Placeholder Content Image

World mourns the passing of one of the true greats of cinema

<p>Renowned British-Irish actor, Sir Michael Gambon, celebrated worldwide for his iconic portrayal of Albus Dumbledore in the beloved Harry Potter film series, has passed away at the age of 82.</p> <p>In an official statement relayed by his publicist, it was confirmed that he succumbed to pneumonia, leaving his family and fans heartbroken. The statement issued by his family reads, "We are devastated to announce the loss of Sir Michael Gambon. Beloved husband and father, Michael died peacefully in the hospital with his wife Anne and son Fergus by his side."</p> <p>Michael Gambon's acting journey spanned more than half a century, with one of his most significant milestones being his assumption of the role of Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series, succeeding the late Richard Harris in 2004. In characteristic humility, Gambon downplayed his performance, often remarking that he merely portrayed himself "with a stuck-on beard and a long robe".</p> <p>The Harry Potter franchise expressed its grief, stating, "He brought immeasurable joy to Harry Potter fans from all over the world with his humour, kindness, and grace. We will forever hold his memory in our hearts."</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">We are incredibly saddened to hear of the passing of Sir Michael Gambon. He brought immeasurable joy to Harry Potter fans from all over the world with his humour, kindness and grace. We will forever hold his memory in our hearts. <a href="https://t.co/1CoTF3zeTo">pic.twitter.com/1CoTF3zeTo</a></p> <p>— Harry Potter (@harrypotter) <a href="https://twitter.com/harrypotter/status/1707371391866028071?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 28, 2023</a></p></blockquote> <p>James Phelps, known for his portrayal of Fred Weasley in the series, shared a touching anecdote on Instagram, recounting how Gambon generously helped him rehearse a script during the filming of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince". Phelps hailed Gambon as both a legend on and off the camera, describing him as funny and always willing to share his knowledge.</p> <p>Gambon embarked on his acting career in the early 1960s, initially treading the boards of the stage before transitioning to television and film. His filmography boasted remarkable performances, such as his portrayal of a psychotic mob leader in Peter Greenaway's <em>The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover</em> in 1989 and his portrayal of the elderly King George V in Tom Hooper's <em>The King's Speech</em> in 2010.</p> <p>Despite an early start in engineering apprenticeship, Gambon's passion for acting remained unwavering. He recounted to <em>The Herald</em> newspaper in 2004 that he always knew he would become an actor. His breakthrough came in 1962 when he auditioned for the legendary Laurence Olivier, who subsequently appointed him as one of the founding members of the National Theatre at the Old Vic, alongside emerging talents like Derek Jacobi and Maggie Smith.</p> <p>Gambon's reputation soared on the stage, with his portrayal of Galileo in John Dexter's <em>Life of Galileo</em> in 1980 being a standout moment. In the 1980s, his lead role in the TV series <em>The Singing Detective</em> garnered widespread acclaim, earning him one of his four BAFTA Awards. Additionally, he clinched three Olivier Awards and two Screen Actors Guild Awards for ensemble cast performances in <em>Gosford Park</em> (2001) and <em>The King's Speech</em>.</p> <p>Acknowledged for his contributions to drama, Gambon was honoured as a Commander of the British Empire in 1992 and subsequently knighted in 1998. Despite these prestigious titles, he often displayed a mischievous side, weaving tales such as showing fellow actors a forged signed photograph of Robert De Niro, among other playful antics.</p> <p>In 2015, Gambon retired from the stage due to long-term memory issues, yet he continued to grace the screen with his talent until 2019. In a 2002 interview, he expressed that his work made him feel "the luckiest man in the world".</p> <p><em>Images: Getty / Instagram</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Beyond Barbie and Oppenheimer, how do cinemas make money? And do we pay too much for movie tickets?

