Hollywood versus The Recession

I work for a service organization in NYC that works with over 330 non-profit theatres throughout the City. This morning, we held a (arts and theatre) community-wide forum on the economy. The timing couldn't have been better, for not long after I got back to my desk, I came upon the following on imdb.com during my lunch break.

The movie business may not be as recession proof as some industry executives have suggested, the Los Angeles Times observed today (Wednesday), citing a recent study by Forrester Research. According to the study, consumers now have numerous cheaper alternatives to a night at the movies -- particularly the Internet. It found that most adults 25-34 are most willing to sacrifice moviegoing during a recession but they are least willing to give up Internet access. They are also bypassing Netflix and brick-and-mortar DVD rental stores and picking up DVDs instead at supermarket kiosks that are renting them for $1.00 a pop. The study, however, was dismissed by John Fithian, CEO of the National Association of Theater Owners, who told the Times": "It's not that the cinema business is completely immune to recessions, but the industry appears to be recession-resistant. If there are decent movies, people are going to come out."

I've been speaking with Zombie a lot about the economy and how it might affect our respective industries - his being print media, mine being theatre (outside of film, of course). We both agree that the economic downturn could spell BIG problems (and is in fact doing so in many cases). Onyx, ever the optimist, has held firm to the stance shared by John Fithian that people will still go see movies, even if they have to stretch their dollars elsewhere. While I was interested to read that even Netfilx seems to be losing subscribers - or at the very least, not attracting new ones right now - I, too, must agree that there has always been a place for film, despite or perhaps because of any troublesome times. Since the silent movies were first accompanied by live piano music, people have turned to the cinema as a welcome form of escape, at least for two hours at a time. (I'm not sure that commercials of luxury cars before the previews even start are such a good idea right now, but the films themselves certainly have a place in the economy, whatever state it might be in.)

The only question I have is about the internet. If it's true that some people are foregoing the live movie theater experience for downloadable content - and I'm sure it is - where does that leave production and distribution companies? Supposing audiences are opting for a night in with either a pirated movie or a downloadable one once it's released to DVD and the internet, with the drop in box office revenue, is it possible we'll see a drop in production financing or quality? Some companies have already cut their slate back by four, six, or more movies per year. Granted, this is an attempt to ensure the highest quality for those films they do produce. But just to speculate, what could happen if more and more audience members decide to stay home and skip the big screen experience (much to Onyx's displeasure)? Hopefully, nothing bad. If anything, perhaps the economy and any ensuing uncompelled audiences will force Hollywood (and every filmmaker, film industry, film anyone) to drive the quality of their films up. Audiences won't pay twelve dollars to see a mediocre movie during hard financial times. But they will still pay for something great.

Maybe this recession will usher in a new era, the era of unprecedented, unrivaled, and unfaltering superb quality cinema.