Film Forum (NYC)

[domino harvey]

All the theatres at the IFC are interesting in their own way-- I can see how people would hate on the small upstairs ones, but there's a certain cozy charm. Now the upstairs theatres at BAM with no aisles, just long rows of seats, those are crazy

[matrixschmatrix]

Film Forum's worth it when there's a particularly interesting movie playing, but a lot of what shows up there is stuff that winds up at my local arthouse theater anyway, and at much lower prices. BAM, the Museum of the Moving Image, MoMA, and the IFC theater are all higher on my list, but I'll generally plan around what's playing before I pay attention to where it's playing.

[aox]

Will There Ever Be a Rainbow?

[Alan Smithee]

I don't know what you people are whining about. Film Forum is an institution and 9 times out of 10 playing the thing I wanna see. It's an old school theater that plays 35mm. IFC always seems to digitally project and Anthology as wonderful as it is maybe the most uncomfortable theater in the tri-state area. The rest show a lot of sundance friendly non-sense mixed with some great choices and some great repertory stuff. All in all great movie town with Film Forum simply being the best. I'm glad I could settle this for everyone.

[hearthesilence]

All the theatres at the IFC are interesting in their own way-- I can see how people would hate on the small upstairs ones, but there's a certain cozy charm.

Yeah, the bigger theaters aren't bad, but for me, the tiny one really sucks. Once in a while they book a film there that packs it in quickly - if you're not there in time, you wind up in the front, which is about what, a few feet from the screen? I suppose it's some kind of karmic revenge for all the times I sat two feet from the TV screen on Saturday mornings, much to my parents' chagrin.

[J Adams]

A 35mm print on a small screen still looks better than digital. I have no issues with Film Forum and at least during evening shows it attracts a younger crowd and fewer bag people types. IFC does have one "theater" that is a total joke but in a way that's part of the fun. Just need to get there early to get one of the 2 or 3 acceptable seats.

[matrixschmatrix]

One of the theaters at my local arthouse is so small and narrow that every time I go I feel like I'm watching a movie on an airplane. It's actually kind of neat, though, if you're not stuck there too often.

My biggest complaint about Film Forum is the leg room- I have a broken knee, and after seeing Godfather 2 there my leg was so numb from the bad knee pressing against the seat in front of me that I thought I was going to have to go back into physical therapy.

[domino harvey]

The uncomfortable legroom at Film Forum is honestly the only thing that kept me awake during Uncle Boonmee

[Michael Kerpan]

My biggest complaint about Film Forum is the leg room- I have a broken knee, and after seeing Godfather 2 there my leg was so numb from the bad knee pressing against the seat in front of me that I thought I was going to have to go back into physical therapy.

I've got a sprained knee (so I feel a portion of your pain). Luckily when we flew to France recently the plane was not too full and I could keep my leg stretched out all the way.

[dad1153]

My biggest complaint about Film Forum is the leg room- I have a broken knee, and after seeing Godfather 2 there my leg was so numb from the bad knee pressing against the seat in front of me that I thought I was going to have to go back into physical therapy.

I see somebody went to the Pacino retrospective a few weeks back. :-)

When I saw "The Godfather" at the now-Nokia theater in Times Square (back in the mid-1990's after I had just moved to Gotham) it was so surreal that, at moments, this super-dramatic classic movie that everyone has seen on TV a million times played the audience like a yo-yo. The entire audience (a pretty packed crowd) would laugh in unison (Brando raising his eyebrow after the 'horse' scene), be gripped into total silence or just woosh during the best-known cool scenes. When I saw Mike Leigh's "Secrets and Lies" at the Forum back in '96 the movie had moments and scenes that spontaneously brought laughter/applause from the sold out crowd. Rewatching the movie later on premium cable it came off far less funny and way more dramatic, including scenes that in the theater made us all laugh (with the characters though, not at them). It remains one of my most treasured theater-going experiences ever, a permanent reminder that some movies are just meant to be seen on a big dark theater with a bunch of like-minded cinephiles.

