Earlier at work, I inadvertently became embroiled in a heated debate. I was making casual conversation with a co-worker who was telling me about a friend of his. His friend, an independent filmmaker, was irate over Spike Lee's Kickstarter campaign to get funding for his next film. My co-worker, expressing his thoughts on the subject, he said he considered his friend foolish and said "anybody should be able to start a Kickstarter." I agreed with his statement, but added, "while that may be true, it doesn't preclude your friend's indignance." This is where it all began.
My friend looked at me as though I had kidnapped and hog-tied Henry Winkler and stuffed him inside an oversized birthday cake with instructions to sing Happy Birthday Mr President to Obama. I explained that "while I agree anyone should be able to start a Kickstarter, it seems a bit uncouth of someone like Spike Lee to utilize the service, given Spike Lee is an established and well-known filmmaker. He has celebrity, industry connections and affiliations, know-how, and influence, so an argument can be made that he doesn't need to gain funding through Kickstarter like an unknown independent filmmaker who has none of those assets would." I had blasphemed something fierce, and was to receive the full brunt of his fury. He told me I was way off base, and that I hadn't a clue concerning the inner workings of the movie-industry. He touted the virtues of appealing to an alternative source of funding - which an internet-based service such as this could provide - which boiled down to greater freedom and creativity for the artist.
I lauded his efforts, and once again agreed with him and communicated I felt this was a good thing. It seemed as though we were both addressing different aspects of the issue. To get us back on track, I saw I would need to clarify my argument: "I agree that a service like this works because anyone can participate, and I am not advocating celebrities be banned. I agree that this medium affords greater control and flexibility for the artist, and thereby produces a more honest product, unadulterated by corporate interests or censorship. What I take issue with is the power of celebrity to attract funding, at the expense of someone without that same advantage. Think of a parking lot with rows of tall lights on a summer night; the lights with the biggest brightest bulb attract more moths; Spike Lee is a very large very bright light. As an independent filmmaker, why should my dream be eclipsed by having to compete in a space against someone like Spike Lee? Isn't Kickstarter for other independent filmmakers like me, with limited resources and a good idea, just starting out, trying to gain funding and get my dream off the floor so I can eventually make a name for myself?"
Though I omitted money completely in my argument, my co-worker took my stance to be somehow related to wealth and said "so because Spike Lee has money, he should be able to finance his own projects? I don't think that makes sense. He should be able to use a service that anyone else can use despite his net-worth. Ultimately, if people don't like the idea for his film, they don't have to pay him to get it done. That's the brilliance of this system: if yours is better, they'll pay you. It isn't an either or type of scenario here. The point of the service is to get good ideas off the ground, and the people decide what those are."
Seeing my friend was again trying to make the issue about something it wasn't, I decided to use an analogy. I asked how he would feel if he owned a pizza shop in New York, making his living off of selling slices, living a pretty happy life, until one day, Robert De Niro opens a pizza shop down the block. People begin flocking to the new pizza shop because Robert De Niro's name is associated with the establishment, and it has novelty and celebrity. You find that suddenly your shop is empty and your business is in decline because you're competing with someone who has power and influence. He told me it wasn't the same at all, and I was again, way off. At this point, another co-worker, overhearing the conversation, walked into the room asking if he could participate, given it was an interesting topic. He argued that a celebrity presence has the potential to open up more opportunity for independent filmmakers, not less, because it serves to put more eyes on that website. People who go there to fund Spike Lee, stumble across your page, after having been to Spike's, and now your traffic is increasing exponentially. To use the moth analogy, that bigger light is attracting more moths to the area, so all the extra moths who can't fit against that light begin bleeding off to other nearby lights, increasing the number of moths in the area.
I found this to be a provocative argument, and couldn't deny that there was some validity to it. I still asserted that it was possible other artists/filmmakers were being damaged because they were never noticed or were destroyed by unfair competition. I went back to my pizza shop example, but my two colleagues shot it down and said it wasn't the same because Kickstarters come and go so quickly - they're always in motion - and comparing it to a stationary building limited in space wasn't fair. Still feeling that they were wrong, but willing to adjust, I asked about food-trucks, given they are mobile, can craft a niche product and cultivate a specific cuisine with a specific following. I described a situation in which a new food-truck has to compete in the same space as an established food-truck with a strong following, as opposed to another food-truck in nascent stages of its development. They said this too was not the same, so I gave up. I decided all I wanted was to get them to admit that the presence of big-name celebrities - with resources and assets that aren't necessarily monetary - could trample on the dreams of those without the same luxuries, and that perhaps a space like Kickstarter isn't one where they should have to be competing with those people.
They would not grant me this.
They said that it wasn't possible. They said I was making an argument that they analogized thusly: "you're saying that a guy who's rich and has a car shouldn't be riding the bus." I failed then, as I fail now, to see how that is what I was arguing. That premise sounds absurd. It appeared they were going back to trying to straw-man me, by trying to re-factor in wealth. Finally, I hit them with my last analogy, and said "no, it's more like a soup kitchen. If you're not starving, and you don't need the soup, but you decide to go to the soup kitchen anyway to eat the soup, that's a dick move. Now there's less soup for the people who actually need it, and someone is going to go hungry tonight." They told me this too was different.
I lost interest in the conversation once I realized that they were completely unwilling to entertain the idea that I may be partially right. I then asked if they wanted to go play a game of basketball with me and Kobe Bryant. For some reason, they declined.
No comments:
Post a Comment