tidy story, although Margin Call was pretty fun.

No, the bigger story of that continuing mess is that it was/is the result of systemic flaws in the economy and indeed in the brand of capitalism we practice ‘round these parts. Addressing systemic flaws is complicated, however, so we tend to try to simplify the story to fit the storytelling pattern Hollywood has taught us to expect. This is good for bankers, politicians, economists and yes, the consumers, who are all part of the mess, because examining it in its entirety would make us wake up and demand change – if we understood the full story, we’d demand a refund on this particular movie. Perhaps we’re seeing this now in both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements. A lot of people are waking up, and many of them are demanding change. They aren’t necessarily calling for an end to capitalism, but they are calling for a different practice of it. We’ll see over the next few years how this plays out.

Well, Hollywood is telling another story these days that it likes to summate easily, and that’s the one where piracy is killing the industry, and they need things like SOPA and ACTA and other legal change to stop the robbery of their profits. Unfortunately for Hollywood, however, we the people are now able to step back, use the power of the network – which is precisely to connect the dots more easily – and think about this story some more and realize that this story isn’t so simple either, because it too is about systemic flaws. Likewise, when we connect the dots here, we won’t likely say let’s get rid of entertainment, but rather how we practice it.

So, the real story is that the Hollywood way of doing business is broken. It was broken before digital came about, but that really did take it to another level. How is it broken? Well, this would take many blog posts, but let’s just say that every single aspect of the system is flawed. From the way films are financed – usually by ripping off a new, clueless investor; to how they are made – usually by paying exorbitant fees to stars with too much control, while underpaying the crew making it below the line; to how they are consumed – in overpriced theaters, then windowed to be sure to maintain the artificial high box office and force certain consumers to look for them online through piracy. This barely scratches the surface of the flaws, and I’m just now mentioning the fact that we keep minting hundreds of thousands of filmmakers at film school who go on to produce more films than can be consumed by the world’s population. Or that festivals argue over premieres that are meaningless to anyone but the press; or that the press went to journalism school and didn’t learn how to dig beyond the press release and give us actual news about the business.

Every aspect of this is fundamentally flawed. Does this mean we don’t want to watch movies and entertain ourselves? No. But it does mean that as digital continues to turn dollars to pennies, it will expose more and more of these flaws – because they’ve all been hidden with dollars and fables, and these don’t hold up in the digital economy. As I’ve said before, digital is the moon that pulls the tide, and when the tide goes out, we see who’s wearing the swim trunks (per Warren Buffett’s famous quote), and there’s a lot of naked people in film.

Hollywood tells us everything is fine, we just have these damned pirates. I’m not conceding pirates are a problem at all, but even if they are, they are just one of many, many problems, and not likely the biggest in this pile of mess. Nope, it makes a nice story, and people getting ready for bedtime, like most of our politicians, love a good story, but it’s an oversimplification.

Hollywood is an empire, and like all empires, it will collapse at some point, precisely because of its efforts to prolong itself indefinitely. While it keeps telling itself the pirate story – ironically, all this while lionizing them in Pirates of the Caribbean, a Disney property that is likely a rip off of someone else’s intellectual property, like the rest of Disney’s IP – there’s a better story being told, and it’s not coming from Hollywood. It’s coming from Silicon Valley, and all of the little Valleys out there. It’s coming from DIY, and Makers, and kids in their bedrooms making mash-ups and video games, and from the whole lot of us making really cool shit at a fraction of the cost, and with almost no flaw in the business model (Ok, there are some, but let’s also pretend a little).

These stories are becoming legion. They are coalescing, and they are much less frightening (or annoying or deluded) than those coming from Hollywood today. They are inspiring, and I say we should all start spending more of our attention and dollars on these stories than theirs, and in making sure these stories win sooner rather than later, because win they will. The question is always just how bloody and long will be the death of the empire? This story has been told many times, and we’re all watching it unfold now, like all audiences, pretending not to know the end of the story.

IFP sent me this call for submissions, and I’ve had many filmmakers tell me they had a great experience at the lab (and I’m too busy to post something original) so here’s the info:

IFP Independent Filmmaker Labs Open for Submissions  Deadlines to Apply: March 9 (Documentary) / April 6 (Narrative) 

IFP’s Independent Filmmaker Labs are a year-long fellowship supporting independent filmmakers when they need it most: through the completion, marketing, and distribution of their first features. Lab submission is open to all first-time documentary and narrative feature directors with films in post-production. Structured in three week-long components held over the year, the Labs offer personalized attention on post-production, audience building, and distribution strategies in the digital age, followed by continued support from IFP as the project premieres in the marketplace.

Recent Lab Project alumni now in theaters include Dee Rees’ Pariah (Focus Features), Alrick Brown’s Kinyarwanda (AFFRM), and Victoria Mahoney’s Yelling to the Sky (MPI), being released this spring. Premieres at 2012 festivals have included An Oversimplification of Her Beauty (Sundance), Welcome to Pine Hill (Slamdance, Grand Jury Award), Una Noche (Berlin), and The Light in Her Eyes and Smokin’ Fish (IDFA 2011) – with more Lab alumni set for upcoming festivals and broadcast. To apply or for more information, please visit http://www.ifp.org/programs/labs .

I’m in Park City, Utah for the next week for Sundance and Slamdance. I’m here working on some new projects I hope will get announced soon, but also to speak on a couple of panels and show my support for some projects I’ve been involved with. I’ll also be continuing to participate in SOPA/PIPA protests, because no, even though the we had a great success on fighting this, the war isn’t over yet.

Anyway, I’ll be speaking on a distribution panel being held by Passion River Films. The event is on all day, January 24th, and due to some scheduling issues (on my end), I’ll be speaking later in the day about how to succeed with your film even when you didn’t get into that big fest (like Sundance):

Panel 3:  Didn’t Get Into Sundance? No Worries.

Learn How to Go Beyond Big Name Festivals to Secure Distribution

4:00pm – 5:30pm

Every year, thousands of films are not accepted into Sundance, yet many still become BIG hits.  Learn from industry experts on how the former “Plan B” of distribution could surprise you as being your NEW “Plan A”!  Panelist include:  Brian Newman, Mat Levy, Josh Levin, Mike Grice, & Michael Tuckman.  Read bios below.

• Why films can still be highly successful without any major festival exposure.
• What other factors do distributors consider beyond being an “official selection”.
• Securing theatrical distribution – Is it worth the expense?
• How can a publicist or social meida campaign help?
• Building a fan base with every festival appearance.
• The pro’s & con’s of DIY self-distribution.  Decision time?

I’ll also be touching on this topic at Slamdance on another distribution panel. This one is titled “Where there’s a will, there’s a way…to find distribution.” The panel description:

In a time long long ago, an indie filmmaker was approached by a suit, they shook hands, the suit walked away with the film, the filmmaker walked away with a fist full of dollars. A week later the film was playing at a theatre near you. Those days may be long gone, but in 2012 there are more options than ever before to get your film in front of your audience. Learn about new distribution possibilities through social media, web & mobile apps, and other DIY methods. Come be a part of this interactive discussion with some of the most formative minds in this movement. Occupy Distribution!

My name isn’t listed in the speakers, but I’m one of ‘em, and I’ll be there. Please join me with Orly Ravid, David Magdael and Tom Thimot.

There are lots of good films at both Sundance and Slamdance, and you don’t need my advice on what to see, but… I am friendly with a couple films there and highly recommend them. First, Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry, by Alison Klayman. I’m on the board of a nonprofit that helped produce this project, so I’ve given some advice to them, especially back when they did their Kickstarter campaign. It’s a great, and important, film, and I highly recommend it. Second, I’m good friends with Alexandra Berger, the director of Danland, at Slamdance. Danland is about Porno Dan and his work, his attempts at a love life. I’ve seen an earlier cut, can’t wait to see this final version and recommend it as well.

I’ve already met a few of my tiny group of readers here. If I haven’t met you yet, look me up while you’re here.

I’ve been complaining a lot about SOPA/PIPA here and on the chatty webs. It bothers me, mainly because it’s not the culmination of a bunch of bad policy from the MPAA/RIAA, but just the beginning in the long awaited storm, leading to what Cory Doctorow has called the coming war on general purpose computing. But the gist of the problems with SOPA/PIPA can be hard to understand, not just for the layman (always read people dumber than me, but I’m actually suggesting me too), but also for people who keep up with these debates.

The underlying problem with all of this, however, is not just copyright or piracy or anything else that people will tell you. The real reason for this battle is that many incumbent players feel threatened by everything that’s going on and can’t innovate and join the rising tide, so they are using the one weapon available to them – their influence over that maddening body of nitwits we call our Congress.

Piracy is such the maguffin here. As I’ve said many times, big media is scared because we all like watching some baby bite his brother’s finger as much as we do the Dark Knight. The disintermediation and democratization of media means that anyone can make something as good (or actually, just good enough) and as popular as some hit made by the majors. Unfortunately, when some 10 year old makes a viral sensation, she doesn’t have to pay rent, pay union wages, pay for lunch at Cipriani, pay for six assistants…you get the drift. That kid in her basement, not to mention the legions of freshly minted Film MFA’s with no paying job, can innovate a lot quicker and with less risk than some Studio. But they sure don’t have Chuck Schumer in their back pocket because they didn’t donate millions to him this year alone, now did they.

