Museum of the Damned

A couple years back, I had the pleasure of viewing Wolf Rilla's Village of the Damned on film. The print I watched had the distinction of being the only one known in existence. The last known celluloid copy of Damned was as you'd expect: after 45 years, the print was hanging on for dear life. The frames were scratched badly and many of them had shrunk. Three times during the screening the film had to be stopped in order for the reels to be reloaded because many of the perforations were shredded. The quality was abysmal. I didn't find out until after the film screened that I had just seen the last original print in existence. MGM decided not to spend the money to restore and make copies for future audiences.

Over the fourth of July holiday, I overheard my mother having a conversation with a family member about Shawn Levy's Night at the Museum. I had taken my mom, grandma, and sister to the film when it was released in theaters. It's one of those perfect "family films" that is safe enough for your grandma while still being entertaining for your little sister. Everybody loved it. In fact, it was quite disturbing to me just how much my mother loved it. She instantly declared it as one of her favorite film ever, and was laughing hysterically and repeating the jokes and gags all the way home. So of course, she eagerly purchased the DVD upon its release and the subject was never mentioned again until this past fourth of July.

That's when I overheard my mother and grandma (she loved it as well, just not to the psychotic extremes of ma') complaining about the film. My ears perked up and I began eavesdropping on the conversation. Unfortunately, their talk ended with the frenzy to cook hamburgers and pie. On the way back to Lincoln, I asked my mom about what I'd overheard her say. She went into a big rant about how, though she still thought the movie was "good", that it just "wasn't the same" as when we'd seen it in the theater. I had just had a "debate" (which I firmly believe is an impossibility on the internet) with some buddies about this very topic, so I was interested in getting an outside person's viewpoint. It was a typical response from people trying to explain why the theatrical viewing experience is better than the home viewing experiece: "I don't know..it just is"

Film Scholars talk about the "warmth" of watching a film in its original format. They argue that there is a tangible effect that impacts the senses of the viewer differently than the "coldness" of the digital format, such as a DVD. My mom tried as best she could to explain it. She thought the jokes just didn't work as well on the small screen. She thought the facial expressions of the actors, especially the close-ups, just weren't as funny as they were when they were 30 feet tall. The film's sense of scope was smaller. The T-Rex just didn't seem very imposing, and so on. Basically, she was dismayed that a film that had been one of her favorites had suddenly been merely "ok" when she watched it on DVD. My mom's television is 27"; not huge, but not overly small either (although, according to some people, the theatrical experience suddenly begins at 32"). In other words, Night at the Museum was not the same movie on DVD as it was in the Theatre.

When I got back, I spent a few days at my girlfriends' parents house. They have a 52" big screen TV. I watched Running Scared, The Pursuit of Happyness, The Illusionist, and The Hitcher. Not once was I ever being affected the same way as watching a movie theatrically. It was a bigger screen, so therefore it should have been an "equal" viewing experience, right?

No. The theatre is superior to TV.

There's a reason Village of the Damned was screened in its original format rather than the DVD. The DVD wouldn't have stalled three times into the film. It would have looked a lot cleaner. The audio would have been much better. On the face of it, there should be no reason to ever watch a print in such poor quality when there is something so obviously "superior". But therein lies the greatness of the theatre. Whatever the home viewing experience can claim to do, the theatre can do it, but not vice versa.

Let me say first up that whether or not an individual likes or prefers one way of watching a movie over the other is irrelevant. Maybe you just hate going to the theatre. That's fine. But don't kid yourself by trying to argue the point that watching a movie on your TV is the equivalent of seeing it on a movie screen. Here's the reasons why:

1. The most obvious is the size of the screen. You're never going to be able to replicate the immersion a huge theatre screen can give you in your home. If a 52" television screen is not big enough to give you the exact same viewing experience as a theatre, then it's never going to happen for you. Most sane home viewing loyalists cede this point. And you can forget that line of vision bullshit. If I watch Evil Dead on my pc screen while sitting two feet away from it, that's not the same thing. Just like it's not if I watch a 52" TV sitting 8' away.

2. Less distractions. This is one of two major points that TV adherents latch on too. The theory goes that when you get to a theatre, you have to deal with cell phones, people talking, kicking seats, etc. etc. What isn't ever talked about are the distractions at home.

Here's a few: Cell phones ring at home. Sometimes you get hungry, pause the movie, go grab a sandwich, then come back. It becomes much easier, when watching a film with a friend or spouse, to make comments and talk during it. Your eyes (and this is actually a scientifically verified fact) tend to wander around the room. Maybe the flick you're watching is sorta boring, so you're more apt to look over at that Death Proof poster on your wall that seems a little off-center. There's the definite aspect of having to stop/pause and rewind something, causing an unnatural break in the movie viewing experience. Personally, I refuse to piss when I go to the theatre. At home, I'll pause the movie.

The point is that there are at the very least an equal, if not more, distractions at home than at a theatre. At best, you can call it a wash, at worst, you can call TV the distraction center of the universe.

3. The Theatre "Experience". Yes, you can have surround sound at home. Have me over sometime when you blast it at the levels of a theatre. "But it's all relative!", you say. No, it isn't. Again, maybe you like your home surround system, but that isn't replicating what a theatre can do. The sound in a theatre has a physical effect on your body that can't be replicated by the average home theatre experience. The only way this is possible is if you have your own home and neighbors that won't call the cops when they hear explosions across the picket fence. If you live in an apartment...forget about it.

