Like any other year, you’d expect at least one movie hitting the big screen that takes advantage of the holiday season and centers it’s story around theme of Christmastime.  This year is no exception.  We were greeted with a major one this year in the form of the action film, Red One (2024), which brings a bit of Michael Bay-esque mayhem to the Santa Claus mythos.  The movie also brings in two of the biggest action movie stars in Hollywood today, Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans, to give it even more cinematic gravitas.  Unfortunately, even with it’s well-timed holiday season release date, the film failed to deliver the presents at the box office, becoming a rare misfire for the the two stars on the marquee.  But that’s not the thing that got the notice of Hollywood insiders.  What really sparked a conversation around this movie was it’s astronomical price tag.  The movie, which is based around an original concept centered on the mythos of Santa and holiday traditions, cost over $250 million to make.  That is an astonishingly high production budget for what is essentially nothing more than a Christmas movie.  Now, the movie was financed by Amazon Studios, which is part of one of the world’s wealthiest corporations, so it’s soft box office results will not exactly sink the fortunes of the studio, but even still, many are questioning why a Christmas film needed a quarter of a billion dollar budget.  It’s been speculated that the budget ballooned because of cost overruns due to the lack of professionalism on the part of it’s main star (Dwayne Johnson) who caused multiple delays, but it still doesn’t account for why the project needed to keep going despite all of the production issues.  The answer lies in the fact that Holiday movies have grown into a much larger business over the last couple years.

In the last few decades, we’ve seen a rise in what can be considered Holiday blockbusters.  Christmas films certainly aren’t anything new, as they have existed in Hollywood as far back as the early days with classics like It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) and Miracle on 34th Street (1947).  But it was with the success of Home Alone (1990) that Hollywood took notice that a Christmas themed movie could not only perform well at the box office, but also be dominant too.  Further Christmas themed movies would continue to emerge afterwards that were not only successful but could also lead at the box office.  There was The Santa Clause (1994), How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) and The Polar Express (2004), all of which delivered surprisingly strong box office results.  In some of the cases, these movies succeeded not just because they capitalized on the holiday season, but because they connected with audiences in a way that transcended their holiday theming.  Home Alone especially stands out more for it’s comedic pratfalls than it does for it’s holiday aesthetics, because that’s what drove people to the theaters over and over again.  This is usually what separates the good holiday films from the bad, as not every holiday movie is a success at the box office.  Red One is proving that right now, as it does not have the legs to carry it through the holidays and will likely be out of theaters even before Christmas Day itself.  But, there is still a lot of signs that Hollywood is not weary of banking heavily in Christmas themed movies anytime soon even as movies like Red One continue to eat it at the box office.  What we are finding out is that Holiday movies are a far more resilient genre all on their own that have longer shelf lives than most other types of movies.

The reason why studios are willing to invest so much in new holiday themed films is because of something called the long tail effect.  This long tail effect is when a movie premieres in theaters or somewhere else and remains in the public view long after, You see it with movies that remain profitable many years later, helped by a healthy presence in subsequent television airings and re-releases.  Some movies get rediscovered this way too, such as It’s a Wonderful Life which had initially bombed at the box office and then later became a perennial classic.  While the long tail effect can happen to movies in any genre, it seems to more frequently happen with holiday films.  This has been an interesting phenomenon in recent years and it is beginning to be reflected in the way that more and more holiday films are being produced.  Hollywood certainly is more comfortable investing in something that they know is going to have long term value beyond it’s initial release.  One thing that has certainly changed in recent years is the frequency.  While it was common to see a new holiday classic emerge every couple of years, we now are seeing at least one new movie a year specifically be spotlighted with a Christmas theme at it’s center.  This year it’s Red One, a couple years ago it was the R-rated action comedy Violent Night (2022).  And I’m sure that the next couple of years will give us plenty more.  But what is interesting is that these movies are not just being made to solely rely on their theatrical box office.  Now, many more holiday movies are getting made with the intention of sticking around for many years.

What I think has contributed to this trend is the creation of programming blocks on cable television and on streaming.  These are special selections of movies centered on Christmas that are meant to cater to their audience’s desire to see holiday themed entertainment in the lead up to the special day.  The cable channel Freeform dedicates the entire month of December to playing nothing but Holiday themed movies and specials.  And on Christmas Day itself, the cable network TBS devotes it’s channel to a marathon run of one specific movie, 1983’s A Christmas Story, which has become an annual tradition all on it’s own.  On streaming services, there are specific specialty pages created just to help viewers find holiday themed movies and show episodes.  And what these specially selected programming blocks do is to keep the same holiday themed movies and specials in the public eye year after year.  These have definitely helped in making the long tail effect work especially well for holiday movies.  But, the programming blocks can’t just survive on the same small sampling of holiday classics we all know about.  They need new entries to help keep things fresh over time, though the best of them still remain an essential piece.  Sure, you’ll easily see evergreen titles like Home Alone or The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) in the mix, but every year there are newer movies that get added, whether created as an original by the station or the streamer in question, or became an essential addition due to it’s box office performance.  It’s too early to know if Red One will see that kind of future, though the fact that it was made by Amazon tells you that it’s almost a certainty that Prime Video will be spotlighting it on their front page for many Christmases to come.

While these programming blocks definitely take advantage of the holiday season as a whole, it’s hard to know what kind of movies will become perennial favorites.  The problem is that Hollywood is producing a glut of holiday movies every year, and most of them don’t stick the way that they hoped they would.  Hallmark has created literally hundreds of holiday themed movies, but I don’t think many people can name one right off the top of their heads.  Still, Hallmark’s holiday block of films are among the most watched on television every single year, so their business model is still working well for them, even if their Christmas movies all blend together into an indistinguishable holiday blob of entertainment.  The same thing is also happening with broadcasters that cater to the same crowd as Hallmark, such as the Lifetime network or Netflix.  These easy to digest, non-offensive holiday themed movies are good at capturing that holiday spirit, but they don’t stand out like the perennial classics do, and those are the ones that continue to drive the highest viewership during the holiday season.  People just have the desire to re-watch the best Christmas movies there are to get into the holiday spirit, but it’s a hard canon to add onto.  When the same movies continue to generate viewership year after year, why try to replace any of them?  Just like any other genre, it’s hard to know exactly what movies are going to click with audiences and holiday movies ae no different.  For some of the “perennial” Christmas films, they were likely created without ever knowing that they would take on another life as an essential holiday film.  And yet, Hollywood tries a lot harder than they should trying to manufacture the next big holiday classic.

This is probably the reason why holiday films are becoming bigger budget undertakings in recent years.  The bar has been set high by the movies that we recognize as a perennial holiday classic.  A movie like Red One attempts to hit those holiday tropes in a big way, and sadly comes across as too much of a manufactured product rather than a movie made with a lot of heart.  The movie banks on us knowing all of the mythos surrounding Santa Claus and the Christmas season, mainly through the secularized sense, and tries to use all that as the unique element added into a standard action movie plot.  It’s a mix that doesn’t work as intended because we can see the intention behind the film, which is a cyncial ploy to re-sell a regurgitated, standard action movie plot with a new gimmick, and hope it hits that holiday sweet spot.  This is certainly the response it’s getting in theaters, but separated from it’s box office disappointment is it possible that the movie will have a long shelf life as a title spotlighted on Amazon’s own streaming platform?  It’s too early to know, but that long tail effect has kept even bad holiday movies like Jingle All the Way (1996) and Eight Crazy Nights (2002) in the public eye for much longer than they should have been.  The huge budget that Red One received certainly gives it a grander feel, and that’s likely what the filmmakers were intending with their movie.  Because the bar is high for standing out in the genre, you’ve got to present your movie as something pretty special.  Maybe Red One accomplishes this on a visual level, but it remains pretty hollow as a story.  Still, it’s an indicator that holiday movies are getting more ambitious as they try to crack open that door into becoming a perennial favorite for the season.

The only thing is, a lot of the holiday classics became just that out of more humble means.  National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989) was just a second sequel in a comedy franchise, taking the next logical step past the summer based vacation of the first movie, and managing to surpass it with it’s spot on holiday observations mined for comedy.  It certainly didn’t need a massive budget to do that.  A Christmas Story and Home Alone were also likewise modest projects that only grew in esteem over the years due to their perfectly executed storylines that tie into Christmas.  It’s a Wonderful Life isn’t even about Christmas for most of it’s run time, and only incorporates the holiday into it’s inspirational final act.  In all, it’s difficult to actually manufacture a perennial holiday classic, and even with a bigger budget and big conceptual gimmick, your movie is still going to face an uphill battle to be accepted as an essential part of the holiday season.  But, this season also gives more movies a chance than any other genre towards achieving that classic status, because there is a audience that is primed every year to expect something new over the holidays.  Being a Christmas movie definitely brings it’s own built in public attention because there are people out there who seek out holiday themed entertainment.  While that journey to the podium of all time classics is a very narrow one, the platform to launch that journey from is quite broad.  That’s why we see such a large annual investment from Hollywood towards making so many holiday themed movies.  And in the case of movies like Red One, they are getting to be bigger and more ambitious in the hopes of standing out.  But as we’ve also seen, the holiday audience is discerning  and more prone towards accepting past favorites over flashy newcomers.

The holiday season is becoming a much bigger deal when it comes to the movies that take advantage of it.  The reason why Hollywood considers it essential to invest so much money into creating new holiday films is because they hope that one or more will give them that long term success that holiday films typically bring.  With the case of Red One, the question arises about what is too much to spend on a holiday movie?  Red One is certainly going to be a prime example of how not to spend money on a Christmas movie, and will almost certainly leave Amazon in the red.  But, is Amazon looking at the short term box office or the long term viewership on Prime Video as as their barometer for the success of the film.  It may play differently as a permanent fixture on their streaming platform that they can re-promote every holiday season.  But, it’s just one example out of many.  None of the classics are ever likely to diminish over time, because they continue to hit that sweet spot for the holidays that we all appreciate.  The question is, what else may land in that special category of perennial favorites?  For the amount of money that is increasingly becoming a part of Hollywood’s plans for the holiday season, something of quality is likely to emerge.  The long term prospects for success the a perennial holiday film provides is what helps to drive new investment into the genre each year, and eventually something will land and become a new classic.  It may not be this year, but Hollywood will keep trying.  In any case, there is an excitingly open market during the holiday season that we all participate in as we search for new favorites while also indulging in what makes Christmas so fun.  And the classics will remain there as well to help give us that entertainment fix during the holidays.  I for one always have to catch Christmas Vacation once every year(in addition to Charlie Brown’s Christmas).  I’m sure that all of you have your go to essentials as well.  With the frequency that Hollywood is attempting to give us something new each year, let’s hope that another holiday classic is waiting to be opened under that Christmas tree very soon.

The early 2000’s were an interesting transitional time for comic book movies.  After the crushing failure of 1997’s Batman and Robin, the genre as a whole went into a bit of a recession as it tried to re-establish what it needed to be.  The Batman franchise had evolved from moody and grim to campy and colorful, and it was not what audiences were looking for.  Heading into the new millennium, a different approach was looked at.  Bryan Singer’s X-Men (2000) got the ball rolling by grounding the super hero mythos in something that was more familiar to the world that we live in.  A couple years later, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man (2002) took the genre in a direction that made it’s adventure fun but not overly camp.  In many ways, the genre was heading in a direction that honestly was much closer to the comic books that these movies were based on.  Fidelity to the comic books was the guiding force now rather than the traditional standards of genre that had been present before.  And each comic book movie was able to have it’s own identity rather than follow formula, though there were still common tropes that still stuck around.  By the end of the 2000’s, the comic book genre had gone from being on life support to being the dominant force in Hollywood, and it would only continue to grow into the following decade and beyond.  But while the mighty forces of Marvel and DC were battling for supremacy in Hollywood, it could be argued that both have an entirely different source to thank for setting the tone right for the genre.  The movie that had the most profound influence on the super hero genre over the last 20 years (with impacts on everything from character development to the sense of humor present) didn’t come from Marvel nor DC, but rather from an animation studio called Pixar, which itself saw it’s own meteoric rise during this same period.

Pixar’s The Incredibles (2004) came at a pivotal time for both animation and super heroes.  For Pixar, it was a big leap forward for them in terms of animation.  Up to that point, they had steered away from depicting human characters, often leaving them to the background as they were far more difficult to model in a believable way.  You look at the early character models of characters like Andy and Sid in Toy Story (1995) and you can see why Pixar chose to center their early movies on stylized toy characters like Woody and Buzz Lightyear.  Animals or non-humanoid creatures also gave the studio more creative freedom with the primitive tools they had to work with, which was evidenced in the movies A Bug’s Life (1998), Monsters Inc. (2001) and Finding Nemo (2003).  However, they faced increased competition from Dreamworks Animation, which struck a huge hit with Shrek (2001), which featured more human characters in prominent roles.  For studios like Dreamworks and Pixar, the dilemma was to find the perfect medium in animating humans that would avoid the uncanny valley pitfall that can often occur.  The solution that Pixar ultimately landed on was to treat their human characters less like perfect recreations, and instead look for ways to make them stylized in a way that would make them easier to animate.  And what better example to look for exaggerated forms of human physique than in comic books.  There are plenty of examples of comic book artists doing away with traditional character models and bringing their own unique stylistic twists to the looks of popular characters; in many cases creating body shapes that could only make sense as part of comic book art.  This is likely what inspired the artists at Pixar and drew them into the idea of making a super hero movie that felt very heavily inspired by the freeing graphic inventiveness of comic books.  Instead of characters with perfectly rendered anatomy, Pixar’s Incredibles would have humans with extreme features that not only made them stand out, but would also be perfectly accentuated to their personalities as well.

The interesting thing about how The Incredibles came to be at Pixar is that it marked the first time that the studio went outside of their own inner circle to green-light a new project.  Now, writer and director Brad Bird was no stranger to the Pixar team before he came to work for them.  Bird was part of the same class at Cal Arts that also included Pixar Animation co-founder John Lassater, and both men started out as junior animators at Disney in the early 80’s, so they were already familiar to each other.  Bird, however, left Disney fairly early on to pursue independent work.  He would work on projects such as Steven Spielberg’s Amazing Stories anthology series, as well as directing a couple episodes of The Simpsons, including creating key supporting characters such as Krusty the Clown and Sideshow Bob that still remain a part of the show to this day.  It was, however, when he made his feature film debut in 1999 with The Iron Giant that Brad Bird began to make a big splash in the animation industry.  Though The Iron Giant is celebrated as a masterpiece today, it did not have a great opening in theaters and ended up prematurely closed the studio that made it, which ended up making Brad Bird a free agent again.  Regardless of box office, the love for Iron Giant was strong across the animation industry so there were a lot of studios that were willing to meet with Bird during this time, and that’s when John Lassater decided to call up his old colleague.  It would prove to be fortuitous because Brad Bird had been developing this idea for a film centered around a family of super heroes that fit perfectly with the desire of Pixar to experiment more with stylized human characters.  Up to this point, the Pixar legacy team had consisted of the people who worked on the original shorts as well as Toy Story.  Lassater had directed the firs three features, while Pete Doctor and Andrew Stanton helmed Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo respectively.  The Incredibles would be the first new film by someone who had not come up through the ranks of Pixar, but as evidenced by the results, Brad Bird fit in very much with the Pixar community.

There are a lot of layers to what makes The Incredibles a perfect super hero movie.  For one thing, the film is not about the characters doing super hero things, but rather it shows us how they try to build a life outside of their super powered identity.  In the world of The Incredibles, super heroic acts have been made illegal due to a string of incidents where people have become collateral damage in the fights between super heroes and super villains and in turn have led to law suits.  As a result, super heroes have live anonymously underground, forced to suppress their abilities.  The Parrs, a family of “supers,” try to blend in with this new normal and this is the focus of the story.  The movie has fun with how the Parrs use their powers in this domestic setting, but it’s ultimately about how they function as a family unit rather than what they must do to save the world, which does come into play in the final act.  The movie brilliantly allows each character to have their own power type too.  Bob Parr, aka Mr. Incredible, has super strength; his wife Helen is super stretchy and goes by the alter ego Elastigirl.  And their children are unique as well; shy Violet can make herself invisible and creates a force field around her, while hyperactive Dash has super speed.  And the baby Jack-Jack, well, that would be spoiling too much.  The Parr family also has a close relationship with Lucius Best, whose freezing powers have earned him the name Frozone.  You can see the parallels with these characters with pre-existing characters from comic books, like Ice Man, Invisible Girl, or The Flash, but putting them together as a family was a unique way of framing their story and examining how being super would function in an average family narrative.  Super hero families aren’t a novel idea; Marvel has tried for years to make a Fantastic Four movie work, with attempt number three coming next summer.  But with The Incredibles, it’s a focal point for the story that works and helps to endear each of these super beings in a way that makes them relatable to the everyday average family.

