Current state of Film

I think Matteo has a valid point about the way films (and most art in general) are produced does induce a perceived quality about the film itself. It would appear that both should be independent of each other, since the aesthetics of any work of art can be traced back to the artist's intentions while the method of distribution and viewing are "copies" of the actual work. According to Walter Benjamin, the concept of art is relatable to what he called the concept of "aura". Aura is the aesthetic experience (our perception and subsequent reaction to) after having knowledge of its uniqueness. The viewer attributes a quasi-religious value to a piece of art. But this aura is not dissimilar to the one we get when viewing the replica of the work IF we perceive it as an original. How valued a work of art must then be attributed to a number of qualities which exist outside the art itself - eg. it's market value/price.

So is creativity; is it similarly pointless for someone to argue with you about that? I don't see how my opinion on this is any more or less prohibitive to discussion than talking about any other unquantifiable quality.

I'm pretty sure you're describing the relatively unremarkable fact of someone having a firm opinion about something. But like any good firm opinion, I hold it because it fits the evidence extremely well. I can elaborate if you decide it actually is "worth it" after all.

I would go even further to argue that the present and future state of film has less to do with the artists' intentions than with our perception with the work of art itself, and this can be changed via technology and new methods of production.

The discussion in this topic should revolve around this key point.

Yeah, creativity is the same, I think we should avoid any major, firm assumptions about a generation still very much in progress because it's overreaching past our own experiences.

__________________
Mubi

The younger generation is exposed to and hence acquires a different set of experience and thought. It's not easy to quantify experience as the number of years in your life. Technology has given them new eyes to see art, for which the older generations do not have.

But it actually does. Of course, the fundamentals of filmmaking has and always will stay the same, and yes, it is strictly economic issue at its core, but digital has inadvertently impacted the technical process of making a film in a profound manner.

Firstly, it has changed the dynamics of the shooting process in more ways than one. Many cinematographers have asserted that digital cameras (and relational technology) has been quite detrimental to the significance of their role. Shooting on digital gives you an extremely convenient platform to allow to see what you've shot immediately after you've shot it. When using traditional 35mm as your negative format for shooting (or 16mm or 70mm), more responsibility is vested within the DP because it usually takes a day or two for the crew to see the footage you have just photographed. This is because the film needs to be developed. It's called "dallies" in the industry, as you probably know, sir.

Essentially, when you cinematographically frame a scene (lighting, lenses, depth, space, the whole deal), you are not going to get the result of it immediately like you can with digital. Hence, a project is usually more reliant on a DP under a customary film shooting because they are truly the only ones on set who know what a scene is going to look, in its raw, unabridged form. The rest of the crew, including the director, have to wait your accustomed 24 hours before you can see what it actually looks like. This process is now rendered obsolete with digital technology, and it can impede the role of the DP in more ways than one. Some cinematographers actually contend that they don't have such a towering presence on set anymore, and this is because everything they set up, construct and frame can immediately be seen by others on a screen and subsequently critiqued, altered or just plain interfered with. Granted, I'm not saying this is a bad or good thing, but the impact is there, undeniably.

Secondly, it can (and has) had an instrumental role on the acting process. Robert Downey Jr., for example, had a hard time adapting to the demands of digital during shooting of David Fincher's "Zodiac". Unlike film, the digital camera is always rolling, so you never have to constantly change magazines of film. Some actors are familiar with the 'traditional' workings of being on a set - the cinematographer loads the film and 8-12 minutes of shooting time later, the magazine is full and needs to be replaced. During this time, actors are often 'taking a break' and getting prepared to repeat or do the next scene. But with digital, the physical process of loading film is non-existent. The camera is always rolling, and it's just a relentless continuation that can be infuriating for some actors. Many in the industry support this because they don't feel as 'pressured' to get a take down quickly as they are not going through reels and reels of film, and other actors resent it because it become too demanding and even challenging to their respective techniques and methods.

Also, I should note that I know somebody who works in the industry. As a director, he has worked with both traditional 35mm film and digital, and he propounds that the latter has contributed disconcertingly to the overall 'laziness' of some filmmakers. With digital, you have the luxury of easily eliminating your errors in post or 'creating' a look in post that otherwise could not be achieved if you are shooting with film and editing in traditional methods. Many filmmakers today who shoot with digital have no desire to actually flex their artistic muscles by attempting to naturally give a film a certain look. Why bother attempting to achieve a warm or cold or gritty look on the set when you easily accomplish that in digital colour grading? Why bother shooting a scene again just because there is some bad lighting and blur when you easily digitally manipulate that in post? These little things are yet another example of digital having its inadvertent effects on the filmmaking process.

The change to digital is much more paramount than what some believe. Yes, it's purely an economic issue at its heart, but the technology has actually impacted some integral components to the filmmaking process. Whether it is for better or worse remains another discussion for another time, of course.

