Caleb Conrad vs. Netflix
On February 5th, during the Superbowl, Netflix released the first trailer for the next film in the Cloverfield franchise, the Cloverfield Paradox. The trailer took its audience by surprise not only because the film had been shrouded in mystery for the past year or so, but also because Netflix then promised that the film would be available for viewing that very night. It was, and the movie isn’t very good, but that’s beside the point. This release may be a complete game-changer.
While not as completely revolutionary as the idea of Netflix or other streaming services releasing original content in the first place, which is what I’d really like to talk about here, we need to keep in mind that something like this has never been done before. There wasn’t more than a scrap of information about this film available to the public before the Superbowl. Hours after the first footage was revealed, the film was available to be viewed by anyone. This release model, while somewhat exciting in the age of spoilers and overlong marketing campaigns, will not function for theatrical releases, meaning it’s yet another pull to Netflix and other streaming services. While I am enthusiastic about this development to an extent, I am also a bit anxious about it’s long term consequences for movie theaters.
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that as more and more of the general public subscribe to streaming services like Netflix or Hulu, less and less view film regularly in a theater. The shared experience of going to the movies, something I consider important to the framework of film as a medium, is being abandoned for the sake of convenience.
For the record, I don’t have anything against streaming services. Convenience is not a bad thing. Streaming services make it easier to access great works of art from all eras. It can be difficult and expensive to go to theaters, and sometimes a film viewing with friends at home can be just as powerful an experience as that of a theatrical one. And in addition to all of this, Netflix’s original programming can often give the most widespread form of distribution for mid to low budget independent filmmakers, and even provides funding for some of these films.
But my favorite way to view a film will always be in the cinema. You don’t know how many little intricacies and flourishes a director puts in a great film until you see it on a big screen. I love film as an event, something that you need to leave your house and enter, that can literally and metaphorically move you. I love the good and the bad that comes with an audience and their reactions, which are always enhanced by the presence of company. I saw Get Out on opening weekend, in a theater full of screams, laughter, and applause, and I saw mother! In a massive room occupied only by myself and two strangers, both of whom I consider close friends because of the horrible event we went through together. I love these memories, and the smell of buttered popcorn, and the thrill and wonder at the inescapable beauty of a flickering screen a thousand miles high.
It seems it’s a common opinion that streaming services are destined to completely eliminate the need for theaters in the future. The Netflix distribution method does seem to be a big part of the future of film, and it’s more than possible that it will be able to coexist with theaters as it does now. But in case Netflix does overtake cinema in the far future, as is the common trend of new technology in film, I’d just like to offer my (frankly meaningless) opinion on the matter: there is no future of film worth having without theaters.
