for those of you who are anticipating the arrival of the iSlate, i have a few questions.

what is the islate trying to be? is it really going to bring about a new wave of innovation, as many predict?

is it an iphone on steroids? or is it a smaller, more useful version of the macbook air? or is it a kindle-crusher because it can do more?

from what i can tell, the islate will incorporate many aspects of the iphone, using a similarly designed interface and many of the iphone’s core functions. furthermore, it will look like a larger iphone but will boast the computing power of a macbook. it may have some additional functions, like being useful as a tablet (so that one can use a stylus on its interface – which i would welcome) and i’ve heard that it’s going to be useful for teleconferencing. great. built-in camera too. maybe it will be good for games as well – bigger screen than the iphone, feels more substantial… nice. and, i suppose, it will also be a nifty e-reader, which is one of its core selling points.

in terms of size, it will be thin like a kindle, and about ten inches across, right?

are people really going to carry around with them their iphone, their MBP and their islate? three devices that do many of the same things? that seems a bit silly. who would carry around all three, especially all the time? when you travel long haul, will you have all three with you? when you commute?

perhaps one takes it completely for granted that consumers will happily haul around all three but i’m not so sure.

does anyone today carry around a kindle, a laptop and a phone? anyone outside of the social media vortex?

if not, then which device gets fired? which one becomes less significant? it would seem like one of the three needs to go.

one can’t get rid of the iphone because it’s small and handy and works kinda nicely as a phone… if i ditched the iphone, would i carry around this tablet-device as a de facto phone, propping it on my shoulder like a boom box while i had voice conversations? (i mean, if i was walking and talking, where else would it go? i can’t hold it front of me and talk into it, i’d bump into things… so, i’d want the speaker by my ear… oh great, headphones)

i don’t know if i’d get rid of the laptop, because i’m used to sitting down at a desk, doing work with a keyboard and my stylus, and it’s pretty darn portable so that i can work anywhere… but not so portable that i’d take it out on the subway and work on something…. besides, isn’t the iphone there for just that kind of need?

so, where does that leave the islate?

it will be the third device that i leave at the office, and when i want to do a show and tell, i might grab it… and if i want to take notes in a meeting, i might grab it… maybe i’ll take it with me to lunch, which i wouldn’t do with the laptop (i’d read magazines just like in the mag+ video by the berg boys)…. but when i go home at night, i think i’d take the laptop over the islate… that’s my guess. i wouldn’t lug around all three…

i’d leave the islate behind because if i left the laptop behind, then what’s the use of keeping a laptop around? might as well get a desktop then.

now, if the islate can be set into a keyboard (like the old palm pilots were top mounted onto an external keyboard – which looked really funny but i loved them…) then, i suspect that it’s the laptop that becomes a bit clunky and less useful.

i might be overlooking something substantial, but the arrival of the islate reminds me a bit of that skit by eddie izzard in regards to the spanish inquisition. cake or death? nobody wants death, but choosing cake isn’t really getting to the heart of the issue.

if you are an independent filmmaker without the backing from a major studio, the distribution landscape looks very different today than it did just a few years back.

in order to respond to these changes, should filmmakers examine and draw inspirations from the leading role that some musicians play in today’s music industry? even more so, should filmmakers look to how museums and other cultural institutions have survived in order to develop new approaches to film financing?

BACK TO BASICS

i tend to believe that the best way to get your film out there is to start with a good product. that is, at the very least, a filmmaker has to produce a unique piece of work of exceptional quality, and that doing so starts with the manuscript. the script is the most important building block to a film that will ultimately generate revenue and open doors.

in terms of production costs, i think that there are many compelling reasons for filmmakers to create films which correspond to their budget and accept these constraints as a benefit. the films “old joy” and “wendy and lucy” are really good examples of this. these two films make the most with what (limited) means they have at their disposal and have done quite well. others filmmakers would benefit from adopting a similar approach.

DISTRIBUTION THEN AND NOW

once you’ve made a film that has a compelling story and is assembled by maximizing its budget and constraints, the film needs to be put into circulation. as many have noted, a few years ago, most films with at least some sort of backing found distribution via a theatrical release or dvd-distribution, or even the support of netflix. at the same time, independent films found some inroads via netflix, and a few operators were even able to secure a limited theatrical release for their films. today, most films will be shown online, either as their primary mode of distribution or as an important supporting aspect of the film’s general release.

the benefits of online distribution are many and widely publicized (for one, it levels the playing field, somewhat, between major studios and tiny independent distributors) but the drawbacks are also significant, primarily that films tend to quickly lose their monetary value, especially if unauthorized versions of the film are distributed for free. major studios are fighting the unauthorized distribution, and, in time, major online distributors like youtube will also have to fight it. this is primarily because of the costs of maintaining bandwidth that increases with so much demand, which means that youtube will eventually be compelled to re-think their revenue models because they won’t be able to afford to keep it free… but we haven’t reached that point yet.

for now, the argument about films that are available online is why pay for something if you can get it for free?

this is especially true for independent films and even more so for short films.

in such an environment, how are filmmakers (as well as film producers) going to make money from their work, let alone recoup their investment?

