Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Alabama Drive-In Cancells Beauty And The Beast Over Gay Character

This is topic Alabama Drive-In Cancells Beauty And The Beast Over Gay Character in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003026

Posted by Donald Brown (Member # 5427) on 03-03-2017, 09:30 PM:

While the TMZ story on this subject is succinct and brief, as a theatre operator, if I were to deride a studio's product in a similar manner, I fully expect that the licensing agreement with the respective studio would be revoked. Disney should pull the license from this operator permanently.
http://www.tmz.com/2017/03/03/beauty-and-the-beast-alabama-theater-gay-character/

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 03-03-2017, 11:01 PM:

I hope the exhibitor actually attended the trade screening before making this decision.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 03-05-2017, 03:48 PM:

Now that I have read up on this subject:

After seeing the original, animated, film of "Beauty and the Beast" - I theorized that the character in question (LeFou) was gay anyway. So, them embelishing on it (or adding to it) in the live action version doesn't bother me any.

This is a big deal out of nothing really.

Any publicity is good publicity. It will still be the highest March opening film of all time. I'm fine with that.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-05-2017, 04:07 PM:

I avoided posting the story originally because is gets a little to close to religion and politics. But now that it's here...

They've got a business model that will bankrupt them by August, even in Alabama. They want to book movies based on their version of Christianity? Fine. But they aren't going to find enough to fill up the screen.
Christian movies do very well here in Alabama --- when the churches bring them in by the busload. Otherwise, most of them have no legs. Even so, there just aren't that many of them.
Everything else will, if they choose to look closely, offend some version of their doctrine (I had someone complain about My Big Fat Greek Wedding because the two main characters were in bed together and not married. He said it was "filth doubled over.")
Those of you old enough to remember Jerry Lewis Cinemas in the 1970's, whose business model was to only run G rated movies (and there were much more of them then) are old enough to know they went belly up (for lots of reasons).
Soon to be another closed drive in.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-05-2017, 07:50 PM:

It's not just gays that he wants to keep off his screen:

quote: Article linked by Donald
He says he only wants to show "wholesome movies" without sex, nudity, homosexuality or foul language.

That rules out probably around 95% of Hollywood's output since about 1965 (and I guess he passed on one Disney-financed release - Pulp Fiction - which is saturated with all four, with added drugs and glorifying violent crime, just to really trigger the guy).

That having been said, I have felt that Disney stuff over the last 2-3 years has become politicized to the point of crossing the line for movies aimed at an audience of young children: feminism in Cinderella, ecological issues in Zootopia, and now homosexuality in this movie.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-05-2017, 08:27 PM:

Looking at their Facebook page, I can see several movies in the last 6 months that failed to meet the stated guidelines - specifically Sausage Party, Jack Reacher 2, and Girl on the Train.

Henagar Drive-in Facebook

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-05-2017, 08:54 PM:

Of course, the last six months don't count since they just took over in December (and they said the movies were booked four months out).
We'll see what they do for the next few months.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-05-2017, 09:35 PM:

Yeah, I think that drive-in will be forced to change its business model in very short order. Under the drive-in's new content criteria I don't think they would even show The Shack. It is a religious movie, but it is rated PG-13 (adult themes, some subject matter could be upsetting to kids). The movie also has "Papa" (a character's nickname for God) played by Octavia Spencer (a black woman) and Graham Greene (a Native Canadian).

I don't mind a theater operator wanting to show more in the way of family friendly content. On the other hand, Hollywood movies these days are very tame compared to the adult oriented content one can easily find on cable TV, streaming services and the Internet.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-05-2017, 10:06 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
Of course, the last six months don't count since they just took over in December

Ok, I didn't see that in the few items I read about this. Regardless, I think this is going to strongly come back and bite them in the ass. There simply are not enough films each year which fit the criteria of "without sex, nudity, homosexuality or foul language".

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-05-2017, 10:42 PM:

Aaaand with 3500 comments (and counting) on their announcement, their Facebook page is gone. Maybe it just got overwhelmed.

I read a couple of dozen comments....99% of them were condemning them for their decision.

A couple notes:

They have "A Dog's Purpose" listed as PG-13 when it's actually PG.

And they advertise a $200 "party package" where you can bring a private group in and view one of the movies they have showing, or a "DVD that you provide," which is clearly illegal. Somebody should tell them that they're violating their own principles.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 03-06-2017, 12:09 AM:

I'd love to say they're going to be out of business due to their stance, but then I look at their website and realize they're going to be out of business soon just because of awful management either way. Their website auto-plays music like its a 90's site and the font is comic sans. It's hard enough to run a drive-in, now cut off half the content and good luck with that. This week is a dogs purpose and the eagle huntress, the only thing for march they're showing as "coming soon" is the boss baby, looking at march's film slate without Beauty & The Beast, I don't even know why they'd open. Since they don't want to show movies with violence, nudity, etc. I can't really see them showing most of the march slate...
It's sad to see a business (especially a drive in)fail due to stupid ownership. Hopefully they don't screw up too much and a decent operator can move in and restore the drive in

Posted by James Wyrembelski (Member # 9037) on 03-06-2017, 12:29 AM:

I really don't know why this story got any traction. ONE theater decides to not show it due to this and its become national news.

