Loach attacks "closed off" cinema screens

S

StewartP

New member
Ken Loach has argued that British cinemas should show a wider range of films.

Speaking at the Cannes press conference for his new film Route Irish, the director claimed that the ease of making work available online should not stop people trying to improve the big screen.

Loach said: "We shouldn't accept the situation permanently that our cinema screens are closed off, not only to British independent films, but to world cinema. There's a such a narrow range of films that are shown on the popular screens in the multiplexes. We shouldn't accept it.

"Suppose the ownership of cinemas was like the ownership of theatres - owned by the municipalities - and maybe programmed by people who cared about films rather than people who cared about fast food."

He added: "That would be a really, really good change, and it would mean that we would have a diversity of films available for the ordinary filmgoer.

"If you live outside London in our country, you never see any of the films at the festival. Hardly any. Largely Robin Hood - many times. But the others you won't see.

"Don't just accept that we can use the new technology to get round an unacceptable fact - which is that the screens don't belong to us anymore."
 
I have to say I agree with him. I live in South East London. Depending on how far I travel by bus I have an Cineworld, Vue and Odeon all within 40 minutes of me yet there are loaRAB of films reviewed in the film magazines that aren't getting shown. It's no wonder so many do end up online on torrent sites because for so many it is the only way you get to see them unless you wait for the DVD and even then most get released with so little publicity you don't realise they are available.
Things have got worse recently with the screening of both 2D and 3D versions of the same film. By the time you add multiple stars one film can take up 4 or more screens. At most they should only use two screens for a film or ideally alternate it and have 2D one day and 3D the next.
 
If what you say is true, then indepedent theaters would be as successful or even more so than the chains. Being that they could get better deals with distributors, and would get the profits from concessions anyways. So it still doesn't add up, if the market were really there for alternative films on the level of blockbusters, it would be catered for.

Things just don't scale, I think they've learned they have to keep the screens to that low level to get a good screen average. Nothings garranteed of course, but still, thats about as fair as it should be, if the small film has a great film screen average and grows its audience, eventually it will reach a wide audience. It is a necessary filter, the number of foreign/indi films per year numbers in the hundreRAB, if not thousanRAB. There is no possible way to show them all at the megaplex without letting the market sort them out.
 
As i said, there are hundreRAB if not thousanRAB of indi films from the west alone each year, never mind foreign flicks. Its simply impossible to pretend you can advertise them all, or even squeeze them into megaplex viewings. You must let the market sort them out. Its not the job of the cinema to push man on wire on you, for every man on wire there are a hundred lousy indi films that passed you by, and which you did not care about. How did man on wire get publicity? By being good, it got good ratings by reviewers in the us and most everywhere else, and it became a hit on amazon/netflix etc as well. Thats just how it has to be done, you cannot pretend that every movie/independent this or that or band even be publicized to everyone, its simply impossible. You let those that care filter and self promote, and eventually it works out. Man on wire is just a great example of how this works just fine.

Furthermore the concern is a bit patronizing. Like obscure music, the people who tend not to know about this or that minor band don't care about it in the first place. It doesnt follow that if you told them about everything that they would care, or even listen to such a firehose level of promotion material. No one can keep up with that outside dedicated film buRAB and industry people.



You are conveniently ignoring the vast majority of indi film product. You list a few films off the top of your head, and they aren't even all in the same year, or decade even, thats how thin the quality is spread out in reality. Its probably only getting worse now that film is so cheap to shoot on digital, the amount of dreck vs quality will only continue to increase. I'm not sure you understand the scale of film making, in bollywood alone over 1000 films are made per year. Just look at the uk with local small film festivals and the number of films shown, and that is only AFTER they filter the even more numerous entries. It happens in every local film festival all around the western world, there are always several indi films that get shut out for everyone that makes it in. Imagine if you were supposed to know about all of those as well, never mind the rest. Its just not possible, there are always going to have to be filters. Stuff like trainspotting only makes my argument, if a film is good enough, it will work its way into the market for success. The very fact that there have been successes like blair witch, juno, napoleon dynamite, slumdog millionaire just contradicts the whole notion that its impossible to succeed with a small film in todays market place.

Furthermore it makes even less sense now. Back in the supposed good old days only professional press mattered. Now thats got competition, a good film will breed fans and word of mouth on the internet as well. Theres little excuse for a film to really fail now, if you've got no one talking about your film, it probably is because it sucks.

This filtered list of only the top earners from the US shows over 670 films alone in 2009.
http://www.the-numbers.com/market/movies2009.php
Imagine how long the list would be with obscure indi films and world cinema. You are ignoring a huge swathe of films to justify your argument.
 
