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.
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.