Some very interesting thoughts. But I think you’ve presented an imbalanced perspective; the ‘demise’ of the single-screen theatre as a means to unify people has at least been met by television and the Internet. And I really don’t know that people seventy-five years ago were more interested in what was happening in the world, what direction it was going in. (World Wars don’t count; they’re not reflective of people, but governments.) Isolationism has been the American hallmark since its inception. And I really don’t know that the ‘divisions’ that exist in American society today are any more demarcated than they were fifty, seventy-five, a hundred years ago. Are you suggesting that it was more homogenous back then?
Single-screen theatres were gathering places, allowing people of all (most) means to come to an often glorious setting and see the same entertainment. They were the ‘great leaveners’. That still happens today at movies…as well as in front of the tv and the computer monitor. Times have changed…as have the means to address people’s needs.
I think you’re conflating the demise of the single-screen theatre with what this report proposes…and that’s another discussion entirely.
That’s a valid point in a world where we all need to take more responsibility. However…
If you’re going to start demanding accountability, maybe it should start by taking a look at our individual governments' behaviour, both internally and outside borders. Because I find it kindasorta ‘lame’ that people take umbrage at coporations' transgressions when their own governments can be lambasted for so much. And to me, there’s an even stronger case to be made for the culpability of the ‘consumer’, the people who gave them the power in the first place, and then hide behind ignorance, the ‘Gee, I didn’t know about any of that…’
“But with cinemas, one has already paid admission, so commercials there — or anything like them — is annoying even before you have to live with them in the audience.”
But there has never been any tacit ‘agreement’ that all you’d get at the cinema would be the movies. That’s just tradition.
But even traditions change. Where are my cartoons? Where are my news reels? Where are my serials, where are my shorts…where are the confectionary gals with tea, coffee, munchies…and dammit, where’s my cigar/cigarette gal?!? What if I run out of smokes part the way through the film?!?
Personally, I don’t understand the umbrage taken at ‘commercials’. They take place before the film. They don’t interrupt its viewing. When some amount of thought is put into their selection (and admittedly, this generally isn’t the case in the US, Canada or the UK), they’re actually great to watch; the recent animate Coke commercial, fer instance. (Again, I stress this is MY opinon here. I don’t see what people get upset over…and I’m the one who has a better reason to complain, as I’m in there nearly 200 times a year.
(BTW; the British tv license fee is really only for the BBC. Other networks/channels still show ads…)
Yes, Jim, but we have choice, don’t we? None of us will have to submit ourselves to this kind of experience in the cinema, will we…?
(As far as my analogy regarding tv: it’s always been an advertising medium that’s just happened to have programming. I present it as a comparison simply because having spent time away from ‘the idiot box’, I’m appalled that people actualy shrug at the 17 minutes' worth of commercials each hour…like obedient sheep… Not that I’ve ever witnessed sheep shrugging, of course.)
Where is ths ‘invasion of privacy’? My understanding is that you have to text them in order for anything to happen.
And why would you think in an age of media penetration that cell phone use would somehow be exempt from ‘unsolicited communication’? Can’t think of a medium that’s safe from that…not even your mailbox…
I tend to think that the ‘theatres’ recognize that they are under attack from many directions and that they’ll take the risk of alienating some customers if they can somehow, even to a teeny-weensy extent, stem the tide.
The people who are turned-off sufficiently by screen-ads to actually stop going…I think there are far more weighty aspects that get them to that point. Screen adverising might simply be the tipping-point.
I mean, for me, I cannot believe that we’ve essentially ‘put up with’ commercials on television since its inception. (I don’t watch it.) Yes, you can tivo, etc, but it’s pretty fascinating what people will put up with to get what they want, isn’t it…?
No question that there might be a dearth of ‘respect’ when it comes to Toronto and its buildings, but really, if you bring down the romance-factor a little, these aren’t so much ‘buildings’ as they are ‘businesses’. And why do you suppose the businesses in these buildings failed?
Al, thanks for making me howl. (Although a pal opines that I’m more a ‘Brian’…)
I posted this PSA simply because I found it bizarre…and mis-guided…for a film company to be including in their lecture of cinema-goers, a reference to something the cinema-owners depend on for their revenue! Let’s be honest here; if cinemas could find a way, they’d have everyone buying a ticket to a show, purchasing popcorn, a drink, candy, the whole shebang! That would be their ‘dream situation’. So for Disney to produce a PSA effectively torpedoing the notion of popcorn-eating as ‘acceptable behaviour’… Well, I’m still shaking my head.