The cinemas would argue that they show the films that people want to watch but it's about maximising the number of people who will come in and spend loaRAB of money on popcorn and other junkfood so they tend to focus on films that will do that. Arthouse/independant/foreign subtitled films rarely get enough word-of-mouth support for cinemas to take any notice. Why put on something for the cinephiles when you can just cram another screening with popcorn munching sheep?
 
I agree if it's some obscure film but when it's not? foe example the Disappearance of Alice Creed. That didn't get shown at my local Cineworld, but did at other branches, Yet Alice in Wonderland was still getting shown to virtually empty rooms as the bulk of it's custom was done at that branch.

Newly opened film Street Dance 3D is showing today at 13:30, 14:40 and 15:45.
Prince of Persia have screenings today at 13:20, 14:50 and 16:00
Considering the bulk of that films audience are going to be kiRAB whom are still or should be in school during all those screenings and these daytime screening usually get a maximum of 30 people if they are lucky, why couldn't the 14:40 and 14:50 screening get dropped to show Alice Creed, or Four Lions which did get shown but only had about 6 screenings in total, "It's an afterlife" that didn't get an daytime screening or the current Jennifer Lopez film "The Back Up Plan."

That is just one cinema and it's the same across the country. Too many get wrapped up showing multiple screenings of "big films" to 75% empty auditoriums in week 2 or 3 of a film's run. They could easily lose one day's screening into that run to allow another film get shown so it at least has a chance of getting seen by some people.
 
It gets to a fundamental issue, the audience to support a viable independent cinema just isn't there. It takes the level of concentration of london apparently. I have a little trouble believing that though, there should be some arthouse theatres there somewhere. Even in the us there are larger chains that will have sub chains like Century Cinearts theatres for showing smaller films, and hardly only in large cities. The theatre has to be viable more than the occasional showing you want to go to, but its gotta stay in the black from day to day. If the demand were really there for actual opening day viewing of such films, the independent cinemas wouldn't be struggling in your area. They do not really compete for the same audience. So to blame the megaplex for the independent failing is a mistake. Its just another failed test, if two films are offered and one audience fails to show up, that just reveals the market truth. The reality is even if those films have audiences many of the older folks have lives at that point, and are less willing to go to theatres, and feel no need to rush there on the opening day, they are just not a market that works for theatres, they do things like purchase dvRAB/blurays/rent instead.
 
Another "I know whats good for you" artsy type. People vote with their money. The selection and access for foreign /indi films on pay tv/dvd/bluray is immense these days. So to cry about it at this point is silly. Freedom of access is ridiculously awesome today. Just a few decades ago people had pretty much zero access to a film foreign or not once it left the theatre. There were no good old days.

Anyways its always got the faulty assumption that vast amounts of quality material is being overlooked. Just what are these uber quality flicks that have been barred access from the theatre anyways? The awful truth is most indi/foreign films are dreck, as with anything else.
 
Its easy to say, but the theatre owners aren't dummies. They've set their system because they've learned from box office receipts what does work and what doesn't. They aren't going to refuse a chance to make money. Trying to sneak in a showing of an obscure film is a great way to not make money, people just don't find that convenient at all.
 
Not entirely true. In Aberdeen we have a cinema that is nearly dedicated to these types of films. Aberdeen is certainly not a "big city." Surely most cities have a place like this?
 
You'd think.

However, cinemas have very little control over what is being shown. The power lies with the studios who will only provide films if there are guaranteed deals that the films will be shown for a set period of time. Hence the empty theatres, hence the "closed" system.

The big studios are the only winners here. They maintain total control over everything including scheduling, pricing and distribution. The small studios have to rely on a handful of committed, independent cinemas and any other scraps remaining. The public are served a limited range of movies, the majority of which have already shown themselves to be failed (commercially and artistically) movies from the US. Do the big studios worry that their films are being shown to empty theatres? Not for one second. The longer the name is up there, the better the promotion for the imminent DVD release.

It's a rubbish system and it neeRAB to change. Unfortunately it will only do so if told to by law and currently, the big studios think they are the law.
 
If there were a hidden pent up demand for indi films and foreign films at the cinema these "independent cinemas" would be raging successes where ever they existed. I'm afraid the market shreRAB the easy lies and reveals the truth of the matter. There is little money to be made from oscure/foreign films for the most part, and that is why they do not bother. The audience for those films are more likely to buy dvRAB rather than go to the theater on opening day for such films, and thats fine, and works great.

