Are Movie Theaters Still the Best Place to See a Movie?
You would think so, but I can't be so sure
I went to a screening last night and the viewing wasn't improved by the youngster that wouldn't quit babbling two rows behind me while sitting on the aisle stairs saying, "X, X, X, X, X, X…" No exaggeration. Of course, considering it is a woman with her child it is not the first instance you want to stand up and tell them to control their children, especially when you don't want to come off as some arrogant film critic while watching any kind of film, but especially the one I was at last night. Then again, should it really have taken a publicist having to get up and tell her to quiet her kid before the woman actually left?*
Another example comes from two weeks ago as Federico Fellini's Amarcord was playing in a limited run at the Seattle Film Festival Cinema. The same night I decided to go see the film Seattle got dumped on with a nasty, sloppy kind of snow and the screening I attended had no more than ten people. About ten minutes of trailers played and the film began. Things were nice and quiet for about another two minutes until a drunken couple stumbled in, sat down and laughed at the top of their lungs throughout the first 30 minutes. Soon their buzz started to wear off and after a few trips to the bathroom they became regular movie patrons. If you can't attend a screening of a film with a dozen people and get a satisfying theatrical experience what must you do?
These are just audience complaints, but how about times when the curtains aren't opened all the way or the aspect ratio of the film is wrong or the top of the film isn't even on the screen? How about those times when the lights don't actually go down until 30 minutes into the film? Just about any real film fanatic will tell you seeing a film in the theater is the only way to truly appreciate a film, but when the theaters we are seeing the films in don't seem to appreciate film as much as you do and neither do those around you is it truly the best place?
Of course my recent experiences are the main reason I bring this up, but on top of that a commentary by indieWire's Anthony Kaufman giving his five reasons why he won't be attending the Sundance Film Festival also added fuel to the fire as his fifth complaint goes straight to the heart of why I have never attended the Sundance Film Festival:
5.) I've said it before and I'll say it again: Sundance may be one of the worst places to see a movie, particularly a small, intimate movie that needs a patient and careful eye. Venues such as the Eccles and Racquet Club are enormous, cavernous places that do little to help a film's first viewing. Early exiting patrons at the Racquet Club create a thunderous clump on the floorboards. The Library Theatre has terrible sightlines. And because of tight schedules, everyone is on the run, thinking about the next place they need to go or how to get some decent sustenance to keep their rumbling tummies from interfering with their viewing enjoyment. This is probably the same for Cannes and Toronto, but because there's always a 30-minute shuttle ride from one venue to another in Park City, time is even shorter at Sundance.
Obviously seeing films first has become a big deal in the world of online movie reporting, but I am slowly learning it isn't a matter of when you see a film as much as it is a matter of how you see it. I have heard nothing but nightmare stories coming out of Sundance and if I ever begin attending film festivals it will be either Cannes or Venice… I mean, venue alone makes dealing with anything else worth it.
This isn't to say the majority of theater-going experiences are bad, but I will say it has become quite a crap shoot. Last year, during my screening of Defiance a pair of young ladies sat in the back of the theater whispering and chomping on snacks for the majority of the film (I'm pretty sure they sneaked in). It was one of the local press screenings where there are only a handful of people in the theater and for anyone that has seen Defiance I am sure you know adding a whispering duo to the soundtrack doesn't improve an already mediocre film. A local critic was sitting right next to them and did nothing. I ended up having to walk up about eight rows and into the row to tell them to be quiet with about 30 minutes remaining. Mind you, I HATE doing this. I have also been at a screening where another local critic had to yell, "You aren't in your living room!" These are instances that shouldn't happen, but they become necessary.
Not too long ago I rewatched Lawrence of Arabia and it is a film I have not seen in the theater, but if it ever returns to the Cinerama here in Seattle you better believe I will be there. However, I know it will be in the back of my mind, that even once the film begins, that drunken couple may stumble into the theater… After all, if they can find their way into a Fellini film what is to say they aren't David Lean lovers as well?
So you tell me… Is the theater still the best place to see a movie? In this day and age of 12 screen multiplexes does it help if the movie you came to see is on the smallest screen in the place? The seats don't recline and it looks as if the floor hasn't been cleaned for ages… Ugh, it makes me sad just thinking about it.
* By the way, I applaud all publicists that keep control of their screenings the way this one did. I just wish the patrons sitting next to the troublemakers would do it first.








