RULES FOR REALISTS: Rule #3

Rules for Realists #3: The World is Unevenly Distributed

The Pareto Principle, also known as the 80/20 Rule, states that, despite appearances, all things are not equal and that a general rule of imbalance can be statistically proven.

In other words, a constant minority of some aspect of life will have the majority of that aspect's effect. This majority/minority distribution works out (over the long run) to 80%/20%.

For example, 80% of a given city's traffic jams occur will occur on 20% of its streets and highways. 80% of those traffic jams will occur during 20% of a 24 hour day. 80% of crime will be committed by 20% of the population. 80% of crime will be committed by 20% of the age spectrum of a population. 80% of a company's workforce benefit will come from 20% of that workforce.

These ideas are not new but they tend to be forgotten especially in today's world where modern technology gives the illusion that everything is modular and precisely duplicated.

Realists can use Rule #3 to many ways. One popular practice is to use this principle to weed one's investments: 20% of your holdings produce 80% of benefit, while 80% produce only 20% of reward. By identifying and dumping the 80%, one's return can be (temporarily) enhanced. Then again, 20% of one's investments hold 80% of the risks.

This procedure can also apply to friendships. If 20% of one's acquaintances produce 80% of benefit, would it not be wise to identify those who really do enhance your life and then nuture those relationships? Are all those Facebook "friends" of equal value to you?

RULES FOR REALISTS: Rule #2

RULE #2: NOT ALL PROBLEMS HAVE SOLUTIONS

We have this conundrum, you and I. We live in a world of fascinating, oftentimes incredible technological progress. New inventions, new discoveries march us down a road towards more efficiencies, greater mastery of knowledge and communications systems. Products are sleeker, more reliable, more energy efficient. Obstacles that have flummoxed people for centuries are now falling away with digital, nano and biotechnologies. It's quite clear to most everyone that all problems will fall if we set our minds to them.

Except not.

While technology continues to may huge leaps almost daily, we are foolish to assume that such progress applies equally to all areas of life. Just as World War I, the War To End All Wars, didn't stop war in the slightest, so the latest phone app, vaccine or genetic crop variant will not prevent human misery, environmental degradation or hatred or greed.

One modern myth is if we organize and work hard, we can accomplish anything. Realists know this is an illusion. Corporate rapacity will not go away because Occupy Wall Street demands it. Laws might help for a time, until money's power returns to tip the scales of justice.

We can't save the whales, stop world hunger, create world peace, or end bigotry because we decide to do it. If we do decide to go against these foes, we must be realistic and understand that such efforts may be noble and important and perhaps absolutely essential, but they are not going to end in success.

Instead, realistics break off their Big Quests into smaller chunks: focusing on one small piece of a Big Injustice and overcome that. Then another little piece, then another. Such an approach isn't dramatic or romantic. But winning small battles usually makes more sense than losing a great big one.

Equally, some personal problems never get resolved nor some relationships, despite all good intentions. In these cases, there are only two solutions: learn to live with the problem or move on.

Rules For Realists

I have been on this planet for a while, and I have learned a few lessons about how things work here. This knowledge isn't laudatory; experience and mistakes have been my main courses of instruction.

Over time I have boiled down what I know into a short list. I call it Mangravite's Rules For Realists.

RULE #1: THE WORLD IS NOT PERFECT AND NEVER WILL BE.

This is the first Rule For Realists because the modern world keeps telling us otherwise, relentlessly and to our continued frustration. Technological innovation, mass production and relentless efficiencies give us the illusion that the world is, can be and/or will be perfect, flawless and dependable. It isn't. It never was. It never will be.

We live in a broken world. It's beautiful but it's not quite right. Things go wrong. People did ridiculous things, even the wisest, mistakes are made. Meanwhile, the world can kill you, random tragedy strikes. We can't legislate away this disruption, we can't fix it and we can't expect someone else to fix it.

We can try though. And we can help those whose efforts make the world a better place. And support ideas which over the long run help transform human society and how we all deal with our condition. But that condition at basis is not going to change very much - at least permanently.

The best that realists can hope for is some temporary periods of happiness, however happiness may be defined. The pursuit of happiness may be a constant in human nature; attaining it and maintaining are other matters altogether.

