The Irishman is a great example of why it's good to have both home viewing and large screen or Cineplex options: so glad I did not pay $12 to see Robert Dinero dress up and try to act like a 40 year old gangster for three and a half hours.
I can't remember which alter-ego of Mr. Scott believed The Irishman was a great film but both need to be fired for the judgment of one.
Home theater or Cineplex is a silly argument at best. . .but the misrepresentation of a sorry film should not go unchecked.
Seriously!?
These are just movies, not life changing or influencing events! Wow have our priorities become so hijacked that this merits qualifying as news?
The nasty siloing of content may be a temporary anomaly. Consumers want to watch whatever they want, when they want, and cannot afford that if every provider insists on an all-you-can-eat subscription.
The way around that is to shift from the rigid all-you-can-eat model to a more flexible model. Offer “risk-free” subscriptions that start at zero, and scale gracefully to an unlimited cap. Such a “pay ramp” is far more win-win. If you don't watch it, you don't pay for it.
Done right that can work so aggregators like Netflix and providers like Disney can co-exist harmoniously, with overlapping libraries. Co-opetition can let users decide whether they want a direct service or an aggregator, depending on their needs and the value-added services they want. (Details are in a blog post: "'Risk-Free' Subscriptions to The Celestial Jukebox.")
Like most of us, going to the movies used to be a blast, but with streaming I find myself thinking "Why spend the money when I'm still watching "The Crown" or "The Good Bandit" (the most charmingly adorable, hilarious and inspiring series on Netflix, folks, you won't be disappointed). Recently, so many films in theaters have disappointed me compared to these gems. But I still go (sadly, less than I did) because I think, Maybe this time it will be as it once was: totally absorbing, enclosed in blessed darkness, with greatness before me. I am happy to say that this happened yesterday when I ventured forth for "Harriet." Wow! The laser-focused acting, the intensely emotional story, costumes, sets, and breathless action scenes of people escaping brutality for freedom were thoroughly entertaining, often jaw-dropping. I was transported into another world, one without phones pinging, neighbors barbecuing, dogs barking, and all with a big, buttery batch of hot popcorn on my lap (not to be underestimated)...HEAVEN!
@CutZy McCall Really? No phones disrupted the movie? Were you alone in the theater? Until theaters are allowed to block all cell phone activity during the movie, I will be watching at home or not at all. Every modern performance today has been rendered unwatchable by these LED flashlights.
I specifically like, “Without a sense of occasion...”
That’s what going to a cinema is really about! You plan it, go, buy a ticket and then ready yourself as the trailers end and the studio announcement begins.
I stream movies— sure.
But going to see a film in the theater with a big screen makes it much more special. Yes, even an event.
1
As another commenter noted, the days of the huge screen with the big curtain that's pulled back at the beginning of the film are largely gone. True, streaming services do add up before long, but consider one person going to an evening show, with a large (more like a medium) soda and popcorn could cover Netflix 4K and something like Hulu; you're talking about a date night, you're saving quite a bit to stay at home. Away from obnoxious crowds and possibly bedbug ridden seats of a 20 screen multiplex.
Ever notice how when you watch a movie at home, especially with someone else (don't ask me why), you often have to get up, even just once to go to the bathroom, but, that you almost never have to get up in a movie theater? Why is that? Well, for what thing, you're at the movie's mercy in the theater (can't pause it), where as at home, you're in total, if too much, perhaps, control. Two things are for sure: First, that each experience is a different experience, and that each are better in some ways, and worse in other way. Second, there's no going back...
1
@Hal I find that rather rude and inconsiderate if you're watching with anyone else. Why should they sit in the dark twiddling their thumbs looking at a static screen while you relieve yourself? If you can wait in the theater, you can wait at home. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you must or should. This is particularly true when suspension of belief or immersive experiences are involved.
And then there are the few remaining video stores. In some cases—such as Scarecrow Video in Seattle and Best Video Film & Cultural Center in Hamden, Connecticut (of which I am executive director)—these stores (or former stores) are pursuing a non-profit model as a way of maintaining a real world archive of movies that can be explored outside the straitjacket of the algorithm.
1
While it is true that the glory days of movie palaces are largely gone (remember the days when the curtain was drawn as the movie started?), watching a movie in some kind of theater will always be for me a unique and wonderful experience.
2
@Common Sense Cell phones have ruined that completely.
To say that "you don’t have to be a film snob to prefer the big screen, the dark room full of strangers, the community and communion of what is now half-dismissively called “theatrical.” The pictures look better that way." is utter rubbish.
I am rarely enticed to see a movie upon its release in theaters, and the "dark room full of strangers, the community" is exclusively responsible for that. Rather than looking forward to the experience, I spend the time prior to arrival and during the first minutes of the movie wondering whether I will be surrounded by like-minded, respectful moviegoers or, as is more often the case, self-centered and obnoxious talkers and compulsive phone-checkers.
There is no community there, only a group of people who had no relationship prior to arriving or continuing after departure, and in the best case scenario will not drive each other to distraction in the intervening minutes.
As for the picture, I am fortunate to have a 135" diagonal screen illuminated by a fantastic 4K projector with 7.1 channel Atmos sound and reclining theater seating 13 feet from the screen. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't get any better than that. I watch movies with my friends and family and that's all the community I need.
So I'm content to wait for home release for almost any movie that comes along (there are exceptions) and as the timeline from cinema to home becomes shorter and shorter I am happier and happier!
2
@Rob - You can't stand the concept of being amongst a seated crowd who have all gathered or the same communal experience?
This is the reason America is so politically divided: The desire for personal comfort above all else, mostly solo.
1
@Rob same- theaters are over, haven’t been in years and won’t risk getting bed bugs
@Buttons Cornell The turn your cell phone off or leave it at home! I didn't pay to watch and listen to that "communal experience", which is utterly inescapable almost everywhere.
