Denby on "Big Pictures"

email this story
read comments (19)
post a comment

"People over fifty make up 30% of the population but only 20% of the audience. The trouble is that grownups are less likely than kids to go on opening weekends (they wait for reviews and reports from friends), so, apart from the fall awards season, when most of the serious movies are released, they don't pull their weight in terms of what gets made. As a result, the studios have conceived grownup moviegoing behavior in such a way that confines it to an enclosed circle.

New Yorker film critic David Denby

"When the adult audience does go to a low- or mid-budget movie released in winter or in spring -- say, Crash or Inside Man -- the studios consider the hit an anomaly, a 'non-repeatable event.' In the jargon of the trade, such movies are 'execution dependent' (they have to be good to succeed), rather than 'audience dependent' (the audience will show up regardless of the quality).

"Some execution-dependent movies, such as Inside Man, The Devil Wears Prada and Sideways, are hits by any standard. Some, like The Squid and the Whale and Capote, haven't made big money but are still counted as successes in relation to their costs. Others, like Little Children, are financial failures, although that film, a stubborn and prickly plant, played through the fall to loyal audiences, and may pick up some awards attention and, with it, added box-office.

"Many more people go to bad movies than go to good ones, but the good small movies that do well, like Brokeback Mountain and Borat, are, in relation to cost, among the most successful movies ever made." -- from an Olympic-sized David Denby/New Yorker piece called "Big Pictures: Holywood Looks For a Future," about where movies are going, how they're evolving and what's being lost as this happens -- an article roughly similar to Pauline Kael's 6.23.80 New Yorker piece called "Why Movies Are So Bad, or The Numbers."

Lane on "Men"<< previous | next >>Emotional alcoholics

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 1, 2007 at 8:48 PM

comment #1

le corbeau says ...

I was at a Landmark theater today (to see Pan's Labyrinth) and heard people talking about a variety of award-bedecked movies-- some playing, some already gone (Little Miss Sunshine) or not yet here (Last King of Scotland-- or did it already come and go? I honestly have no idea).

It seemed to me that we're now at the point where someone needs to radically change the way non-blockbuster movies play in theaters. Imagine taking a couple of screens at a theater like that one and putting a whole bunch of movies into repertory play-- so you had two chances a week to catch Half Nelson, say, but it would get to play for six months. (This would be easier with digital projection, but even so I suspect there's a nice stack of Half Nelson prints going unwatched somewhere.) This would make it so much easier for a movie to find an audience-- and even graduate up to full-time showing on occasion-- than the present system, which brooms so many of these movies after a week, then makes exactly the moment when you actually hear about them the one moment when you can't see them-- since they're out of theaters but not yet on DVD.

Posted by le corbeau at January 1, 2007 9:57 PM

comment #2

corey3rd says ...

older audiences don't mind just seeing a movie when it finally makes it to HBO. They don't want to deal with going to the movies. They don't like having to remember which theater is playing which film at 7:26. They want things to start at set times or their time.

The power of the blue hairs to elevate small/mature films into mid-size hits isn't there anymore. They've grown to enjoy DVDs. They've bought that HD screen and they'd rather spend $20 on the DVD than on two tickets and popcorn. I've become that person. If given a choice between seeing a film at my nearby arthouse screen or put it on my Netflix Queue and wait - guess what wins out everytime now?

Posted by corey3rd at January 1, 2007 10:19 PM

comment #3

Nate West says ...

I saw Pan's Labyrinth at the Arclight this weekend. As big as my screen at home is, it's not that big. I skip the popcorn and take my own water. Nothing compares to theatrical exhibition.

Posted by Nate West at January 1, 2007 10:51 PM

comment #4

Geoff says ...

Unless you've got the ultimate set-up, nothing beats a good theater. The most important thing to remember is the fact that films are actually made for the big screen. A good director composes his scenes knowing full well that it will be hugely blown up. On a related note, while watching MI3 it was easy to tell that J.J. Abrams was definitely used to working in television because of how much he favors the close-up.

Posted by Geoff at January 1, 2007 11:13 PM

comment #5

Teh Awesome says ...

I find that the picture quality is often better on a smaller but sharper TV screen, but nothing beats watching a good movie with a full audience. Watch Borat alone in your living room or in a sold-out crowd and tell me the difference. This is the experience I seek when I go out to a movie. I'll even go gleefully see a "bad" movie (i.e. Tokyo Drift, Rocky Balboa, etc.) if I have reason to believe the filmmakers have done their job and are trying to please the audience.

Posted by Teh Awesome at January 2, 2007 12:09 AM

comment #6

MAGGA says ...

Borat and Free Jimmy are the only films I saw this year that benefited from seeing them with an audience. And I agree, M:I3 and, I would add The Departed and even United 93, looked so much like good television that I would not have felt cheated for watching them at home.

I would claim that people in their twenties and thirties are a more important audience for independent films than those above fifty, just as they are for good music. Thbis despite the masses showing up for dreck like Pirates Of The Caribian. There are more young people outside the industry who pay active attention to modern culture, even if they only make up about twenty percent of the age group. The majority of the over-fiftys buy re-issued classics, Oceans 11-type ensembles and are too senile to remember the showtimes in theatre.

