And, indeed, I will ask on my own account here, an idle question: which is better—cheap happiness or exalted sufferings? Well, which is better?---Fyodor Dostoevsky ---Notes from Underground Fyodor Dostoevsky ---Notes from Underground Even now, so many years later, all this is somehow a very evil memory. I have many evil memories now, but ... hadn’t I better end my “Notes” here? I believe I made a mistake in beginning to write them, anyway I have felt ashamed all the time I’ve been writing this story; so it’s hardly literature so much as a corrective punishment. Why, to tell long stories, showing how I have spoiled my life through morally rotting in my corner, through lack of fitting environment, through divorce from real life, and rankling spite in my underground world, would certainly not be interesting; a novel needs a hero, and all the traits for an anti-hero are expressly gathered together here, and what matters most, it all produces an unpleasant impression, for we are...
Hope
To be human is to be a miracle of evolution conscious of its own miraculousness — a consciousness beautiful and bittersweet, for we have paid for it with a parallel awareness not only of our fundamental improbability but of our staggering fragility, of how physiologically precarious our survival is and how psychologically vulnerable our sanity. To make that awareness bearable, we have evolved a singular faculty that might just be the crowning miracle of our consciousness: hope.--
Erich Fromm
Cinema is dead. It died 1962, I think it was in October--Aki Kaurismäki
Cinema is not dead , long live cinema ! Best of 2023 :
Past Lives
Oppenheimer (Not really , actually the most overrated film I have seen in a long time. I did not like it when I saw it originally , but given critic reviews gave it another try before finally adding this verdict)
Among other things as someone pointed out the most annoying thing about this film : "The constant loud as fuck music during conversations made it feel almost like I was watching a never-ending movie trailer".
Killers of The Flower Moon
Poor Things
Zone of Interest
The Holdovers
Anatomy of a Fall
All of Us Strangers
Anselm
Fallen leaves
2024 Update : Mediocre at best , barely alive. Nothing that can compare with films from the list above.
2025 Update : Even worst . The only good film I have seen from this year production is Blue Moon.
"Critically acclaimed" :
One Battle After Another, Paul Thomas Anderson. A big disappointment from one of my favorite contemporary American directors.
The Secret Agent, Kleber Mendonça Filho, Brazil/France/Netherlands/Germany -A big mess
It Was Just an Accident -To be completely honest I saw this film 3-4months back , and I do not remember the story.
The Autopsy of an Art Form: Deconstructing the Multiple Deaths of Global Cinema
The discourse surrounding the "death of cinema" is not a contemporary phenomenon born of the streaming era; rather, it is a persistent historical cycle that has accompanied the medium since its inception. Cinema has been pronounced dead at the arrival of synchronized sound, the rise of television, the advent of the home video market, and the transition to digital projection. However, the current iteration of this debate is distinguished by a multifaceted collapse of the industrial, aesthetic, and cultural structures that sustained the medium for over a century. To answer the question of who killed cinema requires an investigation into a syndicate of suspects: the technological disruptors who unbundled the theatrical experience, the corporate consolidators who sacrificed artistic risk for franchise stability, and the shifting social behaviors that have transformed a collective ritual into a fragmented, algorithmic stream.
This investigation posits that cinema has not suffered a single fatal blow but has undergone a series of transfigurations that have fundamentally altered its ontological status. The medium that once served as the primary public forum for the 20th century has been subdivided into "audiovisual entertainment" and "cinema," with the former consuming the latter’s financial and physical infrastructure. The following analysis dissects these "deaths" across philosophical, industrial, technological, and social dimensions.
The Philosophical Obituary: From Sontag to Godard
The intellectual groundwork for cinema’s obituary was laid by the directors and critics of the late twentieth century, most notably Susan Sontag and Jean-Luc Godard. In her 1996 essay "The Decay of Cinema," Sontag argued that it was not merely the quality of films that had declined, but the very culture of "cinephilia"—the specific, obsessive love for the medium as a poetic object rather than a commercial product. Sontag’s lament was rooted in the erosion of the theatrical experience. She defined the cinematic encounter as a "surrender," a ritual where the viewer is "kidnapped" by the physical presence of the image in a dark hall among strangers. When the experience of surrender was replaced by the ubiquity and convenience of home viewing, the sacred nature of the medium was fundamentally compromised. For Sontag, the "death" of cinema was synonymous with its transition into a mere "commodity" or a "social relation that separates the visual component of human subjective activity from the body".
