1. What trends do you see happening in the world of film right now?


2. What do you think will have changed about filmmaking 20 years from now?

3. After the dust of The Passion settles, do you think Christians will continue growing as a vocal presence in the cultural dialogue over cinema and art?

4. In 20 years, who will be the cinema giants... the Coppolas, Spielbergs, and Altmans ... and why?

Image?

(Oh, re-scanning this thread, I realize that sounds like an extremely cryptic answer to your questions. Ooops. Meant to be an extremely cryptic question about your subject.)

[quote]2. What do you think will have changed about filmmaking 20 years from now?[/quote]

It won't be on film . . . or even tape for that matter. I'd imagine that uncompressed hi-def films will fit on little cards the size of today's flash media.

But we'll probably still refer to them as films.

Here are a few thoughts that are congealing in an article form, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts as well.

Optimistic:
Small art films will become more and more accessible thanks to the increasing influence of arthouse directors/writers in Hollywood (Sofia Coppola, PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Spike Jonze, Charlie Kaufman, Coen Brothers, etc.)

Unconventional storytelling techniques will become more common, challenging audiences to use their heads more.

Further disintegration of the line between porn and "arthouse" ... both in terms of sex AND violence.


Pessimistic:
Thanks to the Lord of the Rings and WETA Digital, fantasy will flood the big screens, with increasingly dazzling spectacle and yet strangely limp storytelling. And thus Lord of the Rings will look even better in retrospect than it does now.

More and more anti-war films, more and more anti-American sentiment onscreen.

More Bible-oriented films, with more and more diluted Christianity.

...For starters.

Some abreviated, off the cuff comments:
[quote]1. What trends do you see happening in the world of film right now?[/quote]
-Film festivals will continue to grow in number and popularity
-The playing field will be somewhat levelled by the democratization of the film business, especially on the distribution side. Niche markets will become increasingly important as a growing number of TV channels, streaming media opportunities and Direct to Video all continue to expand
-Regrettably, I think pornography is moving into the mainstream. I've started gathering information for an article about this ...and the Super Bowl furor aside, I see the trend moving that direction. The stigma of the "adult" business is waning.
-There is a reliance on known entities, ie, books/characters/franchises that have notoriety. This has led to a bland sameness in which Lost in Translation and The Passion standout. (Same goes double for Norah Jones in the field of music.)

[quote]2. What do you think will have changed about filmmaking 20 years from now?[/quote]
-I think there will be a lot of things the same, but I expect more films and smaller films (average budgets will be smaller)

[quote]3. After the dust of The Passion settles, do you think Christians will continue growing as a vocal presence in the cultural dialogue over cinema and art?[/quote]
-Without question. There are members of this board who have earned the right to be heard as the result of their contribution to the debate, and that alone will be important. I also think The Passion has broken through a stubborn resistance to the medium of film that has remained in the church since the early days of the cinema. Unfortunately, some of the comments made in support of this film may prove to be unhelpful in the longterm. For example, comments about the Bible being "R-rated" will be used to defend future Bible-based projects of questionable merit. We may have set ourselves up for controversy in this regard.
Christian engagement with the visual arts is likely where we were with music 20 years ago. The music business, for all it's flaws, has benefitted from Christian radio, PR (reviews and press coverage), tours and a solid distribution model, but film and video has lagged far behind. Christian films have tended to be sub-par, but even the good projects have been largely ignored, and a renewed debate over the visual arts would be a tremendous benefit to all of us.

[quote]4. In 20 years, who will be the cinema giants... the Coppolas, Spielbergs, and Altmans ... and why?[/quote]
I nominate SoNowThen. :wink:
It may be that the finest films remain to be conceived in the minds of Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and Ron Howard, but for all their future success, the cinema giants of 2025 will likely be those who are today unknown.

Shyamalan will become the next Spielberg, which is to say he'll make bland films that make a ton of money and don't give any significant advances to the art of cinema.

Anyone and everyone will make a digital movie, but after a huge fallout, hopefully the cream will rise to the top. Notice I say hopefully.

What used to be Rohmer-style 16mm movies will be done on DV (which will rise in price exponentially with its growing popularity).

Sadly, quick cutting and handheld will stay in vogue. Music video directors will continue to flood into the film biz, which means that any lasting literary mindedness will be diluted out. Pop films will more and more take on the structure of video games rather than novels/plays/operas.

