it is best to watch it on the big screen but one should still be able to enjoy a good film (even if it is a great visual film) even on an iphone (a good film is a good film).
Occasionally I will watch something on YouTube if I have no other way to watch it or if I want to watch something, then between clips maybe chat with people here or somewhere else. In a way, I kind of like it because I can see all the details up close. Of course, I generally prefer DVD or theaters overall.
I’m sorry, but a mobile telephone is not an acceptable means of experiencing a film. I’ve watched films on laptops and it’s just not the same. If I’m ever again with a woman who suggests this, I’ll slam the laptop shut on her dainty little fingers.
You need to maintain some standards. “Seven Samurai” is in the old 1.37 aspect ratio, yet I do not cherish the thought of seeing it on television. For me, “Seven Samurai” is a compulsory big screen experience. The same goes for “West Side Story”. I have viewed “Hair” both on the large and small screens. Obviously, it’s much more preferable on the big screen. Alas, it plays very rarely in Melbourne. If I know a classic film is going to be at the cinema, I’ll wait for it to be revived.
“Lawrence of Arabia” is a film I refuse to see on television, at least until I experience at the cinema. Even then it might be a mandatory big screen adventure. I caught a glimpse of “Apocalypse Now Redux” on the small screen and it looks woeful…something just wasn’t right.
“2001: A Space Odyssey” is perhaps the biggest example of a “must-see at the cinema” experience.
The fact is great visual films deserve something larger than a tiny mobile phone screen. I am amazed at such double standards: people shall pay hundreds of dollars for a portable music player with the best sound available, and kick up a fuss about one of their two earphones going blank, yet when it comes to vision…they are quite happy to watch a film on a screen four inches by four inches.
Why is sound more important than vision when watching a movie?
Yeah, YouTube is kinda a last resort for me, but, of course, in many cases it’s the only option.
I was lucky to first view this movie in one of those 1960’s, California ultra-wide domes….
Yes! It did make me “feel the desert”.
I cannot imagine—— can’t even see the purpose of, in fact——— watching LAWRENCE on YouTube.
Better to see it on Youtube than not at all, but the big screen is obviously ideal. I caught it last year and it was a great time. Having a real intermission and everything makes you respect the epic scope of it.
Having grown up watching films taped off tv on a dodgy video and a TV screen about the size of a laptop its no issue for me. In fact I virtually never go to the cinema now to watch a film because for me seeing something on a big screen with fancy sound isn’t worth the money cinemas charge. I’d much rather pick up a cheap DVD and watch it on my laptop.
Often times I find that a movie I saw in theaters which I thought to have excellent cinematography, I find sub-par when viewed a second time on my television or lappy :l
no one posted this yet? weird:
I gave up trying to explain to people why Lawrence of Arabia projected in 70mm on a huge screen is the only way to experience the film as it should be. People say ‘if it’s a good film then it’ll be OK on my crappy 14" monitor…".
If you get the chance, watch it at the cinema. You’ll realize these people are wrong.
Sony keep their prints in nice condition so you’ll get a chance every so often if you’re patient.
There are so many great movies out there that look just fine on a big TV. Lawerence of Arabia isn’t one of them, and unless you have to watch it for a school report, just be patient and watch something else.
And I completely agree with David Lynch about watching films on your fucking telephone.
In San Francisco, I once went along to see BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’s on a really big, old-fashioned screen (it was a 1930’s movie “palace”).
I was really shocked and had to admit that the big screen version of a movie (even one not widescreen) is a whole ’nother entertainment experience than merely watching it on TV….
For one thing, your peripheral vision is engaged, and that GREATLY enhances the effect of “suspension of disbelief”.
The real truth is that—- Yes!——- when it comes to cinematic projection, bigger is definitely better.
This “let’s get small” ethos of modern high-tech does not feel engaging to me, sorry. I can’t watch ANYTHING on a iPOD or Smartphone.
I thought that David Lynch didn’t cuss?
