Get Thee to an Art-House
To an independent theater go, and quickly too. (And not to "Dune 2.")
Art-house theaters are in trouble. This isn’t news—art-house theaters have always struggled. (For some of the challenges, and attempts to overcome them, see my 2011 article “How To Create a Thriving Arthouse Theater (Almost) Anywhere”.) So when there was rejoicing around the recent news that director Jason Reitman and his prominent filmmaker friends came together to purchase Westwood's Village Theater, I didn’t think this was a good thing. There have been lots of stories of philanthropic efforts and nonprofit foundations coming in to save vintage and independent movie theaters (see Maine’s Colonial Theatre) from extinction recently. But when a business depends on the benevolence of rich people, it’s no longer a business: It’s charity. How many Quentin Tarantinos does it take to save art-house exhibition in Los Angeles? Apparently, a lot.
On the other hand, corporations buying indie theaters as PR tools is worse news for art-house cinema exhibition. When Netflix bought The Paris Theater in New York City, or Rivian (yes, the electric truck company) recently purchased and reopened the South Coast Theater (pictured) in Laguna Beach, CA, this isn’t saving independent cinema so much as providing promotional space for a product—where movies happen to be showing. Once Netflix or Rivian decide this particular ad-spot isn’t paying off, you can say goodbye to these theaters, because these companies are not in the movie theater business; they are trying to sell subscriptions or trucks.
Recently, I’ve been told about one major art-house theater chain that is severely delayed in paying out money for movie rentals to a number of indie distributors. While I still need to dig further into how much this exhibition company is derelict in their payments, it isn’t a good sign. If the companies who have been created to exhibit indie films are continuing to wrestle with the COVID-era changes in moviegoing and unable to thrive, the business model they were founded on just isn’t working. Just look at Arclight—or the number of stories about movie theaters closing in the last year.
Since Sundance, there have been a lot of discussions about the ways in which film stakeholders need to come together to try to help the “indie ecosystem” stay afloat. I have a forthcoming article in Filmmaker Magazine that explores some of these strategies, but it’s interesting to hear the range of ideas, from people calling for more government support—a la nonprofit models—to those calling for more philanthropy or help from billionaires or new more equity-friendly models—a capitalist-friendly approach. Either way, it doesn’t seem to address the fundamental problem that people aren’t going out to see indie movies in theaters as much as they used to.
So here’s a simple idea that doesn’t require foundations or millionaires: Forget the Oscars next weekend and just go to your local art-house. There’s a lot of good movies to see that deserve a big screen. And I don’t mean “Dune 2.”
Festivals and art houses, whether in major cities or in multiple towns and cities across our country, need diverse funding sources to survive. Its interesting here to talk about "art house chains", which for a beat, sounds like an oxymoron to me, but whether independently owned or nonprofit, you 're absolutely correct: GO SEE A MOVIE. Because whether you are buying a ticket or making donation, or a company underwriting a cinema (I still love the Paris), a cinema only survives if its community wants it to survive. Appreciate this piece!
Hi Anthony, I think you make a good point. But ... I beg to differ on your analysis of Netflix's Paris Theater. It's important to remember that Manhattan currently has only one single theater art house open to the general public. Before Netflix bought the Paris it had been shuttled for a couple of years because the market could not seem to support it. Yes, it's true the theater in its current incarnation serves to put Netflix movies up on the big screen, but is that in itself a bad thing? Netflix is one of our primary movie studios and many of their films are actually good - from last fall alone we got Rustin, May December, El Conde, Stamped from the Beginning, Maestro, NYAD and The Killer. Without this theater average New Yorkers (not awards voters) might never get to see these works on the big screen. In addition, when the Paris first reopened under Netflix's ownership, it was programmed by legendary New York programmer David Schwartz, and more recently it's been run by John Vanco, late of the IFC Center. Under John's leadership the theater ran a 3 week festival in September of movies in 70mm and Atmos sound, under the name "Big and Loud." So many shows were sold out that screenings were added, and John plans to put on a similar event later this year. Later this month, he's programmed a series of films that first came out 50 yeaars ago - among them Chinatown, Alice Doesn't Live Here Any More, Badlands, the Parallax View, The Conversation, The Phantom of Liberty, A Woman Under the Influence, Female Trouble, Amarcord, Blazing Saddles - all art house classics, many on 35mm, the kinds of movies New Yorkers of a certain age used to see on Cinema Village's tiny screen, plus Abbas Kiarostami's first feature The Traveler, You'd be surprised how many people under 40 have never seen these films projected. And under David's leadership, filmmakers with new Netflix films were often invited to screen several of their favorite films along side their premieres. So to me this is a useful experiment in commerce supportting art. Will it continue to work? That depends on Netflix supporting programmers like David and John, and not booking theiir own films 365 days a year. But I do give Netflix credit for this project - it's something Amazon could surely afford to do as well, and Apple, and neither have seemed interested in creating dedicated spaces devoted to the art of screening movies.