In an attempt to assess the state, future and direction of online filmmaking, plugincinema.com has been chatting to a variety of practitioners and experts throughout the field to get their views.

First up is an interview with Steve Bennett of Iron Fist Motion Pictures. Steve has been involved in filmmaking since 1971 and directed his first independent feature in 1973. His work has been screened at galleries, universities and film organisations throughout the US and Europe. He got involved with the development of advanced computer, web movie and media-intensive software applications in the 90's, an area of interest he has continued to the present with literally hundreds of experimental web and multimedia projects as well as corporate consulting and web & multimedia development for major US companies. His range of experience and cutting edge work makes him an ideal candidate to plumb the depths of on-line filmmaking!

PC: Just to establish yourself in our minds; could you name your top three of any media (films, books, artwork, web sites, games etc.) that have influenced the work you do?

SB: Well, I would have to say I am influenced most by the materials and tools at hand, and by what they do and are capable of. I am also motivated by almost total boredom with mainstream films, television, books, web sites, and other media. These things are SO bad, and so obviously serving very basic marketing and "branding" objectives, that seeing this crap against the true potential of the media they are produced and delivered in is a great source of inspiration in and of itself.

PC: To balance it out, what three of any media (films, books, artwork, web sites, etc.) were the worst things you've ever had to experience?

SB: You know, they say that if you don't have anything good to say, then just don't say anything. Isn't that a polite thought? Very civilised. The thing is, without feedback and discussion, we'll doubtless all be seeing the same crap over and over again. That kind of repetition is essential in commercial manufacturing and retail operations, but places incredible limits on creativity and original expression. It took a long time to train the public to believe that movie stars were important and that creativity comes from Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Of course, none of that is really true, and I think one of the most encouraging things happening is the artists and others who are "culture jamming" that stuff, you know, by altering billboards towards a more "honest" message, and generally sending something BACK to this otherwise one-way corporatised media environment.

And the web, man, I mean, the potential for not only openly discussing and "debunking" this crap, but also quickly publishing all kinds of direct expression, is fantastic. I say, use it!

PC: Do you think filmmaking technology is being driven by the producers of the technology or the people who create the films?

SB: Both. As manufacturers release equipment with new capabilities, these are used. Also, manufacturers do look to their intended markets for direction, and absorb some of the stuff that filmmakers want or even improvise to get.

PC: Have you become aware of any particular point in the development of the Internet when you decided, "wow, this will change the world!"?

SB: Well, around the time it DID change the world, this became pretty evident! Just email alone has brought big changes in the way people communicate, because the leverages of email are so different from the telephone and postal service. And unlike in print, magazines and so forth, people don't have to wait to appear (or not) in some "letters to the editor" column. If they want to talk back, they can just hit dozens of newsgroups and discussion boards with their ideas and feedback.

PC: Are there any current developments that you see as a threat to the creativity of online filmmaking?

SB: The idea of "online filmmaking" itself, as in "taking filmmaking online", is probably the single biggest barrier to creativity all by itself. We don't bother to think about bringing concerts and symphonies onto the telephone, so I don't know why we'd necessarily want films and television on PCs. A lot of people associate "creativity" with "imagination", but I think you have to start with "reality". The reality is that there is more potential in making networked software applications using media elements like audio, video, etc, than there is in making conventional films and television programs "for" the web. The telephone is a great example, because its a relatively low-bandwidth medium with a high degree of interactivity and "purpose" associated with its very nature. You make a phone call to talk, to interact with someone, not to sit there and listen to a tape of a 3 hour rock concert - and this is very much how people approach computer use. They use computers to "do" something, not "watch" something, to "use" software, not "view" it like a TV "viewer".

PC: Are there any technological developments you've seen or heard of recently that you feel offer exciting new possibilities for online filmmaking?

SB: The collapse of the highly commercial "movie" sites and the novelty built around them with PR is an encouraging development. I'm happy that the novelty value has worn off and people can face their dissatisfaction with the bogus comparison of the web, and specifically web video, with film and television. This is utterly necessary in order for people to then look for what's really there and start doing something with it. That has been easier for web developers thus far than it has been for the general public and for filmmakers, most of whom bought into some pretty stupid ideas BEFORE they bothered to grasp the nature of computers and the internet in the way that web developers have.

PC: Where do you see the future of online filmmaking heading?

SB: I hope it is abandoned. There will be proprietary subscription networks, very much like cable TV, with "some" interactive capability and some more-or-less controlled "connectivity" with the web. At that point, what this will be IS television, viewed on actual television sets, and thus will fit much better to the expectations inherent in an idea like "online filmmaking" - except that as with cable television, there will inevitably be certain "priorities" towards commercial and corporate gain, and probably content as well.

Something like that would really free the way for clearer experimentation on the part of web media artists and web application developers utilising an array of media elements in ways totally unlike television and film, and really let the people who are not interested in THAT be able to go and watch their films and television shows, or buy vapid, copy-protected pop songs in any order they want to.

PC: Thank you Steve for your time!