Futures of Entertainment 5 @ MIT

Futures of Entertainment 5 @ MIT

Last weekend, MIT hosted the 5th annual Futures of Entertainment conference. Here are some highlights for storytellers, technologists, and academics interested in emergent forms of documentary.

Futures of Nonfiction Storytelling

Moderated by Jonathan Taplin of USC, the panel featured photojournalist Molly Bingham, San Jose Mercury News columnist Chris O’Brien, Patricia Zimmerman of Ithaca College, and Televisa’s Lenny Altschuler. The conversation focused on future directions for journalism and documentary. A few key issues emerged:

Tools
New technologies are only as innovative as the people that use them. “Technology doesn’t start revolutions,” said Patricia Zimmerman, but it does offer “a new and larger palette” for people engaged in documentary, journalism, and activism. Molly Bingham agreed, asserting that tools were not intrinsically good or bad, it was all in how they were used.

Subjectivity
Is objectivity in journalism is a myth? “Good journalism is not about truth,” said Bingham. “It’s about trying to describe reality, while acknowledging blind spots.” The panel agreed that new technologies and emergent documentary forms can help nonfiction storytellers celebrate the subjective—by telling stories from the perspective of underserved communities or embracing forms of nonlinear narrative.

Privacy
An image uploaded is an image circulated. While this issue isn’t unique to web documentary, the panel reminded that privacy is something to bear in mind, especially when filmmakers are working with communities.

The Crowd
Can iconoclasts survive in an era of crowdsourcing? Moderator Jonathan Taplin opened the panel with a challenge: “I believe in artists. The crowd doesn’t make good art.” He screened a video of Bob Dylan performing “Maggie’s Farm” at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, and reminded us that following this performance, many fans criticized Dylan for electrifying his sound and moving out of traditional folk. Many artists build careers challenging the preconceptions of the crowd. Taplin’s point is critical, but can we reconcile it with the recent explosion of community-generated stories? Can a crowd create “art”?

Creating with the Crowd: Crowdsourcing for Funding, Producing and Circulating Media Content

Funding, or the lack of it, is a perpetual challenge in all areas of the arts, particularly documentary. Teams who had come up with innovative crowdfunding and crowdsourcing solutions spoke at FoE. Moderated by Almabrands Director of Brand Innovation (and MIT alumna) Ana Domb, the panel featured Mirko Schäfer of Utrecht University, Bruno Natal of Queremos, Timo Vuorensola, director of forthcoming crowdsourced feature film Iron Sky, and Caitlin Boyle of Film Sprout, a grassroots documentary distribution company.

Project Management
Start simple. Timo Vuorensola said that the beginning was often the most difficult part of a crowdsourced project. He suggested creating small tasks or questions to hook supporters, the difficulty of which could increase over time. Once people were interested, it was easy to ask more. Too much too soon would overwhelm casual audience members and likely scare them away.

Distribution
Talk to your audience. Caitlin Boyle of Film Sprout said audiences were critical to the distribution process, especially for small documentaries. She urged doc makers to interface with the audience during the filmmaking process. If the film reflected the concerns of its potential audience, they could help bring it to the world. People might even make the effort to distribute it through nontraditional channels. Boyle described working with communities who had no movie theater, but organized screenings in homes and town meeting halls, through word-of-mouth alone.

Transparency
Be upfront. Bruno Natal said it was critical to be open with supporters, let them know who you are, what you’re doing, and—if appropriate—where funding comes from and who profits. It’s all about building trust and community.

Crowdfunding
Give back. A concert booking and promotion service, Queremos brings live acts to Rio de Janeiro, funded by the crowd. These initial investors receive a free ticket to the concert if it sells out. Natal said they expected people to be upset when they didn’t receive a refund, but that wasn’t the case. Crowd investors weren’t participating for financial reasons; they were involved because they cared about the bands and wanted to be part of the community. Queremos not only “gave back” to its audience, it created a platform for the audience to give back to the community.

A “Benevolent” Dictator?
Know when to say no. Vuorensola said that while the enthusiasm and ideas of the crowd were invaluable, at the end, a film’s director should act as a “benevolent dictator.” An individual, or core group of individuals, had to make the final call on what was right for the film. What do you think of Vuornesola’s point? Can a crowdsourced film be coherent without a final arbiter? Can we challenge the “benevolent dictator” model? Do new technologies open up fresh forms of storytelling?

Posted by Katie Edgerton/MIT