See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318649748
Drive-In Theatres, Technology, and Cultural Change
Article · June 2018
DOI: 10.22381/EMFM13220182
CITATIONS
READS
11
7,552
1 author:
Mark Alexander Fox
Indiana University South Bend
84 PUBLICATIONS 1,390 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
New Zealand Corporate Governance View project
E-Filing View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Alexander Fox on 16 November 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 13(2), 2018
pp. 24–39, ISSN 1842-3191, eISSN 1938-212X
doi:10.22381/EMFM13220182
DRIVE-IN THEATRES, TECHNOLOGY,
AND CULTURAL CHANGE
MARK A. FOX
mfox1@iusb.edu
Indiana University South Bend
ABSTRACT. At their peak, in the 1950s, nearly 4,500 drive-in theatres existed in the
United States. Rivaled by around 5,500 indoor cinemas today, only 319 drive-ins
remain. I contrast how the nature of the audience itself has altered the use of space in
drive-in theatres from family viewing environments in the early years to “passion
pits” in the 1950s and 1960s, and back to family viewing in more recent decades.
Technological changes in projection and sound equipment have also altered the
experience of attending drive-in cinemas. In recent years, the costs of transitioning
to digital projection have forced many drive-in cinemas out of the industry.
JEL codes: L10; L25; L82
Keywords: technological change; drive-in theatres
How to cite: Fox, Mark A. (2018). “Drive-in Theatres, Technology, and Cultural Change,”
Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 13(2): 24–39.
Received 27 March 2017 • Received in revised form 14 July 2017
Accepted 15 July 2017 • Available online 5 August 2017
1. Introduction
Only 319 drive-in theatres remained open in the summer of 2016, compared
to around 5,500 indoor theatres (Drive-Ins.com, 2017; National Association
of Theatre Owners, 2017). Apart from the United States, Canada and Australia
are the only other countries with significant numbers of drive-ins remaining
– with 52 and 15 drive-ins, respectively (Drive-Ins.com). Drive-in theatres
have largely been a US phenomenon and were never more than a “curiosity”
in European countries (Horton, 1976: 238). One reason for this disparity lies
in the relatively high rates of car ownership in the United States. This was
particularly noticeable throughout the 1950s, when drive-ins experienced rapid
growth. A 1958 article in British Kinematography opined that there were no
24
UK drive-ins at that time due in part to the country’s low rates of car ownership compared to the US (0.077 vs. 0.325 vehicles per capita, respectively),
while also noting that twilight hours, mist, and fog conditions in the UK
were generally unfavorable to drive-in theatre operations (Pulman, 1958).
Historically, the predominance of drive-ins in the US was also a function of
the relatively low cost of land relative to other regions around the world,
such as Europe where “land is at a premium” (Horton, 1976: 238).
Richard Hollingshead, Jr. created the first drive-in cinema during the Great
Depression. Hollingshead intended to take advantage of three things that he
believed people would be reluctant to give up, even in tough economic times:
food, automobiles, and movies. Hollingshead also believed his invention
would address what he considered were the reasons why indoor theatres did
not reach a wider audience: “The mother says she’s not dressed; the husband
doesn’t want to put on his shoes; the question is what to do with the kids;
then how to find a baby sitter; parking the car is difficult or maybe they have
to pay for parking; even the seats in the theater may not be comfortable to
contemplate” (qtd. in Segrave, 2006: 2).
The key issue Hollingshead addressed was how to arrange parked cars so
that drive-in patrons could see the screen without obstruction from other
vehicles. Hollingshead’s design for drive-in theatres resolved this issue by
incorporating a clamshell shaped lot, terraced parking rows, and ramps to tilt
cars upward toward the screen (Hollingshead, 1933). As this layout combines
the shared, communal experience of viewing a movie with the privacy and
comfort of one’s own vehicle, these elements remain the basis of drive-in
design to this day.
This paper makes use of existing literature to explore how the drive-in
experience has changed over the years. I examine themes relating to who
attends drive-ins and the experience of attending the drive-in itself – while
also focusing on how the physical environment affects the audience experience. Next, I focus on changes in the prominent technological features of
drive-ins, most notably screens, projection equipment, and sound. Then, with
reference to data from drive-ins that have closed in recent years, I analyze
how the move to digital projection has further disrupted the industry.
2. The Changing Nature of the Drive-in Experience
While the first drive-in theatre opened in 1933, growth remained largely static
in the years that followed. Initially regarded as a fad, there were only 95
drive-ins in the United States by 1942 (Shiffer, 1990; Alicoate, 1942). The
initial stagnation of drive-ins was partly a function of the Great Depression
and, later, building and fuel rationing restrictions throughout World War II
(Bell, 2003; Maxwell and Balcom, 1946).
25
From 1947 to 1951, the number of drive-ins increased from 155 to 4,151
(Fox and Black, 2011). During this same period thousands of indoor theatres
closed (Horton, 1954). Much of the early success of drive-ins is attributable
to timing and the sociological changes that had transpired in the post-World
War II era.