Posted by MAGGA at January 2, 2007 4:06 AM

comment #7

vansmith says ...

i think its a matter of conviencence, as well as the fact that some people instinctively know which films they will see in theaters now that they have the choice. i saw good shepherd in the theater and i saw no one under 30 in there and it filled up. (at the archlight)

Posted by vansmith at January 2, 2007 6:23 AM

comment #8

le corbeau says ...

"There are more young people outside the industry who pay active attention to modern culture, even if they only make up about twenty percent of the age group. The majority of the over-fiftys buy re-issued classics, Oceans 11-type ensembles and are too senile to remember the showtimes in theatre."

So slavish devotion to the newest thing to be marketed is intelligence, and interest in things that have proven their value is senility?

You have a bright future ahead of you in Hollywood.

Posted by le corbeau at January 2, 2007 6:37 AM

comment #9

MAGGA says ...

Cool

Posted by MAGGA at January 2, 2007 7:00 AM

comment #10

Rich S. says ...

"I skip the popcorn and take my own water."

Nate has pointed out another reason why theatrical exhibition is on its last legs. What people tend to forget is that the exhibitors and the studios are not one and the same. The studios/distributors make the lion's share of the profits in a film's first weeks, which, in turn, is where the lions' share of the films' profits are made. The exhibitors make most of their money off the concessions.

Accordingly, they jack the prices up beyond what most people can afford. That causes moviegoers to avoid the concession stand or smuggle their own food in.

They must still be doing okay, because theaters are still getting built. But someday, when all these people who got HDTVs for Christmas realize how good they look, this vicious circle is bound to take its toll.

Posted by Rich S. at January 2, 2007 7:13 AM

comment #11

erniesouchak says ...

The distribution of "non-blockbusters" is certainly a puzzle, not to mention the biggest factor in why they struggle to make money. For example, during the holiday week, when millions of people were presumably off from work with time to kill, NONE of these movies could be found anywhere outside of NY/LA: Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth, Perfume, Little Children. I was in South Jersey, with easy access to NYC and Philly, and not even the "nearby" (1 hour away) art-house theaters were playing these movies. Any adult looking around for any of them has to wait till January, apparently. This is, I guess, an Oscar ploy, but it spells financial disaster (or at least disappointment) for all of these films.

Posted by erniesouchak at January 2, 2007 8:20 AM

comment #12

Dixon Steele says ...

I saw PAN'S LABYRINTH yesterday and was blown away. Easily one of the best films of the year. A sort-of companion piece to del Toro's DEVIL BACKBONE, this one's even better and, for me, is truly world-class.

Visually stunning, so try to see it on a big screen.

Don't miss it!

Posted by Dixon Steele at January 2, 2007 9:04 AM

comment #13

Hallick says ...

"People over fifty make up 30% of the population but only 20% of the audience."

That is actually a pretty strong number for a group that includes people over 70, 80, 90, etc. It's so hard to get those nursing homers out to the show!

Maybe use a more precise range next time, say, 45 to 65, and you'll have something to actually think about.

Posted by Hallick at January 2, 2007 10:29 AM

comment #14

le corbeau says ...

The problem is not that they don't make up that part of the audience-- and anyway, surely the real divider in the biz is 35 and up, which means they're writing off a good half of the potential audience-- but that adults, unlike teens and 20somethings, don't respond Pavlovianly to TV ads for SAW III. They actually read reviews, give some thought to what they want to see, wait till they hear what others say, etc. How unfair, that they choose to be informed shoppers and not let us shovel them into theaters on conveyor belts!

But as MAGGA says, that's all signs of senility, like failing to appreciate "good music."

Posted by le corbeau at January 2, 2007 10:51 AM

comment #15

MAGGA says ...

I guess I should explain myself, Mgmax, my comments were sort of tongue in cheek because I do not agree that people over fifty are the ones that give artistic movies their B.O. Many twentysomethings read reviews, interviews etc, but the simple fact is that younger people go to the movies more often and spend more money. I do not buy the assumption that adults (which seems to mean people over fifty for some bizarre reason) are more knowledgable about current movies at all, and most young movie lovers watch as many classics as they can get their hands on. I was just trying to make fun of the notion that old people have "better" taste and understanding of movies.

Posted by MAGGA at January 2, 2007 11:42 AM

comment #16

corey3rd says ...

last month I paid $9 to hear Happy Feet at a state of the art megaplex. Why do I say "hear?" Is it because I'm deaf? Nope. it's because I was in the theater showing Casino Royale. During those high tension moments, the wall were bleeding the greatest disco hits of the 70s. And what about those full house crowds - the ones that constantly get up and down to refill their popcorn buckets and take bathroom breaks. Or the ones that carry on coversations as if they're at the nearby Hooters.

If I want to see a film on the big screen, I merely wait for it to play the local $1.50 house. I'm willing to cut them major presentation slack because I'm not paying top dollar for the experience - also they have the best price on the popcorn combo.

Posted by corey3rd at January 2, 2007 12:44 PM

comment #17