An audio program for your computer or iPod featuring reviews, discussions, interviews, and festival reports.
Discussion: Killer of Sheep
In this episode of the Errata Movie Podcast we talk about a great American film, Charles Burnett's debut feature Killer of Sheep (1977).
Other Recent Episodes
Proposition L on San Francisco's November ballot reads:
Shall 15% of the existing hotel tax surcharge be set aside to acquire, preserve and maintain neighborhood and single-screen movie theaters and promote the local film-making industry?
And the answer that the city's film lovers are chanting is No. I have to admit that I did a double-take when I saw the petitioner outside the Roxie a few months ago. The city's single-screen independents have been hit hard in the last decade. Downtown San Francisco boasts two major new multiplexes and a third on the way, but many (not all) of the theaters that show more interesting movies are struggling. Since I moved here in 1995, the following theaters have closed forever: Regency 1 and 2, Royal, Presidio, Cinema 21, Alhambra, and Alexandria. The Vogue and Coronet are closing soon. The aforementioned Roxie was on the brink but was saved by its release of Rivers & Tides, or so I read somewhere.
I'm not trying to be a good capitalist or anything, but it seems that the best way to contribute to your favorite local theater is to go there to see movies, not to siphon funds from the hotel tax to give to — whom again? To fund which theatres?
Here's what Leah Garchik wrote in yesterday's Chronicle:
A gaggle of irate movie and arts people met at Tosca last week to plan opposition to Proposition L. They say the proposition purports to save neighborhood theaters but would drain the Hotel Tax Fund and the coffers of every arts group in the city for unspecified purposes. It's opposed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, every supervisor, the San Francisco Labor Council and both the Democratic and Republican parties.The group, more than 100 people gathered by Jeannette Etheredge, included Carolyn Macmillan of the Fine Arts Museums; Stefanie Pleet Coyote, the city's designated film czarina; her husband, Peter Coyote; film commissioners Rory Enke and Maurice Kanbar; Kim Aubry of Zoetrope; Phil Kaufman; Sean Penn; the S. F. Film Society's Hilary Hart; Miguel Pendas and Linda Blackaby; Gary Meyer of the Balboa; Anita Monga of the Castro; Bill Banning of the Roxie; and the Film Arts Foundation's Fidelma McGinn. A public service announcement is in the talking stages.
Here's the official stance of the San Francisco Film Society.
And here's the offical voter guide (pdf) from the department of elections.
I'll be voting No. But I'll be renewing my membership to the Pacific Film Archive, attending Hearts and Minds this week at the Castro, closely monitoring the schedules of the Red Vic and Roxie, and otherwise enjoying the city's wealth of movie opportunities while we still have 'em.
That's a really fascinating--and sad--story that seems to mimic the general thrust of repertory houses the past couple decades. It's interesting that people are so quick to blame the video industry for these houses closing down while hardly questioning the rise of...
The Megaplex: An AMC Original
http://www.amctheatres.com/aboutamc/megaplex.html
"In 1995, AMC introduced a new idea that transformed the moviegoing experience. AMC?s first megaplex premiered in Dallas, Texas with the opening of The Grand 24. With what was then the largest screen-count theatre in the U.S., this 24-auditorium complex was an instant hit. Since then, AMC has built more than 2,000 megaplex screens and offers megaplexes throughout the U.S. and the world?far more than any other exhibition company.
In a megaplex environment, moviegoers receive the ultimate in selection and convenience. At an AMC megaplex, moviegoers enjoy a wider selection of features and showtimes, as well as longer running dates. There?s always something for everybody?and it?s all under one roof.
However, a megaplex is more than multiple screens?it?s the d?cor, amenities, and guest services that combine to make a trip to the movies a special event. AMC megaplexes are known for their appealing, fresh designs, plush surroundings, and industry-leading picture and sound quality. AMC is always on the cutting edge of advances in sight and sound.
AMC tops it off with the company?s signature ?fast and friendly? service. AMC theatres feature large concession and ticketing areas, numerous ticketing purchase options, and a courteous and attentive crew so guests spend less time waiting in lines?and more time enjoying their trip to the movies."
Up here in Edmonton there are two art filmhouses, the Princess (with two screens) and the Garneau. The Princess, when it was independent, was a fine repertory filmhouse showcasing classic films and new alternative cinema. It was there that I saw Faraway, So Close, Rattle & Hum and numerous other films. A few years ago it was purchased by the same folks who own the Garneau, and now they both serve to show the trendy 'alternative' films of the moment.
