Xixax Film Forum

a harsh reality
ticket sales are at a steady decline, attention spans are dissipating, society is changing, television has taken over, video-games are taking over, but my question is: will cinema really survive?

i'd like to hear some theories.

they said that reading books will extinct, but it didn't, it got better

it has it's ups and downs; but really i don't see anything contributing to it's ultimate downfall...maybe that's an ignorant statement, but i think the cinema will always be fresh...it's the closest thing to our reality, in terms of art ,as we know of, so what could be better? and i'm optomistic that there will always be an intelligent crowd out there for decent films...

btw, good point molly...

edit: television has been around and film changes with the changing society....

Quote from: classical gas
edit: television has been around and film changes with the changing society....

good point, and television/vhs/dvd created a new way for movies to get into our homes, but the audiences are changing as well. video-games are playing a more imporant role in our culture and people feel the need to interact with a medium instead of just watching.

As has been stated, there's more entertainment outlets than ever before (cable, DVD, internet).

Is cinema dying? Hell no. It's funny that everyone turns Chicken Little over a slight decline in ticket sales, but no one pays attention to a NEW BOX OFFICE RECORD BEING BROKEN NEARLY EVERY OTHER WEEK!

Movies grossing over $50 Million in the off season on their first weekend. If that's death throws I want some.

The only reason box office records are being broken is because ticket prices are on a steady incline.

Down with theatres!!

Long live home dvd!!!!

Quote from: SmellyBoobFunguspeople feel the need to interact with a medium instead of just watching.

That's much too general a statement. Who are these "people"? It's certainly true of some and a possibly growing number of people, but I'd say there's hope left, and it exists in the educational system and in righting our sociocultural priorities therewith.

In other words: "Turn off those fucking videogames and do your goddamn homework!!"

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: SmellyBoobFunguspeople feel the need to interact with a medium instead of just watching.

That's much too general a statement. Who are these "people"? It's certainly true of some and a possibly growing number of people, but I'd say there's hope left, and it exists in the educational system and in righting our sociocultural priorities therewith.

In other words: "Turn off those fucking videogames and do your goddamn homework!!"

More righting our priorities than the system itself. But I agree.

I think this has less to do with cinema, and more with just society in general. Movies are no more or less pure than tv or books or music.

Quote from: SoNowThen

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: SmellyBoobFunguspeople feel the need to interact with a medium instead of just watching.

That's much too general a statement. Who are these "people"? It's certainly true of some and a possibly growing number of people, but I'd say there's hope left, and it exists in the educational system and in righting our sociocultural priorities therewith.

In other words: "Turn off those fucking videogames and do your goddamn homework!!"

More righting our priorities than the system itself. But I agree.

I think this has less to do with cinema, and more with just society in general. Movies are no more or less pure than tv or books or music.

Don't you think that at least as culpable as video games is a peculiarly American strain of anti-intellectualism and disdain for anything that requires attention, thought, or contemplation but does not "produce" something immediately, physically tangible? And that, in fact, video games are a symptom of this, rather than the root cause of anything? Though the rest of the world is following in our (anti)-intellectual, glibly "postmodern" (read: subliterate or illiterate) footsteps, I think the other way around would be far preferable, and that our (American) culture-wide blissfully ignorant lack of humility makes us suffer not only in the obvious world-political ways, but also in our abilities to think, reason, and be culturally cognizant and literate, i.e. have the desire and ability to understand anything beyond the quick, superficial thrill.

Yep, but replace "American" with "most regular people".


EDIT: also, to be fair, the tendency of the elitist "intelligencia" to over analyse things is equally as destructive, imo.

Cinema is in dark ages, but I don't think its black. A niche in the market will always want to see challenging films. However, I don't believe the expansion of availability of movies (dvds and such) are a good thing for films. When VHS first appeared, it sprung no new movement of cinema appreciation, but actually, just the opposite: people seemed more and more ignorant of older films. By that time, though, film became an accepted enough art to devote university study to and all the fans of cinema saw their hobby and love in terms of homework. Rock N Roll and Rap Music will continue to accelerate in terms of youth appeal because no one can think of making schools to teach you how to rap or be a rock star. With dvd, we do get older films available, but yet another layer of corporatization with how heavily marketed all the mainstream films will be. Also, it is moving films to the level of conveniance with playing video games and both are being intertwined as dvds come with goodies of effects to play with like a video game and now you can even watch dvds on console systems. All the gloss on dvds have little to do with appreciating the movie as they do with getting you to buy it. DVD extras actually decide for people whether to buy some dvds or not.

