death of cinema

As time passes, media is being forced to redefine itself in new and unique ways: newspapers and magazines are forced to turn online as opposed to print and television is becoming more viewer-selected and streaming in nature. Film is equally faced with an uncertain future: few are able to predict the manner in which film presentation will take place in coming years. Some contend that film is already dead, replaced with “new media” such as mobile technologies and digitization of images and sounds. However, the argument stands that film has not been removed from society nor has it been labeled as extinct; instead, it has simply redefined itself to meet the changing needs of society, a common historical trend in countless aspects of Americans’ lives (Rodowick).

This is, however, the first time changes of this nature have had to be addressed in terms of media: for generations, analog formats, such as film, had been relied upon. The debate rages regarding whether the alteration in the presentation of film constitutes the eradication of the item itself, or if the concept of “film” is able to redefine itself, regardless of whether or not it relies upon the physical item known today as “film” (Friedberg). Forward progress would push society away from the use of traditional film: smaller, more portable technologies are readily accessible and easy to use, making the transition to these alternative formats seem significantly more appealing to the average user (Rosen).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 responses to “death of cinema”

  1. I agree that it is the passing time that is forcing film to be redefined. I feel that it is the technological advances that prevent classic films to be created anymore. But it is in the terms of the viewer in what they consider to be classic.

  2. I don’t know that I necessarily buy that the medium of cinema (no longer “film”) is in the midst of all that qualitative a revolution (of course, Rodowick isn’t really, either). While the convergence of cinema with other media will effect large changes in the practical experiences surrounding it, the thoroughly organic nature of this convergence makes it seem that much of what the consumer (or viewer, if you prefer) look for in film today (and looked for in film yesterday) will still be present tomorrow. Methods or production will change, of course (probably not as revolutionarily as some suggest), and methods of studying will evolve (as they always do), but the medium is not in upheaval, nor is it in any danger of disappearing.

    Yes, film’s circle and other media’s circles may have added new areas of overlap on the Venn diagram keeping track of all such things, but I can’t see each media, cinema especially, completely losing its unique qualities to absorption by the others.

  3. I agree that film has changed with society. I think that society the different ways of viewing films is beneficial because It allows the medium to reach many audiences. I mean how many people these days have the time to get the full movie experience.
    I disagree that technological advances will prevent classical films from being made, because classic films become classics through different factors, like plot and camera techniques.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar