Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:46AM17 comments ›
Thu Jun 12, 2008 — by John Ostrander
Alone Together In the Dark, by John Ostrander
Tales From The O-zone
I remember the first time I saw the film Casablanca. It was at the 400 Theater in Chicago, just up Sheridan Road from Loyola University where I attended college. It was on the bill with Woody Allen’s Play It Again, Sam, an obvious but terrific double feature. I went stag but was lucky to get in at all; the small theater was packed.
I had missed or ignored Casablanca up until this point. I’m not sure why; I liked old serials a lot. The movie had certainly played on TV enough. I’d seen bits here and there or seen send-ups of it; callow youth that I was, I thought it wasn’t for me. Part of it was my own perverseness; my immediate reaction, on being told by everyone else that I must see this or I must hear that or I must read such and such is to say, “No, I don’t.” I get stupid stubborn about such things some times. Being told I would love the film I, of course, refused to see it. Finally, my curiosity overcame my perverseness and I sneaked off to view it without anyone else.
As I said, I went stag but I soon discovered I wasn’t alone. I was part of an audience, folks who mostly knew and loved the film. At the end of the singing of La Marseillaise, they cheered. When Captain Renault said, “Round up the usual suspects,” they cheered again. They laughed out loud at the funny lines (the movie is incredibly witty and they had actors who knew timing) and listened with rapt attention to Bogart’s speech at the end. Their delight and enthusiasm was catching on its own. And then there was the film itself.
I didn’t really know the story of Casablanca before I saw the movie and it swept me in; I experienced it as first time viewers would have back when the film first came out, not knowing the end. I was swept by the iconic images, especially those giant close-ups at the end – Paul Henreid, a heart-breakingly beautiful Ingrid Bergman, the incomparable Humphrey Bogart.
I’ve seen the movie countless times since and it may be my all time favorite film. With one exception, all those other times have been from video or DVD, at home, watching on the TV. Each viewing, however, carries with it a bit of that first viewing, that loving audience. Would I love the film as much without that first communal experience? I don’t think so. I wouldn’t have had the experience of seeing the movie the way it was meant to be seen.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m delighted that I have films on DVD. If its a choice between seeing a great movie from DVD and not seeing it at all, I’m delighted to have the opportunity to see it. There are films that, for one reason or another, I missed in their first release. I’m glad to have the experience of seeing them at all.
I know, however, that the experience of seeing them on TV is not the same as seeing them in the theater.
From my late wife, Kimberly Yale, I learned to appreciate westerns and, in particular, to appreciate John Wayne’s performance in John Ford’s The Searchers. Ford could get Wayne to play a bastard and Wayne’s character in The Searchers, Ethan Edwards, is a racist anti-hero albeit a compelling character. I’d seen the movie several times before having a chance to go to a big screen showing in NYC. Some of those going with me hadn’t seen the film; as I was to discover, neither had I. Never really seen it.
The film was in wide screen Vista-Vision and when Wayne was in close-up, his head was larger than my house. I finally “got” John Wayne. I saw him in his element – the big screen. Not the TV. I saw how hefilled that screen, not only with his appearance but his presence. How Ford’s images conjured up the era, the feel, and told his story, right through to the final statement with Wayne framed in the doorway; the door closes, cutting him off from the family inside as he has cut himself off. Powerful on the small screen; it was overwhelming on the large screen.
Yes, there are disadvantages to going out to the movies. Price of tickets is one, price of gas to get to the cineplex is another, price of popcorn and so on is yet another. The screens are sometimes too small and the seats can be too uncomfortable and the floor sticky. There are the louts who talk for whatever reason and the projectionist may be asleep or doing something else because the picture is out of focus or the houselights don’t go off and so on. And they are now showing commercials before the film. Bite me, Ad Boy.
I still prefer to see movies in the theater.
Watching the movie at home on DVD (or Blu-Ray now) is also an experience and it’s a legit one. It’s nice; you control the environment. If you need to pause the movie, you pause the movie. It is not, however, in my opinion the same experience as going to the theater and is not the one that the filmmaker primarilyintended. When you go to the movies, you’re entering the filmmaker’s world. You’re experiencing the film on their terms. There are no breaks. You are – hopefully – drawn into the experience outside of yourself, one that is – hopefully – shared by those who are in the theater with you. It’s a communal event.
