Last week, I was thinking about going to see The Aristocrats. I've always been somewhat interested in comedic theory, and the subject matter of that film, plus the people appearing in it, have made it one of those films that I have made a point to go see.
But I haven't gone to see it yet. Two things have stood in my way. The first is the fact that, at the time of its initial Austin release, the film was showing only in one inconveniently located theater at an inconvenient time. The second, and most important, is the frustration I experienced with the thought that I even have to go to a theater to see this movie.
With all of the problems the film industry has been experiencing lately, there's been a lot of talk about the problems that have been created by DVDs and home theaters, as if movie studios are locked into the current business model forever. Like record companies, film companies find themselves at a crossroads, and like record companies, they will continue their downward spiral unless they try to adjust to consumers rather than dictating to them.
It seems to me that the lure of the theater has always been twofold: it is an experience and it’s a deliverer of content. For many movies, primarily action, horror, science fiction, and the like, the theater provides the ideal setting in which to experience a film. It also provides a destination for couples and for groups that has been a part of American culture for generations. But in many other circumstances, the movie theater has always been the only way to see a film that you really don't care where you see it.
Given that theaters have played such a large role in the development of the movie industry, it's understandable that any noteworthy film must pass through them. But looking at it with a fresh set of eyes, it's peculiar that if, heaven forbid, you want to see Must Love Dogs, you must choose between spending a ton of money to see it on the big screen and waiting several months for it to come out on DVD. What value does the theater add for a film like that, or for countless other films that are making pointless pit stops at movie theaters? If we could rebuild film distribution from scratch it would probably look completely different than the system we have arrived at. The good news is that we can still get there in a few steps:
1) Destigmatize direct-to-video releases
2) Release DVDs more quickly, in many cases bypassing theaters altogether
3) Align film promotion with distribution
4) Make theaters fun again
In 2004, the big six movie studios made profits of almost $14 billion on the video releases of their films and almost $16 billion on television licensing, while losing over $2 billion at the theaters (admittedly, much of the profit/loss mix probably has to do with wacky Hollywood cost accounting, but at any rate theaters have certainly declined recently). It's clear that theaters aren't working the way they should, and I think the most obvious solution is for films that aren't well served by theaters simply to go straight to DVD. In the new system, films that do not require massive sound systems and are not likely to enjoy a two-month theater run get to premiere at Blockbuster.
The obvious problem that exists with this proposal is that "direct-to-video" has always been synonymous with "clunker." This really shouldn't be--there are some films that are made for theaters and some that aren't. But if you think eschewing a theatrical run is a death knell, take a look at Disney. After releasing successful animated films, its sequels have primarily gone direct to video. After Pocahontas became a hit in theaters, Disney made rental/home video hits out of Pocahontas: Journey to a New World, Pocahontas Down Under, Pocahontas and the Ghastly Ghost Town, Pocahontas Meets the Jetsons, Pocahontas vs. The Harlem Globetrotters, and Pocahontas2K.
The key is to expand the public's perception of what qualifies as a direct-to-DVD release. In order to help transition consumers to a new way of viewing movie rentals, studios should start things off with a near-blockbuster, a comedy or drama starring a Cameron Diaz or a George Clooney, with essentially the same promotion a big-time theater release would receive.
A distribution system that has shifted in favor of rentals means some big changes for film promotion. For theater releases, it’s all about opening weekend, which almost always establishes a high point for revenues and precedes a geometric decline over the following weeks. Presumably, a film that’s starting out in rental outlets can be a little smarter about promotion. Rather than an all-out media blitz, studios could use a phased approach to advertising and television appearances, staying longer in consumers’ minds and retaining the ability to adapt promotions to changing perceptions and other new developments.
Whatever the future movie distribution arrangement may be, it is obvious that movie theaters will need to make some changes. Considering the cost, the distance, and the cell phones and talking, movie theaters are beginning to lose the battle with home theaters. In a word, they’re boring. To become the meeting places they used to be, they should take a page from drive-ins, Rocky Horror, and other innovative theater concepts of years past. Theaters that serve meals, invite participation, and show old movies in new ways are doing quite well, and they could well be more sustainable than a stale viewing experience that is entirely dependent on Hollywood’s ability to produce movies that are not themselves stale.
Every year, Hollywood gets together, hands out some statues, and pats itself on the back, proclaiming the love that everyone else has for what they do. That love, though, is not a given, at least not any longer. If box office receipts are any indication, the way consumers want to experience movies is changing, and movie studios can position themselves well for the future if they stop pointing fingers and start listening to movie watchers.
No comments:
Post a Comment