The emergence of a new form of communication technology presents the opportunity for ideologically charged debates regarding both normative and predictive aspects of its use: many a current argument has been waged around the ethical uses and the implications of technology. Exploration of the issue confirms that technology presents both intended and unintended implications for individual users and society as a whole. Advances in communication technologies have altered the logistics and content of our communication itself, and have expanded our perceptions of the geographic range of "community." Technological developments have influenced both the style and the content of our art, as well; they have brought about changes in the ways in which movies themselves are made. Additionally, the subject matter of our art increasingly reflects our ambivalence about the costs and benefits of technology. Exploration of technological ideologies, both on the survey and in the public list discussion, provided diverse perspectives on the topic.
The Costs and Benefits of Technology
Ethical uses of technology require that we carefully weigh the potential benefits of technology against its costs. One of the concerns that has been raised is that spending too much time with computers is bad for us, in that it will make us more like machines--somehow more mechanical and less human: "To say that men [sic] have grown 'mechanical' in head and heart is to say that they now over-value those aspects of life which are calculable and manipulatable and, by the same token, that they neglect the whole sphere of the spontaneous, the imaginative" (Leo Marx 1964, 175). My research on the Cinema-L list indicates that recent advances in communication technology have, if anything, provided yet a new potential avenue for the stimulation of imaginative thinking and contemplative dialogue. Martin Heidegger shared a concern in his 1955 "Memorial Address" that of the two kinds of thinking--calculative thinking (which involves computing and planning) and meditative thinking (which is contemplative)--technology fosters calculative thinking at the expense of meditative thinking, separating us from our essential nature and speeding us down an irresistible path toward destruction:
But technological advance will move faster and faster and can never be stopped. In all areas of his existence, man [sic] will be encircled ever more tightly by the forces of technology. These forces, which everywhere and every minute claim, enchain, drag along, press and impose upon man under the form of some technical contrivance or other--these forces, since man has not made them, have moved long since beyond his will and have outgrown his capacity for decision. (Heidegger 1966, 41)
While technological developments have certainly altered the world that we live in in many ways, technology has by no means robbed us of our contemplative nature and our critical faculties. The challenges of thoughtfully directing and accurately perceiving the implications of our own technological advances, however, are always with us.
What Is It? Analogies to Preexisting Communication Technologies
It is often difficult to convey to someone who begins to communicate within an unfamiliar environment how that environment will change the style and substance of communication. Participants in Phase II of my research struggled to put into words "what a LISTSERV is like" peripherally in the answers they provided to a number of my questions, but the one question where they were required to face the issue head-on--and that provoked some of the most interesting comments (and the single public response to the research update I posted to the list on April 25)--was this: "If you had to create an analogy in which you compared the use of a LISTSERV to the use of another, preexisting communications technology, which of these do you think it is most like and why?" (And then I provided a list of suggestions: face-to-face conversation, telephone, fax, letter writing, television, movies, radio, two tin cans and a string, or other.) The responses to that question were creative and illuminating.
One of the most common analogies bandied about on the list (and captured superlatively in Pete's quote, which follows) was the analogy of a cocktail party, where all of the list members are guests:
It's not much of a technology, but my favorite analogy, especially in terms of social interaction, is a cocktail party. Some have been hanging out by the punch bowl for a long time, know everyone in the room, and tend to look at newcomers with a healthy or unhealthy skepticism and seen-it-all gaze. Newcomers come and go, some work the room and wind up staying and being accepted, and some piss in the punch bowl and get bounced. Wallflowers line the periphery while lampshades are donned. In-jokes and running gags weave in and out of style, someone is always trying to hit on someone else, or everyone else, and the background music tends to be lowest common denominator stuff.
Informally, among themselves, list members have often described participating in Cinema-L in terms of "traveling on the Cinema-L bus to hell" (sometimes shortened to "Cine-Hell") or hanging out in a pub with a couple of friends. Pete's comparison of the list to a cocktail party was borne out in late April 1996, when Richard, a familiar Cinema-L participant who had been missing from the list for a few weeks, returned, was greeted roundly with great enthusiasm, and was offered a virtual drink:
WELCOME BACK RICHARD! It's about time you showed back up!
This calls for a celebration and the first round is on me....
;-)
Celia
------------
Serve 'em up, Celia, I'm mighty thirsty! ;)
Richard
Note the use of "emoticons," sideways smiley-faces, to imply humor. Richard was, in turn, the first one to offer to purchase a round for the house the following week when fellow list member Rory reported winning an award for a public service announcement he had produced:
Go Rory! The first round is on me, so everyone order up!
