Movie theater audiences have steadily shrunk over the past 50 years. This brings a very important concern to the forefront: will movie theaters continue to exist among all the new media and technology? With so many different ways to distribute a film, it is a matter of sociology as to why one would want to go into a dark movie theater and experience a film with a group of strangers or even alone in the dark.

Several of these topics were addressed at a recent Sundance Film Festival panel I attended called “Going, Going, Gone? The Culture of Movie-going”. There are said to be two film audiences and two dynamics and it is known that there are two theater types to accommodate this divide: the art house and the multiplex. Connie White, who began her independent film career as a manager of the Brattle Theater in Cambridge, MA and went off to become the film booker for Boston-area’s beloved Coolidge Corner Theater, brings up a valid and important point. She asserts that people who attend an art house, in most cases, go for the love of film and equally for the experience. White points out that many art house audience members go because they trust the theatre’s programmer. They might not necessarily know anything about the film playing, but may feel that their particular local art house plays quality programming that they can trust.
With domestic box office gross down some 6% in the US, the panel openly discussed that the art houses are the ones that will stay in business for the reasons stated above. In their opinions, it is the multiplexes that should be worried. Multiplexes are like cattle calls and it makes the movie-going experience akin to flying coach class on a commercial airline. With audiences including children (sometimes even babies) it becomes a much nosier atmosphere and with this sort of young audience, less movie-going respect takes place. Cell phones ring, people talk, and teens make inappropriate jokes aloud. It is the art house that seems to pull in a more sophisticated older crowd that has more respect for the movie-going experience.
As a Santa Monica, CA resident, I attend the cinema on average twice a week and I admit that I prefer the local art house such as the Aero Theatre (operated by the American Cinematheque), Laemmle’s Monica 4 or Landmark’s NuWilshire to the 3rd Street Promenade’s multiplex AMC. Additionally, I would rather see a movie that I had less interest in if it were playing at the art house over a much anticipated film at the AMC. I have great respect and passion for film and my surroundings have a great impact on my movie-going experience. But this also brings up a good question: would moviegoers pick to see a film alone in a dark theater rather than a full theater if had a choice? In the Hollywood Life January/February 2006 edition, Joe Queenan states “It may be a dire time for the movie business, but it’s a veritable paradise for diehard moviegoers who have the [theater] all to themselves.” Yes, this is just one man’s opinion. However, it does raise the question of why we see movies alone in a dark theater. To see a film with a community and to share the same experience is slowly dissipating as the audience shrinks. What is it about passionate moviegoers that would rather sit in an empty movie theater rather than in front of their plasma TV at home? Is it a bigger-than life experience? Or is it that there are little to no interruptions so one can let themselves become totally engrossed in the film and feel the full experience and emotions? I think it depends on the individual. Why we see movies in a theater may vary as much as what types of movies from which we can choose. There isn’t one answer as there isn’t just one kind of film. Some may enjoy sitting in a sold out screening while others might like to be among open seats.
So this brings us back to the shrinking audience. What will happen to the movie-going experience? There are passionate moviegoers that will always want to go to the theater instead of watching a movie in one of the many new mobile formats. If we look at the history of Film, TV, and Newspapers...the media industry has been through this fear before. The Internet has had a major impact on newspapers. Apple’s iTunes along with TV, home video, peer-to-peer file sharing and most recently Netflix is jolting the film industry. Technology has always been a fear of the media industry. As history repeats itself, the film industry looks for innovative ways to compete as well as join this digital age.
Digital cinemas are popping up around America and this is a chance for exhibitors to carry a more unique line-up and hopefully bring in more movies that connect to an audience. The 1950's are a great example of the film industry trying to compete with new technology—the Television. They saw the TV as a threat with diminishing box office revenues. Studios began making films in 3D to bring back the audience. In the early 1980’s new technology again scared the industry. The VCR was invented and it seemed logical that people would have much less interest in going out to the theater. For years people thought the movie theater experience was going to end. According to BoxofficeMojo.com, in 1991, the year of Terminator 1, domestic box office revenue was down 4.2% with an annual total domestic gross of $4803.2. The average cost to make a film in 1991 was $26.1. The average cost to make a film in 2003, the year of Return of the King, was $63.8. And the total domestic gross of 2003 was $9185.9. 2003 also had an increase in domestic box office gross. As you can see, our last big decrease in domestic box office didn’t last; box office had been at an increase from 1992 up until 2005. There are also many other things to take in to consideration: tickets prices have risen, the number of theaters have swelled, and the number of films produced have increased. History shows that the film industry has bounced back in the past. Why the panic this time around?
Not only are there audiences out there that still admire the movie-going experience, filmmakers and distributors bank on having a film open theatrically according to Laura Kim of Warner Independent. Even with online content becoming more available, it is the word-of-mouth and front-page praising reviews in The New York Times, admits Daniel Katz of ThinkFilm, that are best at getting attention and bringing an art house film into the public eye. A theatrical release or both studio and independent films will also help with DVD sales and other revenue streams down the line. The fact is Hollywood studios rely heavily on the home video market to help recover losses and make a profit. According to The New York Times, a typical studio movie costs nearly $100 million and after the multiplexes take their 50% box office sales the movie studios commonly find themselves in the red. Even with lack of profit in the theatrical section of distribution, it is the theatrical release that ultimately plays a huge part in launching a movie into great DVD success.
This past Friday, windows collapsed with the release of director Steven Soderbergh’s feature film, BUBBLE. The picture opened the same day it aired on cable and just four days before hitting home video. Even with such new distribution models, the collective reaction among the Sundance Panel is that the movie theater experience will not be ending anytime soon. People will always want to get out of the house, interact with others in their community, or let themselves be carried away emotionally in a dark theater and take part in the bigger than life movie-going experience.
Look at the history of the movie business and you will find a common thread: this fear is nostalgic.