Cinema R.I.P.
Scott Foundas' LA Weekly article on the new upscale West L.A. movie theater that only shows indie-movie fare got me thinking about downtown development and the future of the Crest and Tower. If you care about movies in this town, I recommend you check out the story.
Specifically, he quotes Gary Meyer, operator of the Balboa in S.F., who predicts that screen counts in America will be under 10,000 in 10 years, a trend that's reactionary and dictated purely by the market (e.g., lack of attendance and the omnipresence of home theater).
So, the combination of big-money, luxury art-house megaplexes and the continued dissipation of screens and indie houses is worrisome. Studios will make deals with companies like Landmark and Laemmles, and smaller local houses and chains won't have dibs on movies. Lower-budget films won't find it cost-effective to distribute 35 mm prints and will go straight to DVD. Who's the odd men out in this scenario?
The Crest and Tower.
The more I see stories like Foundas', the more I believe we won't have indie houses in our city in five years. In as much as people enjoy going to see film on film, and in as much as purists and preservationists want to preserve said institutions, I just don't see the forces that be (e.g., $$$) allowing places like the Crest and Tower to stick around.
So what can we do? Well, the city thought having an IMAX on the K Mall was valuable, so they bailed it out in spite of unfair economic conditions. So if the indie-movie and megaplex chains try to shake down the Crest, will the city feel that having an art-house movie palace downtown is worth a subsidy.
Me? I definitely think it's worth it.
4 comments:
I wish Sac had more film nerds. For a city this size, I think there are not many of them to pad the attendance at indie theaters and to make a ruckus if they are threatened. I think all the city cares about is that the Tower and Crest are viable businesses, I don't think they give a crap what's in there. I think the mayor would be tickled if a Mcormick and Schmick or CPK could open in the Tower lobby.
If there is a political push for subsidies, then all efforts probably should focus on the Crest, because it is prettier to look at. It will be easier to convince people that it is a sacramento landmark. If the emphasis is on the types of films being shown, people will see the subsidy as going to snobs.
That said, I will really miss tower if it goes under. It is ugly to look at on the outside, but I love how the building is structured with the two curving wings, if you know what I mean.
I think a Chipotle in either lobby would seal the deal for me.
But, seriously, the big problem with the city is that they ONLY look at economic performance then-and-there, and don't consider the economic viability over the long term—Downtown Plaza being a perfect example. Right now, all we have in City Hall are a bunch of toolbox networkers shilling out to their buddies. "Hey, remember that shit we built in ______ (Portland, Gaslamp, Irvine)? Let's get some cheap urban land in Sac and do it again!" Thankfully, regionals like their suburbia here so much that projects that succeeded in the OC, SD and elsewhere might not be as lucrative here in the 916. But it's embarrassing that a guy like Brennan can even waltz in front of City Council and make statements like he did ... and then go hide and avoid the press in his St. Helena abode. And I probably shouldn't write this, but the shakedown and hostility that I get as a reporter trying to look into this shit from the flack is ridiculous! I mean, who does these guys work for? Sure, rePOORters are assholes, but c'mon ... Sac is becoming the new wet dream of Contra Costa, Napa and Marin county millionaires.
Sacramento has always had a problem with architectural restoration. The big fuckin Safeway at K and Alhambra used to be an old theater that was unable to get funding for restoration and was torn down. The only thing left was a fountain that you don't even notice.
Post a Comment