A Word About the Proposed “Screening Room”
In the recent weeks you may have heard the phrase “Screening Room” in news outlets or uttered by your favorite directors and actors. The Screening Room is a proposed business from Sean Parker, who you may remember as the co-founder of Napster in 1999 or as immortalized by Justin Timberlake in David Fincher’s 2012 film The Social Network. Parker’s idea is a platform for customers to stream big Hollywood films at home on the day of their release for $50, after purchasing a receiver (sort of like a Roku or Apple TV) for a one time fee of $150. (So, for this fee, you could hypothetically watch Batman v Superman or Hello, My Name is Doris tonight from the comfort of your own home.) You can read about Parker’s proposal in more detail from a variety of sources that are both positive and negative. Obviously this is the type of news story that we at Renew are following closely, so we wanted to share with our members and patrons what is at the heart of the debate.
Some big names from Hollywood have weighed in on the subject both for and against the proposed idea. The division in Hollywood seems split down the middle (quite literally). One side is arguing for a platform to engage new audiences and the other about retaining the importance of an exclusive theatrical experience.
Major directors like Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and JJ Abrams have come out on the side in support of the Screening Room — even offering money to invest. The biggest argument in favor of the new service is that it could reach an audience that do not regularly attend theaters, benefiting filmmakers and distributors by essentially doubling its audience.
Those opposed, including filmmakers Christopher Nolan, Brett Ratner, and James Cameron have expressed concern about the impact The Screening Room would have on the already in-place financial model under which the industry currently operates. Cameron’s producing partner Jon Landau explained:
Both Jim and I remain committed to the sanctity of the in-theater experience. For us, from both a creative and financial standpoint, it is essential for movies to be offered exclusively in theaters for their initial release. We don’t understand why the industry would want to provide audiences an incentive to skip the best form to experience the art that we work so hard to create.
The theatrical experience that Landau refers to was also brought up more directly by Jeff Nichols, director of the films Take Shelter, Mud, and his newest release Midnight Special. Nichols explains that the difference between digital projection and a commercial television is incomparable and would alter the entire viewing experience. As director Brett Ratner wrote, “There may be certain movies that will lend themselves to this platform, but I am still a firm believer, and as a movie going fan will always support the traditional theatrical experience.”
On his blog, film scholar David Bordwell does a great job of breaking down those in favor of The Screening Room and those opposed, but also looking at the history of how films have been released. As he explains:
The studios depend on the theatrical release, but not because it’s the biggest source of revenue. (For the top films it can yield a lot, of course, but most films don’t recoup their costs in that window.) The theatrical release builds awareness, making it stand out downstream in the ancillaries. Without theatrical release, a film needs a lot of publicity to draw notice. Witness all those films on your Netflix or Hulu menu, all those John Cusack movies you didn’t know existed.
There is no doubt that streaming giants like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon (the latter of which is doing a lot to help independent film!) are here to stay. They offer an accessible, easy-to-use programs to consume film and television. And have proven to be a great outfit for smaller titles to be seen by wider audiences. The difference between these companies and the proposed Screening Room is whenthe title is available. Bordwell continues:
After the theatrical window, typically 90 days after release, there are windows for airline/hotel access, disc (DVD, Blu-ray), Pay-per-View, streaming, cable, and on down the line. The order of these windows for any one title can vary somewhat, depending on negotiations. Most of them are designed to define price points scaled along a curve: how much it’s worth to somebody to see the movie at intervals after the initial theatrical release. By the time a movie comes to free cable, you’ve pretty much squeezed everything out of it, though the industry relies very extensively on worldwide cable purchases.
By making releases available on the day of its theatrical release, it eliminates this window model which has been the platform for marketing films for decades. A few theater chains have spoken out against the Screening Room, including Regal and Carmike, but AMC, which is set to become the largest theater chain in the world, has expressed interest.
And then there are the local, independent theaters to consider. The big name directors above already have established legacies and appeal. And the window for awareness that Bordwell argues for might not have much of an impact awareness on their works — regardless of the format in which they are seen. But the impact on new and independent directors, as well as those working outside of the Hollywood system, however, could be massive.
As you may recall, we participate in an association of art-house theaters known as the Art House Convergence. On behalf of the organization, they have released an open letter about The Screening Room. (It can be found here.) Similar to the way it will effect independent directors and producers, The Screening Room could potentially damage the film-going audience as a whole by making titles readily available at home. In addition to the obvious financial disruption the Screening Room could cause, the Art House Convergence cited the increased possibility of piracy. The National Organization of Theatre Owners also released a statement concerning the proposed Screening Room which also raises the issue of the erosion of the theatrical experience.
This facet of opposition to the Screening Room is more difficult to articulate because it is addressing something intangible: a feeling, an emotional engagement, a human connection with a piece of art. It’s the difference between looking at a famous painting on your iPhone and standing inches from a masterwork by DaVinci, Renoir, or Kahlo. It’s hearing the cadences and nuances of a poem read in the voice of its author rather than looking at it on a tablet. The moment of connection between the screen and the viewer is an irreplaceable revelation. We’ve all experienced this. We have all been in a dark theater and at some point during a film been moved to joy, or anger, or laughter, or tears, because it is touching on something human that can only be enlivened while surrounded by your friends, family, and community who are all in possession of that shared rapture. Which is why we fall in love time and again when the lights dim and we prepare for immersion.
We are in the business of preserving this ethereal experience for new generations. I believe I speak for everyone at Renew when I say that we have all undergone that transformative instance in a dark cinema and it is that shared experience that makes us come to work everyday to share it with our audiences. We believe in the cinematic experience to enrich communities, promote film literacy, and engage with both the film on the screen and your neighbor in the seat next to you. And we remain committed to keeping the theatrical way of celebrating cinema alive.
