Cinephilia (/ˌsɪnɪˈfɪliə/SIN-ih-FIL-ee-ə; alsocinemaphilia orfilmophilia) is the term used to refer to a passionate interest infilms,film theory, andfilm criticism. The term is aportmanteau of the wordscinema andphilia, one of the four ancientGreek words for love.[1] A person with a passionate interest in cinema is called acinephile (/ˈsɪnɪfaɪl/SIN-ih-fyle),cinemaphile,filmophile, or, informally, afilm buff (alsomovie buff). To a cinephile, a film is often not just a source of entertainment as they see films from a more critical point of view.
In a review of a book on the history of cinephilia, Mas Generis writes: "Cinephilia, despite its transparent etymological meaning—love of cinema—is a term that resists ready and shared understanding."[2] Generis also introduces a quote fromfilm scholar Annette Michelson that states that there is, "No one such thing as cinephilia, but rather forms and periods of cinephilia."[2] As described by Antoine de Baecque andThierry Frémaux, "The definitive essence of cinephilia is a culture of the discarded that prefers to find intellectual coherence where none is evident and to eulogize the non-standard and the minor."[3]
Film historian Thomas Elsaesser writes that it "reverberates with nostalgia and dedication... more than a passion of going to the movies and only a little less than an entire attitude towards life".[4]
Since the beginning of thesilent era, there have beenfilm clubs and publications in which people who felt passionately about cinema could discuss their interests and see rare and older works. At the beginning of thesound era, there were more and more people interested in seeing older films, which led to the establishment of organizations such as theCinémathèque Française, the first major archive devoted tofilm preservation.[5][6]
A notable cinephilic community of the 20th century was the one that developed in Paris in the decades following World War II. An influx of foreign films that had been withheld during theOccupation, as well as the screening programs of localfilm clubs and theCinémathèque Française, generated interest inworld cinema amongst the city's intellectualyouth culture. In general, the cinephiles of the period set a template for future like-minded groups by having keen enthusiasm for both older and contemporary films.[7]
Influential film clubs of the period included Objectif 49, whose members includedRobert Bresson andJean Cocteau, and the Ciné-Club du Quartier Latin (Cinema Club of the Latin Quarter).Revue du Cinéma, a magazine published by members of the two clubs, later evolved into the influential film magazineCahiers du cinéma.
The Italian directorFederico Fellini, a fashionable figure in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s, owed part of his popularity to the support of film critics and the distribution of foreign films in order to accommodate the increasingly sophisticated public.
The era also saw the growth of college film societies. Though some, likeDoc Films at theUniversity of Chicago, had existed since the 1930s, the 1960s saw directors of all generations regularly make appearances at college campuses, whether to revisit their old films or to discuss new ones. TheMelbourne Cinematheque, founded in 1948 inMelbourne, Australia, began as the Melbourne University Film Society (MUFS), and was renamed Cinémathèque in 1984.[8]
At the same time, the Parisian cinephilic culture became increasingly politicized. Critics, and by extension the cinephiles who followed their work, began to emphasize political aspects of films and directors. Though many of the major figures of the post-war community has been originally aligned with thepolitical right—including most of theCahiers du cinéma group—by the late 1960sCahiers and the young cinephile public in general had aligned with various forms of theLeft, with some figures, such asJean-Luc Godard, aligning withMaoism. In this very politicized climate, cinema was often seen as directly connected toMarxism. Many members of this new generation of cinephiles would become critics[9] anddirectors, includingSerge Daney,Philippe Garrel, andAndré Téchiné.
As television,VHS tapes,[11][12]DVDs[13][14] and later streaming digital access[15][16] became more common, cinephilia became less associated with filmgoing in theatres (much to the dismay of cinephiles like Kael and Sontag).[17][1][18]
While Japanese films have enjoyed worldwide distribution in the mid 20th century, the late 20th century saw an increase in interest amongst cinephiles in cinema from other Asian countries, especially China,Hong Kong,Taiwan and, later,Thailand.
