As the new year begins, I’m going to pick up where I left off last month, discussing another media platform that is being prematurely written off by the pundits—Twitter.
For years, when I’ve discussed social media in my Business of Film class at Columbia, I have been surprised at how few of my students pay any attention to Twitter. When I quiz them further, it seems that the reason they are not on the platform is that they’ve been scared by what they’ve heard about the toxic environment they are told exists in Twitter. This, of course, was long before the takeover by Elon Musk, which has now created a narrative that is scaring even existing users away.
With Musk allowing some previously banned people back on the platform, and messing around with various ways to increase revenue, fear of Twitter has people predicting its demise and scaring users into abandoning it. Here are some reasons why I think we should all stick it out—and perhaps more controversially, why folks who have never used it should get started now. Continue reading “Premature Obituaries Part 2: The Case For Twitter”
This past week, I’ve been watching as various pundits and publications have been debating the pros and cons of Twitter reviews of movies. I’m more than a disinterested bystander, since I’ve been tweeting reviews of films for more than four years–at festivals, after watching screeners at home, and after seeing films at a commercial theatrical venue.
Additionally, many of you may not know that I run a web site called Movie Tweeviews, which is a curated stream of Twitter reviews. When I first started the site four years ago, I just thought it would be fun to pull together quick responses to films in real time, but I wasn’t interested in the mass public. I wanted to limit the stream to people whose opinions I respected. So, I invited some critics, exhibitors, distributors and filmmakers to contribute. These days, the stream is mostly me, but occasionally there are other voices on the site.
The debate about Twitter reviews began after an expression of distress by Cannes Film Festival head Thierry Fremaux. His beef is with the instant judgment that these reviews bring upon a film, which can easily poison its festival launch. The prime example was how quickly Gus Van Sant’s film was skewered on Twitter within minutes of the lights coming up at the Palais this year. Continue reading “In Defense of Twitter Reviews”
When AMPAS announced its new documentary rules this week, I thought the idea of having a New York Times or Los Angeles Times review be a qualification for the Oscars was a good idea. Putting outsiders who have no stake in the results in a position of defining what is considered “theatrical” is a brilliant stroke. This is especially true of the New York Times, which has a commitment to review everything that plays a full week run in New York City. Their definition of a theatrical run has included venues like MOMA and films that have opened day & date on VOD, so this should not be a difficult obstacle for any film that mounts a real theatrical release.
On the other hand, there is still an obstacle created by the rules that I strongly feel is not only unnecessary, but is destructive to the integrity of the award. Earlier today I expressed my displeasure in two tweets and the reaction was so strong that I felt that I should use more than 140 characters to flesh out what I was referring to. The tweets were as follows:
In case you didn’t know, @MMFlint is Michael Moore, who has been credited with influencing the Academy’s change of rules.
The problem I am referring to is something that I have been preaching for a long time. Continue reading “Let’s Finish the Oscar Doc Overhaul”
I’m constantly amazed at how many people have such a hard time catching on to the various forms of available communication, and don’t realize what is appropriate usage for each of them. There are ways of reaching out to people that require very little research to find out an address, and those are the places least likely to get a response. On the other hand, one can easily abuse having access to someone’s cell phone number or email address. For what it’s worth, here is my assessment of the priority given to the various forms of communication…
1. The Telephone: Yes, you read that right. The phone is still the best way to reach out to someone with urgency. I went to a conference recently where they put up a slide that said, “You can’t get milk from a cow by sending an email.” If you need an urgent answer, pick up the phone. Continue reading “The Hierarchy of Contemporary Communication”
About 5 or so months ago, David Pogue wrote in the New York Times that he had tried out Twitter and wasn’t sure what it was good for. He wrote “Like the world needs ANOTHER ego-massaging, social-networking time drain? Between e-mail and blogs and Web sites and Facebook and chat and text messages, who on earth has the bandwidth to keep interrupting the day to visit a Web site and type in, “I’m now having lunch”? And to read the same stuff being broadcast by a hundred other people?” But then he had a revelation. He was on a panel and used Twitter to send out a quick request for an answer to a question, and got dozens of immediate responses from his followers. Continue reading “After 3 Months on Twitter, still wondering…”