Documentary practice in a participatory culture

Debates concerning the veracity, ethics and politics of the documentary form circle endlessly around the function of those who participate in it, and the meaning attributed to their participation. Great significance is attached to the way that documentary filmmakers do or do not participate in the world they seek to represent, just as great significance is attached to those subjects whose participation extends beyond playing the part of eyewitness or expert, such that they become part of the very filmmaking process itself. This Ph.D. explores the interface between documentary practice and participatory culture by looking at how their practices, discursive fields and histories intersect, but also by looking at how participating in one might mean participating in the other. In short, the research is an examination of participatory culture through the lens of documentary practice and documentary criticism. In the process, however, this examination of participatory culture will in turn shed light on documentary thinking, especially the meaning and function of ‘the participant’ in contemporary documentary practice. A number of ways of conceiving of participation in documentary practice are discussed in this research, but one of the ideas that gives purpose to that investigation is the notion that the participant in contemporary documentary practice is someone who belongs to a participatory culture in particular. Not only does this mean that those subjects who play a part in a documentary are already informed by their engagement with a range of everyday media practices before the documentary apparatus arrives, the audience for such films are similarly informed and engaged. This audience have their own expectations about how they should be addressed by media producers in general, a fact that feeds back into their expectations about participatory approaches to documentary practice too. It is the ambition of this research to get closer to understanding the relationship between participants in the audience, in documentary and ancillary media texts, as well as behind the camera, and to think about how these relationships constitute a context for the production and reception of documentary films, but also how this context might provide a model for thinking about participatory culture itself. One way that documentary practice and participatory culture converge in this research is in the kind of participatory documentary that I call the ‘Camera Movie’, a narrow mode of documentary filmmaking that appeals directly to contemporary audiences’ desires for innovation and participation, something that is achieved in this case by giving documentary subjects control of the camera. If there is a certain inevitability about this research having to contend with the notion of the ‘participatory documentary’, the ‘participatory camera’ also emerges strongly in this context, especially as a conduit between producer and consumer. Making up the creative component of this research are two documentaries about the reality television event Band In A Bubble, and participatory media practices more broadly. The single-screen film, Hubbub , gives form to the collective intelligence and polyphonous voice of contemporary audiences who must be addressed and solicited in increasingly innovative ways. One More Like That is a split-screen, DVD-Video with alternate audio channels selected by a user who thereby chooses who listens and who speaks in the ongoing conversation between media producers and media consumers. It should be clear from the description above that my own practice does not extend to highly interactive, multi-authored or web-enabled practices, nor the distributed practices one might associate with social media and online collaboration. Mine is fundamentally a single authored, documentary video practice that seeks to analyse and represent participatory culture on screen, and for this reason the Ph.D. refrains from a sustained discussion of the kinds of collaborative practices listed above. This is not to say that such practices don’t also represent an important intersection of documentary practice and participatory culture, they simply represent a different point of intersection. Being practice-led, this research takes its procedural cues from the nature of the practice itself, and sketches parameters that are most enabling of the idea that the practice sets the terms of its own investigation.

Whither culture? Australian horror films and the limitations of cultural policy

Cultural policy that attempts to foster the Australian film industry’s growth and development in an era of globalisation is coming under increasing pressure. Throughout the 2000s, there has been a substantial boom in Australian horror films led by ‘runaway’ horror film Saw (2004), Wolf Creek (2005), and Undead (2003), achieving varying levels of popularity and commercial success worldwide. However, emerging within a national cinema driven by public subsidy and valuing ‘quality’ and ‘cultural content’ over ‘entertainment’ and ‘commercialism’, horror films have generally been antithetical to these objectives. Consequently, the recent boom in horror films has occurred largely outside the purview and subvention of cultural policy. This paper argues that global forces and emerging production and distribution models are challenging the ‘narrowness’ of cultural policy – a narrowness that mandates a particular film culture, circumscribes certain notions of value and limits the variety of films produced domestically. Despite their low-culture status, horror films have been well suited to the Australian film industry’s financial limitations, they are a growth strategy for producers, and a training ground for emerging filmmakers.

Film, cinema, screen

Screen industries around the globe are evolving. While technological change has been slower to take effect upon the Australian film industry than other creative sectors such as music and publishing, all indications suggest that local screen practices are in a process of fundamental change. Fragmenting audiences, the growth of digital video, distribution and exhibition, the potential for entirely new forms of cultural expression, the proliferation of multi-platforms, and the importance of social networking and viral marketing in promoting products, are challenging traditional approaches to ‘film making’. Moreover, there has been a marked transition in government policy rationales and funding models in recent years, resulting in the most significant overhaul of public finance structures for the film industry in almost 20 years. Film, Cinema, Screen evaluates the Australian film industry’s recent development – particularly in terms of Australian feature film and television series production; it also advocates new approaches to Australian film, and address critical issues around how screen production globally is changing, with implications for local screen industries.

Journalism's screen test

I’ve been researching, teaching and writing about journalism for more than two decades. Throughout that time I’ve used feature films to illustrate howthe journalist is represented in popular culture.

Broadband, the NBN and screen futures

It is important to try to come to grips with what content and applications are likely to be feasible, popular and beneficial on the National Broadband Network, which is being rolled out now. This short article looks at the three main types of content ('unmanaged', 'managed' and 'publicly supported' services), shows how creative content is being, or could be, deployed across all three, and discusses the policy opportunities and challenges for content industries in connecting with what Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts Simon Crean calls 'the largest cultural infrastructure project Australia has ever seen'.