Very VERY good points, GT. But can't the spinoff of all this dvd mania surely allow some fringe films to reach more people?

Not to mention, for us cinephiles, it's a plus to get to revist our favorite harder-to-find flicks over and over in relative comfort. Whereas back in the day you had to get your hands on a print, and sit at a shitty editing console and go back and forth...

Quote from: SoNowThenEDIT: also, to be fair, the tendency of the elitist "intelligencia" to over analyse things is equally as destructive, imo.

I disagree... the only destruction there is elitism that isolates and separates, and the false intellectualism that comes from that, not intellectualism itself. For example, it annoys me when college professors want their students to use only "academic" sources (i.e. generally isolated scholarly journals).

But some people just want to over-think something to the point where they're just putting their ideas into something where the original author had no intent whatsoever, and that gets dangerous.

English teachers and university students = red flags

:)

Quote from: SoNowThenVery VERY good points, GT. But can't the spinoff of all this dvd mania surely allow some fringe films to reach more people?

Not to mention, for us cinephiles, it's a plus to get to revist our favorite harder-to-find flicks over and over in relative comfort. Whereas back in the day you had to get your hands on a print, and sit at a shitty editing console and go back and forth...

Its a plus to the niche market that already appreciates challenging films. For the regular movie viewer, with all the dvds here and there, its just they are likely to get lost in the shuffle and over praise Spiderman because it has so much more on its dvd than most other films.

Quote from: SoNowThenYep, but replace "American" with "most regular people".


EDIT: also, to be fair, the tendency of the elitist "intelligencia" to over analyse things is equally as destructive, imo.

I WAS talking about "regular people," though. I think a great many more "regular people" in other places see much less contradiction between being thoughtful/aware/contemplative and being working-class or "regular" (nebulous term, that) than American "regular" people do.

There's nothing wrong with being intelligent, even if it makes you elite (so long as that's not the overriding goal, and for true intelligence it actually can't be, though this does not preclude a truly intelligent/intellectual person from enjoying any benefits their intelligence may gain them). I bristle at the term "elitist"- I'm absolutely not implying this is you, but you know as well as I do that that word is mostly used by willful know-nothings out of defensiveness.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: SoNowThenVery VERY good points, GT. But can't the spinoff of all this dvd mania surely allow some fringe films to reach more people?

Not to mention, for us cinephiles, it's a plus to get to revist our favorite harder-to-find flicks over and over in relative comfort. Whereas back in the day you had to get your hands on a print, and sit at a shitty editing console and go back and forth...

Its a plus to the niche market that already appreciates challenging films. For the regular movie viewer, with all the dvds here and there, its just they are likely to get lost in the shuffle and over praise Spiderman because it has so much more on its dvd than most other films.

haha, true.

Actually, most people I know go on dvd buying binges due to the price tag (my buddy has the biggest collection of used or under $10 discs of the biggest shit you've ever seen, and that he'll never watch, yet to shell out $40 plus for a Criterion is almost absurd to these people).

Quote from: SoNowThenBut some people just want to over-think something to the point where they're just putting their ideas into something where the original author had no intent whatsoever, and that gets dangerous.

English teachers and university students = red flags

:)

Actually, this is just the unfortunate thing I was talking about- knee-jerk  distrust of education and book-learnin' = American anti-intellectualism. Any time you make the slightest interpretation of a work, you're "putting your ideas in" where nobody has the the final word on what the author's "real" (as distinguished from expressed) intent was, whether you're educated or not. This is the iceberg-tip value of semiotics and poststructuralism: The author's intent only counts for so much, because the author's intent does not, cannot, and should not control how the work is received. It is only what it is: Intention, hardly all-encompassing fact or the last word.

