How We Watch Movies

Posted by keelsetter on December 28, 2008

Crowd watching film.

As somebody whose livelihood is wrapped up in film exhibition, I’m always interested in movie-watching trends. Three years ago I was party-hopping on a Halloween weekend and noticed that most of the houses I visited had digital projection systems and people were using their walls to emulate the big-screen experience in their own homes. I’d been doing this myself for over ten years, using both 16mm projectors and then early digital devices that were, by today’s standards, quite crude. Now everybody is doing it, and the projectors are delivering quality that is jaw-droppingly good. For example, I recently purchased a Panasonic PT-AE3000U for special shows at my film series to accommodate filmmakers who shoot on HD. I took it home to play around with it and familiarize myself with this device and… wow. I wanted to both laugh and cry. Laugh, because with 1,600 lumens, a contrast ratio of 60,000:1 (an insanely high ratio when you compare it to my first digital projector which had a contrast ratio of 400:1), and full-HD, the films I watched on Blu-Ray projected against an eight-foot-wide screen had finally attained the crisp beauty of celluloid. I wanted to cry because here was a glimpse at the future, and it looks dim for those of us who are already struggling with lagging attendance on the arthouse circuit.

The Panasonic PT-AE3000U

The Panasonic PT-AE3000U currently retails for as low as $2,300 – which is a huge chunk of change for the average consumer, but in a couple years I expect that new digital projectors of even greater quality will be available for around $1,000, and this says nothing of the market that will soon exist for once high-end players that will get dumped on Ebay or Craigslist for a couple hundred bucks by users looking for upgrades. Pretty soon theater-quality screenings will invade the dorms and homes across our nation on a mass scale, and this will have a huge effect on the culture of how we watch movies. Here’s my quick take on the good, bad, and ugly of this situation:

The Good

The Criterion Collection announced this month that they are going High Definition. You can now buy Bottle Rocket, Chungking Express, The Man Who Fell to Earth, and The Third Man on HD (along with other titles). This is great news, because until recently (due in part to the format wars) the selection of films being selected for Blu-Ray release was pretty thin. Blockbusters and action films were favored. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying big-budget spectacles (heck, I saw Death Race over Christmas on Blu-Ray and enjoyed it thoroughly – it felt like a revamped version of John Carpenter’s Escape from New York), but the mind reels with joy at the idea of revisiting the classics via a digitally projected Blu-Ray. This revolution will truly democratize and give access to film lovers who want to share with their friends and families the marvels they experienced when they watched (to pick something recently put out on Blu-Ray), say, the original The Day the Earth Stood Still as a kid on the big screen. In a nutshell: hopefully high-quality and cheap digital projectors will put an end to the insanity of watching films on cell phones and laptops and return to the idea of letting yourself be immersed in the visual world and work created by the filmmakers. Of course, some filmmakers have created works specifically with the idea of it being watched on a cell phone, and that’s an entirely different issue. Last year Sundance invited several filmmakers to create short films that could be downloaded and passed around via cell phone, and these very inventive and fun. One of my favorites was by American Astronaut director Cory McAbee and can be seen here:

The Bad.

I have a good friend who is always talking about how she would love to come see some of the things I program at my film series, but she doesn’t have time and is always behind on the films she has waiting at home. Here is a friend, somebody who could come watch new 35mm prints in my 400-seat venue, and so do for free as my guest, but she never does. Why? Because she’s got a digital projector at home, she’s downloading films off the internet, and already has an embarrassment of riches to choose from. The reason this is bad is because what we are losing is a social component, one that took people out of their homes, to be prefaced with dinner, maybe followed by drinks at a bar, and into a communal setting that would have them mingling with other people from their community in a shared experience. As I’ve mentioned before, there is a collection of pheromones and audible and physical communications emitted by a large crowd of people reacting to a film that can definitely accentuate the experience. Also, let’s face it: true immersion into a film is more likely in a theater where you can not pause the action and where your silence and attention is part of the understood bond of that setting. Much of this is lost in home screenings where only a few people are onhand and a myriad of distractions are often unavoidable.

The Ugly.

Could somebody explain to me the new “added value” features that studios are adding to Blu-Ray discs? The Death Race Blu-Ray that I rented has the usual stuff that is nice to have (unrated extended versions, “making-of” featurettes, director commentary, etc.), but then there’s also: “exclusive interactive applications that allow viewers to communicate with friends and family while watching the film.” Great! Just what I want: a device that ENCOURAGES people to talk through a film. That’s right, “Just plug your player into your Internet connection and connect to BD-Live to chat with friends while watching the movie and conduct your very own private screening discussions.” (Insert sound of me slapping my head and groaning here.)

So here’s a prediction for the future: as our attention spans continue to fragment and our every compulsion is given free reign, there will be a growing number of people who will treat film as a background activity rather than the star attraction. This despite the fact that HD digital screenings can now not just emulate, but actually begin to replicate the original visual integrity of the work in question. Yes, you’ll be able to buy a High Def projector, one that’s brighter and better than what is already within grasp. And you’ll be able to buy it for peanuts. But what you won’t be able to buy is patience you will need as you try to share that experience with people who are playing with their cell phones, talking through the film, and coming and going as they please.

