To Those Who Say Going To The Movies Is Dying, I Say “Well, Bye”
Just so you can emotionally prepare yourself for the words that are to come, I’m fully embracing my neo-curmudgeon for the remainder of this here topic of going to the movies. It isn’t that I don’t love movies, for I certainly do. I pepper everything from my everyday conversations to the title of this very piece with quotes, allusions, and references to the multitude of films I’ve enjoyed. Spoiler warning: there will be a whole bunch more between now and then end as well, so if you want a play-along-at-home game to add some fun for the whole family discerning them all out to counterpoint my ranting about the modern cinema experience, have at it. Indeed, it is my very love of movies that has driven me to explain why I am against the thing that comes between me and them.
But that is enough build up, no 20 minutes’ worth of trailers and cell phone ads here to get to the point, unlike some other mediums.
And now, our featured presentation…
Writing over at The Bulwark’s The Triad newsletter Jonathan V. Last expressed sentiments that are certainly shared by many, for we hear variations on this theme frequently:
And I think I may be the last generation—or at best the next-to-last generation—for whom that is true. The Millennials seem more attached to the prestige television of their youth. The kids today seem much more likely to be formed by YouTube and TikTok than something you drive to the mall to watch in a crowded auditorium.
This is all bad. And not “get off my lawn” bad, but seriously bad.
Cinema means something. It means a blend of artistic and commercial intents. It means a level of quality commensurate with finite product lines.
It means a shared culture. It means a shared experience. It means making contact with other humans in physical, incarnate ways—you ask a girl to go and actually sit next to you at the movies.
And in a world where our attention is always divided—your phone, your laptop, the TV on the wall, the conversations of people around you—the movie theater is literally the only activity which gets your full and complete attention. It’s the only experience we’re able to give ourselves over to, completely without distraction.
And the movies are dying. Or rather, they’re being choked out of existence by the free money the stock market showers on tech companies. It’s like a super-sized version of what the big-box revolution did to downtowns and small-businesses. And how’d that work out for us?
Those big-box concepts weren’t sustainable. And neither are the economics of the streaming revolution. At some point, the bill will come due at Netflix.
But not in time to save the movies.
There is an eternal struggle when writing or commenting on culture because culture means something different to everyone, is always changing, and is like trying to explain a multiverse to someone who has only a tentative grasp of the original one. All of those same perils go double for arguing based on experience, and “the experience” to the reader/listener is either a point of commonality bringing them together or the immediate dividing line of separation. Then there is the problem that experience is a smaller wheel turning inside the bigger, faster wheel of time and the further you go, the less windows through the latter there are to access the former. What was the old math problem I never bothered learning about two unstoppable parallel trains and different speed and passing between them? But fighters fight, writers write, and experience is the fountainhead for most of a writer’s best stuff, so here we are.
It is the going to the movies “experience” itself that makes my retort to “they are dying” to be an emphatic, Shatner-esque “let them die,” complete with looking as bulged-eyed as a bullfrog in a hailstorm. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the cinema-going experience sucks. Out loud. In way-too-loud surround sound. For all the bemoaning folks do about the escalating and expanding prices of the various streaming services, a single trip to one single movie with even a small contingent of my household is of equal or greater cost. That cost is before factoring in the legendarily and much joked about concession prices that require the taking out of a second mortgage and the bartering of your firstborn into a life of indentured servitude for a box of stale candy you could get post-Halloween for pennies on the dollar. Oh, well known and practiced is the designated member of the party with the oversized purse stuffed with goodies, but such desperate methods of the underground La Résistance should not be a necessary part of “the experience.” You fancy, hoity toity cinema goers who dine at tables with steak dinners and adult beverages and such just sit this out; you are the exception that proves the rule.
“But the shared human experience” comes the cry, but your crying game has no effect on me to compensate for “the experience” of paying a premium for something that is then placed at the mercy of several hundred folks each with their own agenda. Those viral videos of crowd reactions to things like the latest reveal in the most recent of the interminable Marvel movies? No thank you. “But the experience of going to the movies with your date and…” No, nah, nope. Sell your cinematic medicine show mythology elsewhere, not to those of us who had to suffer through the slog that was the first theater run of Titanic under the cultural pressure that every eligible date HAD to see it. Usually multiple times. The effect left our love and hearts for the cinema as dead and cold as Jack being let go by the lying liar who was, literally, doing the exact opposite of her overwrought words with her dramatically scripted actions.
You want a shared human moment in the cinema? The standing ovation and applause by the social entrapped vocal males when the greatest cinema villain in all movie history, Rose DeWitt Bukater, realizes that, not content with sinking a ship and killing over a thousand people by distracting the lookouts with her ridiculousness, she also killed her street-smart love interest by refusing to share. That was a great moment in shared humanity, of throwing off the chains inflicted upon the ticket-buying masses by James Cameron colluding with Big Cinema, early CGI, and Celine Dion.
