Peter Watkins - The Media Crisis

[audadvnc]

After having read about a half page of PW's text I feel bored and disappointed; he has mounted a large and complex statement based on shallow societal cliches. He starts off with the assumption that MAVM is a monolithic beast of evil intent, and barrels right into 115 pages of propaganda to support his beliefs. Right off the bat he has established this statement as a partisan political / religious statement, and I suppose all examples and arguments he makes will back up his conviction that MAVM is bad and he is not.

He is definately passionate about his beliefs, and may be correct in his analysis, however I don't believe he is forwarding the field of film criticism by confusing the meanings of the phrase "critical media statement". Better critics have pondered the issues surrounding MAVM and have noted insights into the human condition that I fear are lost on partisans such as PW, who attempt to show the world that they hold a moral high ground and are immune to sloth, greed, vanity, anger, lust and the other deviant traits we mere humans bring to the world.

Skimming ahead I see, deep into page 3, he starts talking about the subject at hand, but by now he has tossed out so many unproven, broad Nazi/Bush/Corporate hegemony accusations that he comes off as just another nut on the corner ranting about Urancha and the Illuminati. Too bad, because in better hands his statement may have made interesting reading.

[steve hyde]

After having read about a half page of PW's text I feel bored and disappointed; he has mounted a large and complex statement based on shallow societal cliches. He starts off with the assumption that MAVM is a monolithic beast of evil intent, and barrels right into 115 pages of propaganda to support his beliefs. Right off the bat he has established this statement as a partisan political / religious statement, and I suppose all examples and arguments he makes will back up his conviction that MAVM is bad and he is not.

I don't think the monolithic status of MAVM is something that needs to be proven. All that is required is basic observation (e.g. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, HBO, Disney, ESPN, NBC, Discovery, Miramax and on and on and on.) There is no questioning the monolithic status of these audio-visual media producers. Each of these companies has a purpose and a market to fulfill and the operation of these companies is a socio-political activity. (like all businesses) I know I'm not stating something we don't already know, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated in these discussions: to compete in a market place a company has to conform to the wants of that market place. In the world of audiovisual productions the demands of advertisers rules supreme. Therefore the MAVM is strongly biased to conform to the needs of the advertisers.

From a more balanced and less profit-driven perspective (art as a cultural continuum) we can see clearly the ways that the needs of investors shape the work of audiovisual artists. I like to repeat the fact that the greatest visual artists of our times have their heads down working hard to meet the needs of advertisers willing to pay enormous sums of money in order to maintain power over them. Am I speaking left-wing conspiracy theory talk or am I speaking the truth? Feel free to challenge me on that....My point is that I agree with Watkins view that the MAVM is recklessly out of control. Just take one look at the voting public in the United States and ask yourself where these people get their information.

He is definitely passionate about his beliefs, and may be correct in his analysis, however I don't believe he is forwarding the field of film criticism by confusing the meanings of the phrase "critical media statement". Better critics have pondered the issues surrounding MAVM and have noted insights into the human condition that I fear are lost on partisans such as PW, who attempt to show the world that they hold a moral high ground and are immune to sloth, greed, vanity, anger, lust and the other deviant traits we mere humans bring to the world.

I don't understand. How is he confusing the phrase "critical media statement"? Who are the critics that have treated the issues more throughly? I would like to read about that.

Skimming ahead I see, deep into page 3, he starts talking about the subject at hand, but by now he has tossed out so many unproven, broad Nazi/Bush/Corporate hegemony accusations that he comes off as just another nut on the corner ranting about Urancha and the Illuminati. Too bad, because in better hands his statement may have made interesting reading.

If you think Fascist behavior, crony capitalism and the hegemony exercised by such cronies in the Executive branch of government is unproven, then clearly you and I view the current state of affairs in this country differently.

respectfully,

Steve

[timdrage]

He starts off with the assumption that MAVM is a monolithic beast of evil intent

Not really... as i understand it part of the point is that the mainstream format of TV/film (ie the 'monoform' as he calls it) inherently has bad results WITHOUT the intent of the people making it being evil.

because in better hands his statement may have made interesting reading.

Better hands? The interesting thing I found is that he describes a whole career of being at the recieving end of the problems he's talking about... what could be better than that? Whether you agree totally or not, he's talking from experience at least.

and yeah, I too'd be interested to read anything else you've found on the subject written by those proverbial better hands.

Also I enjoy reading passionate/extreme view about cinema without having to agree 100%... or without feeling too much guilt when things I do or enjoy are criticised. I love Tarkovsky's 'Sculpting in Time' despite the fact that it makes me feel that pretty much every film I've ever enjoyed or wanted to make is morally and artistically wrong!

[audadvnc]

I too'd be interested to read anything else you've found on the subject written by those proverbial better hands.

Also I enjoy reading passionate/extreme view about cinema without having to agree 100%... or without feeling too much guilt when things I do or enjoy are criticised. I love Tarkovsky's 'Sculpting in Time' despite the fact that it makes me feel that pretty much every film I've ever enjoyed or wanted to make is morally and artistically wrong!