After WWII, drive-ins were located in areas that were appealing to nearby
communities – typically along the pre-interstate US or state highways and
within the reach of several small or medium-sized towns (Shiffer, 1990). In
1953, Downs noted that: “For location, present drive-ins require a fairly
level piece of ground, 10–15 acres in extent, away from distractions and near
or on a large highway, with access to an adjacent area of 35,000 to 60,000
people, preferably of the laboring class rather than white collar workers”
(Downs, 1953: 154). Not surprisingly, the suburbanization triggered by the
baby boom accelerated the growth of drive-ins during the 1950s (Gomery,
1985). Compared to attending the drive-in, it was more time consuming and
costly for those living in the suburbs to travel to downtown cinemas (Gomery,
1985).
The low cost and widespread availability of land had also facilitated the
post-war growth of drive-ins. By 1951, drive-in theatre capacity ranged from
200 to 2,000 vehicles located on three to thirty acres of land (Luther, 1951).
Drive-ins with a 500-vehicle capacity had an estimated land cost per viewing
(vehicle space) of $150 ($75,000 for a 500 vehicle drive-in); more elaborate
drive-ins averaged $250 or more per vehicle space ($200 to $250 for a 1,000
vehicle operation) (Downs, 1953). In addition to affordable real estate, the
development of new drive-ins during this time was spurred by the rather
modest construction costs relative to indoor theatres. In 1950, the costs of
building materials and equipment used in drive-in theatre construction were
estimated at just 20% of those for an indoor theatre of equivalent capacity
(Underhill, 1950).
The end of wartime restrictions on gasoline (Underhill, 1950), combined
with increasing car ownership in the United States throughout the 1950s
(Lobban, 1996b), revitalized drive-in theatres as well. Many Americans were
now buying their first automobiles and “the chance to use the new car on a
pleasure excursion added its attraction to those of the movie itself” (Downs,
1953: 159). Automobile purchases increased from only 69,500 vehicles in
1945 to over 7.9 million in 1957 (Cohen, 1994). As Marchant observes, the
ensuing car culture of the 1950s was key to the success of drive-ins cinemas:
“After war-time gas rationing was discontinued, men and women found that
their cars restored their sense of control. They were in charge of their destiny”
(2001: 55). Whereas Europeans tended to view cars primarily a means of
transportation, Americans considered their cars to have a wider range of
uses: “As we know, Americans shop–eat–bank–sleep–date–and make love in
26
automobiles. It was only natural, therefore, that they began to see films in
cars too” (Horton, 1976: 238).
We now turn our attention to the experience of attending drive-ins during
their peak decade, the 1950s. Then, we examine the impact of social,
economic, and technological changes that occurred in subsequent decades.
Privacy and comfort
Drive-in cinemas catered to Americans who had migrated to the suburbs after
World War II – mainly families with small children and teenagers. Drive-ins
provided “a compromise between the giant screen, the ‘going out’ factor of
public exhibition, and the domestic hermeticism of the private car” (Friedberg,
2002: 195). Part of the appeal was the potential for privacy and comfort, as
cars were transformed into private theatre boxes (Shaw-Smith, 2009). As the
following observation explains: “Drive-in theater patrons can do as they
please within the dictates of decency in the privacy of their automobiles.
They can shell and eat roasted peanuts, smoke, hold a normal conversation,
regulate ventilation, and relax in wider and more comfortable seats with
more leg room than possible in an indoor theater” (Underhill, 1950: 162).
In the years following World War II, the privacy and family viewing
experience drive-ins offered was particularly appealing to both returning
veterans and civilians who “had to re-orient themselves from being part of a
communal war effort to settling back down to being private citizens. In other
words, the post-war period can be characterized by the overt preoccupation
with privacy” (Cohen, 1994: 475).
Family friendly entertainment and services
Much of the appeal of drive-ins emerged from offering services that made it
easier and more tempting for families to attend. These services, seldom available at indoor counterparts, included diaper and other vending machines,
bottle warmers for baby formula, and even nurses in attendance (Underhill,
1950; Shaw-Smith, 2009). Durant (1950) proposes that much of the success
of drive-ins at the time was attributable to being family friendly: “They are
the answer to parents who want to take in the movies, but can’t leave their
children alone at home. No baby sitters are needed. And the kids are no
bother to anyone in the audience” (25).
Due to lower land costs, drive-in theatres were able to provide additional
amenities that set them apart from competing forms of entertainment. While
drive-ins of the early 1950s frequently included children’s playgrounds, many
were more extravagant in their offerings:
… exhibitors built children’s play areas, with swings, slides,
merry-go-rounds and pony rides. Some installed miniature railroads
which hauled kids over several hundred yards of track. Picnic
27
grounds, swimming pools and monkey villages appeared in the
larger theaters. While the youngsters disport themselves at these
elaborate plants, their parents can have a go at miniature golf
courses and driving ranges or they can play shuffleboard, pitch
horse-shoes and dance before live bands (Durant, 1950: 85).