This is called disruptive innovation. Some kid, some Film MFA, some small company, can adapt more quickly because they don’t have the legacy to contend with. Hollywood has known the content purchase business model is going away for quite some time. They aren’t stupid. But getting rid of it quicker and pushing into new business models was too painful, and they won’t do it until they’re forced to, but by then it will be too late. Or it would be without that special nuclear option called the Congress.

Now none of this analysis is new, and none of it should be controversial to anyone with a working brain and a sense of honesty and decency. The other day, however, I found myself down a digital rabbit hole by the name of Macroeconomic Resilience, by way of a Tweet from Clay Shirky. One Ashwin Parameswaran writes this blog and it’s a good one…if you like delving into macroeconomic theories, that is (and I do), and it expanded my argument a bit.

My initial foray into his blog had nothing to do with film. I started reading a post about the current problems with the Euro, but I soon found my way to a post called Innovation, Stagnation and Unemployment, and while not directly about the current fights over “piracy,” it did bring me to recognize the bigger problem, which is that the negative economic impact of implementing SOPA/PIPA will be far greater than its proponents claim is lost to piracy.

To understand why, we have to dig a bit into his argument, or as he says, “we need a deeper understanding of the dynamics of innovation in a capitalist economy.” (Note, everything henceforth is a paraphrase of his argument). As Ashwin puts it so well (bold his):

“The primary objective of incumbent rent-earners” (think studios) “is to build a moat around their existing rents whereas the primary objective of competition from new entrants is not to drive rents down to zero, but to displace the incumbent rent-earner. It is not the absence of rents but the continuous threat to the survival of the incumbent rent-earner that defines a truly vibrant capitalist economy i.e. each niche must be continually contested by new entrants.”…”This emphasis on disequilibrium points to the fact that the ‘optimum’ state for a dynamically competitive capitalist economy is one of constant competitive discomfort and disorder.”

Innovation occurs as a result of this constant tug of war – with the incumbent innovating to keep off the competition, and the competition innovating to unseat the incumbent. The types of innovation, however, are quite different. As Ashwin explains it, there are two types of innovation: “exploitation and exploration.” Incumbents usually turn to exploitation – tweaking their processes to drive down costs or make a product better (or at least make it seem better). In our case, this would be Studios turning to digital distribution in order to cut the costs of P&A, for example (but not using it to fundamentally alter how we see movies in theaters beyond the image). Competitors usually turn to exploration – looking for a game-changing new way of doing business, and that usually requires a healthy stomach for disequilibrium. In our world, this would be things like how Netflix changed the game for DVD distribution (but not, importantly, how they’re moving forward in streaming, which is largely for cost-savings, or a process innovation). Or, more radically, how Vo.Do is using Bittorrent to build a new business model around using P2P for both free and fee-based distribution.

Stepping back from our industry and looking at the broader economy (and back to Ashwin’s argument), the current economic malaise has led incumbent powers to exploitative innovation – using technology to cut costs, make a product more appealing (3D), doing everything to protect your business model. This has lead to the seemingly odd situation where we’re having more and more technical innovation but not more jobs. Why? Because the bulk of the investment (by companies, not VC’s) has been in process innovation (exploitation) which doesn’t lead to job creation, but rather job destruction. As Ashwin puts it (bold his): “My fundamental assertion is that a constant and high level of uncertain, exploratory investment is required to maintain a sustainable and resilient state of full employment. And as I mentioned earlier, exploratory investment driven by product innovation requires a constant threat from new entrants.”

Thus the importance of ongoing, disruptive innovation to our economy, and to our chance of ever getting out of the jobless mess that is the state of the American economy today. We need to create demand for new things, so people get hired to make them, but that causes a problem for incumbents. Ashwin summarizes it perfectly here:

“Eventually, a successful reorganisation back to full employment entails creating demand for new products. If such new products were simply an addition to the set of products that we consumed, disruption would be minimal. But almost any significant new product that arises from exploratory investment also destroys an old product. The tablet cannibalises the netbook, the smartphone cannibalises the camera etc. This of course is the destruction in Schumpeter’s creative destruction. It is precisely because of this cannibalistic nature of exploratory innovation that established incumbents rarely engage in it, unless compelled to do so by the force of new entrant.”

Or, as he puts it much later: “The aim of full employment is made even harder with the acceleration of process innovation due to advances in artificial intelligence and computerisation. Process innovation gives us technological unemployment while at the same time the absence of exploratory product innovation leaves us stuck in the Great Stagnation.”

Now, that’s precisely what we have from the (VC backed) competitors to the status-quo, and we can see that the incumbents aren’t too happy about it. Ashwin goes on to explore how our monetary and fiscal policy has attempted to address this problem, and in short, we’ve failed at this. It’s worth reading, but for our sake, I think we can summarize it by saying that government policies have allowed incumbent players to prosper by way of exploitative innovation (including cutting labor costs) without incentivizing them to invest in exploratory investment (which they probably won’t do anyway), or by letting them face the fear of true failure (think bank bailouts), and without making it easier for competition to flourish.  In regards to banking and big business, Ashwin notes that we have severe limits to such competition by way of things like our patent system and licensing rules and that we should let the big guys fail and the little guys take over. Now, he’s talking about banks and big institutions, but all of this applies equally well to the media industry, and that brings us back to the piracy fight.

Hollywood Studios are loathe to change. They’ll talk at fancy conferences about innovation, but don’t forget, they’re mainly talking about innovation by exploitation. What we need, as an industry and as a society, is more exploratory investment, and that’s not coming from the incumbents. We can see a world, in what Ashwin brilliantly calls the ‘adjacent possible’, where upstarts are re-shaping the media world. It is leading to jobs, it is leading to exploratory innovation and it is the best possible future for us as independents, and as members of society.

That world, however, will be built by those doing the exploratory innovation, and that’s not Hollywood. So Hollywood has brought up the fear of piracy, equating it with theft (which it is not), and have gotten their friends in high places to use legislation to hold onto their power. It has been ever thus. This I know. But it is shocking to me that our Congress would so cynically support this legislation at a time when our Nation is so threatened by an anemic economy, a world-economy on the brink and an unemployment rate unlike any we’ve seen for quite some time. SOPA/PIPA will stifle innovation. More importantly, it will stifle our most ambitious entrepreneurs, the people who might actually turn around our economy, all for the sake of making sure that you spend what little money you have on the products of a dying industry.

That’s why I’m so opposed to SOPA/PIPA. It’s sad that it takes this many words for me to get the point across, but if you made it this far and agree even slightly, it’s why you should help spread the word that SOPA/PIPA are bad for the adjacent possible future of the (next) entertainment industry, and for our country.

Well, I’m continuing with the top ten list theme for this week, and I’m giving you my recommendations for 10 art shows in NYC right now, or soon, which I think are pretty cool.

1. Georges Hugnet – “The Love Life of the Spumifers” through Jan 28th at Ubu Gallery –

I’m a big fan of the Surrealists and Hugnet was quite a strong one who never gets much attention. I’ve never seen his work in any show, so this is a rare opportunity to catch one of the better, lesser-known Surrealist’s work in town. This show focuses on his “Spumifer” works, where he painted fanciful fake animals on top of racy postcards (pre-porn, I guess). It works, and they’re pretty cool. Huget had a falling out with Breton, and ridicules him in one of the postcard, turning him into the “Conceited Wooleton” spumifer. Ken Johnsons’s review of the show in the NYT is worth reading, it may be one of his best reviews ever. From the review:

“The theme of beauty and the beast reverberates. It implies that formal beauty is cold, lonely and sterile without the warming vitality of erotic urgency. Christian tradition, however, separated the spiritual and the carnal into the angelic and the demonic. The Spumifers look as if they had escaped from the margins of a Medieval manuscript illumination, from a borderland where miniscule demons were sometimes allowed to cavort freely. They come to rescue and ravish the virginal soul of a modern consciousness still haunted by ghosts of puritanical religious dogma.”

And later still:

“Some Surrealists — Breton in particular — took very seriously their campaign to subvert norms in the service of psycho-social revolution. But Hugnet, unlike Dali, to name another monster of self-importance, had an appealing sense of humor and an allergy to sanctimony. He was playing a sophisticated, subversive game of his own with clichés: those of the classical nude and the kitsch pornography that imitates it; those of framing devices that domesticate expressions of erotic exuberance; and even those of Surrealism itself. Fundamentalism of any kind was Hugnet’s enemy, irreverence his scourge.”

Whew boy, that’s some good writin’. Go see the show.

2. Swanlight by Antony and the Johnsons, presented by MoMA at Radio City Music Hall, One night only – Jan. 26th

The title alone should get you to go. My membership to MoMA paid for itself many times over when I was able to buy advance tickets to this show. I’m a big fan of Antony’s singing, and MoMA is genius to have commissioned him to do this show, and I’m very excited to go see it. From the event description:

“The Museum of Modern Art has commissioned artist/musician Antony to conceive, produce, and perform a large-scale concert and performance event, Swanlights, with Antony and the Johnsons, on Thursday, January 26, 2012, at 8:00 p.m. at Radio City Music Hall.

Featuring a 60-piece orchestra, the performance piece is conceived as a new commission especially developed for the January 26 performance, and an evolution of the highly acclaimed The Crying Light, which was presented at the Manchester Opera House for the 2009 Manchester International Festival.

