Some very interesting responses so far. It seems like the one thing everybody can agree on is that there's no formula for creating a cinematic aesthetic.
Do you think that a film which lacked all of the "hallmarks" that I noted would still be cinematic as long as the story is strong? Could a documentary shot on DV handicams but which hooks you and holds you for the duration qualify as cinematic?
Are you saying that the idea of a cinematic aesthetic is location/context specific? Could something perceived as cinematic on an imax screen be perceived otherwise if viewed on an ipad? Would the Lord of the Rings films still be cinematic if you watched them on an iphone?
Also, it's interesting that you mention editing style. I tend to feel as if films that utilise fast, flashy cuts (ie. The Social Network) can just as easily be cinematic as those in full of long, slow, wide shots (ie. Stalker).
What aspects of sound would you consider to be cinematic?
Your point about art direction and acting raises questions about notions of cinematic documentary styles. Is there such a thing? Do DSLRs make cinematic documentaries achievable?
A lot of films which would surely be considered in some ways cinematic make extensive use of deep focus. The obvious example is Citizen Kane, which is epic in scope, story and technique. I find it interesting that deep focus AND shallow focus can both be distinctly cinematic in their own right. This tends to make me think that aesthetic considerations are less important than story and other elements in contributing to a cinematic style.
So going by this reasoning a cinematic documentary aesthetic is achievable?
