How Many Times Should You See A Movie

[Exapno Mapcase]

Nathan Lee, over at Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2181157/entry/2181276/), gives me a concrete example of something I've read a thousand times in movie critic speak.

And that much-maligned Billy the Kid section now seems to me, after three viewings, the heart of the entire project, the extra dimension Haynes needs to elevate his material beyond a merely (merely!) dizzyingly (wheee!) clever freefall through, as one of the Bobs puts it, "sign language." This is where Haynes takes his biggest imaginative risk and finds his richest emotional payoff. It's right on the edge of risible, no doubt ("The greater the success," as Bresson once wrote, "the closer it verges on failure"), but would the movie really be better without it?

Dana Stevens, however, writes:
That Richard-Gere-as-Billy-the-Kid segment kind of blew, and I don't mean in the wind.
Assume for the thread that they're both right. If you watch the scene once it's offputting and a failure, but if you manage to get through the movie three times the connections come together and it all works gloriously.

Now forget I'm Not There and go for the big general questions.

Can a movie be good if it takes three (or two or more) viewings to understand it sufficiently?

Does that mean that the movie is too wonderfully dense to take in all at once or that it is so poorly constructed that it can't be taken in all at once?

Should a movie surprise you and be about that initial reveal or should a movie be familiar and fully absorbed before one looks seriously at it?

Do you learn to delve more deeply into the movie the third time through or do you just start to read things into it to justify the time spent.

Does it make a difference if the three viewings are one right after the other or several years apart?

How many movies do you view multiple times? Why? How many movies do you view just once? Why?

What kinds of insights do you usually get after multiple viewing that you didn't see at first?

I'm torn on these questions. I could answer "good" on even days and "bad" on odd days and make real cases for both. And my guess is that the kind of movies that people tend to watch the most times don't repay much in deep psychological understanding while the deep psychological movies that might be worth the effort never get viewed again by the majority of watchers. Are you different if you watch movies over and over? Has DVDs and Netflix and cable tv changed that? Is is different for recent movies than for oft-repeated classics?

Lots of questions. Pick any movie you want to talk about. Doesn't have to be I'm Not There. For the record, though, I saw the movie once, and I'm with Dana.

[GuanoLad]

I think the assumption that an audience member will probably watch the movie more than once if they enjoy it is a sound one, and it's therefore justifiable to make a movie knowing that a second or third watching may be required to understand it fully.

But not at the expense of the rest of the film. You can't just make a confusing maze of weirdness that is only comprehensible if you watch it at least three times, but is otherwise dreck.

[OtakuLoki]

I think Guano Lad's view is probably the best one. I can think of a number of films where I've re-watched and found something new in them or layers of subtlety that I missed the first time around.

But, before I'm going to review a movie like that, I have to have found the original viewing enjoyable. If that first part doesn't work, the rest is dross.

[Le Comte de Mortain]

I didn't at all enjoy The Talented Mr Ripley the first time I saw it, but on a second viewing I found myself appreciating it. It is now one of my favourite films, and I wouldn't mark it down just because I didn't like it the first time. I judge a film on how it affects me now.

[Quartz]

I think the assumption that an audience member will probably watch the movie more than once if they enjoy it is a sound one, and it's therefore justifiable to make a movie knowing that a second or third watching may be required to understand it fully.

I'm not so sure about this. I wonder if these days there are two primary objectives: first to get the moviegoer to recommend the movie, and second to get the moviegoer to buy the DVD? Although I suppose buying the DVD counts as a 'second or third watching'.

[GuanoLad]

Although I suppose buying the DVD counts as a 'second or third watching'.Of course! I don't think the decision to design the film for repeated viewings is a financial one, but is a response to the existence of home theatre, where it will be almost inevitable; it's a very different expectation now than it was 40 years and more ago, so it gives modern filmmakers more leeway to experiment in this way.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

There are certainly some films that are worthy of repeated viewings. A couple ofexamples off the top of my head

The Usual Suspects - knowing the ending makes a big difference to the rest of the film

Airplane - just so that you get all the jokes (unless, of course you sat through it stony faced the first time).

[CalMeacham]

It's a complex question (set of questions, in fact), and, of course, it doesn't have a simple answer. But it seems clear to me that a movie that has no initial appeal won't invite repeated viewings. Even if some core group of critics holds that "No, you just have to give this a chance -- it's not as bad as it appears at first", it seems to me that a film that has no hook to keep the viewer coming back for the required re-viewing has to be judged a failure.

