How to Go to the Movies

[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: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/conten...ors/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