great films that should be seen on a big screen vs. great films where it does not make a difference whether you watch on a laptop or in a movie theater

What are people’s thoughts on this

Aside from Mumblecore, perhaps, all films should be seen in a theater. You can’t replicate the communal experience at home.

I think that films like “Andrei Rublev”, “Seven Samurai”, “Marketá Lazarová” or “Sátántangó” certainly need a big screen to let one really appreciate their magnitude and enormous scope. The films by Lav Diaz should also be watched on a big screen, although this is something one rarely gets the opportunity to do.

Berlin Alexanderplatz and Tarr’s two epic scale films were once shown in their entirety and later as serials for a couple of weeks during a summer period here in Athens…that was some years ago if i recall.

i remember when i saw in a crammy hall a showing of The Hunters by Angelopoulos…quite a sight, probably 3-4 individuals were watching by the end of it (i was one of them) and no one was in a decent mood afterwards.

so imagine what would happen if they had shown a Lav Diaz film as Marc mentioned….a total disaster to begin with since it’;s obvious that a large portion of audiences are not only selective in their options but don’t have the patience to sit through either a long-hour film or at least a film of lesser popularity than their mainstream shit.

I thought INLAND EMPIRE was quite interesting on the big screen and differently interesting on my laptop. Adaptable.

the cinema sound surrounds your body and shakes your bones in a way a laptop can’t

visually i always remember the last of the mohicans looked great on the big screen and very detracting on television

i recently saw raging bull at the cinema and realized how low budget the film looks which i never noticed previously on television

where were you able to see raging bull at cinema? Also, on that note, just out of curiosity, since I was not alive in 1980, was raging bull marketed as an arthouse film the way the hurt locker was or was it marketed as more of a mainstream movie house film in the same vain as basterds or up in the air.

Harry said, “You can’t replicate the communal experience at home.”

Is the communal experience—not the big screen and sound quality—the important difference?

For comedies, the communal experience makes all the difference, though a DVD viewing with a lot of friends might be just as good.

I was lucky enough to see some of the greatest films ever made on the big screen when I helped out at a local indie cinema in the 80s. Many of them for the first time!
To name a few: Vertigo, Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons, La Règle du Jeu, Flesh and the Devil, Greed, The Virgin Spring, La Grande illusion, L’Atalante, Zero de conduite, Jules et Jim, The 400 Blows, Les Diaboliques, so many Kurosawa, 8 1/2, Black Narcissus, Sunrise, Metropolis, Intolerance, Once Upon a Time in the West, Brief Encounter, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man, Come and See. There are so many more I could mention including my first encounters with Chabrol, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Visconti, Bergman, Ozu, Ophuls, Almodovar, Kieslowski and Terence Davies. ALL on the big screen. Seeing them as they were originally intended to be seen is what has cemented my passionate cinephilia. I really don’t think I would have as deep an appreciation if I had only ever seen these flics on a small square in my home. Watching a film this way really does lose something more than just size – most importantly, our absolute full attention.

The most recently released U.S. DVD of Lost Highway looked twenty times better on my laptop as opposed to my television. Obviously, the picture quality on that specific DVD release is abysmal either way you watch it, but it was much less noticeable on my laptop. Maybe the reason was because I didn’t get a feeling similar to vertigo when I viewed it on a smaller screen.

I know you specifically mentioned film in your title—and maybe I’m an idiot for bringing this up—but I think that most television shows are fine to watch on a laptop or computer. Not that some television show don’t have the same artistic merit that many great films have; I just grew very accustomed to “burning through” television episodes faster on a computer.

The better the screen, the better the experience, no matter what film you’re watching = my opinion.

They’re undeniably different experiences, I don’t think there’s way of judging which is better than the other.

all films should be seen on the big screen except maybe if they were originally meant to be shown on TV

If I could see one film right now it would be Wavelength in a packed theater. I want that experience.

I think to state that one film you HAVE to see on the big screen, but another you don’t is offensive to the Director. If he made his film for the big screen, and regardless of how you watch it, that was his vision

“all films should be seen on the big screen except maybe if they were originally meant to be shown on TV”

I won’t argue with that.