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-martin-682709">Peter Martin</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a></em></p> <p>I’ve got two questions about blockbuster movies like Barbie and Oppenheimer.</p> <ol> <li> <p>Why aren’t the cinemas charging more for them, given they’re so popular?</p> </li> <li> <p>Why are they the same price, given Oppenheimer is an hour longer?</p> </li> </ol> <p>The opening weekend <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/movies/how-australian-cinemas-and-audiences-handled-the-barbenheimer-juggernaut-20230724-p5dqso.html">for both films</a> saw an avalanche of Australians returning to the cinema. Extra staff had to be put on (although probably not enough) to manage queues, turn away pink-clad fans who couldn’t get in, and clean up mountains of popcorn trampled underfoot.</p> <p>An obvious solution to such a rush of demand is to push up prices. Airlines do it when they are getting low on seats. When more people want to get a ride share, Uber makes them pay with “<a href="https://www.uber.com/au/en/drive/driver-app/how-surge-works/">surge pricing</a>”.</p> <p>Even books are sold at different prices, depending on the demand, their length, their quality and how long they’ve been on the shelves.</p> <p>But not movie tickets, which are nearly always the same price, no matter the movie. Why? And how much has the cost of a trip to the movies risen over the past 20 years?</p> <h2>Why not charge more for blockbusters?</h2> <p>In suburban Melbourne, Hoyts is charging $24.50 for the two-hour Barbie – the same as it is charging for the three-hour Oppenheimer, even though it could fit in far fewer showings of Oppenheimer in a day. It’s also the same price as it is charging for much less popular movies, such as Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.</p> <p>It’s also how things are in the United States, where James Surowiecki, author of <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/175380/the-wisdom-of-crowds-by-james-surowiecki/">The Wisdom of Crowds</a> blames convention and says "it costs you as much to see a total dog that’s limping its way through its last week of release as it does to see a hugely popular film on opening night."</p> <p>Australian economists Nicolas de Roos of The University of Sydney and Jordi McKenzie of Macquarie University quote Surowiecki in their <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167718714000174">2014 study</a> of whether cinema operators could make more by cutting the price of older and less popular films and raising the price of blockbusters.</p> <p>By examining what happened to demand on <a href="https://www.eventcinemas.com.au/Promotions/HalfPriceTuesdays#cinemas=59">cheap Tuesdays</a>, and developing a model taking into account advertising, reviews and the weather, they discovered Australian cinemas could make a lot more by <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167718714000174">varying their prices</a> by the movie shown. We turn out to be highly price sensitive. So why don’t cinemas do that?</p> <h2>‘There’s a queue, it must be good’</h2> <p>It’s the sort of thing that puzzled <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1992/becker/biographical/">Gary Becker</a>, an economic detective of sorts who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in the early 1990s. A few years earlier, he turned his attention to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2937660">restaurants</a> and why one particular seafood restaurant in Palo Alto, California, had long queues every night but didn’t raise its prices.</p> <p>Across the road was a restaurant that charged slightly more, sold food that was about as good, and was mostly empty.</p> <p>His conclusion, which he used a lot of maths to illustrate, was there are some goods for which a consumer’s demand depends on the demand of other consumers.</p> <p>Queues for restaurants (or in 2023, long queues and sold out sessions, as crowds were turned away from Barbie) are all signals other consumers want to get in.</p> <p>This would make queues especially valuable to the providers of such goods, even if the queues meant they didn’t get as much as they could from the customers who got in. The “buzz” such queues create produces a supply of future customers persuaded that what was on offer must be worth trying.</p> <p>Importantly, Becker’s maths showed that getting things right was fragile. It was much easier for a restaurant to go from being “in” to “out” than the other way around. Once a queue had created a buzz, it was wise not to mess with it.</p> <h2>Cashing in from the snack bar</h2> <p>There are other reasons for cinemas to charge a standard ticket price, rather than vary it movie by movie.</p> <p>One is that it is hard to tell ahead of time which movies are going to soar and which are going to bomb, even if you spend a fortune on advertising as the <a href="https://variety.com/2023/film/box-office/barbie-marketing-campaign-explained-warner-bros-1235677922/">makers of Barbie did</a>. In the words of an insider, “<a href="https://variety.com/2018/film/opinion/william-goldman-dies-appreciation-1203030781/">nobody knows anything</a>.”</p> <p>Another is the way cinemas make their money. They have to pay the distributor a share of what they get from ticket sales (typically <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167718714000174">35-40%</a>). But they don’t have to pay a share of what they make from high-margin snacks.</p> <p>This means it can make sense for some cinemas to charge less than what the market will bear – because they’ll sell more snacks – even if it means less money for the distributor.</p> <h2>Rising prices, despite some falling costs</h2> <p>But cinemas still charge a lot. From 2002 to 2022, Australian cinemas jacked up their average (not their highest) prices <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/box-office/ticket-prices">from $9.13 to $16.26</a> – an increase of 78%.</p> <p>In the same 20 year period, overall prices in Australia, as measured by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-in-the-cpi-and-what-does-it-actually-measure-165162">consumer price index</a>, climbed 65% – less than the rise in movie ticket prices.</p> <hr /> <p><iframe id="E2kxi" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/E2kxi/5/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe></p> <hr /> <p>A 2015 study found Australian cinemas charge more <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306227560_Counting_the_cost_the_impact_of_cinema_ticket_prices_in_Australia">than cinemas in the US</a>.</p> <p>Yet some of the cinemas’ costs have gone down. They used to have to employ projectionists to lace up and change reels of film. Digital delivery means much less handling.</p> <p>A now-dated <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/developments-in-the-cinema-distribution-exhibition-industry">1990s report</a> to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found the two majors, Hoyts and Greater Union/Village, charged near identical prices except where they were faced with competition from a nearby independent, in which case they discounted.</p> <p>Whether “<a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/The%20Cinema%20Industry.pdf">by design or circumstance</a>”, the two cinema chains rarely competed with each other, clustering their multiplexes in different geographical locations.</p> <h2>Longer films no longer displace shorter films</h2> <p>I think it might be the multiplex that answers my second question: why cinemas don’t charge more for movies that are longer (and movies are <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/movies/bigger-than-ben-hur-why-movies-are-getting-longer-and-longer-20220322-p5a6ty.html">getting longer</a>).</p> <p>In the days of single screens, a cinema that showed a long movie might only fit in (say) four showings a day instead of six. So it would lose out unless it charged more.</p> <p>But these days, multiplexes show many, many films on many screens, some of them simultaneously, meaning long films needn’t displace short films.</p> <p>Although we have <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/screens-and-theatres">fewer cinema seats</a> than we had a decade ago (and at least until the advent of Barbie, we’ve been <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/screens-and-theatres">going less often</a>) we now have <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/screens-and-theatres">far more screens</a>.</p> <p>Long movies no longer stop the multiplexes from playing standard ones. And because cinemas like to keep things simple, you pay the same price, no matter which movie you chose. <!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211121/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-martin-682709">Peter Martin</a>, Visiting Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-barbie-and-oppenheimer-how-do-cinemas-make-money-and-do-we-pay-too-much-for-movie-tickets-211121">original article</a>.</em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