But what was the thing that set The Incredibles apart as a super hero movie.  What Brad Bird did, in addition to directing an action packed film, was craft a script that in many ways deconstructed the very idea of being a super hero.  The brilliance of the story is that the super heroes are forced to suppress their powers in order to function as a citizen of society, and if a super hero can’t use their powers, what are they left with.  Bob Parr’s crisis in the film is that he has all this power, and yet he has to work a boring day job like everyone else.  What this motivates him to do is to break the rules just a little bit while still trying to balance his home life, with a wife who is more determined to keep him and the family in check.  We see that Bob is a hero to his core and wants to use his powers for good, but is foolhardy to the point where his desires don’t take into account the repercussions of what his actions may do.  By looking into this side of Bob’s character, we see how Brad Bird is examining the duality of being both a god among men and a flawed human being at the same time.  It’s a more introspective examination of the tropes of super herodom that in many ways has found itself worked into the whole genre at large.  When Marvel began their MCU, it was noticeable from the get go that they were taking a much more introspective look at the characters themselves.  The humor of the MCU is definitely more meta than super hero films of the past, and you can’t help but recall how a lot of their deconstruction of super hero tropes fell reminiscent of the ones from The Incredibles.  There’s a through line to be sure of the jokes in Incredibles about villains monologuing leading to 20 years later where Wolverine punches out a villain and says “Not everyone gets a speech,” as seen in Deadpool & Wolverine (2024).

But The Incredibles is far more than just examining the home life of super heroes.  The point wasn’t to just show what Superman does when he is only Clark Kent.  Brad Bird’s film is ultimately about embracing the special part of what makes us who we are; something that is a common theme in his films.  Some have criticized the movie for promoting an Ayn Randian objectivist point of view; where exceptional people should be held up as better than the rest of society.  The Randian elements seem most pronounced in the movie with Bob Parr’s frustrations over being held back by the anti-super laws, but I don’t see the movie as a validation of Randian beliefs either.  If anything, Brad Bird’s point in the film is not objectivism, but rather the way society scapegoats it’s problems on those who are different.  Ultimately, the Parr family realizes that just sitting on the sidelines doesn’t make society better either, and that the need to conform is not just restrictive to them, but it’s also preventing them from having a healthy family life as well.  When they get to be super powered in the open, they grow closer together as a family.  Exceptionalism, according to Brad Bird, is not in being better than everyone else, but in being the best version of oneself.  That’s something that he showed more definitively in his next film, Ratatouille (2007), where the motto “Anyone Can Cook,” reveals itself to be the idea that a great artist can be anyone, even the least expected.  And he also celebrates the idea that people who chose less power can often be the best representation of oneself; such as The Iron Giant choosing not to be a weapon and instead becoming “Superman.”  This is another idea that has helped shape the characterizations of super heroes over the last 20 years.  It’s the motivation that makes Wonder Woman walk into No Man’s Land and act as a human shield, or Spider-Man choosing to let everyone in the world forget who he is, or Thor letting his home world be destroyed in order to save it’s people.  Like the Incredibles family, modern day super heroes don’t just choose to be super to be better; in many ways they have no choice but to do what’s best for those they care about.

It’s the complexity of character that The Incredibles brought that certainly helped create ripples throughout the super hero genre, though there certainly were many cases before of complex characterizations.  One other thing that the movie had a strong influence on was the way it showcased the power sets of it’s characters.  The movie seems to have the most fun with Helen’s Elastigirl power set, as her stretching ability gave the animators a lot to work with.  One of the biggest highlights of the movie though is the sequence dubbed the “One Hundred Mile Dash.”  It’s a chase scene involving Dash as he tries to escape guardsmen trying to hunt him down.  Even to this day I don’t think super speed powers have been as showcased as well on screen as it is here, and we’ve had two Quicksilvers and one Flash in the movies by now.  There are many other great elements of the movie that the movie set a high bar for that I don’t think any other super hero film has been able to match.  One is the presence of the character Edna Mode (voiced by Brad Bird himself).  We see all these amazing super suits in Marvel and DC movies, but are never given an explanation about who makes them, with a few exceptions.  A character like Edna is a great addition here, and it makes sense that a person who designs suits for super heroes would be a type A personality herself.  She is easily one of the highlights of the movie and a character type you wish would be more present in the genre.  One other brilliant part of the movie is the villain, Syndrome; easily one of the greatest in all of Pixar’s canon.  Syndrome’s role is a great deconstruction of toxic fandom, where one’s fascination with super powers often leads to eventual loathing of not having control over it, and a desire to flip the power dynamic in their favor.  Syndrome wishes to create a society where everyone has access to super hero ability (which he will profit off of by selling it to them), so that in his eyes, “when everyone is super, than no one will be.”  He’s a character that has become frighteningly all too real in the last 20 years, as tech bro billionaires have used their wealth to bully their way into politics and culture.  Given Pixar’s close proximity to Silicon Valley, it’s almost like Brad Bird and his team knew what was coming and tried to warn us, but we didn’t listen and are now in a world increasingly run by Syndromes.

Unlike The Iron Giant, Incredibles was an immediate success upon it’s initial release.  The movie grossed a respectable $260 million domestic and Brad Bird won his first Academy Award for Animated Feature that year.  What’s more, it was a major milestone for Pixar Animation, as it helped them improve their style of animation and showed that they could tell a human story without having to be rigid in their animation of the human figures.  You know you’ve got great stylized human characters when each one’s silhouette alone conveys personality.  It also was a great leap forward in staging, pushing the medium of computer animation further into a cinematic mode, with the movie very much reaching epic heights in it’s sense of scale.  But at it’s heart, Brad Bird drove home the idea that this was a family film as well.  The heroes aren’t just defined by their deeds, but in how they act as a family unit as well.  And it contrasts so brilliantly with a villain who only sees the powers as the only thing that makes a hero who they are, completely missing the whole point of what heroism is.  While The Incredibles is working with tropes that were already there present in the genre, it did help us to look at them in a fresh new way, and that in many ways guided the shifting winds that would define the genre through the whole rise of the MCU and the DCEU.  One noteworthy contribution to the genre that definitely has a direct connection to The Incredibles is the contributions of it’s music composer Michael Giacchino.  After writing music for television and video games for years, Giacchino was able to make his studio feature film debut as composer for The Incredibles, with a mid-century jazz score reminiscent of the James Bond films. Cut to a decade later, and Giacchino is credited with writing the fanfare for Marvel Studios.  You now hear his music before every Marvel movie, which is quite a legacy to leave behind, and it all started with writing the score for The Incredibles.  Marvel even gave the longtime comic book fan a chance to make his debut behind the camera as director of the special Werewolf by Night (2022) for Disney+.  Even 20 years later and The Incredibles still remains a high water mark not just for animation, but for super hero films in general.  Even it’s sequel, Incredibles 2 (2018) performed like a MCU film at the box office, grossing over a billion worldwide.  Culturally, it is undeniably Brad Bird’s most influential film, and that’s saying a lot for a man with multiple masterpieces on his resume.  It’s an action packed ride, but also one where the heart is in the right place, showing how heroism in the end is not about personal glory, but instead about discovering the best way to use what you have for good.  It’s old school in that way, and there’s no school like the old school.

There is no doubt the biggest disruptor in cinema over the last few years has been the company known as Netflix.  The Silicon Valley startup that had the novel idea of renting out movies through the mail from an online platform has since grown into a megalithic player in Hollywood itself, literally re-shaping the way that business is conducted within the movie industry.  It has also been one of the causes for a lot of destruction of the old standards of production and distribution.  The first casualty of Netflix’s rise was the video rental industry.  Blockbuster Video, which had itself leveled the competition to leave themselves in a position where they were the only video rental option in most markets, fell very quickly in response to Netflix’s easier to use service.  By the time Netflix was moving away from it’s mail service model to a streaming model, making on demand entertainment even more convenient, Blockbuster went from being a national brand to a ghost of it’s former self, now only open in a single location in Bend, Oregon.  The shift to streaming has also led to a significant decline in physical media in general, with most big box stores no longer featuring a movie aisle as most physical copies are now sold exclusively online.  Studios that once made a mint on selling their legacy titles on physical media have instead decided to play in the same field as Netflix, and launch their own streaming platforms instead.  There really is no other company that has changed the culture in the movie industry as much as Netflix has, and after leveling past juggernaut industries like that of home entertainment and video rental, they seemed poised to put another prominent column of Hollywood out to pasture as well; the movie theater industry.  However, this next step has taken some unexpected twists and turns that in some ways has put pressure on Netflix to rethink it’s whole business model.  Is it better for them to seek to destroy the theatrical model of distribution, or is there a better option for them in actually working with movie theaters?

One thing that has surprisingly emerged in the last couple of years in the wake of the streaming wars is that movies that released in theaters first actually perform better on streaming than the movies that were put out as streaming exclusives.  This has been the case with the studio run services like Disney+, Max, and Paramount+.  One noteworthy example is Disney’s Moana (2016), a film released in theaters 8 years ago, years before there was a Disney+, and even after all this time it is still ranked high on the all-time watched list for every streaming platform.  More recent films like The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023) and Barbie (2023) have also given their streaming platforms a boost after their initial theatrical runs, which by the way both netted over a billion dollars each.  Which is to show that releasing the movies first in theaters does not decrease their viewership numbers once they are released on streaming after.  If anything, it shows that movies have resiliency.  Of course, I’m citing examples of movies that were universally beloved by audiences, and their repeat watching value certainly translated into viewership on streaming.  But, it’s also a sign that a theatrical roll out doesn’t hurt either.  In fact it is more beneficial in the long run for a movie to premiere on the big screen first because of the patterns of viewership that help to spotlight any certain film.  When a movie is in theaters, the choice is limited to the availability of screens, so the customer is making a very active choice in what movie they are going to see.  Whether the experience is good or bad, the movie goer still had a clear idea of what experience they were paying for.  Movies on streaming on the other hand don’t benefit from that factor of audience interest.  They are algorithmically spotlighted on a platform that customers usually spend scrolling through hundreds of titles in order to find something to watch.  At a cost between $10-20 a month, streaming gives it’s customers and abundance of options, but very few quick choices.  And naturally, the movies that people saw on a movie screen will be the ones that they actively seek first, while straight to streaming will tend to be buried.

This has become a contentious thing between Netflix and the movie industry now.  For years, Netflix has been spending billions on expanding their library of movies and TV shows, which was something they had to do out of necessity after studios like Disney and Universal began to remove their films and shows from the platform in order to consolidate for their own platforms.  And as part of this expansion of their in-house production, they also were trying to build their brand as a prestige name in the industry.  They did this by getting big name talent like Martin Scorsese, the Coen Brothers, David Fincher, and Alfonso Cuaron to bring their next projects to their studio.  Netflix developed this reputation for being generous to filmmakers with movie ideas that probably were not going to work in the Hollywood business model as it was.  This attracted a lot of talent to Netflix and away from the other studios, who were starting to fret about the pull that Netflix was having in the industry.  And for a good while, it was working.  Netflix went from being an online streaming platform featuring films from all studios to a major studio within itself.  They were buying up real estate across Hollywood, including the legendary Sunset Bronson studio lot that was once home to both Warner Brothers during it’s early years.  They were beginning to frequently appear at awards ceremonies  including the Oscars and even racked up a fair amount of gold along the way.  But, the streaming market has definitely changed with all the other studios now running their own platforms.  And while Netflix still dominates as the streaming champion, their status as the ideal place for filmmakers to go has somewhat diminished.  Before, Netflix could persuade filmmakers to come to their offices with the appeal of getting their dream projects made, sparing no expense.  But now, the legacy studios of Hollywood are beginning to lure the filmmakers back with a different appeal that seems to be more ideal to them nowadays; that they can get their movie seen on the big screen.

One has to thing that filmmakers are making a calculated risk between these two options now.  One, they go to Netflix and get their strange, unconventional movie made without restrictions but also see it play exclusively on streaming and potentially be buried in the algorithm.  Or, they go to the studios and potentially face numerous obstacles from executive meddling, but eventually they’ll see their work play in front of an audience on the big screen.  But, there are those filmmakers who very much desire to have their movies screened for a wide audience and that’s becoming a more and more desirable option to some.  Box office is a very tangible measure of a film’s success, so it’s a great way to gauge if your movie managed to succeed or not.  On streaming, your movie becomes one of numerous titles listed simply as thumbnails on a smaller screen.  Most streaming platforms don’t even publicly state their internal numbers, so the measure of success is somewhat a mystery.  And there are just a lot of filmmakers out there who are still succeeding without even thinking twice about choosing to go theatrical first.  Christopher Nolan for example clashed with his previous home studio (Warner Brothers) after they were about to push his film Tenet (2020) to streaming during the pandemic against his wishes of waiting for theaters to re-open.  He jumped ship, went to Universal who gave him an assurance of a theatrical first release, and he made Oppenheimer (2023) to resounding box office and awards season success.  Tom Cruise likewise convinced his studio Paramount to sit on Top Gun: Maverick (2022) until the theatrical market recovered, and it payed off extremely well.  So, what filmmakers are seeing is that there is an added benefit to getting the movie seen in theaters to lots of people, because it gives their film an added spotlight that can be tangibly felt.  That’s why a lot more filmmakers are starting to demand a bit more on their distribution front, and ensuring that their film is not just made, but also viewed.

One of the biggest challenges recently to Netflix’s streaming first policy is a recent push by filmmaker Greta Gerwig to get her next film project set up at Netflix released on more screens nationwide.  After her success with Barbie, Greta inked a massive deal with Netflix to launch a brand new take of the Narnia books from C.S. Lewis into a major film franchise.  Clearly, Netflix sees this as a major potential win for them, but Greta Gerwig believes (rightly I’d say) that such a franchise can’t just thrive on streaming alone.  Narnia is a major title to produce, akin to The Lord of the Rings in scale and scope, which is what prompted Disney and Fox’s short lived run with the book series.  They are movies that demand a big screen treatment, and that’s why she’s putting pressure on Netflix to consider a wider release.  It’s not something new for Netflix to go wide with one of their films.  As part of their contract with director Rian Johnson, Netflix did agree to release the first of his two Knives Out sequels, Glass Onion (2022), in a wide theatrical release before it was put on streaming.  However, they limited the amount of time it played in theaters, and the film was gone after only two weeks.  This clearly limited the amount of box office it was going to take, and by all accounts, Glass Onion did pretty well in it’s short run.  Who knows how much money Netflix left on the table by pulling it after such a brief run.  Perhaps the Netflix accountants think that box office is miniscule compared to the $15 a month they currently get from their hundreds of millions of subscribers, but any box office is is helpful to the bottom  line, especially when it can off set production and marketing costs.  For Greta Gerwig, she actually has a powerful ally in her camp; the IMAX Corporation, who are interested in getting Ms. Gerwig’s Narnia films on their screens.  IMAX has a lot of pull in the industry, and have proven to be a big driver of box office for films because of the premium ticket price.  Greta clearly wants to get her movie seen properly on a bigger screen than just having it streamed on a platform; but at the same time, she is working with Netflix’s money, who ultimately have the final say.

Netflix has been defiant, but the other streamers have reconsidering their plans to put a bunch of their movies exclusively on streaming.  Paramount made a last minute choice to take their musical re-make of Mean Girls (2024) and put it into theaters in advance of it’s premiere on Paramount+.  The choice proved fruitful as the movie grossed over $90 million at the box office, making it a hit for the struggling studio that they otherwise wouldn’t have had if it went straight to streaming.  There is also an example of movie studios that were planning on making multi-part mini-series for streaming all of a sudden restructuring them into feature films for theaters.  Disney’s upcoming Moana 2 (2024) was one of those streaming series projects that got re-worked and now it’s being projected to be a box office winner for Disney Animation, which is really in need of one. But perhaps the biggest example of a shift back to the theatrical model that payed off big for a studio was Warner Brothers decision to take Tim Burton’s long anticipated sequel, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024) and put it into theaters after initially greenlighting it as a streaming exclusive.  To date, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice has grossed nearly $300 million domestic and over half a billion worldwide.  Had they gone the streaming route, Warner Brothers would have missed out on a net profit of over $100 million on this film, which they definitely need after the box office flops of Furiosa (2024) and Joker: Folie a Deux.  But there are other examples of some studios doing the reverse.  After a string of box office disappointments like Napoleon (2023) and Argylle (2024), Apple Studios has opted to pull back from theatrical and release more of their films straight to streaming, like they did to the recent film Wolfs (2024) starring George Clooney and Brad Pitt.  That film was planned for theaters, with trailers already running in most markets, and in the eleventh hour the movie was shifted to streaming instead.  While there’s this case to prove a bit of the point to Netflix’s argument, the trend of movies going from streaming to theatrical is growing bigger.

In many ways, it comes down to what type of movie gets either the theatrical or streaming treatment.  The movies that seem to get the lowest bit of interest are the ones that studios feel safer putting out in streaming, meanwhile the safer bets and higher profile projects get the theatrical market.  But with Netflix, they seem content on going all in on streaming; at least up to now.  They only used limited theatrical releases to put their movie out for awards contention, since they still have to play by the Academy’s rules in this regard.  But still, that limits the visibility of their in theaters to just a handful of theaters, namely in Los Angeles and New York, where Academy voters mostly live.  Movies play differently on living room entertainment systems compared to the movie theater experience.  If Netflix wants their prestige movies to gain any traction in awards season, make it so that they have the highest profile in the grandest presentation possible.  When Netflix was starting to disrupt the industry in the 2010’s by investing in Oscar caliber campaigns, they certainly had the kinds of movies to back that claim up.  In some cases, their movies were garnering the most nominations in any year, led by movies like Roma (2018), The Irishman (2019) and The Power of the Dog (2021).  This last Oscars, they had only one nominated film, Bradley Cooper’s Maestro (2023), and it went home empty handed.  Couple this with the fact that straight to streaming films have garnered the reputation of being the new direct-to-video moniker of poor quality, and you can see that Netflix’s brand has somewhat diminished.  All of the Oscar worthy stuff they put out is now being drowned out by the deluge of bad films that get dumped onto their platform, whether made by them or licensed by another studio.   It may now be worth it for Netflix to clean up it’s reputation by putting their name out their more in a theatrical arena, showing that they can be competitive with the legacy studios in Hollywood.

Netflix should not be adversarial with the theatrical market.  It’s a resilient mode of distribution that Netflix has been unable to conquer in the same way it has so many other industries.  Even still, movie theaters are not fully recovered yet from the blow dealt to them by the pandemic.  The problem isn’t so much that people prefer to watch movies at home than go out to a theater.  We’ve discovered in the last couple years that there is indeed a reliable base of customers that will definitely make time to watch movies in theaters.  The issue today is that the movie industry is just not making enough movies in order to fill the demand of the theatrical market, and this is where Netflix could be a lot of help.  Not every movie they make is necessarily worthy of the big screen treatment, but there are a few that absolutely would benefit from a wide release in theaters.  Most people forget that Eddie Murphy made a new Beverly Hills Cop sequel this year exclusive for Netflix, because it never got a theatrical release.  Seeing how much a legacy sequel made so many years later ended up lighting up the box office this fall with Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, perhaps Murphy and Netflix realized they missed out on a gold opportunity this year to bank on the nostalgia driving their movie.  Will Netflix make the change?  It’s hard to say.  In many ways, the streaming market is changing once again to something that favors a symbiotic relationship with the theatrical model and not one in opposition to it.  There are added pressures now for Netflix to reconsider their position, including more demands from filmmakers and more competition from other streamers that are benefiting from the theatrical to streaming mode of release.  Given that Netflix has more to gain than lose by just doing more in the theatrical market, it should be an easy choice.  There seems to be signs that some at Netflix value the theatrical experience; they did help save the legendary Grauman’s Egyptian Theater in Hollywood after all.  Netflix needs to shake off the reputation they have as just a content mill, and actually show that they mean business as a new major Hollywood studio by showcasing what they can do on the biggest scale possible by getting their movies out on the silver screen.  They’ll still remain a top dog in streaming for years to come if people get interested in all their movies again, and not just the ones that the algorithm pushes to the top.    For many, nothing beats the theater experience, so for Netflix’s sake if you can’t beat it, join it.

The horror movie genre looks a lot different today than it did a quarter century ago.  While some things haven’t changed, like Hollywood chasing success in the genre with an endless number of sequels, the style of horror movies is much different, and that is due to a shift to a more auteur driven flow within the genre.  One thing that has made horror movies so appealing to the movie studios in Hollywood is that they are a low risk, high reward product for them to invest in.  Horror movies tend to be cheap to make and are able to perform well at the box office, meaning that it’s a genre with a track record of profitability.  Unfortunately, during the 80’s and 90’s, the cheapness of horror movies became much more of a defining feature of the genre.  The movies of that era could never be considered high art, and were for the most part just manufactured to put butts into seats, typically from less discerning teenage and college age audiences that just wanted cheap thrills.  But even those demographics were growing tiresome of the same old tricks that the Hollywood was giving us in the horror genre.  Particularly towards the end of the 90’s, horror had just been reduced to schlock, with emphasis on cheap jump scares and gross out gore as a means of entertaining their audiences.  There were bright spots to be sure, like Wes Craven’s iconic Scream (1996), but even that got drowned out by a dozen Scream clones that followed in it’s wake.  Horror was in desperate need of a re-evaluation, which for a lot of people was a desire to take the control of the genre out of Hollywood executive offices and back into the hands of filmmakers who had a real hunger for changing the rules of the genre.  Horror films has been a great breeding ground in the past for visionary directors, such as George A. Romero, John Carpenter, and Brian DePalma.  Even Steven Spielberg technically sprung out of thriller filmmaking with movies like Duel (1971) and Jaws (1975).  But what kind of filmmaker would arise in the turn of the millennium to cause a dramatic shift in the horror movie genre.

I think very few people saw the rise of one M. Night Shyamalan coming.  Born in India before his family moved to the States when he was still a baby, Shymalan grew up in the suburbs of Philadelphia, developing a desire for filmmaking at an early age.  Him and his childhood friends would get together and make short films, so by the time he started attending the Tisch School of the Arts’ elite film program, he already had a good knowledge of visual storytelling.  From these early exercises in filmmaking, he demonstrated a fondness for dark thrillers and tense horror.  He looked to influences like Alfred Hitchcock and Rod Serling in shaping the the way he told stories with a darker edge.  But upon graduating from film school, he didn’t immediately jump into the horror genre right away.  His first feature film was a semi-autobiographical drama called Praying with Anger (1992), and his follow-up after that was a feel good coming of age story called Wide Awake (1998).  At the same time, he was also drafted to write a screenplay for the live action adaptation of Stuart Little (1999).  None of these early film would have led you to know where he was about to go next as a filmmaker.  While he probably appreciated the work he was getting, it’s also apparent that he really wanted to make the kind of movie that he would want to watch, and that’s what drove him to create his first horror movie.  He sent his spec script for his take on a “ghost” story to multiple studios, and found a surprising interested party in David Vogel, the then head of production at Disney.  Vogel belived in Shymalan’s script so much that he agreed to the $3 million dollars for the rights, and the stipulation for Shymalan to direct, without the corporate approval of the Disney higher ups.  It was gamble, but as we all would see, it was a gamble that payed out in a major way.

The Sixth Sense went into production in the Fall of 1998, shooting entirely in M. Night’s home base of Philadelphia.  Unfortunately, David Vogel’s stunt in getting the rights cost him his position at Disney, as he was dismissed shortly after.  Disney would allow the production to move forward, but the budget would be heavily trimmed down.  In many ways, this would’ve destroyed the visions of most filmmakers wanting to shape their movie the way they wanted, but M. Night was able to make lemonade out of those lemons.  No stranger to working with non-existent budgets in his home movie days, Shymalan found ways to create an effective horror movie with the constraints that were thrust upon him.  He relied on old school techniques from the early days of horror, like the use of atmosphere and tricks with lighting to evoke a sense of terror in his scenes.  The film has no post-production visual effects added, and only a few instances where his ghost actors appear in make-up.  As we would see, that is all that was needed in the end.  One of the most effective tricks shown in the movie is another old school slight of hand where actress Toni Colette exits her kitchen and goes into the other room with the camera following her and once she re-enters the kitchen, all of the cabinet doors are open.  Of course, those in the know with regards to filmmaking obviously can put together that once the kitchen is out of view of the camera, a bunch of production assistants swarm in and open all of those cabinet doors before the room is in the camera’s view again.  It’s simple, but effective if you do it right and Shymalan makes it work in his movie.  With The Sixth Sense, Shymalan is not creating just another schlocky horror film; nor was he making something that hadn’t been done before in horror filmmaking either.  He was simply using the art of cinema to tell a horror story really effectively and make old tricks feel new again.  In a time when horror was loud and ugly, Shymalan made something that managed to thrill effectively through it’s minimalism.

It certainly helped that he had a cast who effectively contributed to this more muted style of horror filmmaking.  At the time, the movie actually benefitted from the collapse of another movie.  Bruce Willis was contracted by Disney to complete 3 films, the first of which was the blockbuster Armageddon (1998).  Unfortunately, the second film on that contract, Broadway Brawler, imploded after Willis demanded the firing of the director.  That film never got back on track and the studio needed to find another project quick to allow Willis to fulfill the obligations of his contract.  This is where the arrival of The Sixth Sense proved to be fortuitous, because it was movie that was a departure from the usual films that Bruce Willis had been a part of which were typically action oriented, and would allow him to show more range as an actor.  The part of Dr. Malcolm Crowe gave Willis a chance to be subtle, and even charming at times; a welcome departure from the gruffness of his past roles.  But, while it was beneficial for M. Night Shymalan to have a big name movie star in his film, it mattered a lot more to get the casting right for the crucial character of Cole Sear; the little boy who can “see dead people.”  The crux of the movie is dependent on the ability for the audience to believe that this young boy can see the dead, and that’s a difficult thing for a young actor to nail on screen.  Luckily for Shymalan, he found his Cole in a young up-and-coming star named Haley Joel Osment.  Osment, who had previously played the small part of Forrest Gump’s son opposite Tom Hanks a couple years back, showed acting talent beyond his years in the harrowing performance that he gives as Cole Sear.  It also mattered a great deal that his chemistry on screen with Bruce Willis was believable.  The interactions between Willis and Osment are definitely among the highlights of the movie, with Willis showing a vulnerability on screen that we typically had not see him show.  The film also features an incredible performance from Toni Collette as Cole’s mom Lynn.  Her performance is a heartbreaking one in which she tries everything she can to help her son who is “different.”  And there is a remarkable cameo role from former boy band singer Donnie Wahlberg (brother of Mark) as a disgruntled former patient of Malcolm Crowe, a role that Wahlberg apparently lost nearly 50 pounds for in order to give himself a gaunt look.  It was a blessing of all the right actors coming together for the roles that would indeed propel them to greater things later on.

Of course, the biggest key to the success of M. Night Shymalan’s The Sixth Sense was The Twist Ending.  This was probably the thing that made David Vogel jump so many hurdles in order to secure the rights.  Fair warning, I am about to spoil the twist ending of the film in this paragraph, so if you haven’t seen the movie by now skip ahead.  In the closing moments of the film, it is revealed that Dr. Malcolm Crowe has been dead for the majority of the movie and that he has been appearing as a ghost the whole time.  The only reason audiences didn’t originally pick up on that is because we see him interacting with Cole Sear, a boy who can see and interact with ghosts.  It’s only in retrospect that we realize that Cole is the only character that we’ve seen Malcolm speak directly too.  In the reveal that comes in the end, where Malcolm realizes he is a ghost, that all the puzzle pieces that Shymalan had been laying out start to make sense.  The effectiveness of the twist lies in the fact Shymalan doesn’t just pull it out of thin air; all of the clues were in plain sight, but with the way the story was being told, as it focuses on Cole’s journey, those clues are not at the forefront of our minds until the twist makes us see the story again in a completely different light.  It’s something that Shymalan learned from one of his inspirations, the master of twist endings Rod Serling, who utilized them brilliantly in many episodes of The Twilight Zone.  What was also crucial was that, like many of Serling’s most memorable twist endings, there had to be catharsis with it; that the audience would feel rewarded if it picked up on all the clues, but also not feel dejected if they hadn’t.  It took careful planning for Shymalan to not give away the fact that one of his main characters was dead the whole time, but he had to make sure that the clues would be recognizable by the end.  For this, he borrowed another trick from another one of his inspirations; Hitchcock.  Alfred Hitchcock famously used color coding as a way of signaling the presence of danger, something that he most famously used in Vertigo (1958).  In The Sixth Sense, Shymalan uses the color red to signify when a ghost was present in the scene.  Sometimes this was shown overtly, like when Cole is visited by a ghost girl, played by a young Mischa Barton.  She appears after Cole hides in his bedroom play tent, which of course is a bright color of red.  This helps tie the color to the appearance of ghosts, but when we learn the truth about Malcolm at the end, we sudden notice all those subtle hints of red that were present throughout the movie whenever he meets with Cole.  All of these ingredients helped to give the movie the effective twist ending that it needed and boy did it pay off in a big way.

Part of why The Sixth Sense made the impact that it did was also due to the fact that it came out in the middle of a turning point for the horror genre.  Earlier that same summer in 1999, The Blair Witch Project (1999) premiered and completely turned Hollywood on it’s head.  This found footage horror movie made on a shoe-string budget with a simple digital camera and no-name actors remarkably opened at number one at the box office and grossed an astounding $140 million.  While the gimmick itself was probably what lured a lot of people to the movie theaters to check out this oddity for themselves, it also revealed a craving from audiences for something different in the increasingly stale horror genre.  The Blair Witch Project filled that void perfectly with it’s unconventional way of telling it’s story.  But surprisingly, The Sixth Sense would also benefit from this change in audiences’ taste as well.  While The Sixth Sense was more mainstream than the experimental Blair Witch, it also stood out as being very different from the other horror films of that era.  It wasn’t a slasher thriller; it wasn’t a jump scare fest; and it wasn’t a blood soaked gore fest.  It was an atmospheric ghost story with some mystery elements thrown in.  And for audiences, that was enough.  In many ways, M. Night Shymalan was harkening back to the auteur driven horror movies of the 1970’s, many of which were slower burns than the in your face aggressiveness of the 80’s and 90’s.  Movies like William Friedkin’s The Exorcist (1973) or Richard Donner’s The Omen (1976) take their time in building their scares to a crescendo, and Shymalan makes his film even more low key than those.  It’s not about how many times you can scare an audience, but by how well you can scare them.  Shymalan brought atmosphere back into the forefront of horror filmmaking, and the effect it had was very evident on the horror movies that have come in it’s wake.

One of the strongest legacies that The Sixth Sense has left behind is the way that it brought horror back into the hands of the filmmakers.  The genre has been much more driven by style and the unique visions of it’s filmmakers.  In the wake of The Sixth Sense,  Hollywood was interested in finding out who would be the next M. Night Shymalan; a question that even Shymalan has struggled to define for himself.  There certainly has been a resurgence in the number of film directors that have emerged as uniquely tied to the genre of horror films.  James Wan is one of those filmmakers that managed to emerge from the horror genre with a clearly defined trademark to his name.  He helped to shepherd the Saw and Conjuring franchises into some of the most lucrative horror series in recent years, and he continues to develop new horror concepts that appeal to modern audiences.  The interesting thing is, his horror movie are wildly varied, from the gory Saw films to the subtler scares of The Conjuring.  Likewise, other horror filmmakers like Ari Aster are re-defining the things that we find scary on the big screen, like how he terrified us with a Scandinavian paganism in Midsommar (2019).  And there are other recent horror filmmakers like Mike Flanagan, Leigh Whannell and Parker Finn who are generating effective scares through the mainstream machine of Hollywood with old standards like Stephen King, Universal Monsters, and just even the simple act of a sinister smile.  Horror has gone through a complete transformation in the last quarter century thanks to what The Sixth Sense and The Blair Witch Project left behind.  It’s honestly now the genre where we see the most creativity allowed for filmmakers, because it’s one of the few avenues where experimentation is rewarded.  In many ways, this is a golden era for the genre, and it’s something that Shymalan thankfully pushed Hollywood into accepting.

