The Exhibitionist: Heroes and Villains
Filed under: Foreign Language, Independent, Exhibition, Columns

Week after week, I focus on the good and/or bad concerning moviegoing and the movie theatre industry. But as passionate as I am about the subjects of this column, I've never really felt strongly enough to label any one person either a hero or a villain to moviegoers. Perhaps the closest I've come to calling someone a hero was when I finally had my first experience with an Alamo Drafthouse cinema. On the other hand, I've certainly wanted to call a lot of people villains, including whoever was responsible for my worst moviegoing experience in years and whoever came up with the awful idea to produce scented pre-show ads.
So, it was by some sort of coincidence that last week actually brought news of both a remarkably heroic moviegoer and a terribly villainous theatre owner. Of course, you're welcome to disagree with me as I celebrate the former and castigate the latter. The interesting thing about these two individuals is that some of you may see my hero as a villain, and vice versa. In fact the law has deemed the former a criminal, and meanwhile tons of moviegoers in the UK are championing the actions of the latter. No wonder film exhibition is in such dire straits when there's such disagreement about how to improve the moviegoing experience.
First let me tell you about my new hero, David Anthony Vaughn. Beforehand, though, I must point out that I don't encourage others to do as he has done. To me, a hero is someone who sacrifices himself for the greater good of the people, and this man has somewhat technically done this. However, if we all sacrificed ourselves for a cause, there'd be none of us left to enjoy the effects. Plus, what he did was destructive and illegal, and therefore I need to be careful not to inspire copycat incidents.
Vaughn went to see Iron Man on August 5th at the Eastridge Movies 4, located inside the Eastridge Mall in Casper, Wyoming. Unfortunately, during the movie, the projector "malfunctioned" -- it's unclear in the news report what the exact problem was -- and so afterward, my hero wanted his money back. Of course, as is the custom, Vaughn was denied a refund and was instead given a readmit voucher. As the theater management explained their company policy, he yelled at employees and to his fellow moviegoers that customers were being ripped off. Finally, he grabbed a computer monitor from the ticket counter and threw it through a glass door -- it landed in the food court outside the cinema -- before running off to hide in J.C. Penney.
The damage was estimated at $1,250, according to the local press, but fortunately nobody was personally injured. Vaughn apparently considered his act heroic, telling police "he had done the right thing in the war against injustice in the world." Ironically, or stupidly, Vaughn cost himself more than the price of a movie ticket, as he was arrested and now faces charges of felony property damage and disturbing the peace. Also, there's a good chance that Eastridge Movies 4 won't be changing their policy in response to the incident (the policy is shared by all cinemas I'm familiar with). But his sacrificial act of protest may hopefully motivate other moviegoers to complain -- more peacefully, of course -- about poor projection and the lameness of readmit tickets. I will say, though, that if readmits are the best a cinema will do, it ends up being worth it if you receive them following every movie you go to, whether you walk out or stay for the whole thing. Believe me, there is pretty much always a reason to complain, and most chains will accommodate your issue if you seem honest enough and adamant enough.
Now, onto the villain: Daniel Broch, owner of London's Everyman Cinema, who recently purchased 17 more locations, all of which he's making popcorn free. His exact words, as quoted in UK's The Observer: "I will de-popcorn every new venue I acquire. It has a disproportionate influence on the space in terms of its overwhelming smell, the cultural idea of it and the operational problems created by the mess it produces. I'm not saying no popcorn is better than popcorn. But I am saying there is no way in which it fits with the culturally sophisticated brand I wish to sell."
This news was enough that I received a whopping 12 Google alerts about it, as apparently every media outlet in Britain picked up the story (for TV coverage, check out this clip from BBC News). And because villains often work in teams, there are more bad guys quoted, too, such as the artistic director of Tricycle Cinema and Theatre, Nicholas Kent: "Popcorn is horrible stuff and I won't have it anywhere near my cinema. It's a form of junk food and that encourages junk entertainment. Its smell is all-pervasive, it makes huge amounts of mess, and it distracts and annoys people intensely."