The wide range of entertainment options offered was partly intended to entice
parents to bring children. Drive-ins valued children as they were avid consumers of concession items, and because children were accompanied by ticket
paying parents (Downs, 1953). However, the variety of entertainment driveins offered was not solely for children. Downs (1953) refers to the wide range
of “come-ons” that catered to adults as resembling community recreation
centers. Novelty experiences abounded, with themes such as airplane driveins and a drive-in where one could watch movies from a canoe (Underhill,
1950; Lobban, 1996a). One Vermont drive-in even included a motel, where
patrons could watch the movie from their rooms (Horton, 1976).
Drive-ins also frequently provided “concessions for cars themselves,” such
as gas and windshield cleaning (Friedberg, 2002: 196). Underhill (1950)
compares the services offered by “aggressive” drive-in exhibitors (including
windshield wiping, car towing, and tire changing) to those provided by leading oil companies at gas stations. Many early drive-ins also featured fueling
and service stations: “Mechanics were on hand to carry out repairs or give
the car a service, while its occupants watched the film from the sit down
picnic areas or the luxury of sky-top viewing lounges” (Lobban, 1996a: 10).
Informality
Drive-ins cinemas offer patrons a “special sense of informality” (Luther,
1951: 407). To understand this appeal, a brief discussion of audiences during
earlier movie-going eras is helpful: In the Nickelodeon era of the early 1900s,
audiences were “vocal, lively, and communal” (Butsch, 2001: 118). During
the silent films of the Nickelodeon era, pianists often performed along with
the screening in order to convey the nuisances in a scene. Frequently, however, audiences interjected their own interpretations when they requested their
preferred musical arrangements during movies (Butsch, 2001). When sound
systems were introduced to theatres between 1926 and 1931, “The talking
audience for silent pictures became a silent audience for talking pictures”
(Sklar, 1994: 153). Conversing during a film now detracted from the moviegoing experience and audience members shushed one another to enforce the
new social norm (Butsch, 2001). Cohen observes that Hollywood cinema of
the 1930s and 1940s imposed “middle-class standards of consumption, preventing audiences from interacting with each other and reacting collectively
to the film” (1994: 471). These standards were in stark contrast to the freedoms and convenience offered by drive-ins:
28
Drive-in customers were encouraged to treat their cars like a home
from home. There was no need to dress up, and you were free to
talk, smoke and enjoy a bottle of beer during the show. You could
bring along your own food and drink, or make use of the theatre’s
own refreshment service, brought right to your car. … children
were always welcome, however noisy and unruly. In any case,
nearly all drive-ins provided a playground to help tire them out
before the show began. Most kids had fallen asleep by the end of
the film, leading to one early curious drive-in statistic, that half of
the movie-goers attended in their pyjamas! (Lobban, 1996a: 8).
Those who rarely attended conventional theatres were frequent patrons of
drive-ins. Underhill (1950) noted that: “To the amazement of even the drivein theatre owners, in came a type of patronage rarely seen at indoor theatres;
the physically handicapped, invalids, convalescents, the aged, deaf people,
expectant mothers, parents with infants and small children – whole families,
dressed as they pleased in the privacy and comfort of their own domain on
wheels” (162). Similarly, in 1951, Life magazine observed that drive-ins had
brought back the “lost audience” of those who had stopped going to indoor
theatres over the age of 35. Credence is given to this observation by a 1950
survey of drive-in audience members in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area (Luther,
1951). Drive-in theatregoers were typically older than patrons of traditional
theatres (where attendance tends to wane after age 25): 19% of spectators were
aged 12–20; 45% were aged 21–30; and 36% were over 30 years of age.
Further, 54% of cars contained families with children. Drive-ins also reached a
more diverse audience as they typically ignored Jim Crow laws (Cohen, 1994).
While automobiles enabled privacy and comfort, the overall drive-in experience allowed patrons to interact with others as much, or as little, as they
pleased. As Sopko observes: “With its casual atmosphere, double features,
and tantalizing treats, the drive-in lured many families away from formal
indoor theaters. … Kids and adults socialized freely without the fear of disturbing other patrons” (Sopko, 2008: 5). Indeed, the social and entertainment
options afforded by drive-ins became such that “the total experience was more
important than the movie itself” (Sopko, 2008: 7). For this reason, some
drive-ins did not even advertise the titles of films being shown (Giles, 1983).
We now turn our attention to the reasons for why drive-ins declined in the
decades following the 1950s.
3. The Post-1950s Decline of Drive-ins
Some had viewed drive-ins as nothing more than “passion pits” during their
early decades, as the cloistered interior of a vehicle allowed for amorous
behavior in a relatively private setting. Life magazine noted that one of the
29
benefits of attending the drive-in rather than indoor theatres was that, “You
are not distracted by love-makers behind you. And can do your own lovemaking in privacy” (Life, 1951: 105). Similarly, Variety magazine referred
to drive-ins as “passion pits with pix” (qtd. in Durant, 1950: 24). Amorous
couples were drawn to the inconspicuous nature of drive-ins: “At a time
when there were few socially acceptable places where couples could channel
their passions, the back of the drive-in lot was a safer place to ‘park’ than
anywhere else” (Bell, 2003: 222).
