ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

Social Media

The Meaning Crisis; This Is Us

by Leave a Comment

Have you ever wondered “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid”? We attempt to give an answer in this new episode of the Your Sunday Drive podcast by looking at a popular Atlantic article with that title from cultural commentator Jonathan Haidt. Points of discussion include social media, its influence and some possible ways to curtail its negative effects.

Sure… social media is a problem and has amplified our fragmentation, like languages at the Tower of Babel, but isn’t there a deeper issue? Yes – what’s currently being discussed as “The Meaning Crisis” by a growing number of voices, such as Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Jonathan Vervaeke, Paul Vander Klay, Johnathan Pageau, Tim DeRoche and others. We look at this current moment, try to unpack some of its causes and history, and ultimately contextualize it with the Christian faith.

Popular (and excellent) show This Is Us reaches its final few episodes and Nate has thoughts. What does our current pop culture have to say about things like love and marriage? How should a Christian respond when non-Christian ideas about such topics are presented and even celebrated in our pop culture?

Come along for Your Sunday Drive – quick conversation about current events, politics, pop culture and more, from the perspective of a couple of guys trying to follow Jesus.

Hosts: Matt Hill and Nate Polzin. Presented by the Church in Drive of Saginaw, MI, as often as possible. Please visit churchindrive.com and facebook.com/thechurchindrive

Sweat – Alone in the Crowd

by Leave a Comment

We live in a world of so much connectedness, yet how connected are we to one another? In Magnus von Horn’s Sweat, we see how alone we can be in the midst of masses. We see that celebrity is not the same of a happy, healthy life. We see that what we see of someone on the surface may be far different than who they really are.

Sylwia (Magdalena Koleśnik) is a fitness guru and social media influencer. We first see her as she leads a mass workout in a mall. Afterwards everyone throngs her getting selfies and telling her how much they all love her. She has about 600,000 followers on social media. She posts videos constantly—pictures of her body, opening gift bags from sponsors, walking her dog.

When she meets with her agent, he is concerned about a recent video she posted that went viral. In it she cries because she has no one in her life. The video has made sponsors nervous. They want her to be seen as a happy, successful person—the kind that the world will want to emulate (by buying their products).

That crying video reflects a bit of the reality of her life, but it is a part that she keeps hidden most of the time. Instead, we see the beautiful, ever-smiling, upbeat persona that she has created. That is a person whose vlog is filled with people posting videos talking about how much they mean to her. But that video also brings out a stalker who feels connected to her by her loneliness. When she notices him in his car masturbating outside her apartment building, she feels threatened and disgusted.

Most of the movie deals with Sylwia as she goes through daily life. What we discover is that despite hundreds of thousands of followers, she is a person without a friend. She may be famous. She may be admired. She may be known by many. But she is ultimately alone.

Even when she goes to her mother’s birthday party with family friends, she is not really a part of the group. At one point she heads off to another room to eat her specially catered meal while others enjoy a dinner together. She doesn’t even eat cake, because it does not fit her lifestyle. She has lost all sense of joy and celebration, swallowed up by the persona that the world sees.

In press notes, the director says he is intrigued by what he calls “emotional exhibitionists”—those who can bare their feelings to the world. Sylwia is trying to balance her emotional life between such sharing, and maintaining the persona she has created. When she appears on a morning TV show, we watch as she alternates between those two aspects. She defends her emotional outpouring, because she knows that loneliness is a reality for many peoples. But then she moves to a workout and turns the switch from real Sylwia and public Sylwia.

Sweat allows us to consider our own senses of being connected or disconnected—especially in the age of social media. Does the number of “friends” we have on Facebook reflect our closeness to people, or are we deluding ourselves to think that we care for and are cared for by those people?

Ecclesiastes speaks of the need to be connected to other people. The church is designed to be a connection between people and God, but also one person to another. That is one of the key meanings of sharing in the Lord’s Supper. I think that is why I see the scene of Sylwia eating a different meal in a different room struck me as one of the key scenes. It is coming to a table together that helps us understand ourselves and the world.

