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

Cafe Society
141

Without a doubt, there are purists (fetishists?) who have more specific and exacting standards for their own theatrical presence. But most cinemas can’t and don’t comply with these, for practical reasons.

But there are different sort of compromises. I can say my wine is compromised because it doesn’t have that tinge of blackberry that perfectly complements my prime rib. And I can say my wine is compromised because it’s actually Welch’s.

And I completely acknowledge that. We have a generation that’s grown up watching movies on TV and video, and another one that has seen, in many cases, the theatrical experience devolve into a massive PITA.

I certainly hope I’m not included in that because I’ve tried to be very careful about avoiding that impulse. For me, I simply can’t imagine preferring staying at home vs. going to the theater, but I also can’t imagine people not liking liver. It’s a personal taste, and it’s nice that you no longer have to go to a revival house in a major urban market to revisit an old Hawks or Tarkovsky or Renoir. You can do it from the comfort of your own home (and I do, too, if that’s my only option).

But for me, there is something beautiful and graceful and, yes, artful about the effect that a particular shot or movement or audio cue resonates in such a large space. And there’s something about taking a work of art, with all its mysteries and opaqueness, on its own terms, demanding your full attention. Of course, I can choose to watch a DVD and not pause it or rewind or answer the phone or anything else, but in a theater, I’m compelled to. I’ve made a commitment, and the experience may not necessarily be transcendental, but it can be sweetly ephemeral. And seeing something that you know was planted by design by a director or craftsman to fully take advantage of that space (on the screen and around it) can be marvelous–but when it does, it is decidedly not an accident. It has intent and purpose and that’s all I was trying to say. Those moments, outside of the theatrical experience, can be missed. Heck, in the theatrical experience, people might not always catch them (or appreciate them). But outside of that environement, it’s even more likely that they’ll go unnoticed. That’s neither good nor bad; some people are happy with text and no subtext, and there are certainly advantages to being able to watch a scene again or reevaluate something at your convenience if you do want to dig deeper and look more closely. But those are artifacts of technological advantage and completely separate from what the experience, as intended, has to offer.

142

Pure film schoolery. Setting aside your peculiar fondness for being subjected to the creations of anyone who happens to have been given money to put on a show, any film-maker who makes a movie that can only be appreciated like that should be swept out of Hollywood. “Large space” indeed. Tell me, if I am sitting far enough back in a theater then, to the point that it is the same size as my television from my sofa, am I now robbing myself of these magnificent intricacies? If I am sitting in the front row, do fewer subtle touches reveal themselves, or more? What effect does the angle of the seat to the screen play in this?

143

A worthy hypothetical, but one with no answer. Film is a collaborative medium to begin with, and rarely the product of one singular “vision” (though it’s easier to apply the shorthand in many cases). In your scenario, you could end up with a Brazil or a Donnie Darko, and I can tell you which version of each is more artful (IMHO), “vision” aside.

And it still ignores many elements. A film is more than the sum of its narrative parts, so the visual canvas that’s painted in front of your eyes may have a greater resonance throughout the film than the ending that purports to resolve a storyline one way or the other. If it’s all about plot (which some movies are), then resolving that point is important. But sometimes films are fundamentally about tone and mood and ambience and texture, and these are things that are usually communicated more effectively on the big screen. There are many admirers of Blade Runner, but few are fans because of that little stickler of whether Decker is or isn’t a replicant. They’re fans because of the enormity of the world that’s created, the attention to detail and loving fixation on environment that makes that movie live and breathe. And I can tell you which exhibition environment Ridley Scott would value more in an audience appreciating that world he helped create.

:confused: Fundamentally, this isn’t really even accurate. Films are (mostly) shot in 35mm and (mostly) projected in 35mm. In fact, the beauty of film is that I can take 6 reels and run that print in New York, London, Moscow, Capetown, New Delhi, Tokyo, and Buenos Aires without a single technical issue. You can’t do that with video.

Of course, there are upgrades and improvements, and digital is making significant inroads, but if there’s one thing that still does remain incredibly standardized and largely unchanging about the filmgoing experience, it’s that. Now of course, print qualities and the quality of equipment varies (as I mentioned before), and those can diminsh the theatrical experience, without a doubt. But those are still small gradations on the larger continuum (the importance of which, for your own personal experience, will obviously vary).

Yes. But they’re still going to want your butt in the seat in the final outcome.

144

Concur. This is horrifically distracting, and I would advocate public flogging of these people. I’m a movie buff in a movie business, and I get free movie tickets. and I can barely stand to use them due to this happening in every movie I’ve seen for the past few years.

Hey, idiot in the front row. Yes, I can see your iPhone screen light up and yank me out of the film I was enjoying from 60 feet back. CUT IT OUT.

