For a lot of folks, the appropriate reaction to the off-again, on-again release of “The Interview” was unadulterated outrage.
How dare anybody tell us–through Sony Pictures or any other conduit–what movies we can or cannot release and view? Don’t like it? Don’t watch it. How dare cyber hackers and terrorists threaten and extort America?
Other folks, including the president of the United States, also wondered how Sony could initially cave? We don’t play anybody’s intimidation game.
And then there are those who say that even parody–whether it is a silly send-up or an offensive affront–should have at least minimal guidelines. Perhaps stopping short of the assassination of a living leader, however off-the-charts weird, would be one.
Still others said if North Korea didn’t like Sony’s quirky depiction of the assassination of “Supreme Leader” Kim Jong-un, then maybe it should take a good, hard introspective look at what was so inviting to parody meisters. Could it be its Dennis Rodman-befriending, fat-kid-with-the-bowl-haircut leader who executed his own uncle? Could it be a country that prioritizes nukes over victuals?
Hell, poor-taste parody is getting off easy when you are the world’s pre-eminent odd-ball outlier and sovereign existential threat.
Then there are those, possibly conspiracy theorists, who said that North Korea was not only behind the threats but was using “The Interview” as a distraction to keep the United Nations from its efforts to refer the “Hermit Kingdom’s” leadership to the International Criminal Court.
And overlapping all categories are those who fundamentally see this as a classic First Amendment/censorship issue. Pyongyang politics notwithstanding, this is still a bottom-line, freedom-of-speech issue–whether we are talking Seth Rogen’s “The Interview” or Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator.” The bad haircut or the bad mustache. Lots of material.
A few even thought Sony had morphed into a marketing savant. Another Seth Rogenian piece of cultural flotsam? Well, give it some extortion/First Amendment mystique. Stand up for America and reimburse Sony. Reportedly, “The Interview” made $15 million online–where many think the future of the film industry ultimately lies–and a more modest $3 million in independent theaters the first four days available.
But then there’s the more prosaic take of those who are actually opening their movie house doors to show “The Interview.” It’s not exactly business as usual, but it’s business. One such venue is historic Tampa Theatre, which showed it four times over the holidays–all at 10:45 p.m., an atypical, but not unprecedented, time slot (think: “Jaws” last spring).
The first two showings totaled about 700 patrons, according to Tampa Theatre’s Director of Marketing and Community Relations Jill Witecki. That’s a lot better than average. Plus the concession sales, a critical variable at Tampa Theatre, got a welcome boost.
“Our new popcorn machine got a good workout,” said Witecki.
“We don’t usually get big, wide releases,” she noted. “We got a rare opportunity to screen one and we knew it was one our fans wanted to see.”
As soon as Sony had pulled distribution of “The Interview,” Tampa Theatre started getting requests from patrons and social media followers inquiring if there were any way it could show it, explained Witecki. When Sony made it clear that it was going to make the movie available to independent theaters, Tampa Theatre requested four (late) screenings. It certainly wasn’t about to reallocate time slots reserved for Oscar-contending “The Imitation Game.”
“We didn’t cancel anything; we added late screenings; and there was additional revenue that–as a non-profit organization–we were more than happy to take,” underscored Witecki. “Although this isn’t typically the type of movie made available to smaller cinemas like Tampa Theatre, we knew it was something our patrons wanted to see, and wanted to see here. That was our primary motivation, although we certainly realized that it would also be a great little Christmas bump in ticket sales and concessions.”
Plus, half the audience the first night, when Witecki introduced “The Interview,” had not been in Tampa Theatre before. It was a bit of a marketing coup,” she pointed out. “This is a place you don’t come to just once.”
She said the response to the showings has been “overwhelmingly positive” with lots of “pats on the back from our regulars.”
And did Tampa Theatre perceive “The Interview” as a First Amendment-rallying, patriotic calling?
“We really don’t judge,” stressed Witecki. “We show a lot of controversial films. It’s really not ours to say what’s good or bad or right or wrong. We are the frame.
“But I can tell you this: Nothing compares to this. All the controversy and social media amplifies everything. Imagine Charlie Chaplin with social media!”
But did she, well, like it?
“I thought it was funny,” she said. “I enjoyed it. But Oscar material–probably not.”