Slashdot Mirror
Oscar and Interactivity
If you were able to stay awake through the interminable posturing and back-slapping, the Oscarcast also revealed in small ways the growing impact of interactivity on culture and creativity.
Aside from the fact that The Matrix scored more Oscars than any movie except the big winner American Beauty, it was obvious that the show's producers had for the first time incorporated at least one of the primary principles of interactivity: open the doors and let people see inside the process.
It would be a stretch to say that Sunday's show was a truly interactive production, but interactivity is becoming more central all the time as creative industries -- publishing, music, Hollywood, TV -- try to figure out how to respond to the Net and the Web, and especially to the growing open-source model of information distribution. The answer: knock down the walls, bring the public into both the creative and decision-making processes. For many existing corporate/cultural institutions -- newspapers, publishing, the recording industry -- interactivity is the most difficult challenge executives face, since it requires yielding some power to consumers.
Newspapers have assumed for years, for example, that interactivity means simply putting editorial content online. Book publishers are following this dubious instinct, hailing the e-distribution of Stephen King's novella two weeks ago as a landmark event. But interactivity requires much more than that.
For the first time, the Oscar producers let the public get a closer look. They pulled back the curtain. Original music and screenwriting scripts were displayed on screens. Cameras went backstage and showed raw sets, unpainted and unfinished backdrops. They offered perspectives from the participants' point of view. This isn't ceding any real power, obviously, but still represents a new production ethic. Actors and producers were shown getting ready to go onstage, fidgeting, fixing their clothes, rehearsing their lines, and nervously yakking with one another.It was one of the first times cameras were brought into the off-stage process, an elemental notion of interactivity: permitting people to participate, at least vicariously. Peter Coyote, an actor/announcer even manned a desk backstage introducing segments and performers.
If broadcasts like the Oscars were really interactive, of course, they would give the public greater say in the production itself, perhaps by online voting about the length of speeches, the choice of hosts and presenters, and eventually, the nominees and awards themselves. That's where real interactivity could take a broadcast like this. The Academy would still have more clout than anyhone else, but the public would have more than it has now. Such a change is nearly inevitable.
Interactivity doesn't have to mean abolishing the original form, as newspapers publishers have done, and book publishers are beginning to do. The Matrix was a powerful example of interactive culture because it captured the experience of virtual, versus material, reality.
Novels like the best-selling A Staggering Work of Heartbreaking Genius by David Eggers are also interactive (some would call it post-modern) in that they acknowledge the process of writing a book -- prologues, epilogues, blurbs are all openly addressed, becoming part of the book itself. Eggers acknowledges self-promotion, the pointlessness of hype and the often self-serving choices authors make, throughout the book. Published in traditional textual form, the book still qualifies as interactive, because it allows the reader into the process, lowering the barriers that exist between consumers and vendors of information. Traditional publishing makes for an inherently unbalanced relationship.
That relationship crept into the mammoth Oscar presentation last night, albeit gingerly.
Creative interactivity changes the relationship between agenda-setters -- TV producers, filmmakers, authors, journalists, music producers -- and consumers. The equalization of the relation becomes a long, ongoing process -- a literal open-sourcing of culture. This ethic has become a powerful force. Interactive media are ascending everywhere, and passive media, institutions that refuse to cede power and sensibility to customers, are stagnant or declining. Although the Oscars remain a classic reflection of a stubbornly non-interactive culture -- Hollywood -- even the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is beginning to succumb.
Personally, I think that'd be a better example of Oscar interactivity than showing the sets backstage. Of course, whoever does this first needs to make sure their server can handle the /. effect of a billion Oscar watchers checking out their site.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Even allowing polling is only barely "interactive". To be truly "interactive", what you see changes each according to your commands. Not according to the commands of you and a million other people. According to yours alone. Saying that an online poll is interactive is like saying that you get to hand-pick the president. Obviously, a broadcast medium can't be interactive, by definition. I don't see the point in bothering to try...
The cake is a pie
Three words:
..*not*.
people are stupid.
Five words:
You are a person too!
You get everyone involved in the Oscars, and suddenly Mouse Trap would have won all the awards because people thought the mouse was cute. I deal with the American public every single day because I'm unfortunate enough to live
there, and let me tell you, I do everything I can to stay away from it as much as I possibly can.
So you are telling me that you are a xenophobe and live in rural Montana right? Do you hide in your basement? How exactly do you avoid Americans? Does anyone who has ever lived in American count, born in America. I feel sory for you.
