Volume 18
2008

eyecandy.ucsc.edu
Cinematic Revolution

New Contracts,
New Media, and New Television:
A Retrospective on the 2007/08 WGA Strike

The Last Frontier:andClinging to the Physical:
Laserdisc versus Digital Technology
Volume 18

Winter 2008

A UC Santa Crux, Film & Digital Media Publication

William Hoschele
Roberto Alexander Santos
Drew Todd, Ph.D.

BUSINESS MANAGER Roberto A. Santos
ADVERTISING COORDINATOR William Hoschele
ADVERTISING ASST. Alexander Olson
ADVERTISING ASST. Marcus Zepeda
DVD PRODUCER Adrian Syben
FORMATTING SUPERVISOR Ryan McDuffie
TITLING Mark Sanfilippo
PRODUCTION ASST. Matthew Longoria
FACILITY COORDINATOR Adam Tenney
FACILITY ASST. Nick Alioto
SENIOR LAYOUT EDITOR Megg Sicotte-Kelly
DESIGN CONSULTANT Denise González
LAYOUT EDITOR Daniel James Scott
LAYOUT EDITOR Jessica Stokes
LAYOUT EDITOR Sydney MacLean
COPY EDITOR Jillian Q. Johnson
LEAD WEB DESIGNER Justin Rimando
LEAD WEB DESIGNER Aaron Joseph
WEB CONTRIBUTER Alejandro Quan-Madrid

Chris Alexander

EyeCandy Film Journal
proudly thanks the benefactors of Volume 18

					
		
Audiobeez

CAO/Provost FundCore Council

Cowell Senate

Crown Student Senate
Kresge Parliament
http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

Media Council
Merrill Student Government
Mixonic, Inc.
Oakes Senate
Stevenson Senate
Ta c o s M o r e n oVolume 18

FEATURING...
Film is Dead, What Moves Lives Yet

3

As the movie industry makes its transition from film to digital
media, is the term “film” still appropriate?
BY WILLIAM HOSCHELE

5: Cinematic Revolution

With the release of Bungie’s new video game sensation, Halo 3,
gamers can create high-quality digital videos for personal use andInternet distribution. No experience necessary.
BY ALEJANDRO QUAN-MADRIDNew Contracts, New Media, and New Television: A
Retrospective on the 2007/08 WGA Strike

A look back on the recent Writer’s Guild of America strike. Why
did it happen, what were the issues, and how has it already begun
to change television as we know it?
BY MEGG SICOTTE-KELLY

The Last Frontier:

10

and

Fatalism and nihilism feature in Oscar-winning films No Country
For Old Men and There Will Be Blood.
BY DANIEL JAMES SCOTT

Stumble into Mumblecore

Find out about the newest DIY movement in amateur filmmaking
that does not require big cameras and budgets.
BY MATTHEW LONGORIA

16
Requiem for the Del Mar: Trying to Find Hope in
the Age of Multitasking Spectatorship

Is new technology destroying the pleasure of spectatorship? Howmuch of the theatrical experience is lost to iPods and streaming
downloads? Is this the beginning of the end of cinema?
BY ROBERTO A. SANTOS
Volume 18

7
14

Clinging to the Physical: Laserdisc versus Digital
Technology

How do changing formats alter our relationship with film? Is theimmateriality of digital media taking something away from thepleasure of collecting?
BY ALEX OLSON

19

Winter 2008

1

A LETTER FROM THE EDITORS...
Dear Readers,
The number 18 means a great deal in American culture. It represents the achievement of adulthood and the moment when most begin their education in self-dependency. Eighteen is when one begins toredefine who they are as an adult, taking a stance as a new individual—with this in mind that we began toreshape Eyecandy toward a new design.
However, soon after committing ourselves as editors, a most intimidating question arose: what
exactly should Volume 18 discuss? Several nights of pacing and cups of coffee later, we finally found ouranswer. Eyecandy has long been a site where the students of UCSC can meet on common ground in a discussion of film and digital media.
Many cultural and media critics have already staked their claim as to what our generation mostdesires, most anticipates, and most understands. But how many examples exist of GenY authors having thechance to speak for themselves? Our primary goal is relevance. As the journal’s editors, we have sought todesign an issue that allows us to deeply analyze our changing media culture. We seek to take our readers
further afield — to explore new practices in spectatorship, filmmaking, and visual media study that mostpertain to our generation.
Volume 18 shall serve as a time capsule — each author speaking of his or her most pressing interests
and anxieties of the moment, together creating what we believe is the most important volume in Eyecandy’s
young history. In addition, this year’s staff has worked diligently with us in creating a web publication that
does not exist separately from print, as was the case in previous volumes, but rather in tandem. Many of theprint pieces in Volume 18 have supplemental content, including streaming video, on the redesigned website.
For the third consecutive year, Eyecandy includes a complimentary DVD showcasing some of the finest
student films from the UCSC community.
As editors, we hope that Volume 18 creates a mediaphile out of every reader. Our love for visualmedia is why we have worked so hard. Hopefully, that same passion will take root within yourself andcompel you to ask questions similar to those addressed in the following pages. For many of the pieces you
are about to read, the dust has yet to settle; we are still in the infancy of the new millennium and our development as scholars has just begun. Volume 18 is a first, honest attempt to look forward and to predict what
visual culture will look like in the years and decades to come.
Roberto Alexander Santos & William Hoschele
Editors-in-Chief

The Film and Digital Media Department at UC Santa Cruz has long prided itself — and rightfully
so — on bringing together critical studies and production, theory and praxis. Here student filmmakers
benefit from analyzing the history, aesthetics, and theory of film/media, while critical studies majors get
hands-on experience in the craft they are taught to study.
Volume 18 of Eyecandy perfectly illustrates the Department’s marriage of critical studies and production. The editors and staff have richly combined scholarship with journalism, text with graphic design,
virtual and digital media with print, and film/industry analysis with filmmaking. The result is an edition that
informs and entertains us, even as it illustrates and negotiates the changing media landscape that surroundsus.
Enjoy,
Drew Todd2

http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

Volume 18

Film is Dead, But What Moves Lives Yet
WHEN I WRITE that film is dead, I am not referring to the medium
of film; instead I want to call attention to the use of the term
‘film’ as a means of description. When the term came into use, it
accurately described the medium — movies were photographed,edited, and projected on celluloid film. Describing the medium
previously was not difficult because the medium was its production
material, film. However, movies are no longer photographed onfilm, and in some cases the use of photography is completely
absent, as is the case with computer-generated image (CGI) films.

This is an unusual event in thehistory of the arts. Rarely, if ever, has amedium changed so significantly as torequire a new description in order to identify
it. When sculpting shifted from carving
figures out of granite to shaping themfrom soft clay, was this not still sculpting?
Does the stage no longer host theatricalperformances? When painting alternatedfrom paints to oils to watercolors, was the
final product not still a painting? Putting a
pen to paper or typing on a keyboard does
not change the term we use to describe theprocess. While these changes may haveinfluenced the artists, altering the means bywhich they were able to express themselves,the final product was not a change for us,
the spectator/reader.
Film is no longer simply film.
Today, there is an increase in the use ofdigital video used in live-action movies
such as Star Wars: Episode III – Revengeof the Sith (George Lucas, 2005, USA)and Dancer in the Dark (Lars Von Trier,
2000, Denmark), as well as the release ofcompletely CGI blockbuster movies suchas Ratatouille (Brad Bird, 2007, USA) and
Shrek (Andrew Adamson, 2001, USA).
However, this begs the question, are thesemovies any less important to the medium
simply because they lack the physicality ofcelluloid?
This essay is not a condemnationof older methods; I do not wish to banish
the use of film stock as a means ofcinematic expression. Instead, I seek toVolume 18change the term used to define it in keepingwith the new wealth of technologicaladvancements. Star Wars director George
Lucas, who advocates for Hollywood andfilmmakers to fully embrace the digital
revolution, stated, “In the 20th century,cinema was celluloid; the cinema of the 21st
century will be digital…Film is going to be
photographed and projected digitally…We
made it through the silent era to the soundera and from the black-and-white era to thecolor era, and I’m sure we’ll make it throughto the digital era…the creator’s palette has
been continually widened.”1 Lucas’s viewof film as an old medium and digital as
the next stage in evolution underscores thereality that digital technology is here andis becoming an increasingly viable solution
to the costly expense of celluloid.
Oneofthe reasons that
Hollywood cornered
the movie market wasusually a function of
economics. It has
been able to afford
the ever-rising costof celluloid film, thechemical processing,
the editing tables, andthe distribution – and you cannot. That is,
before the time of the video camera, which
put the ability to make movies, even lowquality ones, in the hands of everyone.
Home videotape movies, however, neverwent anywhere outside of the living room.

Today digital cameras rival once standard
film cameras, while the personal computer
has evolved into a home-editing suite.
Despite Lucas’s belief that digital
cinema is the wave of the future, there arefilmmakers who still grasp onto celluloid as
their means of artistic expression. Steven
Spielberg, Lucas’s collaborator on the
Indiana Jones series, is one such person. In
an interview with Time magazine, Spielberg
stressed his preference for film and his
reluctance to join the digital revolution:“I’m too nostalgic to make my movies
digitally. I’m the last person in Hollywood
who cuts his film on film. I still love cutting
on film. The greatest films ever made in our
history were cut on film and I’m tenaciously
hanging on to the process.”2 The processof making film is an arduous task in andof itself; making
celluloid from raw
stock,
shooting,
developing the film,
anddistributing
the product playheavilyinthedecisions of manystudios to pursue
alternative,
more
affordablemeans
of filmmaking. Despite his objections,even Spielberg admits that “Sadly, it’s theinevitable medium. I think that certainly
it is right around the corner. Dreamworks
certainly recognizes the tens of millionsof dollars that will be saved in distribution
Winter 20083

costs in not having to make five, six, seventhousand 35mm prints, just in the domestic
market, for a big-event movie.”3
Director Steven Soderberghfinds a middle ground between the twojuggernaut film moguls, alternating
between filming high-end blockbusters
such as Ocean’s 11 (2001, USA) on film
and smaller independent projects such as
Bubble (2005, USA) on digital. Soderberghalso experimented in Full Frontal (2002,
USA) by combining the mediums. The
result is a film that uses the mediums in anexperimental way to analyze the spectator’sinterpretation between what they perceive
as documentary footage and fictional
narrative when it is all actually fiction.
Even the industry is calling thenewest addition to the cinematic family‘digital film,’ but the term is clearly an
oxymoron. Film is a physical element; one
can touch it, feel its grain. But somethingthat is digital lacks substance, it appears
only as material perceived through themanipulation of pixels and computer code.
That which is digital is not physical. It
can become so by transferring to anothermedium, but by itself it is not tangible. In
his essay, “What is Digital Cinema?,” Lev
Manovich describes digital filmmaking as