And I'm very annoyed by critics who seem to think that you should know the essentials going in, and that there's no place for revelation or surprises in movies. I hear and read this all the time, and it pisses me off (especially when the critics then go on to reveal crucial plot points. Roger Ebert did this a couple of years ago with "The Human Stain", claiming he had the director's permission. I find it hard to believe.). If the filmmakers didn't thi nk there was a point to keeping this information hidden until a dramatic mopment, they would've told us about it up front, the way traditional Chinese mysteries tell you the murder at the beginning.



As for how many times you should see a film, I don't know how you can answer that. There are details and plot points to movies (and books) that I only discover years later, after more viewings/readings than I can count. Often it depends upon the biewer's experiences, knowledge, and maturity and personal development. How the hell can you quantify that for one person, let alone a collection of disparate viewers? I will say that the main thrust and central implications ought to be clear by the second viewing, or else something's wrong.

[Wee Bairn]

Once and only once- too many movies out there to spend time rewatching something you've already seen, unless its something like Memento or He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not with a neat trick and you want to rewatch for the clues you missed.

[Le Comte de Mortain]

And I'm very annoyed by critics who seem to think that you should know the essentials going in, and that there's no place for revelation or surprises in movies. I hear and read this all the time, and it pisses me off (especially when the critics then go on to reveal crucial plot points. Roger Ebert did this a couple of years ago with "The Human Stain", claiming he had the director's permission. I find it hard to believe.). If the filmmakers didn't thi nk there was a point to keeping this information hidden until a dramatic mopment, they would've told us about it up front, the way traditional Chinese mysteries tell you the murder at the beginning.
I think there is a case often for being informed about the spirit or general sense of a film before viewing (although not specific plot points). I have sometimes been misled by previews and advertising into expecting the wrong kind of film and therefore been disappointed. When I saw 'Tell No One' I would have enjoyed it much more I think if I had known it was basically a conventional thriller. Instead I was preparing myself for an ambiguous and possibly tragic ending, like 'Caché'.

[CalMeacham]

I think there is a case often for being informed about the spirit or general sense of a film before viewing (although not specific plot points). I have sometimes been misled by previews and advertising into expecting the wrong kind of film and therefore been disappointed. When I saw 'Tell No One' I would have enjoyed it much more I think if I had known it was basically a conventional thriller. Instead I was preparing myself for an ambiguous and possibly tragic ending, like 'Caché'.


I certainly deplore the trend of advertising a movie as something it's not (The current film the vBucket List is a case in point. It's asdvertised as a whacky comedy, a la the End, but a Doper hass already claimed it's definitrely not that).


But that's light-years away from revealing surprises and hidden plot points.

[msmith537]

The answer is "as many times as you feel like".

I can watch The Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Terminator and T2, Die Hards 1 and 3, Braveheart, Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, Fight Club, Office Space, Old School, Anchorman, and probably a hundred other movies every single time they are on TV.

It doesn't matter that I've seen them a hundred times or already know the plot twists or I can recite half the dialogue from memory. They are just enjoyable movies to watch.

Of course now that I have a 50" HDTV, I feel compelled to watch every movie again in high dev.

[NoCoolUserName]

