Film Education

        Film is over one hundred years old at this point. This isn't just the creation of the medium, but the creation of the formal language that is film. However, few have a firm grasp on film. Sure, nearly everyone watches the latest blockbusters, but everyone gets film in some way- TV, commercials, just simple videos online. And now, with the internet, video is all around us, yet we really don't understand it any more than people did fifty years ago, and not even that much more than one hundred years.
       Perhaps that is one of the joys of film- the fact that it is an ultimate escape. You understand it all, understand the movement of time and editing as it is presented to you. You know that it can cut and resume in an entirely different place at an entirely different time. But is simple basic literacy enough? Film can go so much deeper than basic narratives, and can be picked apart and analyzed, like literature.
       Which brings me to the main comparison and point: There should be a greater movement to teach film education, like there is to increase literacy and literary appreciation. Film is all around us, and to understand it, we must know more about it. We must know its history, its uses, and its dangers. We must understand how it can be manipulated and how it can communicate ideas through complex cinematography and editing. We must learn how to understand filmic devices, like various types of montage, and how to analyze them and pull the author's intentions out.
       That is what we learn in English classes. Sure, we write daily, so we must know how to write, and how to interpret writing, but now, many important messages are conveyed through film and videos. While making film is not needed, understanding and comprehension is.
       Many documentaries, especially political ones, and topical drama films use filmic language to manipulate the audience into buying the message presented. This is also used in literature, and while it occasionally finds success, tricking audiences is much easier with film, which is ironic in a sense since in literature you are only required to show words, while film requires so much more input  However, every aspect can be subtly manipulated, allowing the author to convey his point with ease and keep audiences in the dark in regards to the attention.
       And so we are taught how to read critically. Another aspect of literary education is quality. People generally read good books. Sure, someone's going to throw a jab in about Twilight or Fifty Shades but that is a different mission. Books like that are not made with the same intention as acclaimed best sellers, and that's perfectly fine. However, I can't honestly say the majority of the most successful films are good. A large part of the reason is, and I'm really trying not to sound like a total fuck right here, is that they simply don't know better. Now, I'm not saying everything is a piece of shit and people are idiots, but I honestly believe the majority of audiences don't realize what films can do. They can do so much more than tell a simple narrative story, which most do. Sure, I love narrative film, but it is perhaps at its most interesting when it toys with the concept of story and works outside of that. Experimental(ish) literature has found great success, while experimental film has mainly received public backlash.
       Sure, some people love experimental films, but most don't get them at all. And that's fine, but perhaps the best use is blending it with narrative and conventional film language. Literature that "thinks outside the box is rewarded and publicly well received because a wider audience gets it, due to literary education. If you teach people how to understand written words, but not how to read they will fall back on primitive stories, not knowing how else to communicate. And that is where film currently is.
       However, the medium is still very young. The first stylistic works are about 100 years old, like the 1913 Student of Prague, which a still is shown from above. I'm not saying that the artform is dead, or decrepit  or dried up, or anything of that sort. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that it's so young that there's so much more to be discovered. We can understand much more. Film's language will become much more complex and its history much more dense. An exciting time awaits us. However, education is essential in the advancement of anything. People must know in order to create. And perhaps that has never been more true than in film.

How Spielberg's "Hollywood Implosion" theory isn't that crazy after all

        Last week, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas made a bold prediction regarding the future of the film industry, saying prices will skyrocket for blockbusters after a few 250Mil+ failures. Online, the reception of these comments has been pretty harsh to say the least, with Duncan Jones summarizing the comments as a "a fascinating insight into 2 out of touch, old men." That pretty much sums up the viewpoint of the internet, but really, people are forgetting how much Lucas and Spielburg know about the industry.
       The most common criticism of the statement is simply mentioning the prequel trilogy and Crystal Skull. But really, those two films are irrelevant to the directors' insights and knowledge of the industry. Spielburg continues to make highly acclaimed films, such as Lincoln from just last year. Is the internet's attention span so short that they actually forgot about Spielburg's award-nominated blockbuster. Lucas, on the other hand, has a different perspective- one of failure, after he fought with studios to make Red Tails and even after its completion, Lucas failed to get the marketing he desired, resulting in lackluster box office returns.
       In essence, the two are saying that in the near future, studios will lose huge amount of money on blockbusters. As a result, high-budgeted films will then have higher ticket prices, while lower-budgeted films will actually see a reduction of prices. Spielberg says that something like Iron Man 3 will cost $25 to see, while something like Lincoln will cost just $7. Spielburg goes on to say that in the future, blockbusters will be major events, like live sports or concerts, and thus will have premium prices.
       Many people claim that this is unrealistic, since today, films are almost instantly available online via a pirated copy, and people will simply stop going if prices raise that much. However, these critics seem to forget several things about Hollywood. First, Hollywood has always been about gimmicks designed to put people in seats, and have been doing so since the dawn of television. Be it 3-D, Imax, or a new experience, studios and theaters will invent ways to get people into theaters and if needed, make going to the cinema a major event.
       However, there's surely a limit. At some point, prices will be so high that people will just download a bootleg. But perhaps the biggest step in Spielburg's prediction coming a reality is Hollywood cracking down on piracy once and for all. Copyright laws will soon be altered, and very well could give studios more power to prosecute those that supply the illegal copies of movies, and even those who download them. If prices are raised drastically, studios would be able to force cinemas into hiring additional employees who monitor theaters looking for those with recording equipment. These could be trained studio employees, working at individual theaters with licences to "high-piracy" releases, equipped with special tools, knowledge and legal powers to stop would-be bootleggers and pirates.
       If the theater refuses to comply, then they simply stop getting blockbusters, driving down their attendance and revenue. Watermarks can be subtley placed over images, which is already being done with the Prima Cinema, a $35,000 device which allows individuals to watch first-run Hollywood films in their own home. the watermarks are undetectable to the human eye, but can be seen by computer programs easily. If each theater had a personal watermark on each print of a film, a leaked copy could be tracked to the theater, and even a particular screening.
       So, with raised security and strengthened legal powers, piracy can be seriously halted. If piracy is stifled, films could play for longer periods of time, and an eventual home video release could take place over a year after a theatrical release. I personally have no doubt that if something like Iron Man 3 was exclusive to cinemas for an entire year or more, people would flock to see it, no matter the price. Sure, less would likely be sold, but since the price of a ticket would be up 250%, and it would be screening for several months at a time, its budget would be quickly recovered.
       I am not saying Spielburg and Lucas are correct. Many variables are in play, but it is foolish to write off their predictions as two out of touch old men. At the very least, the world of high-budget cinema will soon change radically.