GIVE IT AWAY

there’s a compelling argument making the rounds right now that films, just like music and other works of online art, should be given away for free.

chris anderson is one proponent of this discussion, which he recently re-formulated in his book, aptly titled “free: the future of a radical price” (found here – it’s also reviewed in the july 6, 2009 new yorker).

i want to draw some connections between chris anderson’s notion of free and an article connecting anderson to recent trends in the music industry, because there seem to be some obvious parallels between music distribution and film distribution.

over at wired, the aforementioned article connects chris anderson with trent reznor, who supports the idea of giving away much of his music for free.

the gist of the article concludes that artists would best serve their interests if they make their primary products available at no cost to the consumer (like radiohead and nine inch nails have done) but in this process, in which they build up loyalty amongst their fans (consumers), they will have a market that will be very interested in purchasing customized, personalized, or rare and hard to find products or artifacts from the artist.

this is where the artist will make their money.

i’m wondering if this would apply for film? it smells a little bit like a bait and switch. is it?

of course, as of september 2009, the reality is that musicians make most of their money from touring and merchandising, which, as of today, does not apply to filmmakers, but i’ll come back to that later.

for music, i can kind of see how this notion of free would work. an artist releases an album for free, but charges for rare commodities such as earlier versions of certain songs, songs that never made it for release, documentary footage of the artist at work, to very personal things like certain touring mementos or even more personal / rare items (like what amanda palmer of the dresden dolls has done recently, such as selling off old love letters and items of clothing that she’s had for years)….

in fact, while the artist imogen heap (an innovator, or at least an early adaptor, when it comes to music distribution and cultivating fan support via her acumen for social media) just released her new album via conventional means (itunes and cd distribution), she has also invested, and continues to invest, a lot of time and energy into releasing the following items at a premium price: a limited edition vinyl version of the album with artwork that comes with some sort of pass to be used for special features at upcoming concerts; hand-crafted videos where the artist offers insights and introductions to each track on the album; the same album with instrumentals track only; and, perhaps six months after the album release, there’ll be a special edition dvd which compiles many of the previously mentioned special editions, to name a few.

can filmmakers do this? is this a viable model? what are we talking about?

IF IT’S GOOD FOR THE MUSIC INDUSTRY, IS IT GOOD FOR THE FILM INDUSTRY?

should filmmakers create special limited edition versions of their films? should filmmakers charge fans for the director’s insights on the film (which, generally speaking, appear as an extra feature on the dvd or the film’s website – for free)?

should filmmakers release “unfinished” versions of their films, at a price, so that fans can remix the film or add their own score? and, like imogen heap, should filmmakers stagger the release of these so-called rarities to maximize demand?

or have i missed the point?

i have no problem with giving some things away for free, and, in the process of creating every film, there are always discards and ideas and darlings that never make it to the final cut – yet are these the items that “fans” will later covet?

if i was a fan of a particular film or director, it would seem that one of the few things which would be very desirable to obtain from filmmakers is something that filmmakers have so little of themselves: TIME (i.e. the user experience of spending time with the project’s creator). musicians do this right now. for someone like imogen heap, it has become a part of her travel and performance schedule to spend time with her fans, who are, in many ways, her direct benefactors.

filmmakers can give away their time to spend with their followers / fans / supporters in a variety of ways. the producer ted hope (adventureland, american splendor, the savages, happiness, the ice storm) does so by way of his blog over at truly free film. that said, i can quickly see how that might also lead to a glut on the market (a whole lot of directors and producers all of sudden ready to give away their time…)

which brings me back to the reality of the music industry. as i mentioned, most musicians make most of their money by touring and the merchandising that comes with touring, and this seems to apply to well-established musicians as well as much lesser known acts.

should filmmakers do this?

should filmmakers hit the road with their film tucked under the arm?

why not?

what if more filmmakers no longer aspired to release their film on a national scale and instead, cultivated an online following while touring the country with their film, visiting cinemas for one or two night events? there, they’d make themselves available afterwards for q & a, sell merchandise related to the film, create an event out of it, perhaps with live music or some sort of community fundraising built in, and then move on to the next town.

didn’t the documentary film beautiful losers do something like this? and, in some ways, the cinema tuesdays events at the montalban in los angeles, which are put on by flux, seem to tap into a similar spirit… and here, the events are always free of charge.