Can a movie be good if it takes three (or two or more) viewings to understand it sufficiently?It can be, but the chance that most people will discover its goodness will be slight. As already said by others, there are too many movies, good movies, out there to spend a lot of time re-viewing something that might be good if you only take several more hours to see it multiple times.
Does that mean that the movie is too wonderfully dense to take in all at once or that it is so poorly constructed that it can't be taken in all at once? Could be either. But the chance that anyone will be able to sort it out is small if it doesn't make a good first impression. See #1.
Should a movie surprise you and be about that initial reveal or should a movie be familiar and fully absorbed before one looks seriously at it? A good movie can do both. Or either. Or neither. The surprise is only a small part of what makes a good movie. The previously referenced Usual Suspects is an excellent example. The reveal is wonderful, but when you watch it again, the fact that you know the surprise changes your perception of the movie and it is wonderful again in a different way.
Do you learn to delve more deeply into the movie the third time through or do you just start to read things into it to justify the time spent. Can't answer this one. I see a movie another time because it was good the first time and I want to get more out of it. If I don't get more the 2nd time, I won't watch it a 3rd.
Does it make a difference if the three viewings are one right after the other or several years apart?Of course. Along with your new perceptions because you've seen it before, the time you have spend mulling it over, as well as your new experiences in the world, and personal growth (whatever that may be) change how you see a film. A young person might see their favorite film many times thinking it's the best thing ever made. Then after some years they could see it again and find it juvenile and shallow. "In the eye of the beholder" and all that.
How many movies do you view multiple times? Why? How many movies do you view just once? Why? This varies.
Some I watch again for plot detail: Usual Suspects, Memento.
Some because they're old friends and I'm in that sort of mood: Maltese Falcon, Dial M for Murder.
Some because the subject matter and performance are so compelling that I just must: Man for All Seasons, Lion in Winter.
Others just because they're fun: Galaxy Quest, 39 Steps.
What kinds of insights do you usually get after multiple viewing that you didn't see at first?All sorts. I might see how beautifully a shot is framed, maybe a particular line turns out to be foreshadowing that I missed previously, sometimes it's a nuance in a performance that I missed because I was paying attention to something else the first time around. Or maybe my old brain has simply forgotten some of the things I liked about a movie and I want to be reminded.
I'm torn on these questions. I could answer "good" on even days and "bad" on odd days and make real cases for both. And my guess is that the kind of movies that people tend to watch the most times don't repay much in deep psychological understanding while the deep psychological movies that might be worth the effort never get viewed again by the majority of watchers. Are you different if you watch movies over and over? Has DVDs and Netflix and cable tv changed that? Is is different for recent movies than for oft-repeated classics?The availability of at-will home viewing has completely changed our capability of understanding audio-visual artistic efforts. I can't imagine that filmmakers are unaware of this. On the other hand, many of the movies that I watch multiple times are classics that were made before the home viewing revolution was even imagined (except by Science Fiction writers).

IMHO you can't generalize "the kind of movies that people tend to watch the most times" at all. Certainly most younger viewers watch works that are not so deep, and I know at least one mature, and quite intelligent, person who considers The Matrix to be "the best film ever made." I'm happy for him. :) But others watch "important" or "artistic" works and get considerable insight, and maybe even some of that personal growth, out of them.

[Exapno Mapcase]

The answer is "as many times as you feel like".
I didn't mean the question in the title to be read literally. I was going for something more along the lines of "How many times should you have to see a movie before you understand the director's full intent?"

And the literal answer will obviously vary from movie to movie. I was just trying to start a discussion on an issue I'm not settled on.

[lissener]

I think the real implied question, judging from the tenor of the responses, is Should a filmmaker ever make a film that is more complex than can be absorbed upon first viewing? The resounding local consensus seems to be No: he must make it so that everything of value is all out on the surface. This of course is silly.

Each of you is free to avoid films that offer anything beyond simple surface story, but it's silly to complain when a filmmaker chooses to make something worth digging for, because some of us like digging.

No one--paraphrasing Cervaise here--gets angry that James Joyce wrote books that require serious study in order to absorb all they have to offer, but somehow it's "pretentious"--or whatever the word of the day is--when a filmmaker takes his medium as seriously as an art form as Joyce took writing.

Just because movies can be made with no other goal than a fleeting entertainment doesn't mean that all movies should be made to accommodate the audience who wants nothing more.

Luckily, there are all kinds of filmmakers and all kinds of films.

[John Mace]

Well said, Lissener. I agree 100%. Personally, I don't really like a movie all that much if it's only good for one viewing. I know this is TV and not film, but I just finished my third viewing* of the 2nd season of HBO's Rome, and I liked it as much, if not more, than the first time around.

*it's been raining like a mo-fo around here for the past week or so.

[MovieMogul]

Lissener beat me to it as well (and more succinctly and to-the-point than I probably would have managed). I love revisiting films for a variety of reasons--even ones that I think I might have misjudged the first time around. Sometimes my opinion changes, and sometimes it doesn't. There are "canonical" films that I last saw in college. Part of me is perfectly content knowing I saw them once, but part of me knows that 15 years is a long time, and I'd like to think my taste has evolved and matured since then; maybe a film I dismissed back then is worthy of a second chance. And maybe the giddy alchemic reaction I have a first viewing is stunted when a second viewing doesn't add as much to a movie I loved as I first hoped. Time and availability is always a factor, but even with so many movies out there I have yet to discover, revisiting films and unearthing new, wonderful things about movies I thought I already "knew" continues to be a personal pleasure.

But that's me. Heck, I don't even really consider a film "viewed" by me until I've seen it in a theater. Different strokes for different folks and all.

[OtakuLoki]

I think the real implied question, judging from the tenor of the responses, is Should a filmmaker ever make a film that is more complex than can be absorbed upon first viewing? The resounding local consensus seems to be No: he must make it so that everything of value is all out on the surface. This of course is silly.