My two cents. I hate the reserved seating now in the theaters near me. Now, I stream the movies I want to see.
1
There is definitively something special about going to the theatre to see a movie. It's like going to the opera or the ballet. It's a special occasion, and my wife and I cherish great memories of films we've seen this way. On the other hand, theatres rarely show good stuff these days -they're usually full of super hero movies. We need to wait for the film festivals. So it's good to have access to films in your home. But the thing is, now you're in the hands of the streaming companies, which is just like being the hands of the theatres. When the internet appeared I naively thought all of film history would be available on the TV someday. Turns out, someone is still filtering what I can see. The struggle continues.
1
Last week, downtown with an afternoon to kill, I decided to do something I haven’t done in years: watch a movie at a cineplex. Though a lifelong movie buff, I had been put off theaters in recent times by chattering audiences, the intrusive glow of cell phone screens, the overcranked sound, and the general filth of these places. And, very few general release films appealed to me.
My choices on this afternoon were limited, and I opted for the WWII film Midway, scheduled to begin at 1:30. With my $11 small Coke and popcorn in hand I was in my seat at the appointed hour. The theater was nearly empty.
The movie didn’t start at 1:30. Instead I was assaulted by a barrage of noisy ads for consumer products. Then at 1:50 the content switched to two-minute trailers, eight in sequence, for films I would not see even if the theater was paying me.
By this time I was nearly ready to ask for my money back, but then the film started. And a highly unimaginative telling of the Midway story it was, with cardboard characters and not a war movie cliche left unsaid. By the halfway point I needed to urinate but was unable to pause the playback.
After my ordeal was over I made a commitment to myself never to patronize another cineplex. For some time I’ve been contemplating a home theater sound system to complement the excellent big-screen Sony TV I bought last year. If nothing else, my wasted afternoon provided me the motivation to invest fully in streaming media.
5
IF (and that’s a big IF) I can see a great film properly projected on a big screen with a top notch sound system then, sure, I’m happy to have that experience (the last time I had that experience was The 70mm presentation of The Hateful Eight at a big Alamo Drafthouse Theater). But for the majority of the country such an experience simply isn’t a possibility. Multiplexes only care about blockbusters and even in big cities the screens can be quite small in arthouse cinemas.
So those of us who love films in smaller markets do what we must to see the films we want to see. We buy quality big screen TVs and good sound systems, collect Blu rays and subscribe to services like Criterion Channel and HBONow and Netflix and we can rent just about any movie we’d like to see from Apple or Amazon. I honestly prefer my home setup to most theaters I can go to around me.
And home viewing can be quite social. Several friends and I gather at my home each Thursday and we choose a classic or interesting new film to watch together. Afterwards we can discuss what we experienced.
3
The quality of video screens in the home coupled with the quality of home sound systems is going to make traveling to a theater redundant. There will be larger audiences for a film when the money-grubbing movie studios adapt to streaming.
The consumer will however be paying a price for first run productions. Count on it.
3
@R L Donahue
It's not just redundant. With justa a little investment in equipment it's better in almost every way (especially compared with the multiplexes most of us have access to). Better visuals , better sound and gigantic collection of films to chose from. If i want to have a Peter Greenaway marathon this weekend and have access to a short documentary on his work I can do that right now on the Criterion Channel. Obviously thats not going to happen at the multiplex but even if I lived in NY or LA I a festival like that simply not going to happen often and even if it did it's happening on the theater's schedule, not mine.
The "cinema experience" that many old directors and film snobs think is so important is just a byproduct of the old way of getting your films in front of an audience that peopel jave now come to romanticize. Sending your films out to be viewed in theaters on expensive celluloid reels or digital hard drives is the old way. Streaming is the new way. And smart young directors know it's the straightest (and least expensive) path to a potential audience. Notice its almost always the old guys who have already made it who lament the "cinematic experience".
Because it's not really better, it's just different. And if film lovers in a small southern city like mine can gather to watch a classic movie or an interesting new documentary that would never play outside of NYC or LA via streaming isn't that a GOOD thing for films?
4
Well the he male masculine male male films keep rolling along. Adam Driver and torture, Christian Bale and Will Hunting in race cars. The Boxer Guys, Crime Guys, Mafia Guys, Guy Guys male male team keep the drama centered on the male dominance that what has been challenged? I don't think so...
1
so do you enjoy your male male male movies at home or your male male male movies at the cinema?
I only go to Imax movies (twice in last 10 years) as regular multiplexes aren't much better than home. The last Imax one I saw was 'Wonder Woman ' that I watched with my son.
4
If the new extremely uncomfortable seat design in most of the newly refurbished or newly created screening rooms & movie theaters in NYC -a major anatomically incorrect disaster the world has ever seen- continues, it may end up being the main reason to never again leave the comfort of your home...
1
The very last film I viewed in a theater was in 2007 in a Missoula, Montana multi-plex. I went for a first day screening matinee of a Spanish Horror Film. I was told by the teenage girl cashier that, 'the film is in a foreign language, you know'. Coming from N.Y.C. and living at Film Forum and The Angelica cinemas, I nodded and spoke to her in Spanish, that yes, I know. (She didn't understand me and looked startled). It turned out I was the ONLY person in the auditorium until half-way through the film, someone else stumbled in, probably from another autditorium. Do you realize how frightening an (excellent), Spanish Horror Film can be when you're the ONLY person in the auditorium, then hear the sound of 'movement' behind you? In any event, the cashiers comment to me about 'a foreign language' made me smile and remember my old N.Y.C. cinema hangouts! I soon moved to a very remote part of Montana, but I'm happy with my Criterion Channel and Netflix streaming, Brit-Box, and HBO-Now via my Amazon Firestick. Now, sitting in the darkend living room if I hear a sound from behind me, it's merely my imagination. Usually.
