Is the Loss of Silence and Stillness a Threat to Movies and Art?
lol. Yeah, I think you just gotta learn how to leave all the distractions aside and just focus on the screen. I get it – the annoying people, the texting, the talking – but this is where staying focused on the screen comes in to play. I mean, I think I would die if there ever came a day where I couldn’t enjoy a movie in a theater. Just the idea of it makes me a little depressed.
Here’s a jackass elitist thing to ponder:
What’s more disrespectful to the artist? Getting up and leaving during the end credits or watching a movie at home instead of in a theater, where it was intended to be seen?
I’ll let you guys sleep on that and mull it over. :)
I’m glad Jazz started a thread about this, because i have certainly yapped on about this more than a few times on here, and so has Peabody and a few others, but i just don’t feel motivated enough to contribute for some reason hahaha.
As for the theory that the net scrambles, or at least rewires, ‘brain circuitry’, there have been many studies and books written about that subject. The good news is that it’s actually ‘fixable’, at least according to theories of neuroplasticity. The bad news is that these ‘pathways’ are constantly reinforced at a social level, and are therefore much harder to shift over time once patterns of thought become deeply entrenched.
this is a good(i.e accessible) book on the subject:
^^Carr refers to many scientific papers throughout the entire book. He wrote the book because he was just starting to notice the affect that the internet was having on his own thought patterns.
Other people make me depressed. To me the actual experience of a film is deeply personal, like reading a book. I like it when I am so completely immersed in that world that for 2 hours nothing else matters. It’s a very intimate thing, and that part is important. I don’t really buy into the old “communal aspect” that the theater offers, for me that part comes after the fact. You’ve experienced and digested the film all on your own, now you get to discuss the film with friends or your peers, or go post up a shitstorm on mubi if you like (which I definitely do).
But for me those are separate things. The experience itself, very intimate, very personal, fuck other people during that part… then the relating of that experience, ok, I guess you kinda need other people for that part I will admit…
@JAZZ
Yeah I was talking about films, my bad!
AXEL: I can relate to what you are saying, particularly if the film is of the personal/contemplative variety. That’s why i was glad to watch films like Brown Bunny, Liverpool and Colossal Youth in the comfort and privacy of my own home. I’m not interested in hearing other people talk, yawn, moan, clap or make any other sound whatsoever when viewing those kind of films. I just don’t care. For me the only relationship i care about is the personal one i have with the image and sound.
The ‘communal experience’ is good for comedies, action films, and general popcorn fare, but that’s about it.
I completely relate to the “personal” aspect of watching a film. I guess it’s just different for people. If I’m completely immersed in a film, there can be a nuclear holocaust going on around me and I wouldn’t notice it. I’m so tuned into the film that I’m completely tuned out of everything else.
As for the communal aspect, one of the greatest and most memorable movie watching experiences of my life was seeing The Tree of Life in a sold out theater. It was like being a part of a collective witnessing a miracle – the difference between watching Jesus walk on water by yourself compared to watching him with a group of other people. It really was like a religious experience.
@Joks and Axel
Santino was being a smart-ass (in a facetious way) when he posed the question about leaving during the end credits versus not seeing a movie in a theater, where it was meant to be seen—but this last point is legitimate, I think. I’m not uptight about this point, as I watch a lot of movies at home, but I do think the ideal place is on the big screen with a good sound system, and if this is the venue that the filmmakers believe their films should be seen, that’s not something we should easily dismiss. (On the other hand, given the quality of the projection and sound system at some theaters, I wonder if some filmmakers would prefer their films seen in people’s homes.) The communal aspect isn’t as crucial (the theaters aren’t very crowded, and sometimes empty when I see a film), imo.
@Joks
The whole “internet-rewires-the-brain” thing—does that include posting on forums like this? (I’m totally screwed, if so. ;)
Totally agree JOKS. The only attractive thing the theater has is the technical aspect… and even then only in theory, most theaters I’ve been to don’t really care if their sound is off or if the image is in focus, or if they have it lined up wrong and you can see the freaking boom pole (classic)…
@JAZZ
Maybe back in the day, I do think you’re right, nowadays home theater systems can easily rival, if not trump the theater straight up, so I think that line of thinking is a bit outdated.
