The Stigma of a Label
A multifaceted hot topic over on the MPrem forums this week included discussions about the significance of a label in the promotional efforts for a film. Namely, we’ve been pondering whether the “machinima” label helps or hurts, given the conflicting connotations which have emerged even as the word starts to gain more public recognition. (Just this week, I’d encountered a situation that made me wonder about the same, and had also noted that Afterworld doesn’t make a big todo about their production method either).
Wired had a very interesting article this week in that same vein, talking about an apparent tendency among writers and filmmakers alike to stay away from the “science fiction” label. The issues raised there are startlingly similar and relevant to the same discussion about “machinima.” You can check out the article here.
I see no upside to abandoning the term “machinima” for individuals or en masse. Certainly downplaying it in promotion might have its merits, but leaving that term to embrace a new (even more obscure) one doesn’t hit the issue squarely. And I think that issue is: the audience doesn’t really care too much about how a film is made… and doesn’t appear to be too enchanted with a medium that “insists upon itself.” Distracting them with a term that inevitably raises questions with largely technical answers - while an appealing tangent for fellow filmmakers - seems capable of derailing the most important question we want our audience asking themselves: Is this entertaining (or in some cases, enlightening)?
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment... or, take it to the forum (click here)
I agree with you. When I promote my movie within the machinima community, I use that term, because it’s one they know and are comfortable with. But when I promote them elsewhere, I usually just say ’short film’ or ‘animation’, because they typically don’t care what I used to create it. And it’s usually pretty obvious when watching a movie what is used to create it (a game of some sort).
Your question “Is this entertaining (or in some cases, enlightening)” is one that any writer should ask themselves at many stages along the way.
I wish more did, in fact, and we’d have less … erm… that rant is for another day.
Comment by Nova — April 15, 2007 @ 2:59 am
Actually there’s a contradiction about the ‘insists upon itself’ argument..the film discussed in the family guy clip was the godfather, a very popular film.
I can see that IOI applied to Seargent Pepper, the most overhyped album of last century, again, very popular.
I suspect that it’s possible to come up with an evidenced, logical and audience focused way of promoting machinima..and then some completely unexpected film will come along and break all those rules and find it’s way into the mainstream and nobody will know why.
Then it will be cool to know what the word machinima means.
Comment by Kate — April 15, 2007 @ 3:57 am
I think sometimes the production method can give context to the production itself. If you use a violent game to tel a kids story, there’s a meaning in that. In that case, i feel it makes sense to mention it.
The choice of medium, particularly nowadays that a lot of people have a choice, is part of the artistic process - if it indeed adds to the work’s meaning.
Most often though, i agree, it doesn’t.
Comment by fiezi — April 15, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
“The Medium Is The Message” - Marshall McLuhan, 1964
“Marshall McLuhan talked a lot of bollocks” - Hugh Hancock, 2007 (and indeed 2004, 2005 and 2006)
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — April 16, 2007 @ 6:58 am