How to Go to the Movies

[oscar jubis]

We should vacate our homes and go to a movie for the very reason that this exodus will force us to take the occasion seriously, to abandon everyday life, to place ourselves for a while where there are fewer distractions.

The way to go to the movies is incessantly. The more often the more exciting it becomes because films teach us how to see them. Films are written in a language that we must learn.

The way to go to the movies is reverently. We must be prepared to believe the most improbable provided it's presented with sufficient conviction and passion. We must surrender our whole beings to whatever reaction the story demands. Thus we shall be spared the appalling likelihood of giving way to indecorous emotion in real life.

The way to go to the movies is critically. That is to say, we must bring two pairs of spectacles. While we must plunge into each picture as though it were happening to us, we must also watch it from a distance, judging it as a work of art.

If we go to the movies often enough and in a sufficiently reverent spirit, they will become more absorbing than the outer world, and reality will cease to burden us. Clearly, the salvation of the Western world is in the hand of cinema.


by Quentin Crisp from article printed in Christopher St. magazine.

[Johann]

I learn more from you oscar than anybody else on these boards-just for stuff like this. What a great little article!

[oscar jubis]

Thanx for the kind words Johann. Glad you enjoyed these comments from the "naked civil servant".

[tabuno]

Why go to the movies? It costs $7 - $10 per person. It's too much money. Why not watch video, cable, satellite, made for television movies, HBO, Sci Fi channel at home on a giant wall screen iin surround sound n the intimacy, quiet of one's personal alcove without distractions, coughing, and crying babies?

[oscar jubis]

It is increasingly possible to approximate the theatre experience at home, even to get audience feedback via net forums. Giant screens and quality speakers also cost money though. I attend matinee screenings and never purchase food or drink to save money. I search for opened-but-mint-condition dvd releases of classic and foreign films. For me, home viewing serves as a complement to theatrical screenings not as a substitute.

[miseenscene]

I will take umbrance to one statement above, though:

"If we go to the movies often enough and in a sufficiently reverent spirit, they will become more absorbing than the outer world, and reality will cease to burden us. Clearly, the salvation of the Western world is in the hand of cinema."

I'm not real sure escaping into a world of fantasy is going to make the perils of the real world any less real. On the contrary, it makes it all too easy for the average cinemagoer to ignore what's going on in the real world, insisting that a critical evaluation of a film is just as important as, say, a war half a world away. I'm all for ravenously engaging the world of cinema, but I'm not in favor of sticking one's head in the sand -- or in the darkness of a movie theater -- to do so.

[oscar jubis]

Good observation, misenscene. When Mr. Crisp writes that cinema can make reality "cease to burden us", he reduces cinema to an art of diversion. Cinema can be a powerful tool in raising our awareness and making us conscious of the lives of others. Cinema can make it possible for us to have access to other realities and points of view. One of the characteristics of a first-world middle-class existence is how easy it is to "stick our heads in the sand", to avoid/deny/ignore the plight others, to isolate ourselves into a controlled environment where pain and death are kept at a distance.

Quentin Crisp's comment is easy to understand though, coming from one who suffered so much because of being poor and gay(when it was dangerous to flaunt it). Still, the comment implies a limited view of the power of cinema.

[Johann]

I've often thought that I waste too much of my time on movies. "sticking my head in the sand", etc.. -I've even sworn off them a few times. (briefly) As Nicole Kidman said (speaking of Kubrick): "There are more important things in life than movies, but the great storytellers are important".
But what I find is there are few other art forms that can give you a myriad of emotional responses so immediately. Going to the cinema can easily be dismissed as a distraction or diversion from reality, but I look at it as something that makes me a better person. I'm fully aware of reality, but I am guilty of going into what friends of mine call "The Zone". When you have a marathon or take a week off of work to only watch films (as I do every few months) I enter a world that exists only in my home. I focus entirely on the films and accept them on their terms. Doing this creates an almost surreal experience where you are almost one with the director and what he presents you. I usually understand films completely this way- even if I can't articulate in words properly what I'm actually feeling- as is usually the case.
With literature (excepting poetry), music, painting etc.. I find it is usually a singular emotional response-whereas with film you can "run" with a story or a character and respond in ways that other art mediums can't touch.

