2. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this presentation is to evaluate and understand
the process of Crowdsourcing as a means of film production.
I will seek a definition of the process and compare it to The
Inside experience’s model of ‘social film’.
Using relevant examples I will analyse Crowdsourcing and
evaluate it as a method for producing ‘social film’
3. WHAT IS CROWDSOURCING?
“Crowdsourcing is the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a
designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined,
generally large group of people in the form of an open call.”(Jeff
Howe,2006)
From this definition of crowdsourcing I understand it to be a
process or activity usually undertaken by an elite few or a solitary
producer and offered to a community of enthusiastic amateurs to
participate in a collaborative process and produce something that
is greater than the sum of its parts.
4. EXAMPLES OF CROWDSOURCING
The earliest example of crowdsourcing as a means of production
is the 2009 feature film Faintheart.
The production began with the search for the director. The
MySpace profile MyMovie MashUp’s was used a forum for
potential candidates to upload previous work in an attempt to
obtain the directorial role. The director was then selected through
a poll available on the profile page.
Of 800 short film submissions it was Vito Rocco’s Goodbye Cruel
World that proved most popular and ultimately won him the role
of the director.
5. FURTHER EXAMPLES OF
CROWDSOURCING
Ridley Scott and Kevin Macdonald’s Life in a Day(2011) shows
crowdsourcing on a much grander scale.
The premise of the project was that for one day, July 24
2010, anyone could film themselves and upload the footage onto
YouTube for consideration to feature in the final film.
Of the 4500 hours of footage submitted, 80,000 uploads in total
and from 192 countries, the final film totalled 94 minutes and 27
seconds(Wikipedia, 2011).
On the 31st October 2011, the film was made available for
viewing free of charge on YouTube.
6. CROWDSOURCING AS ‘SOCIAL
FILM’
To consider crowdsourcing as a viable method for producing ‘social
film’ we must first consider its opportunities for participation.
Both examples I have mentioned before offer limited opportunities for
interaction and participation. Of the two Life in a Day promised the
greatest prospect for participation with it relying solely on footage
uploaded on YouTube. However, once the footage was collected it was
ultimately at the discretion of the director, Kevin Macdonald, to decide
the content and narrative of the film, essentially terminating the
community's participation prematurely.
7. CONCLUSION
Crowdsourcing as a film production method pales in comparison to
The Inside Experience’s model of ‘social film’.
Although both offer opportunity for interaction, it can be said that
crowd sourced films still operate within the framework of traditional
film production. With the contribution of the audience reduced to a
token gesture or a gimmick for the film to be sold on.
It is projects like The Inside Experience and KillCam live where true
‘social film’ lies, offering audience’s the opportunity to affect and
contribute to the film in a considerable way. Albeit often to produce an
inferior product to crowd sourced films but nevertheless a truly social
experience in which collaboration and participation are fundamental to
the success of the project
8. REFERENCES
J.HOWE (2006). Crowdsourcing. Weblog [Online] May 2006. Available from:
http://www.crowdsourcing.com/cs/2006/05/index.html. [15/11/2011].
WIKIPEDIA. (2011) Life in a Day. [Online]. Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_in_a_Day_%282011_film%29.
[15/11/2011].