similar to animation: “A particular case ofanimation which uses live-action footage
as one of its many elements.”4 We now
come back to the initial problem, what term
best defines the art of motion pictures in thepresent day?
The answer is already in use. It isstrange, but one does not need to invent a
new term to create a new definition. What we
require in this age is a name to encompass
everything that involves, and revolves
around, the moving image — and that nameought to be cinema. The term ‘cinema’ isas old as the increasingly anachronistic‘film,’ and yet it still works. Cinema does
not exclude the currently evolving digital
revolution, nor does it disqualify movies
whose source springs from the matrix ofa computer. The cinema is a location, butwhat do we see at the cinema? Cinema.
The cinema describes motion pictures
and the industry that creates them.5 This
term encompasses that which we strain
to grasp verbally and conceptually. Whilecinema does not specifically describe theindividual contours of the medium, this isof little concern. In such an instance, we
still have the previous means of description
to fall back on.
Cinema is the most important art

form of contemporary times because it isa medium that vividly reflects, engages,
and negotiates changing society. Lacking
current and appropriate terminology to
discuss, describe, and otherwise definesuch a medium takes something away fromits message.
WILLIAM HOSCHELE(williamhoschele@mac.com), co-editorin-chief, is a senior undergraduate Film
& Digital Media Student with a Critical
Studies emphasis. This is his second yearwith Eyecandy Film Journal.

1

John Belton, “Digital Cinema: A False
Revolution” from Film Theory andCriticism (Oxford University Press, New
York. 2004) 905.
2Time Magazine. 14 Mar 2006.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/
article/0,8599,1173367,00.html.
3  Time, ibid.
4
  Lev Manovich “What is Cinema?”
http://hipercubo.uniandes.edu.co/redes03/
pdf/manovich/digital_cinema.pdf.
5Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cinema.

MORE Features, MORE Articles, MORE Eyecandy

4

http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

Volume 18

Halo 3:Cinematic
Revolution
AT SOME POINT in 2007, hearing about Halo 3 (Bungie Studios, Xbox 360, 2007) was
unavoidable. Perhaps it was the financial news pundits predicting massive consumer sales,
based solely on the pre-launch hype; or the local news affiliates’ coverage of sleeplessherds of line-waiters, anxiously perched outside of a nearby video game store; or you had
to have noticed your nephews or cousins playing incessantly at the last family get-together.
Halo 3 was ubiquitous in 2007, whether you knew anything about video games or not.
What’s the big deal? After all, it’s just a video game, right? Yet a game as successful,high-budget, and influential as Halo 3 sets the bar for other game developers both in termsof quality and features. Among those features are a few aimed at the hardcore gamers,
but this game has something for anybody with a couple buddies and a little imagination.
With an in-game editor to create and alter backgrounds, a free-moving camera thatrecords all the action in a match, a few friends to perform as digital puppeteers, andthe internet just waiting to freely distribute and provide virtually instant feedback, thedigital torch and pitchfork are all in hand for Halo 3 to stage a cinematic revolution.
Halo 3 currently holds the record forthe highest-grossing entertainment productin a 24-hour period.1 Granted, a $60 game(for the non-special edition) already has aprice-per-unit advantage over a $10 movie
ticket, though $170 million in a day2 is animpressive feat. To date, the game has also
pushed over eight million units globally,3
making it difficult to deny the reach andinfluence of Halo 3. To see the impact of thetitle on gamers, you need not actually playor watch someone else play the game; nor
do you need to look at the sheer volume ofmatches being played nightly on Xbox Live,
Microsoft’s online gaming service. You
simply need run a search for “Halo 3” onYouTube.com.
Halo 3 is groundbreaking in that itprovides two features that ensure a uniqueexperience each time the online multiplayer
mode is played: the saved video and Forgefunctions.4 The saved video function allows
every match to be replayed afterwards by theplayer, who has control over the playback
speed, perspective, direction, camera angle
and movement, and more. The footage canthen be uploaded to Bungie’s server for otherplayers to download and watch. This is madepossible by special programming that records
the code of what happened where in the match
instead of the actual High Definition (HD)video, creating smaller file sizes and simple
instructions for video recreation that can beeasily transferred to other Xbox 360s. Thismethod also makes possible for the camera
to move around freely post-match. The Forge
mode lets the player customize multiplayer
maps with items, boxes, weapons, andvehicles to give levels a more personal
touch.5
These two functions further set theVolume 18

stage for reflection on the human psyche for
consumers of this digital multimedia. “Halo3’s” gamer-spectator practice brings to mind
a rather comedic, yet relevant sequence froma past episode of The Simpsons, in which
Bart Simpson manages to get a video ofsister Lisa breaking Ralph Wiggum’s hearton national television. He seeks to “pinpoint
the second when [Ralph’s] heart rips in half”
and he succeeds6: rewind, frame-by-frame
slow motion, and pause.
Not too distant are videos thathoodlums make when causing mischief toward off the monotony of the suburbs. They
are able to watch and relive the moment thetenth mailbox was knocked down or when
the joggers fell victim to a drive-by supersoaking. The difference, perhaps, is that theHalo videos can more closely reflect theimagination of the creator and are in highdefinition.
These videos contain all the elementsof Sam Peckinpah’s (The Wild Bunch, 1969,
USA) ballistic balletics, complete with bullet
trajectories made visible vis-à-vis lines ofdust, light, and blood. The difference is thatthese videos can do that 360° pan around a
subject in the perfect frame, reminiscent of
The Matrix (The Wachowskis, 1999, USA).
Comparisons can definitely be made to
television and action films of the past, andinspiration is likely to have been taken fromthem. Furthermore, the stylized violence inHalo 3 could not be possible without thecontributions to visual media by the world’s
television and filmmakers. However, neitherof those mediums, nor any other, allows forthis type of customizable experience under
the name of a specific product. No othermedia has the power to create an active

participant who not only plays but also
watches, edits, and shares this content. These
are the virtual action figures for the 21st
century.
Before looking too far into theimplications of this new variety of digital
media, however, a close analysis of how itcame about is necessary. Roughly a year anda half after the original Halo (Bungie Studios,Xbox, 2001) was released, the Rooster Teeth
production group7 began making Red vs. Blue
(Rooster Teeth, 2003-2007), a situational
comedy using the game’s multiplayer
mode. A group of digital puppeteers would
simply manipulate each of their respective
characters based upon a loose script, andthen the dialogue track would be added
during postproduction. The players would
alternate camera duty, which was simply aparticular player’s in-game screen, based offof whoever was not in the shot. Then, througha clever use of heavy letterboxing, most of
the typical game displays were hidden in
the final videos, which subsequently gave
Red Vs. Blue its signature look. As a resultof the series’s popularity, Bungie Studios not
only embraced the series, but also made it
possible in “Halo 3” for players to not holda weapon, leaving their arms down at theirsides, giving the characters the option of amore natural standing position. Furthermore,even though the saved video function allows
for a team of Halo 3 players to work on its
strategy and tactics, realistically it blows thedoor for machinima (machine cinema) wideopen.
It is important to remember,
nonetheless, that even though Red vs. Blueand other Halo videos out on the Internet
certainly have a do-it-yourself aesthetic,
there are still some barriers to entry. Besides
the cost of the game and game console, afew different hardware options to capture thevideo into an editable data format can run

Promotional poster for Red vs. Blue
Winter 20085

another couple hundred dollars, which also
assumes that the Spielberg-in-the-making
knows how to use the proper editing andcompression software. However, it is still
relatively affordable on a consumer level.
Then again, by default there is
still the option to upload saved videos to
Bungie.net, straight from the user’s Xbox, tobe shared with other Halo 3 players — but
this limits user accessibility. Despite thislimitation of distribution and creative control

Gamers play Halo 3 at a local
convention(since without using a computer there are few
options to edit the footage before uploading),
the videos would be reaching their most niche
audience. From there, thanks to the nature of
the video being more data than video, the user
who downloads it can manipulate it as she/heso desires. Imagine watching a film in which
the events happen at one point in space, but
you can re-play them frame by frame, pause
the action, and move the camera virtually
anywhere in the movie world while the eventis happening — it would be comparable to ahigh-definition, feature-length diorama that
played itself out.
In actuality, interaction like thisis a demand of the revolution. A practice inwhich the participant — and I say participant
over viewer or gamer because she/he is much
more than that — has control over the content
playing, whether it is self-produced or not, iswhere the future of digital multimedia lies.
Though consumers have been
producing machinima since 1996,8 givingsuch powerful tools to the everyday user
who is perhaps not as technically savvy,
especially on a console video game(compared to a computer game where usermade modifications are more commonplace),
is what is worth noting. Likewise, to create acomputer-generated image (CGI) film from theground up would be a much more expensive,
time-consuming, and intimidating   task, but
again, the artist would have more control. To
compare and contrast further, consider how
creating machinima with digital puppeteers
frees the director from having to deal withactors, costumes, and, other production
variables (such as weather and time of day).
One of the major downsides, however, at least
for Halo 3, is that all of the characters look
like colorful Imperial Stormtrooper soldiers.
From here, a majority of filmmakers
might look at Halo 3 and think that the
drawbacks — namely all of the characters6

http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

soldiers and that the props are primarily
weapons — do not work out too well for aromantic comedy, which is fine. It was neverstated that Halo 3 is a filmmaker’s dream
video game, but rather it stands as an agent
that can influence many other games to follow
suit in providing the tools for user-generated
content and videos. Additionally, it has thepotential to act as a catalyst that can inspireand challenge both gamers and potential
filmmakers to take a couple of feet when aninch or two is given.
Keep in mind the lines that are being
drawn with some of this language. I feel it
is important when thinking about cinema,
and where it is headed, to note distinctions
between traditional cinema (digital or film)
and this new digital multimedia. The levelof immersion, not just in the media but timespent within the game world, already says
something about comparisons between games
and cinema. Whereas a cinematic experience
typically lasts around two hours, a game withan online multiplayer mode can be played
virtually infinitely. From there, when thegamer desires a break from the game element,
she/he can remain in the game realm, createa video, and then go online to watch othermachinima that gamers are creating. Finally,
the lot of them can comment, rate, andultimately dictate what the market prefers,
which is unique, even in this age, whencompared to that of the blockbuster movie
focus group.
Despite the growing potential forcinematic revolution, neither Halo 3 normachinima will replace traditional cinema,

