Paul Schrader: "Theatrical cinema is dead"

Sad Professor

Paul Schrader posted this on Facebook yesterday:

Ten years ago at Telluride I said on a panel that theatrical distribution was dying. It seemed obvious to me. I was surprised how many in the audience violently objected: "People will always want to go to the movies!" That's true but it's also true that theatrical cinema as we once knew it has died. Theatrical cinema is now Event Cinema, just as theatrical plays and musical performances are Events. No one just goes to a movie. It's a planned occasion. Four types of Event Cinema remain: 1. Spectacle (Imax style blockbusters) 2. Family (cartoon like features) 3 Horror (teen driven) and 4 Film Club (formerly art house but now anything serious). There are some isolated pockets like black cinema, romcom, girl's night out, seniors, teen grossouts, but it's primarily those four. Everything else is TV. Now I have to go back to episode five of Looming Tower.

Is he right?

silverharp

cinema prices in the US have nearly doubled since 1995 at a time when other forms of entertainment have fallen. so yep they want to go down the "stadium concert" route.

NIMAN

Still plenty of people use the multiplex up here, so locally probably not, but I do think on a global scale he might be right, as more people get their entertainment at home.

With the likes of Amazon, Netflix, etc all expanding rapidly, I do think cinema is definitely changing and who knows what it will be like in the next few decades. After all, people might have 55" TVs and surround sound at home, but you'll never have a screen as big as in the cinema, will you?

Harry Palmr

Old man rails at the world moment!

We all know that large studio film is now event driven even the studios have copped on to what they created by making fewer films in the last couple of years. I actually think there is a swing back myself as blockbusters wilt and cheap, quality films 'overperform'.

Billy86

He's got a decent point but the 'film club' part is a bit of a cop out, no? Basically it's saying "ok yeah so these people go to movies like they used to but I don't want to acknowledge that for the sake of my argument."

Cinema is slowly dying out in general, of course it won't fully go but ticket sales havebeen on the wane for some time. If not for China, this would have been remarkably more pronounced over the last decade in terms of global box office takes. Internet, streaming services, tonnes of screen you can watch on (e.g. not needing to sit in front of the TV), a huge boost in the quality of television (imo it has overtaken cinema in that respect), general changing public interests, and easier access to some fancy bits like projectors all play a factor.

Sad Professor

Billy86 wrote: »

He's got a decent point but the 'film club' part is a bit of a cop out, no? Basically it's saying "ok yeah so these people go to movies like they used to but I don't want to acknowledge that for the sake of my argument."

Well, I think his point is that even that is now part of "event cinema". Like the other categories he mentions, it is treated as a planned occasion, like going to a rock concert. Seeing a movie theatrically is no longer something you just do. There's a big hoo-ha associated with it. In many cases the movie itself is irrelevant as the occasion is just excuse to hang out with friends or do something with the family. At least that's how I interpret what he's saying.

As silverharp said, going to the cinema is just too expensive now. Unless your local multiplex offers a monthly subscription or family discount etc, "just going to the movies", as people used to, is kinda a thing of the past. Vue in Liffey Valley has been running an ad the last few year which declares "this is not a cinema... it's live theatre... live sports... music festival... season finale", etc etc. Multiplexes have already given up on the idea of people going to see a movie on a regular basis, now it's all about getting them in there for other events.

NIMAN

"Going to the cinema" is an event for sure now.

As a parent of 3 small kids, it is seen as a treat. We don't do it often, maybe because the world of entertainment has changed, and the kids get all the entertainment they need off Netflix etc if they want to watch a film (mine aren't big film watchers anyway).

But a day when we decide to go to the cinema, is definitely expensive. Tickets are £4.50 each, so thats £22.50 alone without food. Add in popcorn and drinks and you can nearly double that. Not much change out of 50 for a few hours entertainment. Its an expensive day out.

Billy86

Sad Professor wrote: »

Well, I think his point is that even that is now part of "event cinema". Like the other categories he mentions, it is treated as a planned occasion, like going to a rock concert. Seeing a movie theatrically is no longer something you just do. There's a big hoo-ha associated with it. In many cases the movie itself is irrelevant as the occasion is just excuse to hang out with friends or do something with the family. At least that's how I interpret what he's saying.

