I was pointed to a 2009 blog by Matt Kelland, about Peter Greenaway speaking at a conference about the future of cinema (clicks or Mortar, Newcastle).
quote: (for full blog, click HERE
"Cinema is brain-dead."
Those were his opening words, and from that moment on, I (-Matt Kelland) was hooked. He then proceeded to tell us why film wasn't the ultimate art form, and why cinemas were stupid. "You sit in the dark, and you're expected to remain completely still for two hours. You can't even do that when you're asleep... Film is a poor narrative medium - that's why it always goes to the bookshop for inspiration... We are still using the cinematic language developed in the 20th century to tell stories in the 21st century..." And so on.
He talked a lot about the four cinematic tyrannies:
The tyranny of text: most cinema is still basically text. It's not a visual medium. It's a way of carrying the written word by other means.
The tyranny of the frame: seeing everything on a frame is completely artificial. Film should be more experiential.
The tyranny of actors: "an actor is just someone who is trained to pretend they're not being watched".
The tyranny of the camera: you're not seeing something real, you're seeing something captured by a machine.
Okay, hold it right there, Peter. No text I can give you (Koyaanisqatsi springs to mind), and no actors I can get my head around, but how the hell do you have a film with no frame and no camera?
Well, machinima people, brace yourselves...
"The future of film is in Second Life."
Yup, he really said that. What Greenaway envisages, in part, is an art form where non-linear film happens in a shared virtual space, in real time, with a blurring between creators and participants. The film is created and viewed simultaneously. The cinema is also the stage, the editing room, the sound stage. The frame is where we choose to put it.