the content wedge
In corporate strategy, theorists like to talk about the “wedge,” or the gap between cost of goods and a customer’s willingness to pay. This means that the company with the most sustainable strategy has the lowest cost of goods and the customers with the highest willingness to pay. (That’s a simplification, but bear with me).
The same could be said of content, if it weren’t for a complicating factor called quality. Whereas other industries have found ways to reduce the cost of goods without reducing the quality, content quality is still tied very closely to cost. (If you give a film student a prosumer camera and a modest budget, the discerning audience will still be able to target the work as sub-par when screened alongside a professionally produced film involving 35mm film cameras, etc.)
Recently, though, things have started to change. Technological advances have enabled the creation of high-quality content that rivals that of Hollywood. The question then remains, how long before a new system, a new content producing apparatus, springs forward to break the old-standing business model?
You can see some of this type of work happening around the web already. My friend Nathan Heleine of Crush + Lovely has been involved with this project called Fifty People, One Question. The videos are pretty astounding both from an editorial perspective and from a physical quality perspective. The photography is done by Benjamin Reece of The Deltree and it is just astounding (more of his stuff on his site). Worth checking out any of the links if you have time.
Projects like this are the future of moving image content.
challenging entertainment
There has been a lot written about the Oscars in the last few days. Much of it critical of Hollywood. There seemed to be a clear expectation among observers that this year’s award ceremony would suffer the lowest ratings ever. A lot of the “disinterest” sentiment seems to be pointed at the nomination of “unpopular” movies this year… Movies like “Slumdog Millionaire” and “Milk” that may not have been blockbusters at the box office but were a triumph of storytelling or cinematic art nevertheless.
I have several problems with this. First, this sentiment seems to imply that filmmaking should in some way consider the sellability of the Oscars telecast when producing a movie. Haha. Wrong. Second, this would imply that the Academy should select/nominate films that would lead to good ratings on the Oscars telecast. Haha. Wrong.
There is a balance in this industry. One between art and entertainment. Were the industry to abandon the artistic aspects of filmmaking in favor of generating consistent mass appeal, the content would eventually devolve and the industry would implode. Similarly, if the industry abandoned the need to hold an audience for artistic zeal, it would lose its purpose, and thus, implode.
So, to the extent that the film industry can continue to produce challenging content – content that challenges the audience to undestand something, to exit the comfort zone, to experience something… more power to it. American audiences need to be challenged.
benjamin button
I saw Benjamin Button last night. It was a good movie. I’d recommend seeing it (though I’d recommed seeing Slumdog Millionaire first). A few thoughts:
The movie was too long. There were so many episodes in the movie that could have been cut without changing the overall story. At 2 hours and 48 minutes, I was definitely fighting to stay interested by the end.
The movie was really heavy. I understand that mortality and time are very difficult topics. But, for a Christmas release, I was surprised. The characters in the film were mostly uninspiring, because both the way they were written and the way they were portrayed, which left one hoping to be inspired by the message, which ended up being forced upon the audience at the end in a heavy-handed epilogue. Further, the stilted use of the hospital deathbed and Hurricane Katrina as framing devices was straight up depressing.
Perhaps this was all the intent. But the wonder and curiosity evoked by such a fantastic premise were lost on me.
All things considered, though, it was fun to spend the time pondering life in reverse. And the film did not once disappoint from a design and production standpoint. The settings were all richly crafted and the work done to age the characters was nothing short of magnificent.
on the summer’s second coming (see also: the dark knight)
My brother returned from Spain on Sunday, so I finally went to see The Dark Knight (I had agreed to wait until he returned to see it).
All in all, I thought it a good film. I think that Nolan put together a great story, a great script, and great character development. I also think the film was shot really well (for the most part).
Unfortunately I’m not jumping on the “best movie ever” bandwagon though. I will probably see it again, but in the meantime, here are a few initial disappointments:
(****spoiler alert****)
WHERE WAS BRUCE WAYNE?
One of the most interesting things about Batman Begins, was the Bruce Wayne character arc. This was completely lost in TDK.