Cinema as we know it is dying? Good, let them die, and paint their failure to cater to the public who deserve better like one of your French girls laid bare for the world to see. The cinema has long been the price-gouging middleman between film and the movie-going public, and like all middlemen, time and technology has found a way around them. That’s a them problem. For far too long the public that was going to the movies was treated like so many human batteries powering an industry matrix that was only necessary in the first place because no one but the ultra-elite had a 70mm projector at their home. Now almost everyone has a device in the palm of their hands that contains the entire depth and breadth of human knowledge, including access to almost everything ever filmed. If you can get past the gatekeepers with the proper toll or a little ingenuity.
But like Kirk with the Klingons, we realize we aren’t — in the end — going to let them die. Cinemas will change to be more like what we want them to be, like the alien species in Star Trek always do to wind up more human than they started (because, human writers, ‘natch). Going to the movies will evolve into something more profitable, different, creating a new experience for someone else to reference many moons from now about how great it was way back when in 2021. Those theaters that don’t adapt will die. Those that do, won’t.
But do not fret, cinephiles and keepers of the going to the movies mythologies. We are nowhere near seeing the last picture show for those who see going to the movies as a sacrament in the civic religion. Sometime in the next decade or so the streaming platforms that culled the cinemas will overreach, overcharge, underdeliver. And somewhere far, far away in that not-too-distant future, someone will have the amazing idea of what if everyone came together and just watch one screen all together instead of doing it separately? The masses will praise them as a visionary, as the new prophet for cinematic profit. It’s the circle of life, a rebirth after a death or near-death. It is less “My God, what have I done” and more “That’s the way it goes.”
Fin.
Johnathan Last has the finance wrong. Netflix is not surviving on free money. It is cranking out profits, which is why its stock is so desirable.
Netflix along with the other streaming services, allows for a very different kind of – what shall I call it? – moving picture experience. The two-hour film exists because of human limitations.
But now binge-watching at home, where you have a pause button and an available bathroom, and snacks that don’t cost an arm and a length, have opened up a space for moving-picture experiences that last 10 hours, or 30.
That’s good.
AND, there’s something to me about being with a big crowd I like. It’s odd, because I’m kind of an interovert. And yet, I went to Husky football games and yelled “AIITCH!!!” at the top of my lungs with 80,000 other people when the cheerleader said, “Give me an H!”
It was glorious, it was powerful. I like being in a theater with other people, even when they aren’t screaming at the top of their lungs.Report
The easiest way for cinema to survive is for studios to stop charging theaters so much for a movie, or by making the contracts so difficult to profit from.Report
I dunno, Oscar. That sort of thing strikes me as “two rich and powerful parties arguing about who gets the last penny”. They are welcome to do that.
I don’t like rising ticket prices, of course, but I think they have a pretty good sense of what they can charge.Report
Yep, it is. And the beauty of streaming is that consumers now have another option besides waiting forever for the movie to hit cable, or paying high ticket and concession prices.
My understanding of the concession prices is that is where theaters make their profits, as most of the ticket sales go straight to the studios for the first few weeks of a showing. If people have a choice to see a movie at home, then theaters won’t make as much profit, and won’t be able to afford what the studios are charging.
So either the theater goes out of business or the studios charge less.
What annoys me is people ranting about how it’s up to the consumer to save theaters by tolerating the argument between two rich parties in order to support the one that provides the product packaging they prefer.Report
Well said, Andrew.
The gap between the multiplex experience and a home theater experience is pretty small at this point. (A flatscreen and sound bar in every pot!)
Add in the convenience, new releases available on demand and hell being other people, if Tarantino doesn’t make another film, I may never step foot in a movie theater again.Report
Good heavens. Could this be any more “apples v. oranges?” Seeing a film on a television is not the same experience as seeing one in a theater amongst an audience. More examples? Seeing a ballgame on TV is not the same experience as being at the ballpark. Seeing the actual Mona Lisa on-screen is not the same experience as standing in front of it. Actually…uh…procreating is not the same experience as watching people…uh…procreate on television. It is certainly acceptable to compare those things, but to equate them is totally missing the point. I understand negative feelings about ticket prices, or bad facilities, or crowded conditions, but if you think that you are getting the same, or even a closely equivalent, experience from your television/handheld device as you would get at the theater, that’s just not the case. My strategy, as a pretty goofy movie fan, is to go to half-price matinees at good theaters when there are few people there. I miss a bit of the “crowd zeitgeist,” but I get the immersive effect. Probably shouldn’t recommend this but, though I am usually loaded up with popcorn (essential movie adjunct), there have been times when I filled my pockets with something before going into the theater. I feel a bit guilty about that, but judging by the comments here, people are upset enough about the “filthy corporate overlords” that I probably won’t catch much flack about depriving them of a sale or two. Theaters forever!Report
A movie is not a concert, it’s not a sporting event, and it certainly isn’t sex.
