The Death of the Local Movie House?

With the advent of the Home Theater in the 1990's, the new technologies of the early 21-st century such as the Blu-Ray player, the mega flat screens going all the way to 72" (and beyond), 7.1 surround sound and more, and the easy accessibility (and surprising popularity) of home video sales and illegal downloads, some people have started ringing the death knoll of the local movie house. Why would anyone bother to drive down, wait in line, be squished into uncomfortable seats, have to sit through abusive amounts of small-talk from other movie-goers during the movie - and that's without talking about the rudeness of those people who open their super-bright cell screens right in front of you - when you can get the "movie experience" right in your own home? To be fair, it's mighty tempting to stay in the comfort of your own den, sit in your comfy couch and watch something at your own pace.

The doomsayers have been singing this tune before, too. In the 1950's, they decried the advent of the television. In the 1980's it was the invention of the VCR, and then that of the higher-quality DVD. And in the future, there's bound to be something else that will intice us to stop going to theaters.

But there's also something to be said about going to the movies that goes beyond seeing a film early; is it the basic human need for interaction, of belonging to a larger crowd of complete strangers and sharing in the enjoyment of a new movie? is it the socializing with family or acquaintances? is it the pleasure of seeing something on a really big screen? is it because there's no daily distractions (no kids / parents / pets / phones to pull you away)? Maybe it's all of these things, or maybe none of them. Whatever the reason, 2007, 2008 and predictably 2009 box-office receipts show no sign of abating. Of course, the money comes from a handful of successful mainstream flicks, but there's no doubting the numbers - over $500M for The Dark Knight, $300M for the belated fourth installment of Indiana Jones, as well as a slew of other spring, summer, fall and Holiday flicks that all made $100M or more, even when competing with each other.

In the end, if there's a good movie playing - or at least one that's been marketed well enough to whet viewers' appetites - people will make the effort and pay for their tickets to sit in a dark room full of strangers. And, after more than a century of film-going, audiences haven't stopped making the trip.

Are the Academy Awards Still Relevant?

Another Oscar show has come and gone. Did anyone notice? There's seems to have been less buzz this year than previous ones, and it's clear that our attention was focused elsewhere - indeed, this year's edition had the third-lowest ratings ever. Yet it was perhaps one of the most successful shows, in my opinion; forget the fact that Slumdog Millionaire felt like a shoo-in based on buzz alone - Hugh Jackman was a stellar host (and how many past hosts can say they could really sing and dance?), the presentations stylish, the mood jovial, the musical numbers Broadway-fun and it almost ran on time. Sign of the times, perhaps?

Or perhaps most people were just not interested in seeing otherwise barely-mainstream fare battling out - had most viewers even seen the nominated pictures? If The Dark Knight had been in nomination, for example, would more people have tuned in to root for the critically acclaimed box-office champ?

And for that matter, why wasn't The Dark Knight nominated for best picture? Some will say it wasn't Best Picture material (wrong!), others that it wasn't the type of movies that gets nominated (Lord of the Rings did, however), or that the nomination system is so bizarre and Byzantine-ly complex that the right movies get lost in the shuffle (indeed, there's been a lot of controversy of late on how movies do get nominated). A real shame. At least Hugh Ledger got his statue, posthumously, though one wonders if there would have been more competition if he had been still alive... Still, well deserved for an unnerving, unrecognizable performance.

Of course, the Oscar for Best Picture has always had a bumpy track record ever since How Green Was My Valley trumped Citizen Kane, the movie that has since been on every Best Of list since 1942. Not that the winning films were bad, but better ones sometimes didn't get their due. And of course, there is no way that the Academy ever watched every single film that came out that year and found just the perfect one.

Are the Oscars irrelevant? Maybe they always were. But we can't resist an awards show as extravagant and glitzy as this one, or the idea that there is one, unique best picture of the year. Until then, we'll still be watching.