And what's REALLY exciting is that I don't think we've even SEEN the greatest film yet made- or expolited all of the possibilities that the screen holds.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Johann
there are few other art forms that can give you a myriad of emotional responses so immediately. I look at it as something that makes me a better person. I focus entirely on the films and accept them on their terms. Doing this creates an almost surreal experience where you are almost one with the director and what he presents you. I usually understand films completely this way-
And what's REALLY exciting is that I don't think we've even SEEN the greatest film yet made-

Tons of interesting ideas. Lately I'm particularly interested in how "films teach us how to see them". When we watch films critically we are rewarded by improved ability to read, interpret and analize images. We are learning a language. We are learning to discern the purpose and intention of the auteur. Most innovations in cinema are first repellent to the many who want film to conform to a set of expectations (mostly about narrative form but also about content). For instance, when Godard invented the jump cut, many saw it as a disruption in continuity. Antonioni made folks angry when he made the heroine disappear 30 mins into L'avventura and never told us what happened. Antonioni's intentions are clear now. Film is quite versatile in evoking "a myriad of emotional responses so immediately". Cinema is also versatile in that it can present ideas or tell stories or take a snapshot of truth or all three. Directors more interested in presenting ideas rather than storytelling, or who, more precisely subvert narrative convention, are often neglected. I wish it was easier to see films by Kiarostami or Hou Hsien in theatres. Films for those willing to "accept them on their own terms" which does not mean we relax our critical faculties. I look for innovation with feet planted on the history of the medium. Cinema pays you back with interest for that time spent in "The Zone".

[Johann]

Godard may be more important for "the jump cut" than anything else. As Pudovkin stated, editing is the essence of filmmaking. Why does everything have to be spelled out for an audience?

I love how "movies teach us to see them"- thanks- I've never thought of that oscar. (It makes perfect sense) One simple edit can force our mind to draw a conclusion about a scene. Example:
In CHICAGO, towards the end, Velma appears in a run-down club to proposition Roxie for a double act. They are both down and out, but Velma still appears an "upper crust talent". Cut to Velma crouching down and covering her fishnets riddled with runs. Thru this simple edit we now know that Velma is just as desperate as Roxie, and no words were spoken. I love that.
Directors should trust that the audience will "get the picture". So many films insult my intelligence that I often find myself thinking of ways a particular movie could be better told. (Or as i learned from Greenaway: "Could this story have been told better by any other medium than film?")

[oscar jubis]

Nice example. Some musings on "movies teach us how to see them": I think that acquaintance with MEMENTO's narrative structure (chronological scenes shown in reverse order) facilitated my reading of IRREVERSIBLE. It helped me tune into its own internal logic quickly. Also, familiarity with a director can be helpful. Take Lynch and his masterful MULHOLLAND DR. I doubt many not exposed to his ouvre were able to read his cues when we were entering a "dream realm". For instance, the film opens with the camera zooming slowly from a high angle onto a slept-in bed, we don't see a person sleeping but we hear her breathing; the camera inches towards the pillow. Fade to black. Next we see an idealized account of a blonde's search for the Hollywood dream. Later the same approach is used to enter a blue box, meant to announce a murder.

I am fascinated by Greenaway's comment. Are there stories that film cannot tell as well as other medium? I have more questions than answers at this stage.

[Johann]

The more i read about Greenaway the more and more he makes sense. He's created films that have a blinding veneer of impenetrebility (sp?) while upon repeated viewings they reveal the utter ideal of what cinema can & should do. He's stated often: "I'm not a film director. I'm an image-maker". At the moment he's more important to me than Kubrick. Which, two years ago, no one could convince me that there was a better director- although if someone were to deabte it with me on Kurosawa, Renoir, Bergman Ophuls or Keaton, I might have lost.

[oscar jubis]

I'd be making the case for Pierre Auguste's boy.

[Johann]

The older Renoir said to the younger: "Artists only have one idea that they keep exploring over and over. But one idea is all you need for a lifetime".

Greenaway thinks Renoir is a "little too much Father Christmas".

[pipsorcle]

It really angers me that there are people who want those to shut up during a film just because they have an opinion or feeling in relation to the film itself,

Being a moron and jerk during a film is one thing but when someone cheers or laughs, I consider it to be a rewarding experience watching a film in a theatre. I mean, why do you go to a theatre and watch a film with 100's of people?

Watching films with 100's of people, whether you know them or not, is public. Watching films at home viewing, is private. There IS a difference. So if you want people to shut up at a theatre just because they laugh or cheer out of being emotionally attached to a film, well, what are you doing with watching a film with 100's of people anyway? You can watch a film alone and with your kids perfectly ok at home and get no interruptions.

I consider home viewing to be a deterioration of the experience watching a film, however. I like watching films in public because I love having a good time. I only watch films at home to study or to treasure.