I would love to hear what someone from a cinema-owners' organization would have to say about it.
But if you were to take a look at the gradual -and consistent- decrease in the number of ‘local cinemas’ in Toronto, if you actully saw how many there ‘used to be’, none of what’s happening now would come as a surprise. Filmgoing trends in Toronto have changed. It’s extraordinarily difficult for a ‘nabe’ anywhere in the world to thrive. It requires… Well, I suspect it requires what these cinemas did not have.
As for these structures being turned into ‘grocery stores or something equally depressing’… What’s worse? Seeing a former storied cinema as a book store or demolished.
I’d be very curious to see the figures of cinemas in North America that have been brought back from ‘Closed’ to a thriving/solvent state. I’d be willing to be the category these instances would fall under would be ‘rare’.
Me? I want to win the Lottery and restore The Century in Hamilton. Then I can die a happy man.
First off, who says I don’t eat ‘quietly’? You have no idea whether I do or don’t; you’re simply making an assumption based on your own biases.
And I find the notion of debating whether I ‘have’ to get a large to be hilarious. Let’s look at this for a second; I’m not bringing food into the cinema from the outside, I’m not jawin' on nuts or other crunchy food. This is faire the cinema owners are quite seriously desperate to sell, so much so that there was once a tradition of making sure the aroma of freshly-popped corn was blown into the auditorium; seditious marketing if I ever heard tell of it!
Your comment about my asking how I might be considerate being proof of my having a ‘tough time doing that very thing’ reveals more about me than you; I found (and still find) the issue to be not only wildy funny, but quite frankly, preposterous.
And finally, my ‘reasons for posting’ had nothing to do with altruism. I never stated that they did. Not all posts on this site are for ‘information purposes only’. Some, like this one, are meant to spark debate, dialogue, discussion. Or do you find that notion to run contrary to ‘considerate behaviour’?
Honestly, I find your response to be, at the least, quite judgemental, especially seeing as you have no clue whatever as to the ‘loudness’ of my habit. All of this is ironic because this past weekend, I had to contend with two septuagenarians who insisted on talking â€"and singing along to the showtunes on-screen!â€" through almost all of ‘The Good Shepard’. Me, I was being considerate, sitting there eating my large popcorn (supporting not only the film industry but the cinema operators themselves), while these two ingrates yakked and trilled. (And I’m pointing out their ages because for once, it wasn’t the ‘younger’ audience members who were spoiling it for everyone else. It was two people who should, given all common perceptions of the demographic, have known better.)
I get a large bag of popcorn at every performance I take in. I’m eating for a good forty-five minutes. How do you propose I be ‘considerate of my fellow moviegoers’?!?
longislandmovies…and other industry participants…I’m expecting you to weigh in on this matter!
Not that it’s possible…and I’m only musing on this because I’m a writer and this is the way my mind works…
I would love to see a ‘He Said, She Said’ film version of a scenario like this. Because man; this has all manner of human existence in it, from the ridiculous to the astonishing, from the morally-questionable to the honourable. And only after seeing all sides of it would you ever really gain an understanding not just of the facts, but more importantly, the motivations.
Of course, I’m also reminded of that old saw ‘There’s three sides to every story: yours, mine…and The Truth.’
‘It ain’t exhausted until that rotund woman chimes in.’
Helen Mirren’s performance is summed-up by mute reaction shots. Yes, an intriguing impersonation. Best Performance in a Leading Role? Uh, no. Not by a long-shot. (And it’s very difficult to see any representation of the Royal Family without snickering if you’ve seen ‘The Royle Family’.)
‘All the King’s Men’ didn’t help ‘the cause’ by having such a poorly-written script.
And yes, I was aware ‘Death’ was on British tv first…but not the BBC. Channel 4.
Not having seen it, I will bow to your insight as to its proper place in the market. (And yes, I’ll even go along with your point about the business decision regarding not picking it up.) But there’s a more compelling issue here that will, evidently, get lost in the shuffle.
Regarding ‘suitable’ arenas for films, having now seen ‘The Queen’, I can say that it never should have been brought to the big screen; tv would have sufficed.