And owner of the Rex Cinema, James Hannaway: "Popcorn is hateful stuff. It is the anathema of everything I want the Rex to be and the decision to ban it was one of the first I made. It's trashy, it makes a mess and it smells. The multiplexes have to sell it because their ambition is to make as much money as possible. My ambition to make a night at the Rex a glamorous, dignified and civilised affair. People dress up to come here. It's special. Popcorn isn't."
Other fancy pants popcorn haters include the independent chain Curzon, which only offers popcorn at three of its five locations (because customers asked for it), and Picturehouse Cinemas, which is trying out special popcorn-free screenings at one of its locations on Tuesday nights -- with the expectation that they'll be popular enough to expand into a permanent fixture throughout the company's 19 theatres. According to the Daily Mail, even Sir Paul McCartney has endorsed the Everyman in a company brochure, stating the cinema is "too posh for popcorn."
Of course, this snooty-seeming ban on my favorite food is not the end of the world, or even the end of England. Tons of profit-seeking multiplexes will continue to keep popcorn a staple of moviegoing in the UK. But what makes me angry is not the fact that some cinemas won't sell it; the true villainy is in how these theatre owners view the snack as being food for lowbrow moviegoers. Sure, maybe I'm more likely to buy a bag when going to see Tropic Thunder than when going to see Tell No One, but I at least like the option, and I definitely don't like being looked down upon if I do want popcorn with my highbrow French thriller. As Den of Geek's Sarah Dobbs puts it: "Popcorn itself is irrelevant; this is all about elitism. And, being an essentially contrary person, all it does is make me want to eat popcorn more than ever. My choice of snack food has sod all to do with my level of intelligence or indeed sophistication. Popcorn has no inherent morality."
One of the many reasons that I hate press screenings is that there's no popcorn. It's also an issue I have with seeing movies at places like NYC's Anthology Film Archives and the Museum of Modern Art, but it makes sense at these places, because they are not really first-run movie theatres. They don't really allow any food (though I've seen a guy bring a bag of popcorn bought at the nearby Landmark Sunshine into an Anthology screening), because they don't have the means to clean up the way that movie theatres do. Still, New York's most highbrow arthouse cinemas (Film Forum and IFC Center) have the best and second best corn in the city. If either gave it up -- and there are some patrons who probably wish they would -- I'd probably go crazy.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-17-2008 @ 9:33AM
Scott K. said...
You said we are free to disagree and I do. Very much so. There may have been ways to be a hero. Small claims court (if available) for a symbolic victory. Some sort of protest. But he wasn't trying to be a hero. He lost control of his anger and ended up being stupid and breaking the law.
You make him sound like a martyr. He's not. He didn't intend to sacrifice himself for the greater good. He tried to rationalize his stupid behavior after the fact. (The first thing he tried to do was hide in the mall.)
As for the popcorn-free theatres... I like popcorn. Even if I don't want any, the smell is part of the experience. Unfortunately I don't get to go often, but if I had to choose, I'd pick the one with corn. Maybe I'm not posh enough for them. Or in the right hemisphere.
Reply
8-17-2008 @ 10:43AM
Phil said...
Yes, the I see the villain as the hero in this case. I hate popcorn, and I hate having to sit in the vicinity of those who are eating it, because of the smell and the crunching and - worst of all - the scrabbling of fingers in the bottom of the box like a rat scouring for scraps. My favourite cinema in London is the National Film Theatre which bars all food from its screens, and I'd support any other cinemas that follow suit.
The other guy, who chucked a computer through a window, is just an idiot.
Reply
8-17-2008 @ 12:49PM
Victor said...
I have to also disagree with you about your assignation of 'hero' and 'villain'.
My local multiplex is one of the worst I've been to, and just about every time, I miss about two or three minutes near the beginning because I have to go find a manager to complain about the sound or the framing. Rarely does this result in much of an improvement.
But if the movie-going experience turned out to be really unpleasant, I'll go complain about the whole film and get my free movie ticket. That's just how it works. Throwing stuff and causing a scene wouldn't make me a hero. Not in this situation or in ANY situation.
Would I be a hero if I came to your house/office and started throwing stuff through your window because I didn't like something you wrote, or if you wrote something bad about me? (let's say I was a filmmaker who you gave an incorrect bad review to). No. I'd be a vandal/criminal.
