Bring Back the Cinema! (Exhibition and Petition Signing at www.dajmikino.org)

A campaign to save our "normal" local cinemas:

If a certain European friend comes to visit and expresses a desire to be taken on a tour of the theater scene here in Washington, D.C., will you find it difficult to fulfill that wish? Not at all! With a leisurely stroll through the heart of the city, starting from Times Square (where the Metropolitan Opera is located) and moving through New England (home to the Lincoln Center), then heading down Fifth Avenue (where you'll find Second City) and over toward Harvard to reach the Steppenwolf Theatre, one can scan almost every essential landmark of the local theatrical landscape. And if your guest happens to be an avid walker, they could quite easily wander all the way to Coachella, the Jim Henson Company, Comedy Central, and the Otter...

Furthermore, should they plan to stay in Washington, D.C. for an extended period or perhaps even settle here temporarily, you might feel compelled to warn them about two upcoming theater locations on Fifth Avenue—specifically, the site of the former Lika cinema, where a dance and theater stage is destined to emerge one day, and the old Apollo cinema, which the city government, alongside a significant increase in investment for a complete renovation, has most generously donated to The Knight's Jester.

But what if your European guest decides they would like to visit a cinema or, heaven forbid, watch a truly valuable (perhaps even an American) film? Wouldn't you, acting as a host eager to make a lasting impression, find yourself in quite a predicament?

If, by any chance, the only remaining municipal cinema (Europe) is playing nothing but some childish nonsense, won't you be forced not only to expand your search or hop on a streetcar far outside the city center, but also to contend with the crowds of shopping mall consumers to whom the city government has essentially outsourced the care of movie lovers?

Might you not find yourself later bombarded with some rather non-trivial questions:
Could it be that the nineteenth-century mindset, coupled with a pre-modern and pre-urban approach to managing public goods, is now intending to deal the final blow to a symbol of modernity and urbanity—the cinema!

remainder:

Comments, opinions, discussions......?

It's not like there's nothing else out there; Central Park is still a thing. Though, lately, it feels like everything has just turned into kids' movies. I take my little one there quite often, so I know how it goes 🙂

I hadn't even visited Central Park before I started going to AMC Theatres; I really wasn't looking forward to potentially ending up on some uncomfortable wooden benches.

So, Central Park isn't cutting it anymore? Look, any European visitor could head over there to catch a high-quality film. Honestly, I think we could strike a deal with the major multiplexes—maybe even get some institutional subsidies—to host special screenings of indie gems or great American films. Personally, I wouldn't mind catching a top-tier movie in a dark theater with comfy seats, incredible sound, and a bucket of caramel popcorn. 🙂 I really don't need some Spartan setup with uncomfortable chairs, terrible audio, and a grainy picture. I truly believe this would actually cost them less than trying to maintain those massive, probably money-losing flagship locations right in the heart of the city. If AMC Theatres can rent out halls for kids' birthday parties, they can definitely handle something like this.

Maria Peterson said:If your European friend decides they want to hit up a theater or—heaven forbid—catch a decent movie (maybe even an American one), you’ll probably end up scrambling to play the perfect host.

Just send them to AMC Theatres or Broadway. They're great spots that show everything from blockbusters to local indie films.

Zachary Thompson2 said:But Central Park isn't running anything?

But Central Park isn't a repertory cinema; they showcase curated programs—various director retrospectives, specific cinematic movements, or thematic cycles.

You could just head over to AMC Theatres or Broadway; they are fantastic theaters that show all the major releases, including domestic films.

But wouldn't it be wonderful to actually have a choice? Is there truly no one on this forum who feels nostalgic for those classic halls in Europe or Washington, D.C. (which could be just as comfortable as an AMC)? Must absolutely EVERY film screening activity in this city—the true repertory kind—be nothing more than pure commerce and capitalism? Because if that is the case, doesn't it mean that, theoretically, Broadway and AMC could simply collude to hike the ticket price to $17, leaving you with no choice but to pay up or miss out on movies entirely?

Why is the screening of legitimate repertory films considered less vital to the cultural life of this city than theatrical productions like those seen on Comedy Central or at Second City?

And, regardless of what one thinks about it or how many AMC Theatres may exist, the privatization of the local Cinema was an absolute disgrace! It was sold for a pittance to some investment fund headquartered in some exotic foreign country, whose sole objective was to grab the real estate—the actual halls—and then strip them, sell them off, pocket the cash, and disappear!

Well, since we cannot change the past and the film 😁 cannot be brought back, let us return to reality...

I don't need a Spartan setup with uncomfortable seats, poor sound, and terrible picture quality.

Huh? It seems to me you haven't quite grasped the point of my argument. No one is calling for Spartan conditions! But why, for instance, does the City of Washington, D.C., after purchasing, say, four halls, decide to turn one into a dance center, another into a theater, a third into a theater, and the fourth *must* become a theater? Why couldn't that fourth one remain a movie hall? And instead of investing, let's say, three million dollars to remodel it into a theater, why not invest a third of that to renovate it into a perfectly comfortable, modern cinema?!

