 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |||||
February 8, 2006Oh, to be at sea...
Of course, I am literally at sea this morning, not exactly suffering for the view of the long flat plane of blue water which, for all the size of this ship, barely seems to notice our presence. We're traveling at about 14 knots and off in the not-so-distant distance, is a bit of land, the border between Costa Rica and Panama.
But I was intending to look at the metaphor, not the travel schedule.
Among the endless debates about the movies and the movie business is art versus commerce. It is also the source of seemingly endless hypocrisy. And more and more, it seems to me that the disconnect starts with the unavoidable confusion of myself and my brethren in the press.
You have, if this is not your first Hot Button, read my enthusiastic rage about the media confusing "the story" with our own stories. But it may be time to give ourselves a bit of a break... and a bit of a challenge. Simply being on the beat makes any real perspective on how the movies and movie business really fits into the world almost impossible. Besides the great arrogance of "It's my beat, so it must be that important," there is the natural unreality caused by the massive squeaky wheel of it all.
It must be true of Coca Cola executives and Atlanta Constitution Journal reporters as well. What does a couple of share points up or down for Coke or Pepsi really mean to the world? But if it is your job, your beat, they mean an awful lot. All politics are local. And Cialis ads are funny unless you can't get an erection. But there are moments when it seems that even ad salesmen with expensive space to sell have had enough with erectile dysfunction already.
If only we ever managed to get a soft on for the movie business.
I complain about the new (new this year) NYT trend of reporting on individuals regarding various movie issues as though a sample of three really marked a trend. The subtext that drives me crazy, and is not meant to be noticed by "regular" readers, is that the sampling always seems to reflect the editors' perception of reality. When a reporter finds a family in Seattle who never goes to the movies anymore, the legitimacy of the work is about equal to an Earl Dittman pull quote. The sentiment may be real, but the coincidence of its tone is not a coincidence at all.
But perhaps I am giving the paper of record too much grief for this, as who among us in this game doesn't have a bent version of reality? I can't go to a family function or a public gathering when an explanation of my job doesn't digress into a discussion of the quality of the latest hit film or a dissection of some star's genital habits. But does that make what I do important? Or does it suggest that what I do, at least on the aesthetic side, so unimportant that people are drawn to the triviality of it as an easy escape from the perceived brown grass on their side of the hedge?
None of us should feel apologetic for enthusing on those things we love. It's more than a job, it's a romance. But the job of the journalist is not really meant to be romantic. No matter how we love our subject, we must chase objectivity as though our lives depended on it. Perspective is critical... especially when we are talking about a journalistic hub like The New York Times. It's not that they have to be right all the time. No one is right all the time, no one can report on this business without trusting some sources a little too much or a little too little, and no one is in the position to get away with the long-standing institutional arrogance of the Times without getting a few bricks to the melon given a hundred smaller institutions, including this one, that also have similar, if not often superior, sources... and, more importantly, perspective. Even well intended, otherwise sane industry folks seem to produce crushed walnuts with their sphincters when the NYT is on the phone. And that fear, combined with arrogance old and new, tends to lead to stories that are skewed too tight and too loose, often within the same paragraphs.
What would "our" readers think if they realized that there is almost no news and almost no real journalism in entertainment journalism these days... not at the biggest paper or the smallest website? After all, which is more real, a story from a "spy" who sends something to Ain't It Cool News or a New York Times story about Brad Grey that is mostly about Brad Grey being willing to talk on the record? Both are skilled at positioning the "news" as something more than it is. In one case, it is the enthusiasm of the geek and the positioning the information as a "leak," whether it really is or isn't. The other is about flexing the "real reporter" muscles by reporting some tough stuff while never really pushing the buttons that will cause the interview subject to shut up. But the illusion that an interview is really a news story is slowly crumbling.
I can't say that MCN has a real solution to this problem yet, as we don't have the infrastructure or size of staff to do what really needs to be done... something that none of the majors are ready to do because it would too clearly acknowledge that their traditions are dying... and they are slowly drowning in the media sea, encumbered by too much weight, too much more, too slow a mechanism, and too many reporters who generate too little reader-needed information.
But I have digressed a long way...
The inspiration for this column was the notion that movies that are fairly successful and are marked as "important" these days are often less important and less challenging than they should be. I have spoken to the challenges to the media, but I really wanted to speak to the challenges to you.
I will have to get to that tomorrow. But interestingly, the challenge to the movies is not unlike the challenge to the media. Both are, bottom line, businesses. Companies like News Corp are paying tens of million of dollars for eyeballs in the "open" internet marketplace, even though internet audiences are as fickle as any group ever and they are being overserviced in ways never before considered on the media spectrum. Is there a News Corp endgame for a boy-trap like IGN that involves another iteration of the online experience? Because using IGN as bait for greater News Corp objectives might be similar to the UPN buying Desperate Housewives away from ABC in year five and re-casting half the roles with minority actors. Or... News Corp may crack the code.
Do IGN enthusiasts want to be challenged to do anything more than play games, share gossip, and ogle actresses? Should they be? Must they be?
How does a newspaper gauge their importance when what they write has little or no effect on the financial future of a movie, but a negative comment can send some of the more powerful people in Hollywood into a hyperventilating tizzy of epic proportions?
In a world of endless media options, how do we challenge ourselves? And where will the new standard bearers come from?
More tomorrow...
January 3, 2006 - Reflections On A New Year
January 6, 2006 - Sundance Preview
January 5, 2006 - The Business Of 2005, Pt 1
January 9, 2006 - The Business Of 2005, Pt 2
January 11 - Munich In Sequence | Act 1 | Act 2 | Act 3
January 12 - V For Vendetta
