Getting back to the roots of mergemovies tomorrow with Part I of a five-part series featuring movie theaters in the Cincinnati, Ohio area (a fellow blogger over at Our Medium was kind enough to indulge my movie theater exploration habit while I was in town).  Before I launch into a look at some truly amazing vintage Ohio movie theaters, I wanted to quickly touch on something that had laid dormant in the back of my mind until a recent Slashfilm and JoBlo posting made me ponder the issue once more.

The conundrum at hand: What is the future of movie theaters, especially those in the Midwest? Part of the purpose of this blog is to attempt to answer that question and today’s post is just a scratch on the surface of the issue.

Russ Fisher’s Slashfilm post examines The New Beverly Cinema, a movie theater in Los Angeles that would have closed in 2007, had it not been for the financial support of Quentin Tarantino.  Fisher notes a handful of other repertory/revival  theaters–including the Brattle in Camridge, Massachusetts–that have undergone financial struggles over the past few years.  The Midwest has a great cinema culture–a unique mix of everything from backyard screenings, festivals and vintage neighborhood theaters to college lecture halls, multiplexes and IMAX theaters,  but the reality is (especially in the Midwest where the cinema culture is not as ingrained into society as, say, California), there are just not enough Quentin Tarantinos to go around.

There is no question the rise of television, followed by the rise of VHS, DVD and now Netflix has taken much out importance and necessity of actually going to the theater.  But the “crisis” facing movie theaters (not to mention video stores, opera houses and symphony orchestras) is also a generational issue.  I try to watch movies at a theater whenever possible.  I am lucky to live in the Detroit area where (surprisingly to some) there are so many quality cinema venues.  The Redford Theatre shows the classics.  The Detroit Film Theatre is known worldwide for its top-notch foreign films.  Even the new kid on the street, The Burton Theatre, has attracted local and national buzz (see The New York Times – Detroit Entrepreneurs Opt to Look Up) with its mix of forgotten, foreign, cult and independent film.  The problem–and the exception here is the Burton Theatre–is the demographics, specifically the age, of people actually watching the movies.  There is nothing wrong with an “older” crowd attending these films, but as I sit in theaters that have been screening motion pictures since the 1920s, I sometimes catch myself wondering if these places will be open when I reach the golden years.  As generations of kids grow up streaming Netflix from their X-Boxes or watching television on Hulu, how many will venture beyond the confines of their room to even walk down the street to the local neighborhood movie theater?

Multiplexes are banking on 3-D to bring in the masses, but what about the theater that seeks to educate people about the huge variety of film that exists or simply show an old flick?  Children’s shows and family-oriented movies are a couple ways that theaters try to attract kids (example: the My Fair Lady Sing-A-Long at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor on February 28).  A new program by the Detroit Symphony Orchestra also provides a possible model that cinematheques could use to attract the younger generation.  The DSO 37/11 program allows anyone under the age of 37 to purchase tickets a week in advance to select shows for only $11.  People that enroll in the program can purchase up to two tickets for the special price and are given best available seating.  I know the profit margin for movie theaters can sometimes be tight, but a discounted ticket program or some special treatment to the younger folk might keep them coming back, even after the discount ends.  In other words, if you start someone on a movie-watching tradition at a theater every Friday night, they will keep coming back–even after their discount is up.

The next five posts, each one examining a different theater in the Cincinnati area, will provide a good look at what has been happening to theaters over the past few years in the Midwest and what they are doing to keep their doors open to the public (even if it means not showing films).  Check back tomorrow for Part I.

Oh, and if you are interested in movie theaters and have the cash of Quentin Tarantino, I have a nice fixer-upper for you on Michigan Avenue in Detroit: The Senate Theater.

At 11:30 a.m. on a Sunday, five weeks after Avatar’s initial release, I sat in a sold out IMAX theater (AMC Livonia 20) waiting for the movie to begin.  This was my second time watching the film and the excitement of the audience was no less palpable than it had been opening weekend.  One thing was certain: the controversy surrounding the movie has in no way deterred people from heading out to theaters in droves to catch this 3-D spectacle.

Many people have asked me if I liked the movie, to which I have replied with an unequivocal “yes.”  The more interesting question, however, is WHY I liked the movie, something that I believe sheds light not only on the popularity of James Cameron’s epic, but the larger question of why people like the movies they do.