Envisioned as a meditation on light, nature, and femininity, Swanlights includes songs from all four of Antony and the Johnsons’ albums (self-titled, I am a Bird Now, The Crying Light, and Swanlights), set to symphonic arrangements by Nico Muhly, Rob Moose, and Maxim Moston. It is produced in collaboration with light artist Chris Levine, lighting designer Paul Normandale, and set designer Carl Robertshaw.”

Who would miss that?

3. Weegee: Murder is My Business, at ICP Jan 20 – Sept 2, 2012

I’ve been a fan of the great photographer Weegee since the first time I looked at a photo history book. Weegee captured the seedier side of things, being a news photographer (who developed his prints in his trunk!), but did so most artfully. No reason to give more history here, you probably know it, but this show promises to have some great photos from the ICP’s collection. Not to be missed.

4. The Steins Collect: Matisse, Picasso, and the Parisian Avant-Garde at the Metropolitan Museum, Feb 28-June 3, 2012

This here’s a blockbuster show. The kind Museum’s throw to keep the doors open. Nevertheless, it’s worth seeing. The Stein’s were some of the most important patrons of modern art in Paris at the beginning of the 20th century, and therefore funded and collected some of the most important works of the avant-garde. I’ve spoken a lot about how we can still learn a lot from the avant-garde, and here’s a chance to do so. I think there’s something like 200 works to look at, and some of the biggest names are included. Definitely one to see, perhaps a few times, in 2012.

5. Cynthia Hopkins, Songs from This Clement World, St Ann’s Warehouse, May 4, 8pm

I’ve been a huge fan of Cynthia Hopkins since Colin Stanfield introduced her work to me when he played saxophone in her band back about 12 years ago (Colin is now head of the Nantucket Film Festival, for those who don’t know him). I found her mix of punk, rock, blues, country, performance, jazz and….who knows what else, to be pretty amazing. I’ve listened to her perform with Gloria Deluxe and have seen each of her recent performance works at St Ann’s. This is a work-in-porgress for her new performance, and it’s something of a change in direction for her. Her previous works have been very personal (too personal for my taste lately), but this one is looking at climate change and how it impacts more than just her. I’m interested in getting a sample of this new direction, and she’ll be playing some old songs too, so this is a good intro to her if her work (and that of her collaborators) is new to you. She’s also doing a performance at Abrons Art Center on Jan 8 and 10th, but I’m not able to attend those.

6. Rashid Johnson, Rumble, at Hauser & Wirth, Jan 11- Feb 25 – The wife recommended this show to me, but when I read about Rashid’s connection to boxing in the NYT, I was sold. See, it turns out that Rashid learned that the Hauser & Wirth gallery is located inside a townhouse which was once owned by the boxing promoter Don King. Rashid’s father was a boxer and Rashid grew up watching Don King and boxing matches and decided to name the show after the “Rumble in the Jungle” between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman in (former) Zaire in 1974. Being a former boxing fan myself, this gave me a new interest in his work – but trust me, Rashid Johnson is an upcoming art start regardless of this tidbit. He’s a finalist for the Hugo Boss prize and in addition to his growing fame in the art world, he’s doing some film work too, showing ” The New Black Yoga” at this show.

7. Ai Weiwei, Sunflower Seeds, Mary Boone, Jan 7 – Feb 4 – Ai Weiwei’s blockbuster show from the Tate Modern is now in NYC, albeit in a much smaller version. I saw the original show in London, and I went and saw this on opening day this weekend. Truth be told, I’m not the biggest fan of Ai Weiwei’s work here, but I am a huge fan of his activism generally and of the concept behind this project. Gazillions of sunflower seeds – crafted by porcelain artists from China, that’s right – hand-made, hand-painted, little sunflower seeds line the floor of the gallery in a pile about 4 inches thick. You have to see it to understand the enormity of this undertaking. To my mind, it works better in this smaller gallery, compared to the Tate’s Turbine Hall, where it was practically dwarfed by the space (there, the sunflower seeds numbered in the many millions). It’s worth seeing, even if (to my mind) it isn’t the best art. Now, what I do like about it is the unintended conceptual art it has become: Originally, guests could walk on the Sunflowers and pick them up, and take the seeds, but this soon caused a porcelain dust to fill the air, and the Tate decided after a couple of days that they should stop people from interacting with the seeds. This gallery also keeps you off the seeds. To my mind, it’s hilarious that seeds made by relatively poor artists in China could have caused a dust storm that might kill the relatively rich art lovers of the West and now we’re reduced to security guards keeping us away from this potentially lethal art – and with folks reduced to stealing seeds and buying them at auction (yes, I’ve seen this in person). That wasn’t the intent, but pretty cool anyways. On a quick side note: I’m on the board of a nonprofit, Muse Film and Television, that produced a film on Ai Weiwei which premieres at Sundance – Ai Weiwei:Never Sorry, by Alison Klayman (links to video with her). Check it out at Sundance if you have the chance.

8.The Wedding (The Walker Evans Polaroid Project) with Roni Horn, A curatorial composition by Ydessa Hendeles, Andrea Rosen Gallery, til Feb 4. – This is a real gem of a show, and I just caught it this weekend (it’s right across the street from the Ai Weiwei show). Hendeles, who does this sort of thing a lot, was given permission to curate a show of any type she wanted in the Andrea Rosen gallery, with the only stipulation being that she use at least one work from the series of Polaroid photos which Walker Evans took during the last year of his life. She ended up using 83 of them, along with photos from “Bird” by Roni Horn, one amazing Eugene Atget Paris photo, a great set of Eadweard Muybridge animal locomotion series, a giant (really, huge) bird cage/house/Indian Palace, a French model of a cooper’s workshop and the furniture of Gustav Stickley and some other early 20th Century arts and craft movement folks. Sounds like an odd mix, and it kinda is, but it works very well. Pick up the artist booklet at the front desk and read it – some cool connections are written about that you won’t pick up on your own unless you’re a very well-read art scholar. My favorite part of the show are the Evans photos – tiny little Polaroid photos which he took using what many considered to be a toy camera. In an interview quoted in the show’s book, he says that he liked using it because it stripped away all the other stuff and left him to just find the best image. Which he did, and did very well.

9. Eugene Atget at MoMA, Feb 6 – April 9 – If the one photo at Andrea Rosen isn’t enough for you, there’s a whole bevy of Atget photos being exhibited at MoMA starting in February. Atget was a hard-working artist with little recognition when he died. Keep that in mind, struggling artists, as you go to this show. He sold his photos to architects and such, mainly as models, to pay his bills. Man Ray lived down the street from him and loved his work, he convinced Berenice Abbott that he rocked (while she was his intern) and she convinced a wealthy art dealer to finance the purchase of his works, which MoMA then bought, and now you can see what they got – an amazing body of work which ended up influencing the Surrealists, as well as many other artists. Atget considered himself an auteur, and for good reason. I can’t think of a better show to see in NY this year, and can’t wait for this to open. BTW, you can learn more about this history in the book accompanying the “Wedding” show mentioned above, and the photo in that show is not in the MoMA collection, so again, see both.

10.The Radical Camera: New York’s Photo League, 1936 – 1951, The Jewish Museum, through March 25 I can’t believe I haven’t made it to this show yet, it’s been up since November, but to finish this photo-centric must-see list, I mustn’t forget this show. The Photo League was a group of mostly Jewish photographers who in the Thirties decided to turn their lens to documentary photography (and socialist ideals) during a quite tumultuous time in US history. It included folks like Berenice Abbott, Weegee, Paul Strand and many others,and it was quite a collaborative – with dark rooms and shows, lectures and talks. In the late 40s things started getting a little toxic in the US, and some members ended up on blacklists and the league finally closed. But their work remains influential to many, and it seems to me to be quite a timely show. While there, you can also catch Jem Cohen’s “Weights and Measures” his 2006 film, which is quite lovely.

I realize this is quite the male-centric list, although not entirely. It’s also Manhattan heavy on the venues. Sorry, but these are the shows I most want to see/have liked thus far, and that’s just how it seems to have happened. Anyway, I’d most like to hear from you – what other shows should I see that I’m missing? If you’ve seen these, what are your thoughts on the shows?

Every year I join the madding crowd and write up the 10 or so things which I think will be interesting to watch in the coming year. So, here’s what’s on my mind heading into 2012.

1. SOPA/PIPA: This might be the most serious thing for us to watch in 2012. I’ve written about it here, been interviewed about it here and think these few blogs are the ones to watch to learn more, but my hope is that more indie filmmakers start to think more seriously about the impact of these laws on our possible futures in 2012. I wished this in 2011, so I’m not holding my breath. My hope: Someone creates a Crowd-Controls mash-up to “Occupy the Cinemas.” What’s that? A major boycott of one or more Hollywood film’s opening weekend in early 2012 to protest the Studio’s support of the MPAA and their position on SOPA. They’re funding this. We need to show we can do something. In the perfect world, people would pledge to skip the opening weekend(s) of some Hollywood film(s) and you could track by Zip Code (and by congressional district?) the protest as it grows. Perhaps we could all pledge to attend an indie film instead, so that no one can claim we’re just hurting theaters, stuck in the middle. I’d love to see this happen, think it could be huge, but lack the time and programming talent to pull it off.

2. Sundance sales/launches: This is a perennial debate in the film world, but one again, I’m excited to find out how sales go at Sundance (and Slamdance). We’ve got some results on how last year’s big buys performed, and we’ve had an interesting year with new distributors, new distribution models and a lot of turmoil in the economic marketplace. How are this year’s film selections? How will they perform? What new companies will launch? What initiatives will Sundance announce? Or others? Always a good time to get a bead on what’s next in the American indie sector, and I’ll be in attendance and following the news closely.