When it first released in the waning Summer days of August 1999, The Sixth Sense opened to a respectable but not extraordinary $26 million.  But remarkably, it continued to gross the same amount weekend after weekend, $20 million for 6 weeks straight; a feat only Titanic (1997) had a achieved before.  This was a true phenomenon that Hollywood couldn’t quite figure out at first.  What we witnessed with Sixth Sense’s unprecedented run was one of the first truly viral movies, where word of mouth played a major role in driving up it’s box office.  While people raved about the craft of the film, it was that perfectly executed twist ending that really brought audiences back again and again.  Shymalan created an experience with The Sixth Sense, and not just a product like so many horror movies of the last decade were.  In the end, The Sixth Sense grossed an astonishing $293 million at the box office, making it the highest grossing horror film ever at that time, a title it would hold for 18 years before 2017’s IT surpassed it’s record.  The film would also go on to earn 6 Oscar nominations, including for Best Picture and for Haley Joel Osment and Toni Collette in their supporting roles.  Bruce Willis would also walk away from with $100 million through his back end profits deal when he accepted the role for initially less than his average salary.  Since then, Shymalan has struggled in the shadow of his greatest achievement.  He’s had success here and there, including with Signs (2002) and Split (2016), but he’s been a filmmaker who’s unfortunately been boxed in by his own style of filmmaking, which hasn’t gotten better over time.  Thankfully, Haley Joel Osment has been able to survive the usual pitfalls that can ruin child actors and he’s aged into adulthood fairly well as a beloved character actor, including returns to the horror genre with movies like the recent Blink Twice (2024), co-starring Channing Tatum.  Toni Collette likewise has excelled in her returns to horror, including her acclaimed performance in Hereditary (2018).  While M. Night Shymalan may have become a victim of his own success and struggled as a filmmaker in the years after, there’s still no denying that he crafted a masterful film with The Sixth Sense.  In all of it’s subtleties, it re-freshened a genre that was in desperate need of a transformation, and the great thing is that he managed to make it happen with tricks of the trade that used to be staples of the horror genre that had sadly been forgotten over time.  With hints of Hitchcock and the Twilight Zone present in his movie, he managed to show us what a horror movie used to be and could once again become again, and this helped to usher in a new era of experimentation in horror filmmaking that we are still seeing today.  We have The Sixth Sense to thank for the slow burn intensity of artsy horror like we see in films such as Skinamarink (2022) and Longlegs (2024); movies that don’t force scares on you but still fill you with a sense of terror while you watch it.  It’s unbelievable that a little movie about a child who “sees dead people” would be the kind of movie to change Hollywood horror for many years after.

The movie Forrest Gump (1994) by many accounts would seem to be an unusual choice to be the highest grossing movie of the year as well as the champion of awards season.  A story about a simpleton who has managed to stumble his way into important historical moments while being completely oblivious to his own impact on those same events, as well as the effect he has on the lives of others.  On the surface it doesn’t scream out as being a blockbuster.  And yet, it accomplished all that and more.  Forrest Gump was the undisputed champion of it’s release year both at the box office, and at the Academy Awards, and it’s even more surprising when you see the competition it went up against.  It managed to become the highest grossing film of the year, even with direct competition against Disney’s juggernaut The Lion King (1994) that same Summer.  And during awards season, it managed to beat out universally beloved classics like Pulp Fiction (1994) and The Shawshank Redemption (1994).  So what was it about the movie that made it such a champion with critics and audiences.  When you look at the film, it makes a lot of sense given the context of when it came out and also with the talent that was involved.  Forrest Gump was the right movie at the right time for Hollywood.  America was going through a period of relative peacetime during the Clinton era of the 1990’s, and during this time the culture was beginning to reflect on the struggles of the past and look at how they shaped the country into what it was at the time.  With Forrest Gump, the focus was on the shaky period of American post-War history between the 1950’s and 1970’s that saw the rise of Civil Rights in the South, the horrors of the Vietnam War and the loss of faith in government through the Watergate scandal.  All of these events provide the backdrop of Forrest Gump, but at it’s center is an eccentric character brought to life through an unforgettable performance by an actor who was starting to hit the peak of his powers in Hollywood; Tom Hanks.  All of this collided in a movie that benefited from the right timing, and 30 years on, it’s interesting to look back and see if the movie has the same kind of potency today.

The movie was based on a 1986 novel of the same name by author Winston Groom.  Told as a first person account from a Southern man named Forrest Gump, we witness his life story while at the same time getting a perspective on the national events he witnessed from his own simple and unburdened mind.  The novel was meant to be a picturesque story of America in transition with a bit of humor injected to give a satirical perspective on what it meant to be an American during these tumultuous years.  The story lent itself very well to a cinematic adaptation, and went through a fierce bidding war before eventually landing at Paramount Pictures.  Screenwriter Eric Roth was given the task of refining Groom’s sprawling narrative into a manageable script, and even though it did adhere pretty closely to the original plot of the novel, Roth did make quite a few changes, especially with the character of Forrest himself.  In the novel, Forrest is more of an overt savant, with clearly defined disabilities that made him academically deficient in many things, but also highly proficient in others.  In Roth’s script, Forrest it’s a bit more ambiguous of a character.  We never know what’s going on with him as a person, and why he’s not as bright as the average person.  It wasn’t that long after the film Rain Man (1988) had featured a savant character with severe autism in it’s story, so perhaps the studio just didn’t want that to be the focus of their movie.  In a sense, Forrest is written much more like a Capra-esque “every-man,” but with just a little less mental acuity.  It does fit more with that the intent of the story should be, which to not focus on Forrest’s disabilities but rather the journey he takes through life.  It’s a style of story that dates back to Voltaire’s Candide, and has been the basis for other films of the same ilk like Woody Allen’s Zelig (1983) or Lindsay Anderson’s O Lucky Man (1973), where a common man finds himself wandering though life and finding himself unexpectedly being caught up in the march of history.  The fact that Forrest is not the brightest apple in the bunch is inconsequential to the plot, though it does occasionally lead to some of the funniest moments.  What is of consequence is where his journey in life leads him, and what effect he has on others.

What was also crucial in the making of Forrest Gump was who would end up directing it.  Filmmakers like Ivan Reitman, Penny Marshall, and Terry Gilliam had circled around the project, but the job ultimately went to Robert Zemekis.  Zemekis was an interesting choice for this material, because he was not exactly known as a prestige film director.  He made blockbuster films that were cutting edge in technology, and also enormous crowd-pleasers.  His type of movie were comical adventures like Romancing the Stone (1983), Back to the Future (1985) and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988).  A period film was not exactly what he was known for, but Zemekis did see the potential of this story through his own unique style.  Given his background in comedic movies, he saw the underlying humor of Forrest’s story to be something that he could easily work with.  He also saw a way to use the story as a means to try out some new visual effects techniques that had yet to be used on screen.  The visual effects used in the movie wouldn’t be the big kind that you would see in blockbusters like Jurassic Park (1993).  Instead, they were the invisible kind that made you forget you were looking at something that was digital touched up in a computer.  In particular, what stuck out to audiences were the scene where Tom Hanks is digitally inserted into real archival footage of famous historical events, which includes meetings with long gone past presidents like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon.  It’s a subtle effect, but audiences were still struck by the seamlessness of the result.  There were other really effective visual effects that again don’t draw attention to themselves, but in retrospect reveal themselves to be very impressively executed.  Some people, for instance, thought actor Gary Sinise was a real amputee but it turns out his legs were removed through the magic of CGI in the film.  While Zemekis was indeed using his skills as a cutting edge blockbuster director to good use in this movie, Forrest Gump also marked a departure for him from the more zanier movies in his past and got him more comfortable with delivering a more mature, dramatic story, though still with some humor throughout.  Hollywood certainly rewarded him with that maturity, as he won the Oscar for directing.

But, when you think about the movie Forrest Gump, the first person who comes to mind will always be the man who brought the character to life, Tom Hanks.  Hanks had something of a challenge with the character.  Play the part the wrong way, and the character of Forrest could have unfortunately fallen into cringe territory.  The movie Tropic Thunder (2008) touched upon this aspect, where Robert Downey Jr.’s character warns about the perils of going “full r-word” in their bids to win awards for playing in mentally challenged roles.  Forrest Gump was used as an example in the movie of an actor who managed to walk that fine line the right way and of course Tom Hanks got his Oscar for it.  Despite how Tropic Thunder pokes fun at it, Tom Hanks manages to find the right tone with the character of Forrest.  He’s dumb, but not without some thoughtfulness, especially when it comes to expressing his emotions.  This is certainly in line with the more Frank Capra “every-man” angle that Eric Roth tried to make Forrest into.  We can laugh at some of his goofy simplicity, but the movie never mocks him for being who he is.  Forrest makes his way through the film as a pure soul who just is oblivious to the prejudices that infect the rest of us.  Tom Hanks managed to make Forrest more than just a one note character, finding his humanity through all of the relatable aspects of the character; his charm, kindness and enthusiasm for life.  Hanks managed to find the unique sound of Forrest’s deep Southern accent by observing the young actor who would be playing Forrest as a boy.  Young Michael Connor Humphreys (no relation) had this unique way of speaking in his Alabama bred accent that Tom Hanks just loved, and he used it for his own performance.  But Hanks’ performance alone wasn’t the thing that helped to make the movie memorable.  He was given great support by Robin Wright as the tragic love of Forrest’s life, Jenny, as well as the memorable turns of Gary Sinise and Mykelti Williamson as Lieutenant Dan and Bubba respectively; all characters whose lives unexpectedly intersect with that of Forrest and are forever shaped by it.  Tom Hanks himself was coming off of an Oscar win for the film Philadelphia (1993), so his stock was already on the rise.  Thanks to Forrest Gump, he would be only the second actor after Spencer Tracy to win back to back Oscars for Best Actor.

While it’s undeniable that the movie was a massive success in it’s day, looking back on the film from today’s perspective certainly offers up some interesting questions; namely what is the movie trying to say.  One complaint leveled at the film is that it’s a bit shallow, at least when it comes to the perspective it gives about the historical events that it depicts.  The movie approaches everything from this apolitical stance, and some people complain that this leads to some sanitization of important events that shouldn’t be ignored and that it only pays lip service to the social movements that fill the background of the story.  Where the complaint has some merit is in the way it presents representations of the Civil Rights movement and manages to work in an comical awkward moment involving Forrest.  A clip where Forrest politely gives a book back to a student who dropped it during the highly contested school integration protests, and is unaware that he ended up on live television, is certainly in line with Forrest’s character, but it can be seen as a bit in poor taste to throw a comedic scene into a historical moment that still represents an important milestone in Civil Rights.  The thing about the movie is that it is entirely from Forrest’s perspective.  He’s the one telling the story, and in his view, he’s oblivious to the politics of his time.  Some would say that the movie is minimalizing these moments that matter to our society, but at the same time, we as viewers are also aware of the context of these events too.  Robert Zemekis and Eric Roth are not treating Forrest Gump like a history lesson.  It’s much more of a character study, and the character just so happens to live through extraordinary time and meets extraordinary people.

One thing that people can read into the film is that Forrest as a character is a metaphorical representation of America itself; existing through good intentions and principled morals, but oblivious to the consequences of his actions.  Forrest achieves many great things in his story; he becomes a star football player at Alabama, he’s a decorated war hero, he meets at least three presidents, he wins a ping pong tournament in China, he starts a shrimp fishing business that makes him a millionaire, and he even taught Elvis how to dance.  His life is the personification of the American dream.  However, while his life achievements are many, none of it seems to land with the people that he chooses to love in his life.  His childhood sweetheart Jenny goes through a hard fought life of sexual abuse and drug use that ultimately catches up to her.  Lieutenant Dan becomes suicidal and violently depressive after losing his legs in Vietnam, instead of gloriously dying on the battlefield like all his ancestors had before him.  And Bubba doesn’t even make it off the battlefield, dying in Forrest’s arms from his battle wounds.  Even the historical figures that Forrest meets receive horrible fates, from Assassinations to Resignation.  It’s almost like Forrest is an angel of death to everyone but himself.  But, at the same time, the lives of these characters are also enriched by being in Forrest’s orbit.  Jenny’s only source of normality and protection in life comes from the tender love that Forrest shares with her.  Lieutenant Dan accompanies Forrest on his shrimp fishing venture, and he in turn becomes a multi-millionaire himself, and even gets to walk again on “magic” titanium legs.  There may be some merit to the idea that Forrest embodies the sometime naivete and ignorance of America to it’s own faults.  But, the key part of Forrest’s character is that his simple outlook on life also makes him free of prejudice, and that his defining characteristic is unconditional love and respect, even if someone is undeserving of it.  Forrest is not so much a critique, but an ideal of the American dream.

One other thing that stands out about the movie is the way it presents a sense of nostalgia about the past.  Given the context of when it was made, Forrest Gump represented a time where America was feeling comfortable about re-opening some old wounds and confronting some of the darker moments of the past.  The complaints about the minimalization of history perhaps stem from the fact that nothing, from Civil Rights to Vietnam to eventually the AIDS crisis, is ever fully explored in the movie.  And instead of addressing the brutal realities of those historical events, the movie just uses them as a part of the palette in it’s upbeat pastoral of America.  A large part of the nostalgia factor of the movie comes from it’s enormous soundtrack of pop music standards from the era, with songs ranging from Jimi Hendrix, to Credence Clearwater Revival, to Lynard Skynard, to REO Speedwagon all getting playtime in the movie.  Along with the sweeping musical score by Alan Silvestri, the film creates this sense of an idealized version of the past that shows off the grandeur of it’s time period.  The 60’s and 70’s was a prolific period of time with regards to culture, especially when it came to music.  But, this alone does not mean that the time period was free of turmoil, and I don’t think that it’s what the movie is intending to say to it’s audience either.  Like everything else in the movie, the music is part of the background of Forrest’s story.  The movie knows how to place it’s historical context on the cultural touchstone within, without painting a false sense of nostalgia that minimizes the events taking place.  Even still, so many movies that try to whitewash American history by painting a false portrait of the past by milking our sense of nostalgia have often taken a page from the formula put to use in Forrest Gump.  These were harsh times put on screen in the movie, and yet the rocking soundtrack and the glossy filmmaking all make it feel like an idealized world.  It’s not the movie’s intention, because the filmmakers were explicit in letting us know that this was never supposed to be a history lesson.  But, nostalgia can be a powerful tool in shaping our perspective on things, and too often it’s abused by people wanting us to mis-remember the past by falsely presenting us with an idealized one.

Regardless of the critiques, Forrest Gump still stands as a solid piece of entertainment that holds up well after 30 years.  Tom Hanks performance in particular really helps to carry the film, and makes it richer through his ability to give dimensions to a character that could’ve easily fallen into caricature.  The passage of time that the film covers is also interesting to explore, especially looking back on this film as it’s own time capsule.  While it wasn’t the first film to address Vietnam on the big screen (movies like Apocalypse Now and Platoon had already covered it extensively), it certainly put more of a spotlight on the aftermath of the War, especially when it came to the forgotten Veterans whose lives were broken once they came back.  The character of Lieutenant Dan in particular was one that few people had seen spotlighted, especially in a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster, with regards to the War’s aftermath.  Both Gary Sinise and Tom Hanks have become strong advocates for the veteran community since the making of this movie and their charitable contributions have helped many vets get the aid they have desperately needed.  Forrest Gump also represented something of a cathartic exercise in helping America to make sense of an era that for all accounts showed itself as struggling to figure out what it wanted to be.  The era depicted in Forrest Gump was one of a nation in turmoil, seeking to find it’s soul again.  While it does so with a comical twist, the story of Forrest Gump is nevertheless a story about hope in the face of death and destruction.  Forrest is a pure soul that never lets the awful events surrounding him make him bitter, resentful and hateful about the world.  And it’s some, whether he’s aware of it or not, that he is thankfully passing along.  His cross country run inspires a nation to join in because it gives them something good to believe in.  And after Jenny sadly passes away due to an unknown illness (implied to be AIDS), she leaves behind a son she had with Forrest, who he now must be a father to (played by a very young Haley Joel Osment in his first role).  Through Forrest Jr. we get a hopeful sign of a better future as Forrest’s good heart endures for another generation.  That’s ultimately what Zemekis, Hanks, and Roth wanted to convey with the character of Forrest Gump; never giving up on hope.  It’s thing that endures about this movie all these year later; embracing change and letting hope persevere.  That’s why the most famous line from the film resonates: “Life is like a box of chocolates.  You never know what you’re going to get.”  Forrest treated everyday like a surprise and was eager to embrace that feeling no matter what life brought his way.