Sweat is playing in select theaters.

Photos courtesy of Mubi.

The Social Dilemma – You’re Being Manipulated

by Leave a Comment

“So we’ve created an entire global generation of people who were raised within a context where the very meaning of communication, the very meaning of culture, is manipulation.”

Hopefully you “like” Screenfish’s Facebook page and follow us on Twitter and Instagram. But keep in mind that each of those actions tells the world a little bit about you. And those various platforms will use that (and all the other info they’ve collected about you) to allow others to try to manipulate you. In The Social Dilemma, documentarian Jeff Orlowski takes us on a tour of how those social media platforms shape and manipulate us as individuals, and as a society.

The film is filled with commentators who have stepped away from important positions in social media companies, many for ethical reasons.  They have first hand knowledge of the hows and whys of social media. One, a former Twitter executive, tells us: “What I want people to know is that everything they’re doing on line is being watched, is being tracked, is being measured. Every single action you take is carefully monitored and recorded. Exactly what image you look at, and for how long you look at it. Yeah, seriously, for how long you look at it.” These people go on to explain how all that information is monetized (one of the people we hear from is the former director of monetization at Facebook), and how others can use that information to target you with ideas (not limited to ads) that may shape your life in many ways.

The film isn’t a completely dark picture of the internet. Those who worked in the industry early on got into the work with visions of the good that could come from it. As one points out, it has allowed families to be reunited, organ donors have been found. It has literally saved lives. But that comes with a price. As one of the commentators tells us, social media are both utopian and dystopian simultaneously.

Many people may worry about the extent to which social media have filled the world—especially when parents think about how much screen time they should allow their children. Some think the way we connect with social media has destroyed the personal connections we had when it was face to face. That has become a problem for many. Even those who speak in this film note their own struggles with online addictions that they have had to deal with—and they invented some of these things.

That tendency to be tied to our screens is only an aspect of the real problem, which is how that opens us up to manipulation by business, political, and perhaps even immoral actors. They can tailor what they say or show to whom. It makes it very easy to spread disinformation and fake news more rapidly than real information can be shared. At the heart of the problem are questions about truth—including if there can be any real truth in this “information age”. (What an irony that the more information we have available, the harder it is to find the truth.) I like a reference in the film to the Peter Weir film, The Truman Show. Each of us is unaware of the people watching us and shaping what we think is reality.

While all the commentators are interesting, the one who got my attention was Tristan Harris, who worked as the Google Design Ethicist (who knew such a thing existed) before starting a non-profit to deal with the ethics of this “attention economy”. In a presentation he gives during the film, he offers this warning: “We’re all looking out for the moment when technology will overwhelm human strength and intelligence. When is it going to cross the singularity, replace our jobs, be smarter than humans? But there is a much earlier moment when the technology exceeds and overwhelms human weaknesses. This point being crossed is at the root of addiction, polarization, radicalization, outrage-ification, vanity-ification, the entire thing. This is overpowering human nature, and this is checkmate for humanity.”

That really takes this examination of the role of social media into the realm of the spiritual (although that is not the kind of language these people use). One of the big spiritual questions they don’t quite ask (but would be of great importance) is the role of free will and determinism in this process. Do we have choice in this, or does the manipulation of social media have control of us?

Another question of import is whether the genie can be put back in the bottle. That is a question that these people struggle with a bit at the end. Some may doubt it can be done without real regulation, which is difficult to bring about after the fact. The film’s message is not to focus on the “can it be done” question, but to make the point that we must regain that control.

The Social Dilemma shows on Netflix. For more information go to Netflix.com/TheSocialDilemma.

Photos courtesy of Netflix.

The Circle: Are You Plugged in?

by Leave a Comment

Mae Holland (Emma Watson) wants to change her life, so she accepts a job at the company her friend, Annie (Karen Gillan), works at called The Circle. A tech company, The Circle is on the cutting edge of technology and social media, pushing its agenda to make everything known and nothing secret.

