Where is the Media Revolution Going?

The ways we interact with media has changed considerably the past 70 years and much of it depends on when we were born. Not an original insight, but it does raise a few questions on my mind lately. How do mediums influence the movies/television to come? How do mediums shape one's perception of a good movie or TV show?

Boomers had to work with slim pickings in comparison to the generations to come. Growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, a trip to the theater was a major event. And for good reason, missing a theatrical run meant it could be several years before you got the chance to see the movie again. Boomers were also the first to be weaned and shaped by television shows. It was also where many came to know film. Late night broadcasts of classic films or the occasional airing of a classic like The Wizard of Oz on network television. 

While the theatrical experience remained sacrosanct and there were plenty of venues including drive-ins, repertory houses, second run theaters, and in urban centers an endless variety of theaters. Future directors like Spielberg, Lucas, Scorsese have all spoke of formative movie theater experiences and the influence of television on their approach to filmmaking. 

By the end of the 1970s, technology was starting to revolutionize home media viewing. As televisions and sound systems improved in quality, the home experience was enhanced. Betamax and VHS allowed boomers to revisit classics and keep up with the new releases. More importantly, their Gen X children had access to a gigantic slice of film history. Gen X got the best of both worlds: The age of the Blockbuster was in full force alongside malls and roller-skating rinks, while indulging in the VHS bonanza (although viewed in the inferior pan and scan.).

Quentin Tarantino was on the vanguard of the new generation of VHS obsessives working in the video stores with dreams of making movies of their own. On his new podcast The Video Archives he continues to champion the age of VHS by indulging in his eccentric taste in movies. Film twitter often likes to mock what Tarantino considers great cinema, but I think this could speak to age gaps more than anything else. Part of the appeal of VHS was having easy access to exploitation, cult classics, and adult films. The more obscure and strange - the better. That world has vanished. 

Home media innovation continued into the 1990s continues to enhance the home viewing experience. High quality Laserdiscs peaked and paved the way for DVDs, which were smaller and cheaper. The innovation of DVDs brought improved quality and seeing movies in their proper aspect ratio, including extra features like commentary tracks. The rise of the internet would bring with it a brave new world of interacting with media we're still trying to understand. 

You Tube launched in 2005 which made videos easy to access online, while Netflix began offering a streaming service in 2007. In a short time, streaming services branched into creating original programming of their own, ending the era of network programming for good. No longer must one be at home during a certain time to catch a show, empowering the consumer of media.

Having so much access to movies offered on streaming services can create the illusion of endless possibilities. But there is yet no "cloud" where "everything ever made" is available. Far from it. It is likely less films are available to see now than during the height of the VHS era. Movies come and go on streaming services, disappearing into the ether without warning. Consumers have no power on what stays and disappears. 

Another offshoot of streaming is the increasingly niche audience for movies. Any young cinephile can access the Criterion Channel and develop their appreciation of cinema (I once overheard High School kid at bookstore saying Criterion were the only films worth watching) As for myself, a VHS kid, to paraphrase podcaster Lex G, Die Hard and Lethal Weapon 2 were the height of cinema to 11-year old me. Today any 15-year old can be well versed in in Fellini and Bergman or foster any niche entertainment that suits them.

It's become a social media sport to needle boomers (I've done some myself I confess) for many things. Many around my age or younger will scoff at boomers for pushing their culture on the next generation - Rock and Roll is the usual culprit. I never felt that personally. Nostalgia for the '60s did hit a peak during the 1980s and 1990s. From epic and adoring documentaries on rock icons to Oliver Stone's amphetamine fueled historical screeds, the shadow of Vietnam and JFK continued to haunt the culture.

Part of boomer backlash is due to envy. Yes, boomers were born into a period of unprecedented prosperity, college was super cheap, and pandemics were the stuff of Sci-Fi. The sense of accomplishment that comes from a monolithic culture or at least the illusion of it, I think is something that left a void for future generations. Gen Xers could connect through schoolhouse rock references, while Millennials had Harry Potter. But the sense of collective accomplishment seemed elusive. 

Pop Culture is always wedged between embracing the future, while also trying to reclaim the past. Streaming allows anyone with access to create their own media ecosystem. If you wish it were still 1985, you can create the illusion of it. If you're excited about the prospect of a world dragons and fairies, you got it. Creating one's own media ecosystem, a process accelerated by the pandemic, is now a tangible reality. 