[Perkins Cobb]

The uncomfortable legroom at Film Forum is honestly the only thing that kept me awake during Uncle Boonmee

What? I thought everybody liked Uncle Boonmee. Anyway, there's exactly one good seat in the Film Forum for both legroom and sightlines, but if you haven't spotted it already, I'm not telling where it is. And actually I guess that won't help you much if your film is in one of the other two theaters.

I forgot one other thing that's exceedingly douchey about Film Forum: the way they snake the ticket lines out of the building instead of back around into the lobby, so that during the summer you're standing out in the sweltering heat while you wait. However, I'm always there 45 minutes early and standing at the front of that line to get the one good seat anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter that much.

[Perkins Cobb]

Echoing some of the posters above, the Film Society of Lincoln Center, MoMA, Anthology Film Archives, the Museum of the Moving Image, BAM, and even (within its narrower mandate) Alliance Francaise all have better screens and much more varied and adventurous repertory programming than Film Forum. I don't see how anyone can even make a serious case to the contrary -- I mean, when has Film Forum done anything as challenging or as thorough as the Vertov series that's on at MoMA now, or even FSLC's little Serge Bozon series (which excavated a dozen or so really brilliant, mostly unknown films, by the way). The Film Forum's non-repertory programming does have a lot of value, though, and it's probably no worse a place to see it than any of the other venues in town (like IFC or Cinema Village) that would actually show the same thing.

Now the upstairs theatres at BAM with no aisles, just long rows of seats, those are crazy

Indeed, and if a rep screening gets moved up there because they're projecting the subtitles, I'll usually just bail. My first viewing of Made in USA was murdered that way. That's the only theater I've ever encountered in which no single seat has an acceptable sight line. It's so wide that all but about the middle third or so of the seats are at too extreme an angle to the screen; and even in those you can't win, because the seats are so close to the screen and the aisles raked so steeply that once you get far back enough, you're looking down at the screen. And there's even less legroom than at Film Forum.

You realize that a bunch of us are seeing each other at these theaters all the time? We really should come up with a ".org gang sign."

[matrixschmatrix]

My biggest complaint about Film Forum is the leg room- I have a broken knee, and after seeing Godfather 2 there my leg was so numb from the bad knee pressing against the seat in front of me that I thought I was going to have to go back into physical therapy.

I see somebody went to the Pacino retrospective a few weeks back.

When I saw "The Godfather" at the now-Nokia theater in Times Square (back in the mid-1990's after I had just moved to Gotham) it was so surreal that, at moments, this super-dramatic classic movie that everyone has seen on TV a million times played the audience like a yo-yo. The entire audience (a pretty packed crowd) would laugh in unison (Brando raising his eyebrow after the 'horse' scene), be gripped into total silence or just woosh during the best-known cool scenes. When I saw Mike Leigh's "Secrets and Lies" at the Forum back in '96 the movie had moments and scenes that spontaneously brought laughter/applause from the sold out crowd. Rewatching the movie later on premium cable it came off far less funny and way more dramatic, including scenes that in the theater made us all laugh (with the characters though, not at them). It remains one of my most treasured theater-going experiences ever, a permanent reminder that some movies are just meant to be seen on a big dark theater with a bunch of like-minded cinephiles.

Yeah, the crowd at Godfather 2 was excellent, too. Good crowds are one of the things that keep me going back to repertory movies- I just got back from Taxi Driver, and found half a dozen little funny moments that I hadn't noticed before, from the crowd's reactions.

The Film Forum does seem more likely to show repertory stuff that's widely available on nice-print DVD, but while I'd pick seeing Johnny Guitar at the BAM over the Godfather at Film Forum for that reason, Film Forum's still on my list of places to check when I go to NYC- the crowd there might be hipsters or less hardcore or whatever, but they still gasp in all the right places.

[souvenir]

I love Film Forum. I don't love its sometimes safe programming choices, but any time I can slip into a double feature matinee that's about 2/3 full of old people and vagrants I'm happy. Plus it tends to be just about the only NYC repertory theater to show one movie for a full week, allowing those of us who can't make a single showing at BAM or FSLC or MoMI to see things like Losey's The Prowler at our convenience.