I remember seeing Dennis Hopper on like Charlie Rose or something talking about how, when discussing the Blue Velvet script with Hopper, Lynch would point to bad words and say ‘that word’, but would never say them out loud.
Either Hopper was bullshitting, or Lynch has loosened up a bit….
Plenty of meditation of taken Lynch to a higher level of consciousness where he can cuss freely.
That and he REALLY doesn’t like the whole movie/telephone thing.
Bahahaha! That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in a while. Imagine sitting down, watching TV, and this comes on as a commercial. I’d shit my pants.
And by “this,” I mean the Lynch video.
youtube is acceptable only for trailers.
David Lincoln Brooks:
You make a magnificent point about one’s peripheal vision being engaged by the big screen experience. This is why I relish sitting front row centre at the movies. Many people cannot understand why I do this on a regular basis. The fact is I love to immerse myself in the film. And I like that I have to sometimes move my head left to right to see what is happening on either side of me, just like you would look around yourself in real life.
Emily:
The video featuring David Lynch has been posted elsewhere on this site in a similar thread. It’s one of the first things that springs to mind when I contemplate this subject.
Oldskoolsi:
It’s ironic that you don’t fancy the idea of visiting the cinema to experience films, given your screen name. Now, I’m not one of these people who says “you haven’t seen the film unless you’ve seen it at the cinema”. There are some films I enjoyed many times on the small screen, and I understood and loved these films as much as anybody, if not moreso, before relishing them at the theatre house. It’s just that seeing them at the cinema takes the experience to a whole ’nother level.
I’m not certain where you live, O.S., but if you were to reside in Melbourne, Australia, you could purchase an annual membership to the Melbourne Cinemateque and see about eighty films per year for ninety dollars concession, one hundred and eight dollars full price. The films are presented on celluloid prints splashed across the big screen, and considering it works out to less than two dollars per movie if you go every week, I don’t see how watching films on a laptop could possibly be better value.
Even if you get a mini-membership (four weeks for either eighteen or twenty-three dollars), that still works out to about two or three dollars per film. A lot of the films they play, you would struggle to find on D.V.D. or television. Also, a lot of these films that DO appear on D.V.D. nowadays can cost thirty dollars, and how often would you get to watch them? You’d have to watch them three or four times to make it cost effective compared to a movie ticket price, and you still won’t have seen them on the big screen.
“Lawrence of Arabia” used to play all the time at the Astor several years ago. Someday I’ll get around to seeing it on the big screen. At the moment, the Astor is doing a David Lean retrospective. I’m going along to check out “Ryan’s Daughter”. For those who are curious as to what’s playing, last week it was “Dr. Zhivago” and next week it’s “A Passage to India”. There’s also a Humphrey Bogart retrospective and soon they are rolling out some films from Greta Garbo.
Viewing films on D.V.D. can be handy and if I enjoy an old film on D.V.D. for a couple dollars or so, and they revive it at the cinema, I have no problems in paying for a cinema admission to enjoy it on the big screen.
I watch films here at Mubi and at Stagevu, but I connect my computer to the TV. I don’t like watching a film and having so many distractions at the same time.
I’ve only watched one classic on the big screen, it was Angés Varda’s Cléo de 5 a 7… I would’ve preferred to watch something else, but the experience was indeed much better than watching it on TV.
I think its interesting to see which films, when robbed of the power of cinema immersion, still hold up well on a smaller screen, and which maybe fall off the 2 and a half star precipice into the chasm of lousiness.
The real problem is these cellphones and laptops and netbooks are internet connected multi-use devices so the potential for distraction is enormous.
Obviously there’s more issues of access to repertory theaters if you dont live in a big city or college town.
Santropez…you’ve only watched ONE classic film on the big screen?
Maybe you ought to see “Breathless” at the theatre. It’s a different film when you can’t pause it every fifteen minutes to break up the sheer tedium of it all, in addition to the forced laughter of your fellow patrons at every little slice of attempted, strained humour from the film.
Don’t they revive El Santo films in Mexico? I’m in Australia, even I’VE seen a couple of El Santo films on the big screen.