And while I’m typing, my nomination for ‘Second Worst Case of False Advertising’ goes to ‘Man of the Year’. Shame on them all.
(Oh, and I didn’t get the impression ‘Scissors’ was a comedy, I’d never read the book, so I was impressed by the film.)
Apologies if I took this the wrong way: “Sure, you can put it out there, and yes there are plenty of people who wouldn’t mind seeing it — but mostly likely, it oversteps the boundaries of good taste.” I assumed you were connecting the Irwin bit with the film, therefore saying the film was effectively in ‘bad taste’. Sorry if I took that the wrong way. As for the assumption of your political views, the way you phrased your point didn’t lead me to believe you were proffering a clearly objective point of view, but if I’ve also taken this incorrectly, another apology is winging its way to you.
Interesting that you should raise the question of open-mindedness regarding the viewed material; I sat in an audience for ‘Little Children’ and I was actually creeped-out by the quite-obvious presence of men who- Well, I’ll stop right there, but let’s just say there was clearly an associative element in the story, if you get my drift.
But clearly, ‘most’ people do not go see films they have any suspicion are going to irritate or upset them. That’s not why most people plunk down their money. (I’m not talking about slasher/horror films and their patrons, obviously.) There’s usually some degree of assumed affinity with the material either in a genre sense or in tone. (Hence the backlash against the ‘definitely not a romantic comedy’ ‘The Breakup.)
Don’t agree at all. Sorry. Someone wearing a costume that’s a piss-take of an unfortunate death versus a speculative story dealing with how an assassination might be handled? Methinks I know which side of the fence you’re standing on.
This isn’t an example of hate-mongering. It’s speculative fiction, using a current president.
I agree that the chains, anyone involved with distribution has the right to decide what’s right for them, what they don’t feel uncomfortable with handling. I suppose for me, the situation raises more ‘general’ questions about free speech, about tolerance. And I doubt that the average person (American or not) really has a full understanding of what the overall concepts mean, how you cannot pick and choose what you feel should fall under the umbrella of ‘worth defending for the sake of free speech’. There are some very flinty examples of how hard it is to deal with something when it verges on ‘hate material’, but surely nobody with a rationale mind believes this film to such an animal. At least I’ve never heard anyone who’s seen it refer to it like that.
I get the impression that those who don’t like the idea or those who believe (and usually quite fervently) that it never should have been made…have never seen it. (And insist they never will.)
Isn’t it just a little bit ironic that in a nation born of dissent, that this aspect of free speech takes such a beating, and that there seem to be so many qualificaitons required for it to be deemed (by some) to be ‘appropriate’?
No.
And you wouldn’t.
Because the energy is all on the front end. That is, with distribution, not exhibition.
A closed-mind won’t go see this.
But the chains don’t want to risk pissing-off all these closed-minds.
Pre-emptive decision-making. (And I’m being generous.)
I agree.
But the backlash? From the reactionary front?
Is that worth it, when companies pull their advertising when something on a tv show is ‘contentious’?
I’d guess and say this is too hot an item.
If it wasn’t about a US president…if it was about the Pope…then there wouldn’t be the corporate turning-away.
I have been jarred by some of the opinions about the film…by those who have never seen it…regarding what amounts to freedom of speech.
Which brings me back to my previous question about ‘V for Vendetta’.
Except…except that the subject matter is so patently unacceptable to many Americans.
So it’s more than just a quirky film lacking distribution.
Many, many feel this film should never have been made. Perdiod. They want it to go away.
What’s the upside to combatting that attitude with decent BO figures from what you propose?
That reminds me: “With AMC, the nation’s second-largest chain, and Cinemark, which owns Century Theatres, also lining up against Death of a President, the film has EFFECTIVELY BEEN BANNED from at least 16,300 American movie screens.”
So what’s the feeling about if ‘V for Vendetta’ had been set in the US? Would it have ever made it to the screen? And if not, what do you suppose it is about the UK that allowed it to be filmed and distributed there?
Some very interesting thoughts. But I think you’ve presented an imbalanced perspective; the ‘demise’ of the single-screen theatre as a means to unify people has at least been met by television and the Internet. And I really don’t know that people seventy-five years ago were more interested in what was happening in the world, what direction it was going in. (World Wars don’t count; they’re not reflective of people, but governments.) Isolationism has been the American hallmark since its inception. And I really don’t know that the ‘divisions’ that exist in American society today are any more demarcated than they were fifty, seventy-five, a hundred years ago. Are you suggesting that it was more homogenous back then?
