Streaming: the death of movies?

I guess that by posting tonight, I'm competing with the Academy Awards. So I might as well talk about the thing everybody's going to be talking about anyway. No, not Will Smith smacking Chris Rock for dissing his wife. I mean movies in general.

A Facebook friend posted earlier today that he hadn't seen any of this year's ten Best Picture nominees because he has trouble hearing these days, so he waits for them to come to the small screen. I couldn't help but wonder where he's been. I've seen six of them -- and I saw them all via one streaming service or another. 

SergeyNivens | Deposit Photos

One thing the pandemic has made easier is seeing first-run movies without having to leave home. At least one of the big film studios decided, while everything was shut down, to release their movies via streaming in lieu of opening in theaters. Then movies were released simultaneously to theaters and a streaming service, a practice that seems to be hanging on. I'm sure the theaters would like the studios to walk that back, now that folks can get out and see a movie again; it hurts their bottom line when moviegoers stay home. But I think it's going to be tough to put that djinn back in the bottle, especially now that a movie produced by a streaming service -- "CODA", produced by Apple TV -- has won the Academy Award for Best Picture (beating out "The Power of the Dog", which I was rooting for, but I digress).

Writing in the New York Times earlier this week, Ross Douthat claimed that the Oscars are losing relevance because the movies they're meant to honor are slowly disappearing: "The ideal Oscar nominee is a high-middlebrow movie, aspiring to real artistry and sometimes achieving it, that’s made to be watched on the big screen, with famous stars, vivid cinematography and a memorable score. It’s neither a difficult film for the art-house crowd nor a comic-book blockbuster but a film for the largest possible audience of serious adults..." His emphasis is on the big screen experience. He laments that almost nobody went to see the nominees in theaters this year; "Spider Man: No Way Home" (which, by the way, I also saw via streaming) has earned four times the U.S. box-office take of all ten nominees combined.

Douthat goes on to suggest, among other things, that fans of Seeing Serious Cinema at the Cinema recognize that the art form needs their patronage, in the same way that fans of opera and ballet support those arts -- that is, classic movies should be shown in theaters more often, and students should be encouraged to study classic films the same way they study classic literature (never mind that they already do; "film studies" classes have been around for at least a couple of decades).

I think maybe Douthat is missing the point. The biggest reason people stopped going to the movies -- aside from the pandemic -- is that the experience has gone downhill. A moviegoer shells out big money for the ticket and bigger money for a snack, and is then surrounded by others who might chat through the show. And if your million-ounce soda goes through your system too fast, you can't hit the pause button while you go to the restroom. And then there's the lack of closed-captioning mentioned by my Facebook friend. Operas have gone to seat-back closed captions; if movie theaters want to lure older adults back, maybe they should do the same.

Or maybe we should just bow to the inevitable. I used to love going to the movies. When my kids were in high school, we had a tradition of attending midnight openings for movies like "Lord of the Rings" and the Harry Potter flicks. (The rule was they had to go to school the next day.) But ticket prices are in the stratosphere now, and the big screen experience truly isn't that much more engaging than watching a film at home.

Then again, I'm reminded that radio was supposed to be dead long since; way back in the '50s, TV was going to kill it off, or so everybody said. And yet radio, in one form or another, has stayed with us. I expect the movie business, too, will be with us for many years to come.

***

I'm taking another break next weekend. See you back here Sunday, April 10th.

***

These moments of cinematic blogginess have been brought to you, as a public service, by Lynne Cantwell. Get vaxxed!

The Birdman cometh.

I am not one of those people who tries to see every film nominated for an Academy Award each year. But I usually end up seeing one or two of the Best Picture nominees, just because they sound intriguing. I fulfilled my annual quota for this year by seeing "Birdman" this weekend. (Don't ask me about any of the other movies; this is the only one I've seen so far.)

"Birdman" has been picking up a ton of awards, including Golden Globes for Best Screenplay and Best Actor, which went to its star, Michael Keaton. The movie has received nine Oscar nominations, and the buzz is that it has a good shot at winning Best Picture.

As a fan of magic realism, I'm thrilled to see attention heaped on this movie -- although I'm sure part of the excitement in Hollywood is due to the subject matter. Michael Keaton plays Riggan Thomson, an actor whose career peaked more than 20 years ago, when he starred as Birdman in a series of superhero action movies. (Keaton did a lucrative star turn as Batman more than 20 years ago. Meta much?) Now he's attempting to jump-start his career by writing, directing, and starring in a drama based on a Raymond Carver story called "What We Talk About When We Talk about Love." And he's spent his last dime to bring the play to Broadway.

Carver's story is under copyright, so although you can find illegal copies online, I won't link to any of them (here's a plot summary, though, if you're interested). Like the story, the movie's subplots involve the many forms of love.

But the movie's main plot involves the eternal conflict inherent in every creative field in these capitalistic times: Serious Art vs. Popular Entertainment. Riggan can't escape his past -- especially since his superhero alter ego keeps growling at him that he's better than this crappy production and would be better off going back to Hollywood. A theater critic out-and-out tells him that she's going to give the show a horrible review because she doesn't like his kind waltzing onto Broadway like they own the place. His co-star Mike Shiner (played by Edward Norton) is a big name on Broadway who doesn't respect Riggan, either. (Of course, I couldn't help being reminded throughout of the literary-vs.-genre-fiction debate.)

As with any movie about acting, there's a blurring of art and reality. The cinematography makes it appear as if the film was shot in a single take, which adds to the magic-realistic feel. As the scenes change, the camera follows the characters through labyrinthine backstage hallways. It's no accident that at one point, Riggan surprises Shiner as he's reading Borges' Labyrinths.

I don't know whether "Birdman" is the best movie released last year, but I very much enjoyed it. We'll see here shortly what the Academy thinks; the Oscars will be awarded February 22nd. The voters do like movies about their craft (witness "The Artist" winning Best Picture in 2012), so "Birdman" could be a shoo-in. Time will tell.

***
One programming note: I'm attending the Tucson Festival of Books March 14th and 15th. If you're planning to go, look for the BookGoodies booth -- that's where I'll be, with a whole bunch of my fellow indie authors. Officially, I'm supposed to sign Seized Saturday afternoon and Seasons of the Fool Sunday morning -- but I'm not averse to signing any of my other books at any time. So if you'll be the festival, too, come on by.

***
These moments of movie blogginess have been brought to you, as a public service, by Lynne Cantwell.