The popular, received narrative describing the democratizing effect of digital video on the media goes something like this, spelled out here by novelist Sherman Alexie:Anybody can afford to make a movie today. The moviemaking process has finally become egalitarian and populist. You can buy good video cameras, quality sound equipment, and effective editing systems for $10,000 or $5,000 or $1,000 or $500. Over the course of a few months or years, a poor reservation Indian kid can collect $1,000 worth of discarded aluminum cans from ditches and garbage cans, spend $500 on her equipment, and then spend another $500 to make a movie about the sad beauty of aluminum cans and their relationship to Native American health, economics, and politics.
I would like to highlight three assumptions Alexie makes that characterize this narrative: 1) what has prevented all but the rich or well funded from making a film is production-related cost; 2) technological progress has made media production cheaper, eliminating this barrier and giving everyone the chance to become a filmmaker; 3) consequently, the revolution in media democracy to which we are now bearing witness represents a clean break with the past. “Moviemaking was previously one of the most expensive art forms,” writes Peter Broderick of now-defunct Next Wave Films. “Now, for the first time, independent filmmakers can afford to own the means of both production and postproduction;”indeed, this shift is “seismic.”Novelist William Gibson summarizes: “Digital cinema has the potential to throw open the process of filmmaking, to make the act more universally available, to demythologize it.”
On the surface, the evidence in support of these claims seems incontrovertible. Each step in the evolution of video has made the medium accessible to more and more people. With the introduction of the video Portapak in the late 1960s, the VHS-format camcorder in the late 1970s, and 8mm and Hi-8 camcorders in the 1980s and early 1990s, analog video became cheaper and more portable, to the benefit of independent moviemakers and home videographers alike. The introduction of digital video and the mini-DV format in the mid-1990s continued trend, while home-based postproduction became more feasible thanks both to the home computerrsquo;s increasing capabilities and to the introduction of consumer-grade editing software such as Applersquo;s Final Cut Pro. Suddenly, a mere $400 will buy a low-end consumer-level mini-DV camera, while $3,000 will buy the “pro-sumer-level” Canon XL1.5With mini-DV camera in hand, shooting and preparing to edit an hourrsquo;s worth of footage costs only about $20, in contrast to the nearly $5,000 necessary for 35mm film.Even film school has become less expensive: by the estimates of Utnersquo;sErin Ferdinand, tuition to Emerson College Film School runs $24,000 a year, making cyberfilm school.comrsquo;s $49 tuition seem paltry in comparison.
However, this discourse is misleading. To begin with, attempts to democratize participation in the media are not new. Nor, for that matter, is the discourse that accompanies them. This discourse has obscured various constraints affecting the production and distribution of amateur films in a social and political system where because “consumer technologies like movie cameras [have been] drafted into an idealization of the family,” amateurs nd their access to the means of public distribution limited.8My purpose in this paper, then, is to explore these constraints and, in so doing, problematize the three characteristics of the rhetoric of media democratization described above. Specifically, I contend that: 1) constraints related to distribution represent a more important obstacle to amateur filmmakers than production-related cost; 2) the obstacle of distribution limits the audience most amateur filmmakers can reach; 3) consequently, the ostensible revolution in media democracy is not as complete as it might appear on the surface.
To make sense of these contentions, it is important first to consider the historical precedents of both the rhetoric of media democratization and the efforts made by those trying to put media to more democratic use. After such a contextualization, I will consider the obstacles faced by amateur filmmakers, placing special emphasis on that of distribution. Finally, I will discuss one solution in particular to which filmmakers are turning to overcome these obstacles: microcinemas, “small venue[s] or cinema[s], moving or temporary,” distinguished from mainstream cinemas by their social function of creating an intimate setting in which to bring people together to watch a film.
The current rhetoric of media democratization inscribes itself in a long line of discourse concerned with the relationship between technology and democracy. Daniel Czitrom observes that a certain utopian rhetoric has accompanied the “popular excitement surrounding each new development of communications technology,” especially in the North American context.10In the US in particular, the same could be said of the development of any technology: John Kasson, in his examination of Americansrsquo; relationship to technology from 1776 to 1900, asserts that “the expectations Americans have historically brought to their technology are profoundly rooted in their understanding of the entire republican experiment.”11James Carey and John Quirk trace a similar trend with respect to Americansrsquo; relation specifically to electricity.12Joseph Corn generalizes: “Beginning in the nineteenth century, commentators in industrializing countries had considered social and moral progress to flow inexorably from scientific discoveries and technological innovations.
