San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
Is it selfish to only release a film in theaters?
Imagine a politician who is so in need of adulation that he would hold rallies during a pandemic. Most of us would disapprove of such a person, wouldn’t we? Many of us would feel a cozy sense of righteous indignation at the thought of such monumental selfishness.
Now imagine a filmmaker. He has made a movie, a seductive piece of mass entertainment, and it’s ready to be seen. It’s practically guaranteed to make loads of money. So he has three choices: ( 1) He can release his film to premium home video, so people can see it without contracting COVID19, a potentially fatal disease; ( 2) He can hold onto it and release it months from now, in that halcyon future when the coronavirus is no more; ( 3) Or he can release it now, into theaters, and let the public take its chances.
If the filmmaker chooses option No. 3, should we say, “This is a serious artist, who cares passionately about his film and wants audiences to see it under ideal circumstances?” Maybe. But if so, might we then say of the politician, “He cares passionately about his policies and has the right to broadcast them through his preferred medium?”
My point: If we disapprove of the politician, we should disapprove of the filmmaker — or at least of the filmmaker’s distributor. We should criticize any colossal selfishness that concludes that a movie is worth risking people’s lives.
Further, let’s acknowledge that only a few thousand people will attend a political rally, and those are usually held outdoors. But aside from driveins, movies are shown entirely indoors, and a film that’s entertaining enough to lure people into a theater has the power to attract millions.
I have spent a good portion of the past 35 years inside movie theaters, but I haven’t been to a screening since March when we were advised to shelter in place.
And the thought of going back scares the hell out of me.
Yes, I know that theaters are seating people at a social distance, and I understand and sympathize with theater owners struggling to stay afloat in these cruel days.
But here’s the deal: I’m a 61yearold man. I have no health problems that I know of, and no risk factors besides being in what might be called the very early stages of “oldness.” So, if I got the virus, I’d probably survive. But you know what? There is something about the qualifier “probably” inserted into the phrase “I’d survive” that just doesn’t sit right with me.
“Tenet” is in theaters now, and I have no intention to see it. None, and I don’t feel guilty about this. I don’t think Christopher Nolan would risk his life to read one of my books — I wouldn’t ask him to, even if the risk were small. In the same way, he shouldn’t expect critics like me to risk themselves to see his movie.
Fortunately, in my case, I actually work for an enlightened company that doesn’t demand that its over60 employees take unnecessary risks. Not everybody is so lucky. I’m sure there are critics risking themselves to see “Tenet” — and who will risk themselves to see other films — because they feel they have no choice.
The virus is not abating. Our patience may be abating, but that doesn’t make the virus go away. Indeed, it could lead to practices that will only make things worse.
We’ve come this far. Why lower our guard now? History teaches us that it’s just as easy to get killed on the last day of a war as on the first, but somehow the former just seems sadder, doesn’t it?
So, I look forward to seeing you at the movies — but only when it’s safe.