Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
In this Discussion
- 1234 April 2012
- Andrew March 2012
- Leland April 2012
- ManInTheIvoryTower April 2012
- MirandaJuly March 2012
- ThickeningAgent April 2012
Comments
Those already interested in the film's subject become the target audience- which usually just happens to be a very online audience. These films are almost always self-distributed, relying heavily on social networking and online word of mouth (like what happened with this exact post), and the filmmakers end up making a ton of money.
I am not trying to dis this new genre, but it is weird. The trailer posted above perfectly lays out the formula that you see played over and over in these films: super stylized cinematography (crisp HD, shallow depth of field, etc), a super emotional electro-music score, and a bunch of designers/programmers/gamers/creatives/etc talking deep about their personal struggles and challenges- all put together to make one feel that there is some extremely important stuff going on.
whether it is important, or good, i don't know. but it is interesting that this new genre has gained such a foot hold. it really is brilliant actually- fully taking advantage of new media technologies (in both the production of the film, and it's distribution/promotion). these films are born out of computer/online culture, then go on to succeed because of it.
But especially in this case I would argue that it stands alone and there is no need to be interested in video games to enjoy it, which is fantastic.
Mostly it was getting to know these very smart, peculiar, aggressively indy dudes and climbing into their heads to try to figure them out-- learning about how their childhoods and world-views get translated into art.
I get what bigmac is saying though. For me, the novel Ready Player One was a prime example of this; a fun read but SUCH a lazy piece of writing. It's the future, but the future is obsessed with 1970s/80s?! What a cop-out. Going for the Cory Doctorow audience with smoke and mirrors instead of ideas.
I did think the sound track had a few moments where it was ripping off The Social Network. And I didn't like how they reused the exact dialogue at the beginning and end, yeah yeah full circle and all that but don't use the exact same footage/VOs.
what i am more interested in is the distribution angle- there are many really great documentaries that simply couldn't do this. i am as fascinated with the audience, and how they tell each other about these movies.
it's perhaps a new form of exploitation film: documentaries about the internet (or things really close to it)
It's perfectly alright to make this kind of film, but I think it's also important to recognize that this is a far cry from what documentary has (sometimes) been in the past. And the point about distribution is equally important. I imagine that anyone trying to pitch their documentary to a distributor now, the first question they get asked is "does it have compelling characters?"
"Indie Game: The Movie" looks like a fun movie about something I didn't really know existed, but I would also say, judging from the trailer alone, that it borders on self-parody, in so far as it checks every box in the quirky character-driven nerdy obsession gen Y / millennial genre of doc.
I've funded and am currently watching the production of a "documentary" about modular synths, which is my version of this film.
there seems to be an interesting new sub-genre of documentary film emerging. super-stylized, heroic/emotional, non-objective and well-scored films about, and catered to, a specific sub-culture.
Is this really a new sub-genre or just the new reality of ultra-accessible pro gear and editing combined with a legion of new young filmmakers with the freedom to follow their inspiration to explore non-commercial niche subjects?
They are in many ways more like super well produced fanzines- not made with the purpose of challenging a subject but rather glorifying it- and usually not offering any sort of objective counter-point (an official no-no in the hallowed halls of documentary filmmaking ethics)
Do all docs have to be the equivalent of hard-hitting news or editorial? Or can we have some A&E, sports, etc? I fail to see how 'American Movie' or even 'Roger and Me' offers any sort of objective counter-points.
but then double-exploits the audience because they turn out to be the promotional driver as well!
Not just promotional driver, but funding driver (kickstarter) as well! This brings up an interesting conflict between filmmaker and audience-- for instance "Indie Game the Movie" was a working title that had to be kept because after 15k people fund via kickstarter and start talking to friends and family there is too much brand value in that name to change.
i am including both 'the movie' and 'how the movie was made, funded, and distributed' in my definition of the genre- which i admit is against usual protocol. you are right that there are a ton of well produced new documentaries being made on pro gear about non-commercial niche subjects. what i am interested in is this particular corner of that movment that is intrinsically linked to computer culture- not only looking to it for subject matter but also for an audience and, as you point out, funding.
historically, the only way a documentary film can find any sort of commercial success is for that film to be either really excellent and receive rave reviews (Gates of Heaven, Murderball, Spellbound, etc) or have a relatively large built in audience (Fahrenheit 911, Gas Land, other very political/rhetorical docs). But we have also seen what I call fanzine documentaries- often about a band or an artist- that are not really designed to reach a new audience but cater to this already established audience that loves the subject. These fanzine docs are rarely heralded by critics and don't usually find audiences that are not already 'hip' to the subject, but they can be fun and entertaining and financially profitable.