Single-screen theatres were gathering places, allowing people of all (most) means to come to an often glorious setting and see the same entertainment. They were the ‘great leaveners’. That still happens today at movies…as well as in front of the tv and the computer monitor. Times have changed…as have the means to address people’s needs.
I think you’re conflating the demise of the single-screen theatre with what this report proposes…and that’s another discussion entirely.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, to offer up the counterpoint to this study, longislandmovies!
Great article! Thanks, Michael.
That’s a valid point in a world where we all need to take more responsibility. However…
If you’re going to start demanding accountability, maybe it should start by taking a look at our individual governments' behaviour, both internally and outside borders. Because I find it kindasorta ‘lame’ that people take umbrage at coporations' transgressions when their own governments can be lambasted for so much. And to me, there’s an even stronger case to be made for the culpability of the ‘consumer’, the people who gave them the power in the first place, and then hide behind ignorance, the ‘Gee, I didn’t know about any of that…’
So; where do you draw the line?
“But with cinemas, one has already paid admission, so commercials there — or anything like them — is annoying even before you have to live with them in the audience.”
But there has never been any tacit ‘agreement’ that all you’d get at the cinema would be the movies. That’s just tradition.
But even traditions change. Where are my cartoons? Where are my news reels? Where are my serials, where are my shorts…where are the confectionary gals with tea, coffee, munchies…and dammit, where’s my cigar/cigarette gal?!? What if I run out of smokes part the way through the film?!?
Personally, I don’t understand the umbrage taken at ‘commercials’. They take place before the film. They don’t interrupt its viewing. When some amount of thought is put into their selection (and admittedly, this generally isn’t the case in the US, Canada or the UK), they’re actually great to watch; the recent animate Coke commercial, fer instance. (Again, I stress this is MY opinon here. I don’t see what people get upset over…and I’m the one who has a better reason to complain, as I’m in there nearly 200 times a year.
(BTW; the British tv license fee is really only for the BBC. Other networks/channels still show ads…)
Yes, Jim, but we have choice, don’t we? None of us will have to submit ourselves to this kind of experience in the cinema, will we…?
(As far as my analogy regarding tv: it’s always been an advertising medium that’s just happened to have programming. I present it as a comparison simply because having spent time away from ‘the idiot box’, I’m appalled that people actualy shrug at the 17 minutes' worth of commercials each hour…like obedient sheep… Not that I’ve ever witnessed sheep shrugging, of course.)
Where is ths ‘invasion of privacy’? My understanding is that you have to text them in order for anything to happen.
And why would you think in an age of media penetration that cell phone use would somehow be exempt from ‘unsolicited communication’? Can’t think of a medium that’s safe from that…not even your mailbox…
I tend to think that the ‘theatres’ recognize that they are under attack from many directions and that they’ll take the risk of alienating some customers if they can somehow, even to a teeny-weensy extent, stem the tide.
The people who are turned-off sufficiently by screen-ads to actually stop going…I think there are far more weighty aspects that get them to that point. Screen adverising might simply be the tipping-point.
I mean, for me, I cannot believe that we’ve essentially ‘put up with’ commercials on television since its inception. (I don’t watch it.) Yes, you can tivo, etc, but it’s pretty fascinating what people will put up with to get what they want, isn’t it…?
Whose idea was it? Someone trying to generate additional revenues. You know, as in ‘staying afloat’…?
Wired.
Completely.
Everywhere.
All the time.
There will be no ‘Off’ switch.
“And now, handling the ‘protocols’ portion of the peace talks, Al Alvarez.”
Thanks for the chuckle, Al! But maybe you shouldn’t mince your words quite so much next time. You know, just come right out and say what you mean.
No question that there might be a dearth of ‘respect’ when it comes to Toronto and its buildings, but really, if you bring down the romance-factor a little, these aren’t so much ‘buildings’ as they are ‘businesses’. And why do you suppose the businesses in these buildings failed?
