I’m cautiously bullish on movie theaters actually.
With WFH I’m pretty burned out on streaming but love getting out of the house for the movie theater. Part of it is being stuck at home. The other part is the ridiculous paradox of choice, never being able to pick anything out of a million choices. Not to mention distractions, kids screaming, bad lighting, etc... Everything feels like eating junk food. I like having a handful of movie choices and a place, ceremony, lack of distraction, good AV, etc around watching them.
Lately I have enjoyed movie theaters doing rereleases. The Alamo near us has been rereleasing Kubrick and Christopher Nolan movies. The recent showings of Tenet and Dune I saw were nearly full. I may actually go watch this too even if I’m not the worlds biggest Talking Heads fan.
I wish more theatres in and around Sydney Australia would do this sort of thing. The Hayden Orpheum does, but it is kind of out of the way. For a brief period when I was growing up though my local cinema had a period where they'd put on some bit of fan favourite movie for a session or two (Jurassic Park, Alien, etc) and it was so fantastic to go see them on the big screen with cinema sound.
EDIT: Just wanted to add I'd absolutely go to the movies more if the ones near me played older movies more, rather than just new stuff
I am seeing a lot of similar theaters popping up with full service, dining and drinks, etc. I really enjoy going to these type of theaters because to me it is more of a dinner with a movie instead of a movie with a dinner. Even if movie sucks, at least, you had some good food.
And being married for 10+ years, there are not many topics we can to talk about on date nights. So these are perfect place for date nights for old couples.
In ~1991 a co-worker and I were talking about the rise of home theater systems. He thought they'd mean the end of movie theaters. I thought that there's something special about seeing a movie together with others - 'a place, ceremony, lack of distraction, good AV' - that would keep them in business. I still think that :)
I have a decent home theater system and I bought '2001: A Space Odyssey' near the first time it came out on DVD... but I still went down to our local Alamo last month and watched it and was delighted to spend the money and the time.
Near topic: I realized that the movie I really want to see again on the big screen is 'Lawrence of Arabia' I told the manager at our Alamo that, and I emailed them, but if anyone here knows how to get their attention, I'm all ears. I got to see it in 70mm on a big screen in its 1987 re-release and it's a highlight I'd hope to repeat.
It literally just played last week in NYC in 70mm!
A few years back Netflix bought out the "Paris Theater" which is the oldest single screen theater in the city.
It was meant to allow fans to watch their newest movie releases in a theater format along with giveaways to get people in the mood.
I saw the debut of "Kate" a few days before it actually hit Netflix. (wonderful movie if you like John Wick. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is the female John Wick!)
They recently did some renovations and to celebrate they brought back a bunch of classics.
Oh I just checked: Funny enough its playing today! But unfortunately its sold out :/
Good to know a place it might show up; we live in North Carolina, but, with a little awareness, persuasion, and planning, I could talk my wife into a trip coinciding with a showing. The Castro in SF would be a more difficult proposition but my wife does want to go back to 'House of Nanking' one day, so even that's a possibility!
Good Luck! Hope you get to see the film eventually! I'd recommend to start searching Fandango for local theaters that show classics or have a 70mm/35mm projector (as they will likely use them for classics) and then keep those places on your radar so you can catch some good classics. There has got to be somewhere in NC that values the classics and has the equipment to show them!
NYC is kind of a exception since there is so much competition: you end up seeing tons of classics played here all the time. If you are ever in NYC, another place that is wonderful is the roxy theater as well as BAM. I saw Terminator 1 & 2, Hackers, Resident Evil 1 all this year in 35mm at these theaters.
I think pjmorris is talking about the Raleigh Alamo which is great! They definitely are responsive to email feedback. They do have a 35mm projector but it seems rarely used, though I think they are trying to use it more recently.
I don’t know of any other places showing film in the area, but I do know the Carolina Theatre in Durham shows loads of classics.
They used to; they're under new ownership now (Another Planet Entertainment) and no longer showing movies on a regular basis. Their schedule is sparse and mostly concerts.
This, sadly, depends on your location and theater. One reason I don't go to the theater nearly as much as I used to is because of noisy, inconsiderate patrons.
