Secrets of the City

Masochist and Spoilers are great.

Man I miss WOS.

Kurt, Dave, and Brock were great together.

Mike is great. artist, musician, landscaper extraordinaire

Everyone get excited. WOS is working on a new album.

Commercials are not ‘films’.

yeh, spoilers and right foot seem the most commercial-like, but the others are much more expressive

and — is not your name.

Aren’t they? I’m not so sure any more. It seems this whole web video trend is further blurring those lines.

I think advertisers would love to have those lines blurred. But there is a difference between a digital short made by a film maker to tell a story, express an idea, etc. and a piece of video designed to help sell cars, enhance brand image or whatever.

Only some of these ad videos DO tell a story… more and moreso every day now, really. Don’t get me wrong, I DO see the distinction; it’s just that, in the end, these clips are being VIEWED differently now by the consumers. They are being given more credit as “films,” whether right or wrong. And there are more ad clips being sent “virally” than actual short films. That’s what’s so sad.

I thought somebody might want to see this post I found just yesterday on adfreak:

Cult theater or commercial crap?

The debate over whether advertisers can ever truly create art has kicked up on Twin Cities mnspeak.com over Carmichael Lynch’s “Porsche Fast Films.” The 11-short-film series, inspired by the German sports car, has been running during the Independent Film Channel’s Thursday night Cult Theater program and on the IFC Web site, but some indie film fans aren’t buying it. “Commercials are not ‘films,’” says one anonymous mnspeak comment. Others defend the series, arguing that while some of the films are “commercial-like,” others are “much more expressive.” See for yourself here. My favorites: Fingerwalk, a daydream filmed out the window of a moving car; The Masochist, a man who races to his parked Porsche to indulge in his punishment of the day, driving at a crawl; Speak German, in which a guy shows his friend that if you suck in the air from a Porsche tire, you slip into its native tongue; and Combustion, a dark, animated look at the meaning of burning rubber. Ads or art? Who cares? I’d take any of these over your average car ad any day.

Posted by Eleftheria Parpis
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/

Thank you for adding that. I certainly do not deny that these commercials can be creative, tell a story, be expressive, etc. But my point is that accepting them as ‘films’ gives them a credibility they do not deserve. Their creation is motivated by something very different from the motivation of someone who makes a movie like Me and You and Everyone We Know or a movie like Syriana. And of course the people that make those movies earn money for their work, but the end result is the work, rather than some quatifiable gain for the client behind the ads. This difference in motivation is the reason, I think, one can be called a ‘film’ with all that connotes, and one is labelled an advertizement or a commercial.

And to the last line of the adfreak post, “ad or art who cares”, I am reminded of a line…isn’t there anything left to bastardize…

Here’s a direct link to the AdWeek post.

Thanks for putting up the link, Rex.

my point is that accepting them as ‘films’ gives them a credibility they do not deserve

I agree. It’s disturbing to me as well… the blurring distinction between the two. But I think we’re going to see more and more of this… and I’m trying not to be my usual cynical self about it. In the end, many of the social realities that have blurred lines and encountered resistance have turned into beautiful artistic movements. Right now, there are many talented filmmakers moving over to a more commercial environment — or straddling the two worlds. I find it hard to view this as a positive thing, but.. Let’s be honest — How far is it from what we’ve been seeing? Perhaps it’s actually more honest. Almost everything we see today is an ad of sorts. Everyone and everything seems to trying to sell something — be it material or ideology. As long as the awareness of content and context is there… as long as it inspires thought…. perhaps we should be more concerned with the messages that go beyond “buying into” a brand. What thought lies behind the sale? What concept is being used to sell? What tactics? These ideas — which are actual interpretations and strategies pushed by ad agencies — can be as provocative (or more) as a typical Hollywood flick. Am I making any sense?

wish I had more time to respond…generally, I try to be an aware consumer of media, and sure people should be aware of what tactics etc. are involved…but that doesn’t mean because we are seeing an increasing blurring of the lines that I have to just accept it. Which is why I objected to calling commercials films in the first place. It seems like some people (not you) don’t even understand there is such a thing as selling out.

I love that the distinction that’s being claimed between ‘film’ and not is that ‘films’ are ’self expression’ and have nothing to do with delivering a message or just making money.

Yeah right.

Tell that to Hollywood. Tell it to Disney. Tell it to Warhol and I’m sure even he would have laughed.

Ah, the old art vs. commerce argument. You can only keep it up until you’re hungry or need to pay rent.

not what’s being claimed at all…at least by me.

In films, as in commercials (at least the good ones), the basic set up is the same: the people funding the project want to make more money (sell tickets, action figures, dvds, cars, soap, etc…) and the people making the films (or ads) are trying to create something new, interesting, and thought provoking. At least ads don’t try to hide behind some altruistic curtain. At some point, everyone has to eat and pay the bills. We all know that.

Does it matter who’s footing the bill if it’s original and cool? If the only people funding cool little films are car makers, so be it. It’s better than seeing another remake of a 70s TV show funded by hollywood.