By Marty Shindler

"Are you going to be playing Star Wars?" I asked the manager of a North American institutional LF theater at the GSTA conference.

"You bet!" was the enthusiastic response, "We think the film will bring in a lot of people."

"Did you play Beauty and the Beast?" I asked.

"No, it didn’t meet our mission," came the unhesitating reply.

Taken aback, I said that I would have rated Beauty and the Beast a lot higher on the educational scale, relatively speaking, than Star Wars. After all, Beauty and the Beast has very important life messages: beauty is only skin deep, you can’t tell a book by its cover, etc. Furthermore, Star Wars has violence and the suggestion of a sexual relationship between Anakin and Amidala.

The manager had no response and, as happens at industry conferences, the conversation shifted to other matters.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones is a fun film with some excellent visual effects and sound design work. I have already seen it twice, on film during opening weekend and later digitally. I plan to see it at a local LF theater soon.

I’ve spent over ten years of my business career employed by and/or consulting to Twentieth Century Fox, Lucasfilm, and Industrial Light & Magic, so Star Wars has been crucial to many aspects of my career. More than that, it’s in my blood: I put on my Darth Vader wristwatch this morning, knowing I was going to be working on this column.

So I was intrigued by the LF exhibitor’s answers and asked other people similar questions over the next few days at GSTA. A few times I mentioned The Lion King, because I think that film also has more educational value than Star Wars. While neither The Lion King nor Beauty and the Beast would necessarily fulfill many of the criteria of public school curricula, the values depicted in both films are important. The circle of life, for instance, is an important concept for children and adults alike. And most importantly, both are excellent films by any criteria.

The reasons I was given for playing Star Wars were primarily related to bringing in audiences. A representative of a space center favored Star Wars for its space theme. Other people’s reasons for not showing the film included its lack of relevance to the mission, unacceptable lease terms, prior booking commitments, and perhaps most importantly, the significant cost of upgrading the platter system. Nevertheless, I am most impressed that nearly one third – 17 out of 58 – of the theaters showing Star Wars are institutional.

The GSTA conference was interesting for a lot of reasons. The panel on the State of the Giant Screen Industry probably caused more buzz than any other single event, because it was so pessimistic. Pulse: A Stomp Odyssey created the best positive buzz of the conference.

There are many reasons why the State of the Industry panel felt their theaters specifically, and the industry generally, are performing poorly. It is clear that the cost of equipment, royalties, prints, marketing, and overhead needs to be reduced.

But many producers with whom I spoke believe that their films would attract an audience if only theaters would show them. Producers see the film buyers as gate keepers, preferring to book films they believe the audience should see instead of films that the audiences might want to see. They work behind locked gates, then complain that attendance is disappointing.

There is no question that audiences are interested in a film like Star Wars, and some institutional film buyers have unlocked the gates. For commercial theaters it is most welcome, given the dearth of similar product.

The success of the LF edition of Star Wars will depend on whether enough people want to see it a second or third time, want to spend the money at the theater when it will be on DVD soon, and a host of other factors. But a property like Star Wars is a good bet. Even so, one film alone cannot turn the industry around, so it is fortunate that several other very entertaining films were presented at the conference.

These are difficult times for many. Corporate sponsors have been going through their own rough waters and may no longer have the discretionary funds that are so important to institutions. Some must decide between layoffs and charitable donations.

An Associated Press article that appeared recently in the Los Angeles Daily News recently stated: "Museums make cutbacks, reduce budgets, lay off personnel. Symphony orchestras search for new donors, new ways to get cash. A theater group pulls back its cast sizes. A big city opera cuts salaries of its top directors. This is the drama of making the arts work in a slowing economy."

On the other hand, this year’s conventional theatrical box office grosses are 13% ahead of 2001, according to Nielsen–EDI. That means that people are spending their entertainment dollars on movies, just not the natural science and underwater movies that are the favorites of gatekeepers everywhere.

It is time to show films that the audience wants to see, not what they are forced to see. One of the answers to the current crisis is to unlock the gates and begin exhibiting a wider range of product, a philosophy that I have long espoused. The gate is ajar. Let’s let the audiences decide once they have passed through the gates. May the force be with you!