By the 1960s, independent teenagers were quickly becoming the primary
audience for drive-ins. Teenagers who had once gone to the drive-in as small
children “were now old enough to drive and pursue social lives away from
their parents” (Sopko, 2008: 8). Apart from socializing with friends, teen life
also involved dating – and, although many establishments had parking laws
prohibiting romantic conduct, “the back rows of the ‘passion pits’ were
perfect places to go when teens wanted to be intimate” (Sopko, 2008: 8).
Drive-ins of this period were “havens for teenagers who alienated the older
generation” (Horton, 1976: 236), and the appeal for families diminished.
From the 1960s through the 1980s, the movies exhibited at drive-ins
changed in tandem with audience demographics. To appeal to younger
audiences, drive-ins began exhibiting movies that were less family friendly.
Increasingly, exhibitions featured “blood, gore, or porn movies” (Lobban,
1996c: 12). Horton (1976) examined movies showing at a Midwestern drivein during the summer of 1976 and found that the films were predominantly
softcore pornography and “hot car movies.” Not surprisingly, many drive-ins
then developed a reputation for being seedy and steamy. This made them unattractive to many potential theatregoers, especially families (Lobban, 1996c).
Suburban growth, and the subsequent rise in commercial real estate values
and property taxes, caused much of the decline of drive-ins from the late
1970s to the late 1980s (Cohen, 1994; Sopko, 2008). An estimated 1,000
drive-ins closed between 1978 and 1988 (Sopko, 2008). Many drive-ins that
remained opened were resigned to showing more second (or even third) run
movies, and the loss of income made selling their land increasingly attractive
(Shiffer, 1990). Commenting on the decline of drive-ins during this time,
Bruce Austin noted that: “The key factor in this decline of the ozoners
[drive-ins] is the price of real estate” (1984: 33). Austin also examined the
motives of drive-in patrons by conducting personal interviews with 607 customers at a Rochester, New York drive-in between 1981 and 1982. Respondents were asked for the most important reasons they attended drive-ins:
18% were motivated by drive-ins being less expensive than indoor theatres;
17% by the comfort of drive-ins relative to indoor cinemas; 16% by the
privacy afforded by drive-ins; another 16% by the ability to have fun (for
example, to party, drink, and smoke); 8% by being outdoors; and only 8%
stated they were motivated by the movie itself. Austin concludes that: “For
30
many, the motion picture being screened, it seems, serves as merely a backdrop and the drive-in lot as a convenient meeting place” (1985: 87).
The downfall of drive-in cinemas continued from the 1990s to the present
day. While scholarly research on drive-ins during this period is scant, Sopko
(2008) notes that drive-ins often had to wait six weeks or more after indoor
theatres to get “new” (i.e., first-run) films until the 1990s. More recently,
researchers have observed that operating drive-ins was becoming less
attractive due to underlying changes in the structure of the industry (Fox and
Black, 2011; Fox, 2015).
We now turn our attention to how technology has altered the drive-in
experience over the years and culminated in a development that is currently
impacting the viability of those drive-ins that remain; namely, the move to
digital projection.
4. Technology and the Drive-in Experience
Drive-in cinemas are an exemplar of “roadside architecture” – structures
inspired by the automobile and designed to attract the attention of passing
motorists (Bell, 2003). Their overall layout is intended not only to make
viewing a movie appealing in terms of sightlines, but also to move large
numbers of automobiles in and out of the venue in an efficient manner (Bell,
2003). The most prominent architectural feature of drive-in theatres is the
screen tower.
Along with the viewing experience itself, screens have changed considerably over the decades. Early screens were typically fashioned out of canvas,
which proved problematic as they “acted like sails in the wind and often blew
down” (Lobban, 1996a: 8). As a result, screen structures were developed on
steel towers with weatherproof panels that could withstand wind of up to 120
mph (Lobban, 1991a). The introduction of CinemaScope in the 1950s further
altered screen tower design and appearance. In what was likely a response to
burgeoning competition from television, the cinema industry lauded a “wider,
curved, and angled screen in order to provide an undistorted film image”
(Shiffer, 1990: 4). To accommodate CinemaScope, drive-ins retrofitted or
replaced their existing screens.
Screen towers often faced a nearby highway to allow the back of the
screen to function as a billboard (Shiffer, 1990). These marquees featured
the name of the theatre, program details, and highlighted other attractions or
facilities a drive-in may have (Lobban, 1996a). Frequently, drive-ins also
embellished the backs of their screens to complement their marketing campaigns and attract new customers: “Many painted the backs of their screens
with art deco designs, wild-West themes, and local high school mascots, enhancing these ‘billboards’ with bright neon lights” (Sopko, 2008: 6). Instead
of using the backs of their screens as billboards, some drive-ins with multiple
31
screens incorporated “twin” construction as an economical construction effort
– an hourglass layout with movies on both sides of the screen (Luther, 1951).