A critical revival will FINALLY recognize the brilliance of Scorsese's 90's work.

PT & Wes Anderson will be kings. Soderbergh will be revered, and will continue to make vastly different and interesting films. Look for Roman to meet (and possibly pass) Sophia in terms of the next generation of Coppolas. Okay, that's just a hope of mine. :wink:

Somebody has to come along and pull a Godard, and yank the carpet out and lead a new form revolution (especially in sound). Like Welles said, cinema is still young.


***
Oh, and thanks, Tim.

[quote]1. What trends do you see happening in the world of film right now? [/quote]
I would definitely say that the Independent/Art house films and directors are going to come to the forefront, especially as we see more and more prominent actors grace the script and screen with their presence in these productions.

I also think there will be a larger push in the general direction of film as art, a la Avant Garde. Creating visual imagery to stimulate thinking. Everything is cyclical and since the visual media of film (and digital respectively) is relatively new, in relation to all other art forms, I think we will begin to see the cyclical effect. The cycle of trends that established new art form ideas for a medium but with a present twist of today’s times, culture and ideas.

There are many underground festivals sprouting up everywhere so I think we may see a larger underground movement, especially in regard to web movies. I don't think the web has even begun to tap into its potential as a film/movie vehicle. Once larger bandwidth becomes more common we will begin to see much more of this.


[quote]
2. What do you think will have changed about filmmaking 20 years from now?
[/quote]
More will be permissible and make it to the large screen and its audience. This is more to do with the world than the filmmaking. The digital world of movie making will have advanced for certain and will play a much more prominent role.

[quote]
3. After the dust of The Passion settles, do you think Christians will continue growing as a vocal presence in the cultural dialogue over cinema and art?
[/quote]
I hope so but sadly enough I think not. Christians already possess a stigmatism when it comes to the “quality” of art and we will always be dealing with a controversial subject in Christ which, I believe, will keep our presence monitored.
[quote]
4. In 20 years, who will be the cinema giants... the Coppolas, Spielbergs, and Altmans ... and why?[/quote]
Is this question in retrospect? Directors we will look back upon and give this title to or upcoming directors that will replace these as the current “cinema giants”?

[quote]1. What trends do you see happening in the world of film right now? [/quote]

I think there might be a movement (eventually) from the whole realm of MTV-esque type movies. (XXX, Michael Bay movies, etc.) It seems that a lot of these type films are starting to fade out in some ways, and I think more movie-goers are starting to clamor for more films (even if that means we get another poor retread of The Matrix) that mean more than "flash-bang". Heck, X-Men 2 attempted to make you to think about a couple of issues.

[quote]
2. What do you think will have changed about filmmaking 20 years from now? [/quote]

The independent directors will be the big-shots in Hollywood. We are seeing some of that now (the Soderbergh's, the Andersons' - Paul T. and Wes, both Roman and Sofia Coppola) and hopefully more producers and movie companies will realize that many want to see films that are more thoughful. Maybe even something like Pirates of the Caribbean where you can have fun, but not treat the audience like a bunch of 10-year old boys.

Hopefully more quality work from female directors. I know that there are some out there, but right now the ones working often make these films that are either smaltzy in their feminist rantings, or the typical "chick-flick" films.

[quote]3. After the dust of The Passion settles, do you think Christians will continue growing as a vocal presence in the cultural dialogue over cinema and art?[/quote]

I fear not. I have a bad feeling that Passion will end up biting the church in the behind. Now that Hollywood has another target audience to get money from (and promote films in), what's to stop them from filming stuff that's "enriching" but spiritually bankrupt, then fooling the church into buying it? (The church itself, but you would think that the way many have talked to me, Passion is another gospel in the Bible.)

I hope thoughtful Christians are more involved in the discussion. Not the likes of Dobson, Robertson, etc, who have no clue about the film industry, but people who are educated in the arts and can bring that Christian truth into their art.

[quote]4. In 20 years, who will be the cinema giants... the Coppolas, Spielbergs, and Altmans ... and why?[/quote]

I don't really know. I can't see the forest through the trees in this aspect. :wink:

[quote]1. What trends do you see happening in the world of film right now?


