Hey, remember the year they released "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"? Where were you when the movie of "Sex and the City" came out? Remember when Entertainment Weekly did a 63-page spread about the former HBO show the week before the feature film came out? Oh, and what about the big "Chronicles of Narnia" sequel? It was such a hot property they made everybody go through security -- with metal detectors and everything. What if someone had made a shaky-cam bootleg of it 36 hours before it opened to the masses? Whoa!
Then, just a couple weeks ago, people lined up for days to catch the first midnight showings of "The Dark Knight." Oh, maybe that was last week. Once upon a time these things seemed like kind of a big deal, and now they all seem so three months ago.
Fanboys love to brag on their blogs that they've seen a movie before anyone else. That's always been the case. When I booked the Market Theater in Seattle's Pike Place Market, we had a socially challenged fellow we called Mr. First-Nighter who invariably arrived early on opening nights and stood the front of the ticket-holder's line to taunt those in the ticket-buyers' line, or especially those who got turned away when a show was sold out: "Ha-ha! You should have gotten hear earlier! I've got my ticket! Ha-ha!" Our owner/manager finally had to tell him that wasn't very nice, and how would he feel if somebody did that to him? He toned it down after that, but he still couldn't help smiling as if he were about to burst.
Like so many things in life, brand new shiny movies hold a magical appeal... at least until you see them. Afterwards, even if you really liked the picture, it loses some of the luster it had only a couple hours ago when it was still something to look forward to. Now that it's a known quantity, you've ingested it, and you think, "Well, what's next?" You may be exhilarated, even blown away by the movie, and that undertaste of unquenched desire remains. Once you can have something, you've had it. Cotton candy always looks better than it tastes when it evaporates in your mouth.
In days of yore, even before "Jaws" created the first "summer blockbuster," the exhibitors' strategy was to wait until the last minute to open the doors. The theory was that the more people who saw the lines around the block, the more they'd want to get in on whatever it was everybody else just had to see -- best advertising imaginable next to actual word-of-mouth. (After all, they were standing in such long lines to see it.) The culture of camping out in lines for "Star Wars" in 1977 became a pop phenomenon in itself. And when a theater had to turn away people? They didn't see that as lost income. It was fantastic: Now those people whose desire had been thwarted were more determined than ever to see what they were missing out on.
Recently, we've seen more media outlets -- newspapers, web sites, TV -- breaking review dates than I can remember. The agreement between distributors and press has always been that reviews were to be held until opening day. But, of course, the studios themselves have been breaking faith with this practice by holding midnight screenings on Thursday nights (yes, technically Friday morning) in order to boost their weekend box office figures. If a movie opens at midnight, running a review on that day makes some sense.
But the fanboy mentality has now extended into the newsrooms of some of our biggest and most prestigious papers (though not, god bless 'em, the New York Times -- yet). Critics are actually running "teases" for their own reviews as soon as they come out of the press screenings. That way you know if they liked or disliked the movie without having to actually read their reviews. How wonderful. How revolutionary. I wrote about this absurdity when Variety ran a "preview" of its critic's "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" review while he was still writing it. When he was done, a couple hours later, the full review went up. Whew. The suspense was unbearable.
I asked Roger Ebert what he think about these, um, crock-teases. Here's what he wrote in e-mail: "I do not believe in early teases. They are frustrating to readers, and no way to review movies, and make the reviewers look like shills." Yes they do. But so many reviewers are perfectly willing to play that role.
I waited in line early one am to get tickets for "Phantom Menace". I've bought tickets on-line ever since.
Though there are those movies that when you walk out it isn't necessarily "What's next" it's "When can I see that again?" I still look forward to watching "The Shining" at least once a year! Same with "Chinatown" and "Seven". The thrill never leaves. That's what being a true fanboy is all about.
There truly is an obsession with seeing these movies first. I receive a lot of free screeners for films, showing a day or two before the film's release, and it's amazing how much money people will spend and what lengths they will go to just to see a free film a day or two early. And I admit, I get caught up in it, too. I'm trying to change that a little.
