Nobody's content with the 'content'

Express Tribune

2 days ago

Recently, Fahad Mustafa's old comments against family vlogging and the overuse of the word 'content' resurfaced online and caused an uproar among Tiktokers and YouTubers.
"'Content' is the most overrated word in this country. There is no such thing as content. Everyone is selling their families. They haven't even left graveyards alone. They go to their mother's grave, and record themselves saying I'm missing my mother, please pray for her. What kind of 'content' is this?" Mustafa had said when asked about sharing the screen with digital content creators during a TV appearance. "I can tell a good or a bad story. But I can't sell my family. I can't sell myself. If you go on a film or TV shoot, it takes time to do this. They can't understand that this takes us 8 to 10 hours since they live in a 10-second world."
While the comment offended the Instagram, TikTok and YouTube content creators especially Rajab Butt, as Ricky Gervais says, "Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right."
This back-and-forth has sparked a debate between the traditional media vs digital 'content'. But it's not a clash between Mustafa and Butt. The actor didn't even mention the YouTuber by name. The scope of this is much bigger than a forced, illogical personal feud.
Content overload
What Mustafa spoke about is a worldwide concern of artists in the face of countless challenges faced today. Be it AI coming in as a wrecking ball to destroy authentic human expression, shorter attention spans engineered over the last decade by social media overconsumption or the declining understanding of storytelling and art due to the aforementioned issues, there are already more than enough battles artists today are fighting to preserve their chosen media and forms of expression.
This is not to defend shows like Mustafa's Jeeto Pakistan, which feed into the same Black Mirror-esque humiliation-in-exchange-of-gifts convention. But Mustafa has created work with a certain artistic integrity in film and TV both, namely Actor in Law and Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum.
However, phone cameras and social media platforms combined today have created an illusion that everyone is an artist, actor, or filmmaker. While the democratisation of the media has had numerous benefits, and this is certainly not an issue of gatekeeping, talking into a camera and showing what you cooked for lunch does not exactly require an abundance of talent or skill.
There are many arguments to be made against family vlogging. The internet is full of stories of disgruntled and traumatized individuals forced by their in-house vlogger, be it a parent or a child, to be documented 24/7 for the sake of views. But the crux of the matter isn't even that.
It's the fact that 'content' has replaced art, cinema and storytelling.
The issues start with the usage of the word 'content' which piles up every artform into one giant automated factory where every creation serves the algorithm and the algorithm, in turn, feeds it back to us.
It disintegrates the distinguishing characters of each art form and strips it of any value. This is why Mustafa's comments about the word ring true. If everything is content, then there's no difference between a feature film that takes years to produce and a bag of apples.
This argument doesn't devalue platforms like YouTube which can be used for a myriad of purposes from education to art and music and everything in between. It criticizes the forced homogeneity of all art forms. And family vlogging is definitely not an art form.
Casting influencers
In recent years, even in Hollywood, we have seen a number of so-called social media influencers turn to film and TV. But none comes to mind when thinking about who has excelled and been recognized for their skills. One can bring up Logan Paul but he has succeeded in WWE and pro-wrestling is a vastly different kind of storytelling than film or TV.
Films which star the influencers usually land on streaming platforms which again play by the algorithm and casting content creators becomes essentially the same as product placement or a gimmick to cater to the said individual's social media following.
Earlier this year in an interview with Variety, Ethan Hawke also lamented the fact that filmmakers are being forced to cast based on Instagram following.
He said, "Sometimes I'll be setting a movie up and someone will say, 'Oh, you should cast Suzie.' I'm like, 'Who is she?' 'She has 10 million followers.' I'm like, 'OK cool, has she acted before?' 'No, but ' And you're like, 'Wow, so this is going to help me get the movie made? This is crazy.' So if I don't have this public-facing [platform], I don't have a career? And if I get more followers I might get that part? What?"
Just because someone is a social media 'content' creator doesn't automatically mean they'd be good at acting or creating any kind of art. The mindset involved in both is on the opposite ends of the spectrum.
That ties in with another question: aren't most studio films made with the intent of profit and hence, they cast bankable actors to attract their fanbase. How is that different from casting a digital content creator?
One response to that would be that the bankable actors can usually, if not always, act and do their job well. It's the same as when Pakistani media networks and digital platforms tried to make the 'Chaiwala' into the next big star after he went viral for his looks. It didn't work.
As a filmmaker, there's a massive difference between working with trained professionals and amateur enthusiasts. Most of the time, the lack of understanding of the process results in a low-calibre work. But we live in a world where everyone only wants to be on screen and get those 15 minutes of fame. And if 10-second reels can do that, who would spend months and years to tell a good story?