Billed as one of the “highlights” of the University of Toronto’s inaugural Festival of the Arts was the lecture by “renowned Canadian filmmaker, Atom Egoyan, delivering his second public presentation as the Dean’s Distinguished Visitor in Theatre, Film, Music, and Visual Studies in the Faculty of Arts and Science.” Egoyan, whom I’ve always found to be an articulate and original thinker (in addition to a true auteur as a filmmaker) tackled an ambitious lecture called “Monitors, Minotaurs and the Close-Up.
It was a fairly complicated thesis, exploring the concepts of barriers to communication, the quest to conquer the half-man, half beast at the centre of the labyrinth and “close-ups” of individuals to determine what they are thinking and feeling—all topics Egoyan has explored in past films. He used short clips from two of his films to illustrate the point of individuals being caught on film and/or communicating to one another through monitors (a rather artificial concept).
The most fascinating part was the more recent shift in Egoyan’s thinking (let alone more sophisticated film techniques) in regards to modern communications via computers, PDAs and cell phones. I thought his comment,
“Technology has become so light that perhaps communications has no weight at all.”
was particularly profound.
On one hand is the more obvious proposal that the availability of sophisticated equipment has made constant communication weightless and easy.
But what resonates with me more is how “light” modern-day communication has become, simply because it is so easy. Many people electronically blurt out half-formed impressions and thoughts through e-mail, blog posts, microblogging platforms (such as Twitter) and user-generated short videos, relying more on how they are thinking and feeling at moment, rather than an ongoing audit of collected, focused and nuanced research, followed by cognitive and reflective thought. On one hand technology allows us to easily “receive” so much of one another, whether they be family, friends, colleagues or virtual strangers. Yet despite new-found acquaintances with more people, around the globe, how much do we really know about what has shaped them, as the easy surface friendship and lightweight chat can preclude deeper relationship, such as one finds with fewer people, but to greater gain?
It does make me wonder whether the “lightness” of social media is the best fit for organizational public relations. If each outspoken and extroverted individual is given equal weight in conversations and decision making, how is a corporation to know who or what is indicative of a trend or a need to revise the business model and work on reputation? And who is merely an exhibitionist or malcontent, looking to wax eloquent or complain about an isolated incident or a perceived slighting in relation to his or her thoughts on an advertising campaign, product or customer service issue, and so on?
And why does each incident or relationship need to be explored publicly and online? Often issues are easily resolved, one-on-one, but social media would have each occurrence explored through a magnified lens, online, commented upon and forever documented.
Rather than being a considered a privilege, when did constant communication and opinions (favourable or not) by individuals about an organization’s practices and alliances become an entitlement? Not by all, certainly. But it would seem that for some individuals the greater, faster and easier their technological connections, the more weight, influence and persuasiveness they self-determine their opinions should hold.
I’m not buying that. Certainly social media can have a place in the pulse-taking and decision-making process, but I’m of the opinion that old-fashioned, in-person meetings, phone calls and one-to-one e-mails lead to more profitable discussions and negotiations, and that they remain equally, if not more, important.
Is it that I’m unable to give up command and control? No. It’s more a case of valuing the hands-on and personalized, over the fast, unconsidered and communal mode of communicating,
As I set out on vacation, my plan is to travel technologically light and unconnected to the greater world, instead focusing, considering and celebrating the places and people whose path will criss-cross with mine throughout the journey. What can I say, I like and welcome the occasional break to be a private public relations practitioner.
But back to the lecture, we were also privileged to view advance clips from Egoyan’s new film, Adoration (which Egoyan told us is planned for a *spring release). Possibly it’s a case where a film will lead the way to the advancement and adoption of “must-have” technology, relating to a multi-split or paned “chat” computer-screen option. (Picture the split-screen effect of The Thomas Crown Affair amplified. Or Hollywood Squares on your computer screen.) It’s akin to sitting around a table with 10 people and talking, except instead these gatherings of faces and voices takes place on one’s computer screen, each with its own spot. It’s an intriguing idea, as long as the conversations remain warm and meaty, despite the platform (or channel) being cool and light.
I welcome your thoughts and encourage any or all to start a dialogue agreeing or disagreeing with this premise…just realize I will be lightweight, unconnected and uncommunicative for a couple of weeks.
*Update: It seems that the release of Adoration will be later than anticipated, as first it will compete at Cannes.
– Atom Egoyan’s ‘Adoration’ In Competition – Cannes Film Festival
– Sony Classics snags rights to Egoyan’s Adoration