Death of Cinema?
In Van Trier’s Melancholia there is one moment of raw imagery and vivid spectacle that sticks out to me most. Such is in the introduction to the movie, when Kirsten Dunst’s character is attempting to move against the immobilizing and physically realized “depression”. It is a scene of suspense and beauty, and while its primary connection to the audience is through visual spectacle, it still allows the audience to absorb detail. We, as the audience, can still absorb detail because it is an extended shot, and does not have rapid editing, and thus it does not promote a short-attention span.
This scene in Melancholia combines both old-world and new-world elements of film theory, it is visually breath-taking and utilizes modern technology; however, it also requires its audience to consistently pay attention in order to grasp the full meaning of the movie. This brings up a very interesting point, because as a spectator, before this scene, I believed cinema was to develop into a primary method of showcasing visual technology and that as a result, the story in films and the art of cinema was bound to die. However, after witnessing Van Triers’ combination of modern and classic theater it has come to my attention that film will merely incorporate all impending visual technologies to create a new kind of cinema, and not just visual spectacles intent on taking 18-25 year olds’ money.
By always accepting the perpetually improving visuals in movies, the art of cinema will become something else, nothing less than the great films of the 20th century, but certainly different from them. Great films of the 21st century will develop with awe-inspiring visuals at their side, but they will not be created solely for the benefit of us seeing the visuals, rather the plot and character development will still be the foundation of a movie. The new technology will enhance said plot and character development rather than replace it. Technology will be used as a tool to further cinema, just as it is always used in society.
