Monday Morning Poll: The Multiplex and Independent Film

I'm French Canadian, but I'm a great admirer of American independent film, and I thought I would be nice for you to have an outside perspective on this. I think a multiplex for independent film is a great idea, if simply because I feel that right now, independent film is showing up the entire American film industry. While blockbusters get duller every season, the independents show incredible vigor and vitality. People need to see these movies, and let's face it, people won't seek them out in obscure tiny theaters.

One of the most recent big multiplexes that has opened in Montreal, my hometown, has been an AMC theatre. Facing steep competition from the Famous Players, and especially Guzzo chains (a Quebec-only chain of multiplexes), over the years it has started to dedicate most of its screens to independent films in order to carve its own niche. I don't know how succesful that move was, but I'm glad they did it, because now I know there's a theater I can count on to go see all those great movies and that won't threaten to shut down anytime soon (like Cinema du Parc, one of the last small arthouse theaters in the city). I don't think it ruins the experience, au contraire. Seeing "Me and You and Everyone We Know" in a multiplex was very satisfying to me, and I'm sure a bunch of people who were in the theater with me wouldn't have seen it had it not been shown there.

Reply

I don't like the big multiplex idea because I don't think it solves the problem. Let's be realistic about it. Big multiplexes devoted to indy films are only going to go in the big cities, most of which already have some coduit to independant film available. All they would serve to do is steal business from those establishments, or die trying. And it wouldn't bring any new availability to the suburbs and smaller towns.

The better answer is for the big chains to start scheduling more independant films in their already existing multiplexes. Not for full runs mind you, but a couple showings a day. There is no reason for a romantic comedy that has been out for three weeks to need every showing. Take a couple of those slots away and give them to an independant film. It wouldn't be hard for the average multiplex to be offering three or four indy films at a time in that manner.

Even if they aren't huge hits for the theater, they haven't really lost much because it's not like The Breakup is pulling in huge numbers at 7:00 on a Wednesday night at this point anyway. And on those occasions where an indy catches fire and becomes a must see event, they are going to have a nice uptick in attendance.

It just comes down to a matter of getting the word out and educating the public about the movies that are available.

Reply

In Portland Or, we have Fox Tower 10 which is owned by Regal and they play independent (and semi mainstream) films almost exclusively. It is a very nice place with stadium seating and seven dollar pop and would be easily converted to a "regular" movie theater by simply changing the posters for upcoming films.
I end up going there often as it is essentially doubling the number of screens in the area that have non mainstream movies.


Right now they are showing:

An Inconvenient Truth
The Heart of the Game
The Puffy Chair
A Scanner Darkly
Strangers With Candy
Thank You for Smoking
Wassup Rockers
Wordplay

Reply

I'd like to think that multiplexes showcasing independent films as an answer, but whenever it's happened in the past, the experiment never lasted that long. Plus, they tend to shy away from the more controversial fare since their corporate parents are more exposed to boycotts. Still, it seems part of the cycle, as it is with indies that get bought out by the studios which then become mainstream which then opens up the market for the next wave of indies.

This, of course, means there will always be room for the independent art house. While this tends to deprive smaller towns of independent fare, there do have to be some perks to living in big cities and college towns. Or maybe we could trade and send some of our traffic to small towns along with a bookmobile-style movie theater.

Reply

FWIW, I think the folks at the excellent Cinema Arts Centre might chafe at your characterization of the NYC suburbs as completely lacking independent art houses.

Reply

John Sayles and his producer Maggie Renzi have said that they were initially excited about the multiplex movement, because they hoped it would open up screens to independent films. But in reality, those extra screens just went to the big studios.

Although they do tend to lead toward an economy-of-scale mindset, multiplexes aren't inherently anti-indie. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about Landmark's mission under Mark Cuban. Landmark was always corporate, but there's a huge difference between trying to make a profit from independent film, and making the most amount of money from a theatre by showing whatever sells.

There are many examples of this corporate attitude. Landmark has targeted smaller theaters that are locally owned, and therefore actually independent, via their calendar series and "Truly Indie" initiative. Mark Cuban and Bill Banowsky have dismantled Landmark's old management and replaced them with AMC management that has been openly hostile to independent films. No one who's read about Mark Cuban's treatment of Caveh Zahedi's "I Am A Sex Addict" can truly believe that Landmark has any interest in promoting real independent film.

The "independent" films popular at this year's Oscars that Bill Banowsky refers to contained major stars and were released by corporate conglomerates Sony ("Capote") and General Electric ("Brokeback Mountain") This doesn't make them bad films, but if this is the type of independent film Landmark wants to support in the future, where does that leave distributors like Strand, New Yorker, Rialto, etc?

Reply