Art house cinema is dying

[Oedipax]

Look at a company like Amazon, they thrive on people like us. I read recently that although the may sell thousands of copies of Harry Potter they make great money on niche titles.

This is related to what's been called the 'long tail' argument, which states that the old sales economy of concrete retail outlets with very finite shelf space will give way to the Amazons of the world with no brick and mortar outlets and nearly infinite virtual shelf space. The great thing about this model is companies can still make money on the high-profile major releases (the short tail), but they might make just as much money in the long term by selling a copy here and there of lesser known art/foreign/independent/classic stuff. It doesn't mean great commercial success for the makers of said niche fare, but it at least adds an incentive for stores to carry their films, since the cost of shelf space is so trivialized. It doesn't speak well to the viability of non-tent pole scaled films, of course.

[zedz]

These "art cinema is dead" discussions always turn my stomach. If any one of their decrepit proponents actually demonstrated some basic familiarity with contemporary art cinema if would be easier to take their shrill Cassandra-isms seriously. Who says Hou Hsiao-hsien is a lesser filmmaker than Michelangelo Antonioni? Oh sorry, I forgot that "art cinema" = Dead / White / European / Male / Modernist. Plus apparently Star Wars, if you ask la Paglia. That's her credibility on this subject in a nutshell, as far as I'm concerned.

[chaddoli]

I agree with zedz here on principle, but what I think the difference is that no one sees the new Hou Hsiao Hsien film, or the new Abbas Kiarostami film, or the new Dardenne Bros. film like they perhaps would have in the past. I wasn't alive in the 60s and 70s, but it seems that audiences were a lot more conscious then. Weren't there lines around the block for each new Bergman? Wasn't it cool to see Blowup? Perhaps that's unrealistic revisionism, or maybe it was only like that in New York City. But even given that restriction, I sat at an empty IFC Center theater and watched Syndromes and a Century, then did it again a few months later for I Don't Want to Sleep Alone.

The cinema isn't dead but the arthouses are.

[Nothing]

Who says Hou Hsiao-hsien is a lesser filmmaker than Michelangelo Antonioni?

I do.

[miless]

Who says Hou Hsiao-hsien is a lesser filmmaker than Michelangelo Antonioni?

I do.

At the time when Antonioni was still making a name for himself people were considering him lesser than many of the previous generation of filmmakers...
in fact you could say the same thing of most everyone since D.W.Griffith.

Antonioni wasn't always accepted as the master he is today.

[MichaelB]

I wasn't alive in the 60s and 70s, but it seems that audiences were a lot more conscious then. Weren't there lines around the block for each new Bergman? Wasn't it cool to see Blowup? Perhaps that's unrealistic revisionism, or maybe it was only like that in New York City. But even given that restriction, I sat at an empty IFC Center theater and watched Syndromes and a Century, then did it again a few months later for I Don't Want to Sleep Alone.

I can't speak for the 1960s or 70s, but I can certainly attest to the fact that in the early 1990s, Krzysztof Kieślowski's films regularly generated queues round the block, as I managed one of the cinemas in question.

But there was a strong element of fashion operating - when we first started showing Kieślowski's work in the late 1980s (A Short Film About Killing), audiences were respectable but hardly blockbuster level. It was really only when the Three Colours trilogy came out that his work suddenly became must-see - and those films had a huge amount of marketing, critical and festival hype associated with them. So you need to bear in mind that a huge proportion of the audience weren't seeing the films because they were desperate to see the latest Franco-Polish-Swiss spiritual meditation, they went because all their friends were going and it was (briefly) incredibly trendy to be seen doing so.

And probably the biggest previous arthouse darling in London was Peter Greenaway - for exactly the same reasons: Jean-Paul Gaultier's connection with The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and her Lover was a masterstroke, as it guaranteed acres of fashion magazine coverage. And you can probably find similar elements with a vast number of other arthouse hits - definitely including Antonioni's 1960s ones.

But Hou and the Dardennes have never had that kind of hype, so in terms of public recognition outside a tiny coterie of cinéastes they might as well not exist at all.

I know the Weinsteins (often deservedly) get a lot of abuse, but they also recognised that canny marketing is just as important in the arthouse sector as it is elsewhere - all too often, there's a snobbish assumption that any kind of marketing other than "look how many great reviews it got in highbrow French journals!" is somehow demeaning.

