July 14, 2004

Stateof the Internet/Film Biz Union
Part III

One of the reasons I so admire Clint Eastwood's (and David Webb People's) Unforgiven is that Eastwood came to the logical conclusion of a life as Dirty Harry. When William Munny got into trouble, it was mostly trouble for others, because instead of speeding up, he slowed down. He took the time to focus. And while guns went off around him, he took aim and hit his target.

It's not a mind trick and it's not the "he can run through the fire of 20 machine guns" comedy of recent Bond movies. But his calm in the face of the unknown - a longtime Eastwood trademark - not only "won" the day, but also changed the mental processes of his adversaries.

But there was another element to William Munny's focus… he was willing to die, even if he came to believe that he would never die from an act of aggression. (Michael Mann, interestingly, has become a kind of opposite number to Eastwood, pretty much assured that such brazen actions will inevitably lead to death, but that the death is worthy as the product of a life worth living. But I digress…)

So what is my solution to the future of the internet and the movie biz? Slow down, get perspective and be bold, willing to be in the line of fire.

But here is where I have to disagree with myself just a little… the key to a philosophy like William Munny's or Sun Tzu's is being able to understand your "enemy." And to understand your "enemy," your "enemy" needs to be mature enough to have a code, some honor, and a set of rules by which they live.

Children must be accepted in a different way than adults because these standards are not reasonably expected. And that is the nature of the world. I would argue that consistency from the "parent" is critical to the emerging maturity of child… that inconsistency in dealing with a "child" invariably leads to an adult that is either irresponsible or too rigid or some horrifying combination of the two… all three options being very difficult to manage because in that situation, the child has to set their own rules, as a child, and those childhood rules tend to metastasize into confused adult standards.

So studios probably need to have two sets of standards by which they view the web, one for the mature players and another for "the kids." That is not to say that the "kids" won't mature into full-fledged adults. But that is the same as with any other media. New magazines have to fight for access. The same is fairly applied to the web.

Within each group of web players, there are, obviously, wild variations of style. AOL and Yahoo! have become marketing opportunities, the same as a traditional TV spot or billboard (with additional layers), while sites like Rotten Tomatoes and MovieJuice serve their audiences with professionalism and consistency, while sites like Greg Dean Schmitz' Upcoming Movies have become part of a larger outlet. Traditional media services the web in wildly different ways, from Time-Warner's closed site effort to The Hollywood Reporter's "some free/some subscription" style to the New York Times' new early review policy on their web site. And then, in the still frisky sites, there is a wild difference between, say AICN and Dark Horizons and IGN Film Force, etc, etc, etc.

But we have gotten past the point where studios can plead ignorance or surprise… even if it is true for many executives. The internet has been a part of your life for at least five years now, studios guys and gals… if you aren't aware, you are no longer doing your job responsibly. On the flip side, we in the media no longer have the excuse - or should be allowed the excuse - of "oopsy!"

It is against the nature of publicists to say, "no." They say it in a million ways every day. But they rarely say the word. It is time to learn, methinks. But not a blanket of "no," the way it has been for much of the web for much of its life. The tendency to avoid engagement with media outlets (web and otherwise) leads to a lot of misunderstanding of intent on both sides. Moreover, there is an amazing range of reactions to abuses based on, in the end, what is on Site X on any given day. If studios forget the bad when the good goes up and forget the good when the bad goes up, there are, in essence, no standards by which any site can chart its journey.

And the unwillingness to say "no," becomes an equal unwillingness to say "yes."

The business of quantifying publicity value has been turned upside down by the web and the simplification of magazines and now, by the simplification of newspapers. The internet allows a percentage of people to connect to a great deal more information about a film than ever before… and also allows them to disconnect even more.

But it is time to hunker down and for each studio, each media outlet and each journalist to answer these questions for themselves in a clear and fearless manner.

Interestingly, the studios are still abused and hijacked far more often by old media than the new. That is a function of fear. Fear drives the care and handling of media more than anything else these days. And perhaps that reality is bigger than the internet, bigger than this screed and so much the immovable object that there is no force so unstoppable as to make the slightest bit of difference.

The opportunity that I see with the web, that few studio types have seen I believe, is that the spread of media over so many niche outlets has lowered the danger levels of old media and much of new media. Every bullet, it seems, hurts the studio publicist - often because of the sensitivities of their bosses and/or people who worked on the particular movie at hand. But by spreading the power pain levels can be diffused. As long as studios cling to the old standards, the pain will remain at the high level it currently is at and will only get higher. The baseline needs to be lowered. But only the studios can make that adjustment. Entertainment journalists, large and small, can only react to the table that is set before them, feast or famine, famine or feast.

The great leaps are made only by those who are fearless enough to leap. In an atmosphere of fear, that is asking a lot.

The power of the media is enhanced by the courage of restraint…. get it right instead of first…. take the time to offer perspective and not just reaction… separate the wheat from the chaff. In an atmosphere of speed, that is asking a lot.

Consumers of culture drive it all, voting with their dollars, their eyeballs, their click-thrus, their water cooler chat, their e-mails and their ideas. In an atmosphere so loaded with endless "information," that is asking a lot.

It's time for all of us to ask for more.

E ME: Finally… I'm done… for now…

July 13, 2004
State of the Union: Part One
State of The Union: Part Two