Another aspect of the theatre is the "strangers" effect. When you're in a theatre with a bunch of people you don't know, you become influenced (sometimes minutely, sometimes largely) by their reactions, either by gasps and screams in a horror film, or crying and weeping during a melodrama. You can't control this variable. You may hate every single person around you, and you may do your very best to place yourself in your own personal vacuum, but it isn't possible not to be affected somehow by the strangers around you. The argument now will become "But I can bring a bunch of friends over and get the same feelings". No, you can't. This is because human beings are affected differently by people they don't know. Your friends are "safe", you can anticipate how they will react to something, and most importantly you can interact with them at any time during the viewing experience. You can't do that with a bunch of strangers in a theater.

4. The price of going to the theatre is outrageous! Is it really? It's pretty trendy to slam on the price of a theatre ticket. It's also trendy to use New York and L.A. as examples of how crazy ticket prices are. It's true. Ticket prices have gone up over the years. But according to the National Association of Theatre Owners, the average price of a ticket last year was $6.55 If you look at the stats since 1990, that's only a $2.33 increase. That may sound pricey, but considering the demand for blockbuster movies with insane special fx costs and twenty million dollar actors, it's surprising ticket prices are as low as they are. Here in Lincoln, a saturday matinee for two people, two waters, and an order of nachos is $16.50. Reasonable, considering most new DVD's cost $15 or more and if you include the high price of the HD DVD's, then that's something else entirely.

The argument against this is "I can wait until it comes out on DVD and then just rent it for $4.00". Sure, you could definitely do that. But then you aren't watching the movies, you're watching television...

5. You're not watching the movies, you're watching television. Any movie that is in a theatre is designed to be seen in a theatre. That's the whole point. You don't shoot a movie on 35mm and then say "gee whiz, I'm sure glad this isn't being shown in a retarded movie theatre!" The very medium demands that it is projected onto a big screen. The DVD medium is designed for a television. The TV screen and the Theatre screen are two different mediums that are projected differently and thus, need to be treated as such. Now, is one "superior" over the other?

What's the difference between watching Treasure of the Sierra Madre on TCM uncut commercial free, and popping in the DVD? The answer is that there is no difference. Now take Treasure and put it on the big screen. Now what's the difference? Everything. As mentioned earlier, a television cannot replicate what the theatre does, but the theatre CAN replicate what the television does.

Hi-def is the newest arrow in the home theatre quiver. Rather than get into the nuances of hi-def as it effects the cinema experience, let's just give the home theatre enthusiasts this one. Of course, theatres can be equipped with any of the same hi-def equipment that a home theatre has. You wanna watch that overrated Wes Anderson flick in hi-def at home? Think of how great it looks on the big screen of a theatre, with all the extra bells and whistles that can't be replicated in your living room. Hell, just think of how awesome The Sopranos would be on a theatre screen. The excuse that "my TV image can look BETTER than a theatre screen" is moot when one realizes that a hi-def capable theatre can do the same thing.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that on a technical level, your television is equal to the theatre. The image quality is the same. Your "line of vision" counteracts the 30 foot cinema screen. Your surround sound is on par with a theatre, relatively speaking. You still can't get the other intangibles that a theatre offers in your living room. There is only one thing that home viewing can use to try and offset the extra stuff the theatre can provide...

6. Convenience. This is what it ultimately comes down to and this is where personal preference muddies the debate. Convenience has nothing to do with a comparison of the mediums. I'm a die-hard supporter of the theatre experience (can you tell?). If I had the means, I would watch every movie in a theatre rather than on a TV. Unfortunately, I just can't do that. Nobody can. I get plenty of enjoyment from throwing Creepshow into my DVD player and kicking back with some snacks. There is nothing wrong with that in any way shape or form. In fact, I find nothing even remotely wrong with anyone who says they like or prefer that way of viewing movies. It's personal preference, not an objective perspective of the pros and cons between the theatre and TV.

From a pure convenience standpoint, home viewing has the edge. Pretty much all mainstream movies from the past 50 years can be found on Netflix (though if you try to find anything even remotely obscure, I've found Netflix to be incredibly lacking) and delivered to your mailbox. There are thousands of films that will never be on DVD, but the only demand for them is by film geeks like myself; a niche market. But watching Village of the Damned the way it was intended, with a projector and film reels, is just not the same as putting a DVD in your player and seeing it on your hi-def 32" TV screen.

Is it "warmth"? I find that term to be insufficient. The reality is that even Film Scholars have a hard time putting the difference into words. The point is that the effects can be measured. Give nearly all filmmakers a choice, and they are going to want their films shown in a theatre. The reason is because of people like my mom, who have such a different reaction to a film simply because of the way it's shown. Studios pay a lot of money to get their films shown in theatres. If the home theatre experience is so great, I've gotta wonder why they even bother with the expense of prints, advertising, etc.? There's a reason why people go back to the theatres over and over again, and it isn't just to watch the movie. It's because its an experience they can't get in their living rooms.

In closing, the theatrical experience is superior to the home viewing experience. It doesn't matter how big your TV is. It doesn't matter how clear the image is. It doesn't matter how grand your sound system is. Convenience is irrelevant. A movie on a TV is still nothing more than a movie on TV, whether it's a cable line or a DVD.

The theatre, however, can do everything your living room can do...and things it can't.