Lessons from California

Lessons from California

By Marty Shindler

At LF industry conferences the same issues are discussed again and again, but rarely seem to be resolved. Not just this year; it’s been going on for years. It’s predictable. It seems that the “NATO syndrome” has set in: No Action, Talk Only.

Of course, healthy dialogue on both sides of issues is important. That is exactly what should take place at conferences. But many of the topics never seem to change, year in and year out. The majority of LF theaters are in institutions dedicated to lifelong learning, so one might expect that the people who make production and exhibition decisions would learn a lesson. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Perhaps it is time to take a lesson from California.

This may seem an odd statement. The recall election that pulled Governor Gray Davis from office and replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger has been praised and criticized by people inside and outside the state. But it is not from the election itself that the lesson I’m speaking about is to be learned.

The situation that created the need for the election has numerous analogies from which the LF industry can learn. Let’s look at some of the hot topics in the campaign that drove the recall.

Businesses moving out. California was once considered a land of opportunity, but in recent years the business climate has worsened at every level of the food chain. Many companies headquartered in the state have moved elsewhere. Others have set up plants and offices in other locales more conducive to their fiscal well being. Many have gone out of business.

The LF industry was once considered an opportunity in a class by itself. Not today. How many organizations and individuals formerly involved in the LF industry have decreased their involvement or left the business entirely? Look at conference attendance, which has declined steadily over the past five years. Although some of that may be related to the meeting locations, that is only a minor factor, and one that can be remedied.

Stagnation. Some argued that California’s fiscal woes led to stagnation in programs, such as public higher education, in which the state had previously been a leader. There has also been a marked decrease in capital spending, partly because of global market conditions, but for more local reasons as well.

The LF industry has also become stagnant in recent years. Production levels are decidedly down, construction of new theaters has slowed, and attendance is down in a significant number of theaters. This is not isolated to a single year. There is a trend here that will not be reversed unless things change soon.

Capital spending is important, but those who make such decisions need solid information on which to base them. In January 1999, my column, Shared Knowledge, spoke to the need to publish economic information that would spur investment. Here it is almost five years later, and virtually nothing has changed!

As noted last month in LF Examiner, when it comes to production, the same old concepts are being tried over and over. How many fish movies, or movies about dinosaurs, or India, do we need? Doesn’t this repetition have an impact on the willingness of schools to come to the theaters? Can people tell the difference between such similar films? On the other hand, when innovative projects like Pulse: A Stomp Odyssey come on the scene, they are not booked as often as they should be.

Special interests. This was a very hot topic at election time. Special interest lobbying played a big role in the energy crisis in California and contributed to the state’s fiscal problems.

Are the special interests in the LF industry any different? Are leaders truly making decisions without those interests in mind? There will always be those who need to complain about others to support their positions. Is this not the case in the debate on commercial theaters vs. institutional? Can’t the industry finally get over this issue?

It is the same for the “problem” of sex and violence on the giant screen, although that debate seems to be waning. I read the movie listings in the Los Angeles Times almost daily to see what is playing at local LF theaters. In recent months the list has included Night of the Living Dead, House of 1000 Corpses, The Exorcist, Kill Bill, Runaway Jury, Scary Movie 3, Winged Migration, The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions, and others. Does anyone think that The Exorcist was educational, teaching children how to do an exorcism, that House of 1000 Corpses was a lesson in embalming, or even that Runaway Jury was for law students?

Does anyone think that people went to the California Science Center expecting to see any of these films? I think not. It is hard to imagine anyone being confused by the different types of programs that happen to be in IMAX theaters.

Therefore, the whole issue of commercial vs. institutional theaters needs to be set aside once and for all. Even Imax Corp., in introducing the MPX system, seems to be admitting that the model of an expensive commercial theater playing traditional LF films doesn’t work. The box office results of many converted films, DMR or otherwise, have been less than spectacular, but that segment will continue to evolve. If there are good films to be played on the giant screen, exhibitors will pick them up and see if the public will pay a few dollars’ premium over a 35mm ticket. When there aren’t enough commercial LF films, multiplexes will play 35mm features like the ones I mentioned.

It is time to take a lesson from California and change the industry. Each of us has to do his own thing, which is the crux of the problem. The LF industry is like a feudal society, with each hamlet doing its own thing without regard to the needs of the whole.

As reported by LFX last month, Mike Day said at the GSTA conference in Glasgow that making changes will require hard work. Should that not start with a change in the basic economic model? If an educational LF film were made about economics, it would be critical of its own industry.

These changes might include who leads and how leaders are chosen. A lesson must be learned and the extraordinary energy that goes into rehashing the same problems ad infinitum, without resolving any of them, must be turned toward more productive endeavors.

My question is, Who will be the change agent to lead the industry to a more healthy economic climate?

Marty Shindler is CEO of The Shindler Perspective, Inc., an organization specializing in providing a business perspective to creative, technology, and emerging companies. Marty may be reached at Marty@iShindler.com. Visit the firm’s web site at iShindler.com