The Death of Cinema pt. 94

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (493 of them)

tom -- no way, not when they came out. they played in cinemas, not art galleries.

The E in the R is HBO as the new studio system, 8 pages on the Sopranos in the NYRB, hi-def tvs larger than many minor multiplex screens etc etc etc.

Apatow is just fine, but he's never going to be involved in anything as good as 'Freaks & Geeks' unless he goes back to telly...

-- Stevie T, Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:50 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

for the true believers multiplex screens and tv screens just don't compare with the big screen. they also have a thing for the communal experience, etc.

it isn't just about quality of transferable "content."

but the ending of 'the sopranos' and 'the wire' within 12 months of each other is a bit of a marker too.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:06 (7 years ago) Permalink

Oh, Enrique, btw, you still haven't explained to me why Repulsion isn't shit.

Just got offed, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

try explaining to us why it IS, goofus.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:08 (7 years ago) Permalink

I don't believe "the big screen communal experience" is coming back as anything other than charming nostalgia outdoor summer screenings etc.

Stevie T, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

except more people are going to the cinema than ever before. so what exactly do you base that on

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

no, i agree. but that's one reason why people think the thing is dying.

xpost

s1ocki that's not true. or, not within the west. people went to the cinema habitually once or twice a week up to the '40s.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

more people are going to the cinema and acting like they're in their living room than ever before.

re the Dargis article in the TIFF thread, the problem of cinephilia gaining sustenance from the likes of Inland Empire is that it's marginalized. Culturally discerning [sic?] 25-year-olds who would've seen and discussed every Godard film in the mid '60s now reserve their passion for Knocked Up.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

ya but that's because they all worked there. xp

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

re the Dargis article in the TIFF thread, the problem of cinephilia gaining sustenance from the likes of Inland Empire is that it's marginalized. Culturally discerning [sic?] 25-year-olds who would've seen and discussed every Godard film in the mid '60s now reserve their passion for Knocked Up.

-- Dr Morbius, Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:14 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

what is the evidence for this exactly

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

try explaining to us why it IS, goofus.

I did, on that London movies thread.

Just got offed, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

Get fifty friends, or (fifty facebook people - social networking possibly being the cornerstone of this idea) who want to see a film, any film avilible for digital projection, go see the film in a cinema. Hopefully a clever inner city cinema (with a good bar) will toy with this suggestion, as it strikes me that there is plenty of money in them thar hills (particularly money over the bar which is pretty much pure profit in a good cinema).

had a similar idea a while back but more based around small indie cinemas AND a range of viewable material not constrained to films (think TV, live sport/events).

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:16 (7 years ago) Permalink

Why not just invited your mates round to your house and bring yr own booze?!

Stevie T, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

but morbs those godard fans were also the first-gen auteurists, going to hawks and hitchcock retrospectives. i don't see that as any more mature or whatever than digging on 'knocked up' (a far more mature, if less formally interesting, film than anything lunatic maoist godard has done).

xpost

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

Why not just invited your mates round to your house and bring yr own booze?!

houses and screens/systems in houses are not as big. not so much '50 friends' anyway but '50 people who want to see this', as it is now. essentially what has already been happening for years with some bars showing a film in the back room.

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:22 (7 years ago) Permalink

i saw Vanilla Sky in some bar in Brighton with about 20 people. it was a cool experience.

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

watching vanilla sky could never be a cool experience.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

predictable ;)

and there's those guys in NYC who showed films on a projector on a building roof in Summertime. nice.

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

ya, rooftop films? i saw their mtl show.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

i have done lots of public screenings in bars/show venues/etc. mostly of my own stuff tho, i guess that's diff.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

democratisation of viewing films as well as making films

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

(Funnily enough, I spoke to Lynch about all this stuff when he was in town earlier this year, and though he very much still thought of cinema as the big screen in the dark room, he thought that more and more this was likely to be in the form of home/private projection or large screen entertainment systems...)