Interactive cinema: how films could alter plotlines in real time by responding to viewers’ emotions

<p>Most films offer exactly the same viewing experience. You sit down, the film starts, the plot unfolds and you follow what’s happening on screen until the story concludes. It’s a linear experience. My new film, <a href="http://www.albinomosquito.com/before-we-disappear/">Before We Disappear</a> – about a pair of climate activists who seek revenge on corporate perpetrators of global warming – seeks to alter that viewing experience.</p> <p>What makes my film different is that it adapts the story to fit the viewer’s emotional response. Through the use of a computer camera and software, the film effectively watches the audience as they view footage of climate disasters. Viewers are implicitly asked to choose a side.</p> <p>I chose to use this technology to make a film about the climate crisis to get people to really think about what they are willing to sacrifice for a survivable future.</p> <p>Storytelling has always been interactive: traditional oral storytellers would interact and respond to their listeners. For almost a century, film directors have been <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_cinema">experimenting with interactivity</a> – the past decade has seen an explosion of interactive content.</p> <p>Streaming services give viewers the opportunity to choose their own adventure. However, letting the viewer control the action has long posed a challenge: it’s at odds with narrative immersion, where the viewer is drawn into the world created by the story.</p> <p>One of the most prominent recent experiments in interactive film, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror:_Bandersnatch">Netflix’s Bandersnatch</a>, clearly illustrates this. Here the action stops to ask the user what to do next – breaking the flow of the story and actively involving the viewer. Solving this issue of breaking the immersive experience remains a key question for artists exploring interactive film.</p> <p>The films I create and direct take a different route, leveraging non-conscious control to influence a film as the audience watches. My previous <a href="http://braincontrolledmovie.co.uk/">brain-controlled</a> films, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7853742/">The Moment (2018)</a> and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8072006/">The Disadvantages of Time Travel (2014)</a>, used brain computer interfaces (BCIs). These systems use computers to <a href="https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/980302/scanners-exploring-the-control-of-adaptive-films-using-brain-computer-interaction">analyse electrical signals from the brain</a>, allowing people to effectively control a device with their minds.</p> <p>Using this data from the brain, audiences <a href="https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/index.php/output/1468705/from-directors-cut-to-users-cut-to-watch-a-brain-controlled-film-is-to-edit-it">create a non-conscious edit</a> of the film in real time – reinforcing the films’ respective stories of science-fiction dystopia and a wandering, daydreaming mind.</p> <p>However, the BCI interface requires specialised equipment. For Before We Disappear, I wanted to use a technology more readily available to audiences, that could allow films to be shared over the internet.</p> <h2>Controlling the narrative</h2> <p>Before We Disappear uses an ordinary computer camera to read emotional cues and instruct the real-time edit of the film. To make this work, we needed a good understanding of how people react to films.</p> <p>We ran several <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290607.3312814">studies</a> <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300378">exploring the emotions</a> filmmakers intend to evoke and how viewers visually present emotion when watching. By using computer vision and machine learning techniques from our partner <a href="https://www.blueskeye.com/">BlueSkeye AI</a>, we analysed viewers’ facial emotions and reactions to film clips and developed several algorithms to leverage that data to control a narrative.</p> <p>While we observed that audiences tend not to extensively emote when watching a film, BlueSkeye’s face and emotion analysis tools are sensitive enough to pick up enough small variations and emotional cues to adapt the film to viewer reactions.</p> <p>The analysis software measures facial muscle movement along with the strength of emotional arousal – essentially how emotional a viewer feels in a particular moment. The software also evaluates the positivity or negativity of the emotion – something we call “<a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00261/full">valence</a>”.</p> <p>We are experimenting with various algorithms where this arousal and valence data contributes to real-time edit decisions, which causes the story to reconfigure itself. The first scene acts as a baseline, which the next scene is measured against. Depending on the response, the narrative will become one of around 500 possible edits. In Before We Disappear, I use a non-linear narrative which offers the audience different endings and emotional journeys.</p> <h2>Emotional journey</h2> <p>I see interactive technology as a way of expanding the filmmaker’s toolkit, to further tell a story and allow the film to adapt to an individual viewer, challenging and distributing the power of the director.</p> <p>However, emotional responses could be misused or have unforeseen consequences. It is not hard to imagine an online system showing only content eliciting positive emotions from the user. This could be used to create an echo chamber – where people only see content that matches the preferences they already have.</p> <p>Or it could be used for propaganda. We saw in the Cambridge Analytica scandal how <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal">large amounts of personal information</a> were collected from Facebook and used for political advertising.</p> <p>Our <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348325526_Brain-controlled_cinematic_interactions">research</a> aims to generate conversation about how users’ emotion data can be used responsibly with informed consent, while allowing users to control their own personal information. In our system, the data is analysed on the users’ device, rather than, say, the cloud.</p> <h2>Big business, big responsibility</h2> <p>Non-conscious interaction is big business. Platforms such as <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/algorithms-take-over-youtube-s-recommendations-highlight-human-problem-n867596">TikTok</a> and <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/algorithms-take-over-youtube-s-recommendations-highlight-human-problem-n867596">YouTube</a> use analysis of users’ past interactions on the platforms to influence the new content they see there. Users are not always aware of what personal information is being created or stored, nor can they influence what algorithms will present to them next.</p> <p>It’s important to create a system where audiences’ data is not stored. Video of the viewer or facial expression data should not be uploaded or analysed anywhere but on the player device. We plan to release the film as an interactive app, incorporating an awareness of potential abuse of the user’s data, and safeguarding any personal data on the device used to watch it.</p> <p>Adaptive films offer an alternative to traditional “choose-your-own-adventure” storytelling. When the story can change based on the audiences’ unconscious responses rather than intentional interaction, their focus can be kept in the story.</p> <p>This means they can enjoy a more personalised experience of the film. Turns out the old traditions of storytelling may still have much to teach us in the 21st century.</p> <p><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/interactive-cinema-how-films-could-alter-plotlines-in-real-time-by-responding-to-viewers-emotions-200145" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.</em></p> <p><em>Images: Getty</em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

