Are Americans Losing Interest in Cinema? Part 2

In response to Part 1 of this essay, someone asked me how I had measured. How was I sure that more Americans went to see artistic films in, say, 1980, than are doing so today?

Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to do painstaking research on box-office returns for thousands of films across several decades, adjusting for inflation, comparing to population statistics, etc. Would that I had the time for that. But actually, I don't believe it's necessary. I don't think we have to wait for encyclopedic number-crunching analyses to reflect on the culture of our time.

We can put comparisons aside and just ask ourselves if we are living in a time we would describe as enthusiastic about cinema. Are Americans today flocking to theaters to see artistic, challenging films?

Below are the most popular movies in America in 2011 and their domestic box-office numbers (figures from variety.com):

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II: $380 million

Transformers: Dark of the Moon: $350 million

Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn: $280 million

Hangover 2: $260 million

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: $250 million

Fast Five: $210 million

Tangled: $200 million

Cars 2: $200 million

Thor: $180 million

Tron Legacy: $175 million

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: $175 million

Captain America: $175 million

Would you describe these as artistic, challenging films? What I see are popcorn movies -- pure entertainment (as defined in Part 1 of this essay). One could perhaps argue that 'Harry Potter' has some artistry. But I don't think too many people consider the Potter films to be major works of art.

Incidentally, do you notice how many of those titles are part of a franchise or series? A movie needs to be part of a franchise to attract American audiences today. Americans want familiarity today, not originality. This reminds me of American eating patterns. Go out to the heartland, and the only places to eat are franchise chains of one sort or another. Corporate restaurants, corporate movies, corporate stores as far as the eye can see. This is Popcorn Nation. Even the popcorn has to be part of a chain -- with a ton of advertisement. Corporate corporate corporate. Franchise franchise franchise.

As a contrast, below are the domestic box-office numbers for my Top 10 Films of 2011. (These titles may not have been on every critic's list, of course, but they were on many. And I'm sure 90% of serious critics would agree that they were major artistic endeavors.)

1. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives: $200,000

2. Drive: $35 million

3. Incendies: $7 million

4. Martha, Marcy May, Marlene: $3 million

5. Beginners: $6 million

6. Meek's Cutoff: $1 million

7. Hugo: $70 million

8. Weekend: $500,000

9. Sarah's Key: $8 million

10. Another Earth: $1.5 million

Looking at these numbers, would you say they tell the story of a culture greatly interested in serious cinema? I think they reveal a country that loves popcorn movies and has little to no interest in artistic films.

"Hugo" attracted a sizable audience, thank goodness, but less than half the business of "Captain America." "Drive" generated $35 million -- not too shabby, but by Hollywood standards a paltry number.

By and large, the intelligent films of 2011 took in pocket change, appealing only to a narrow audience. I think it's safe to say that Americans today have almost no interest in cinema. Cinema has become a niche phenomenon, with an audience about as large as the one for literary fiction -- that is, infinitesimal.

Not convinced by the 2011 numbers? Let's look at 2010. The most popular films of that year were as follows:

Avatar: $770 million (officially released in 2009 but seen by most audiences in 2010)

Toy Story 3: $400 million

Alice in Wonderland: $350 million

Iron Man 2: $315 million

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I: $300 million

Inception: $300 million

Twilight Saga: Eclipse: $300 million

Despicable Me: $250 million

Shrek Forever After: $250 million

How to Train Your Dragon: $225 million

Same type of movies as 2011, except for Christopher Nolan's "Inception," which I don't think anyone would describe as mere entertainment. Like his 2008 smash hit, "The Dark Knight," Nolan's "Inception" had immense entertainment value and was a gigantic visual spectacle appealing to fans of video games. But also like "Dark Knight," "Inception" raised questions, explored ideas, and cut fairly deeply into its storylines and characters. In addition to being entertaining, it was a work of art.

It was a joy to see "Inception" find such a large audience. That's exactly the kind of thing that so rarely happens today. But of course we know that if it hadn't had the visual spectacle it wouldn't have done anywhere near the business it did. I'm fairly certain that most people tuned out the ideas and just reveled in the images. In fact, I bet most audiences were irritated by the fact that "Inception" had so much story content.

Americans today like their spectacles as simple as possible: like the unbelievably popular "Avatar," one of the simplest movies of the decade. I would even go so far as to say that it's a stretch to call "Avatar" a film. I think it's better described as a video game -- a showcase for visual effects. Its director, James Cameron, I think best exemplifies America today: a visual imagination with few ideas. Big, captivating pictures with no story. It's all about the eye nowadays, not the mind.

Now for my top 10 films of 2010 and their domestic box office:

1. Winter's Bone: $7 million

2. Blue Valentine: $10 million

3. Agora: $600,000

4. Please Give: $4 million

5. The Kids Are All Right: $20 million

6. Kick-Ass: $50 million

7. Brotherhood: $10,000 (yes, ten thousand)

8. Inception: (see above)

9. Fair Game: $10 million

10. The King's Speech: $140 million

I’ve already discussed the surprising popularity of “Inception.” In addition, there is the unexpected success of “The King’s Speech.” Granted, “King’s Speech” did less than half the business of “Twilight,” but still, $140 million is not a small figure. The producers of “Winter’s Bone” would have killed to get a quarter of that.

Here was a small British costume drama with highly literate dialogue, and it became a hit with the American masses. But it’s the exception that proves the rule. By and large, Americans have lost interest in cinema, but once or twice per year that pattern will be broken. Because a pattern is broken 2% of the time does not mean that there is no pattern. Every pattern is broken 2% of the time.

The pattern is best revealed by “Winter’s Bone,” my no.1 film of 2010. I recently saw it again, and I was as captivated by it in 2012 as I was in 2010. I believe it is a near-masterpiece, with an astonishing amount of interesting story content. I could analyze its different layers for years. It was also directed (by Debra Granik) and acted extraordinarily well. Despite getting four big Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actress, and being on countless critics’ top 10 lists, Americans ignored it.

The pattern is seen clearly also with “Blue Valentine." A near-masterpiece with awe-inspiring and highly original dramatic content, huge stars, exhilarating acting performances, tons of press coverage, and still it goes nowhere at the American box office. “Winter’s Bone” and “Blue Valentine” probably didn’t earn a profit. They probably just earned back their investment. That’s the American pattern of the early 21st century: make a shallow, entertaining popcorn movie that is part of a franchise, earn $200 million in profit. Make a deep, original work of art, earn nothing. Welcome to Popcorn Nation. I wouldn't be able to prove it with numbers, but I have the strong sense that American interest in cinema is at its lowest point since about 1960.