Industry News LACMA Shutting down film program
Go to Original
The museum's decision to put its film program on ‘hiatus’ is an affront to
the city.
By KENNETH TURAN, Film Critic
July 30, 2009
Museums in Southern California seem to be losing their collective minds.
First downtown’s Museum of Contemporary Art spent big chunks of its
endowment on day-to-day expenses. Then the Orange County Museum of Art
secretly sold some of its paintings to a private collector. And now the Los
Angeles County Museum of Art, the museum of record in ground zero for the
film industry, is killing its movie program. What are these people drinking?
I know, I know, the official word from LACMA Director Michael Govan is that
the film program is not dead but on some half-baked hiatus while he puts
his best minds to work “reconsidering the nature, scale and scope” of what
the museum is doing.
You'll excuse me, but the logic of needing to stop the program in order to
rethink it sounds suspiciously like the apocryphal Vietnam War rationale
that “we had to burn the village to save it.” That the museum seems to lack
the ability to consider the situation's pros and cons while things are up
and running doesn't give me a lot of confidence in its ultimate decision.
More than that, as Isaac Newton, no film buff, once observed, a body at
rest tends to stay at rest, which means that once something is killed it's
harder to get it reanimated. Especially if that revival is tied, as it
apparently is, to raising millions of dollars for an endowment. I can just
see the crocodile tears flowing when the museum says it tried ever so hard
but just couldn't raise those needed funds.
If I am being a little tough on the museum, and I know I am, it's because
their reasons for doing what they've just done seem especially specious.
LACMA's thinking may seem just fine in the abstract but it doesn't hold up
under any kind of examination.
Take the question of the program's million-dollar loss. That's a nice round
number, but it turns out to be a cumulative loss over a 10-year period.
Broken down to $100,000 a year (and several museum sources tell me it has
been more like $70,000 in recent years), it's a drop in the bucket in an
annual budget of more than $50 million. Especially in a city with the
powerful connection to film Los Angeles has.
Even if you think that those losses are too big to ignore, consider the
reasons for them. Successful programs require healthy budgets, and it has
been an open secret for years that the money LACMA has put into its film
program has redefined the concept of operating on a shoestring. Axing it
because not enough people are coming is like starving someone half to death
and then firing them because they're too thin.
More than that, is anyone doing a comparable head count for the rest of the
museum's collections? Would LACMA shutter its collection of Etruscan art if
not enough people came? Probably not. Would it consider packing up its
European paintings because excellent reproductions are available in books
and online the way DVDs are available in stores? No, that kind of art is
considered too central to the museum's mission to be dismissed in such a
cavalier manner.
Which brings us to the question of that highly touted future rethinking of
the film program. The truth here is that though things can always be
improved, and audience numbers raised, the wheel that this kind of film
exhibition represents can't really be reinvented.
If you are not showing film classics or new work from other countries --
which is the model the American Cinematheque, the UCLA Film & Television
Archive and New York's Museum of Modern Art follow -- you are abandoning a
core part of what institutional programming has to be about if it's to have
any lasting value. And if LACMA thinks attendance is bad now, just wait
till its planned interim screenings of “artist-created films” begin to
truly empty its seats.
It is all those empty seats that make the LACMA situation especially
frustrating. The museum's 600-seat Leo S. Bing Theater is one of the best
movie-watching facilities in Los Angeles. It is also the city's most
centrally located major venue, no small virtue in this traffic nightmare
town. To see it jammed, as it was last year when director Christopher Nolan
did a Q&A about “Following,” his first film, is to experience moviegoing at
its best.
Making all this even sadder is the fact that the economic realities of
commercial exhibition mean that venues like the Bing are needed more than
ever. In recent years UCLA, the Cinematheque and LACMA have all shown films
that in a different, more prosperous era would have gone into first-run
houses.
One such film, a new print of Jean-Pierre Melville's little-seen “Leon
Morin, Priest,” is in fact scheduled at the Bing on the weekend of Aug. 14.
It's possible that this kind of thing would continue under a new regime, if
there is a new regime, but given the museum's contempt for the current
programming, that feels unlikely.
It is that contempt that is possibly the most distressing element in the
entire LACMA equation. To shut this program down, in Los Angeles of all
places, betrays both a disdain for the most vibrant of popular arts and a
demeaning narrowness of vision about what Los Angeles wants and needs.
Make no mistake, the LACMA closure is an egregious slap in the face to
those who believe in film as perhaps the most alive and vibrant of the
arts. The fact that it's coming from the very people whose job it is to
protect and promote, makes the whole sad scenario sadder still.
We deserve better as a film culture and as a city, we really do.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, thi s material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.Callifornia Film Industry has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is California Film Industry endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
“Go to Original” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on California Film Industry may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links. |