More than Films: The Attraction of Art-house Theatres in the 21st Century.

(1)

More than Films:

The Attraction of Art-house Theatres in the 21

st

Century

Maya Barenstein

University of Amsterdam

MA Preservation and Presentation of the Moving Image

Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Tina M. Bastajian Second Reader: Dr. Annet Dekker

(2)

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisor, Tina M. Bastajian, for the guidance through the different stages of the thesis. My sincere gratitude goes to the amazing film programmers that agreed to be interviewed during this strange period: Manuel Fioroni, Alice Riva, Tom Ooms, Efijeni Kokedhima and Neritan Zinxhiria, you are truly inspiring and I wish you all the best for your current and future projects. Moreover, I also want to thank Andri Erdin, whose feedback was incredibly useful and admirable, and Jennifer Duyne, my mother, for always finding the time to help and support me in all my endeavours. Lastly, but most importantly, I am grateful for the fellowship and encouragement of Cecilia Pezzini. I could not have done it without you.

(3)

1. Introduction

Cinema-going, for this generation certainly, appears to have been less about particular films, or even films in general, than about experiences surrounding and part of the activity of ‘going to the pictures’, about the place of this activity in the context of their daily lives, interactions with family and friends, and comings and goings within and beyond the neighbourhoods in which they lived. (Kuhn 539)

Film scholar Annette Kuhn wrote these words in 1999, but even today they hold true – perhaps more than ever. As a result of the spread of streaming platforms in the past decade, the film theatre is no longer the only space where we can discover new releases and appreciate older gems. The access to an enormous slate of films has never been easier, as people can watch films wherever and whenever they desire. Therefore, in today’s audiovisual landscape going to the cinema involves the clear act of deciding to watch a film in one of the many options available: in a specific location and at a specific time. Inevitably, a question arises: Why are we still going to the cinema today? This decision is inevitably influenced by the entire experience offered by the cinema, and not only by the specific title screened on a particular night. As a consequence, film exhibitors are constantly pushed to find new creative ways to make cinemas attractive, and assert their position as important players in the film industry and culture by proposing richer and varied programmes and initiatives alongside more regular film screenings.

The consideration of cinemas as research subjects initiated with a film historical turn in the early 1980s, when film historians gradually shifted their attention away from the film text toward the broader circumstances informing the cinematic phenomena. A wide range of factors – technological, economic, and sociocultural – were finally considered worth academic scrutiny because of their influence on the overall experience of cinema. In the 1990s, film scholars such as Allen, Gomery, and Elsaesser became particularly interested in the study of film exhibition, which had been generally ignored in film studies before (Jancovich and Faire 10). This attention to context and the understanding of film as a product placed within a wider network of factors parallels the assumption that the experience of cinema is more than the mere watching of a film. Indeed, one cannot assume that an individual title stands “consistently or unproblematically at the centre of this network of interactions” (Allen 85). Film theatres are not merely empty spaces in which films are screened and consumed by a crowd, but rather “sites full of significant things and spaces rich in meaning” (Wasson 6). The atmosphere and décor, the break from daily routine, the sense of entertainment or relaxation, the sociality of the activity, everything can contribute to the experience of cinema. This shift in academics’ attention is reflected in the efforts that film exhibitors invest in creating a thorough cinematic experience for their audience.

In my thesis, I investigate how art-house theatrical exhibitors are responding to current challenges, i.e. the competition with other viewing platforms, in terms of management and programming. More specifically, my research is guided by the following questions: What are the most

(5)

common promotional/marketing strategies and practices adopted by art-house cinemas today? How are cinema programmers making their screenings and events attractive to an audience in today’s media landscapes? How are these strategies influenced by contextual factors, such as cultural policies, public subsidies and the degree of urbanity? In his essay on movie-going, Roland Barthes ponders two possible reasons that motivate this activity, namely a “specific cultural quest” or a simple “response to idleness, leisure, free time” (345). While both hypotheses are plausible, I argue that today more than ever going to the cinema transcends mere entertainment; indeed, opting to see a specific film in the theatre is a conscious, deliberate choice. Audiences are drawn to the cinema because of the experience that is offered besides the specific film, which encourages exhibitors to invest in creating such an experience and special event. While film scholars have exhaustively addressed these questions, so far the perspectives of professionals have been largely overlooked in academic research. Based on these considerations, my aim is to explore common strategies adopted by contemporary art-house cinemas, and their relationship to the audience, not only based on secondary sources, but also by giving voice to film exhibitors.

The thesis is divided in seven chapters; following the introduction, the second chapter is dedicated to an historical overview of theatrical exhibition focusing on the understanding of cinema beyond the film text only. The third chapter focuses on film programming and cinema management based on theoretical and practical texts, exploring common practices and promotion strategies adopted by art-house theatres today. The chapter includes a section on the role of space in film exhibition in terms of its organization and perception by the audience. In the fourth chapter I explore how social media influence the behaviour of viewers and their perceptions of the film theatre, and how it can be used as a tool for promoting and enhancing the cinema experience. The fifth chapter considers the model of the pop-up cinema with reference to urban leisure theory. Before concluding, the sixth chapter analyses the case studies that provide concrete and more in-depth examples to the theoretical discussion conducted based on previous research. This chapter is based on semi-structured interviews with programmers from three fixed-location cinemas: Lux, an art-house theatre in the complex context of the Italian part of Switzerland, Spoutnik, a collective non-profit cinema located in a cultural centre in Geneva (Switzerland), and LAB111, a young cinema screening a mix of cult cinema, classics, and newer releases in Amsterdam (Netherlands), and the Nomadic Cinema Tarkovsky, an itinerary cinema proposing a cycle of screenings events in ex-Soviet locations in Eastern Europe. Each case study has its specificities that will be discussed in the chapter based on an analysis of the interviews’ results. Finally, I will draw some conclusions by reflecting on the case studies in relation to the factors discussed in the previous chapters.

