I can remain silent no longer. This will no doubt cost me whatever street cred I now have as a film aficionado and general person of taste. More and more people are shunning the Movie Theater to watch films on there ever more powerful home theater systems.
And I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Patrick Goldstein’s article in today’s LA Times is only the latest to prophesy the end of the Movie Theater. For his part, Goldstein focuses on the impact on the business side of the equation, which I don’t doubt will be revolutionary. The Talent (writers, actors, etc.) get a ridiculously small cut of DVD revenue, so the move toward home exhibition will no doubt lead to some bloody contract negotiations.
But leave the business models to the suits. What I’m interested in is if going from the multiplex to the home theater is a bad thing for we the filmgoers.
Your local cinephile would have you believe this is catastrophic. They’re fond of pointing out that movie going has historically been a collective experience, something that can only truly be experienced in that idyllic darkened room where a hundred other people hold their breaths at the same moment. It’s a beautiful ideal, but I’m not so sure that it’s true, or that it has much to do with the experience of watching a movie.
First, the obvious: A lot of things about going to the movie theater suck. Cell phones, commercials, $7 popcorn – you know the litany of complaints. I think a lot of this gets overblown, and I’m not so sure that going to a movie is any more annoying than it ever was. But the point is that the ideal world of the darkened cinema rarely manifests itself.
Beyond quibbles over the moviegoing experience, I question the whole notion that the big dark roomful of strangers is essential to enjoying a film. I’ve been moved by films I saw in a theater, absolutely. But I’ve been moved at least as often by films I watched on a television set. The first time I saw Taxi Driver was on a 13" TV with the sound turned down low so as not to wake my friend’s parents. And it was amazing. To this day it’s one of the most powerful, striking films I’ve ever seen. And I’ve never watched it in a movie theater.
So if a film retains its impact outside a cinema, what’s the importance of that roomful of strangers? A movie may be more fun with a big group of people, but that’s true of most things – sports, drinking, sex. The cinephile’s love for the Movie Theater is as much about liking to hang out in crowds as it is about the experience of watching a film.
The one thing the theater has going for it is immersion. The whole thing about the darkness, a really big screen (if you can find one) – that is a great way to experience the film as intensely as possible. And that’s where home exhibition can fall short. Watching a movie with all the lights on, talking on the phone and balancing your checkbook. That’s a sub-par experience if ever there was one. And what’s this business of watching TV (and maybe movies) on an IPod? I’m not sure it’s possible to immerse yourself in a screen the size of my Visa card.
But the Home Theater Movement, if that’s what you want to call it, is actually working to correct many of the problems with watching a film NOT in a theater. A big screen television with a solid surround sound system can create an experience at least as intense as the AMC 16.
I don’t want to see theatrical exhibition disappear. There is something unique about that experience. But is it superior? Is it the ultimate, definitive way to enjoy a film? I don’t think so. I prefer to focus more on the film than on the room I watch it in.
No comments:
Post a Comment