Movie Theatres vs. DVDs: Cinematic Showdown or Community Breakdown?
The questions continue. If the beloved movie theater is in peril, then who is to blame? Soderbergh? Cuban? Fithian? Netflix? Or society? In the Hollywood battle over the simultaneous release of Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh’s new film “Bubble,” the line in the sand has been clearly drawn. NATO head John Fithian calls it a “death threat” to cinema, while Mark Cuban, co-owner of 2929 Entertainment, points out that he, too, is a theater owner. As the players continue to amass on both sides of this thunderous controversy is something more important being missed?
With the debate around profit margin, ticket price, and the timing of release windows, two significant factors have been overlooked: the outcry from moviegoers to reform the theater experience, and the telltale signs of a societal shift 35 years in the making.
With a lot at stake for the movie industry and for American culture, Kendrick Macdowell, General Counsel of the National Association of Theater Owners, and setting psychologist Katherine Morris will meet on March 30, 2006, on “If These Walls Could Talk,” an Internet talk radio program, to discuss the transformation of the cinematic experience, what it says about the American community, and what it means to the future of moviemaking.
Katherine Morris, an expert in setting psychology, views the issue as both art patron and psychotherapist. “The cinema is an American ritual. I’m curious to know if simultaneous release will affect the artistic design of films, or the types of films, we see in the future. Declining box-office sales could reflect a societal shift now manifesting in the movie theater setting.”
Although some moviegoers say they will remain loyal to the “big screen,” an increasing number feel forced into their living rooms by what some describe as a “torturous” theater environment. The collective finger points mainly to the disruptive behavior of audience members, pre-show commercials, and the feeling of abandonment by theater managers to control an environment that they paid to enjoy.
Hundreds of Internet postings from moviegoers echo this sentiment. “They used to have a thing called ushers, who made sure people kept quiet. Ushers no longer exist, so audience members are left to risk getting into it with other patrons by shooshing them themselves,” read one entry. “This is the last time I will ever go to a movie theater,” wrote another patron.
Is this a nod to the DVD? Morris sees the pros and cons of both sides. “Viewing a movie in a dark theater allows us to enter a trance-like state, to leave the stress of our real lives and enter a fantasy world on the big screen. While distractions from the audience are absent in our living rooms, they are replaced by ‘voluntary’ distractions – the telephone, snack breaks, email – which do not allow us the necessary psychic break from the ‘real world.’ However, we cannot ignore that moviegoers feel they must fend for themselves. We’ve seen an abdication of power in the social hierarchy, which extends to theater managers. For some patrons, the concern over safety and comfort overshadows positive thoughts of going to the theater.”
Morris points to a change in the social paradigm, a sort of hierarchal confusion as to who is in control. “While movie studios and theater owners cannot themselves act as catalysts for national social change, they can reclaim control of the theater environment and force social conformity, if only for 180 minutes.”
For filmmakers, only they know how simultaneous release, if permanent, will affect the artistic process. Will DVDs forever change the face of moviemaking? How will it affect the fantasy worlds that allow moviegoers that essential psychic break?
One thing is certain, the American cinema appears in crisis – with or without simultaneous release. Perhaps answering this cry for help from the audience can provide common ground for an industry divided, and revive a favorite national pastime.