Conservatives are usually comfortable with Rule #1. They know that the world is fundamentally flawed. But that knowledge is not excuse to do nothing in the face of our problems.

Progressives tend to resist Rule #1, that's part of their nature as visionaries and rebels. Their problem is that resistence can turn into narcissistic denial.

I have ten Rules For Realists. Rule #2 next time...

One or two things I have learned about politics

For those of you who have dropped by this blog before, the title of this entry may come as something of a surprise. The majority of previous posts have been about media and culture; these are areas in which I have worked for a long time. I have degrees in these subjects and I have taught many courses about them.

Meanwhile, though, I have lived my life in areas beyond these subjects, met many good people from many backgrounds (and a few truly evil ones). I have had a go at many projects, built a few businesses, encountered a few bitter failures and some success. All in all, I have been on this planet for quite a while now, long enough to have learned a few things about how this crazy world works. I don't have degrees in most of what I know, but you learn as you go.

This is some of what I have learned about politics...

...that the clanging and clamoring of public life will never cease and that clever demagogues can spin any aggregate of random facts into personal gain.

...that much of what passes for deeply felt political beliefs are motivated by deeply buried personal conflicts.

...and that while many of us can clearly and forcefully articulate their political points, we often can't express or even identify what really motivates them.

...that a good majority of today's political argument is really a dispute between well intentioned people who happen to have opposing means while seeking the same end.

...while the remaining minority is not only diametrically opposed in the ends they seek, they are in agreement that keeping up the endless argument keeps them in the fighting business.

...and many a good and well intentioned idea can turn very bad very quickly.

Take for example corn...

I like corn. I like to eat it. I like to grow it. I like to do both at the same time. I like to stand in my garden at night and hear it grow, pick an ear, shuck it and eat it raw. Especially in full moonlight. Lovely.

But corn is a problem in our culture. It's everywhere in our food - as high fructose sweetener - a major culprit in the fattening of America. It's also a political football in the form of ethanol. Way back in the gas crises of the 1970s, the cry went up to free the US from the grip of the avaricious oil producers. The solution would be fuel from renewable plant energy. Why not? We have good soil, lots of sun and water - let's grow our fuel! We can save energy! The air will be cleaner! We will be free from the political controls of oil producers!

So we did this wonderful new thing. A lot of farmers balked at first but the Federal government subsidized the effort to produce corn as fuel - ethanol - in a big way. Not so long after, farmers started to get used to these subsidies and tax breaks. Now a whole lot of acreage is going to fuel not food. Results? Higher food prices and a comfortable relationship between Big Oil and Big Food. And...we discovered that ethanol does not substantively reduce air pollution and the net result of ethanol production and consumption is more energy use not less. We also learned that the ethanol campaign effectively gave the energy industry a great opportunity to influence votes in the farm states which suddenly found themselves profiting mightily from the fossil fuel industry. Net result: the effort to develop electric cars and alternative energy now get intense pushback from farm states as well as oil companies. And farm states often are key to national elections and...well, you see where this is going.

This is an example of one of what I call Rules for Realists - Rule #4, also known as (Edmund) Burke's Law aka the Law of Unintended Consequences:
what began as a well intended push for alternative energies, cleaner environment and energy savings ended up as a major force against the development of those very virtues.

I will post all my Rules for Realists soon...

Coral Gate Media has its own blog

As I mentioned some months ago, my media content company Coral Gate Media LLC has now departed from this blog and started up its own: please visit http://coralgatemedia.blogspot.com

This blog remains as my personal soapbox for ideas and commentary.

Stay with me - I have a couple of thoughts to share in the days ahead.

On Space and Use: the Forthcoming Marriage of Stage and Screen

For most of its history, cinema has been at best a casual acquaintance of live theatre. The former is focused on technological innovation and up to the minute adaptation while the latter proceeds traditionally, with techniques, terms and practices that are hundreds of years old.

Now though, fundamental changes in both arenas suggest the real possibility of a brand new relationship between the two. I see some truly exciting potential here and it all centers around the use of space.

To begin, let's look at some basic problems that the stage and cinema face.

