Oscars, in the time of COVID-19

Sunday night marked the 93rd Academy Awards.  The ceremony was definitely impacted by the ongoing pandemic in more ways than one.  The location had changed from the traditional Dolby Theater in Hollywood to the Los Angeles Union Station.  A much smaller gathering of those nominated filled the limited space that they had, separated at tables by groups.  There were other "hubs" for Oscar nominees at theaters in locations like London for other nominees to be able to virtually appear from.  Still, several nominees were not able or comfortable attending at any location.

The production of the ceremony was likewise off.  They showed very few clips of the films that were nominated; those that were shown seemed random and sporadic.  There was no live orchestra, just QuestLove serving as DJ.  That meant no live scores, no live performance of the songs nominated, no live performance for the in memoriam montage.  

For the third year, the show had no single host, just a passing of the baton from presenter to presenter.  This was particularly noticeable with the poorly conceived "name that tune" bit asking if songs had won the award, were nominated, or were neither.  Given how little the ceremony ran over time this year, had they cut the "name that tune" bit, it would have landed right on time.

Most curious, the order of the ceremony was completely upended.  Best Director, which is usually awarded closely before Best Picture at the end, was awarded first.  Best Picture was not the last category awarded, but rather followed by the acting awards.  Even there, they forwent the tradition of last year's best actress giving the Best Actor award and vice versa.  This year, the previous winner in each category gave the award for that category.

This last bit seems to have garnered the most attention and controversy.  It seems to many that they were building to the Best Actor award as the finale, expecting a posthumous award to Chadwick Boseman for Ma Rainey's Black Bottom.  Instead, Anthony Hopkins was awarded for The Father. Hopkins had not attended. He had asked to stream in from his home but was denied.  So, the Academy accepted the award on his behalf, causing the ceremony to close with a whimper. 

I can’t subscribe to the rumor that the choice was deliberate, in the expectation of the posthumous award.  For one, there have been posthumous awards in the past and ones that have come so closely to the actor’s death that the impact was still being felt.  Heath Ledger’s posthumous award comes to mind.  And in those instances, the order of the proceedings was not altered. 

The rumor I have heard and lend more credence to, is that Joaquin Phoenix was running late. In an ordinary ceremony, he would have presented the award for Best Actress.  With him running late and not being present, they would have delayed both the best actor categories, as they usually go in pairs. This would explain the seemingly rushed Rita Moreno presenting Best Picture early and the visibly uncomfortable Phoenix who completely eschewed the format that had been established for presenting. 

A stage manager issue, as opposed to a producer issue. 

The result made the Oscars incredibly underwhelming. The lack of real surprises , the unconventional format, the weird structure issues, all made the broadcast land with a thud in a way that it has not done so before. 

The viewership numbers were not a surprise. The ceremony dropped below 10 million people for the first time in a long time, with viewership down 57% from the past year. This has led some conservative commentators to claim a Hollywood backlash finally paying off. As if America was finally done with Hollywood once and for all. 

The reality is a lot more mundane.  Despite this years films being largely more accessible to the general public through early access video on demand and streaming platforms, the individual films nominated were not that well known.  Unless you were following the award seasons and buzz, it is very likely the average American would jot have heard of any of the nominated films, much less have seen them. 

It’s a problem that has been plaguing the Oscars for years. Gone are the days when blockbuster films like Rocky or Star Wars are nominated for Best Picture. The films of today are still largely niche films primarily released in the late fall and early winter.  Oscar bait films. Until that changes, viewership of the ceremony will also remain a niche event. 

I still wish they’d just embrace it. Lean into the niche aspect of it and make it a true celebration of Hollywood and film. Bring back a host that makes it an even longer and grander celebration. Own what it is. 

Or at least do something interesting and make the Muppets the hosts, complete with running commentary by Statler and Waldorf. 

Whatever it is, next years ceremony just can’t be this dull. 

The Cinerama Dome

My photo from across the street for the 2012 TCM Film Festival

Another grand movie theater is shuttering as a result of the pandemic.  The Arclight Cinerama Dome will be closed, as a part of the closing of all Arclight and Pacific Theaters. While the loss of the other theaters in their chains sting, the loss of the Cinerama Dome is particularly hurtful.

The Cinerama Dome opened November 7, 1963, as a venue specifically designed for widescreen Cinerama films.  Cinerama used three projectors to create an 86 foot wide image on the arced screen.  The screen begins to wrap around you and the resulting image cannot be recreated on our modern equivalents.  When they have tried, like in the Blu-Ray for How the West Was Won, the resulting image is shaped to resemble a smile.  That's the only way to preserve the whole picture.

When I wrote about the Alamo Drafthouse Ritz, I talked about the special theaters I've been to.  The Cinerama Dome is up there.  I've had the great pleasure of seeing How the West Was Won and It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World there as part of TCM Film Festivals.  How the West Was Won had an interview with Debbie Reynolds before the film, and It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World had a panel with Marvin Kaplan, Karen Sharpe Kramer, Barrie Chase, and Mickey Rooney.  While those interviews definitely color the experience, there is no question that I have yet to experience a theater screen that immerses you in the film like the Cinerama experience.

We're fortunate that the building was declared a Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument in 1998, but there is definitely something lost by not having films on display.  That's my fear in this pandemic recovery and how it has affected Hollywood - not that the megaplexes will not reopen, but that we will instead lose the small, the classic, the unique theaters that truly make the movie going experience magical.  I know the Royal here in nearby Danville has changed management due to the pandemic and has not yet announced a reopening date.

Hopefully we're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.  I'm ready to light the lights and to share the theater experience again, both for live theater and for great film.  I'm ready for that communal experience that happens with a full theater and a great film.

