All you need is read this part posted below, and you'll have to link to the rest, either because you agree, or you feel compelled to post a response in defense of the male gender. If film is really controlled by the male gaze and thew object of that gaze as female, this piece is a call to arms for a new medium to avoid such pitfalls and not remain gendered.
Our relationship to the Internet is entirely made up of our relationship to browsers and Web sites. And you know what? They suck.
They're boring, one-dimensional, and unoriginal. Who decided that all Web sites should have a top nav bar and be rectangular in layout? Who decided they should abdicate any sense of design and be white and clean and uncluttered? No one did, and that's the point. It just happened, because the creators of the Internet were thinking about other things. Because the creators of the Internet are a very distinct subspecies of humanity:
Boys.
Geeks, engineers, and boys. And because the DNA of the Internet is entirely male, it exudes the best and worst of what males have to offer. On the plus side—it's brilliant, complex, competitive, audacious in how it's changed our way of organizing experience. On the negative side—it's linear, utilitarian, cold, emotionless, disconnected.
1 comment:
So, judging by his comments, and his description of quarterlife's "comments" section, the only medium worthwhile is one that's nonlinear, useless, warm, emotional, and connected -- qualities I think you'd struggle to find in any medium in which millions of dollars are at risk, and the usefulness (the earning potential, etc.) of a product is key. If all execs had hearts, Drive would still be on the air (hey, if peanuts worked for Jericho, why not Hot Wheels for Drive?) Anyway, I just don't see the point of having some fluffy, mushy medium with no usefulness. Maybe this is the "boy" in me talking, but I believe that something should be useful. Is he suggesting that google add some colors, turn itself sideways, give out free hugs, and provide incorrect search results? Sounds like a winner.
And, as much as he pumps up the merits of his message board, I think that's an example of self-selection. I suppose the people that chose to watch quarterlife were perhaps of similar taste, all desiring the same post-coital atmosphere the author wants, which would explain the lovefest they had on the message board. It's just like going to AICN's message board -- all film geeks (myself included), each with their own staunch opinions on the latest movie news. Anyone not remotely interested in film or the like would most likely miss that board or not care what is said on it. Same for a TMZ board, etc.
All that being said, all of his "make love, not war" ranting wore thin for me once he mentions that his show was picked up by NBC, the very kind of organization with all of the "boy" qualities he just spent 2 pages critiquing -- a bit hypocrtical, no? And while he may have "complete creative control" as of right now, let's see what happens if the ratings start slacking, which they very well may (I haven't seen an ad for the show yet, and we're well within the "2-3 weeks" timeframe), and utilitarian execs start questioning the usefulness of this webisode-turned-episode. As if there weren't any other shows showing true heart or explaining "the storms of our inner lives."
The article came off like the rantings of a jaded filmmaker who grew tired of the "industry" and decided to take out his frustration on the internet, only to return to the industry he hates when the right paycheck came calling. Perhaps someone was a bit too harsh with him on the message board.
Point is, if you're looking for hugs and cuddles on message boards, you can find them, just like anything else on the internet. There are bad apples in every bunch, as I'm sure there will be in the quarterlife message board. Just give it time.
And if the internet is so boring, why not reformat his site, turn it sideways, or brandish the front page with a huge "This is not a website" logo/non-logo? We can all just turn our laptops sideways to look. Because that's so useful.
I don't think I'll be tuning in for quarterlife.
Post a Comment