3. Sundance Artist Services: Sundance makes it to my watch in 2012 list twice for one other reason: their ongoing Artist Services program. You can read about it here, but the quick summary is that Sundance is using their brand and connections to help their alumni to get their films to the public in a better way. They’ve negotiated great deals on behalf of their artists with companies like TopSpin and New Video to help artists take control of their films and get them to audiences (and make money). This, to my mind, is the smarter approach of those being launched by some other fests – we don’t need more distributors, but we do need smart ideas to help filmmakers and audiences connect, and Sundance is leading the way.

4. More branded content/advertising experiments: There’s been a lot of new experiments in branded content and brand partnerships in the indie sector in the past year – as I predicted last year. One of the more interesting developments I’ll be watching is the LaunchPad program launched at DocNYC this year. I reckon we’ll see many more over the course of 2012, but I also imagine we’ll see the beginnings of, if not the fulfillment of, many failures in this space. Why? I’m actually bullish on the idea overall, but I actually think that very few people in the indie film sector have any clue how advertisers think and work, and won’t structure projects that lead to any return on the advertiser’s investments. Second, they’ll fail because consumers aren’t watching. Yes, me, you and everyone we know loves indie films. But there’s not many of us, and we’re a lot less cutting edge and sexy than what’s going on in short form video online, gaming and so many other sectors. But hey, someone will figure this out and make it work, and I’m actually all for it.

5. Transmedia Backlash (but the practice continues on): You can’t look around too long in the film world without running into someone going on and on about the rise of transmedia. Heck, I talk about it a lot too. But there’s a couple things bothering me about this: 1) there actually aren’t a lot of people in the indie world doing this, and; 2) most of the experiments have sucked. Yes, more and more filmmakers are exploring it, but I follow this sector pretty closely, and trust me, it’s a small group. There’s been a much bigger interest in this from the advertising community. A lot of foundations are now funding this for documentaries, but mainly because they’re always chasing trendy things they don’t understand. I’m even seeing proposals from people saying they’re making transmedia when all they’re doing is making a website. The term is just being overused (along with still being a crap term). Second, I’ve yet to see more than a couple of good transmedia projects. I don’t want to single out the good or the bad, but it’s an open secret – whenever I attend events dedicated to transmedia, a few of us gather for beers afterwards and this truth always comes up in conversation. I’m sure this isn’t going to stop us from hearing more about it in 2012, and I hope we see a couple new peojects which prove my second point wrong, but I’m even more sure we’ll get lots of backlash – filmmakers and critics and industry calling more BS on the practice overall. I’ve started to see it on fest panels over the past year, but expect more in 2012.

6. Impact of OWS on arts: This has already started in 2011, but expect to see a lot more hand-wringing amongst arts leaders about perceptions of elitism and class disparities in the arts. Expect to see many more protests at cultural events. As the OWS movement picks up steam again as the winter fades (and it will rise up again), we’ll see a lot more talk about how artists should respond, how arts organizations should (or shouldn’t) get involved and about deep structural issues of class and culture. This should be fun. Seriously, while a lot of the arguing will be old hat and boring, there’s a lot to talk about here, and my sincere hope is that some artists do something unexpected, cool and genuinely creative and inspiring around OWS issues in 2012.

7. Economic meltdown in latter half of 2012: I suspect those OWS inspired events will also increase due to something I keep yelling about, though no one wants to hear it – the increasing likelihood of another economic meltdown in late 2012. You can read what I think about it here. You can disagree with me too, but you have to admit that things remain tough out there and as the economy continues to sputter it will continue to impact budgets across the US, and this will mean cuts to the arts. It will likely mean more scrutiny of film incentives, and the likely loss of some of them (already occurring in some states). Now, some people call me a pessimist for talking all doom and gloom, but I’m not really. Remember, pessimists are always happy, because we expect nothing to work, and get surprised (and happy) when something does work, or when bad things don’t happen. I’m a big supporter of the idea that art gets more interesting in tough times. There’s a silver lining here, perhaps, but I really do think we’ll see some economic turmoil and it will have impact on film and the arts. We’ll see if I’m right.

8. The next phase of crowdfunding: And if everything does go to pot, we’ll definitely see more people turning to the crowd to raise their funds. We’ve seen some amazing things with Kickstarter, Indiegogo and other crowd-funding sites. I’m a fan of them, I’ve used them and I plan to use them again in the future. But I don’t think that crowd-funding will continue forward only under this current model. I’ve already seen presentations of other start-ups tweaking the model a bit, and some will launch in 2012 and I suspect many others will as well. More importantly, as the idea matures, we’ll likely see it taken to new levels and with new models, and perhaps these will even be done by the existing leaders in the space. Where’s it going? I’m not sure, but as the crowd gets more connected, there are better ways to leverage its support than through constant tweets about your campaign. A directed, aggregated crowd could have more impact than the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations combined (seriously). I like Ian David Moss’s proposal for this space, as just one example. I suspect we’ll see more in 2012.

9. Which celebrity will use Kickstarter to fund a major Hollywood film? Along the same lines: Okay, this sounds dumb, but seriously, the moment that someone like Ashton Kutcher uses Kickstarter to raise money for a major Hollywood (or Indiewood) film is surely upon us soon, and it will work. I’d hazard to guess that any major celebrity could raise $50M to fund a major production and invent an entirely new distribution-to-fans model at the same time. I hope we see it in 2012.

10. Collecting Data: Ok, this one is kind of boring, but I’m hoping that some bright person(s) or group(s) use 2012 to help collect some data for all of us to use. Geesh, you’d think that with multiple filmmaker-service orgs in the film space, most having been here for over 20 years, one of them would’ve done this already, but nope, they’re doing some other service, I guess. We need a lot of data. It would help all of us. Things like: how has the audience size (by attendance, sales, etc) for indie film changed over the years?; a historic comparison of sales and performance for different films by genre, perhaps based on the history of Sundance; how much economic impact does indie film generate?; a comparison of festival attendance in different cities, including demographics; what percentage of film school grads are working in film in 5, 10, 15 years?; which distribution release strategies work?. These are very basic questions, I can think of thousands of others. I get emails all the time from people asking for some similar data sets (just got one two days ago), but there’s precious little research and data about our sector. I’d hazard to guess it might be useful in all sorts of ways. Project for IFP, FIND, NAMAC, NEA, Sundance, Guilds, IndieWire, Variety, NYU Film? Come on folks, someone must want to do some research for us?!?!

11. Social, check in and content: I’ve predicted this for a few years now. I’ve got lots of ideas in this space, but I’m convinced that 2012 is when the ideas of social, check-in and sharing hit content in a big way. There’s some people doing it now, but no one is doing it well. I wish film fests would figure this out. Someone will.

12. Exhibition Changes: I think we’ll see a lot of disruption, good and bad, in this space. I’m very excited about rumors of expansion of Alamo Drafthouse. I love the new Nitehawk and Rerun Theaters in NYC. The Arthouse Convergence is helping arthouses to work together to keep themselves thriving, and hopefully do some new things. I also think we’ll see some shake-up among the larger theater chains. I love the MoviePass disruption being led by Stacey Spikes. I also suspect we’ll see a lot more micro-cinemas, alternative venues and hopefully, more tools for indie filmmakers to tap in to all of these resources. 2012 should be a year of great change in the exhibition space.

So, there’s my 12 things to watch in 2012, what are yours?

As many of you know, I’m helping Jane Weiner with her Kickstarter campaign for RICKY on LEACOCK

As of this posting, we have five days remaining and close to $15,000 left to raise. I’m helping Jane because Ricky Leacock was such an inspiration to me. While I never met him, he was one of the leading pioneers of the documentary field – he is the actual link from Flaherty to today’s documentary legends and to those just becoming documentary filmmakers. He was one of the pioneers in developing and using smaller cameras, synching their sound and in thinking about how technology impacts documentary form. He is (along with many others) one of the people who contributed to today’s culture, where anyone can pick up a camera and become a filmmaker.

I’ve seen a rough cut of this film, and I think Jane and her team are making an incredible tribute to him. One which will stand on its own as an important film, but that will also be an important historical document which will be crucial to film schools, film history and as a result, the future of the field.

Jane just posted an update to the campaign with video of comments made by Ed Pincus, Michel Negroponte, Ross McElwee and Mary Jane Doherty at the MIT Leacock memorial on June 11, 2011. It’s a great video to watch with lots of great comments on why Ricky Leacock was so important. I also recommend you read her post on Ted Hope’s blog, it’s a really inspiring post, and several people have left comments saying as much themselves.

I highly recommend checking out the Kickstarter campaign and considering making a donation. Even if you can’t make a donation, please help spread the word. I want Jane to be able to finish this tribute, and I hope you will help us reach her goal – $25,000 by January 1st at 3:09pm est. Visit. Pledge. Share. Repeat.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the role of the arts, and individual artists, in regards to social change. Not just any social change, but specifically in regards to political change. I’ve been thinking about it off and on all year. First, back on Jan 31, 2011, I posted some thoughts (on my old Springboard blog) in reaction to the Arab Spring protests and what they might mean globally. Not much later, I gave my DIY Days talk proposing that artists needed to get more involved and “reclaim” the political aspects of DIY. Then last week, I posted a somewhat depressing look at the global economy and what impact it might have on the arts.