There are many right ways to create an engaging biopic for the big screen and also many wrong ways.  Too often we see movies based on the lives of famous musicians take the latter route.  There are good ones to be sure, but too often we see many musical biopics fall back on formula.  What a lot of bad musical biopics seem to forget is that it’s not the songs that the subject wrote and/or sang that made them stand out, but the lives that they lived that offer up the true cinematic story.  Some of the worst offenders, like this year’s Back to Black (2024) or 2018’s Bohemian Rhapsody don’t really tell us anything new about their subjects, but merely just show a point by point book report on the lives of these famous singers.  The formula often involves the characters getting inspired to write their big hit song in the most convoluted way possible, and it glosses over how many great songs came into being which is many hours of fine tuning and rewrites, which truthfully don’t lend themselves very well to a cinematic experience.  And then you have the very icky sort of biopic where you see a performer’s tragic story mined for empathy when it at the same shifts the blame away from the people who drove the person to an early grave; probably due to the fact that those same people probably still control the estate that the movie had to gain permission from in order to make the movie.  But then you have the good musical biopics that aren’t afraid to show a person’s life warts and all in the knowledge that it will be more honest and interesting movie character, such as movies like 8 Mile (2002) or Walk the Line (2005), both of which were movies that got the personal approval and involvement of the musician themselves.  And then there are also good biopics that are completely outside of the norm that they take the musicians story into an entirely elevated level, like The Doors (1991) or Rocketman (2019).  I would however say that the best musical biopic that has ever been made would be a film that entirely flies in the face of actual history.  That would be the Oscar-winning Amadeus (1984).

Amadeus can be described as a musical biopic, while at the same time also be considered a complete work of fiction.  The reason it falls into a biopic designation is because it depicts the life of one of the world’s greatest composers, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.  It shows us the life he led during his most productive years composing in the court of the Austrian-Hungarian Emperor Joseph II in the city of Vienna.  We also see him compose his most famous pieces of work, including the operas The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, and finally The Magic Flute.  But the movie isn’t about any of that, nor is it really about Mozart either.  The film instead is told from the point of view of another character; a rival composer named Antonio Salieri.  Salieri retells his life’s story to us, which so happens to coincide with Mozart’s, and we see how jealousy and insecurity led him down a path towards destroying Mozart completely, which he ends up succeeding in as Mozart’s misfortunes lead him to an early grave.  But to Salieri’s eternal frustration, he sees Mozart’s musical far out live his short life while Salieri grows old and watches his own legacy wither in Mozart’s shadow.  It’s only fitting that the entirety of the film is framed as a confessional, with Salieri recounting his story to a priest after feeling the guilt of having destroyed Mozart’s life and in turn his own.  Amadeus is not a movie about the music that both of these musicians left behind, but rather about the way that fame destroys the soul.  At the same time, the movie is lavishly constructed to recreate the time period of Mozart and Salieri in great detail, and it does touch upon the actual events that shaped their lives as well.  The success of Amadeus is that the story at it’s center and the fascinating characters within are what drive the film along.  The movie is not concerned about hitting all the historical notes perfectly and in order.  And in Amadeus’ case, it’s a movie more about speculative history rather than true history.

The playwright Peter Shaffer who first penned to script for the stage play Amadeus described his story as a “fantasia on the theme of Mozart and Salieri.”  It was his way of telling us upfront that this story was never meant to be taken as literal history, but rather a universal narrative about jealousy and corruption that just so happened to center around real historical people.  The idea of a rivalry between Mozart and Salieri dates back to a play written by Alexander Pushkin in 1830; a mere couple of years after the death of the real Salieri.  Pushkin’s play was even more accusatory of Salieri, with him actually murdering Mozart at the very end.  Shaffer’s play is not as harsh towards Salieri, merely showing him as being petty and conspiring to deny Mozart success, which in turn aggravates the alcoholism that ultimately ends his life.  Even still, the original Pushkin play is still credited as the inspiration that drove Shaffer to write his own play.  It was Shaffer’s idea to make the center of his story and tell it from his point of view.  This is a great addition to the narrative because it adds the unreliable narrator element to the play.  Yes, we are witnessing the life of Mozart, but it’s through the lens of someone who was jealous of him, and was willing to view him in the most negative light.  And yet, through even Salieri’s spitefulness, there is a reverence for the music.  The theme of divine interaction plays throughout the story of Amadeus, with Salieri often complaining about how God gave such a gift to a boorish, ill-behaved man-child like Mozart.  And the brilliance of Shaffer’s play is that no such gift was ever given; Salieri is only seeing Mozart in that light because he barely knows the man.  He only sees the party animal and clown that Mozart could be in a  public fashion, but he never saw the struggling artist that he was in private; that is until the very end when he sees the true genius in what ends up being his final hours.  The original play debuted to great acclaim in London in 1979, and it soon made it’s way to Broadway afterwards.  Many celebrated actors came and went in the lead roles; one such combination even included heavyweights like Tim Curry as Mozart and Ian McKellan as Salieri.

It’s no surprise that Hollywood was eager to turn this hit play into a big lavish screen adaptation.  Oscar-winning producer Saul Zaentz managed to secure the rights to the play, and he was eager to re-team with Czech filmmaker Milos Forman for the film, having found success before with their film One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975).  Peter Shaffer was granted the opportunity of adapting his own play, and he managed to find a good collaboration with the spirited Forman.  The one big thing that Forman wanted to break away from the original play was the way it was staged.  Amadeus was a bit of an Avant Garde play in that it was very minimalist when it came to the setting.  In the case of it’s Broadway run, the play was performed “in the round” meaning that the audience encircled the stage, so the actors had to perform merely with simple props and no scenery.  Forman had no interest in telling this story merely through the power of suggestion.  He wanted to make Mozart’s world come alive, and this was thankfully something that Peter Shaffer also agreed to.  To find the right kind of place to recreate the Vienna of Mozart’s lifetime, Forman looked to his own native land and chose the city of Prague to be the shooting location for this project.  Prague in the early 1980’s was still behind the Iron Curtain of Soviet influence, so it wasn’t easy to bring a big Hollywood production to the city, even if the director was a native born son.  They did manage to get the Czechoslovakian government to grant permission, and shooting began in the very well preserved city, which Milos praised as being free of “all that modern shit,” as he described in the movie’s making of documentary.  Shooting in Prague instead of Vienna was not too out of character for a movie centered on Mozart’s life, as Prague maintains more of it’s 18th century architecture to this day, and it was also a place where the real musician did perform from time to time.  One of the places that the real Mozart frequented in Prague was the majestic Estates Theater, which the film makes incredible use out of in the staging of some of Mozart’s most famous musicals.  In every sense of the word, Milos Forman took a minimalist play and gave it the epic makeover that it deserved.

One other bold move by Milos in the making of the film was in the casting of the characters.  Typically, a high brow historical epic will try to give a sense of authenticity to the performances of the actors as part of their placement in their selective time period.  This usually means casting actors with affectations, or who just have British accents as that commonly seems to be Hollywood’s go to high class way of speaking.  For Amadeus however, Milos decided to cast mostly American actors in the key roles, and not have them put on an accent.  This would seem unusual if the movie were trying to be any other historical epic, but in Milos Forman’s hands, it worked.  The key was in finding the right actors who could convey the characters perfectly, to the point where the accents don’t matter.  For Salieri, Milos found the greatest possible choice in veteran stage actor F. Murray Abraham.  Abraham has to carry the film on his shoulder, conveying all the complexity of Salieri, while straddling that fine line between villainy and empathy.  And Abraham’s performance is note perfect, especially in the non-verbal way that he acts through just his facial expressions alone.  There’s a brilliant scene in the movie where Salieri attempts to humiliate Mozart with a comical entry music theme written just for him, and Mozart reworks it in front of him and turns it into something grander and the way Salieri’s expression sinks into depression is just a brilliant work of acting on Abraham’s part.  Of course, his performance is matched brilliantly by Tom Hulce’s turn as Mozart.  It was probably no coincidence that Milos Forman selected one of the stars of Animal House (1978) to be his Mozart, given the party animal nature of the character.  But there is a profoundness to Hulce’s performance as well, especially in the film’s latter half when we see Mozart deteriorate.  He perfectly captures this sense of stunted youth while at the same time portraying the seriousness he devotes to delivering his music.  And casting the very American Hulce in the role of Mozart in a way helps to contemporize the story a bit more, offering a more universal connection between the tragedy of Mozart’s life and how the perils of fame manifest in today’s society.  It’s a gamble on Forman’s part that pays off, and that’s very much a testament to the strengths of the actors.

For a lot of musical biopics it’s the music itself that mostly appeals to the audience.  Most of the bad musical biopics tend to put the famous songs front and center rather than exploring the complexities of the musician playing them.  What is special about Amadeus is that it gives us the explanation about why music affects us so much.  Salieri isn’t so much a great composer as he has the ear to recognize great music.  It’s a duel edged sword that defines his character; he can recognize greatness in music, but is incapable of composing it himself.  He complains to the priest that is hearing his confession, “We would God implant the desire in my head, and then deny me the talent.”  Not that Salieri was a bad composer by any means.  Historically, he was celebrated in his time and even found favor with the Emperor.  But, there’s another brilliant scene that defines the supposed curse that he believes he has.  In his confession, Salieri describes the brilliance of Mozart’s music, picking apart each instruments role in creating a sublime tune, and it’s all through just reading the notes written on the page.  He can understand the language and hear it in his head, but is incapable of creating it on his own.  It’s been said that this revelatory scene really helped people become fans of orchestral music, because cinematically the film broke down musical theory in a way that anyone could understand and relate to.  And it becomes a theme that runs throughout the whole movie.  Salieri cannot escape the adoration he has for the music even as he despises the man who wrote it.  He uses his influence to sabotage the staging of Don Giovanni and yet also attends every single performance as an act of worship.  It’s ultimately what makes the finale so profound, as the film reaches a climax where Salieri is in the position of having to dictate for an ailing Mozart.  In that moment, Salieri finally gets to participate in the genius of Mozart’s work, and as a result, finally find himself on common ground with him.  Very few other musical biopics can make the music such a crucial part of the character’s arc in the story.

For Milos Forman and Peter Shaffer, the narrative is much more than just a look into the lives of historical figures.  At it’s heart, it’s a story about human mortality, and how we devote our lives to being remembered.  Art of any kind is a great way to leave one’s mark, but as Amadeus shows, the way we create that art also matters.  It’s the thing that separates Salieri and Mozart in the end.  Salieri obeyed the rules, did everything he could to win favor and stifle competition, and what that got him was being forgotten to most of history.  Mozart on the other hand broke the rules constantly, burned many bridges along the way, committed a lot of self-damage, and is still remembered fondly to this day.  That’s the curse that Salieri feels that he has, that he does everything the right way and has nothing to show for it, and yet Mozart is able to stumble his way to immortality based on his raw talent.  But, Amadeus also warns us that fame is not the golden ticket that we all would like to think it’d be.  Forman and Shaffer posit this question to us through the different examples of the two lead characters.  Salieri lives a long and comfortable life, but is isolated through crippling regret.  And Mozart lives a rocky, often painful life and dies penniless, but is immortalized through his enduring art.  One desires to be the greatest, while the other wishes to not have the so many notes crashing around in his head.  While so many other biopics revel in the moments of genius that define their subjects lives, Amadeus stands as a cautionary tale about how ambition and fame can sometimes destroy the soul.  It doesn’t give us a how to of what made Mozart a genius.  It honestly never explains how he became so brilliant other than it was just something he was born with.  Of course, the movie itself never has the historical touchstones as things that matter in the story.  In the end, it is fictionalizing a theory about how someone like Salieri may have plotted against Mozart.  And through that we get the themes of jealousy, ambition, and the suffering through one’s art across in a captivating character study.  Also, the music is still fantastic to listen to.

The brilliance of the movie’s tackling of it’s themes comes across perfectly in one of the first scenes.  When the elderly Salieri first meets with the priest, he plays examples of his music, to which the priest confesses he is unfamiliar with despite how beautiful they sound.  Then, to prove his point, Salieri plays the opening notes from Mozart’s “A Little Night Music” and the priest immediately recognizes it.  In that scene, we see exactly what drives the character of Salieri; the tragedy of time leaving him behind.  But after Salieri tells his story to the priest, the movie ends with him feeling a bit unburdened and finally comfortable with himself; self proclaiming his presence as the patron saint of mediocrities.  In a way, that’s what the story of Amadeus has done.  It has put Salieri back into the narrative of Mozart’s legacy, and uses him as the counterpoint to what made Mozart so special.  No other musical biopics have made their central figures stand out as strongly as these archetypal symbols of human geniuses and human fallibility.  One of the great legacies of this movie is that it did help spark a renewed interest in classical music.  The movie’s soundtrack, which featured new orchestrations of original pieces composed by both Mozart and Salieri, became a best-seller and performed well on the charts alongside many contemporary pop artists of the time.  The movie also went on to sweep through the Oscars, winning eight including Best Picture, along with a career second award for Milos Forman for Best Director, a first for Peter Shaffer for his adaptation, and a win for F. Murray Abraham for Best Actor, which he won in competition with his co-star Tom Hulce.  Even 40 years later the movie still feels timesless and strangely even more relevant to today.  In an era of social media, the Salieris of the world have been given more of a voice and that has resulted in increased levels of online bullying and organized attacks like review bombing with the purpose of destroying one’s work of art as well as the artist themselves.  But, the movie shows a more complex portrayal of human fragility than anything else, and how someone like Salieri can be corrupted so easily through his own feelings of inadequacy.  The complaint leveled at Mozart’s music in the film is that he creates “too many notes,” but the movie itself manages to get every note right and creates a beautiful symphony of story and character that stands so much higher than any other musical biopic out there.

It’s a strange time for the movie studios that defined the identity of Hollywood.  We know them as the Big 5; Warner Brothers Discovery, NBC Universal, Sony, Disney, and of course Paramount.  For the longest time, it was known as the Big 6, but the studio previously known as 20th Century Fox ceased to be independent after a merger with the Walt Disney Company that finalized in 2019.  It’s fate was one of the most revealing signs of an industry that was in flux and about to change forever.  The rise of streaming caused a disruption in the normal business model that Hollywood had been running over the last half century.  With the studios wanting to get in on the lucrative new distribution model, they went through a busy period of content consolidation, cementing stronger holds on the properties that they had acquired over the years.  This also led to several mega mergers like the Disney and Fox one, where combined catalogs of movies and shows would help boost the content library for these new streamers.  However, this streaming arms race led to several financial problems down the road.  Hard cuts have had to be made to these newly expanded studios like Disney/Fox and Warner Brothers Discovery, but no studio had a more dire outlook in these latter days of the streaming wars than Paramount Pictures.  Paramount, the last remaining studio actually located in Hollywood itself, was facing some economic shortfalls this year that forced it’s parent company, National Amusements, to pursue a sale.  The industry was watching this development closely, because depending on who ended up owning Paramount in the end could either signal a new era for the century old studio, or be a sign of the end of yet another storied brand within Hollywood.  History is important to the identity of Hollywood, but this is also a business that sometimes can steamroll over the past in the name of progress.

Throughout Paramount’s history, it has seen the studio pass through many different hands, but all the while it has still remained one of Hollywood’s most legendary studios.  Founded in 1914 by Adolph Zukor, it is the second oldest studio in Hollywood still running today after Universal Pictures.  Funny enough, Paramount started it’s history off with a merger between Zukor’s Famous Players Film Company and producer Jesse L. Lasky’s Feature Play Company.  They began to make silent pictures out of a small barn on what is now Sunset and Vine in Hollywood, giving their directorial duties to an inexperienced stage manager at the time named Cecil B. DeMille.  The barn still survives today, though it has been moved to Highland Avenue across from the Hollywood Bowl and is now the Hollywood Heritage Museum.  In the 20’s, they used the profits from their movies to establish a larger facility located on Melrose Boulevard and that’s been their home ever since.  In 1927, Paramount adopted it’s now iconic logo of a mountain top ringed by an arch of 22 stars.  The meaning behind the stars has been lost to time, but the logo has remained fairly unchanged in almost 100 years; merely upgraded graphically with the advancements in filmmaking over time.   At Paramount, the key to their success were it’s stars, and they were the home to all the silent greats like Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, and Rudolph Valentino to name a few.  In the meantime, Paramount was also growing itself into one of the titans of exhibition as well, being the owners of numerous movie theaters across the country.  Unfortunately for them, their rapid growth in the exhibition side of the business would back and bite them, and the result would change Hollywood forever.