2. What do you think will have changed about filmmaking 20 years from now? [/quote]
I'm good at history. Not as good at answering questions such as these without historical reference
[quote]
3. After the dust of The Passion settles, do you think Christians will continue growing as a vocal presence in the cultural dialogue over cinema and art?[/quote]
Here, I have more to work with and more to compare. Film has lagged behind music in the christian community. I suspect that for a time, things will go back to the way they were and christians will attempt to enjoy anything with a biblical theme. Down the road, I think that the niche market will demand ghetto-ised films that appeal to conservative christians, not unlike what we have seen the last 30 years, but with much better quality and production values. I have a feeling that conservative christians will re-exempt themselves from public debate in the near future and take their media with them. They will drive more ecumenical bretheren from their midst and send more Irenic artists and those not explicitly christian in their work with them.
[quote]
4. In 20 years, who will be the cinema giants... the Coppolas, Spielbergs, and Altmans ... and why?[/quote]
I'm not convinced that the reps of Spielberg and Lucas will last. Coppola, maybe. Very uneven with Rocky Mountains peaks and valleys. Among the living, Soderbergh, Altman, the Coens maybe, Crowe and Tarantino if they can actually start making films regularly, otherwise no. Maybe Carl Franklin and not Spike Lee. Hopefully, Bill Duke and the Weitz brothers. Too early to tell about Sophia.

In response to the question about The Passion Tim said:[quote]The music business, for all it's flaws, has benefitted from Christian radio, PR (reviews and press coverage), tours and a solid distribution model[/quote]

Ugh, it's been a long time since I disagreed with a statement as much as I do with this one.

Christian Radio and PR have taught Christians how to market art but not how to make it. They've learned the business of music, not the beauty of it. And I'm afraid The Passion will do the same for Christians and filmmaking. They'll take all the wrong lessons from the success of the film and start to believe that good filmmaking is expensive, and spectacular filmmaking. I can hear the push now, "The reason we haven't been making an impact through film, is because we've been unwilling to invest in it. We need to spend BIG money on marketing!! We don't need to pay writers, we've already got 66 books full of the perfect script." Gosh, I hope I'm wrong.

1. What trends do you see happening in the world of film right now?

2. What do you think will have changed about filmmaking 20 years from now?

Taking these together I reckon they'll be a few differences

a - Films will continue to get shorter (compare the major epics of the 60s with the average length now). The 90 minutes minimum time will shrink as attention spans do.

b - More narratives will be non-linear, at least over the next 10 years then who knows what. I also expect more non-narrative films such as Koyaanisqatsi. I know that was 20 years ago, but I think the next 20 years will see a progression away from that as an experiment to a more consistent sub-genre.

c - Films will be less violent. The Passion of the Christ maybe something of a plumbline in this regard.

d - Pornography will become more acceptable, but I also reckon it will peak towards the end of the next 20 years and will have just started swinging back (I feel violence is doing at the moment FWIW)

e - They'll be less trash films as the web & technology takes over. The attitude will be more well if you're going to drag me out of my house at least make it worth watching. SO films that have little offer visually will be seen more over the web at home, leaving the multiplexes free for visually interesting films (even if there will still lots of explosions & stunts films).

f - New technology will re-enliven At a guess it might be thru' 3D surround headsets

g - video games, interactive TV and videos will dovetail. i.e. at the moment games are becoming more and more film like and self determined in a sense. Also DVDs are increasinly allowing you to be the director in a sense. I think these trends will expand with two outcomes
i - Perhaps we'll get DVDs (or whatever we have then) of footage and be able to edit your own movie from the footage, choose your own camera angles etc.
ii - Just like you can be in your own video game like you can now (you can design your own characters. My sister in law plays a skater game here the skater looks just like her), this will increase into the field of movies so you can be in your own film, determine where it goes etc.

3. After the dust of The Passion settles, do you think Christians will continue growing as a vocal presence in the cultural dialogue over cinema and art?

Well there was a definite trend in this direction any way before the Passion. It could provide a watershed, who knows . I got more into films via Jesus films so why shouldn't others?


4. In 20 years, who will be the cinema giants... the Coppolas, Spielbergs, and Altmans ... and why?

No idea. Probably some dude we've not even heard of.


