We had to read Adam Stiney’s “End of the 20th Century” article for class discussion. Stiney reflects on how cinema (most avant gard) was shaped during this century and speculates on who film lost and what that had done to film as a growing medium. Stiney mentions that with the death of these influential filmmakers it really put a damper on what was to be expected in the coming century as film progressed. I found the article insightful and to a degree, interesting. A lot of what Stiney had to say had this sense of nostalgia for old cinema, and who shouldn’t have that.
What I felt was a little unusual was how he starts off with such a (in a sense) lack of optimism for the future of cinema. In part looking back on the first 12 years of this century it has not produced as many profound and iconic symbols of expression as one may have hoped, and I think that is in part for where cinema has found itself. it has always been a business, and with the rise of commercial power it would only lead to a billion dollar industry being run by those who profit off it. It’s a shame that creative, fresh visions get “compromised” down to senseless slush and archaic formulas, all for the sake of knowing that people will pay to see this. It has monopolized and tarnished films ability to become an artistic medium over a medium aimed at consumer margins.. though that does not mean there are not talented people in the industry today. I think hollywood is in a transition period caught between greed and technology. So what would that have for the future?
With artists like Chris Nolan, Darren Aronofsky, Martin Scorsese, Mary Haron and plenty of the likes cinema is still a proving ground for commercial success and artistic passion. These filmmakers are capable of dynamically effusing their films with modern capabilities as well as preserving a cinematic philosophy that inspires many filmmakers everyday. Stiney had this low optimism for the films future but I feel that there is so much potential for new masters to arise, it just takes time.