At the Movies

I love movies.  I always have and probably always will.  While I have always watched movies, the way I watch them has changed dramatically.

It used to be there were really just two ways to see a movie, catch it when it first ran in the theater or wait for it to be replayed on TV (if it wasn't too racy or violent) often years later.  My kids will never understand the importance of seeing a movie in the theater during its run, because you might never see it again if you didn't.  My kids, who are now adults, will never understand the way the annual broadcast of movies like The Wizard of Oz became an important community event.

These days, I am considered old fashioned because I still get movies delivered in little red envelopes.  In addition, I can stream movies any time I want on my TV, iPad or phone (does anyone REALLY watch a whole movie on their phone?)  I still go to the movie theater, but less than I used to.

When you think about it, the way movies are distributed has changed dramatically, but movie theaters, by and large, are still operating on the same model.  You wait in line to buy your ticket to the movie, wait in line again to by an obscenely large cup of soft drink and tub of popcorn, stumble into a theater that is already dark because they are showing advertisements, hope to find a seat that isn't broken or too sticky or trashed, hope that the person sitting next to you or behind you will remember they are in a theater and not their living room, and that the person on the other side of you will eventually let you share the arm rest.  And that's all before the previews.

Why would anyone continue to go to the theater when for the cost of two tickets and popcorn you can get unlimited movies for a month in the comfort of your home?  In the December issue of Fast Company, they profile several movie theater operators who are trying to answer that very question.

Their solutions are creative and diverse.  Some are looking to make going to the theater a more social experience.  They do this by locating theaters near where young professionals work, adding bars and creating reasons for people of like interests to gather at the theater before and after the film.  Others are doing it by increasing the luxury of the movie going experience with leather seats and food delivered to your seat or by improving the sound systems in the theater (George Lucas says audio is 50% of the theater experience).  One theater owner is offering monthly subscriptions that allow patrons to see one movie a day, and they are seeing their daytime and midweek business grow significantly.  Others are addressing the issue by looking at what is on the screen.  By offering smaller films targeted to specific demographic groups or other types of theater experiences such as live simulcasts of concerts, operas and sporting events, these theater operators are attracting new and more diverse crowds.

As Hamid Hashemi, Founder and CEO of iPic Entertainment says, "It used to be a year before movies made it to DVD.  Soon, you'll be able to see a movie on the big screen, iPad, iPhone, and TV on the same day, around the world.  It's the evolution of the business.  But that doesn't mean the theaters are going to go out of business.  They're just going to have to be more experimental.  This is just the start."

See you AT the movies!

Thumbs Up for Critics...Sort Of

"No one has ever built a statue to a critic, it's true. On the other hand, it's only the people with statues that get pooped on by birds flying by."           Seth Godin

Few of us set out to be critics.   Rarely does a critic make it on anyone's list of most admired people or historical figures we'd like to have dinner with.  Critics are seen as living off of the efforts of others.

Yet we pay attention to them.  We talk about how many stars a movie got or whether new software was highly rated or panned.  We read the books they recommend and buy tickets to the plays they admire.

I think that there is an important role in society for quality critiquing of our arts and entertainment.  First, it helps us sort through the endless stream of options to identify the handful of things we can reasonably expect to enjoy.  Second, quality criticism can help us develop our critical viewing and reading skills.  Reading solid, thoughtful critiques helps us to learn to look for the subtext and symbolism, the context and the character arcs of more subtly crafted films or books.  Third, critiques provide us with the context and language to talk about the arts and entertainment we enjoy. I seriously doubt that many of us would be talking about sweep shots and casting coups if they weren't first discussed by a critic.

The challenge for critics is that the rug has been pulled out from under them.

Siskel and Ebert probably would have had a harder time getting started professionally today, because the role of critic has been democratized.  It is easy these days for any user or viewer to weigh in on what they think of a movie, or an app, or a product.  There are whole businesses that are built around consumer reviews; businesses such as Angie's List, which shares customer reviews of service companies.

As critiquing has gained prominence in our society, the role of critic seems to have diminished.  Does the professional critic serve a purpose in a world when you can get the average rating of thousands of Amazon participants.  Does a critic, despite facing competition from her very audience, contribute anything to the general conversation?

I feel that professional critics do serve an important purpose.  That purpose is not in the ratings they give, but in the explanations that support those ratings.  Critics give a context to their ratings which makes them far more valuable.  To learn that a movie only got two stars is one thing.  To learn that it got two stars because it has a clown in it and the reviewer hates clowns gives you a whole other perspective; especially if you also have strong feelings about clowns!

However, critical context can be found many places as well.  Searching "movie blogs" on Bing generates almost 3 billion results.  I am pretty sure a few of them are done by amateurs.

In the end, I think the role of the professional critic is going through the same transition as the role of the professional journalist.  The rules are changing and the successful critics will change with them.  Just this week, the Chicago Sun Times fired all of their staff photographers.  They cited the need to increase the use of video as the reason.  I suspect the need to control fixed costs also played a role in the decision.  If major market newspapers are counting on freelance photographers to meet their needs, how far behind will wire service or crowd sourced critics be?

Perhaps the best roadmap was laid out by the recently deceased Roget Ebert. Not satisfied with being just a print journalist, he joined forces with the film critic from a rival newspaper and became a broadcast star.  When cancer took his voice, he made sure he still had one by moving into social media.  As you can see from the article below, even death hasn't stopped Mr. Ebert.  His site lives on, providing film criticism and reviews.

Today's critic needs to leverage what ever credibility and audience she has into whatever media and format is looking for content.  As so often happens, quality work will rise to the top and find its audience.



Related articles

• The Critic Stumbles
• Roger Ebert's Site Gets a Major Redesign, Will Continue to Feature Reviews from Contributors