Really, I only wait in those big lines because my girlfriend enjoys the experience of being with me, going to Dallas for the movie, etc. I myself am trying to submit reviews to small magazines for some side cash, so if I have a "jump on the competition" then I have to take advantage of it. I don't really like that mentality or what it emphasizes, though I'm not sure what else to do, seeing as how most publications only want the latest and greatest.
Girish Shambu had a post a little while back talking about the need to see new films in theaters. A lot of people want to keep up with what's hot, so they feel the need to see everything theatrically. I'm trying to shift my mindset to the one that realizes that a lot of what comes out in the theaters is probably not as good as it could be, and there's so much more, better stuff available to me on DVD. I'm trying to reserve my theater going to big-event movies (the kind that appeal to life-long loves, like "The Dark Knight"), or to films my girlfriend wants to see because, well, I love her.
You better believe studios (and the PR companies they hire to run screenings) stoke this. they deliberately give out too many passes, a strategy I saw exploited most audaciously with Iron Man... I've done screenings, on average of once a week, for several years, but I've never seen anything like that. The crowd that turned out for that one was literally double what the (600+ seat) theater could sit. You can't tell me that wasn't intentional.
I don't understand the urge to break the embargo. OK, I do -- but I disagree with it. I've gone round and round with my editor about this, but I know that since it's an online venue there's nothing I can do about it. The urge to be FIRST (rather than BETTER) seems to prevail. On my personal site, I still won't put up a review till day of release.
I've noted, with no small disappointment, that Ebert's reviews are going up early too. What gives?
I've noticed this trend as well and also attribute the recent wave of four-quels (?), resurrecting a franchise long squeezed dry of any possibility of drama, tension, surprise, or anything else that would make a film a legitimate enterprise, oh and passion too. The reviews then tend to not be a review of the film as much as a listing of how the film was or was not like the original films, lining up and quantifying these almost irrelevant details in a desperate attempt at nostalgia value I suppose. The consumption is so immediate as to make it seem that we are almost no longer capable of making staple or classic films. Perhaps it was due to the harmonic conversions of the late 80's or an alignment of planets or perhaps an unnoticed spacetime gap between the ironies and sarcasm of the gen x-ers and the current metro-m generation fallout therefrom. We've become so self-aware in our films, comedies, television shows that it seems nostalgia plays as a substitute for engaging drama or bold steps forward. Granted this largely would apply to blockbuster films, action or comedy whathaveyou. But the drive remains to recapture something that we're pretty sure once existed in cinema and may never again: innovation, excitement, bold new directions in movie making that actually build off of what has come before instead of cannibalizing it to satisfy some fanboy imperative to make everything again as it once was, not going outside, watching a beat up copy of Empire Strikes Back over and over and over and over again. We seem to think the bar was set so high by the Lucas's and Speilbergs of the world that this kind of whiz-bang entertainment is no longer possible. Perhaps this is what also contributes to the almost-necessity of darkness in these stories, i.e. The Dark Knight or the upcoming Watchmen. Adding an apparent but ultimately shallow 'dark world view' to material that may not be able to support it (for my money Batman should have died at the end of Dark Knight but you can't kill Batman because...well, there's just got to be a sequel) or it is an attempt to legitimize these ideas and stories and characters not through introspection or honest examination but through simply darkening everything. 'Oh you thought this was kids stuff? Well look at how depressing and intricate and labored the attempt to cross t's and dot i's with reference to storylines and throwaway characters in a story told in another episodic medium that in and of itself has gone through an artistic identity crisis for the last fifty years (I refer to the comics of course). It seems dangerous but there is a constant crisis in American filmmaking and I'm sure soon enough the tide will shift and someone who's movie making lessons extend back more than say the last 20 years (I'm sorry but if you're making films and you don't know who Jean Renoir is and haven't seen AT LEAST 5 of his films you need to sign up for netflix...you could replace Renoir with anyone you'd like from Fellini to Bergman to Ozu but come on people, its like you haven't seen what film can do) I'm going to turn this rant into a rant of a rant so I'll stop here. I will say I don't like it but I'm sure the tide will turn once the money does...how it usually goes.