Avatar sequel trailer released 13 years after first movie

<p dir="ltr">A teaser trailer for the sequel to <em>Avatar</em> has been released almost 13 years after the first movie broke box office records.</p> <p dir="ltr">In just one day since the <em>Avatar: The Way of Water</em> trailer came out, it has reached more than four million views (correct at time of publishing).</p> <p dir="ltr">Fans are given a glimpse of what to expect in the exciting sequel which is set to drop in cinemas later in December around the world.</p> <p dir="ltr">The sequel, which is also set more than a decade after the first movie, will follow the Sully family (Jake, Neytiri, and their kids) and the trouble that keeps following them and how they fight to keep each other alive.</p> <p dir="ltr">Director and producer James Cameron had previously announced that he has plans for a total of six movies for the <em>Avatar</em> series and that he had already begun filming for the fourth film. </p> <p dir="ltr">"Anything that had to be done with a specific actor, we did all the scenes for 2 and 3 together – and a little bit of 4," he told Variety.</p> <p dir="ltr">"I had to shoot the kids out. They're allowed to age six years in the middle of the story on page 25 of movie 4. So I needed everything before then, and then everything after, we'll do later."</p> <p dir="ltr">Fans can expect to wait just one year after <em>Avatar: The Way of Water </em>to see the third installment with the fourth movie a year after that, and <em>Avatar 5</em> for December 2026 and the final film in 2028.</p> <p dir="ltr">Watch the trailer <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZrX_ES93JA" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: 20th Century Studios</em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