The bibliography consulted in this research stands in line with the multidisciplinary nature of cinema exhibition, which, as stated by film scholar Ina Rae Hark, “offers significant material for scholars of business and architecture, local history and urban geography, the marketing of films and the meaning of the movie going experience to explore” (1). Thus, texts from a variety of disciplines

(6)

proved to be helpful: exhibition and reception history and theory, reports and articles about contemporary cinema exhibition, urban leisure studies, marketing studies, communication and social media studies, among others. This aligns with the approach of media archaeology, the film and media theory focusing on the essence of cinema in consideration of the broader context that informs it, both historically and presently (Elsaesser, Film 18). According to film historian and professor Thomas Elsaesser, media archaeology “sees cinema’s past as well as its future firmly embedded in other media practices, other technologies, other social uses, and above all as having—throughout its history— interacted with, been dependent on, been complemented by, and found itself in competition with all manner of entertainment forms” (19). The analysis of the motif of ‘cinema beyond films only’ conducted in this thesis implies that this research particularly aligns with the strand of media archaeology that aims at identifying “recurring topoi” throughout the history of cinema (Strauven 68).

(7)

2. The History of Film Exhibition and Art-house Cinemas

Starting from the 1980s, film scholars shifted their attention away from the film’s content in order to consider the context of their distribution and consumption. As anticipated, New Cinema History, the name given to this new trend in film studies, took hold in the 1990s (Maltby 3). The historiographical line focuses on the past of cinema taking into account multidisciplinary contributions and perspectives, such as the influence of commercial, legal, political, and socio-cultural aspects over film production and consumption (3). In this chapter, I consider the history of Western film exhibition from its travelling phase to the establishment of fixed cinemas, the emergence of art-house theatres, as well as the difficulties faced by the theatrical sector. In alignment with media archaeologists’ “nothing is new under the sun approach” (Elsaesser, Film 23), the purpose is not only to cover the development of film exhibition with a particular focus on art-house cinemas, but also to establish how, throughout exhibition history, the audience was always drawn to the film theatre because of multiple factors beside the single film screened on a particular occasion, as reflected in the strategies adopted by film exhibitors.

2.1 Early Cinema Exhibition: From Travelling Cinemas to Permanent Theatres

Early film exhibition, from the end of the 19th century to the early 20th century, took place in fairs and other special occasions in the form of the travelling cinema. However, due to the growing popular demand, cities gradually started to build fixed film theatres. By the 1920s all larger urban centres disposed of permanent theatres, though travelling cinemas and other modes of temporary film exhibition continued in rural areas, where “the movies never found ‘a place of their own’ and film exhibitors continued to operate in other venues, mostly in multipurpose halls” located in restaurants, cafés, and hotels (Thissen 10). Though the phenomenon of travelling cinemas is often regarded as solely pertaining to the early phase of cinema exhibition, in many European countries1, where a large part of the population was still living outside larger urban centres, the practice continued well into the 1960s (van Oort 149). Later forms of itinerant cinemas, however, differed considerably from the tent shows in which the practice first started (149). While travelling exhibitors catering to smaller communities initially carried their own projector and films copies, many multipurpose halls eventually bought their own projector that would operate when the local demand was sufficiently high (Thissen 98). Thus, cinemas in rural villages worked on demand, with exhibitors organizing screenings based on popular request, in what Judith Thissen terms “interrupted pattern of film exhibition” (98). Although travelling exhibitors were faced with considerable costs of transportation,

the possibility of staying in one place for a longer period of time was rarely considered; because they served mainly small towns and villages, the novelty of their programme was quickly worn given the limited potential audience (van Oort 151).

1_{Both Judith Thissen’s and Thunnis Van Oort’s discuss film exhibition and travelling cinemas in Europe, with a} specific focus on the Dutch context.

(8)

For their capacity to reach an audience that could not access permanent cinemas, from the 1930s travelling film exhibition started to be perceived as a profitable business model also for owners of fixed theatres. This model could be a way to expand to a wider public in the countryside with the benefits of lower risks and expenses in places were the popular demand had risen but was still not high enough to justify the foundation of a permanent cinema (van Oort 152). This new generation of semi-permanent cinemas, run by the local municipality, the parish, clubs or associations, turned cinema-going in less populated areas into a more regular recreational activity, and a less festive and exceptional event compared to when it was mainly restricted to annual or biennial fairs (152). Semi-permanent cinemas became particularly successful after the Second World War, when this new model was normalised and integrated into the mainstream distribution and exhibition industry (153). Hence, travelling cinemas in the post-war years became “a hybrid form of the permanent and the mobile”, from nomadic to “a semi-sedentary and regularly recurring cinema operation” (160). Thunnis Van Oort argues that, though this later form of ambulant cinema is often regarded as a marginal practice, the owners of permanent cinemas at the time regarded the phenomenon as an unfair competition that avoided the risks faced by permanent cinemas by organising their screenings only when the conditions were optimal (153). As a consequence, exhibitors of permanent cinemas pushed to implement restrictions and regulations over itinerant cinemas in terms of limiting the number of screenings they were allowed to program, as well as their freedom to decide what films to show and when, eventually discouraging the practice in later decades (153). At the same time, as cinema audiences increased, film production grew globally, resulting in a distribution system where films copies and the rights to screen them were rented to exhibitors instead of being directly sold to them (151). This system encouraged the ascent of permanent cinemas with weekly changing programmes targeting a generally stable, local audience (151). Therefore, film exhibition practices changed through time reflecting the patterns of film consumption, while also adapting to the public’s demand and the emergence of new audiences.

2.2 The Emergence of Art-house Theatres

Once cinema was integrated in people’s life as a common leisure activity, and the novelty of the invention was not its primary attraction anymore, exhibitors started to address their attention towards specific sections of the audience, and film theatres became more diverse and specialised. Part of the theatres continued to aim at attracting the largest public possible, while others concentrated on more niche groups, such as in the case of art-house theatres that programmed films targeting a more ‘highbrow’ audience. Art-house cinemas have their origins in the years following World War II, when a number of occurrences led to radical changes on all levels of the film industry. The production level was deeply affected by the separation of the big studios to their theatre chains in the United Sates, and by the increasing diversity of new releases; the taste of the general audience shifted and cinema attendance declined considerably leading to a crisis in the sector (Wilinsky 2). As argued by Barbara Wilinsky, these changes impacted the work of all film professionals who were pushed to find new ways to attract audiences to the theatre (2). Meanwhile, deep societal transformations resulted in new

(9)

reasons to go to the cinema, influenced by factors such as the youth culture, the cold war, the rising popularity of television, and new trends in filmmaking among others (2). Art-house theatres were influenced by the new filmmaking movements that started in Europe following the Second World War, from Italian Neorealism to the new waves of the 1960s, which contributed to the creation of a new form of film culture and consumption. These heterogeneous film productions existed “outside the direct control of Hollywood”, often dealing with political topics and striving for stylistic and narrative novelty (Tweedie 2).

