We’ve been running a lot of cross media orientation workshops lately, most recently for the Tasmanian creative media industry in the lead up to our LAMP lab which will be run there in November. The response has been very positive, particularly when we have got people actively participating and pitching spontaneous cross media project ideas.

Within AFTRS we have delivered workshops for a range of staff full time and students who are not afraid to put us on the spot. It is good to be challenged and so is the debate that about the future of the entertainment industries. We are a passionate community of creative people and it’s good to see strong viewpoints being put forward and contested. There should be more of it, especially in our blogs.

One thing that keeps coming up though is a misunderstanding that the cross media landscape is somehow a question of taste. Emerging media forms have sometimes been portrayed as an afront to ‘pure’ art of filmmaking or as a new mode of expression championed by ‘digital boosters’ (a term Ben Goldsmith has coined). This is not an issue that has anything to do with my personal taste in media or yours or anyone elses. The emerging media landscape is being shaped by a range of forces operating at a global scale and at a pace that is largely unstoppable. Many of these forces are purely economically driven and, as media producers, we need to choose a strategy to take us forward. We can either do what the music industry did and bury our heads in the sand or we can engage with a new set of rules and make a go of it. I love the films of Felini, David Lynch and Godard but this is not the issue. Media production, screen business and audience trends are undergoing major changes. No one has the answers but it is a time of great opportunity to test new waters with the benefit of our knowledge and love of the cinema.

Designers, digital artists, documentary producers and directors joined up for the first AFTRS emerging media design lab. Teams formed around four creative projects which morphed into compelling new media services in a rapid development process. Mentors Gary Hayes, Catherine Gleeson, Belinda Bennetts and Gary Hayes led the workshop which will result in four prototypes of next generation media services produced in the three day intensive workshop.

I’ve met with a number of digital production companies in the past couple of weeks and one message seems to be coming through loud and clear: educators do not generally train students to cope with the demands of fast turnaround, delivery-focused production. These employers would prefer courses with multiple delivery items delivered in a series of rapid turnaround, collaborative exercises. In this way students get the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and build their skills in working spontaneously under pressure.

I agree that this can be a problem with educational institutions teaching media production-based courses. There has been widespread criticism of this by various sectors of the digital industry through the Digital Content Action Agenda process.  But while this may be the best outcome for employers we also need to recognise that we are educators not production companies and we need to provide opportunities for students to learn, absorb knowledge, research and reflect on their process. So it’s more a matter of putting balance into courses in order to accommodate both requirements.

Creative projects given long time lines have a tendency to get bogged down if the energy of the process isn’t maintained. This is where the services of a skilled producer comes into play – to keep things moving so that the vision of the project is maintained over the devil of the detail. I’d maintain that a good education program should also be structured in this way so that it maintains energy and momentum.
The LAMP (Laboratory of Advanced Media Production) workshops we have been running for the past year are the best examples I’ve experienced of an ‘energised’ educational program. The process is rapid and demanding but clearly focused on the important aspects of the creative process. Any media production process is necessarily complex and maintaining focus on the aspects that ‘make a difference’ is a necessity to motivate a team. Rapid development of ideas, time for reflection and iteration of this process is a model well suited to the digital production process. If we are to prepare students for this world we need to move away from protracted linear processes and encourage cyclic, non-linear creative structures.

There has been some controversial discussions about the future of cinema on AFTRS blogs. This followed a cheeky session we ran at our annual staff curriculum review which posed a hypothetical 2012 scenario where Sydney had only two working cinemas. We asked everyone to posit a purpose for a media school operating in this environment.

Ben Goldsmith has been blogging about the opening of the new Chauvel Cinema and it’s rejuvenated range of programs intended to draw a younger demographic to the cinema. He also quoted statistical studies which show older Australians are actually making more cinema visits.

Well I’m skeptical after going to an AIMIA presentation yesterday on the future of the digital home. Graeme Philipson from Connection Research Service presented the results of an Australian consumer study which found a very bouyant market for home cinema systems in Australia along with a raft of digital lifestyle products. Over 3300 Australian homes were surveyed in March/April 2006 and while there is a long way to go there are strong trends that people are ready to buy up new home entertainment gadgets. So the question for the cinemas is really why go out when you can stay in?

I think if cinemas are going to differentiate themselves they need to develop experiences that go beyond the capabilites of home cinema – and cultivate events which build on the group viewing experience. In 2003 there was an outfit in San Diego called eSport who launched multiplayer gaming in cinema spaces and this kind of thinking outside the square may help cinemas to build younger audiences through hosting interactive group experiences.

There is an interesting article which talks about 3D cinema technology being used to beam live sports events into US cinemas. Might just work until those 3D home cinema systems take hold. But the feeling of being surrounded by an enthusiastic crowd in a virtual sports arena could work as a cinema experience. Definitely a lean forward experience.

How do you open horizons for filmmakers by the many new opportunities opened up by interactive media? This is an evangelistic mission we’ve set ourselves and so far we can report significantly more success with documentary makers and TV producers than die-hard drama directors.

The value of extending the documentary experience by providing access to research, additional materials or archive is a no brainer. In Australia the fine work of the AFC/ABC Broadband Production Initiative has facilitated productive partnerships between documentary directors and interactive producers. When I first saw Trevor Graham, Rose Hesp and Rob Wellington’s Homeless I could immediately see the potential of broadband to move web-based entertainment to a new level. But it doesn’t seem as obvious a combination when it comes to drama.

We recently ran a workshop for drama students at AFTRS on cross media opportunities and developments and found ourselves challenged to make an impression with our audience.

One of the main problems seemed to be a question of production values. If there was a badly written script or a dodgy performance they tended to reject the whole thing outright rather than thinking of it as an opportunity for them to get involved and do better themselves.

We were relieved when one example we showed seemed to inspire the audience the game ‘Indigo Prophecy’ which is very filmic by design. The hybrid narrative/game play is very engaging and the production values are high. I came across an interview with the game designer on the project, David Cage, at Gamasutra.

The purpose of this organization was to have an “auteur” approach to game creation i.e. to create a context that gives one person full power to express his/her vision. This specifically made it possible to adopt strong-willed stances without constantly seeking compromises at all costs, which would have been disastrous for a project that claims to be innovative.…For me this is going to be a strong trend in the industry in the years to come, making it necessary to question a certain number of preconceived ideas.

I’ve heard this one before many times: it’s the ‘director’s vision’ mantra that enforces the hierarchies of the film industry as we know it. And it definitely works to create the kind of cinematic experience that allows an audience to inhabit someone else’s point of view and get an insight from another cohesive view of the world.

The games industry definitely needs more of this in order to create emotional games experiences where we identify with characters rather than shooting them. But in a networked world the film experience, or the Indigo Prophecy experience for that matter, both seem static and limited. The connections between people and media that are the success of ebay, amazon, myspace and youtube I’m convinced will make headway into more traditional entertainment. It’s not as if drama is going to go away but I think ‘walled garden’ closed entertainment experiences – whether console games or films or even those on-line documentaries – are going to be fundamentally challenged by their audiences in the future. Interactive stories are one thing, but if your vision dictates all the options then you are not really creating a space for your audience to contribute.