How Scorsese cinema boycott will shape the future of movies

<p>Cinema has always been a medium in crisis. After the so-called golden age of Hollywood came television: why go to the movies when you can sit in the comfort of your home, watching recycled movies in letterbox format? Yet cinemas adapted and survived.</p> <p>This week, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/nov/07/why-martin-scorseses-the-irishman-wont-be-coming-to-a-cinema-near-you">major cinema chains</a> said they would not run Martin Scorsese’s upcoming film <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302006/">The Irishman</a> because Netflix - who partially funded production and own distribution rights - were restricting its theatre run to four weeks before it hit small screens.</p> <p>The news signals a looming threat to cinema as we know it.</p> <h2>Big screen blues</h2> <p>Television made movies a commodity audiences could consume on their own terms. Yet cinema survived. In fact, it became a global mass cultural medium in the late 1970s and in the <a href="https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/very-short-history-of-cinema/">multiplexes</a> of the 1980s.</p> <p>Even the turbulent digital turn that brought cinema to a second crisis point in the early 2000s was navigated by the major Hollywood studios with the rebirth of the blockbuster in pristine form: <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/?ref_=nv_sr_2?ref_=nv_sr_2">Avatar</a> (2009) in stereoscopic 3-D, the high-tech Marvel <a href="https://hbr.org/2019/07/marvels-blockbuster-machine">cinematic universe</a>.</p> <p>This is all to say that cinema, for the time being, is alive and well.</p> <p>But shrinking diversity in cinema offerings - Scorsese is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/nov/05/martin-scorsese-superhero-marvel-movies-debate-sadness">no Marvel fan</a> - has forced even big name directors to seek funding from alternative sources. This is especially necessary when their movie <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/business/media/netflix-scorsese-the-irishman.html">costs US$159 million</a> (A$230 million) to make. Enter television streaming giant Netflix.</p> <h2>Are you talking to me?</h2> <p>The Irishman, Scorsese’s eagerly anticipated gangster epic, opened this week in a number of independent <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-irishman-australian-cinemas-2019-11">Australian cinemas</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: center;"><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WHXxVmeGQUc?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><span class="caption">The Irishman tells the story of war veteran Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) who worked as a hitman alongside Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino).</span></p> <p>Scorsese is perhaps America’s greatest living auteur, the director of films including <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075314/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Taxi Driver</a> (1976), <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081398/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Raging Bull</a> (1980), <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099685/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Goodfellas</a> (1990), and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112641/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Casino</a> (1995).</p> <p>But what makes The Irishman unlike any other Scorsese film is that it is being distributed by Netflix. After its short theatre run it will be distributed to our homes, where it will do its major business.</p> <p>In February, the tension between Netflix and theatrical distributors escalated with the nomination of Alfonso Cuarón’s Netflix-distributed <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6155172/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2">Roma</a> for a Best Picture Oscar. Director Steven Spielberg subsequently <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/03/steven-spielbergs-netflix-fears/556550/">declared</a> a Netflix film might “deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar”.</p> <p>A Netflix production – whether David Fincher’s monumental longform series, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5290382/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Mindhunter</a>, or Scorsese’s The Irishman – was television and therefore not cinema.</p> <h2>Goodfellas or bad guys?</h2> <p>Netflix represents a very real threat to theatrically screened cinema and its distribution apparatus, which is why several large cinema chains in the US (and, indeed, Australia) are boycotting The Irishman.</p> <p>While Netflix has consistently produced high quality content either through internal production or by acquiring and distributing titles, its assimilation of an auteur picture – a Scorsese gangster epic, no less - signals an aggressive move into the once sacrosanct domain of cinema entertainment.</p> <p>One wonders: if Scorsese capitulates to the economic strictures of the contemporary studio system, what will independent filmmakers do? How will low budget features be funded in an era in which Netflix colonises the large and small-scale productions alike?</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SshqfhmmtSE?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> <span class="caption">Scorsese has directed many of the greatest characters of modern cinema.</span></p> <p>Netflix is not cinema, but neither is it television. Directors such as Spielberg struggle to understand that the new media entertainment regime is far removed from the projection (theatre) or broadcast (television) media environment of a predigital era.</p> <p>Instead of declaring a Netflix production unworthy of an Oscar, we could invert this measure: perhaps it is the Oscar that is increasingly outmoded as an artistic and cultural mark of value.</p> <h2>‘The End’, roll credits</h2> <p>The digital economic currents that carry Netflix intuitively seek expansion into proximate markets, and cinema is a natural fit. Netflix’s move into cinema distribution – with Scorsese at the helm – is therefore a smart negotiation. Even if Scorsese is an unwilling participant, it sets a clear precedent.</p> <p>It seems unlikely that cinema will end in any formal sense, at least within the next few decades.</p> <p>But a Netflix-distributed Scorsese film gives us cause to lament the ailing cinema experience. Christopher Nolan’s <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Dunkirk</a> (2017) exemplified cinema’s ability to assault us with big screen images and jolt our bodies with a powerful soundscape. Only a grand technological scale can provide this kind of visceral experience.</p> <p>And yet, like Scorsese, I’m tired of Marvel. I’m tired of the rigidity of formulaic narrative and image structures intrinsic to the contemporary studio system. I’m disappointed at Hollywood’s capitulation to an instrumental economic model. Could a studio have produced The Irishman? They had a chance, and they <a href="https://variety.com/2019/film/news/theater-chief-blasts-netflix-over-handling-of-martin-scorseses-irishman-its-a-disgrace-1203390726/">turned it down</a>.</p> <p>Hollywood - and media entertainment structures more generally - will need to find a way for the big and small screen distributors to get along in order to keep the dynasty alive.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126598/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: http://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em>Written by <span>Bruce Isaacs, Senior Lecturer in Film Studies, University of Sydney</span>. Republished with permission of </em><a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/pass-the-popcorn-scorsese-cinema-boycott-will-shape-the-future-of-movies-126598" target="_blank"><em>The Conversation</em></a><em>. </em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

Can cinema survive in a golden age of serial TV?

