Hello George,
I used to read Cahiers du Cinema a long time ago.  It isn't something I see
on my newstand regularly anymore.  The local library (Berkeley) doesn't
subscribe.  It does make sense though they would follow my line of reasoning
to explore computing technology impact upon movie making.  The left in movie
making would be highly interested in the communal possibilities they see in
the graphic production of gaming.  Essentially the collaborative processes
that ordinary people engage in to participate in a game.   Even so
Distributed Parallel Processing Computing has been around since the sixties.
The Internet is a consequence of that scientific approach.

The movie industry has been using computer graphics for a long time.
However, film theory which critics write from did not respond to computing
in the sense of the most famous creation, the internet.  Film theory, movie
theory didn't address aspects of distribution that became the problem that
napster brought up for music during the dot com/telecom bubble.

There is a famous saying in computing, Moore's law (Moore co-founded Intel)
that memory will double about every 18 months.  A Less well known saying
called a law is associated with David P. Reed.  Reed was senior scientist
with Lotus Corporation and associated with the MIT Media Lab.  Reed's Law
theorized about the edges of distributed networks.  Reed made the point that
GFN's (Group-Forming Networks) added value exponentially to information.
This simple statement says that a file exchanged in a group indicates
quickly enough which file the whole group values.  The group finds the best
value.  That group process is an exponential process of value creation.

Movies have long sought to find the big box office success.  As such the
money poured into projects that appeared to fit the mold.  But the
distribution scheme of movies remained essentially one way.  You don't make
a movie.  I don't make a movie.  The independent contractors that make
movies (documentaries that might vaguely fit into a single node analysis of
a distributed network) are working in a high cost medium that inhibits using
the medium for exchange communication.  This inhibition of production has
structurally inhibited the creation of value in the sense of Reed's law
above.  In a distributed network of file sharing where you make files and I
make files the whole network benefits from file sharing.

The movie industry rightly (their model is for one way production processes)
resists this sort of organization of the market place because the method for
determining value via distribution of products is one to many.  The many
don't make movies, the few do.  The whole question of the structural
limitation of that is called into harsh light by file sharing peer to peer
distributed real time networks.

Peer to peer networks are gaining a foothold despite the legal battle by
Hollywood and Intellectual Property Rights that the U.S. created.  If the
movie critical community ignores these issues for forty years it isn't
precisely because for example the left didn't want to.  The cost of
producing images has steadily dropped in terms of computing.   And the cost
that inhibits independent work is the drag upon file sharing technology
working in terms of Reed's Law.

The cost of copying large files and distributing those files to a group of
people as opposed to copying email and sending it to all your friends in
your list group, is what inhibited movie theory from addressing the issue of
Reed's Law.

In terms of making movies, exchanging files is an unexplored territory.  In
technical terms "Augmented Reality" is coming up on the horizon of global
culture.  When you walk down the street and you come up to a friends yard,
and see a tree, your hand held or wearable device projects onto the tree
relevant information.  The capacity to pick objects out of the world and
create information about them visually to which anyone can access at any
time is a likely outcome of Reed's Law.

For individuals like that (cell phone culture in South Korea, Finland,
Japan, China, Africa) in a distributed society, making movies is a different
medium entirely.  We can reference gaming to see the technical demand that
appears upon collaborative work in groups of people.  The power of games is
that it directly engages the feeling (affect) structure in people.  But
games still rely upon IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) restrictions which
the movie industry formulated over the preceding century.

In order for information to find exponential value information must be
distribution equally (copied cheaply) in a network.  Those networks are not
fixed but the plastic response of individuals to their ever changing
environment.  It is the networked information as a whole that is the value.
If a single element is value creation as Hollywood asserts cheap
distribution never happens.  The overwhelming value of groups of people is
about to take off in terms of making movies.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor