Explain To Me What You Get Out Of Seeing A Movie In A Theatre

Cafe Society
121

Ah it’s all perfectly clear now. People who would rather see a movie at its intended full size are suffering from a lack of imagination. Brilliant. This explains why I get more out of a book if I go through it and black out every other word, and let my imagination fill in the rest.

The fact that you have to imagine the parts of the experience that you have willfully subtracted from it is a GOOD thing, at least equal to the experience of just not subtracting those things in the first place. Or better. Next time I’m baking a cake and I’m out of eggs, instead of going out and buying some I’ll just imagine them. That will make me almost as smart as PRR.

122

Tell me again how I’m manufacturing insults?

123

Look, the fact that you can watch a good movie on your laptop at a Starbucks in twenty minute installments over a two week period and still like it is not the point. The point is not, “Seeing a movie on the screen is the only way to enjoy a movie; in any other format the movie will suck.” That is NOT the point. Of course if the movie is good–well, if it’s a certain kind of good–you can still enjoy it.

But some movies synergize with the theater experience to make a good movie even better. Avatar, in Imax3D is an overwhelming experience. On a laptop in 2D, the story will be in the forefront and the overall experience will be backgrounded. It may still be enjoyable, but it will not be the same experience. Now not every movie is Avatar; comparing other movies to Avatar is akin to godwinning the thread, IMO. But still, it’s an example–an extreme example–of some of the value seeing a movie writ large vs. on an iPod.

Some of the great masterpieces of cinema build a tension from scene to scene. If you were to watch The Passion of Joan of Arc in fits and starts, your emotional arc will not follow the movie’s emotional arc. You’ll “come down” with every distraction. That’s not to say you won’t be impressed by the surface power of Falconetti’s performance, but you won’t experience it with her to the same extent. Hitchcock suspense is a wonder of timing; of building a tension arc through the movie. Every time you pause, you risk undermining the experience of that arc.

When you watch a movie on a laptop with interruptions, the movie lives or dies primarily on the literal level of its plot. The other subtleties will still be there of course, but it’s still easier to watch a movie that relies entirely on plot mechanics in this manner; movies that require more of an immersion, or a suspension, or whatever, suffer from being brought down off the screen.

Watching a movie on a small screen with interruptions emphasize mostly WHAT happens in a movie, and can diminish the importance of HOW or WHY it’s happening for some movies.

Or, if you lack imagination, you can just watch it over and over again, and eventually be led to the subtleties, like a blindfolded man feeling around for his car keys. If he keeps at it, he’ll eventually find them. Me, I’d just take the blindfold off. But then I lack imagination.

124

True, but what if you genuinely don’t care about things like effects? I’m really not a huge visual person. For me, stuff like dialogue and character development are a lot more important than stuff like CGI or intense sound effects. I can take it or leave it, and I’m really not going to miss it.

125

I’m not aware of any movies that require a big screen to make it better. (Or to be fair, maybe I don’t watch the kind of movies that require it.) You have to realize that for some people, the big screen theater adds nothing to the experience. In fact, it detracts from it.

However, there are plenty of movies where I need to rewind it by 2 seconds to understand a piece of dialogue. Sometimes that dialogue is critical to a later development of the movie.

Hearing car explosions at at volume of 100 decibels at the theater vs 60 decibels at home does nothing for me. As a matter of fact, it irritates me.

126

It has nothing to do with effects. It has to do with the fact that film is a visual medium. Sometimes, the visual aspect is saved for bells & whistles, the ooohs and aaaahs of big production values and fancy, expensive eye candy.

But things like story and character development, theme and narrative subtlety are also told through visual means. Through composition, lighting, and camera movement, not just dialogue. It’s the difference between filming a play and making a movie. They both have words and performance, but a true master of the medium can say more figuratively by saying less literally. A picture’s worth 1000 and such.

So seeing a film at home is a compromise. Plain and simple. Sometimes it’s a satisfactory or acceptable compromise, since seeing it in the theater can be financially inconvenient or logistically impossible, and some people would rather see it that way than no way (or the value of seeing it in a theater is not worth the trouble or effort for their individual experience). Some movies, quite frankly, are one-dimensional enough that very little is gained by seeing them in a theater. That doesn’t make them bad, it just means they’re not firing on all cylinders when it comes to what movies can do. And some movies manage to break through and sustain their greatness no matter where or when they’re viewed.

But not all movies. Seeing a oil painting in a book is different than seeing it in a museum. Listening to a symphony on your Ipod while jogging is different than listening to it in a concert hall. Sometimes there are textures and nuances and details that provoke deeper resonances that require focus and concentration and scale. That doesn’t mean that you can’t enjoy or appreciate a work of an art in the former, but sometimes, with some pieces, there are simply things you are going to miss. That’s not a failure of the piece, that’s just the result of consuming it in a compromised fashion. It doesn’t have to be a judgment, but it still remains an eventual inevitability.

