Is Cinema Really Dead?

Last night I watched the documentary Side by Side, which explores the science and impact digital has had on cinema. Narrated by Keanu Reeves the film boasts an impressive cast of directors and cinematographers, all of whom give their independent opinion on whether or not digital is killing the art of filming.

Personally I really enjoyed the documentary and it got me to thinking about the importance of cinema in modern culture and if it’s possible to answer the big question, is cinema dead?

As mentioned by one of the interviewees, in the past the cinema was like a church, is was a space that allowed people to gather together and share an experience. It was joy, enlightenment and escapism. However it was also deemed as low culture aimed at the masses. Perceived by critics as having no substance or value, its only redeeming quality as far as they were concerned was that it allowed the lower classes to escape their mundane lives.

In Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World he critiques cinema as part of a process that leaves people “blissfully ignorant”. Within his novel the aristocracy use the cinema to make the lower classes feel content with the simplicity of their lives. This was reflecting what many philosophers and sociologist felt at the time, especially considering the belief among many of them, that cinema would eventually kill true art forms like literature and paintings. 

When the leading figures from French 'New Wave' cinema - André Bazin being the key individual - coined the term ‘auteur’ to describe several American filmmakers including Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock, the typical ideology and discourse surrounding cinema changed. People could see that films could be more than simple entertainment; they could also educate, inform and influence. Essentially they became a respected form of art.

Films like Breathless and 500 Blows gained both huge critical and financial success, and from this point onwards the cinema became increasingly more popular. When America had its own cinematic revolution, led by the likes of Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese, it looked like there was only one way for cinema....up!

With the added help of the introduction of blockbuster films (Star Wars and Jaws being at the forefront), it seemed there was nothing that could stop the rise of the cinema. The studios where making increasingly greater amounts of money and the filmmakers where making increasingly better films. 

However the Internet was to completely change that……

(part 2 of this blog will be coming soon.)

The Apple Brand - Store and Site

I think it’s fair to say that Apple has become one of the most recognisable brands of our time, but where so many have failed, how is it that Apple became iconic and a symbol of modern culture? More to the point, how can Apple still make profits in a world where the internet offers so many competitively priced competitors? 

In my last blog post I commented on how Apple (in my opinion) had successfully created a unique environment in their stores where rather than being encouraged to buy, you were encouraged to absorb the experience. I went onto say that there is a counter-argument that experience does not always equal sales. However what I didn’t say was what my response to this would be…

Although the Apple Store does not necessary motivate people to buy products there and then, it does encourage customers to buy directly from Apple (whether that’s online or in store) rather than another store/site (such as PC World or Currys). This is very different to the norm where customers don’t feel obliged to buy from one particular company. So why do people naturally feel as if they have to be loyal to Apple?

As we all know the Apple Store essentially works as a showroom, where customers are urged to browse and fully experience each product supported by expert 'evangelists'. This allows for a relationship to develop between the brand and the person, where one not only feels obliged to stay loyal but also wants to stay loyal. Online - as you would expect - the brand shares many of the same attributes (space, minimal colours, expert help etc) allowing the customer to see a direct correlation between the two.

Not many companies build that kind of relationship between brand and customer, website and store - perhaps this was another reason for HMV's problems.