When discussing the state of the film industry, one can easily become overwhelmed by the seeming ever-growing number of questions one might confront. However, by venturing to answer these questions we can envision an aura of potentialities for the future of cinema. In an effort to promote transparency in the future of film, here are a few questions and issues begging to be given attention today.

One evening not long ago, I found myself in some of the most luxurious and accommodating seating I had ever encountered in a cinema. Where one might expect an armrest, I found a small table with recesses – one to hold the Spanish coffee drink set ablaze by a barista wearing a sport coat just moments earlier. This was the new movie-going experience: the comfort of a living room in a theater. It was an intimate setting yet the room was filled with strangers and an unparalleled selection of food and drink. I fumbled a large pair of sturdy 3D glasses in my hand and continued avoiding conversation with a small group of recent acquaintances. I found myself instead thinking of what the oak table at my side and the pristine screen before my eyes actually meant.

Did the quality of the film I was about to view even matter at this point? For some the answer is simple: Of course. However when introducing the question from the perspective of the average moviegoer – an individual who may go to the movies for social or entertainment value – did the film still matter? Does the public care about quality cinema when there’s a light show from their drink order beforehand? Were these comforts attempts to dissuade and divert from alternatives like video on demand services, renting or simple piracy? What are the repercussions for production companies if viewers start emphasizing experience over quality cinema? Will this mean less quality films and more lucrative endeavors? Is the theater actually killing film?

Indiscernible Truth

Most of these questions cannot be answered. It is either too early to foresee or there are simply too many factors to account for. The film industry is a powerful machine with a great deal of momentum. The films that spill from its gears are the product of many minds, hands and, sometimes, a portion of undirected disorder (i.e. luck). None of these questions can be boiled down to the simplicity of cause and effect that we could use to determine and predict outcomes. Especially with the subjectivity of film viewing, where each film must be taken in multitude of contexts – was the movie streamed over a bad connection to a mediocre television, was it relived by its’ viewer in a comfortable atmosphere, what was the viewer’s state of mind?

Nevertheless, the current state of film seems to be one at a threshold of potentialities. The film industry has endured, and at times celebrated, the coexistence of television, VCR and DVD. But now it battles – perchance – the likes of home theaters, file sharing, steadfast rental systems, video on demand and a multitude of viewing platforms.

Where good films are made

Ultimately, marketing and reviews drive how successful many movies will become. In the ‘90s many production companies began to create divisions for bringing middle-level films from independent auteurs to the public. The coincidence of the birth of these divisions and a demand for DVDs yielded great profits for production companies. These same divisions today are becoming financial burdens and are consequently being eliminated.

This absorption of previous studio departures by production studios further nurtures the objectives of the multiplex cinema. The number of feature films produced in the United States has been in decline for several years, with the most significant loss occurring from 2007 to 2008. The Motion Picture Academy of America’s (MPAA) “Theatrical Marketing Statistics” found a 20 percent drop in number of films produced domestically between these years. By allocating more money to acquire popular acting talent for fewer films, production companies can afford to put these middle-road independent films into mega and multiplex cinemas.

This does not necessarily mean the death of the fund-deficient independent film. While studios continue to load other films with big names and heavy advertising to fill seats it also forces a renovation of low-budget independent filmmaking. This is where smaller theaters and major circuits that specialize in independent film can help fill the gap.

The Landmark Theatres-owned Lagoon Cinema and Uptown Theatre serve the Twin Cities with a large portion of the major independents while smaller cinemas like Oak Street and the recent Trylon Microcinema display local and more obscure films. The trend for single screen cinemas continues to be unpopular – The MPAA has observed a stable number of single screen cinemas for several years while cinemas featuring eight to fifteen screens continue to multiply. These larger multiplexes can spread their investments over several blockbusters and survive the relative successes or failures of individual films while retaining relatively cheap ticket prices. Single screen cinemas are subject to a greater possibility for losses or collapse.

The Oak Street Cinema, for example, has been under the threat of closure for several years, only being kept afloat by the efforts of Minnesota Film Arts (MFA). However the initial successes of the new Trylon Microcinema in showing classic cinema and their support of this year’s coming Sound Unseen Festival helps retain optimism for the future of small-cinema and independent film despite diminishing budgets on the national level.

How film moves

Can we really say that fewer films are being produced? The prevalence of inexpensive HD cameras has resulted in a spike in independent filmmaking. Everyone seems to know someone who is making a film. The reality is that while most of these films will never meet a large audience, many independent filmmakers are becoming increasingly creative in their production and distribution methods. Sometimes these modest productions are shown be the small cinemas that remain outside the scope of MPAA data compilations. Many filmmakers proclaim that how an audience comes upon their film isn’t as important as the commitment a viewer makes to dedicate his or herself to viewing the film. It seems that certain mediums may be overlooked. This could mean new distribution methods for the small independent films.

File sharing systems and the piracy occurring through them has long been labeled as disruptive and destructive by the film industry. A movie shared online does not furnish the same kind of spur as a music album. Musicians can use rapport generated from an album freely distributed to strengthen a touring rapport and the consequent selling of merchandise. When a film is illegally downloaded or streamed—there is little incentive to go to a movie theatre and repeat the same stimuli in a new environment with a price tag. Repeat viewings, with exception to exceptional films, remain unpopular because film is an experience-driven trade. Individuals are constantly playing catch-up with just the major productions of over 600 films released per year in the United States.

If the public knew how easy it is to obtain or stream movies for free, we would likely see another change. Piracy operates worldwide with relatively little regulation as is – but it could be even more prevalent and rampant. Most of the general public simply does not know how to access the vast world of illegally free information.

The public’s impending knowledge of the free supply of films could mean yet another demand for quality (or simply a greater call for regulation). Potentially, audiences could have more choice than ever in what comes to their eyes – barring heavy advertising for theatrical blockbusters. With pricy distribution out of the picture, the making of a film would be more feasible than ever for new writers and directors. If people begin to go to the Internet for these films, the same hype that drives an album release could potentially drive a small film. With a considerable amount speculation, a free distribution model would not necessarily mean the collapse of the movie infrastructure.

Going nowhere

Experts in the film business believe we will always have cinemas. Even with VOD for home theatres, cell phones, iPods and laptops, there will always be a demand to watch a movie on a 30-foot screen without interruption and in the company of strangers. Theaters themselves may undergo changes. Just as drive-in theatres were transformed to indoor multiplexes, they may again transform to small living room-esque theaters, where the seats are large and the drinks plentiful. Perhaps theaters will send dedicated servers before the feature to bring your flamed coffee and a mint on a dish.
But this is just one possible direction for cinema.

Tags: film