I wont chastise anyone for making a decision like this based on their morals. Their business, their decision. However, as a business decision, I don't think that was a wise one. People will vote with their dollars and I doubt it will get many votes. Good luck to them trying to run on that kind of platform even if it will more than likely be a short one.

Our single screen had a somewhat similar platform during the previous owners operation. Family and (some) Christian movies were the only thing played about 99% of the time. After a while it had a reputation for "only playing G movies" and "cartoons" to the locals and people stopped even paying attention to what was playing years ago. He began to loosen a bit on that towards the end, but it was too late at that point. No variety, no business. (It began to fail for other reasons, but this definitely didn't help.)

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-06-2017, 01:05 AM:

quote: James Wyrembelski
national news

International news. There's an article on the CBC website about it, too.

Alabama drive-in bans Beauty and the Beast for gay character

quote:
An Alabama drive-in theatre won't show a new re-telling of the classic fairy tale Beauty and the Beast because one of its characters is portrayed as homosexual.

A Facebook post for the Henagar Drive-In Theatre said its operators are "first and foremost Christians" and "will not compromise on what the Bible teaches." They said they will show family-oriented films so customers can "watch wholesome movies."

The post, which went up Thursday, has since been taken down.

It also said the owners were taking a stand and making a choice not to show the film, which includes manservant Le Fou, who plays the sidekick to the story's villain Gaston and, according to director Bill Condon, "is confused about his sexuality."

Theatre operators did not immediately respond to emails or phone messages to confirm the Facebook posting.

The Disney film had its world premiere in Los Angeles earlier this week and will be released March 17.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-06-2017, 01:24 AM:

quote: James Wyrembelski
I wont chastise anyone for making a decision like this based on their morals. Their business, their decision.

I had a discussion about this earlier today before I had read up on their reasoning. When operating a business like a movie theatre, I have a hard time with this argument. The purpose of having a business is to satisfy customers and make money. Making morality based decisions on what you provide you customers is a recipe for failure, if it means you will not provide a significant portion of the content your potent customers want. The same would apply to book stores and music stores (to the extent either exists today).

My company is independently owned, and we frequently play movies which run contrary to our own views. But as a business we are capitalists first. This doesn't mean we don't pass on certain movies as a business decision, but the decision is usually based on what will put butte in the seats.

Posted by James Wyrembelski (Member # 9037) on 03-06-2017, 02:25 AM:

Exactly. Market gets what the market wants. I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the decision, merely saying they have every right to run the theater as they see fit and not exactly sure why this is going as big as it is. It's a private business.

If that story had not been published, nobody would have noticed. The drive in would have merely lost out on potential good business (and most likely future business based on the way they are programming). The market will decide their fate on it's own and that's how the system stays healthy. If that had been a local theater here and I had read that I'd merely think "oh, guess they don't want my money" and be on my merry way to the competition.

I guess I just feel that this leaves people open to personal attack and essentially trying to force them to go against principle in a very public manner. Using dollars against them I feel is more effective. If that doesn't work, then someone else scoops it up and hopefully caters more to future customers. However, making a Facebook post explaining WHY you decided to pull it was a huge mistake in my opinion.

It's a tough thing to think about, really.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 03-06-2017, 06:25 AM:

quote: James Wyrembelski
I really don't know why this story got any traction. ONE theater decides to not show it due to this and its become national news.

The news media is driven by sanctimonious outrage, and if none exists on any given day, it has to be manufactured. A few years back, it was a bunch of theaters in Utah that refused to show Brokeback Mountain. Same thing. The whole Eyewitness News "If it bleeds, it leads" thing doesn't work anymore, and has been replaced by reporting things that people can get their balls into an uproar about, no matter how minor.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-06-2017, 10:30 AM:

"The media" is a very popular target for criticism these days. Sadly, very few people seem to be aware of an enormous hypocrisy present in that criticism. Basically, it takes two to to tango. The American public is the other partner in this dance of decadance. The public made "the media" what it is today. It's all our fault. But we accept no responsibility for creating this situation.

The purpose of "the media" is to make money selling advertising. They're doing whatever they can to get more eyes on their TV channels, web pages or other outlets. They're giving their viewers/readers what they want. And what the public wants is various name-branded echo-chambers that specifically cater to their own already long-held hard-lined biases, stirring up their emotions in the process.

The general public, collectively, just absolutely loves to get pissed off about something. Many of us love indulding in feelings of anger and judgment. We also take joy in the humiliation of others, especially a public figure who has "fallen from grace." The media obliges, holding up various targets for our scorn.

Much of this human behavior was present before Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press. However, over the past 30 years we have seen the relationship between "the media" and the public change dramatically. Decades ago concepts like ethics in journalism were considered more important. Media companies were proud to say their news divisions were losing money. They just didn't touch on the money making formula yet.

