Cinema Doesn't Live Here Anymore

we need to recognize and embrace the microverses —those local, specific, heterogeneous ecosystems where cinema can actually thrive.

We must reclaim the creation of a public sphere through film—especially as all cultural life is increasingly privatized, corporatized, and platformed.

Instead of constantly strategizing about how to bring audiences to us , we need to flip the idea: we should be thinking about how to reach them in a more horizontal, community-based way—by going where the audiences already are.

One key issue we must urgently address is the democratization of in-person exhibition. Our Latin American ancestors from the 1960s and ’70s—those who coined the term Third Cinema —understood this well. They identified three distinct forms of cinema: the industrial Hollywood model (now replicated by global streaming platforms), the European... See more

he energy of the crowd, the texture of the space, the act of watching together: all of it contributes to the meaning of the film.

cinema is a performing art.

This isn’t just a nostalgic or romantic idea. It’s an argument for understanding cinema not as a static object, but as an event—something that happens, something experienced, something that lives in time and space. Cinema is not merely a file, a product, or a commodity to be consumed; it’s an encounter occurring in a... See more

As in politics, the real beneficiaries are not the communities they claim to represent, but larger forces that profit from local dynamics. Similarly, in cinema, the primary stakeholders—filmmakers and audiences—are often an afterthought, while the center of the equation is dominated by what is called the film industry. There is an urgent need to... See more

Today, the top festivals—Cannes, Venice, and their satellites—validate around 40 films per year. These chosen few receive all the attention, distribution, press, and awards. And the rest? Nothing. A grotesque version of the one-percent economy.