“I think to state that one film you HAVE to see on the big screen, but another you don’t is offensive to the Director. If he made his film for the big screen, and regardless of how you watch it, that was his vision”

Absolutely right

As soon as you argue whether it’s preferable to see a film on the small or big screen (or… ahem! laptop!) then cinema as an artform is already becoming reduntant. If you actually need to be told the difference between TV and cinema then I don’t have an awful lot to say to you.

As a preference: Always big screen first, small screen secondary and laptop when your arms and legs have fallen off!

I watch films on all formats but I always aim to see it on the big fat white rectangle in the dark. However, I most certainly know how impossible it is nowadays to get to see anything much on the big screen that hasn’t come out of one of the big Hollywood studios. So you get it where you can for sure.
But the day I concede that it actually doesn’t MATTER where you watch your film or (God forbid) is actually preferable to watch it on a small screen at home is the day I hand in my cinephile credentials.

I do know the difference between TV and cinema, but at the same time there are certain films in my opinion that require a large theater screen more than do others. Obviously it is optimal to watch films in a movie theater the way they were meant to be seen. Certain films, such as Lawrence of Arabia I’m sure have a certain effect on the viewer that could not be felt when being seen on a small screen. Other films, however, such as Goodfellas while being optimally experienced in a movie theater, as well, I do not think would lose as much impact on a smaller screen as say the aforementioned lawrence of arabia would. Both films I have mentioned are great, but I should think you understand my point. In my opinion it would be an honor to know that your work could be appreciated regardless of the medium on which it is seen.

Rather than saying that the small screen allows for a lesser experience, perhaps we can look at this from a phenomological view and accept that each have different impacts – and that if the large screen is superioir, it’s because the director intended it to be seen that way, not because it is inherently better.

on that note, is there an easy way to find out when and where old movies are screened in movie theaters

Pink Flamingos should be seen on the big screen, a true audience picture

This month a semi-local theater is running a 35mm print of the European cut of Brazil … I’ve never seen it on the big screen but I know after that midnight venture it’ll be hard for me to see it any other way.

hey there queens2010 my local cinema shows a different classic movie every week and i was lucky 2 see raging bull there!

jake la motta and taxi driver were in peoples attention in 1980 so it was probably marketed towards both a mainstream and artistic audience

Once a laptop is regarded as a viable means of having an authentic motion picture experience,
is it a small step toward embracing 9-inch monitors on portable DVD players?
Do we move on to an I-pad?
How about a blackberry?

Re the handheld screen: Never in a trillion years, the man said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0

And yet Youtube moron Joe Whittles argues:

“i’m calling bullshit on this. just because david lynch says that an arbitrary medium takes some credibility away from watching it on a larger screen, doesnt mean I get anything less out watching his amazing films, on a phone or in any other setting….this is exactly what people have said about Radio, TV and Films and now phones apparently.”

I fear for the future of satire. And culture.

. . .

all films should be seen in a theater—-

I’m with Harry on this. Ideally all films would be experienced as pristine prints projected in pristine theaters. In reality, though, even the theater experience is often less than ideal due to scratchy prints, incompetent teenage projectionists, etc.

I watch movies on my Zune, my laptop, a battered old 36" Sony Wega (4:3), and a 42" LG LCD (16:9).

To me, emotionally, there will always be a level below which I will not watch a film. A handheld/portable device is that level.

The theatre is king.
I have my 58-inch plasma for Blu-Rays,
I have an 8-foot image with my Super-8 and 16mm,
That said, if a sitaution comes up where I find myself with others in front of a 27-inch TV with a VHS or a Betamax, I certainly can watch a film that way.
However, I cannot imagine (nor do I want to try) seeing a feature film on something that fits on my lap or in the palm of my hand.
That falls under: “just because it can be done, doesn’t mean it should be….”

Every great film should be seen on the big screen. Celluloid rules, it’s what made film the art form of the 20th century.

However, I cannot imagine (nor do I want to try) seeing a feature film on something that fits on my lap or in the palm of my hand.
That falls under: “just because it can be done, doesn’t mean it should be….”—-

People once said the same things about television.

Nothing beats a theater.