Al, thanks for making me howl. (Although a pal opines that I’m more a ‘Brian’…)
I posted this PSA simply because I found it bizarre…and mis-guided…for a film company to be including in their lecture of cinema-goers, a reference to something the cinema-owners depend on for their revenue! Let’s be honest here; if cinemas could find a way, they’d have everyone buying a ticket to a show, purchasing popcorn, a drink, candy, the whole shebang! That would be their ‘dream situation’. So for Disney to produce a PSA effectively torpedoing the notion of popcorn-eating as ‘acceptable behaviour’… Well, I’m still shaking my head.
I would love to hear what someone from a cinema-owners' organization would have to say about it.
But if you were to take a look at the gradual -and consistent- decrease in the number of ‘local cinemas’ in Toronto, if you actully saw how many there ‘used to be’, none of what’s happening now would come as a surprise. Filmgoing trends in Toronto have changed. It’s extraordinarily difficult for a ‘nabe’ anywhere in the world to thrive. It requires… Well, I suspect it requires what these cinemas did not have.
As for these structures being turned into ‘grocery stores or something equally depressing’… What’s worse? Seeing a former storied cinema as a book store or demolished.
I’d be very curious to see the figures of cinemas in North America that have been brought back from ‘Closed’ to a thriving/solvent state. I’d be willing to be the category these instances would fall under would be ‘rare’.
Me? I want to win the Lottery and restore The Century in Hamilton. Then I can die a happy man.
First off, who says I don’t eat ‘quietly’? You have no idea whether I do or don’t; you’re simply making an assumption based on your own biases.
And I find the notion of debating whether I ‘have’ to get a large to be hilarious. Let’s look at this for a second; I’m not bringing food into the cinema from the outside, I’m not jawin' on nuts or other crunchy food. This is faire the cinema owners are quite seriously desperate to sell, so much so that there was once a tradition of making sure the aroma of freshly-popped corn was blown into the auditorium; seditious marketing if I ever heard tell of it!
Your comment about my asking how I might be considerate being proof of my having a ‘tough time doing that very thing’ reveals more about me than you; I found (and still find) the issue to be not only wildy funny, but quite frankly, preposterous.
And finally, my ‘reasons for posting’ had nothing to do with altruism. I never stated that they did. Not all posts on this site are for ‘information purposes only’. Some, like this one, are meant to spark debate, dialogue, discussion. Or do you find that notion to run contrary to ‘considerate behaviour’?
Honestly, I find your response to be, at the least, quite judgemental, especially seeing as you have no clue whatever as to the ‘loudness’ of my habit. All of this is ironic because this past weekend, I had to contend with two septuagenarians who insisted on talking â€"and singing along to the showtunes on-screen!â€" through almost all of ‘The Good Shepard’. Me, I was being considerate, sitting there eating my large popcorn (supporting not only the film industry but the cinema operators themselves), while these two ingrates yakked and trilled. (And I’m pointing out their ages because for once, it wasn’t the ‘younger’ audience members who were spoiling it for everyone else. It was two people who should, given all common perceptions of the demographic, have known better.)
LMAO!
By doing what?!?
I get a large bag of popcorn at every performance I take in. I’m eating for a good forty-five minutes. How do you propose I be ‘considerate of my fellow moviegoers’?!?
longislandmovies…and other industry participants…I’m expecting you to weigh in on this matter!
Not that it’s possible…and I’m only musing on this because I’m a writer and this is the way my mind works…
I would love to see a ‘He Said, She Said’ film version of a scenario like this. Because man; this has all manner of human existence in it, from the ridiculous to the astonishing, from the morally-questionable to the honourable. And only after seeing all sides of it would you ever really gain an understanding not just of the facts, but more importantly, the motivations.
Of course, I’m also reminded of that old saw ‘There’s three sides to every story: yours, mine…and The Truth.’
‘It ain’t exhausted until that rotund woman chimes in.’
Helen Mirren’s performance is summed-up by mute reaction shots. Yes, an intriguing impersonation. Best Performance in a Leading Role? Uh, no. Not by a long-shot. (And it’s very difficult to see any representation of the Royal Family without snickering if you’ve seen ‘The Royle Family’.)
‘All the King’s Men’ didn’t help ‘the cause’ by having such a poorly-written script.
And yes, I was aware ‘Death’ was on British tv first…but not the BBC. Channel 4.
