Question 1: With reference to the texts of Greenaway and Culler and Kattenbelt’s lecture explain to what
extent and in what way we can consider Greenaways proposal of the ‘death of cinema’ as ‘theory’. What might
be the claim of his theory? What are the (kind of) questions this theory produces or evokes? What are the
common beliefs and ideas this theory calls into question? [max 250 words]
Through ‘Death of cinema’ Greenaway proposes the idea that cinema died in 1983. With
this statement, he speculates the life and timeline of the cinema, as well as disputes the
common thought that cinema is alive and well up to this day. These factors relate to what
Culler would call a theory. Greenaway’s theory claims the death of the cinema, the factors
(tyrannies) that drove it to an end, as well as other factors why it died the day he claims it
died. However, his theory then evokes questions such as “what have people been watching
in the cinema for the last 35 years if the cinema died?” and “if we eliminate the tyrannies,
how does Greenaway expect the movie to even look like?” With this theory, he calls into
question the common definition of cinema and the way the spectators see it, and whether
the cinema really needs to be reinvented, if the people who are watching it now are still
satisfied.
Question 2: In his lecture Greenaway does away with all characteristics we normally use to describe the
specificity of film as a medium. Does Greenaway offer another understanding of the specificity of film instead?
Or does he maybe not believe in such a thing as the specificity of film? Use this lecture to reflect on the
question how this text challenges us to think about the specificity of a medium (in this case film). [max 250
words}
Greenaway proposes that maybe the films should lose the dogma, which makes it necessary
for the film to have actors, frame, be made based on text and made through the camera.
He offers the idea to free the film of these so called ‘tyrannies,’ and re-invent the cinema.
He believes that the film should not be restricted by things that are normally not considered
natural, and that its creation should be more innovative and awakening. Greenaway
proposes the idea that every three generations a new masterpiece is produced, therefore
he, writing his article in 2003, had expectations that the new generation film would be
another benchmark. It challenges us to rethink the films we are seeing, and to start having
bigger expectations than just another completely predictable and already-seen-before film.
Greenaway claims that cinema needs to be reinvented in order for it to survive and to
become once again a relevant medium in the society.
extent and in what way we can consider Greenaways proposal of the ‘death of cinema’ as ‘theory’. What might
be the claim of his theory? What are the (kind of) questions this theory produces or evokes? What are the
common beliefs and ideas this theory calls into question? [max 250 words]
Through ‘Death of cinema’ Greenaway proposes the idea that cinema died in 1983. With
this statement, he speculates the life and timeline of the cinema, as well as disputes the
common thought that cinema is alive and well up to this day. These factors relate to what
Culler would call a theory. Greenaway’s theory claims the death of the cinema, the factors
(tyrannies) that drove it to an end, as well as other factors why it died the day he claims it
died. However, his theory then evokes questions such as “what have people been watching
in the cinema for the last 35 years if the cinema died?” and “if we eliminate the tyrannies,
how does Greenaway expect the movie to even look like?” With this theory, he calls into
question the common definition of cinema and the way the spectators see it, and whether
the cinema really needs to be reinvented, if the people who are watching it now are still
satisfied.
Question 2: In his lecture Greenaway does away with all characteristics we normally use to describe the
specificity of film as a medium. Does Greenaway offer another understanding of the specificity of film instead?
Or does he maybe not believe in such a thing as the specificity of film? Use this lecture to reflect on the
question how this text challenges us to think about the specificity of a medium (in this case film). [max 250
words}
Greenaway proposes that maybe the films should lose the dogma, which makes it necessary
for the film to have actors, frame, be made based on text and made through the camera.
He offers the idea to free the film of these so called ‘tyrannies,’ and re-invent the cinema.
He believes that the film should not be restricted by things that are normally not considered
natural, and that its creation should be more innovative and awakening. Greenaway
proposes the idea that every three generations a new masterpiece is produced, therefore
he, writing his article in 2003, had expectations that the new generation film would be
another benchmark. It challenges us to rethink the films we are seeing, and to start having
bigger expectations than just another completely predictable and already-seen-before film.
Greenaway claims that cinema needs to be reinvented in order for it to survive and to
become once again a relevant medium in the society.
