That was the past; the future now looks like your average cinema will be a bar that shows films, if Screendaily's report on a recent debate can be relied upon. In brief, exhibitors don't want their businesses tied to the vagaries of the cyclical quality of content: their sites and staff cost money, and they can't rely on films consistently driving traffic through their doors, so they need people to visit their venues and spend when not seeing a film.
This future trend is more prevalent among indie chains (Curzon, etc) than the mass market players (Vues, Cineworlds, etc). As a Curzon member for several years now (I've visited Curzon venues 18 times this year, including Victoria, Soho, Mayfair and Bloomsbury), I feel able to comment on this first-hand. Curzon has certainly invested in front-of-house at Soho, built the Victoria site and, depending on your viewpoint, butchered the old Renoir to create the Bloomsbury art-house multiplex (certainly the Renoir needed a decorative revamp, and while the Bloomsbury is a lovely new venue in terms of interior finish, the small auditoria and screens have not gone down well with long-time visitors that I know).
Soho always benefitted from its ground floor Konditor & Cook outlet, and I have used this cafe many times over the years in preference to Costas and Prets, etc, when not seeing films on the screens below. But there's no doubt that Curzon Soho is a cinema: I mean just look at the exterior, below! Yes, there's clearly a cafe behind the glass frontage, but the films being shown are detailed on the leading edge of the awning. Sometimes the glass frontage is decorated to coincide with a film promotion.
Now compare this with Curzon Victoria, below. I recognise that this site is all about what's below the visible ground floor and that there's a narrow frontage to play with, nevertheless does this shout 'I'm a cinema screening great films that you should be watching NOW'?
It's certainly tasteful and on-message, but what lies behind those shimmering curtains? Could you guess correctly, if you didn't know? And once downstairs, you're greeted with tasteful furnishings again and themed cocktails and choices of gin, and half a dozen disappointingly small auditoria.
It strikes me as perfect business sense that a cinema, particularly with an upscale audience, should seek to provide all that its clients need: not only the film, but also the drinks, tea and cake beforehand, the modern bistro meal, wine and cocktails after, and the DVD and book sales. But a cinema should be cinematic at heart, it should celebrate and venerate the theatrical exhibition of moving pictures, its primary focus should be the high quality presentation of film, backed up by excellent up-sell opportunities (the food and drinks, etc) - but the moment that the primary focus of the venue turns to the concerns of non-film goers is a deeply concerning tipping point.
Of course, cinemas are fighting against the rising tide of quality TV, the shockingly short window between theatrical distribution and the retailing of the DVD, multimedia consumption, and quite simply the cost of cinema-going.
Let me illustrate that final and important point: the disparity between current VOD prices (equivalent to the cost of a West End cinema ticket in the early 90s) and the true cost of 'going to the cinema' (for me, that's the drive to the station car park and the ensuing fee, the train travel to Victoria, followed by Tube or bus to the cinema, then the cost of the film plus any nibbles and drinks and the return travel) is so great now - that's a ten-fold increase in my case - that I have to really want to see a film and it has to be on a big screen to make the trip worthwhile. So, I can justify a full IMAX presentation of a well-made blockbuster at the IMAX, but documentaries and small-scale dramas are best viewed at home for one-tenth of the price, I'm afraid.
Not every cinema can be a votive temple to film, but every cinema should strive to be this first and foremost.
No comments:
Post a Comment