Focusing on the American post-war context, the author discusses how “the belief that economic discrepancies were disappearing in the United States led to a growing emphasis on taste and culture”, resulting in a novel cultural and leisure hierarchy that disapproved of mass culture and popular entertainment (Wilinsky 2). The idea of art cinema thus offered an instance of “high culture (and high class)” responding to a desire for distinction (81). In this light, the emergent art-house theatres conveyed an impression of exclusivity and taste, offering an intellectual and cultured experience in contrast with ‘ordinary’ cinemas:

The sure-seater has a subtle snob appeal that helps at the box office. You go into a theatre that has a few tasteful paintings in the lobby and a maid serves you a demitasse of coffee. You’ve just paid top admission price, but the coffee creates a pleasant aura. Then you’re shown to a comfortable seat in a well-mannered audience. The show lasts two hours; there is no Class C horror or murder mish-mash to pad out a double feature program. You see a picture that assumes you have average intelligence and it’s such a refreshing switch that you are flattered to be among such perceptive folks who are sharing the experience. (Stanley 69)

As explained by Wilinsky, “sure seater” was the nickname given to art-house theatres in the 1950s, when an art-house was usually a small urban cinema showing “‘offbeat’ films such as independent Hollywood, foreign language, and documentary films”, decorated with art and carefully-selected furniture, and serving coffee in the lobby (1-2). In short, a very different experience compared to that of mainstream cinemas. Indeed, to identify something as alternative ‘other’, a counterpart to what was considered mainstream, popular, or normal.

A parallel to today’s art-house theatres is immediately evident. The appeal of art-house cinemas remains in part dictated by their distinction from more commercial and mass-oriented sterile cinemas because of a particular care in the décor and snack selection, alongside a more curated film programme. To this day, art-house cinemas remain partly motivated by a desire of distinction from the mainstream dominant culture through the offering of alternative content, which often reflects recent socio-political concerns. However, it is important to emphasise that besides the art-house theatres’ mission to bring alternative films to the audience as a form of counter-culture effort, cinemas were well aware of their specific position in the cultural landscape and often invested in the creation of this “image of difference” because of financial reasons (Wilinsky 3-4). From their emergence, thus, the distinctiveness of art-house cinemas compared to more mass-oriented theatres was a conscious marketing strategy used to attract a niche audience. Nevertheless, though the emergence of art cinema and theatres was partly based on elitist ideas of taste and distinction, it is worth noting that it also

(10)

contributed to a change in the perception of cinema as a valuable and legitimate art form in general, and not merely as a form of entertainment. It follows that understanding the position of art-house cinemas in the cultural scene at the time of their emergence can help to discern how cinema has become an object of academic study, and considered one of the most influential art forms of the twentieth century (6).

The understanding of art-house theatres is inherently linked to the idea of art film, both constituting permutable terms that can change over time. While there are different interpretations and definitions of the term ‘art film’, this very ambiguity and flexibility suggests that this class of cinema exists as “a discursive category” (Wilinsky 11). Following the Second World War, art cinema was supported by a revived cinephilia that accompanied the emerging filmmaking movements, most notably the ‘new waves’ of the 1960s. These heterogeneous film movements “held in common their emphasis on culture, especially popular culture, as a revolutionary force and their status as local manifestations of a global movement” (Tweedie 3). Influenced by ideas of authorship, aesthetic value and contemporary social and political discourses, film critics, scholars, filmmakers and film enthusiast contributed to the creation of an active film culture that valued exchange and discussions. In this context, as explained by Elsaesser, “cinephilia meant being sensitive to one’s surroundings when watching a movie, carefully picking the place where to sit, fully alert to the quasi-sacral feeling of nervous anticipation that could descend upon a public space, however squalid, smelly or slipshod, as the velvet curtain rose and the studio logo with its fanfares filled the space” (“Cinephilia” 2). This “first cinephilia” was therefore not merely determined by a general love for cinema, but “site-specific” in that it was “defined by the movie houses, neighborhoods and cafés one frequented” (30). Thus, following the war, art films and cinephilia became strongly connected to art-house attendance, as watching these kind of films “meant attending one of the little cinemas, repertory theaters, museum theaters, university theaters, or film societies available to cinephiles”, where one could meet with like-minded people (Andrews 177).

Though the association of art films with high art is certainly motivated in part by a recognition of the unique artistic qualities of art cinema, “these associations were also foregrounded for economic and sociocultural purposes. People invested in art cinema – from critics to filmgoers to those involved in the film industry – perpetuated this myth of the ‘noncommercial’ art cinema” (Wilinsky 33). Yet again, this emphasises how art cinema and art-house theatres, though considered as existing outside the mainstream industry, were and still are part of an industry driven by business interests. Moreover, the fact that art-house cinema has long been commercialised by the dominant entertainment industry in order to reach more ‘alternative’ audiences, confirms that the appeal of art-house theatres is not only given by the programming of ‘art cinema’, which can be found also in more mainstream and commercial platforms, most notably Netflix, but also by the special allure of their décor and carefully fabricated atmosphere as a whole. Nevertheless, the emergence of art-house cinemas was deeply connected with the new movements and cinephilia that characterised the film community following

(11)

WWII, as well as a desire of distinction resulting from the regularisation of cinema-going as an leisure activity, and the recognition of films as serious cultural products.

