F1 And The Future Of Cinema
By Kevin Hoskinson
Entertainment Editor | Pastrami Nation
In a recent poll conducted by analyst and author Stephen Follows, 55% of exhibition executives agreed that the cinema experience as we currently know it will not be a viable business model in 20 years. The poll surveyed 246 film executives in the United States and wanted to find out what they thought about the industry post-Covid and in the current landscape of streaming supremacy. It’s a bleak outlook on a tradition that many of us take for granted and one that serves as an outlet for us to escape the real world for a couple of hours.
When I first read the article on Variety, I got shivers down my spine. It’s not earth-shattering news, and it’s not surprising to hear, but reading the words that came out of executives’ mouths made it feel real. It’s no secret that I love going to the movies and experiencing magic on the big screen. I watched Sinners three times in theaters because of how it made me feel. It was an exhilarating experience, and audiences worldwide felt the same way. Not to compare apples to oranges here, but some films leave an emotional impact on you like no other, while others are there simply to entertain. The two types can be successful in their own ways, and both are important to keep the theater industry alive. A perfect example of a film meant solely for entertainment is the new Brad Pitt vehicle, F1.
There’s a lot of chatter online about original entertainment and the lack of it hitting cinemas. While it’s set in a world that’s already established, F1 is an original story. The stakes are emotional, and there is a lot on the line for our characters and APXGP, the fictional racing team in the film. In a nutshell, it’s about retired driver Sonny Hayes (Pitt) returning to the scene to mentor rookie driver Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris). It’s a familiar story and doesn’t shy away from the tropes we come to expect from that dynamic. Where the movie really succeeds, though, is in its spectacle. It puts you in the driver’s seat and allows you to feel what it’s like to be in the middle of numerous F1 races around the world.
Now, I’m not saying that he is the savior of cinema, but director Joseph Kosinski understands the importance of the experience. Back in 2020, his previous film, Top Gun: Maverick, was set to release in June. Due to the pandemic, he and star Tom Cruise refused to release it to streaming and waited until theaters were open again. At that point, it was a waiting game, as nobody knew what would happen in the future. Eventually, things opened up, and Maverick came out to critical acclaim and was a financial success. Much like F1, the story was surface-level with emotional stakes, but it worked because of the spectacle. It was created to be an experience and seen on the biggest screen possible. It resonated with audiences and was a perfect example of how a legacy sequel should be done.
In many ways, F1 feels like a blockbuster of old. It was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, which in and of itself brings back feelings of nostalgia. Back in the 90s, when big action spectacles were king, it wasn’t uncommon to see his name attached. Bad Boys, The Rock, Con Air, and Armageddon were just some of the movies he had his hand in during that era. F1 feels like one of those with its foot on the gas (no pun intended) and action amped up to 11 for most of its runtime. Like it or not, this might be the only way to save the movie-going experience. We have seen time and time again that these movies do well and make a lot of money. Along with low- to mid-budget horror movies, massive-budget action films are going to be the way theaters will survive.
F1 is definitely worth your time, but so is something like Sinners. One is a by-the-numbers action film, and the other is a thoughtful horror thriller. One has already broken box office records and the other is well on its way to being a success. I guess the point is that both kinds of film can exist and have the same effect financially. One might stick with you longer and be more culturally relevant, while the other is a “turn off your brain and have fun” type of deal. There is nothing wrong with either, and the fate of the theatrical experience hinges on audiences willing to see both of them. This is where we are at, and as much as I want more films like The Life Of Chuck and The Materalists to exist, we need a big budget spectacle in order to enjoy what we hold so dear.