I went back to that first post earlier today, and found it eerily prescient of what we’re seeing today with OWS and other global protests, and still quite relevant. Not that I predicted any future, or anything, but I do think it’s worth revisiting that post today. I’ve cut/paste the last half of that article below, and the original is still here. I’ll be posting more thoughts on the subject soon.

_____ from Jan, 2011 _____

Malcolm Gladwell and Clay Shirky can argue all day whether or not social media helps spread a revolution, but something much more fundamental is going on here. Twitter, Facebook and other social media may not have started the revolutions, but they’ve been a part of it, mainly because of the most important factor in these revolutions – a growing young population very aware of the failures of the old regimes, often well-educated but frustrated by their job and future prospects, tightly connected to one another through social networks both new and old and, quite literally, with nothing much to lose. True, there are people of all generations involved in these protests, but the influence of a hyper-connected class of youth has been a very strong component of these recent events. They may be joined by many others, but youth unemployment and disaffection are at an all-time high, and guess what, youth media engagement is also at an all-time high. Unfortunately for world leaders, you can look around the world and see this same pairing in many a country, both despotic and democratic (or somewhere in-between).

The fact of the matter is, Egypt shutting down the internet was in some ways almost pointless. Unless you completely disconnect your population entirely, all the time, people are going to be social and find others like them online. They will communicate and form new networks and common likes and grievances, and discuss them. They are going to make media and share it, and often you won’t even know who its making fun of until it is too late. By the time a protest starts, the gig is up. Sure, China does a good job of censoring all of this chatter, but that hasn’t stopped people from spreading things like the story of Li Qiming, who after being stopped for a hit and run that killed one woman taunted “Sue me if you dare. My father is Li Gang!” (a high-ranking police officer). In the past this story would have been covered up, but it spread so quickly on the internet as a satiric quote in response to all kinds of corruption that the Government had to allow the story to disseminate and just now sentenced Li Qiming to prison. This story brings up the other undercurrent to these protests – the growing divide between the rich and poor.

As many others have pointed out, there’s a new global elite that hangs out together, builds companies together and rules the world together. As reported in The Economist, some 10 percent of the people in the world control 83 percent of the world’s assets. They are connected to one another, and yes, they are different than the rest of us. As the gap between the super-rich, merely rich, the somewhat rich and the poor widens, there’s a growing sense of inequity that feeds the sense that money and power are one, and this inevitably leads to backlash. Again, the people can talk about this, make media about it and share it and the story goes viral. By the time the “elite” wake up and try to change the conversation, it will likely be too late.

Interestingly, the new global elite also happen to invest heavily in the new technology economy and thus own most of the companies that make the real and virtual newfangled toys we play with. Many of these companies derive most of their value from the input of their users – Google and Amazon get smarter as you search and rate things – and while these products can make our lives easier and more fun, most of the real monetary value accrues to the companies and their shareholders.

What they haven’t seemed to realize until now is that while they may get rich and powerful sucking the data, dollars and power from the masses into these social networks, the masses might one day use these same tools against this very system. You connect the people and they might stop playing Farmville long enough to connect the dots. It is much easier now for the rest of the world to talk to one another and realize that, hey, regardless of political party or country, they’re all getting screwed.

Sure, these same tools can be used against protesters (and have been, in Iran, for example) and yes, you can shut off the credit processing to Wikileaks and the internet to all of Egypt, but once you’ve gotten people talking they don’t stop. Especially the young people. They switch to whispers, they use dial-up modems or phone in Tweets, pass notes through cell doors, but once they’ve shared the truth about the emperor (whichever “truth” they’ve chosen to believe), they don’t shut up.

The revolutions in Tunisia and now in Egypt are responses to very real oppression. You can’t overstate how different things are there from many other places in the world. The problems of disaffected youth in Europe, or the grievances of any given social network may pale in comparison (though not always), but it would be foolish to think that this political disruption won’t spread, in different fashion and at a different pace, to other parts of the world. There are many other countries with an educated youth that can’t find jobs, and that feel the older generations have squandered their future. There are many of different ages who agree with them. Even the magazines of the elite (it’s called The Economist for a reason) recognize that there’s been a growing gulf between the haves and the have nots and that historically, this has led to some bad things. Mix in the speed of communication and ease of connecting disparate groups that the internet offers and you’ve put an interesting spin on this old tale.

In America, the first of the groups to wake up to this reality were the youth who came out in droves for Obama. It’s hard to remember now, but he was a long-shot that only became the great hope after a lot of young, tech savvy people with time on their hands started pushing for him. Ironically, however, many of them now feel disillusioned and the torch has been passed to (grabbed back by?) the largely white, conservative, older, middle and lower class who form the Tea Party (the upper class just funds them). You couldn’t get a much different group than the protesters in the Middle East, but strange things happen in America. Many years ago, they would have been dismissed as just another John Birch Society, but through a mix of social media connection and activism, mixed with some old-fashioned (and borrowed) organizing, they’ve got their agenda on, well, ours. Back in the day, Rick Santelli’s rant from the Chicago trading floor would have inspired a small portion of the viewers of CNBC and perhaps some back-room discussions at think-tanks. Its impact would have only come after years or talking and organizing, but it formed an entirely new political party in the span of just a few weeks (a dire economy, Black president, Hispanic justice and openly gay senator helped fan the fire). Like them or loathe them, the Tea Party is just one harbinger of more to come.

The Tea Party is, to many onlookers, a strange, convoluted backlash to the changing face of America (I know that’s not how they see it, but that’s not the point). Look around America though, and there are a lot of other disaffected, upset people who aren’t represented in our political class or conversation at all (most of whom also raise the blood pressure of those in the Tea Party). They are talking, and while they may be stupefied and coddled by their American Idol and easy, consumerist access to anything they want, anytime they want, they are also starting to talk to one another much more often and that can only lead in one direction – more self- and group-awareness, and that usually leads to change.

In some cases, this will just mean little protests, as we see now with the LGBT community, and their supporters, fighting back against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Soon, however, things could get interesting. What happens when the young wives of incarcerated men, usually flung around the country and very unimportant politically, can connect to one another online and form a voting block? What happens when Latinos, African-Americans, Asians and other people of diverse backgrounds (who also trend young) realize that not only are they now the majority in 10 of our major cities, but that their needs and desires aren’t being addressed by those gathered in Washington (or in Davos). Not all of this will lead to uprisings, or even slight protests, in every case, but it is going to make for something interesting.

The problems in the US are nothing compared to those suffered by people in the Global South, for just one example, but they also pale in comparison to even those in European countries with much less openness, or who have suffered worse through the recent economic crisis. There are legions of well-educated, under-employed people in these countries, and they’re all connected now. While some form of localized political unrest is highly likely in many places, it will be more interesting to see how people combine their common goals, grievances and wills across borders. We’re already seeing evidence of China, Iran and other countries blocking internet reports of the protests in Egypt, and this will likely spread as other regimes get scared. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg compared to more widespread coordination, which we’re only now seeing amongst those bent on global terrorism (or amongst those playing MMORPG, interestingly). What happens when more peaceful (or not), but better organized players connect, communicate and coordinate efforts? Who knows, but it’s something you can bet many government (and business) leaders will be thinking about for quite some time.

In fact, they already have begun thinking about this and planning. Lieberman’s internet kill switch is only a more obvious and public response to fears of people connecting and doing something (good or bad). You don’t have to think about this much to realize that if governments and corporations are meeting in secret to pass things like ACTA, to stop people connecting and sharing (pirated) music and films, they’re definitely having a few such meetings about what happens as this political disruption continues. The high-level interconnectedness of the political, military and corporate spheres was lain bare by the response to the WikiLeaks cables, and you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to play all of this out a bit further in your head. Every new technology that has held the potential to bring more power to the people has been inverted and changed to reassert the control of the powers that be. This won’t be any different, though for at least a few more years it may appear that way, and that’s mainly just because the kids are moving faster with this stuff than the adults can process it all.

For now, however, we’re in a time of massive change to the political process and the people’s involvement with it. It’s too early to tell whether this will lead to something better or worse in Egypt, or even Tunisia, but it is clear that for a short window of time, the possibilities for changing the status quo are better than ever. It will be messy, loud and sometimes violent, but more often just pretty damn interesting. There’s a lot of young people connected and talking, and they want to be heard. They are fed up with the status quo and they can see through all that was once made to be misunderstood. They’re talking to one another and they’re getting louder. Cacophony is noisy stuff, but some of those in power better hope these voices don’t get more harmonious.

A long story for a short post. Don’t ask me why, but I’ve been meeting with hedge fund managers a lot lately, as well as other smart investment banker types who are all smarter than me or anyone I know, especially (if only?) when it comes to economic issues. They are all apoplectic about the future. Not a little worried, I’m talking buy a home in the middle of nowhere, buy a gun and fend off the mutinying hordes kind of shit. Raise a billion dollars to capitalize on the possible future failure of the EU, the Euro and then probably everyone on earth except China and Brazil (who might just slow down, if we’re lucky). The conversations are pretty open, and if there’s more than one “money guy” in the room, they’re not arguing over the disaster to come, just how to profit from it, or avoid some pain.Let me be clear – NO ONE debates this potential reality, just how to profit from it.