at least not any time soon. It is also difficult
to classify this new media. It stems fromtraditional video games and is marketed assuch, but it is capable of transcending its
own medium and format. Even though all of
the new features common in contemporary
games typically have some connection totheir respective game realms and modesof game-play, in actuality they are pushing
the envelope of what a video game can be,
integrating all different forms of new media.
The level of creativity this new media inspires
and provides truly speaks volumes, the likesof which have only begun to be tapped.
ALEJANDRO QUAN-MADRID(quan madrid@gmail.com), a graduating seniorin the Film & Digital Media department. This is
his second year writing for Eyecandy. He has
written freelance for 1up.com.
Tor Thorsen. “Halo 3’s First-Day US Haul = $170M,”
2007, CNET Networks/San Francisco,  26 Sep. 2007
http://au.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/halo3/news.
html?sid=6179914.
2
  Thorsen, Ibid.
3
Brendon Sinclair, “MS: 17.7 Million 360s Sold,”
2008, CNET Networks/San Francisco, 3 Jan.2008
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6184291.html.
4  ‘Frankie,’ “Halo 3 How-to: Saved Films, New
ViDOC,” 2007, Bungie, 20 Sept. 2007 http://www.
bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&link=h3savedfilms.
5  ‘Frankie,’ Ibid.  
6
  “I Love Lisa.” The Simpsons. Fox. 11 Feb 1993.
7
Rooster Teeth Production’s history can be found
via their company’s website. http://www.roosterteeth.
com.
8Some of the earliest machinima examples canbe found at the following website: http://www.
machinima.com.
1  

Volume 18

New Contracts, New Media,
and New Television:

A Retrospective on the 2007/08 WGA Strike
LITTLE CAN POLARIZE the American public faster than a strike. When that strike
affects a national pastime as vital to the American lifestyle as television, people takenotice. While public opinion is surprisingly favorable toward the Writer’s Guild of
America (WGA), most viewers are more concerned with the return of their favorite
shows to broadcast than the issues behind the strike.1 In spite of this, the 2007/08 WGA
strike will have a lasting impact on both the production and reception of television.
In essence, the strike boils down
to a fight over residuals. Like novelists andsongwriters, screenwriters are paid a flatfee for the rights to produce and distribute
their work. Added to this standard fee
is an agreement that they will receive apercentage of the distributor’s gross eachtime their work is broadcast, screenedor sold after its initial airing. Different
from the original flat fee, a residual is thepayment a writer receives every time theirwork is shown on TV, whether in primetime or syndication, or sold to home video.
As freelancers, 48% of WGA
members are unemployed at any given
time.2 During these times, writers dependon residuals to maintain a living. This
industry practice, however, has not always
been in effect.
Film and television residuals were
established in the early 1950s,3 but it was not
until the WGA’s first major strike in 1960
that writers were paid residuals for airings
beyond the initial screenings.4 This system
worked fairly well until the mid-1980s,
when the WGA agreed to an 80% cut inthe residuals they would receive, designed
to help a burgeoning new market expand
its profits — home video. The writers
Volume 18

understood at the time that this cut would
be only temporary, and that once the home
video market was stable residuals would
return to an appropriate amount.5 In 1988,
residuals still had not been increased fromtheir reduced rate. Meanwhile, the industry
landscape was drastically changing due
to the increasing role of the home video
market.
On March 7, 1988, the longest
WGA strike in history began. Lasting for 22
weeks, the strike is estimated to have costthe entertainment industry upwards of $500
million collectively.6 The negative impact,
however, was not simply limited to a lossof profits. Delayed by six weeks, the 1988
television season resulted in a significant
loss of network audiences to cable due tothe work stoppage.7 This loss was never
to be recouped, with over 9% of audience
members leaving broadcast television forgood.8In addition to this stretch ofunemployment, a burgeoning home video
market allowed for the Alliance of Motion
Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP)
to convince the WGA to a lower residual
rate of 0.3% for the first million grossed
and 0.36% thereafter. This agreement

has continued until today, with DVDs
eventually replacing videocassettes.9 In
practical terms, this means that for every$19.99 DVD sold, the writer receives
only four cents,10 a number considerably
less than the 50 cents it costs to make anddistribute those same DVDs.11
Nearly 20 years later, newtechnologies have rekindled old arguments,and on Nov. 5, 2007, the WGA went on
strike once again. With this most recent
strike, the WGA challenged the AMPTP in
an attempt to stake a claim in what manysee as the future of television. With the
emergence and spread of time-shifting
technologies, such as TiVo and DirecTV,
the viewer is able to watch television attheir convenience, skipping commercials
altogether, leaving studios and advertisers
searching for alternative methods of
distribution and profit. Like TiVo, theInternet also allows for the convenienceof time shifting. However, on streamingsites such as ABC.com or Hulu.com thisnew model allows ads to be embedded ordisplayed alongside the video. Viewers
can also pay to download episodes fromproviders such as iTunes, with video
entertainment spreading to personal
devices such as iPods and cell phones. This
burgeoning market is known collectively
as “New Media,” and is a revenue source
expected to reap $4.6 billion in profits overthe next three years.12 Although this newmarket shows the potential to be highly
lucrative, it was not until weeks into thestrike that the AMPTP agreed to talk aboutchanging the current model of residuals.13
It is important when looking at
the WGA strike to understand just what
the AMPTP is and how it functions. On its
website, the AMPTP claims to represent“over 350 motion picture and television
producers.”14 However, many independent
producers have written to publications
such as Variety in an attempt to remind

WGA Strike of 1988
journalists not to associate them with the
AMPTP by referring to it as “the producers;”
and commenting further “The Alliance
represents the studios, the networks, andthe international conglomerates that own
them, not working producers.”15 Among theWinter 20087

most prominent members of the AMPTP
are General Electric (owners of NBC andUniversal), the Walt Disney Company,
Time Warner (owners of Warner Brothers
and partial owners of the CW network),
Viacom (owners of Paramount and partial
owners of the CW network), the CBS
Corporation and New Corporation (ownersof FOX).16

television download from iTunes, theIn spite of mixed reactions towards
writer receives a whopping half of a cent. the tentative agreement, many would argue
Ideally, the WGA had hoped to change the that the outcome was better than had
current download residuals from the DVD been expected, since at least “the writers
rate of 0.3% to the 2.5% writers would got their foot in the door” in respects tohave received for a television airing of the New Media.27 While the provisions of thesame episode.20
agreement do not include the withdrawn
However, the practice of legal requests for an increase in DVD residuals
downloading is but one of the many ways and WGA jurisdiction over reality andto watch television online. Many major animation writers, public opinion seems to
networks, including NBC, ABC, and be that the WGA was able to “wrest a major
FOX, provide full episodes of their current concession” from the AMPTP by “winningshows on their websites at absolutely a piece of digital revenues.”28 Under the newno cost to the viewer, and no benefit to contract, residuals for Internet downloads
the writer. Although the AMPTP claims have nearly doubled, going from 0.3% perthese streaming episodes are online as download to about 0.7%. This increase“promotional” material only and that they does not take effect, however, until after“don’t know if it’s going to replace other the first 50,000 downloads of a feature
markets or enhance other markets,”21 film and the first 100,000 downloads of a
networks and studios are collecting profits television show.
due to ad sales.22 In fact, Leslie Moonves,
The residual model for streaming
CEO of CBS, went so far as to call New television is somewhat different, withMedia a “profit machine.”23 Under the old writers receiving around $1,300 per episodeMBA contract, none of this profit was to per year after an initial promotional window
be passed along to the writers. One of the of up to 24 days of free streaming. A year
WGA’s aims was to change that 0% residual after the expiration of the initial window,
rate to the 2.5% they have established for the residual would increase to 2% of the
New Media sales and distribution.24
distributor’s gross. In the third year of theStriker and child at a WGA protest
After months of unemployment new contract, this 2% would go into effectBy contrast, the WGA is comprised and dozens of picket lines, the WGA strike immediately after the end of the promotionalof two cooperative labor unions, the WGA finally ended on Feb. 12, 2008, its 100th period. However, this model only applies
West and East, which represent television day. Although the three-year contract is to network prime-time television shows.
and film writers in Southern California still tentative, reactions to the strike’s Writers of shows produced for cableand around New York City, respectively. resolution are mixed. WGA negotiating will receive a fixed sum, an agreement
These unions were established to protect committee member Howard Michael Gould comparable to that established for the first
the interests of screenwriters and currently reflected, “In the end, though, I think we year of streaming broadcast shows. One ofto oversee healthcare and pension plans.17 did it damned well. And the happy result the most important provisions of the newUnder the most recent contract with the was the deal that we needed.”25 However, contract establishes separate rights for the
AMPTP, however, the WGA does not many guild members seem to disagree with creators of content for New Media. As has
have jurisdiction over the writers of reality this sentiment. Some, such as science- been the case for writers of television andtelevision or animation.18 This exclusion fiction writer Harlan Ellison, go so far film, writers for the Internet will retain
was one of the many issues the WGA hoped as to say, “after months on the line… we rights over any characters they create, as
to rectify when their current Minimum rushed headlong into a shabby, scabrous, well as the rights to adapt the work for
Basic Agreement (MBA) contract with the underfed shovelfulla [sic] shit clutched to another medium.29
AMPTP expired on midnight of Oct. 31, the affections of toss-in-the-towel summer
The strike may have ended,2007. After three months of negotiations   soldiers trembling before the Awe of the but its effects are far from over. With thewith the AMPTP, a resolution had yet to Alliance.”26
strike lasting over three months, mostbe achieved. On the final day, the contract
negotiations between the WGA and the
AMPTP collapsed. The following Monday
the WGA strike began.
In addition to the inclusion ofanimation and reality television writers,
the WGA had initially hoped to negotiate
a new contract with the AMPTP that would
finally increase DVD residuals from 0.3%
to 0.6% (effectively increasing that fourcents per DVD to eight cents). In spite ofstatements by the AMPTP and the common
misconception that the strike is all about
DVDs,19 the WGA’s most important goal
is tied to establishing the residual model
for New Media. Currently, writers receive
the DVD residual rate on all Internet
The Farmer Wants a Wife (2007-Present, CWTV), a new reality show on the CW Network
downloads. That means for every $1.99