Nearly 30 years ago talk radio and always-on cable news programming was first to figure out the fact people love turning in to get pissed off. Since then they have refined the model, amping up the emotional sensationalism to make the content more potent, able to deliver a bigger rush. Viewers/readers keep coming back to it the same way a heroin junkie searches out his pusher to score a fix.

I think all the on-screen ticker trash is one example of the manipulation. Prior to 9-11-01 a viewer usually only saw a text ticker on the bottom of the screen when there was a tornado watch or if he was watching a stock ticker on a business channel. Viewers tuned in to 9-11 coverage as if keeping vigil, constantly reading the latest developments on those tickers. Those on-screen graphics have been a permanent fixture since then.

The most harmful thing "the media" discovered about the general public is its sheer gullibility and narrow-mindedness. We are so easy to manipulate. In recent years we've seen this new breed of "news" web sites sprout to take advantage, delivering nothing short of propaganda, misinformation and even messages of hatred.

I'm not sure what the the public can do to turn around this mess, but it's all on them to make it happen. I personally don't bother with 24 hour cable news networks. Even the morning news on the broadcast channels is hard to take at times. This morning Good Morning America was running a story about Michael Jackson's kids. They showed video from the Motown 25 TV special in 1983 where Jackson first performed his "moonwalk." The fucking on-screen ticker trash completely covered up Jackson's feet.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-06-2017, 10:47 AM:

The drive-in might see a boost in popularity due to being "that famous drive-in" but that'd be short lived, if it happens. Their mistake, as noted earlier, was their Facebook post. They should have just told their booker they didn't want to play "Beauty" and moved on to other things. When people started to ask questions, they could have just said "We couldn't get it for a variety of reasons" and left it at that.

The "50 Shades" movies sort of fall outside my moral compass, but we still played "50 Shades of Grey" last year. This year, the sequel didn't get near the attention so we just opted not to play it, having plenty of other good things to choose from. But I didn't tell anybody my feelings about the movie, we just promoted "Lego Batman."

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-06-2017, 02:17 PM:

What troubles me about this situation is the owner is using his unique position to act as moral barometer for his community. I accept their right to sell whatever product they feel best suits their business. I just think it is ethically wrong to use your position to impose your morality on the community. In a small community with limited access to movies, I think it becomes a much bigger issue than if they decided to specialize in a larger community with many other choices.

As far as this story getting so much attention, I think it was only a matter of time once they put it out there that this was a moral decision. Whether it was their Facebook post, or just something they told people who asked about the movie. Issues related to the LGBTQ community have much greater awareness today than even 5 years ago. A story like this had no chance of staying local.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-06-2017, 02:37 PM:

quote: James Wyrembelski
I really don't know why this story got any traction.

Because it came immediately after Disney started promoting that it has a gay character in the movie. Gave the story a hook (besides "Look at what backwards Alabama is doing now." It's not as though we aren't in the news enough these days).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-06-2017, 03:31 PM:

And all of this happening before the freaking movie is released. I have heard that the "gay moment" in the movie is two male characters dancing. Not exactly groundbreaking. I have a feeling a lot of people who are expecting some major statement are going to be saying "That's IT?" at the end of the movie.

I just hope this whole thing doesn't overshadow what promises to be a good movie.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-06-2017, 04:00 PM:

If you think about the character from the animated movie, LeFou comes across as possibly being gay. His infatuation Gaston always seemed a bit too adoring.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-06-2017, 10:35 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
And all of this happening before the freaking movie is released.

Remember all the fun with The Last Temptation of Christ before it was released? For that matter, before it was even completed.

Posted by James Wyrembelski (Member # 9037) on 03-06-2017, 11:08 PM:

Interestingly enough, typing in "Movie theaters in Alabama" brings up no Henagar Drive In. If you specifically search for Henagar Drive In Theater it brings it up and lists it as a "church" along with 21 brand new 1 star reviews.

quote: Mike Blakesley
They should have just told their booker they didn't want to play "Beauty" and moved on to other things. When people started to ask questions, they could have just said "We couldn't get it for a variety of reasons" and left it at that.

This would have been a much more tactical approach. They shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Posted by Martin Murray (Member # 162) on 03-06-2017, 11:34 PM:

Mike Blakesley, Their newfound popularity did not tranfer to dollars in the bank, rumor has it that they turned in $0 on Friday, $175 on Saturday, and $0 on Sunday to rentrac. They are done.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-07-2017, 06:02 AM:

I expect that at some point the story will gain traction with some conservative religious site or network, and they will see a short term surge in support, likely including people making pilgrimages to support them. Of course this will fade rather quickly and they will find out whether they have a sustainable business model.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-07-2017, 12:02 PM:

quote: Martin Murray
Mike Blakesley, Their newfound popularity did not tranfer to dollars in the bank, rumor has it that they turned in $0 on Friday, $175 on Saturday, and $0 on Sunday to rentrac. They are done.

Well that doesn't mean much....they could just be lax in their Rentrak reporting.