I will say that the member benefits pale next to FSLC.

[Perkins Cobb]

The other line I always use when people try to drag me to the Film Forum is a paraphrase of David Lynch's "watching a movie on your telephone" rant -- "You may think you're seeing a movie on the big screen, but trust me, you aren't."

[montgomery]

Echoing some of the posters above, the Film Society of Lincoln Center, MoMA, Anthology Film Archives, the Museum of the Moving Image, BAM, and even (within its narrower mandate) Alliance Francaise all have better screens and much more varied and adventurous repertory programming than Film Forum. I don't see how anyone can even make a serious case to the contrary -- I mean, when has Film Forum done anything as challenging or as thorough as the Vertov series that's on at MoMA now, or even FSLC's little Serge Bozon series (which excavated a dozen or so really brilliant, mostly unknown films, by the way). The Film Forum's non-repertory programming does have a lot of value, though, and it's probably no worse a place to see it than any of the other venues in town (like IFC or Cinema Village) that would actually show the same thing.

Now the upstairs theatres at BAM with no aisles, just long rows of seats, those are crazy

Indeed, and if a rep screening gets moved up there because they're projecting the subtitles, I'll usually just bail. My first viewing of Made in USA was murdered that way. That's the only theater I've ever encountered in which no single seat has an acceptable sight line. It's so wide that all but about the middle third or so of the seats are at too extreme an angle to the screen; and even in those you can't win, because the seats are so close to the screen and the aisles raked so steeply that once you get far back enough, you're looking down at the screen. And there's even less legroom than at Film Forum.

You realize that a bunch of us are seeing each other at these theaters all the time? We really should come up with a ".org gang sign."

I don't completely disagree with your criticisms about Film Forum, but I think you are selling the place the short. The main thing that sets it apart from all the other theaters that you mention is that it operates as a full-service theater - indeed, even as a multiplex. You can show up on any day of the week at any time and it's open and there's 3 things to see. Unless it's a one-off film showing as part of a larger retrospective, the films they run screen several times a day, any day of the week, for a week or more (IFC, which also has its problems, does this too, but of course, it's a much newer theater, so not as beloved - and IFC's programming is just as problematic, if not worse). You can't say that about any of the other theaters you mention. And while Film Forum's programming isn't exactly adventurous by some standards (I too lean more towards Anthology, etc.), it basically sets the standard for art-house theaters all over the country - and is still better than most. In terms of the repertory stuff they show, it doesn't completely fall on them - it seems to be the place where restorations by certain distribution companies (i.e. Janus) are premiered, and what gets restored is not necessarily Film Forum's problem (pretty much anything by Janus that gets premiered there will be on Criterion* within 6 months). Film Forum's programming is traditional, in the classic art-house tradition, but it's consistent, and it suffers only in comparison to the more adventurous programming by theaters that either skew towards avant-garde (i.e. Anthology) or are part of a larger arts organization (i.e. MOMA). That said, no one can defend the space or the leg-room or the screen size.

*In fact, I would say Film Forum's programming is no safer than Criterion's - they both deal in the same formulaic, canon-related, art-house tradition (to say nothing of their business partnership). I think there's certainly a place for it - better that it exists than doesn't. You might feel differently when the place disappears and seeing a 35mm print of Bergman - or even Kelly Reichardt - becomes a thing of the past.

[Perkins Cobb]

I don't completely disagree with your criticisms about Film Forum, but I think you are selling the place the short. The main thing that sets it apart from all the other theaters that you mention is that it operates as a full-service theater - indeed, even as a multiplex. You can show up on any day of the week at any time and it's open and there's 3 things to see. Unless it's a one-off film showing as part of a larger retrospective, the films they run screen several times a day, any day of the week, for a week or more (IFC, which also has its problems, does this too, but of course, it's a much newer theater, so not as beloved - and IFC's programming is just as problematic, if not worse). You can't say that about any of the other theaters you mention.

Granted, but so what? I'm not clear why this is a good or important thing for an arthouse/revival film venue to be. I'd rather have quality over quantity.