2
I've had some experiences in theaters that will never be equaled at home. Seeing 'Lawrence of Arabia' at the Zeigfeld on 6th Avenue was incredible.
The 70mm re-release of 2001 at a properly equipped theater was beyond belief.
'Apocalypse Now' - re-released in 2001 was all-consuming
... and so on - many other examples.
Home cinema is great and getting better but some films deserve the full treatment as the director intended.
3
@Plennie Wingo I saw the 70 mm release of 2001 at Radio City Music Hall, including the Rockettes, but NO cellphones. Probably the last film I fully enjoyed in a theater (18 years ago now.)
To me, there is still some magic in ;good) movie Theaters: the silence, the quality of image and Sound,
Not just throwing yourself onto a couch, but going put to the theatre you carefully chose
Feeling the réaction of the audience / good or bad
S
all this and much more is essential to my cinephilistic pleasure
(Which of course does not preclude viewing Sergio Leone‘s Once upon a Time in the West for the tenth time on our confortable couch...,)
1
@Aliza Samuel Cell phones ruin most of the features you describe. The silence, the sound, the dark, all ruined.
Just a note: when I moved to the town I now live in, there were 4 movie screens. Now there are none. Maybe that’s a reason folks in a lot of places have moved on to streaming.
2
I'd like to invite Mr. Scott to a mid-level, non-university city for a week or two to savor the cinematic offerings available to him. He'll have the option of seeing blockbusters at a google-plex popcorn emporium, or driving for an hour or two to see a picture striving towards art.
I give him three days at most before he's at WalMart picking up a streaming device and then logging into the Criterion Collection.
Most of us don't have a neighborhood Thalia or New Yorker.
3
For me, watching a movie at home, as a one time rental through iTunes, or on a streaming channel/service, is a way for me to see something I missed at the cinema. It is in no way a substitute for a proper cinema experience. Netflix et al. is NOT cinema. It’s experiencing a pseudo experience on television. True cinema lies not just in it’s form, but also it it’s experience and presentation. Yes, you might have to deal with cretins at a cinema. You might also have to deal with cretins at a stage theatre. Or in an art museum. Or at a concert hall. It happens. But I’d rather deal with that than exchange it for retreating into a little selfish and sterilized and disconnected bubble at home where you experience everything in your own private little echo chamber. The blame however, rests not just with the streaming services, but also with the Hollywood corporate/industrial plastic garbage factory, the Exhibitors, and the selfishness, shallowness, laziness and ignorance of the general public themselves. It’s a vicious cycle where the rapacious industrialization, commercialization, and commodification of the art form encourages the cheapness/shallowness/laziness of the consumer/audience, and the consumer/audience encourages the rapacious industrialized/commodified output, in the end killing the art form itself.
5
Movie theaters are uncomfortable. The audio makes voices almost inaudible while enhancing sound effects so my fillings rattle. Craning up at a large screen doesn't mean I get more clarity, it means I get a neck ache in today's smaller theaters.
My 55" tv at home allows me to finetune both video and audio to my needs, so I can see the scenes that were shot too "atmospherically" and hear the dialogue.
That's even before we consider my fellow moviegoers (often obnoxious, rarely silent) and the prices.
Let's talk about those prices. Yes, it's expensive to get a good slate of streaming services, but have you been to the movie theaters lately? Sans snacks, here in North Texas, it's $20 for 2 people for one movie. Let's conservatively round it up to $40 for the evening. Two movies a month would pay for more streaming services than I have time to watch!
And then we get to being able to "desecrate a work of art on (our) own terms" as it was put in the article. Bless their hearts. This means I can use the bathroom without missing the movie. Or knit while watching it. Or have my snuggly dog on my lap and a warm blanket on my toes, and the beverage of my choice which won't cost $10 (for non-alcoholic!)
Sorry, not sorry: the home movie watching experience eclipses the theater in almost every way these days.
23
“Knit while watching this...”
We broke up the market chain that started with the actors under contract to Fox studio to make films for the Fox movie chain, and the actors under contract to MGM to make...
Owning both ends of the creative pipeline, from creation to delivery, stifled competition. The studios were no longer financially connected to the movie house.
Are we seeing a high-tech return to the older model? Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and Hulu are creating magnificent work in their closed markets.
6
I speak to this issue from a not so unique perspective. I am reaching into my upper 70s in age, and getting out to a theater has become an expedition, not a lark. In younger days or in these days if I were younger going to a theater would be great fun. We also find the often odd and old assortment of streaming movies available a delight. As the horse said in "Babe", "Its just the way things are"?
7
At home I can watch a Woody Allen festival of my own composition.
Mr Scott will appreciate the freedom from PC thought police this affords.
6
@John L I sure hope you're being ironic, particularly with your choice of Allen as an example. Mr. Scott is as PC as they come.
1
For the cost of a ticket and concessions for a single viewing, I could BUY the movie on blu-ray & OWN it. Why would I pay more for a crying baby soundtrack? Until hard age minimums are imposed, I'm done with theaters.
6
Went to a movie theatre for the first time in a long time to see Parasite. Here’s what I won’t miss: phlegm rattling in the throat of the person behind me, the guy in front of me illuminating his face with his phone, and muttering from another patron. You can get spoiled by watching on your big screen TV at home. Certain movies are enhanced by the big screen in a theatre and the great sound system, but not the majority.
9
listening to music is an excellent analogy - what is the difference between listen to a piece at home with your headphones or listening to it live in a concert hall? The sound is superior in person but i think the main difference is one of intent and attention - at home we are privy to endless distractions but if you make the committment to go to a concert hall you intend to focus on the music throughout its duration. I think the same is true of watching a film in a theater or at home. They are different and the better option depends solely on the individual...