Not having seen it, I will bow to your insight as to its proper place in the market. (And yes, I’ll even go along with your point about the business decision regarding not picking it up.) But there’s a more compelling issue here that will, evidently, get lost in the shuffle.
Regarding ‘suitable’ arenas for films, having now seen ‘The Queen’, I can say that it never should have been brought to the big screen; tv would have sufficed.
And while I’m typing, my nomination for ‘Second Worst Case of False Advertising’ goes to ‘Man of the Year’. Shame on them all.
(Oh, and I didn’t get the impression ‘Scissors’ was a comedy, I’d never read the book, so I was impressed by the film.)
VP:
Apologies if I took this the wrong way: “Sure, you can put it out there, and yes there are plenty of people who wouldn’t mind seeing it — but mostly likely, it oversteps the boundaries of good taste.” I assumed you were connecting the Irwin bit with the film, therefore saying the film was effectively in ‘bad taste’. Sorry if I took that the wrong way. As for the assumption of your political views, the way you phrased your point didn’t lead me to believe you were proffering a clearly objective point of view, but if I’ve also taken this incorrectly, another apology is winging its way to you.
Interesting that you should raise the question of open-mindedness regarding the viewed material; I sat in an audience for ‘Little Children’ and I was actually creeped-out by the quite-obvious presence of men who- Well, I’ll stop right there, but let’s just say there was clearly an associative element in the story, if you get my drift.
But clearly, ‘most’ people do not go see films they have any suspicion are going to irritate or upset them. That’s not why most people plunk down their money. (I’m not talking about slasher/horror films and their patrons, obviously.) There’s usually some degree of assumed affinity with the material either in a genre sense or in tone. (Hence the backlash against the ‘definitely not a romantic comedy’ ‘The Breakup.)
VincentPrice:
Don’t agree at all. Sorry. Someone wearing a costume that’s a piss-take of an unfortunate death versus a speculative story dealing with how an assassination might be handled? Methinks I know which side of the fence you’re standing on.
This isn’t an example of hate-mongering. It’s speculative fiction, using a current president.
I agree that the chains, anyone involved with distribution has the right to decide what’s right for them, what they don’t feel uncomfortable with handling. I suppose for me, the situation raises more ‘general’ questions about free speech, about tolerance. And I doubt that the average person (American or not) really has a full understanding of what the overall concepts mean, how you cannot pick and choose what you feel should fall under the umbrella of ‘worth defending for the sake of free speech’. There are some very flinty examples of how hard it is to deal with something when it verges on ‘hate material’, but surely nobody with a rationale mind believes this film to such an animal. At least I’ve never heard anyone who’s seen it refer to it like that.
I get the impression that those who don’t like the idea or those who believe (and usually quite fervently) that it never should have been made…have never seen it. (And insist they never will.)
Isn’t it just a little bit ironic that in a nation born of dissent, that this aspect of free speech takes such a beating, and that there seem to be so many qualificaitons required for it to be deemed (by some) to be ‘appropriate’?
No.
And you wouldn’t.
Because the energy is all on the front end. That is, with distribution, not exhibition.
A closed-mind won’t go see this.
But the chains don’t want to risk pissing-off all these closed-minds.
Pre-emptive decision-making. (And I’m being generous.)
I agree.
But the backlash? From the reactionary front?
Is that worth it, when companies pull their advertising when something on a tv show is ‘contentious’?
I’d guess and say this is too hot an item.
If it wasn’t about a US president…if it was about the Pope…then there wouldn’t be the corporate turning-away.
I have been jarred by some of the opinions about the film…by those who have never seen it…regarding what amounts to freedom of speech.
Which brings me back to my previous question about ‘V for Vendetta’.
Except…except that the subject matter is so patently unacceptable to many Americans.
So it’s more than just a quirky film lacking distribution.
Many, many feel this film should never have been made. Perdiod. They want it to go away.
What’s the upside to combatting that attitude with decent BO figures from what you propose?
That reminds me: “With AMC, the nation’s second-largest chain, and Cinemark, which owns Century Theatres, also lining up against Death of a President, the film has EFFECTIVELY BEEN BANNED from at least 16,300 American movie screens.”
So what’s the feeling about if ‘V for Vendetta’ had been set in the US? Would it have ever made it to the screen? And if not, what do you suppose it is about the UK that allowed it to be filmed and distributed there?