Posted by Martin Murray (Member # 162) on 03-07-2017, 12:13 PM:

Yes, im sure that's what itis. Lol

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-07-2017, 12:50 PM:

Just checked rentrak. The Saturday number is correct. Total for a double feature for the weekend was a bit over $300 (as rentrak numbers are supposed to be proprietary, I choose not to quote them exactly).
I've had worse weekends. I'll keep a eye on their grosses.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-08-2017, 08:11 AM:

I am very close to a theatre in a town that is heavily Amish. 40%. Best to run the film, but be honest with the people about things they might find objectionable. Light suggestion at the box office that there is some"xxxx" that you might not like.

Let them determine what to do.

This is called respect and honor.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-08-2017, 10:07 AM:

The way a film is marketed can also help or hinder.

When Wilde came out in the late '90s, the trailers and posters gave the impression that it was a typical British Victorian/Edwardian costume drama, of the sort that were being cranked out by the vaultload for both cinema and TV at the time, because they were very popular with the middle class, upper middle age crowd that had higher spending power and thus the movie theaters were trying to attract.

On the first Friday we opened it, several older customers came out and complained when the first buggery scene hit the screen. I was covering someone's break in the box office at the time, and was treated to an enraged rant by a Home Counties 70-something, the gist of which was he would personally see to it that I'd end up in the same place as the film's protagonist (i.e. in jail, on a treadmill) for daring to show such obscene filth.

This was a bit silly: surely anyone choosing of their own free will to go and see a biographical movie about Oscar Wilde must have some idea of what is likely to be in it?! But it has has to be noted that the advertising and publicity gave absolutely no clue, except for the 18-certificate logo buried in a corner of the poster. All the trailers were U (British equivalent of G), and consisted essentially of witty Oscar Wilde one-liners. I suppose, therefore, that heightened the risk that some customers who, shall we say, had led somewhat of a sheltered lifestyle were likely to be blindsided by it.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 03-08-2017, 11:17 AM:

At our drive-in, we don't book anything that we think will piss off half our crowd (such as political documentaries), but then those don't really fall in to the "fun popcorn vibe" that people visit us for. I imagine that films like Brokeback or Moonlight don't either, and not because of "gay content". But ruling out movies with gay characters? Heck, that character is a staple of modern comedy, the bulk of our business. I was kind of disappointed this thing was released too soon for our season, we'd likely do well with it. The Henagar Drive-In is really going to struggle if it wants to nit-pick on personal "morals".

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 03-09-2017, 01:08 AM:

I'm very non-nonchalant over what gets played. I disagree with "focus on the family" and other organizations but will play their movies because there's a good audience for it in the south. $$$ pays the bills and unfortunately that is something the new owners will learn shortly

Posted by Allan Barnes (Member # 5178) on 03-09-2017, 01:36 AM:

You book the films that your customers want OR you build an audience that you want as a business owner. BUSINESS WORKS BOTH WAYS. We are a family business so generally we never play RESTRICTED or HORROR FILMS. Same for a GAY or OTHER POLITICIAL "message" films I don't want to promote. ie PROMISED LAND (fraking bad) or ELYSIUM (universal health care) or BROKEN BACK MOUNTAIN or 50 SHADES

THAT BEING SAID... is Disney here exploiting a GAY character for LAUGHTS... SHAME

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 03-09-2017, 05:10 AM:

From what I've read (and will most likely screen next week) the "gay scene" isn't even that bad. Won't post the spoilers here but you can read about it from plenty of sites what it is. Right now with Beauty & The Beast tracking as the fastest selling family film in history, I can't see this business lasting through the year, especially if they're going to pass on any violent or rated R movie this year. If I was any of their competition in town I'd be jumping for joy and promoting the hell out of the movie, that being said i'm sold out for Friday and Saturday all shows up until 10pm.

Having seen what happens in the past, it always seems like those who speak out loudest against these "perversions" are the ones who have the most sins in their closet.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-09-2017, 01:39 PM:

quote: Allan Barnes
You book the films that your customers want OR you build an audience that you want as a business owner. BUSINESS WORKS BOTH WAYS.

That's true, but the owner of that drive-in isn't necessarily doing that...he's booking the films that HE wants. Huge difference there.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-09-2017, 03:50 PM:

At our drive-in we get frequent complaints about playing too many family friendly movies and not enough adult oriented films. I can appreciate this point of view. Unfortunately the reality is attendance and per capita drop significantly when we play adult oriented movies. This applies to horror movies, romantic comedies, and R rated action movies. The only exception is popular R rated comedies.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 03-09-2017, 05:01 PM:

quote:
"The media" is a very popular target for criticism these days. Sadly, very few people seem to be aware of an enormous hypocrisy present in that criticism. Basically, it takes two to to tango. The American public is the other partner in this dance of decadance. The public made "the media" what it is today. It's all our fault. But we accept no responsibility for creating this situation.

