WARNING! I plan on using math, apologies in advance, but I assume we're all liberals here so a little math shouldn't bother us (obligatory political cheapshot toward conservatives complete)
While perusing Slate Magazine I came across this article by Erik Lundegaard discussing the apparent lack of financial success by Independent and Arthouse films despite better critical reception. Lundegaard attempts to disprove conventional wisdom, arguing instead that Art House films are more succesful than commonly accepted, optimistically citing the stellar revenue on a per-theater basis of such films. Although acclaimed films consistently underpreform in gross revenue, it concedes, they play in far fewer theaters and routinely make more money than their big-budget, critically slammed counter parts when compared theater-to-theater. However, as great as it would be to prove great films are more succesful than they appear, thus poking the executives greenlighting films like Love Guru right in the eye, unfortunately the financial truth is we will be stuck for the forseeable future with crap overflowing in thousands of theaters while gold sits hidden in mere hundreds.
People with discriminating taste in movies often check what the critics say as a filter of sorts, attempting to eliminate the chaff and zero in on the flicks that merit attention (no self-respecting movie-goer wants to purchase blindly and walk into a landmine like "Norbit"). These people are often so-called "film-buffs" and are willing to go through more effort to see the movies they've decided to attend than a normal person might; case in point, even "filtering" by reading the critics opinions is a kind of extra effort.
That being the case, although these movies play on fewer theaters, "film buffs" are generally willing to travel farther to see them. To use my hometown as an example, if only one screen is playing Persepolis in Columbus, OH then everyone wanting to see it in the city has to travel to that one theater. In other words, one theater is essentially serving 750,000 potential attendees of Persepolis. This would naturally drive up per-screen and per-theater earnings for the movie in Columbus, as the theater has a virtual monopoly on a commodity that the "film-buffs" are more than willing to sacrifice for. It doesn't truly reflect a "more succesful" film when this one theater, holding such a monopoly and drawing the "film-buffs" from a large population base, if it's ticket sales are higher per screen. It's difficult to state unequivically that if it played in more theaters in the city, then it would necessarily draw a correspondingly larger audience.
Even if attendence did markedly increase, would it really double if played in two theaters, triple in three, etc...? People already travel miles to see arthouse flicks, foregoing local theaters with substandard fare. The more likely result of an increase in screens showing Persepolis would be film-buffs seeing the movie regardless, but visiting the theater closest to them instead of one theater monoplizing the "film-buff" business, cutting revenue from the original theater. So we may see an increase in gross revenue for the movie overall as a number of locals, curious about the movie curious about the new movie but uninformed critically, opt for Persepolis. However, the contribution of these "curious locals" would likely be far less per theater than the diehard "film-buffs". Even if the local contribution was high, as more theaters play the film the contribution by the diehards becomes less and less significant, so that the local contribution would have to be so high as to effectively dwarf the diehards'.
For example:
Assume the "film-buffs" will go to see the movie no matter how few theaters play the film, contributing $60,000 in combined revenue for the movie citywide divided equally between theaters. Let's also assume a contribution of $30,000 per theater contributed by "curious locals". Lastly, combine these numbers, reflecting both: (a) the total gross revenue for the film citywide, adding the $60,000 from "film-buffs" to the $30,000 per theater of the "curious locals"; and (b) the gross per-theater revenue for the film by dividing the $60,000 from "film-buffs" by the number of theaters playing and adding $30,000 from the theater's "curious locals".
Formula: G = citywide gross revenue, P = per-theater revenue, c = "curious locals" contribution, f = "film-buffs" contribution, t = total number of theaters playing film
t = variable
c = $30,000
f = $60,000
G = c*t+f
P = f/t+c
- 1 theater citywide, Total revenue = $90,000, Per-theater revenue = $90,000
- 2 theaters citywide, Total = $120,000 Per-theater = $60,000
- 4 theaters citywide, Total = $180,000 Per-theater = $45,000
- 10 theaters citywide, Total = $360,000 Per-theater = $36,000
These are obviously not official numbers, but they illustrate the point that diehards will artificially affect the profit potential of art house movie on a per theater basis; as the number of theaters Persepolis plays in declines the per-theater earnings will increase.
Depending on what numbers you use for "curious locals" and "film-buff" contributions, the numbers will obviously change. However, the point of the formula is to show that "film-buff" contributions are static. Furthermore, I would argue that films such as Persepolis, by the nature of their content, have selective appeal that leaves them less suited to competing for the attention of average movie-goer. If Art House films play just as well with the general public as "Spiderman 3", then my thesis is wrong. I cannot prove that they do not, but my assumption is Spiderman more likely to draw a large audience.
As much as I share Lundegaard's desire that good films get large audiences, I'm afraid that barring fundamental misunderstanding on my part, it truly is a result of the general public lacking good taste in cinema (or for you populists out there, critics remaining out of step with popular opinion).
P.S. I know it's not politics, but I think it's also fun to examine the world outside of the political realm every once in awhile. Wishful thinking and logical failures are widespread ;) Also, this is only my second diary, so let me know how I can improve!