Critical Article: On Susan Sontag's "The Decay of Cinema"

In 1996, exactly nine years and two days ago, Susan Sontag wrote a compelling article in New York Times called “The Decay of Cinema”. In the article, she not only discusses the disappointing consequences of film becoming more of an industry and less as an art form (briefly discussing how the two used to be inseparable in the beginning), but also laments the death of cinephilia – the special, distinct love once had for movies.

The practice of cinema-going continues to become less and less relevant as technological convergence grants people the convenience of being able to watch films wherever they want whenever they want in today’s fast-paced and preoccupied society. But does this really diminish the love for film? Despite the lack of an all-consuming environment as in a movie theater, “secondgeneration cinephiliacs” have busier lifestyles and yet still set aside time to watch films, whether it be after a long day of work or in between destinations. If anything, this exhibits a stronger dedication to cinema than the cinephiliacs in the past who didn’t do much else except watch films all day. Needless to say, it is impossible in contemporary times to practice cinephilia the way it used to be. Sontag is nostalgic for an era that will never be applicable to the present or the future. The way in which people appreciate films today will never be the same as how people used to in the 1950s, similarly people in the 1950s did not value cinema the way people did in the 1900s, when cinema was only a developing concept.

Moreover, Sontag seems to neglect the idea of technological advancements and social climate change, and the possibility of cinephilia persisting despite (or even because) of these. Thomas Elsaesser, a German film historian, coined the term “second generation cinephilia” which he defines as “post-auteur, post-theory cinema that finds is jouissance in an often undisguised and unapologetic fetishism of the technical prowess of the digital” (Cinephilia: Movies, Love, and Memory). In simpler terms, advancing technology allows the new cinephiliacs to be more open to experimental and unorthodox manifestation of film, which consequently allows for an appreciation of a broader scope of visual arts.

However, Sontag argues that although there might still be a rare breed of film-watchers who have sophisticated taste (quite pretentious, if you ask me) and hold certain expectations when it comes to movies, the kinds of films that are prevalent nowadays are those that only aspire for commercial success. Yet later on she acknowledges that wonderful films are still being made. Is she implying that the efforts of these people are in vain? It is quite unfair for her to write such a pessimistic article when she herself is aware that there are still those who try, both as creators and as viewers. Sontag seems to limit her understanding on mainstream cinema. If there are people who believe that short films are making a comeback, what makes her innovative features won’t, especially considering the advantage of the technology we have today?

If her intention was to inspire “a new kind of cine-love” as she calls it, all she does is discourage filmmakers and film viewers alike. The worst part is that the postulation she makes in this seminal piece has brought about many works communicating the same sentiments. Instead of looking forward to the future of film with unwavering hope, all she does is pine for a lost time, and encourages everyone else to do the same. Ironically, the article undermines both film and cinephilia.