Cinema and its possibilities

or FILM PAST AND FILM FUTURE

July 2009
 Since 2006 I have been working on another book which I started by provisionally entitling ‘Cinema and its possibilities’ but I'm now calling 'Film Past and Film Future: reflections on film present'. It started with confronting the idea that film is a passive medium that eroded imaginative capacity rather than enhanced it, as painting and music do (to take two examples). My first thought was, ‘This won’t do – I can think of plenty of films that make demands on our mental capacities.’ My second thought was, ‘They’ve got a point there: films often do show too much, and browbeat us into submission.’ My third and fourth thoughts then became a flurry and the following questions rose to the surface:
 

  • What do we gain by the fact that film is such a good medium for sex, violence and horror?

  • Why is the cinema so good at suspense?

  • Has film transformed the artistic depiction of battle? Answer: yes.

  • What are the ethics of making films about the Holocaust? Is authenticity possible?

  • Why is the cinema so good at manipulating time?

  • What would films that engaged the nervous system (as opposed to a more detached intellectual faculty) look like?

  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the cinema relative to painting, opera and literature?

  • Is there an essence of film?

  • How far can film depict interior thought?

  • What might new ways of telling stories on film look like?

I have formulated an acrostic to keep reminding me what I want to say:

    I for imagination, which films need to engage

    T for theatrical virtues like acting and script: do we pay them too much attention?

     I for images, which are what I watch films for

     CE for cinema of excess, from which we currently suffer

      M for maturity, which cinema has not yet reached

      G for genius: what conditions are necessary for a Shakespeare of the cinema?

I have almost got a complete first draft together, ready for further pondering.