Kiosk.net

In spite of what you may have heard or read, Pure Digital’s little video camera is pretty much useless. Sure, it’s small and handy, and it’s easy to operate, and it stores 30 minutes of video and the built-in USB connection makes it easy to download video clips to your computer (at least if you have a laptop or USB hub), but all of that merely add up to you being able to easily shoot, download and view up to 30 minutes of truly awful-looking video clips.

The zoom function is completely useless, use it and whatever video you shoot will be out blurry and pointless. You’re better off putting extra money into a decent digital with 30 frames per second video capacity and optical zoom that actually does something for you.

Last time I checked, enjoying a movie was a subjective thing. But hey, we’re ambitious people, and making lists is fun! So clearly subjectivity doesn’t stop us from making list after list of the best, the worst, the funniest, the most heart-wrenching films of all time. What’s my point? Well, what I’m trying to segue into here is a discussion of the American Film Institute’s newly renovated “100 Years…100 Movies” list, which (arguably) documents the 100 best films of the past century.

First of all, I would like to point out that I am by no means a film connoisseur. I am young, and I only had the pleasure witnessing the last 15 years of the 20th century. (I am counting on the fact that most people don’t like math and won’t bother calculating my age and disregarding my opinion just yet.) That being said, I consider myself an unfortunate representative of the 20-somethings roaming this earth who are apparently overexposed to the garbage produced today and underexposed to the classics that populate AFI’s treasured list. I have seen 21 of the movies on the list. I remind you, that is out of 100. Does that make me uncultured? Most likely. But I think that it also makes me typical for my age.

To recap, AFI re-released the legendary rankings this week to celebrate the 10th anniversary of its initial list, and to allow recent films (made between 1996 and 2006) to earn a slot. Now I could sit here and give you a play-by-play of all the movies that I HAVE actually seen, or regurgitate the reviews that other, more cultured and knowledgeable bloggers have given of the new list, but I don’t feel like it. And I doubt that anyone would want to read it. Because as I originally stated, watching movies is subjective. There is no right answer, mostly just wrong ones. I do, however, have an issue with this list that I would like to point out to AFI now.

Who exactly are these faceless voters determining the “greatest movies of all time”? Some of you might wonder how AFI compiles this all-knowing list. I was curious as well, and with a few clicks of the mouse, I got some ambiguous answers. Shocking, I know.

First of all, this isn’t random polling. A panel of directors, screenwriters, critics, actors, editors, cinematographers, and historians are the predetermined voters. (Insert a yawn here, followed by an angry grimace.)

I’m not quite sure why this bothered me so much. It isn’t as though I am saying I know more about movies than the pros, I am actually disturbingly confident in my naiveté when it comes to films. But I know I am less biased, and when it comes to asking for opinions, I think we should be looking towards the people the movies are made for (the audiences), rather than the people who make them. For example, Citizen Kane was chosen as #1 (just as it was with the first list 10 years ago). An Orson Welles’ masterpiece. Released in 1941. A classic. I’m not trying to dispute whether or not it should have won, I just don’t know why the rest of the list has to read almost exactly the same way. No one has a list of favorite movies that all originated before 1950.

I read the master list of 400 films that these professionals got to choose from, and I have to say they missed some good ones. This is where that whole subjectivity issue comes into play again. When you release a list of that magnitude, everyone has an opinion, and you have admittedly clueless people like me thinking that they should have a say too. The only justifiable claim I can make is that I at least have some semblance of a clue about films made within the last decade or so, which is why the idea of this remodeled list excited me. For about 5 seconds.

The only movies to make it from the newly considered crop were Titanic, Saving Private Ryan, The Sixth Sense, and Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. I have seen all of these movies, and none of them are my favorites. Two of the additions are extremely questionable in my mind, but with my self-proclaimed, non-expert status hovering overhead, I don’t feel comfortable specifying which ones. I’ll just give you a few hints. One was known for its breakout performance by a child actor (whose recent successes include voicing characters in The Jungle Book 2 and The Country Bears—very impressive). The other was historically inaccurate and included an excruciating song by Celine Dion. I know that soundtracks may not factor into this contest, but they should, especially when they start to cause movie goers physical pain.