At the time, however, the theater near me was very cheap. A "fancy" (read: expensive) one recently opened; I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't have this problem.
I have shared similar sentiments with friends, but I think that the answer isn't a chain like Alamo, it's the independent theater. Every repertory event I've been to at an indie in the last year has been packed to the brim. These theaters can also show new independent or international films that might not get a showing in major theaters. Plus, a theater with one or two screens can focus specifically on that niche while everyone else dukes it out with the major studio stuff.
Alamo is a chain, but it's privately-held. Doesn't that make it indie? Just a large "indie." Reminds me of the SubPop music label, which is considered "independent" despite being quite famous and large. If not, I guess I don't know what indie means. One location? If they open a second, is it a big boring corporation now?
>These theaters can also show new independent or international films that might not get a showing in major theaters
Alamo does this! I saw Teen Witch a few years ago at an Alamo Draft House, of all things. Not exactly something getting shown on major theaters nowadays :)
There are probably better examples but I'm far from a cinephile (I certainly wouldn't know about new international or independent releases regardless).
Might I suggest indie to be any theater that hasn't succumbed to "enshittification" yet? Theres pressure to do so though. Its a tough business. Alamo themselves declared bankruptcy in 2021 (they emerged successfully though)
+1 to Alamo Drafthouse, they have really good visuals, good sound, a strict no talking and no cell phone policy, and they show a lot of old films. They also serve beer and great milkshakes. Food is OK, could be better. But all around the best theatre experiences I've had.
Interesting that you go to the movies for the quality.
My home cinema setup is literately just a high end OLED TV from 2019 configured to my tastes. But even with just that as my basis of comparison, I can barely stand how bad the sound and image quality of the best movie theater is around my place.
The blurryness of normal cinema is something I have a personal distaste for. I appreciated the Hobbit because they genuinely had an improvement there. But still, any action sequence in a movie is a blurry mess. Speed Racer also did something well in that regard. I play games at 170Hz, I dislike having my vision downgraded by 80 years of age just to enjoy a movie. Of course, this is largely not the fault of the movie theater. Movies also look blurry on my TV, just less so due to settings. I just have more choice of high quality content at home.
But by far the worst offender is sound. It seems the only thing movie theaters are trying to achieve when it comes to sound is booming bass registering on sismographs on the opposite side of the planet. There's instant distortion whenever the scene is not quiet. Highs are just horrible in general. And movie composers and sound designers seem to know this as they use highs sparingly, resulting in often jarringly unrealistic sound. And everything sounding bombastic even when it doesn't make sense thematically.
Maybe your theater is the exception? Are you in a city? Here in central NJ, im seeing the same business as pre-pandemic. I have AMC monthly pass and so I see a lot of movies. Apart from blockbusters like Barbie or most superhero movies, the theaters are practically empty. Yes there are weird exceptions such as The Sound of Freedom but that was essentially a scam because many viewers were given free tickets by conservative organizations just to boost their numbers. But normally any non big blockbuster has a small handful of people or almost nothing. AMC is also still closing theaters in places like Charlotte NC which I would normally assume is a growth area.
We gave up on AMC in particular because of the obscene amount of previews and ads (I measured it for a movie two months ago, it was forty minutes of them after the published start time!). Others haven't been so egregious at least. But it's no surprise to me if AMC goes bankrupt.
Thats kind of weird. How long ago was this? What specific AMC theater did you go to? In the AMC app it explicitly tells you if there are previews and typically they don't ever go past 20 mins. Typically they are 15 mins.
Yes you’re right for new movies. People are bored of the formulaic crap. Alamo replays a lot of popular movies, and those have been much busier. Kubrick and Christopher Nolan movies. The recent Dune. Rerelease of The Exorcist. Etc.
No its not just that. Any small time indie film is also practically empty. Most A24 films for example might have some interested people on day one but then its literally dead for the rest of their two+ week run. I cannot even count the amount of times I walked into a theater with literally no one watching. AMC plays the film regardless and its just sad seeing no one in the theater. I am tired of hearing this "formulaic crap" excuse when its the formulaic crap of superhero movies that bring in a lot of the big bucks.