I think you're proposing here an excluded middle. Either the film has to be completely transparent upon the first viewing, or it can be complex. And that wasn't what I'd meant to set up, myself.

What I said was that a film had to be enjoyable on it's first viewing. Which is not the same thing, at all.

I'm prefectly willing to go with a film and know that I'm missing things, if I find the overall ride enjoyable. For that matter, ISTR that there are a number of films where the audience perception changes, often dramatically, with repeated viewings, as the viewer becomes familiar enough with the work to spot subtleties that will pass by most viewers on the first viewing.

I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of such films, so I can't offer you a huge list of films that I've enjoyed on the first viewing and found a different, and deeper, appreciation upon later viewings. And, well, I've not seen a film on the big screen for over two years, now.

If you'll allow me to draw examples from anime, however, I think that Neon Genesis Evangelion offers a great deal of rewards for the viewer who goes back, having seen the whole run, and watches the show with the knowledge of what's really going on. (Sorry, it's the first example that comes to my mind - like I said, my viewing has been rather limited for the past several years.) But the original viewing, without that background knowledge, was something I found enjoyable, too. And if I hadn't enjoyed the first viewing, I wouldn't have bothered to re-watch and see the subtleties I'd missed my first run through.

A good, complex work, be it a book, poem, or movie is a treasure. But, I still contend that if it fails to entertain on the first run through for the audience it has failed in its purpose. Repeated study, or viewing, may reveal it to be a great work. But it won't change my opinion that it may be flawed too.

To address Archive Guy's point, though - I will say that's based on the assumption that the viewer hasn't changed during the interval between viewings. Tastes do change, to ignore that is to fall into the silliness that lissener has already accused some of us of falling into. The way I was reading the OP, however, the repeated viewings, to my mind, were those in a short time (no more than a few months) after the initial viewing. Gaining a different interpretation of a work, because the audience has changed, seems to me a different kind of situation than the one that the OP, or lissener, seems to be talking about.

[lissener]

FWIW, I was not excluding the middle; I was addressing the extreme that this board's consensus seems to support.

ETA: On second thought, it's not fair to call it a consensus. More like, the voices of the squeakiest wheels.

[MovieMogul]

A good, complex work, be it a book, poem, or movie is a treasure. But, I still contend that if it fails to entertain on the first run through for the audience it has failed in its purpose. Repeated study, or viewing, may reveal it to be a great work. But it won't change my opinion that it may be flawed too.
Sometimes, though, equal responsibility lies with the audience. Is it the work's fault if the audience goes in with expectations that the work can't live up to? If a work provokes when the audience wants to be placated, or if it subverts when the audience simply is looking for something familiar, does that make it flawed? There are plenty of different sets of expectations and different levels of receptiveness that a work faces when being consumed. Must it be considered a failure if it can't be all things for everyone? That's why I'd hesitate calling it "flawed" simply because it didn't live up to my expectations. Some people are "entertained" by being challenged (even if that's not what they were expecting), while some people consider that the antithesis of entertainment. Nobody will ever agree on everything, and while a critical consensus often develops over time, sometimes that consensus will run counter to what the general public considers "entertainment". It doesn't mean the work is flawed. It just means it's not for everyone.

[OtakuLoki]

Archive Guy, I agree. Which is why I had to change what I originally wrote to say "may be flawed," and simply leave open the possibility.

There are a large number of perfectly good films that I know I'd never enjoy, or didn't enjoy. And there is no flaw involved in that. Just, as you said, a matter of taste.

[GuanoLad]

The resounding local consensus seems to be No: he must make it so that everything of value is all out on the surface.
Resounding? There are only a couple of posts in this thread that say movies should be a one-time only affair. The rest seem open to the repeated viewing scenario.

[lissener]

Resounding? There are only a couple of posts in this thread that say movies should be a one-time only affair. The rest seem open to the repeated viewing scenario.
It's a dead horse around here.

[blondebear]

Blockbuster: seen by millions of people once.

Cult movie: seen by hundreds of people thousands of times.

(or something like that)

[Charger]

I believe this is one of the balances of making a film. You have to make something that is enjoyable on the first viewing in order to lure the viewers into a second helping. There are some terrible movies for which I don't care what subtlties the filmmakers had in store. I am sure all movies have something that repeated viewings would reveal, but the initial viewing should be intriguing enough to bring an audience back.

I am a huge fan of repeated viewings. There are some movies I have seen hundreds of times. Probably a couple of them have been viewed by me a thousand times. The movies that can do this generally have a sort of rhythmic pacing from scene to scene, for which, it seems, few up-and-coming directors have a sense.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Blockbuster: seen by millions of people once.