Richard (with the <clink> of a Corona and lime)
Survey respondent Molly pointed out aspects of the list that make it like "a dinner party or social gathering" and yet at the same time like "a debate or classroom discussion":
But it's very different [from face-to-face] in that you have time to mull over the other person's comments before responding, and you tend to say things that you might not ever say in face-to-face conversation. It's also different because it pulls together a diverse group of people from around the world on a daily basis and each person has the option of contributing to the conversation when it is convenient for them.
Several members described the list as being like talk radio: "I would describe the list as a combination of talk radio (with listeners calling in) and a public bulletin board where people leave notes posted," Alexander observed. Jane shared a similar perspective:
It's somewhere between face-to-face conversation, a radio (call-in) talk show, and maybe a confidential chat column in a newspaper (with faster turnaround, of course). It's like f-to-f [face-to-face] in that it has a group feeling, a sense of community. It's like a talk show in that people are writing in to voice their opinions, and then responding to each other's opinions. It's like a confidential chat in that it is, or can be, anonymous (or at least, we don't see each other), and it's in written format rather than spoken. E-mail is something like all of these things, yet none of them. It really is its own thing--has its own parameters and rules, etc., that aren't quite like any other.
The chief similarity between letter writing and LISTSERVs is that all communication must be contained in a written, verbal format, although emoticons can be used to soften a harsh-sounding statement, to clarify language, and to imply emotion.
In letter writing, you have to word things so they won't be misunderstood, since emotions must be implied. E-mail is similar, except perhaps that emotions can be portrayed by "emoticons." I find I use them a lot so that I will be understood (Anna).
The list environment, because it is highly verbal, privileges those members who excel in written communication. And in fact, a language purist might observe that if you can't convey your intended meaning with words alone, you have somehow failed in your communication attempt (we might call this contingent the sans smiley language purists); however, like Anna, even when I feel I have conveyed the meaning I've intended, I sometimes throw in a good-natured smiley just to emphasize a display of general good will. In many ways these aspects of LISTSERV communication resemble a kind of online verbal performance art, in that there is a sense of shared fantasy--and the verbal creation and manipulation of a sense of "character"--on the part of both message writers and message readers, as described by Pete in the following quote:
My sense these days is that you really can't pretend to know someone very well if your only contact comes through e-mail. You're constantly editing, you're not capable of putting all of your intended emotion into a statement, even if you're the master of the emoticon, and I think what you're doing is building a character, and meeting a character. I've been told that I am: taller, heavier, skinnier, more laid-back, more aggressive, less geeky, geekier, nicer, meaner, more patient, and enjoy different kinds of music than my cyber "image" has suggested to people, all of which leads me to believe that characters are being created, consciously or not.
On many lists, contributing to that sense of "character creation" is the use of online pseudonyms; for example, a list member can subscribe to the list under an assumed identity such as "Black Widow Spider" or "Media Maven" (the online "handle" I occasionally used, in addition to my real name, in my own messages to the list back in the days when I was a frequent participant). On Cinema-L, however, the use of pseudonyms is not common. Most members on this list subscribe as, and then continue to post messages under, their own names. The use of real as opposed to fictitious names on the list may contribute to members' sense of community, in that over time members begin to feel that they "know" each other and can trust one another.
Additionally, the language used by most members on the list is generally very informal, and was contrasted (often pejoratively) by several respondents with some of the more "academic" or "work-related" LISTSERVs whose purposes are "strictly for information" rather than social interaction. The level of social interchange on the list led Kent to respond:
Technically, it's most like a fax with multi-number redial, but there is an element, especially with a socially oriented list like Cin-L, where it's probably "50 tin cans and a string," as it's much quicker and more interactive than letters, and compared to the fax it has a less formal air and more of a screwing-around-with-toys-having-fun feeling about it.
These informal and "having-fun" aspects of the environment contribute to user enthusiasm and an increased sense of general camaraderie.
Technology's Implications for Global Relations
One of the benefits attributed to many communication technologies by enthusiasts is the potential for each new technology to contribute to world peace. For example, the spiritual benefits of interconnectivity were espoused in the early age of the telephone: "General Carty, Chief Engineer of AT&T since 1907, predicted there would be international telephony one day, and also forecast that it would bring peace on earth" (de Sola Pool et al. 1977, 128). In the interests of gauging my respondents' views on the matter, I asked them to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed (somewhat or strongly) with the statement, "Electronic communication will help to bring about world peace." I had initially hypothesized, based on many of the positive comments list members had made earlier regarding social and humorous aspects of list culture, that many of my fellow cinema LISTSERV enthusiasts might agree with the statement. However, I was surprised to discover that of the 15 responses I received to the question, nine members disagreed with the statement and only three members agreed. Vance, an international list member, queried,
What does electronic communication have to do with world peace? Some people fight, some don't. Those who like to fight, will fight. Those who don't, won't. Nothing's going to change that.
