The Death of Cinema pt. 94

http://infocult.typepad.com/infocult/2007/01/la_jete_on_yout.html

If the work of any of these directors is analagous to Ninja Tune I will happily let the whole fucking shebang die.

(I have no opinion on the subject in question, just wanted to get that shot in)

They've been calling Broadway theatre The Fabulous Invalid for about 40 years now, perhaps we just need a similarly agreed-upon handle for cinema to stop these endless Death waves.

you're just not cool enough for Coldcut, Matt.

i'd like to thank everyone on this thread for avoiding quoting film critics

This thread is a lie told 94 times per second.

But... but genres only get interesting after they die! Why the hand-wringing?

OK, so now I have seen Knocked Up and I can say that it's just inappropriate to bring it up in this particular conversation.

Which is to say I liked it fine (true, it speaks somewhat to my experience even though I don't recognize myself in any of the characters), but what sort of conversation forces this against Buñuel? Who gains from the comparison?

Peter Greenaway just texted me about this thread.

Peter Greenaway!

I hope he said something scathing and big-breasted.

He VJ'ed a defiant middle finger at me.

but what sort of conversation forces this against Buñuel? Who gains from the comparison?

Ask Morbs.

is Knocked Up YOUTH-oriented? Appears aimed squarely at 21-34 to me. But that is the New Adolescence, I guess.

People also be having babies much later in life, go fig.

by youth-oriented i meant 'transformers' rather than 'knocked up'.

greenaway really does love the vjing. he also likes cd-roms.

Shut up everybody I'm trying to watch the fucking film.

Buñuel vs The Sunshine Boys

Ask Greenaway when the goddamn Tulse Luper Suitcases are going to show (or be available) in the States. (he's a big Death of Cinema guy, btw)

he killed it

Greenaway killed the Cinema Stars

went to see a MATINEE yesterday and it cost me 7.50. no wonder attendance is down (im assuming it is down). plus it was that 500 days of summer film which was dissappointing.

The other reason is the multitude of entertainments (to add to the six at the top of the thread) (maybe added later I only read the beginning of this).

kidnapping of avant-garde film by the art world

Stuff like Zidane? When it was screened on TV I was like 'oh damn wish I saw this at the cinema, its perfect for that space'. Guys like Mark Kermode HATED IT for its art worldliness: lame.

Some days I could really do with going 2-3 times. See you at the last screening.

i'm not sure if attendance is "down". compared to when, is the question. iirc the nadir of attendance was the early 1980s. and the whole period from the late 50s till then was of continuing decline. attendance "now" (i.e. the 2000s rather than autumn 2009) is "up" on 25 years ago, and, i think, even on fifteen years ago. it's still a precarious bidness, at the moment because the bottom has dropped out of dvd sales and yeah i guess also piracy. oh right yeah and the industry's suicidally tight demographic gearing towards the very young.

i think its staying level compared to alot of media industries at the moment - people still enjoying/willing to shell out for the cinema in hard times etc - but i cant imagine its what it once was. youd think theyd try and steer prices down a bit to get more bums on the seats at the moment or maybe that just doesnt make economic sense.

Other than weekends before noon, most of the NYC 'plex shows are $12.50.

AO Scott still wondering why foreign films are next-to-invisible in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/movies/awardsseason/30scott.html

there's an essay in the most recent GQ titled 'when the movies died' or something -- it's about how hollywood is stifling creativity & will only greenlight comic book movies, sequels and adaptations -- i haven't finished it yet but it's pretty good

who wrote?

weird article by a.o. was there a time when it was not this way for foreign films?

bergman-fellini era [via every article on this topic ever]

yes, the '50s thru '70s. xp

morbs: a guy named mark harris -- story isn't online tho

xp what was different then?

Oh, he wrote Pictures at the Revolution

there's an essay in the most recent GQ titled 'when the movies died' or something -- it's about how hollywood is stifling creativity & will only greenlight comic book movies, sequels and adaptations -- i haven't finished it yet but it's pretty good

― lilwayne.quizrewards4u.com (J0rdan S.), Monday, January 31, 2011 6:41 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

i hear this a lot, but you know, bad timing. the oscar front-runners do not match this description. i guess they were greenlit two-odd years ago but still.

xp

mark harris is chill though

xp what was different then?

― call all destroyer, Monday, January 31, 2011 6:46 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

educated people had heard of bergman and fellini; they haven't heard of ___________________

I've mentioned this before: since I live neither in NYC nor LA I rely on Netflix and one local art theatre for foreign films. It was the same situation ten years ago. Nothing's changed here.

i reckon that with dvd it's technically easier to see foreign films now than 40 years ago (tony probably says this, can't remember). in england it hasn't changed much in about 25-30 years, so far as i can tell -- there were more repertory cinemas then, but video and tv have replaced them. which is a shame but there we are, and most of them were inly in london anyway.

i have a theory that in this country at any rate (not just a theory, there is evidence, but i haven't got into it enough yet) the reason for the reach bergman et al had was that the cinemas in the late 1950s had a real fight on their hands when tv came along and tried all kinds of things. and foreign films were routinely sold on the basis of (female) nudity, no matter how highbrow. but that was very much a phase.

kind of a lazy post

I've mentioned this before: since I live neither in NYC nor LA I rely on Netflix and one local art theatre for foreign films. It was the same situation ten years ago. Nothing's changed here.

― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, January 31, 2011 1:51 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah this is why i'm confused--the sitch hasn't changed in my city for at least the last ten years. i guess a.o. is saying this is a "golden age," i def don't know enough to say whether that might be true.

theatrical runs for foreign flicks have definitely declined (a lot) in LA over the last 10 years

i guess a.o. is saying this is a "golden age," i def don't know enough to say whether that might be true.

― call all destroyer, Monday, January 31, 2011 6:58 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is the real crux, yeah. he's not the only person saying it. i dunno. i don't think the EOD lists for the 2k0s really justify the claim, but i think it's partly the lack of a 'narrative'.

Harris is also Tony Kushner's partner, btw, iirc.

it's kind of lol that his example is a film that's five fucking hours long, i don't care how good it is.

cad, you watch TV series, don't you?

ppl are less interested in world cinema. it's easier than ever to see most of these films, thanks to Netflix etc, if there was demand.

also I believe foreign films grossed more (adj for inflation) and got nominated for the Best Picture Oscar more often. (The last two years there was what, District 9?)

not really morbs, why?

it's kind of a trilogy. and given most will see it on dvd anyway the run-time isn't a thing. it's kind of up to you! if you don't want to be interested in modern cinema, no-one is forcing you, it's just a bit of a shame that widely acclaimed movies don't get very much shine.

90-110 minutes each night in 3 parts isn't that tough.

yeah i hear ya, it's just that 5-hour movies are a tough sell when they're made here too!

tbf i didn't realize it was split into three parts; it was not really presented that way in reviews i read.