<p>There are many reasons you might think cinema is going the way of the dinosaurs. With the popularity of long-play TV series booming, are films “too short” now to allow the kind of plot and character development that we have become used to? In our changing world of media, does the distinction between “TV series” and “film” even make sense?</p> <p>In a recent class, when I asked my film studies students who had watched the set film for the week only a few hands went up – and my heart sank. Searching for an explanation, I asked who had watched the latest episode of the popular Netflix show <a href="https://theconversation.com/stranger-things-inventiveness-in-the-age-of-the-netflix-original-84340"><em>Stranger Things</em></a>. Nearly every hand went up.</p> <p>What does this anecdote reveal about changing viewing habits? Does the fact that even film students prefer the latest streaming series to the classic films set as coursework serve to illustrate the point that cinema is dying?</p> <p>There is no doubt of the enormous appeal of the many long-form series readily available to subscribers of streamed content providers such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, HULU, iTunes, Google Play, and NowTV. Viewers can binge-watch or pace their way through their favourite show before algorithms point them to their next favourite show, in an endless addictive cycle of entertainment and sleep deprivation.</p> <p><strong>Screen companions and virtual friends</strong></p> <p>There are many reasons for the global popularity of streamed series. For one, their characters are often more diverse and interesting than many of those in mainstream Hollywood filmic fare. This is exemplified so well by shows such as <a href="http://theconversation.com/how-orange-is-the-new-black-raised-the-bar-behind-bars-78702"><em>Orange is the New Black</em></a>, with a nearly all-female cast playing characters with diverse sexual orientations and ethnic and class backgrounds.</p> <p>Over the many hours of screen time, spanning many years in some cases, audiences become emotionally invested in characters’ stories. They become our screen companions and virtual friends. This has seen global fan bases emerge. These fans find kinship and a new kind of collective mourning when providers cancel their favourite show as seen with the devotees of the <a href="https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a28618013/the-oa-fan-petition-season-3-axe/"><em>The OA</em></a>. The size and influence of these groups has helped the success of campaigns like that of Sense8 fans, who fought for and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jun/30/your-love-has-brought-sense8-back-to-life-cancelled-netflix-show-wins-two-hour-finale">won a finale</a> of their cancelled show. Similarly, <a href="https://themuse.jezebel.com/fans-saved-one-day-at-a-time-1835924491">the fans of <em>One Day at a Time</em></a> helped it find its new home at cable network “Pop”.</p> <p>The ultra long-play format of streamed series also allows time for extreme character development. The best known character evolution is perhaps that of Breaking Bad’s Walter White who makes a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdDfhe-0JS0">dramatic moral transformation</a> from school teacher to conflicted drug kingpin over the show’s 62-hour run-time.</p> <p><strong>Hollywood cinema refuses to die</strong></p> <p>But traditional Hollywood cinema refuses to die – as evidenced by the boom in <a href="https://theconversation.com/avengers-endgame-and-the-relentless-march-of-hollywood-franchise-movies-119130">franchise event cinema</a>. <a href="https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/MPAA-THEME-Report-2018.pdf">A recent report</a> from the Motion Picture Association of America reveals rising worldwide cinema ticket sales. The total takings at the box office topped US$41 billion – and the number of cinema screens worldwide increased by 7% (to 190,000 screens). The report states that “there is no question that in this ever complex world of media, theatres are vital to overall entertainment industry success”.</p> <p>But cinema still has its place. It allows a fantasy-filled retreat for family and friend entertainment – an immersive experience without the distraction of mobile phones, knocks on the door or family members talking over important bits. Cinemas, film societies, or open-air screenings become spaces where we can put our political divisions aside and cheer collectively for heroes overcoming odds to save screen worlds.</p> <p>Blockbuster films may be thriving, but poetic art cinema has a more precarious place in the market and needs nurturing by cinephiles. Film director <a href="https://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9780719097591/">Alejandro G. Iñárritu</a> (of <em>The Revenant</em>,<em> Birdman</em>, and<em> Babel</em> fame) recently <a href="https://variety.com/2019/film/global/alejandro-g-inarritu-on-the-need-to-preserve-poetry-in-cinema-1203305924/">spoke to Variety</a> about how our worlds are being closed in by streaming services managed by “algorithms designed to keep feeding people what they like”. He added: “the problem is that the algorithms are very smart but they are not creative, and they don’t know what people don’t know they like.”</p> <p>We are in a golden age of streaming content and at-the-cinema-film. We just need to be guided by more than algorithms to see the treasures hiding away in this new era of excess and neglect.</p> <p><strong>TV or film – what’s the difference?</strong></p> <p>To complicate the arguments about the relative merits of TV series and film, distinctions between film and television are less clear than they ever have been. Many films (particularly those involving <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-the-superhero-films-ever-end-the-business-of-blockbuster-movie-franchises-78834">superheroes</a>) are no longer stand alone, but form part of a serial cinematic “Universe”.</p> <p>Many TV series now consist of feature-length episodes. With a run-time of 151 minutes, we could ask whether the Sense8 finale was actually a Netflix film, rather than a single episode. And, does it even matter to viewers what we call it?</p> <p>In a world where visual media is being increasingly viewed on tablets, mobile phones and laptops rather than in actual cinemas or on television sets perhaps the terms “cinema” and “television” no longer even make sense. This is an argument my co-editors and I <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/25785273.2019.1660067">make in a recent editorial</a> for the journal Transnational Screens.</p> <p>A key point is that streaming platforms such as Amazon and Netflix do not stand in opposition to cinema. Instead they have consumed cinema, repackaged it and made it available to global audiences. Powerful voices <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/mar/04/netflix-steven-spielberg-streaming-films-versus-cinema">rail against the power</a> of such platforms, but they do enhance screen culture and make cinema more available to global audiences.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122234/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: http://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em>Written by <span>Deborah Shaw, Professor of Film and Screen Studies, University of Portsmouth</span>. Republished with permission of </em><a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/can-cinema-survive-in-a-golden-age-of-serial-tv-122234" target="_blank"><em>The Conversation</em></a><em>.</em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