I’m not being hyperbolic when I say that hanging out with them can cause pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth. You literally leave the “party” worrying about your future; but having none, you just give up and settle into a despair some might call existential if anyone existed anymore who said anything interesting like that.

Then I meet with people in the film, music and arts worlds. None of this is mentioned. If I bring this up, they laugh nervously and say something like “Oh, things are still bad, and that’s why we’re seeing things like OWS, but I think it will all work out. My donations are up this year.”

I don’t know. Maybe I’m crazy. Maybe I’m pessimistic (lets not get me started on how pessimists are always optimistic, it’s a phrase…), maybe I’m like a blogging version of Michael Fucking Shannon in Take Shelter and am having a nervous goddamn meltdown. That is a reasonable assumption actually, but no…I’m thinking that wishful thinking comes from us here in the arts, not from those more ensconced in the business side of things. Also known as reality.

There’s a big disconnect between those of us in this world and that one. I’d love to think that this one will win. I’m more sure that one will prove true, and while that in and of itself may make a better world, history is against us on all counts. If you aren’t thinking about how this might, and let’s just pretend it’s a big “might” for now, impact your future, then let’s just agree that you are potentially ignoring a very big, uncomfortable, very possible truth. Those of us in “this” world (the arts) should be thinking about this possible future and what it might mean. Best case, we have fun running apocalyptic scenarios on our future; worst case, we’ve wrestled with gun-ownership issues we thought were worth leaving to right-wing-nuts. Either way, we’ll all be in a better place tomorrow, and perhaps we can build a better system for that future regardless of what it might bring. Doing the usual thing, which is ignoring this disconnect (as we seemed to be doing in the run up to September, 2008), doesn’t seem to be the most prudent action.

Which would you buy?

Georgia State University (GSU) in Downtown, Atlanta has sent out this call for submissions. I don’t usually post these, but this is a really cool opportunity for media artists, and you can’t believe the foot traffic that goes by here in what is otherwise a car-town. Check out the info below and submit something cool:

Now accepting submissions for The Window Project.

See a previous installation of this unique space in this short video:

http://vimeo.com/28944126

The submission process is on-going. Each installation will be screened nightly from dusk until dawn for one month. We have current openings in 2012 for:

April, 2012               Submission Deadline is Feb. 1, 2012
May, 2012                Submission Deadline is Mar 1, 2012
June, 2012               Submission Deadline is Apr. 1, 2012
July, 2012                Submission Deadline is May. 1, 2012
August, 2012           Submission Deadline is Jun. 1, 2012
September, 2012    Submission Deadline is July. 1, 2012
October, 2012         Submission Deadline is Aug. 1, 2012
November, 2012     Submission Deadline is Sep. 1, 2012

The Window Project is a curated outdoor, new media installation space facing the southern end of Woodruff Park from the windows of the Digital Arts Entertainment Laboratory (DAEL). The infrastructure consists of six high definition projectors synchronized to create a rear-projection screen that stands over six feet high and spans over 80 feet in width and can be seen from any vantage point in Atlanta’s central park and from the main pedestrian path of students of Georgia State University. The mission of The Window Project is to create a public art space that engages the community and enhances the Georgia State University campus and downtown Atlanta.

We invite the participation of local, national and international emerging and established moving image artists to submit current work reconfigured for six projectors around a curved surface or new work specifically created to take advantage of the multi-projector format. This space and format allows artists to break from the constraints of a single screen on a flat surface with a prescribed viewing point. We do not seek a specific theme for the content, but expect that it should be of high visual, technical and conceptual quality and well suited for this unique public space, which is large, but subtle due to the curved glass and location on a downtown building window.

This project is sponsored by the Digital Arts Entertainment Lab. DAEL is a multimillion-dollar entertainment research and production facility located in the heart of downtown Atlanta on the campus of Georgia State University. Through industry and university partnerships, DAEL facilitates the creation and testing of digital media content. DAEL incubates emerging media arts businesses, trains graduate students and engages in user-centered media research.

How to Apply:  Please email a brief artist statement, a link to artist website and up to 5 images or videos to: eli@gsu.edu with “The Window Project” and your name in the subject line. If an emailed/internet submission is not possible, a CD or DVD can be sent in the mail. Feel free to email questions to eli@gsu.edu as well.

Live in New York City? Well if you do, and probably even if you don’t, you probably know that Rooftop Films is one of the best film organizations around town. They not only present hundreds of films on Rooftops (and beaches, and…) all year round, they also give grant money to filmmakers, rent equipment and teach filmmaking. And they’re a heckuvalotta fun. I joined their board of directors this year, and that gives me the honor of shamelessly plugging them here – which I’d do even if I wasn’t on the board.

Let’s face it, what other film organization does all of this and then holds its annual fundraiser for just $50 bucks? That’s right, for just $50 you can hang out with some awesome filmmakers, meet cool people, listen to music, learn about what’s next for Rooftop Films and…network with potential donors. That’s right, they’ll be there too, but don’t tell anyone I told you that. This kind of action would set you back $500 to $1000 + at other organization’s benefits, but Rooftop Films is cool like that. Trust me, the evening will be fun enough to warrant the $50, with booze, food and entertainment. AT&T is helping sponsor the event, and I personally guarantee that anyone who buys a ticket will have a good time while supporting a great organization.

Full details are below and here. Can’t make it, but still want to support the organization (for less or more than $50)? Click here and make a donation.

Here’s more info from Rooftop Films:

If you were to sit down and try really hard to make the worst user interface on the planet, I bet you couldn’t do a better (worse) job than Time Warner has done with it’s On Demand system. This holds true across all cable companies, but Time Warner is reputed to be the worst one, according to all my friends who broker with these clowns.

When I bother to turn on my cable and search for something to watch On Demand, it is a painful experience. Nine times out of ten, the system won’t start, leading me to NY1 no matter what I do. Want to watch a preview? Oops, that will get you stuck again. Want to get out of one of their ingenious channels, like “In Theaters,” good luck.

The system is so bad that the aggregators who put films in the system literally tell you that your film title should be low in the alphabet (or start with a number) so that you end up earlier in the A-Z list because most consumers don’t make it past the C’s. Really.

This would all be cute, except I’m willing to bet that it’s costing the film industry millions. Billions maybe. Lots of recent reports, like this one from The Wrap, point out how much money indies and Hollywood are making from VOD. It is the future, and I’m not arguing against it. But the fact that consumers will put up with this much crap to watch their movie at home, on demand, tells me that there’s a staggering amount of value being left on the table. If these interfaces worked at all, I’m willing to bet that VOD revenues would skyrocket – not double, but increase by a magnitude of 300% or greater. It’s likely the top reason that people turn to pirate sites – they’re that much easier to use.

Why do cable companies use such shitty technology today? Why do film companies allow this travesty to continue?

My only guess is that cable companies can’t compete with Silicon Valley. All the good engineers go to tech start-ups and cable companies (and their device makers) are left with the bozos who can’t compete. Either that or cable company executives are the bozos left behind… but that can’t be right, could it?

Nope. My real guess is that it’s just another case of the industry collectively sitting on it’s ass accepting the status-quo. This makes for a nice space for disruption, but it makes for a crappy consumer experience, which come to think about it is the new mantra for all things in film consumerism – crappy consumer experience.

It’s time I come out – and admit that I no longer care about seeing films on the big screen at the movie theater. Horrible of me to suggest. No serious film lover could say this. Blasphemy. On and on.

Yeah, whatever.

I used to simply argue that of course, I love seeing films on the big screen like everyone else. I’d argue for anyone’s right to watch it when, where and how they want to see a film, but would always push for them to see it the “way it was meant to be seen” which was on the big screen. But I can’t anymore. The experience sucks. Staying at home and watching it is the better option.

I bring this up today because Anthony Kaufman, a critic whom I deeply respect, has a post on IndieWire about why viewers should only watch great arthouse films like Melancholia on the big screen.As he says: “Waiting to see a film in your living room is hurting that film, insulting it; it’s like saying to a good friend, “You’re not good enough to meet me for dinner; how about we just catch up on the phone, or via computer screen, instead?… Of course, there are plenty of films that should be relegated to such a space. Just not the good ones.” His is not the only article on this I’ve read lately – there’s been a spate of such articles lately, driven by (I assume) the huge shift from the importance of box office to the rise of VOD.

But here’s the problem I’m having: Film critics, film industry and almost every single person I know who is apoplectic about people watching films outside of the theater are missing a key point – that they don’t (usually) watch such films the same way that others do. Nope. They watch them in private screening rooms rented by distributors and publicists. Or they watch them at film festivals. A lucky few get to watch them on their own home/company theater screen. Many actually just watch screeners at home or in a festival/market room with banks of monitors, but that’s another story. This is not going to the movies.

Going to the movies is getting a crap, broken seat because you didn’t show up 20 minutes early. Or it is getting there 20 minutes early and watching crappy advertisements while waiting for the Regal train to start the show (why, oh why must all theaters show a train riding through popcorn on a film strip track??). It is watching an interminable amount of bad trailers for films I don’t want to see. It is sitting next to not one, but two crying babies, in the 10pm showing of Drive for chrissakes. It is watching the film projected through the wrong lens, too darkly, or the wrong aspect ratio, or with the curtains improperly adjusted. It is watching it in spite of the irritant of an usher watching me with a device to ensure I’m not pirating the film. It’s not having the heat, or the AC, properly adjusted. It’s not having my favorite adult beverage with me. It’s waiting in line for an half an hour because the theater is too fucking cheap to pay more than one kid the minimum wage to make me my popcorn (or even sell me my ticket). It’s hearing a subway train rumble through my film – in both the Angelika and MoMA. It’s sitting with my knees cramped like I’m in an airline seat while at Film Forum. It is getting to the theater and finding out that the film is playing on the smallest screen that theater has. It is all of this and so much more. The list of problems is not small.