Stevie T, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

Lynch would never make a film for outdoor big screen heh

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

'knocked up' (a far more mature, if less formally interesting, film than anything lunatic maoist godard has done)

If mature equals boring, sure.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

what is the evidence for this exactly

ILX

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah the key is that you'll know 15 of the 50 ppl so if the other 35 are twats you'll still have as good a time as just going to the cinema w/friends, BUT if they're not you know you've got at least 1 thing in common and you've got a readmade conduit for meeting and chatting - it's a good idea and someone not wasting their time on ILX might make a bit of fake dotcom money out of it. (xpost)

Groke, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

ILX is not cinephilia, tho, or do the stats at ILF mean nothing?

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

ILX has 'ruined' Comedy for me because ILX can be as funny as/funnier than anything else out there. As long as I don't start reading THIS IS MY VLOG on a cinema-sized screen, film will prevail.

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

oh, I wasn't saying the Apatow monks of ILX were cinephiles. They might've been in a different cultural moment.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

where's Southy with the 'it HAS to be grainy, you cannot watch it on cellphone' rockismo

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

Ooooooohhhhhh, bitch! (xp)

Tom D., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

where's Southy with the 'it HAS to be grainy, you cannot watch it on cellphone' rockismo

-- blueski, Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:34 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

haha indeed.

fwiw i will chip in with: CRT televisions >>>> pwn the shit out of >>>> digital bullshit.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

well cinema may be dead, but so is the novel, poetry, the fine arts, classical music.....or maybe it's just dispersing itself into smaller and smaller audiences, all part of the inevitable march of modernity surely?

what sight and sound and the like seem to be yearning for is a whitman-esque "return to the common people" aesthetic that will find some way of bridging the increasing distance we all feel between each other and our values and experiences. a super film that will unite us all!

whitman aside, this is not a new desire, and it's always been utopian.

ryan, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

and like all utopian desires it projects itself into the past as much as the future.

ryan, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

i don't get morbs on this score. the "original cinephiles", the parisians in the 50s, were crazy for uncomplicated, populist filmmaking.

xpost

no sight and sound don't think the golden age can return. it's not a new lament, but it's not that old either. your line of thinking tends to say nothing ever changes, but of course it does.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

What was "uncomplicated, populist filmmaking" in the heyday of French cinephilia was also filled with solid formalism that is basically not even in the equation w.r.t Apatow.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

yeees, i.e. Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?is a superior example of uncomplicated, p*pulist (GODDAMN YOU) filmmaking, and that Napoleon Dynamite is a horrid one.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

there were bad movies lots of ppl liked in the old days too dude

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

not that knocked up is even bad

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

i hate 'napoleon dynamite' and it isn't populist. but both of you are mental to think late '50s hollywood was particularly golden, it's sheer cineaste myth-making.

xpost

i like 'knocked up' a lot.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

me too it's great

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

i like 'knocked up' a lot.

We noticed

Tom D., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

(I used ND as I haven't seen any Apatow films, but substantial critics who've liked his stuff have generally said "well, this isn't cinema")

Was there popular trash in the '50s? Of course. Was there a higher % of watchable studio films? Fuck yes.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

substantial critics who've liked his stuff have generally said "well, this isn't cinema"

name names

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

(I used ND as I haven't seen any Apatow films, but substantial critics who've liked his stuff have generally said "well, this isn't cinema")

sigh

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

you might want to try actually watching movies sometime morbius.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

but both of you are mental to think late '50s hollywood was particularly golden

Who is arguing that? Nobody's claiming every last studio film between 1953-1958 was blindly accepted as an artistic breakthrough.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

As this thread proves, the real problem with cinema is that cinephilia refuses to fucking die.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

this is an interesting discussion and i'm sorry to say i don't have much to add to it, except that whenever e.g. godard pops his head out of his hole to proclaim the d"eath of cinema" every two years or so my kneejerk reaction is usually "stfu"

impudent harlot, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

what do you call cinephilia when it doesn't actually involve watching the movies you're talking about

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

'napoleon dynamite' isn't populist

Yeah, that's why I see VOTE FOR PEDRO tees on the street

I will watch Knocked Up when it hits DVD shortly. Given the track record of people who love it, I'll send the universal $11 cost of a NYC film ticket to my creditors instead, thanks.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

^ agreed with all that.

with film dying (or dead already), the future belongs to colorists.

