Right now, movie studios should be listening to Siskel and Ebert, because some 45 years ago the legendary film critics predicted the predicament cinema currently finds itself in.
Where are all the movies made for adults? The grown-up fare that packed cinemas the world over. Films like The Graduate and Bonnie and Clyde in the 1960s, or The Godfather and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in the 1970s.
They still existed in the 1980s, via blockbusters like Rain Man and Fatal Attraction, while the late 1990s were a golden age for serious cinema, thanks to the arrival of filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, and David Fincher.
But it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find a mature movie in the local multiplex, with Martin Scorsese summing the issue up in a 2019 New York Times op-ed about the increasing dominance of superhero movies.
“In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen,” Scorsese wrote. “It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever.”
It feels like a very modern problem, which can be attributed to risk-averse studio heads, the arrival of prestige TV, and the growth of streaming services. But two men saw this problem coming.
How Siskel and Ebert were ahead of the curve
Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were Chicago’s two premiere film critics, before landing a nationally syndicated TV show on which they bickered about the week’s new releases before giving them thumbs up or down.
Back in 1978 – during their year-end show – they cast an eye over major releases from the previous 12 months, and found themselves questioning the state of cinema.
Ebert starts the show by stating: “It was a year when people went to the movies to escape and be entertained, and not necessarily think or be challenged.”
He’s referring to the success of the top five domestic releases that year, which were Grease, National Lampoon’s Animal House, Every Which Way But Loose, Heaven Can Wait, and Jaws 2. Which are fun films, but also unquestionably dumb films.
Later in the show, they get into the issue, via the following exchange (which can be viewed at 12:15 in this video).
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates on Esports, Gaming and more.
Siskel: One thing that concerns me as a film critic, and probably you too, is are we ever going to get serious pictures? Are these blockbusters going to crowd us out? I hope not. I hope that the Hollywood chieftains don’t look at the gross of these pictures and think ‘Hey, I’m just going to play it light.’
Ebert: No more little pictures. Because one of the things that bothers me is this mass lemming syndrome of the movie-going public. They feel that they have to see a picture if everybody else is seeing it. It’s almost like people went to see Star Wars and they went to see Saturday Night Fever or Grease or Jaws 2 because everybody else had, you know? Don’t be the last one on your block. At the same time they were missing out on some other very good pictures.
Siskel: We’re not saying don’t go see a picture that everyone wants to go see. But you’ve got to take a chance, or the small picture is going to get crowded out.
The grim state of cinema right now
That was 45 years ago, but such is their prescience, Siskel and Ebert could be talking about the here-and-now. Sequels and spinoffs were barely a concept in 1978, but now they are the dominant force in cinema.
Indeed, nine of the 10 biggest box office hits of 2024 so far are follow-ups, with Garfield Movie the only non-sequel. Which is an animated feature my seven-year-old niece loved, but one that’s hardly high art.
Is the market demanding such simple fare? Scorsese thinks not, stating in that same piece: “If you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course, they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.”
Meaning Scorsese is making the same case that Siskel and Ebert were pleading decades before him, which is for studio heads to take a chance on all kinds of movies, not just those that are – as Scorsese describes – “market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.”
But that’s only half the problem, as cinemas also need to make room for such pictures, giving screens to movies that don’t tick every one of those boxes.
If they do, I believe everyone involved will be richly rewarded, because audience tastes haven’t fundamentally changed since Siskel and Ebert first made this point, as Oppenheimer proved just last year, to the tune of nearly $1 billion. So Hollywood needs to have some faith in the moviegoing public, because in my opinion – and to paraphrase a hit 1989 drama – “If you program it, they will come.”
For more opinions, check out our list of the best movies and best TV shows of 2024 so far. While this is our list of new movies to watch this month.