Yeah, I don't wanna be misunderstood. I'm all for free thinking, and learning more. But I'm on the side of educating yourself. I'm very skeptical of someone telling me what to study, and telling me how well I've learned it.

Anyway, what I meant is that you get someone who knows nothing (we could call that a 'negative' position), but wants to know something. They could take baby steps and learn each part of the process, and grow until they feel confident -- OR -- they could have someone who makes up some wild theory teach them in a few months, and forever pervert their own ideas. Case in point: when I started getting into Godard and Bertolucci, I got a bunch of interview books, and ____ On ____ books, and some biographies, etc. And of course, spent time watching the films, listening to commentaries, extras, and all that. Then I stumbled upon this book called The Radical Cinema Of Bertolucci And Godard. Excited, I started reading. Lo and behold, it was an extreme leftist feminist, who basically knew nothing about film, but misconstrued every little detail of these great filmmakers into some grand scheme of statement making for hardcore feminism.

Now, I'm all for freedom of speech, people can write about whatever they want. But she would take something like the Breathless jump cuts (not exactly, but as an example) and go on about how they meant something symbolic to one of her ideas, not even knowing why JLG did them in the first place. If someone was given this book to start, it could so turn them off these great filmmakers, or at least get them looking for things that weren't there, I'd say that's destructive. The nitpicking of things to death is usually done by non-creative people who have never written fiction before, and therefore do not understand "plot points" or narrative construction, and mistake these machinations for hidden ideas. This is not overlooking subtext, but even the subtext has ten more subtexts for these people...

in the end: i really think our world is in dire need of some sort of social movement. the system is in need for reform.

You're right, SoNowThen, about the value of self-propellent learning, which Kubrick had some good things to say about. But what if, in your pursuit of filmic knowledge, you had randomly STARTED with that book; it could have forever skewed your opinions (although, if it had as much of an agenda as it sounds, I'm sure you may have seen through it). What you'd hope for in a film class is that the instructor would ignore material that infuses such a subjective point of view, and while I have no experience in film classes, I'd like to think that it wouldn't be too big of a risk.

To backtrack towards the original topic, history works in waves. We learn from the past, the past comes close to repeating itself, but it does so in an amalgated form that is, basically, neither here nor there. So where we're at right now, perhaps, is a point like the late sixties, where ticket sales were dropping; is a new 70s style renaissance on the horizon? No, unfortunately, because that type of filmmaking has been appropriated by the studios and is still in effect (re: Anderson, Anderson, Payne, Russel, et al). Hollywood is not likely going to throw up its hands and let a bunch of kids run in again, but it will evolve, and DVD and interactivity are going to play a big part with that. You already have people whose sentiments echo SoNowThen's, like Robert Rodriguez (and many studio execs, I'm sure), who sees theatrical releases as commercials for the eventual DVD.  

I think the progression of cinema will be more technological now, rather than idealogical, as it was in the seventies (there aren't that many taboos to cross anymore, and filmmakers are still being allowed to tell smart, personal stories that don't make a dime at the box office, so the only progression there would be quantitative, and while it would be nice to get more films geared towards US, I'm not complaining with the amount we get now). We'll have people like James Cameron propelling high quality 3D into the mainstream, and I'm sure full interactivity won't be too far behind (remember the 'feelies' in Brave New World?). At the same time, Landmark's recent decision to install a Hi Def digital projection network in all their theaters will allow smaller films to continue to be shown, at a fraction of the distribution price they incur now.

I'm spending way too much time writing this, so I'll wrap it up saying that the theatergoing experience will continue to evolve, but won't go away.

I'm all for autodidacticism, too.  :)   But I don't think you have to know what Godard did or didn't mean with his jump cuts to have an interesting theory on them. I also don't think a lot of people would have an interest in Godard or Bertolluci or even have heard of them if not for those nasty old leftist-infested film/literature studies departments, so they do perform a service, though I'd advise nobody to only explore one recommended-reading-list of literature on their topic of interest/passion. There is a part of academia that DOES stifle independent exploration by positing itself as a final authority; there is also a part of it that preserves an ongoing interest in culture at all. I don't necessarily mean "university" when I say "education," though I don't think "university education" is automatically an oxymoron.