8

http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

Volume 18

2008 <http://www.hollywoodsymposium.com/writers.
studios have run out of stockpiled scripts, 1 “The WGA Strike and Public Opinion.” Film.com.
Nov. 2007. RealNetworks. 18 Feb. 2008 <http://
htm>.
allowing for reruns and reality television to 20
18
www.film.com/tv/story/thewgastrikeandpublicopinVerrone, Patric and Michael Winship. “Letter Fromdominate programming schedules. Like the ion/17384901>.
the Presidents.” Online posting. 22 Jan. 2008. United
2
Why We Fight. 5 Nov. 2007. YouTube. United HolHollywood. United Hollywood. 7 Feb. 2008 <http://unitstrike of 1988, the most recent WGA strikelywood. 7 Feb. 2008 <http://www.youtube.com/
edhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/01/letter-from-presihas forced a delay in the current television watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk>.
dents-state-of.html>.
3
19
Why We Fight. 5 Nov. 2007. YouTube. United Hol“It’s Not About DVDs Anymore.” Blog. 5 Nov. 2007.
season. For those of us with our career
lywood.
7Feb.
2008<http://www.youtube.com/
United Hollywood. United Hollywood. 7 Feb. 2008
sights set on Hollywood, it could spell the watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk>.
<http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/2007/11/its-not4
end of an era.
Evanier, Mark. “Strikeout!.” The New Repubabout-dvds-any-more.html>.
20“Factbox: Provisions of Screenwriters’ Labor Deal.”
As the strike of 1988 was buffered lic: A Journal of Politics and the Arts (Nov. 19
2007): 7 Feb. 2008 <http://www.tnr.com/poliReuters. 9 Feb. 2008. 18 Feb. 2008 <http://www.reuters.
by the summer, it caused only a small delay tics/story.html?id=aaaee386-7adb-4346-b2c5com/article/newsOne/idUSN3024421320080210>.
21
in television’s upcoming
Who Are They Lying To?. 14 Nov.
2007. YouTube. United Hollywood.
pilot season;30 the most
18 Feb. 2008 <http://www.youtube.
current strike instead
com/watch?v=RjGbHHtbZP0>.
22
Why We Fight. 5 Nov. 2007.
could bring about the end
YouTube. United Hollywood. 7
of seasonal televisionFeb. 2008 <http://www.youtube.
altogether. As a result of thecom/watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk>.
23
Who Are They Lying To?. 14 Nov.
delay, studios are beginning2007. YouTube. United Hollywood.
to question the current
18 Feb. 2008 <http://www.youtube.
pilot model. According
com/watch?v=RjGbHHtbZP0>.
24“Frequently Asked Questions.”
to David Carr of the New
United Hollywood. 7 Feb. 2008
York Times, many studios<http://www.unitedhollywood.
com/crumb.html>.
have “severed existing25
Gould, Howard Michael.
contracts with writers”“Cleaning up the Rep of the Dirty
and have “successfully
Thirty.” Blog. 18 Feb. 2008. United
Hollywood. United Hollywood. 18
turned over more of theirFeb. 2008 <http://unitedhollywood.
prime-time schedules toblogspot.com/2008/02/howard31
realityprogramming.”
michael-gould-cleaning-up-repof.html>.
Just as today’s reality show
26
Ellison, Harlan. “Harlan Ellison
predecessors, such as Cops
Reacts to the Proposed WGA
Contract.” Online posting. 18 Feb.
(1989-Present,FOX),
A striker on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame2008. United Hollywood. United
emerged as television filler
Hollywood. 18 Feb. 2008 <http://
in the wake of the 1988 strike,32 so will 69c43a804c42&k=98236>.
unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/02/harlan-ellison5
Evanier, Mark. “Strikeout!.” The New Repubreacts-to-proposed-wga.html>.
reality shows dominate television’s lineup
27
A Journal of Politics and the Arts (Nov. 19
Carr, David. “Who Won the Writers Strike?.” The New
in the months to come. Already, prime-time lic:
2007): 7 Feb. 2008 <http://www.tnr.com/poliYork Times. 12 Feb. 2008. 18 Feb. 2008 <http://www.
lineups are littered with familiar reality tics/story.html?id=aaaee386-7adb-4346-b2c5nytimes.com/2008/02/12/arts/television/12strike.
html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin>.
titles such as Fox’s American Idol (2002- 69c43a804c42&k=98236>.
6
28“Hollywood Writers Go on Strike Over New-MeCarr, David. “Who Won the Writers Strike?.” The New
Present) and Wife Swap (2004-Present) on dia Pay.” AFP. 4 Nov. 2007. 7 Feb. 2008 <http://afp.
York Times. 12 Feb. 2008. 18 Feb. 2008 <http://www.
nytimes.com/2008/02/12/arts/television/12strike.
ABC, as well as new arrivals, including google.com/article/ALeqM5j9z48HzVgG3HdYSBT2html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin>.
ABC’s Dancing with the Stars (2004- GVQZwoUq0A>.
729
Schechner, Sam. “This Writers’ Strike Feels Like a“Factbox: Provisions of Screenwriter’s Labor Deal.”
Present) spin-off, Dance War: Bruno vs. Rerun from 1988.” The Wall Street Journal. 12 Nov.
9 Feb. 2008. 18 Feb. 2008 <http://www.reuters.com/ar2007. 7 Feb. 2008 <http://online.wsj.com/article/
ticle/newsOne/idUSN3024421320080210?pageNumber
Carrie Ann (2008-Present).
=3&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true>.
The importance of the WGA strike SB119482950368089597.html>.
830
Spitzer, Gabriel. “Ouch! Remembering the 1988 WritSchechner, Sam. “This Writers’ Strike Feels Like aspans far beyond the increase in unscripted ers’ Strike.” Media Life. 2001. 7 Feb. 2008 <http://www. Rerun from 1988.” The Wall Street Journal. 12 Nov.
2007. 7 Feb. 2007 <http://online.wsj.com/article/
television. Just as was the case in the strike medialifemagazine.com/news2001/jan01/jan15/3_wed/
news3wednesday.html>.
SB119482950368089597.html>.
of 1988, audiences disappointed by current 9 Why We Fight. 5 Nov. 2007. YouTube. United Hol31
Carr, David. “Who Won the Writers Strike?.” The New
York Times. 12 Feb. 2008. 18 Feb. 2008 <http://www.
television have turned to other forms of lywood. 7 Feb. 2008 <http://www.youtube.com/
nytimes.com/2008/02/12/arts/television/12strike.
media.33 Among some of the common watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk>.
10
Handel, Jonathan. “Reflections on Residuals: Go Forthhtml?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin>.
32
alternatives are DVDs and the Internet.34 and Multiply.” The Huffington Post. 23 Nov. 2007. 7
Schechner, Sam. “This Writers’ Strike Feels Like a
Rerun from 1988.” The Wall Street Journal. 12 Nov.
In addition to the millions of dollars lost Feb. 2008 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan2007. 7 Feb. 2007 <http://online.wsj.com/article/
over the course of the strike, the television handel/reflections-on-residuals_b_73908.html>.
11
Paczkowski, John. “Hey, Television Is Already So
SB119482950368089597.html>.
industry is looking at a likely decrease in Bad, I Bet We Hardly Notice....” The Wall Street Journal. 33 Schechner, Sam. “This Writers’ Strike Feels Like a
Rerun from 1988.” The Wall Street Journal. 12 Nov.
viewer ratings. As audiences move away 1 Nov. 2007. 7 Feb. 2008 <http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.
com/20071101/writers-strike-2>.
2007. 7 Feb. 2007 <http://online.wsj.com/article/
from broadcast television towards the 12 Why We Fight. 5 Nov. 2007. YouTube. United
SB119482950368089597.html>.
34“Poll: TV... or Not TV? (Part 2).” . 18 Jan. 2008. TV
Internet and as television-recording devices Hollywood. 7 Feb. 2008 <http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk>.
7 Feb. 2008 <http://community.tvguide.com/poll.
steadily march towards a merger with 13 “Writers’ Strike Timeline.” The Hollywood Reporter. 7 Guide.
jspa?pollID=800000585>.
Internet downloads, the new media residual Jan. 2008. 24 Feb. 2008 <http://www.hollywoodreporter.
com/hr/content_display/features/film/e3i16fe8d093beb4
formula takes on a far greater importance.
It will not be long before all 49bd8d0b71f7405d45c>.
14“About Us.” AMPTP: Alliance of Motion Picture
Please visit this feature’s
television is not broadcast, but streamed.
and Television Producers. 2008. AMPTP. 18 Feb. 2008

MEGG SICOTTE-KELLY(meggsk@gmail.com), a graduating Film &Digital Media major, has worked for both MPHEntertainment and Cesar Millan, Inc.

Volume 18<http://www.amptp.org/aboutus.html>.
15
Astrachan, Josh, et al. “Letter From Independant
Producers to Editors.” Variety. 12 Nov. 2007. 7 Feb.
2008 <http://weblogs.variety.com/wga_strike_blog/letter-from-independent-p.html>.
16“Frequently Asked Questions.” United Hollywood. 7
Feb. 2008 <http://www.unitedhollywood.com/crumb.
html>.
17“WGA.” 2004. The Hollywood Symposium. 18 Feb.

supplemental web page ateyecandy.ucsc.edu
for additional information andrelated media clips.
Winter 2008