They're fat, they're lazy, they're stupid, and they don't know enough to care. They sit and eat potato chips in front of the TV after driving home alone in their car from work which was mind-numbingly boring, except that they have
too little ambition or self-respect to even have the idea that they could look for another one.
Really, I am sure that several million people would disagree with you. Although I know a few people who are like that I think that concept is not totally accurate. First of all most Americans are not fat and so on. Just because the rest of the world goes around and is usually malnourished and poor because they have roving bandits killing off their friends and burning their fields dosn't mean I have to starve.
You really don't get it do you. There are times when I wonder how in the hell I will ever get a job. Not everyone actually has the ability to code straight assembly language for 30 different processors and can create at least 6 new OSS projects a year you know. Everyone has a choice in their life that can go one of three ways, work in some job, work in no job, or just take a visit to Kavorkian and get it over with. What will you do. I don't know what country you come from but I can probably find the same class of people you are talking about right in your own country.
Simple logic for you. If getting a job is so uncertain and difficult why do you think people work in a job at all. Hell my own dad has been working in a job that he hates for at least 15+ years and he still does it each and every day. Is it because he was lazy I think after he submitted over 500+ applications all over the continental USA to get the job that he wanted and still didn't get it. That's a start. Everyone has self respect but you have to make a choice sooner or later and you always have to ask yourself what would rather do try and make some money and live to see another dawn or just die? Well make up your mind already.
Do I want these people selecting the best movies of the year? Hell no. I mean, sure, it's minor. But it already scares the hell out of me that they get to choose who runs the goddamn country! If you live in the US, take a look at your
neighbors. Do you want them choosing anything for you? The thought terrifies and disgusts you, most likely. It does the same for me.
What do I really care if they select the "movie of the year" does that really mean a damn thing to anyone? Not to me. Hell I have watched movies that were considered "good" TPM and ST Insurrections leap to mind as the last 2 movies that I saw and logical fallacies and problems with both but they still got rave reviews from cult like followers of the movies. So I guess even "educated" people still make mistakes.
Making a choice about a movie is not the same as running the country. I can't exactly say that the choice of people in other countries is any better. Let's see in Austria we have a Natzi wanna be, and in Russia we have an ex KGB guy to run the supposedly "free" nation. Boy that brings back fond memories. Mix that with the various smart people in Australia who decided that looking at boobies is bad for your health, add to that China where a communist regime decides what you can and cannot say and beats people and runs your over with a 1960's era tank if you disagree. Yeah all the other people in the world are better than the US
Well if you are as distant from people as you let on you most likely don't even know your neighbor's names. What do they do for a living. What are their interests. If you are one of those people living in one of the tech centers you may actually be working in the same building doing similar things and never know it (easy to do in a place as big as some sectors of IBM, or Hewlett Packard).
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
I left the theatre feeling really disappointed, actually. I mean, it was a cool action flick and the special effects were neat and all that, but they could have done so much more with the movie than they did. The central point of the plot was the the Metaphysic of Magick, and the transformation of the individual from a mundane into a mage. They could have cut 5 minutes of the random mayhem (and still had enough blood and guts to satisfy any action-movie freak), and used that time to focus more on the process of the transformation, as Neo becomes aware of the true nature of reality, and then becomes aware of how this newfound knowledge allows him to control reality. But instead the transformation was virutally instantaneous: Neo went from clueless shmoe to uber-mage in one scene.
And I'm not even going to get started on the absurdity of the basic premise that the machines were using humans as a power source.
Maybe I just expect too much from Hollywood. I guess there is a reason I don't see many movies. Sigh...
NB: The references to the Metaphysic of Magic, etc are from Mage: The Ascension. The MofM, in a nutshell, is the principle that reality is a fluid thing that is created by our common perception of reality. (Yes it's circular. Don't ask me.) Understanding this key fact allows a person to manipulate reality, in a limited fashion, by imposing their version of what should be on the consensual reality. This is what makes someone a mage.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
They should have put up a website that said that when X number of people voted, the microphone would be turned off and the acceptance speech would be over. /That/ would have been useful interactivity. I've acted before, I've seen the back sides of sets, that's not that cool; but making the actors shut up, that would be real power :)
Communication is only possible between equals
Why does everything *need* to be interactive? If I write a book, and just happen to use the Internet as a delivery mechanism, why should I care if it's truly "interactive"? The same goes for movies. It'sfilmed, and shown for the approval or disapproval of audiences. Games are and should be interactive, but somethings might not benefit from users getting involved.