Jean-Luc Godard offered a more ontological and moral critique. He viewed cinema as a "fallen medium" that failed its primary duty: to witness and respond to the horrors of the twentieth century, specifically the Holocaust. Godard’s Histoire(s) du cinéma suggests that the medium died when it became a tool of indoctrination for conventional power and Western imperialism rather than a vehicle for truth. He famously asserted that "cinema was truth twenty-four times per second," but argued that modern Hollywood prioritizes spectacle over this inherent relationship with reality. In Godard's view, the failure of cinema to capture the concentration camps was a moral abdication that signaled the end of its artistic legitimacy. This philosophical perspective suggests that cinema was not killed by an external force but by its own inability to evolve into a more profound moral and aesthetic language.
Peter Greenaway provided a more technological deadline, asserting that cinema died on the apocryphal date of September 31, 1983, when the remote control, or "zapper," was introduced to the living rooms of the world. Greenaway’s thesis is that the remote control destroyed the passivity that once defined the cinema-going experience. Audiences no longer sat through a film from beginning to end; they demanded interactivity and the power to edit their own viewing experience in real-time. For Greenaway, traditional narrative cinema—what he calls "illustrated-text, chronologically plotted, bookshop cinema"—is a "slow-moving, herbivorous and not very bright dinosaur" that has played itself out. He argues that the medium’s prime time lasted exactly 88 years, roughly three generations, before reaching a state of exhaustion, banality, and repetition.
The Evolution of Cine-Technology and Audience Agency
To understand the causal relationships in cinema's decline, one must track the milestones of technological disruption that shifted power from the creator to the consumer. The following table delineates the primary technological "assassins" and their impact on the medium's traditional structure.
Milestone Year
Technological Disruptor
Primary Impact on Cinematic Form
Ontological Consequence
1929
Synchronized Sound
Ended the "Silent" era overnight; increased production costs.
Destruction of pure visual storytelling; birth of the "talkie".
1950s
Television
Mass migration of audiences from theaters to the home.
Cinema becomes a "special event" rather than a daily habit.
1983
Remote Control
Empowered viewer interactivity and channel-surfing.
Loss of the "passive" audience; destruction of linear narrative.
2010
Digital Projection
Replaced 35mm prints with the Digital Cinema Package (DCP).
Centralization of studio control; end of the photochemical ritual.
2019
Streaming Hegemony
Removed the necessity of the "theatrical window".
Theatrical becomes downstream of streaming priorities.
The Industrial Hit: Corporate Consolidation and the Death of the Middle
The most tangible evidence of cinema’s "murder" lies in the structural collapse of the film industry’s middle market. Historically, the health of the box office was not measured by tentpole hits alone but by a diverse slate of mid-budget films—original thrillers, prestige dramas, and adult comedies—that formed the "connective tissue" of theatrical programming. This ecosystem was decimated by corporate consolidation, most notably the $71.3 billion acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney.
Disney’s subsequent decision to shutter Fox 2000, a division responsible for acclaimed mid-budget hits like Hidden Figures, The Devil Wears Prada, and Life of Pi, signaled a fundamental shift in industry strategy. By closing this division, Disney essentially affirmed the divide between massive blockbusters and small indie productions, sacrificing the "objectively good" movies that catered to underserved or mature audiences. This "Walmart-ization" of Hollywood has forced the industry into a binary state where films are either billion-dollar global franchises or micro-budget festival entries.
The consolidation of market share—Disney’s portion rose to nearly 40 percent following the Fox merger—gave the studio unprecedented leverage over theater chains. Disney was reportedly able to demand up to 65 to 70 percent of revenue for ticket sales for films like The Last Jedi, bucking the traditional 50/50 split and challenging the viability of independent cinemas. This erosion of the "Paramount Decree" era, which once prevented studios from owning theaters and maintaining monopolies, has led to a "broken" box office where volume has been replaced by price inflation.