Gravity lends weight to cinema – and always has

<p>Cinema’s relationship to gravity is a fascinating one.</p> <p>At the time of its birth, in 1895, cinema was seen as a revolutionary machine that didn’t simply defy gravity through moving pictures seemingly suspended in air, but allowed one to experience the forces of the world directly, sweetly, intimately.</p> <p>The stories of the first movie patrons hurrying away from the screen in case they were run over as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0000012/">The Train Arrived at the Station</a> (The Lumière Brothers, 1896) flickered before them is a startling – if perhaps mythical – account of cinema’s gravitational grandeur.</p> <p>The awe and wonder of cinema lies in its remarkable ability to visualise and texturise the weight and feel of things, to render movement and velocity realistically, and to create spaces deep, far and wide. The precipice is one of cinema’s favourite environments. Directors turn to it to create a sense of depth and distance, and to enact the experience of falling.</p> <p>An iconic cinematic moment, captured in such films as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Vertigo</a> (Hitchcock, 1958) and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114558/">Strange Days</a> (Bigelow, 1995), involves a character looking down from the precipice, to then either jump, fall or be pushed off the edge, with a corresponding cinematography that captures them hurtling, hurtling, hurtling towards the nadir. Then splat.</p> <p>The power and beauty of cinema in part resides in its ability to effectively engage the viewer’s emotions, and to envelop the body in a sea of sensations that are directly felt. Cinema is a sentient machine that awakens the senses in all of us.</p> <p>Cinema can create the conditions for viewers to sweat, feel nauseous, or be aroused. In action sequences or scenes of terror, it can lead to an increase in viewers’ heart-rates and make their pupils dilate.</p> <p>At its most awesome, when we are faced by something extraordinary or perplexing, cinema can take our breath away, render us speechless and powerless before its infinite gaze. Many critics argue that the Star Gate sequence in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">2001: A Space Odyssey</a> (Kubrick, 1968) is one such sublime moment. The viewer is taken along an unknown colourised vector, without “narrative” coordinates to anchor them, enabling them to experience the existential nothingness of (anti) gravity as they do so.</p> <p>Science fiction cinema is particularly suited to capturing the sensorial qualities of movement and speed. Its special effects and future settings enable it to legitimately defy gravity; to take the viewer through incandescent wormholes at light speed and out into alien environments where objects, spaces, things don’t follow gravitational laws or the iron cage of physics.</p> <p>The expansive space of science fiction creates the sense that gravity is a minor factor in the workings of the universe. When these films are set in outer space, science fiction is able to demonstrate the giddiness of weightlessness, the eerie silence of dark space, and the absolute terror of being untethered from Earth.</p> <p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Gravity</a> (Cuarón, 2013) is perhaps one of the most perfect demonstrations of cinema’s intimate and inter-connecting relationship to the forces of nature and the forces that lie beyond them, nestled as they are amongst the vast, undulating sheets of the cosmos.</p> <p>The film’s unbroken opening “floating” shot, lasting more than 13 minutes, captures the weightlessness and the spinning vastness of space, the distant, rotating beauty of Earth, and humankind’s sense of isolation and isolating melancholy as the astronauts go about their daily, routinised work, as if they have clocked in at an inter-stellar factory.</p> <p>Gravity’s 3D spatial arrangements induce a sense of vertigo, disorientating the viewer, creating the sensation that one is in outer space, beholden by its massiveness, and yet trapped precisely because one is not tethered to anything. Debris shoots out from the darkness; lines dangle; space is not logical. There is zero gravity in Gravity.</p> <p>There is no single or singular precipice in the film: the mise-en-scène combines zenith and nadir. One is constantly falling or climbing, climbing and falling. It is difficult to breathe while watching the movie, and almost impossible to not experience one’s own body as if it is stranded in outer space, without gravitational crampons to hold onto, to root one to terra firma.</p> <p>If newspaper <a href="http://movies.about.com/od/gravity/fl/Gravity-Movie-Review.htm">reports are accurate</a>, then just as the train that arrived at the station created hysteria in those who watched it more than 100 years ago, so today Gravity sends people running down the aisles, too discombobulated to carry on watching.</p> <p>Much of contemporary blockbuster cinema functions simply to activate the senses; to enact and embody the “thrill aesthetic” through its lavish special effects and immersive 3D technology.</p> <p>There is much criticism of this as a cinematic form. Some argue that complex characterisation and serious storytelling are marginalised or juvenilised in favour of the kinetic ride.</p> <p>Thrill, however, is an expansive concept and the senses are not necessarily crude or divisible in the way. Spectacle can create the conditions for profound contemplation, as Gravity clearly does.</p> <p>Gravity releases the viewer into an unknown or unknowable void and in so doing asks, or rather compels, them to consider what it is that makes one human, social, and connected.</p> <p>Lost in space, caught floating and fleeing in the pure realm of the senses, we find out who we truly are and can be.</p> <p><em>Written by Sean Redmond. Republished with permission of </em><a href="https://theconversation.com/gravity-lends-weight-to-cinema-and-always-has-19157"><em>The Conversation</em></a><em>.</em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