Cult movie: seen by hundreds of people thousands of times.

(or something like that)
Except that the reality is that most blockbusters make their money because people see them over and over again (and then buy the DVD) while small indie films are viewed once with no thought of watching them again. Cult movies are extremely rare.

And when I asked about viewing a film a second time, I was emphatically not thinking of pleasure films from the Marx Brothers to Star Wars, but the more challenging films that delve deeper into character, theme, and subtlety.

I didn't want to make the thread about I'm Not There. It merely was a handy way of hanging the question onto a specific. But while I was deeply impressed by the film, my take on the Richard Gere sequence is similar to Dana Stevens'. It didn't work and it dragged the conclusion of the movie down with it.

That's a far different matter than whether I liked the film or not. Sure I liked the film. But I thought it was half-great at best. What I thought it was most successful with was in the way it set up scenes that seemed to illuminate the words of the Dylan song that followed. The Gere section didn't accomplish that. Maybe if I kept viewing I would see things in that scene that I missed the first time through or see the missing connections. Or maybe it would poison the whole movie in my mind. I never said that watching a movie a second time would automatically mean that I thought it was better. Sometimes a second view points out failings that I hadn't even noticed.

lissener, you may or may not be right in protesting against the interpretation of some who responded, but I was looking more for responses along the lines of OtakuLoki's. I'm not likely to see films more than once. There are a thousand movies I want to see that I haven't seen and I'm going to favor them over seeing I'm Not There a second time.

Joyce is pretentious. Deliberately so. He was creating the ultimate challenge for the reader. Very, very few other writers do that. I'd venture to say that hardly any modern writers structure a book so that it requires a glossary and a interpretive text as necessary adjuncts.

There may be a few filmmakers who approach film in that way, but they are so few they can be ignored for the purpose of this discussion. Watching a movie carefully and seriously is all that can be expected of most viewers. Those like lissener who immerse themselves in movie culture are far out on the extreme tail of the bell curve. I like movies. I go to fun movies, but I am also among that minority who try to see the intelligent and interesting non-blockbuster movies that sometimes show up. I don't live movies. I don't study the oeuvres of directors or go to film festivals or keep up on Thai filmmaking. I know something about the history of film. This week I watched Skidoo and Torchy Plays with Dynamite and That's Dancing, and not many can say that.

Which I guess turns my question into: if a supposedly intelligent movie fails me the one time I watch it, how fair it is to say that the movie is a failure?

And then any number of questions spark off that. How much of a movie has to fail before it turns into a failure? How much do I have to know about a director or writer or actor's body of work to "get" what they're doing? Is it fair to walk into a movie with no foreknowledge at all and expect to understand all that it is trying to do? Do filmmakers think about these issues and if so how do they answer?

I'm equating good movies with good literature here. I could ask these same questions about serious books. It's just that I've been part of the discussions when it comes to literature but not about movies and I'd like to hear movie thoughts on the issue.

[msmith537]

I didn't mean the question in the title to be read literally. I was going for something more along the lines of "How many times should you have to see a movie before you understand the director's full intent?"

And the literal answer will obviously vary from movie to movie. I was just trying to start a discussion on an issue I'm not settled on.


Oh...then "as many times as it takes". :D



I say, if I can't grasp a movie in three sittings, it's no good.

[lissener]

Joyce is pretentious. Deliberately so.
Maybe we should define terms. "Pretentious" implies dishonesty--it shares a root with "pretend"--not merely difficulty. Did you mean to suggest that the difficulty of Joyce's work is a pretense, a sham, sound and fury signifying nothing? If so, you're wrong. If not, perhaps there's a better word than "pretentious."

[lissener]

. . . if a supposedly intelligent movie fails me the one time I watch it, how fair it is to say that the movie is a failure? . . .
You're looking for a universal law. That's not going to be possible. Take a movie like Haynes's Far from Heaven. Seen simply as an entertainment, it's a visually beautiful, emotionally engaging story about the emotional journey of a woman in a different historical context from yours: suburban America in the 50s. So, if you enjoy it on that level, you can call it a success. But if you've seen the films of Douglas Sirk, the movie contains further layers of richness. Further still, if you've seen the films of Max Ophuls--none of which are available in this country in any form, for an even greater degree of esoterica--there are further layers still. Now how would you categorize Far from Heaven? Is it suddenly not a success because the person sitting next to you might have seen the films of Sirk and Ophuls, and thus responds to different clues than you, who hasn't?