5
I just wish the “don’t talk during the movie” on screen request was a little more forceful, like, “zip it or get ejected from the theatre with no refund.” Also, I wish theaters would include a warning to people bringing toddlers and infants to R-rated films, or even PG rated films with lots of noise and violent action. Movie theaters are not daycare centers, and your crying brat does nothing for the ambiance.
11
The market place has decided for you. Commercial multiplexes are insufferable for most adults, thanks to management and audiences alike, and they're not showing movies for adults anyway.
That leaves museums and tiny art-house venues where, more often than not, you're still contending with insufficiently socialized patrons. Film Forum is full of chatty NYU students who regard as hilarious or ridiculous any movie that isn't "cool" and ironic-- forget anything made before 1975, who knew "The Night of the Hunter" was a comedy? -- and MoMA is famous for its obstreperous retirees.
It would be interesting to know when last Steven Speilberg or Martin Scorsese, both of whom own private screening rooms, last braved an actual movie theater.
13
@jrd NYC SAG film society hosts serious cinophiles. But you need to be a SAG member to join. Don't chew your gum too loud or else....
The battle of Private vs. Public viewing involves real money, real hearts, minds, and ways of seeing; works of art aside. It's an aesthetic problem, yes, but also a material one, concerning cognitive and political/national health. We might even tap Cronenberg to name the battleground, where the mind of North America is fought over: Videodrome. How we watch, and tune out (or switch channels, or 'skip seasons'), has a profound, demonstrable affect on our individual and collective lives. It is arguably the most critical issue of digital technology currently facing our culture. Not surprisingly, articles like this (w/o Scott's devil-angel format) have been appearing in the Times with greater frequency over the past few years. And this publication isn't the only one to notice the problem - and come down on both sides of it, to some confusion. Even the recent issue of Cineaste magazine opens with an editorial downplaying TV's new threat, implying that a few microcinemas and well-curated DVD collections are a solution.
In short, this is not about Snobs vs. Lay-viewers (except maybe for Cineaste), nor is it very helpful to simply call it Corporate vs. Independent/individual (in that dyad, now w/digital, corporate product & delivery is bound to win, and the consumer to call it "choice"). Better to say it's a problem of complacent vs. conscious consumption. If the moving-image is to improve it must be through how it is viewed - how carefully, and how curiously. How can we teach this?
4
To what extent did 20th-century USA become the greatest country in the world (and the history of the world) because it was bound together culturally by its mainstream cinema?
We already know the future of streaming – it’s YouTube. Infinite and nonhierarchic, it renders culture obsolete by superseding it with content. Nothing new is necessary, because the difference between infinity and infinity plus one is nothing. And the only sharing that happens is through the shadowy anonymity of comments.
Why burn books and movies, when it’s just as effective to drown them in a sea of over-production and over-distribution?
When culture (in its seemingly forgotten essence as a set of shared stories) is erased in a society, what takes its place?
Marketing and propaganda?
2
@Observer But was it culture creation or manufacturing consent?
I was hoodwinked for decades by the Hollywood westerns. Only much later did I realize that they were all myths far removed from the realities of western frontiers. And many Americans continue to believe unwittingly those Hollywood illusions.
1
The main benefit to home viewing is not comfort, it is the freely-structured nature of a captive audience that allows expanded "series" formats for movies. I can't imagine rendering highly cinematic works like The Sopranos or Mad Men into two-hour summaries.
3
Who wouldn't want to sit on a chair any number of grubby people have recently sat in, get the soles of your shoes encrusted with gum, candy, spilled soda and god-knows-what else, share the airspace of people coming down with respiratory viruses, and miss whole scenes of dialogue buried under the conversations of strangers? (And don't even get me started on the predilections of people who like creeping into dark rooms full of strangers...)
5
For those willing to make the effort (and investment), it is possible to have a more immersive cinematic experience in a home cinema than in the vast majority of commercial ones. All that is required is the right combination of acoustical engineering, quiet room construction, thoughtful interior design and well-chosen AV equipment.
Today a dedicated home cinema is a luxury item. If, however, more architects, designers, developers and consumers became aware of the possibilities for creating spaces that induce collective gasps from groups of friends and family enjoying movies at home, then costs would come down and home cinema ownership might become within reach for many more households.
Maybe this could be one way to shift the conversation from “burying” film as an art form to breathing new life into it?
8
I can't imagine seeing first-run movies in any where other than a cinema.
Yes, there's too many trailers, there's sometimes people that talk, that take phone calls, that make other noise but there's nothing like going to the movies.
Sitting at home, on your couch or in front of a laptop?
Not so good.
6
@MattNg I have loved it both ways. Mostly, though, you have a point, especially when you are talking about movies. I love watching series on Neftlix and Prime, but movies are another story. I rarely watch the newest films online. Movies are still fun, sitting there like a little kid waiting to be awed. (When it doesn't happen, I just walk out). Very few people here have mentioned the popcorn, I notice. I both go and do not go to the movies because of that addictive substance (extra butter) that I love so much. When I go too often, my waist expands, lol. At home, while streaming, I eat salads, because at least they are crunchy. Stil - meh.