The progress of drive-ins also led to the development of projectors for outdoor use (Lobban, 1996a). While outdoor projectors could be situated closer
to the screens than the indoor projectors typically housed in, say, concession
stands, there were still significant technological challenges owing to both the
large screen size and outdoor conditions. Projection technology has remained
relatively unchanged over the years. Until recently, drive-ins used 35mm
projectors; however, film studios have moved towards distributing film in a
digital format. As I will discuss later, the cost of these digital projectors has
created major issues for the survival of drive-ins.
Over the years, the drive-in auditory experience has also been enhanced
markedly. Sound at drive-ins has evolved from low-quality, mass projection
technologies to more advanced in-car (or portable radio) systems with improved sound quality, comfort, and ease of use. Initially, drive-in speakers
were located alongside the screen and blasted sound at the audience. As these
speakers were similar to public address systems (Shiffer, 1990), infiltrating
surrounding areas with noise was a primary concern – especially when driveins were close to neighborhoods. Hollingshead sought the help of engineers
from Radio Corporation of America (RCA) to not only address this issue, but
improve projection technology as well (Taylor, 1956). The technologies RCA
developed subsequently gained widespread use in drive-ins. Speakers were
positioned in in-ground grates to correct the sound blast issue; however, the
sound quality was worse than the original speakers near the screen (Shiffer,
1990). Further, “the accumulated volume of the hundreds of small speakers
was almost as bad as one big blast” (Taylor, 1956: 102). Drive-ins then
placed speakers on poles between cars. Nevertheless, this resulted in lowervolume speakers and “many patrons complaining that they still had to lean
out of the window to hear the movie” (Lobban, 1996a: 8).
In 1941, RCA’s in-car speakers became commonplace at drive-ins.
Although these speakers were also placed on posts, they could be removed and
hung from a semi-open car window. Patrons could now control the volume
of speakers to suit their individual preferences (Taylor, 1956), meaning they
could better enjoy the sound. Further, the new speakers also made attending
the drive-in during inclement weather more attractive than it had previously
been (Lobban, 1996a). However, hanging speakers had their own problems –
in particular, these speakers had to survive the elements and withstand customer abuse (Lobban, 1996b). In 1958, AM radio receivers in cars were
tested at drive-ins and by the 1970s, listening to movies in FM stereo had
become commonplace (Shiffer, 1990; Lobban, 1996b). This remains the case
today, but patrons without car stereo systems can bring a portable radio to
the theatre to listen to a movie.
32
Less faulty sound systems, and better sound quality, modernized drive-in
acoustics. Using car audio also resulted in a more enjoyable drive-in experience for patrons, as it gives them the choice to roll up their windows to be
more insulated from other patrons and use air conditioning or heating as
needed to be more comfortable.
In recent years, the transition to digital projection has been the most significant and threatening change in motion picture technology. The following
discussion examines this trend and the impact it is having on drive-in theatres.
5. Digital Projection: The Most Recent Challenge Facing Drive-ins
Digital projection enables movie studios to save on distribution costs by
delivering movies wirelessly, in digital format, to theatres. Historically,
drive-ins exhibited 35mm films; however, the conversion to an all-digital
format requires new projectors costing anywhere from $60,000 to $150,000
per screen (Rezsnyak, 2012).
Digital distribution and projection affects drive-ins in a number of ways.
First, if a drive-in elects not to go digital, they will no longer have access to
new films. Today, as is the practice with multiplexes or other indoor theatres,
most drive-ins show first-run movies (Fox, 2016). If a drive-in forgoes the
conversion to digital projection then they will be limiting themselves to
older, 35mm films. This has led some drive-ins to close, as such films are
less appealing to patrons than new releases. For example, the Motor Vu in
Twin Falls, ID closed in 2015 when it opted not to convert to digital and could
not source enough films in the 35mm format. Motor Vu’s general manager
explained: “At best, we secured four films. They were new films. We’ve also
pursued second run movies or classic movies, but even those are hard to
secure” (Dunlap, 2015).
For drive-ins that adopt digital projection, the costs and renovations involved are considerable. Drive-ins typically need to remodel their projection
rooms to house digital projectors, as they need a dust-free and climate controlled environment. This explanation from an unsuccessful crowdfunding
campaign for a drive-in in Idaho Falls, Idaho, also named Motor Vu, gives
some idea of what is involved in renovations to install a digital projector:
“…special rooms ‘clean rooms’ must be built to house the digital projection
system. Digital projectors need to be kept between 55 to 80 degrees yearround. Special heating and cooling systems must be purchased to protect the
digital projectors year-round, as well as, internet service must be provided even during the off-season” (Motor Vu Drive-In, 2015).
Concern over how the conversion to digital projection will impact the longterm viability of drive-in cinemas has led to several initiatives. In 2013, Honda
created Project Drive-In to aid theatres jeopardized by the digital switch. The
initiative allowed supporters to vote for their favorite drive-ins in hopes that
33
the theatres would be rewarded with new digital projectors. Over two million
votes were received (Honda, 2014). Although Honda had originally intended
to donate five projectors, they expanded the campaign to give away ten.
Some drive-ins also established their own crowdfunding campaigns, asking
supporters to contribute to the cost of new projection equipment. Despite
these efforts, a number of drive-ins have closed their doors.
