Readers Comments Stir the Pot

Hmmm- comments are coming in responding to Is Cinema Dead? (Parts 1 & 2). Interestingly, none were posted on this blog - all were sent directly to coralgatemedia@gmail.com

Here's the gist of the points:

"How can cinema be dead when this is a record breaking year".
Let's put aside the usual barking about box office returns in constant dollars and the jump in per ticket prices and the fact that big grosses do not always translate into increased attendance. Let's just give the devil his due - this was a very good year for film revenue. But this entire subject is in itself a point of discussion. The public focus - one might say obsession - with b.o. grosses is a phenomenom that arose in the 1980s (I think the Michael Keaton BATMAN started this cult). It has been a major subject of discussion ever since. But industry numbers are not on my radar, at least in this conversation (I am of course VERY interested in box office returns when it's one of my projects we talking about).

Box office grosses merely re-emphasize the acceptance of cinema as a commodity rather than a cultural force. If we begin to analyze this "great year", we see a continued downturn of film jobs (in the aggregate), outsourcing of work to far flung subcontractors and - what really gets my attention - an ever reduced impact on the overall culture.

"There are some really good movies out there- AVATAR and THE HURT LOCKER" (or fill in your favorites here)

Thankfully, yes, there are some really good movies still made every year. But pointing out individual victories does not reverse the overall trend.

The overall culture of moviemaking is not healthy. Fewer and fewer blockbuster crowd out the variety of middle range films (middle range budgets and the variety of subjects and sudiences they used to target). At the small end of the spectrum, indie cinema is barely breathing. More and more people are making films, fewer and fewer are making a living.

What I am focused on are: the cultural impact of cinema (rapidly weakening) and the cultural health of the filmmaking community (similar diagnosis). Take AVATAR - an accomplished film, some say a great film. Yet its lingering impact, I suspect, will be negligible. First, it's not exactly an exceptional story concept - white male hero saves the day for beautiful indigenous people. Second, its media buzz is largely more about its numbers than about its meaning.

"What about PARANORMAL ACTIVITY?"

This $15K project has grossed over $100K by closely tracking BLAIR WITCH PROJECT's model. Good for both of them. But my points about cultural impact and fthe filmmaking commnity still apply. The jury is still out about PA but BYP's impact was nil, except as a marketing wonder. I happened to have been at Sundance when BWP premiered in a midnight show. I really appreciated it just because it was brash and different from all the slick studio mwannabes that screened that year but I can tell you there was zero buzz about this film - as a film - at breakfast the next day. Ten years later, neither the film nor its filmmakers appear to have any enduring impact.

If I were critiquing my own position here, I would go afield and cite films like BLINDSIDE or Tyler Perry, especially his early, pre-Hollywood films. When filmmakers know their core audience, speak to them, for them and with them - the communities sometimes respond by supporting that filmmaker and help create the possibility of an enduring career.

All of this aside, it's impossible to deny the grim facts of cinema's long decline as a culural force. I wish I thought differently and I truly hope I am wrong about this. But I know I don't and I fear I am not.