Straight to DVD

April 22, 2004
Straight to DVD

The idea of chronological generations may have to be set aside. The world we live in now is really measured in technological periods, which have no fixed length and overlap in wildly unpredictable ways. Each of our tools, each of our toys, seems to be rushing us into the future or holding us back. Consider the DVD.

The DVD is an object both feared and loved in Hollywood. DVD sales have changed the economics of moviemaking, and so has the illegal pirating of DVD's. Even a film like "Finding Nemo," which did very well at the box office, is doing even better on DVD. And more than a few people are holding their breath to see what "The Passion of the Christ" does when it is released on DVD, not to mention the director's cut of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

Consumers have unequivocally embraced DVD's, much as they have CD's. And yet an enormous number of people find themselves in a curious state of transition. Some people can't help thinking of DVD's, which offer nonlinear access to their contents, in the linear terms of videotape. Some have fallen in love with the special features — outtakes, interviews, extra footage — jammed onto new DVD's. The clutter bewilders others.

In a way, it's surprising how happily we all wander through the forest of media formats. The reason isn't that we love novelty. It's that we love repetition. This becomes clearer if you think back to the days when movies could be seen only in actual theaters. They came and went, leaving only a memory behind. Now they appear and reappear and reappear, preserved in a format, the DVD, that resists even the gradual degradation of videotape. The catalog grows and grows, and so does the number of times we've watched our favorite movies. The real novelty of this technological era is our indulgence in repetition.

And, of course, it's going to get more complicated. It won't be very long before a new generation of DVD's, suitable for high-definition television, appears. They will hold a couple of hours of HDTV but more than a day's worth of the standard TV format. They will require new players, but they will play all your old DVD's, too. Those machines will only compound our conundrum: in a wilderness of choices, do we tend to make the same ones again and again?



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

Originally posted by JustaFied
Some have fallen in love with the special features jammed onto new DVD's.

I've learned a ton from listening to commentaries from directors, actors, historians and critics. A few "making of ..." features have been interesting.

The catalog grows and grows, and so does the number of times we've watched our favorite movies. The real novelty of this technological era is our indulgence in repetition.

It's become significantly easier to test one's first impressions. Films are now more than ever amenable to close scrutiny. It's become easier to write credibly about films because we no longer have to trust our memories of a film we saw at the theatre.

DVD technology has made it possible to sample films from all over the globe. We are no longer limited to the films distributors estimate will make a profit at the theatre. Buy a multi-zone, multi-format player and you'll have access to great films not available to the average consumer in North America (even some English-language movies). For instance, Orson Welles' masterful Chimes at Midnight (aka Falstaff) is not available here or in the UK, only in Spain (the Spanish subs are removable). Antonioni's The Passenger, starring Jack Nicholson, is only available in... Japan.

The catalog will continue to grow of course. Hopefully some of the neglected works of important directors (past and current) will eventually be made available to film lovers everywhere. DVD manufacturers and distributors are having a great deal of influence as to what films people are watching, discussing and analyzing.

Hope you realize I didn't write this. It was an editorial in the New York Times earlier this week. It touched on a topic I've thought about a little the last couple of years: the effect of DVDs and all the "extras".

I agree with what you've written, and I can't honestly make the argument against the DVD. First of all, the quality of the DVD picture and sound is far superior to that of VHS. This is probably the main reason I seek out DVD instead of VHS when renting or buying a movie.

I also agree that the ability to watch a film at home (either VHS or DVD) is advantageous in that it allows repeat viewing and allows us to see films that we either missed at the theater or weren't showing in our particular area.

That said, my nagging concern has been that the commentaries, "making of" documentaries, etc. can sometimes overshadow the film itself. Great film can have a very personal impact on the viewer (as we've seen in some of the reviews in these threads), and the VHS or theater setting to me seems more "pure" in that sense. Sounds strange, I know. But when you rent a movie on VHS, or see it at the theater, it's just you and the director's artistic vision. When it's over, you've got to wrestle with it in your own head (and with the people you've seen the movie with). Of course, that's still possible with DVD, but there's also the ability to quickly flip over to the director's commentary and let him or her talk you through it. To me, that takes away some of the magic and mystery of the film. When I see a Picasso at the museum, I don't have Pablo sitting next to me explaining what he was thinking. I have to look at it myself and try to figure it out. That's part of the beauty and wonder of art.

Case in point: when I rented Altman's "McCabe & Mrs. Miller", it was an old beat-up VHS tape that had probably been watched hundreds of times. I knew very little about the movie, though I knew I liked Altman (I had seen "Nashville", "The Player", "Short Cuts", "Thieves Like Us"). I put it in the VCR, and I was mesmerized. When it was over, I was left with Altman's vision as captured on film, that was it. The DVD version now has Altman's commentary, but I don't want to listen to it. It takes away from the stark images of the film, in my opinion, to hear him talking over the movie from some office building in Hollywood. It puts the movie back into our era, it breaks the spell cast by the movie itself.

Does any of this make any sense? I hope it doesn't come off as too strange.

Glad you bring this up, JustaFied. My views as follows:

Films are ideally experienced in a theatre. When this is not possible, approximate the theatre experience by taking these steps:

*Purchase a TV set with a large screen (27 inch minimum, I think 35 inch sets provide excellent value)
*Get a comfortable chair and place it a distance from the screen of no more than twice the screen size.
*Watch the film on dvd if available for better image resolution.
*Watch the film in a format faithful to its intended aspect ratio ("widescreen anamorphic" is usually desirable unless its an older "academy ratio" movie).
*Get a good speaker system (which I have yet to do).
*Dark room, except for a dim side light (if you must)
*Avoid reading reviews too closely, especially plot sinopses, before watching the film. If you like to get an idea if a critic(s) like the film, most use grade or star ratings for shorthand. I personally would recommend against rushing out to read any material the film is based on, such as novels or plays. Do it after you've seen the film.
*Avoid commentary tracks and other extra features available on the dvd until after you've seen the film.
*Try to anticipate and minimize distractions during the duration of the projection.

Very good ideas, Oscar. It's important to make the home viewing experience as close to that of the theater as possible. It should NOT be like lounging on the couch just flipping channels. That's where the experience can be compromised. A film is a work of art, not to be co-mingled with an "E" True Hollywood Story.