The purpose of "the media" is to make money selling advertising. They're doing whatever they can to get more eyes on their TV channels, web pages or other outlets. They're giving their viewers/readers what they want. And what the public wants is various name-branded echo-chambers that specifically cater to their own already long-held hard-lined biases, stirring up their emotions in the process.

The general public, collectively, just absolutely loves to get pissed off about something. Many of us love indulding in feelings of anger and judgment. We also take joy in the humiliation of others, especially a public figure who has "fallen from grace." The media obliges, holding up various targets for our scorn.

Much of this human behavior was present before Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press. However, over the past 30 years we have seen the relationship between "the media" and the public change dramatically. Decades ago concepts like ethics in journalism were considered more important. Media companies were proud to say their news divisions were losing money. They just didn't touch on the money making formula yet.

Nearly 30 years ago talk radio and always-on cable news programming was first to figure out the fact people love turning in to get pissed off. Since then they have refined the model, amping up the emotional sensationalism to make the content more potent, able to deliver a bigger rush. Viewers/readers keep coming back to it the same way a heroin junkie searches out his pusher to score a fix.

I think all the on-screen ticker trash is one example of the manipulation. Prior to 9-11-01 a viewer usually only saw a text ticker on the bottom of the screen when there was a tornado watch or if he was watching a stock ticker on a business channel. Viewers tuned in to 9-11 coverage as if keeping vigil, constantly reading the latest developments on those tickers. Those on-screen graphics have been a permanent fixture since then.

The most harmful thing "the media" discovered about the general public is its sheer gullibility and narrow-mindedness. We are so easy to manipulate. In recent years we've seen this new breed of "news" web sites sprout to take advantage, delivering nothing short of propaganda, misinformation and even messages of hatred.

I'm not sure what the the public can do to turn around this mess, but it's all on them to make it happen. I personally don't bother with 24 hour cable news networks. Even the morning news on the broadcast channels is hard to take at times. This morning Good Morning America was running a story about Michael Jackson's kids. They showed video from the Motown 25 TV special in 1983 where Jackson first performed his "moonwalk." The fucking on-screen ticker trash completely covered up Jackson's feet.
[Roll Eyes]

This...is the post of the year! [beer]

Back on topic, I believe any business owner should be able to run their business any way they want to. However, they should be prepared for "the market" to tell them whether their business model is going to be successful or not. Oftentimes, what may sound like a good idea to the business owner, turns out to not be so great with the general public and their potential customers in the end... But good luck to them, and bless their hearts.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-09-2017, 08:19 PM:

quote: Eric Hooper
Back on topic, I believe any business owner should be able to run their business any way they want to. However, they should be prepared for "the market" to tell them whether their business model is going to be successful or not. Oftentimes, what may sound like a good idea to the business owner, turns out to not be so great with the general public and their potential customers in the end... But good luck to them, and bless their hearts.

THAT... is the post of the year!

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-09-2017, 08:51 PM:

quote: Eric Hooper
Back on topic, I believe any business owner should be able to run their business any way they want to.

I agree with this with the caveat that they are operating within the law, including not violating any discrimination laws. Of course that would not apply in this specific case.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-10-2017, 08:47 AM:

What I don't understand about this particular case is why the owner felt the need to make such a public issue out of his decision to not book a title that he did not think that his patrons would enjoy. There are probably at least a dozen or two first-run titles that the owner did not book that week; why didn't he make a public issue over his reasons for not booking them? Did he think that his business would increase if he got publicity for being the "family friendly" movie theatre?

Theater owners pass on titles all the time. They don't normally post public rants that sound like they came from deranged lunatics to explain why.

I respect the guy for booking (and not booking) whatever titles are most appropriate for his patrons. I don't respect him for turning a business decision into a political/social/religious issue.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-10-2017, 10:33 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
I don't respect him for turning a business decision into a political/social/religious issue.

You're not from around here, are you? [evil]

Seriously, I can't get into this any deeper with violating the religion/politics prohibitions. Let's just say this level of self-righteous religious exhibitionism is just background noise in this state.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2017, 12:10 PM:

We're not a Bible Belt state but similar things have happened here. Usually a theater will close, then some guy will reopen it pledging to play only family oriented, wholesome films that you can "feel safe" taking the kids too, and they always throw in "without charging the high prices of the big chains." They always go out of business very shortly because they refuse to accept the realities of the business.

Posted by Jason McMillan (Member # 5542) on 03-10-2017, 01:29 PM:

Back in the early 90s when I worked for Landmark Theatres, we received bomb threats when we chose to book and play both "Kids" and "Priest" (the movie with Linus Roache about a gay Priest, not to be confused with the Paul Bettany one). It's always struck me as odd that the ones with the "moral convictions" were the ones we had to be the most worried of. It just sounds like censorship to me, instead of giving people a choice of what to watch.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-10-2017, 04:06 PM:

My favorite response to protesters outside the theatre was for the manager to go out and politely talk to them and find out what they found offensive about the film that they were protesting. He then asked if they had seen it, which, of course, they hadn't. He offered them free passes so that they could watch the film and have an informed opinion on it. They did not take him up on the offer. Anyway, I thought that it was a respectful and polite way to deal with the situation, which also pointed out the stupidity of these particular protesters.