One of my favorite aspects of watching movies is that fact that everyone takes something different away from the experience.  If two people go into a movie theater and watch the same film, regardless of  similarities they might share in their taste for movies, they will come out with different opinions.  Sure, they might both like the film, but the degree to which they like certain elements–characters, story, cinematography, lighting, sound, etc.–is determined by a number of factors.  Everything from how hungry a person is to their emotional state can play a part in their enjoyment of a film.  The element I want to concentrate on and what I believe is the factor that dominates all others during the moviegoing experience is something I call Background Influence.

Two concepts combine to create Background Influence:

1.) The culmination of an individual’s movie watching history up to a certain point in time (the point in time usually referring to the movie they are about to watch), with more weight given to films watched during the early years of one’s life.

2.) How an individual actually watches the movies that comprise their viewing history.

To demonstrate just what Background Influence really means and to show how it has an effect on a person, I will use my own moviegoing experience as an example.  Movie watching in my younger years was spent on classic Disney films, ranging from Fantasia to Dumbo.  One film in particular though stood out–The Great Mouse Detective.  Although almost every Disney movie has its dark moments, the rainy, dismal streets of London in The Great Mouse Detective, seemed even more sinister and a great deal more brooding than anything my young self had ever encountered.  As I look back on it today, this film was the precursor for my interest in dark, post-apocalyptic films that are so popular today (see Children of Men and 28 Days Later for the best examples of this genre).  It may seem strange or far-fetched  to pin my enjoyment of this genre of films on a classic Disney movie, but the tone of the movie and especially the colors–even with an animated style–share quite a bit in common with its more modern brethren.

From the Great Mouse Detective to Children of Men: Background Influence at Work

As I moved on from Disney movies, I discovered a new, exciting genre–the space epic.  Spending Saturday afternoons watching Sci Fi Channel Star Wars marathons with my dad and brother  is one of my first and most memorable movie experiences.  I remember getting chills down my spine the first time I watched the movie and having those same chills return when I saw it for the first time in theaters during the “Special Edition” re-releases.  The classic good vs. evil struggle, sense of adventure, worlds that are both familiar and exotic, epic scope and powerful score set the bar for how I judged movies for years to come.

Thus, as I sat waiting for Avatar to start, the first part of Background Influence came into play.  Every movie I had ever watched was about to have a significant impact on my enjoyment of James Cameron’s epic, especially those that I watched in my younger years.  In others words, I was predisposed to like Avatar–it shares many elements with the grand, epic films I had been watching thoughout my life, Star Wars being the precursor to the films that comprise my personal movie history.  This isn’t  to say that one’s taste in film cannot change–mine certainly has.  College and post-college life has changed my taste in movies significantly and I have branched out to films all over the cinema spectrum.  The reason for this and another factor in my enjoyment of Avatar is where the second part of Background Influence comes into play.

How an individual watches the movies that comprise their viewing history is an essential part in determining if a person will ultimately like a film.  The cinephile that lives next to a movie theater is going to have a different view of movies than someone who makes it to the theater once every couple of months.  The year before I started high school, I moved up to the Upper Peninsula (U.P.) of Michigan.  Although I enjoyed the stunning natural beauty that the U.P. offered, the move presented a problem for the budding movie enthusiast in me.  The nearest movie theater–Varsity Cinemas in Sault Ste. Marie–was an hour drive.  Mind you, this was before Netflix came onto the scene and even the local video store (i.e. gas station) didn’t have much that my entire family could agree on (we have notoriously different tastes).  After the move to “da UP,” movie watching became an event, something I looked forward to during the week.  Going to “The Soo” (as Sault Ste. Marie is known to the locals) was an all-day affair and included shopping, going out to eat and, at long last, watching a movie in a theater.  There was nothing casual about going to movies during this period in my life, and the choice of a film was an important, almost excruciating decision to make.  An arthouse venue, Varsity Cinemas was not, but that is to be expected considering it is one of only a handful of multiple-screen theaters in the U.P.  Sporting ten screens, with each movie shown 1-2 times on a weekday and 3-4 times on the weekend, Varsity Cinemas offered what you would expect from a typical chain theater–new films playing a few weeks before giving their spot up to the next round of new releases.  This type of movie theater, combined with the driving distance, unpredictable winter weather and the culture of the U.P., lent itself to the type of film you might expect–the big budget, epic, blockbuster-style movie that is so prevalent during the summer months.