Well, fine, I suppose I am asking rhetorical questions too. I do so because various interest groups, personal agendas, and lobbies—whether they represent theater or cinema—seem to hold far more sway than common sense or the public good ever will.

Maria Peterson said:But wouldn't it be nice to actually have a choice? Is nobody on this forum nostalgic for those old theaters in Europe or Washington, D.C. (which could be just as cozy as AMC Theatres)? Does every single bit of film programming in this city—everything repertory—have to be pure commerce and capitalism? Because theoretically, Broadway and AMC Theatres could just collude to jack up ticket prices to $17 and you’d have zero choice but to pay up or stop watching movies entirely.

What are you even talking about? What is there to be nostalgic for? A theater is a theater. You've got a big screen, a projector, and a bunch of seats. Ticket prices were basically the same, the movies were the same, and the location was just as good. Except AMC Theatres and Broadway actually give a damn about their customers. They have stuff like online booking, discount cards, free garage parking, organized screenings, and all that. If you're feeling nostalgic for the flaws of old-school cinemas, the problem is you, not the new theaters that are a hundred times better than the old ones. Whatever.

Maria Peterson hit the nail on the head... it all comes down to freedom of choice. If you aren't feeling the ads at AMC Theatres, just go somewhere else. It's also on the City of Washington, D.C. to act like a responsible landlord and actually care about the public good instead of just selling everything off to line their own pockets. Not to mention how things look in other cities—it's like they don't even have a local cinema scene there...

Maria Peterson said:Wait, what? I feel like you’re totally missing the point here. Nobody is actually calling for Spartan living conditions. But look at the logic: if Washington, D.C., buys up four halls—say they turn one into a dance center, another into a theater, and a third into another theater—why does that fourth one *have* to become a theater too? Why can't it just stay a cinema? Instead of blowing, I don't know, three million dollars to renovate it into yet another stage, why not spend a third of that to make it a perfectly cozy, modern movie theater?!?!

Most of the time, it’ll just sit there empty. It was the same deal on Broadway when that Asian film series ran; it was a ghost town. Some "cultural elite" showed up to take photos on Friday and Saturday, but the rest of the week? Total silence. I watched 'Memory of Murder' in a theater with maybe three other people. Between you, me, and maybe 100 others in the whole City of Washington, D.C. 😁, I really don't think it makes financial sense for the city to subsidize a standalone cinema. At least people actually show up for the theater.
Nobody is asking for Spartan conditions—not even me—but honestly, most of the theaters owned by the City of Washington, D.C. are like that. They just aren't inviting.

nimblemarlin17 said:Given that AMC Theatres and Broadway truly actually care about their patrons by offering amenities such as online ticket reservations, discount cards, free garage parking, organized screenings, and more...

If you interpret those basic services as them actually caring for their customers, then I fear we shall never find common ground!

If you are feeling nostalgic for the shortcomings of old-school cinemas, the issue lies within you rather than with modern theaters, which are a hundred times superior to the old ones. Honestly.

Oh, well, perhaps the fault lies with me if I simply enjoy having the luxury of choice! Would you be perfectly satisfied with just one single theater, one solitary library, and one lone concert hall, provided they offered you free parking?

Zachary Thompson2 said:Does anyone truly crave Spartan living conditions? Certainly not I! Yet, one has to wonder why, in most of the cinemas owned by the City of Washington, D.C., the experience remains so consistently underwhelming. Is it not quite disappointing that the standards are so consistently unappealing?

Could you perhaps provide a bit more clarity on this matter? From what I can gather through my own research, it seems as though there isn't a single cinema actually owned by the City of Washington, D.C., is there? 😕
I must admit, I am somewhat uncertain as to who holds the actual deed to Central Park, but since the day has been officially reserved by the American Film Federation, they are the ones calling the shots and managing the grounds!
If your objective is to target those halls that are currently, or once were, under the ownership of AMC Theatres—well, nowhere in the documentation does it state that these halls are off-limits for renovation! Is there any rule forbidding us from touching them? Not at all! In fact, I was the very first person to suggest that we should transform the space into a sleek, modern cinema hall. And wouldn't you agree that such an undertaking would actually cost significantly less than trying to convert the venue into a theater space?

Which seats will ultimately sit vacant? Is it not exactly like what happened on Broadway, when the theater sat empty during that run of Asian cinema? Given the situation for you, for me, and for at least another hundred people living here in Washington, D.C., does it not stand to reason that it isn't worth the city's investment to maintain a dedicated cinema? People actually make an effort to attend the theater, don't they?