I would go see every movie in a theatre if the movies Hollywood was offering were all worth the price of entry, which gets higher and higher. But most of what plays in my entire small state of RI, with occasional exceptions that require a half-hour drive to an independent theatre that has no parking, are kids’ movies, horror, action/shoot-em-up where “special effects” are the be all and end all. So I only go when I feel it’s something I must see on the big screen (meaning, something where the cinematography is especially important, and the visual scope or feel of the movies is crucial to the film). My favorite movies are those where the writing, acting, and directing make the movie, even if they are “small” visually, and I wait for those to come onto Prime or Netflix; I frequently pay $5 or $6 to see a movie on Prime that is free from theater distractions. However, I will disagree with the idea that a Marvel movie cannot be cinema: in a few instances, the writing and acting are so good that they are. In any case, I think I am a cinephile who loves the movie theatre but feels largely forced into streaming by the movie biz chasing blockbusters in order to see what I want. Meanwhile, my advice is: when there is a movie in the theaters you want to see, go before 4 pm on any day but Saturday, preferably early in the week or Friday. If you are super lucky, as I have been, you may have the rare experience of a private screening. What a treat.
7
I agree. Those “private screenings” are a totally different experience but one well worth the occasional afternoon delight.
1
Disney’s new video streaming service may be good news for bringing real movies back into theaters, which means Hollywood making real movies again. All those people going to watch kids; movies, action/shoot ‘em up, etc., hopefully will stay home and watch on their TVs. Then maybe Hollywood will start making real movies again.
3
@jer I never thought of it that way. One can only hope.
Of all the arts, I love motion pictures the most, and have since I was a kid. Two weeks ago I was at the local multiplex and I was treated to four commercials and then almost half an hour of trailers (most of which I had no desire to see) before the film even started. Several rows behind me, two women carried on non-stop conversation which continued after the film finally started. About fifteen minutes later a person to my right appeared with a huge box of popcorn and wrapped candy and sat two seats away from me. I listened to him cram fistfuls of popcorn into his mouth and fumble with cellophane wrapping for almost for half an hour before I finally moved to another seat.
Here's the thing: when I see a play at a theater, none of this ever happens. People are respectful of the medium when they see plays; they're not respectful when they go to see a film.
I've finally come to the conclusion that streaming films on my 55-inch television screen has become the theater I don't get to experience when I go out. I can watch it uninterrupted, the way it was meant to be seen, without having to be distracted by people who are much more interested in eating, talking or checking their cell phones every five minutes. It's also much less expensive (a month of Netflix costs less than a single admission to a film), not to mention the time and expense of parking.
24
My 2 cents on cinemas losing the battle. Stadium seating was a fantastic improvement to the viewing experience: no head blocking the view. Good. But many theaters now are choosing to spend money getting rid of perfectly comfortable upright seats and replace them with barcaloungers. Barcas force the viewer to recline completely and have viewers twist their neck to see a screen placed not on a ceiling but on a wall (logic??). These giant chairs have no back or neck supports: my experience is they fail at comfort and they even cause pain.
To install giant barcaloungers, several rows of normal size seats are eliminated, which means 1) less seats available 2) all seats tend to be too close to the giant screen for lack of proper planning regarding the ratio between screen width and distance to the viewers seat.
I am a big fan of "going out to the movies", but I find myself avoiding many cinemas now because I know the "movie viewing experience' they will provide me will be a ghastly one ( and yes, there is also the sounds and smells of food, the intrusion of cell phones and chatting patrons all through the projection, and a pretty steep price tag for all these" pleasures".) I don't know what the solution is for flagging attendance in cinemas, but I know than more than one problem caused it.
3
@Lulu MG Even worst are the cinema that serves food. Nothing ruins the immersive mood more than a waiter creeping up to the the seat in the row front of you asking "Did you wanted it Diet? Sorry...."
I've all but abandoned theaters in favor of watching at home. My 75"Ultra HD TV and good quality audio system provide a more than acceptable experience that substitutes for dirty, crowded theaters with overpriced concessions and unruly patrons talking and letting their cell phones ring.
8
Unfortunately, Robert De Niro has ruined any hope of finding anything resembling escapism.
1
Tech always progresses.
Did TV kill the cinema?
2
Mr Scott, the cinephile, gets the last word.
2
A.O. Scott makes excellent points on all fronts. I’d prefer going to the movies, but the lack of cleanliness of the seats and floors, and people’s lack of consideration, leaving food right in the middle of the floor, actually taking calls while the movie is playing, that makes the experience less fun for me. This is from someone who used to go to the movies 2-3 times a week. Now I stream, occasionally I can commit to the movie, but usually I pause and once that happens all hope is lost. So I’m definitely missing a lot of the nuisances that make films great.
1
It is a big joy to see a movie on the big screen like „Joker“, „Roma“ or „The Irishman“ but just one silly or annoying
member in the audience is able to spoil that great experience. On a few occasions I left the cinema in the middle of a screening because of that. Especially younger people seem to be so addicted to social media that they have to check their mobiles every few minutes.
8
@Roger H.
Older people too are addicted to their cell phones. And on top of that, some have trouble remembering how to turn their screens off ( and you know I am not kidding.) And -you would think they'd know better at their age- but they also talk during the projection-and loudly! ..because of hearing issues no doubt. If you attend any vintage movie in my local art house cinema (the wonderful Berkeley Art Museum Pacific Film Archive), this is what you will sadly witness, over and over.
2
@Roger H. See, I don't get this. There have always been, at one time or another, "silly or annoying" audience members. I don't know where you live, but I am in an urban area, and rarely is there a peep out of anyone. A simple backward or sideways glare usually takes care of loud whispering. Most people know, from the theater's pre-show, rude exhortation, that if you use your cell phone, a four-letter-word -"EXIT" - will cancel your noise (and you). As the film proceeds with surrounding silence, my resentment for that scolding always morphs to gratitude.
1
Can the genius of Scorcese's cinematography and his wonderful tracking shots really be appreciated on a electronic device you can fit in the palm of your hand?
1
@kjd @kjd Probably not, but many of us watch on our home theater screens, not our cell phones.
3
@kjd
Virtually everyone who watches
streaming moies at home sees
them on big-sceen TVs.
3
I prefer to see a good cinematic movie on a big screen, in a theater with cushy seats, cellphones going off, and sticky floors.