145

Hey, why stop there? If I can’t watch it on my PSP, then it’s not worth investing in at all! :rolleyes:

Your snark and hyperbole aside, it really depends–on what kind of movie it is, what kind of viewer you are, what kind of theater it is, what kind of crowd you’re with, etc. Everyone is different, which is why people’s enjoyment of the experience of watching in a theater is different. But that still doesn’t change the fact that the movie you’re watching was designed and crafted to be seen in that space.

Jeez, it’s amazing how defensive some people are on a position I’m not attacking. If you have an exquisite, fully speced-out, state-of-the-art home theater system, hermetically sealed to allow no distractions of any kind, than more power to ya. That’s great and something you’ll appreciate more than going down to your local multiplex. I’m sure it’s even something that most people would find enormously satisfying as a venue to watch something. But until that becomes a standardized norm in all households, it’s not really worth using as an example. The worst theatrical experience will of course be worse than the best home theater environment. And that “compromise” I discussed earlier will eventually become moot as these distinctions flatten out and the industry goes under a more dramatic seachange that is, admittedly, just on the horizon.

But we’re not there yet, so you can feel happy trying to subject this to Death by a Thousand Ifs, but it doesn’t really change the basic premise.

146

It was produced in the intention and hope that it would be shown in theater but that is purely a commercial concern. You’re not getting any extra art by seeing it in a big dark room. I say that any extra input you think you are getting is entirely imaginary, a product of some theatrical mystique.

147

What you seem to overlook is that for some folks, the movie theater itself (with blinking cellphones, crying babies, etc) is the distraction.

To get your ideal scenario, some people would have to rent out an entire theater for a private showing.

So the continuum would look more like this:

movie theater rented out just for me, where I sit in the middle seat, middle row
… is better experience than …
home theater in my living room
… is better experience than …
movie theater with inconsiderate patrons and their distracting behaviors

Btw, if they eventually come out with goggles that simulate watching a 35 foot screen, would that qualify as artist-intention-immersive for you?

148

You only get as much as you put in. The circumstances around seeing a film in a theater require different levels of focus, concentration, and immersion. You can also often see things differently on a large scale that you might miss on a smaller one. The immersion also triggers different visceral and emotional states. Camera movement, lens flare, deep focus, unbalanced compositions, bizarre camera angles can contribute to feelings of disturbance, disorientation, or a psychological insight into a character or thematic point. These are typically going to be more palpable and immediate in a movie theater. That doesn’t mean you won’t notice them on your set at home, but their impact is diminished when the scale is diminshed.

I’m not arguing that you’ll automatically experience something unique and particular in a theater you won’t get anywhere else for any given specific film. I’m just saying that a theatrical environment is going to be more conducive to discovering and appreciating these specific artistic decisions because they were designed to be discovered and appreciated exactly in that environment. I’m perfectly fine watching Lawrence of Arabia at home, but that jump cut (from match to desert) can take your breath away in the expansiveness of the theater in a way it almost certainly wouldn’t on a TV. You would see what Lean did, but you won’t feel it in the same way.

149

It’s amazing how finely you can split hairs. Reread the quoted text and realize that you are attacking, even if the exact fine point you’re attacking happens to be slightly different from what someone responds to. For a guy arguing subtlety you seem to have a lot of trouble with that.

That’s bullshit goalpost-moving. You and others have posted oceans of text explaining in excruciating detail how it’s the SIZE and SPACE and SPEAKERS that make the movie experience transcendental or some such bullshit while the poor depraved maroons watching at home just don’t get it and never will.

Not “some movies” are better on the big screen; you and those on your side of the fence are arguing that ALL movies by definition are MUCH better on the big screen and that we’re MISSING OUT if we watch them at home. That’s what’s pissing people off because it’s clearly a total crock of shit. There may be some few titles where your argument is true, but I for one am not buying it. I have specifically gone to the theater to see big spectacle movies and I think they suffer from the big screen and loud noises, not helped by them.

Yes, it really really does. It’s YOUR side that needs the thousand Ifs. You proved that by the aforementioned goalpost moving.

150

Name some other movies that get such a big impact from the theater. Specifcally, movies released in the 2000s.

151

I did mention the devolving state of theatrical exhibition already, so I’m very aware of that. Some people are more sensitive to some distractions than others, too (talkers vs. munchers, cel phones vs. babies). I fully recognize it’s not a perfect world, and I have acknowledged several times that the decisions people make to not engage in that experience (so as to avoid these annoyances) is perfectlyl understandable. So, no, I have not overlooked that one bit.

But your state of mind is going to be different in an environment where you have to concentrate vs. one where you have a more casual option to do so. And that still does not ignore the issues of scale when it comes to processing visual information.

:rolleyes: More pointless hypotheticals. Get back to me when it happens and we can swap notes then.

152

Not a pointless hypothetical to me. It’s a real question. Why can’t you answer it now? I’m genuinely curious as to how such goggles would fit into your worldview of acceptable movie experiences.