I do agree that it's important for a city to have a venue that regularly shows the canon on 35mm, and I'm actually delighted that it's the miniscule screens of the Film Forum that take on that responsibility, since those are the kinds of screenings I'm least likely to make time for. In Los Angeles, the best revival screen (the Cinematheque's Egyptian Theatre) has devolved from significant and surprising programs to sub-Goldstein calendars after a change in programmers a few years back, and it's a huge waste, especially for a city that has so little quality repertory programming to begin with.

It's also worth noting that the Film Forum's rep stuff hasn't always been so tame -- when I moved to New York in 2000, I spent a lot of time there, because they had very comprehensive Agnes Varda and British New Wave series, almost back-to-back. But that kind of thing has just dwindled to where I never see it on the calendar any more. The current "5 Japanese Divas" series should've been a mix of classics and rarities, which is what they did with Tatsuya Nakadai series in 2008, but it contains exactly one film that's not on DVD in the US or UK. Even the annual early talkies programs, which used to make a big deal out of the unavailability of the films, have gotten a lot more predictable. I don't know what's changed; maybe they're just not willing to spend the time and money to rent prints from somebody other than Janus. Print availability is getting worse at an alarming pace, but the other NYC venues haven't thrown in the towel to the same extent.

[montgomery]

Granted, but so what? I'm not clear why this is a good or important thing for an arthouse/revival film venue to be. I'd rather have quality over quantity.

I'm not arguing that it's a good or a bad thing (although I like to see films in the daytime on weekdays - when FF, by the way, is usually empty - so it's good for me) - I'm just trying to respond to your bafflement over why Film Forum is so popular and beloved. I think, for one reason, it's because it's really the only real movie theater (among the ones you mention) in a traditional sense. You hear people who aren't cinephiles say "Oh, that Kurosawa film is playing at Film Forum, I've been wanting to go see it" the way they might talk about Avatar or whatever.

I complain about Film Forum all the time - the programming and the space, so it's funny that I'm defending it here; it's just that I think you're selling it way too short. To me, the programming is tame and a little myopic, but I'm nitpicking when I say that. They have a lot of 60s Godard retrospectives, and yes, I wish they'd do a Godard 80s retrospective - or a Rivette retrospective. But I guess I consider that a small complaint, especially since there are so many interesting theaters in NY that fill the void. You seem to be asking why Film Forum is around at all. I'm saying it's an obvious and necessary niche, and yes, it keeps those canon films away from the other theaters you love, and away from theaters that wouldn't be as committed to showing 35mm (there are certainly a lot of worse theaters that could be tied in with Janus). I see room for improvement in its programming, but it's basically a successful version of a traditional art house theater (in a crappy space) - but you seem to think the place is more or less worthless.

And while I think Anthology is a national treasure, their programming is often repetitive too, and quite canon-heavy in a different sense (Brakhage, Smith, Jacobs, Warhol, et al. over and over again, the same 2 Ozu films repeatedly, etc). All the other theaters you mention often show embarrassing things, and their programming is hit-and-miss. Moving Image (which is barely a functioning theater) will do a Resnais retrospective, but they show a lot of garbage. BAM is often bland or worse, with the occasional brilliant rarity. They all have their problems, but I think there's room for all of them and somebody needs to do what Film Forum is doing. And whoever is doing what Film Forum is doing is going to be the most beloved art house in the city, precisely because it's so traditional.

(Also, most of the theaters we're discussing are clearing-houses for new restorations by the archives or distributors with which they're associated - so FF will show new Janus films, Anthology will have its Bette Gordon retrospective, etc. and that dictates a lot of the repertoire).

[Perkins Cobb]

Good points. I see what you're saying about FF's volume appealing to the casual film buff. One-stop shopping. I was talking to an older couple at the Walter Reade last night who were Film Forum members and seemed to fit that profile. Again, it's part of that phenomenon of middlebrow New Yorkers who call themselves movie fans but are content to let Criterion decide what they should see. Goldstein caters to that crowd very cannily, even though (from talking to him occasionally) his own taste seems a bit more developed.