For starters, how about Pauline Kael? Read her opinion of Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon":
"It's a coffee-table movie; the stately tour of European high life is like a three-hour slide show for art-history majors."

- or her thoughts on Renoir's "The Grand Illusion":
"In form, GRAND ILLUSION is an escape story; yet who would think of it in this way? It's like saying that Oedipus Rex is a detective story. "

Here's a true film critic who demonstrates that the movies that have created the basis for our understanding of the filmic medium work on multiple levels of imagination and understanding. Where is the monolithic nature dominating the films she reviewed over decades?

http://www.geocities.com/paulinekaelreviews/

What is mislabelled as the "monoform" is in essence merely mediocrity.

[npcoombs]

For starters, how about Pauline Kael? Read her opinion of Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon":
"It's a coffee-table movie; the stately tour of European high life is like a three-hour slide show for art-history majors."

Here's a true film critic who demonstrates that the movies that have created the basis for our understanding of the filmic medium work on multiple levels of imagination and understanding. Where is the monolithic nature dominating the films she reviewed over decades?

http://www.geocities.com/paulinekaelreviews/

What is mislabelled as the "monoform" is in essence merely mediocrity.

Pauline Kael - you have got to be taking the piss now!!

Here is a film critic who, for all the instances she may be right, is completly unable to articulate her thoughts in anything other than pseudo-witty scatching asides.

Her review of 2001 has gone down in infamy as one of the most petty, superficial, attempted demolition jobs in film criticism history.

On top of that I have no idea what logic underlies you statement "Where is the monolithic nature dominating the films she reviewed over decades?" What is the object or subject: her reviews or the films?

In either case, what does that demonstrate?!

[audadvnc]

Pauline Kael - you have got to be taking the piss now!!

Here is a film critic who, for all the instances she may be right, is completly unable to articulate her thoughts in anything other than pseudo-witty scatching asides.

Her review of 2001 has gone down in infamy as one of the most petty, superficial, attempted demolition jobs in film criticism history!

I wouldn't doubt it; my guess is that PK wasn't one of SK's biggest fans -
of "A Clockwork Orange":
"This Stanley Kubrick film might be the work of a strict and exacting German professor who set out to make a porno-violent sci-fi comedy."

As for her lack of comentary on the monolithic nature of the film world, its absence is telling.

[steve hyde]

Robert,

I am under the impression that you don't think that there is a media crisis at all. Is this what you are saying? Or are you saying the media crisis is something different than what Watkins is arguing?

Steve

[audadvnc]

Or that this media crisis is nothing new. Show biz has always been a money making operation - it's in the business of selling seats, since long before the dawn of the cinema. If an impressario could fill his music hall by throwing pies in the actors' faces, by gum there'd be pies flying.

Photography and monopolistic intent have also been inseperable since the beginning - Talbot attempted (unsuccessfully) to lock Daguerre out of the English photographic business in the 1830's, and Edison's Motion Picture Patents Company inadvertantly created Hollywood by chasing the independents out of their East Coast stomping grounds in the 1900's. The five major studios and their associated theater holdings absolutely dominated American cinema from the early 1920's until the late 40's, when the US Gov't finally busted up the interlocking supply/distribution / presentation chains that colluded to lock out alternate producers. This is all established history. Ref: Tim Balio, ed., "The History of the American Film Industry".

So what is new? That lots of people have bad taste? That TV programming is junk? That governments like to indoctrinate their populance, or that businesses are unimaginative and create dumb product? That pies in the face make people laugh?

I have a simple, general rule for my daughter's TV viewing: don't, it's not worth your time. And she's OK with that (she'd rather play Sims anyway).

[audadvnc]

Watkins expends a lot of virtual ink fulminating against people who won't show his work, including his natural allies:

"But, to this day, I am convinced that a principal reason why many North American and European peace movements declined to help THE JOURNEY, and why they have refused to show it ever since - though most of them did, for over 20 years, use THE WAR GAME to recruit membership - was their discomfort at participating in a new film which was critical of the mass media. ... I suspect that developments in THE JOURNEY, which openly confronts the manipulative processes of the MAVM, were uncomfortable for many in the radical peace movement; as was the film's unusual process, and its length - 14 and a half hours being considered boring and cumbersome."

Huh. Perhaps if he'd cut it down - say to 54 minutes, so it'll fit on TV? :lol:

[steve hyde]

Robert,

I don't find Watkins arguing that the "Media Crisis" is new. Where did you come up with that? Watkins is theorizing about how the media crisis is a media crisis.

The media crisis is old - the question that interests me is how does it work and why is it a crisis? What are the social and political processes that work to create the MAVM? How and why do these processes produce a media crisis?


Steve

[timdrage]

Huh. Perhaps if he'd cut it down - say to 54 minutes, so it'll fit on TV?