Matt

[quote]I'm not convinced that the reps of Spielberg and Lucas will last. Coppola, maybe.[/quote]

Well, that's funny cuz I'm think Spielberg has had a much more consistant career than Coppola. Sure Coppola made The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, but he also has made some dogs, and hasn't even really directed much in the last ten years (except Jack IIRC). Whereas Spielberg had Jaws, E.T., Jurassic Park not to mention Indiana Jones, as well as Schindler's List and Private Ryan. Also, Spielberg is doing some of his most interesting work now. Even if you're not a fan you must admit that he keeps trying interesting projects (A.I., whether you consider it a failure or not was a daring project). So I think Spielberg will be remembered as one of the masters of the late twentieth century, along with Scorcese.

1. What trends do you see happening in the world of film right now?

A. The globalization of our perspective on film. The "international festival" is fast becoming the arbiter for culture of what is good and what isn't. This situation will continue to affect our tastes. American film is opening up to dialogue more clearly with international film, the independent arena has become the mainstream of cultural discussion. America will produce more and more films that fare well on the international circuit.

B. Digital. Digital. Digital.

C. The average filmgoer's knowledge of film history will increase. With the rise of reprints and revivals through people like Criterion, film audiences are going to be as snobbish as they were in the 60's.

2. What do you think will have changed about filmmaking 20 years from now?

A. Digital. Digital. Digital. Not to be facetious, but this is and will be the major change in film production. We can't talk about digital the same way we can talk about film. There is an entirely different ontology behind what is going on in the filming and viewing process. The film community is going to come to grips with this, and already is in some quarters. DV is a much bigger deal than many now suppose it is.

3. After the dust of The Passion settles, do you think Christians will continue growing as a vocal presence in the cultural dialogue over cinema and art?

Only if we have some theorists rise up among us. Much Christian criticism is still little other than reader response. This is definitely changing, but we won't be able to produce any serious interaction unless we are able to produce a new rubric or framework out of which this discussion will arise.

Otherwise we will still be stuck in the reader-response ghetto.

4. In 20 years, who will be the cinema giants... the Coppolas, Spielbergs, and Altmans ... and why?

Predictions:

A. Maddin will direct several absolute masterpieces and score one for the non-linear, Lynch will fade into an obscurity working on projects that never reach the critical mass in terms of audience.

B. Wes Anderson will become the "face" of American cinema for his generation. He and guys like Jonze, Gondry, Kaufman, et al. will be lumped together and seen as the New American Cinema. Right after that happens we will sit around a moan about the death of the New American Cinema.

C. Dumont will make a few more films that revitalize the French tradition, Ozon will become the new Chabrol and pump out Fassbinder retreads for the next few decades.

D. Lynne Ramsay will get her come-uppance.

E. Mike Leigh will supercede even himself.

F. The Latin directors will come under the sway of American dollars and put out a litany of things like 21 Grams.

G. Sokurov and others will continue to work in the grand Russian tradition, and soon that will become a rut just like any other. We may actually see though a new slate of films like Brat or Taxi Blues out of Russia that are really good storytelling vehicles.

H. As far as American directors go, we will continue to revere the 70's and claim them as our patron saints. We still haven't gotten over Cassevetes (which is fine with me), but it is really cool to see someone like S. Copolla nod to someone like Wong Kar Wai.

[quote]Well, that's funny cuz I'm think Spielberg has had a much more consistant career than Coppola. Sure Coppola made The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, but he also has made some dogs, and hasn't even really directed much in the last ten years (except Jack IIRC). Whereas Spielberg had Jaws, E.T., Jurassic Park not to mention Indiana Jones, as well as Schindler's List and Private Ryan. Also, Spielberg is doing some of his most interesting work now. Even if you're not a fan you must admit that he keeps trying interesting projects (A.I., whether you consider it a failure or not was a daring project). So I think Spielberg will be remembered as one of the masters of the late twentieth century, along with Scorcese.[/quote]
I'm not as impressed with the complete body of Spielberg's work as you are. Yes, many of his early films show technical mastery of film, but I have never, until recently, been impressed with his choice of topics or his way with performers, despite critical fawning over the latter. I confess to having winced at your mention of him in the same phrase as Scorcese on two counts, 1) that I failed to mention Scorcese, and 2) that Spielberg doesn't deserve it other than for alphbetical purposes. OTOH, while Coppola's valleys have often been pretty bad, the GF trilogy and Apocolypse Now alone are, as Billy Wilder said of Welles and his Citizen Kane, "a career". I think that Schindler and Ryan approach Coppola's peaks, but chiefly on the power of the subject matter. I mean no offense to your own taste when I shudder at what Spielberg might have done with the squalid potboiler that was "The Godfather". OTOH, one wonders what sort of brooding maniac Coppola might have wrought with Indiana Jones.

