comment #1

corey3rd says ...

Scott ducks the question - what percentage of the folks who would have roamed down to the local art house now prefer to see these small films on their large widescreen TV via Netflix?

comment #2

Vidian says ...

This goes along with the past complaints about the audience that walks into theaters. Most of them have 10 min attention spans and can't keep quiet for 120 mins. That's why Netflicks works so well. Stupid movies for stupid people. I'd pay extra for a theater with an usher.

comment #3

MilkMan says ...

We have always been a nation of half-wits as far as movies are concerned, Jeff. This is nothing new. It was like this forty years ago, thirty years ago, twenty years ago. Because we like to think of ourselves as real meat and potatoes kind of people. Unpretentious. We don't like watching movies that feel like algebra.

comment #4

Mr. Muckle says ...

It's all very well to say "society has devolved in terms of . . . (enter your own favorite gripe here)" but why should anyone in the broader sense care about specialized interest groups? Has society in general, that means not just the U.S., evolved or devolved? What is the evidence for either?

A great many people, if not most, like to bitch and moan. That seems true by evidence of personal experience including, say, reading this website. Is bitching and moaning an evolution or a devolution? It strikes me as the latter, even though it might be a step on the way towards the former.

Even if we take it to be meaningful to bitch and moan about the "devolution" of our particular gripe, like the prospects of adult independent film, how about taking it to at least second-level analysis and find out WHY? If people are lazy and ignorant and don't care, and that is not just a cynical piece of BS, then why is it so? What can be done about it?

Not to go at least that far in one's thinking so as to border on something action-oriented, might be equally lazy and ignorant and apathetic.

comment #5

corey3rd says ...

Even if we go beyond the netflix, it seems like the core audience that used to hang out at the Arthouse and buy the Tobleron are the same folks notorious for having large DVD collections. So odds are high that in these tough times, they decide to wait the four months and pick up the DVD of the film for the same price as a date and popcorn. And if they like the film a lot, instead of telling their pal that they should see the film, they loan it out.

The thing is, once you get out of the "see it in the theater loop," you don't notice it. New stuff shows up each week.

It is odd that the major newspaper movie critics aren't pondering their role in the demise of the Dependies and arthouse box office. They are always seen as the most important part of the marketing push for a small film. The distributor can't afford an inch ad in the Times, but can't live without the Times giving them that 20 inches of review space and hope that they'll do a major feature on the star or director of the film.

comment #6

Ponderer says ...

If anyone thinks we've devolved, they need to rewatch The Third Man, and examine the general attitude towards Holly Martins again. It ain't flattering.

comment #7

MathewM says ...

Maybe because Che and Hurt Locker qualify as niche films? The boys and girls who wear the Che t-shirts do so because it's a fashion statement not because they're really into his politics. The average American film goer regardless of their intelligence doesn't really want to sit through a three hour film that is sympathetic to the enemy. How about a film about Hitler? No?

Hurt Locker is about Iraq, enough said.

People watch films to be entertained when times are down. Maybe when things get better, Indie films that question the status quo will become popular again like they were in the mid to late 90's.

comment #8

Lars says ...

How, exactly, is everyone here defining "Indie films"?

Seriously.

comment #9

cinefan says ...

You make a good point, Corey3rd, about watching independent films on DVD at home. I have a digital projector and screen w/ surround sound and always wait for independent, small-budget films to come to DVD. The only time I venture to the theater is to see something like the Dark Knight and films that I think would be worth seeing visually on a very large screen.

comment #10

arturobandini2 says ...

The reason sophisticated audiences are shrinking in America is because we've become a homogenous culture of anti-intellectualism. Things were much different in the '70s, I can assure anyone too young to remember. Not that there wasn't plenty of crap made back then, but discerning tastes could exist on a steady diet of Coppola, Bogdanovich, Allen, Roeg, Scorsese, Cassavettes, Polanski, etc. When I was growing up, a kid *wanted* to sit at the grownups' table. If something was over your head, you didn't criticize it -- you asked why.

Ever since the '80s, the adults who run the entertainment biz have wanted to sit in the junior high cafeteria, so to speak. They've done their best to filter out attempts at sophistication for fear that "people stupider than us" won't get it. (The act of dumbing-down is the only way non-creative types get to feel like they're contributing something.) Of course, it's been a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thirty years of pandering has created spoiled, impatient audiences that won't tolerate a movie without explosions, serial killers, superheroes, CGI, Happy Meal tie-ins or braindead bimbos like Kate Hudson. Today's moviegoers abhor the very grand, enduring notions that made '70s cinema so liberating.

