Movies & Why We Gather

By Sawyer Savage

HOLLYWOOD is constantly evolving. Not only are the types of stories studios make different for each generation, but also, so is the way inw] which they are told and how they are marketed. For instance, if we look back on the silent film era, which ran from 1894 to the end of the 1920’s, and then continuing on through the studio film era of the 1940s, stars were paramount. With the end of the ‘60s and into the ‘70s came a boom in auteur cinema, movies that were not driven by actors, but by the strong vision of the filmmaker.

Then the year 1975 changed it all. Steven Spielberg released Jaws , a film so popular and so iconic that the line to Amity Island went all the way around the block–making it the first ever blockbuster. The movie made 476.5 million at the box office. Two years later came Star Wars , which surpassed Jaws as the highest-grossing film, bringing in 550 million in its original release at the box office (since its opening it has made an additional 225 million through re-releases). Special effects truly became the star of the show, beginning a new film experience that inspired a host of other filmmakers who strive to transport their audiences to another world, another universe, another galaxy. Today, Marvel movies reign supreme, offering audiences the same opportunity to travel beyond the borders of our world. While this brief overview of Hollywood histo - ry certainly skips many important movie moments, it highlights the industry’s evolution towards grander box-office hits that guarantee more butts in seats and, therefore, more money in producers’ pockets. With the transition to more visual effects-driven projects and larger productions, smaller films were more and more left to streaming alone. The reason for this is economical. Much of the money a movie brings in is generated from selling the films overseas. Therefore, creating films that transcend the language barrier—action and science fiction—are more likely to do well in those markets.

As a result, movies have become more expensive to produce. And it is show business, so studios looked for ways to cut up-front costs. In order to hold the production budget down, they proposed that “above the line talent” take less money up front and instead get a cut of the profits if the movie is a hit. That worked until the demands for up-front money crept back up, but the profit sharing stayed in place. Movies got more and more expensive for the studios. Even with movies that turned a profit, much of the money was no longer going to the studios. With costs skyrocketing, studios no longer want movies that are modest hits. Rather than make smaller movies with the potential to bring in modest profits, they instead make only bigger movies that have higher chances of becoming–like Spielberg’s shark–massive blockbusters. In the vernacular of Hollywood, they don’t want to hit doubles, they want to hit homeruns.

The difficulty in making a blockbuster, however, is that there has also been less inclination by the public to go to the theaters, largely due to streaming services. Now that there is a relatively inexpensive and instantaneous delivery mechanism for an unlimited number of movies directly into your living room, without even having to put shoes on, a new model has taken over the old block. Now, going to see a movie in the theaters is often reserved for films that people feel can only be truly experienced on the big screen. Of course, this transition to staying home was only exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The option to even go to the theaters if you wanted to was taken away, which further changed our outlooks on movie-watching. Even as we have slowly returned to normalcy, the effects of staying home and enjoying a movie, any movie, from the comfort of our own homes, lingers. It has been the largescale movies— Spider-Man: No Way Home , Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness , Top Gun: Maverick –that have motivated the most people back to the box office, and those continue to be the types of movies being prioritized by the studios.

But when smaller stories are not told, we lose sight of their true value. Smaller movies, with plots that are more narrowly focused, have the ability to illuminate emotional truths that can be lost in a bigger canvas. Part of the value of going to the movies is found in the discussion movie-goers have on the ride home or over a meal. Smaller movies elicit emotions that connect viewers to each other on a deeper, less visceral, level. The discussion after seeing Spider-Man , for instance, is going to be quite different than, say, Scent Of A Woman , a movie starring Al Pacino which dealt with loss and the need for human connection. With this shift towards only having big movie spectacles in theaters, with smaller films only being released on streaming services, what are we losing? Movies are a collective cultural experience. They entertain, yes, but they also should challenge and enlighten us. Smaller movies tend to be more personal, reaching for emotions other than the visceral thrill. When we go to the movies, we have a shared experience. With smaller movies being seen at home, that collective experience of seeing these personal stories is lost. While there is value in sharing the experience of Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire sharing the screen with Tom

Holland as Spider Men, so too is there value in watching Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan be charming as Harry and Sally.

It also causes a divide of what kinds of films are seen as “important,” and what movies we should share with each other. When only spectacle films are seen as worthy of experiencing as a collective, we are depriving ourselves from having the same experience with a character-driven film. There is some - thing to be said for the feeling of witnessing a story with a group of strangers in a dark room, regardless of what the film is about. Having the opportunity to experience an array of stories in that setting, leaving the theater after having a shared moment, is worth it.

This is not to say that we should never enjoy a movie from our homes. And this is not to say that large spectacles are not fun and important communal experiences. This is simply to say that having character-driven stories in theaters is just as important as seeing spectacles in that environment. All movies, regardless of size or budget or genre, offer the opportunity for community and shared experience. Smaller, character films offer their own unique experience, and losing the experience of sharing them with each other is a missed opportunity.