Did streaming kill the cinema industry?

Where did this all start? Well, it’s been going for a long time. It’s no secret that streaming has boomed in the last few years, with everyone now having (or claiming to have) a Netflix account. The success of Netflix effectively eliminated the DVD industry, with DVD rental stores now being a thing of the past. So, considering that streaming has already killed off other media services, what is it doing to cinemas? Cinema attendance fell continually throughout the 2010s, so a decline has been ever-present for the last few years, but the COVID-19 pandemic created a massive hit to the industry. The fact that cinemas had to spend so much time closed meant that revenue was absolutely decimated for not only the cinema chains themselves, but also production companies that provided the movies.

In fact, it’s the production companies that started the current wave of problems and hot debates. This can all be traced to last April when the pandemic was truly taking hold. Universal Pictures announced that some of its movies would release directly to streaming sites, instead of being delayed until a later time to release conventionally in theatres. This would start with “Trolls: World Tour”, which released on the 10th of April, both in a small number of cinemas and directly to on-demand streaming. This has caused quite a stir and reaction from cinemas, in fact, AMC, the owners of the Odeon Cinema chain, declared that all Universal Pictures movies would not be shown in their theatres as long as Universal released directly to on-demand simultaneously with theatres.

So what’s to take from these corporate disputes?

Ideally, we try and take advantage of the situation. The thing is, this situation, for the most part, benefitted us during the lockdowns. Since production companies wanted to maximise profits in trying times, they tried to reach us in a different way, one that was more adapted to the situation. Streaming services have become vital to many people stuck working indoors as a way to while away the time. To say that the pricing of the vast array of streaming services springing up is controversial is an understatement, with many opting to go back to online piracy to obtain the movies and shows they want to watch. “The Mandalorian” on Disney+ was no exception, being last year’s most pirated series.

However, what about the cinema experience? It’s no secret that watching a movie at the cinema itself is different from just watching it on a TV or computer. In fact, it’s arguably more complete, with better effects from both a bigger screen and cinema-style surround sound enabling a more enthralling and vivid adventure. The biggest downside is the whole process of actually going to the cinema, not everyone has a cinema room in their home, so they have to get out and go there, which to be fair, isn’t the best of ideas during a pandemic. Then there are the prices. Yes, streaming services are pricy, but cinema tickets have been becoming steadily pricier. Then there’s the whole problem of actually having to go back home afterward, which hardly is as comfortable as just switching off your TV and curling up in bed.

It’s definitely hard to choose between the two. The comforts of streaming at home are amazing but the immersion of watching a film at the cinema is equally enticing. From our end, we’d recommend a mix of both, leave the proper blockbusters or the ones you’re excited about for the cinema, in order to truly enjoy and appreciate the movie. Whereas at the same time don’t be afraid to enjoy the comforts of home cinema, after all, home is where the heart is.

Check out 1-Up Club’s previous article here!

The post Cinema vs Streaming – What does the audience really want? | 1-Up Club appeared first on The Third Eye.

The movie industry started to take shape in the early 19th century from technological innovations and a series of developments. Cinema does not have a precise starting point since many inventors created motion picture cameras and other techniques at around the same time.

We’re all familiar with the big names such as Georges Méliès, Thomas Edison, Sergei Eisenstein, Federico Fellini, D. W. Griffith, François Truffaut etc… But what about Alice Guy-Blaché, Louis Weber, Dorothy Arzner, Ida Lupino, Maya Deren, Germaine Dulac and Margarethe von Trotta (amongst many others, I would list them here, but I would skip my word limit.)

In the early years of the film industry, women were known to have held positions of high-regard, such as directors, producers, actresses, writers, editors, technicians, camera crew and even had their own production companies! Perhaps the reason why these women go unnoticed is that the work of women has been devalued over time. Also, the shift of the film industry to Hollywood resulted in an isolation of power to a select few studios, run by monopolistic men.

“There is nothing connected with the staging of a motion picture that a woman cannot do as easily as a man, and there is no reason why she cannot completely master every technicality of the art.”

From The Memoirs of Alice Guy-Blaché.

Alice Guy-Blaché was the first female directors in the history of film. In 1896 she produced ‘La Fée aux Choux’, one of the earliest narrative films to be created. Alice had initially worked as a secretary to Leon Gaumont, founder of the Gaumont film studios. Some time later, she started to produce films and she became the head of production for the studio up until 1906. In 1907, Alice set up a film company, Solax Studios, and throughout her career, she directed 1000 films, 22 (feature length films), however, only 350 survive. She was an innovator in synchronised sound, early use of colour and is thought to have invented the concept of filming on location and produced one of the first close-ups. When she had returned to the US after some time in France, she could not recover all her films and could not get the Gaumont company to acknowledge her work. Soon after, she started giving public talks and also wrote her memoirs about her work.

Dorothy Arzner, one of the only major female directors in Hollywood during the “Golden Age” of the 20s and 30s, previously worked as a stenographer and worked as a film director. She is also the first editor to be named in a film’s credits and director. She produced 2 films, 14 talkies and is attributed to have invested the boom microphone.

Margaret Booth had started her working at D. W. Griffith’s studio in 1915 as a film joiner and negative cutter. Florence Osborne wrote a 1925 Motion Picture Magazine article: “Among the greatest ‘cutters’ and film editors are women. They are quick and resourceful. They are also ingenious in their work and usually have a strong sense of what the public wants to see. They can sit in a stuffy cutting-room and see themselves looking at the picture before an audience.”

There were many well-known female colourists at the time. The Edison company employed Mrs Kuhn to hand colour prints from their films. Madame Elisabeth Thuiller’s Company managed over 200 female colourists!

“I coloured all of Méliès’ films, and this work was carried out entirely by hand. I employed two hundred and twenty workers in my workshop. I spent my nights selecting and sampling the colours, and during the day; the workers applied the colour according to my instructions. Each specialised worker applied only one colour, and we often exceeded twenty colours on a film.”

MMe Thuiller in an interview, Mazeline, 74n1, 1929.

The cinema industry had changed with the Hays Code in the 1930s (A Code To Govern The Making Of Motion Pictures). The early silent films had featured complex women as protagonists and dealt with contemporary issues such as birth control, sex, crime, divorce and mental illness). The Code erased these ideas, sexism grew, and changed the audience’s perception, giving rise to the headless women of Hollywood.

Women still fail to be treated as equals and it is unfortunate that these women who were responsible for many innovations are still waiting to come out from the shadows.

The post The Undervalued Women of Cinema appeared first on The Third Eye.