Are the Masses Being Priced Out of Mass Entertainment?

The summer's box office totals have been a topic of discussion for couple of days now, especially as they contain a potentially troubling revelation - box office revenues have gone up again, but the actual number of tickets sold has fallen. The statistics are being spun in all sorts of ways, with some claiming that there are too many other media options competing for attention, or that the quality of cinema offerings has dropped. But the common refrain, over and over, is that ticket prices have gone up too high - especially the surcharges for 3D presentations - for audiences to maintain their regular moviegoing habits.

Let me bring a little of my own experience into this. I regularly go to $11 evening shows with friends, and know where to find a decent $6 weekend matinee when I'm by myself. But I also know that the window between theatrical release and the date a new title becomes available via Redbox or Netflix for rental has shrunk to only a little over four months for major films. I'm willing to pay more for a social outing and willing to pay more to see films I have real anticipation for, but I'm no longer willing to put down money for films I don't mind not seeing right away. So I didn't go see "Knight and Day" or "Karate Kid" or many of the other films that I only had a mild interest in. Instead I went to "Micmacs" and "Agora," because who knows when those are ever going to hit DVD? I'm still kicking myself for missing "Exit Through the Gift Shop," which Netflix refuses to list a DVD release date for. But I digress. I know I'm a pretentious movie nut with skewed tastes in film, but I can imagine that this kind of cost-benefit analysis is applicable to most viewers, who are choosing to sidestep the theatrical experience for more non-event films as costs keep going up and Netflix content just keeps getting better.

Take "Date Night," for instance. I like both of the stars, Tina Fey and Steve Carrell. I was won over by the trailers, but not especially excited for the film. It seemed like a fairly run-of-the-mill comedy that would probably pop up on basic cable to be rerun ad infinitum in about two years. There were no special effects that would benefit from being seen on the big screen or any real buzz or discussion around the film that seemed to be worth participating in. I would have seen it with a date or a friend if anyone had expressed an interest, but initially nobody did. When I finally did see "Date Night," it was in a second run theater months after its release. I paid my two dollars, didn't like the film, and felt gypped. Now I'm even less inclined to pay full price to see similar comedies. So in my own way I'm contributing to the blockbuster mentality of the current film landscape. I've pretty much given up on casual moviegoing on my own. If it's not some kind of event film and I don't get any social mileage out of it, I don't need to see a movie in theaters.

The theatrical experience has also been downgraded. Audiences pay more but often get a worse experience than they used to for their money. My favorite movie of the summer was "Inception," and after a first viewing I was keen on seeing it again, maybe with a different group of people to have a different conversation about it afterward. And yet it never happened. Once I'd had the theatrical experience, I felt no pressing urge to repeat it. I remember in the 90s I went to several movies like "Titanic" and "Tarzan" multiple times, movies I know I didn't enjoy nearly as much as "Inception." Yet somehow in the interim the allure of the big screen experience faded. This isn't because my local theater is poorly run or maintained, or because the audiences are more obnoxious and rude than they used to be, which are commonly cited reasons for the decline. Comparatively, I think it's because home viewing has gotten exponentially better. When I rewatch "Inception" again it'll probably be on DVD so I have the ability to pause and rewind it, maybe with the director's commentary and and the extras disc close at hand.

And finally, we come back to the price. $11 is cheaper than a lot of things, and $6 is a bargain, but when you compare it to the costs of rentals and streaming services and all the other options to see a movie these days, it doesn't look so good anymore. And when you watch a lot of films like I do, or are bringing a whole family along to see the latest CGI spectacular, the costs add up very quickly. The last time I checked we were still in the middle of a recession, and theaters charging through the roof for tickets might ensure their profits keep rising, but they're not doing a great job of hanging on to audiences. I'm not among those who are taking this as a sign of the death of cinema as a force in the popular culture, or predicting that trips to the multiplex will become a less egalitarian activity, but it's not something to be ignored either. Movies and the way we watch them are changing. Theater attendance levels dropped with the advent of television, and I think we might be going through another adjustment thanks to the dawn of the digital age.

Moviegoing will always be popular for the social aspect, so I don't think theater owners should be worried in the short term. The price adjustments were expected with the onset of the 3D craze, and the backlash will put a damper on any future price hikes for a while. And the audiences will be back soon enough for the holiday season, which is shaping up to be pretty promising after the lackluster summer.

As for me, I'm still willing to pay $11 a ticket for godawful films if I'm with the right people - but I wouldn't pay $15.