There are seven weeks to go before the Academy Awards ceremony, and for those
who claim to follow such things — would-be experts who pontificate about which
movie will win best picture or who seems like a lock for best supporting actor —
peer pressure is mounting to have seen all the movies that could be in
contention. But Hollywood and the people who show its films to the world seem to
be doing everything in their power to make sure that it’s difficult. Seeing all
the films that may receive Oscar nods this season requires a single-mindedness
bordering on mania, while getting a seat in the front of a theater is akin to an
assault of Tora Bora.
And then there’s the talking, and the menace of those who dislike it. At a
Christmas Day screening of “The
Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” The Philadelphia Inquirer reported last
week, a man became so enraged at a fellow audience member who was talking to his
son that he pulled out a pistol and shot him in the arm. As patrons fled the
theater, the newspaper reported, the gunman settled back into his seat to watch
Brad
Pitt in, well, peace.
But we should begin with the glut of movies that open in December. Where is
it written that nearly every serious, good film should come crashing into one
another in the last few days of the year? And really, how can that be good for
business?
Nonetheless Hollywood executives with visions of golden statues dancing in
their heads, husband their best stuff for the end of year, leaving the likes of
the rest of us to drink from a fire hose of prestige movies that star Cate and
Kate, romantically enmeshed with Brad and Leo. It is shocking to those who spend
the rest of the year scanning the newspaper in search of something, anything, to
reach December and find all sorts of laurel-bedecked ads shouting at us about
the must-see film of the year. Where were you back in August, pal?
Each year the mountain is steeper to climb. The Film Experience blog, thefilmexperience.net, did the
homework and found that the December glut is even glut-tier than usual. Thirty
years ago 15 movies destined for Oscar involvement opened in the last month of
the year — in 2007, that number ballooned to 24. If you started now, you would
almost have to see a movie every other day to remain in the awards narrative.
Producers looking for Oscar’s fickle attention have become superstitious
about a December release, so a trip to the modern multiplex has become a
cinematic smorgasbord, a groaning board. Will it be the technically wondrous
charms of “Benjamin Button” or the actorly accomplishments of “Milk”?
Are you in the mood for Mumbai romance (“Slumdog
Millionaire”) or a history lesson (“Frost/Nixon”)? (Maybe it’s “Marley &
Me,” surely not an Oscar contender, but a movie the Bagger was dumb to slag
sight unseen. A person could do far worse than to stare at Owen
Wilson and Jennifer
Aniston for a couple hours, not to mention their blond, house-wrecking
co-star.)
Somehow the dutiful, hopeful viewer chooses a movie. But the dogfight has
only begun. In order to pump up a movie’s per-screen average — an important
metric of consumer enthusiasm — studios limit the number of theaters into which
the movies are released. That means fewer screens with more people clamoring to
get into the theaters.
For those of us who live in or near New York that can mean hunting online for
precious tickets hours or even days in advance of a screening, and once the
tickets are procured, for that extra online convenience fee, schlepping to the
theater an hour before show time to ensure you get a decent seat. It could be
worse — many filmgoers live out in those middle places where many of this year’s
contenders have not even made an appearance.
Getting a ticket is one thing, finding a suitable place from which to enjoy
the cinematic splendors can be quite another. Heaven help you if you have more
than a single companion; spreading some coats out while the rest of the tribe
hits the concession stand is scant defense against the invading hordes. And even
the lone moviegoer is up against tall odds.
A few days ago this columnist was having some issues of adjustment at work —
after a little vacation, he didn’t want to be there — and sneaked out to see a
movie under the guise of research. He was literally chased around the theater by
wave after wave of people who view a movie as companion media, something to be
taken in while doing other things like chatting up a pal next to them or
updating their friends and relatives with texts or calls during the course of
the matinee.
(Last month the Bagger was at an industry preview of “The
Reader,” and totally flipped his lid when the couple next to him chattered
happily through a scene in which a young man walks silently through a
concentration camp. “Are you twits really going to talk your way through a scene
at a concentration camp?” he hissed.)
Between the release schedule and the increasing inhospitable environs for
actually seeing a film, even the most dedicated Oscarphile could not be blamed
for bluffing his way through a conversation about the dividing line between this
season’s contenders and pretenders. And it may even mean that some movies that
took the risk of coming out beyond the hallowed environs of December — “Dark
Knight” or “Wall-E” come to mind — end up in the middle of the
conversations.
With each passing year the homes that people leave to go to the theater
become equipped with ever richer and deeper entertainment experiences. If
Hollywood expects us to leave the cocoon, it might want to think about the
notion that sitting down and actually seeing the movie should not require
investing huge chunks of time, sharp elbows or an even sharper
tongue.