I don't remember the title, but it was in the mid-2000s and contained a pretty innocuous scene that was claimed to disparage a particular religion (Catholicism, I think). There were fewer than half a dozen "protesters."

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-10-2017, 04:24 PM:

Probably The Nativity Story.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-10-2017, 04:32 PM:

Run "bad" film. Provide signs, tables, chairs, and tents for protestors. Call TV news guys. Get the free press. Wait 5 days. Have "friend" tell protestors that they have been used.

I saw it on "Marjoe"

I saw it on "Best Little Whorehouse. . ."

Never fails.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 03-10-2017, 04:34 PM:

This kind of thing happens on occasion. Before The Last Temptation of Christ there was Godard's Hail Mary, about a French girl on a high school basketball team who finds herself pregnant while still a virgin. I remember the furious Catholics lined up in front of the 57th Street Playhouse reciting the rosary and picketing. While the picture was clearly a religious allegory, for some reason they all had gotten the idea (without the benefit of actually seeing it) that the film portrayed the actual Virgin Mary as a prostitute, which was no where near the actual content. As always, Hell hath no fury like that of the misinformed.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-10-2017, 05:19 PM:

Scott, I think that might have been The Da Vinci Code. I remember having a former employee's mother ask if she could protest outside the theatre.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2017, 08:28 PM:

I don't know if people here are just more laid-back, or they trust us to not show anything too outrageous, or they're just too busy to give a crap, but we almost never get any kind of blow-back on what we show.

I had one lady send me a Facebook message saying she "sure hoped" we weren't going to show "50 Shades of Grey," and I had a nice exchange with her explaining the economics of the business and she agreed that we weren't forcing anybody to buy a ticket. So we showed it without incident.

I had a few people email and stop me on the street asking me not to play "The Last Temptation of Christ," and we didn't play that film, but mostly because it didn't do much business in small towns, not because of those comments.

With "Brokeback Mountain" we planned to play it if it won Best Picture, and we even had onesheets displayed....no complaints at all. It lost the Oscar, we took the poster down and that was that.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-10-2017, 08:54 PM:

I played The Birdcage here and that was a mistake. Good crowds for it, but most of the people were coming to see a Robin Williams movie.

There were a lot of people offended that week. If I played a movie like that today, I don't think there would be the same level of that sort of reaction, though.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-10-2017, 09:29 PM:

Once you stand up to protestors they never bother you again.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-10-2017, 10:31 PM:

I didn't get any actual protesters for The Birdcage. Just a lot of comments on the way out saying what a terrible thing it was.

But I did sell a lot of tickets, so I guess it wasn't that terrible from that point of view. [Smile]

I didn't even consider playing Brokeback Mountain.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-11-2017, 09:07 AM:

I got a letter calling me a racist and a homophobe for NOT playing Brokeback Mountain (it played for many weeks in the multiplexes here).
Sometimes, you just can't win [Wink]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-11-2017, 11:43 AM:

I take it they don't use a booker... [Smile]

quote:

Alabama Theater Bans ‘Beauty and the Beast’, Accidentally Replaces It With Drag Queen Documentary

March 9, 2017

By Daniela Costa

Oh, how sweet it is. After refusing to screen Beauty and the Beast because of its newly revealed gay character, an Alabama theater accidentally scheduled a film about drag queens in its place.

The Henagar Drive-In mistakenly scheduled Fierce, a film about the International Drag Festival in Texas. “When life drags you down, drag it up” reads the film’s tagline.

Well the theater’s owner, Carol Laney, has been dragged. Drag-oned that is – she’s said she thought the film was a Game of Thrones-style movie about dragons!

Apparently Laney was confused because the poster for Fierce shows a woman with dragons around her.

Unsurprisingly, Fierce has since been pulled from the Henagar Drive-In’s lineup of films.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-11-2017, 02:39 PM:

I got to wondering, how did all this get started? It started because Disney, or somebody connected to the movie, started promoting the fact that it was Disney's "first gay character" and that there is an "exclusively gay moment" in the film.

So I wonder, if they hadn't done that, would this even have been noticed? Would anybody give a crap about it? Would that drive-in have played the movie not even knowing or noticing it?

And what's Disney up to? Are they trying to get more "gay" business by doing this? Even if that's true, they had to know that they'd rub some people the wrong way. Or, are they taking the opposite tactic -- figuring that any publicity is good publicity, and maybe people who might not have seen the movie will now be tempted to check it out?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-11-2017, 02:48 PM:

Unfortunately, I was forced to pull LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST because of backlash and protests. It was the only title I was ever forced to drop from the schedule. It was religious groups who protested, set letters of outrage, etc. I would never have caved to that kind of irrational nonsense, but alas, the cinema division operates within a performing arts org and that within a city (i.e., political) entity so it is up to them to make such bad decisions. And this is New York city...you would think the threshold for actually censoring a screening due to a small group of protestors would be pretty high.