IF IT WORKS FOR THE MUSEUMS, WILL IT WORK FOR FILM?

the merchandising approach could be similar to how museums manage it. filmmakers would be advised to take a look at the way museums have staked their financial survival for the future.

the museums have the right model, as a friend of mine points out, by linking the user experience that is associated with the headlining exhibit with the retail experience. museums emphasize their merchandising over their admissions fee – though, in most cases, the admissions fees are varied and priced according to demand. frequently, the merchandise on offer is directly related to the exhibit, is relatively rare in number, and only available for a limited period of time. this makes the merchandise that much more desirable.

so, while the product is not free, it is relatively low cost, and it is the souvenirs from the experience that will cost the consumer a lot more. in this case, the product is the user experience, available at a relatively low cost through the price of admission, but the souvenirs from the experience is where the museum (and hopefully the artist/exhibitors) will make some of their money.

i’ve always found this particular retail experience to be somewhat distasteful – though, i guess, as others have pointed out, if this is the way that museums need to survive, then i will support that. will the same work for film?

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUSIC AND FILM

of course, a very significant difference between the two industries is the cost of production. while it is true that both the costs of producing music as well as producing film has been significantly reduced over the years, there’s no comparison between the two. it is still far more expensive to make film and therefore, compared to the start-up musician, there is still a huge mountain of expenses that a film needs to recover before a filmmaker can even generate a profit on his or her project.

as long as this is the case, then filmmakers will be reluctant to give away their product for free.

but what if there is no other way?

LO-FI VERSUS HI-FI

would filmmakers consider releasing a low-resolution version of their film for free while charging for the HD version?

this could be achieved through a variety of means, notably, via wireless handheld media as well as via services like Apple TV.

. . . . . .

that’s all i have for now. there’s much to consider while i take a breather…

to be continued….

note: the thoughts above are part of an ongoing discussion that i’ve been having with a number of friends and colleagues, who have made valuable contributions, without which i would not have been able to put together this piece. this document represents the first effort to consolidate all of these thoughts. thanks!

“before i was twenty, i mean, i used to think that life was a thing that kept gaining impetus. it would get richer and deeper each year. you kept learning more, getting wiser, having more insight, going further into the truth – ” she hesitated.

he laughed abruptly. “and now you know it’s not like that. right? it’s more like smoking a cigarette. the first few puffs it tastes wonderful, and you don’t even think of its ever being used up. then you begin taking it for granted. suddenly you realize it’s nearly burned down to the end. and that’s when you’re conscious of the bitter taste.”

– paul bowles, the sheltering sky

do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked?

do you think you can slip away a little before midnight in order to avoid this? or are you not terrified by it?

i have seen men in real life who so long deceived others that at last their true nature could not reveal itself… in every man there is something which to a certain degree prevents him from becoming perfectly transparent to himself; and this may be the case in so high a degree, he may be so inexplicably woven into relationships of life which extend far beyond himself that he almost cannot reveal himself. but he who cannot reveal himself cannot love, and he who cannot love is the most unhappy man of all.”

- søren kierkegaard

i’ve known many frauds in my life. this much is true. some of them have done immensely well for themselves. i wonder what makes them tick and if they ever find happiness? and then i put those thoughts away.

one day, however, i will write about some of these frauds. not out of anger or disdain, but sincerely, out of the desire to understand the root causes of their behaviour. we’ll see.

this morning, adriana and i discovered that we have very different approaches to coping with alternate side of the street parking rules here in new york city. anyone who parks their car on the street in this city knows that it is necessary to move the car at least once a week, to allow for street cleaning. some people have to move the car twice or three times a week.

though it is a routine aspect of living in new york, moving the car, or reparking (to identify this behaviour more accurately), can be quite a disruption, and considering that the first parking ticket is now upwards of $100, the consequences of neglecting this responsibility can even be quite severe.

since the car that we have is going to be used very infrequently, the question is: what is the best strategy to cope with the street parking rules?

after contemplating our differences on the matter, i decided to consult the oracles on the internet to see what i could learn.