9

The Last Frontier: No Country for Old
Men and There Will Be Blood“Oil Derrick,” by Louise Chen.
SOLITARY MEN WANDER the expanses of a Western frontier. Under skies of pale blue and mountains scorched-red, each deliberately
adheres to his private agenda. One stumbles upon a suitcase full of money, the relic of a drug deal gone terribly wrong. He pries it outof the hands of a dead other, unaware of the maelstrom of violence that clings to him quietly. Another stares up at a patch of sky framed
picturesquely within a gaping hole 50 feet below the ground. Half-submerged in oil, he smiles as the pulleys lift up bucket after bucketof the Earth’s sustenance. And another lies estranged in a desolate motel room, eyes glazed as he stoically nurtures the wounds froman earlier assault. Fulfilling their own self-interests, each figure plays a central role in perpetuating this godless game where harrowing
opportunism and human fallibility can crystallize without interruption — all of this fittingly located in the unadorned West, where “thegraces of civilization” are far-removed, and “men are men.”1
No Country for Old Men (Joeland Ethan Coen, 2007, USA) and ThereWill Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson,
2007, USA), both Oscar-nominated forBest Picture, offer unsettling meditations
on humankind’s potential. With the absence of law and security a flimsy innovation, we see the motives of men as they arecarried out in an environment practicallydevoid of limitations. Avarice and selfglorification consume the lands, cynicism
and competition flourish, while mortality
and existence are so transient they seeminterchangeable. Few have refrained fromcalling the films nihilistic and from analyzing the motivations behind such temperament. Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago
Reader considered the objective behind No
Country for Old Men to be simple “genre
exercise.”2 Armond White of the New York
Press supposed the intent behind ThereWill Be Blood to be more politically rooted,
a “post-Iraq War Termigant.”3 This duality
among viewer reactions has typically been10

http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

viewed as diametrically opposed. However, in truly understanding the workings
behind either of these two films, one should
notice the degrees of solidarity and interdependency that exist between them.
Set during different times in
American history — No Country for Old
Men in the 1980s and There Will Be Bloodcovering a 30-year span at the turn of the20th century — both films invariably deal
with the fragility of human morality during
times of transition. While the Coen brothers’ work tends to focus more on the macrolevels of critique — embodying the ‘battle
field’ concept that has proven so effective(and so abundant) during times of war— Anderson’s picture concerns itself withthe varying capacities of the individual(i.e., the stark portrayal of a man in a stateof perpetual decline). Working alongsideeach other, these two films’ collective attitudes towards mortality, faith, humanity,
and societal progression all create fatalistic
expositions. And in the historical context

in which they were both produced and exhibited, that of a post-9/11 society foreverseeking means of closure and restitution,
their senses of ambiguity and meaninglessness have posed a wide-ranging list of curiosities, causing some to look to the filmmakers for resolution.
If one hopes to find such resolution from the filmmakers, they might bedisappointed. When interviewed separately(within a week of one another) on the Charlie Rose Show, both the Coen brothers andAnderson displayed a hazy sense of reticence toward acknowledging the politicaland existential implications of their films.
When asked why the Coen brothers choseto take on the project of adapting a Cormac
McCarthy novel, co-writer/director Ethan
Coen cryptically remarked, “It seemed
like promising material for a movie. It isa chase, action, story, and something morethan that. But... that.”4 Perhaps it is because
viewer expectations are too high that somehave found the brothers to be anticlimactic
Volume 18

or unsatisfying in their self-commentary. It
is reasonable to think that the creators ofsuch consummate films would display a remotely comparable sense of enthusiasm fortheir works. However, one cannot deny that
the Coen brothers make up for this in theirlatest film, which fortunately speaks loudenough for both of them.
As for Anderson, when asked of
his true intentions for making There Will Be
Blood (other than merely telling a story),he safely replied by fawning over Daniel
Day-Lewis: “The idea of collaboration
with people that you really love and people
you like being around. […] It’s really pleasurable work to do when it’s going well.”5As the three (Anderson, Rose, Day-Lewis)
talk about the film’s workings, they continuously shy away from any inklings ofpotential unrest, and look to their sterling
hero across the table. Although the elementof performance is a key (if not the key)facet of There Will Be Blood, the responsesof the filmmaker strangely deny the film’s
political content.
As Christian Metz reminds us,
however, “The fact that must be understood is that films are understood.”6 A layered duality exists between filmmaker andviewer in all movies, where the underlying
meaning is amorphous and forever shifting
according to the spectator’s personal experience. And in the cultural context of thesefilms, where it is safe to suggest that theaudience pointed to is distinctly American,
the assumption of political weariness is forever in mind. The simple foundations of themovies themselves certainly work to enact
such a notion. Given the fact that they areboth adaptations of novels written by authors who share heavily culture-conscious
perspectives — No Country for Old Men’s
Cormac McCarthy, a biblical allegorist of
the King James Bible, and There Will Be
Blood’s Upton Sinclair, a socialist heavily
immersed in the pitfalls of capitalism — it
is no wonder the films bear a significant degree of their social critiques.
In his book Visions of the Apocalypse, Wheeler Winston Dixon writes, “Notsince the height of the 1950s Cold War hysteria has the United States lived in such an
atmosphere of fear and repression.”7 Withinnumerable cultures and religious sects
pitted against each other, our social condition has been viewed as one that is unreceptive and blandly opportunistic. In areview from the Chicago Reader, Jonathan

Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), “the elusive enemy.”
Volume 18

Rosenbaum aptly put it: “We can allow dog
collars to be used [on people] even while
we hypocritically shake our heads at thesadness of it all.”8 The ineptitude that hespeaks of has made itself abundantly clear
through the film industry’s proliferation ofmovies that seek to provide a sort of idyllic
world that desperately clings to the sincerities and authenticities of an earlier generation. Similar notions of idealism are suggested in the films No Country for Old Men
and There Will Be Blood through the iconic
conventions of the American West — however, only in degrees of standardized reference. Overwhelming the traditional panoramic landscapes, the ceaseless horizons
and the crimson-red sunsets, are the fires ofman’s transgressions: flaming oil derricks
screaming at the heavens, billowing cloudsof smoke emitting from pre-meditated explosions, and cabins set alight by a soundless boy’s caution.
a Most resonant of our current conflict in
the Middle East are these films’ added senseof elusiveness, stemming from an unidentifiable enemy who is able to take the formof non-combatants. He is forever looming,
quietly parasitic. In the Coen brothers’ No
Country for Old Men, the elusive enemy ismanifest in the character of Anton Chigurh(Javier Bardem), a merciless killer who has
been repeatedly perceived in the wake of
Hannibal Lecter. He bears a stoic expression, a starkly coherent voice, and a unique
physicality that is a rarity these days. However, what makes Chigurh ultimately moreterrifying than Lecter is neither his omniscience nor his twisted mentality, but hisbrooding presence and his frustrating unattainability. He is very much among us
throughout the entire course of the film. As
he recklessly pursues a relic two million
dollars from an abortive drug deal, he uses
any and all means necessary.
What is so troubling about Anton’s character is the fact that his actions do
not necessarily coincide with his agenda,
namely the killing of numerous Good Samaritans who are completely incognizantof his program. The utter transience withwhich violence is portrayed — alternating
between showing too much and showing
virtually nothing at all — is formulaic of
the Coen brothers’ attitudes toward mortality in their work. Wherever Anton Chigurh
goes, death is manifest; wherever he is destined to be, death is imminent. Some havereferred to him as the ‘agent of fate,’ others
prefer ‘death incarnate.’ However, ‘looming
manifestation of domestic terrorism’ is a laWinter 200811

bel that few have chosen to expound upon.
The name ‘Anton Chigurh,’ enigmaticallypronounced and seemingly self-ordained,
is entirely untraceable to any culture or
background. He comes from nowhere, bornfrom nothing. He bears not a single shredof remorse for humanity, and he resolutely
adheres to his unremitting principles ofmortality checks. In essence, his detachment is expressive of an outside contempt,
one that is loudly resonant of a terrorist’s
agenda. The simple notion of a perpetrator among us, wreaking havoc across the
crumbling expanses of the American West,is unsettling to say the least. Peter Traversof Rolling Stone remarked that No Country
for Old Men “carries in its bones the virusof what we’ve become.”9 Aside from theperpetuators of violence in the film — thesought-after Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin), the hired gun Carson Wells (Woody
Harrelson), and of course the killer Anton
Chigurh — the faults of the people we truly
relate with, those passers-by who serve as
accessories to the landscape, are only suggestive of an over-complacency. If this isthe virus we have become, then the film
works to counteract this notion with the utmost degree of deliberation.
Meanwhile, Anderson’s film ThereWill Be Blood has been read as an allegory
for the current ‘blood-for-oil’ conflict in
the Middle East. We follow the protagonist Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis)through the Western frontier as he works
to control turn-of-the-century California
oil fields. As he becomes increasingly obsessed with power and competition, wewatch his gradual descent into delusion andviolence. Loosely paying homage to theWestern through the generalized dynamics
of wilderness versus civilization, pragmatism versus idealism, and savagery versus
humanity, the key component of the film
tends to stray further away into a struggle
between capitalism and religion. As Danielprospects the fertile lands of the fictional
town Little Boston, a system of one-upmanship arises when he runs into the likes
of a crooked evangelist named Eli Sunday(Paul Dano). From here on, we watch theeffects of religion wear on a man who isfundamentally devoid of principles. If No
Country for Old Men’s Anton Chigurh isrepresentative of a looming terrorist hysteria, then There Will Be Blood’s Daniel
Plainview is expressive of the polar opposite side of the equation — the pitfalls of
the American Dream. He is self-glorifying,egomaniacal, imperious, and utterly perilous. Yet, even still, Daniel partially fits the
traditional Western hero trope.
According to film critic Robert
Warshow’s criteria, “[the Western hero] is
without culture, without manners, without
leisure, or at any rate his leisure is likely
to be spent in debauchery so compulsively
aggressive as to seem only another aspectof his ‘work.’”10 Warshow continues, “TheWesterner at his best exhibits a moral ambiguity which darkens his image and saves
him from absurdity.”11 One can partiallyagree with the first portion of Warshow’s
description, but in the context of There WillBe Blood, to say that the Western hero issaved from absurdity is fairly irrational.
If one is to map Daniel’s eventual rise topower to the point of the much talked-about“The Pitfalls of the American Dream.”12

http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis)
climax between him and Eli in the bowlingalley, one sees an insurmountable degreeof absurdity not only in the performanceof the Western hero, but also in the situation itself. This one-upmanship alluded toearlier, between religion and capitalism,
is essentially reduced to an individualistic
level of understanding. In the context of acapitalistic society, even God is reduced to“another piece of competition.” And when
Daniel gives Eli the final screw, so to speak,the end result is one that not only confirms
his disavowal of God, but one that also solidifies his absolute triumph in the face of
harrowing opportunism.
Nearing the end of No Country for
Old Men, the retiring Sheriff Ed Tom Bell
(Tommy Lee Jones) says, “I always figured
when I got older, God would sort of comeinto my life somehow. And he didn’t.”
This sense of godlessness, and the vengeful abandon with which the characters go
about their daily routines, is expressive ofa state of complete resignation. We watch
these characters try to contain the mess they
have inherited, the mess they have unconsciously perpetuated, and because they areso caught up in the whirlwind of their own
madness, the prospect of a feasible solution
is naturally evasive. In this dying American West, where the landscape is no longer
evocative of the “freedom and expansiveness of frontier life,” but of its “limitations” and its “material bareness,”12 menno longer ride into glorious sunsets withfeelings of triumph and victory; they now
charge full-fledged into electrical storms,
fleeing the bullets of ruthless drug runners.
They seek refuge in desolate motels, stoically nurturing wounds in bathtubs full of
Volume 18

murky water. They stand with their faces lit
up by a night sky hellishly illuminated byflaming oil derricks.
In the apocalyptic West of both ofthese movies, man acts the way he does,
selfish and incognizant, because he irrationally blames an omnipotent figure whose
presence has proven mythical. The conventional qualities of honor, integrity, and justice have invariably been set in place, yetthey are jumbled beyond recognition. And
because the law, his last stronghold of orderand control, has proven to be ineffective,
the concept of looming apocalypse seems
all the more probable. Of course there is
the notion of supposed solidarity that exists
in the aftermath of destruction — whereslavery, demarcation, injustice, and humankind’s other transgressions are finallyabolished — and “we are, thus, all equal indeath.”13 However, judging by these ruthless portrayals of individuals completely
incapable of seeing beyond their own actions, the idea of a thorough grasp on suchterminal camaraderie seems improbable.
Whether or not we are any better than thecharacters presented on screen is debatable.
The filmmakers have already proven theirabilities to recognize the extent of our so-

cial regression. The Oscar nominations of
their films would demonstrate a significant
degree of our cultural awareness. However,beyond the mere feat of waving a cautionary flag, the notion of a lasting solution still
remains as elusive as the endings of bothfilms.
DANIEL JAMES SCOTT(djscott@ucsc.edu), Daniel Scott is a second year film major affiliated with Porter
College. He is originally from Los Angeles,and hopes to be practicing analytical film
writing and screenwriting in the future.

