I read an interesting article over at IndieWire recently. In it indie producer Cotty Chubb (Appaloosa, Eve’s Bayou, Mallrats) suggests Relativity Media chief Ryan Kavanaugh should start bankrolling smaller films to bring back younger viewers. Then give those films to theater chains for free while keeping all the ancillary money from DVDs, video on demand and domestic and international television rights.
His reasoning is that if these films are made they will have lower ticket prices than regular films and that producers will find a new crop of filmmakers who will give voice to the young people who are currently avoiding movies, or, as Chubb said in the article:
“The studios, for the most part, don’t make actual movies for [young adults] anymore, movies like Say Anything or Fight Club. For every Superbad there’s a hundred enormous branded spectacles, notwithstanding the deliciously nutty Black Swan or the passionate The Fighter (which, like The Social Network, lands a little older). And independents, for the most part, don’t know how to reach that audience, or can’t afford to.
“For a new generation of moviegoers to develop among the 18-25 audience, they need to experience movies that matter to them, are unique to their generation, and speak to them with their voice.”
As a long time lover of the medium, I am glad Cotty and others are trying to find ways to attract young filmgoers. I also agree with him that you can only keep raising ticket prices so much before you start to see declining revenues. But who is supposed to make those films for younger audiences?
Chubb is right to state that the industry needs to find filmmakers that will bring a new audience. November 2010 had some of the lowest attendance totals in years despite the presence of two blockbuster films, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and Tangled. Add to that, Christmas 2010 box-office was down a whopping 45% from the previous year. No business can survive if it doesn’t attract new fans. Just ask AOL and Yahoo!
But I think he’s wrong about what the problem is. Filmmakers who will actually excite this new generation will not be found by development execs who green light movies off the Black List or festival programmers who continue to think mumblecore flicks are going to be the next big thing. (You listening John Cooper?) The people who regularly attend these festival faves are folks well into their 60s and 70s. I know because I have to make sure not to trip over their canes when I’m finding a seat at the local Laemmle where those films play. Films like Greenberg and Hannah Takes the Stairs are not exciting young film fans and they never will. Just look at the recent sad totals for Lena Dunham’s Tiny Furniture. The industry can hype these people all they want, but it won’t put fannies in the seats.
Earlier this year I gazed at the upcoming slate of festival faves and Oscar contenders. I couldn’t help but wonder who would actually go to see any of the movies that were being mentioned for consideration. As more and more of these films have hit the Cineplexes it’s quickly becoming obvious that I was correct about their box-office prospects. Most of the festival faves tanked at the box-office. I’m not just talking about films like Rabbit Hole or I Love You, Phillip Morris. Those films won’t even get their distribution costs back let alone, prints, publicity and production costs. But even a heavily promoted film like The Kids are All Right bombed when it went wide earlier this year and when 127 Hours tried to expand beyond 400 screens the weekend total came in at $3,739 per screen. Brutal numbers for any film; much less a Danny Boyle flick starring James Franco that was receiving rave reviews.
Even The Social Network can hardly be considered a smash hit, though its performance has been impressive nonetheless. Most importantly, as Chubb noted, The Social Network ended up skewing much older than was originally anticipated. The film may have been aimed at the Facebook generation but the majority of Social Network audience either had an AARP card or will be getting one in the mail very soon. And that’s part of the problem. People in Hollywood thought The Social Network was going to appeal to young people because it was about Facebook. But the film’s themes didn’t appeal to the younger generation and so the film ended up skewing old.
If Hollywood really wants to get young people back to the multiplexes there needs to be a shake-up with the current crowd that runs the film festivals and the specialty divisions. We need to find people who can actually search out the next generation of filmmakers with the voice of this new generation because it is obvious this current crowd isn’t doing it. People who will discover filmmakers who want to use the medium to tell stories visually. Filmmakers who know how to connect with that young audience and not show contempt for them.
The fact is the industry is basically living off eight to ten filmmakers for most of the money that gets generated these days. If you remove the box-office totals of Tim Burton, John Lassester’s gang at Pixar, Christopher Nolan, Will Smith, and the usual suspects Cameron, Scorsese, Lucas and Spielberg you’ve got an industry in even worse trouble than it is now.
The studios need to find the next Tim Burtons and Chris Nolans, or even the next Will Glucks. Easy A was one film this year that did succeed with the 18-30 year-old crowd. It was also smart, funny and charming. Another film that clicked with young people all over the world was Step Up 3D which made 160 million dollars worldwide. Those films might not win awards at the end of the year, but they did connect with the very people Hollywood needs to attract if they want to continue to be relevant.
Otherwise, as Chubb noted, a whole generation of moviegoers will be lost to the Internet and those gatekeepers will be out of a job anyway. That’s what I think anyway. What do you think the film business needs as we move into the next decade? Comment below and maybe someone out there is listening. We can only hope.