Thing is, it was being protested by both Jewish groups AND Catholic groups together. I guess that mix was to strong for the spinless board members and local pusillanimous politicians to ignore. Thing is, I would have pulled it anyway, but not for the perceived "attack" on religious groups (some admitting they hadn't see the film), but because it contained some of the most egregious depictions of gratuitous, persistent, up-close-and-in-your-face violence I've seen on the screen. It should have been given an NR-17 and we don't run NR-17 as policy.

We had a local single screen neighborhood cinema -- like 600 seater that fell on hard times in the 80s and like many in the same untenable situation switched to porn as many did when they were in the death throws. Thing is, unlike probably 99% of those that went to porn only to close, for what ever the economic reasons, this place stayed in business. It was very lowkey, no posters out front...no big neon XXXs on the marquee. The owner ran it for decades with nary an eyebrow raised; neighborhood people never said boo. Then one day some holier than thous showed up (making sure they'd alerted the local media first). I remember the reporter asking the owner why he ran porn instead of the G rated films the protestors were demanding. His answer was classic -- he said because he DID run G and none of these protester ever showed up to buy tickets. He said, if they would like to PRE-PAY, he'd gladly run whatever G rated film they'd like to see. His point being of course, the reason he was running porn was because the we-want-g-rated-films crowd stayed home and didn't patronize the theatre when it DID run non-porn. BTW, the place is still operating...no idea how. He must own the building outright and have practically no overhead.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-11-2017, 05:20 PM:

When we get complaints about movies, it's usually because we are or are not playing some right wing documentary/editorial or because we are or are not playing the newest Michael Moore movie.

People who don't understand the movie business will often get upset about us not playing a popular limited release, but they are usually mollified when I explain the reason why it takes so long to get many of those movie. And why we wind up not playing many of them at all.

Our company is about a year or so from receiving our full recoupment from the VPF agreements. It will be interesting to see if the availability of movies changes once we are not receiving VPFs.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-12-2017, 12:58 PM:

As a college student back in the mid to late 1970's, I was the manager and projectionist for the long gone Town & Country drive-in in Coalton Ohio. We ran main stream films all summer, and between Labor Day and Memorial Day we ran triple X porn on weekends, until there was too much snow on the ground for me to get the company pickup truck into the theatre.

I remember one day the man who handled our local advertising told me that his church was going to picket the theatre because of the porn films. I dutifully pass the information on the the theatre's owner, who called up the church and told them he could help them with their protest by getting regional newspapers and local TV news to cover it (he actually had the contact to do so). For some reason, they decided that widely publicizing that a small rural drive-in was running pornography in their community was not what they had in mind, and abruptly canceled the protest.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 03-12-2017, 01:20 PM:

Great story on offering to help the protest! My 90 year old father-in-law is a fan of westerns. He reads a ton of them on his Kindle. He and my mother-in-law went to see Brokeback Mountain, since it was a western. Not quite what they expected. He said it had no plot. My wife explained that it showed some of the difficulties in being gay. My father-in-law thought that was obvious, and they did not really need a movie about that.

He still reads lots of westerns.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-12-2017, 01:25 PM:

Getting a bit off track here, but...

There are two drive-ins in my part of the state (one still operating) that owed their survival in no small part to porn. As the indoor chains increasingly cleared the ozoners, fewer people were attending their sub-run lineups. In desperation, the owners switched and found that porn was more-widely attended (though that part was not well-covered by the local press)and the percentages were far below Hollywood mainstream fare. The owner quietly lamented their fate while taking a lot more money to the bank.

For some, the tough part was getting over the stigma of being a "porn house". At the one I once had, some 10 years and one owner later, I frequently had the subject come up. The other drive-in, which is still operating, switched back to mainstream fare and the community "re-embraced" it. They've done well and the new owner says the subject rarely comes up.

In both cases however, the former owners believe they would never have survived those years without having taken that option, whether they were comfortable with it or not.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-12-2017, 02:31 PM:

When I first made my theatre I needed all of the equipment. It worked out that right around that time a theatre in BC went bust. They apparently opened as a mainstream theatre, nobody came to the shows, so they switched to being a porno house and nobody came to that either. I guess they had the worlds worst location. Anyway, it worked out well for me since I bought their projector, platter, sound system and seats for a good price.

The Christie platter wasn't up to much and I replaced it with a Strong about a year later, and I got a complete new sound system when I had the digital projector installed, but I'm still using the seats and I used the Simplex projector and soundhead right up until I got my digital system.

