Just in

Some things keep changing – and some don’t

It is of these things that in the world of entertainment some of the standard rules of business apply and some don’t.

In one sense it’s an obvious point to make – and no doubt most sectors (e.g. fishing, fashion, flying and … er porn) would probably claim similar – but few have been more affected by human advances in science and technology over the past 10,000 years than the elements that go to make up what one might describe as mass entertainment.

For one thing, no doubt 10,000 years ago men and women were more concerned about the daily necessity to find enough to eat and in order to survive than they were about relaxation, culture and communal gatherings, partying and other group experiences.

From primitive carvings and sketches on cave walls to language and the first tentative steps towards ‘written’ recordings of history, life-learnings and folklore, to the modern mass entertainment staples of the 21st Century internet, social media and the ‘global village’ of Marshall (“the medium is the message”) McLuhan is a long, long road.

Prior to the late 19th Century arrival of sound recordings and then the advent of radio, television, cinema, video recorders, mobile phones and immersive virtual reality experiences – back in the day when live performances on stages and in theatres were the only way to experience the leading actors, musicians, singers and acrobats of their times – you really “did have to be there” to appreciate the skills and artistry of particularly talented and creative performers.

For a while painters and sculptors – and then later playwrights, orators and philosophers (or rather the ‘collected works’ thereof) – carried the cultural peaks and accumulated wisdom of one generation and/or one civilisation forward to the next.

By the same token, of course, whilst the fundamentals of human nature have presumably remained broadly consistent and unchanged, the ‘art’ left behind by those living at any point in history is always ‘of its time’.

It’s why (for example) Aristotle, Plato, Shakespeare and Beethoven can simultaneously both remain relevant to the modern human condition and yet only up to a point.

If William Shakespeare had been born in 1964, rather than four hundred years earlier, he’d have probably plied his trade across the board – whether that meant writing novels, plays or film scripts – and then moved to Hollywood and become a producer/director as well.

But would he have written anything comparable or equivalent to his now universally-revered canon of work? One might like to believe yes to some degree but, just as likely, not.

Instead he’d probably have written a whole lot of very different – but just as enjoyable, challenging and beguiling – stuff in its own way that might has achieved mass popularity. But (again) – perhaps as likely as not – it might just have been added to the “reject” pile, along with a lot of other things, in some agent’s or producer’s office.

Who can know? He might even have ended up as a wool merchant in Stratford-Upon-Avon who became a city councillor and a star turn at his local am-dram society … but that’s about it.

The eternal truth – in art and well as life generally – is you can only work with what you’ve got.

If the Bard had been aware of the possibilities of film, CGI animation, high definition cameras, holograms and the 21st Century future in which one day every entertainment experience will be brought direct to one’s basement ten metre-wide home cinema screen at the proverbial ‘drop of a hat’ – what might he have produced or made of it?

He might have ended his days as a jobbing scriptwriter on Pixar movies.

For another thing, what might have happened if the human race hadn’t developed and implemented the concept of copyright and indeed copyright protection?

It might be a very different place.

There’s much argument and speculation these days about the future of the BBC and the way the world of film and television business is going. Partly because everything in the human world is always ‘going somewhere’, whether we like it or not.

Which brings be to my subject de jour.

There’s plenty of chit-chat around about how global mega-giants such as Facebook, Google and Amazon may or will affect and/or distort the world of sports television rights – and separately, how the likes of Netflix … and its poor UK equivalent the embryonic Britbox (main shareholder ITV, albeit the BBC is also involved) … may also change things as they apply to mass entertainment.

Or maybe not.

Sometimes – wherever you are, whatever you do, however good your product – you still need a hell of perseverance and random good fortune … plus a big marketing campaign … to get it ‘out there’ and have any chance of even ‘washing your face’, let alone become a massive box office hit and/or Oscar winner.

See here for a piece that I spotted overnight by Adam White on some of the travails that affect creatives working with the deep-pocketed behemoth that is Netflix, as appears today upon the website of – THE INDEPENDENT

 

Avatar photo
About Miles Piper

After university, Miles Piper began his career on a local newspaper in Wolverhampton and has since worked for a number of national newspapers and magazines. He has also worked as a guest presenter on Classic FM. He was a founder-member of the National Rust board. More Posts