When I worked on a 1992 revival of Belle de Jour in London, we deliberately billed it as a soft porn film - the poster tagline was "The Rolls-Royce of sex films". Yes, I know that's cringeworthy in the extreme, but my God it worked - the film was one of the biggest hits I was ever involved with, and smashed the box office record at both the cinemas it played in. (To be fair, another vital element was the fact that it opened up against My Cousin Vinny, and newspaper picture editors invariably favoured a large colour still of Catherine Deneuve naked over a picture in any format of Joe Pesci in a leather jacket - but that's all part of the hype process too).

[chaddoli]

I suppose you're right for the most part. A lot of the filmmakers I mentioned are decidedly NOT fashionable. Someone that fits that category nowadays is Wong Kar Wai. Antonioni and Belle de Jour were fashionable, Bergman and Kieslowski were accessible.

I guess the difference is that today every auteur who is remotely marketable (being either fashionable or accessible or for whatever reason) is immediately snatched up by Hollywood. On second thought I don't think the filmmakers I mentioned have much in common with the arthouse box office draws of the past. I'd bet about as many people went to see the new Bresson film as they do the new Dardenne film today.

[Le Feu Follet]

Who says Hou Hsiao-hsien is a lesser filmmaker than Michelangelo Antonioni?

I do.

Really, it isn't interesting to make such a bald assertion of your opinion. At least tell us why you think that.

[miless]

I suppose you're right for the most part. A lot of the filmmakers I mentioned are decidedly NOT fashionable. Someone that fits that category nowadays is Wong Kar Wai.

Are you saying that Wong Kar Wai is or is not fashionable? If you are saying he is not, I have to beg to differ with you. When 2046 came out here in Portland, the theater was packed (I even went and saw it with my dad, by no means an art-film enthusiast, and he loved it).

I tend to find that films bring a maximum crowd when shown at a festival (when there are only a few showings). Films like Ten Canoes, Fay Grim, Lights in the Dusk, Private Fears in Public Places, Invisible Waves, Zoo and Climates were all either fairly crowded or sold out when shown at the Portland International Film Festival... but when the theater I work at got Climates, Ten Canoes and Private Fears they both did mediocre to terrible business (we are opening Lights in the Dusk in two weeks, and it will be interesting to see how it does)

[MichaelB]

I'd bet about as many people went to see the new Bresson film as they do the new Dardenne film today.

I'm relying on 24-year-old memory here, but I don't recall L'Argent packing them in on its original London release back in 1983, despite ecstatic reviews - although it went on to have a very healthy repertory life. (Which is something that's largely been superseded by DVD)

[chaddoli]

I was saying Wong Kar Wai is fashionable.

I meant Bresson did as little business as the Dardennes now do.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Nothing]

At the time when Antonioni was still making a name for himself people were considering him lesser than many of the previous generation of filmmakers...

Hou is hardly still making a name for himself. What, 16 features and counting? It's just pretty hard to compete with the greatest filmmaker in the history of cinema. And if one more person compares the Dardennes to Bresson I might just...

[miless]

And if one more person compares the Dardennes to Bresson I might just...

yeah, Haneke is a much closer comparison point.

[Antoine Doinel]

Who wants to guess how fast this will fail?

Movies With Plenty To Chew On

Australian media company Village Roadshow has disclosed that tickets for its deluxe Gold Star Cinemas will go for $35 apiece when the theaters open in the U.S. The Hollywood Reporter said today (Wednesday) that the company is planning to open 50 such theaters in this country over the next 5 years, with the first to open in suburban Chicago this year, featuring reserved seating (only 40 seats per theater), special parking, and "upscale" food service by waiters in the auditoriums. "It's an absolutely different environment than anything else that exists," Village Roadshow CEO Graham Burke told the trade paper. Village Roadshow has already opened some 100 Gold Class theaters in Australia, Singapore and Greece.

[Barmy]

LOL. I remember a few years back reserved seating in Manhattan was in vogue for about 2 minutes. If I feel compelled to go to a sold out opening weekend show, I would rather go early and pick my seats. And if it's not sold out, who needs reserved seating?