@SANTINO
Hey, some people get off on doing “things” in public…. who am I to judge…
SANTINO: Most people i know that saw Tree Of Life in the theater had to deal with yawns and walkouts ;-)
JAZZ: I think it depends on the kind of audience you see the film with. Film festivals are generally ok i guess, but even then i’ve had some bad experiences there, particularly if the crowd went to see the film for an entirely different reason.
as for your second question, yes, well the internet encourages people to write in bite size chunks, but that isn’t really a problem for Mubi contributors now, is it? :-) Forums can be quite promising i believe, at least when not ‘abused’ :-)
One of the key points made by Carr in The Shallows(and consequently by researchers)is the nature of the hyperlink structure of the net being the major source of distraction. It’s difficult to concentrate on one or two things when you have options to just click and go to another website. Some theorists believe that it’s a good thing because it’s training people to think ‘faster’, whatever that means, but that does not seem like a critical view to me. Surely the quality and depth of information and understanding counts too. and that’s ultimately where the net falls short.
It’s important to remember though that it also comes down to the culture itself. The culture, as well as the software, will often dictate how the technology is used. So the whole ‘convenience first’ aspect of mass culture will naturally impact on the way that we use internet technology.
^sucks for them.
Maybe I’m lucky?
Michael Cera was in that screening. So I guess I was lucky.
most theaters I’ve been to don’t really care if their sound is off or if the image is in focus, or if they have it lined up wrong and you can see the freaking boom pole (classic)…
That is really annoying. But I’d be sad if I didn’t see Tree of Life on the big screen. (I could live with the walkouts—the yawning would be annoying if it was loud and frequent, but I still think I could live with that). What a great cinematic experience! And I’m sad that I probably won’t get to see many of Kubrick’s, Tarkovsky’s, Antonioni’s, Fellini’s, etc. on the big screen. (I did get to see 2001 at a cinerama theater and it was terrific!)
If by lucky you mean you were the indie-hipster-25 year old “awkward” infant-faced trash comedy king of the grunge-modern eternal cinematic “high-school”, then I agree with you.
@Axel
Maybe back in the day, I do think you’re right, nowadays home theater systems can easily rival, if not trump the theater straight up, so I think that line of thinking is a bit outdated.
Maybe a great home theater system gets closer—but I don’t have one of those! How big would the home theater screen have to be to make the big screen negligible—especially for films by Malick, Tarkovsky, Kubrick or Lean? I don’t know if it’s really doable. I know you don’t like Hollywood films, but what about seeing some of those epic Hollywood films like Star Wars or Ben Hur? Watching the Star Wars films in the theater as a kid were some magical moments—and I really don’t think I’d feel the same if I saw the films on TV. (Indeed, I hope my kids get to watch the films at the theater.)
I’ve seen 2001 in the theater fairly recently, and while it was a novel experience, my best viewings of that film have all happened at home. Size isn’t everything….
I mean, you just can’t beat the comfort of a home viewing, IMO. And I don’t mean comfort in a physical sense, I mean it more in a …..you can really let all your guard down, all of your defense mechanisms, you can really just open yourself up to a film, let it inside you and let it devour you whole and spit you out, kinda way.
When I’m in a theater it’s just that much harder to get in the right mindset. I’m worried about what all these horrible “other people” in the theater are going to do the ruin the viewing, I’m worried about the technical elements, I’m worried that I’m gonna get a fucking parking ticket for sure (LA), these seats prob. aren’t comfortable…. and I dunno it’s just different when your “out” right, then when you are completely in a safe and familiar environment?
Now like Santino said of course you can “beat” most of these issues, and a good film is going to draw you in “almost” regardless of your surroundings… but, it’s like, why put obstacles in your path? Even beatable ones, there’s just no reason to make yourself jump through hoops to get a legitimate viewing…
@Joks
I think it depends on the kind of audience you see the film with.
On O’ahu, the films I see don’t really attract a lot of people. There are mostly old people (like 60 and above) in the theater, and a handful of them, so it’s pretty quiet. The problem is the quality of the projection.
as for your second question, yes, well the internet encourages people to write in bite size chunks, but that isn’t really a problem for Mubi contributors now, is it? :-)
Yeah. :) On a serious note, though, I’ve notice my writing deteriorate after spending more time writing online than off.