The first movie I ever saw in cinemas

<p>Going to the cinemas is an activity that is enjoyed by all ages alike. Being immersed in a film for two hours is not only entertaining but going to the cinemas is a social outing that also leaves us with great memories. Here are some of the films the Over60 community saw on their first trip the pictures.</p> <p><strong>1. <em>Bambi</em>, 1942</strong></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><img width="500" height="750" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/35750/bambi_500x750.jpg" alt="Bambi"/></p> <p>“My first was <em>Bambi</em>. My sister 18 months older than me was going with friends, I badgered her to go too but she refused. For once my Mum (reclusive) decided I should go and took me herself. My sister was furious when we turned up. I did wonder later if Mum was checking up on her instead of being kind to me. I suppose I will never know but the film was fantastic!” – Mary Bennett </p> <p><strong>2. <em>The Sound of Music</em>, 1965</strong></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><strong><img width="500" height="709" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/35751/sound-of-music_500x709.jpg" alt="Sound Of Music"/></strong></p> <p>“Mum took my brother and I to see <em>The Sound of Music</em> I was around seven years old loved it. My brother about five at the time said that the best part was the drumstick ice cream at the interval.” –  Karen Bruce</p> <p><strong>3. <em>Fantasia</em>, 1940</strong></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><strong><img width="499" height="820" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/35752/fantasia_499x820.jpg" alt="Fantasia"/></strong></p> <p>“The first I remember would be<em> Fantasia</em> – I can't remember how old I was but the ‘Sorcerer's Apprentice’ scared the dickens out of me.” – Chris Simms </p> <p><strong>4.  <em>The Ten Commandments</em>, 1956</strong></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><strong><img width="500" height="744" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/35753/ten-commandments_500x744.jpg" alt="Ten Commandments"/></strong></p> <p>“Going back years ago, we used to get two movies and a half time then watch the second movie. [My first movie] was <em>Ten Commandments</em>. We paid 20 cents to see movies.” – Dot and Trevor Dixon</p> <p><strong>5. <em>The Wizard of Oz</em>, 1939</strong></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><strong><img width="499" height="745" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/35754/wizard-of-oz_499x745.jpg" alt="Wizard Of Oz"/></strong></p> <p>“My elder sister got scared by the wicked witch so we had to leave.” – Kerryn McDonnell</p> <p><strong>6. <em>Sleeping Beauty</em>, 1959</strong></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><strong><img width="499" height="735" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/35755/sleeping-beauty_499x735.jpg" alt="Sleeping Beauty"/></strong></p> <p>“I used to go to the cinema on Saturday mornings along with most of the local kids. We got a main movie, a cartoon and an episode of a serial, all for sixpence. Sixpence more for sweets and a drink. For a shilling for each child the local mums had three hours free on Saturday mornings and most of us walked there and back with friends. The first film I can remember seeing was <em>Sleeping Beauty</em> with the scariest witch ever!” – Nita Crompton</p> <p><strong>7. <em>Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs</em>, 1937</strong></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><strong><img width="500" height="749" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/35756/snow-white_500x749.jpg" alt="Snow White"/></strong></p> <p>“My earliest memory is <em>Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs</em>. My big brother took me and I was probably about 4 at the time.” – Alistair McAllister </p> <p><strong>8. Journey to the Centre of the Earth, 1959</strong></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><strong><img width="500" height="750" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/35757/journey-to-the-centre-of-the-earth_500x750.jpg" alt="Journey To The Centre Of The Earth"/></strong></p> <p>“The first film I remember seeing in the cinema was <em>Journey To The Centre of the Earth</em> with James Mason and Pat Boone which would have been around 1960 when I would have been about seven. I will always remember the scenes with the prehistoric animals that scared me to death at the time.” –  Phil Ross</p> <p><strong>9.  King Kong, 1976</strong></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><strong><img width="500" height="765" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/35758/king-kong_500x765.jpg" alt="King Kong"/></strong></p> <p>“The very first version of <em>King Kong</em>. Not many believe me when I tell them a few people saw the giant animals and ran screaming from the cinema.” - Mark Giaquinto </p> <p><strong>10. The Parent Trap, 1961</strong></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><strong><img width="500" height="765" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/35759/parent-trap_500x765.jpg" alt="Parent Trap"/></strong></p> <p>“My dad took me to Melbourne for my birthday when I was quite young to see the <em>Parent Trap</em> starring Hayley Mills.” - Kathy Pearce </p> <p>What was the first movie you saw at the cinemas? Let us know in the comments below. </p>

Movies