None of these problems are encountered by those film-goers who get to watch most of their movies away from the masses in the fancy screening room or the film festival. Heck, you didn’t even have to pay for the show.

I used to put up with it, because you know, I am a cinephile and all that. But I’m a convert. I’ll sit at home and watch my films. I’ll try to catch the cinematic masterpieces at film festivals and private screenings when I can. But while I understand the argument for the big screen, I’m not necessarily sure I buy it even for the best of cinema.

I went to film school at Emory. While the professors did their best to get us film prints for most of our classes, the simple fact was that to watch the majority of film history, I had to watch it at home – off crappy VHS, Laserdisc and DVD. I watched Rules of the Game, Ikiru and Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors over twenty times each this way. It didn’t diminish my awe. Nope. I watched them again and again, and I’ve now watched each of them multiple times on the big screen. Did I love it when I got to see them on the big screen – sure, but I can’t honestly say I didn’t love them just as much before.

Most consumers today have pretty good home theater systems, and I’m willing to bet that the percentage of cinephiles, who would even care about this problem, with good set-ups is even stronger. Most of them are adults. You know, capable of making a decision as to whether or not they want/need to see something on the big screen. Trying to stop this trend is impossible and crying about it won’t stem the tide of change. Especially not when most (not all) theater owners are content to keep offering the same dismal experience over and over again. Kudos to places like Alamo, the Enzian and Night Hawk who are trying something different and make it worth my dollar – I’ll spend my money and watch a film on the big screen at their locations whenever I can. But for the most part, I’ll watch my cinema in my home, comfortable and with my cinema-conscience clear. It’s better that way.

I’m a frequent speaker on panels at film festivals and conferences. I just spoke on one at IndieMemphis and I’m about to speak on two more at the IFFS Film Festival Summit. I’ve run festivals with panels, and I’ve produced a conference of panels. So it is with full cognizance of my hypocrisy that I state – they are worthless and it’s time to kill all panels.

They are the zero-sum game of every festival and conference. Why? Because the only knowledge that can be gained from them is accidental, as in when someone accidentally says something they shouldn’t say, self-aggrandizing, as in learning that yes, indeed you are smarter than all the experts they’ve assembled on-stage, or misanthropic, as in when you lose all faith in humanity when the moderator democratically opens the mic to questions from the audience and the first question isn’t a question but rather a pitch for the film the questioner just made or some product they’re trying to sell. The best you can hope for is getting all three in one panel.

Most panels seem put together for one obvious reason – to make the festival look better. Bring in a few key industry players, put them on a panel and take photos for the catalogue and tout the educational benefits in your next grant application. Step back for one second though and ask yourself how educational these panels are? How different are these panels/conferences than the ones held at a Ramada every weekend “teaching” you how to make millions from flipping real estate? How much can I learn from a panel of five “experts” who each spend most of their time trying to talk about how great their company is at doing X thing? Especially when each “expert” has about five total minutes to say anything of value.

Okay, I’m being overly harsh here to get this started, but seriously: We need to rethink the purpose of and usefulness of these panels.I’ve met many festival staff and none that I’ve met are hucksters trying to steal your cash – really, most of them truly want to help filmmakers learn more about the business, or help audiences to learn more about the subject of the film or about the people behind or on the screens. They work hard to put these panels together, but let’s face it – most of these panels don’t work.

Ostensibly, we hold these panels to teach some audience members something they might not know. In a good panel, this remains true, and what makes a good panel is probably a sliding scale dependent upon things such as how knowledgeable is the audience in attendance. Not that I know everything, but when I went to my first film festival panel I knew a lot less about the film business than I know now, and I learned a lot more.

But, when I think back to the earliest panels I attended, I find that most of what I learned came from just one panelist – there’s usually one person telling it like it is and sharing the real knowledge that most people just gloss over. I’ve learned a lot from one on one sessions as well, where a well informed interviewer speaks with some person from the biz (though I learn less when this person is a famous actor/director…hmmm). I’ve learned a lot when the panel isn’t about film, but what’s covered in the film – where the speakers were experts on the topic and we could delve deeper. Again, however, I find that because of politics, these panels tend to have the director, two producers and one expert and I’d learn more from a good moderator and the expert alone.

You may see a theme emerging here, and it’s because I do as well: less is more. I think what we need are less panels with 4, 5 or even 15 panelists (yes, at Sundance two years ago they had that many people on stage!). We need more one on ones, more panels where two people debate (or agree) on a topic. Let’s hear just from the expert. Let’s talk just with the director. Let’s hear what the entertainment attorney thinks for one solid hour. Let’s hear what the DP learned on set for one hour. Let’s hear a talk between just two festival programmers. Sure, we might not get “well rounded” discussions, but we’ll get more in depth discussion.

I’ve participated in a couple of such panels lately, and they worked much better than the usual system. I know this is nothing new – I’ve gone to such panels at SXSW for years, for instance, but I am saying they remain the rare exception to the usual boring panel where the only value is often putting a face with a name to meet them later at the bar.

So, we need to shake up the format a bit. We also need to change how we integrate the audience. I don’t have an easy answer here, but what should be the most democratic, interesting part of the panel usually becomes the most unbearable. It’s not that the audience is dumb, but somehow, we tend to get the worst questions from the floor. I’ve attended a few panels where questions are submitted to the moderator via slips of paper, email and even Twitter and the moderator picks the best ones. This seems to work better, but while the anonymity helps some people ask better questions, I’m sure it upsets others who want their voice to be heard. Some of my favorite panel moments have been when an audience member (usually well informed) attacks a speaker and they engage in a debate, and who would want to stop that? I’m not sure how to make this part better, but if you have ideas, please suggest them in the comments.

We also need to rethink panels in light of technology. No, not just “hey, we can put these up on the web,” but how does this fundamentally change things? Like showing a film in a movie theater, panels have existed because they are the most economical way to get a lot of butts in the seats to see what has been assembled. Like watching a movie in a theater, panel attendance won’t go away entirely, but it might be time we consider whether pulling together 10-100 speakers to speak to an audience of hundreds to low thousands still makes sense?

I don’t want the monotony of presentation styles it represents, but I’d love to see a TED-like phenomenon for film. Sure, the attendees get to network (and pay a lot to do so), but the rest of us can learn a heck of a lot, from some of the smartest folks not-really-in-the-room, for free. You could duplicate this year round pretty easily and have something pretty interesting for the field. This doesn’t make sense for the small, regional fest, but it would for some others.

I would be missing one of the biggest festival problems if I didn’t also bring up – they are usually very white and very male. This one seems obvious – we need more diverse speakers up there. I don’t know what will finally change this, perhaps all white men must refuse to speak on panels unless they are more diverse. I’ve written about this before, and it’s brought up over and over, but I bring it up again here because it can’t be said enough!

I definitely don’t have all the answers here. I’m attending the IFFS Film Festival Summit next week…to speak on two panels…and I’m hoping this might spark some conversation with other attendees there. I’m hoping to hear some ideas from my (small) audience here in the comments and elsewhere. What would make a better panel? How can we better include audiences? What would a fest panel look like if we started over today?

In the middle of writing this post, I saw a tweet from Matt Dentler saying “Fact: 85% of film festival panels around the globe are a waste of time.” I retweeted that and so did a few others – it’s obviously on many people’s minds. I got one interesting response from Randy Finch: “Paradox? I know (+ respect) u from film fest panels. #wearethe15%”

I agree with Randy – I’ve met many great people as a result of these panels. So, perhaps we shouldn’t kill them. Instead the question is: How do we re-imagine them in a way that keeps the good (networking, education) and gets rid of all the bad?

I was on a phone call today with a well-known and liked film industry person who remarked to me “You know we thought that the digital world was going to cut out the middle man, but it’s actually created more than ever.” Worse still, we decided that not only are their more middle men, but they’re doing less actual good for the creators than the previous middle men – at least the old middle men knew how to market your film, for example.

Sad, but true, state of affairs in the film industry. Creative people are creating more brilliant stuff than ever before. The profits accrue to a handful of aggregators in the middle who aren’t adding much value, and the consumer still has a heck of a time getting what they want (when they want it) either.

The more things change…

If all goes as planned, I’ll be joining many others on Wednesday November 16th for Internet Censorship Day. That is, if I can figure out how to paste code correctly to this site…UPDATE: I couldn’t get the code to work. I stink, but I still support this cause!

What is it? Well, it’s a protest against a bill being considered in the US Congress that would be very detrimental to the future of the web. It’s an attempt to curb piracy, but it could have a much bigger impact, and it could be bad. I could explain it all here, but the campaign site does a good job, and the video below does it even better.