Paramount created a practice called “block booking” which made it so that any theater that wanted to screen a film starring one particular star would also have to buy a year’s worth of other Paramount movies.  Paramount wasn’t alone in this practice in Hollywood, but they were the most prolific studio owned theatrical distributor too, which gave them close to a monopoly in the business.  This practice of “block booking” made it impossible for independent theater owners to rise up in the business because it limited the amount of movies that would have been available to screen.  So, anti-trust lawsuits were filed, which were argued all the way up to the Supreme Court.  This led to the landmark United States v. Paramount Pictures decision of 1950, which effectively broke up the movie studios ownership of movie theaters and brought an end to the movie studio system as we knew it up to that point.  All of the studios in Hollywood were effected, but none more so than Paramount.  It lost a significant share of it’s yearly income after being forced to sell off it’s theatrical division, and it spent much of the 1950’s and 60’s struggling to regain it’s past glory.  Meanwhile, a corporate manufacturing conglomerate named Gulf+Western was beginning to pivot into the entertainment business.  They acquired two major Hollywood players in 1966, one was the television studio Desilu Pictures and the other was of course Paramount.  The combination of the two would prove fortuitous because Desilu happened to be the rights holders of a popular shows like  Star Trek and Mission: Impossible, two brands that would over time become some of the most valuable franchises under the Paramount umbrella.  Under Gulf+Western, Paramount would see a revival in the 1970’s, especially under the supervision of their new head of production, a young executive named Robert Evans, who would be a hit making machine, greenlighting beloved classics like Rosemary’s Baby (1968), Love Story (1970), Chinatown (1974) and The Godfather Parts I and II (1972, 1974) during his tenure.

The success continued through the 80’s and 90’s, and Paramount would also become the starting off point for some of the biggest power players in the industry.  Both Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg would capitalize on the success of their launch of the Indiana Jones franchise at Paramount by jumping over to the leadership at Disney.  Paramount also became the original home of the mega successful producer team of Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer, and they would deliver a huge hit for Paramount with the Tom Cruise led Top Gun (1986).  Cruise himself would also set up shop as a producer within Paramount, working almost exclusively with the studio for most of his career.  But, a pivotal moment came in 1993 when billionaire Sumner Redstone’s media conglomerate Viacom decided to add Paramount to it’s portfolio.  In a deal worth $9 billion at the time, Redstone’s National Amusements, the parent company of Viacom, became the primary shareholder of Paramount Pictures and all of it’s properties.  A few short years later, Viacom would also acquire the television network CBS, which now put all three Big 3 TV networks now under the control of movie studios (NBC and ABC were already owned by Universal and Disney respectively).  With the combination of it’s movie library, it’s valuable franchises from the old Desilu studio, and now a whole TV network under one roof, Viacom built Paramount into one of the most powerful studios in Hollywood.  Viacom would continue to expand into the cable television market, acquiring channels like Comedy Central, MTV, BET, and Nickelodeon.  As time went on, Viacom was looking to take it’s vast library of movies and shows and use it to make a foothold in the new streaming market.  Initially, they tried to make their launch under the CBS name, calling their platform CBS All Access.  It became clear that this wasn’t a strong enough brand to make a difference in the face of competition with HBO Max and Disney+.  So, Viacom decided to undergo a whole rebrand with the Paramount name being their flagship.  CBS All Access would become Paramount+ and Viacom would be renamed Paramount Global.

With over a hundred years of experience in Hollywood, you would imagine that the Paramount name would help bring fortune to this new era of streaming.  But even though they had some modest success, mainly helped by showrunner Taylor Sheridan and his hugely popular drama Yellowstone, Paramount+ has fallen well short of expectations.  Like much of the other studios in Hollywood who jumped on board the streaming craze, Paramount is learning the hard lesson that streaming wasn’t going to be the bottomless well of fortune that they all thought it would be.  For Paramount, their lack of growth in streaming combined with the enormous amount of debt they acquired in order to grow and acquire assets over the years, suddenly put them in a bind they haven’t experienced in a long while.  This all came to a head this year, as Shari Redstone, the CEO of National Amusements after the death of her father Sumner in 2020, was looking to offload the company and it’s assets.  This led to a lot of worries within the industry as to what would happen to the legendary studio.  Would it be swallowed up by another studio like Fox had under Disney.  Or would it be bought by a Wall Street backed corporate raider who would break it up and sell off the scraps of what the studio once was, effectively killing it completely.  It all depended on who would meet Shari’s asking price.  The bidding war itself became a bit of a fiasco, as what looked like done deals quickly fell apart as agreements would change seemingly every day.  All the while, Paramount Global’s stock value sank to it’s lowest mark ever, being traded at only a fraction of what it’s competitors Warner Brothers and Disney were trading at.  Thankfully, powerful indie producer Skydance Media, which has had a long history working in collaboration with Paramount, including being a part of the most recent Star Trek and Mission: Impossible films, offered a merger deal with Paramount Global valued at $8 billion.  Skydance CEO David Ellison would effectively become the head of Paramount under this new agreement and National Amusements would no longer have the controlling interest in the studio moving forward, ending their 30 year control over the studio.  For Shari Redstone, and most of the industry, this is the most ideal outcome as it keeps the studio as we know it intact, securing Sumner Redstone’s legacy as the head of the company, and prevents it’s assets from being sold off separately.

While it looks like Paramount is getting a happyish ending out of this, their struggle is still very much a clear example of how fragile legacies can be in Hollywood.  For a lot of Hollywood’s history, we’ve seen many film companies come and go, and when one ceases to exist, their library of titles suddenly hang in limbo.  If this were to happen to one of the remaining Big 5 studios, it would have a profound ripple effect across the industry.  With Paramount spending a few months of uncertainty during the bidding war, it made a lot of people worried that we were in fact seeing the last days of this storied studio.  At one point, Sony expressed interest in acquiring Paramount, which would reduce the number of big studios down to just 4.  Another merger on the level of what we saw with Disney and Fox would have been devastating for Hollywood as it would have put a whole lot of people out of work due to redundancies.  And then there was the possibility of the studio being dismantled in a fire sale of sorts, splitting all the different properties of Paramount apart and selling them to interested parties all across the business, making the former Paramount brand itself worthless.  This is something not uncommon in Hollywood.  Other once powerful studios like RKO were dismantled over the years and sold off in pieces to other studios.  These kinds of things happen in Hollywood usually due to movie productions that go way over budget, to the point where no amount of box office success will save them.  United Artists, the studio formed by the combined forces of former Paramount contracted stars Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and Charlie Chaplain, was once a powerful force in Hollywood and even made huge profits off of their American distribution of the James Bond franchise.  Then came the disaster that was Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate (1980), a box office bomb so costly that it put United Artists into bankruptcy.  They were eventually acquired by MGM, which itself fell into hard times and today is now owned by Amazon.  Smaller companies fare even worse as they lose control over their libraries of films, and those that can’t find a home in another studio end up getting lost in vaults over time and forgotten to the world.

So what does the Skydance and Paramount merger mean.  It’s still uncertain, as the deal won’t close until 2025.  But what likely will happen, as is the case with most mergers, is that there will be layoffs in both companies.  Paramount may need to offload some of it’s assets in order to meet Skydance’s offer price.  In the entirety of the Viacom era, Paramount saw massive expansion that saw their assets grow to a point where it may be too big to manage.  In all likelihood, where Paramount may make their cuts is in the struggling cable division, as streaming has become a bigger concern of theirs.  There are already interested parties who want the BET Network, so that is likely going to be one of the channels that will leave the Paramount portfolio.  Speaking of streaming, there is talk of Paramount+ either being completely overhauled, sun-setted, or merged with another streamer, as it currently is one of the key contributors leading to Paramount’s dire financial situation.   There’s talk of Paramount+ combining with Warner Brother’s MAX in what would likely be one of the biggest mergers yet to come in the streaming market, which itself will affect the industry as a whole.  But whatever move it makes, the goal is to preserve Paramount’s history as best it can be saved.  That was what Shari Redstone was so adamant about.  Her father built the company up over 30 years and she didn’t want that legacy to disappear.  Unfortunately, the nature of the business is not kind to legacy.  Shareholders were likely not happy with the prolonged and ever-changing process it took to reach a deal.  Some shareholders likely would’ve been happier if Shari Redstone had just started selling off the assets of the studio for short term profits.  Hollywood is first and foremost a business, and what it takes to make a studio like Paramount run is the confidence in investors that the company can continue to make money.  Too much effort put into preserving the past can make investors warry because they are more concerned about the future, and that’s what makes it so hard for studios to maintain their stature over time.  There’s no room for sentimental attachments in Hollywood.

One good thing about the Skydance/ Paramount merger is that it will give Paramount the chance to maintain it’s identity into the future.  And one of the biggest things that will remain as part of the company is the legendary studio lot itself.  Remaining in it’s same footprint over nearly 100 years, and the only studio to stay in Hollywood after all the others moved to the San Fernando Valley or Culver City, the Paramount Studio lot is a living monument to the history of cinema.  Walking under those iconic white arches you know that you are walking in the footsteps of giants, seeing soundstages where classics like Sunset Boulevard (1950), The Ten Commandments (1956), The Godfather, Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Forrest Gump (1994), and many more were filmed.  Even today it’s a bustling, alive studio lot, with recent hits like Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) and Top Gun: Maverick (2022) keeping Paramount well positioned amongst the Big 5 studios.  Hopefully under new management with Skydance we’ll see a renewed energy at the studio that will help it survive for many more years as it currently is.  It’s just unfortunate that so much drama had to occur during the process of the company changing hands.  Paramount, for it’s whole history has had to overcome a lot of hurdles.  After being crippled by the dissolution of the studio system with the Paramount Decision by the Supreme Court, they managed to bounce back thanks to their pursuit of making quality entertainment.  They helped to revitalize old properties like Star Trek, Mission: Impossible and Transformers and turn them into billion dollar franchises.  They helped to take CBS from last place in network ratings to first place with well targeted programming like CSI and NCIS for the older crowd and The Big Bang Theory for the younger crowd.  Time will tell how Paramount+ will fare, but hopefully it doesn’t sink the future of this long time studio.  Both literally and figuratively, Paramount is Hollywood.  It’s a living reminder of what the industry has stood for, and hopefully the sun doesn’t set on the other side of it’s lofty mountaintop.

A lot of work goes into the making of a film.  A lot of money too.  And by the time it has reached the public, the hope is that audiences will not only enjoy what they see, but will want to see it again and again.  The life cycle of a movie is an interesting one to observe.  For the longest time the way a movie exists out in the world is that it first is experienced in a movie theater with a crowd of other people.  Then if the person in the audience felt a real connection with the film, then they may end up purchasing it, either as a physical copy or as a digital download online, after the film has ended it’s theatrical run.  The final stage for a movie afterwards is the licensing of the film to outlets likes television or streaming where the movie can be available to watch for the casual watcher to enjoy again or even discover for the first time.  There are even the movies that go full circle and end up getting theatrical releases again, for anniversaries or as part of a selection of titles for a festival presentation.  But it should be noted that only a select few films ever make it to this stage in their life cycle.  Sure, you would think that once a movie is made it should exist for all time.  But this sadly is not the case.  Film is a bit more finite than many of us realize and in a world that is dependent far more on digital media, we are actually seeing an acceleration of movies that fall through the cracks and are lost to time.  There are many reasons this happens, but one of the primary factors is the fact that film preservation is a costly and time consuming procedure, and the industry is just not as concerned about investing in the past.  But there is a lot of films from the past that are absolutely worth saving, even if they aren’t all classics.  It’s important because every film made, bad or good, is a record of cinematic history and that’s worth preserving.

The biggest problem that affects most films, particularly old ones, is the way that time deteriorates our physical media.  Film stock in particular is especially volatile and requires special attention.  This is especially true with older movies, some of which were filmed on highly flammable nitrate film stock.  It is said that up to 80% or more films from the silent movie era are completely lost, and of the 20% that do survive, they may be fragmented due to parts being damaged beyond repair.  That is the nature of cinematic history, that the industry wasn’t really thinking about long term preservation of their work, because it was all about getting the movies made and out into the theaters.  As we look at film preservation today, the best that we can do to recreate the way an old movie looked in it’s original state is to have a digital scan of the original camera negative, and sadly, this is the thing that ends up deteriorating first.  To compensate, the next best option is to work from a print (and the older the better).  A pristine film print is helpful, but it also is not the best quality source either, because the duplication process used to create a print from the camera negative results in a downgrade in the image, and the results are worse if you end up making a copy from something that is already a copy.  And then comes the clean-up in film restoration, which itself is time consuming and costly, which is why only the films that are deemed worthy of preservation manage to get saved.  Basically, what we know about our film history is formed around what has managed to survive all these years.  And there are several factors that can still come into play with regards to what survives.  Films have been lost forever due to fires, floods, willful destruction, and just plain old apathy.  It’s a truth about all art in general as well, as great works of literature, sculpture and illustration all have to endure the flow of time, which isn’t very forgiving to physical works.

But, certainly with the limitless ability to store data in a digital realm, works of art such as film should be able to last forever, and defy the ravages of time that have caused so many works to be lost.  Even here there are some worries.  One, even though data is not finite it still is not indestructible.  Movies that are preserved as a digital master must exist somewhere, and that somewhere is on servers computing for the digital space you are accessing the movie from.  At this point, you are dependent on that digital platform for keeping the film in their library, and this is not always a guarantee.  Streaming has changed the game quite a bit when it comes to gaining access to a movie.  In some ways, it has helped to increase exposure for a lot of movies that otherwise might have been forgotten, as streaming is dependent on having deep libraries of content to entice subscribers to join.  But, with the movie studios being far more protective of their IP, this also has led to a decrease of the flow of movies across platforms that used to define the streaming market.  When it was just Netflix, Amazon and Hulu, the studios would be paid handsomely for the license to air their movies, much like how it worked on airing for television.  This would help to give more movies a longer lifespan outside of theaters, especially if there were long-term agreements set up for airings before a movie’s initial release.  But, the consolidation of IP into each studios’ in house streaming service is having the effect of a lot of these pre-release agreements not materializing anymore, and from that point it is left up to the studios to decide what they want to do with their movies.  You might think that it benefits movies to have a secure home on a streaming platform, but that really isn’t the case as the studios are also neglectful of even their own movies.

One of the biggest problems with the consolidation of IP for the purpose of streaming is that it takes the ownership away from the consumer.  Without the licensing model being put in place, movies are locked away within the vaults of the studios more strictly, and they ultimately determine what we are going to see.  Take the example of Disney, and their Disney+ streaming service.  Sure, you have easy access to all the familiar films that we know from the studio, with the big pillars of Disney Animation, Pixar, Star Wars and Marvel being the brands easily browsed on the service.  But, sadly, Disney is putting the value in their marquee titles and not on the deeper reaches of their catalog.  One thing that especially feels underutilized on their service is the library of films they acquired from their merger with 20th Century Fox.  A whole studio’s worth of movies and television shows that spans nearly a century, and only a small handful of their classics are found on Disney+, like The Sound of Music (1965).  Sure the further integration of Hulu onto the Disney+ platform is helping to expand the roster of Fox films on the service a little, but there are still literally hundreds of movies that are out of the public view because Disney is not fully integrating the Fox library onto streaming.  The same kind of limited library access is also affecting the other studio streamers as well, with platforms like Max and Paramount+ being very selective about what is available to watch on their platform.  These streamers are also governed by algorithms that determine what should be pushed towards their audience attention, which could also lead to a decrease in exposure for some movies.  There certainly are some benefits to be sure for streaming, especially with studios beefing up their investment in new digital masters for all their titles on there, including new restorations.  But, even with the vastness of potential on digital platforms, some movies are going to be lost.

