MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Getting Back To Work…

There was a bit of culture shock on returning to LA. A week without stepping galoshes-first into the muck of recent industry coverage really made reacclimating to it quite unpleasant, really.
It struck me today as I wandered down some street that I am not as off-put by what is new – I am turning 45 in a couple of weeks – as I am by what is old trying to take control of what is new. That said, I guess I am equally uncomfortable with “the young” in the way “they” always seem to discount experience (understandably) and try to trade on their real advantages… extreme energy, speed, and short memories.
The great irony of my profession is that there is endless criticism of the film industry for bending to the commercial realities of how younger audience consume content… and how older audiences do it so much more slowly and more selectively… while the media, in general, is desperately trying to do exactly the same thing, but without the financial upside that the film industry understands to come with that loss of ambition.
In any case…
I find myself in that place where I am wondering what the future that I would like to see might look like. As far as my personal work, I am pretty pleased with what is happening with DP/30. I love doing them and can easily see them as my primary output in the future along with Super Movie Friends and whatever other things spring from those activities.
MCN is a little more complicated. We have been leaders in entertainment journalism with aggregation combined with original content, but the block is getting a lot more crowded and, while ego-gratifying on some level, I realize that as many of the new launches shift closer and closer to our core concepts, differentiation is getting more difficult. While I am comfortable in the idea that we serve our core audience better than anyone else out there, these other sites are targeting different groups in addition to our core, the result being massive, maddening overlap.
As sick as I have already gotten of everyone having to have an opinion about everything, which forces those who are more anxious to be “leaders” to shout louder than everyone else, I cannot bury my head in the sand and fail to acknowledge what is happening around us all.
How does one break the clutter without being the clutter?
I don’t think that answering the clutter is the answer… though I often do. I don’t know that ignoring the clutter is a good answer either. Media is a creature of the atmosphere that is being breathed in by our audiences and the audiences we aspire to enticing, whether we like it or not.
I’m also pretty sure that bouncing around in my own head and in my own circle of trusted friends is not the best answer to considering this… which is why, in spite of inevitable nasty comments about my navel gazing, I am offering this up as an issue worth considering, not only for myself and my business, but for all of us who consume in this same narrow, but powerful, slice of the media.
Right now, I find these issues consuming my energy to the point of distraction. Perhaps it is just the quiet at the center of the storm after shooting 13 hours of interviews at TIFF and the awards season that is about to start in earnest in just a few weeks, both of which circumstances demand action more than thoughtful consideration. Maybe it’s the baby on the way. Maybe it’s the health issues on the MCN staff as well as our extended families. And no doubt, part of it is an industry that is in a transition that is more profound than it wants to believe, which is – amazingly enough – being forced by the recession, but is not a product of the recession.
I have always been a strong believer in loving what you do or finding something to do that you can love, even if it means the discomfort of change. It has always been my #1 criteria for hiring people too. Ambition is great, but I want to work with people whose ambitions are served by the work they are doing with me. I love movies. I love the movie business. I love the artists. But in the heat of battle, it is very hard to step back and to see what the fuller meaning of a changing landscape is. We are past, “do we need the trades?” and both we and the trades must be onto, “what will people need in 2011?” If we just keep going, scraping along, lowering standards, degrading ourselves with lesser ambitions, trying to survive, we assure our demise.
No?

Be Sociable, Share!

23 Responses to “Getting Back To Work…”

  1. Wow, that entry surprises me in many ways, David. I LOVE MCN because you have the Hollywood stuff but Ray Pride and whoever else runs your “headlines” really do an OUTSTANDING job of throwing in some great under-the-radar news items. Pretty much daily I find 3-4 headlines that are really, really interesting.
    That coupled with the Hollywood tinged entries here on the blog make MCN my favorite site and the one I usualy click on first…after Gordon and the Whale, that is šŸ˜‰
    SOOOoooooo many sites out there just regurgitate the same crap and I can’t even read them any more. No reason to name names, but it really is tough to tell one “big” site from the other nowadays. A microcosm of the overlap and clutter you mention can easily be found on twitter if you follow these other sites. If you do, you find out (for instance) that Diablo Cody is adapting “Sweet Valley High.” I mean, we GOT it the first 7 times, twitter.
    I’m not sure if this entry is just blowing off steam or what. But I don’t see why you can’t keep doing the stuff you love (DP:30, Super Movie Friends, etc.) and keep the written stuff flowing as well. Forging forward with new content and ideas is the way to go as long as the perspectives are fresh and thus, non-cluttery.