Theatre's biggest problem is financial. Costs keep rising but there is a real limit to revenue. The past several decades have seen theatre producers attempt to resolve this problem by cutting wages (relative to other costs and inflation). As a result many actors, even on union contracts, are essentially working for free, once taxes, dues, and transportation costs are deducted. Ticket prices have also risen significantly. But meanwhile the price of materials and equipment, plus the added costs of insurance, new building and safety codes, etc keep piling up.

Theatre's other financial problem is recoupment. Plays take a lot of money to put up (the "nut" or capitalization) and to run (the "weekly" costs) but the window to recoup (the length of the run) is usually short. Once a show closes, there are few options for recoupment beyond a tour or selling off the production elements.

Another huge issue is theatrical real estate. Theatre takes place, as Peter Brook once said, and that place is the physical theatre, the acquisition and operation of which is usually a stage company's biggest cost. (I will allow the occasional great deal such as Joe Papp's historic one dollar a year rental agreement from the Cty of New York for the Public Theatre downtown. Such deals are the Holy Grail of theatre companies).

Yet, despite the costs involved, theatre spaces are seriously underexploted. Shows only run a dozen performances or less per week. The audience seats sit empty for most of the time. All that real estate going to waste...

Cinema meanwhile has its own headaches. On-location production is becoming increasing problematic in our ever more complicated modern world. Finding locations with adequate height (to light), seclusion (to sound record), parking and loading and security is increasingly difficult.

Similarly the pace of film production is changing the production landscape. Every filmmaker knows that production sound is the culprit in most location slowdowns. Camera may need a retake or two or three to work out a focus pull or a dolly move, but sound often requires many more retakes for its own issues. But when a crew has to double its daily page count make their day, production sound quality is dispensed with - has to be - to which is added the lame excuse that "we will fix it in post".

The problem with that scheme is two fold. First you need a decent post production sound studio and there just are not that many, especially outside of the major film centers. Second, you have the issue of bringing your actors back for post dubbing and ADR. Unless the film is cast locally, this can be very costly and sometimes impossible - actors often move on to other gigs far far away.

Due to technological innovations, plenty of independent film productions are turning (back) to shooting in studios using standing sets, green screens and post production digital imaging. This relieves a crew of the huge hassle of location shoots and all of the attendant problems. It also offers a controlled sound recording environment; in a studio production sound needs far less post production dubbing and ADR. But renting studio space can be a crushing cost and again, there are very few adequate facilities outside of the major centers.

But sweet are the uses of adversity! When I put the problems of cinema and stage together, I see a dandy potential solution.

Theatre spaces should be designed for flexible use - for performance and for cinema production. When a show is produced, audience facilities (seats) are put into place. When the theatre is "dark" (no show), the space is used as a sound stage, either by the resident company or rented out to external film projects, thereby providing rental income to the host company.

This facility would offer multiple use equipment - the light grid, a scene shop, dressing rooms, a costume and prop storage area, loading dock - that could service shows and shoots alike.

The facility should include an adequate post production sound studio - for dubbing and ADR. It also needs a proper theatrical light/sound booth. Both needs might be satisfied with a single combined use facility.

A flexible show/shoot facility would allow a theatre company to produce plays, then move on to shoot the project as a film, thereby exploiting assets- the actors are already rehearsed and costumed and propped - and extending the potential to recoup production costs through dvd and direct download sales and rentals. For such a shoot, the theatre space shifts into a sound stage. Production sound is better managed in such a controlled environment. What post sound dubbing and ADR that is needed could be handled on site, either during the production schedule itself or immediately following.

If the theatre company chooses not to shoot its projects, it has the option to rent out the facility to outside film projects, another source of revenue. A film company with such a facility could maximize its use by renting out its space to theatre projects with limited runs.

The flexible seating in such a facility would actually enhance the theatrical experience as directors and designers would have more freedom to reinvent the performance/audience spatial relationship to enhance each particular production.