I hope I made that sound sufficiently silly. My point is, each of you is an audience of one. What you get out of a movie is roughly equal to what you put into it. "Success" or "failure" are nonsense words in this context.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Maybe we should define terms. "Pretentious" implies dishonesty--it shares a root with "pretend"--not merely difficulty. Did you mean to suggest that the difficulty of Joyce's work is a pretense, a sham, sound and fury signifying nothing? If so, you're wrong. If not, perhaps there's a better word than "pretentious."
Not at all. There are several other definitions of pretentious that are more apt that you are overlooking.

characterized by assumption of dignity or importance.

making an exaggerated outward show; ostentatious.

Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.

intended to attract notice and impress others; "an ostentatious sable coat"

(of a display) tawdry or vulgar

And one set of synonyms puts it under ego.

Joyce I would put under the 1st and 2nd definitions and possibly under the 3rd, since some - certainly not all - think his claims of merit are unjustified. Hardly pretense or sham. Ego, OTOH, is a distinct contender.

[lissener]

All of those definitions imply, to a greater or lesser degree, dishonesty; disingenuousness. If you mean that Joyce's works are more complicated than they need to be, that's not the same thing as pretentious. Pretentious has the connotation that you are claiming more credit than you've earned, not simply that you've bitten off more than you can chew.

[JohnT]

Can a movie be good if it takes three (or two or more) viewings to understand it sufficiently?

Yes, of course.

Does that mean that the movie is too wonderfully dense to take in all at once or that it is so poorly constructed that it can't be taken in all at once?

Wonderfully dense.

However, many times the difference comes from within the viewer. I get a lot more out of Godfather 2 now that I'm 40 than I did when I was 24, and that's largely because of maturity and experience - I'm closer in age to the main characters and some of their motivations are familiar.

Should a movie surprise you and be about that initial reveal or should a movie be familiar and fully absorbed before one looks seriously at it?

To be honest, they're not mutually exclusive. ;) Movies are about both: the initial experience, and the depth to analyze them.

Do you learn to delve more deeply into the movie the third time through or do you just start to read things into it to justify the time spent.

Naw, I don't think I'm reading things into a movie to justify the amount of time spent on it. I believe that some movies are good enough to justify multiple viewings and I'll still see things on viewing 5 or 6 that I never saw earlier. Often it's an attempt to recapture the original experience of seeing the film - this is usually the reason I would see a movie again while in its first run. For example, I saw Across the Universe twice in the theater.

Of course, many times when you see a movie again you're watching it with somebody who hasn't seen it. It can be enjoyable to watch their reactions to scenes - I remember a loud, girlish scream coming from a 250+ pound friend of mine when he saw The Exorcist the first time.

Does it make a difference if the three viewings are one right after the other or several years apart?

Many movies are worth seeing again 10+ years after the last time to see even if you approach the same movie the same way. My wife and I have been kind of re-watching a number of movies that we loved back in the 80's (when we were teens) and reappraising them:

Grease: A blast to our 11 year-old eyes and ears, a horror as a parent when we realize the message of the movie is "you should turn into a slut in order to get the guy you want." :eek: ;)

Ferris Bueller: Not really identifying with ol' Ferris anymore, not really. This kid is headed into a career as a con artist or aluminum siding salesman - and he deserves it. Later events also bring about creepier interpretations of Jeffery Jones' role in this film.

I watched Ferris a lot when it was released to video then didn't catch it again until a year or so ago when it was on AMC or E! or something. We had a complete 180 on this movie, in some ways.

And a large number of once "good" movies that you now find are utter crap: Risky Business, First Blood (first Rambo movie), Romancing the Stone, etc. It's good to know that the madness of thinking First Blood as a "good" movie has finally lifted. ;)

How many movies do you view multiple times? Why? How many movies do you view just once? Why?

The likelihood of a movie being re-watched is proportional to its chances of being shown on TV or my buying it on DVD. We rarely rent movies that we've seen already - BB and Netflix are used for new viewings, but we'll rewatch movies if they're on TCM, TNT, Sundance, etc.

I also have a 6 year-old, which incorporates a sense of re-watching that also bears mentioning: Her most re-viewed movies include The Incredibles, Beauty and the Beast... and, er, even less revered films such as Barbie: Fairytopia, in addition to big chunks of War of the Worlds and Jurassic Park. Last Friday we popped some popcorn, turned off all the lights in the house, and put on Twister for the first time: Sophie *loved* it.

What kinds of insights do you usually get after multiple viewing that you didn't see at first?