And while I own my DVDs, I still say I like the theatre experience much better. I don't care if I pay $9.00-$10.00 for a film. Home viewing takes away the enthusiasm one gets when watching a film in public.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Johann
Greenaway thinks Renoir is a "little too much Father Christmas".
I have really enjoyed your insights and quotes from the auteurs. I've recently discovered an Australian online magazine with the best essays on film directors: www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/index.html

[Johann]

Now I have more reasons to spend time on the 'puter. Thanks oscar! Very well researched site- and compiled by a woman.
I wonder if she's single..

[stevetseitz]

Going to the movies is for me a treat. With my schedule and obligations, I try to take in a few movies a month. In my younger, video-store days, I would watch a minimum of a film a night and I would try to squeeze in at least one theatrical visit a week.

As with all activities to become "good" at watching movies, you must watch a lot of movies. But remember, it's important to keep perspective and poke your head out of the theater now and again! Don't become a "cult of the new" movie goer who robotically sees every new offering from tinseltown.

We need to use the time we have on the planet well and wisely and let's face it there aren't many movies about people who watch movies. "Cinema Paradiso" comes to mind. (Before you mention "Hollywood Shuffle", "Singin' in the Rain", "The Player" and "8 1/2" remember that these are films about people MAKING movies rather than passively watching them.)

Being both emotionally involved and critical is a point that Mr. Crisp and I agree on. Too many films are so much recycled re-packaged junk. Demand better.

[stevetseitz]

Home theater has come a long way baby! With my set-up I can enjoy a big budget blockbuster or a widescreen epic in far more comfort than I can at the theater and the technology is catching up fast. Resolution, audio quality, number of channels etc. is superior on my system than at most cinemas.

[fuzzy_nolan]

How to go to the movies eh?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say...with popcorn.

[tabuno]

stevetseitz makes a giant point about movies at home. Technology will enable everyone to just stay at home and enjoy the richness of picture and sound as if having gone to the movie theater. Thus the question will be will the popcorn and candy, the standing in line as with football games, and sucking in the atmosphere from being in an audience be sufficient to compete with movies at home or is the theater on its last legs?

[Johann]

The big-screen experience cannot be duplicated. At home or otherwise. It will always be just an approximation- unless you're home is Skywalker Ranch.

The conundrum I really have is the fact that so many great classics have to be found on video- it's not so easy to see a Billy Wilder film tonight, next week or next year at your cineplex.

That is how much movies affect me- I relocated just for the increased CHANCE of seeing a classic film properly. Some people would say I'm mentally ill. What they don't know is that I feel it's absolutely neccesary for my sanity to get the maximum sensory output possible from a film presentation.

If you have ever seen an IMAX film in an IMAX theatre, you should agree that the home experience just cannot compete.

[tabuno]

As home theaters become more sophisticated and begin to cover the entire wall of a home, with sound systems rivaling any movie theater, without the distractions of a big audience, the rustling noises, and the intimacy and magic and being alone and "one" with the screen before you, public theater entertainment is going to be in for a big challenge.

I suspect that the distance ratio between the big screen in public and the smaller but adequately large screen at home will allow the definition, resolution, and the scale of the bigger auditoriums to be taken into account allowing the private home viewer to experience the same IMAX impact.

[Johann]

I'll probably get hate mail, but this is what I think about the "home experience":

Home theatre's main attraction is the processing and distribution of sound. I will publicly state I have a very basic system- no Dolby 7.8 gajillion watt receiver or speakers that Aunt Bessie can hear in the next county when I turn the volume knob to "3". No subwoofer making my pantlegs flap in the breeze...

Nope, just a nice stereophonic experience. Why spend the money or go in debt? especially if you can't afford it?

Just to hear that jet fly behind your couch? Or the horses galluping past your lava lamp?
I primarily watch foriegn/classic/silent films and the sound delivery is hardly paramount. It's important, but what is most important is the image size and clarity. (TV set). Remember Plato? He's the true founder of cinema if you wanna get down to the nitty gritty. He wrote about throwing shadows on a cave wall, and SIZE was everything...

I only have a 29 inch RCA TV, but I plan on buying a new monitor- the largest flatscreen I can buy. Why? Because I happen to believe surface area is more important when it comes to home theatre than the experience of having a bomb go off in your living quarters. It's a motion-picture. Not a listen-sound. Those are called CD's, ladies & gentlemen.

