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.