Based on David Eggers and directed by James Ponsoldt, the film aims for something higher than just entertainment, warning us of a time – not unlike the present – where nothing is private. Whether it’s the personal details about our lives we share on social media (is that really private?) or companies making accessible to others what we think they’ve kept private, the truth gets out in ways we don’t expect.

These decisions are made at The Circle by CEO Tom Stenton (Patton Oswalt) and co-founder Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks), a Steve Jobs-like figure, while the rest of the employees swarm around, happily lapping up what they decree. And then there’s a third creative, Ty (John Boyega), lurking in the background, as part of the tension that surrounds the company.

What you take from Eggers’ storyline (he adapted the screenplay, too) will vary, based on your perspective of technology and social media. But the truth is, there are several warnings there that share visions of what we should be aware of every time we plug in.

Special features include a four-part featurette called “No More Secrets: Completing the Circle”, “The Future Won’t Wait: Design and Technology,” and “A True Original: Remembering Bill Paxton,” honoring the actor who passed away this year. 

 

2016 sucked (and didn’t) and death is still the problem

by Leave a Comment

15780676_10154935525978470_7574595387239350824_n

2016 retrospectives understandably
multiply at the moment,
as does the sentiment
that 2016 sucked,
on the whole

in general,
esp in terms of
what memes get
play on Facebook,
that’s probably accurate

many are pointing, still,
with dystopian, apocalyptic fervor,
at the ascension of
the one they call Trump

fair enough
and agreed
(but read this screed)

many more,
given the timing,
are pointing to
a perceived spate of
high-profile deaths

and fair enough,
agreed,
and i don’t need
to catalogue them here . . .
(we’ve seen, read,
perhaps wept,
at least wistfully remembered,
watched that old flick,
spun that classic disc,
relived triumphant
human moments,
reveled in kitsch
and gravitas alike)

tldr: i’m sad, like you,
and it does make me say,
with you,
that 2016 sucked

but/however

2016 also did not suck

perhaps it’d help to
catalogue items of hope?
births full of potential?
perhaps it’d help to
meme and proliferate
that instead?
to burn those images,
those memories,
into our heads?

and/also

i wonder whether
this spate is truly a spate,
or if bad things just
*seem* to come in bunches,
when one looks
for bad things,
when one memes,
in general,
on Facebook?

and/also

i wonder whether
it’s just that
we’re all of us
getting to a certain age,
our pop culture,
our social media,
included?

and/also/finally/respectfully

isn’t that the point?

that we’re all of us
getting to a certain age,
that we’re all of us
moments closer to the end,
like them,
even as we sit and
write/read this screed?

isn’t
death
still
the
problem?

yes/of course

yes, of course,
part of why
those who die
matter is:
as horrible reminder,
as gauges of
our own mortality,
our own significance –
their finished stories
meeting our continuing story,
their deaths foreshadowing
our eventual death

isn’t death still the problem?
a problematic
part of life at least?

don’t we
(at least)
wish
it
were
different?
and shouldn’t we?

don’t we
(at least)
wish for
a mollifying perspective?
a palliative of some sort?
a blow softener?
a medicine, a salve,
a balm in Gilead?
or maybe we even wish for
a solution,
a fix?
a de-stinger
for death’s sting?

don’t we,
ultimately,
wish for
death’s death?
for resurrection?
for vindicated life –
true life?

yes/of course

and/well

probably, maybe they’re
working on such a thing –
probably, hopefully
it’ll be around for 2017,
you know,
so we’re not just
here again in a year –
meming on Facebook
and so on . . .

or/perhaps

there’s such a thing already

Is Publicity the Missing Link?

by Leave a Comment

The chain No matter how good a motion picture is, its success rises and falls on the shoulders of how well it is publicized.  If you don’t believe that, Fandango and countless other theaters would like to have a word with you concerning the release of the final Star Wars: The Force Awakens trailer Monday evening. The demand for opening night tickets was so heavy that many websites simply crashed.  Two months before the film drops, thousands of shows have sold out.