Warshow, Robert. “Movie Chronicle: theWesterner.” Film Theory and Criticism. New
York, Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. 704.
2
Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “All the Pretty Carnage.” Chicago Reader 8 Nov. 2007. 14 Feb.
2008 <http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/moviereviews/2007/071108/>.
3
White, Armond. “A Guilt-Soaked Epic.”
New York Press 17 Feb. 2008 <http://www.
nypress.com/21/1/film/ArmondWhite.cfm>.
4
Coen, Ethan. Interview with Charlie Rose.
www.charlierose.com. 16 November, 2007.
22 Feb. 2008 <http://www.charlierose.com/
1

search?q=joel+coen&searchTopic=-1&searc
hFromMonth=MM&searchFromDay=DD&
searchFromYear=YY&searchToMonth=MM&searchToDay=DD&searchToYear=YY&se
archFilter=joel+coen&searchType=guest>.
5
Anderson, Paul T. Interview with Charlie
Rose. www.charlierose.com. 21 Dec. 2007.
18 Feb. 2008 <http://www.charlierose.com/
shows/2008/02/19/1/a-discussion-about-thefilms-there-will-be-blood-no-country-forold-men>.
6
Metz, Christian. “Some Points in the
Semiotics of the Cinema.” Film Theory andCriticism.
New York, Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. 6569.
7
Dixon, Wheeler W. Visions of the Apocalypse: Spectacles of Destruction in American
Cinema. London and New York: Wallflower
P, 2003. 59.
8
Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “All the Pretty Carnage.” Chicago Reader 8 Nov. 2007. 14 Feb.
2008 <http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/moviereviews/2007/071108/>9
Travers, Peter. “No Country for Old Men.”
The Rolling Stone 1 Nov. 2007. 14 Feb.
2007<http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/
movie/14706943/review/17163450/no_country_for_old_men>.
10
Warshow 703.
11
Ibid 708.
12
Ibid 709.
13
Ibid 3.

“Satchel” by Louise Chen
Volume 18

Winter 2008

13

Seung-Min Lee and Justice Rice of Mutual Appreciation (Bujalski, 2005, USA).

Stumble into Mumblecore
IT MAY HAVE the most peculiar of names,
but Mumblecore is a filmmaking movementthat has been garnering media attention
throughout the past two years. Outside offilm festivals, it has been rather difficult
to view most of these films in theaters,
but with recent releases on DVD and on
specialty cable TV stations such as IFC, theopportunity for one to view Mumblecore
films has expanded with increased
availability. In turn, a small but growing
young audience is forming. Mumblecore
films are typically made outside of a studioby un-established filmmakers and on
extremely low budgets. They tend to focus
on dialogue instead of action to drive thenarrative. Oddly enough, an independent
film movement that is relatively unknown
enjoys the benefit of being tagged as the
future of cinema — the onscreen voice ofour generation. However, do low production
values and young characters alone makethe movement worthy of such promotion,or is Mumblecore all talk?
The film commonly heralded
as the beginning of the Mumblecore
movement is Andrew Bujalski’s Funny Ha
Ha (2002, USA). The plot unfolds much
like a standard romantic comedy, yet with
its own unique wrinkles, including a fairly
open ending. The film follows a 23-year-old
recent college graduate trying to find love.
Relationships and human connections arecommon Mumblecore themes, but it is tooeasy to group them together simply because
they are films made by twentysomethings,
about
twentysomethings,
andfortwentysomethings. Alicia Van Couvering14

http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

writes, “Generally these films are severely
naturalistic portraits of the life and loves ofartistic twentysomethings.”1 In the larger
view of a filmmaking movement, it would
be a disservice to enact such a simplistic
view of these films. There is something else
to Mumblecore that one cannot recognize
just by reading about them. The only way
to completely experience Mumblecore is toview the films themselves.
The key filmmakers of the
movement are Bujalski, Aaron Katz, Joe
Swanberg, and the Duplass brothers. Amongthese four, eight of their films are available
on DVD. At this year’s Sundance Film
Festival, Sony Pictures Classics purchased
the Duplass brothers’ most recent effort,
Baghead (2008, USA).2
Categorizing these films into asingle movement, however, is made difficult
upon close readings. Each filmmaker has
his own distinctive style, so there is nota definitive aesthetic that connects themor their films. The primary reason they
have been grouped together is because of
their approach to filmmaking. It is hard
to find a three-act structure when viewing
these films because they are slices of thefilmmakers’ lives themselves. Mumblecore
films are not addressing groundbreaking
themes — finding love in New York City,
for example, is hardly new. Rather, it
is Mumblecore’s approach to story that
explains why it is receiving attention. The
lack of resources has forced the filmmakers
to rely on dialogue rather than action. The
results are films that feel authentic andnatural.

Despite it being a purely 21st
century practice, there are two historicalfilmmaking movements from whichthese young mumblers have drawn
inspiration. The first is the rise of American
independent film with John Cassavetes’s
first feature Shadows (1959, USA), which,like Bujalski’s Mutual Appreciation (2005,
USA), also focuses on young characters,
their problematic relationships, andincomplete reconciliations in New York
City. If Shadows, which was filmed over
two years with a cast of friends and used
improvised dialogue, had been made in
the early 21st century, it may be considered
Mumblecore due to its structure and similar
modes of production. Matt Dentler, program
director for the South by Southwest Filmand Music Festival, a venue that haslaunched many Mumblecore films to alarger audience, describes them as “slices
of life in a way, almost inspired by cinema
verite in a sense.”3
Mumblecore also owes a debt toDogme 95 — created in 1995 by Danish
filmmakers Lars von Trier and Thomas
Vinterberg. This movement rebelled against
growing budgets and limited narrative
risks of Hollywood productions. Dogme
filmmakers established a goal to create
films made on low budgets, relying moreon dialogue and character relationships toprogress its narratives, rather than movie
stars and special effects.4 Cassavetes
and Dogme 95 are clear inspirations for
Mumblecore filmmakers, partially due

Movie poster for Aaron Katz’s Quiet City
(2007, USA).
Volume 18

to the fact that each rejects Hollywood’s
favoring of spectacle and style oversubstance. With the exception of Bujalski’s
two offerings, all are shot on Digital Video
with micro-budgets, so they genuinely feel
raw and sharp around the edges. The term
‘Mumblecore’ refers to the muddy audio
quality of the films — credited to soundmixer Eric Masunaga, who coined the term
while working on one of Bujalski’s films.5
Mumblecore is a young andexciting film movement that is taking placeacross the country, with Bujalski and Katz
based in Brooklyn, Swanberg in Chicago,
the Duplass brothers in Austin, as well as a
rapidly growing community that is spreading
west. The filmmakers are active, with films
being released every year, and there is
new talent to be discovered. Mumblecore
was born out of inexpensive Digital Videotechnologies, because for the first time
young filmmakers had the opportunity tomake feature films on a miniscule budget.
With the advent of social networking
websites such as Myspace and Facebook,word of mouth is playing a significant rolein helping to popularize this up-and-coming
film movement. As Mumblecore becomesincreasingly accessible, perhaps ourVolume 18

generation will finally be able to determine
for itself whether or not Mumblecore truly
speaks for it.
MATTHEW LONGORIA(matthew.longoria@gmail.com), a fourthyear Film and Digital Media student at
UCSC. His work consists of an assortmentof productions, including found footage,
documentary, and narrative short films.

Van Couvering, Alicia. “What I Meant toSay” from Filmmaker. 2007 Spring. http://
www.filmmakermagazine.com/spring2007/
features/mumblecore.php.
2Billington, Alex. “Sundance: Baghead andWackness Bought by Sony Pictures Classics”
26 January 2008. http://www.firstshowing.
net/2008/01/26/sundance-baghead-andwackness-bought-by-sony-pictures-classics/.
3
Hernandez, Eugene. IndieWire. http://www.
indiewire.com/ots/2007/03/sxsw_07_daily_d_
3.html.
4
See: http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.
htm.
5Lim, Dennis. “A Generation Finds Its
Mumble.” New York Times. 19 August 2007.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/movies/
19lim.html.
1

Jay Duplass filming a scene for The Puffy
Chair (2005, USA).

Please visit this column’s
supplemental web page ateyecandy.ucsc.edu
for additional information andrelated media clips.