Having The Matrix win some academy awards didn't depend on the audience being able to see the process. It was a group of film industry bignames voting on what *they* thought deserved to win. Interactivity would be if the public at large could nominate and vote by themselves.
Besides, I don't see how this year's Oscars were any different from the last ~70 years. A small group of people voted for what they liked, or what they were encouraged to like by others. Simple as that.
Jon, you never cease to amaze me. Your ability to tie just about anything into your narrow perception of the culture you've helped create, (one that doesn't really exist,) is unparalleled. Here's an exercise: Take a bowl of rice pudding, right out of the fridge, and set it on the table in front of you. Now, make the bowl of rice pudding interactive. Here's an example.
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is a bowl of rice pudding. Good stuff. But terribly non interactive. We went behind the scenes into the creation of this rice pudding, and found some truly amazing things. This is grand master chef Sioux-Foo-lu-doo-doo, and he's here today to walk us through the rice-pudding process. Just look at the way he masterfully mixes the ingredients. Isn't that amazing? Not like that lame non-interactive tapioca pudding, no sir. This is ePudding. See? He's using an electric mixer, ordered online at Amazon.com. Ooh! He's putting it on the stove now, (the stove, incidentally, was purchased used on e-bay,) ASTOUNDING! What a truly interactive experience! While that's cooking, let me take time to tell you about my new book, "Geek Pudding," available in stores now. It chronicles the lives of three bowls of pudding, chocolate, vanilla, and bananna. It... oh, the pudding is ready! Now, into the fridge, (purchased at Sears. I found the car I drove to get to Sears at autonation.com, though!) OK, the pudding is in the fridge. Shortly, we'll have a nice bowl of _interactive_ pudding to eat. Yum. Doesn't that just make it taste better?
Jon, this really is getting old. Give it up, try something new. And have some pudding.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
Interactivity? Why bother. If I want interactivity I talk to people, whether on line or in person. If I want to learn something I dig through the web and books. If I want some good mindless drivel to distract me while I crunch really big problems, I watch TV.
why all of the push and lust for shared experiences? Shared Experiences may be intersting reference points and convenient for psuedo historians to declare "The event that shaped a generation"
Nobody can experience any event the same as any other person. They each have their individual perspective colored by the masks of their past. We can learn a great deal by discussing shared experiences and looking for the differences between individual perspectives and looking for the causal relationships of those viewpoints. But to grow as a culture, to identify with other groups and people it is more important that we express our personal thoughts and perspectives.
The whole gamut of shared experiences is nothing but sheep cloning in the nature vs. nurture argument.
chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
I've got to disagree with this idea. The Oscars are not intended to be a form of recognition by the general populace; they are intended to be a form of recognition by the film industry. There is a great difference in having your work judged by everyone and having it judged by your peers. Both are valuable, and they should not necessarily be intertwined.
Someone will, I hope, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the People's Choice awards granted on the basis of polling of the general populace? Let this award represent the sentiment of the public, and let the Oscars continue to represent the sentiment of the film industry.
Is this honestly interactivity?
How does my viewing of someone adjusting a tie backstage, or someone adjusting themselves, or someone practicing a speech add to my enjoyment of the event?
Do I need to see the sets and props for "The Fugitive" or "Apollo 13" painted and selected before I can watch the movie?
And even if I do, how is that "interactive"? There's no interaction there. My seeing Kevin Spacey backstage lends nothing to my relationship with Kevin Spacey. I didn't "interact" with him or anything else - they just stuck an extra camera guy back there.
Finally, I don't think the screenplay/music display was anything special. It was a set dressing decision. They could've easily shown cast pictures, or stills from the movie. The screenplays weren't up there long enough for anyone to read or parse.
In short, I don't see anything these Oscars did that previous years didn't do. Other then being relatively short(for the Oscars) and pretty funny, thanks to Billy Crystal.
Neither was The Matrix interactive in any way. It remains a good 2-hours movie, but you hardly have an impact on the story's development.
Nor should either of them be fully interactive. Movies in general, as an artform, don't require interactivity any more than Van Gogh's paintings. The Oscars, by definition, are awarded by a commity of professionals, and if any sort of poll had its say in the matter, this would become a popularity contest. Sure, it already is (vis. Titanic), but at least they're pretending it's not.
Sides, all we'd get is 'Hank, the angry drunken dwarf' nominated for a Lifetime Achievement Award.