Australian screen content in education research project

Researchers from Queensland University of Technology have teamed up with the Australian Research Council (ARC), Screen Australia, The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) and the Australian Children’s Television Foundation (ACTF) to investigate the use of Australian screen content in primary, secondary and tertiary education. Over the next three years (2014-2016), researchers and investigators will undertake a national survey of schools and universities, and will conduct in-depth interviews with hundreds of industry representatives, teachers, principals, librarians and students. Furthermore, new approaches to developing screen content and curricula will be trialled. The project aims to develop a comprehensive picture of why, how, how much and where Australian screen content is used in education.

Australian screen content in education

Our presentation today will introduce our current ARC Linkage project on Australian screen content in education. We will then go on to discuss our initial research, which is attempting to quantify the use of screen content in Australian education. The presentation concludes with a brief discussion of some of the emerging video on demand services available to schools and universities.

Queensland's film culture: The challenges of local film distribution and festival exhibition

Organisations at the centre of the state’s industry, such as Screen Queensland, have undergone substantial and ongoing changes in the last five years. Other organisations funded by Screen Queensland, such as QPIX, Queensland’s only film development centre, have recently closed. The Brisbane International Film Festival has been restructured to become the Brisbane Asia Pacific Film Festival as of 2014. In an uncertain industry currently characterised by limited funding and diminishing support structures, local emerging filmmakers require significant initiatives and a sophisticated understanding of how to best utilise fledgling distribution models as part of a tailored strategy for their content. This essay includes interviews with emerging Brisbane filmmakers who have used a combination of traditional and contemporary approaches to exhibition and distribution thus far in their careers. It argues that for these filmmakers, while film festivals do function as crucial platforms for exposure, in the current digital market they cannot be relied upon as the only platform in securing further mainstream or commercial release. They can, however, be incorporated into an alternative distribution model that shows awareness of the contemporary situation in Australia. The research findings are arguably indicative of the challenges faced by filmmakers statewide, and suggest that further support strategies need to be considered to revive Queensland’s film culture and provide immediate support for emerging filmmakers. Queensland’s film sector is currently in the midst of significant change.

Orchids: Gardening creative practice on screen

Orchids: Gardening creative practice on screen explores the creative practice challenges of working with bodies with intersex in the long-form autobiographical film Orchids: My Intersex Adventure. Just as creative practice research challenges the dominant hegemony of quantitative and qualitative research, so does my creative work position itself as a nuanced piece, pushing the boundaries of traditional cultural studies theories, documentary film practice and creative practice method, through its distinctive distillation and celebration of a new form of discursive rupturing, the intersex voice.

Disciplining the screen through education: The Royal Commission into the moving picture industry in Australia

In this article, we investigate the complex relationship between concerns about children and young people’s exposure to cinema in 1920s Australia and the use of film in education. In part, the Royal Commission into the Moving Picture Industry in Australia aimed to ‘ascertain the effect and the extent of the power of film upon juveniles’ and Commissioners spoke to educationalists, psychologists, medical professions, police officers and parents to gain insight into the impacts of movies on children. Numerous issues were canvassed in the Commission hearings such as exposure to sexual content, ‘excesses’ in film content, children’s inability to concentrate at school following cinema attendance and the influence of cinema on youth crime. While the Commission ultimately suggested it was parents’ role to police children’s engagements with cinema, it did make recommendations for restricting children’s access to films with inappropriate themes. Meanwhile, the Commission was very positive about film’s educational role stating that ‘the advantage to be gained by the use of the cinematograph as an adjunct to educational methods should be assisted in every possible way by the Commonwealth’. We draw on the Commission’s minutes of evidence, the Commission report and newspaper articles form the 1920s to the 1940s to argue that the Commission provides valuable insight into the beginnings of the use of screen content in formal schooling, both as a resource across the curriculum and as a specific focus of education through film appreciation and, later, broader forms of media education. The article argues debates about screen entertainment and education rehearsed in the Commission are reflected today as parents, concerned citizens and educators ponder the dangers and potential of new media technologies and media content used by children and young people such as video games, social media and interactive content.

Studying change in popular culture: A "middle-range" approach

"This chapter reviews the capacity of the discipline field to account for the velocity and quality of digitally-driven transformations, while making a case for a "middle range" approach that steers between unbridled optimism ("all-change") and determined scepticism ("Continuity") about the potential of such change. The chapter focuses on online screen distribution as a case study, considering the evidence for, and significance of, change in industry structure and the main payers, how content is produced and by whom, the nature of content, and the degree to which online screen distribution has reached thresholds of mainstream popularity."

The culture digitally festival of memeology: An introduction

The collection of essays set to roll out on Culture Digitally over the next month began its life as a pair of panels spanning the last two annual meetings of the International Communication Association. At the 2014 meetings in Seattle, Washington and the 2015 meetings in San Juan, Puerto Rico, various configurations of the contributors in this collection met to discuss the cultures and communicative practices associated with internet memes and viral media. Our shared goal was to bring smart people together to start to think about these digital media genres—still emerging only a few years ago and now seemingly ubiquitous—above the level of the individual example. Together, we asked questions about how internet memes and viral media might be defined, their roles in popular culture, their relationships to far older scientific and scholarly traditions, and their public implications. Two years and two discussions that ended too quickly later, we decided to write up some of our key arguments from the panels. We’ve compiled these write-ups here, in what we’ve taken to calling “The Culture Digitally Festival of Memeology.” - See more at: http://culturedigitally.org/2015/10/00-the-culture-digitally-festival-of-memeology-an-introduction-ryan-m-milner-jean-burgess/#sthash.2KzDogso.dpuf