Winter 200815

Clinging to the Physical: Laserdisc versus Digital Technology
TOUCH IS ESSENTIAL to the collector. Having the physical presence of acollectible adds to the dimension that makes the item worth having. It can bedisplayed, picked up, examined, etc. With the growing dominance of digitaltechnologies, in which movies, music, and photographs are stored, that tactile
love of something is increasingly lost. I will examine the smallest demographicof this culture of collection in order to explore the psychology and mythos behindit, that is, the laserdisc collecting community. I will provide a brief history of thelaserdisc format as well as the difference between the quality provided by thisform of technology compared both to newer modes of technology and modes
concurrent with the laserdisc’s time. I will also draw a few analogies between
audio recording equipment that will further expand the examination of the cultureof nostalgia. New media, namely non-physical digital media, alters the way inwhich the spectator relates to his or her temporality. The near infinite access theuser has to digital forms of media subverts their own sense of finitude and thus
incurs a sense of profound existential angst. Finally, I hope to make a case forphysical forms of media, namely the laserdisc.
From vinyl to retro-digitalproducts, audiophiles and cinephiles seekout ‘dated’ forms of technology in orderto add to their ever-growing collections.
Typically, the reasoning behind acquiring
allegedly obsolete forms of technology
is a preference of the supposed aesthetic
quality of the object. Audiophiles tend toclaim that a vinyl record provides a warmer,
more intimate sound than the sleeker digitalformat. According to the Laserdisc Database(lddb.com), the old mode of technology
is immune to macroblocking (a term thatdetails the tendency for digital formats tohave blocky pixellated images during highmotion scenes).1 These collectors claimthat new forms of technology may leavebehind some qualities that older forms had
previously perfected.
These justifications, however, arehighly suspect and in the end are merely an
opinion held by an individual in regard toa particular media technology. The ‘warm,
intimate’ sound of a vinyl record can also16

http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

seem scratchy or fuzzy to some. Similarly,
like many forms of analog technology, thelaserdisc is dependent on the quality of its
decoder (or player), a necessity that does
not pertain to the DVD. Objective quality,
then, is something of a myth when it comesto media technology — both sides have apoint. New technology may function more
efficiently, but as it is a different product, it

does not necessarily outperform everything
the older product did. Rather, it contains
new aspects that the listener/viewer
subjectively compares to older products.
Such comparisons may lead the spectator/
listener to judging the new product as morestreamlined due, in part, to its strangenessrather than to an objectively higher degreeof quality. The mere familiarity thespectator has with contemporary forms oftechnology renders older media formats aslacking. These older forms of media can,however, be rediscovered to possess certain
qualities that newer forms of media failto replicate. For our generation, the vinyl
record has made an unprecedented returnin the market. Similarly, cassette mix-tapes
are gaining in popularity, and I speculatethat the laserdisc could become revived
through cultural trend (rather than technicalcapability) to some degree. At the sametime, one cannot deny that newer forms oftechnology do provide improvements tocertain aspects of picture and audio quality— improvements not possible decades oreven years before.
Consumer preference for older
forms of media technology partially stems
from other cultural phenomena, not as easily
explained as those previously addressed.
Use of so-called obsolete technology isa consumer reaction to a growing media
culture bombarded by newer modes oftechnology. Clinging to a particular formof media allows the user to feel at place
in a cultural tradition that will continue
beyond the user’s own limited life span. In
the midst of a world increasingly filled with
non-physical media, consumers seek out
physical artifacts that give the user a senseof historical context through the tactile.
That society is being bombarded by new
Volume 18

technology is not the only factor, however,in converting large groups of people to favor
dated over modern formats. This culture isalso deeply materialistic, not in a Marxian
false consciousness sense, but in the sensethat it starves for physical artifacts in anage of virtuality. The individuals within
this kind of culture have a sense of relation
between themselves and the physicalobjects they possess. Consumers are what
they own, and if their objects become more
and more obsolete, then so does their senseof self.
Clashing Media: Competition Among
Film Formats and the History ofLaserdisc
ACCORDING TO THE Laserdisc
FAQ, David Paul Gregg invented
laserdisc technology in 1958 by
utilizing a transparent disc torecord analog data.2 In 1969, thePhillips Corporation improved
upon the technology by using areflective disc, the same material
used for CDs and DVDs. In
1972, the Music Corporation ofAmerica, which at the time owned
the most film rights of any media
recording company, decided tocooperate with Phillips to begin
manufacturing laserdiscs for
public consumption. Five years
later, the laserdisc entered theAmerican home-video market.3
The main competitor at the time forthe laserdisc was the VHS tape. Laserdisc
had a number of advantages over the VHS
format: laserdiscs have nearly twice theresolution capacity and thus the picture
was considered much sharper; laserdiscs
were cheaper to manufacture — VHS
tapes contained moving parts and required
significant amounts of plastic material;
and laserdiscs are also read optically, so
playback does not wear the disc down.
VHS, meanwhile, is not as durable. The
tape in the VHS has a magnetic coating that
contains all the information and touches
the spools during every use. With repeateduse, VHS tapes tend to have a shorter
lifespan than the more durable laserdisc.4  
Furthermore, laserdiscs are able to store
multiple audio tracks, with special-edition
discs sold with popular features such as
director’s commentary.
There are, however, some obvious
disadvantages to the laserdisc. The first is
its size. The discs are thirty centimeters indiameter, or one foot in length, roughly thesame as a vinyl record. Needless to say,
Volume 18

laserdiscs are more bulky and awkward forviewers to handle than the more compact
VHS. Once again the physicality of a media
object determines its consumption by the
public. Despite the obvious higher picture
quality of the laserdisc, its cumbersome
shape was enough to turn individuals awayfrom the product. Furthermore, perhaps
even more disastrously, the laserdisc wasmarketed at a higher price than VHS,despite its lower manufacturing costs. The
VHS quickly dominated the laserdisc fromnearly the outset of the latter’s existence.
Despite its problematic nature,laserdisc media technology persevered

through the years. It was still being soldin select retail stores scattered across thecountry, before dying off with the rise of
a new format, the Digital Versatile Disc.
DVDs are essentially laserdiscs but morecompact in size and able to hold more data.
Laserdiscs can only hold from 30 to 60
minutes per side. Most of them required theuser to manually flip the disc onto its otherside, much like a vinyl record, halfway
through the film. Once again, physicality
becomes integral to the use and relevanceof media formats. As important, there is anear consensus among film viewers that the
DVD is of higher quality than the laserdisc.
Some proponents of the laserdisc claim that
DVDs have a higher rate of contrast banding(lines showing up in gradient areas) as wellas the above-mentioned macroblocking.
These pro-laserdisc claims aside, the DVD
has a sharper image resolution, can store
more extras and special features, is morecompact, and does not need to be flipped
over.
Mythos and Media: Barthes andMarketing Physicality
WHY, THEN, IS the laserdisc comingback into fashion as a collector’s item? I
personally know a handful of cinephiles
who collect the discs and claim the same
technical justifications as outlined above,
for their purchase. Maybe it is the same
reason all retro media come back into
fashion, their cult, retro appeal. I believe
it is also their physicality and, oddly
enough, even their cumbersomeness; thelarge covers provide more artwork andare considered aesthetically pleasing inthis time of small discs and noncorporeal
digital media. To put it more colloquially,laserdiscs just look (and feel) cool.
To justify this claim about asubculture that is reacting todominant modes of media
technology, I will draw upon
an example of mainstream
commercialism. In his book
Mythologies, Roland Barthes
examines the physical nature ofdetergent products and how they
are advertised toward consumer
culture.5 Barthes posits that
powdered detergent, which isconceived of as more coarse andabrasive than its liquid variation,is more often marketed towardcleaning clothing and fabrics.
He believes that this is because
consumers believe that stains
on clothes and fabrics generally
need a vigorous washing. The coarsenessperceived in the grainy powdered detergent
will somehow be more forceful in cleaning
the laundry. On the contrary, liquid soap ismarketed toward personal hygiene because
it is perceived as gentler on the skin. Yet
when both come into contact with water,
both surfactants produce the same reaction.
Thus the consumer relates differently to
products that have nearly the same result.
The physical appearance of the products
is the only source of their difference, yet
the user experiences the two products
differently.6
I seek to invert this analogy inregard to my claim about laserdiscs. The
continuous barrage of nascent forms oftechnology, combined with the feelingsof alienation attendant to nonphysicalmedia formats, such as the MP3, makessome consumers feel disconnected frommainstream media technologies. As such,media users seek out physical objects,
forms of media that are larger and are thus
perceived as more indestructible, in order
to connect with the media they consume.
Much like the consumer who related
Winter 200817

differently to the two forms in which soap
took, so does the collector of physical visualmedia relate to their environment througha product.  This collector seeks to form a
corporeal collection of artifacts that canbe counted on to exist for long periods oftime and which can be both controlled andarchived physically. This type of individual
does not trust invisible, digital media
placed on a hard drive to last indefinitely.
Viruses, crashes, or any other number of
uncontrollable, nonphysical problems canhazard digital media. The physicality of
the laserdisc or the vinyl record gives theowner a sense of tactile authenticity andsecurity through touch.
My Generation: Anxiety andIntangibility
OUR GENERATION, popularly referred
to as “Generation Y,” is perhaps the mostsusceptible to this symptom of cultural
nostalgia. We, more than any othergeneration before, see multiple updates of
media within the span of a year. Before,technology lasted for a decade if notlonger. Currently a flood of new products
jeopardizes our ability to connect withand to relate to a single media technology
collectively. Despite my increased useof digital media, I still struggle to decide
between shifting files to my external hard
drive or acquiring new memory so that
I can download more music and film.
Meanwhile, I much prefer to use and to
add to my record collection. I feel moreconnected to the products I am inclined topurchase, rather than the rapid rate at which
I can download new media for free.
As a result, our generation tends
to have higher demand for physical formsof media. After nearly dying out, the vinyl
record made somewhat of a comeback in thelate 20th century. This correlation between
increased vinyl sales and the advent of free
digital downloading cannot be meaningless.7
As access to infinite amounts of media rose,
the consumer became existentially anxious
about their place in a limitless market. The
user’s finitude was in direct opposition totheir capacity for media consumption. To
alleviate this anxiety, the consumer soughtout more physical, aesthetic, and seemingly
authentic forms of media in order to gain
some sort of grounding in a world oflimitless media. Marketers responded
by including vinyl-only bonus materials
such as extra tracks, B-sides, and concert
posters. The laserdisc could also use its size
to include physical bonus materials, suchas a movie poster, a booklet that provides

18 http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

further insight to the film, or some otherkind of merchandise that appeals to thespectator. These resources have yet to betapped. If laserdisc manufacturers were toinclude some of these added materials, I
feel that there could still be a market for
laserdiscs in the 21st century. The physicalsize of the laserdisc, which was once its
greatest flaw, can now be exploited toappeal to new markets.

out this form of media as more individuals
become technologically adept. These
individuals who only know media as an
infinite resource will experience existential
anxiety as they seek to connect to films
in a nonphysical way. Consciously or
unconsciously, spectators will experience
their own finitude in contrast to the infinite
nature of the binary media they use, thus
straining the notion of the self within an
historical context. This sense of anxiety
is clearly symptomatic of our generation,
one that imbues physical media with ansense of cultural ‘trendiness.’ This culturalfascination and revisiting of older formsof media allow the spectator to feel someconnection with his or her place in history.
Rather than giving the spectator a sense of
the infinite, physical forms of media allow
for the viewer to make sense of the world.
In the age of digital evolution, it seems thatphysical forms of media are one of the few
ways to keep us connected with our own
humanity.
ALEX OLSON (abolson@ucsc.edu), isa fourth-year Literature student at UC
Santa Cruz. This is his first time writing for
Eyecandy Film Journal.