two hours were invested into the research of different coping mechanisms with the experience of owning and parking a car in brooklyn, yet, in short, i failed to find much information that immediately addressed our simmering debate. i did, however, find valuable pieces of good sense, which i shall share further down below.

but now, i’d like to unveil the two competing philosophies of the day, as put forth by myself and by adriana, with the hopes that this might open up a useful discussion that can help us decide which tactic is best for us.

our approaches to street parking differ in the following ways:

since street cleaning only occurs twice a week on our street – and only once per side – i would rather move the car during the period in which the street is actually cleaned – with the idea that the car would only need to be moved once a week – and so i would plan an errand involving use of the car during the window in which one is not permitted to park on that side of the street, then return after the completion of the errand to find an available parking spot on the same block and same side of the street where the car was parked before (i.e. the home zone). with that, i would be done with having to worry about parking the car until the next street cleaning cycle, that is, until another 6 days and 22 hours. the advantage of this approach is that it is predictable and can be factored into one’s calendar as part of a regular weekly routine. the disadvantage is that it involves at least two hours of a weekday morning during working hours, which have to be dedicated to either running errands, or sitting in the car while conducting other kinds of business. another disadvantage is that one is each time dependent upon finding a parking spot in the home zone (the same general area, on the same side of the street), in order to stick with the routine.

adriana’s approach means parking the car wherever there is an available spot, regardless of whether or not she parks in the home zone, though presumably within a half-dozen blocks of the apartment, then moving the car each time it is necessary to accommodate the street cleaning rules. the advantage with this philosophy is that she parks wherever there is a spot available, and, in theory, there should be more spots available to suit her needs so she would spend less time looking for parking spaces. the disadvantage is that the car will have to be moved more times during the course of the week – because it will likely be parked in zones that have different “no parking” hours than the home zone on our street. using this approach will require greater awareness of the street cleaning times, in order to avoid tickets and towing, and because of that, it will most likely involve more frequent re-parking of the car and a higher likelihood of parking tickets.

with regards to those two hours of research spent online, perusing forums and blogs, i did find other nuggets of wisdom as it relates to parking and owning a car in the fair city of brooklyn. here is what i have distilled:

* primo spot is a website service that will help you find street parking as it becomes available in your neighborhood, provided that you live in new york city; http://primospot.com/

* it seems like a fair amount of people in brooklyn heights / cobble hill have not had issues with car theft or property damage to their car.

* that said, a common refrain is that it is a good idea to have a vehicle recovery system (lo-jack or similar) in the car, “even if it’s in a garage in the city, since many insurance companies take that into account in determining any discounts. it might be worth the investment since it would pay for itself in the reduced premium increase you will have in keeping the car in the city.”

* “the city is very harsh on cars, even if they’re just sitting parked. invariably you come out to find it with a new dent, trash on it, even someone living in it.”

* “if you don’t really have to drive in new york, don’t. get the professionals to do it for you – a cab, a car service – or at the very least, a friend or relative who is a local.”

* “free curb side parking in brooklyn is not the best thing. i’ve been broken into twice in the last 4 years. and if you live in a neighborhood like cobble hill, you will NEVER find a spot unless you come home from work EARLY and not move your car until the next day.”

* “If you leave it on the streets you will end up having to move it constantly with alternate side of the street parking, you may end up paying more in tickets than you would for a garage, i GUARANTEE it will get dinged up very quickly, and then there is always the risk of theft and vandalism.”

* a couple in their early 40s, living in brooklyn, with perfect driving records, excellent credit, and a ‘boring’ vehicle will pay a minimum of about $1700 per year in car insurance, based on what i’ve deciphered. paying upwards of $2000-$3000 per year is not unusual.

* technology is currently being developed that will allow parking meters to enforce themselves. parking meters of the future will be able to automatically generate parking tickets; recognize when a vehicle has left a parking space so that the meter time can be reset to zero; recognize when a vehicle has exceeded the time limit so that the meter cannot be fed. that is pretty intimidating.