Another suggested that "none of the above" was true. Jane, who selected "disagree somewhat," elaborated:
I guess I'm fairly cynical about technology, in that no matter what new things we develop and introduce into our culture, and no matter how much it may change the *way* things are done, it doesn't change the fact that we are fundamentally human, and will still have the same problems, as people, that we had before the technology was introduced. I'm not saying that we can never achieve world peace--just that I don't think technology is going to do that for us.
Cheryl, who "disagreed somewhat," tempered her response with the following comment:
Since I don't want to end on a cynical note, I love the fact that I can argue with all sorts of people with different cultures, backgrounds, sets of beliefs, etc. Our common bond is the love of cinema. And since most good cinema reflects those events, emotions, relationships that make us uniquely human, it is the discussion of the subject matter that reminds us more of our universality than of our differences.
Kent placed his answer somewhere between "disagree somewhat" and "agree somewhat," and described his own opinion as follows:
kinda "b and a half" . . . More "Electronic communication *could* help to bring about world peace," primarily by putting people in better touch with relative strangers, and finding out that they're just normal people too.
Anna, who met her husband Samuel on the list, "agreed somewhat" with the comment, and shared the following anecdote:
My husband and I brought a beagle puppy home from the pound. A week later, at age 8 weeks, we lost that puppy to a virus. I have learned how wonderful a listserv can be in the last few weeks (we lost him on 4/9) . . . it's like additional family, in a way. The dog listserv people have been so wonderful about the loss of Lincoln. I-barc [a LISTSERV devoted to discussion of dogs] named a get together in memory of Linc, and is even going to make t-shirts commemorating that gathering. Several people on noses-l [another dog LISTSERV] have offered to contribute to our local Humane Society in Lincoln's memory. People I've *never* met!
Anna explained: "I feel like these listservs are like little communities (perhaps closer than that) of people with a common interest, be it movies, dogs, cats, or whatever." Angela, the only list member who "agreed strongly" with the statement, cited the benefits of increased communication among people located around the world:
I had never thought about it before. But the more we can directly express our views to our enemies, without having to face possible immediate violence, the more people will be able to be willing to communicate. That has to be a positive change. Now of course, I'm assuming that we won't be able to e-mail bombs or bullets.
The international aspect of the list was mentioned as one of its appeals; subscribers liked the thought of being "wired into" a larger global community. Indeed one of the benefits of having an international subscribership is that there is the potential for a wide variety of perspectives to be presented. A review of the Cinema-L membership roster in fall 1996 revealed representation from more than 30 individual countries, with the largest number of subscribers hailing from the United States. However, this level of diversity can cause friction within the group, as well. Several months after Phase II of my research, a group of international list members formed their own subgroup and began posting film-related comments in Portuguese. An argument broke out about whether or not discussion on the list was intended to be in English, and after several weeks of debate about the language issue, all posting returned to English. Americans may thus be rightfully accused of dominating some of the corners of Cyberspace: we like being members of an international community, as long as everyone agrees to speak "our" native language.
Technology and the Art of Cinema
As I pointed out earlier in this chapter, opinions diverge on the subject of whether or not technology is "good" for us as human beings. Technology's implications for cinema are a source of great debate, as well. Our cultural preoccupation with increasingly advanced machines as symbols of progress is tempered by feelings of ambivalence. The crisis of self in a world overwhelmed by technology out of control is a common theme that shows up in various avenues of artistic expression, including cinema. The theme of an impending conflict between humankind and machines was addressed, for example, in several popular movies from the 1980s:
On-list discussions that address issues related to technology generally deal ostensibly with technology as it applies to film--issues related to camera angles in Hitchcock films, dolly shots in Scorsese, and special effects. The downside of an increased emphasis on cinematic technologies, some claim, is that it privileges style over substance--eclipsing content, character, and plot. On the other hand, technological gee-whizzery can be a source of great enjoyment and entertainment, as well. For example, early in Phase II of my research, several list members were jubilant over the impending re-release of the Star Wars trilogy, newly remastered and sporting a host of brand-new effects generated by the wizards at Industrial Light & Magic, George Lucas' production company. In a debate that arose on the subject of whether or not Star Wars deserved to be ranked as an historically significant film, Robyn Renninger-Rand had this to say about the film's new trailer (or preview):
My boyfriend saw the first ever trailer for the new STAR WARS (I guess they aren't going to begin showing the trailer to us regular folk until December of this year) and he was blown away. In fact, fucking blown away was a better way of putting it. I guess they show a bit of the old with canny sound and the boxes around the tie fighters and say something like, "If you remember STAR WARS, this is how you remember it." And then this new tie fighter comes screaming across the screen with all that THX sound and new effects could give it and I guess the audience went fucking bonkers. My boyfriend shows very little emotion about anything and he was slavering away about this folks, so being a STAR WARS queen I'm pretty damn excited too.
