The fact is (to use the language of quantum mechanics), quite simply, the present doesn’t exist. According to post-Einsteinian physics, the past and the future no longer oppose each other (as was long believed), separated by a third time period which supposedly corresponds to “now”: scientists say this concept doesn’t mean a thing. “World events do not queue up like the British. They mill around like the Italians,” as Carlo Rovelli ironically noted. To continue the opening metaphor, we should probably note that the “cinema of the present” is a meaningless phrase. For example, there are directors and producers who continue to make movies the way they were made in the last century, and others who instead follow unusual methods, experiment with new languages and narrations, create new media. Not only should we accept the idea that they can legitimately coexist. We must. For the simple reason that it isn’t that things “are”: things happen. To quote Rovelli once again: “People can believe that the world is made of things. Of substance. Of entities. Of something which is. Which remains. Or they can believe that the world is made of events. Of incidents. Of processes. Of something which happens. Which doesn’t last, which is a continuous transformation”. Now, try substituting the word “world” with the word “cinema.” In our case, too, this change of perspective is fascinating. To consider cinema a collection of events, of processes, helps us to better grasp it, comprehend it, describe it. A few examples? If we stop believing in a before and an after, in keeping with a linear and progressive logic, we realize that it is useless to compare the cinema of the past with the most recent cinema (or even better, with tomorrow’s). It is useless to complain that today’s movies aren’t as beautiful as yesterday’s, as though some form of original purity had been lost through their diversity. Or to refuse to accept the changes brought about by technological transformations, the digital revolution, or changes in the market.