Economic Disparity: Theatrical Volume vs. Price Inflation
The analysis of domestic yearly box office data reveals a historic collapse in attendance that has been masked by rising costs. In 2019, U.S. theaters sold 1.23 billion tickets; by 2025, that number had fallen to 764 million—a decline of nearly 40 percent. The industry's stability is an illusion generated by the monetization of a shrinking audience.
Financial Indicator
2019 Metric
2025 Metric
Change (%)
U.S. Ticket Volume
1.23 Billion
764 Million
-37.9%
Average Ticket Price
$9.16
$11.31
+23.5%
Domestic Box Office
~$11.4 Billion
~$8.6 Billion
-24.6%
Independent Market Share
21% (2024 projection)
18.5%
-11.9%
The decline in quality is no longer a subjective argument but a measurable behavior. Slates have become thinner as studios no longer greenlight for scale, preferring to compress risk due to elevated debt loads. Success metrics have become binary: a film is either a massive global hit or a complete write-off. Without a mid-tier slate to stabilize weekly attendance, the theatrical system lacks the depth to absorb the shock when a major tentpole underperforms. This "streaming-first" approach has shifted the industry’s organizing principle away from the cinema, treating theatrical runs as mere marketing for platform launches rather than as core profit engines.
The Aesthetic Murder: Franchises, Risk-Aversion, and Scorsese's "Theme Parks"
The aesthetic "murder" of cinema was famously articulated by Martin Scorsese in his 2019 New York Times editorial. Scorsese argued that franchise films, particularly the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), while technically proficient and made by talented individuals, are "not cinema" as he has known and loved it. He likened these films to "theme parks"—products designed to satisfy a finite set of market-researched demands rather than the unifying vision of an individual artist.
The core of Scorsese's critique is the "gradual but steady elimination of risk". In the franchise model, everything is "officially sanctioned" and "audience-tested" until it is ready for consumption. This process removes the possibility of "revelation, mystery, or genuine emotional danger". Scorsese fears that the financial dominance of these "perfect products" is being used to marginalize and belittle the existence of cinema as an art form. This is not merely a matter of taste; it is a "chicken-and-egg" issue of supply and demand. If audiences are only offered one kind of product, they will eventually only want more of that product, leading to the atrophy of cultural curiosity.
This risk-aversion extends to the visual soul of the medium. The shift from photochemical film to digital sensors has sparked a profound debate among cinematographers. While digital technology has surpassed film in resolution and dynamic range, many "celluloid advocates" argue that digital capture lacks the "organic texture" intrinsic to the film image. Film grain, an optical effect created by the random orientation of silver halide crystals, adds a layer of separation from reality that feeds the viewer's imagination. In contrast, digital noise often feels like an artificial layer "sitting above" the image, lacking the warmth and depth of analog saturation.
The Technical Divide: Photochemical Grain vs. Digital Pixels
The following table contrasts the aesthetic and physical properties of the two media, illustrating why many filmmakers perceive a "loss of soul" in the digital transition.
The removal of physical film has also altered the "rhythm" of production. Directors have noted that the high cost of film stock once forced a certain discipline on set; having only "three bullets and a revolver" meant that every shot was meticulously planned. In the digital era, the ability to shoot indefinitely has led to a "decline in selective emphasis," where quantity often replaces the intentionality of the frame.
The Technological Transition: Pandora’s Digital Box
David Bordwell’s analysis in Pandora’s Digital Box highlights that the "digital changeover" was the biggest upheaval in film exhibition since synchronized sound. Between 2010 and 2012, the world's film industries forever changed how movies were shown. The traditional routine of 35mm reels and manual changeovers—a system that had lasted since the 1910s—was replaced by hard drives and servers. While this was framed as a technological advancement, Bordwell argues it was an orchestrated move to increase the control of major film corporations.
The shift to digital distribution through the Digital Cinema Package (DCP) allowed studios to eliminate the massive expense of physical prints, but it transferred the financial burden of equipment maintenance to theater owners. Small, independent theaters were particularly hard-hit, as the "Virtual Print Fee" (VPF) financing models used for the initial conversion did not cover future upgrades. Furthermore, digital projectors have a lifespan of only 5 to 10 years, compared to the decades-long utility of traditional 35mm projectors. This has "fatally hobbled" many art houses, making them dependent on blockbuster programming to survive.
Bordwell also notes that the digital conversion has reshaped the moviegoing experience "in the image of television". Theaters now use their digital infrastructure to broadcast "alternative content"—live operas, sporting events, and even marathons of streaming series—during slow periods. This convergence of media platforms has diluted the specific cultural identity of the cinema, turning the theater into a multi-purpose digital venue rather than a dedicated temple of the moving image.
The Domestic Coup: The Home Theater and the Friction of the Multiplex
While the industry struggled with consolidation and digitization, the private living room was undergoing a technological revolution. By 2025, the gap between the professional theater and the luxury home setup had narrowed to the point of indistinguishability for many consumers. High-end OLED and MicroLED panels, combined with 8K laser projectors and immersive Dolby Atmos audio systems, now offer a level of detail and "three-dimensional sound fields" that rival or exceed local multiplexes.
The economic value proposition has shifted decisively in favor of home viewing. A couple going to the movies twice a month in 2025 can expect to spend between $500 and $800 annually on tickets alone, not including the prohibitively expensive markups on concessions. For larger families, these expenses multiply rapidly, making a one-time investment in home theater equipment more financially sound.
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Theatrical vs. Home Cinema (2025)
Category
Traditional Theater Experience
High-End Home Cinema Experience
Per-Person Ticket Cost
$12 – $20 (Standard/Premium formats)
$0 (included in subscription/purchase)
Concession Pricing
$15+ for soda/popcorn combo
Retail grocery prices
Comfort & Control
Fixed seating; shared armrests; no pausing
Power recliners; temperature control; pause button
Content Library
Current theatrical releases only
Massive, on-demand global libraries
Viewing Friction
Disruptive patrons; travel time; phone screens
Private, predictable, and customized
The theater experience has also suffered from what analysts call "degraded quality". Rising prices have not been accompanied by improved service; instead, audiences face increased friction from disruptive behavior, safety concerns in urban markets, and an industry response that focuses on upselling (cocktails, recliners) rather than improving the baseline experience. When the "incentive to leave home collapses," the theatrical model enters a structural reset at a lower ceiling, sustaining itself on price inflation while losing the cultural reach that once made it viable.
The Algorithmic Assassin: TikTok and the Rise of Micro-Content
A new and powerful contender for the "killer" of cinema is the short-form video platform, most notably TikTok. These platforms have redefined audience attention spans and the very mechanism of content discovery. By 2025, TikTok exposure had become a material driver of behavior, with data showing a median 172 percent increase in movie ticket purchases for audiences exposed to promotions on the platform.
However, this influence comes at a cost to the "beauty of storytelling". TikTok and Instagram Reels encourage the reduction of cinema to "snappy, intense videos" that focus on spoilers, climaxes, and plot twists. This practice often discourages viewers from watching the entire film, as the narrative tension has already been destroyed for the sake of "scroll-stopping" engagement.
The impact is most extreme in Asia. In Mainland China, the revenue from "micro-dramas"—one-to-three-minute dramatic stories designed for mobile viewing—reportedly overtook theatrical cinema revenue in 2024. This suggests that the 120-minute feature film is no longer the primary unit of visual storytelling for younger demographics. Entertainment discovery has become "algorithmic," with films succeeding not because of critics or star power, but because of how well they travel through recommendation engines and creator ecosystems.
The Global Canary: Regional Collapses in Korea and China
The global cinematic landscape provides a "canary in the coal mine" for the future of the medium. South Korea, formerly one of the world's most robust film markets, has seen a "woeful" collapse. Despite a world-leading history of per capita attendance, annual theater visits in Korea dropped from four visits per person to 2.5 by 2024. The impact of the pandemic, combined with the structural dominance of online technology, has made the recovery both "slow and uncertain".
In cash terms, Korean gross cinema revenues fell from $1.38 billion in 2019 to $861 million in 2024—still 38 percent shy of pre-pandemic levels. Theater operators responded by raising ticket prices, but these increases have been eroded by government-backed discount vouchers and a public habit that has fundamentally shifted toward renting rooms to watch Netflix. The structure of the industry itself—where theatrical revenues typically comprise the majority of a film's earnings—means that the contraction of production has been "brutal," with major groups planning to release only a fraction of their usual slates in 2025.