Though his films have met with mixed commercial and critical success, American directorMichael Mann (pictured above atCinémathèque Française in 2009) is often considered to be a major figure ofvulgar auteurism by contemporary cinephiles.[19][20]
Since the beginning of the 21st century,blogging has become a large part of cinephile culture. In theEnglish-speaking world, established critics and theorists likeDave Kehr,David Bordwell,Jonathan Rosenbaum,[21]Glenn Kenny,Wheeler Winston Dixon andAdrian Martin, as well as non-professional cinephiles likeGirish Shambu played key roles in building interest in films or theories amongst cinephiles by writing and communicating through blogs.[22]Forums andpodcasts have become popular ways to stir discussion, allowing cinephiles from different countries and cultures to discuss ideas about film. Thesocial networking andvideo streaming serviceMUBI caters specifically to cinephiles, allowing its members access to films that sometimes haven't been distributed theatrically or on video in their home countries. Home video distribution labels and distributors such asThe Criterion Collection,Masters of Cinema,Facets,Vinegar Syndrome andKino cater to cinephiles, often including large amounts of supplemental and critical material with their releases. Another major development in contemporary cinephilia came in the form of thesocial cataloging application formed in 2011 known asLetterboxd.[23] Hosting approximately 10 million users,[24] Letterboxd is the largest community of online cinephiles to date, allowing users to share their taste in films[25] using afive-star system.
Filmmaker James N. Kienitz Wilkins's 2023still image filmStill Film argues about the nightmarish effects of cinephilia using35mm presskit photos forblockbusters from the 1980s-90s.[36][37]
Adnan Virk was the host of the podcastCinephile that used to broadcast onESPN until his leave in 2019.[40]
In 2004, film criticChris Gore hosted the game showUltimate Film Fanatic.[41][42]
The book seriesLil Cinephile is a spin-off of the successfulCinephile: A Card Game created by author Cory Everett (who was once a contestant on the aforementionedUltimate Film Fanatic).[43][44][45]
American director and cinephileQuentin Tarantino often makes references in his work to films and directors he admires.
Throughout the history of cinema, there have been numerous directors who developed their understanding of cinema through filmgoing and participation in cinephile communities and organizations instead of within the formal settings of either afilm school or afilm studio.
The directors of theFrench New Wave, who learned about filmmaking by attending screenings atfilm clubs and discussing movies amongst themselves, are often seen as models for cinephiles. Their intellectualomnivorousness, which equated an interest in cinema with strong understandings ofliterature,art and sometimesphilosophy, has continued to have influence on cinephiles.[56]
On the other hand, many directors emphasize their lack of cinephilia or interest in movies as in the cases ofMiranda July,[57]Abbas Kiarostami andPeter Greenaway, while each acclaimed by cinephiles,[17][58] often emphasized their disinterests in cinema when interviewed.[59][60]
There have also been different forms ofcinephobia (fear or hatred of cinema)[61] from the fear of "losing" celluloid film in the digital age through anxieties about moral values on the big screen to the point of censorship.[62][63]
Telephilia is the term used to refer to a passionate interest intelevision.[64] Coined byThe New York Times critic Frank Rich as a pejorative term, telephilia was defined as "the pathological longing of Americans, no matter how talentless, to be on television".[65] This early definition was reflective of the negative attitude contemporary critics had toward television, which was frowned upon as inferior to film until the advent ofquality television in the 1980s and 1990s.[66][67][68][69][70] With the rise of quality television, anti-heroic series likeThe Sopranos andThe Wire were cited as improving television content thus earning critical praise.[71][72]
Telephilia is also said to rival cinephilia for relevance, as production values are higher than ever before on shows such asMad Men,Breaking Bad andHomeland.[73] Despite this development, there are still intellectuals[74] who consider telephilia as inferior to cinephilia, particularly in cases of obsessions for modern television programs belonging to genres such asmelodrama andsoap opera.[75] This is also explained by the view that highlighted the unattainable nature of the cinema, which makes it more desirable and extraordinary since it features a regime of presence-yet-absence filmic image, allowing a form of cinematic stardom capable of triggering a series of psychic mechanisms.[76] This is contrasted with television, which is perceived to be more present and immediate—with its stars "famous only in so far as he or she makes frequent television appearances."[76] Some observers, however, note that there is now a destabilization of traditional notions of what constitutes cinephilic tendency due to the availability of film onhome media technology.[77]
^Casetti, Francesco; Fanchi, Mariagrazia (17 August 2017). "Cinephilia/Telephilia".Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media.45 (2):38–41.JSTOR41552408.
^Miklitsch, Robert (2006).Roll Over Adorno: Critical Theory, Popular Culture, Audiovisual Media. New York: State University of New York Press. p. 135.ISBN0791467333.
^abRedmond, Sean (2013).The Cinema of Takeshi Kitano: Flowering Blood. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 74.ISBN9780231163323.
^Wroot, Jonathan; Willis, Andy (2017).Cult Media: Re-packaged, Re-released and Restored. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 40.ISBN9783319636788.
^Fischer, Paul (2015).A Kim Jong-Il production: the extraordinary true story of a kidnapped filmmaker, his star actress, and a young dictator's rise to power (1st ed.). New York: Flatiron Books.ISBN978-1-250-05426-5.