You know, I just saw the new Hercule Poirot movie (hey, I'm a fan), and I had the same experience. I don't get out of the house much because I WFH, I have all these streaming services yet I spend most of my time just watching YouTube - I really enjoyed going to the theater and seeing a movie!
Having a discussion with my wife - why do we have all these streaming services? We should just drop them all and go out to the movies a couple times a month. It looks like that's what we're going to do. So yeah, you should be cautiously bullish.
The main problem with movies now is the price. For movie theaters to really do well, you need to make it possible for a group of suburban teenagers to buy tickets and snacks with whatever money they get from babysitting or lawn mowing or whatever suburban teenagers do for spending money.
AMC solves that with their 25$/month movie pass that lets you see essentially three films a week. Those roudy teens are literally keeping some locations from looking like a complete ghost town.
> One of the few directors to overcome these obstacles and create a concert movie artistically equal to his fiction features is the late Jonathan Demme—with “Stop Making Sense,” his 1984 film of the band Talking Heads in performance.
Not mentioning The Lsst Waltz is pretty unpardonable. But this IS a great movie, and so is that.
> The oversized boxy suit that Byrne wears for several numbers in the film has become iconic, but it’s also superfluous: he’s already expressing its essence in performance throughout the concert
and what, one wonders, is the "essence" of the big suit?
> Not mentioning The Last Waltz is pretty unpardonable. But this IS a great movie, and so is that.
It's probably been 20 years since I've seen it, but isn't The Last Waltz a pretty straightforward recording of a concert? Stop Making Sense might seem like just a concert film, but I think the author's point is that it's quite unlike pretty much everything else in the category.
I saw David Byrne present Stop Making Sense at Metrograph here in NYC in 2017 and he gave a lot of insights on the making of it. One major one is that they filmed from a different camera angle on each of the three nights and put the concert together in post. So one night was from stage left, another night stage right, another straight on -- he didn't want you to see camera's in the background at all unless it was intentional (the article mentions it was filmed over three nights, but not this intentional framing).
He mentioned something about wanting the audience to see how the Talking Heads put together the band and a show over time, which is why he chose to build it up from that solo guitar moment up through Bernie Worrell (!) and the rest of the musicians walking on stage. He said he always had anxiety performing and would collapse back stage once it was over at first, but finally got comfortable with that front man role as time went on.
He also felt that Talking Heads were at the height of their powers (his words) and wanted to capture it, but couldn't get funding for a film and had to personally put up the money for it.
As for the "big suit", he said no one in the band knew it was happening and everyone sort of lost it when he walked on stage in it the first night.
Edit: One thing I forgot, Jonathan Demme gets mentioned all the time when talking about the film, but people forget that Jordan Cronenweth did the cinematography and had recently come off of doing Blade Runner.
Yeah, that's fair. I personally am not a fan of The Band and the only guest of theirs I listen to is Muddy Waters (and maybe Joni Mitchell), so I guess the historicity of it is lost to me. I do know people love the whole thing though -- a friend of mine MD'd a complete tribute show in SF years ago with a bunch of great musicians -- so maybe the whole thing hits different for fans of that sort of music.
From the article:
David, you’ve said the film has a narrative. How would you describe it?
Byrne: There’s a guy who is not that comfortable socially, very anxious and nervous, and he gradually finds community and a way to let go, through music and dancing. He finds a way to be more comfortable, and he finds joy.
It’s a reflection of his childhood. Due to his then noticeable accent he had some issues integrating with other kids in school and became somewhat introverted. That has pretty much defined his career trajectory.
Virgil Cane's brother is rolling over in his grave. If I had to rank them then Stop Making Sense is number one, and it's not even that close. But the Last Waltz is definitely the second most iconic concert of all time. Although supposedly the other band members weren't too happy about how the band was presented, as though they were basically "the Robbie Robertson Group," with everyone else in the band being more of an afterthought.
For me movie theaters are unendurable. Constant smartphone use and talking make the experience terrible. Not to mention barrage of pre-film ads/out of focus film/deafening audio/uncomfortable/dirty seats.