A number of them are insights that maturity brings (Ferris Bueller, above), others are of the "I didn't notice that" issue. Of course, the most common reason for re-watching a movie is because you enjoyed it the previous viewings so insights might not be coming.

Are you different if you watch movies over and over? Has DVDs and Netflix and cable tv changed that? Is is different for recent movies than for oft-repeated classics?

I re-watch movies most on Cable TV, with purchased DVD's being re-watched ocassionally. I rarely rent movies that I've seen before.

We tend to re-watch movies that were made when we were alive: it'll be highly doubtful that I'll re-watch Born Yesterday (1943?) ever again but very likely that I'll re-watch the LOTR films before I die.

[Le Comte de Mortain]

It's patently absurd to lay down by fiat that a work of art (of any kind) must start entertaining you at a certain point or else be considered a 'failure'.

[Evil Captor]

Sitting still and passively watching a screen for 90 minutes is such a boring experience that I find very few movies reward such effort. When they do, I definitely sit up and take notice. When I watch a movie more than once, and generally when I watch a movie period, I have a computer hooked up to the Net to keep my mind busy.

As you may have guessed, I watch very few movies more than once with my full attention. "The Usual Suspects" a couple of Miyazakis and the dinosaur/Kong battle sequence from Jackson's King Kong would be about it.

[Cervaise]

What I said was that a film had to be enjoyable on it's first viewing.Define "enjoyable."

I personally enjoy the experience of being challenged by a movie. I like realizing, as I watch, that there's more going on than may superficially appear, that I will need to work hard to tease out the layers of the film. I enjoy that.

Most people, I concede, do not. Most people want there to be a surface that can be consumed and discarded and depth that can be explored if they so choose. Depth alone is alienating.

For example, this last weekend, I finally got a chance for a second viewing of No Country for Old Men. That's a movie that appears to have a surface, but that discards that surface and goes unapologetically full-tilt into its depth for the last twenty minutes or so. There is no comfortable roller-coaster car to ride into the credits; the floor disappears out from under your feet well before the movie ends, and you either swim or drown. The first two acts seduce you into the conventional thriller mentality, but then those conventions are entirely abandoned.

The typical audience member hates this movie. The woman next to me stood up as the credits began and said, "Well, that sucked." When I grumbled, she said, "That was the suckiest movie I've ever seen in my life."

She's wrong.

The bottom line is this: The limitations of the audience do not represent a flaw in the film.

Complexity may limit the audience, but that is a choice of the filmmakers. It does not represent, objectively, a problem with the film. With the box office, perhaps. But not with the film itself.

And this is a subject that has been argued to death on the SDMB, so I'm not going to belabor it much further. Suffice it to say that most of the audience at No Country reacted as if personally offended by the movie. I think this response is best described as a perceived insult: People hear how great a movie is, they go to see it, they don't get it, and they react as if the movie itself is calling them stupid, as if they're being mocked somehow, and they choose to reject the movie rather than do the necessary work.

They may or may not be stupid, but that reaction absolutely is.




Man, I'm getting crotchety in my later years...

[Tamerlane]

and they choose to reject the movie rather than do the necessary work.

While agreeing in general, I'm curious...

Have you ever put a lot of time into a film that purports ( or is claimed by others ) to have great depth and then found out it really is garbage? Or at least not worth the effort put into it? One where the depth just didn't save it?

Or is all complexity ultimately rewarding? To you, that is :).

[OtakuLoki]

Define "enjoyable."

Aye. And therein lies the rub.



The bottom line is this: The limitations of the audience do not represent a flaw in the film.

Complexity may limit the audience, but that is a choice of the filmmakers. It does not represent, objectively, a problem with the film. With the box office, perhaps. But not with the film itself.

And this is a subject that has been argued to death on the SDMB, so I'm not going to belabor it much further. Suffice it to say that most of the audience at No Country reacted as if personally offended by the movie. I think this response is best described as a perceived insult: People hear how great a movie is, they go to see it, they don't get it, and they react as if the movie itself is calling them stupid, as if they're being mocked somehow, and they choose to reject the movie rather than do the necessary work.

They may or may not be stupid, but that reaction absolutely is.

OTOH, if that much of the audience comes out of the film hating the experience, they're not going to go back to rewatch* it and find the depth. So, for that portion of the audience the film has failed as entertainment. I don't think you could get the woman whose reaction you described to see that movie again by means short of extraordinary inducements.

