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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?