On Avatar part 2

I have been wondering furthermore about "Avatar's" supposed new technological leaps and what it precipitates for the future of cinema. These topics concern mainly the concept of the large screen as an attraction of the new age and technology reflecting the evolution of cinema.

Firstly, I have been hearing and reading a lot on how things will change in concern to internet downloading. It is rather obvious that you can't upload a 3D edition of "Avatar" on the internet. Again the notion of the screen-mediator is a visceral one since only the technology applied by the director himself can permit a proper screening and viewing of the film. In this sense, James Cameron redefines the theme of the auteur; he is a director who, besides the content and form of his film, has the rights of his film not on a bureaucratic level, but clearly on the artistic one. This is innovative and undoubtedly exciting.

Therefore, unless audiences choose to download an illegal 2D "screener" from the internet, they will have to go to the cinema inevitably."Avatar" is shown in 2D at small scale cinemas (usually with 2-3 rooms or even 1) and at huge multiplex and cine-plex centers which contain numerous attractions. These "disneylands" of cinema are where most often one can see 3D films in high definition etc. These theme parks (I am not aware of the exact term of the facilities),are host to even 20 screening rooms for all the recent 3D and 2D blockbusters, pizza hut restaurants, pubs, bowling alleys, accessorize shops, huge candy shops and awesome hot-dog stands with super size sausages.

I don't believe that art-house cinemas will perish. There has been and will be a big group of patrons and fans of the arts to support smaller cinemas for screenings of Orson Welles, Fellini and Tarkovsky. The issue at hand is that the multiplexes are antagonistic and don't care about the rules of the game. Thus, audiences, especially younger members, will choose to see big budget films like "Avatar" by giving a large amount of money only for the ticket of the film (this is another issue, the high prices of tickets that keep soaring higher and higher. Gradually, smaller art house cinemas will loose their appeal and might even become "cult." Moreover, "Avatar" has been dominating torrent sites in the internet at least for the last month. Evidently a number of people don't mind seeing the film in poor quality on their computer. It is merely to kill their curiosity concerning the hype of "Avatar."

The critics have been giving away their five stars to "Avatar" like crazy, mainly on the pretext of the film's technological advances. However, in the name of cinematic expression and art one film managed to make an even greater leap than "Avatar" did. Russian director Alexander Sokurov's 90 minute epic "Russian Ark" (2002). The film in a nutshell is about Russian history, from the era of Katherine the Great to the Communist Revolution in 1917. Sokurov filmed his complex narrative in a single "take" (one continuous shot), in the renound Hermitage museum in Moscow. Sokurov used 2.000 actors, thousands of costumes, props and pieces of scenery. "Russian Ark" was recorded in uncompressed high definition video using a Sony HDW-F900. The information was not recorded compressed to tape as usual, but uncompressed onto a hard disk which could hold 100 minutes. The shot was attempted four times and before Sokurov decided to stop, they tried one last time and it all came through.

Imagine a film about history and the passing of time and the alternating spaces that are included, all filmed in one single shot. Moving continuously through time and space, with a smooth pace and a flow that evokes the constant passing of time. Oh, and lets not forget that it was filmed in high definition etc.


Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ark