* finally, according to the new york times, several studies have found that cruising for curb parking generates about 30 percent of the traffic in central business districts. “in a recent survey conducted by bruce schaller in the soho district in manhattan, 28 percent of drivers interviewed while they were stopped at traffic lights said they were searching for curb parking. a similar study conducted by transportation alternatives in the park slope neighborhood in brooklyn found that 45 percent of drivers were cruising.

over the course of a year, the search for curb parking in this district created about 950,000 excess vehicle miles of travel — equivalent to 38 trips around the earth, or four trips to the moon. and here’s another inconvenient truth about under priced curb parking: cruising those 950,000 miles wastes 47,000 gallons of gas and produces 730 tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. if all this happens in one small business district, imagine the cumulative effect of all cruising in the united states.

what causes this astonishing waste? as is often the case, the prices are wrong. a national study of downtown parking found that the average price of curb parking is only 20 percent that of parking in a garage, giving drivers a strong incentive to cruise. as george costanza once said on “seinfeld”: “my father never paid for parking, my mother, my brother, nobody. … it’s like going to a prostitute. why should i pay when, if i apply myself, maybe i could get it for free?”

like george costanza, drivers often compare parking at the curb to parking in a garage and decide that the price of garage parking is too high. but the truth is that the price of curb parking is too low. under priced curb spaces are like rent-controlled apartments: hard to find and, once you do, crazy to give up. this increases the time costs (and therefore the congestion and pollution costs) of cruising.

and, like rent-controlled apartments, under priced curb spaces go to the lucky more often than they do to the deserving. while the car owner with good timing can enjoy his space free or cheaply for hours or days, others who are late for a meeting or a job interview are left to circle the block, making themselves — and other drivers — miserable. the solution is to set the right price for curb parking.”

- – - – -

and now, i’d like to open up the panel for discussion and your contribution.

i’ve come to detest good-byes and over the years and years, i’ve done my best to avoid them.

then again, considering my life that is divided between apartments in three cities (which means that i am often in transit, i am often saying hello, often saying good-bye), i am routinely confronted with a ritual that generates a lot of anxiety in me. i comfort myself, however, with the thought that no good-bye is permanent. the beautiful lie that i’ve purchased over the years is that most of my good-byes are “good-bye for now. i’ll see you soon.”

and so, it is with this thought i mind that i am now about to say “good-bye for now, los angeles. i will see you soon.” and i will also say “good-bye for now, san francisco. see you sometime soon.”

if you are reading this, then you are part of a limited audience who is among the first to know. i’m still getting around to telling my friends who live here in los angeles. i’m telling them face-to-face. not by phone, nor by email. when i’ve told my friends here in los angeles, then i will tell the rest of my friends by way of a more general announcement.

we’re moving to new york city. we’re moving back to new york city. it may be short term. it will likely be at least a year. it might be two.

the decision was made a few days ago, though it’s been in the works for well over two months. we’ve already given notice on our apartments. we’re leaving in a few weeks.

new york city is where it all began for me. the city was not my first love, but it was the first city that i lived in as an adult. it was the first city that quenched my thirst for the gorgeous cacophony of urban living.

i did not expect to return to new york right now, in this way, but when i left new york after my first stint (back in 1993), i had a feeling that i would be back.

i lived in the east village and alphabet city during the late eighties, moving up (geographically and socially) to the more central parts of the village by 1990. i went to university back then. i left new york city when i was done with school and could no longer enjoy living in the urban chaos.

but a part of me needed to return to prove myself. i was not done with new york.

ironically, this is similar to how i feel about los angeles.

i’m not done with los angeles. this city is meant to be my long-term home. i want to live in the shining slum by the sea – the venice that i have dreamed of, the dream that i have tasted and lived in, in fits and starts, bits and pieces, for the last two somewhat discordant years.

for all of its faults, i really adore venice. it is a wonderful city to wake up to. and los angeles still fascinates me. for all of its clamor, bluster, wasted space and clogged arteries, the city is filled with surprises, beauty, generosity, creative zeal, compassion and slow-burning humour.

the move to new york city is the right move. it brings into harmony several different streams that had been diverging for too long.

even though the last few years have been fulfilling and filled with adventure, by moving to new york, adriana and i will finally be able to reestablish a way of living that has been missing for many years.

taking into account the way that we live our lives today, the shortest explanation for why we are choosing new york is the belief that by moving there, we will move closer to returning to los angeles on a full-time basis. there are many compelling reasons for why and how this is the case.

the most difficult part is the leaving.

there’s a community of friends and colleagues in los angeles whose daily presence i will greatly miss. i find it hard to stomache the thought of leaving these people and their lives that i have enjoyed the privilege of sharing in.

over the last two months, i have slowly become increasingly aware of the limited numbers of days and hours that i have left to enjoy this city, during this particular time of my life.

i’ve been reminded of how nothing lasts, nothing really endures. time is always in such short supply, and i’ve wondered about the time lost to idle thoughts and inactivities. suddenly, i have a long list of unfulfilled tasks and pleasures that need to be experienced before turning east.

highest on the list is time to be spent with friends. so that’s where i’m going to be for the next few weeks. until then, i’ll see you later.