In order to help understand how the move to digital has affected drive-in
theatres, I focused on drive-in closings between 2012 and 2016 (see Appendix). Over these four years, 55 drive-ins closed and only 319 remained open
in the summer of 2016. The primary reasons for closing, based on media
reports and statements from the drive-ins themselves, are noted in the Appendix.
At least 34 of the drive-ins that are closed appear to have done so for reasons
associated with digital projection. Those drive-ins typically found the costs
of moving to digital projection prohibitive. I also attempted to categorize
whether drive-in closings were permanent or temporary. While 42 of the 55
drive-ins confirmed they were permanently closed, the status of the remaining
13 is less clear. Some are attempting to raise funds for a digital conversion,
and the inability to do so is the most prominent reason for remaining closed.
It is fair to say that, although most drive-ins appear to have moved to digital
projection, if additional drive-ins lack the financial resources to do so then
this portends a further drop in drive-in numbers in the next few years.
6. Conclusions and Directions for Future Research
Despite the challenges faced by drive-in cinemas over the decades, much of
their historic appeal remains today. Often called “ozoners” to signify their
open-air ambience, the main attraction of drive-ins has always been the experience of viewing a movie outdoors. However, we know very little about
the present-day drive-in experience. Part of the motivation for attending
drive-ins today appears to be the same as that of attending indoor theatres: to
see recent release movies. Much of the marketing of drive-ins focuses on the
value they offer patrons by exhibiting double features (Fox, 2016), so it is
fair to say that perceptions of value may also influence audience attendance.
Much of the modern appeal is also tied to nostalgia (Fox, 2015). However,
with fewer and fewer drive-ins remaining, it is questionable whether such
sentimentality will have a similar effect on future generations.
The last audience surveys of drive-ins were conducted in the 1980s
(Austin, 1984, 1985). Austin (1985) proposes that:
Moviegoing is embedded within such contexts as the physical
ambience of the theater, the form of exhibition, the type of film
being screened, the attendance unit, and so on. Moreover, these
contexts are themselves both interactive and mutually dependent
34
(i.e., there is contextual layering); the implication for audience
research is that such contextual layering needs to be taken into
account (p. 75).
Given the unique role of drive-ins as a movie-going experience, as well as
the vast technological and social changes that have taken place since their
inception, it would be beneficial to conduct contemporary research on drivein patrons’ characteristics, practices, and experiences.
REFERENCES
Alicoate, J. (ed.) (1942). Film Daily Yearbook of Motion Pictures. New York: Film
Daily.
Austin, B. A. (1985). “The Development and Decline of the Drive-in Movie Theater,”
in B. A. Austin (ed.), Current Research in Film: Audiences, Economics, and
Law. Vol. 1. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 59–91.
Austin, B. A. (1984). “Portrait of a Contemporary Drive-in Theatre Audience,”
Boxoffice, May: 33–38.
Bell, S. (2003). “From Ticket Booth to Screen Tower: An Architectural Study of
Drive-in Theaters in the Baltimore-Washington, DC-Richmond Corridor,” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 9: 215–227.
Butsch, R. (2001). “American Movie Audiences of the 1930s,” International Labor
and Working-Class History 59(Spring): 106–120.
Cohen, M. M. (1994). “Forgotten Audiences in the Passion Pits: Drive-in Theatres
and Changing Spectator Practices in Post-War America,” Film History 6(4):
470–486.
Downs, A. (1953). “Drive-Ins Have Arrived,” Journal of Property Management
Research 18(3): 149–162.
Drive-ins.com (2017). “Drive-in Theater Database,” http://drive-ins.com/theaters.
Dunlap, T. (2015). “Motor Vu Drive-in Faces Permanent Closure,” Magic Valley
Times-News, April 22, http://magicvalley.com/news/local/update-motor-vu-drivein-faces-permanent-closure/article_25e448a8-86e3-57c4-9c17-4869b7111b61.html
Durant, J. (1950). “The Movies Take to the Pastures,” Saturday Evening Post,
October 14: 24–25, 85, 89–90.
Fox, M. A. (2016). “Double Features and Exhibition Programming Choices for
Drive-In Movie Theatres,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets
12(3): 11–24.
Fox, M. A. (2015). “The Economics of Drive-In Theatres: From Mainstream Entertainment to Nostalgia on the Margins,” Economics, Management, and Financial
Markets 10(3): 43–66.
Fox, M. A., and G. C. Black (2011). “The Rise and Decline of Drive-in Cinemas,”
in Sam Cameron (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Leisure. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar, 271–298.
Friedberg, A. (2002). “Urban Mobility and Cinematic Visuality: The Screens of Los
Angeles – Endless Cinema or Private Telematics,” Journal of Visual Culture
1(2): 183–204.
35
Giles, D. (1983). “The Outdoor Economy: A Study of the Contemporary Drive-in,”
Journal of the University Film and Video Association 35(2): 66–76.
Gomery, D. (1985). “The Coming of Television and the ‘Lost’ Motion Picture
Audience,” Journal of Film and Video 37(3): 5–11.