Global Box Office Recovery and Market Share Trends (2024)
Territory
Gross Revenue (USD)
vs. Pre-Pandemic (2019)
Market Sentiment
Global Total
$30.1 Billion
-11.2% (Historic rate)
"Modest contraction".
Mainland China
$5.8 Billion
-34%
"Sharp reverse"; micro-dramas lead.
South Korea
$861 Million
-38% to -45%
"Canary in the coal mine".
North America
$8.6 Billion
-24.6% (Revenue) / -40% (Tickets)
"Structural reset".
This weakness in the face of "powerful entertainment alternatives" suggests that the day when audiences opt for online over in-person cinema was always coming; the pandemic merely accelerated the transition. The loss of the "collective cinema-going experience" as a public ritual is now a global phenomenon.
The Resistance: The Resilience of Physical Media and the New Cinephilia
While the traditional theatrical model is under siege, there are signs of a "cinephilic renaissance" born from the very digital platforms that threatened the medium. Letterboxd, which grew from 5 million to over 11 million users between 2021 and 2023, has become a culturally significant space for "identity negotiation" and collective film discussion. Digital cinephilia on Letterboxd is participatory and networked, where "cultural capital" is accumulated through writing reviews, curating lists, and validating peer opinions.
Although Letterboxd has been criticized for "gamifying" the film-watching experience and turning "cinephilia into a numbers game," it has also democratized access to discourse and encouraged users to reflect on their own aesthetic sensibilities. This "second wave" of cinephilia is transnational and decentralized, treating film as one element in a "multi-media constellation of moving images".
Simultaneously, "streaming fatigue" has created an unexpected opportunity for physical media. By 2025, independent filmmakers were finding that "smart indie creators" could make serious money by selling DVDs—an average of $38.75 per unit—while half a million streaming views might leave them in debt. The "Disc Renaissance" of 2025 showed that physical media is resilient, with Blu-ray sales growing 3.1 percent year-on-year. Audiences are craving tangibility and permanence in a post-streaming world, using physical collections as an "antidote to subscription overload".
The Long Tail Mirage: Digital Distribution vs. Physical Reality
The "Long Tail" theory suggested that digital channels would increase the demand for niche products, but evidence in the film industry shows the opposite: sales have become more concentrated on a small number of hits since the introduction of streaming. Physical media, however, continues to support the "long tail" through boutique labels and specialty retailers that cater to "horror fans, documentary enthusiasts, and art house lovers".
Metric
Digital/Streaming Model
Physical Media (Boutique) Model
Revenue per "Unit"
Micro-cents per view
~$38.00 per DVD/Blu-ray
Audience Focus
Broad, algorithmic reach
Niche, devoted collector base
Ownership Status
Temporary license; can be pulled
Permanent, tangible ownership
Market Concentration
Heavy concentration on top hits
Supports the "Long Tail" and niche variety
Conclusion: The Perpetual Death and the Transfigured Phoenix
The question of "who killed cinema" yields no single culprit but rather a syndicate of economic, technological, and social forces. The "traditional" cinema—defined by Sontag's surrender and Godard's moral witness—has indeed been "murdered" by the "zapper," the "DCP," and the "streaming algorithm". The industrial "brokenness" of the box office is a reflection of a society that has traded the public ritual for private convenience and the artistic risk for the "officially sanctioned" product.
Yet, as Mark Cousins argues in The Story of Film, the medium is defined by "sudden shifts". While the "industry is shit," the "medium is great". The "death" of classical cinema has made way for a "post-cinematic" landscape that is more multifaceted and omnipresent than ever before. The transfiguration of cinema into "live immersive entertainment" and "multidisciplinary shows" suggests that the "heartbeat" of the art form—community and creativity—remains alive, even as its old institutional shell crumbles.
The "Mozarts of the 21st century" may not be making films for 35mm projectors, but they are utilizing the "unlimited creativity and options" of the digital age to find new audiences. Cinema is not dead; it has simply been "miniatured into click-throughs" and "remixed into a globally interconnected hive mind". To mourn the death of cinema is to mourn the 20th century. To observe its current state is to witness the "awkward teenage years" of a medium that is learning to be more than a mere picture on a wall, evolving into a "multi-media constellation" that will continue to reflect and shape the collective human experience. The "King is dead," but the "King" has already been reborn in the pockets and living rooms of the world.
.jpg)