What this video and join the cause:

I’ve been helping filmmaker Jane Weiner launch a Kickstarter campaign for her new film, a work-in-progress called RICKY on LEACOCK on the legendary documentary filmmaker. I’ll be posting a lot of updates here on the campaign – how it’s going, what we’re learning about raising money this way, other ways you can help. I’ve helped many filmmakers with Kickstarter campaigns, but this one is a bit different to me – I’m supporting her with my work and my donation to the campaign, not just because I like Jane and her films, but because I want to be a part of honoring his legacy – to documentary films, but also to the field more broadly and even to the “amateur” filmmakers posting videos online today. I’ll be writing more about this soon, but if you too are a fan of Ricky Leacock, please consider supporting this campaign, by making a donation on Kickstarter or by simply helping us to spread the word. Thanks!

I’m really excited that this week is the launch of the second annual DocNYC Film Festival. I imagine most of my NYC based readers know about this fest already, but if not, check out their website for the complete line-up. They’ve got some amazing docs this year, and I really commend them for putting together such a spectacular festival.

I’ll be moderating a couple of interesting panels at the festival. On Wed, Nov 2nd, I’ll be moderating “State of Theatrical” at 12:45pm. Panel description from the site: What do recent hits and misses tell us about the theatrical marketplace for docs? Panelists include Matt Cowal of Magnolia Pictures (Page One: A Year Inside the New York Times); Ryan Krivoshey of Cinema Guild (The Interrupters); Emily Russo of Zeitgeist Films (Bill Cunningham New York); and a representative of IFC Films/Sundance Selects (Cave of Forgotten Dreams) discussing their strategies for success.

Then at 2:30pm, I’ll be discussing the “State of Digital” From the fest description: In the rapidly changing world of digital distribution what are the options, opportunities and cautions for independent filmmakers? What’s the difference between transactional, subscription and ad-supported models? Representatives from key players and close watchers of this sector share their insights. Panelists include: Matt Dentler (Cinetic Film Buff); Susan Margolin (New Video/Docurama); Andrew Mer (SnagFilms); Lisa Schwartz (SundanceNOW).

That’s a great line-up of fantastic panelists, and I’m looking forward to learning a bit about the current health of the industry from them. While I’m not moderating the panel, I’m excited to also hear the panel on Branded Content. Given the fact that Thom Powers just announced a new partnership, Launch Pad, with Grey Global and Morgan Spurlock to connect doc makers and brands, that should be a great discussion. I think this is one of the most exciting new developments in the industry. Everyone with an interest in how brands and filmmakers might work together should attend. I’ve written before that we need a lot more conversation about this, as it’s a growing area. I think the team here will do it the right way, and I congratulate them on pulling this together. You can find all the panels at DocNYC here.

I’ve also been lucky enough to see a few of the films in advance, and of those I’ve seen I can highly recommend three. Okay, I could recommend more, but these three are my favorite, plus one retrospective that no one should miss. No lengthy reviews here, but I highly recommend checking out the following three titles:

Lemon – following the story of Lemon Andersen, as he attempts to make a come-back, from three time felon to one man poetry theater phenomenon.

Kumare – Kumare follows a man with followers – but he’s not the shaman they think he is. This one was a huge hit at SXSW, and while it does ride a fine line between ridiculing its subjects and having compassion for them, I think it comes down on the right (latter) side of that line.

Calvet – Another story of an artist breaking through, but this one is much different. Calvet is now an internationally renowned artist, but he led a tough life including everything from mob bodyguard to heroin and crack addicted nightclub owner. Calvet has now cleaned up his life, but has one task left – to re-connect with his estranged son. While most people will like this for the more sensational parts of the story, I found it fascinating to hear how he discovered his artistic talent and how his art continues to help him move forward.

Last, I highly recommend checking out the Ricky Leacock retrospective and the work in progress screening of Jane Weiner’s “On Being There.” Full disclosure, I’m helping Jane with her soon-to-launch Kickstarter campaign (more on that soon), but I’d recommend this regardless of that connection. Ricky Leacock was a legendary figure in documentary films, and we lost a mentor to many when he passed away last year. Jane’s film is an excellent tribute to him, and while it is a work in progress, it’s worth catching as it’s the last time you’ll ever see the film like this (a completely new version of the film is being completed now). You can also catch a few greats in the Leacock retrospective the fest has put together.

All in all, this is a great week to catch some amazing docs in NYC. The organizers have put together a great event, and it’s still growing and coming into its own, so we can only expect greater things in the future.

There’s often a lot of debate in the world over whether or not film can have an impact in the world. Well, today’s NYT shows the unexpected impact of the film Persepolis (Marjane Satrapi) on the upcoming elections in Tunisia.

Screenings of the film on a Tunisian television station have fueled a debate over religion vs freedom of speech, and many people expect it will lead to a victory for the more mainstream, but still conservative, Islamist party in the country. As the NYT puts it today:

“The episode began when a relatively small group of ultraconservative Islamists attacked the television station that had broadcast the 2007 film, about a Muslim girl growing up in post-revolutionary Iran, because of a scene in which she rails at God. He is depicted as she imagines him, violating an Islamic injunction against personifying him”

Public disapproval of the film has been strong enough to shape the debate over where the country is headed. As the article goes on to explain, it’s not that the film discusses other liberal values – people didn’t feel offended by shows depicting “racy scenes from French films or of couples kissing in public that might not fit with traditional Islam.” They were specifically offended by what they considered the blasphemous act of depicting visions of God. 

There seems to be much debate over whether the broadcaster purposefully showed the film to ignite tensions and stir debate over religious vs secular values, but according to the article, this has become a lightning rod issue in Tunisia.

Some consider the debate to be quite telling: “Some individual liberals observed with wry satisfaction that the film told the story of a supposedly liberal revolution that turned oppressive after Islamists took power in Tehran — bolstering the liberal argument that Tunisia’s moderate Islamists should not be trusted, either.”

I don’t know enough about politics in the region – or even religion in the region – to have much say in this debate, but I’m fascinated with how this little film can still have so much impact globally. Shows the power of the moving image – even if its not always in ways we expect.

Over at IndieWire, Ted Hope and Christine Vachon have been asking some questions about indie film leading up to their Masterclass. One of them is “if you could change one truly changeable thing about the film industry, what would that be?” I can’t wait to see all of the ideas, there’s already a few good ones in the comments, and they’ll be announcing the winner soon.

These are a few of my ideas for changing the film industry. I don’t submit them to actually win a trip to VacHope land (you can win a free ticket to their masterclass), but just to join/add to the conversation. Sure, they might not be truly changeable things, and I don’t have the money to make them happen, but they should be done:

1. I’d take 1/3 of all grant funding in indie film and re-designate it as funds for creative producers taking creative risks, to develop their next film. No proposal would be required, all nominations would be made by the crowd and grants would be decided by a panel of writers and/or directors.

2. I’d start a large fund for the support of artistically interesting narrative films that don’t fit any particular agenda. It’s too hard to get funding for a non-social-issue-doc right now.

3. I’d invest in IndieWire, specifically for them to reimagine what IndieWire should be today, given the state of the field and of current technology, allowing them the freedom not to worry about the current state of the market (advertising whims, Oscar campaigns, etc) and just focus on what the industry needs. Hint: We need more info that no one wants reported.

4. I’d start a large funding program for independent distributor’s marketing expenses – specifically, to increase their marketing and try some new things. All of this money might be wasted, or we might learn something about the value of good marketing.

5. I’d give grants to independent exhibitors to create a new, online social ticketing system that takes advantage of all the possibilities we see on the horizon for the next three years.

6. I’d invest in anything that the following people could agree on doing together (in alpha order): Chad Burris, Karin Chien, Mynette Louie, Scott Macaulay, Will Packer, Mike Ryan and Jess Search. They’d get $1M for two years start-up of anything that any 4 out of 7 of them agreed upon.

7. I’d offer a $5 Million dollar grant to any of the major film festivals in the world, with one condition – they get rid of their premiere policies entirely for at least three years.

8. I’d give every Black and Latin American female director who ever had a film accepted into any film festival a grant to make her second film. Too few of them get the chance, and it hasn’t been for lack of talent.

9. I’d pay a big lobbying firm to get Congress to pass three laws – 1) that the right of first sale applies to digital goods; 2) that all film companies must publicly and freely report all sales from all formats, not just box office results; and that we have real net neutrality on all devices, yep, wireless too.

10. I’d fine anyone who makes lists of things that need to be changed in indie film in order to fund all of these ideas.

Thanks to Artpapers Magazine, I’ve just discovered a new visual artist to follow – Jillian Mayer. I’m definitely a bit late to this game, but noticed that no one I follow/read has said much about her, and her work rocks.

Jillian is making some great art. It’s cool and popular too, but it still makes a statement. Check her work out. I’ll be following this artist, and am willing to bet she gets known in the film world before too long.

Three of my favorites:

I am Your Grandma:

Scenic Jogging:

Scenic Jogging by Jillian Mayer from Jillian Mayer on Vimeo.

How My Best Friend Died:

I recently discovered Google Insights for Search. You can see how search for any term, or set of terms has changed. Wow, what fun can be had. Here’s some Friday fun for you.

Here’s Google trends for search on the term Independent Film. Not looking good:

Here it is for Documentary Film:

Here’s Indie vs Documentary:

Here’s Music Documentary:

Here’s a comparison of a few, including foreign film and French Films:

Note that if you type “social issue documentary” or any close variant, there’s not enough data to pull it up at all. But here’s some interesting insight – look how the trendy word “transmedia” fares vs Indie Film. Why…it’s just about as unpopular now!

What does this all mean? I’m obviously no scientist, but I think it’s fun to play around with, and I’ll let you make your own conclusions.