Van Horn Street, Thursday, 6 November 2014 19:44 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

put a fork in it, it's done

Thackeray Zax (James Redd and the Blecchs), Thursday, 6 November 2014 19:46 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

the future of film now depends on Jay Jay Abrams and a new Star Wars sequel. hope it's a home-run in that regard. i'm ok with digital behind the dominant method of production in the industry, but it doesn't mean film has to die completely.

Van Horn Street, Thursday, 6 November 2014 19:49 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Eric, best post ever

things lose meaning over time (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 6 November 2014 19:50 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Remember Zip Drives? That storage method that spiked in popularity in the late '90s? Imagine finding one today.

This guy should come work in my office. Not that I've ever been enabled to open one.

things lose meaning over time (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 6 November 2014 19:51 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Watched Reggio's Visitors today. Digital copy. Not good enough resolution, distracting throughout the whole film. Then went and saw The Emperors Naked Army Marches On in a 35mm print flown in from Japan. Boy, did that look amazing, even though it was old. Dunno, at times I'm a format fascist. It really isn't the same.

Frederik B, Thursday, 6 November 2014 23:10 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

i like the shimmer of 35mm in projection; it's hard to recreate in digital projection even when the film was shot/post analog

I dunno. (amateurist), Friday, 7 November 2014 01:22 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

hmm, i cant decide whether to see a 70mm screening of 2001 at the BFI next month, or the new digital 'restoration'. for some reason i imagine a film like 2001 might benefit from DCP. sci-fi was surely meant to be seen as pristinely as possible, no?

StillAdvance, Friday, 7 November 2014 11:36 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I'd go for 70 mm. Can't imagine the warm colours of 2001 will be helped by digital.

Frederik B, Friday, 7 November 2014 11:43 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

i want to see it the way the maker made it

things lose meaning over time (Dr Morbius), Friday, 7 November 2014 13:11 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Actually, I reconsider. I love digital. Saw a few digital films, Konchalovsky's The Postman's White Nights and the new one from the Harvard Ehtnography/Sensory Lab, The Iron Ministry, and I love how they look. Postman's White Nights capture a beautiful northern russian light, cold and strange, and Iron ministry has the grains, the hues, and the shakes of cheap digital almost guerilla filmmaking. I absolutely love it. On the other hand, I saw a film promotes as 4K, transcendental, overwhelming, and it just looked like a nature program on bbc. Mainstream digital, supposedly more clear, more clean, is horrible, all character removed to create smooth, vanilla, blandness. So mediocre, so dull.

Frederik B, Sunday, 9 November 2014 19:22 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/11/21/paul_schrader_interview_filmmaker_talks_dying_of_the_light_absent_friends.html

Paul Schrader:

You made a movie recently, The Canyons, which was funded through Kickstarter and released on demand, as well as in theaters. Do those new avenues make you more optimistic about the future of film?

PS: Everything’s up for grabs. It’s exciting in that way—unless you’re wedded to the 20th-century concept of a projected image in a dark room in front of a paying audience. If you’re wedded to that concept, you’re in trouble, because that concept is dead.

I’m guessing you’re not wedded to that concept. Some filmmakers seem nostalgic and very invested in 35mm projection.

PS: I’m not. It’s all revanchist claptrap. The goal of art is not to tell people what tools they want to use, but to use whatever tools are around. The tools are always changing and the artists need to change with the tools. We didn’t have movies 100 years ago, and we did quite fine without them, and now they’re going to become something else again.

slam dunk, Saturday, 22 November 2014 19:47 (6 days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.