When a film is given the go-ahead by a movie studio, a series of events swing into motion regarding getting the word out.  Press releases are written about the film and the actors in the leading roles, while filming sometimes provides an opportunity for media organizations to have on-set visits.  Trailers are released and advertising begins on TV, radio, print, and social media.  The cast members are interviewed.  Screenings are then offered for the media (and sometimes the general public), who generate reviews of the film. There are world and local premieres of the film (complete with red carpets) Websites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic compile the media reviews and assign a score to the film. Then, on opening day, moviegoers pay to see the film and formulate their own opinions, generating positive or negative buzz to keep a film playing as long as possible in a theater.

In the case of the recent film Woodlawn, it received fantastic word of mouth from filmgoers, earning an A+ CinemaScore (this is very difficult to do; only a handful of films in 2015 have earned it [one of these being the Academy Award-nominated Selma]). It opened on 1,553 screens and had over one million Likes on their Facebook page.

Total earnings for week one: $4 million.

How can this be? I think there a few reasons why.

Film screeningOne is that, being a Christian-based film, publicity is done a little differently. Following The Passion of the Christ’s lead, most of the interest is generated through grassroots efforts—mainly in the form of screening the film to faith-based organizations and church congregations, and significant influencers. This way, there’s a willing audience that’s ready to pass on the message they’ve seen to their friends and family.  The media eventually gets hold of the film, reviews it, and posts their thoughts.Secondly, in the case of Woodlawn, Rotten Tomatoes was showing no score on the day of its release. Their site requires five reviews to earn a score, and the reviews have to come from significant influencing organizations (we at ScreenFish aren’t there yet, but we’re working on it).  Currently, Woodlawn has a 100% rating, but from only a handful of reviews.  The more buzz, the better—but only if people know about the buzz.

A third, often untalked-about reason often revolves around money. As anyone who has a business can testify, it costs money to get people interested in their offerings.  People have to design graphics, do radio spots, tape commercials/videos for YouTube, and more.  All of these cost money in some way, shape, or form. When a faith-based film is being shot for a miniscule budget, it means people have to come up with creative ways to get the word out that are financially responsible.  The world of social media provides a fantastic place to talk about the film, link to relevant articles, and generate a certain level of interest. Of course, Facebook and Twitter are rapidly becoming ‘pay to play’ sites, so the role of free publicity is becoming less and less an option.

Video shootSo the question then becomes whether or not faith-based films can be publicized well considering their inherent limitations.  I believe the answer is yes—if some things change:

  • Movie studios and PR firms have to stop relying on social media exclusively to generate buzz – people have to see the film and generate that buzz for themselves.
  • Movie studios and directors have to get their film in the hands of the influencers early on—they can’t wait for buzz to build, because that can take too much time and potentially be overshadowed by other films. In addition, there has to be a focus on finding–or creating/building up–reviewers that meet the publishing qualifications of sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.
  • Movie trailers have to go out to the masses – and become viral as much as possible.
  • Publicity methods must be able to create and sustain interest outside the church walls. Of course, it’s okay to promote inside, but caution should be exercised because promotion methods can possibly be seen as advertising and/or endorsement by the leaders of a congregation.
  • Be even more creative in promotion – try something outside the box and see if it works.  But if it does work, it’s important not to keep going back to that method again and again.  The film industry likes to copy success and what may have worked can soon become trite and cliché.
  • As I mentioned in a previous editorial, the film has to be designed so that it’s good enough to play to both sides of the audience; otherwise, you’re looking at about a $65M cap on box office revenue.
  • The biggest thing is perhaps the most simple: No matter how good the publicity is, a film will rise or fall due to how good it actually is.  As directors make better films, people will want to support what they see.

    It’s time for film publicity for faith-based films to take a major step forward and bring about lasting change that will impact not only the bottom line, but countless lives along the way for the Kingdom of God.  It’s a sacred trust that deserves to be treated that way, with all links in the process working together for something bigger than they can on their own.