2.3 Crises of Theatrical Exhibition and the Rise of Home Entertainment

The first half of the twentieth century marked a flourishing period for theatrical exhibition, with cinemas being the only access point to audio-visual entertainment (Aveyard and Moran 74). While cinema attendance became a popular and regular leisure activity relatively quickly, its history has always seen periods of up and downs. Although the challenges faced by exhibitors were new and specific to each period, going through phases of crisis is not unusual in theatrical exhibition. Despite the introduction of technological innovations such as wide screens and improved sound systems, between the 1950s and the 1980s cinema attendance was in serious decline globally (74). The reasons were multiple, at times depending on the economic difficulties that marked the post-war time in Europe, on crises on the film industry level, or on the raise of other leisure activities and attractions, for example drive-ins, television, and shopping centres among others (74). The 1980s marked a phase of profound change in the entertainment industry, most notably due to the raise of multiplexes and the developments of home viewing technology. The boom of multiplexes started when “major exhibitors began building large multi-screen film venues in retail malls and self-contained entertainment precinct developments” achieving tremendous success, and thus marking a comeback of cinemas as a popular leisure activity (74). The prosperity of multi-screen theatres has been attributed to a number of factors, namely an increase of the offer, though mainly mainstream content, and the proximity to shopping malls and other types of leisure activities that could potentially contribute to attracting a wider public to the cinema (74). The raise of multiplexes is, thus, corresponding to a new phase in film exhibition, at the same time contributing to the crisis and the reinvention of art-house theatres.

Another development that profoundly impacted the meaning of cinema consumption since the 1950s is home viewing technology, and the rise of television. Not only did television constituted a new competitor to cinemas, but also it profoundly changed the way people consumed audiovisual content. Most notably, TV increased freedom in choosing what to watch, while also expanding and differentiating the type of content available. Hence, this innovation constituted a milestone in the history of audiovisual entertainment, “taking exhibition out of the hands of producers and distributors and putting it into the hands of the consumers” (Andrew 165). This freedom of the audience to curate their own programme was furthered by the introduction of later technologies, such as VHS recorders in the 1980s and DVDs in the late 1990s, which granted even more flexibility in terms of what films to watch and when, without having to adhere to the fixed schedules of cinemas and television programmes (Aveyard and Moran 75). More recently, the Internet has led to an additional step in the free circulation and viewing of audiovisual content, notably at a lower cost, increased accessibility and to wider variety of contents. These new technologies marked an expansion of “the locational interface of film spectatorship beyond the public domain to include the distinctive socio-political structures of the domestic sphere” (75). The present scenery, informed by all these viewing technologies introduced

(12)

since the beginning of cinema exhibition, is characterised by the numerous factors that can influence viewers in the decision of what to watch and how, outside the setting of the film theatre (73). Nevertheless, watching films in the digital age remains as popular as ever. Regardless of the chosen viewing setting, “the film experience is a living part of what it means to be socially connected in the early twenty-first century” (73). Thus, the development of home entertainment changed profoundly the way people consume audiovisual content, transforming the cinema in just one, albeit unique, viewing setting.

2.4 Cinema Beyond Films

As discussed at the beginning of the chapter, New Cinema History led to the consideration of film audiences and their experience of cinemas through time. Richard Maltby elaborates on Kuhn’s conception of ‘cinema memory’ quoted in the introduction of this thesis arguing that “the vast majority of films do not seek out landmark status for themselves, but are designed to fade back into the overall field of our cultural experiences” (11). From this perspective, the social act of going to the cinema can be considered as more important than the activity of watching films. This chapter’s historical overview of film theatrical exhibition reveals that the understanding of cinema as an experience surpassing the mere consumption of films in a determined location has always been clear to film professionals working in the field. The sociality of the cinema, the special atmosphere and setting, the way it interrupts people’s daily routines, everything can play a part in people’s experience of the film theatre. Robert C. Allen describes the experience of cinema as open-ended on a number of levels:

Spatially, the relationships that constitute the experience of cinema are not bounded by the borders of the screen, the theoretical space between spectator and image, the physical space between viewers, or the space between them and the places in which movies are shown. They extend from the intimate to the global. Temporally, the experience of cinema does not begin when the lights go down, or even when a ticket is purchased, and it does not end when the credits roll or we step back into the ‘real’ world outside the exhibition space. The experience of cinema is, for the most part, memories of experiences of cinema, and for a hundred of years what was remembered as the experience of cinema was the experience of public movie-going. (86)

Though cinemas’ appearance and practices change through time, and so does the audience perception of them, Allen’s argument suggests that the activity of going to the cinema is inherently about more than the single film projected. Historically this idea resulted in the development of a specific “economic logic” based on the awareness that all the films presented in theatres were part of the overall experience of movie-going only for a brief moment, “before disappearing indefinitely, if not forever” (81). For example in the 1910s and 1920s programming was on the background compared to the efforts that exhibitors invested in “overwhelming their customers with elaborate architecture and interior furnishings, armies of attendants, live stage shows, and mighty Wurlitzer organs” (Hark 3). Moreover, “on the screen itself, the feature shared running time with newsreels, travelogues, comedy shorts, and cartoons, as well as various announcements and trailers” (3). Thus, the precursors of art-house cinemas, or ‘movie palaces’, worked consciously on offering the public a special theatrical

(13)

experience that differed from the more anonymous and sterile atmosphere found in the dominant multiplexes. According to Hark, the atmosphere of movie palaces suggested that going to the cinema was “a cultural event, rather than a sideshow attraction or a break from a shopping trip”, typically through its eclectic and exotic décor (7). The exoticism of movie palaces was not only evident because of the interiors and architecture evoking “every distant land and historical period the builders could think of”, but also in the choice of the theatre’s name, promising “a visit to the Oriental, Mayan or Egyptian, to Granada, Tivoli, Rivoli, or the Rialto” (12). This aligns with film historian Tom Gunning’s observation that “in the earliest years of exhibition the cinema itself was an attraction” (383). The film theatre, with all the machines and latest technologies it contained, allured the audience as much as, if not more than, the films it projected.

Another typical element that has always been part of the history of film exhibitions is the serving of food and beverages. To this day the supply of food and drinks and the setting to consume them, e.g. inside the cinema, in the café or lobby, play an integral role in creating a special atmosphere that contributes to the movie-going experience. Eating or drinking in company before or after going to the cinema has remained a popular combination up until today. In addition to this, the importance of sociality in the cinema experience has always been clear to exhibitors, as admissions were never solely based on the combination of films and “offscreen delights” alone (Hark 4). Indeed, from its very beginning “one of the most striking features of the experience of cinema” was its sociality, hence the convergence of groups of people in a particular place to experience something together (Allen 81). As a result, exhibitors have always strived to build a reliable film community of regulars surrounding the cinema, not only for financial benefits, but also to create a platform for exchanging opinions about the programme, as well as potential ideas for future projects and screenings.