10 minutes of flashy product advertisements followed by a 15-minute bombardment of previews loaded with taiko drums and foghorns.
Thankfully my theater now uses reserved seats so I can wait outside during the assault.
On the other hand, I count myself lucky that in my small area they feature https://www.fathomevents.com/ which include classic re-runs or special musical events. Usually there are only a half dozen people in the theater with me for those.
All of those problems discouraged me from going to the movie theater but the issue that got me to quit going to movie theaters completely is increased volume without increased noise dampening. Thanks to the much advertised upgrades to the sound systems of the theaters you will hear your movie and the movie next to you. You'll hear the dialogue of your movie with a background of superhero explosions and revving car engines.
And no, there are no other movie theater chains available. And no, going to a matinee doesn't solve these problems. And there is no solution to these problems because they've become normalized so people will rush to defend them.
sounds to me like you should find a better theater chain if available in your area. i know the smartphone thing is a bad experience, but i haven't had to endure someone on their phone in a theater since i started going to places that care. to me, the phone thing is just a meme on the internet as it hasn't been a thing for me personally in over a decade
And what's your point? Did you misread something as I do not believe there is a problem? There's only a problem when you go to a theater that doesn't care about customer behavior. If you attend a theater that does, and removes people that misbehave, you do not have this experience.
Change your movie theater and the time that you go.
Matinee (afternoon) shows are sparsely populated and generally cheaper, especially during weekdays. There is a small movie theater in a strip mall outside of town that I sometimes take my kids to. It's clean, the seats are comfortable, and most people go there to actually watch movies not just hang out and gab with friends.
If they shows ads, I never see them because I don't walk into the theater until at least 5 minutes after show time. This is how I opt-out of the ads and previews. Once in a while I walk in while the last couple of previews are still running, or a minute or two after the movie has started. Doesn't bother me, the first few minutes of a movie are rarely pivotal to grokking the plot.
I always bring earplugs to theaters and concerts because I am sensitive to loud sounds (as in, actual physical pain) that everyone else finds perfectly tolerable. Sometimes I need the earplugs, sometimes I don't. When I need them, they don't diminish the audio quality at all, they just take the edge off.
And in retrospect, maybe it's a little weird that I have optimized my movie watching routine down to a science. (Especially since I don't actually go that often.)
If I sit down to watch a movie at home, I'm barraged by kids, a puppy, distractions, needing to pause a lot, people going in-and-out, other kinds of background noise, etc. Even if the theater isn't perfect (and luckily I live near several good ones) the simple lack of distraction at the movies is huge for me.
Not a big fan of Amazon in general, but it's worth noting Prime has a pretty great catalogue of concert performances and music documentaries. Including Stop Making Sense.
If you haven't seen it (or haven't watched it recently) and can't make it to a theater, do yourself a favor and watch it at home. It's such a beautiful celebration of music, "from the bottom to the top."
I'm old enough to think of that as boring-era Talking Heads, but it's great to know they've been in the same room together doing press after so many decades of shit-talk.
>I'm exactly the opposite, I think they jumped the shark after this album .. ;)
I don't know about that, While Stop Making Sense was brilliant, Naked[0] is a pretty darn good album too. And their older stuff is somewhat hit or miss, e.g., More Songs About Buildings and Food[2] and Speaking in Tongues[3] had bright spots, but also some crappy songs too. But Fear of Music[1] is mostly spot on, IMHO.
I'm pretty excited about the re-release, as it's a fabulous album and an excellent movie (right up there with The Last Waltz[4] and other concert movies)
Anecdata of one: In my most recent (~5-6 years ago) TH phase, I listened to all the albums multiple times (one nice thing about streaming services) but the ones I kept coming back to were 'Fear of Music', 'Remain in Light', and, thirdly, 'Speaking in Tongues.' For me it's a coin-flip between FoM and RiL as their best album front-to-back.
Hoping to catch the movie while it's playing again.
Don’t sleep on Little Creatures. That and Remain in Light have been my gotos for TH. I have also been deeply taken by David Byrne’s solo albums Growm Backwards and Everything that Happens have some really great tracks.