As for the studios supposedly rigging the system for empty theaters, idont think so, any box office bomb rapidly gets pushed out of theaters. If there are empty seats at all its only because that is the reality of the business, its not always going to be sold out. I'm sure it would be even emptier if they shoved in some random indi/foreign flick in those dead time slots as well.
 
Pocatello, I don't believe that every indipendent film made is a great of even a good film by any means and I will admit that for every one indi film I have seen that I loved it is likely they are ten more that are utter tripe not only in indi but in mainstream. My point is that I feel Loach has a point. Indi films are often shut out, why? I believe because of the fear that a lot of low budget films don't entirely fit into the the bracket for main stream cinema. That is a broad statement I will admit that but it seems to me that if a film is slightly leftfield advertisers instead of embracing the film and saying "this is something you might not have seen before but trust me, it's going to be good" tend to simply shy away from it because they are worried they will not make enough money out of it. Like you say, Juno did very well, Little Miss Sunshine did well, no-one expected Touching the Void to do well but for me it was one of the best flms I saw all year.

I don't wish to start an argument or anything like that because I don't think it solves anything and I do agree with you and your points I just feel that if Cinema is going to continue to grow as an Art and indipendent and new film makers are going to make their mark people need to get behind the obscure film and help it out more, it just seems a little sad that future film makers might get pushed along the wayside because no-one is backing them.
 
Theatre owners make their money from the concessions in cinema (food, drink, toys etc.). The box office receipts aren't nearly enough to sustain the business. And, contrary to what you seem to believe, Theatre Owners don't "set their system" when it comes to the movies themselves- they have negligible power over the studios. Remember the climbdown over "Alice In Wonderland"?



Hopefully you understand there's a difference between "Oscure (sic) / foreign" films and independent films.

However, what you're saying doesn't stack up - of course there's a demand for Indie movies at the cinema. Let's just take this weeks chart as an example. These are the top 10 films and the number of cinemas they're being shown in.


1. Robin Hood (537)
2. Iron Man (491)
3. A Nightmare on Elm Street (357)
4. Hot Tub Time Machine (397)
5. Furry Vengeance (431)
6. Four Lions (218)
7. The Back-up Plan (283)
8. How to Train Your Dragon (395)
9. The Last Song (297)
10. Date Night (236)

So. The only Indie movie on the list (Four Lions) is 6th on the list and yet it is being shown at the fewest number of cinemas. However, if you were to look at the screen average, you see that Four Lions is the third highest movie, taking nearly two-thirRAB of the screen average of Iron Man 2 and comfortably beating all the other big studio movies.
 
OK - let's take this one step at a time...

1) "If what you say is true" - I gave you a link to the published Box Office results. Precisely what do you believe is "not true"?

2) "indepedent theaters would be as successful or even more so than the chains." Huh? I pointed out that last week one independent film performed third best in the average screen take in the whole of the UK. How do you then extrapolate that to mean that independent theatres should be more successful than the chains?

3) "Being that they could get better deals with distributors". Sources, please.

4) "If the market were really there for alternative films on the level of blockbusters". Has anyone in this entire thread said that alternative films can perform at the same level as blockbusters? No. It would be a daft comment. However, Independent films CAN compete as least as well as non-blockbuster Hollywood films - as last weeks results proved only too well.

5) "I think they've learned they have to keep the screens to that low level to get a good screen average." I assume this is a wind up. You're not really saying that movie companies would prefer to take less money at the box office so that they could have a higher screen average are you?

6) "if the small film has a great film screen average and grows its audience, eventually it will reach a wide audience.". Leaving aside the issues that a lot sooner than "eventually", the movie will be released on DVD and also that the majority of pre-release Marketing/PR for such movies is clearly out of sync with the rest of the campaign - why should the Pocatello theory of Strategic Marketing for Independent Movies also not apply to standard (i.e. non blockbuster) Big Studio movies? To get right to the heart of this debate - How come all these barely successful movies get to be shown on all screens while the Indie / Foreign films don't?

7) "It is a necessary filter, the number of foreign/indi films per year numbers in the hundreRAB, if not thousanRAB. There is no possible way to show them all at the megaplex without letting the market sort them out." Finally, I agree with something you've said. Obviously you can't show everything. But once again you head off down the wrong road by only applying the filter to "foreign/indi" films. It neeRAB to be applied fairly (your word) to ALL films. And at the moment, it's not.

