Another thing, which I hinted at above, is that suburban moviegoers often have to choose movies suited to the whole family, and you’re not going to find many six year olds that will want to watch The Ice Storm, or even understand it. So the multiplex in the suburban shopping plaza anchored by Long’s Drugs and Ralph’s Grocery has little or no incentive to screen it.
The problem, of course, is that people in the burbs typically are already major commuters with little downtime and who don’t want to make that drive–or ANY drive downtown–to see a movie they know little about. Ultimately, they may not want to take the “risk.”
But this is what I am really getting at. Do you truly believe that only 2 percent of the moviegoing public are “equipped to appreciate … or enjoy” these sorts of movies? (The idealist in me wants to believe no.) Ultimately, your response gets to the central question: Does the suburban experience somehow dumb down viewer tastes?
The burbs (at least the more affluent burbs) tend to boast exceptionally educated, well-travelled people who support the arts. One would think this would translate advantageously into higher box-ticket receipts to high-brow offerings. But whether one is in a mall in Appalachia West Virginia or in a suburban mall in Charlotte or Charlottesville or Washington, D.C., you see essentially the same movies being shown–and the same movies not being shown, exceptions granted.
Please comment.
Idiocracy was shown in almost no theaters. Literally, almost no theaters. Not a good example for your side there.
Hollywood does not understand suburbia any more than the network t.v. execs understand that not everyone who is home during the day is a certifiable idiot.
I never watch t.v. during the day because my choices are insipid game shows, soap operas, and horrific reality shows (Jerry Springer, Judge Judy) for people who wish to flaunt their appalling lack of dignity. Even the commercials are embarrassing. If I’m ever in a car accident, though, I know who to call!
Video and DVD rentals and sales should be a good indicator of how to market movies, and they don’t need to deal with distribution of cinema releases. If those movies were watched by enough people, more movies like them would be made available. But they aren’t.
You can argue with incomplete predictive statistics, but you can’t really argue with actual real numbers that prove what sells, where, and to whom.
I used Idiocracy as an example because it was the example given in the OP.
And it was released in 130 theaters. Movies like that often hit an average of $10,000 per theater. Idiocracy didn’t make $1000 per theater its first weekend.
By comparison, a well-reviewed movie like The Science of Sleep went up to 221 theaters its second weekend and made $5044. Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, a movie I’ve never heard of, debuted in 64 theaters and made $21,121.
Carnac, I already gave you the reason. It’s simple business. It’s the same reason that most museums, concert halls, and other singular types of low-volume entertainment are located in central cities. It’s a matter of location and population distribution. The issue is not one of dumbing down, but of audience size. I’m sorry if you want something more complicated or sinister.
And why is audience size so appallingly low, especially in the hypereducated burbs? Are we just technical savants, but cultural idiots?
After a mentally challenging week at work, the last thing most people want is a further two hours of needing to think to get any entertainment value out of what they’re consuming. What they want is to blob out in front of the screen and let the superficial imagery wash over them and maybe thrill their senses a bit.
You may think that what we need is cultural stimulation, but what we want is beautiful people, car chases, and explosions.
I know, but after trudging so many miles, I was hoping for something a little more uplifting. 
Not a single individual, but a large demographic group. Large corporations are generally pretty good at marketing to the masses. And that’s what it’s about. I know everyone likes to think they are somehow better than 99% of the people out there. But if you are in that 1%, you’re not a big enough group to care about.
And smiling bandit’s right. Most art house films suck.
Idiocracy was doomed to fail commercially, perhaps, but tightfisted studios/distributors didn’t advertise it, effectively leaving it to die on the vine–and then used that death to buttress future decisions against indie films.
Anyway, I know the answer here. It’s just like Twain said: A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.
This way to the egress, folks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Alot of people in the burbs have kids, home maintenance, elder care ect. to deal with. Finding the time to go see Any movie is problematic for many. Those who tend to live in the more densely populated urban centers, in my experience, tend to be young couples without children with dual incomes, single professionals, students and the wealthy (or poor, but perhaps not a large audience for art film). They have time and money to go see the random arthouse flick now and then without much pre-planning. It’s not that my surbuban dwelling friends like less sophisticated movies (again, in my experience in my circle of friends) it’s just that finding the time and mental energy to devote to a challenging film is rare. Businesses have tuned into this and so you find the phenomenon you describe.
My mother’s time planner would make the Pope’s secretary balk. On any given day you can ask her what are her plans for the next month and she’ll be able to list doctor’s appointments, friends she’s going to see, friends she’s going to avoid, church meetings, library meetings, stores she’s going to visit each day…
She often complains that interesting movies shown in the local multiplex don’t last enough. The multiplex is out of town; by the time she gets around to reading the weekly schedule (which changes every Friday), finds transportation and creates a hole in her calendar, the movie has been taken off the list or is getting only the 1am Friday night show.
Apparently this happens to quite a few people in her location; the three local cineclubs share the custom of giving additional shows for a movie if the theater has been over half-full. Some of those movies that showed in the multiplex for only one week have run for a month in a cineclub.
But try convincing the manager of the multiplex that maybe he should think of 66yo ladies when he does his marketing. 66yo ladies who always carry at least one other person in tow when going to the movies aren’t a target market for anybody but Depends, apparently…
And the three local cineclubs.
What’s a cineclub?
Hm… lit “movie club”. All a “pure” cineclub does is have movie screenings; the local ones are a “pure” cineclub (mostly artsy stuff, documentaries, indies), the Culture section of city hall (they have a “new directors” competition with a week of screenings and prizes both from the jury and the public; during school holidays they often schedule kiddie programs), and a local club that does a lot of local-culture-preservation work also schedules movie screenings. They’re NPOs pretty much by definition, as opposed to an “artsy movie theater” where the owner actually expects to be able to pay for his meals.
These three normally use an old movie theater that’s otherwise unocupied, or the auditoriums of either of the two local high schools, or for open-air screenings the cloisters in the library.
Since we’re on the topic of marketing research, what’s sample size have you to buttress your assertion that “most art house films suck”?
Film distributors would probably argue that your mother’s priorities do not include non-standard fare. She can revise her schedule more easily than a distributor or theater manager, they would say.
I wish we had that! That would be awesome.
We do have a local one-screen art house here, and I’m a member and we go sometimes, but I always forget that something’s playing until it goes away and usually they only get it a milisecond before the DVD comes out anyway.
Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!
It’s all about demographics. Who lives in the suburbs? Who goes to see movies in droves in the suburbs? Groups of teenagers and families with kids. When are these theatres packed? Nights (especially weekends) when the teens need something to do and want to see Saw IV, or weekend matinees when families want to see the latest Pixar flick or the latest Harry Potter.
I’m not saying Mom and Dad aren’t intellectual enough to want to see a thought provoking indie, they just don’t have the time, and Mom and Dad don’t go out to see movies by themselves. They have big houses. They have big TVs. They’ll watch them at home when they get a free couple hours.
Who lives in the urban areas? College students, singles, yuppies. When you have no kids and don’t have a lawn to mow you have the time to go see indies on a Wednesday night. And your not going to go drive “out” to the burbs to see a film, you’re going to walk around the corner.
They’re not only putting movies where their audiences are, they’re putting movies where their paying moviegoing audiences are.