Well… at least more people will be watching films as they were meant to be seen – on a big canvas. A month ago I talked with a student who told me she thought Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey was boring and she didn’t understand why it was such a seminal film. Hazarding a guess, I suggested that maybe she felt this way because she saw it on her laptop instead of a big screen – something she confirmed. When you watch a film shot on 70mm that was meant for a CineRama screen on a something that is only a few inches wide, I don’t care how close you put your nose to it, you are missing the point. Size matters. On that note; I’ll end here with a public service announcement from David Lynch on the subject of watching feature-length films on cell phones:

15 Comments |

submit

15 Responses How We Watch Movies

Posted By Rhonda : December 28, 2008 7:29 pm

Love the Lynch clip. Movies are a communal intimacy. You have to experience them in a theatre with an audience, it’s that simple. And it’s called the big screen for a reason, movies have always been bigger than life and should stay that way. Neither myself nor, I believe, the filmmakers themselves consider these cell phone or YouTube “movies” in the same vein as “2001: A Space Odyssey”, at least I hope not! I recently took my son to see “Harold and Maude” here in Toronto at the Fox Theatre, apparently the longest running cinema in Canada (since 1914), what a pleasure it was to hear other people’s laughter punctuating a longtime fave of mine and to be able to share that with my son. Magic, as movies should be.

Posted By Jenni : December 28, 2008 7:35 pm

We received a blue-ray dvd player for Christmas. I noticed the new feature you mentioned, where one can film oneself talking about the movie as it’s being watched. I also think that’s a silly addition, and it would only make sense if one desired to be a future Siskel and Ebert, and host a movie critique show on PBS!

Posted By Frank : December 28, 2008 10:56 pm

The Social networking websites or Business Social networking blogs are increasingly changing and developing the Presence of the young people into the society! I hope that would help for a better future!

Posted By Al Lowe : December 29, 2008 5:54 am

I think that epics really lose something if seen on a cell phone.
I saw Australia recently, which is a long way, about a zillion miles, from being a great film.
The plot about a crooked cattle baron and a desperate drive to market goes back to Gene Autry. There are so many coincidences in the plot that your head starts to hurt. Nicole Kidman has many changes in costume; after a while I suspected the movie was intended as camp.
However, the film looks beautiful on the big screen and, I assume, dreadful on a small one.
Reducing the size of the screen sometimes takes away the only merit the movie has.

Posted By john august smith : December 29, 2008 10:05 am

Re Australia, as a long time movie fan (65 years) it is only movie I have ever seen that had three endings!It would have been a better movie if it had been cut to two hours. Having been to Australia it certainly does justice to its vastness.

Posted By Kyle : December 29, 2008 12:23 pm

It’s a shame that this is more the trend. I admit I am just as guilty of staying home and watching more movies that way as opposed to the theater. I suspect that it has more to do with cost (tickets, gas, babysitter, etc;), dealing with rude people and the ease of watching movies at home. But when I do (unless I have people watching with me), I miss the shared experience. I look at movies like a Rorschach test and I’m always ready to talk to people about a movie and hear their reactions and thoughts. It fascinates me how two people can look at and interpret the same film differently.

Posted By Richard Harland Smith : December 29, 2008 2:00 pm

People are shortchanging one another on human interaction so much these days that why should movies be any different? We’ve never had more gizmos and devices for communication and people have never been less present, less in-the-moment and real. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to Facebook.

Posted By PKShaw : December 29, 2008 3:40 pm

The best way to watch movies, for me, is curled up on my sofa with the fireplace lit and my own snacks. Loud children, whom usually shouldn’t be in there in the first place, cell phones ringing, and uncomfortable seats have driven me out of the theaters and back to my living room.

But then there is seldom anything new at the theater I’m interested in seeing. What’s with all the close-ups? Why is it essential to the plot that we be able to count the actors’ nose hairs?

Posted By Mike : December 29, 2008 8:31 pm

The erosion of public filmgoing goes hand in hand with the dearth of intelligent film criticism. No wonder established film critics like Richard Schickel and others are being laid off as internet pod critics take their place with no credibility or writing skills but it doesn’t seem to matter in the current culture. And to top it off, we thought all this new technology was going to save us time, not add to the load. How many social networks can you juggle and still find time to do the things you really need to do like take out the garbage, fix that leaky faucet, take the dog for a walk?

Posted By Suzi Doll : December 30, 2008 12:52 am

A very thought-provoking post. I agree totally with your comments about the social nature of the film experience as well as the importance of screen size.

I, too, have had students tell me that a particular classic film was disappointing or boring, only to have them confess that they watched it on their TVs, or worse, their computer screens.
One of the films I like to show in class is JAWS. Almost every student has seen it — but on a small screen via cable or DVD. When I show it in class, which is held in a tiered room with the film projected on a sizable screen, there is often at least one or two students who scream out loud when the shark pops up to scare Roy Scheider. Though the kids are extremely familiar with the film, most admit in discussion that they didn’t realize it was so good, or so scary, or so exciting. In other words, they may have seen it, but they hadn’t experienced it. The power of the big screen to thrill, excite, or move simply cannot be matched at home on the small screen.