The availability of a weekly film program on campus (Wells Hall is the best kept secret in the Lansing area–movies are only $2 for non-students) and two large movie theaters (NCG and Celebration in Lansing) expanded my gusto for films while in college, but I still attended the big-budget Hollywood extravaganzas with no less excitement than before (albeit with a more critical eye–something like Ridley Scott’s underrated follow up to Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, was more likely to stir my interest than Oliver Stone’s forgettable Alexander).  College is where I really started to appreciate film and had the resources available to explore different genres and directors.  My interest in film continued to grow after college when I discovered the astonishingly beautiful and well-preserved theaters in the Detroit area.  Cinematheques like the Redford Theatre, Detroit Film Theatre and even the new Burton Theatre have changed my taste in cinema so completely that even I have a hard time believing it.  Looking at my top films of 2009, I now realize that only a handful–Avatar, The International, The Hangover and possibly Whatever Works–could really be considered mainstream.  With that said, I am still the first to watch (and re-watch) a good blockbuster when it comes out.  I watched the latest James Bond adventure, Quantum of Solace, at a midnight screening, saw Avatar opening night and plan to see the next big 2010 release–Clash of the Titans–the minute it is released to the multiplexes.

What, then, does this all mean?  It means that even though my taste in movies has undergone a massive transformation over the past few years, my love of big event, epic, Star Wars-style movies still remains strong, thanks in part to the second part of Background Influence.  Whether it is walking a block to the local one-screen independent theater, driving to the nearest cineplex or just simply watching movies on TV, how an individual watches movies throughout their life is an essential part in determining their overall enjoyment of a particular film.

To sum it up (and kudos to anyone that has made it this far in the post): I liked Avatar because somewhere deep inside of me was ingrained a love for big budget action pictures.  The films I watched when I was young, combined with a variety of other environmental factors (i.e. the distance, length of time between watching movies in a theater, etc.) create a sort of heightened moviegoing experience, one in which the concept of Background Influence adds to the already high level of excitement surrounding a film like Avatar.

My Commentary on Avatar

Quite honestly, I feel the argument over Avatar as political or social commentary is inane.  It doesn’t really tell us anything that we didn’t know (humans are destroying the environment, war is bad, white people still feel guilty about horrible things they did over the course of human history, everyone roots for the underdog) and when it does give the viewer a message, it bludgeons them with it.  In my (very limited) experience, unless a film is a non-fiction documentary, subtly is often the best way to convey commentary on a subject (example: George Romero’s 1968 film Night of the Living Dead ).  With that said, Avatar is the pinnacle of cinematic eye candy and deserves much of the acclaim it receives because of this fact.  No other film has turned attention to 3-D technology the way Avatar has.

I will leave you with this:  Even though I put Avatar on my list of favorite films of 2009 and consider it an extremely important film, it is NOT the best film of the year.  When I watched Avatar for the first time, I was astonished by the beauty of the world the filmmakers were able to create.  The vibrant colors, seamless use of 3-D and James Horner’s fitting score, made it truly an experience for the senses.  The second time I watched the film, my brain kicked in.  I still enjoyed the sights and sounds, but I was also able to concentrate on the dialogue and more closely examine elements of the story.  The plot–a “classic” David vs. Goliath showdown between the Na’vi and the humans–does borrow liberally from other stories (Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas and…dont laugh…FernGully), but it is the shaky (and sometimes clichéd) dialogue that keeps it from reaching “Film of the Year” status.  In the post-Return of the King Oscar era, the only blockbuster that had the elements necessary to win Best Picture–and was ultimately snubbed–was The Dark Knight.  Here was a movie that had a tight script, epic story, great music and an actor (Heath Ledger) that carried the film, as opposed to Avatar, where many times (the exception being Sigourney Weaver) the film carried the actors.  Slumdog Millionare deserved to win the Oscar for Best Picture in 2009, but had The Dark Knight been on a Avatar-like release schedule (building up hype before awards season), we might be examining this year under a different light.

For an interesting compilation of themes in Avatar, be sure and check out this New York Times article: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/opening-pandoras-box-the-arguments-over-avatar