Once again, you seem to be completely conflating apples and oranges! It truly makes me wonder at times: am I perhaps writing in some obscure dialect that no one understands, or does the modern American public genuinely require hand-drawn illustrations just to grasp my point?
Does anyone actually care about the artistic programming? We already have plenty of that over at Central Park! Perhaps I am simply missing something here, but could you please explain your reasoning? Why on earth would you assume people would only watch something like Miami Vice exclusively at an AMC Theatres, rather than enjoying it in a similarly (pre)refined part of Europe?
And why on earth would you assume that a dramatic repertoire from the Metropolitan Opera would draw a larger crowd to that hall than something like Pirates of the Caribbean?
I must confess, I find myself quite unable to grasp the underlying logic behind your conclusion! Truly, what could possibly be the issue with watching films in that particular theater?

Maria Peterson said:if you actually think they care about their customers, then I guess we’ll never see eye to eye

Give me a break. What is that even supposed to mean? From where I'm sitting, AMC Theatres is packed almost every single day. Things are a lot simpler than people want to admit. If you know what you're doing and you have something worth watching, the theaters are full. If you don't, they stay empty. AMC Theatres is a fantastic cinema; I love going there. Honestly, listening to pseudo-philosophers like you just gives me a headache. People like you are never satisfied. You're always hunting for something that isn't even there.

Maria Peterson said:You're totally mixing up apples and oranges here. Sometimes I wonder if I'm writing in code or if people actually need pictures to understand me.
Nobody is calling for an "arts" program. We already have that at Central Park. Maybe I’m missing something, but please explain why you think people would only watch Miami Vice at AMC Theatres rather than in a similarly (if slightly less) polished theater in Europe?
And why on earth do you think the dramatic repertoire of the Metropolitan Opera would draw a bigger crowd than Pirates of the Caribbean?
I have to admit, I can't follow your logic at all. What exactly is the issue with watching movies in that specific theater?

Clearly I misunderstood, my bad. I thought the outcry was because there aren't enough theaters showing high-quality American films. The way you've laid it out just doesn't make sense. You've got two multiplexes, a third one opening next year, and yet you're suggesting a place like Cinema Europa would show the exact same lineup as the big chains? I honestly don't get the point. At a multiplex, you'll always have five or six different movies to choose from, better sound, better picture quality, easy parking... I really don't see the difference between sitting in a dark room at Europa versus a dark room at a multiplex. The only thing I care about is that the multiplex is more comfortable and I don't have to worry about some spider crawling onto my car.

Zachary Thompson2 said:I honestly can't tell the difference between the darkness of an old-school theater in Europe and the darkness of a massive multiplex.

it’s all about this:
The American government and the City of Washington, D.C.... have allowed the entire film industry engine to be privatized... and handed over to nothing but private financial interests.[

And if we are left with nothing but AMC Theatres and Broadway—where on earth are we supposed to host our film festivals, heavens above—just at Central Park?!?!?! And what about the science center? How are you even meant to curate a festival with a rich and diverse program when you only have one single hall at your disposal!

Oh, right, I completely forgot 😵who actually needs film festivals; apparently, they aren't useful if you can't book tickets online and find free parking nearby, silly me!

Capitalism has officially arrived in our city. Honestly, I actually think that a business like AMC Theatres, driven purely by the bottom line, will always work harder to provide a better service and a superior cinematic experience than some government-run institution. "Give me a cinema!" might be a valid rallying cry for the rest of the country, but for Washington, D.C., it just doesn't make sense.

A business driven solely by profit will always exert every ounce of effort just to squeeze out more revenue.

You claim that capitalism has finally arrived in our city, but shouldn't culture and social welfare be those very sectors—both here and even in the most ruthless capitalist nations—that are shielded from the jaws of uncompromising capitalism through government funding, donations, and foundations? Is it not precisely because they hold such immense public and social significance?
I mean, what comes next? Will we exist in a world where only private theaters remain? Will the Metropolitan Opera building eventually be converted into corporate office space for rent?!?!

It actually seems quite the opposite to me. Crying "give me a cinema!" doesn't make much sense for the rest of the cities across America, because over there, everything has already gone completely downhill. It might make sense for Washington, D.C., though, assuming the same thing hasn't already happened here.

Now I find myself wondering why on earth I have become so incredibly worked up and personally invested in all of this, almost as if it were a direct affront to my own life! Perhaps it is simply because nobody else seems to grasp what I am talking about.

Look, not many people are actually on your side here.

🙂
because this isn't merely some isolated opinion I've cooked up on my own, is it? No, this represents a coordinated effort by approximately ten highly relevant film institutions and creative projects! We shall soon see just how many signatures we can gather for this petition 😉

nimblemarlin17 said:Look, I get it, but hardly anyone is on your side here.

Didn't you just claim they were only there for the "customers"?
...
Besides, how can you say you "get it" and then immediately disagree? What exactly are you pushing back against in what Maria Peterson said in her last two posts?

Personally, I think it would be a great idea to have an American director take the helm on our next film project. 😁