Posted by Jay Glaus (Member # 6011) on 03-12-2017, 10:22 PM:

We played XXX for years only ended because 35mm was no longer available. Stopped in the 80's you be surprised how many people tell me they came here when we had the "bad movies". It never bothered me we did it to survive. Film rental was 25% or flat didn't matter what we played they came didn't matter the weather they came. We played an mainstream movie first then 2 x rated and I still made the bar before closing. Now 2 movies and I don't get out till 2:30 in the summer. Damn I miss those days

Posted by Donald Brown (Member # 5427) on 03-13-2017, 08:23 PM:

At one time, the Diamond State Drive-In Theatre had been an adult venue and, during that time, it was known as the Highway 13 Drive-In.
Many years after acquiring the venue, the Vin Diesel vehicle, XXX, was featured. While I pondered how to herald the title on the roadside marquee, I settled with the method used on the one sheet. One night, after the opening reel had unspooled, and the feature was underway, a car with a lone occupant, a single gentleman, drove back to the ticket booth and politely inquired of a refund. He was expecting XXX fare and was quite disappointed by Vin Diesel!
Although that made for a memorable moment, throughout the years, there were many other incidents with folks looking for adult entertainment!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-13-2017, 09:43 PM:

Of all the directions this thread could have gone, I would have never predicted this particular one!

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-15-2017, 02:13 AM:

I just watched Beauty and the Beast, and I have to say this whole controversy is going to amount to much ado about nothing. The "gay" moment was two male characters dancing and smiling, and it lasted about 2 seconds. Josh Gad portrays LeFou as somewhat flamboyant, but mostly he just has a giant man crush on Gaston, just like in the animated version.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-21-2017, 10:52 PM:

$170 million-plus opening weekend, and the best March opening ever.... I wonder if that guy is still feeling good about his decision?

Their real Facebook page is still gone, but there are a couple of phony pages up now...one of which lists the place as being on "Gay Street" and another listing it as a "gay bar." And they're getting lots of negative reviews on those pages, sprinkled in with a few naive well meaning folks offering well wishes.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 03-21-2017, 11:12 PM:

I'm sure he had a killer weekend playing "Rock Dog" and "The Shack".

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-12-2017, 04:54 AM:

The irony in all of this is that one of the main characters, Gaston, the one who hunts after Belle practically the entire story, is a homosexual in real life.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 04-14-2017, 10:24 PM:

And this is SO not new. I finally saw the movie today, and the blink and you miss it reminded me of this scene from the Hollywood musical WONDER BAR in 1934. Of course, it was done for a laugh back then...and a lot less subtle. Wonder Bar

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 04-17-2017, 08:43 PM:

quote:
That having been said, I have felt that Disney stuff over the last 2-3 years has become politicized to the point of crossing the line for movies aimed at an audience of young children: feminism in Cinderella, ecological issues in Zootopia, and now homosexuality in this movie.

Just because a movie is about something doesn't mean it's political. People turn it into politics by defining as political as anything they don't like or believe in. By your definition, almost every movie ever made can be construed to be political. If a movie shows a strong man, it's "normal", but if it shows a strong woman, it's "feminism". One could argue that ecological issues have nothing to do with politics - that a truly religious person would feel it's their job to save God's earth and its creatures. And it's estimated that 10% of the world's population is gay. Get over it. The film didn't show people having sex, it showed an effeminate tea pot or whatever. IMO, this is like the nonsense that Barney was gay propaganda.

I was seeing very mature films from the time I was seven. I really don't think I suffered any harm from it - quite the opposite.

I find it incredulous that we think that trong women or ecology in children's films is political propaganda, but we take those same kids to see Star Wars or comic book movies where thousands of people are murdered and we don't think a thing about it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-17-2017, 10:20 PM:

That drive-in is showing "The Case for Christ" this weekend, with the second movie "to be announced," and starting this past weekend, on the way INTO THE SUMMER, they've decided to be closed on Sundays.

I suppose deep in the Bible Belt, being closed on Sundays might be a good thing, but around here that would be suicidal.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 04-17-2017, 10:33 PM:

Mike, being closed Sundays this time of year is not really surprising for a drive-in, especially outside of major metro areas. Given that it's a work/school night for most people, there isn't much interest in going to see a double feature that likely won't exit until after midnight. Plus, any of the teenagers under 18 and still in school can't work past 10:00pm. I don't see this any differently than not showing movies in the 9:00 hour (or later) on Sunday night.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 04-18-2017, 03:14 PM:

We'll generally open Sundays in the spring, especially since the indoor closed a few years ago, but mostly since fans are more eager now and we can train new staff when it's quiet. We close Sundays in the fall unless a studio demands it (or book a different film).

We don't worry too much about "politics", we play it if it sells popcorn. Personally I'm a little weary of just about every "kids" movie being about saving the "environment" from "big evil", just because it's been done to death.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-18-2017, 05:26 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
Mike, being closed Sundays this time of year is not really surprising for a drive-in, especially outside of major metro areas.

Yes but they've been open on Sundays up till now -- they're closing on Sundays starting last week and going forward. You'd think it would be the opposite, what with school being out in about a month. Once school's out, they're going to Thur-Fri-Sat only. Maybe the owners have another job and don't want to stay up late Sundays.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-18-2017, 09:49 PM:

Inasmuch as April 16 was Easter, it makes sense they would close. The rest of the month, who knows?
I posted earlier that I thought these people would be out of business by August, and nothing they've done since has changed my mind. Unless this DI is just their really expensive hobby, they seem doomed.