Two things have to happen for a return to sophisticated filmmaking in the USA, and I'm not holding my breath for either. First, studio execs must accept that there's a big audience out there way smarter than they are. Second, a new generation has to come along that will reject the anti-intellectual agenda. National elections are as good a litmus test as any.

comment #11

vp19 says ...

As long as the opening weekend grosses are the be-all and end-all of movie marketing, this sorry state will continue. Such an environment rewards pre-sold concepts, CGI and fast-food tie-ins. (Don't blame poor Kate Hudson for all this.) The twin theatrers of the '70s are the 12- and 18-plexes of today who tailor their product to adolescent males -- their prime repeat audience. Thank you, Steven Spielberg (he said sarcastically).

comment #12

MathewM says ...

I think it's silly to write off art films just because there is a lull. Maybe it's because the product itself isn't good enough to capture the audience's attention. There are more art house theaters today in St. Louis than there were ten years ago. People are busy and unless you're an urbanite which apparently the majority of HE readers are then it's hard to find time to drive 30-45 minutes to a theater in the city. Me and my wife work 40 hours through the week and then I run a part-time business on the weekends. Except for date nights we don't have time to see every artsy fartsy film that is released.

comment #13

D.Z. says ...

"For every impassioned fan of Ballast, Che or even The Hurt Locker, there are probably 40 or 50 popcorn-munching, attention-deficit-disordered fans of Beverly Hills Chihuahua. We live in a society that has devolved from what it once was in terms of interest in adult offbeat cinema. The U.S. of A. is a less educated, fatter, fast-foodier and less curious culture than it used to be, and it's devolving more and more each year."

Did you ever consider the possibility that indie movies are starting to look more the same than mainstream movies? They even parodied that problem a few years ago. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385890/

arturo: "The reason sophisticated audiences are shrinking in America is because we've become a homogenous culture of anti-intellectualism. Things were much different in the '70s, I can assure anyone too young to remember."

Yes, grindhouse and car-chase films really proved you had class.

"Not that there wasn't plenty of crap made back then, but discerning tastes could exist on a steady diet of Coppola, Bogdanovich, Allen, Roeg, Scorsese, Cassavettes, Polanski, etc."

And how many of those directors actually made money then more than they would nowadays? You're only looking at them in terms of how they were promoted, not how they actually did during that decade.

"Ever since the '80s, the adults who run the entertainment biz have wanted to sit in the junior high cafeteria, so to speak. They've done their best to filter out attempts at sophistication for fear that "people stupider than us" won't get it. (The act of dumbing-down is the only way non-creative types get to feel like they're contributing something.) Of course, it's been a self-fulfilling prophecy."

So David Lynch and Terry Gilliam were the equivalent of Michael Bay?

"Thirty years of pandering has created spoiled, impatient audiences that won't tolerate a movie without explosions, serial killers, superheroes, CGI, Happy Meal tie-ins or braindead bimbos like Kate Hudson."

If that's the case, then Ang Lee's Hulk would have done better for him than his arthouse films. Not to mention that "No Country for Old Men" would be a flop. No, the problem is that most of the recent indie films are being made for the sake of being made, and not because they have any real vision behind them. They're ironically more desperate to cash in on particular audiences than the Dark Knights and the Wanteds of the Hollywood machine. I think what needs to happen is that distributors and arthouse theaters step in as gate-keepers and demand that directors prove they actually believe in the projects before choosing to sell and promote the films.

comment #14

raskimono says ...

Re: Matthew M
People are busy and unless you're an urbanite which apparently the majority of HE readers are then it's hard to find time to drive 30-45 minutes to a theater in the city.

Seriously agree with you. The death of the indie cinema culture is lack of access to theaters. To refrain, in Los Angeles, I wanted to check out the movie, In search of a midnight kiss. I live in Hawthorne, outside Los Angeles. My friends who also wanted to see it live in Torrance and North Hollywood respectively. It was playing at the Laemmle in Pasadena. That is a thirty to forty five minute drive. We decided to postpone it till we had more free time. It was gone by next weekend. One weekend, that was it. Even Starship Dave is guaranteed a two week window.
If people had to drive forty five minutes to watch Hancock, the major studios box office would drop as well. Young people won't do it. That's why the audience for indie cinema has an average age of 65 and older. The industry has failed to create new connoisseurs.
Build more six screen theaters that cater to indie cinema near the multiplexes ( a block or two) and you will see an increase in the audience for these movies . There are tons of people who are not interested in watching Hollywood movies because Hollywood has stopped write for them.
If not, you will continue to see the exodus of watching indie films from the cinema to the surrounds of the home.

