Hello everyone and welcome to our video series, "A Timeline of World Cinema"
I'm Bradley Weatherholt and I will be your host on this journey through the history of film.
In this episode we will discuss contemporary cinema and the impact of modern technology on it.
We will also discuss the growing reliance on blockbusters, sequels and remakes.
Now, because we live in this period, it is a difficult era to define.
However, one thing is certain.
The consolidation of major studios by media conglomerates forever changed the world of cinema.
Under a strategy of diversification, the technology firm Sony purchased Columbia and media company
News Corp bought 20th Century Fox.
In 1989 Time and Warner consolidated for 20 billion dollars.
And with a renewed interest, Hollywood sought to concentrate the power and profit of global
marketplace under the American studio control.
Most name the 1930s and 1940s as the peak of Hollywood’s international footprint.
But the last twenty years stand as an era when Hollywood amassed an international presence,
superiority in mass media, and profit returns unparalleled in its history.
According to recent numbers from the MPAA, 70% of box office revenues come from international markets.
To achieve this, Hollywood spends more time and energy in marketing to international audiences.
In fact, studios now consider the influence on foreign markets over domestic markets when
determining which projects to greenlight.
Scripts now rely on less nuanced dialogue so as not to confuse a non-English speaking
country, and narratives involve safer plots, for fear of offending other cultures.
Unlike the bold, risky adaptations of the Golden Age, Hollywood now relies on already
established franchises.
Blockbusters now depend on everything from comic book superheroes to pre-teen novels
to bring in predictable profits.
Although Hollywood still produces some films for the family audience, particularly animations
films, the vast majority films are principally designed for young adult audiences.
Take, for instance, the 13 Harry Potter and Twilight films.
To continue to impress this demographic, Hollywood continues to escalate the amount of sex and
violence in each picture.
Blockbusters shy away from realism in favor of racy, exciting characters who can do all
the things basic TV cannot show.
By now, TV and movie theater markets are mutually dependent.
The majority of revenue earned by over half of films produced now comes from secondary
markets such as TV and video.
The argument can be made that seeing film on the small screen does not constitute a
cinematic experience.
Cinema at its purest relies on the theater experience, even in the increasingly complex
world of multimedia.
Neither video nor television could self-sufficiently market a feature length film.
Only theatrical distribution could sustain the businessmodel.
Studios realize this and continue to draw audiences to theaters.
One producer, Harvey Weinstein, completely understands this need for theater attendance.
Harvey Weinstein is one of the most influential producers of modern day.
In 1979 Weinstein co-founded Miramax with his brothers and ran the company until 2005.
Miramax had an early string of releases, but in 1989 with the release of Sex, Lies, and
Videotape, Miramax became a major independent studio.
In 1993 Disney purchased Miramax under the condition that the Weinsteins could still
manage the studio.
Disney allowed Weinstein the freedom to produce risky pictures such as Clerks and Pulp Fiction.
By this time, Weinstein was a Hollywood power player, commissioning critically acclaimed
films such as Shakespeare in Love, Good Will Hunting, and the Academy Award winning The
English Patient.
In 2005, Weinstein broke from Miramax, and with the help of other studio executives founded
The Weinstein Company.
Under TWC Weinstein has released almost an unbroken chain of successful films.
Academy Award nominated Inglorious Basterds, The Reader and Django Unchained, as well as
Best Picture winners The Artist and The King’s Speech, all released under Weinstein’s commission.
Many factors explain Weinstein’s success.
His lucrative distribution of foreign films, his courage in producing risky art productions,
and his creative business practices elevated him to the top of Hollywood.
His strategy of slow release, a practice where a studio opens a film in few theaters, then
gradually increases the theater count over the following weeks, highlights his business
savvy.
Since most of the box office revenues from opening weeks go to theater companies, slow
release ensures the revenue is generated in weeks where the studios receive the largest share.
The strategy is just another way Harvey Weinstein continues to influence modern cinema.
Harvey Weinstein is not only a figure of American cinema, but world cinema as a whole.
In the last few decades, global film has grown exponentially.
European productions from directors such as Michael Haneke and Lars Von Trier continue
to push the artistic boundaries of cinema.
In Latin America, director Guillermo Del Toro fantasizes worlds of color and horror, while
Alfonso Cuaron uses his films as a platform for philosophical investigation.
Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki produced the best animation films since Walt Disney.
Taiwanese director Edward Yang’s Yi Yi heralded a series of Asian art house dramas.
Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul, who cinephiles endearingly call Joe, has had a
prolific career, spanning several acclaimed films which are highly innovative in their
narrative and structure.
However, one film, Wong Kar-Wai’s In the Mood For Love serves as the movement’s most
celebrated film.
In the Mood for Love is probably the most and least aptly named movie.
On one end, the title perfectly describes the film, from the soundtrack motif to the
lush colorscape, the entire movie is mood.
At the opposing end, not much love happens, or in the very least, not much is consummated.
When two married couples move into a Hong Kong apartment in 1962, an affair takes place.
Rather than follow the husband/wife portion committing the affair, the film involves the
faithful half as they meet to discuss the pain they feel from their unfaithful spouses.
The sexual tension is palpable, but rather than settle for the obvious, Wong Kar-Wai
does not allow the couple any relief.
Like so much in the film, the narrative goes against convention.
In a time where audiences demand either violent or sexual fulfillment from their protagonist,
In the Mood for Love strays from both.
The result is not only a beautiful film, but one which is truly authentic.
One, that like life, is ambiguous and riddled with questions.
In the Mood for Love, like most artistic developments after the 1970s, happened outside of the mainstream.
For the most part, the changes in world cinema since 1945 have happened gradually.
However, occasionally an event transpires that revolutionizes the industry.
Sound, the studio system, and television all belong to these revolutions.
And now, a new one, the birth of digital cinema, revolutionizes what is possible with cinema.
Film purists such as Quentin Tarantino refuse to adopt video cameras.
But now digital photography is the standard.
Many love digital for the cost saving measures.
But is cinema really getting cheaper?
It’s easy to forget that most of the costs associated with movie budgeting is not related
to camera technology at all.
SAG wages don’t change with digital productions, nor do the costs of food or locations.
And make up, labor and almost every other aspect of cinema production remain the same
regardless of the capturing medium.
In fact, some digital technologies such as 3D actually increase production cost.
Another misconception of digital is that in somehow heralds the beginning of the end of cinema
To say that cinema is dying or in the state of decline since the 1940s, is to define cinema
only in terms of the Golden Age of Hollywood.
It is to arbitrarily limit cinema to one period of history.
One might as soon say that painting died with the Renaissance.
One could just as soon say cinema died with The Birth of a Nation, given that their definition
of cinema was that of the theater of attractions.
Instead of limiting cinema to one interpretation, why not define cinema as an ever-changing art?
If one chooses to see cinema as an evolving medium that has survived the birth of sound,
the revolution of color, the censorships of government, the rise of television, and much
more, one will see cinema is far from dying.
It is alive and changing.
And will continue to thrive even in the coming century with the concerns of digital filmmaking
and the internet.