It’s important to remember though that it also comes down to the culture itself. The culture, as well as the software, will often dictate how the technology is used. So the whole ‘convenience first’ aspect of mass culture will naturally impact on the way that we use internet technology.
I don’t know if the culture is more crucial than the nature of the medium itself. I’m thinking of Marshall McLuhan’s and Neil Postman’s ideas here. Think of the medium of this forum. The medium favors very short posts, not long ones—which basically eliminates more thoughtful, complex ideas. Of course, a few people are willing to write and read those type of posts, but they are definitely in the minority. So the forum favors short posts. (Just as TV favors information in small sound bytes.) I’m not sure culture will impact this—unless the culture can turn everyone into Greg and me. :)
“don’t know if the culture is more crucial than the nature of the medium itself.”
well i agree with Jirin that to some degree there is a complex interplay between the two(culture and technology). We accept some technologies rather than others because we see them as being beneficial or demonstrating comparative advantage.
I do agree that the medium does limit agency though. so i’m with McLuhan on that regard, but i think we also need to consider how technology is being used within culture too.
Kinda goes into the question of what is the optimal length for human consumption, you can pose this with text or with film….
On the film side, 30 minute comedies to me feel short, 1 hour drama format feels good, 90 minutes is like, the nut perfect size… 2 hours feels good, once you hit three hours… uh-oh… you better be really, really interesting to justify three hours…. beyond that, not really ideal for one sitting.
Wonder what the equivalents are for text? The problem is, let’s face it, in terms of the internet as a whole, the less time you spend reading on it… the better, shamed t’ say. So I can see why there is a sort of self defense mechanism in place, the notion of “get out quick because if you keep reading this crap you will get burned”.
I’ve seen 2001 in the theater recently, and while it was a novel experience, my best viewings of that film have all happened at home. Size isn’t everything….
It’s not just the size, but the quality of the sound and the fact that you don’t have the distractions around your home. (If you have kids, you’ll know what I mean.) All of these factors create a more immersive experience, imo—and that’s the ideal. When I’m home I can not only be distracted by other people or sounds (like my neighbors singing karaoke), but the books I have lying around or even the my laptop staring at me. This is especially becomes a temptation and distraction when a film gets slow—I think I’m less patient with slower films—I want to watch films that keep hook my attention right away and hold it to the very end, and I tend to not want films where I have to concentrate (partly because I’m tired when I see films). But these things don’t affect me when I’m at the theater—it’s just me and the movie—and that’s an ideal situation.
Of course, if the people around me are annoying (but they rarely are) or the projection is really bad (not usually), then this can really hurt the film viewing experience.
Btw, I don’t have any trouble “letting my guard” down. Are you talking about being comfortable with crying in the theater? I can understand if that’s an issue, but it’s not really an issue for me—especially since the theaters aren’t very crowded when I see a film. (But it might be uncomfortable completely balling my eyes out in a packed theater. heh.)
I mean crying is the extreme example but sure, that’s the idea. I guess I’m just a more anxious type, and it’s easier for me to “let it all go” in the privacy of a home than it is in public.
Now if I had kids, I could certainly see that argument. If your home environment is a bad viewing environment, then I can definitely appreciate the appeal of the theater in that circumstance.
Reminds me that my roommate’s mother recalls being physically punished by her father when she was young for talking during films. Some people don’t fuck around with their art ;)
culture is more crucial than the nature of the medium itself
Interesting assertion – is it possible for artistic process to transcend culture to some degree?
Tarkovsky….?
Re the forum: technology molds you to its needs.
“I also think that critics can play a huge role. If they really help people understand and appreciate art, I really do think more people would enjoy it.”
I agree completely. People have a stupid notion of critics. They think critics, especially film critics, should give a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” and that is it. And have you taken a look at some of the comments on Rotten Tomatoes? If a critic does not agree with a popular opinion- such as LOVING “The Dark Knight”, then he is attacked, mocked, and written off completely as a cook and contrarian.
To me, art depends on the critic as much as the artist. A good critic is sensitive to things the artist has done, and helps guide the viewer and help them reflect on a difficult piece of art.
Also, I agree about the viewing experience at home. I’ve had much more focused, calm and rewarding viewing experiences at home.
