new media and the oscars.

I watched the majority of the Oscars this year, although I had assumed I wouldn't.

I'm neither strongly for or against the awards show, I just didn't see a point. The formatting of the Oscars seems more or less irrelevant, given the way I curate my online media consumption.

Standard (old) Model: Watch the red carpet, discuss / mock interesting choices, ignore bland ones. Watch the intro, laugh / discuss good jokes, ignore bland ones. Watch the performances, usually well executed but somewhat boring. Watch the presenters, half-paying attention to the pre-presentation patter, and half checking to see if they flub a line or mispronounce a name. Watch the Winners, ignoring the bland (often technical) awards, and agree / disagree with the marquee award winners.

Debatable Model: Read / Compulsively refresh 2-5 different liveblogs of the event on your laptop while watching, so as to achieve the maximum amount of witty commentary / recap possible. (Does anyone actually do this?)

New Model: Ignore the Oscars broadcast. Wake up, and go to your RSS reader. You now have a breakdown of Winners, Snubs, Reactions, Bad Outfits, Good Outfits, Great Jokes, Flubs, and the Performances deemed relevant. With this comes youtube videos of anything notable (therefore, time/location shifting, replay, etc), smarmy commentary, little bits of supporting info you wouldn't have known otherwise, etc. This is basically a distilled version of the standard watching experience, and you can feel free to ignore what doesn't interest you. You will learn everything you would from the show that you cared to, and in around a quarter of the time.

More importantly, the parts that most people enjoy are readily available in online coverage. The context, critique, jokes, etc, take the place of the unending montages that no one cares about, the technical awards (which, I'm sorry, do not matter to wider, not intensely dedicated to film crowd), and the thank you speeches.

Funnily, watching the Oscars made my RSS list a lot faster to sort through this morning, as most of the information had already been absorbed. But, it should be noted that I didn't finish watching the broadcast, because I got bored at around 10, brought my laptop to the TV, and then left at 11.

The standard counterarguments about 'knowing first' or 'shared experience' only partially apply. The interesting thing to me is that watching the Oscars has become an entirely dispensable part of the Academy Awards Experience.

paparazzi panopticism.

Communication Theory 101: Foucault and the Panopticon. The general idea, skipping past the actual specifics and the path to the point, is that people who know they may be watched, without being certain WHEN they are watched, police themselves.

This is, at core, the major principle behind law enforcement. Punishment is an issue of deterrent, rather than justice. In short, we don’t commit crimes not only because it would be wrong to do so, but out of fear of getting caught.

Enter the modern era’s obsession with celebrity personal lives.

I was watching Lionel Ritchie on CBC’s The Hour, and one of the questions he was asked was whether or not his daughter, Nicole of Simple Life and drunk driving fame, was ‘okay’.

His answer is irrelevant.

The point of Foucault’s ideas was that people policing themselves, a society that polices itself, is the end result of a watched society. If you look at any one of the pre-eminent gossip blogs, you’ll see that the exact opposite is in effect,

When Britney, or Paris, or Lindsay finally accepted that privacy no longer existed for them, that paparazzi were ALWAYS watching, whether or not they could see them, they had to make a choice. It was either to live their entire lives as though the entire world was watching (because, most of the time, it was) or to live as though no one was watching at all.

So we get upskirt shots as they come out of limos, and celebrity sextapes, photographic evidence of idiotic behaviour, whether neglecting the safety of a child, or neglecting standards of decency.

Foucault, apparently, was wrong. When faced with a panoptic reality, societal norms aren’t reinforced; they’re demolished. This is the same reason constant surveillance is the hallmark of an unjust state – if watched closely enough, everyone is a criminal, is a failure, an embarrassment. Ergo, if you’re equally despised whether you do something small wrong, or live like a hedonist hero, you might as well have the fun.

The interesting thing about this is that it can be read one of two ways; either they have decided to own up to their behaviour, radical transparency style, and not care what people say, or they’ve simply decided that any behaviour will be derided, so why bother behaving.

In no way am I excusing the current rash of drunk driving celebutantes. I’m just looking at the impact this has on theory, because everyone else just seems to focus on the decision to either mock or pity them.

random question...

...culled from old notes in my moleskine.

Why is it that we no longer have pop-culture royalty who are also considered to be of artistic merit? I mean, one could argue that some hollywood names are also excellent actors, but I can't stop wondering why the most revered and the most talented are rarely the same.

Is this just a function of me looking back at all other times? By this I mean to say that it's possible that the people I consider pop-culture royalty of the past were actually just known and talented, and the body of work led to acclaim after the fact.

[The question was originally written about a year ago, while looking at the Andy Warhol exhibit at the AGO.]

artificial everywhere (2)

AVC: You're a very candid interview. You often speak openly in a way that a lot of Hollywood actors won't. Have you had people trying to rein you in?

SL: [...] Sometimes perception is almost more important than the skill level of an actor. [...] So this [Gestures at himself.] is a representative. This is far too important a conversation, it's far too important, for me to be real with you. It's just too important to my career. Too important to the things that I love. So this right here is just this representative I've created, and I can talk all day in this character, this is just another form of acting. It's closer to what I am, but what I am is too much for any kind of selling of a project. There's too much money riding on this interview going well for me to be completely candid. So it's just a creation.

AVC: But even the fact that you're able to talk about that makes you candid.

SL: Right. Well, I don't know, I know where I'm at right now, it's been pretty successful so far, and this is just what I've been doing. I think it would be strange for me to start shutting down. I don't think I'd enjoy it as much.

from the Onion AV Club interview with Shia LaBeouf.

The thing I find most interesting is that the image of him as genuine is persistent enough that when he DIRECTLY STATES that he is not being a real person in this interview, but a construct, the interviewer still feels the need to ask the second question. This reinforces the idea that the perception of LaBeouf as a candid interview is a reasonable one, although the actor himself basically just said 'I am not going to be myself, because this is too important. This is a role.'

I would also ask that you consider the state of the world we live in where admitting that your persona is artificial is responded to with respect. We've come to expect the people we define as notable to manipulate their identity. When are we going to start expecting this on a basic interpersonal level?

Sooner than you think, would be my guess.