So what does all this mean? Nothing. Did I waste time rambling on about a topic that signifies very little in the grand scheme of things? Of course. But if AFI executives do happen to read this (I’m crossing my fingers as we speak), and they plan on generating a new list in 2017, I urge them to spice up the voting process a little next time. They have 10 years to brainstorm, and I am always available for input. Personally, I think that they should throw some no-name voters into the mix, not unlike myself, who can make clear-headed and impartial decisions.

If we want to make a list representative of our culture, we need voters who understand that how well a movie is made doesn’t necessarily factor into how it makes us feel. I know for a fact that by the time I am a 30-something, my favorite movie will still be The Sandlot, I’m just hoping the rest of the country will catch on by then.

Bottom line: Georgia Rule confused me. I will be the first to admit that I don’t mind watching a movie without substance. I saw Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, I loved Pretty in Pink, I own several Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen films. But Lindsay Lohan’s latest project will not make my list of “favorite movies to watch when I don’t feel like thinking.” Because it tried to make me think, it tried to be deep, I think it even tried to make me cry. And it wasn’t successful.

The back story goes like this: Lohan stars as 17-year-old Rachel Wilcox, the youngest in a line of feisty, stubborn women who all come off as relatively miserable throughout the majority of the film. Rachel’s mother Lilly (Desperate Housewives’ Felicity Huffman) ships her unruly daughter off to spend the summer with her estranged grandmother Georgia (played by Jane Fonda), who resides in Hull, Idaho.

For the first half hour, the movie plays out as I initially anticipated. Rachel and Georgia clash, Rachel disrespects Georgia’s rules (hence, the title of the film), eventually conceding to them and softening a bit. With an idyllic Idahoan setting populated by barbecues and God-fearing Mormons, it appears that on her home turf, the stern Georgia will prove victorious over Rachel’s antics. (Although I doubt that washing her mouth out with soap would instantly cure Rachel’s propensity for drugs, sex, and alcohol in the real world.)

Yes, all the pieces of the predictable Garry Marshall chick flick (i.e. Raising Helen, Runaway Bride, Beaches) fall into place in the opening scenes of Georgia Rule. That is until allegations of child molestation enter the picture. Although this plot development will undoubtedly shock (and most likely confuse) viewers, it doesn’t mix well with the cheery picnic-goers bustling about in the background of what should be a serious scene.

That trend of treating somber issues inappropriately and further perplexing the audience continues on throughout the film. Take Lilly’s alcoholism for example. She goes to see her former boyfriend Simon (played by Dermot Mulroney) to ask for help with her addiction, the logical choice seeing as the town veterinarian also treats the people in Hull. (Because everyone knows that small towns in the Northwest value their pets’ care over their own.) After admitting to Simon that she has a problem and asking for a prescription, the two share a passionate kiss that seems to surprise the both of them. It surprised me too, seeing as the typical married woman doesn’t make out with her general practitioner (excuse me, veterinarian) after admitting she is an alcoholic.

This synopsis may confuse you a bit. And unfortunately, going to see Georgia Rule for yourself probably won’t solve any of that. If you insist on paying to see this movie in theaters, you have a handful of scenes to look forward to, like when Rachel warns all the Mormon girls in town that “If you call me a name - ever again - I will find all of your boyfriends, and I will **** them stupid.”

Although the movie boasts a talented cast, its script is laughable and it doesn’t help its actors in their attempt to tackle some ambitious material. I can’t criticize the acting in the film, they just weren’t given much of a movie to work with. Marketed as a light-hearted comedy, Georgia Rule delves too deep into issues and subject matter we are used to seeing on crime dramas and (unfortunately) the evening news.

I give it 2 out 5 stars, but if you need a second opinion, there are a plethora of other people who agree with me.

Let’s revisit a popular item: The awful DVR boxes that Comcast and other cable providers dump on their customers.

Blindsquirrel has an excellent summary of the Motorola boxes:

The Motorola 6412 DVR that Comcast gives to its customers is the worst piece of technology I have ever used. It is slow, it hangs, it’s slow, it crashes, it’s slow, it records things and then you can’t watch them. It is a complete mess and I can’t believe Comcast still offers it to its customers.

I second every word. One could say that the 6412 DVR is the… Iridium of DVR boxes. In fact, it’s worse than Iridium. At least Iridium works.

A couple of months ago Omar Shahine quoted an article by Wall Street Journal’s tech columnist Walt Mossberg who reached the quite frankly inescapable conclusion that Motorola’s DVR box “is just awful.”