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

raskimono: I doubt you can cite crappy L.A. traffic as the reason behind the "death" of indie cinema, since you can still see plenty of art flicks in other convenient theaters along the West Coast. No, the problem is that they're allowed to shoot anything nowadays, regardless of whether there is a demand for it, or whether the person or persons actually knows how to shoot and write a film.

comment #16

corey3rd says ...

The part about finding time to see something in the theater is an issue. In 1970s, you didn't have the video culture. If you didn't see an R-rated film in the theater, you weren't going to see it when it was butchered down to run on broadcast TV. If you didn't see it at the little arthouse, you weren't going to see it and only be teased about it for months by Pauline Kael. But with the birth of video, you can catch up on the cool without being a slave to a theater manager's time schedule.

Netflix lets the indie theater lover watch 12-24 dvds a month for $18 a month (or so). Now if you were to take a date to the local arthouse - that's $240 worth of tickets. What art lover doesn't like to save a dime or buck or c-note? And if the indie film turns out to be a complete stiff or has a crappy ending (I'm talking to Mark Cuban about the Uma Thurman / Evan Rachel Wood flick), you're not cheated out of $20, a sitter, gas and parking. Maybe you want to get out of the house for the event film - the one with the trailer that just grabs your throat. But the person who used to always see the new titles at the art house no longer takes up residence with the Tobleron bars.

This "america is dumbing down" is pure BS. I bet there's the same number of "art lovers" in America in 2008 as there were in 1968. The difference is there's a few tens of millions of more people in the culture.

comment #17

raskimono says ...

to DZ: I totally disagree. I have lived in Atlanta, Kansas City and Miami. The issue was the same over there as well. It doesn't have anything to do with traffic. We are talking night shows. The problem is perception. Only hardcore film lovers drive thirty to forty five minutes to see a movie. It's a fact. Try getting the regular Joe schmo who appreciates a good movie to drive that far out and watch how they moan and groan. Why can't it be close like the local AMC. The fact of the matter is that theaters that cater to indie film and art house tastes tend to be in the city. They are usually one or two. Los Angeles and New York have more than other cities and people who leave outside the city will not make the trip for a movie; a concert, opera, dinner maybe but not a movie. It's a fact.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

raskimono: You have a point, but there are films people are willing to flock to in those rural areas, if the marketing is decent enough to suggest a must-see. [For example, as I mentioned earlier, there's the Ang Lee success stories.] But most of the indie films that get dumped in those places nowadays scream "trying to stand out like Hot Topic buyers".

comment #19

raskimono says ...

DZ: I agree that there will be success stories but there are not enough to save the theatrical business. Last year had Juno. Juno eventually went wide much like your Counting Tiger Hidden Dragon but that's not what is going to save the business. These were Oscar nominated movies for best picture with huge marketing budgets that beat the system. When tons of movies are doing $1m and less, your business model is in trouble. When $9m is considered a winner, the model is in trouble. When the marketing cost to sell this movies rise to $25m, you are asking for at least $30m - $50m business to break even, that is from the mini-majors. From the true indies which I am talking about here, the guys who have no money for TV ads, and are relying on reviews or word of mouth and can't afford that $100,000 marketing budget, less $10m, it truly is the end of days. Why is that? Flush with cash, indie movies have seen a crescendo in production in recent years. More indie movies open each week than the majors release has lead to the cutthroat nature of the indie business today. Open or die. It's worse than the scenario for major releases. Screens are hard to come by so you are moved out as soon you open. The problem is the true indies can't afford the budgets necessary to open these movies. How do you hang around and give people a chance to survive? More screens. Trust me, the guy who decides to invest in building 4-6 screen theaters (mini-plex) catering to indie/foreign films will make a killing.

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

raskimono: "Trust me, the guy who decides to invest in building 4-6 screen theaters (mini-plex) catering to indie/foreign films will make a killing."

Yeah, but the majors want to blow it all on 3-d, because they think they can rip us off the way they did with DV.

comment #21

Richardson says ...

Wow, I have to say, DZ came dangerously close to making a good point in this thread. I'm impressed.

comment #22

raskimono says ...

DZ: And that as they say is the rub.

comment #23

Rev. Slappy says ...

I will bet good old American cash money that Sarah Palin can't wait to see Beverly Hills Chihuahua.

comment #24

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high speed availability