Flickgrrl

Carrie--

One problem is that there are simply too many movies in general - and not just too many mainstream films, but also art/indie flicks. Last week, the New York Times ran something like 17 movie reviews. That's no exaggeration. At least, New York can accomodate them (so far). But, in Philly, the only game in town is Landmark. Indie films come and go in a revolving-door policy, hardly making an impression.

What surprises me are the titles that haven't played here, such as David Mamet's "Edmund" with William H. Macy and Paul Schrader's "The Walker" whose huge cast includes Woody Harrelson, Lauren Bacall, Ned Beatty, Lily Tomlin, Kristin Scott Thomas and others.

It never ceases to amaze me what opens here and what doesn't.

Which brings me to "Never Forever," a one-week Indie job that just played Landmark (for a week). Despite its art-house pedigree, it was little more than a turgid soap opera about a couple who can't conceive a child. The Indie twist here, however, is it's the husband who's distraught over the situation (to the point of a suicide attempt), not the wife. It's the kind of embarrassing film that plays well in the rarified atmosphere of a film festival, but is cringe-worthy when it finally opens.
(I can safely say that it's the first time I become sick of Vera Farmiga, and that's saying a lot.)

And there are simply too many Indie films of this ilk - bad films that get by, just barely, on the dusty credentials of the Indiewood revolution.

I think Landmark is doing a bang-up job here. (I do like the one-week policy at the Bourse. It's better than those films not playing here at all.) But we simply need more screens to accomodate what has become a cinematic epidemic.

Either that or fewer films.

When the Iranian animated movie about the little girl came out a month or two ago, I was so surprised and literally shocked to find it was only showing in a far off suburb.

Tsk, tsk...The end of PBS.

Joe:

Ray Posel has such distinctive taste (he loved new Korean and Hong Kong cinema as well as European and American indie) and built an audience for those kind of movies that it seems that at least 50 per cent of Landmark's programming is out of synch with audience taste. So I agree with you.

Tanksleyd: "Persepolis," the Iranian animated movie, played for several weeks at the Ritz at the Bourse before moving to the 'burbs.

Best,

C

Carrie--

I have a short Ray Posel story to share. At one point in the late '70s, I bumped into Ray at a restaurant and he asked me if I saw anything that I liked. I told him that I really admired Robert Young's Paul Simon movie, "One Trick Pony," which opened in NY to dismissive reviews. A couple days later, he called me and said he had booked the film, even though Warner Bros. didn't want to give it to him. It has already been written off. He loved it. Anyway, Ray cared. And he listened, he actually listened.

The trend across the country is to ignore indy and foreign movies. I now live in Atlanta where the indies are now relegated to one suburban theatre, basically. I would run down my checklist of films I wanted to see, not playing in Atlanta, but usually listed at the Ritz. Now the films come and go quickly because of the new ownership, especially in Marlton, and when I'm here, we look at listings in Ambler, Jenkintown or Bryn Mawr, all easily accessible. Philly still has it better than Atlanta, even DC/Baltimore, Boston...

Well, there really are "too many" movies out now: in 2007, the official tally of releases in NYC ran to almost 650! The same with LA. That said, only about one-fifth of those movies will make it out of the big-city indie spots (in NYC, that includes: the IFC Center, Anthology Film Archives, Cinema Village, the Quad Cinemas, the Pioneer Theater, and now the Museum of Modern Art, which is giving week-long runs to at least one movie a month, including Isaac Julien's documentary on Derek Jarman, DEREK, and Marco Bellocchio's THE WEDDING DIRECTOR). Does this mean that those outside this circuit are missing something? Let's put it this way: is Marco Bellocchio a major director? (The answer is obvious.) A new film by the director of FISTS IN THE POCKET, CHINA IS NEAR, IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, LEAP INTO THE VOID, HIS MOTHER'S SMILE and GOOD MORNING NIGHT should be seen, but most likely won't. (And the distributor is New Yorker Films, yet the "run" is a weeklong run at MoMA.)

The glut in terms of "films" right now is that there are a lot of productions which are simply being produced on digital video, and with the advent (pun intended) of digital projection, everything has the possibility of a screening. And this shouldn't be the case. Too many digital films (both documentary and narrative) are simply made to be looked at on television, and it's a waste of time and effort and money for most of those films to try for a theatrical release.

I've been seeing too many documentaries that simply have no need for theatrical runs. A showing in a festival, and then a showing on TV: what's wrong with that as a model for distribution? When i go out to a theater, i want (for better or worse) a "theatrical" experience. (It's like, decades ago, the film theorist and teacher Annette Michelson was explaining her love of Marguerite Duras's movies, especially NATHALIE GRANGER and INDIA SONG: they were movies with stories, and movie stars, and exquisite lighting, and lovely sets. Even if the stories were deconstructed and fragmented, still, the stories were there.) But too many people feel the need for the validation of theatrical exposure, and that's ridiculous.

(The contrast is that in 1957, according to the NY Times, there were little over 200 films released. That was manageable for critics and theater bookers; how can anyone handle 650 films in one year?)