And as we said, he didn't start throwing stuff because he wanted to make a statement or make the financial and legal sacrifices so that others may benefit- he's just an idiot that lost his cool.
As to the 'villainous" theater owners- I also long for the day when you can walk into a theater and not be assaulted with the smell of popcorn. If you're someone that simply HAS to have the smell of popcorn in order to complete his theater ambiance experience, then there will always be plenty of those for you to visit. Whether it's considered highbrow or lowbrow, who cares? I mean, seriously, if you went to one of these theaters would you be actively fretting about whether the 17 year-old kid selling concessions is judging you based on what you order?
I liken this move to the victory when smoking was banned from all theaters. OH GLORIOUS DAY! Cigarettes used to be a common situation people would have to endure in order to watch a film. Do you miss those days? Do you miss the stench of stale cigarettes, even though it was part of the ambiance?
Finally, we have theaters like Alamo Drafthouses and Movie Taverns, where they cater to a different movie-going audience and give a different experience. My favorite 'rule' they have is 'No Unaccompanied Children Under 18 allowed in any movie after 8pm.' Talk about discriminating against an entire segment of the population. But it's a wonderful rule. I know I can go to this theater after 8pm and not have to endure a gaggle of teenagers sitting together laughing and talking and texting simply because they have nothing better to do that night.
I applaud any and every effort theater owners make to improve/upgrade the movie-watching experience. And I'll gladly pay more to have a better experience.
Reply
8-17-2008 @ 3:35PM
AJ Wiley said...
Your hero is an idiot.
As for your villain, well, I don't get popcorn often, but I always enjoy it when I do. Are people really that bothered by the smell? I never even notice it. The fact that Paul McCartney frowns upon it just makes me giggle, though; the guy who wrote "Silly Love Songs" shouldn't really have a say in what is or isn't sophisticated.
Reply
8-17-2008 @ 6:13PM
Oarking said...
on a slight tangent, when i went to see "closer" i walked out right around the, "what did his c*m taste like." and they refunded my money and gave me free/open passes when i put up enough of a stink about it. apparently i wasn't the first person to walk out of that movie.
Reply
8-17-2008 @ 11:57PM
James said...
The cinema goers in England don't have too much to miss if popcorn is banned. I was there for most of May and went to a lot of movies. Every theatre I was at had stale popcorn. I don't think they even popped it there, I never saw an actual popcorn machine.
One thing to remember about the Hero, depending on the theatre the staff still around when the projector broke may not have had access to the cash even if they wanted to give a refund.
We do it this way at my theatre.
If there's a problem that interupts the film but they still get to see the whole film we give out one free pass.
If they don't get to watch the whole film we give out two passes, one to reimburse them and the other to compenstate them for their time. (plus it makes them happy)
From my experience people love popcorn and the smell. We are on the second floor and people often come up from the basement and buy popcorn because they smelled it.
Reply
8-18-2008 @ 11:21AM
Derek said...
Your "villian" is trying to offer a new option for a different type of customer. I worked at a movie theatre for many years, and we only sold a lot of popcorn when there was a blockbuster. Any time we showed an art film the customers only bought coffee. Why not cater to that customer by offering muffins, pastries, etc? There's nothing wrong with a theatre chain wanting to brand itself as a place where adults can enjoy watching movies, especially since the pictures and snacks offered at most movie theatres are aimed at teenage boys.
Reply
8-21-2008 @ 10:57AM
Mark said...
"Believe me, there is pretty much always a reason to complain, and most chains will accommodate your issue if you seem honest enough and adamant enough. "
With all due respect, this is everything that is wrong with "intelligent" moviegoers–taking issue with every aspect of the presentation in the hopes of getting something for nothing. Would you refuse to tip waiters and waitresses because you can always find some small issue with their service? When a problem is fixable, demanding free passes every time regardless of whether you legitimately got to see your film in its entirety simply guarantees that the only theaters that will be around are the big, evil megaplexes you hate so much.
I agree, theater chains are sorely lacking in keeping their screen presentation up to a decent standard–but be realistic. Focus issues, volume, framing and even shaky picture can be fixed quickly and easily, and if busy theater staff don't notice right away you should at least ask them to fix it before you pitch a fit. High standards are good, but these theaters are still run by human beings after all.
Reply