  2. LYT says:

    MCN’s headline aggregation is second to none when it comes to the sites I read.
    I don’t watch all the videos because I prefer reading interviews to seeing them. But the Super Movie Friends shows a potential for conflicting talking heads that could be exciting (again I say…get Bob Strauss and Bob Koehler on, both at once, and it will be gold).

  3. christian says:

    Ditto on the site aggregation. Very comprehensive.

  4. Monco says:

    Agreed, don’t give up on the aggregation.

  5. John Wildman says:

    I second Don’s thoughts. And add this to the ongoing general theme of “is continually pushing for something more, something better in the coverage and analysis worth it and ultimately, do people get the difference in approach?”:
    Yes, it is. And ultimately, yes they do.
    As someone who is following what is being written about film (and specifically film festivals, in my case) and greatly appreciates the critical and journalistic “voices” out there, I believe MCN does a great job as aggregator, but beyond that I have a sincere appreciation for the intent and the reach of the site. No one agrees all the time and no one has a singular bead on the movie gospel, but if you really do love film and filmmakers, and have some integrity about this stuff then that is what wins out.
    At least, for me.
    And like Luke, I also look forward to the upcoming Super Friends combos. That has been a another nice addition to what’s being offered up here.

  6. David Poland says:

    Thanks for the kind words. Yes, Ray is doing a great job. Didn’t mean to suggest that element would change.
    I’m really talking about other elements that might evolve.
    There has to be a productive way of capturing the essence of the mud fight… some way…

  7. LexG says:

    GOOD JOKE IN 5…4…
    You should do a DP/30 with Amber Heard when Stepfather comes out.
    ‘Cause I’d like to give her a DP/5 if you know what I mean.

  8. martin says:

    I always thought Dave wrote the news taglines, shows how much I know. I echo the Superfriends comments. Not sure about the rest, I’m too dumb to even exactly follow what’s being said above other than things may change but how or how much is tbd.

  9. Aris P says:

    David, whatever you do I’ll be there. (Just make sure it includes your on-camera film reviews, ’cause each one of those have been gold).

  10. boltbucket says:

    “MCN’s headline aggregation is second to none when it comes to the sites I read.
    I don’t watch all the videos because I prefer reading interviews to seeing them. But the Super Movie Friends shows a potential for conflicting talking heads that could be exciting”
    My sentiments exactly.
    Also, whoever WRITES the links on MCN’s front page to other stories is a really good writer. I’m assuming it’s done by more than one person, because the tone of the writing of the links varies depending on the day and hour, but many of them are often very witty.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    I much prefer Super Movie Friends to the solo reviews for the reasons stated above.
    I enjoy the headline aggregation…I could do without the jokes, though, because I find them distracting and overly-editorial.

  12. LYT says:

    overly editorial?
    (Should not be hyphenated, btw, because the suffix -ly never takes a hyphen…)
    Whole freakin’ point of a blog is to be editorial. You don’t like it, follow the link and form your own opinion.

  13. LexG says:

    “Should not be hyphenated, btw, because the suffix -ly never takes a hyphen…”
    YEP YEP VANILLA LOU BRINGING THE GRAMMATICAL THUNDER. This is true. He’d do well at all those copy-editing jobs I worked where the Pasadena-born-and-raised UCLA Lit Major chicks in clunky glasses kept me in the FRIENDZONE but liked my impeccable punctuation.
    HEY LADIES: TRY BEING MORE NORMAL.

  14. LYT says:

    Forget normal ladies…get me one of those jobs I’d do well at.

  15. LexG says:

    I WANT TO BE A PORN STAR.
    Actually I just want to be in PORN, so I want to be like one of those dudes in the circle when they do GB on some chick, like S-Grey does.
    But, like, hey dude across from me? Watch your aim on that shit, bro.
    THAT POST WAS FILTHY AS FUCK. I HAVE A DIRTY MIND AND I JUST WANT SOME VAG.
    LADIES TAKE IT OFF AND GIVE IT UP.
    Lou my place ain’t hiring but you don’t wanna work there, it’s a straight sausage bake.