Not everyone on the list was quite so thrilled. One male list member said somewhat skeptically:
On a related subject, am I the only Star Wars fan who finds the idea of them tampering with the original a little peculiar? That film is over--it is gone now. To do a sequel or even a total remake with all the new effects does seem legitimate, but to me the original is sacrosanct and should be left as it stands. It upsets me in the same way that the remaining Beatles fucking with those John Lennon demos did.
Anyway, having said all that I'm sure I'll be first in the queue for tickets (and therein, I guess, lies their reason). :-)
Vance presented his own perspective on the interrelationship between technological advances in the computing and entertainment industries:
I for one closely relate the development of computerized special effects to the development of the computer industry over the past how-many years. ILM have received how many Time magazine articles discussing their technology. Lucas did Star Wars by hand, model animation, matte painting . . . by the second he was using computers to an extent, and by the third he was largely computerized.
In 1978, Visicalc, the first commercially available spreadsheet for computers, hit the market. That makes the SW saga historically significant, for me at least. The amount of research and development that can be traced back to SW is phenomenal, and the SW entries in the world of multimedia etc. are industry leaders. These guys have always pushed the boundaries of technology.
Vance's admiration for the new possibilities offered by special effects wizardry was tempered, however, by a note of nostalgia for the original Star Wars: in the final paragraphs of his message, he addressed the precarious balance between art and advances in technology:
Lucas is more than welcome to remake SW. I will be buying a copy, and I will be loving every moment of it. But it distresses me severely that GL expressed intention to destroy the originals. In the mid 70's, him [sic] and his team achieved miracles with what they had. They stretched the abilities of their imaginations and their equipment. Of course, had the technology existed, it would have been easier, possibly cheaper, and certainly more impressive. But what is phenomenal is that they did it then, with what they had.
To that extent, the movie captures something of that decade. It gives us a glimpse of what people wanted to see, what was imaginable and what was alien. It said something about how they saw their heroes and villains.
When it came out, one of the most remarkable things to my father was the 3-D chess game...
To destroy that work, as it existed then, is to deny those wonderful artists their art. Not to be used anymore, that must be a blow. But to have your art destroyed and replaced with something "new and improved"?
There it is then. I want the sequels. I want the prequels. I want the remakes.
But most of all, I also want the original.
Technology's implications for cinema, and for mass media in general, are still being explored and debated. Whether or not communication, community, and art have been improved by technology is certainly a topic worthy of debate. That they have been changed by it, there is no doubt.
Technological ideologies present widely divergent views regarding the implications of electronic innovation. While enthusiasts predict a rosy future of global harmony, egalitarianism, and economic prosperity, critical approaches predict a more negative outcome. Some people predict that increased reliance on technology will bring about changes in our very patterns of mental cognition--including an increase in calculative thinking at the expense of meditative thinking--and a deficiency in social skills.
The ongoing ideological ambivalence that many people feel toward technology has found its way into our art. A host of recent movies have presented apocalyptic visions of a bleak futuristic world, in which machinery out of control brings about the downfall of humankind. Yet at the same time, on-screen wizardry made possible by technological advances has the power to afford great delight and entertainment.
Quite contrary to the dire predictions of Heidegger and others, the LISTSERV environment is highly social, and participation in informal, spontaneous dialogue results in both the enjoyment of its participants and an increased sense of online community. Within the range of preexisting communication technologies, LISTSERV interaction was conceived of by users as a new kind of online cocktail party, or a dial-in radio talk show--part communication, part entertainment. While list members were cautious about falling for the rhetoric of the technological sublime, they did point out that technology has the potential to provide a link through which we can negotiate issues of individual value and responsibility with one another in what is most definitely a larger than local moral community. They also reported that the network has contributed to their ability to derive personal gratification and genuine "connection" with others. Evidence presented throughout this thesis demonstrates that subscribers have managed to use the medium to discuss the intersection of art and life in ways that enrich rather than limit our understanding of what it means to be human.