While the elements discussed are still part of the experience of cinema today, the digital turn radically changed all sectors of the industry, and cinema-going in the digital era has certainly evolved in many aspects compared to its early beginning. Phil Clapp describes this new phase in film exhibition as “a new era of upgrades and improvements”, presenting a new range of offers, as well as a wider awareness of “the full potential of greater programming flexibility around film and other content” (44). Most importantly, however, cinema management has been profoundly influenced by virtual communication online that constitute new ways for exhibitors to engage with audiences outside the theatre (44). In summary, this chapter aimed to explore the emergence of theatrical exhibition with a specific focus on art-house cinemas, tracing the aspects that contributed to making cinema-going into a full and rich experience. While initially cinema was perceived as a special and rare occasion, its growing popularity converted it into a more common leisure activity. However, the competition of other forms of entertainment and newer technologies, which resulted in a drop of entrances in later years, forced art-house exhibitors to turn cinema into a kind of special event again. The unique setting and circumstances of the film theatres, as well as the strategies and practices commonly adopted within this space, will be further analysed in the next chapter.

(14)

3. Managing Art-house Cinemas

This chapter aims to examine film theatrical management in consideration of the wide range of practices it involves. In particular, it discusses the wider business context, in which cinemas are situated, that can particularly influence the decisions of exhibitors in terms of programming and scheduling. Moreover, the chapter also considers the film theatre as a specific experienced space, the practice of film programming, common promotion and marketing strategies in theatrical exhibition, as well as the cinema’s target audience.

3.1 Commercial Dimensions of Theatrical Exhibition

Although managing art-house theatres undoubtedly entails creativity and an appreciation for arts and culture, film exhibition is nevertheless partly dictated by logics of commercial value. Indeed, the films screened in theatres are determined “by people who are largely motivated by profit”, although the degree of this rationale can vary depending on the cinema (Bosma 115). Generally speaking, the film industry profits from exhibition through what are known as “release windows”, i.e. “the phases of movie viewing that a film passes through”, from their theatre debut to online streaming services, and “more traditional outlets like cable television and DVD/Blu-Ray sales” (Tefertiller et al. 3). As explained by Alec C. Tefertiller, the studios’ and production companies’ highest profits derive from the earlier windows, namely the film’s first weeks in the theatres (et al. 3). Today the journey of a film toward the public can take multiple directions, for actors such as Netflix and other streaming websites (Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc.) are increasingly releasing film exclusively on their online platforms without passing from more traditional stages of exhibition and distribution such as festival runs and theatrical releases. However, despite the alteration of traditional modes of film exhibition, where cinemas are only one of the options available, theatrical releases remain crucial to the success of new film productions (Moul and Shugan 80). This is because although a film might reach a wider audience only once it is released online, the theatrical release of a film is still “the most visible part of its commercial life”, and thus remains crucial even when the majority of people will not actually see the film in a theatre (80). This visibility is partly due to the fact that distributors and producers invest in advertising campaigns to create a buzz surrounding theatrical releases, and also because of the media attention to the film’s performance at the box office (Eliashberg 138). As discussed, theatrical exhibition today remains valid and relevant also in consideration of purely commercial logics.

Distributors constitute another external influence on theatrical management that is broadly motivated by profit. As argued by Peter Bosma, even following the digital turn, distributors can still dictate the circumstance under which certain films can be seen (35). Exhibitors have to negotiate with national distributors the conditions for screening specific titles or, in some cases, compilations of films through the stipulation of apposite contracts. Moreover, distributors are responsible for providing subtitles to the cinemas, and can also be involved in the promotion of their films, through campaigns, and by providing theatres with publicity materials such as posters, flyers and trailers. Contracts between the distributor and the exhibitor typically establish a minimum of screenings per title as well

(15)

as how the profits deriving from the films are to be shared between the two parties (Eliashberg 146). In the case of European art-house cinemas, the most common agreements with distribution companies are based on the payment of an established fee for a specific title, though at times the distributor might impose other titles that the cinema is required to screen in a package deal. Thus, when researching film exhibition it is important to consider it as part of a larger and intricate business, where many factors – financial, juridical, and technological – play a role besides more apparent creative and cultural aspects.

3.2 Cinema as a Space: The Context of Viewing

Given the importance of the theatre setting in terms of its contribution to the overall movie-going experience, it is crucial to consider the cinema in terms of its spatiality. As stated by Allen, taking cinema as an object of study entails the consideration of “a set of practices occurring in space” (84). The space in which a film is shown contextualizes it and informs it with an additional layer of meaning. ‘Cinema’ as a space is less homogeneous than what it might seem because of the strong associations that people connect with the word. Although typically one might think of a general image of red cinema chairs and popcorn, since the beginnings of film exhibition theatres may have distinct appearances. Different audiences associate and identify themselves with different places of exhibition whose impact can not only exceed “their function as places to show films”, but can also influence and shape the meaning of the films they present (Jancovich and Faire 12). To this day, the way a particular cinema appears to the public – from its interior design, displayed art on the walls, to the way its café is organised – affect the way it is perceived by the public. In addition, the location where the cinema is placed within the urban fabric, as well as the architectural style of the building, can play an important role in the shaping of its image and subsequent meaning. Thus, as argued by Allen, “because space is a product of multiple, heterogeneous interrelationships, the experience of cinema does not exist outside the experience of space” (86). Given this element of place-shaping, it does not come as a surprise that people’s perception of cinema as a specific space changes throughout time, and that this change “is to be negotiated and often to be welcomed, as a way of keeping place alive” (Fairclough 153). Thus, cinemas evolved to adapt to changing times and challenges and continue to attract audiences in new creative ways. As discussed, the impact that the context of exhibition can have on the viewing experience resulted in a question that is both historical and contemporary, namely “whether audiences go to the movies or to a movie”, i.e. to what extend the viewing site contributes to the pleasure provided by the cinematic experience (Hark 2). While there is no definite answer to this question, as I will discuss more in detail with reference to specific case studies in chapter 7, exhibitors understand the crucial role of context, and invest in making the location attractive as much as the programming. For example, food supply still plays an integral role to the film theatre, contributing to the creation of an affable atmosphere, while at the same time constituting an additional source of financial income. Especially since the boom of home entertainment, cinema is particularly relevant in terms of how it distinguishes itself from the experience of watching films at home or in other non-theatrical settings, often characterised by a more interrupted and distracted way of watching. **

