cinema is far from dead but it is changing fast. to thwart the impact of video games, virtual reality systems etc, the industry is championing a fully immersing, three dimensional visual and aural sensorium for the theaters. imax 70mm projection systems are already available. rumbling seats and full recliners are making their appearance, cocktails and gourmet foods are being tested. it goes without saying that these moves, were they as comprehensive as they promise to be, take it for granted that the only movies playing there will be those devoted to pure entertainment. would a film like amour fit in that environment? in short, we would be back to cinema as fairground entertainment before it became an art.
no doubt about it, there are incredibly good filmmakers working everywhere in the world. even though the hollywood juggernaut will make it harder and harder for them to create and distribute their work, some will persist and their films will eventually find an audience somewhere, if not in theaters.
as for newcomers, a few will be (un?)lucky enough to get the call. they will undoubtedly assign the election to their talent. it may be so but timing, personality, and the right connections have generally something to do with it. but what about all those—the vast majority surely—who won’t hear from anybody. this does not mean they (you?) should stop trying and give up all together. for an alternative to traditional filmmaking has been around for some time: the digital file. i am not referring here to datamoshing, the glitch movement, extreme image compression experiments, etc., which are all exciting to watch but are more in line with avant-garde cinema. the digital file i’m thinking of may lack the hoopla associated with traditional filmmaking but it can, on a very small scale, bring back to life a more intimate, more personal, more idiosyncratic approach to moviemaking, a feature left behind by today’s spectacular cinema. that is a feat well worth pursuing.