It doesn’t take long to explain why this cinema year wasn’t actually one at all. The word “Corona” is enough. The most recent Berlinale, which was virus-free in February, would like to strike a different era: when coughing cinema neighbors were annoying, but were not considered to be potential super spreaders. Another term that enriched our vocabulary in 2020 – and increased security concerns, especially in the festival management suite. So Cannes and Venice, to name the other two premium festivals, were held as largely public-free restivals in the Corona year. Now cinephiles will “have to continue to live with the virus” (epidemiologists speak), but preferably without it, so the postponement of the upcoming Berlinale is almost good news. The competition is to take place in March behind closed doors, the festival as a public event will be rescheduled in June.
Festivals, parties, friendships, fresh air – some shortcomings can be made up for or compensated for. But not even a vaccine can help against the cinema crisis. Which is also due to the fact that Corona (including the restrictions) will not be the main reason for the extinction of the cultural practice cinema, but at most promotes its infirmity. The cinema is dying largely unnoticed, precisely because the streaming services and TV offerings “on demand” satisfy the appetite for moving images and stories. Netflix in particular has benefited from the cinema crisis in general and the pandemic in particular. In the third quarter of 2020, the streaming provider was able to increase its sales by 1.2 billion US dollars compared to the same quarter of the previous year – to the record value of around 6.44 billion dollars.
It is possible that some of the Netflix users – the number of subscribers rose by around 2 million to around 195 million in the third quarter of 2020 – will also go to the cinema again when herd immunity has been achieved – only the cinema has long since appeared in the wells of Amazon Prime and Co.: Streaming has already changed the way we watch movies. A film that can be stopped, rewound or fast forwarded has nothing to do with cinema. “Kino” is a kind of voluntary being kidnapped for a while. We are gradually unlearning this voluntary submission to a dramaturgy. Logically, the streaming providers will do the devil to help the cinema out of its niche existence. The cultural practice of cinema threatens to disappear.
One wonders whether this collateral damage from digitization can be in the interests of network providers in the long term. Ironically, some of the most beautiful cinema gems of 2020 were Netflix productions: “The Black Diamond”, “I’m thinking of ending things” or “Mank”. Real cinema, which even without Corona would only have been shown in movie theaters for a short time – and now, due to Corona, could only be accessed on the platform.
What can be done about the death of cinema?
In order to save the “cinema”, the cinemas – at least a few of them – must be preserved. But there is hardly any money to be made from running a film theater. The author and film curator Lars Henrik Gass, head of the International Short Film Festival Oberhausen since 1997, therefore proposes a “museumization” of the cinema, especially in Germany. Gass calls for film funding to be decoupled from theatrical exploitation, to subsidize theaters and to promote the opening of cinematic libraries in as many cities as possible. Politicians could fix it, but what do politicians actually understand about cinema?
Is it possible without regulation? Hasn’t the art business long been recommended as a beacon of hope for world cinema? In museums, galleries, at biennials, documents and even art fairs, projection booths and cinephile found footage works have long been established. Even feature films are sometimes presented in exhibitions. In his book essay “Film and Art After Cinema”, Lars Henrik Gass exposed the connection between the fine arts and cinema as a marriage of convenience. In one “Jungle World”-Interview This November he again expressed his skepticism: “What art has never understood about film is the compulsion to perceive – something that genuinely belongs to the media-historical specialty of film.”
Gass is right. A video loop that the audience can view and leave as they see fit is fundamentally different from the cinema we’re talking about. Therefore, a Steve McQueen continues to drive two tracks, brought out five (!) Feature films in 2020 and showed his art – following different rules – in the Tate Modern. It may not be systemically relevant, but it is culturally relevant that both art and cinema can survive. Arguing and fighting for it is also a task for the next year.
–