(16)

3.3 Film Programming

Even though the context of viewing plays an essential part in the functioning of art-house cinemas, programming, or ‘curating films’, remains often the central activity of film exhibition. The incredible supply of films and audiovisual content that is easily accessible online can often result in an intricate and at times overwhelming scenery, where choice is (seemingly) unlimited, and it becomes harder for viewers to make informed decisions on what to watch. Film programmers can therefore occupy an important role in providing the audience with a curated and meaningful selection of content. According to Bosma, film curators “should present a diverse selection of the most recent releases, and simultaneously keep the varied and complex past of cinema alive through screenings of all sorts of film heritage. An additional challenge is to attract the largest possible audience for every cinema programme offered” (1). However, while this consideration can apply to certain film programmers, every cinema can have its own interests and taste, and the degree of focus on newer releases or older content can vary from case to case. The importance of attracting the highest possible number of people to the screenings, as well as the aims and motives at the base of each cinema, can also vary considerably. Though acknowledging the heterogeneity of cinema enterprises, some generalisations can be made. When deciding which films to screen, programmers need to reflect on a number of considerations related to the cinema’s audience. Firstly, they have to consider each title as part of a wider context. For example, one may reflect on the films that the cinema’s audience is likely to have already seen, as the films already seen in the past can influence people’s reception of a new film (2). Moreover, the programmer needs to consider that the audience is not a homogeneous abstract group, but it consists of people varying in age and background, that may respond differently to the same film (2). Hence, exhibitors have to take into account the audience in terms of demographics, interests, and film culture when programming their cinema. As discussed, while exhibitors are relatively free to choose the programme direction of their cinema, generally the consideration of the audience’s film culture can help in finding a clearer and unique position for the theatre.

In terms of programming, exhibitors can follow different criteria and directions. To begin with, a film theatre can either focus mainly on retrospectives and repertory cinema, on new releases, or on a mix of both, opting for a varied programming. Moreover, film programmes can be arranged on the basis of various strategies. For example, a film cycle may focus on a specific crew or cast member, or on a specific country of production, based on the assumption that the films grouped under these categories have a clear and distinguishable style. Following a theme based on production aspects can be a strategy to attract film fans by programming established names and titles, or drawing attention to less known works by famous directors (Bosma 56). Thematic approaches are generally more efficient if combined with a narrower topic. For example, according to Bosma, a programme based on the name of a country works better if coupled with a specific period, genre, topic, or region, also to avoid grouping films that are completely different between them (57). Programmes following a similar curatorial direction are those based on genres, movements and manifestos, which again can be

(17)

narrowed down to more specific themes, such as “science fiction and dystopia” or looser genres such as “road movies” (57-8). Yet other options can focus on technical and stylistic elements, such as colours, specific techniques, aesthetics, particular uses of editing, sound, cinematography, or film mediums. Finally, programmes may also concentrate on the content of films, following a particular subject, such as vengeance, love or madness. In all cases, programming curated cycles is an opportunity for film exhibitors to direct an audience’s attention toward a theme or topic and create additional layers of meaning by drawing connections between the single selected titles.

Curating film entails dealing also with purely practical and organisational matters such as scheduling the screenings efficiently. This can be done on the basis of a variety of factors, from a study of the amount of entries during the first projections, to distribution deals determining a minimum amount of screenings per film, or based on a fixed schedule decided in advance. For example, Bosma explains how film exhibition follows “its own concept of prime time”, typically attracting bigger crowds on Friday and Saturday night (55). However, other times can attract different target audiences, for example elderly people might attend afternoon screenings on weekdays and younger audiences late screenings on weekends. As argued by Bosma, “size matters in this respect: the number of screening rooms and the number of seats in each room defines the range of possibilities for a film curator” (56). Thus, film programmers can choose among a considerable variety of directions and focuses when it comes to film selection, often reflecting a theatre’s specific needs and intentions.

3.4 Marketing Strategies and Programme Promotion

Regardless from the programming line of a cinema, another crucial part of cinema management is attracting an audience to actually see the films selected for screening. In line with the two models discussed above, i.e. finding an audience to your programme or adapt the programme to current trends so as to reach the widest audience possible, cinemagoers can follow two general “behavioural processes”, namely “movie first – theater next” or “theater first – movie next” (Eliashberg 148). However, even when a cinema is able to build a strong community of regulars that is open to the theatre refined content, it cannot usually rely solely on this group of viewers, and needs to promote the cinema also on the basis of specific releases, programmes and events. As stated by Bosma, promotion in film exhibition “involves fuelling curiosity, awakening expectations, causing a buzz or ‘word of mouth’” (53). While in some cases this task is carried out exclusively by a specific person or marketing department, and in other smaller teams it might be addressed collectively, programmers can contribute actively to the promotion of the cinema. Events like Q&As and talks can attract people to the cinema, as well as the use of ‘marketing tools’ such as posters, trailers, and other forms of advertisement, especially online, which at times are fabricated directly by the theatres.

Today, marketing planning in art institutions and organisations is a side of management that is carefully and consciously applied by most teams, and cinemas are no exception to this. Generally speaking, there are four grounds for establishing a marketing strategy in cultural organisations that play an essential role in the management of cinema: setting clear goals, knowing one’s own

(18)

organisation, knowing the competition, and branding. Stephen Cashman explains how any cultural enterprise, from institutions such as archives, to festivals or collective self-managed projects, should start by setting the organization’s goals, defining “what an organisation exists to do; what it aims to do (and achieve) through its activities; how it intends to realise those goals; and what day-to-day activities will be needed to make this happen” (7). Setting the goals is what Cashman terms “the foundation stone for all strategic planning processes”, for marketing practices are devised to achieve those goals (12). In some cases, the objectives are formulated explicitly through a mission statement declaring what the organization exists to do (12). Another essential requirement to design a marketing strategy is to know one’s own organisation and, in the case of cinemas, audience. This entails the collection of data about the organisation’s product or offer, “attendance and usage levels”, income, pricing and sales, and marketing resources, among others (18-19). In the context of cinema management, this means having a clear understanding of numerous factors: the specific programme and editorial line, the audience’s perception of the cinema, past numbers and trends in terms of ticket sale and other sources of income (e.g. bar, merchandise, funding), the prices and policies behind these (e.g. maximal profit, accessibility), the number of entries, and finally the budget the cinema is able and willing to invest in marketing activities, both in terms of finances and people employed for this task. Moreover, it is important to know what marketing strategies have been used in the cinema’s past, as well as currently, to promote the organisation’s events and special offers. Thus, devising a marketing strategy involves primarily the assessment of the cinema’s own identity and intentions.