I just hope we have unique and beautiful places to see them in once this is all done.

To the Cinerama Dome, may you soon return.

MGM Loews Theaters Once More?

The Justice Department has signaled that it will wipe out the Paramount consent decrees, orders from the United States v. Paramount Pictures case designed to end monopolies in the motion picture industry.  Prior to the decrees, movie studios also owned the movie theaters their pictures were shown in.  In so doing, they were completely vertically integrated - they owned the means of production, with writers, actors, directors, etc. all on contract and tied to the studio, and they owned the ultimate channel of distribution - they owned the movie theater the picture would be shown in.  They might own the only theater in a market, meaning one town might only get to see Paramount Pictures and not 20th Century Fox, Universal, and the like.  Because they owned the theater, they had complete control over what it would show.  They programmed the shorts, the news reel, and the feature.  They made sure B-pictures got shown an appropriate time, so that the major A-pictures would be carried.

In short the studio was king.

By removing Paramount decrees, it looks like we are going to move back to that time.  The studio believes that with streaming and the new technologies, the decrees are not as relevant.  I would counter that they are more relevant than ever.  Particularly when it comes to vertical integration.

Currently, AMC, Regal (Cineworld), and Cinemark account for half of the American movie theater market.  Meaning, if you are seeing a movie in the theater in America, chances are you are seeing it at one of these three theaters.  What happens when Disney, who now accounts for 1/3 of gross ticket sales, purchases one of these theaters?  If Disney buys the biggest, AMC?

Does Disney make AMC show only Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and 20th Century Pictures?

Does it allow other studios films to be shown at the AMC at a much higher percent of the ticket sales?

Or does it just guarantee its own studios a longer release window?

What happens to a place like Forney where there is just a AMC theater?  Do you only get to see Disney films in that case, having to drive much further to see other studios?

Can smaller, independent theaters actually survive in this market?  Or would studios make bigger demands like Disney did with The Last Jedi, with Disney requiring 65% of ticket sales from each theater, with a four week guarantee window (and an extra 5% penalty for anything less)?

Movie theaters and streaming services are not equivalent.  A streaming service is more equivalent to a broadcast channel, which we've allowed studios to have for a while.  Generally because studios don't control distribution of the channel.  And they don't have distribution of the streaming service either (at least in most cases - that's what makes AT&T/Warner so troubling).  The internet access is independent of the streaming service.  Having Disney+ does not prevent you from having access to Peacock,  Universal's streaming offering, or HBO Max, Warner Bros.' steaming offering.

Disney (or any other studio) owning AMC might make all the difference in other studios films being shown in certain areas.  That's the problem.

Our Justice Department is getting more and more comfortable with monopolies.

That should trouble everyone.

Not just film buffs and historians like me.

Entitled Fandoms

Saw an image/post today that I felt the need to comment on.

The post was pointing out that there were 99 days left to the release of the remake of The Lion King this year and was getting people ready for the premier sing-along by diving out sections of the theater by vocal range.

The post then included a P.S. for "people who still decide to bring your kids to an obvious adult film. [?!?] ...YOU CAN'T SIT WITH US!" and puts the parents with kids in the first few rows.

Excuse me if I cannot take this level of entitlement seriously.

Look, I know it's supposed to be semi-joking, but there's a kernel behind this that is not.  That is very serious.

I'm the first one to praise Disney movies when they are of their best quality.  And I'm also the first to extol the virtues of animation.  To remind everyone that it's a medium, not a genre, and that there are many levels of stories that can be told via animation.

I can also understand not wanting kids to be in a truly adult movie.  The ratings are there for a reason and it's troubling to see a toddler in a movie like Us, for instance (as Jamie and I saw at an evening show of that R-rated movie).

But to call this new Lion King an adult movie - you've got to be kidding.

It is what Disney movies have always striven to be, family movies.  Four quadrant movies.  All-ages.  Kid-friendly, etc.  And that necessarily means they are intending for families and children of all ages, 2 to 92, to be in the theater.

This isn't the first time this type of argument has come up.  It's happened with Finding Dory and with The Incredibles 2.  It's likely going to raise its ugly head with Toy Story 4, as it did with Toy Story 3.  There are these groups of now adults (in age at least, if not maturity) that argue that "I've waited soooo long for this film, I don't want my experience ruined by kids in the theater."  This post today probably wouldn't have bothered me as much, if it hadn't been part of a pattern with these sequels and remakes.

If you're that much of a misanthrope, do us a favor and stay home and watch it on your home theater.  Or plan to go to a mid-night release or a 9:00 pm showing.  Or go to a theater with an age restriction.

Because, here's the thing.  They forget the age they were introduced to these films.  They forget the magic that amazed them to this day, from seeing it at such an early and impactful moment.  And their current attitude would deny the current generation this same opportunity.  Especially on a movie that is essentially an exact remake.

Disney is not putting these movies out to appeal to your nostalgia.  They are releasing these films, remakes especially, to appeal to the newer, younger generations.  They want kids to see these films, over and over again and to be captured by the magic.

I completely understand the challenges of watching a movie with young children in the theater.  I've got one that is generally completely enraptured in the film and one that's fifty-fifty.  We choose what movies they go see very carefully and we choose the times and locations we visit very carefully.  But I cannot deny, there is something magical watching the films through their eyes.  Case in point, the new Dumbo movie and seeing Jude try to blast as an elephant every time Dumbo came on.  Or getting really giddy with the circus scenes.

We're likely going to be there opening weekend for The Lion King.  Because the four year old already knows it and the two year old is going to sing along likely and loves the trailer.

And we'll be sitting near the back.

In the middle.

With the whole screen in view.