I know you're kidding, but not sure in what way... :?

[audadvnc]

Huh. Perhaps if he'd cut it down - say to 54 minutes, so it'll fit on TV?

I know you're kidding, but not sure in what way... :?

OK, I'll spell it out. Mr. Watkins seems convinced that the world has it out for him, doesn't recognize his genius and won't give him an even break. But he refuses to recognize that the product he creates are unwatchable by any reasonable standards. Fourteen (and a half!) hours for a movie? Who does he think he is, Abel Gance? He drives away his intended audience, then complains when they don't come back for more.

As for the Universal Clock, the hour is a convenient unit of time; we can understand it conceptually and viscerally. It's been around a long time because society finds it useful (The Egyptians had ten hours of daylight from sunrise to sunset - exemplified by a sundial described in 1300 B.C.E.- two hours of twilight and twelve hours of night). Of course the hour allows stations to substitute programs with ease, but that characteristic is not inherently bad. Is the fungibility of the 54 minute program slot different than that of the acre, dollar, or the ton?

Now I don't know but I been told
it's hard to run with the weight of gold
Other hand I heard it said
it's just as hard with the weight of lead

- Hunter/Garcia, "New Speedway Boogie"

[timdrage]

Of course the hour allows stations to substitute programs with ease, but that characteristic is not inherently bad.

It's not always bad but I think it IS inherently bad.

Anyway there's no real reason a tv programme shouldn't be very long. I've not seen any of Watkins' films (have you?) so i can't tell whether he's a director who really can pull off an insanely long 14 hour epic! But there's no reason inherent to the medium why a film should not be an unorthodox length .. The only reason to not make a long form film for TV is the 'universal clock', and the only reason for this system is to make control of programming easier.

I mean:

so it'll fit on TV?

Just think about how weird it is that we all easily accept that something has to "fit" on tv...a medium which is inherently continuous... broadcasting 24 hours a day... If you leave the TV on, it's ON for 14 hours, or how ever long you like! There's no end of the film + get out for the next audience, there's no end of the tape/reel/disk... and now TV has an effectively infinite number of channels most of which barely even manage to scrape together enough content to fill the time...

He drives away his intended audience, then complains when they don't come back for more.

Does he really? Or are you just assuming so because he's not a household name, his films are controversial, and you've taken a disliking to your own mental picture of him as a person? >_>

[audadvnc]

Of course the hour allows stations to substitute programs with ease, but that characteristic is not inherently bad.

It's not always bad but I think it IS inherently bad.

Sort of like calling the tides bad for coming in 12 hours 24 minutes apart, isn't it? Now, what rides in with the tide may be for good or ill, but the moon doesn't care.

Anyway there's no real reason a tv programme shouldn't be very long. I've not seen any of Watkins' films (have you?)

no

so i can't tell whether he's a director who really can pull off an insanely long 14 hour epic!

But there's no reason inherent to the medium why a film should not be an unorthodox length .

Sure there is. Try to find a 14 hour videotape.

The only reason to not make a long form film for TV is the 'universal clock',

Nonsense - the universal clock is merely for conforming programming to available air time. If you had multiple hours of programming you could show as much as you want without disturbing the clock. How about the "live" coverage of Pres. Ford's funeral? That ran for hours on end over several days.

and the only reason for this system is to make control of programming easier.

- uh, yeah? Would you rather make it harder to control programming? Have you considered working in a tv station with no time controls?

I mean:

so it'll fit on TV?

Just think about how weird it is that we all easily accept that something has to "fit" on tv...a medium which is inherently continuous... broadcasting 24 hours a day... If you leave the TV on, it's ON for 14 hours, or how ever long you like! There's no end of the film + get out for the next audience, there's no end of the tape/reel/disk... and now TV has an effectively infinite number of channels most of which barely even manage to scrape together enough content to fill the time...

No argument there - when given a demonstration of the new technology, the head of RCA told his television engineers that they had just created the greatest timewasting device known to man.

He drives away his intended audience, then complains when they don't come back for more.

Does he really? Or are you just assuming so because he's not a household name, his films are controversial, and you've taken a disliking to your own mental picture of him as a person? >_>

No, I was making an observation on his experience with peace activists who didn't want to show his all-day opus:

http://www.mnsi.net/~pwatkins/globalJustice.htm

By the way, I fully agree with his recommendations given on the next page, "The Public-alternative processes and practices":

http://www.mnsi.net/~pwatkins/public.htm

These questions and issues should be studied and considered by students of the media as part of their education, to be able to recognize the traps of lazy thinking and societal coersion, and finding worthwhile ways around thse snares.

After all, if left to run their course, these issues could lead to a crisis

The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master - Mark Twain(?)
A wasted mind is a terrible thing to lose - Dan Quayle(!)

[timdrage]

Ok, many fair points, some things I disagree with, and some things we actually agree on but you somehow have read it as if we don't?

We're kind of talking somewhat at cross purposes... but that's the internet for ya! ^_^