I think these new 'computer-culture-docs' are an evolution of this fanzine model, but have elevated things to a much higher level. the built in audience is both funding and promoting the movie- and is uniquely equipped to do so.
Is "Indie Game, The Movie" so good that it is receiving rave reviews and gaining mass appeal? I don't know. But surely more people are buying tickets to see it than many other very excellent documentaries that have been made in the past couple years. This is not because Indie Games has some giant marketing budget, or receiving the best reviews ever, but because of people like KmikeyM, who work on computers/the internet for a living, get excited about it and post and re-post information about the film.
When we showed Helvetica at the PDX Film Fest a few years ago, tickets sold out almost immediately. We were shocked. it wasn't the best, or most important, documentary we showed at the festival, but news of the screening spread like wildfire through the local tech/design community. we sold more tickets to that film then several of the other films combined. it was very eye opening.
Cautions: "Computers" is a sufficiently broad concept in 2012 to be equal to something like "Music" or "Pop culture". And I suspect there is a lot of crossover between your two categories of "Excellent/Rave" docs and "Built-in Audience" docs. Perhaps even enough that the labels are not that useful.
'Spellbound' and 'Exit Through the Gift Shop' are two that I would say are smack dab in the middle of that Venn diagram.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure that there is anything "new" going on in docs other than the pro-quality revolution which will fragment the genre just like movies, TV and music are fragmenting as the barriers to produce and deliver those formats are lowering.
My love of the documentary format is mostly due to the fact that I can step into someone else's deeply nerdy/messy/foreign/exciting (but real!) world and it's up to the filmmaker to transcend the subject matter and make me care and feel and learn... even if I'm not a fan of that world. (Since I *am* of fan of the Indie Game world I'm probably not the best judge on if that particular doc managed to transcend the subject matter)
what i am trying to identify more then anything is that this new model of funding and distribution, plus a movie that is somehow commenting on issues of interest to people who are deeply involved with computers, seems to be a very winning formula. and i think we are seeing the first wave of films made by filmmakers who have identified this trend, and are making work with the intention of exploiting this new opportunity. (i don't mean to use the term 'exploiting' in a derogatory fashion).
you are definitely right that there are a ton of great documentaries that have built in audiences that are also very excellent films. but i don't think Spellbound really had a built in audience- certainly not one that was reading message boards and posting reviews and such. People went to see that film because of the critical response it got. Now a film such as "Until the Light Takes Us" - a documentary about Scandinavian dark metal, got little/mediocre critical response yet went on to break all sorts of box-office records. Perfect example of built in audience.
the obvious lesson here is that if you are going to make a doc it should be about black metal or computer culture. or both!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/30453381/the-shape-of-design
Also, that rapper that is nerdy or whatever. Lots of music stuff using this. Books. It's not really a documentary shift as much as a media shift.
And as the internet slowly gets less and less nerdy the types of media being crowd-sourced will expand in genre. or I should say, as the type of nerd gets more and more specific, and less nerdy in a general sense.
Exciting times!
> this trend, and are making work with the intention of exploiting this new opportunity.
I am curious to see if this "new way" changes documentaries (and other art) in some fundamental way, or simply empowers folks to go even deeper into the sub-culture as they now have a way to reach interested consumers/supporters/patrons BEFORE shooting to ensure a minimum level of interest is there to support the work. Less risk. But maybe it will change the way art is made? Less of the tortured artist struggling in seclusion and more a collaborative process between artist and audience. Less trusting of artistic instinct and more self-censorship as ideas have to be filtered through the "will it fly on kickstarter?" question.
Like Mikey, I am currently of the opinion that this is happening to all media and the ship has already sailed. But I also assume that part of the genius of art is from the private, isolated effort of an artist or group of artists to produce something that has personal meaning. Will that be compromised by this new crowd-source model?
Exciting times, indeed.
Successful campaign slogan: President of the World, 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/movies/october-baby-film-makes-a-dent-at-the-box-office.html?_r=1&hpw#