3
I'm probably in the minority here, but my husband and I have not enjoyed a flick in a movie theatre in years. We still go on occasion when something outstanding is playing, but in general we wait for the desired movie to come to cable. Our latest exception of "Downton Abbey".
The reason for our disdain and annoyance? The volume and level of the bass is outrageous. We have to bring headphones because the extreme noise and blaring volume literally makes our ears and heads hurt. There is no reason for such extreme, piercing sound.
Sometimes I look around and wonder if the audience is made up of AARP members like us but no - the majority of the audience comprises of YOUNG kids (ages between 15 - 30).
Perhaps the sound is so loud because THEY have more devastating hearing issues than us old timers.
Anyway, we enjoy watching movies in the comfort of our own home, in our own reclining chairs, with homemade popcorn and ice cold beer. Our hearing impaired cat loves laying between us, knowing that we are home, petting him in between popcorn breaks and swigs of cold beer.
Can't wait for "The Irishman" on Netflix. We've been anticipating this movie since we read the incredible book.
11
@Marge Keller - The Irishman is one of the least exciting movies ever. I sat through the whole thing Friday, Nov 15 - all while wishing I hadn't wasted $7. Not to mention the utter failure of that trick "roll back time" photography. I would recommend it as a documentary if it had actually happened.
2
@Andy Hain I have to question your veracity. $7 for a movie in a movie theater? Not in my California. Isn't Carmel a gentrified place?! lol
Give those young-uns a few years listening to that deafening movie soundtrack and they’ll end up with AARP ears, too.
My hearing got destroyed by Rock and Roll concerts. The younger generation will lose their hearing in the ever-louder cinemas, especially listening to the outrageous sounds accompanying ticket-selling special effects.
Whatever happened to a storyline in cinema?
Golden age of cinema due to streaming. Young and talented can get their work out there. Leveled playing field. Opportunity for adventure - so it wasn't a classic, you might be surprised how much you can get from any attempt at originality.
3
@Mary Bullock sorry, but it is certainly not the golden age of cinema at the moment. I respectfully suggest you need to watch more movies - from different eras than our own - If you really believe that. “Attempts at originality” are few and far between in an era where everything is based on existing IP or developed via algorithm.
We live in an era where people are praising JOKER as a groundbreaking work of stunning originality when the film - entertaining though it may be - is little more than an homage to 1970’s Scorsese.
3
It's funny, or sad depending on how you look at it.
My wife and I were discussing "The Irishman" now playing at a theater near us in the suburbs of New Jersey.
I'm intent on seeing it in a theater.
Why?
You're more focused.
It's meant to be seen on a screen of those dimensions.
I still think movie-going is an event.
She's a film fan too but thinks a three hour film is meant for home-viewing.
I used to be fanatical about choosing a particular theater and showtime for what I thought would be the optimum way to experience a movie by one of my favorite filmmakers.
Today, I get enraged by the occasional inconsiderate self-obsessed cell phone addict that needs to text or swipe during a movie.
But other than that, the BIG screen is the way to go.
I know, let's bring back "Dish Night!"
14
@Phil Scardilli
I don't understand why many people feel that they need to be in a dark
theatre, surrounded ystrangers in order to "concentrate" on a film.
My husband and I watch streaming movies 3 or 4 times each week.
We don't talk to each other during the film, though we may exchange
knowing/happy looks (Isn't this great?!)
We don't amble into the kitchen for snacks. We are totally focused on the film, much you would be when reading an engrossing book.
We spend quite a bit of time picking out the streaming films we want to watch, looking at trailers, reading reviews. As a result, most of those we choose are good. If they're not, we turn them off after 5-10 minutes, and go to another movie on our list.
Finally, I have to say that like others on this thread, over the past 20 years, I have found the people sitting behind me in a darkened theatre inceasingly annoying.
Surprisingly, they are rarely kids.
They are middle-aged women who
just Can't Stop Talking!
11
@Phil Scardilli
"You're more focused." That says it all.
My wife is reluctant to go out to the cinema, preferring to watch movies at home where she can pause every forty minutes for a bathroom break, which destroys the suspension of disbelief necessary for immersion in a movie's subject. When we go out for a movie, though, she doesn't complain about the uninterrupted two-hour pottyless stretch needed to complete viewing. And the movie, if it is decent, is more enjoyable.
I should mention that we are retired and can attend late afternoon showings where elbow room is plentiful.
1
"Going to the movies is a lark, and an adventure and a commitment. Watching television has historically been a more passive, less adventurous undertaking."
Going to good movies at a theater is a ritual. If the film is high enough quality it can lead to a revelation of the human condition or a transformation of consciousness.
Just the act of leaving your home and going to a public space cues everyone's mind and spirit to be accessible to art.
When movies cease to be special, the aesthetic experience evaporates to nothing. Streaming in a small way and a large way diminishes our lives.
It's like Joseph Campbell said about art. When you view a well-composed piece of art, the radiance of the transcendent shines through.
You don't get that from prints of artworks in your home. You have to go to a museum. And you get a lot less radiant experience from streaming a movie rather than going to a theater.
It's not just the movie itself. It's the act of the movie-goer in conjugation with the movie makers and the general public. It has to do with the psychology of the audience, which is different than one individual streaming or a couple of people at home.
It's the totality of the experience. Bowling alone is not a good thing, especially when it concerns an art form.
9
@Wordsworth from Wadsworth
I really don't need to go to a public
space for my "mind and spirit" to be "cued . . . to be accessible to art."
I have spent my life reading--poetry, fiction, and essays.
One doesn't need to be surrounded by an audience to appreciate the book.
3
@Maggie Mahar
That's right. Some people can find a sacred space of their own. Some people have more of an innate sense of the aesthetic. Me - I am a shmegeggy from Akron who needs guidance.