Jason Weill sent a letter to Comcast over a year ago in which he detailed the shortcomings of the DVR box.

Cory at The Underserved has put together a nice little grid that compares Motorola’s garbage DVR to the one used by DishNetwork.

And then there’s John Battelle’s rant on the subject. It’s a good one.

It could be that things will get better, as D-Mac on Phildadelphia Will Do points out. And it could happen as soon as next year. Maybe. (Next year? Wow, that’s only scores of hours of television programming shredded by the Motorla box from today!). One can dream, can one not?

It’s certainly an admirable goal for Netflix to try to improve its movie recommendations, and an even more admirable PR move, as megamark sagely points out, but I do have to wonder how much headway can actually be made. In my last entry, I pointed to Alexander McCabe’s blog Flaunt It, in which he analyzes the ratings system and Cinematch’s accuracy:

The ratings are between 1 and 5 stars. Their current system ‘Cinematch’ doesn’t do too well. On average it’s out by just under 1 star for each rating - so typically Cinematch will predict that a viewer will watch a movie and score it 4 stars - the viewer will actually score it 3 or 5 stars. You could probably get close to that level of competence by guessing that the viewer will rate every movie at 3 stars. Many times, you’d be right, and many times, you’d only be one star away. The vast majority of movies that I’ve seen are 2, 3 or 4 stars.

The first problem, as I see it, is that we are not dealing with a particularly accurate ratings system to begin with. A margin of error of 1 star doesn’t sound like much, but 1 star does constitute 20% of the ratings graph, and could be the difference between “I really enjoyed it” (4 stars), or “I wasn’t overly aware of the posterior pain of sitting in a chair for two and a half hours” (3 stars), or from the latter to “I was kind of bored after I ran out of popcorn” (2 stars).

So, naturally, there is room for improvement in terms of ratings predictions. But the ratings themselves are given by human beings, which I must confess, despite my fondness for them, are not renowned for consistency. I could rate a movie down by a star if I were feeling grumpy either the day that I watched it or the day that I rated it, or rate it up by a star if I watched the movie at a get-together with friends, forgetting, perhaps, that most of the witty dialogue was supplied for the people on-screen by my friends. And I do not think I am markedly more capricious than the average movie-viewer.

And ’stars’ are about the most subjective rating system after ‘thumbs up/down/horizontal.’ Perhaps 2, 3 and 4 stars have an entirely different meaning for you than for me, and you would call a 3 star movie “I was kind of bored after a ran out of popcorn” and a 2 star movie “I did escape from the experience without gouging out my eyeballs.” What does it mean to be a four star movie? A three star movie? How long will we ponder this question before it starts to become slightly existential?

All this is to say that Netflix knows me about as well as I know myself, and I’m not exactly certain how they can provide a much more accurate prediction. An article in the Times-Herald Record jubilantly opens, “Does it sometimes seem as if Netflix knows your tastes better than your friends, your spouse, even you? ‘You loved it,’ the DVD rental site will remind you, offering a movie for sale that yes, by golly, you did love.”

The news item here is that, while Netflix bides its time waiting for a recommendation engine to tell you how much you loved it with an even greater degree of accuracy, the company has also introduced a new feature in which you can find out what other people loved, too. Just put in a zip code, and you can find out what people in New York, San Fransisco, Portland, Maine, or Portland, Oregon, or, for that matter, Hindustan, Indiana (actual town) are watching and enjoying from Netflix.

An important distinction on the service is that it does not display the movies rented most often, but the titles ordered “much more than other Netflix members” in other or comparable areas. This reveals that regional specialty tastes frequently have to do with (surprise) the region itself. For example, “Northern Exposure,” about the little town of Cecily, Alaska, tops the list in Fairbanks and Juneau, “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” is number two in Savannah, Georgia, where the movie (and book) is set, “Wyatt Earp: Special Edition” is particularly loved by those in Phoenix, near Tombstone, Arizona where it was filmed.

New Yorkers love Ric burns’ historical series “New York,” “New York Stories,” and Woody Allen’s “Manhattan,” but they also display a particular weakness for French films, as opposed to, say, all the Cuban films that are rented in Miami. And regional favourites are not a given: “Fargo” is not on the list for Fargo, North Dakota, nor is “Paris, Texas” on the list for its namesake.