An extensive understanding of one’s own institution must be sided by an equally clear idea of the competition. This does not apply solely to enterprises driven purely by commercial interests, such as cinemas, festivals or archives, but also to non-profit organisations. In the latter’s case, everything that could compromise the achievement of the organisations’ goals can be considered competition (Cashman 21). The identification of such competitive forces is an essential part of the management of a film theatre. In general, “a competitor organisation is one that serves a similar set of customer and user needs to those that your organisation also seeks to satisfy” (27). In the case of film theatres, the main competitive factors are on the one hand home entertainment, i.e. streaming platforms and television, and on the other hand other theatres and cultural institutions already established in the same area. While at times competition can have negative effects, typically when two cinemas program similar films and target a similar audience, in other cases entities working in the same cultural scene can become potential collaborators (27). Partnering with other cultural organisation such as festivals, archives, and collectives to organise special events and programmes, can be a strategy to attract a diverse audience and promote the cinema. According to Cashman, this kind of “strategic alliances” are driven by “the notion of synergy”, i.e. the idea that “by working together, the partners can create something greater than the sum of the partnership’s parts” (29). To sum, a thorough knowledge of local, regional and global conditions in terms of film culture and circulation is essential for cinemas to

(19)

position themselves within the cultural landscape in a way that is innovative and different from what is already available.

Another common marketing strategy worth mentioning is branding. Branding, or “brand positioning”, as Cashman explains, “is about assessing where customers perceive an organisation’s offering as sitting, in relation to other organisations’ offerings. Therefore it resides in the customers’ ‘mind’s eye’ and not in the real and tangible world” (56). Thus, the aim of branding is to construct an institution’s specific image, reflecting the way it aims to be perceived by the public. In this light, a cinema’s venue, programme, café or “even the name of the film curator” can be transformed into a brand, i.e. “a well-known and respected quality label that has positive associations and a promotional effect” (Bosma 53). This carefully fabricated image requires the theatre to recur to a coherent and clear communication in all its forms. This means that the theatre’s aims and identity are reflected visually, for example by the consistent use of a logo and font, and through the use of a language that fits a particular discourse. Therefore, it could be said that branding then relates to all the aspects of a cinema, from its location and atmosphere, to its programming and policies, together with the way in which all these elements are communicated to the cinema’s audience. Through branding the film theatre can clearly convey a particular taste, political orientation, or preferred form of aesthetic vision. Besides the marketing tools discussed above, a further factor that influences the success, or lack thereof, of a cinema’s programme and activities is what is known as word of mouth (WOM). As defined by Professor of Marketing Young Liu, word of mouth, “or ‘buzz,’ involves informal communication among consumers about products and service” (74). Working alongside more official and constructed forms of advertisement, the informal spread of information plays an equally, if not a more important role in attracting an audience to the cinema. Indeed, WOM particularly influences a person’s decision of what films to watch among the infinite possibilities offered by today’s film industry that is constantly releasing new titles (Moon et al. 108). Remarkably, this kind of informal advertisement, which typically concerns upcoming releases, does not necessarily depend on the actual experience of a product, thus emphasising the importance of a film’s pre-release buzz (Liu 87). Consequently, the success of certain titles, both art-house and mainstream, has been at times attributed more to the WOM generated before their release to the actual qualities of the film in question (74). It follows that it is the volume and not the validity or content of WOM that has a greater impact on the box office, supporting the idea that WOM functions “primarily through an informative effect on awareness” (86). Even in the case of films that do not cause particularly positive reviews, the sole fact that people are talking about them can lead to their success at the box office. In light of this, film theatres should consider “managing buzz […] as a multidimensional task that extends beyond the new product itself” (87). Cinemas can both benefit from the buzz created around newer releases and more established titles, and at the same time contribute to it by spreading more information, rumours or trivia about the film. Notably, with the spread of social media, today WOM happens mostly online where information is easily accessible and can be quickly shared with others. As demonstrated, the

(20)

management of art-house theatres involves a wide range of differing activities, artistic and cultural in the form of programming, and more strategic and commercial when it comes to promotion and marketing.

3.5 The Audience

Regardless of the cinema’s programming direction and business model, the core of every film theatre is its audience, for there would be no theatre without a public attending it. However, the term ‘audience’ does not refer to a homogeneous group as it may suggest. Despite the exhibitor’s efforts to attract as many people as possible, a film theatre will not appeal to a wide audience unvaryingly, for people’s relationships to places are not fixed and uniform. Factors like gender, education, socio-economic status, political beliefs, and sexual orientation among others, can influence how people perceive a place such as a film theatre. Similarly, every cinema, more or less explicitly, inevitably positions itself within political and social discourses, thus, attracting a certain public while dissuading another. From this perspective, elements such as food selection, décor and architecture play an important role in shaping the unique image and atmosphere of a cinema, and are part of the appeal for a specific type of audience. For example, a non-profit art-house theatre may opt to sell local organic products and display posters of political groups and collectives in the entry hall. Another cinema aiming, for example, at a more intellectual, bourgeois audience may decide to pay particular attention to the furniture in the lobby and publicise other cultural events such as opera and theatre plays. Consequently, the same place may have different meanings to distinct audiences. Similarly, the same location can acquire differing associations throughout the day, which can result in changing audiences. For instance, a particular urban cinema that is associated with a young public at night could attract a very different audience during the day. In general, night-time screenings attract a younger public, while day-time viewings target children and an elderly public (Jancovich 94). People’s perception of the cinema can also change throughout their life. For instance, the way one experiences it as child is very different from how one experiences it as teenager, which is yet again different from how it is lived as adult (90). Therefore, the different perceptions of the audience can derive from personal taste and individual experiences, but also from socio-cultural factors that affect larger groups. Notably, while in some cases the confrontation between different target audiences can have positive results, for example in the creation of an intergenerational platform for discussions and exchange, in other cases this interaction can backfire on the cinema when it results in annoyance or disagreement on the ground of both its programme and the way the audience is supposed to behave inside the cinema (Bosma 65). As these examples indicate, on a marketing and strategic level, this means that each cinema is confronted with the decision of selecting a target audience to concentrate on.

