Apparently I need to start looking for a new line of work, if the most recent internet chatter is to be believed. In the past few weeks a bunch of articles have been written about the apparent death of film. Without any particular warning, cinema seems to have a terminal illness and is beyond saving in any meaningful way. At least, that’s what the likes of David Denby, Andrew O’Hehir, and David Thomson are declaring in missives that have been rolling around in my mind for a week or so now. It’s sparked a firestorm of response pieces, with one of the best being Matt Singer and Alison Willmore’s discussion of the debate on an episode of their Filmspotting: SVU podcast (found here), along with Matt’s piece at Criticwire here, and now I’m ready to actually chime in. You can prep yourself by reading Denby’s piece here at The New Republic, O’Hehir’s piece at Salon here, and Thomson’s piece also at The New Republic right here, but after the jump I’m going to kick in my own two cents about this controversy of sorts. As a tease, let’s just say that in my humble opinion the death of cinema has been greatly exaggerated. Read on below for my full thoughts, but of course make sure to tell me what you think as well about this debate…
In my eyes, this is sort of a silly argument that starts up and dies down every few years without really ever proving anything for either side. In this most recent incarnation, the trio of Denby, O’Hehir, and Thomson are granting to us that not all film these days are currently crap, but that especially mainstream Hollywood fare is pretty much DOA. The two main things they blame (besides simply just longing for the days of yore and the types of movies that we don’t see made anymore) are the rise of quality in television shows (especially on cable), as well as big budget and special effects laden films taking over at the studios/the box office. Now, it’s hard to deny that these are factors in certain types of movies no longer getting made as much and the overall quality of mass marketed flicks behind a bit crummier than in years past, but still…if film is dead, why are unique new movies still being made? Why would someone like Terrence Malick bother with his experimental fare if there was no point anymore? Why would Paul Thomas Anderson? Nobody loves the movies more than Quentin Tarantino, so should he just forget about finishing ‘Django Unchained’ and just go home? Of course not, and I’ll tell you why in a moment.
For me, cinema isn’t dead, it’s just once again in a process of evolution. Can I tell you exactly where it’s going? No, but as long as someone like Darren Aronofsky or David Fincher is still churning out new movies, I won’t ever be ready to declare film dead. There are some incredible filmmakers working today, and while they may not get the overall respect that the masters of the last generation get, they still are masters in their own right and I have faith in their ability to keep elevating the art form. Even in terms of gimmicks like 3D or heavy special effects films, it’s all about who’s doing it. A Michael Bay movie is far different than a Martin Scorsese movie. With 3D, you need only look at ‘Hugo’ or ‘Life of Pi’ to know that auteurs can use the format in a real unique way. As for special effects laden work, or even just massive spectacle films, well…we have Christopher Nolan. Need I say any more about that? Again, cinema isn’t dead, it’s just evolving.
Obviously, there’s lots more to be said here on the subject, and I didn’t want to get too deep into the argument right now, but this is a good start I think. I mainly wanted to throw my quick thoughts out there and then turn it over to you. What do you all think? Is cinema dead? Is it dying? Is it more alive than ever? Is the truth likely somewhere in between? I’m all ears (well, mainly eyes in this case), so chime in and tell me what you think…
-Thoughts? Discuss in the comments!
Related Stories:
14 Comments
Film certainly sounds alive and well to me!
Jessie Makowski(Quote) (Reply)
I definitely agree there, as the piece indicates…
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
I wouldn’t say film is dead or even dying, however cable television is slowly surpassing movies in terms of originality, acting, budget (as seen with Game of Thrones season 2 budget of $85 million), and excellent story telling
Daniel(Quote) (Reply)
Television has definitely evolved, but yes…that doesn’t kill film at all.
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
There is nothing that compares to seeing a great film in a theater with other movie lovers. Unfortunately, this experience both in quality and quantity is becoming rare if only because of the expense that requires massive special effects garbage for 14 year old boys to enjoy. Some of the best films are now on cable channels. To take a family to see the same film at a theater starts at $50 for a one time experience. So no film isn’t dead but the number you are willing to pay to see before it gets to cable are becoming few and far between.
jessied44(Quote) (Reply)
That’s a fair point…
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
But Remember: It wasn’t just 14 year old boys who went to see The Avengers. This is a social problem which affects 90% of under-45s. They only see crap. After that age, people get wiser and are only willing to go out to see something interesting (plus, they don’t get exciter about violence and special FX anymore, thank god). Not everyone, of course, but most.
Fortunately, there are a LOT of cinephiles out there under 25 who go to see quality movies and enjoy them. They see Independence Day and Co. as garbage that only serves to suck money from people’s pockets. These are the people we need to hang on to. I am not ashamed to say that I’m one of them.
moviewatcher(Quote) (Reply)
Well, I’m obviously someone who sees everything, so I don’t fit into any one category…
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
People are just being distracted by the massive number of films being made. When you have absolutely no more than 177 films made in 1950, and an unaccountably massive number of films made in 2011 (think the freedom of digital, student films, documentaries, indies, VOD, etc.), I firmly believe that an illusion of decreasing quality will be created. People are so overwhelmed (and down right spoiled) by the availability of entertainment, they can afford to be picky. I think that there are just as many great films being made each year now as there were each year in the 70s, they are just hidden amongst an increasingly large pile of junk, giving the appearance that the number of quality films is going down when really the number of lesser quality films is going up.
And honestly, every generation in our culture of entertainment gets to a point where they declare the coming generation to be creatively dead. It happens with music, film, dance, literature, art, and yes, even television. The great upswing in original TV productions today is just going to lead to an equally hard downswing in the coming years as today’s generations accuse the following generations of merely copying and regurgitating the ‘golden days.’ It’s the same with film, no doubt, but you have to realize that kids and young adults growing up today, making memories and connections with today’s films, will see the 2000′s as years of great cinema. Ultimately, this is a cultural phenomenon relative to every new generation. To escape this awful state of mind, I believe you have to open yourself to the moods and ideas of films past and future, and not tie your love of film to a collection of memories made on the films of ‘your time.’ Many of the critics declaring film to be dead melt at the mentioning of Coppola and Scorsese and Kubrick and the other masters of the 70s, masters who were often dubbed morally and creatively bankrupt in their own day by critics beholden to the films of the 40s and 50s. You just got to keep up with the times, open your mind, and don’t try and pin down ‘great’ as one thing!
Steve Glansberg(Quote) (Reply)
Indeed, I see over 250 films a year and I don’t even come close to covering everything…
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
I think the issue here partly is that the lines between mainstream and independent cinema are increasingly blurred, with major actors often doing smaller films inbetween big ones, or studio subsidiaries like Fox Searchlight and Paramount Vantage handling smaller, more artistically risky properties. So mainstream cinema may indeed not be as strong as it used to be–but that may just be because it’s not the only game in town anymore. Now that a cineplex can show The Master alongside Looper alongside God-knows-what, really, what IS the mainstream? And with the studio system as we knew it long since defunct, and with even hugely expensive projects like Cloud Atlas being independently funded…what IS the mainstream?
JamDenTel(Quote) (Reply)
That certainly is something to be discussed…I think partially the issue is just that these writers miss an era that’s not coming back and don’t seem to have fully adjusted.
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
Old fogeyism is a trait that will never die, it seems. And to think that in the 70s, Leslie Halliwell was beamoaning the moribund state of the film industry. What would he make of 2012? God only knows.
JamDenTel(Quote) (Reply)
Indeed…
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)