Criterion Research Project

[swo17]

People are assholes.

B.

[domino harvey]

You can definitely come out of a film liking it better thanks to an audience, but you can also have the experience ruined by an audience. At home, you're only betting on the film's effect on you and not also on the audience sharing your view-- home-viewing is a safer wager to me

[Peacock]

B

I watch far more DVDs than I do films in the cinema, and I just find cinema seats uncomfortable, plus if you're late you get a bad seat etc.
I've seen plenty of prints which look worse than the dvd - and vice-versa of course, so for some films I really look forward to seeing them on the big screen. However, afterwards, upon reflection, I wonder if it was any different than viewing it at home on a big screen - sure it's a little darker in the cinema, but your eyes travel across the screen in the same way; the size doesn't really matter that much once the film gets going.

I dunno, I've seen so many films in the cinema recently with incomplete badly timed subtitles and terribly scratchy prints, which I know have good dvds and wonder if it's worth it. Obviously if there was no dvd of the film I'd go to the cinema, and I really need to get surround sound if I want my home viewing to compete, but yeah, I'd lean towards B.

[bjeggert82]

I’ve been a film critic for over three years now. And after going to countless press screenings with a packed audience and seeing a vast range of movies (from low-brow comedies to high-brow art house fare), I personally prefer option B. Although, this depends largely on the movie being screened…

For mainstream cinema, mainstream audiences tend to take away from my own experience with the show. I understand certain films and/or reactions are expected, like laughing or gasping in fright. And that’s fine. However, your standard rude movie theater behavior—talking, small children, texting, cell phones in general—prove too distracting for me. Sometimes there’s an audience respectful of the material, no matter how rooted in pop-culture it is. They watch, react when they’re supposed to, and when the show is over they clap (I do love it when an audience claps after). Yet the majority of my experiences with mainstream audiences are loud and not respectful to their fellow moviegoer. Still, there’s nothing like a loud, involved audience in the right way… An audience that laughs with a comedy, an audience wherein the children loudly express what they love about the latest Pixar film during the movie, or an audience that screams at the cues in a horror film.

Speaking in general terms, art house or indie movies usually have better screenings, with audiences of people who have, for the most part, gone out of their way to find the film being screened. They watch respectfully, and quietly, reacting only when the film prompts them to. They’re attuned to movie theater etiquette because they care about movies, enough to seek out an independent film. But then again, I’ve noticed a certain sense of snobbery with these audiences, almost like they find themselves better than you because “I’m seeing an art film.” And when they do talk, they feel themselves entitled to do so. So there’s no shooshing them…

Very rarely is there a perfect screening. There’s always someone doing something annoying, and that’s a distraction. But I also see the value of the collective audience experience. Take something like the Grease Sing-A-Long, where hundreds of people in the theater all react in unison to the movie, where the movie seems to join all these people who have almost nothing else in common—that’s just wonderful when that happens.

The problem seems to be that not every moviegoer respects the movie as much as you do. Some people are going to soak up some good cinema, to sit and “read” the film. Some are going because they’re bored and could care less about the film. Some are going because they’re killing time and they leave an hour into the show. Some are going because they won free tickets on the radio, and who cares if you shout at the screen anyway.

This unpredictability of audiences is one of the movie theater’s greatest advantages, and one of its unfortunate annoyances. So, when I really want to submerge myself into a film, I do so at home.

[Numero Trois]

'A'
This is the only possible choice considering that most people's home screens are basically postage stamps compared to even multiplex screens. The movie experiences I remember most vividly are the ones where I actually went to the theater. Scratch that. Maybe the only vivid movie experiences I can recall are from theatre going. Clicking 'play' on the remote control doesn't hold a candle to sitting in a darkened hall with other people. Theatre going has more to do with life than does video watching.

i do not own a single criterion dvd to this day. This company had zero effect on my love for the Cinema (seriously, no offense intended!). Maybe its Euroland and/or living in a city...

If you live in a dense enough city with a vibrant cultural scene then you probably don't need Criterion...

[accatone]

If you live in a dense enough city with a vibrant cultural scene then you probably don't need Criterion...

This raises the question of a city that has (only) a "home video" scene…and how this/that will be able to generate a (social) culture at all…

[Numero Trois]

I didn't mean to say that culture comes from home video. I meant that a good size city will be energetic enough to support at least a few active movie revival theaters. There's less need for home video in areas like that, one would hope.

Another good reason for going to the theatre is that the beer tastes a lot better there.

[LQ]

A for me. I've traveled hours to catch films in a theater that I could just watch on DVD. Nothing beats the cinema experience, especially for first-time viewing.

[Brian C]

Nothing beats the cinema experience, especially for first-time viewing.

Exactly my thoughts.

So, A for me also. I hit 100 movies in the cinema on the year so far today with a screening of THE WILD BUNCH, and watch relatively few movies at home.

