Notebooking Cinema

Sophie's Substack- 2025 take on death of cinema

These texts, presented as a three-part series, argue that the decline of traditional cinema attendance is not simply due to technological shifts or changing audience preferences, but rather a complex interplay of systemic failures within the industry and profound psychological changes in audiences. The author contends that the physical cinema experience has lost its distinctive appeal, exacerbated by shortened release windows that favour streaming and outdated marketing strategies. Part two explores how audiences have been conditioned to devalue the shared, focused experience of cinema, losing the sense of anticipation, struggling with too much choice, and finding it difficult to enter a state of immersive "flow" due to digital distractions. Finally, the author proposes a radical reimagining of cinemas as "cultural gyms," spaces designed to build "cultural fitness" through curated programming, reformed distribution models, and fostering a sense of identity and community around the act of collectively engaging with complex narratives. https://www.thatfinalscene.com/p/the-death-of-cinema-and-how-to-bring

Scorsese on 'Why Marvel Movies Aren't Cinema'

"Il Maestro," by Martin Scorsese (Harper's Magazine, March 2021) "Opinion | Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain." (The New York Times, November 4, 2019) a review of two essays by acclaimed director Martin Scorsese. The first, "Il Maestro," is a deeply personal tribute to the legendary Italian filmmaker Federico Fellini, highlighting his artistic significance, his impact on Scorsese's own development as a filmmaker, and the enduring power of his work. The second, an opinion piece for The New York Times, elaborates on Scorsese's controversial statement that Marvel movies are not cinema, arguing that the current landscape of mass visual entertainment is marginalizing and devaluing true cinematic art. Across both pieces, Scorsese articulates a clear distinction between genuine cinema, characterized by artistic vision, risk-taking, revelation, and emotional depth, and the commercially driven "content" that dominates the modern media landscape. He emphasizes the importance of preserving and celebrating cinema as an art form and the need to share its history and treasures with new generations.

Pauline Kael on Auteur Theory

This discussion is from another foundational article T titled "Circles and Squares" by Pauline Kael, published in Film Quarterly in 1963. Kael critically examines the "politique des auteurs," or auteur theory, particularly as adopted in England and the United States. She argues against its core premises, including technical competence, distinguishable personality, and interior meaning as criteria for evaluating a director's work, using examples and analogies to illustrate her points. Kael posits that the theory often leads to misplaced praise for commercial, formulaic films and dismisses the importance of story content and overall artistic vision. She suggests the theory stems from a potentially anti-art stance and a desire by some critics to justify their focus on "trashy" films.

"The Death of Film/The Decay of Cinema” (Parts I and II) – Godfrey Cheshire

"The Death of Film/The Decay of Cinema” (Parts I and II) – Godfrey Cheshire (New York Press, July & August 1999) Author: Godfrey Cheshire Date of Original Publication: July & August 1999 Summary: Godfrey Cheshire's two-part essay, "The Death of Film/The Decay of Cinema," published in the New York Press in the summer of 1999, presents a prescient and critical analysis of the impending technological shifts in motion pictures and their profound implications for the art form of cinema. Cheshire argues that the transition from celluloid film to digital technology in theatrical projection, and eventually production, represents not merely an upgrade in delivery system but a fundamental change that will effectively lead to the "death of film" as a physical medium and the "decay of cinema" as a distinct cultural and artistic force. He differentiates between "film" (the technology), "movies" (entertainment), and "cinema" (art), asserting that while movies will persist, their aesthetic singularity and cultural centrality will erode under the pervasive influence of television and computer-generated imagery.

The Decay of Cinema by Susan Sontag (1996)

Key Ideas and Facts: * Cinema's Life Cycle and Decline: Sontag posits that cinema has followed a predictable life cycle: "an inevitable birth, the steady accumulation of glories and the onset in the last decade of an ignominious, irreversible decline." She notes that while admirable films still exist, they are "exceptions" and "violations of the norms and practices that now govern movie making everywhere." Ordinary commercial films are described as "astonishingly witless" and failing to connect with audiences. * The Death of Cinephilia: A central tenet of Sontag's argument is that the decline of cinema is intrinsically linked to the death of "cinephilia," which she defines as "the name of the very specific kind of love that cinema inspired." This love was born of the conviction that cinema was a unique, modern, accessible, poetic, mysterious, erotic, and moral art form. Cinephiles saw cinema as encapsulating everything, "both the book of art and the book of life." * The Dual Origins of Cinema: Sontag acknowledges the dual beginnings of cinema in 1895 with the Lumiere brothers (transcription of reality) and Melies (invention/fantasy). However, she argues that for early audiences, even the "transcription of the most banal reality" was a "fantastic experience." This initial "wonder" is something she feels cinema has struggled to perpetuate and reinvent. * The Transformative Experience of Going to the Movies: Sontag emphasises the unique and immersive experience of watching films in a theatre. It was a place where you learned how to navigate life and "lose yourself in other people's lives... faces." The act of "going to the movies" was crucial, and seeing a great film "only on television isn't to have really seen that film." She argues that the "conditions of paying attention in a domestic space are radically disrespectful of film" and that to be truly "kidnapped" by a movie requires being "in a movie theater, seated in the dark among anonymous strangers." * The Undermining of Standards: The ubiquitous nature of moving images, appearing on various surfaces beyond the traditional cinema screen, has "steadily undermined the standards people once had both for cinema as art and for cinema as popular entertainment." * The Shift from Art to Industry: Sontag notes there was little difference between art and entertainment. However, the "Hollywood system" solidified commercial standards after the advent of sound, challenging the work of original directors. While a period from the mid-1950s saw a resurgence of "original, passionate films of the highest seriousness," the balance has now "tipped decisively in favor of cinema as an industry." * The Impact of Rising Production Costs: The "catastrophic rise in production costs in the 1980's" led to a need for films to be immediately profitable, favouring "the blockbuster over the low-budget film." This trend also resulted in shorter theatrical release times and the design of movies for direct-to-video release, contributing to the closure of cinemas. * The Struggle of Ambitious Directors: The commercial pressures make it "virtually impossible for artistically ambitious American directors... to work at their best level." Similarly, renowned international directors face difficulties in securing funding and maintaining their artistic vision. * The Changing Nature of Film Appreciation: While people still enjoy watching movies, the "distinctive cinephilic love" is less common, particularly among the young. Cinephilia, which values films as "unique, unrepeatable, magic experiences" and supports the idea of the film as a "poetic object," is seen as "quaint, outmoded, snobbish" in the era of "hyperindustrial films." * The Link Between Cinephilia and Cinema's Future: Sontag concludes that "If cinephilia is dead, then movies are dead too... no matter how many movies, even very good ones, go on being made." She suggests that a resurrection of cinema would require "the birth of a new kind of cine-love."