153

I can’t blame you for having such abominable reading comprehension, so feel free to show me one quote of mine where I’ve intimated these polarized and exaggerated opinions I’m alleged to have stated. I have consistently qualified my opinion as not only decidedly personal, but also wholly conditional. I’ve not made any sweeping generalizations or judgments, and perfectly accept why some people will experience things and prefer things different than I. All I’m arguing is that some things will be experienced differently in a theater because they were designed by the filmmakers to be experienced just for that purpose in that environment. I haven’t said that way’s better or your way’s worse or whatever kind of hyper-sensitive drama you’re attributing to me from the ether. I’ve just stated a simple facts about how filmmakers make their movies with a certain intent. You can like it or not, but that still remains the case.

Well, I did say it was true for some, not all, so you can buy it or not, but don’t pretend I said something I didn’t.

154

Because I don’t know what it feels like or looks like or what kind of sensory experience it is. Maybe it’d be just exactly perfect and maybe it wouldn’t. But it’s something so far removed from anything I’m familiar with (I’m sure there are some VR models out there, I guess) that it seems pointless to speculate on something with so many unknown variables.

How’s “Maybe”?

155

Not all of us need to be forced to enjoy a movie. I can focus just fine at home. For people who cannot focus, and need to be compelled to do so, I concede this point.

156

I for one have never said that. A lot of movies, it doesn’t much matter. I personally prefer to see all movies in the theater, but I’ve said before that a good chunk of them won’t suffer much if at all if seen at home.

It is true, unless you are seeing it at a crappy theater with crappy sound. I feel sorry for people who might otherwise prefer the theater experience but have no choice.

Of course. You’re the guy who thinks he got everything out of The Matrix there was to get watching it in full-screen on HBO.

157

And of course your the guy who thinks I didn’t, so I respect your opinion as much as you do mine.

But I like the direction this thread has taken. So we are agreeing that the theater experience is not clearly better for all movies; for some it doesn’t matter. I imagine we would quibble over percentages. I’d put it somewhere in the high 90s for not mattering. What percentage would you put it at?

This is a big step from earlier pages where those arguing for theaters were arguing on conceptual grounds that by definition applied to all movies ever made.

158

Just a few off the top of my head:

300
Master & Commander
The Pirates of The Caribbean Trilogy
Casino Royale
Watchmen
Kill Bill Vol. I
Apocalypse Now Redux

And isn’t calling yourself a “film snob” when you don’t go to the cinema like calling yourself a “car buff” but not having a driver’s licence?

No-one here is saying that watching a movie at home is the “wrong” way to watch a film. It’s not. The point being made is that it’s an entirely different- and, for most “normal” people, somewhat diminished experience to seeing said film at the theatre.

I’m sorry you guys have so many idiots ruining the theatregoing experience for you. Audiences here are generally well-behaved IME and I can’t remember the last time I had to tell a group of teenagers to STFU or had someone check their e-mail on their Blackberry at a climactic scene. For me, seeing a movie at the theatre (preferably in the Gold Class Lounge if someone else is paying) is the definitive way of seeing a movie. For someone else it might be on their laptop at home on a rainy Friday evening.

Point is, you can’t claim that we had the same experience or interacted with the movie in the same way if one of us saw the movie in HD projection on a screen the size of a tennis court with Dolby Digital surround sound and complimentary popcorn and drinks, and the other watched it on their Macbook drinking a Mojito*.

No-one has, I believed, argued that all movies must be seen at the Theatre or you’re missing out. But there are some- and The Matrix is definitely one of them, IMHO- that just don’t offer the same viewing experience on a TV screen.

*What? It’s not a gay drink. Mo-hee-toe. :stuck_out_tongue:

159

I see around a thousand movies a year. I see almost all of them on DVD. So no one here is saying that’s not a viable option. I even still watch some rarities on VHS. Better than nothing. But if a revival house is playing an old favorite, or if something comes out that I have a feeling I’m really love, I try to see it on the big screen. It’s always preferable, but not always possible. So again, no one is putting down the DVD experience. We’re just describing an additional level of experience which happens in a theater but not on DVD.

Why people take that personally and get defensive about it utterly ludicrous.

160

I’m the gal who saw **The Matrix **about 30 times in the theater because I knew, I KNEW that it would be a completely different experience once it was on video. Glad you like the movie and all, but no, you did NOT get the full Matrix experience. If nothing else, and there are several dozen else’s, the music’s big booming bass during the rooftop scene at the beginning, when Trinity is running, was totally lost on you and, unfortunately, on others who didn’t see it in a theater with a good sound system. The bass turned the tenseness level to 11, made the hair on my arms and the back of my neck stand up, and can never ever be replicated at home. It isn’t a matter of just turning up the bass. It’s everything put together, the scene, the chase, the visuals, the music, the bass, all the elements, and the big screen, widescreen (curved screen as a bonus) as well. And your experience was full-screen on HBO. No, as a matter of fact, I don’t respect your “opinion” that your viewing was as good as mine. I respect that you liked it anyway, and that your way was good enough for you, but it was not, in any way, “as good” as mine.