127

Nope.

For many of us, seeing it in the theater is the compromise. Seeing it at home or on a laptop is the ideal experience.

It’s not more immersive at the theater. It’s more annoying.

The only movie I’ve ever seen that requires the theater experience is the Back-to-the-Future ride at Universal Studios. The violent hydraulics motion matches the motion on the screen. The other movies like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Pixar, etc get zero enhancement from the big screen (for me).

128

It may be the ideal experience for you. And if that’s your preference, that’s fine. But it still an aesthetic compromise for the specifics of the medium itself, your preference notwithstanding.

Movies weren’t made to be watched at home and the technology just had to wait 50+ years to catch up. They were (and still are) shot, mixed, composed, lit, and edited to be shown in a theater. Of course, commercial necessities demand that they factor in a home aftermarket. But the artists out there design, arrange, and collaborate to complete a work of art intended to be seen in a theater. You may not get anything more out of seeing it that way, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t designed for people other than you in mind.

129

You’ve constrained the method of watching of movies in such a way that the only people who can ever watch the movie the way the director intended are the executives of movie studios screening the film at the editing rooms.

The movie theater at the White House doesn’t count because Hitchcock, Spielberg, Scorsese haven’t been there and can’t optimize their “movie experience” (whatever that is) to that venue.

I’ve seen movies in open air bleacher seating at military bases next to the ocean. I’m sure the director didn’t intend for the sound of waves to be crashing while their movie was playing.

I’ve also seen movies at the drive-in. Another compromise because we’re now seeing the film through a windshield with the clunky speaker box clipped on the door of the car.

And what if an independent movie maker produces his film using FinalCut on a MacBook Pro? Does that mean we need to all be aware of that and buy MacBook laptops to watch his vision of the movie?

Movies are “meant” to be seen whatever method people want to see them.

130

…

131

:rolleyes:

This bears absolutely no resemblence to anything I’ve said. The WH theater is not a living room. It’s a movie theater. With a large screen. And a projector. Designed for communal viewing. The criteria isn’t nearly as rarefied as you’re alleging. Nice straw man, though.

Absolutely. Innovation in exhibition can be fun, but these are compromised environments. That doesn’t mean they can’t be enjoyable experiences. I’m not arguing that, and have taken great pains to consistently qualify my remarks since a lot of times, unique situations like that are perfectly fine. But there are also certain types of movies that are more conducive to these kinds of venues, and these are the types of movies that can usually withstand these compromisd environments. While other movies seen in open air bleachers or at drive-ins would be unmitigated disasters. Because they weren’t meant to be seen that way. Some films are more pliable than others in this regard.

He can cut it on MacBook, but he’s still going to try to get it to be screened in a theater. That’s the end game, and with very few exceptions, any director is designing his film with that in mind.

Wrong. Any filmmaker will admit that he’s happy to have his film seen in whatever environment and by whatever means it can be. He/she will always want an audience. But do not conflate your idiosyncratic viewing convenience with his very specific artistic intentions. They are simply not the same.

132

Uh, no movie “requires” it, as in you won’t be able to enjoy it any other way, but it certainly will add to the enjoyment & experience.

133

And has the WH theater been upgraded to 5.1 surround sound? Or 7.1 surround sound? Dolby? Is their screen ratio 2.35 to accommodate Panavision? Does any of this really matter?

The end game (actually end games) is often multiple media. Directors often shoot the same scene 2 different ways: one with nudity and profanity “what the fuck is that” and one with bedsheets covering the breasts saying “what the HECK is that”. And even while filming widescreen, many were cognizant of 4:3 aspect ratio and their cameras and editing equipment had crop marks showing how the 4:3 would look.

I’m saying you are overstating artists specific intentions which must translate to some type of transcendental movie experience. A transcendental experience which can only happen at a movie theater.

134

More straw men. I’m not discussing THX-certified blah-de-blah-blahs. But a darkened theater is qualitatively different that a non-darkened non-theater. Some theater environments are not as good as others, but that’s not really the argument here. Nice distraction, though.

These are borne out of commercial necessity. Many directors will also tell you that if they didn’t have to do these things, they wouldn’t. It’s an art form, but it’s also a form of commerce, and these are realities of the marketplace. But again, this has nothing to do with the fundamental argument at play, but another digression.