Pondering what sorts of movies will come from the streaming generation has enormous potential and drawbacks. A climate of everything being niche may foster a debilitating fragmentation, or a niche movement could become something else entirely. After all, comics and Sci-Fi were viewed as fringe entertainment at one time, but now permeates the culture. Or will it lead to an exhaustion? A baroque parade of Xerox copies of everything that came before. 

Pop culture of the '90s foresaw a 21st Century of virtual reality/interactive media on shows like Wild Palms and movies like The Lawnmower Man. I think in some ways these predictions were not all wrong, we may be halfway there, and streaming has helped it along. Defying reality is a human need (and fatal flaw?), escapism allows the imagination to grow. Many would prefer to be in a different reality and new media experiences may be able to provide it. The social consequences beyond that point become even more speculative. 

Many have written lately about everything being boring - TV, pop music, movies, fashion, cars - something feels off. Coming out of the pandemic and facing a daunting future of political strife and global warming, looking ahead can induce a retreat to escapism for any thinking person. Yet during the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war, low and high art rose to the occasion, looking defiantly into the future in an existential fait accompli. 

One could pick any iconic artist from the cold war era, yes many were flush with privileges and money, unlike today's debt-ridden generation. That's a very real thing not to be dismissed. But neither were they doomscrolling all day or desperately trying to build an instagram following for profit. Social media and influencer culture is a climate ripe for scammers and charlatans, yet at the same time a new zone for creativity and innovation exists in the media landscape. So, the future is unwritten and even as possibilities and expectations feel limited, it's important not to act like it in a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Is the Internet like a dying star?

In an article I recently I stumbled upon, ironically through twitter, from a Newsletter by technology writer Charlie Warzel at The Atlantic on the stultifying nature of social media. Warzel interviewed technology theorist LM Sarcasas who believes social media contributes to our collective feeling of being stuck in an endless loop of devastating news:

“There’s a well-ordered way of relating to time—how much attention you give to the past, present, and future,” he said. “I don’t mean to suggest that one way is the good way or the bad way, but it seems as if most of us are disproportionately focused on what has already happened. Not just the events themselves, but the layers of commentary atop of them.”

Not to summarize the entire article, but it describes in a concise way the extent to which social media keeps us chained to the past, caught in a never-ending loop of hopelessness. He compares the social media experience to staring at a star that appears to be alive and bright when in reality it's dying (because of light years). A mass shooting or an international crisis proceeds on twitter like a liturgical set of events: initial shock, outrage, despair, and eventual vertigo/amnesia at the end of the cycle. Repeat the next day.

Furthermore, there’s the dance of everyone commenting on everyone else and not the actual event. Having so many reactions and viewpoints assaulting our brains abstracts everything, possibly akin to living in a hive mind, reminding us hell is other people. It all leads to a stasis and all the negative byproducts: inaction, despair, depression, hopelessness. Morbidity is endemic on twitter.

As a thought experiment, I imagined if something like twitter had existed during The Second World War. All the dark days in the early years of the conflict: the fall of Poland and France, Dunkirk, or Pearl Harbor The famous photograph of Hitler in Paris or of a bombed-out London, would've led to a collective despair that defeating Fascism was impossible. After the destruction of the fleet at Pearl Harbor or the fall of the Philippines, I see think pieces from The Atlantic and twitter threads of doom and gloom of how crossing the English Channel to liberate Europe was impossible.

The main point is that social media traps us in the past like ants in amber, always in reaction mode. To quote Warzel: 

Constantly absorbing and commenting on things that have just happened sounds to me like a recipe for feeling powerless. Online, I frequently feel both stuck in the past but presented with a grim projection of the future. There is very little focus on the present, which is a place where we derive agency. We can act now.

The article presents no options for finding our way out of this conundrum. We've seen how influencers monetize their influence after a tragedy or even a celebrity scandal, they are like the folks who built an amusement park near a dying man trapped in a hole in Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole. A new crop of politicians is more concerned with their tweets stirring disgust than actual policymaking. The influencer impulse is everywhere - digital carnival barkers.

Simply walking away won't work. Could there be counter type of influencing of a more positive variety? Could Utopian ideas catch hold? Messianic figures are dangerous by trade and there are way too many pretenders who imagine themselves as such on twitter. These questions lead to deeper historical questions of what or who serves as a catalyst for futuristic thinking. But technology is still simply a tool, and we can learn how to live with it. It's a crucial question, and while looking to science fiction or visionary biographies are important and have their place, it will come down to more people making decisions towards something better. It will take creativity, historical knowledge, and transcendence. 

A link to the article: https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/galaxy-brain/629ec16551acba002091af11/internet-social-media-reactionary-doom-loop/