Excellent points, Daryl. In 1986. when I began reviewing for the Inquirer, 172 movies were reviewed. By 2006, 530 opened and we couldn't review them all. That was a 300 per cent increase.

What's manageable for critics and theater bookers isn't as pertinent as what's manageable for moviegoers. With that much product flooding the market, it's hard to do anything but tread water.

While we're on the subject, does anyone know what's happened to the Ritz Theaters website? It won't list what movies are playing, and when you click on a particular date on its calendar (for example, the current day) for showtimes, it says: "We have not yet finalized showtime information for the [theater] on Monday, May 19. Please check back later for more information." It's been doing this for weeks, no matter what time of day you log in!

Landmark is really the only commercial option within an easy commute for us on the SF peninsula where we live. There is the Stanford Theater specialty house nearby showing restored classics and of course the local colleges have their share. My wife and I enjoy attending at Landmark venues when we can, but family and work schedules often limit our chances to see INdiewood films before they're gone. We understand the limited runs, as it's tough to make a living showing Indiewood fare.

As for what films have we recently enjoyed? Sorry to say we've been too busy to see any that have been through local film houses.

We have Netflix, and there are many Indiewood films available. I'm looking forward to seeing "La Chinoise" again.

But there's so much lost when one watches on a 52" but still too small screen at home. Oh, well....

The last poster mentions what I think will be the new distribution system: Netflix. I'm sure other, similar, perhaps better, systems will be added to the mix, but the essential point will be: the customer will choose the movie to be distributed, rather than having this choice made by a company. That's a fundamental change in the movie business, and I can't see this new approach doing anything but growing in size and importance. It seems to me that movies will be made not for theatrical release, but for Netflix release. The savings in the cost of making prints, distributing them, advertising the movies, etc. is so great, someone will have to take a chance on simply skipping the whole process and going straight to having the customers order the DVD through the mail.

Yes, Netflix, Blockbuster at home, and various VOD systems will provide another distribution system, but won't answer the need for theatrical presentation. A few weeks ago, i was talking to a reviewer (this was after a press screening) and we were talking about the fact that getting a screener isn't the same thing as getting yourself to some sort of "theater" and seeing a movie in a dark hall, with other people around. Even those of us with "professional" interests, often don't give full attention to a DVD screener which we feel can be seen again. It's true that a majority of the movies now don't really need a theatrical screening (seeing KNOCKED UP at home, especially if you see it with a few friends, isn't that different from seeing it in a theater, in terms of visual quality, pacing, concentration), but some movie do need that, and we need to find ways of supporting those works.

But with all the choices, how does one decide? Not that critics should simply be a consumer guide, but there still needs to be a way for information about films to be available, along with the films themselves.

Did anyone notice National Amusements web-site for the Voorhees (Old Ritz) theater this week.
They have the nerve to list "Sex and the City"
as SHOWCASE ART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you kidding me??????????????????????
It is insulting to list that piece of crap as ART!
Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have given up on the Voorhees theatre (the Old Ritz). They are down to TWO "Showcase Art" films.
They should be showing "Reprise"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
As for me I will be spending my money at the Landmark in Philly. Last mainstream movies, I went to "Redbelt", "Speed Racer", "Prince Caspian"
and "Indiana Jones" I went to the CINEMARK in Somerdale. They are cheaper than Showcase Voorhees . The Cinemark employees are very courteous.
The Showcase Voorhees employees are getting ruder
everyday, they act like they are doing you a favor
waiting on you.

Commenting a little late in the game, I know, but I live in the Lancaster boondocks. My wife and I used to come to the Ritz at least every other month for a double feature, but I realized we hadn't been down since January--we had planned on seeing Persepolis and Honeydrippper and whatever other interesting releases might be playing at the same time (did some of the Godard rereleases open in Philly?), but they were gone so quickly we missed them.

I'd always enjoyed Landmarks when we were in Boston (cause the Brattle, Cooidge, and HFA balanced them I guess), but the bookings recently almost play like a parody of Indy/art cinema.

Carrie, do you think this is all because of the booking policy or just a fluky period of lame releases? Or are they trying to model arthouse booking on mainstream model (everything depends on opening weekend)?

I guess I'll need to see Guy Maddin's "My Winnipeg" opening weekend.

Commenting a little late in the game, I know, but I live in the Lancaster boondocks. My wife and I used to come to the Ritz at least every other month for a double feature, but I realized we hadn't been down since January--we had planned on seeing Persepolis and Honeydrippper and whatever other interesting releases might be playing at the same time (did some of the Godard rereleases open in Philly?), but they were gone so quickly we missed them.

I'd always enjoyed Landmarks when we were in Boston (cause the Brattle, Coolidge, and HFA balanced them I guess), but the bookings recently almost play like a parody of Indy/art cinema.

Carrie, do you think this is all because of the booking policy or just a fluky period of lame releases? Or are they trying to model arthouse booking on mainstream model (everything depends on opening weekend)?

I guess I'll need to see Guy Maddin's "My Winnipeg" opening weekend.