I know some of the younger generation watch movies on their cel phones or iPods. First of all, I don’t get how they can even see the movie on such a small screen. It also strips the movie of what makes it unique; it just becomes another function for their device, like videos, games, texting or – possibly – phone calls. Most of all, it reduces movies to a solitary activity instead of a communal one. It’s viewer masturbation.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. There are pleasures to be had on one’s own, to be sure. However, we are so fragmented as a society already that I hate seeing a communal activity become more and more a solitary one.
Look, maybe some films work just fine on the small screen. I’ve seen very personal films like The Other Side of Anger or The Opposite of Sex only on DVD and they seem to work just fine on my TV. Would I go to see them on a big screen if I had the chance? Probably – just to see if that experience changes.
I’m also real glad I saw the original Star Wars films on the large screen, or Raiders of the Lost Ark or evenField of Dreams. There’s no way seeing those only at home can match seeing the images large in a darkened theater. I’m really glad I saw Iron Man on the big screen first this summer. I know I’ll carry the impact with me when I inevitably buy the DVD at some point in the future.
Most of all, I’ll be glad I saw it with others, even strangers. Their reactions to the film, to any film, may be different than mine but, for a short period of time, we were an audience, we shared a common experience. We were all, each of us, alone in the dark but there together in that time and place, watching together, and that to me is the butter on the popcorn.
The thoughts of GrimJack / Star Wars: Legacy / Suicide Squad writer John Ostrander appear every Thursday morning on ComicMix.
Jump to comments (17) 
More News from ComicMix
- The Point Radio: 'Twilight New Moon' Exclusives1 day ago, 0 comments
- Review: 'Saga of the Swamp Thing Book Two'1 day ago, 0 comments
- Why continuity matters, dammit1 day ago, 4 comments
- Capcom Announces 'Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition'1 day ago, 0 comments
- 'Angel: After The Fall' fan film3 days ago, 0 comments
- ComicMix Six: Best Geek-Themed Games for the Holidays3 days ago, 1 comment
- Review: 'Logan's Run' on Blu-ray3 days ago, 0 comments
- ComicMix and IDW on the iPhone and iTouch4 days ago, 0 comments
- 'Global Frequency' back to TV?4 days ago, 3 comments
- Review: 'Kevin Smith 3-Movie Collection' on Blu-ray4 days ago, 1 comment
Comments (17)
mike weber (10:13 AM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
My own all-time favourite film, Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West, which alternates between huge wideopen vistas (including beautiful footage in Monument Valley) and incredible closeups on on equally monumental actors - Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda, Jason Robards, Woody Strode, Jack Elam (Leone loved the Techniscope format that let him shoot that close without distortion in widescreen), Absolutely cries out to be seen the first time on the big screen.
Sure, you can enjoy it on DVD - i do, couple times a year - but it was made for theatrical viewing, and that's that.
Paul Wargelin (2:10 PM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
I attended a Sergio Leone retrospective at the Film Forum in NYC in 2003 where I not only saw Once Upon a Time in the West on the big screen, but The Good, the Bad & the Ugly , For a Few Dollars More, and A Fistful of Dynamite. Unfortunately, I missed the screening of A Fistful of Dollars. And they're all meant for theatrical viewing.
mike weber (9:13 PM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
Well, yeah, they all were.
But OUaTitW is the acme of Leone's love affair with the camera and the closeup, which is one reason i mentioned it specifically, and, as i said, it is my *favourite* film of all time..
Paul Wargelin (9:15 AM on Fri Jun 13, 2008)
Yes, I agree that Once Upon a Time in the West is Leone's masterpiece.
I attended this exhibition a few years ago, you may find it of interest:
http://www.autrynationalcenter.org/leone/
mike weber (9:22 AM on Fri Jun 13, 2008)
The DVD of Once Upon a Time... has the info about that.
Paul Wargelin (9:34 AM on Fri Jun 13, 2008)
That's right it does.
The exhibit was a lot of fun, with lots of props, Carlo Simi's production designs, posters and interactive stations where you could listen to Ennio Morricone's soundtrack music, and watch clips of the films, as well as interviews with Clint Eastwood, John Carpenter, John Landis and other filmmakers Leone influenced.