Others have contended that what matters is access to technology rather than the technologyrsquo;s intrinsic qualities: democracy improves when access to the means of media production becomes more generalized. This perspective has had a certain curren
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
流行的，收到的叙事描述在媒体上的数字视频的民主化效果是这样的，由小说家谢尔曼·亚历克西在这里阐明：任何人都可以负担得起拍电影的今天。电影制作过程终于成为平等主义和民粹主义。您可以以10,000美元或5,000美元或1,000美元或500美元的价格购买好的摄像机，高质量的声音设备和有效的编辑系统。在几个月或几年的时间里，一个可怜的预订印度小孩可以从沟渠和垃圾桶里收集价值1000美元的废弃铝罐，在她的设备上花500美元，然后再花500美元制作一部关于铝的悲伤之美的电影罐及其对美国本土的健康，经济和政治关系。
我想强调Alexie所做的三个假设，即这个叙述的特征：1）阻止除了富人或资金充足的所有人都制作电影的是与生产相关的成本; 2）技术进步使媒体制作更便宜，消除了这一障碍，让每个人都有机会成为电影制作人; 3）因此，我们现在所见证的媒体民主革命代表了与过去的彻底决裂。 “电影制作以前是最昂贵的艺术形式之一，”现已解散的Next Wave Films的Peter Broderick写道。 “现在，独立电影制作人第一次有能力拥有制作和后期制作的手段;”事实上，这种转变是“地震”。小说家威廉吉布森总结道：“数字电影有可能打开电影制作的过程 ，使更多的普遍可用的行为，以解决它。”
从表面上看，在支持这些说法的证据似乎确凿无疑的。视频发展的每一步都使得媒体可以被越来越多的人所接受。随着20世纪60年代后期的视频Portapak，20世纪70年代后期的VHS格式摄录一体机以及20世纪80年代和90年代初期的8mm和Hi-8便携式摄像机的推出，模拟视频变得更便宜，更便携，为独立电影制作人带来好处和家庭摄像师一样。 20世纪90年代中期数字视频和迷你DV格式的推出持续发展趋势，而家庭电脑的后期制作变得更加可行，这要归功于家用电脑不断增强的功能以及推出消费级编辑软件，如Apple的Final Cut临。突然之间，只需400美元即可购买低端消费级迷你DV相机，而3000美元将购买“消费级”佳能XL1.5带迷你DV相机，拍摄并准备编辑一小时的价值镜头花费仅为20美元左右，相比之下，35毫米胶片需要近5000美元。甚至电影学校也变得更便宜了：根据Utne的埃林费迪南德的估计，艾默生大学电影学院的学费每年为24,000美元，这使得网络电影学校成为可能。 COM的$ 49的学费相比显得微不足道。
然而，这种话语是一种误导。首先，试图民主化媒体的参与并不是新的。也不是，对于这个问题，是伴随着他们的话语。这种话语遮蔽了影响社会和政治制度的生产和业余电影发行各种因素的制约，其中因为“消费者技术，如电影摄影机[被]起草进入家庭的理想化，”业余ND他们对公众的手段访问因此，本文的目的是探讨这些约束，并在此过程中，对上述媒体民主化修辞的三个特征进行问题化。具体地讲，我主张：1）与分配的约束表示对电影制作者业余比与生产相关的成本更重要的障碍; 2）分布的障碍限制了观众最业余电影制作人能够达到; 3）因此，在媒体的民主表面上的革命的并不完整，因为它可能会出现在表面上。
为了使这些争论的意义，重要的是首先要考虑的媒体民主化两种修辞和那些试图把媒体更民主的使用作出的努力的历史先例。这样的处境后，我会考虑所面临的业余电影制作人的障碍，特别强调的是分布。最后，我会向哪个制片人正在转向以克服这些障碍，讨论了一个特别的解决方案：微电影，“小场地或电影，移动或暂时的，”通过创建一个亲密的社交功能从主流电影院区分的设置，在带给人们一起观看电影。
媒体民主化目前修辞题本身涉及的技术和民主之间的关系，话语一长排。丹尼尔Czitrom指出，一定乌托邦式的说辞陪同特别是美国特别是在北美context.10In“周围的通信技术的每一个新发展，流行的兴奋”，同样可以说，任何技术的发展：约翰·卡森在他的美国人的技术关系1776年至1900年的检查，断言lsquo;美国历史上带来了他们的技术正在深刻地植根于他们的整个共和制实验的理解的期望。rsquo;11James凯里和约翰夸克跟踪了类似的趋势对于美国人的关系，特别是要electricity.12Joseph玉米概括：“在十九世纪初，在工业化国家评论员曾考虑从科学发现和TECHN无情地流向社会道德进步ological创新。
其他人则争辩说，重要的是获得技术，而不是技术的内在品质：当访问媒体生产资料变得更广义的民主提高。这一观点曾在媒体研究某种货币，或许是因为媒体制作的成本都在不断下降。亨利·詹金斯援引了“通讯的爆炸，“zines”在70年代和80年代作为这一趋势的证据清单，其中原因的杰西·沃克增加的扩散lsquo;自酿的CD。rsquo;14It一直特别明显的表现在视觉讨论媒体。阿利萨·奎特，例如，认为“纪录片的复兴，这要部分归功于便宜，更轻的数字格式的出现，有助于抵消通过电影追求政治目标的艰巨成本，”和伊夫·卢梭比喻微电影的出现法国新浪潮的出现，本身成为可能“重要的技术进步：光相机和更灵敏的电影” 15的便携式摄像机甚至激发了弗朗西斯·福特·科波拉的20世纪80年代问世来描述一个梦想没有什么不同阿莱克西的上面引用：对我来说具有极大希望的是现在8毫米录像机都出来了，谁的人通常不会拍电影将要使他们。而这一天，一只胖女孩在俄亥俄州将成为新的莫扎特，并与她父亲的摄像机拍得很美。这一次关于电影的所谓的专业性将被破坏，它会真正成为一种艺术形式。
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[18566]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