@Mark
My name has nothing to do with my cinema preferences, it’s just a name someone called me once that I liked and use for pretty much everything. If it had anything to it had anything to do with cinema however it would not be in the least bit ironic. I fthe name for you implies tradition then my film watching tradition has always been watching film from the comfort of my own home. When I was young I did use to go to the cinema but I honestly can’t remember the first film I saw at the cinema. Neither can i remember any particularly memorable cinema experiences as a child, save for one I had when I saw Karate Kid 2. However I still remember with joy the Christmas we got our first video player and watching Star Wars on it. I have a lot of other memories linked to watching a film on video. In my teens I used to do a paper round and I spent my money on a video player in my room. It didn’t matter that the TV I had was rubbish. When we got sky with all the movie channels I pretty much used to tape a film a night.
I have seen quite a few ‘classics’ at the cinema but didn’t feel the experience was ’special’. Virtually all of the films I’ve seen have been on video, and now computer (as I type this I’m watching an Awful Coffin Joe film on the top right of my screen). I’m not denying that cinema is a more immersive experience. It certainly can enhance a film but not enough for me to feel i have to see a film at a cinema. The only reason I go nowadays is if it’s a film I really want to to see.Which gwts me to another reason I don’t watch films at the cinema. I’m more interested in seeing one classics than going to see a new film. There are so many films in the last 100 years or so that I am much more interested in seeing. I also dislike how a lot of modern films (at least the blockbusters) tend to be well over 2 hours. I am oldskool in my believe that 90 mins is generally perfectly fine.
The final reason is cost. I live in England and probably and I probably live about half an hour from the nearest decent cinema. About 1o years ago I used to go to the cinema lot. It could cost less than £4 to see a film. DVD was still expensive and video was becoming obselete so the best way to see new film (IMO). Now it seems closer to £7 and very hard to get deals. I’m of the believe that blu-ray wont catch on and we’ll skip to download as the next step for buying film so at the moment I’m perfectly happy buying DVD”s. Most films can I want to see be picked up for £5 max, often with extras. I’d much rather pay a fiver for something permenent. Also I subscribe on and off to lovefim, usually when they offer 3 months for the price of 1. It costs about £18 and I watch about 15 films a month through it. So I watch 45 films for about £18.
There you go three reasons why I don’t bother with cinema; tradition, not buying (completely) buying into the whole ‘experience” and cost.
i find watching many films on computer from close up is not a great loss compared with watching say on TV, but to watch a film like 2001 on a mobile phone, well you might as well say you’ve seen an elephant when all you saw was a square inch of its leg.
Mark:
The problem is that there are not much classic projections going on here, film buffs are not many here, and most of them are snobs…
And no, there’s a lot of prejudice against mexican golden age films here, so cinemas don’t usually screen any. Pretty sad :(
I never saw a movie on my computer and stopped seeing movies on TV decades ago. When I had to give up going to the movies, I worked extra-hours for years to be able to offer me a video-projector with a decent screen. It’s simply a matter of respect towards directors and cinema. You don’t smoke if you’re unable to buy a pack of cigarettes.
“Larecne of Arabia” needs to be seen on the biggest screen available with a first-class stereo sound system. A DVD makes for a nice “memory aide,” as do any You Tube clips. But it’s NOT the film. The film is on a screen in a theater.
(Same for Tati’s “Playtime” and Kubrick’s “2001”)
Are those iPhone jokes based on reality, I mean, do some people REALLY watch movies on iPhone? Or is it just way to exaggerate anti-DVD opinions. If it’s former then.. wow.
Acceptable.
Not preferable.
Unfortunately, out here I have very, very little other recourse. My total DVD collection in the UAE after three months of searching for something I actually value enough to buy is Brick and Dungeons and Dragons.
—PolarisDiB
brady qw
For a film like Lawrence of Arabia, is it necessary to watch it on a big screen?
This goes for any other film as well. Is a large screen necessary to fully enjoy the film?
Discuss.