What I'd be interested in exploring- and I'm sure I'll read a book or three on the topic eventually- is why, apart from Bertolucci and Godard's own adamantly professed leftism(s), the creative arts in general seem so endemic to leftist thought (or is it vice versa) and have always been a haven for "freethinkers" and each historical period's own version of leftist/progressive/radical individuals and thinkers...

Quote from: SoNowThenBut some people just want to over-think something to the point where they're just putting their ideas into something where the original author had no intent whatsoever, and that gets dangerous.

I think ignorance and apathy are a little more dangerous than "overanalyzing" things. And is it really possible to overanalyze something as long as you acknowledge the absurdity of your ideas?

And... artists do things unintentionally all the time.

Quote from: SoNowThenBut I'm on the side of educating yourself. I'm very skeptical of someone telling me what to study, and telling me how well I've learned it.

The real value of college is more inspiration than it is instruction... it can show you why to learn and how to learn, and then you leave college and learn.

I take it you're part of that over-analyzing sect I was speaking of...

Quote from: SoNowThenThe only reason box office records are being broken is because ticket prices are on a steady incline.
Down with theatres!!
Long live home dvd!!!!

exactly.  wasnt it something like 70% of americans had seen Gone With The Wind in the theatres adn Titanic has less than like 10 percent or something.  can anyone find me the exact figures on that?  

here's my question: how much are people willing to pay for a ticket to the theatre?  prices are escalating so quickly so high its now $10+ some places.  when will it level off (probably never) or when will people just start refusing to go in numbers that make the theatreowners pay attention.  buy a movie forever for 20$ or buy two tickets to see it once $20.  hmmm....  although, personally i'll never be able (i dont think) to NOT go to the movies because it is an experience not matched at home (yet) although with home theatres becoming more common and better, maybe that'll change too.

Quote from: SoNowThenThis is not overlooking subtext, but even the subtext has ten more subtexts for these people...

my girlfriend is in this terrible American Horror Movies class with a teacher who doesnt particularly care for horror movies and ONLY wants to discuss the meaning behind them.  except for mostly its whatever SHE thinks the meaning is, and not the authors intent.

My buddy's sister is in a university lit class, with a (you guessed it) feminist prof who insists that the Eye in Lord Of The Rings is a vaginal symbol, and is Peter Jackson's response to the overriding masculinity of the main characters.

Seriously. These are the people that you are paying to teach your children. Buyer beware.

i kind of agree with that, actually. when i first saw fellowship and knew nothing about the lotr universe, i kept asking my friend why the screen would sometimes flash with an image of an abstract vagina.

Quote from: SoNowThenMy buddy's sister is in a university lit class, with a (you guessed it) feminist prof who insists that the Eye in Lord Of The Rings is a vaginal symbol, and is Peter Jackson's response to the overriding masculinity of the main characters.

Seriously. These are the people that you are paying to teach your children. Buyer beware.

I actually really like that interpretation, and I think you're the one being elitist if you're going to exclude and reactionarily dismiss such things.

That's actually really interesting (the LOTR vagina thing), especially when you consider:

1. Shelob is also explicitly described as femal.
2. The two girls in Heavenly Creatures murder their mother.
3. The bizarre Freudian/Oedipal battle that runs throughout Dead Alive, climaxing with the monstrous incarnation literally shoving her son back into her womb.

So let me get this straight: if you're an artist or filmmaker, and you EVER use the images of an oval or a long stick, you're using vaginal or phallic imagery?

Bullocks.

If you really like it, JB, write your own book, rather than trampling on a classic.

Now you're making generalizations SNT.  Your hatred for over/mis-interpretation (especially when it comes to things phalic) has caused you to dismiss ANY possibilities out there.

They DO exist you know.

(and by "they", I mean the penis and the vagina)

Egad, I've opened Pandora's Box!!!

Quote from: SoNowThenSo let me get this straight: if you're an artist or filmmaker, and you EVER use the images of an oval or a long stick, you're using vaginal or phallic imagery?

There's no denying that you're using vaginal or phallic IMAGERY, but whether or not that was the explicit intent of the artist is where the area becomes more gray.