A Conclusion Without an End — The
Continuing Evolution of Technology
THIS PHENOMENON, however, is notexactly new. In her essay “The End of
Cinema: Multimedia and Technological
Change,” Anne Friedberg argues that
the VHS tape introduced the concept of“time-shifting” to the viewer.8 She argues
that features such as fast-forward andrewind radically altered the way in which
the spectator related to film and media.
Indeed, even the laserdisc, for which I
am advocating, needed to be flipped, thus
altering the sense of continuity of thefilm narrative. These two forms of media,
however, do not possess the capacity for
ubiquity that digital media does. Because
digital media is nonphysical, it does not need
to be shipped, distributed, or advertised,or to take up storage space (beyond thephysical hard drive enclosure). Even morecrucial to the prevalence of digital media
is that it is potentially and easily attainable
free of cost.
As such, digital media will
present itself as the more accessible, morereliable media format than either VHS or
the laserdisc — or even the DVD — could
ever be. Because of its accessibility andbroad appeal, most individuals will seek

Julien Wilk, “LaserDisc Database,”
2002, Wilk, 16 Feb. 2008. <http://www.
lddb.com/>.
2Henrik Herranen and Tim Doolen,“Laserdisc FAQ,” 1995, Doolen, 14 Feb.
2008. <http://www.blam1.com/LaserDisc/
FAQ/>.
3
Herranen, Ibid.
4
Andy Hain and David Browne, “Total
Rewind,” 2007, Hain/Brighton, 14 Feb.
2008. <http://www.totalrewind.org/v2000.
htm>.
5Roland Barthes, Mythologies (New York:
Hill and Wang, 1972).
6
Barthes, Ibid.
7
Eliot Van Buskirk, “Vinyl May Be
Final Nail in CD’s Coffin,” Wired, 2007,
Conde Nast/New York, 29 Oct. 2007.
<http://www.wired.com/entertainment/
music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/10/
listeningpost_1029>.
8
Anne Friedberg, “The End of Cinema:
Multimedia and Technological Change,”
Film Theory and Criticism. eds. Leo
Braudy and Marshall Cohen, (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004) 914-924.
1

Volume 18

Requiem for the Del Mar:RIDING ROUTE 15 into town, I sat next
to a fellow student of cinema — the coeditor of this journal, no less — skillfully
pretending to listen to what he had to say.
My lack of investment in the conversation
had actually little to do with the particular
topics at hand. Indeed, my friend’s reasonsfor conversion to Judaism usually would
have been given my undivided attention.
I felt bad. I felt like a jerk. The poor guy
ran as fast as he could across crowded
intersections, just so that we could see
the movie together at the Del Mar. He
understands, as I do, that spectatorshipis best suited to be shared with others, inpublic exhibition.
As this one-sided bus rideconversation continued, I found myself
concerned with other developments taking
place around me. Across the aisle to my left, a
trio of young Santa Cruzans were recording
their own minute-length documentary andthen reviewing their project in playback— all made possible by a single cell phone
and its digital video abilities. As of last year,
half the world’s population is connected
to a cellular network, myself included,progressively altering the common meansby which visual medias are watched andproduced. 1   My friend, having realized
Volume 18

my attention was now devoted to a twoinch screen more than 10 feet away, ceased
speaking. Making our way to the theater,
the two of us sat in silence. Thanks to thelatest developments in consumer telecomvideo convergence, pre- and post-movie
conversation would never be the same.
Outside the Del Mar Theater, I
began thinking less about cellular phones
and more about the greater 21st-century
threat to cinephilia. Gazing at the 3:10 to
Yuma (James Mangold, 2007, USA) poster,
I remember having passed up the chance to
see the film before it ever arrived in theaters.
Today, one need not physically travel totheir local theater just to watch a Westernremake, let alone wait for its premier date.
Modern filmgoers, or film-no-goers, cansimply download a few billion lines ofbinary code and within hours will have thepleasure of watching Hollywood’s latest
offerings in the solitary comfort of theirown desk chair, free of charge.
Puttingaside
theethicaldilemmas of digital piracy, this spectator
practice still leaves much to be desired. A
computer monitor does not complement
my peripheral vision as the Del Mar’s
projection screen does. More importantly,
I am never detached from the world

when spectatorship occurs via a 20-inch
screen, often populated with a plethoraof information/conversation windows.
Stationed in front of a computer, we arevulnerable to media multitasking. In fact, itis the very nature of this device.2 Assumingthat most computer spectatorship occurs
within the domestic sphere, itself laden with
distractions, this practice achieves an apexof uncertainty. How many interruptions
would inflict the diegesis of 3:10 to Yuma,
given that my response is obligated forthe automatic pop-ups of instant messages(IM), breaking Iraq War updates or new
email alerts? In the midst of rapid spectator
evolution, I question whether or not one isstill the “all-perceiving subject,”3 as Metz
so describes, when the screen becomes too
small and divided to perceive anything at
all?
The reason for my anxiety issimple: I am aware of an alternative. For
future generations of spectators, however,the same cannot be guaranteed. Recent
studies point to GenY’s (the very coinage
itself influenced by IM speak) dependence
upon simultaneous media usage.4 With eachdivision of a spectator’s attention span, thequality of their perception decreases. The
apparatus-spectator cooperation, which
Winter 200819

has been painstakingly developed overthe past four centuries, is falling victim toprogress and modernization.5 The ability
to comprehend on-screen signs, symbols,
and meanings has been facilitated by
centuries of spectator education. By ourrefusal to disconnect from the rest of theongoing world, we are essentially losing
the connection to our very history withcinema.
During these midday escapisms, I
try to forget said concerns. Halfway throughthe movie, I felt like shaking hands with the
Del Mar for yet another job well done. We
make a good team — each of us providing
meaning for the other’s existence. If not forthat text-messaging punk rocker two rows
in front of me, with his brightly illuminatedcell phone like a beacon of obstructing
light seeping into a peaceful abyss, thiswould have been a flawless afternoon at
the movies. I look around the room briefly,
wondering why the Del Mar has yet to follow
suit with other theaters’ cellular blocking
systems.6 Again, I grow wary. Converging
technologies and their effects on humanbehavior, in the form of “continuous partial
attention,” has indeed made its mark on
cinema.7 Uninterrupted and undivided
spectatorship is increasingly unsuitable
for my generation. The throwback punk infront of me does not use his phone during
3:10 to Yuma’s slower moments. Rather, hewatches the film in pastime, between the
text-message correspondences. Inside of
the theater, watching a movie is no longer
the primary — but instead has become thesecondary — activity.
Walking out of the theater and into
the Del Mar’s lobby, I once again had toignore my dear friend, effectively missing
his well-thought-out responses to themovie. A teenager walking in front of me
has one of those handless, Bluetooth cell
phone receivers properly attached behind
his ear. Switching the device on from its
deactivated state, he was immediately
reconnected to the world at large. His
electronic conversation featured him
convincing a friend to see 3:10 to Yuma  
in person at their local theater. For once, it
seemed there was a glimmer of hope, bothfor myself and for all the Del Mars of theworld. This spectator, who needs not use
a single primitive limb to talk on a phone,
had ventured to the Del Mar and was evenencouraging others to go, too — but will
they?
Long after the 3:10 train boundfor Yuma left the station, I still regard myexperience with awe. Both the film and the
Del Mar lived up to expectations, providing
the service that I had proudly paid for andsatisfying my cinephilic appetite better
than the divided media snacking that mycomputer or cell phone screens have tooffer. For two non-multitasking hours, I
allowed a series of successive still images
to hold my attention. As desired, the screen
was dominant. This is how it should be
for a spectator. This is how I want it to
be. To quote Dorothy Richardson, “Thatis the prime necessity.”8 Hopefully, I may
still experience this movie-going euphoria
for as long as I live — for as long as the
Del Mar stands. Just as importantly, I hope
there will be other cinephiles with whom toshare the experience.
ROBERTO A. SANTOS(roberto.santos08@gmail.com), co-editorin-chief, is a senior undergraduate in theFilm & Digital Media Department. This is
his second year with Eyecandy Film Journal,
previously serving as the Advertising
Manager for Volume 17. His interests focus
on new spectatorship practices of GenY
as well as the opportunities for improved
Latina/o representation, via evolving modesof production, distribution and viewership.

Tarmo Virki, “Global Cellphone Penetration
Reaches 50 pct,” 2007 Reuters/London, 29 Nov.
2007, ed by Quentin Bryar. <http://investing.reuters.
co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=media&storyI
D=nL29172095>.
2
Ulla G. Foehr, “Media Multitasking Among
American Youth: Prevalence, Predictors andPairings,” Dec. 2006. Kaiser Family Foundation,
Menlo Park, CA. <http://www.kff.org/entmedia/
upload/7592.pdf>.
3
Christian Metz, Identification, Mirror, from “The1“�������������������������������������������
Inside of the theater, watching a movie is
no longer the primary — but instead has
become the secondary — activity.�
”20

http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

Imaginary Signifier,” reprinted from Screen, Vol. 16,
No 2 (1975).
4Foehr, Ibid.
5
David Robinson. From Peep Show to Palace:
The Birth of American Film (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1996) 3, 4. Robinson posits,“the most apparent antecedent of the cinema
projector is the magic lantern.” Dutch physicist
Christiaan Huygens is credited with the device’s first
documented exhibition in 1659.
6
Katie McCall, “New Device Lets You Report Noisy
Audience Members,” 2007 CBS Broadcasting/
Chicago, 29 May 2007 Visit this column’s page ateyecandy.film.ucsc.edu to watch McCall’s report on
new counter-cell phone technology used by American
theaters.
7
Linda Stone coined “continuous partial attention”
in 1998. She co-founded and directed Microsoft’s
Virtual Worlds Group/Social Computing
Group, researching online social life and virtual
communities. <http://continuouspartialattention.jot.
com/WikiHome>.
8
Dorothy Richardson. “Continuous Performance:
Musical Accompaniment,” Close Up: 1927-1933.
Cinema and Modernism, ed by James Donald, AnneFriedberg, and Laura Marcus (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1998) 162.

With each division to a spectator’s attention span, the quality of our perception
decreases.

Please visit this column’s
supplemental web page ateyecandy.ucsc.edu
for additional information andrelated media clips.

Volume 18

Volume 18

Winter 2008http://eyecandy.ucsc.edu

Volume 18