The audience for the stage production would be a built-in primary market for any based-on film project (not likely a significant one in size but one that could be enthusiastic, driving social media attention). Costs for both theatrical and film projects could be signficantly lowered and these mini production centers could provide new job opportunities in all sorts of smaller communities. Even the business models for these bear some exploration - I do not see why a not for profit film production company couldn't work in association with a stage company - with film rental and sales revenues helping to subsidize the theatrical operation.

I am excited by these prospects! If you have any thoughts, please send them on for posting here. Perhaps we can generate a discussion that might advance this notion.

The Return of the Studio System

As regular readers of this blog know, I am sanguine about the state of feature film production. The studios produce less and less product while more and more independent projects never see the light of distribution day. Television also looks increasingly bleak.

These thoughts were on my mind when I took a quick trip to Los Angeles in December. The ostensible reason was to direct a couple of episodes for a cooking show web series; they are now in post, I'll talk about that exprience another time.

A trip to LA for me is always a trip "back" to LA: I was born there, my parents were in the movie business there and I spent quite a few years working in the industry myself. As a result, my LA trips always involve comparisons with the pasts, both recent and distant.

Times are very tough for most of my friends in the business. Feature film production has permanently fled, television series work has shrivelled, television movies and miniseries have gone extinct. They don't need many writers or story editors or costume designers for reality tv and they don't need actors at all.

But show folk are resourceful and persistent. As a result, new models of production are cropping up. Writers and producers are creating their own web series, shooting them without needing network permissions and without network advance money, then posting them on YouTube to generate audience support. These projects range from the well funded to the shoestring, with a few talented friends shooting projects in someone's garage.

Guess what? This is the return of the studio system.

I don't mean we will see the Warner's lot returning to its heyday. Centralized, unionized studio hierarchies are as passe as Stalinist government (and from the same era). But we are seeing the birth of the mini studio system, where projects are developed, written, shot, posted and released by a close knit team of collaborators, working at a central location, usually with few location shoots or outside assistance.

This trend foresakes the recent "pitch and deal" system, wherein a producer or a writer had to convince other producers and financiers and directors and stars and studios to come in on a project. Pitch and Deal was a cumbersome glacial process, itself a serindipidous system that emerged when the Old Studio system collapsed in the 1960s. Pitch and Deal favored agents and wheeler-dealers. The new mini studio movement favors producers and production.

Mini studio models are also showing up on the big studio lots themselves. While in LA, I engaged in more than a few discussions about this trend, as studios invite production companies to make a series of projects using studio facilities and resources, in effect creating studios within studios.

What this trend means for the industry is yet unclear. Certainly production costs will plummet for lower end features and television of all kinds. To me, the singular prospect is the likely demise of the Freelancer, the for-hire independent contractor who works on one big project after another. If mini-studios take hold, workers will return to the old studio model, working straight weeks for one company that assigns them to whatever project needs support. Wages won't be very good, I reckon, but they will be steady. The good old bad old days when a spec script could generate a bidding war and a $1.5 million price tag are also likely gone. Workaday Hollywood may find itself back to the days of 40 weeks and modest careers. The flash and glitter will likely dim but that kind of normalcy might actually be welcomed by many.

I have one more thought about this subject but it's somewhat involved so I'll save it for a stand alone post. As a teaser, let me just say that the mini studio movement might develop some unintended consequences, one of which could possibly reinvigorate the live theatre scene and herald a new burst of creativity in the arts. Really. I will discuss this in a new post.

The Don Meredith Principle

Just heard that Don Meredith has died age 72. Many of you probably do not know that he was the quarterback of the NFL Dallas Cowboys football team and later one of the ABC commentators on "Monday Night Football". He also was a natural philosopher and I take him as one of my mentors. Seriously. Here's why...

Sometime a long while back, I was watching MNF. I can't remember what teams were playing or when and it doesn't matter. What I do remember is that it was very late in the game, with maybe ten seconds left. The team with the ball was down by five points. They had time for only one more play in order to score and win. They couldn't just kick a field goal for three points, they needed a touchdown. But they were fifty yards away from the goal line. So that meant they had to pass all the way down the field. The other team knew that. Everyone in the stadium knew that and several million tv viewers knew that.