And then there’s also the more insidious action taken by the studios to remove movies and shows from their platforms entirely.  We saw not too long ago where studios like Warner Brothers and Disney were removing content from their platforms purely in order to collect a tax write-off.  That means that these movies, many of which were exclusive to the streamers, just cease to exist.  Tax write offs only work if the studio promises to never profit off their removed content ever again.  That means they will never reappear on the streaming platform, nor be available to purchase anywhere else.  And it’s not just small films or shows that are getting this treatment.  Disney removed their expensive TV spin-off of the movie Willow (1988) and if you missed it the first time you are out of luck as the show was yanked for a tax write off.  On Max, Warner Brothers pulled the Doug Liman directed pandemic movie Locked Down (2021) which starred Anne Hathaway and Chiwetel Ejiofor for the same purpose, and I’m sure none of those A-Listers would ever have thought that one of the films on their resume would just cease to exist.  It’s a disturbing trend that movies and shows can just so easily be thrown away and kept from viewing eyes.  It really upends the life cycle of a movie, which for many movies still allowed audiences a longer time to discover a film as it went from theaters to home entertainment.  Locked Down didn’t even get a full year.  But, some people still feel that their access to movies are safe if they bought them through a digital retailer.  That unfortunately was challenged during a recent merger between two Japanese anime streaming providers.  Crunchyroll and Funimation were the leading online retailers of anime content, and late last year, they began the move to merge into one single platform.  Unfortunately, it was decided by Crunchyroll that none of the previous catalog purchases on Funimation’s site would carry over in the merger.  That means that people who paid to buy a digital copy of the movies on the Funimation website would no longer have ownership of their movies.  Understandably, people were upset that their purchases were basically voided out so that Crunchyroll could generate their revenue purely through subscription.  While this is not a widespread case in the industry yet, it could still easily happen elsewhere.  Sadly, the streamers have too much say in what is considered ownership of a film.

That’s why so many cinema fans out there are feeling more impassioned to put their money towards physical media.  When you own a physical copy of a film, it is yours to watch forever.  But sadly, with streaming still dominating the minds of studio executives at the moment, it is leading to a decline of the once prosperous home video market.  Disney earlier this year completely shuttered their own in-house physical media distribution wing and are now outsourcing their future releases to Sony instead.  We’ll still see some Disney movies released on physical media, but it may be determined solely on what they deem worthy.  In truth, far fewer movies are going to be released on physical media in the future; a privilege given to just a chosen few.  Other small movies may just only be lucky to get a special release from a third party publisher like Shout Factory or Criterion, but only if they somehow maintain exposure in the public eye.  Like so many works of art throughout the years a lot of movies may not survive this new world of home entertainment.  The studios iron grip on what gets put onto their platforms coupled with the decline of physical media production as well as the threat of streamers not honoring the ownership of past purchases all creates a great worry that we are going to see an acceleration of lost media in our lifetimes.  And that creates a lot of anxiety for cinephiles who worry that a huge chunk of our cinematic history could fade into oblivion.  Cinema may be only a bit more than a century old as an artform, but it has also become a crucial part of our heritage as a global community.  We let a big chunk of it fade into obscurity, or worse get deleted from the world based on the whims of the studios, we lose a bit of ourselves in the process.

So, what can be done.  We as individual collectors certainly can’t save every film; we don’t have the shelf space nor the money to make that happen.  What I have found to be a good way of preserving what we can of film history is to diversify our personal collections.  I for one make an effort to have all of my movies in both physical and digital form.  Most physical movies on the market from first parties do include a redemption code for a digital copy of the movie.  While not all of the studios allow you to redeem from all digital retailers (Paramount and Lionsgate are notorious for this), the codes are good pretty much anywhere digital movies are sold.  What I recommend is setting up an account with Movies Anywhere.  On this particular service, they do allow you to purchase off of their platform, but they are also valuable as a service that links your account with them to most of the other digital retailers.  By redeeming your code through them, your digital copy will be available to watch on iTunes, Fandango at Home (formerly VUDU), Google Play and Amazon.  Having accounts synced up like this ensures that your movie will be available to watch across multiple platforms, and that will help to safeguard your access to that movie in case one of those retailers decides to cut the film out of their library.  Back-ups are the key to helping keep a movie available to watch.  Physical media is the preferred format to watch a film, since you’re movie is being sourced locally from the disc itself and not through the internet.  But, physical media does deteriorate over time, so upgrading to better formats are ideal if it’s affordable and available.  I’ve gone through multiple purchases of the same films many times, from DVD to Blu-ray to 4K UHD, but if you only need that one time purchase, make sure to take good care of your films.  Safeguarding your movies in their original packaging is ideal, and make sure you avoid scratches and environmental dangers like extreme heat when the movie is outside of it’s package.  Downloading your movies and storing them in multiple Hard Drive back-ups can also ensure you have a movie preserved.  You may not help every movie survive, but if enough diligent collectors take the right steps, collectively we may all be able to safeguard enough movies to help most of them survive long term into the future.

I think a lot about how so much of our collective understanding about our culture is based what has managed to survive through the centuries.  I remember in my college English literature classes a lecture about the different tragedies that led to the destruction of key written works that gave a clearer picture of the times that they were written.  Think about what was lost in the fire that destroyed the Library of Alexandria, or the art that was sacked and mishandled during conflicts like the Crusades or the Mongol Invasions, or the Cotton Library Fire that destroyed many medieval manuscripts.  As my English professor made clear, out of all this historical chaos, it’s a miracle that something as ancient as Beowulf managed to survive into modern times and helps us to understand the role of literature of in the times of the Vikings.  The same goes for monuments such as the Pyramids of Giza, or the Parthenon in Athens.  What we know of our history comes from what has survived all these centuries.  We can only piece together from fragments in order to create an understanding of the whole.  While cinema is still a young art, it is nevertheless prone to the same destructive forces of time like the rest of what mankind has created.  Time has already taken it’s toll on some of our cinema history.  And the increasingly short-sighted moves made by studios to give them more control over what we are allowed to see is making it increasingly possible that we are going to lose a lot more.  We can do something about it.  Hold the studios accountable whenever they deem your purchases voided.  Make demands on what movies you want to see preserved.  Do what you can to diversify your library, especially when it comes to physical media.  An analog collection of movies may be prone to the ravages of time, but it also ensures that you have ownership of that movie, and it can’t be taken away by a studio.  Movies should have long lifespans after they are released, because not everyone gets to see a movie the first time around and there are many cases where it took years for a film to truly achieve classic status with it’s audience.  Movies ranging from It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) to The Iron Giant (1999) only became classics because they were given the chance to be discovered in other other mediums over a long period of time.  Now the are no longer cult hits, but rather mainstream masterpieces, and the current climate of short term success in the overcrowded streaming market would not let that happen.  The hope is that there are enough passionate movie lovers out there who will not allow for movies they love to fade away.  We owe it to ourselves to try all we can to help keep the movies immortal and last for generations to come.

In the annals of Disney Animation, and for all animation for that matter, no other film looms as large as The Lion King (1994).  The movie has become a global phenomenon that continues to be as widely popular now as it was when it first released 30 years ago.  In addition to conquering the box office, it has gone on to spawn numerous other properties that themselves become enormous hits on their own, such as tv spin-offs and an award winning Broadway show.  Even a “live action” remake from 2019 would go on to gross over a billion dollars on it’s own.  It seems like everything that this movie touches turns to gold, and it has been one of the primary engines of Disney’s success over the last quarter of a century.  But it may surprise you that Disney only viewed this movie as a major success after it was released in theaters.  Before that, it was viewed as the studio’s “B-Picture.”  The Lion King was developed in the middle of Disney Animation’s Renaissance period; a time when the studio was ramping up again in success after a long period of failure in the post-Walt Disney years.  The Little Mermaid (1989) is credited for kickstarting this new era and bringing Disney back to their former glory, and that success continued to build with Beauty and the Beast (1991) and Aladdin (1992) soon after.  At this time, it seemed like the Disney formula of action adventure mixed with fairy tale magic was what was helping them win back audiences.  The Lion King on the other hand was a bit of an odd fit, so it progressed along under the radar of the Disney brass.  But to the surprise of everyone, the little “B-Picture” would be the movie that would transform the studio forever, both in good ways and in bad ways.  But how did this unexpected hit manage to take it’s place in the Circle of Life at Disney Animation.

In the late 1980’s, right before Ariel and friends would make their first splash on the big screen, the top brass at Disney Animation were brainstorming their next move at the studio.  Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin were no-brainers of course, fitting with the fairy tale background that had worked for Disney in the past.  But Animation chief Jeffrey Katzenberg was interested in exploring an animated feature that was set in Africa.  This idea interested his colleagues, Roy Disney and Peter Schneider, and together they sought out ideas from the filmmakers at their studio.  Director George Scribner, who was just coming off of the minor success of their latest film, Oliver & Company (1988), managed to pitch a story idea that appealed to the executives called King of the Jungle.  The story revolved around a coming of age tale of a lion cub named Simba who is separated from his pride, raised by a family of baboons and does battle with an evil band of hyenas before eventually reuniting with his pride and becoming their king.  Katzenberg referred to it as “Bambi in Africa” as some of the coming-of-age elements were similar to the Walt era classic.  Scribner would refine the story more throughout the years after, adding in more Arthurian and Shakespearean elements to Simba’s story that gave it more gravitas.  But, unlike the other films being developed at Disney at the time, King of the Jungle was not intended to be a musical fairy tale.  It was very grounded in nature, treating the African setting as something more akin to a nature documentary.  After a year into development, the Disney team hired Roger Allers to assist Scribner with direction, hoping to give the story more focus as Allers had did as the Head of Story on Beauty and the Beast.  Allers would bring in his own of story artists, including Brenda Chapman and Chris Sanders, both of whom were rising stars at the studio.  The team worked on the story for a good 2 years, all the while Disney Animation was growing by leaps and bounds.  All of this new change at the studio would have a profound effect on the development of the film, and for a time, it was not moving the movie in the right direction.

Under George Scribner’s guidance, the story lacked an emotional core, and the executives at Disney were growing nervous.  Amidst the success of their mega hit animated musicals, King of the Jungle’s non-musical approach was just not working anymore.  There was worry that the movie would soon be scrapped completely, which prompted a lot of the top talent at Disney Animation to jump ship and join a more sure-fire project that was in development at the same time; an animated musical about the Native American icon, Pocahontas.  For most of the animators, Pocahontas was going to be the next Disney classic, while King of the Jungle was going to be the studio’s “B-Picture;” a minor film tossed through the production line like so many forgotten films of the post-Walt era.  To change the fate of the film, Roger Allers and his team decided to pitch a version of the story that was friendlier to musical numbers.  This did not sit well with George Scribner, who soon left the project entirely.  The movie had lost it’s original director, but was on track to becoming something better.  The title was changed to The Lion King, which was welcome because King of the Jungle made no sense for a movie where there is no jungle.  Producer Don Hahn, an enormously successful talent at the studio who helped to shepherd Beauty and the Beast to it’s success was brought on board to guide this new direction for the The Lion King, and soon after animator Rob Minkoff was promoted to director to take Scribner’s place.  For the team that stayed with The Lion King, being on board this “B-Picture” became something of a badge of honor.  They were now the underdogs, and just like with most underdog stories the ability to overcome the odds stacked against them helped to drive their belief that they could make something really special.

The story definitely became more Shakespearean in tone over time, becoming less like Bambi and more like Hamlet.  Simba would be betrayed by his uncle Scar, witness the murder of his father Mufasa, and live in exile until he reached adulthood where he would challenge his usurping uncle for the throne.  The direction of the movie would also visually take inspiration from great Hollywood epics from filmmakers like David Lean and Cecil B. DeMille, helping it to feel grander and more in line with the true vastness of the open Serengeti where the movie is set.  Producer Don Hahn stated that there were three pillars in particular that define the movie above all else and helped to make it the masterpiece that we all know; three sequences in fact.  One is the opening scene that introduces us to the world of this story; second is the wildebeest stampede scene that the story pivots on; and the third is the most magical scene in the movie where Simba confronts his father’s spirit, speaking to him from the great beyond.  Each of these moments are what sets the movie apart from all the other Disney films, and each was groundbreaking in their own right.  The wildebeest stampede for example took the still primitive tool of CGI animation to the next level, creating an epic scale sequence that would’ve been impossible to pull off only a few years before.  It was a bold sequence to pull of visually, but it also needed to land with the audience emotionally.  Simba’s father, Mufasa, the great Lion King, is murdered by his treacherous brother Scar and young Simba is given his first brush with death.  The sequence recalls a similar scene with Bambi after he loses his mother; but this time, Disney chose to not shy away from confronting death.  Bambi’s mom is killed off screen and we never see her again.  In The Lion King, Simba finds Mufasa’s lifeless body and grieves over it.  It’s an emotional sequence, beautifully animated, that was key towards helping The Lion King feel more momentous than the average Disney animated flick.

The next big factor in The Lion King’s success of course was the music.  No other Disney film sounded like Lion King, with it’s sweeping score infused with authentic African melodies and instrumentation.  Hans Zimmer, an acclaimed composer of note in Hollywood, was brought on board to score his first animated feature.  His work was a welcome departure from the work of Alan Menken, who had successfully scored most of the Disney Renaissance movies.  Menken’s work is brilliant, but his melodies would have been out of place in this African set story; plus he was already deep into working on Aladdin and Pocahontas during that time, making him unavailable.  Zimmer was a much better match, given that he had been working African influence into a number of his film scores before Lion King, including one particularly influential film called The Power of One (1992).  On that film, Zimmer collaborated with a South African musician named Lebo M who he wanted to work with again on Lion King.  Lebo M would prove instrumental in helping to shape the authentic African sound of the score; helping to find the right collection of musicians and instruments, as well as coaching the choirs whose voices would become key parts of the overall score.  Lebo even can be heard in the film itself as the very first voice we hear, with his iconic “Naaaaaaah” sung over a rising sun in the opening shot.  The songs would also need to be special as well.  Lyricist Tim Rice was brought on board at Disney to help complete the song score for Aladdin after the tragic passing of Howard Ashman.  He then moved over to working on The Lion King, and he proposed the bold idea of getting Elton John to write the melodies for the songs in the film.  No one believed that a pop star of Elton’s stature would want to work on a Disney animated musical, but to everyone’s surprise, he said yes.  In total, Elton John  and Tim Rice wrote five original songs for the film; the upbeat “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King,” the traditional villain song “Be Prepared,” the silly comical song, “Hakuna Matata,” and the pop friendly love ballad “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” among them.  But, if there was one song that mattered more than the others, it was the one that opens the movie, “Circle of Life.”  One of the pillars that the movie rested on, there has never been a grander opening number found in any animated film before or since.  It was the perfect tone setter, a magnificent showpiece for this ambitious epic, and it probably stands second to “When You Wish Upon a Star” in the pantheon of monumental Disney tunes.

The third pillar that mattered to the film is the climatic moment where Simba must confront his past and take his place as king; a responsibility he had been running away from.  The message becomes clear to him after he sees the image of his father reaching out to him from the heavens.  If there is one sequence that defines the movie above all else, it’s this moment.  The image of Mufasa silhouetted in the sky by storm clouds, creating this heavenly visage, is a work of pure art that stands among the best at Disney; especially in the Renaissance era.  Apart from the stunning animation, it also mattered who got to speak for the character of Mufasa, because he demanded a voice of authority.  Luckily, Disney was able to cast the iconic voice of James Earl Jones in the part.  No stranger to voice over roles, Jones brings such a dignified presence to the character Mufasa; very much embodying the identity of a Lion King.  To bounce off of the power of James Earl Jones’ powerful voice, Disney perfectly cast actor Jeremy Irons in the scheming, slimy role of the villainous Scar, who provided the perfect counter to Jones’ performance.  A duo of teen heartthrobs from different eras, Matthew Broderick and Jonathan Taylor Thomas, were cast in the role of Simba at different ages in his life, and both managed to give Simba the right amount of boyish charm while at the same time giving him the right amount of emotional pathos in the heavier moments of the movie.  Thomas’ performance in the death scene of Mufasa really feels authentically heartbreaking, and Broderick likewise gives a powerful turn during the pivotal conversation with Mufasa’s spirit.  The rest of the cast is also filled with perfectly matched voices.  Broadway vets Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella were auditioning for roles as wisecracking hyenas, but the filmmakers realized they worked so well as a team that they instead got cast as Simba’s comical sidekicks, Timon the Meercat and Pumbaa the Warthog, both of which they were perfectly matched for.  And for the key role of the wise baboon shaman Rafiki, Disney cast legendary TV and stage actor Robert Guillaume, who really helped to ground the film with a dignified African sensibility.