As silverharp said, going to the cinema is just too expensive now. Unless your local multiplex offers a monthly subscription or family discount etc, "just going to the movies", as people used to, is kinda a thing of the past. Vue in Liffey Valley has been running an ad the last few year which declares "this is not a cinema... it's live theatre... live sports... music festival... season finale", etc etc. Multiplexes have already given up on the idea of people going to see a movie on a regular basis, now it's all about getting them in there for other events.

You may be right on the first.

The second part you definitely are though. It's an odd, kind of perverse path that the box office has gone on. Because North American have been in decline for the last 15 or so years, from generating over half the global box office down to around 30% of it, and European box office figures having a similar slide, the studios need to look abroad on a larger scale, especially as there are now far more cinemas in other parts of the world than there used to be.

China is the biggest example, having gone from essentially no box office pull or cinemas as recently as 2002 (less than the Netherlands in that year) to having the most screens in the world as of 2016. They have also had more people migrate into their new cities in that time that the entire population of North America and over half that of all of Europe (approx 400mn as of 2016 if memory serves, which is staggering when you think about it). Added to that, expendable incomes have ballooned so fast that it makes the Celtic Tiger look like a nothingness - all of this has combined to give China 20% of the entire global box office in 2016, and I think I read they may have surpassed North America since then. This has helped global box office numbers from utterly collapsing over the last decade, but it has also brought about it's own issues.

First is culture. North America and even most of Europe are relatively similar by comparison, but China is a whole different world and so an awful lot does not translate well to their audiences - this has been a major contributing factor to the downfall of the rom-com and the likes of the buddy cop movie. So because of this, there is a need to make something that will work for everyone, and that is a big reason why many major films don't resonate on that deep level anymore and instead feel bland and quite vanilla. It's also why visual spectacle has entirely taken over for the blockbusters (also because that's not as impressive when downloaded and played on a laptop, so it keeps some of the 'big screen pull' for casual audiences who might otherwise pirate).

Second is novelty. Think of how blown away you were when you first saw Jurassic Park, or Star Wars, or the Matrix, or whatever the first movie you saw in the cinema that was the 'must watch' of it's generation because of it's effects. OK now imagine you were from China, had moved from the coutnry to the city, and had never even been to the cinema in your life despite being an adult. Think of how something like The Avengers or even Transformers would absolutely knock you off your feet despite being a bland movie for the first, and utterly terrible garbage for the second. This is in no small part why Transformers kept making so much money for so long, it was actually making more money in China than North America- the Transformers movie last year made $228mn in China compared to $130mn in North America, and Warcraft in 2016 was saved from going down in the John Carter, Pluto Nash, Cutthroat Island level of failure if not for China (where it made half of it's total, and about 4.5 times what it did in North America - 213mn vs 47mn). Likewise for the Fast & Furious movies, they did well in many countries but absolutely killed it in China. When you ask yourself "how the f*** do these movies make so much money!?" the answer is almost invariably, China. And to be honest, I can't blame them all things considered.

Third, is policy. China are still very restrictive on what movies they allow be to shown. The Fugitive was the first non-Chinese movie shown in theatres since Mao's revolution, and they had a limit of something like 5 foreign movies er year until the early 2000s. They then expanded that to about 20 and somewhere over Obama's tenure (can't remember exactly when) it got bumped to 32. However because it's China, they do not want anything provocative nor anything that they would deem as 'propaganda', but due to the swing they now have, if you want to make a big budget movie you pretty much have to be looking to get onto that list of 32 foreign films to ensure profits (the limit also means you have less competition if you do get in) which also ties into the blandness.

Anyway, I've completely strayed . My point was that what translates well to Chinese audiences are simply highly visual movies with far less emphasis on nuance, relationships, language, culture, or anything that would previously have been more specific to a North American/European audience. Obviously this means movies cost a lot more to make, and this is only made worse by the fact that advertising you movie globally costs a lot more than in fewer key markets (and what sell a movie in America may not do anything for a Chinese audience, while what sells to a Chinese audience might leave a Brazilian audience likely to go watch it, and so on and so on). Unfortunately, these costs in turn are passed to the consumer, and also at times from the distributor to the venue in terms of what percentage they get, meaning it makes a lot more sense for venues to sell you and sell you harder on items beyond the movie ticket (and popcorn and soft drinks won't bridge the gap). This results in the modern cinema experience where people are paying more for a movie they are less emotionally engaged with in an age where there's not really a CGI effect out there that will wow us anymore (when the Chinese audiences hit that point, and there are signs they are beginning to, it's going to get very interesting!), they need to look elsewhere. I hadn't noticed those ads about live sports etc but I can see the logic behind it, not needing to give a huge chunk of the sale value to distributors.