French-Canadian director Robert LePage's excellent film, La Face Cachee de la Lune played for only one week. Amelie played for almost two months. Napoleon Dynamite has been playing there for 6 weeks. The Garneau shows such esoteric fare as Master & Commander, and The Manchurian Candidate remake.
Thankfully there is the Metro Cinema, and independent collective which shows films in a small theatre downtown and focusses on lesser known films, though it tends towards the more bizarre end of things a bit much for my taste.
The success of companies like Miramax has helped in some respects to open markets to foreign film, but largely, it seems, has only served to create another commercial niche that continues to exclude films with less commercial potential.
Doug, I know what you mean. I actually love the theater experience of our (newest) AMC multiplex: comfy stadium seating, big screens, good sound. But the touted selection — something for everyone! — is a ruse.
Hey David. Great to hear from you.
There's a chain of art theaters in the US called Landmark that's actually not bad. We have half a dozen of them here and they range from nice new theaters showing the stuff you mention, Napoleon Dynamite, etc. To funky little dives with tiny screens showing a pretty great selection of barely-distributed stuff. They don't have the freedom of a rep house, but they're not bad.
Miramax is such a mixed bag. They've bought the rights to so many movies and sat on them that it's really frustrating. On the other hand, I can't imagine that a subtitled movie like Hero would be showing at the aforementioned AMC multiplex if it weren't for them. One step forward, one step back?
Actually, that whole press release sounds like an Onion article. We could challenge every sentence in it:
??Was a "megaplex" really a "new idea" in 1995? What, until then people had only thought of 18-screen theatres and not 24?
??Yeah, what does "ultimate in selection" mean? "Something for everybody" my butt. Why is it that every time I look at their programming, I can never find anything I want to watch? And why promote 24 screens if you double- or triple-book films so that you really only have 8 movies?
??"Wider selection" is flat-out wrong; "longer running dates" is arguable--that has nothing to do with the number of screens
??I prefer the '20s Art Deco d?cor of any art house theatre in L.A. to any one of the moder, cookie-cutter AMC theatres. I particularly like the sculpted gargoyle atop the Rialto Theatre screen here in Pasadena
??Do we really need or event want "ameneties" and "guest services" when we're watching a movie? What is this, a hotel?
Grrr...
I've heard Pauline Kael take credit for the multiplex idea when she put up a second screen in the Berkeley theater that she programmed. (I think she was kidding, sort of.) I mean, Henri Langlois had a third screen in the stairwell at the Cinematheque Francaise well before that.
But, yes, AMC has taken it to new mathematical and logistical heights. I notice that they don't trumpet the number of projectionists in those places. I'm fairly certain, from how long it takes to notice and fix problems that the number is not so impressive.
I think the longer running dates makes some sense. They can bring in new movies, as they apparently must on a regular basis, but still leave movies with lingering popularity showing on one of their smaller screens.
Don't knock the amenities like Dance-Dance-Revolution turned up to full volume in the lobby. Food choices like sugar, sugar, sugar, deep fried chicken nuggets, or sugar. They aim to please!
I was really impressed with the small theaters in Paris. So elegant but no-nonsense. Ahh.
don't forget about UC theatre closing over in Berkeley. I saw the last showing - Fellini's Satyricon in that theatre... closing down my old favorite theatre with my favorite movie. However now I have a new favorite theatre: ArcLight in Hollywood. Come visit and we can go. Bring Lorriane too!
I have to admit, the Arclight has it all--cutting edge amenities, caramel popcorn, and a long list of sponsored festivals and special events in any given week. It's the one multiplex I can think of that truly does have a good selection of films. If you don't mind paying $14 a ticket or whatever, it's hard to beat.
Someone else was telling me about the Arclight. Sounds interesting.
My honest opinion is that pressure is building on the wall that surrounds the American multiplex. What with the popularity of festivals, the wide selection of available DVDs, the information available on the Internet... it seems like people are bound to start wondering why they can't see certain movies in their towns.
I often work on this mental exercise -- a mythical business venture -- of opening a more adventurous theater in a town that wouldn't traditionally have one. Yes, I'm a glutton for punishment. I live in a bubble (and even in this bubble, adventerous theaters are struggling). But logically it seems like it could work, somehow. It's one of the premises of Rosenbaum's book, that the excuse from studios is always "we just show what they want to see," which is generally self-supporting but unfounded.