  16. LexG says:

    GOOD IDEA TIME:
    They should make a lesbian-themed movie with K-Stew, M-Fox, J-Biel, Anne-Hath, Ros-Daws, C-Ricc and ScarJo….
    And call it CLAMBAKIN’.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THAT WUZ FUNNY

  17. leahnz says:

    “([overly editorial] Should not be hyphenated, btw, because the suffix -ly never takes a hyphen…)
    “Whole freakin’ point of a blog is to be editorial. You don’t like it, follow the link and form your own opinion.”
    uh, LYT, no offence intended but if yer gonna criticise about sloppy grammar…the english usage in your sentences above after pooh-poohing the jeff for an ill-advised hyphen isn’t exactly sterling.
    [THE] whole freakin’ point of a blog is to be editorial. [IF] you don’t like it, follow the link and form your own opinion.
    you omitted the required demonstrative adjective (the) and conjunction (if) necessary for proper english sentence construction. personally i don’t give two farts in the wind if you can’t be bothered with them and want to leave them out, but perhaps best not to right after calling someone out for a grammatical faux pas!
    (apologies to resident ‘grammar cop’ yancy for temporarily usurping his authority, i was emboldened by the lateness of the hour but i promise not to make a habit of it)

  18. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Wow… you really fired a shotgun and tried to hit as many issues as you could in one go, didn’t you? šŸ˜‰
    An friend of mine pointed out that the media channels that tend to be successful are those with strong populist voices – Fox is an easy example, as is Michael Moore, and the newspapers whose circulation is diminishing least rapidly also have strong populist slants.
    The delicious irony of the interweb tubes is that the greater variety of voices published can actually allow a narrower selection of voices heard. If you read a review of how “X is Great” and there’s a bunch of links at the bottom saying “If you liked this, you may also like…” you can easily spend hours reading what is essentially the same material rehashed in a dozen different ways.
    It’s also fairly easy to cherrypick from multiple sites – whereas in the “olden days” of nightly news and newspapers you tended to stick with just one of each, these days your “core audience” likely also consumes from your competitors. As Digg and slashdot have demonstrated, it’s probably a better idea to visualize consumers as a series of roaming packs rather than a relatively stable set of loyal audiences.
    Consumers gravitate to stories that confirm rather than challenge their preconceptions and it leads to a false sense of consensus – “Everything I read says that this is the ‘correct’ view, therefore the majority of people must also believe this is the ‘correct’ view”. This leads to dissonance, as was the case of last year’s elections where partisans on both sides demonized the other in the belief that they were backed up by a solid majority (no matter how historic the election results were, 52.9% of the popular vote isn’t the strongest of majorities).
    The end result, for content providers (be it original or aggregate), is a conflicting impulse of “Should we give them what they want?” vs. “Should we give them what they need?”. The overwhelming trend seems to be “If you want to still be here in 5 years time, you give them what they want”. Makes me slightly depressed regarding journalistic integrity…

  19. Martin S says:

    Dave – Maybe it’s the baby on the way.
    Bingo. It’s one of those “have to live it to believe it” experiences. Things instinctively flip and re-prioritize.
    If you need a metaphor, think of your personal life and the industry. Both are going through birth pangs. Eventually, at nearly the same time, both will end with the birth of something new. IMO, you can split coverage into two topics – the future and the death rattle. If you love the industry, you focus on the future. You can write the obituary under one aggregated sub-heading. If you try and live in day-to-day coverage, then you’re in the rat race.

  20. The Big Perm says:

    I think MCN is way better than a lot of other sites. You get the good articles, and can get linked to other site’s articles without smarmy unfunny snark. And if everybody starts doing what you do, then that’s cool, you’d be like Iggy Pop and punk music…and who doesn’t want to be Iggy Pop?

  21. Ray_Pride says:

    Thanks, y’all, for the kind words about the front page aggregated headlines.

  22. jennab says:

    Well, Dave I have followed you since the beginning of Hot Button, and I luv ya but, of course, you know it’s not only what content you would like to aggregate/generate, it’s what will the industry (read: advertisers) support. To use an overused buzz word from the turn of the century…have you monetized DP/30…? Super movie friends? Available on iTunes for a buck or something (after its free window on MCN)?
    Editorially, I think you’re strongest when you’re writing about the business of film, when you call “bullshit” on the conventional wisdom or spin coming from other sites. Weakest when you bemoan that competition.

  23. EOTW says:

    @ DP: Man, no matter what, it could be worse. You could be getting evicted from your place by Nov. 1…:)

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā€” some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā€” I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā€” he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā€” and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā€” I was with her at that moment ā€” she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā€”” “Yeah, sure ā€” you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iā€™m on the phone with you now, after all thatā€™s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnā€™t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereā€™s not a case of that. He wasnā€™t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā€” if that were what the accusation involved ā€” the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iā€™m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, ā€œYou know, itā€™s not this, itā€™s thatā€? Because ā€” let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatā€™s what it lacked. Thatā€™s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon