JUST DO IT YOURSELF!

Since the emergence of video hosting websites, such as YouTube and Vimeo, the production and distribution of video media has been growing rapidly. Motion pictures are no longer produced only by professional media makers. Nowadays everyone can be a video producer. As part of the media industries, video hosting services have contributed to the plural cultural industries (Hesmondhalgh 2002)[1]. People are provided with a wide range of various spectacle products and given the freedom to choose which one they want to consume. On the other hand, they are also given the freedom to upload their own videos and have other people watch the videos. This phenomenon is obviously made possible by the modern development of technologies in the current era of digitalization. This essay will further explore issues about the producer-consumer relationship within the area of video production, and how it creates a new form of various creative contents.

As mentioned before, media industries are considered as a part of the cultural industries. The cultural industries themselves are surrounded with information that people used for identification, representation, belonging and difference[2]. As a circulation of culture, the media industries do not only produce cultural products (spoken/written words, images, sounds), but they also offer platforms for the public to create and share their own content[3]. This online content sharing is the main service provided by the video hosting platforms mentioned before. Video hosting platforms have created opportunities for people, both professional and amateur, to share their own ideas of artistic freedom and expression through technologies[4]. Video consumers do not merely view the products (the videos provided by the platforms), but there are also opportunities for them to create a new form of product through download. Thus, video hosting platforms are ideal places for co-creation, a process where audience (video consumers) involve themselves in new forms of an existing product (Banks 2012)[5].

Specifically speaking, the engagement between producers and consumers can be seen in the viral Do It! video. The video was shot in front of a green-screen background, depicting Shia LaBeouf yelling motivational quotes for two minutes. The title of Do It! referred to his most striking words in it. Despite his peculiar ranting behavior that has caught the public’s eyes, the video has surprisingly become a well-liked target for audience’s co-creation. Under the creative common license, the footage has been modified widely by amateur filmmakers across the world. The video reactions are extensively diverse, mostly adapting and combining with various elements connected to popular cultures. For example, videos and vines (short, six second videos) have been made where  LeBeouf’s “Just do it” fits into the lyrics of popular songs, or speeches of presidents. In other instances he becomes part of a popular movie scene, where he seems to be encouraging characters to hurt or kill someone. Apart from that, Hollywood actor James Franco also did his own adaptation of the footage in comical sense, contributing to the Do It! video gaining more popularity.

Do It! in collaboration with The Avengers

Fake Ted Talk Do It!

The footage was actually a special project by Shia LeBeouf, Nastja Säde Rönkkö and Luke Turner for Central Saint Martin’s graduation show. Titled #INTRODUCTIONS, it was a set of 36 half-minute long videos performed by LaBeouf in front of a green screen. He asked the students of the Fine Arts bachelor program to fill the green screen with any kinds of backgrounds they want, as long as it bridged to the introduction of their works. The Do It! video in fact is only a small part of the full version.

The full version video

Within days, the reworks of the footage have hastily spread online. It was noticeably a sign of new era of cultural production where novel types of amateur and semi-professional production are rapidly multiplied through digitalization[6]. In line with that, it is also an observable example of what Graeme Turner has called as a demotic turn (2010)[7]. The demotic turn has caused ordinary individuals to integrate into media industries and created an army of “do-it-yourself”. 

Not only has it generated a new generation of media makers, the recognition of the Do It! video also illustrates the process of convergence in media work. The boundary of the place where the video is made in no longer exists. LaBeouf’s video was definitely shot inside a real green screen studio, whereas the co-creation videos could have possibly been made anywhere. This indicates the convergence of place. The videos are also a part of technology convergence. LaBeouf’s video has enabled people to tell new forms of stories using different software and applications, and engaging the audience on different levels. Consequently, the videos contribute to the global convergence of culture because they encourage participation and interactive relationships between professional and amateur media makers, although not in a direct way[8].

The video was indeed intended to provoke co-creation, but for a specific audience (the students of Central Saint Martin). However, the raw footage can be downloaded through Vimeo which is a publicly-known video hosting website. Therefore, the spread of the footage could not be prevented in this era of digitalization. The public did not only consume it by watching it, but also by creating new content which signaled an active behavior of consumers[9]. Moreover, it generated user-innovation communities inside a new media ecosystem where they work in common-based peer production[10]. In this case, the community who made the reworks processed the same source, which is the Do It! video.

In conclusion, the existence of video hosting platforms potentially blurs the difference between media producers and their consumers. In the specific case of the Do It! video, the consumers have unlimited opportunities to contribute in co-creation productions creating new media ecosystem with the help of digitalization.

James Franco's Do It! version

Thesis:
Not only blurring the line between media makers and the consumers, co-creation still largely depends on mass media produced popular culture.

BB, FM, LB, MM, YB

References:

Deuze. (2007) Creative Industries, Convergence Culture and Media Work.

Grossman, Samantha. “Shia LaBeouf’s Weird Motivational Speech Will Leave You Equal Parts Inspired and Terrified”. Time. June 1, 2015. http://time.com/3903849/shia-labeouf-motivational-speech-fake-ted-talk/

Hesmondhalgh, David and Sarah Baker. (2011) Towar a Political Economy of Labor in the Media Industries. Blackwell Publishing. Mayer, Vicki. (2014) Making Media Production Visible. Blackwell Publishing.

Hartley, Potts, Cunningham, Flew, Keane, Banks. (2013) Key Concepts in Creative Industries. London: Sage. 

Jones, Charlie Robin. “Shia LaBeouf is About to Introduce Your Grad Show”. Dazed Digital. June 2015. http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/24842/1/labeouf-ronkko-and-turner-are-introducing-the-csm-grad-show

Siddall, Liv. “The Best Reactions to Shia LaBeouf’s Motivational Speech”. Dazed Digital. June 2015. http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/24936/1/the-best-reactions-to-shia-labeouf-s-motivational-speech

---

[1] Deuze. (2007) Creative Industries, Convergence Culture and Media Work. 54.

[2] Deuze. (2007). 46.

[3] Deuze. (2007). 57

[4] Mayer, Vicki. (2014) Making Media Production Visible. Blackwell Publishing. 14

[5] Hartley, Potts, Cunningham, Flew, Keane, Banks. (2013) Key Concepts in Creative Industries. London: Sage.  21

[6] Hesmondhalgh, David and Sarah Baker. (2011) Toward a Political Economy of Labor in the Media Industries. Blackwell Publishing. 390 – 391.

[7] Mayer, Vicki. (2014). 13.

[8] Deuze. (2007). 74.

[9] Deuze. (2007). 72.

[10] Deuze. (2207). 78

From Madrid to Times Square: an analysis of the Hollywood remake

It is an opening scene that has left an impression on many viewers: during the intro of Cameron Crowe's Vanilla Sky (2001), Tom Cruise wakes up in his New York apartment, goes through his morning rituals, enters his car and drives to Times Square, only to find it completely deserted. The usually so crowded square is shown in a way in which we will hardly ever experience it in reality. One could say that for people who have seen the movie, Times Square becomes a lieu d'imagination, a place that allows the visitor to cross the boundary between the “real” world and the imaginary world the movie takes place in (Reijnders 2010: 40). Though there may not be any guided tours that specifically focus on Vanilla Sky, it's not unusual for the movie (and especially the scene described) to be mentioned in texts meant to draw tourists to Times Square. Especially visiting the square at the crack of dawn, before the daily stream of people starts moving through, will allow the visitor to experience the same sense of bewilderment as Cruise's character. This can be seen as an example of ostension, the reenacting of a fictional event in a real life setting (Reijnders: 44).

What viewers may not know, however, is that a strikingly similar scene can be found in the movie Abre los Ojos (1997), directed by Alejandro Amenábar. Here, Times Square, is replaced with an equally deserted Gran Vía in Madrid. Similar to those who visit Times Square after having seen Vanilla Sky, the location might help them cross over to the imaginary world the movie takes place in. Videos of visitors reenacting the scene can even be found online.

Vanilla Sky is, in fact, a remake of Abre los Ojos, and follows its plot relatively faithfully. It is produced by Paramount Pictures, one of the “big six” Hollywood film studios. Hollywood is not unfamiliar with remakes: for decades, movies from small producers or foreign countries have been adapted by large Hollywood companies and turned into blockbusters.

Most of us will likely have seen one or multiple remakes in our lives. What is less likely is whether we have seen the original as well, or if we are even aware there is an original. Is this practice harmless, or is Hollywood “stealing the spotlight” of the original movies it is remaking?

As a means of measuring media performance, Croteau and Hoynes present us with the market model and the public sphere model. While the former judges a medium's success through the profit it makes, the latter uses so-called “public interest” to measure the efficiency of a medium (Croteau & Hoynes: 16). The market model relies heavily on supply and demand, and this could be an explanation for Hollywood's decision to make remakes. When a movie from outside Hollywood gains noticeable popularity, it is not strange that major companies see this as a form of demand and respond by creating a version of their own to appeal to their Western public. Influences from outside Hollywood may indicate what sort of new products consumers are looking for, and thus encourage innovation within Hollywood.

When looking at the public sphere model, remakes might be somewhat less justifiable. After all, according to this model, the media have a goal beyond that of making profit. They are our primary storytellers, and we have come to rely on them as a source of information (Croteau & Hoynes 2006: 22). They can show us the state of the rest of the world and help promote diversity and awareness of other cultures. This is where the making of remakes might turn problematic. When being market-driven and specifically aimed at a certain group of consumers, media might reinforce prejudices and drive people apart from each other. It keeps the audience from interacting with groups other than its own.

Vanilla Sky deals with these problems as well. The original, Abre los Ojos, takes place in Madrid, and features a cast of Spanish characters. In Vanilla Sky, this setting has changed to New York, with the biggest part of the cast consisting of white Americans. Whereas distributing the original would have helped promoting diversity, the market approach Hollywood has taken seems to promote homogeneity. Watching Abre los Ojos could have presented us with a new perspective, and played a role in creating a healthy public sphere. The fact that the plot of the remake is fairly faithful to that of the original makes the choice to replace the Hispanic cast with a nearly all-white one even more dubious.

It could even cause trouble for the interpretation of some characters. Sofia, the main character's love interest, is portrayed by Penelope Cruz in both movies. The fact that she's the only Hispanic main character could easily skew our perception of her. In Abre los Ojos, her nationality is the same as that of all other characters. In Vanilla Sky, being the only foreign main character, she's much more easily interpreted as an exotic character that the main character is drawn towards because of her otherness.

Apart from homogeneity, there's another issue this remake brings along. It's interesting to note that while Paramount Pictures still seems to be flourishing, the producers of Abre los Ojos (Sociedad General de Televisión and Las Producciones del Escorpión) seem to have disappeared off the map since the early 2000s. “Moving” the production from Madrid to Hollywood may have harmed Madrid's potential media capital. The talent, resources and reputation (Curtin 2011: 544) that could have gone to Madrid may have gotten diverged to Hollywood. Abre los Ojos was shown in only ten US cinemas, whereas Vanilla Sky was shown in 2.742. Wide distribution of the original instead of the remake might have given creative workers incentive to travel to Madrid, whereas now, the siren call of Hollywood gained in strength by creating new job opportunities through this remake.

However, even though we can make theoretically backed claims of Hollywood “stealing Madrid's spotlight”, we should not forget that the remake did, in fact, give many viewers a reason to get in touch with the original. Whenever Abre los Ojos is mentioned, Vanilla Sky is usually mentioned as well. Upon getting in touch with the remake, people might feel compelled to get in touch with the Spanish film scene as well, meaning Madrid will indirectly gain media capital from it after all. Countless comparisons between the two movies can be found online, proving that viewers are interested in the similarities and differences between them. Even though the remake itself might be homogeneous, the fact that people are willing to delve into it and paraphrase how the cultural portrayal differs from the original might suggest that it might actually promote diversity. In this situation, things are not as black-and-white as they may seem at first sight. It is definitely a subject that calls for further research.

Thesis: while Hollywood remakes may hamper diversity in some aspects, they can also indirectly help promote it.

BBB / LB / YB / FM / MM

Sources:

• Abre los Ojos. Amenábar, Alejandro. (1997) Spain: Sociedad General de Televisión/Las Producciones del Escorpión.
• Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W. (2006), ‘Media, markets and the public sphere’, in: The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, pp. 15-40.
• Curtin, M. (2011)’Global Media Capital and Local Media Policy’, in: J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds), The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 541-557.
• Reijnders, S. (2010), ’Places of the imagination: an ethnography of the TV detective tour’, in: Cultural Geographies 17 (1), pp. 37-52.
• Vanilla Sky. Crowe, Cameron. (2001) USA: Paramount Pictures.

Miley, Whats Good?

Miley Cyrus was recently the host of the MTV Video Music Awards. The fact that she was able to host such a well-known event solo in her own style signifies her current place at the top of the pop world.

                                                               

Part of what makes Miley’s story resonate with fans is what Robin James calls the neoliberal feminist idea of “Look I Overcame”[1], Miley’s background has allowed her to overcome. Currently ideas of marketable feminism require that perceived strong females survive. A strong woman is not like other girls: she is unique and has over come the patriarchal system on her own.  In doing this, however, the strong woman enforces the system they seek to overcome. Miley’s narrative is a standard version of this story.

Miley started off young in the entertainment business as the star of a popular television show controlled by Disney.  Miley had to conform to the ideas of young femininity that Disney wanted to promote. Her break away from that image is forever tied with it. Mileys current persona is dependent on that beginning.  No one would care that she is now someone who rides giant hotdogs on stage, sticks her tongue out, wears provocative clothing and dances with drag queens if they didn’t have the image of her starting out as a young country singer.

Without the knowledge of her past she would just be another singer trying to be wacky to get talked about, instead of someone that people genuinely do talk about.

The Miley that existed since Hannah Montana first went on the air in 2006 has overcome Disney’s hold on her and “broken out “of a system which she says caused her to suffer from body dysmorphia and emotional trauma[2]. She has accepted that she is damaged by the system and now profits from it (like other Disney Stars have also done, for example Demi Lovato).