But literature is a different art form with a different dynamic. For me to assimilate first-rate literature, I must be alone and have quiet. I don't read on public transportation and rarely on planes. My literary synesthesia is a weak solution of Nabokovian (who absolutely loathed "portable music.")
I am fortunate to have a fine home theater. And I have had an aesthetic experience from movies in private, particularly old noir pictures.
There used to be the New Mayfield Repertory Cinema in Little Italy, Cleveland. Old movies with a prefatory introduction by a professor. That place was a magic carpet. My wonderful home theater pales in comparison.
I think the more apt comparison would be musical recordings by yourself versus a live performances. I used to cherish my LP collection, but not so much in the age mp3 streaming and YouTube. That's scarcity by abundance.
Also, streaming has accelerated the death of the underground, reducing the chances that anything novel will be produced in any medium.
Ma and Pa Kettle seek diversion. A.O. Scott and others want resonance with something larger than themselves.
3
@Wordsworth from Wadsworth
Streaming has not "accelerated the death of the underground
reducing the chances that anything novel will be produced in any medium."
Quite the opposite.By watching streaming film, I
can view the best & most original,Old & New films anytime.
I'm not at the mercy of when a cineplex decides to air it.
Meanwhile streaming oullets
like Amazon & Netflix offer
high-quality documetaries, alll
of the time.
1
There is no controversy about records vs. the Grand Opera is there? They serve different needs. For me, the argument isn't between home video and the theater, but rather between streaming, which I have no use for, and home digital discs, which offer real cinephiles so much extra, such as commentary tracks, subtitles in many languages, interviews and biographies, and a dozen other controls for self determination. The Criterion Collection is my primary resource, among many and thus I own copies of at least fifty films which have never appeared on streaming services.
I have no use for Netflix; I won't have my tastes determined by an algorithm. I don't consume art by the square yard.
1
@Sera
I too enjoy the plusses of DVD productions, But let me correct one of your statements: Netflix offers a DVD service to- it is actually the only "film on demand" service I subscribe to. They have Criterion releases, and many more. And no algorithm needs determining my choices: I line the titles I want in my queue and the DVDs keep showing up in the mail. I actually hope very strongly Netflix keeps in business and keep their DVD section as varied as they can; I am sure it is not a profitable arm for the company, but it is my favorite way to bask in the movie's magic: choice, quality, variety and ease of view at home on a fine screen -my own.
5
@Lulu MG
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. But that's a rental service rather than streaming, and it's a good thing, although if I want to watch a Milos Foreman film, say Cuckoo's Nest, I just go to my shelf, while for you, the Czech is in the mail!
@Sera i miss my dvd shop. 10,000 films and best clientele. i knew what everyone wanted and or needed. store dead due to downloading. this is the new thing. i kept 2,000 of the best of the best but wonder if i will have the equipment to watch these wonderful things in the future. i adore going to the cinema but now, instead of starting the film, people are arriving later and later, well past the beginning, and allowed in, further disrupting the peace, excluding the food wrappers (people think they will starve to death in two hours) and talking. they get angry if you ask them to please be quiet. and for cost, the cinemas will have to close if they cannot cover their costs, think about it.
3
Maggie Rogers (listen to her sing if you haven’t!) recently said she wishes more artists waited to release songs when they felt their works were “finished,” “complete.” Originals on streaming sites, especially on Netflix are good entertainment but often feel underdone. Watch Parasite, Synonyms, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood...theses are visions - well thought out, meticulously designed and emotionally produced. Not to say no Netflix originals are works of art - it’s just not possible for all of them to be. They shoot many shots, but only a handful are aimed to win awards. On the contrary, movies filmed for theater feel more complex and focused. They’re not marketing ploys or money-making schemes. They are art. Emotions and ideas brought to life on screen. To be seen on screens that are larger than life, experienced with strangers sharing the intimate dark.
2
I live in the boonies. My local movie house in our little village (pop 3000) shows one movie a week. A Friday night, two Saturday, one Sunday, and a Wednesday afternoon showing. So most movies will never be shown there. The nearest small city (pop 70,000) with a "multi-plex", though that's stretching the term here, isn't going to show any auteur movies only those from the major studios. That city is nearly an hour away.
I probably could stream something but I can't get very motivated to hunt movies down when I could simply do something else. I doubt The Irishman will come to any theater near me. And I see no reason to subscribe to Netflix, and a dozen other streaming services (or however many there are/will be). So one of the few movies that I would go to a theater to see, I probably won't get the chance to see at all.
3
I have memories of seeing, literally, hundreds of movies in a theater. Memories from home video experiences? Some, certainly, but I rest my case.
13
@Dennis You said it, Dennis. There it is. I love so many great movies and series online, but rarely remember the experience of having seen them. But I do remember certain moments at the movies, such as when my husband and I, newly in love, sat through "Women In Love" three times (sometimes our eyes were not even on the screen, but I remember every minute, lol.)
It seems most everyday social opportunities from going to the movies to simply grocery shopping are coming to an end. For what? So we can go to work every day at likely a cube farm, go to our 500 ft cube "home," and be alone. We're social beings. This is leading to disaster.
17
Nice back and forth. I must admit to slowly but surely giving up theatre going to streaming. I am passing up The Irishman in the theatres and waiting for Netflix. But I live in a small town without a theatre and it is somewhat troublesome to make the drive into a larger town to pay a chunk of money to watch a film I can see at home on a fairly large screen in a small room.
9
When you look at the stratospheric heights of cinema, the million-dollar cinema, the Marvel movies and Martin Scorsese, there may be an issue to argue. But there is an important component of cinema that the argument does not address: indedpendent and low-budget cinema. Many of these films will never hit the multiplex, or even an art house theatre here and yonder; and film festivals do not offer an income stream to support further filmmaking.