Hollingshead, Jr., R. M. (1933). Drive-in Theater, US Patent 1909537.
Honda (2014). “Honda Project Drive-in Helps Fund New Digital Projector for
Brownsville Drive-In,” News Release, April 24, http://www.hondanews.com.
Horton, A. (1976). “Turning On and Tuning Out at the Drive-In: An American
Phenomenon Survives and Thrives,” Journal of Popular Film 5(3/4): 233–244.
Life (1951). “Drive-In Film Business Burns Up The Prairies,” Life, September 24:
104–108.
Lobban, G. (1996a). “The Great Outdoor Movies: The Story of the Drive-in. Part
One: From Passion Pits to Family Entertainment Centres,” Cinema Technology
9(2): 8–11.
Lobban, G. (1996b). “The Great Outdoor Movies: The Story of the Drive-in. Part
Two: From Drive-in to Drive-by,” Cinema Technology 9(3): 4–5.
Lobban, G. (1996c). “The Great Outdoor Movies: The Story of the Drive-in. Part 3:
Drive-ins Versus Multiplexes,” Cinema Technology 9(4): 8–12.
Luther, R. (1951). “Drive-in Theaters: Rags to Riches in Five Years,” Hollywood
Quarterly 5(4): 401–411.
Marchant, T. (2001). “Drive-in Theaters of Northeast Wisconsin,” Voyageur: Historical Review of Brown County and Northeast Wisconsin 18: 50–56.
Maxwell, J. A., and M. N. Balcom (1946). “Gasoline Rationing in the United States,
II,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 61(1): 125–155.
Motor Vu Drive-In (2015). “Save the Drive Ins/Idaho Falls, ID,” July 22, https://
www.gofundme.com/motorvutaketwo.
Napsha, J. (2014). “Brownsville Drive-In Dives Into Digital Age,” May 10, TribuneReview Live, http://triblive.com.
National Association of Theatre Owners (2017). “Number of US Cinema Sites,”
http://natoonline.org/data/us-cinema-sites.
National Centers for Environmental Information (2016). “US Climate Regions,”
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-regions.php.
Pullman, R. E. (1958). “Drive-in Theatre Operation,” British Kinematography 32(4):
92–106.
Rezsnyak, E. (2012). “Dodging the Digital Bullet,” Rochester City Newspaper,
December 12, http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com.
Segrave, K. (2006). Drive-in Theaters: A History from Their Inception in 1933.
Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Shaw-Smith, M. (2009). “Drive-ins: The Last Great Picture Show,” Cricket, March:
34–37.
Shiffer, R. (1990). “Something New Under the Moon: Drive-in Movies for Motorists,” Society for Commercial Archeology Journal 11(2): 1–6.
Sklar, R. (1994). Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies.
New York, NY: Random House.
Sopko, J. (2008). “Movies, Motors and Memories: Westmoreland County’s Drive-in
Theatres,” Westmoreland History 13(2): 4–9.
36
Taylor, F. J. (1956). “Big Boom in Outdoor Movies,” Saturday Evening Post,
September 15: 31, 100–102.
Underhill, Jr., C. R. (1950). “The Trend in Drive-in Theaters,” Journal of the Society
of Motion Picture and Television Engineers 54(2): 161–170.
Appendix Reasons for Drive-ins Closing Between 2012 and 2016
Name
Airline Twin
Drive-In
Apache Drive-In
Location
Winchester,
Indiana
Globe, Arizona
Argo Drive-In
Theater
Belmont Drive-In
Trussville,
Alabama
Belmont, North
Carolina
Bessemer City,
North Carolina
Summer Hill,
Illinois
St. Joseph,
Missouri
Bessemer City
Kings Mountain
Clark 54 Drive-In
Cooke Brothers
Drive-In
Dixieland DriveIn
East Bend Twin
Drive-In
Galva Autovue
Theatre
Gemini Drive-In
Theater
Quapaw,
Oklahoma
Decatur, Ohio
Grafton Drive-In
Grand View
Drive-In
Grafton, West
Virginia
Grandview,
Iowa
Grand-Vu DriveIn
Twin Falls,
Idaho
Harpersville
Drive-In
Harperville,
Alabama
Kane Road DriveIn
Keno Family
Drive-In
Aliquippa,
Pennsylvania
Pleasant Prairie,
Wisconsin
Keysville Drive-In
Keysville,
Virginia
Moneta, Virginia
Mayberry DriveIn
Melody Cruise-In
Moonlite Theatre
Galva, Illinois
Eau Claire,
Wisconsin
Springfield,
Ohio
Abingdon,
Reasons given for closing
Owner retired. Costs of digital
prohibitive given low profitability.
Costs of digital. Not profitable
enough. Land more valuable for
other uses.
No reason given.
Notes
Permanently closed.
Costs of going digital. Maintenance
costs.
Costs of going digital. Dwindling
attendance.
“Personal reasons.” Currently for
sale.
Management issues; disputes
between owner and operator.
Owner trying to sell property.
Now operating as a restaurant.