When I’m immersed in a film or television show, it’s a completely personal experience. It’s made for an introvert like myself. A crowd can only detract from my viewing experience. I don’t want or need to share it until it’s over. (then I love discussing it).
People talking, chewing loudly, cheering? No thanks.Report
Introvert to introvert — I get your point. Don’t really agree, but I get it. FWIW I have a DVD library of over 300 titles and a giant home theater system. (It even says “Home Theater” on my monitor “Input” list!). In a room alone is quite a different thing than “swept up in the crowd emotion.” For me, a movie definitely can be very akin to a concert or a sporting event and, Femrex will tell you, perhaps even a little bit of the latter, given the film. I can get a quite passionate over a movie sometimes. Talking? Chewing? That’s why theaters have parking lots. Perfect for those reprobates.Report
My response is kind of along these lines, but the crowd really has little to do with my movie going experience. Many of the movies made these days are perfectly suited for the small screen. However, watching, say, Lawrence of Arabia on TV leaves a lot to be desired (I’ve done that, and seen it in all its 70mm glory, and let me tell you, they are not at all alike.).
My complaint, thus, is that too few movie makers are taking advantage of the big screen real estate, rendering their films perfectly suited to a TV, or, God forbid, a phone. Give me the set design of Wes Anderson, who is able to make small movies that need a big screen!
As far as concessions go, I certainly don’t begrudge the theater operator my purchase. Are they a rip off? Most likely, but it’s part of the movie going experience for me. (Which is not to say I haven’t carried my own stuff in at times. I used to see movies with a friend who liked to think she was putting something over on the theater by sneaking in some Nando’s wings and a bottle of wine. I never had the heart to tell her the minimum wage ticket takers sure weren’t going to make a scene.)Report
One very cool thing about Wes Anderson’s flicks is how they demand to be seen on a large, very detailed screen, AND have to be watched via DVD/streaming where one can hit Pause and scan all the background details that fly by so quickly and are so worth the search.Report
All I’m gonna say is I just got back from the movie theatre a few hours ago.
Okay, also that there will come a day when Covid will finally be completely over, and the next day people are going to be headed out to public spaces. Movie theatres will be fine. It’s easier for kids to make out and grope each other in the back of the theatre than the living room.
Finally, I vaguely remember writing a similar rant about how annoying movie theatre-going can be like a decade ago here, and there was a thread full of a troll starting a fight because I was supposedly too PC to have made the rant about Black folks at the movies, something that *never* occurred to me.Report
My wife and I went to see To Sleep with Anger, a movie with an all black cast. Naturally, the audience was primarily black, and the talking at the screen was epic. There’s a scene in which a male character strikes a woman in the kitchen and she grabs a knife from the counter and waves it at him. A lady in the audience yelled out, “That’s right, cut him.” It brought the house down. This happened 30 years ago and I remember it like it was yesterday.Report
Yeah, I liked To Sleep with Anger quite a bit. It’s probably my favorite Danny Glover role.
I used to love going to see horror movies in DC, but it’s just- I live in Southern Ontario- Black audiences were the last thing on my mind!Report
I like going to movie theatres but the trend as been going the other way long before COVID. The issue seems to be the kind of stuff that will get made without movie theatres. It is not the MCU I an worried about. It is movies like Licorice Pizza or Drive my Car. Movies, you know, that believe in acting and dualogue, not boom boom wow.Report
How did Rose sink the ship, Andrew? Obviously not directly; the iceberg was an impartial, uncaring world that intruded upon the fantasy bubble that was Titanic. But I don’t see that Rose did anything to disturb the world. Failing to see the iceberg was the lookouts’ fault, not Rose’s. She could hardly have been the first pretty girl kissing a boy on the deck of the ship they had seen even that night.
Indeed, it seems to me she entered a world of fantasy when she fell in love with Jack the sincere, world-appreciating man and resisted marrying the uncaring and superficial Cal. Then the real world (the iceberg) crushed Rose’s happiness along with everyone else’s.
At best, are we to take from this interpretation that the world works in a certain way and you must simply go along with it, suffering unhappiness along the way, lest daring to try for something better invite disaster and ruin? That’s a pretty bleak emotional message to what is, after all, a fairly standard love triangle story.Report
Nice rejoinder to Andrew’s “Rose Calumny.” How can anyone refer to Rose as “the greatest cinema villain” when there’s Scarlett O’Hara, roaring through the South like a tornado, cutting a swath of destruction almost as complete as Sherman’s.Report