Aren't most of those before "the album" (Stop Making Sense)? Only Little Creatures, True Stories, and Naked really came after.
All of these albums have their moments, but there's an argument that the quality is in the early years, and later on they didn't have "full album quality".
> Speaking in Tongues[3] had bright spots, but also some crappy songs too
I was shocked by this statement, and looked back at the track list. I only found one song that I didn't remember as top notch.
Their early albums were known for being great from start to finish, but this is an insanely high bar for an album. Many talented artists never get one album like that. They certainly go for years and years, decades even, releasing albums with 1-3 good songs.
I feel like there's quite a large number that only release one good song for album, and basically seem to know it.
What are you talking about? Who cares how long you listen to them?
Someone else mentioned burning down the house, and there's others that I find great additions to the themes of the album, like slippery people and moon rocks. Pull up the roots is quite nice.
That leaves like 1-2 tracks that I honestly just can't remember much about. That doesn't fit the description "some bright spots, and some crappy songs too"... you're talking about an iconic album jam packed with brilliance.
This would be like saying that pink floyds "the wall" has "a few bright spots but some crappy songs too", that the era from "meddle" to "animals" was hit or miss, and you really prefer division bell and a momentary lapse of reason... just not any of the early/middle stuff.
Yeah, you can have whatever opinion you want, but this one is just absurd. Pink Floyd isn't for everyone, but if you like them, you're being a pretentious ass acting like 1971-1979 weren't peak years.
P.S. I actually do think the wall is kinda shit, but that's a story for another day
You've set the bar pretty high if Burning Down the House is rather pedestrian. I can't think of another funk album that is stronger than this all the way through.
Completely agree, I almost couldn't believe Burning Down the House would be described that way. BdtH is an absolute 10/10 banger for me, it adds color to my day when I hear. That, Girlfriend is Better and This Must be the Place are my favorite three Talking Heads songs, though I love most of their work.
Even the filler is contributes to the spirit of the album, and is quite pleasant. The whole album has a sound and a feel that is quite distinctive stylistically.
This is the kind of stuff musicians dream of creating.
>You've set the bar pretty high if Burning Down the House is rather pedestrian. I can't think of another funk album that is stronger than this all the way through.
My bad. Yes, Burning Down The House is pretty darn good too.
It was buried between cover photos when I skimmed the file list of the folder on my hard drive containing the album.
That said (after looking again, more carefully this time), I stand by the rest of what I said.
On the other hand, I think they're all largely good. After a certain point some of their albums started only have a couple songs that I remember, some of them still great.
It's absurd that they can put out a string of 2-5 near perfect albums and still get criticism.
There's huge, beloved bands that don't really have a single album that has that many great tracks on it.
I think basically everything they did was great, maybe with the exception of Naked (which I should give another shot). What's great about the Talking Heads is that they grew and evolved. The only core essence is change.
Agreed. Peak studio album was Speaking in Tongues imho. I remember seeing Stop Making Sense at the theater originally and it had everyone dancing in the ailses (hadn't seen that before nor since).
Not sure about that. A teaser was released around 16/18 March which was two or so days before WGA and AMPTO negotiations started (according to Forbes).
Don't get me wrong, A24 have made some great films lately.
But having less competition at present surely helps them as well. We might have heard less about this re-release if there had been other movie hype / news going on at present.
E.g. the big name stars of Dune Part 2 would be be gearing up for the launch trail now if they weren't on strike and the release date pushed back "because its stars cannot promote the movie whilst the Hollywood actors' strike was ongoing" ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66615759)
Restoring a film will take a year or more. The size of this theatrical release might be related to the strikes (are we out of movies yet?) but the restoration was planned out years ago most likely.
Yes, punk was called new-wave in the late '70s. It was a reference to French cinema of the 1950s. "New Wave" didn't mean skinny ties and pink Trapper Keepers until the '80s. What you think of as New Wave was probably from the movement called "New Romantic." Think Duran-Duran.
Here's a radio ad for the Sex Pistols playing Dallas in January 1978. "The Sex Pistols bring the new wave to the Metroplex this Tuesday night at the Longhorn Ballroom."
None of those groups were New Wave. It was a synth-pop dance genre defined by the Human League, Gary Numan, Flock of Seagulls, The Normal, OMD, Ultravox, and Devo. The British press dubbed it New Wave as the inheritors of Disco, not rock. It was hated when it started charting, in the same way Disco was. People were just getting used to prog-rock and Pink Floyd imitators. The drum machines and synths made it worse. Punk was actually a descendent of NYC/LA youth movements, not the art rock diversions of NYC proto-rock. The Sex Pistols were mostly a marketing gimmick by Malcolm McClaren. But, people heard that album and started their own band. Punk as a movement came from the people inspired by the Pistols rather than the band itself. Nobody covered Sex Pistols songs.
The Talking Heads are a white funk rock group that appeal to 80s college kids. There was rarely any taste crossover into synth-pop, new wave or punk. More like Bob Marley, David Bowie, Tom Waits, REM, and Red Hot Chili Peppers. Most of the big Talking Heads fans I know stopped listening to new music after 1990.
It sounds odd to me, but I suppose "were called" is probably true in the sense that some did call them that, e.g. they are in the "new wave" compilation album.
I highly recommend reading Simon Reynold's history of post-punk, "Rip It Up and Start Again." That book does a lot to break down the idea of discreet musical sub-genres in the late 70s and early 80s. There were individual scenes, for sure, but really there was just an explosion of creativity with that first wave of punk as more of a catalyst or a rallying cry.
I also have some very uninformed personal thoughts on the term "pre-punk" which I find really silly. All it really means is that the Sex Pistols weren't nearly as original as the mythmaking states, and a lot of other bands were playing in the same sandbox before and after. It's not like every punk and post-punk band after the Pistols was primarily influenced by their sound. It was their posture.
You can tell an alternate history of music that deemphasizes the Sex Pistols where there was a New Wave that started in the early 70s with the New York Dolls or the Stooges or something, and it includes the Ramones, the Modern Lovers, the Buzzcocks and a whole lot more. I'm not nearly knowledgable enough to really put the pieces together, beyond half-remembering this book I read several years ago. Still, it's fun to think about.
New wave was never a good term. Hell, punk was a pointless genre too. There's just so many different brands and ideology.
What do Duran Duran have to do with the Talking Heads? Pretty close to nothing. I don't even see talking heads as much of a "punk band". Especially, in the mid-late eras, they seem more like a proto-jamband, but I'll admit I don't understand the style differences at a purely musical level.
Other "new wave" acts really look more like just punk bands. I don't understand how the ramones got classified as new wave... do they use synths? That's not THE distinguishing factor, but it makes it look more like new wave, vs. traditional punk.
... but maybe a punk band can use synths without crossing over into "new wave".
Having been of a record buying age at that time, I think "New Wave" was really more of a marketing term. Punk had a somewhat bad reputation at the time, 78 I would have been 14. New Wave was a way to get people to buy records that were not from big venue rock bands, i.e. Stones, Who, ELO, Kiss etc. The Police's first record was considered "punk" when I got it among my peers. Got me into more of the local LA punk bands, although I was listening the Dickies before the Police. I knew lots of people listened to Blondie, the Dickies, the Germs or Black Flag not so many. As I mentioned on the other thread I actually was at the Pantages for the talking heads show it was awesome!
Living in So Cal, I was fortunate to get to see Oingo Boingo several times, all at small venues, including once as their “fan club name”, the “Clowns of Death”.
They never really made it big nationally, or chose not to, in terms of touring. I even saw the then new “Red Hot Chili Peppers” open for them, who far eclipsed them is n popularity.
But at the same time, they were very local, and really accessible to local fans.
They did a few large venues, but I never saw them at any of those. Elfman is said to have stopped touring due to the risk to his hearing because of how loud concerts were becoming, and him and Steve Bartek (Boingo guitarist and collaborator) transitioned quite successfully to movie soundtracks.
I have to assume the advancements in things like in ear monitors make live performances much less damaging for performers. I’ve worn ear plugs at concerts for years.