Now, it's quite valid to argue that not all films view the entire movie-going public as their potential audience. Just as one can say that Joyce isn't for everyone. One can say that just because a film fails with one viewer (even if that one viewer is me) it's not fair to say that the film is a failure. But it's unreasonable to contend that any audience has an obligation to rewatch something that they didn't enjoy before they can pass judgement on it.

So, it seems to me, that we're stuck with restating what seems to me to be a very obvious caveat with regards to any artistic criticism: They tend to be very subjective. Different people will use different criteria, and look to different standards for what they judge enjoyability by.

As an example I just tried to watch the 1922 classic Nosferatu (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0013442/). And while I know why the presentation seemed to overacted to me, I just couldn't stand watching it. For me the film did fail. I'm not trying to say it's a bad film, nor that it isn't influential. Just that my limits as an audience prevented me from enjoying the film - and since I'm not a film historian, nor a film student, I turned it off when I got through half an hour of cringing every time the main character tried to emote. (And don't get me started on the rental agent he worked for...)

It all comes back to, for me, the first purpose of a movie is to entertain. If it fails that first acid test it doesn't matter how wonderfully complex the layers might be.

If you object to the word "fail" would you accept the expression: "unable to capture [part of] the audience"? To me, when we're talking about a movie, the two seem synonymous, but I think the latter might be more palatable to you.



Man, I'm getting crotchety in my later years...

You and me, both. ;)



*In case anyone is wondering I'll confess that I do find my use of "rewatch" awkward, but review just doesn't seem the proper word for this purpose.

[Cervaise]

It all comes back to, for me, the first purpose of a movie is to entertain.Where you and I part ways is your grating choice of the word "purpose," as if a film is a tool or device with some sort of intended application. Change your phraseology to "what I personally seek from a film above all else is entertainment" and most of the argument evaporates.

And yet: Just as I asked for a definition of "enjoyable," I would similarly request a definition of "entertainment." Because for me the two terms are largely interchangeable. For example, I am hugely, hugely, entertained by a movie like, say, Brick, that depends on deep familiarity with a particular cinematic genre, and with several significant touchstones within that genre, for its effect. The unenlightened viewer tries to watch that movie, and may be mildly engaged for a time by the mystery, but is enormously put off by the aggressive style and the (apparently) ridiculous dialogue and characterizations. (I know, I've talked to people who hated the movie and didn't understand the hype.) I don't know if you've seen Brick, but that film, I think, provides a good illustration of the disconnect between "superficial" entertainment, where you can mindlessly enjoy the story or the cinematography or whatever on their own terms without any comprehension of the film's actual intentions, and "deep" entertainment, where you have to engage the film on its own level. These are both entertainment, to me at least.

Have you ever put a lot of time into a film that purports ( or is claimed by others ) to have great depth and then found out it really is garbage?What, you want a list? ;)

Of course this happens. There are lots of movies that bear an aura of complexity and/or maturity and/or name your adjective, but that are revealed by artistic autopsy to be little more than hollow shells. In fact, movies like these are often the triggers for the most enlightening and rewarding film-fanatic discussions and arguments, over beers or in line at some festival or standing in front of the video rental shelves, even more than the acknowledged masterworks. The conversation usually goes like this: "Man, I loved that movie." <wrinkly facial expression from the other person> "What, you don't like it?" - "Well, I used to, but then I saw <other movie> (OR) but then I realized the implication of <plotline> (OR) but then I read an interview with the director that caused me to reconsider..."

I'll give you one example: Donnie Darko. I saw the movie in its initial (pre-cult-status) limited run, and thought it was okay -- interestingly ambitious, but a little muddled. I saw it a second time in its followup (post-cult) release, and my opinion held fast. I sort of got why all the Darko evangelists adored it so much, but then that usually happens when a particular audience is first exposed to a specific storytelling form: it feels definitive, and they fall in love with it beyond reason. Anyway, I liked it fine, though I personally didn't join the cult. The film had, I thought, some swirling currents under the surface that made it worthy of at least some analytical attention.

Then, a couple of years later, I saw the director's cut, which was -- and please forgive the use of somewhat technical cinephile terminology -- dogshit.

The director's apparently preferred take on the film is pretty much a disaster. It over-explains unnecessary plot points, and lays itself bare in a way that makes clear that all the apparent ambiguities of the original cut, the hidden layers that invite cinematic spelunking, are actually illusions created by elliptical editing. All of my interest in the film dissipated like vapor; with the context of the director's intentions now being understood, I went back and reconsidered the original, and not for the better.

(Didn't stop me from seeing Southland Tales a couple of months ago, though.)

Is that helpful?