Well, I work in the industry and have been in direct contact with said artists for over a decade now, so I remain in pretty comfortable standing about my position. Of course, some directors are hacks, and others are journeymen just looking to tell a good story, and some have no pretensions to be anything more than that. But you’re taking the position that it doesn’t matter at all–that a theatrical environment, one that is the bedrock of the moviegoing experience since its inception, is incidental and arbitrary. And that is simply absurd.

And you’re the one using phrases like “transcendental experience”, not me (more strawmen). I haven’t resorted to any such hoity-toity hyperbole. I have repeatedly said that it’s fine if people enjoy things at home. That a movie is better seen on DVD than not seen at all. That the landscape is obviously changing, allowing consumers more choices and opportunities to see things that were not previously accessible. And, most importantly, that I apply no value judgment to these decisions and preferences.

But the fact remains that it is simply not the same. And the fact continues to remain that for 99% of all movies you rent or stream or buy at CostCo, that movie was made, first and foremost, to be seen in a theatrical environment. And that for some movies–not all, not most, but some–that environment plays a not-insignificant role in how the movie fully flowers as a work of art. To deny as much says more about your defensiveness about your own personal viewing habits than it does of your understanding of what the medium is about.

135

It’s true that some movies are made for theater-going. They are meant to capitalize on the fact that a mob can turn mere spectacle into something fantastic and memorable for each of its members. Some may question whether that is the type of art they want to take in. Some say that the theater scene of Inglorious Basterds was in part a commentary on the mob mentality of an audience, that just as the Nazi audience cheered each Allied soldiers death, so too did the real audience thrill at the needlessly elaborate destruction of their theatrical counterpart.
If you think there is any truth in that interpretation then you may have missed something by not viewing it in a truly packed theater.

For me it’s not really worth the money or the hassle, and I’m not really big on art anyway.

136

Nope. I saw 2001 for the first time at the Capitol Theater in New York, in Cinerama, where Kubrick set up everything for its New York opening.

In fact I have seen 2001 in Cinerama, in a normal theater, on a small screen at a convention, on a crappy TV, and on a big screen TV. I have not seen it on a laptop or, Og forbid, on a cellphone. :eek: Seeing it in Cinerama far exceeded any other viewing experience, and it is not just the thrill of a first viewing, since I saw it in Cinerama twice.

BTW, the Mona Lisa looks better in person at the Louvre than it does on a jigsaw puzzle box.

137

I thought it was a valid argument because you keep using the word “compromise.” To me, compromise can most certainly encompass unoptimized environments.

I suspected this based on your earlier posts.

I’m saying there are some people who don’t perceive, sense, the “theater” experience. I’m noticing that other folks in this thread are projecting their awareness of theater benefits (bigger screen, louder sound) onto folks that don’t notice them or find them annoying.

138

You have got to be kidding me on this.

The Mona Lisa at Louvre is very anti-climactic and a total letdown. You will see more details of this painting in an art book! The problem isn’t the painting itself. The problem is that you’re forced to stand 20 feet away from it behind a guard rail and Leonardo’s work is encased in bulletproof glass.

Most of the other paintings at Louvre, you can walk up to and see the actual brush strokes and dried bits of paint curled up on the canvas.

139

Sure but that doesn’t say anything about the art. If all we care about is vulgar human sentimentality and the notion that being around something famous transfers some of its magic onto us… Well I guess that’s fine, actually. Why not? I just hope you’re not one of those scientistic sorts.

140

Here’s a hypothetical to think about.

Consider the production of a movie where the director’s contract does not give him the ultimate authority over the “final cut.” The movie producers exercise their right over the “final cut.”

The director wants the movie to end on a sad note. The movie producers disagree and want the movie to have a happy ending and they also want voiceover on the entire film to help make it more understandable. The disagreement is so heated that they can’t even get the director to cooperate by filming the happy ending. The movie producers get the 2nd unit crew to film it.

So, the film is released in the theaters with the happy ending and voiceover. This is the “theatrical release” version.

Six months later, they design the DVD release. Because there’s budget for packaging 2 DVDs, they decide to include the “theatrical” and “director’s cut” of the movie.

Now, the question is… which version is more “true” to the artist’s vision?
The theatrical version seen at a big-screen theater?
Or the DVD version seen in the living room with the edits the director intended?

Of course, the ideal scenario is to watch the Director’s Cut on a BIG-SCREEN but this hypothetical doesn’t allow for that. You must choose between watching the wrong movie on the big-screen or the right movie in the living room. Which situation is more “true”?

If the sound level of the explosions and vertical size of the projected screen is more important to you, then the “theatrical” release is more true. If the storyline is more important, then the DVD in the living room is more true.

I believe the artists’ vision is overstated. The equipment for filming changes. The theater chains equipment changes. The equipment used at theaters doesn’t match what the director used. The final product is often a combination between directors and producers conflicting visions.