There was also three lifesize statues of Woody Strode, Jack Elam, and Al Mulock standing in the same positions as if waiting for Charles Bronson to enter the exhibit hall. :-)
Mike Gold (3:39 PM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
I agree with these sentiments, but I await the day when I shall possess a flat-screen that is roughly the size of a Talking Heads video. In that world, there will be no commercials, no squawking kids, no squawking adults, and if anybody is making comments they consider clever and witty, it'll be me.
Of course by then I'll be so old I'll need the 70" screen in order to see anything.
Mark Behar (4:35 PM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
They sell a 70" model, with a price tag of $35k, at the Sony Store next to my office at the Eaton Centre. I think that this size will probably become the standard in two or three years' time-- giving all of us just one more reason to avoid the theatre and the ten minutes of ads for Mazda, Oliver Jewellery (only Toronto readers will get that reference), and the chewing gum that's so damned icey that it leaves you with a permanent facial tic.
Truth be told, I don't understand the movie-on-an-iPod craze either, though. Everyone wants the largest TV they can find and movie theater multiplexes grow larger every year, yet a half-hour trip on the subway seems like it's no longer bearable without access to your favorite episode of The Chappelle Show on a one-inch screen. I suppose it's a byproduct of a generation that's been conditioned to avoid silence at all costs-- and therefore craves constant media bombardment, whatever the format.
Mike Gold (4:39 PM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
Movies on iPhones are cool if you're on long commuter trains, like from my place to Manhattan, or on airplanes. Although porno is a little superfluous.
Is that $35k Canadian, Mark? 'Cuz right now, that would be, what, about a quarter million dollars U.S?
But I can still trade you guys for gasoline!
Alan Coil (9:39 PM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
Fortunately, in my neck of the woods they show all the commercials before the movie's start time. When it is the movie start time, they show the Previews and then the National Amusements 'fanfare' clip, then the movie. All you have to do to avoid the commercials is to walk into the theater exactly at the listed show time.
mike weber (9:41 AM on Fri Jun 13, 2008)
They're going to begin offering a 108" LCD soon (story here); only $120,000, custom-built in place.
Mike Gold (9:45 AM on Fri Jun 13, 2008)
Great. Now all I've got to do is buy Wrigley Field.
Russ Rogers (1:44 PM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
I have a friend, a philosopher, actor, comedian and comic book artist and author, Steve Matuszak. I saw a performance piece he did about how the performer, the performance and any single viewer would essentially be the same the next performance, but this was the ONLY time THIS audience would be together. It's the audience's shared experience that is entirely unique. The film won't change. The single viewer remains relatively the same. But the SUM of the audience is always new and therefore exciting. It's the audience that makes the secret pact to come together and share a unique experience.
When I was in college, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was paid $10,000 to come on campus and give a lecture. I remember him spending a large portion of his relatively short time (I think he spoke for less than 90 minutes) justifying why he was worth ten grand. He said, in comparison, his former son-in-law Geraldo Rivera charged $25,000. This was around 1985. Maybe Geraldo's rates have gone up since then. Kurt's rates certainly have. Anyway, I think it kind of irked Vonnegut that Geraldo could command $25,000 for an appearance. I don't think he had much respect for him.
Vonnegut said there were many equally talented authors. And many lecturers who were much better than him. His conclusion as to why he was worth the money was that he was somebody (an event) that could draw several thousand students into the gymnasium (because the auditorium, theater and lecture halls on campus would have been much too small.) He wasn't what was worth the money spent. It was being able to gather such a LARGE audience for a common experience that made the expenditure worthwhile.
It's circular logic: would as many students have shown up if Vonnegut had only made $750? Probably not.
We are obsessed with polls and ranking and ratings. What movie was number one at the box office? Who is the best selling author? What TV show got the most viewers? Which Super Bowl Ad was liked the most? We not only want to use the rest of the world as a bellwether guide to what is good, we also want to know what is going to be the current common experience we can kibitz about around the water cooler. In a world full of billions, we need the security of a common frame of reference.
