Video-friendly broadband connections in the home are fast becoming the norm. There’s video on your iPod and something called “content” on your cell phone. Digital still cameras are no longer just that — most provide short MPEG movie functions. Moving pictures are everywhere. The average American family, once a single-camcorder unit at best, may now have 2.5 or more camcorders, directly proportional to the number of cell phones and/or children.
Video is literally in the hands of the people now more than ever. No longer does the press have to lie to us that you too can make a documentary for $100 and cut it on iMovie. Now it can really be done. Only it’ll play on YouTube or Google Video or the more personalized Vimeo, not at Sundance.
Press and other info outlets will claim, as They always do, that the future is now. The new horizon of video! Webisodes! Mobisodes! Podcastisodes! World peace through compressed digital video! The new big thing (even though Japan has had it for years)! These are all bloated conclusions, kind of like how the world is flat and JT LeRoy is a real person.
Instead, perhaps the current state of online, streaming and cellular video content is a step back toward the primitive, a necessary Ice Age before the Renaissance.
Forget, if you can, the portions of YouTube and Google Video that feature stolen, forwarded and re-stolen content. Forget the scenes from Family Guy uploaded by Fox and the entirely un-Google idea of charging for online video. Think more down to earth, like the talking head of a teenager, perhaps opening with an ironic “Dear Diary,” or that eventless street scene that seemed so important to shoot at the time and even more important to upload for posterity.
These are the motion pictures of, for and by the people. On the Internet, the populism of cinema becomes more fully realized.
Ironically enough, films have never really been not affordable to make. Anyone with a modicum of talent can mime in the park, but in addition to imagination cinema requires equipment, technology, and so many other costly stuffs even before reaching the vital crossroads of distribution and exhibition, with countless forks to film projection, broadcast, home video, profit, non-profit, etc. Until the recent advents in digital and wireless technologies, cinema was only populist in terms of its audience. But as the keys to making and distribution fall into our laps, what do we make? Mentos in a bottle of Diet Coke? Eat your heart out, Georges Méliès.
Arguably, the web’s videos serve little obvious purpose. They’re highly compressed picture and sound quality. Most have no plots or are abbrieviated clips. On the other hand, in form and function these small videos resemble the films shown in the early days of cinema nickelodeons and on kinetoscopes and mutoscopes in: short, sweet like candy and maybe less filling — disposable entertainment at its most primordial. But is it really disposable?
Unlike the early peep show mutoscopes, a lot of these online videos are not made for profit but simply for the entertainment of the viewer and, in many cases, of the maker. However, seen as pure celebrations of the new medium, they are cultural records of idle time — or idyll time as the case may be.
The future may be now, but do we know what to do with it?