[Saturnome]

I guess the answer would be ...A? That's my thinking that theater must be better, but how should I know? I have never seen any of my favorite films in a theater. Or even simply something I really liked at least. I'm a kid who raised himself to adulthood with DVDs. Who fell in love with .AVI files. At least I'm glad I once saw a old and terrible looking print burning in front of my eyes (now I think I haven't seen a non-digital film in years) but that's it. That wasn't part of the film.

The lone arthouse theater near me is of the semi-arthouse kind (aka nothing older than 5 years ago, never what you want to see, and a lot of unspectacular documentaires). The theater is way too small and a single person three rows in front of you can ruin the whole thing, and it seems like you can hear everyone coughing and sneezing (at an incredible rate, do I cough so often without realizing it?) better than the film. It's also simply projecting DVDs, I don't get the idea. I hate this place and I prefer my home to this. Imax and Multiplexes are way better, yet they'll rarely show what I want. So huhh... I'll vote... nothing. I feel stupid.

[Zinoviev]

Well, if you have a decent print, properly screened, in a comfortable theater with an engaged, attentive audience, then A all the way.

Because none of these ever seem to coincide, then 99% of the time for me it's option B.

Not to sound like some luddite asshole, but cellphones and the culture of texting have all but killed the experience of going to the theater.

[Murdoch]

I guess the answer would be ...A? That's my thinking that theater must be better, but how should I know? I have never seen any of my favorite films in a theater. Or even simply something I really liked at least. I'm a kid who raised himself to adulthood with DVDs.

Me, too, I've never seen any films I can say I love in theaters - Yojimbo once, but it was fleeting - they've all been either multiplex blockbusters I saw on a lazy day with nothing better to do, or more recently art/international films that were new releases and I've been ambivalent toward. I've even begun avoiding the theater since the only good arthouse is too long a drive and my experiences there, and elsewhere, have been mixed.

B for me, but if I ever get that private theater I've been wishing for then A all the way

[Lemmy Caution]

B

One problem is that the size of the theaters has shrunk to underwhelm/undermine the Big Screen feel.
Plus I can't stand the goddamn advertisements.
100% offensive that I buy a ticket to sit down and watch large, booming commercials.
I've always preferred films projected in classrooms, student centers, outdoors on a wall, etc. rather than dank theaters anyway.

At home, I get to watch a movie of my choice, on my schedule, and make my own intermission.
Would be nice to have a large screen at home, but I'm fine as it is.

[Jonathan S]

A. Cinema is still at its best in the actual darkened cinema amongst a group of people. No matter if the print is in rough shape.
B. No, I think watching a restored Criterion style presentation of a film at home is preferable.

I think you're really asking several different questions, i.e.
Do we prefer viewing films in public or private? Alone or with others?
Do we prefer a 35mm (or whatever) print to a digital presentation? (I know many cinemas are digital too but "rough shape" suggests a print.)
And maybe even: Do we prefer a pristine restoration to an unrestored print?

Like several others here, my answer would be A without the people (or with people I choose) - a Ludwig II of film rather than opera - so the realistic answer is B.

I haven't seen a film theatrically for years - even though that was the only way to see them (apart from 8mm/16mm) - until I was about twenty. I've had too many film experiences ruined by audiences, and if anything the National Film Theatre-type ones tittering throughout say a silent drama were worse than those in mainstream cinemas. At home I can at least simulate the theatre experience by projecting in a darkened room and invite one or two people who will, I hope, like the film and behave appropriately (and if they don't I can eject them!)

I'd still prefer to see an actual film print to a video/digital presentation of any kind. And - though I wouldn't prefer a rough, scratched, spliced copy - neither do I like 100% pristine digital restorations that remind me I'm watching it that way. This is particularly the case with silent films when all the titles are unnecessarily remade or "frozen" for stability. But I'd also prefer (and I realise this is eccentric) cue blips at reel ends to remain. For me they were always a part of the theatrical (or, in the past, TV) experience, even on a brand new print, and gave me an almost subliminal sense of a film's architecture. Without them I find myself consulting my watch - which has nothing to do with being bored.

[Finch]

My experience is similar to Peacock's: classic films are often shown in prints that are severely lacking compared to a decent DVD, let alone a Blu-Ray. So the excitement of seeing a classic film on the big screen is tempered oftentimes by lousy prints though fortunately the Filmhouse and Cameo audiences are almost always attentive and spare you talking on their mobiles etc. The multiplexes are another matter but with films I really want to see like Shutter Island or Inception, I'm prepared to choose an evening screening to avoid the pesky teenagers etc.

I appreciate the collective experience (seeing Moonstruck with an appreciative audience was lovely in spite of the terrible condition of the print) but like Peacock, I prefer home viewing.

[Jonathan S]

Still, there’s nothing like a loud, involved audience in the right way… an audience that screams at the cues in a horror film.

I was told by someone who attended one of the first London showings of Hitchcock's Psycho that for much of the second half many in the audience - who would (or should) all have been over 16 - were not just screaming but on their feet and literally shouting at Martin Balsam etc., "DON'T GO UP THE STAIRS!" and so on. I guess it was a perfectly genuine reaction, unlike the poseurs who shout at the screen to draw attention to themselves, but I don't think that level of involvement would enhance the film for me.