In mainstream theaters/movies, people just flat out don’t care. They talk on their cellphones, walk around, eat loudly, etc. Even at “arthouse” theaters, I find myself distracted by people nervously laughing at parts that are heartbreaking (such as key moments in Late Spring!!!), turning their heas and coughing constantly, shuffling around, etc.
I don’t know- I know I’m neurotic, but to me a movie theater is like a church. I never eat any “snacks” and I never see the need to comment on the film while it’s playing.
“I dunno it’s just different when your “out” right, then when you are completely in a safe and familiar environment…Now like Santino said of course you can “beat” most of these issues, and a good film is going to draw you in “almost” regardless of your surroundings… but, it’s like, why put obstacles in your path?”
If getting out of the house is considered an “obstacle”, we got bigger problems here my friend.
@Jazz -
“The medium favors very short posts, not long ones—which basically eliminates more thoughtful, complex ideas.”
I’m not sure about this. You could argue that because the medium forces short posts, it forces you to be more clear, more specific, more concise, which doesn’t necessarily mean not complex. Sometimes you can whittle down a three paragraph comment into two sentences and have the same effect, if you’re a good enough writer.
“It’s not just the size, but the quality of the sound and the fact that you don’t have the distractions around your home. (If you have kids, you’ll know what I mean.) All of these factors create a more immersive experience, imo—and that’s the ideal. When I’m home I can not only be distracted by other people or sounds (like my neighbors singing karaoke), but the books I have lying around or even the my laptop staring at me. This is especially becomes a temptation and distraction when a film gets slow—I think I’m less patient with slower films—I want to watch films that keep hook my attention right away and hold it to the very end, and I tend to not want films where I have to concentrate (partly because I’m tired when I see films). But these things don’t affect me when I’m at the theater—it’s just me and the movie—and that’s an ideal situation.”
I have the same experience. If the movie requires special attention – if it’s long or slow or in any way unconventional – I have to see it in the theater, where I’m trapped in a dark room staring at a large screen for two hours. If I try to watch the film at home, I can pause it, go to the bathroom, do my laundry, go online, talk on the phone, etc. There are have many times when I leave the theater to a film thinking, “thank God I went to see this because had I seen this at home, I probably never would’ve gotten through it”. This happens a lot for films that are on demand the same time they’re in theaters. While I can see The Hunter or Goodbye, First Love at home on Demand, I’d much rather go to the theater and see it there.
There is still silence in movies, just not as often or as contemplative. The only films I’ve seen in some time that use silence for contemplative, artful, emotionally profound ways are The Grey, Drive, Hunger, and The Tree of Life
The answer to the problem of silence is to go to the latest possible screening in the dead middle of the week. Or wait till a movie is near the end of its theatrical run and see a Tuesday matinee.
“The medium favors very short posts, not long ones—which basically eliminates more thoughtful, complex ideas.”
Yeah, I actually disagree with this premise to a certain degree, too—that more words = more thinking—even though I’m willing to concede the larger point.
The problem as I see it is not short posts, it’s the relative difficulty of sustained engagement with works and with ideas about works. so . . . this: “Re the forum: technology molds you to its needs.”
“is it possible for artistic process to transcend culture to some degree?”
Do you mean the structured way many films are made (screenplays, storyboarding, multiple takes etc.) or do you mean the individual stamp a film maker has on his shoots?
“Tarkovsky….?”
I have had this nagging feeling for years that I’m missing out by not seeing any of his work. I’ve tried in the past but something always gets in my way.
Yeah, I always try to hit like a 10 AM showing of a film after it has been out at least a while in the middle of the week… but trust me, it never works out. I remember my The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford viewing, it was me and one other dude, and about 20 minutes in to the film other dude falls asleep and promptly begins to snore. I walked out, demanded a refund, and vowed never to return to the theater as long as I live (I vow this just about every time I leave the theater.)
…A year or so passes, and I am tempted back into the devils clutches, because there is some film I really, really want to see before the internet spoils me rotten on it. [insert terrible experience], curse and vow never again, rinse, repeat…
Jazzaloha
@Axel
Hey, FWiW, I see a lot of loud, “hot air”, mindless nonsense in the cinema, but I also see a lot quiet, “meditative” nonsense that considers itself god’s greatest gift to all things profound and intellectual…
Wait, are you talking about the films? When I say “silence and stillness,” I’m not describing the films, but the setting and the extent to which people have these moments.