The Death of Cinema pt. 94

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (504 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

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 (1 month ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

http://grantland.com/features/2014-hollywood-blockbusters-franchises-box-office/
this is a good article but seriously is it completely impossible that audiences will burn out on dc/marvel/etc, leading to successively lower box office tallies and leaving executives desperate to throw money at other stuff?

slam dunk, Friday, 19 December 2014 23:01 (3 days ago) Permalink

What the movie industry is about, in 2014, is creating a sense of anticipation in its target audience that is so heightened, so nurtured, and so constant that moviegoers are effectively distracted from how infrequently their expectations are actually satisfied. Movies are no longer about the thing; they’re about the next thing, the tease, the Easter egg, the post-credit sequence, the promise of a future at which the moment we’re in can only hint.

this is a very salient point imo

Οὖτις, Friday, 19 December 2014 23:13 (3 days ago) Permalink

eg. The ILX Star Wars thread will only die once the film is actually released and everyone realises that they don't even wanna go and pay money to see this piece of shit garbage film for kids.

everything, Friday, 19 December 2014 23:35 (3 days ago) Permalink

wishful thinking but yea that is not happening

johnny crunch, Saturday, 20 December 2014 00:33 (2 days ago) Permalink

Day after it comes out there's going to be a spike of activity in the "Depression and what it's really like" thread. Guaranteed.

everything, Saturday, 20 December 2014 00:58 (2 days ago) Permalink

Not to nitpick, but that is an article on the death of Hollywood, not Cinema ;) Cinema will do just fine, prob even better if you remove all the American prestige crap. Like, when it gets to that list of films started by one billionaire or something, and that list includes American Hustle and Zero Dark Thirty, well, I'm not going to miss those things.

The thing is also, Marvel is really, amazingly good at what they do. I don't really like what they do, but you kinda have to give them credit, they did sorta reinvent the wheel, and keeps a level of basic competence, which is almost unique in the business. When I watch a Marvel Movie there is almost always up to several seconds of the film which was funny and awesome and vine-worthy. And that is probably enough to keep the businessmodel going, especially when all the competitors are so fucking useless.

Frederik B, Saturday, 20 December 2014 01:02 (2 days ago) Permalink

i think that grantland article has some good points but it also misses a lot of nuance and it's more than a little ahistorical

david poland posted a smart response to it: http://moviecitynews.com/2014/12/the-sky-continues-not-to-fall/

I dunno. (amateurist), Saturday, 20 December 2014 01:16 (2 days ago) Permalink

good article, thanks for posting that

slam dunk, Saturday, 20 December 2014 02:37 (2 days ago) Permalink

yeah, i mean things aren't exactly great, but i think folks can mistake cycles for permanent changes, and they can also overstate shifts that have taken place but aren't as dramatic as harris seems to think.

I dunno. (amateurist), Saturday, 20 December 2014 03:05 (2 days ago) Permalink

Like, when it gets to that list of films started by one billionaire or something, and that list includes American Hustle and Zero Dark Thirty, well, I'm not going to miss those things.

Mark H, like any writer who covers the Oscars, has far more mainstream taste than he's willing to admit.

Eric H., Saturday, 20 December 2014 03:28 (2 days ago) Permalink

yeah, there's kind of reflexive promotion of one type of film over one another. he seems to be implying, "well, even if you didn't /love/ this or that adult drama, you must admit it's better than /this here franchise film/." which is probably a good encapsulation of a lot of critics' tastes, but there's a complacency to it that's not particularly refreshing.

I dunno. (amateurist), Saturday, 20 December 2014 03:38 (2 days ago) Permalink


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