Streaming does offer that possibility. A few cents a play may not be much, but when multiplied by hundreds and thousands of views, it starts to add up to real money.
I make trashfilm. Oh, Obi-Wan Kenobi, streaming is my only hope...
8
@Logan Absolutely true. Many short form, foreign films, and animations are ONLY available on streaming. Very rarely are they screened in theaters. One of the best virtues of Kanopy.
I dont know what theater people are going to, but I haven't experienced any incidents with people texting or talking. I go to Cinemark in Hazlet. The only complaint I have is that no one runs the booth and when a technical issue arises a customer has to tell the staff.
I enjoy the cinema, but 9 times out of 10, when I look up what's playing at the theater, there is nothing I want to see. Meanwhile there are excellent options for streaming or for purchase on iTunes. Right now at my local theater are 2 war movies, 2 reboots, and a car racing movie. I'd rather stay home and watch Pose.
21
@carrie respectfully, it appears you live in NYC. If that’s the case, there’s is no shortage of interesting movie houses to go take a chance on something different. Those of us in the exurbs don’t enjoy this luxury, and I miss it from my younger, city-dwelling days.
7
@Matthew Rettig
I still live in NYC, and we do have many theatres
But they have become quite
expensive. Moreover, when a movie is popular, you may have to wait 25 minutes outside the theatre where it is being shown.
(This is after waiting 10-15 minutes Outside the movie house on the line to the ticket booth.)
If you were still in NYC, you might find that as you grow older, you'd rather watch a film at home with a friend or partner who shares your taste.
3
@Maggie Mahar I think he meant: Angelika, Film Forum, IFC Center, Film at Lincoln Center, and the many museums that screen films periodically.
Cinema, like most art, is meant to be shared, communal, civic in a way. Sitting alone in front of a laptop or TV? No wonder the disease of loneliness is metastasizing.
37
@John Ramey
Most of us who watch streaming TV
at home do it with spouses, lovers,
or friends.
Hello from Chile! I agree with parts of (both sides) of the argument. First, it's wonderful to be able to stream to your heart's content at hime and second: no doubt that a big screen and movie theater is superior. But movie theaters are a fast dissapearing breed (except in a few key cities in the world), they've been replaced by multiplexes that embody the culture of pop corn munching and big sound "events" (can't truly call them cinema). I subscribe to both Netflix and Mubi. Each has it's own unique strenghts and failings. I tried HBO Go (similar to HBO Max in USA), but except for a few titles, it wasn't worth it. Mubi is exceptional since I can see various films from around the world, from silents to contemporary (30 films, one renewed daily). It enabled me to see the works of noted director Agnés Varda (whom I truly admire) as well as films from Korea, Iran,and many other countries. I live in Santiago, a city of over 6 million persons. But we only have 3 cinemas that truly deserve the name. So, overall, I would love to have true cinemas, but streaming (plus DVD's) are an excellent alternative.
7
"Going to the movies is a lark, and an adventure and a commitment. Watching television has historically been a more passive, less adventurous undertaking. It’s about familiarity, comfort, the safety of your own couch or smartphone. Folding a sometimes difficult, often strange, occasionally sublime art form into that universe is a way of burying it."
This is the sad truth
9
We go to the movie theater less and less. The pre-movie 'trailers' are nearing 100 dB with most patrons covering their ears do to the extreme loudness. The price, for a single ticket, often exceeds streaming a rental by 3x - taking the family costs a fortune. And, often, the movies are so poor, if I were home, I'd turn it off.
Simply not worth it.
34
@wvfgolden - In other words, typical movie patrons are too lazy to get out of their seats to complain about an extreme volume level? I was recently in a 14-screen theater that started playing the wrong movie after the usual 1/4 hour of previews, but I was the only one to get up and out to complain.
1
Streaming will kill art simply because streaming exists to shovel as much content as possible down the tube w/o regard to quality. Quantity is king now.
There is such thing as too much choice, too may options both of which destroy focus as people try to keep up with the shovel loads of content being thrown at them from every direction.
2
@Joseph Isn't it the opposite? Audiences can stream what they want, opt out and watch something else with a few buttons. This requires screenwriters to write truly captivating storylines. Back in the day I felt there were some really bad shows on TV just because it was primetime network and people were forced to at least give it a try for a while.
12
My wife and I enjoy far more of a genuine cinema experience, streaming movies at home on our big UHD screen. Nobody texting, nobody chatting, no comments upon the film action and dialogue, unlike what happens routinely in theaters. Also, at home we always sit exactly as close to the screen as we want to, because our seats of choice are never taken.
22
@DB Sounds nice and I agree that you definitely can't beat the comfort of home, but my wife of 30 years and I are different. Our first date, like a lot of people, was at the movies. ("Drug Store Cowboy" at the long gone Varsity Theater in Honolulu, for the record). A night out at the movies still forms the basis of our date nights, so I sincerely lament what I see as the slow demise of the movie going experience. Thanks, Mr. Scott (and Martin Scorsese) for putting things in perspective.
8
@Kimo Truly agree with you @Kimo, but please tell me where, in a 20 mile radius from your home, can you find a cinema to relive a similar experience? Here I truly agree with Martin Scorsese. Remember, conventional studios wouldn't touch his project with a 10 meter pole. It's Netflix that financed the project and made it possible. And the movie going experience is dying because the Multiplexes won't leave spaces for them. We saw "Cinema Paradiso" in a cinema. Later I bought a special DVD and gained both the old and the "Director's cut". So I got 2 movies for less than the price of a multiplex ticket. And the Director's cut (around 32 min longer) is a totally different (and more fulfilling film. It was cut to meet the distributor's requirements. Both versions should be known.
4