That seems like a pretty stingy standard, and one that, if actually applied consistently, wouldn't allow for many opinions or discussions about anything. Which, if you actually believe, would seem to preclude pretty much all of your earlier responses in this thread.

And basing opinions on our own experiences (IE: anecdotes) is bound to produce narrow, idiosyncratic conclusions without much applicability to others.

Agreed, but I don't quantify experience as years--in this context, I quantify it in terms of actually watching films. Young people can watch and examine more films than older people, but generally they haven't, for simple logistical reasons.

It is certainly true that each generation will see art in new ways, and seeing that happen is lovely. But saying that is different than suggesting these new ways are better. That's just condemning the last generation in the same way they glibly condemn the next one. I don't know if any generation is "better" than the next, all things being equal, but I do that a young person is far more likely to hold opinions they will later reject upon further examination.

It's easy to forget this, but new generations are not actually questioning just the generation before. When they question prevailing opinions, they're questioning the accumulation of all human thought before them, on art or anything else.

Geez, this became a huge and very interesting discussion!

Bluedeed, I respect your opinion and you're right in a lot of things! However, I remember being 10 years old and be able to play with a stone for 3 hours if I hadn't anything alse at hand and I would still have fun! Do you think kids nowadays have that ability! Kids are curious naturally, they born with their minds open wide and eager to learn everything! We should feed their curiosity and show them the world, not a 5 inch screen!

Art lovers have always been a minority, I'm with you on that, but there's the danger that the minority reduces even more, because understanding art takes time, and on a society used to have and to know everything with one touch, taking time is not an option!

We should spread our good word, our favorite films to those who wouldn't ordinarily watch them. I'll burn people DVD's, whatever it is just to get them to watch.

Don't you think that's a good thing? Instead of having to play with a rock they now have a whole load of creative and educational resources available to them without having to go out and explore. Showing them the world doesn't necessarily mean going for walks, going on holiday, doing outdoor sports. It's amazing how so much can actually be learned about the world, as you say, on a 5 inch screen.

I think there's an important distinction between not having to do something and losing the capacity to be able to do it, and I assume the latter is what he means.

It's great that people don't have to be relegated to the things around them, but it's probably not great if they lose the ability to be captivated by those things, too. Technology is great as an addition; not as great as a replacement.

I've basically given up on the theatre. The last film that I saw at the movie theatre was The Avengers (April 2012).
It's much more comfortable to watch movies at home. No lines, no waiting, a pause button, my dog, cheaper food, more comfortable seating, the list goes on.

Home theaters are pretty nice these days, I have a large HD flat screen with apps. My remote slides out revealing a full keyboard.

My kids will play outside all day everyday, and after having kids I honestly don't think they are the minority as many would have you believe. Many parents would rather their kids be occupied by video games and TV when they are young, then when they get older they wonder why that is all they want to do.

What I find interesting about this conversation in the context of films is this. Many of you seem to be saying the next generation is so enamored with their little screens full of information that they are no longer going to be able to engage with this much bigger screen that is feeding them information. I know plenty of intelligent well read people that prefer film as entertainment as opposed to enlightenment. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

__________________
Letterboxd

This is something that bothers me now when I look out in my street (inner city) and see no kids playing out. I've seen less and less kids out playing in the 20 years since mine played out
It's not like there's no kids here cos I see them going to school and occasionally going to the park with their parents. I just want to say - leave them alone! Let them go to the park on their own for goodness sake!

There's 3 distinct discussions on this thread.

1...Has technology expanded or limited human understanding of art and cinema?

2...Are fans of modern Hollywood block busters any less of a movie fan, than those who favor foreign films, old B&W classics, etc?

3...Are digitally shot films better or worse than traditional films?

Maybe we need at least 2 other threads for #2 and #3?

Regarding #2...Why are we categorizing "fans"? Could we not be a fan of both? I don't see how these are mutually exclusive. Both "groups" are precarious. It's not a long walk from being closed-minded.

I agree with you Justin, those aren't my thoughts on the issues. Just what seems to be the topic of the thread.

I wasn't making similar judgments, I was posing potential counter arguments in order to make people think their arguments through

I think it's customary (and helpful), in situations like that, to make it clear that you're saying something for the sake of argument. Otherwise, I'm naturally going to assume you won't make an argument you think is invalid.

Moving past that, though, what are we left with? That we literally cannot have this conversation because you don't think it's ever appropriate to have opinions about the current generation? If so, I suppose I'll just have to respectfully disagree, for the reasons detailed in the rest of the post you just replied to.

Also still not clear on why my opinion on narcissism was singled out, when it turns out your objection is actually a whole lot broader. But I'm not sure how much to press this issue, not wanting to hijack the discussion away from film and all.