A few thoughts on cinema

It bothers me when people regard cinema as fleeting entertainment.

Stanley Kubrick once said, “The whole idea that a movie should be seen only once is an extension of our traditional conception of film as an ephemeral entertainment rather than as a visual art.” I couldn’t agree with you more, Mr. Kubrick. Cinema is not merely a vacuous form of “ephemeral entertainment,” but rather a true art form, I believe, that is quite indicative of a nation’s past and present. Its cultural and historical significance is monumental. Like the pottery of ancient Mesopotamia or the hieroglyphics of ancient Egypt, films tell a story of a people, of what they valued, of who they were.

Of course, like any artistic medium, there are productions that are exploited solely for monetary gain, thus not every form will be true to its medium, but that doesn’t make it any less valuable to the medium as a whole. If anything, it further illuminates the nature of the medium itself. It’s irksome to me when I have to explain to people the importance of cinema to our culture, or even the legitimacy of cinema studies—it is historic and far more influential than most people care to think, why does it not deserve its own medium-specific study? Is it not just as worthy as other art forms like sculpting, painting, writing, etc.? I believe it is simply because in the last 100 years it has influenced us far more than most people know, impacting decisions and opinions more than most other art forms. I’m not saying that cinema has more value than other art forms, but rather that cinema is art, is important, and should collectively be considered a legitimate value to our society despite the fact some of it is produced with profits in mind (Transformers I’m looking at you). All forms of art are vulnerable to this and yet their importance or legitimacy is never called into question. 

This is something I’ve been thinking a lot as I try to justify my career aspirations and academic endeavors. What do you all think?