The self-realization is according to James nothing new, it is part of the traditional overcoming narrative. First there is the whole undamaged person, then something negative happens, then suffering and finally self-awareness and growth[3].  This idea is always about improvement and in this modern western neoliberal society betterment equals money and the accumulation of it.  

To overcome and be this new “strong” version of herself, Miley needed the system to tell her what she needed to overcome, that same system informs her now that she is strong. She is still dependent on and plays to the system that she acts like she broke out of.  The wording is just different. It used to tell her to be like the other girls and now it says “don’t be like the other girls”. Both ideals of femininity depend on the system’s idea of the “other girls”.

Now she has moved on and can control her own image. This would not have been possible to do unless her Disney career had provided her with the economic capital to move on.  Getting past a crisis instead of slipping further in is not free, as James states it requires money and privilege to break out[4].   

Miley can afford to act a certain way because she still relies on the system to keep her relevant. She presents herself the way she wants because she comes from the right narrative whereas others have not “earned” their way into dressing or behaving as she does.  Other artists may act or dress similarly to her get criticised because they do not fit into the narrative that has promoted Miley.  There are differences in class and race that prevent others from benefiting from this system of success. They may have “overcome their damage” but not in the way that the current music and media industry has decided they want to story to play out. Miley’s freedom of expression is bound by narrative and not open to everyone.

The resources she has gained from this have allowed her to now work relatively independently and produce and release her latest album (Miley Cyrus and Her Dead Petz)  for free.

However, Miley’s free album might not be as free as its seems

The music is indeed available immediately through free streaming[5] via the website Soundcloud. This is in direct contrast to other artists like Taylor Swift, who have recently been increasingly regulating and monetizing their content.  However, Miley’s free access comes with a catch, there is no other (official) way to access this music.

In this current musical climate as talked about in Raphael Nowak’s article Understating Everyday Uses of Music Technologies in the Digital Age, music is no longer experienced through a single channel but interacted with across multiple platforms for multiple reasons[6].

The attempt to be accessible to everyone through free streaming cuts off access to it. She assumes that the way that she would want to access that music is the same way as listener would and doesn’t give them a chance to interact with music in a way that they would choose to.  There are so many options now in regards to the music experience this singular access is restrictive. She takes away the agency of the listener and tells them how to interact with the music.

There are no obvious download links and the album is only available via streaming services which require the listener to be connected to the internet. A listener must always be connected to the digital world. They cannot take the music out of that world the way you could with a CD or Mp3 download.  The music is accessible but not mobile. This limits the places the music can be listened to and cuts off fans who may not have access or only have limited access to internet services. The album is free but it is not free at all times for all people.

Nowak states that in the digital age many people still interact with the physical objects even in music. CD sales may be declining but artists have been putting out special editions of CDs or vinyl records for those fans who like to own physical objects[7]. The fact that they can get an album for free is great but fans are aware of the fact that the artist doesn’t get paid when this happens. When people want to really support an artist they want to be able to buy something from them. There is a ritual here. It may be a commercial ritual but it also allows fans to clearly tell an artist what they like (album sells well) or what they don’t (album bombs) and to be part of the music process in their own way.  By limiting Her Dead Petz release to a singular free digital platform Miley ignores the fans importance as part of the music industry and further denies them agency.

She doesn’t need them anymore. She doesn’t care if people buy her album or not, her album is for her. The free access is not about her listeners; its about her. Its about her being better than other artists because she can afford to release this album for free where other artists still need to sell their albums.

 Miley’s current success doesn’t benefit others like she may claim it does. She may not have made money off Her Dead Petz but the constant mentions of her in the press and the way she announced her album (on stage at the VMAs during her time as host), have allowed her to continue to be in the public eye, perform and profit from things other than her album sales.  Miley’s resilience as a pop artist with the ability to put out a free album, relies on the fact that she is part of the neoliberal conception of a strong woman.  

The album is free but the image continues to sell.

Thesis: Resilience 'feminism' is just another form of oppression

FM, LB, BBB, MM, YB

---

[1] James, Robin. "Look I Overcame ." In Resilience & Melancholy: Pop Music, Feminism, Neoliberalism, by Robin James, 78-124. John Hunt Publishing , 2015. Pg. 79

[2] Glock, Allison. "Miley Cyrus Marie Claire September 2015 Cover Interview." Marie Claire.com. August 7, 2015. http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a15323/miley-cyrus-september-2015 (accessed Septmber 25, 2015).

[3] James 2015 Pg. 83

[4] James 2015 Pg. 86

[5]  Streaming in this case is the continuous transmission of data over the internet

[6] Nowak 2014 Pg. 149

[7] Nowak 2014 pg. 150