So the ball is snapped. The quarterback steps into the pocket and hurls the ball way down field. The wide receiver is streaking underneath, leaps up and nabs it barely, with the pads of his fingertips. He hauls it in, it looks like a score! But the defensive back slams into him, knocking him end over end and the ball bounces on the turf. Incomplete. Game over.

So Howard Cosell, the main announcer, goes on and on about how this was a clutch play and this is professional football and the receiver is paid to come through on big plays like this and he blew it and blah blah blah. On and on Cosell drones, but then in the background you can hear Don Meredith say:

"You go down in there and do it, Howard"

I never forgot that. I try to live by that. It's easy in this world to criticize and complain and hold people up for their honest failures. But I don't listen much to those who know everything and have attempted nothing. Everyone is an expert but few have the courage to actually take the risk and try to achieve something difficult. I try to listen to experience not know nothing jerks.

"You go down in there and do it, Howard".

Thanks, Don. Rest in peace.

Paradigm Shifts (and Blog Shifts Too)

Well, it's becoming clear: the big economc downturn we have been experiencing has not gone away and there seems to be every expectation that it won't go away soon. With it, we are looking at a major reassessment of societal prospects or, as Hollywood has long been fond of saying - a paradigm shift.

We aren't just talking economic survival. This is more an attitudinal and identity change. The Great Depression of the 1930s marked its survivors for life. This will too, whatever its final name will be. It's far too early to tell how all this will work out but we are far enough along for me to make a few comments...

First, what's most striking to me about this downturn is what isn't there, namely some clear characterization or narrative from the creative community. The Great Depression spawned countless stories, paintings, photo essays, movies, plays and the like and numerous stereotypes and archetypes sprung up: the Wall Street trader turned apple vendor, the Okie family migrating to California, the corrupt power broker and the Capraesque straight shooter, the orphan gamine, the weary single mother - these and many other types found their permanent place in American culture.

Where are today's archetypes? Where indeed are the narratives from our current disaster? It's been two years and counting and not much cohesive storytelling to show for it.

Come to think of it, where's the great novel - or film - that takes up the horror of September 11, 2001? Is ANY major aspect of modern life showing up in modern fiction? I don't see it. I can't think of a single major work that even attempts, let alone succeeds, in giving voice and vision to our times (note: the few possible exceptions are so new their impact yet be assessed). Dickens took on his world, Tolstoy took on his, so did Dostoievsky. Scott Fitzgerald certainly did and Hemingway did. Filmmakers did as well - Coppola and Stone, Kurosawa, Kazan and many others. But lately? You can't count George Clooney's several pictures- however smart and timely, they just don't have major societal impact. Same with the art house films that you finally get around to seeing on Netflix. No resonance, however thought provoking.

So what's going on? Paradigm shift. We are not - as a society - in agreement of what is happening, who we are and where we are going. And the storytellers and creators - always the early warning system of societal change - have not heard the Next Call. It's a muddle still and may well be for some time to come.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some clarity is coming to my muddle: my company Coral Gate Media LLC is experiencing a lot of activity (TBAs soon). There's a clear need to separate out this professional activity from my personal thoughts and essays. Consequently, a new Coral Gate Media Blog will make its debut within the month. Its focus will be news about the company, links to other professional media connections and the like. This blog will remain as my personal portal and sounding board. Comments are always welcome.

What's Next, Part 2

In my previous post, I argue that New Cinema can and does operate by connecting directly to a pre existing audience community. This community is already predisposed to either the concept or the content of the film project, self promotes the film to friends and often uses the film as a community building tool. Some savants like Peter Broderick have demonstrated how such communities can piggy back fundraising using the film as a centerpiece.

But this New Cinema is not necessarily completely separate from the Old Cinema of Hollywood style distribution, marketing and exhibition. Old Cinema and Old Media are very very interested when a new project arises outside of traditional purviews. This leads to an interesting premise that may in time be viewed as a law: that independent projects must first demonstrate viability through the New Cinema (or New Media) before the Old system will pick them up.

This goes back at least to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT which demonstrated (and in some ways manipulatd) audiences numbers in advance of even festival screenings using Internet and (then rudimentary) social media. The snowball was already rolling downhill which prompted a big Old Cinema payout to buy that snowball.