Even if it's not conscious on the artist's part, it can be read into. There was once a commercial that featured Robert Altman marveling at all the ridiculous things that are suggested about his films which, he finally realized, are all actually 'readable-into-ish' (his word).

I get annoyed as much as you do at bizarre subtexts being found in film and seized upon as canon by those more interested in affirming an agenda than examining artistic inent. But then there are those undercurrents that really do fascinate me, too, and you really can't disregard the potential of subconscious elements, especially when it can be traced through a filmmaker's repertoire.

Quote from: SoNowThenSo let me get this straight: if you're an artist or filmmaker, and you EVER use the images of an oval or a long stick, you're using vaginal or phallic imagery?

The point is that it's possible, not that it's The Truth.

I don't think any interpretation (that doesn't explicitly contradict the facts) should be excluded.

And by exclusion, I mean:

Quote from: SoNowThenIf you really like it, JB, write your own book, rather than trampling on a classic.

edit: and this...

Quote from: SoNowThenthe misuse of this freedom

Don't get me wrong, I agree there are unconscious things running through all artists' works (some that follow lines throughout their careers), and I understand that some works call for a more detailed reading of the material (what some may call 'analyzing').

But the misuse of this freedom to interpret has been running unchecked. It is a frightening thing to think that you may one day put some creative work out into the world with definite intent, only to have it so misconstrued that its work is perverted and warped to another's agenda. I try to be true to an artist's work (reading all the sources, looking at it myself from different angles, and making an informed decision, rather than running with a blatant agenda), and I wish the same courtesy to be extended to me.

You might as well accept the fact that nobody is going to interpret your work exactly as you interpret it. Not to be insulting, but isn't that the definition of pretension?

To clarify:

1. this lady prof I mentioned is the kinda teacher to give a bad mark to those who do not tow her line of belief in regards this "symbol". This kinda of junk always happened in school. It's not healthy discussion, it's forced belief.

2. Why need something that is long and cylindrical always be a phallus? Let's say you're shooting a baseball scene, and you decide to have a fan eating a hotdog because that's what they eat at ballgames -- now everyone can point out the obvious phallic symbol as a comment on the masculinity of American sports? No!!! It's there as a prop, for goodness sake!


___

I don't want everyone to get the same interpretation, JB. But I want to be clear on what I'm trying to talk about. Clarity of vision is sometimes a nice thing to have. I'm talking about willful manipulation of something to change its meaning -- I thought you were against that?

Maybe I'm not making any sense here, but I wish I were, cos I feel strongly about it. I feel like most people are not that open to "art" as we know it, and that there's a small window by which you can show it to them, and you have to handle it with kid gloves. Yet, the people who do the handling are running around fucking things up, letting their own egos get in the way, rather than just presenting the wonderful art.

Am I insane here?!

Quote from: SoNowThenI'm talking about willful manipulation of something to change its meaning -- I thought you were against that?

You're assuming that there is The Meaning. I'm against that. And I'm also against imposing one's own interpretation upon others (rather than suggesting it).

Where you see "manipulation" I see "interpretation." Am I wrong?

No, that sounds fair, if you allow that sometimes interpretation is used as manipulation.


I know when I'm writing certain pieces, I have a very specific meaning in mind, whereas sometimes I'll just write something for the mood of it.

Quote from: SoNowThenSo let me get this straight: if you're an artist or filmmaker, and you EVER use the images of an oval or a long stick, you're using vaginal or phallic imagery?

Not across the board, obviously. But when something is so EMBLEMATIC and so overriding as a symbol, a literal visual that is constantly and repeatedly used as a signifier like the really, really obviously vaginal eye in Lord of the Rings, it's absolutely fair.

The first instant I saw that fiery slit (seriously, this is literally what it is) in LOTR, I thought "vagina." And it's shown to us in the film before we're told it's an "eye" (anyone ever read Georges Battaile's Story of the Eye?). That's not overanalyzing, that's seeing what's right in front of your face. I'll equivocate on some "phallic/vaginal" interpretations, but it is completely about context. They're not always right (meaning that anything phallic-shaped or vaginal-shaped could be read as those things, but how relevant is it?), but they're not always wrong.