A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis of The New York Times look back upon the last year which was a disaster for basically all business, but one of epic proportins for the movie business:
But what about the small and midsize movies that depend on the theatrical system to find their audiences? They follow a path that starts at festivals like Sundance, Cannes and Toronto, where critical enthusiasm can spark early interest. Then they open in a few cities, building word of mouth through reviews and media coverage and eventually — if everything breaks just right — reaching a wider public and maybe winning some awards. “Parasite” followed that pattern, as did “Moonlight,” and I don’t know if those films would have had the same impact or success if they had depended on a digital release.
Neither would have had the same impact if they’d bypassed theaters. In the States, their theatrical distributors teased them beautifully: “Moonlight” opened in four theaters and “Parasite” in three, which created frenzy among certain filmgoers and allowed the movies to drip, drip, drip into the cultural consciousness all the way to Oscar night.
It’s easy to say — as I have for a while now — that movie theaters will just be for the massive blockbusters going forward. That is likely true for the most part, but this element above is also an important part of the equation and it’s not entirely clear how (or if) you replicate it via streaming… I’m tempted to think you don’t and instead you have some prestige movies that have a super limited release more to build up hype than box office…
Even with Fincher’s clout and reputation, “Mank” would have been a tough pitch — a story about a writer who drinks a lot and makes his deadline, and in black and white no less. But it found a home, alongside “Cuties,” “The Queen’s Gambit,” “Hillbilly Elegy” and 800 indistinguishable Christmas “originals.” Let the algorithm sort them out!
This is both a joke and serious! Mank (and a handful of other prestigous fare is now completely buried in the Netflix UI). They could easily solve this with a few tweaks — maybe a “theatrical” section? — but do they actually want to do that? It is sort of antithetical to what Netflix is all about. The “algorithm” per above. Still, you do have to wonder if some prestigious talent is going to demand better treatment/placement? (Which is clearly part of the reason why Netflix has bought a couple theaters themselves…)
If theaters are going to survive, moviegoing has to be something more than off-site Netflix, which is to say that the aesthetic and cultural differences between movies and television may need to be articulated anew. Going to the movies can’t only be a negative decision, a choice not to stay home and stream.
Totally agree. A theater has to be a thing worth going to, not just a change of pace from the couch (and often a worse experience).
What’s concerning are movies that can’t be looked at while we check our texts: avant-garde cinema, tough and long documentaries, serious dramas, foreign-language films, anything that requires attention, patience, time. I’m worried about what isn’t easy-watching.
Challenging movies can slide too easily to the bottom of the queue, neglected like unread books on the night stand or jars of exotic mustard at the back of the fridge.
This is somewhat related to the point above about how small, prestige films find their way (and audience). It’s a unique challenge at home, surrounded by comfortable distractions and other things to do.
What’s needed is a one-stop virtual indie megaplex, something like the independent film version of bookshop.org, an e-commerce website that’s easy to use and helps small companies.
Not a bad idea…
We’ve sometimes used “the studios” as a slightly anachronistic synonym for Hollywood. Are we entering the age of “the platforms”?
Yes.