Artists especially need to read and study Pop Culture, because it gives them a common frame of reference with their audience. It's why we study the Bible and Greek Myths in literature class. These are the common reference points for other stories. It's why more people need to steep themselves in a knowledge and understanding of other cultures. In a shrinking world, where you physically get to nearly any point on the globe in a week and make contact with any point on the globe almost instantaneously, we NEED a larger group of SHARED references points, just so we can understand each other. World Peace through Speed Racer.
The Harry Potter novels are a must read, not only because they are good and entertaining, but because they have been read by SO many people. It's the vast SHARED experience that gives them a large chunk of their appeal.
Maybe what makes Pop Culture popular is that it's popular long before it's culture. Does this mean that the biggest fad will always produce the best art? No. The Bay City Rollers aren't the Beatles. R.L. Stine isn't on par with J.K. Rowling. But I will suggest that it was the Beatles popularity that gave them the courage, confidence and freedom to experiment and innovate and truly become great. Fortunately, the Beatles had the talent to truly capitalize on their popularity. But the "Instant Classic" is still an oxymoron.
I'm just restating much of what John has more eloquently said in this article. We want more than just the experience, we need the sense of involvement and community that comes from a shared experience.
That is part of the magic of the Internet, the magic of ComicMix. These comments give me (and even the ones who don't write comments) the opportunity to participate in a community. They are proof that our experience isn't singular and lonely. The fact that this communication is near instantaneous, lends a sense of immediacy and spontaneity. And sometimes these comments expand and enrich our experience. This is our way of chatting around the water cooler. This is our way of becoming an audience.
Mike Gold (3:46 PM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
If you could get Kurt Vonnegut today, he'd be worth a hell of a lot more than $10,000. He died 14 months ago, and I doubt even Stuart Gordon could reanimate him.
Insider outed: Stuart directed the stage version of Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan back in 1874; his 1976 version starred Dennis Franz and Joe Mantegna.
And yeah, Vonnegut was worth more on his worst day than Geraldo "here's our troop movements" Rivera.
mike weber (9:16 PM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
I have a friend, a philosopher, actor, comedian and comic book artist and author, Steve Matuszak. I saw a performance piece he did about how the performer, the performance and any single viewer would essentially be the same the next performance, but this was the ONLY time THIS audience would be together. It's the audience's shared experience that is entirely unique. The film won't change. The single viewer remains relatively the same. But the SUM of the audience is always new and therefore exciting. It's the audience that makes the secret pact to come together and share a unique experience.
"How many times can you step into the same stream?"
Anyway, I think it kind of irked Vonnegut that Geraldo could command $25,000 for an appearance. I don't think he had much respect for him.
That makes two of us.
Michael H. Price (4:04 PM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
Right there with you, John. Still fonder of the communal audience experience. Can't be just any theatre, of course. The Rave Motion Pictures chain provides a particularly clean and comfortable environment, and its systemwide digital conversion uses the right intensity of projection.
The 35mm holdout exhibitors need to be more careful with their film-handling and -projection procedures -- easy to lose focus or film-feed tension, difficult to correct such problems in a timely manner.
Our Modern Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas, dedicates its auditorium to imports and indies every weekend -- throwing 35mm, using side-by-side, non-automated projectors, with an in-the-booth projection engineer. A classics exhibition during August will bring in a large number of MoMA-archive films -- "His Girl Friday," 1930's "The Big Trail" in the original widescreen dimensions, various silents, some exemplary film noirs -- for a sustained exercise in that communal big-screen experience.
And yes, any film is its own experience. The bigger-than-real screen, with an absorbed audience, completes the experience. Dibs on the balcony, front-and-center.
Jeff Clem (3:48 PM on Thu Jun 12, 2008)
I certainly understand and identify with that perverseness you mention, when everyone tells you that you should see a great movie. Mine is "Schindler's List" and, yes, I felt that way before Seinfeld's sitcom. As far as the younger generation being ok with watching movies on ipods and such? Well, I remember some wit comparing something like that to watching "2001: A Space Odyssey" on a wrist-watch. Anyway, I envy you your experience of "getting" John Wayne once you saw "The Searchers" on a big screen; I have yet to experience that and look forward to it (one fine day). On the other end of the spectrum, I saw "Wizard of Oz" on a big screen at the NuArt Theatre on Santa Monica Blvd. in LA back in 1985 and, after years of having seen it on television, was disappointed. I mean, you see all the wires! :)