I was amazed by how dark and grim that "The Dark Knight" but that was precisely what made it an exceptional movie for me(though I'm bothered by the fact that I wouldn't describe this super-hero film as fun).The advertisements for the film didn't seem like it was going to be that way.Another sequel that I was impressed with "Hellboy II:The Golden Army" and I found "Iron Man" to be a delightful suprise.I went into both of these movies with lowered expectations but I also went into "Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" with lowered expectations and was still disappointed,It is I think a distant fourth of the four.So I had alot of lowered expectations going into the summer popcorn movies that I saw this year.
Your first point reminds me of a piece from the Times of London last year, wherein the writer opined:
"There seems to be a schism opening up between the idea of attending an event and the actual experience. People appear to care more about gaining evidence of their presence at a cultural landmark than drinking in its pleasures...The erratic organic memory of looking at beauty seems to have been downgraded to a supporting role."
The veneration of the "I was there" idea seems to have been passed on to us (like so many of our cultural vices) from the Baby Boomers.
As for the rise of pre-reviews and early reviews, I think it is at least in part a carryover from the culture of 'breaking news' in newsrooms across the country, where there is a fight to be first on the air (or internet) with some, almost always, triviality. The problem is, in most cities that are not (around) top 10 in population, there is really only 1 newspaper, so the critic isn't trying to the get out in front of the competition for their readership. I suppose they are competing with other reviewers across the country who may put reviews up early, but in reality most people I know only know the local newspaper critic and Roger Ebert.
One interesting thing I find about local reviewers is that they don't provide a local perspective or reading of the film (if such a thing were possible). Why have so many local reviewers if all it produces is mostly interchangeable copy, just with different names in the byline? Isn't local film criticism guilty of the same 'too many that are bad in the same way' construction you applied to the movies that ran you away from being a local critic, Jim?
We seem to think the bar was set so high by the Lucas's and Speilbergs of the world that this kind of whiz-bang entertainment is no longer possible. Perhaps this is what also contributes to the almost-necessity of darkness in these stories, i.e. The Dark Knight or the upcoming Watchmen.
Maybe this is a new trend in Hollywood, but the source materials and inspiration (Frank Miller's much darker take on Batman and Alan Moore's "Watchmen") are over two decades old. If anything, Hollywood is simply delving into another medium's past shifts in tone and storytelling to revive its own tired conventions. (I rarely read comics - er, I mean "graphic novels" - anymore, but "Watchmen" is truly excellent. I think "Heroes" owes a lot to it. Even one of the creators of "Lost" cited it as inspiration.)
Jim,
You're idea about how the viewer leaves a film wondering "what's next" instead of thinking more about the film is something that I totally agree with; this "what's next" Hollywood mentality has bothered me for years.
I am always a little off-put by how so many filmgoers will just immediately get up and leave the theater once the film is over. I make it a practice to sit in my seat and let the film resonate; reflect upon what I had just seen (Snow Angels had this affect on me this year) and how it relates to me feelings, other films I have seen, etc.
Also, I blame the studios and trailers for their new movies. Trailers are becoming more and more ridiculous, totaling up to about twenty minutes, the audience gets about six trailers -- all containing spoilers galore mind you, therefore nullifying the need to talk about your experience of the film, because you have just seen some of its big "aha!" moments, so once you see those moments in their context, it's onto the next one. The trailers are preparing the masses to get their credit cards ready the minute you walk out of the theater. They have you thinking about the next film before the one you are seeing has even started yet.
When I went and saw The Dark Knight I broke one of my own rules and left the theater early. Mostly because I wanted to hear peoples reaction to it in the lobby. What I heard most was about how great Watchmen looks, or how the new Bond film looks like a Bourne ripoff; basically they were more willing to talk about the merits of a two minute trailer than they were about a two-and-a-half hour crime film they had just seen. Argh!
It's sad that the first thing most filmgoers think about is what movie they will spend their money on next.
