Last month I wrote a piece about data-driven guesswork (aka studionomics) endemic in the film business. The team behind MarqueeStars.com, which served as an example in the post, has since responded in kind with an article outlining their philosophy and intentions (‘Wolves in the Number Cruncher’s Hen House’).
Actually it’s more like a declaration of independence; far from being in thrall to studionomics, it turns out Marquee Stars is there to subvert it.
Tao Jonez (for 'tis their pseudonym) writes of the entertainment business evolving ‘along increasingly dysfunctional lines’:
‘Studio bosses and distribution execs have developed an unconscious addiction for the data wranglers and trend spotters in ways that stifle creativity … much of it unnecessary and, frankly, not sufficiently supported by the data … at least not to the extent that their numerical parameters are enforced.’
Siding with filmmakers rather than the suits, Marquee Stars strikes a blow against ‘numeric oppression’, providing a service ‘for the victims of the number addicts’:
‘We do it fairly and honestly; we do it using corroborated data; but we do it as a skeptical double-check on the mind-numbing pronouncements we hear from studio bureaucrats, territorial film buyers and foreign sales agents.’
All of which I find very refreshing and really rather admirable. It just goes to show you shouldn’t judge a web site by its animated avatar.
Onto research of another kind, with news that Professor Martin Barker of Aberystwyth University has teamed up with Picturehouse Cinemas to study alternative content streamed in cinemas (ballet, plays, opera etc.).
The research (‘Steamed Performances’) serves an academic and commercial purpose, and was prompted after Professor Barker attended a streamed performance of Phèdre, with Helen Mirren, during which he 'noticed some unusual things’:
‘Some people appeared to dress up for the cinema as though they were going to the theatre. Many people didn’t know whether or not to clap. It made [Prof. Barker] wonder about the senses in which the performance was ‘live’ and how this affected people’s enjoyment and participation.’
From a commercial point of view the research presents an opportunity to examine audience demand for such events, and to discover what makes this type of programming special. Streamed performances are becoming increasingly common; the number of such events rose from 31 in 2007 to 67 in 2008 according to Screen Digest data reproduced in the UK Film Council’s Statistical Yearbook 2009 (see Chapter 10).
Just as significantly, audience numbers can be impressive. Earlier this year the National Theatre launched NT Live, with the aforementioned performance of Phèdre, which was streamed in 73 venues across the UK to an audience of 14,000. More recently, a performance of All’s Well that Ends Well was attended by 11,000 people in the UK alone (these figures are taken from the NT Live web site).
The fieldwork is currently underway and Professor Barker is aiming for over 1,000 survey responses from streamed performance audience members. If you’ve been to a performance and fancy sharing your experience you can complete the questionnaire online here (a Welsh language version is also available here). Best of all, the research team promises to publish the results on the Steamed Performances web site. And if they can get Helen Mirren to read the report out live, I'll be first in the queue at the cinema.
Speaking of academic research publications, Nikki Finke, the doyenne of film biz bloggers, posted recently about a report issued by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and the Institut de la statistique du Québec (available here as a PDF download).
The UIS report is a measured and generally well written survey of film statistics based on data obtained from 101 countries for the years 2005-2006 (well written with the exception of one unfortunate mixed metaphor: ‘Digital film production has given birth to a two-edged sword.’ Youch!).
The accompanying press release, and Nikki Finke’s coverage, leads with the finding that Nigeria’s film industry is the world’s second most prolific producer of feature films after India. But hang on a mo: the 872 Nigerian productions counted in 2005 were shot in ‘video format’. As the report authors go on to point out, ‘the robust position of Nigeria film production is due to the fact that the films are shot in digital video format in two or three weeks on small budgets’. Which is hardly a strong basis upon which to compare national production levels across developing and developed countries, a point noted in a number of the comments left on Finke’s blog.
In fairness the report authors are assiduous in qualifying their description of these data, and in turn pose some thoughtful questions about African production practices:
‘Are we seeing here a sustainable trend [towards the video format], and if so, what are its implications? Will there be a positive influence on film production in Africa in general, and in particular in other countries in West Africa, where it is practically non-existent?’
Given that 99% of the 4,871 cinemas reported in Nigeria are ‘video theatres’, the shift to video also has implications for the exhibition sector.
The report also addresses rates of co-production activity in different countries, the nationality of distribution companies, cinema admissions by country of origin, rates of digital production and the language in which films are made.
However, the main story does not emerge from the data, but from the context of their collection. The UIS report confirms what anyone who has ever tried to source international film data already knows: there are some dirty great holes in the data record, particularly across the developing world. Still, it’s good to see UNESCO making the effort.
Interested in the Nigeria point, as this crops up in my work time and time again. Most definitions of feature film include the stipulation that a FF is shot on 35mm, is a minimum of 60 mins long, and is intended for theatrical release. Most Nigerian productons are shot as soap operas and, as cinema as we know it doesn't really exist (as you point out, they are video theatres) and they are shot on non-cinematic formats, I dont believe that these are feature films. They may have a large video production industry but that is very different.
The digital production point is also very interesting and related. Digital video can replace these very low format productions, so some film agencies have introduced a minimum budget level criteria for being assessed as a feature film. If all countries included the output that Nigeria does to come up with the number of films produced, they would no longer be anywhere near second-largest film production sector in the world.
Looked at another way, if we assess the size of a film sector by the investment into feature films, once again, Nigeria would be pretty low down on the list of film industries. This is nothing against Nigeria and its film industry (Nollywood, as it is known), but we need to compare like with like.
Posted by: David Hancock | 15 October 2009 at 11:41 AM