Permanently closed.
Now operating as a fast food
restaurant.
Trying to raise funds to convert to
digital.
After going digital in 2013, land
was sold for use as fertilizer
containment facility.
Costs of going digital.
Permanently closed.
Tried to crowdfunding for
conversion to digital, but only
raised a fraction of their $35K
target.
Owner retired. Also box office
extensively damaged after a vehicle
crashed into it.
No reason given.
Permanently closed.
Costs of going digital.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Last opened in 2013.
Permanently closed.
Currently closed. May
reopen.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Didn’t open in spring
2016 as website said it
would.
Permanently closed.
Land was leased to operator. Lease
not renewed so land could be used
for another purpose.
Costs of going digital.
Permanently closed.
Fire.
Permanently closed.
Costs of going digital.
Permanently closed.
Unprofitable. Costs of going to
Last season 2013.
37
Permanently closed.
Virginia
Motor Vu Drivein
Motor Vu Twin
Drive-In
Motor-Vu DriveIn
Mt. Zion Drive-In
Northern Nights
Drive-In
Owen Drive-In
Pageant Drive-In
Park 60 Drive-In
Pine Hill Drive-In
Prides Corner
Drive-In
Pymatuning Lake
Drive-In
Red’s Crescent
Drive-In
Reynolds Drive-In
Sky View DriveIn
Sky Vu Drive-In
Sky Vue Drive-In
Theater
Sky Vue Drive-In
Theater
Sky Vue Twin
Drive-In
Skyborn Drive-In
Theater
Skyline Drive-In
St. Albans DriveIn
Star Vu Drive-In
Star-Lite Drive-In
Starlite Drive-In
Sun-set Drive-In
Theater
Sunset Drive-In
Tower Drive-In
Tri-City Drive-In
Twin Falls,
Idaho
Imperial,
California
Idaho Falls,
Idaho
Mt. Zion, West
Virginia
Lancaster, New
Hampshire
Seymour,
Missouri
Medicine Lodge,
Kansas
Jamestown, New
York
Piedmont,
Missouri
Westbrook,
Maine
Andover, Ohio
Red Cresent
City, California
Transfer,
Pennsylvania
Tompkinsville,
Kentucky
Idaho Falls,
Idaho
New Castle,
Indiana
Lamesa, Texas
Winchester,
Kentucky
Fairborn, Ohio
Logansport,
Indiana
St. Albans,
Vermont
El Dorado,
Kansas
Anniston,
Alabama
Mitchell, South
Dakota
Mansfield, Ohio
Vernal, Utah
Rule, Texas
Beaver Dam,
digital prohibitive. Refurbishment
on “indefinite hold.”
Owner retired. Suffered $28,000 of
water damage from burst pipe.
Costs of going digital.
Not profitable enough.
Owners trying to raise funds to go
digital.
Costs of going digital. Operating as
a snack bar.
Owners trying to raise funds to go
digital.
Owner died.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Currently closed. May
reopen.
Last season 2014. May
reopen.
Currently closed. May
reopen.
Permanently closed.
Costs of going digital. Trying to
raise funds.
Costs of going digital. Drive-in
sold.
Owners blame low funds, faulty
projector, & repeated vandalism.
Trying to GoFundMe raise funds
for digital.
Media speculated they couldn't
afford to update to digital.
Owners struggled with costs of
conversion to digital & declining
business. Land sold for use as a
storage unit facility.
Switch to digital. Limited
availability of 35mm films.
No reason given.
Last season 2014. May
reopen.
Permanently closed.
Costs of going digital. Currently
for sale.
Historically unprofitable. Property
sold for industrial development.
Fire.
Last opened in 2013.
Costs of going digital. Property for
sale.
Media speculated they couldn’t
afford to update to digital.
No reason given.
Permanently closed.
Costs of maintenance and of going
digital.
Costs of going digital. Property for
sale.
Damaged by storm.
Permanently closed.
Costs of going digital. Drive-in not
profitable enough.
Owner was unwilling to invest in
digital.
Fire.
Costs of going digital.
New owner currently trying to
Permanently closed.
38
Permanently closed.
Currently closed. May
reopen.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Last opened in 2014.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Last season 2012.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Currently closed. May
Kentucky
Twin Hi-Way
Drive-In
Rocks,
Pennsylvania
Twin Hills DriveIn
Horrodsburgh,
Kentucky
Valley Drive-In
Waverly,
Tennessee
Lost Creek,
Kentucky
Rome, New
York
Wilmington,
Ohio
Way Bak Wyn
Drive-In
West Rome DriveIn
Wilmington
Drive-In
finance conversion to digital, but
only raised $1,000 of $100,000
target.
Operator did not own land, which
has been sold for use as a gas
station.
(Unsuccessfully) tried to get funds
together or a loan for a digital
projector.
Manager died. Land will be
developed for alternative uses.
Costs of going digital.
reopen.
Attendance declines. Costs of
going digital.
Lack of 35mm films.
Unsuccessfully tried to raise funds
to go digital.
Permanently closed.
39
View publication stats
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.
Permanently closed.