Go to the cineplex for your sound fixes- They incurred the bill for the sound systems, and $10 a ticket is nothing to you. There's more where $10 came from, right? COLLECTIVELY theatregoers are paying for the system- not you. Compared to the overall cost of maintaining & insuring a system requiring hardware and software and cable and stands and brackets and all the other trappings.why not just bring your materialistic ass to the theatre.

I'm not knocking the home theatre thing- if offered a high-end system I wouldn't turn it down, but I've got to be practical and
logical- Michael Moore woke me up last year,that bastard, now I have to be conscious of how I live my life. Thanks Mike- How about you buy me a home theatre? I'm a common working man just like you!

[tabuno]

Your comments about home theater and movie theater as you talk about it, makes sense. I can't argue with what you say or how you said it.

[stevetseitz]

I'll be the first to admit I own a system capable of Dolby Digital 5.1 EX and DTS ES etc. I LOVE IT! Sound is a vitally important element to a movie. I have friends who have seen "Star Wars", "Saving Private Ryan" or "Top Gun" several times remark that after watching those films on my system it's an entirely different experience. Some films, like my silent Buster Keaton films obviously don't require full range multichannel sound or THX certified components but you would be surprised how much foley and soundtrack work adds into the emotional experience of film. Another thing a home theater does is it requires you to focus on what your watching. It gives the material the respect it deserves. In my humble opinion, serious and critical viewing can only be accomplished in a dedicated viewing environment. That is why I have my Home Theater in a seperate room. I don't have a TV in the living room, dining room or bedroom and I wouldn't have it any other way. I think the constant din of a TV is rude to guests and distracting. I never like it when someone pops in a movie as an afterthought or to have it going in the background. Like listening to a classic CD, DAD, or LP in a dedicated listening room a home theater is a different and, I believe, superior way to watch a movie at home. Eventually, I will upgrade my 50" HD rear-projection unit for a front projector when I can afford it. Size does matter.

[cinemabon]

When I came across the very first comment posted by Oscar, I had to laugh because I wasn't aware you were on the Board of Trustees over at Fox, Oscar. (I'm just kidding, Oscar. But it did sound like a shameless promotional ad to "go see the movies")

Whether you go to a theater (while most purists will tell you is the best way to see film, and hopefully you've chosen a good theater!) or whether you chose to see a film at home (some modern systems are very close!), most cinephiles will agree that we enjoy this medium and its way of telling stories. While film is far behind literature, it is still a wonderful and enjoyable way to pass an hour or two. We all have our favorites. Video has allowed to reproduce the theatrical experience so we can view our favorites repeatedly.

The question remains, as first proposed, which is better? Well, even though there may be a crying baby or a smelly toad or even a cougher or two; going to the theater is, by far, the best way to see a movie. 35mm film projected onto a glass bead screen still beats digital by miles, although someday in the next decade, digital will finally catch up. Right now, it doesn't.

I have a HDTV, a six speaker surround system, and a progressive scan player. I can tell you that the DVDs on my system look very good. They have probably killed the retrospective theaters for good, unfortunately, because I would rather see "Casablanca" in 35mm than on my 16x9 screen (it was made in Academy Aspect Ratio of 1.33:1). I enjoy my home theater. I paid plenty for it. But give me a theater anytime.



"I can run on a laundry ticket and beat these political bums any time!" Fiorello H. LaGuardia

[stevetseitz]

Perfectly calibrated 35 MM film in a theater may have better resolution and color fidelity, but how often do you go to your local multiplex and see a perfectly focused, pristine print on a perfectly calibrated machine?

More likely we see beat-up prints, the film is slightly out of focus, and the synchronization between the film stop and the shutter openings is slightly off. (this causes a slight but perceptible "smear" easily seen during credit sequences.)

Call me a control freak, but I like to be able to control all the variable in my HD home theater rather than be at the mercy of some 17 year old theater employee who is responsible for starting all the films and then sweeping up popcorn.

Now, if we can just get the DVD Steering Forum to acknowledge blue-laser DVD technology instead of relying on arcane compression schemes we might get some software that is worth watching! Imagine how good a high bit rate HD-DVD 1080P picture could look.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
When I came across the very first comment posted by Oscar, I had to laugh because I wasn't aware you were on the Board of Trustees over at Fox, Oscar. (I'm just kidding, Oscar. But it did sound like a shameless promotional ad to "go see the movies")

The studios reap a bundle from the sale of home videos, bon. My check came straight from the promotional dept. of the American Association of Movie Theatre Owners.

[cinemabon]

Touche