The Future of Film

This will be a short post for a large subject. One that could get even bigger in the next few years, but for now, I'll just contemplate instead of delve. I'm worried about the future of film. Not just as an art, but in its perception to the rest of the world. I don't have definitive reasons for my concerns, but trinkles here and there.

One thing that worries me is the rise of television and video games. Television has always been trying to mimic film, but it's different today. The major difference is that many top technicians are leaving film to work in television. It means better pay for them and more stability. The truth of television in the 1950s is that people could start out in television before moving into film. This was the case for Sam Peckinpah.

I don't really like most television. I've watched at least one episode of every popular show, but I haven't been very impressed. The fault I always lay against television is their reliance on soap opera tactics and half baked plots and ideas. Television shows look much better, but watching Lost or Heroes has been dissapointing for me. They want to change the approaches to television, but essentially, they feature the same low tier dramatics as any other bad show.

The problem is that television is beginning to make a shift into respectable art. Some shows are good and worthy of the praise, but most shows just fufill popular taste and reflect trends of viewership instead of the success of great art. Heroes and Lost are both top rated shows, as is most other critically acclaimed shows, but true art and success hardly ever runs hand in hand. I think people are trying to validate shows that are only cultural intrigues.

See, the study of popular culture is becoming more accepted all the time. Someone can read the pages of US Weekly and be a quality commentator is they have enough perspective to speak about the ins and outs of Hollywood. This mainly just leads to discussion about private lives, but popular culture just entails facts worthy of a trivia game only. The fact that the star of Kumar and Harold Go to Whitecastle taught a class at Harvard on teenage movies shouldn't be applauded for thinking outside the box, but looked down upon for elevating the most mundane subject to serious study.

I take the success of television show by show. I'm not convinced great new strides are being made. The bigger thing being done is that the differences between film and television are beginning to dissipate and if television begins to influence more films, there is a problem. I never believe the Oscars to be good for anything but Hollywood's pat on its back, but it's sad that every year bad movies are selected for Best Picture is kinda heart breaking. I may be getting older, but I don't see the Academy doing good ever again.

The future of serious film is that it may be reduced to a small audience only. The best film of the year will likely play in only five cities before going bust in each of them and then making a quiet debut on DVD. Critics will applaud the work, but have their attention distracted by all the hoopla everywhere else for bad movies. Critics sometimes are stubborn and driven by principles, but they also love to be commentators on trends. Only reviewing films no one sees is considered to be an act of making yourself obsolete in the field.