Whenever I fantasise about a time machine that would take me to the pre-1950 era of cinema I love most and never experienced contemporaneously, and think about the huge choice in every town and the beautiful nitrate prints, I give myself a reality check. Just for a start, could I cope with the fog of smoke in front of the screen (nearly everyone smoked then), or the arctic temperatures in UK cinemas for many years? My mother told me that after WW2 especially, when rationing was in many respects worse than during the war, she needed to take her thickest coat to the cinema! Well, at least there were no mobile phones...

[colinr0380]

I agree with much of the above - A is probably the best choice, but B is often the only realistic option if you don't live in an area with many cinemas (I'm a little unfortunate in this respect since I am based almost exactly in the middle 'dead area' between Manchester and Sheffield. Both cities have a few good art cinemas but I don't get to either regularly enough to have got around to scheduling a film trip as an addition to other tasks. It would have to be a specially planned trip and usually in those cases I can often just wait for the DVD), especially if you don't want to have to tailor your life to film screening schedules.

I can see how living somewhere like London or New York could provide such a variety of material to see that you wouldn't need any kind of home video format (and also rarities that would not be, or become, available on home video), but even then it would be nice to be able to programme your own viewing rather than be at the whims of the cinema's marketing decisions (the same kind of 'limited choice based on commercial considerations' is the case with both the television schedules and what companies release on DVD/Blu-Ray, but there comes a point when an individual may have enough material collected to be able to make their own decisions of what they wish to see relatively outside of those limitations), so that is another point in B's favour!

But then certain films work better in the cinema - I liked Saving Private Ryan much more seeing it in a packed cinema with a few good friends compared to seeing in on video months later, where the many flaws became much more apparent. The cinema screen overwhelms and maybe bludgeons the audience into submission more, while I feel that viewing films at home can lead to a much more intimate relationship. But this is part of what I like so much about films - just as our relationship can change with a particular film over time and repeated viewings, so the venue where we see it, who we see it with and how they react can also add different things to our appreciation of what is bascially the same fixed set of unchanging images.

It is important to be open to and aware of how our reactions to a film changes, and I think that this is perhaps the most important aspect of cinema - not only in opening up new ideas and environments that we would never think of or see otherwise, or to introduce us to vivid events and characters, but also to open up a dialogue within us of what we may think about a film and why we might have these particular reactions to the same piece of work compared to someone else (and then to try and communicate our own reactions to others in a sensitive manner without being too overbearing about it!)

[Matt]

Well, if you have a decent print, properly screened, in a comfortable theater with an engaged, attentive audience, then A all the way.

Because none of these ever seem to coincide, then 99% of the time for me it's option B.

Not to sound like some luddite asshole, but cellphones and the culture of texting have all but killed the experience of going to the theater.

Ditto for me. But when I've had the opportunity to see a film In 35mm that I've only previously known from home video, it's always been a great experience: 2001 in 70mm on "the largest screen in the Midwest," the restored The Red Shoes, The Shining.

[zedz]

A, without question. I've seen plenty of films whose impact is catastrophically diminished on the small screen but only a handful where it went the other way - and they were generally of negligible merit to start with.

And I've feeling very sad on behalf of those people who have never seen a great film on the big screen. A sign of the times, I guess, but nevertheless it's sort of mind-boggling.

[matrixschmatrix]

A, no doubt. I'm honestly confused about all the bad experiences people have at the movies- I've seen them in Florida, Massachusetts, New York City, LA, and Paris, and I've only had one or two cases where the audience did any damage to the experience of the movie- it's definitely the exception and not the rule.

Although for Tarantino movies, which in several cases can be taken as comedy or horror/tragedy- Inglorious Basterds and Reservoir Dogs, for instance- the audience always seems to assume comedy. That's honest, and not fighting against the movie, but still often uncomfortable.

[Kellen]

A. I love watching my movies in the cinema, Since I was a little kid I just always thought that there was something super awesome about going and watching movies at the local theater(no matter what kind of film it was.) However, I can see and respect the latter option as well. I've had my share of moments when I get awful seats and chatty people next to me. I just chalk it up to the movie experience though.

["membrillo"]

B. I abhor public cinema now.

I used to think there was something worth while about sitting in a cinema. (Independent, Art House or Rep)

Then I discovered projectors. Then Blu-ray came out. Then OnDemand was introduced.

Uncomfortable seats and other "people" are a thing of the past. I rarely go out to watch films any longer.

I now have a dedicated screening room at home with a 100" screen. I still dont understand why people say they need to watch films in a a cinema with "other people" because it does not make sense to me. I prefer to watch films alone.

Get a dedicated room and decent equipment.

[knives]

A.
Though watching TS3 tonight I may have to switch to B. Can the screens get any smaller? Even with the half size though the experience managed to be more powerful than it should have. The same's true with all of the movies I've seen on the large. 2001 barely makes on the home format, for example, but is truly unreal in theaters.

[jbaart]

definitely B although I don't have the time to explain right now :/

[Steven H]

A. the only things I can't tune out while watching a film are distractions in my own home.