I also want to briefly touch on something particularly sad about this Summer of movies. You say:
"Hey, remember the year they released "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"? Where were you when the movie of "Sex and the City" came out? Remember when Entertainment Weekly did a 63-page spread about the former HBO show the week before the feature film came out? Oh, and what about the big "Chronicles of Narnia" sequel? It was such a hot property they made everybody go through security -- with metal detectors and everything. What if someone had made a shaky-cam bootleg of it 36 hours before it opened to the masses? Whoa!"
I couldn't agree more. In fact, before I read this paragraph I had completely forgotten about The Chronicles of Narnia. How sad that movies exist, and hours upon hours of time and (perhaps) passion are spent, for one or two weekends a year. Tons of money is spent to get us all riled up over the film, and then after two weeks of it being released (where really the studio only cares about the coveted "Opening Weekend" title), they are ready to move on and get the dvd packaging ready.
Movies are not allowed to be blockbusters anymore because in (God forgive me) a simpler time Indiana Jones and Batman would have sufficed for an entire Summer of hype and excitement at the movies.
I love dvd and the home theater experience, but it really has ruined everything about the exuberant activity of seeing a big-budget blockbuster on a Summer night.
I must admit, this is spot on to how I felt after watching The Dark Knight (yes, at a midnight showing). Not that I'd compare the movie's quality to the taste of evaporated cotton candy (never been a fan of the stuff), but there was a lingering sense that now that I've seen it -- or hell, now that I can immediately see it again if I wanted to -- a small bit of mystique had disappeared.
I was talking with a friend last night about the Watchmen film, and couldn't help but notice the absurdity of how we're already debating about a movie that's still nearly a year away. He came up with a frighteningly accurate (and appropriately nerdy) analogy: Eagerly anticipating the next blockbuster movie is like being on a "World of Warcraft" level grind -- as soon you watch one, it just means you get to start waiting for the next. "Ding! I hit The Dark Knight!" "Awesome, dude. Congrats!" "Yeah, grats man!" "Thanks fellas! Now I'm just... 76,475 XP away from Watchmen. Sigh."
(If you didn't understand anything in that paragraph, then... be proud of yourself?)
Does anyone know when the term "motion picture event" became a basic part of the movie advertising lexicon? I'm guessing it's in the last 10-15 years but I don't really know. If so, it looks like the marketing people have succeeded in turning "motion pictures" into "motion picture events."
At heart I think the phenomenon of which you speak is just one example of a propensity that we all have in so many areas of our life ( and which probably originated waaay back when our species became aware of the passing of time) that we all have to one extent or another in so many areas of our lives - to live far more in the past or future than in the present moment. It's even at the heart of many philosophies...the source of most or all suffering is the desire for things to be different than they truly are in any particular moment.
Jim,
Excellent piece! You made a great observation that not only is there a rush to be the first to see the film but also to review it. I began reviewing films independently as a "blogger." Before I knew of the studio "embargo," I was no doubt guilty of posting critiques before release dates, simply because I'd seen it done everywhere else.
It's a practice I definitely respect but I'm not sure it's one with which I agree. I understand the great level of responsibility associated with the position and how negative reviews can actually "kill" a film (more in the indie/art world rather than as a friend calls that of "critic proof" blockbusters)but an early, positive review of something like In Bruges or Stop-Loss may have helped make those films greater hits and built anticipation, thereby selling more tickets to something of that level of quality and less money would go to something undeserving.
But I digress: Now that I've been fortunate enough to have moved from blogger to actual (albeit "partial") press status, along with the other wonderful reviewers in my area, I'm also guided not to post until opening day. And while I definitely follow this rule, it's been so irritating-- especially in the wake of huge films like The Dark Knight and Indiana Jones when reviews are leaked by major news sources DAYS before the screening hits.