Visually, musically and vocally, The Lion King had everything going for it by the end of it’s production.  Even the Disney execs were realizing that their “B-Picture” may be more special than they first thought.  But there were still some uncertain factors still in play.  One, the 1994 Northridge Earthquake that struck the Los Angeles area disrupted the workflow of the animation studio, so a lot of the animators had to bring their work home in order to get the movie done on time.  An eleventh hour change was also made to the “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” sequence after Elton John became upset that his love song was being sung by the characters Timon and Pumbaa, butchering what he had intended for the lovely ballad.  But probably what was most disruptive to the closing days of Lion King’s production was the simultaneous implosion of the Disney corporate level team.  CEO Michael Eisner had lost his right hand man, CFO Frank Wells, in a tragic helicopter crash, and had slighted Jeffrey Katzenberg who was seeking to fill that spot at the Disney company, making him the next in the line of succession at the company.  Eisner and Katzenberg’s relationship, which had always been contentious before, became un-reparable after that and just days before The Lion King was to premiere in the Summer, Katzenberg parted ways with Disney, leaving a major vacancy at Disney Animation.  Though the behind the scenes drama didn’t affect The Lion King at the box office too much, it did spell the beginning of the end of this monumental era known as the Disney Renaissance.  Despite all that, The Lion King not only started strong after it’s premiere on June 24, 1994, it would go on to break every record in the books that year for an animated feature.  By the end of it’s run, it was the then 3rd all time top grossing movie domestically at that time, right behind Jurassic Park (1993) and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982).  It would also collect two Academy Awards that year; Hans Zimmer for his score (his first) and one to Elton John and Tim Rice for the song  “Can You Feel the Love Tonight.”  But the legacy of The Lion King wouldn’t stop there.  A couple years later, Disney tasked Avant Garde stage director Julie Taymor with adapting Lion King for Broadway.  The result was another smash hit that won the Tony for Best New Musical and continues to be performed on the Great White Way to this day, over 25 years later.

The success of The Lion King would still be a double edged sword for Disney despite all the great fortune it has brought them.  In a way it became too popular, raising the bar too high for Disney to match or even surpass in the years after.  It’s ironic that the movie that the top Disney talent thought was going to be the superior film, Pocahontas, ended up underperforming the following year in 1995.  To critics and audiences, Pocahontas just didn’t wow them in the same way that The Lion King did.  There would be a steady decline of Disney Animation in the years after Lion King, with some modest hits here and there like Mulan (1998) and Lilo and Stitch (2002).  Disney Animation would go through some drastic changes during this time as well, with Pixar Animation pushing the industry towards computer animation and also more competing animation studios outside of the Disney company also making their moves, including Jeffrey Katzenberg’s newly formed Dreamworks Animation.  The Lion King really was the crest of a wave that helped to revitalize a dying artform at Disney Animation and then inevitably also lead to it’s downfall again.  Even still, the film remains an all time classic and one of Disney’s crowning achievements.  It also proved to be a great launchpad for a rising crop of talent at the studio.  Rob Minkoff would later find success as a live action filmmaker, working on the blockbuster Stuart Little films for Sony.  Chris Sanders would become a successful animation director in his own right, making a big splash with Lilo and Sitich before heading over to Dreamworks where he would create hits like How to Train Your Dragon (2010), The Croods (2013) and the upcoming The Wild Robot (2024).  Brenda Chapman would make her way over to Pixar and create the first ever fairy tale adventure over there with Brave (2012).  That’s an incredible legacy for a team that were considered the underdogs at one time at Disney.  The Lion King has so many iconic moments that still have the power to amaze even 30 years later.  It’s not surprising that this was one of the films Disney selected for special IMAX presentations in the past, as the canvas for the film genuinely earns that enormous screen.  Eventually Disney Animation would find it’s footing again post-Renaissance with hits like Frozen (2013) and Zootopia (2016), as they always seem to do after down periods, but The Lion King still remains a high water mark for Disney.  Whether it’s the catchy songs, the unforgettable characters, the compelling story, or the majestic animation, there’s something for everyone in this movie that makes it special.  And the behind the scenes story of the movie defying the odds to become a reality is itself an inspirational tale.  As they say, “Hakuna Matata means no worries” and that belief in being true to yourself has helped this lion continue to roar all these years later.

It’s hard to think of what the theatrical experience was like 10, 20, or more years ago.  The theater experience has been an ever evolving thing with the times, with multiple changes made by the theater chains done in order to boost the amount of people coming through their doors.  But one thing is for sure, this century old industry has never had a easy road to success.  It takes a lot to get people to leave the comforts of their home and pay money to sit in a dark room with a bunch of strangers.  To make that happen, movie theaters need to be special places and not just a place to see a movie.  That’s why so many movie theaters today are trying very hard to make their venues more than just a theater.  With the increasing standard of lounge style seating in every theater and in some places interactive features like the 4DX experience with motion seats and in theater effects, movie theaters are making the effort to lure audiences back after several years of struggle.  When the competition is the living room, people need to be reminded that movie theaters offer a far better experience that immerses you better into the movies.  But, not every movie theater can change so quickly with the times, and that has led to a bit of a contraction within the industry.  Thankfully, the movie theater industry is not dead yet, but they have been barely hanging on after it’s near Armageddon during the Covid-19 pandemic.  And hopes of a huge bounce back post-pandemic have largely faded due to a variety of factors, but mostly the lack of event worthy films in the market.  There certainly have been some incredibly successful films in this post-pandemic era, but they have been coming few and far between compared to how they performed in the last decade.  It seems increasingly like the box office may never in fact reach the same highs of the 2010’s ever again, as the future looks increasingly less favorable to the theater business.  But, is that something that Hollywood wants to see happen?

To understand the state of the movie theater industry, we have to examine what is ailing it.  First of all, the under-performance of movies at the box office.  Box office is a tricky barometer for gauging a movie’s success, because it’s the most immediate information we get about how a movie is performing.  Movie studios pay very close attention to the box office receipts, because it’s a definable number that they can gauge their economic outlook on, which is helpful for getting the attention of investors.  But because box office numbers are public record, this can be a double edged sword as a movie’s failure can also be a visible thing.  Unfortunately, too much has been made about these immediate box office numbers as a defining factor in a movie’s success.  There are many cases where movies became bigger hits outside of their initial runs in theaters like The Big Lebowski (1998), Fight Club (1999) and The Iron Giant (1999) due to success in home video.  Sometimes it’s not about how well a movie opens, but rather about how long it’s remembered that helps to separate the successes from the failures.  Sadly, Hollywood over time put too much value in theatrical performances, especially in how movies do in their opening weekend, and it unfortunately leads to many films getting abandoned before they actually have a chance to build momentum.  It was definitely a true thing for movies before the pandemic, but the economic bind that the market disruption has put the studios through has made this reality even worse.  Unless a movie delivers on expectations, some of which may be unrealistic, the studios are likely to abandon it and leave movie theaters hanging with a movie that has to perform all on it’s own.  You see this now even with big movies; a less than stellar opening weekend, and the marketing for that film immediately dries up.  There isn’t even enough time to wait and see if word of mouth can help turn the fortunes of a movie around.  Studios are more willing to throw in the towel opening weekend and focus on what’s next than giving a movie a chance. and it increasingly gives movie theaters a hard time as more and more movies are shuffled through.

Of course the changes in the streaming market have changed the dynamic.  A lot of the movies that once used to give audiences a variety of choices at the movie theater have since moved to streaming, leaving the theaters with far fewer choices as a result.  The mid-ranged budget movies like comedies and action thrillers no longer are believed to be competitive with the likes of mega franchises like the MCU.  So, these movies have gone over to streaming instead, mainly because they don’t have to feel the pressure of showing strong box office numbers once they release.  Twenty years ago, comedic movies were seen as some of the strongest performers at the box office.  Even bad comedies like Adam Sandler’s Jack and Jill (2011) were still capable of pulling over $100 million at the box office.  Now, those kinds of broad comedies are absent at the box office.  Sandler himself even abandoned theaters all together, as his Happy Madison production company now makes everything exclusively for Netflix.  It’s crazy to think that in the last five years the only Adam Sandler film released in theaters was the Safdie Brothers’ Uncut Gems (2019).  But this is where Netflix and other streamers have made a huge difference in the variety of movies that make it to the big screen.  Now, movie theaters can only depend on big studio tent-poles to bring audiences in, as well as small, low risk independents to fill in the rest.  The middle range that helped to give movie theaters an extra boost is all but dried up.  No more $50 million movies capable of grossing $200 million.  For most tent-poles now, $200 million has now become the minimum needed to turn a profit, and some movies now even require more.  With the bar for profitability now so high, it’s easy to see why more studios are opting for the streaming option, because if no one watches their movie, they won’t get that stigma of a public box office failure attached to their film.

The current problems for the film industry stem from these long in the making disruptions, but a lot of the problems they face are also self inflicted wounds that could’ve easily been prevented.  For one thing, the lagging box office of this Summer in particular is very much attributable to the needlessly prolonged strikes that occurred last year.  In the end, the studios ultimately acquiesced to the demands of the unions, showing that they could’ve easily reached a deal early on, but chose to string things out in the hopes that they could make the unions cave, which they didn’t.  So, Hollywood has no one else to blame for a work stoppage that went 6 months longer than it had to, and we are only now a year later beginning to feel the cost of that blunder.  The Summer 2024 movie season has not been on fire thus far.  So far, we’ve seen two movies perform well under expectations (Fall Guy and Furiosa) and another that is meeting expectations but not exceeding them (Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes).  Some worry that this is a sign that the Summer season will be one of the worst ever, which is going to put pressure on a movie theater industry that is still reeling from the pandemic.  We’ve already seen a record low Memorial Day weekend, and given the lack of overall films due to the gap made by the strikes, there’s few films on the horizon that look to reverse the trend.  Also the lack of restraint on the way movies are budgeted is making it near impossible for for the theatrical market to pull it’s wait in showing that it can turn a profit for these movies, so many are trying to compensate by raising the prices of a ticket.  But, raising ticket prices is having it’s own negative effect on the movies, as cash strapped customers are more willing to stay home than spend a whole bunch of money on a movie.  It’s this combination of ticket inflation and the underwhelming product coming out of the studios that has led to this perfect storm of problems plaguing both the studios and the movie theater business, though it’s especially harder on the theaters.

The thing is, there are movies that still are managing to drive business to the movie theaters.  Since the re-opening of the theaters post-pandemic, we’ve seen record shattering runs for movies like Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021), Avatar: The Way of Water (2022), and Top Gun: Maverick (2022).  Even this year, movies like Dune: Part Two (2024) and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024) have managed to demonstrate strong box office holds over multiple weeks.  It’s just that Hollywood is looking at all these examples of success, and not absorbing the lessons.  The thing that all of these movies had in common was that they were events.  They were the kinds of movies that demanded the attention of the audience, and were clearly movies that were meant to be experienced and not just watched.  Unfortunately, there’s no organic way to manifest a larger than life movie event that will generate the kind of box office that these movies did.  The Barbenheimer phenomenon was the biggest story in movies last year precisely because it was so unexpected.  The movies Barbie (2023) and Oppenheimer (2023) were expected to do well, but not to the tune of over $2 billion dollars collectively at the box office.  Movie theaters very much needed that Barbenheimer effect, but it’s something that could only have manifested in that particular moment, so it’s not something that can be conjured on demand.  But what Hollywood can do is to try to make movies that that are distinct from one another.  When the studios try to play things safe, all their movies will tend to just look the same, and audiences will eventually grow tired of that.  It’s something that is especially plaguing the super hero franchises at the moment.  The problem though is that Hollywood takes it’s time to adjust course and try new things.  Sequels and prequels are more likely to get the greenlight before any new intellectual property is ever gambled with by the industry.  And given that the examples I gave of the movies that performed spectacularly well in the last couple years were also franchise movies, the chances of anything new coming out of Hollywood anytime soon seem pretty remote.  But, the fact is that Hollywood has the capability of bringing audiences out to the theaters if they focus on the appeal of these movies and making them worthy of the big screen.  What ultimately draws audiences out of their living rooms is knowing that a theater gives them something more.

There are many ways to make the movie theaters more of a destination to be sure.  Going back to the early days of cinema, the medium of film was a place to experiment with many different techniques.  The introductions of sound and color made movies a whole lot more special, and when televisions started to challenge the superiority of the movie theaters in terms of exhibition, a new type of experience called widescreen began to emerge.  There were also gimmicks that didn’t quite take off as well as people hoped, like 3D and Smell-O-Vision, but these two had the effect of making going to the movies more than just “going to the movies.” There were also mad wizards like William Castle who went so far as to install buzzers into the theater seats to make his horror movies that much more electrifying for his audiences.  One wishes that kind of showmanship extended out into movies today.  In some places, you do see movie theaters that do cater to more to their audiences than just screening a movie.  There’s the Alamo Drafthouse style of Dine-In theaters that give you restaurant service within a theater setting that goes well above just popcorn and soda.  Also, one thing that has been consistently growing in success in the theatrical market in the last few years has been IMAX.  The company that produces the film stock has seen their business grow at a time when the rest of Hollywood has been either stagnant or shrunken.  More audiences are interested in seeing movies in premium formats rather than the standard presentation.  It was a big reason why movies like Oppenheimer and Dune: Part Two were able to be as successful as they were is because the IMAX format was essential to the experience, and audiences were willing to pay the premium ticket price to see these movies in the most ideal way possible.  They were also movies shot specifically for the format, meaning you are not truly seeing the true version of the movie unless you were watching it in IMAX.  True, IMAX is not ideal for every kind of movie, but what is ideal is for more movies that are made with the intent of utilizing their place on a big screen.

One other big thing that Hollywood should consider is to expand the exclusivity window for their films in theaters.  One of the unfortunate outcomes of the pandemic on the theater industry is that the theater chains gave up ground to the studios to allow for movies to go to digital platform earlier than they did before.  Before the pandemic, movie theaters had a 90 day window of exclusivity that allowed them to generate as much revenue as possible from a theatrical run before the movie would be available to buy digitally on places like iTunes or Vudu.  With theaters closed during Covid, the studios began demanding that the chains loosen that restrictive window to allow them the freedom bank off of these movies without having to wait three months.  The exclusive window was cut in half and has remained that way ever since, even with things large back to normal.  This change also allowed studios to begin a day and date style of release in both theaters and on streaming.  Unfortunately for both the theaters and the studios, this has caused a change in audience behavior that has caused movies in general to make less money in the long run.  People are no longer running out to see a movie when they know that it will be streaming within a matter of weeks.  This is especially true for family films, as parents are finding that it’s much less expensive for them to wait for the movie to appear on streaming than to spend tons of money on tickets and snacks from concessions.  The studios need to realize that there is no economic advantage to closing that exclusivity window tighter.  What is fascinating to see is that the movies that actually perform the best on streaming platforms are the ones that had full theatrical runs.  Disney’s Moana (2016) has consistently been present in the top ten streaming charts every single week, making it the most streamed film ever, even eight years after it first appeared in theaters, where it also did well.  It seems that movie theaters are still the ideal way for a movie to have it’s first good impression and that streaming is better used for the residual success that a movie experiences in the years after.  The big flaw of streaming is that the algorithms that they run on are geared to the viewers tastes, and for a movie to be seen on the platform it has to come with some built in awareness on the part of the viewer.  Otherwise it just becomes yet another thumbnail that we scroll past.

A lot of people are trying to assess what is going on with movies in theaters, but I don’t think anyone has the answer to how to fix it.  Even I don’t know, and my suggestions are just based on a handful of historic examples.  But, the sad truth is that movie theaters may never recover to where they were before.  We may be in for a period of decline that ultimately will lead to a significantly reduced theater market.  That doesn’t mean that it will go extinct.  There will always be a demand for the theatrical experience; it’s just that this kind of group of movie fans will have to be catered to with fewer options.  It saddens me when I see any movie theater closing, but it’s something that we are probably going to see much more of in the coming years.  Demand is not meeting up with the supply, so a contraction is inevitable.  But those theaters that do survive will be all the more cherished.  I worry most for those small town, mom and pop movie theaters as they are sometimes the only outlet for rural communities to have that cinematic experience, especially the ones that program an art house selection of movies.  But, the movie theater industry did face one of the worst shocks to it’s system during the Covid-19 pandemic and most movie theaters are still here, which is a hopeful sign.  Now Hollywood just needs to figure it’s own self out and actually see the value in making the kinds of movies that drive people to the cinema.  Not everything needs to be an IMAX sized event, but we do need a reminder that any type of movie is better seen on a bigger screen.  Whether it takes gimmicks like 3D, exclusive merchandise like custom popcorn buckets, or viral marketing like AMC’s Nicole Kidman ad, there are many ways to get people to come back to the movies. There’s also the great sense of community that comes from laughing and cheering with a room full of strangers during a great cinematic experience.  Streaming offers a lot of nice things, but it can’t replace the aura of a theatrical experience.  In this regard, the Nicole Kidman ad says it all: it makes movies better.