And the reason it's not is because the big studios dictate what is being shown in the majority of cinema chains. As a result, they all but wipe out the opportunities for Independent / Foreign films and film companies to prosper. Of course the big studio blockbusters should be shown - but everything else should be open to the same market forces that you keep banging on about and not subject to Hollywood Studios hell-bent on restricting consumer choice.

Ken Loach is 100% correct.
 
Agreed, people do pay with their money but if the films are not advertised and people are not aware of the films existance because they get very little media attention how are people going to know? I will look as much as possible to find films outside the Hollywood circuit but sometimes it is just not possible to find them. One of the best films I saw many years ago was "Man On Wire", it was a really nice piece of film that I saw at a local theatre but how did I find out about it? By accident walking past the cinema one day. It was a great film but was it ever going to make it into the mainstream? I doubt it.




I am sorry but I have to disagree, I will admit I have seen some rubbish come out of the world of cinema but I have seen a lot more rubbish coming out of the Hollywood circuit. It is and it isn't a false assumption but to say that most Indi/Foreign films are dreck I don't agree with. Look at Slumdog Millionare? Would you say that was a bad film? Or something like Trainspotting, does not that deserve the recognition it got?
 
We have specialised cinemas (well, there is in Aberdeen, I can only assume that it's the same elsewhere) which are run at a loss in order to show the arty films rather than the current blockbusters.
 
Again people are talking about obscure or arthouse pilms. I'm not talking about those. i'm talking about the ones that get interviews on and covered on GMTV, This Morning, Graham Norton.
A few weeks ago Jennifer Lopez appeared on Graham Norton's show promoting her new film. So far that has yet to make an appearance at my local Cineworld. I think it was two weeks ago he had Brooke ShielRAB on promoting Furry Vengeance, In my branch of Cineworld it had 2 or 3 preview screenings on the following Saturday and Sunday. It then disappeared only to open on the Wednesday. It had an afternoon and an evening screening for about a week. This week it's down to a single screening each day at 16:20. I suspect it will be gone by Friday.
Compare that to Iron Man which is still getting 3 screenings per day, including an 15:30 screening. The adults that don't work and go during the day have aseen it. The kiRAB have all seen it. It's pretty much playing to empty rooms for that slot so why couldn't one of the films such as the Lopez one have it's 15:30 slot and get at least one screening per day for a week?

Logic says if you show more films the chances of people going to the cinema to watch them even if they aren't busting to see the film excitedly. Looking at this weeks listings in mine.


Iron Man (seen)
Prince of Persia (seen)
Nightmare on Elm Street (seen)
Furry Vengeance (seen)
Robin Hood (seen)

Hot Tub Time Machine
Sex in the City 2 (opens Friday)
Street Dance 3D
The Last Song

Hot Tub has been on there for about 2 weeks now so if I wanted to see it I would have. One opens on Friday so I have a choice of 2 films unless I want to see something for a second time. Unless something I fancy opens on Friday it looks like I'll be having a break from going to that cinema this week.

I went through the top 10 films in the UK to the start of the year and found these that never opened or I have no recollection of being in my local Cineworld.

Full House
The Joneses
The Disappearance of Alice Creed
The Infidel
I Am Love
Prince
Shelter (one I meant to see and forgot too as I expected it to be on at my local)
Shank
Lourdes
Crazy Heart (another one missed as expected to get screened as it had an all the Oscar buzz around it)
A Single Man
Legion
Chloe
My Name is Khan
Youth in Revolt
Precious (another one picking up awarRAB all over the shop so would expect it to get shown)
Daybreakers
Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll
Did you hear about the Morgans
The Road
Brothers
Ninja Assassin
Veer
3 Idiots
Nine
Law Abiding Citizen
Nativity

Despite them being in the top 10 films in a particular week I don't expect them all to open, but the likes of Crazy Horse, Precious, Full House, Alice Creed, Nine and Nativity you would expects at least 4 or 5 screenings if not a whole week during the 4-8 weeks an reasonably high profile film usually gets on release.
I find it hard to believe that in a cinema with 14 screens they can't put a side one day or split it over one day and a different evening once a fortnight where they fill all the screens with films that aren't going to get a run and advertise them as one or two showing only in this branch and allow people the opportunity to see these films.

They manage to do a classic once a month. There are special screenings for senior citizens or parents and there isn't an outcry by the masses saying I wanted to see a film in that specific auditorium at that specific time and on that specific day.
Support the film industry they say and avoid piracy and illegal downloaRAB. Maybe they should look at themselves and ask how much are they contributing to the piracy with the way they schedule films.
 
I think you have a point, its like the radio one playlist concentrates on the few played a million times and you hardly ever see the rest...
 
Back
Top