I'm assuming there must be a link between this practice and the recent NPR piece about the large number of film reviewers losing their jobs across the country as more viewers turn to "stats" provided by Rotten Tomatoes in lieu of reading literary, sophisticated reviews. So perhaps in addition to desiring to be "the first" and "get the most hits," it's also saying something about the shaky industry-- or art-- of film criticism that's now been given a run for its money by not only bloggers and fanboys but also major news sources whose leaked press steals the interest (or "thunder") from those who may have sought out additional reviews.
This being said, it's definitely a shame and on the one hand, you want to complain by how unfair it is. However, on the other, as I've chosen to do--perhaps used to added hurdles as one of the few female critics-- I use it as a challenge to try and take a cue from those who inspired me-- like my idol Ebert-- and go for different approaches to criticism, avoiding the (1-5) star rating system altogether, and just working to keep improving while serving up thoughtful writing.
Thanks, Jim, for bringing to light such a great topic and I've really enjoyed the blog. And a double thanks for linking to my site in a post in the past before I was "press."
Sincerely,
Jen
I was talking with a friend last night about the Watchmen film
I am a fellow nerd like yourself, and I can relate to this. I try to tell other nerds not to care about hype, that none of the rumors and speculation matter till the movie's up there on the screen in front of you. It helps that I see a lot of movies and write about them... that banishes some of the mystique.
What is so frustrating about the quickness with witch these blockbusters pass through our collective consciousness is that if you don't fall into the group of people that went to see the movie in it's first weekend, you start to feel left out.
This is how it's been for me with "The Dark Knight". I've been looking forward to it for some time, but haven't really had the time to go see it in the ten days since it's been released. And now that everyone has already seen it, there's a conversation going on that I can't participate in.
I'll still go to see it, and I shouldn't hold bitterness toward those who have, but I feel like the exhibition/distribution models that we have are backing me into a corner. I'd like to be able to take my time and see the movie when I'm good and ready (or wait until I can see it for $5 with my discount card).
Oh well. It's a war I'll never win. I'll pick my battles though. When Scorsese, or P.T. Anderson, or the Coen's release a new picture. I won't wait for my discount card to kick in.
Jim,
Thank you for this. Most recently, I was a bit frustrated about the general lack of buzz after The Dark Knight. I got to see it on Friday (not one of those midnight showing, Friday night). So I saw the movie on opening day, and apart from the box office buzz, it's as if all the real "news" has come and gone.
So I got to catch up on all those reviews I hadn't read, but it still astonished me. All that premature Heath Ledger Oscar buzz happened before the rest of us actually had a chance to see the movie and judge for ourselves. I looked forward to reading about it afterward, hearing new takes on movie, and finding out about stuff I missed (I've still only seen it once). But by opening night, The Dark Knight was old news.
It's in the best interest of the studios that we do this, and every fan and fanboy is being played. Due to the revenue setup with the theaters the studios get the highest percentage of the ticket price in the first 2 weeks. In some cases it's 90%, and after that it keeps dropping. By the 4th week it can be down to 40%. That is a big chunk of the box office the studios would be leaving on the table if they didn't get everyone out on the opening weekend.
To do that they use the ET's, Comic Cons, Ain't it Cool's, and New York Times (they run articles about the movies before they are screened, see Sex and the City). Make every one have to see it now or they can't be part of the great conversation. After that weekend the conversation has to be moved on. I can only sit back and admire how they manipulate their biggest fans, and how much we fall for it.
(I've been trying to talk people into seeing Wall*E for weeks now. "Is that still in the theaters? I don't want to be the only person there!")
Jen: In a way, my need for "early reviews" of smaller films is filled by film festival buzz. When I heard about movies like "No Country for Old Men" or "The Assassination of Jesse James..." being praised as great movies when Ebert saw them at Cannes, that made me excited for them.
Being on a forum where movies get discussed, I often have to avoid any threads for movies I'm interested in seeing, because they're usually full of spoilers. Maybe I'm getting weird, but I'd like to go into a movie without knowing what will happen, and the less I know the better. (There should be a graph illustrating the little hill of interest to knowledge of.)
So Jim.....will there be no article about the similarities between Two-Face and Anton Chigurh? :-)