BAM has gone downhill lately -- I don't think I was out there at all last year -- but the upcoming Kaneto Shindo series and a few other things this year redeemed them for me. Yes, FSLC will pander with series of "new films from Uzbekistan" that aren't much good but get underwritten by the Uzbeks, I guess. Anthology runs those unsubbed "Essential Cinema" prints they own into the ground and MMI only programs weekends, when I never feel like schlepping out there. Most of them have some dead spots in the calendar, but sorry, I do think Film Forum is one big dead spot.

I don't really think we're too far apart, though, monty, I just have a pet peeve about FF because people keep trying to drag me there and just give me a blank stare when I try to explain why I hate the place, and suggest something better at another venue.

[dad1153]

Film prints may become unavailable in 2013 and financing for digital projection technology is winding down, but installation costs are still prohibitive for many of the smallest movie houses:

To assist theaters in making the leap, studios are helping to pay for the equipment through so-called virtual print fees. In lieu of making and delivering 35-millimeter film prints — which cost about $1,000 each versus $100 to $200 for a digital print — studios are putting aside the money they save to help theaters buy the equipment they need to convert to digital projection systems. But that financing is winding down. Under agreements with studios, exhibitors can qualify for the funding only if they install their digital equipment by the end of next year. Film prints — the reels that are threaded through projectors — could become unavailable as early as 2013, according to the National Assn. of Theatre Owners.

Nearly half of all 39,000 screens in the U.S. are digital, up from just a few thousand in 2007. By year's end, about 23,000 digital screens will have been installed, mostly from expansion by the three largest theater chains: AMC Entertainment Inc., Regal Entertainment Group and Cinemark Holdings Inc. There are 650 theater companies in the U.S. and Canada with fewer than 100 screens, including 270 with just one screen. Some of these smaller operators believe film won't disappear any time soon. Others can't afford the investment. Digital projectors and accompanying computer hardware and software cost about $65,000 per screen. That doesn't include an additional $4,000 to $8,000 for a special silver screen, which is required on some systems, and approximately $10,000 to $20,000 more for 3-D equipment.

[J Adams]

If/when retro houses go all digital, I won't be going anymore.

[Perkins Cobb]

I know a couple of the programmers in NYC, and they're essentially being arm-twisted into showing stuff digitally because the studios (and other rightsholders) aren't making new prints. There are a lot of major US films where only a digital master is offered, so the venues are caught between a rock (studios) and a hard place (35mm lovers). At least they've mostly gotten better about posting the format on their websites.

Most of the film venues we've been discussing in this thread are still holding the line on actual film projection, but it's going to be a gradual thing where they have no choice. If it's something rare, and I'm convinced they've made an effort to acquire film and there just ain't any, then I'll watch it digitally (case in point: two of the Shindo films in the upcoming BAM series). But if it's on DVD or Blu, I won't go -- if I'm going to see a digital master, I might as well do it in the comfort of home. People who frequent the multiplexes probably won't even notice this changeover, but I wonder if enough hardcore movie geeks feel the same "eh" towards digital projection to put a nail in the coffin of some revival venues, especially the ones that have crummy projectors.

[J Adams]

Film Forum prominently features NEW 35MM PRINT in promoting many of their revivals. NEW BLU RAY DISC doesn't have the same cachet. But it does seem that the retro houses are getting better at confessing to digital projection in their film listings. I think even some nongeeks notice bad digital projection--I heard complaints about it from the hoi polloi at last year's NYFF, which I'm pretty much crossing off my list given that they are at about 50% digital now. And some of these venues, such as Anthology and MMI, are going to need to rely on geeks who care about film projection to survive--their attendance is sparse as it is.

[dad1153]

$12-13 (typical NYC ticket prices)

Jesus Christ, no wonder piracy is rampant. I think €6.50 is too much on the student night here at my Arthouse/Retro cinema here in Konstanz.

[Perkins Cobb]

Aha, ultimate case in point: the month-long "Essential Pre-Code" series on the new summer Film Forum calendar. A "greatest hits" from previous Pre-Code series. FF's new slogan should be "You like that the last three times? Well, come see it again!"