I have a Sony Trinitron tv that is over 25 years old, and I don’t intend to get a new TV till this one blows up. People are always amazed that as a film lover I don’t have the latest behemoth flat-screen with stereo sound and the works. Well, if I did, it still doesn’t duplicate seeing a film in a theater with an audience, so why bother. The industry can tout Blu-Ray, Green-ray, Pink-ray, or any other home-viewing system/process they want, but watching a film at home will NEVER be a comparable experience to seeing a film in the theater — NEVER.

Posted By Keelsetter : December 30, 2008 2:14 am

There are many great comments and threads here. Thanks to all who wrote in. I’ll limit myself in response to two:

1) Facebook: I joined this social network specifically to try to figure out how to make it work as a promotional tool for my film series and, so far, have failed miserably. (Hope, nonetheless, springs eternal). Tangible results of my “Facebooking” include worsening carpal tunnel syndrome along with more time staring at the computer screen. Still… I have to admit to being fascinated by the family pictures and videos posted by people I haven’t seen in years, or even decades. These include a short home-movie made by the single-digit munchkin of some guy I only briefly knew in college that left me quite impressed and moved by her awesome narrative and Steadicam-like prowess. (Again: file under “hope.”)

2) The theatrical experience: Size matters. Seeing a film theatrically matters. But if you have the right space in your home we now have the technology to allow you to turn that space into a small yet compelling theater. My house has vaulted ceilings and an open enough floorplan that I could, if needed, fit 30 people in my living room to watch something that fills the entire wall. At work, my venue has 400 seats – and yet on a couple occasions I’ve gotten better attendance in my living room then I have at my 400-seat theater. (I’ll leave my outdoor screenings out of this for now.)

My main argument is this: movies made for the big screen should be seen on a big screen, but as more people replicate the big screen experience in their own domestic environments they will shun the theater in even bigger numbers, unaware of how they are still missing key ingredients of the theatrical experience despite being able to project high quality digital images large against a wall, blanket, or whatever. To be so thoroughly cocooned at home so as to not interact with strangers, or your community in general, is one thing. Not seeing the film in a controlled environment that requires you (ideally) to focus on the film itself is another. Together, these two elements are, for me (as both film lover and programmer) a sign of a significant shift in how we, as a society, watch movies.

Posted By medusamorlock : January 2, 2009 8:35 am

As somebody who lives out in the boonies, with a single-screen theatre in town and the nearest multiplex about 30 miles away, it’s a challenge for me to catch the newest releases and forget about anything classic on a big screen. I have to confess that I’ve become a big fan of the computer sites where the new movies are posted (yes, pirated), in crummy versions and sometimes not so bad, because at least it lets me see, even in a clearly less-than-ideal version, what’s out there. I know I’m seeing some manifestation of the movie, and not the real deal, but when the alternative is not seeing something at all for months and months, I just can’t wait. It’s more about being informed, I guess, than being entertained and moved by the film as a proper theatre viewing would provide. When I lived in a city, I’d go to many movies every week, but circumstances are different now and I’m so grateful that there are alternatives where I can at least participate in some way in the movie experience!

Posted By keelsetter : January 2, 2009 12:04 pm

Medusa – while you may have a poverty of theatrical options you certainly have a wealth of reverence toward the art of film, and that goes a long way.

Mike – I wanted to add to your comment about the “dearth of intelligent film criticism” by noting that many small and independent theaters were hurt by something that has been happening for many years: shrinking local newspapers. Specifically; as many newspapers cut costs by firing local writers and resorting to more wire services, the result was there was no support for informed and local film criticism of the movies bring brought in by arthouse cinemas or calendar houses. Instead, there was a proliferation of redundant coverage for the already highly visible blockbusters.

Posted By teenyaileeny : January 3, 2009 11:56 pm

It’s not just about the size of the picture, but also the sound that a real movie theater brings…my university’s student film society brought “The Shining” last Halloween, which I’d only ever seen on a TV, and it scared the pants off me in a way that I never truly experienced when watching it at home on our TV and its tinny sound system. The sudden cuts and loud noises of “The Shining”–and those enormous wide angle shots of the hotel and the mountains–even though I knew what was coming at every moment, the shock of seeing it in a theater was incomparable.

http://www.duke.edu/web/movies

Posted By Neville Ross : March 5, 2011 8:59 pm

This does not affect me in any way-I still watch movies on a big screen, so for me (at least) that will never change.

I plan to get a Blu-Ray player, and I love BD Live, especially the idea of being able to do your own commentaries or communicate with those who also love the film. And having movies available in a portable format was the dream of certain people in Hollywood for years, IIRC. Not to forget that digital projection was mentioned by several people (including in an article published in a sister publication of Mother Jones magazine back in 2003) as being the great equalizer that would allow anybody to post their movie(s) on the big screen, and without having to spend a fortune in film processing costs. Rather than feel disturbed, you should be feeling glad, and be embracing what’s going on.

MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.