Interesting. I was on a panel of film critics that appeared before the public in a forum held by the Florida Film Festival last Saturday and this is one of the questions that was asked of us.

To summarize, the panel seemed to think that the biggest development on the horizon that will greatly affect the film industry will be in the area of distribution. Passionate filmmakers will always find a way to make their movies. As our technology improves, not only will they be able to make their films with smaller budgets but those films will also be able to reach more and more people.

Added to the above issue, one of the panel members suggested that as technology improves, it will be necessary for filmmakers and studios (especially independents) to become more aware of marketing strategies. The competition for attention will become even more intense than it is now due to the increased number of films that will be able to made. New and different marketing strategies will become necessary. The Passion of the Christ was mentioned as an example - as was The Blair Witch Project - both of which had unusual marketing plans that worked brilliantly.

[quote]In response to the question about The Passion Tim said:[quote]The music business, for all it's flaws, has benefitted from Christian radio, PR (reviews and press coverage), tours and a solid distribution model[/quote]

Ugh, it's been a long time since I disagreed with a statement as much as I do with this one.

Christian Radio and PR have taught Christians how to market art but not how to make it. They've learned the business of music, not the beauty of it. And I'm afraid The Passion will do the same for Christians and filmmaking. (snip) [/quote]

Dan, you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't mean that the quality of Christian music improved as the result of radio, marketing, etc. (although some of it did unquestionably improve). I was merely referring to the success of the genre. Before Amy Grant, no-one sold more than 20,000-30,000 albums, and there were relatively few artists. Now Christian music is one of the top-selling genres, rivalling country music in sales. The publishing industry has experienced similar growth in sales due in part to the liveliness of the discussion surrounding books.

In the same way, notoriety would improve the size of the market for 'Christian films'--and that's the only way it will be a sustainable genre. Will poor film-makers and bad storytellers move into that market? Of course--same as in the mainstream market. But quality storytellers would have a chance to make great films as a vocation, whereas right now they have no place to showcase their work (or, at least, limited opportunities) and little return on their investment.

It also means that many Christian viewers never consider the aesthetics of the art form with the help of intelligent, thoughtful, faith-informed reviews. That's why I believe the work of this board is vital.

QUOTE

1. What trends do you see happening in the world of film right now?   2. What do you think will have changed about filmmaking 20 years from now?   Taking these together I reckon they'll be a few differences a - Films will continue to get shorter (compare the major epics of the 60s with the average length now). The 90 minutes minimum time will shrink as attention spans do.

This isn't my perception. Seems to me that LONG movies have definitely come to the fore in the past few years. Eighties, it was pretty exceptional for a movie to run more than two hours. Now, much longer films are far more common.

But that's completely a subjective perception. If I had a bit of time, I'd love to scan IMDb and figure out average run time, year by year, of say the top twenty films?

Not going to happen this month...

You don't think its just that you're watching better films now than you did in the eighties?

It just seems to be that people think th Passion at 2hrs and 10 minutes is a long film. Whereas when Stevens made the Greatest Story the original cut was over twice that length (tho it got cut pretty rapidly as it failed).

Most of the films that are 90 minutes in my collection are from the last 10-20 years.

Matt

MattPage wrote:
: It just seems to be that people think th Passion at 2hrs and 10 minutes is
: a long film.

I don't think people complain about the length of The Passion so much as what Gibson does with that length. While I have never tabulated the length of films in the last few years vs. the length of films in earlier eras, I do think it is remarkable that a piece of cotton-candy fluff like Pirates of the Caribbean could be as well over 2 hours as it was.

: Whereas when Stevens made the Greatest Story the original cut was
: over twice that length (tho it got cut pretty rapidly as it failed).

That film also had an intermission, though. Quite a few films from that era had intermissions. What I think is remarkable now is the sheer number of films that go to three hours or so WITHOUT intermissions -- the only brand-new film with an intermission that I can recall in the past decade or more is Kenneth Branagh's four-hour Hamlet (1996).

QUOTE

Dan, you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

ahh, I do see your point. Thanks for clarifying so effectively.