The Alternative Vision

I have a passion for moviegoing, often an obsession. I often ask myself why am I so passionate about the idea of people sitting in a darkened space and having a story told to them. I can equate it to being told stories as I drifted off to sleep when I was a child, or as a fan of the human experience who truly feels when people witness something collectively it just is better. I read stories this week of a theater in New York screening 73 minutes of cat videos and stories of audiences in China filling theaters to watch the Olympics.

?

In regards to the Cat video presentation, I found this really fascinating.? This presentation is an assembly of 73 minutes of the cutest darn cat videos which normally would stream on platforms like YouTube. Of course I chuckled when I first read it, then I delved deeper. This movie played at over 100 theaters and took in a stunning $280,000 in box office usually at an off regular scheduled time slot. That’s a $2800 screen average per a single screening. The movie has been held over in many theaters. The Fabulous Four on the other hand opened in about 1000 theaters and saw revenue of $2.4 million. The highest per screen average was $353 smackers.

?Now can theaters live on a steady stream of cat videos to sustain itself? The answer is no, but on the other hand, YouTube seems to be doing alright. We as an industry are being constricted by a couple of key ideas: 1. That movie studio studios are the sole repository of filmed entertainment, they are not 2. That you need a national campaign in order to win any numbers. This of course is wrong, as attested to by the Cat movie. What you need are directed campaigns that focus on concentric communities of interest. I would make the argument that given social media, traditional mediums like the newspaper have collapsed and? all the rules are out the door. 3. That you need large budgets and spectacles in order to attract audiences. Again, see the Cat movie, but in reality, the budget of all the cat videos cumulatively was probably less than $1000 bucks, but the true point is that if you take a look at what people are watching within streaming, you can define their interest base. The 4 areas people watch on YouTube are anything funny, music, gaming and “how to”.

A theater I know does quarterly cooking shows and sells out, they also host virtual and in person book signing…..again they sell out. Netflix is doing a live cooking show with Dave Chang of Momofuko fame. In a world where most everything has become broken, there are really no more rules

?When I was a young cinephile, I used to trot over to the theater whenever a showing of the world’s greatest commercials, like the one from the CLIO awards of the Cannes Advertising Festival. I would sit in an often crowded auditorium and truly enjoy the experience of watching two hours of the world’s best commercials. I get very annoyed having to visually wade through 15 minutes of the world’s? worst commercials as part of the pre-show of any movie.? It is really an entertainment value.

?In the 70’s the world of moviegoing expanded. The world came to North American screens, the arthouse began to be firmly planted and Roger Corman decided to provide support for the screening of some of the world’s best movies, the word “cinema” was further defined. The business of videos when they launched was based on the depth and diversity of selection of titles. When streaming came into play diversity and depth of titles again was the main selling point. The studios on the other hand decided to buck this trend and decided to create polarized markets. They thought that spreading their cinematic products over both streaming and theatrical release was prudent. Of course as we all know now, it was dumb. Streaming is an extension of a model focused on non-linear television, where reruns of “Friends” still reigns supreme. More theaters were built and less product was released.

?

In Hollywood, the tail began to wag the dog. It began with audiences no longer dictating the market, the packaging folks at the large agencies determined the elements of what went into making a movie, in order to gain greater upfront financial compensation . They decided to ignore both history and logic. Then the studios as a whole decided to take a deep dive into the pool that was China.They ended drowning. Hollywood foolishly kept ignoring the tea leaves put forward by traditional audiences, and managed to alienate folks. Now there are breakthroughs in the box office, but I truly think it has more to do with the audiences being hungry for a movie going experience and when opportunity hits, they show up.

?Economic tools of embargo, like the VPF fee stalled a digital revolution for the theaters and in many ways suffocated opportunity. Now with the sunset of the VPF there exists a new opportunity for theaters to embrace a new digital liberation and start thinking outside the box when it comes to widening their programming base.

?I am of the firm opinion that the smartest person in this business of exhibition is the audience. I believe that it is the audience who will dictate a new renaissance for the movie going experience. The trick is are we smart enough to listen to them? Right now I am thinking about what a wide release of dogs with the zoomies movie would look like.