Wider access is the opposite of death

The argument

A second argument concerns who can now watch what. Opponents observe that for most of the medium's history access was determined by geography and programming: what played locally, when it played, and whether a given town had anywhere showing anything but the week's major release. Opponents argue that the great majority of films ever made were, for the great majority of people, simply unavailable, and that film culture was accordingly the property of those living near a repertory house or a city. The mechanism opponents emphasise is that availability creates audiences. A person who can watch the history of the medium from anywhere can develop the taste that once required a particular address, and opponents argue that this is why serious interest in film now appears in places that had no access to it before. They add that the same conditions support work made outside the traditional centres, since a film from a small industry can now reach viewers abroad without needing a distributor willing to ship prints. Opponents argue that the complaint about the loss of the theatre is therefore a complaint about the loss of a particular pleasure rather than evidence about the art. They accept that watching with an audience on a large screen is a distinct and valuable experience, and that its decline is a real loss worth resisting. But they argue that a medium reaching more people, in more places, with more of its own history available than at any previous point, is not one that has died. On this account the form has been redistributed rather than ended.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Those who hold that cinema is dead reply that access to a catalogue is not the same as a culture. Films arrive stripped of the context, programming and shared occasion that made them legible, and are watched inattentively in conditions the works were not built for, so what has spread is availability rather than the experience. They add that the breadth of the catalogue is contingent on commercial decisions, since titles appear and vanish at the owner's discretion, which is weaker access than a print in an archive and leaves the art dependent on what remains profitable to host.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Unavailability was accompanied by programming, context and a shared occasion that made films legible, so the comparison omits what access has cost. [Rejecting P2] Watching the medium's history inattentively, in conditions the works were not built for, does not produce the taste the premise claims. [Rejecting P3] Catalogue breadth is contingent on commercial decisions, since titles appear and vanish at an owner's discretion, which is weaker access than an archive print. [Rejecting C] The premises establish that films are more available, which is compatible with the form the question names having ended.