The selection of a target audience is based on a series of premises. According to Bosma, film exhibition can be understood both as a service, in that the cinema screens a film to an audience, and an experience, as this screening is “a memorable event” (61). The audience’s experience can vary considerably, and is partly informed by the motivation for going to the cinema in the first place:

(21)

“What are the expectations of the cinema visitor to go to the movies?” (61). To select a main target audience, exhibitors should reflect on this question and try to understand what the cinema is offering to the public, how it is perceived by the local population and what its most appreciated qualities are. In addition, the programmer should attempt to connect the film screenings to the targeted audience to respond to public needs and interests.

However, the audience’s reaction to the programme and its relationship with the cinema is not always predictable. Therefore, while exhibitors may consider the audience when selecting film, there are other valid grounds for programming that might be considered as more relevant by some programmers, for example political and artistic credos. At any rate, a balance can be found between the cinema going towards the audience and vice-versa. As a niche market, art-house cinemas, although still very heterogeneous in terms of their specific targets, generally aim at an audience interested in film as art, or in less-commercial releases, varying depending on the editorial line of the specific cinema. Nevertheless, because of the competition of other cinemas and platforms, a film theatre cannot aim to attract the whole diverse group of people falling into this broad category, and a degree of segmentation needs to be assessed. As indicated by Bosma, segmentation entails the division of the audience “into a set of profiles, based on their mentality and behaviour” (64). This division should consider demographic factors like age, gender, sexual orientation, as well as socio-economic and cultural variables such as education, income, and ethnic background among others.

For example, children constitute one category, and other possible categories are students, cinephiles, elderly people, and film professionals. In order to program the cinema in consideration of this analysis of the audience, exhibitors need to observe the habits, taste and preferences of the public, as well as patterns in attendance. This can be done through an audience survey, or simply by encouraging the audience to give feedback and communicate their opinions, suggestions and requests in person or through newsletters, the cinema’s website, and, increasingly, social networks. The audience’s behaviour can also influence cinema management in terms of scheduling. As argued by Mark Jancovich, “exhibitors have long known that people have regularised patterns of behaviour and have worked to place themselves within these routines or change them” (93). Accordingly, cinemas generally follow regular schedules, changing programme and introducing new releases on the same day of the week, to inform audiences when a particular title is out and when to check the programme for new films. These patterns help to encourage “habitual behaviour” among the audience and are often working alongside other strategies such as discounts and special offers to attract viewers on quieter evenings (93). Moreover, specific times of the day can have different meanings for different groups of people, and consequently attract different audiences. Thus, cinemas need to establish their main target audience to secure a clear position within the cultural landscape and ensure that a group of people will regularly attend the cinema, identify with it and, therefore, support it.

Partly because of the influence of social media, audiences have become increasingly involved in the management of cinemas by voicing opinions and feedbacks or even actively participating in the

(22)

organisations of special events and activities. In recent decades, the opportunity for audience interaction have increased also outside the theatres, most notably through databases and websites, such as IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes or Letterboxd, where users can rate and review films. This kind of online interactions result not only in a quantitative increase of amateur opinions, but also in “new possibilities for […] creating dialogues, stimulating responses, producing crowd-sourced criticism and even sharing curating power” (Bosma 121).

In today’s film culture, the viewer is often acting as her or his own curator by selecting one title among infinite available possibilities (61). This selecting process can also be applied to the cinema context, where the audience is often encouraged to give feedback or suggestions not only in terms of their current programme and activities, but also for potential future endeavours. While part of the attraction of cinemas derives from how they contrast the scenario of infinite possibilities by offering a more curated and programmed schedule determined by film professionals instead, involving the audience more actively has become a vital strategy in cinema management. The degree of agency given to the public can vary however: While some organizations restricted such participation to the mere possibility of giving feedback, other cases of more endearing projects allow audiences to be actively involved in the curation of film programmes.

Bosma discusses how the involvement of audiences, online and offline, can be measured according to an “Engagement Pyramid” that classifies the behaviour of the public depending on their level of engagement with the cinema (65). The five levels of the pyramid – “to like, to endorse, to contribute comments, to produce content, to moderate platforms” – suggest that cinemas generally have a broader section of the public that follows the programme more passively and a minority of people participating actively – be virtually or physically (65-66). These smaller active groups share the content and communications of the cinema with others, produce new content by commenting or creating posts online themselves and in some cases, participate in the cinema’s activities as moderators or curators (66). Moreover, to encourage and nurture a close relationship with audiences, venues may attempt to strengthen the sociality of this cinematic experience, which is a factor that often stands, as discussed earlier, at the core of art-house theatres and people’s motivations to visit them. Barthes describes the experience of watching a film in the darkness of a cinema in terms of the collective effect it has on the audience: “In this darkness of the cinema (anonymous, populated, numerous) lies the very fascination of the film” (346). This poignant description can still apply to contemporary experiences of cinema in contrast to the setting offered by home entertainment. It is again the sociality of the cinema that plays an essential part in giving meaning to film theatres, not only because the viewing of the film is experienced collectively, but because this very togetherness can result in other shared rituals such as “discussing films, reading about them, [and] preparing seminars on their importance” (Andrew 170).

Art-house theatres can contribute to this culture of exchange and discussion by organizing Q&As after projections, inviting guests to present their works and generally encouraging the audience

(23)

to voice their opinions. The positive outcomes of allowing and promoting an active involvement of the audience in the organisation of programmes and events does not only contribute to the general strengthening of the cinema’s relationship with its public and a stronger sense of community, but also ensure that a sufficiently large audience will attend such events (Bosma 66). Therefore, targeting a specific audience that shares the theatre’s aims and ideals, and stimulating this audience to get actively involved within the cinema can be a way to create a stronger community around the cinema, as well as a unique and socially rewarding atmosphere.