But I do think it would be AWESOME to watch a movie in a tiny theater full of people eating dinner, and pay 3x normal ticket prices to do so.

[pianocrash]

If this makes the proliferation of dollar theaters nearer and less bum-ridden to me, then I'm all for the higher income bracket allowing me that luxury. I'd rather have the illusion of people going to see more films, even if it's clouded with gourmet food, convenient parking, and a masseuse on hand during it all. This type of operation will be great for the suburban areas of the states, where most affluents are cash rich and just don't know what to do with their millions, anyhow.

[Antoine Doinel]

I just don't get who this is for. Average moviegoers already complaining of high ticket and concession prices will stay away. And the upper crust who won't mind dropping $100 for a movie and food, probably already have kick ass home theaters anyway. The one smart thing they're doing is opening them in the suburbs - the only place this has any hope of surviving.

[MichaelB]

I wouldn't speak too soon - in the late 1990s, my old stamping ground the Everyman Cinema was revamped and rebranded from repertory fleapit to upmarket luxury venue with sky-high prices to match.

I honestly thought they'd be forced to close within months: there's no way they'd keep the place's old audience (who were used to paying a pittance for triple bills), so they'd have to build up a new one from scratch.

But I was completely wrong - ten years on, they seem to be thriving. So there clearly is a market for this sort of thing, provided it's targeted intelligently.

[ellipsis7]

A new independent (and partially grant supported) arthouse cinema, the Lighthouse, opens May in Dublin - 4 screens, 600 seats...

Interesting to see how it fares... Will compete with the Arts Council funded IFC Cinemas (2 screens) and the part arthouse commercial 3 screen Screen Cinema...

[ellipsis7]

Actually David, I'm much like you, mostly programming my own viewing at home on DVD playing on customised home cinema setup of Hidef hdmi fed projector, screen & dolby digital sound... But occasionally I do venture out... But now there's a new wave of 3-D capable commercial cinemas to further dissuade me - started here with U2-3D - hate U2, hate 3D... BTW MoC's LA NOTTE disc, on which I see you get special thanks, is simply wonderful, capturing the full Antonioni composition in crisp crystal clear visuals... That, if nothing else, is an argument for staying in!...

[Morbii]

I cant stand the concept cant stand the decor and cant stand the fucking people! Its much easier to stay home where I've spent a fortune anyway. (And then fight with the fucking husband over what to watch.)

Which kind of makes me want to ask the question of "does your husband like at least similar films to what you like?" Given your contribution here, I can't really picture it, but it would be funny if the only criterions your husband was into were Armageddon and The Rock, for example. However (just to flip-flop), I know what it's like to be with someone that has somewhat different tastes, so it isn't completely foreign to me.

[Morbii]

For me I think I can relatively often (but not always) find myself loving a certain film and wanting to share it with a significant other only to find that they aren't really interested. While dissapointing, I think I can handle it mostly. Maybe partly due to the fact that it's a LOT more common with my music choices (significant other or not) so I'm used to it or something. Additionally, while I would like my significant other to like the same films as me, it's not a requirement for me.

To go a little tangental with your "watch once" comment, I am actually like that, but not due to general lack of interest or anything similar. I have a pretty big backlog (sorry kevyip) and am always trying to watch ones I haven't watched yet. This, however, doesn't preclude me from rewatching films with other people. It is rare that I'll rewatch one on my own these days, though (with one exception I can think of).

[chaddoli]

I have often wondered how some others here deal with partners who, for instance will never watch a movie again after a single viewing. Or similar idiosyncrasies which either spring from their indifference, or disinterest, or perhaps resentment of the time one takes with films. Or is this simply not an issue for others?

I tend to avoid people who aren't interested in cinema.

[colinr0380]

I tend to avoid people who aren't interested in cinema.

I wish that were possible all the time!

[mattkc]

I cant stand the concept cant stand the decor and cant stand the fucking people!

I feel the same way. But I care more about being able to see films on film. Even though things like projection and lighting I find to be a constant annoyance in cinemas, DVDs are even worse to me. More and more I find I can't get as much out of them as I used to, despite the fact that I 100% prefer to see a film alone than with other people (and I would say the same about looking at any kind of art in general). But also I'm without any kind of "home theater" system at all, and I'm sure my TV is shit compared to what most people have.