22 Dec Film Fund-amentals: Reflections in a Crystal Ball

Prophesy is a tough business. Even the best prophets have a pretty low accuracy rate, and the entire profession is open to many well-deserved bad jokes and cheap shots. The only positive side is that the job requires no advanced degree, and you get to make it all up. It’s my kind of work.

Even in the realm of technology and scientific predictions, the record is shaky. In 1876, Western Union dismissed the telephone as a useless gadget. Thomas Edison saw no future for either movies or the radio. In the late 1950s, 3D was going to be the salvation of the Hollywood cinema. No wonder George Lucas was roundly dismissed in 2007 when he predicted the end of the blockbuster and the coming of digital downloadable movies. Obviously, George was getting a tad senile or…

…Maybe Lucas is right. He’s just a little off on the timeline. Everything that Lucas predicted in 2007 is actually what is happening now, and the next several years will be unlike anything the industry has ever seen in its long history. This isn’t even a prediction. It is simply a fact. Besides, Lucas and his staff are deeply involved in developing this future with the boys at the Ranch, working under secrecy that almost resembles the veil drawn over Area 51 (ironically, also known as the Ranch). Heck, Lucas is so secretive he even once denied a visit request from Ronald Reagan.

So obviously nobody really has a clue what is under development, but reasonable guesses abound. It is possible that work is being done on a usable system of 3D that does not involve glasses (current versions force the viewer to remain in a fixed, unmoving position). A successful and practical approach to full-length holographic movies will eventually emerge, with or without the boys at the Ranch (though currently all known approaches are small and extremely limited).

As CGI software programs increase in sophistication and decrease in cost, movies will increasingly have little (or no) need for actual real objects for filming (unless the director is really into that natural thing). It’s already happening, but eventually there will be no need for even props or basic sets (kind of like Frank Miller’s experiment in the movie The Spirit, minus the movie’s sense of graphic abstraction). It will all be in the program, wall-to-wall synthetic reality. It will be the complete digital universe. Eventually, this will also include the actors.

Oddly enough, this is the main point that recently garnered attention. Though Lucas was quick to deny that he was pursuing any form of digital grave-robbing, the first steps in this direction have already been achieved. Years ago, John Wayne was selling beer. More recently, Steve McQueen was advertising Mustangs. At the end of Wolverine, Patrick Stewart loaned his likeness but not his actual body. Currently, the process is still based on using existing footage from old movies. Soon, entire “performances” will be created within the software program, disconnected from any previous footage of the deceased. The only major stumbling block is the legal issue over who owns a dead actor’s image. The process has already opened up a vast new territory for litigation attorneys.

The age of mechanical reproduction ended years ago (we simply can’t agree on the date). The era of digital synthetic reality is still evolving, but the changes are already well underway. Aside from the technical issues, this new era carries profound ramifications that reverberate through many other channels (diverse, widespread and yet interconnected). For all practical purposes, the concept of reality in cinema is over (roll over Siegfried Kracauer and tell Andre Bazin the news). The notion that there is a special relationship between the photographic and cinematographic image and reality is now utterly meaningless. The result resembles a dirigible that has lost its mooring to the ground and is free-floating through uncharted skies. Maybe this is good and maybe it isn’t. I don’t think anyone really has a clue (and very little thought has been given to the subject; the changes have all been too quick to really be intellectually digested).

Thanks to the ever-changing nature of DVD versions of movies (director’s cut, extended play, etc., etc.), film studies has become increasingly fluid (resulting in an inability to determine which version is the “authoritative” text). Likewise, the so-called magic of the market place provided by home DVD rental and purchase has resulted in a massive elimination of much of film history. Oh sure, in theory old movies are more accessible. In reality, nobody is much buying these old suckers and the market has largely lobbed a lot of titles into the dustbin (which is why the Criterion Collection has become such a crucial niche market for people still interested in film history). Since everyone can go online, set up their own blog and do their own reviews, film criticism has largely become an unwieldy sport played by millions. The old days of the specialized (in print) film critic is gone. Theaters and the old distribution system are waning, and within this coming decade will radically change (and much of the system will actually vanish).

Heck, by 2020 it wouldn’t surprise me to find that the main distribution system involves a cable directly linked to the cerebral cortex. Twenty years ago I suggested this idea to someone who was preparing to go to work with Lucas. He liked the idea and was mildly surprised that I was only joking. But now I know better. It won’t be done with a cable. It will be a microchip.

Which is best. A cable sticking out of the head makes for a really bad hair day.