The Times-Herald Record also noted that regional placement made little difference in their own research of “top rentals” rather than “top unique rentals.” For example, “Crash,” though set in L.A., also hit No. 1 in Boston, New York, Miami, Albany, NY, and Billings, Montana. There were a few interesting variations amongst the cities they researched, which you can read about in the full article, but not ones that reflect an easily-definable trend.

After all, no matter how many stars they give it, the capricious human being does have remarkably similar affinities for certain kinds of stories, regardless of where they live. “I think taste is uniform across the country — and across the world, and the millennia,” said Richard Walter, a film professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “People everywhere respond to the same kind of drama, the same characters, the same conflict.”

So, as Greg Gershman wittily suggests on his blog, gregword, you could probably please everyone by suggesting ‘The Shawshank Redemption,’ regardless of which movie they’d just rated, or how they rated it.

A recent article in USA Today by Gloria Goodale of the Christian Science Monitor uses Netflix’s screening of Clint Eastwood’s “Escape from Alcatraz” at the long-defunct island prison as a starting point for a discussion of how Netflix has changed consumer behavior. The article goes on to discuss, however, how Netflix will soon be facing challenges from newer distribution models like video downloading.

Branding expert Morris Reid accounts for the recent dip in Netflix stock (which was the result of the company’s failure to meet analysts’ predictions for the last quarter) by pointing out that “the biggest challenge for Netflix is distraction” from its primary role as a content-delivery firm. Sponsoring film festivals or concerts is better suited for the Netflix brand, and while the Roadshow stops may have been unique, they are a “waste of time and money.”

These sentiments are mainly in agreement with those expressed several weeks ago by Kiosk.net contributor Megamark, who makes the further point that dragging people out of the house may ultimately be contrary to Netflix’s mission. I agree with this when in comes to popular classics, all of which were seen in droves by theater-goers, but when it comes to sponsoring things like indie film festivals (as suggested by Reid), Netflix would be well served to simply have its name connected with that of Sundance, etc. After all, these sorts of films are simply not available to most viewers in a theatre-setting, thereby making Netflix the only option.

In any case, this seems to be Netflix’s strategy, as it has actively sought to become the go-to content provider for the indie movie biz.

A recent article in USA Today (accessible here) introduced me to an interesting concept that, I think, captures the questions regarding the movie downloading model: “fidelity.”

In techspeak, “fidelity” refers to the total experience of something, including the qualitative differences between that experience and its alternatives. The key to understanding and predicting consumer behavior is figuring out the relationship between convenience and fidelity. When the ability to enjoy a form of media reaches a certain level of convenience, consumers are generally willing to sacrifice fidelity. The perfect example of this is the iPod, which doesn’t provide the sound quality of a regular CD but provides such a high level of convenience (in the form of ultimately lower cost, a higher level of portability, etc.) that consumers were all over it. Applying this concept to movie downloading suggests that the key is to make the model so convenient that consumers will ultimately accept the drop off in fidelity from watching honest-to-goodness DVDs on their home entertainment systems. But the other way to look at the issue is that movie downloading services need to raise the fidelity of their offerings, so that they have more to offer than just convenience.

An example of the importance of fidelity is in Google’s new (and free) book downloading service (brought to my attention by this article). Most book publishers aren’t really worried about this service because it isn’t convenient enough to outweigh the fidelity of buying a book (downloading takes forever, reading on a screen is awful, printing is more expensive than you would think and it also takes forever, etc.). Ultimately, I think this model should serve as a good example for the movie downloading biz: don’t even bother with launching it until the fidelity of the experience catches up to the convenience of downloading a film, i.e. until DVD burning is an unlimited reality, etc.

Whiskers just wrote about the Netflix summer promotion “Netflix Rolling Roadshow” where the movie-rental company brings movies to you, as it defines its business, by screening a series of American classics in the places where they were filmed. That’s not a bad promotional idea in and of itself, but I don’t think it makes as much sense for Netflix as it would for a theater chain. The industry’s problem is not that people don’t watch movies, plenty of people watch movies practically all the time, though usually on TV, which is exactly where Netflix expects its customers to watch them. But the Roadshow promotion aims to build awareness of the Netflix brand by dragging people out of their homes to a, in effect, theater. That seems oddly at cross with what Netflix does for a living.

Geeky disagrees and calls it “one of the best ideas” she’s heard in a long time. Ben Edwards calls it “a great idea” and TravelPost.com thinks it’s “pretty cool.” I agree with them, just not when it’s done by Netflix.