TLDR: Why are cinema tickets more expensive, the experience less about the actual movie and instead more of an 'experience/event' which might not even be a movie? In no small part because of this:

Harry Palmr

McDonalds, Coca Cola, Hollywood.

SimonTemplar

I used to see about 4 or 5 new releases a week in the cinema. I now wait for 80% of them to be available to rent on iTunes because I find modern audiences to be too distracting with mobile phones, talking, loud eating, kicking seats, etc..

I know this is a bit like Victor Meldrew but I've a nice setup at home and I just find it much more comfortable. I'll pop to The Lighthouse if there is a film I really want to see, or an early screening at a multiplex. These are usually for movies for which there is a lot of discussion online such as Star Wars, Marvel or things like Hereditary.

I know some others feel the same I as do, but I'm unsure if that has had a sizable effect on cinema attendance. I doubt it.

megaten

I mean his point is 'cinema is dead in these very specific criteria as listed below'.

It's not like this hasn't happened before when TV hit. There's nothing wrong with a commercial medium changing to fit the times.

pixelburp

I do agree that the nature of cinema has changed: just looking at the modern blockbuster, more and more there's a pervasive sense of it being an 'event', as folks have already said it has morphed into an outing more akin to a rock concert - or indeed a themepark rollercoaster.

That said, between Schrader and other directors from roughly concurrent generations (looking at the likes of Spielberg, Cameron or Ridley Scott) making similar comments, I have a strong suspicion these folks are missing the boat a little - if not plain showing their age / inability to adapt - on just where the creative, artistic or dramatic productions have gone to. Heck, in the case of Spielberg, his attempts at TV productions have generally been pretty poor.

As we probably know ourselves around here, TV has an abundance of creative, 'legitimate' productions, be it via broadcast or streaming services. Now, while there's a substantive, unique quality that the cinema experience brings, with the average living room now boasting large, HD televisions you just don't have to go to a cinema for the best visual experience (in fact, depending on where you live your cinema may be vastly inferior to a 'standard' TV). Ok, streaming TV through a mobile phone is a pox and probably accounts for a depressing percentage of audience figures - but the same is true of films now too.

ButtersSuki

I LOVE going to the cinema, I have done since I was a child.


What I can't stand however is the muppets in the audience who don't know how to behave in public whilst attending a screening. Though there are exceptions, I find I now pretty much only go to screenings at the IFI or The Light House.



To combat this I invested very heavily in creating my own home cinema. I wouldn't say I prefer this to the cinema experience, but I certainly prefer the audience.

Agent Coulson

As long as I have been going to the cinema as a child since the late 70's early 80's it has been an Event experience for me.


Waiting now to go see The Man Who Killed Don Quixote which will be as big an event movie for me as going to see the latest blockbuster.


Video killed the radio star it also killed the film star in a sense.

losthorizon

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I used to see about 4 or 5 new releases a week in the cinema. I now wait for 80% of them to be available to rent on iTunes because I find modern audiences to be too distracting with mobile phones, talking, loud eating, kicking seats, etc..

I know this is a bit like Victor Meldrew but I've a nice setup at home and I just find it much more comfortable. I'll pop to The Lighthouse if there is a film I really want to see, or an early screening at a multiplex. These are usually for movies for which there is a lot of discussion online such as Star Wars, Marvel or things like Hereditary.

I know some others feel the same I as do, but I'm unsure if that has had a sizable effect on cinema attendance. I doubt it.

Thats why I go on a Monday. Virtually no one there. Plus I wait a week or two after the film has arrived. Its amazing but sometimes you have the cinema almost to yourself. Watching a film on the big screen is better. I usually go only once a month so Im not a massive film watcher and still buy blu-rays as Im old fashioned (im old:().