The Decay of Cinema by Susan Sontag (1996)

Key Ideas and Facts: Cinema's Life Cycle and Decline: Sontag posits that cinema has followed a predictable life cycle: "an inevitable birth, the steady accumulation of glories and the onset in the last decade of an ignominious, irreversible decline." She notes that while admirable films still exist, they are "exceptions" and "violations of the norms and practices that now govern movie making everywhere." Ordinary commercial films are described as "astonishingly witless" and failing to connect with audiences. The Death of Cinephilia: A central tenet of Sontag's argument is that the decline of cinema is intrinsically linked to the death of "cinephilia," which she defines as "the name of the very specific kind of love that cinema inspired." This love was born of the conviction that cinema was a unique, modern, accessible, poetic, mysterious, erotic, and moral art form. Cinephiles saw cinema as encapsulating everything, "both the book of art and the book of life." The Dual Origins of Cinema: Sontag acknowledges the dual beginnings of cinema in 1895 with the Lumiere brothers (transcription of reality) and Melies (invention/fantasy). However, she argues that for early audiences, even the "transcription of the most banal reality" was a "fantastic experience." This initial "wonder" is something she feels cinema has struggled to perpetuate and reinvent. The Transformative Experience of Going to the Movies: Sontag emphasises the unique and immersive experience of watching films in a theatre. It was a place where you learned how to navigate life and "lose yourself in other people's lives... faces." The act of "going to the movies" was crucial, and seeing a great film "only on television isn't to have really seen that film." She argues that the "conditions of paying attention in a domestic space are radically disrespectful of film" and that to be truly "kidnapped" by a movie requires being "in a movie theater, seated in the dark among anonymous strangers." The Undermining of Standards: The ubiquitous nature of moving images, appearing on various surfaces beyond the traditional cinema screen, has "steadily undermined the standards people once had both for cinema as art and for cinema as popular entertainment." The Shift from Art to Industry: Sontag notes there was little difference between art and entertainment. However, the "Hollywood system" solidified commercial standards after the advent of sound, challenging the work of original directors. While a period from the mid-1950s saw a resurgence of "original, passionate films of the highest seriousness," the balance has now "tipped decisively in favor of cinema as an industry." The Impact of Rising Production Costs: The "catastrophic rise in production costs in the 1980's" led to a need for films to be immediately profitable, favouring "the blockbuster over the low-budget film." This trend also resulted in shorter theatrical release times and the design of movies for direct-to-video release, contributing to the closure of cinemas. The Struggle of Ambitious Directors: The commercial pressures make it "virtually impossible for artistically ambitious American directors... to work at their best level." Similarly, renowned international directors face difficulties in securing funding and maintaining their artistic vision. The Changing Nature of Film Appreciation: While people still enjoy watching movies, the "distinctive cinephilic love" is less common, particularly among the young. Cinephilia, which values films as "unique, unrepeatable, magic experiences" and supports the idea of the film as a "poetic object," is seen as "quaint, outmoded, snobbish" in the era of "hyperindustrial films." The Link Between Cinephilia and Cinema's Future: Sontag concludes that "If cinephilia is dead, then movies are dead too... no matter how many movies, even very good ones, go on being made." She suggests that a resurrection of cinema would require "the birth of a new kind of cine-love."