Cinephilia, take three?: Availability, reliability, and disenchantment in the streaming era

This article proposes a modified reading of Thomas Elsaesser’s theories of cinephilia, taking into account the new viewing practices established by the rise of online media streaming. Elsaesser characterised early film culture (labelled as ‘take one’) as rooted in celluloid and marked by a longing to view films that were not always easily available. By contrast, his characterisation of the later ‘take two’ era is one in which each new distribution technology (television, VHS, and so on) promises greater abundance and convenience, to the point where this new generation of cinephiles – in response to the widespread success of DVD – were perceived as having to deal with the ‘anachronisms generated by total availability’. Amanda D. Lotz argues that streaming services appear to provide an extension of the ‘take two’ ideal, offering assurances of ‘ availability (on-demand libraries with many choices) and reliability (you don’t have to watch it now or it’s gone)’. I suggest, however, that the underlying impermanence of streaming has prompted fears related to both access and ownership, marking a break from the expectations surrounding the DVD (as well as its successors Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD). The impact of content migration – fracturing access between a greater number of paid platforms – and particularly content delisting – the outright removal of access to a given text – can place certain works in a form of limbo. This article proposes the dawn of a new generation of cinephilia – a potential take three – marked by a newfound concern of ephemerality, albeit much more potential and localised than the widespread unavailability of the take one era. In essence, then, take three wrestles with the anachronisms of loss in a media landscape that, in many other ways, offers unprecedented levels of access to film and television content.