’

:é'fififl'fQ
\. )
Lfivistw‘
wa‘
:§§\\\\\
\\§\\$5:
x. H;
H
In
‘.
The ART of
WATCHING FILMS

mmmmm
Source: Star Wm: he mmmm

rm clnomb I: a work of on when motion mm to o m

”1me with man and mm and when an «ppm um mm
M1990 MI. .0 the M '

=J9IiP van mum mm

THE UNIQUENESS OF FILM

The tremendous expense involved in producing motion pictures reminds us that

film is both an industry and an art form. Each film is the child of a turbulent mar-
riage between businesspeople and artists. Yet despite an ongoing battle between aes-
thetic and commercial considerations, film is recognized as a unique and powerful
art form on a par with painting, sculpture, music, literature, and drama. A. 0. Scott,
a film reviewer for The New York Times, has
eloquently identified other tensions
within our insatiable
appetite for going to the movies: “[I]t is at once collective
and radically solitary,
an amalgam of the cohesive social ritual of theater-going

and the individualist reverie of novel-reading. [M]oviegoing is perhaps still

. . .
. . .

the exemplary modern cultural activity. It splices together the line at the box
. . .

office and the solitary dreaming in the dark. .”1 . .

As a form of expression, the motion picture is similar to other artistic media, for
the basic properties of other media are woven into its own rich fabric. Film employs
the compositional elements of the visual arts: line, form, mass, volume, and tex-
ture. Like painting and photography, film exploits the subtle interplay of light and
shadow. Like sculpture, film manipulates three-dimensional space. But. like panto~
mime, film focuses on moving images, and as in dance, the moving images in film
have rhythm. The complex rhythms of film resemble those of music and poetry.
and like poetry in particular, film communicates through imagery, metaphor, and
symbol. Like the drama, film communicates visually and verbally: visually, through
action and gesture; verbally, through dialogue. Finally, like the novel, film expands
or compresses time and space, traveling back and forth freely within their wide
borders.

What Makes Film Unique

Despite these similarities, film is unique, set apart from all other media by its quality
of free and constant motion. The continuous interplay of sight, sound, and motion
allows film to transcend the static limitations of painting and sculpture—in the com-
plexity of its sensual appeal as well as in its ability to communicate simultaneously
on several levels. Film even surpasses drama in its unique capacity for revealing var-

ious points of view, portraying action, manipulating time, and conveying a bound-
less sense of space. Unlike the stage play. film can provide a continuous. unbroken
flow, which blurs and minimizes transitions without compromising the story's
unity. Unlike the novel and the poem, film communicates directly, not through
abstract symbols like words on a page but through concrete images and sounds.
What’s more, film can treat an almost infinite array of subjects—“from the poles
flaw in a piece of steel,
to the
equator, from the Grand Canyon to the minutest
. . .

from the flicker of thought across an almost impusslve face to the frenzied ravings

of madman.
a ."2. .

Film has the capability to represent just about anything we can imagine or
perceive. Time can be slowed or speeded up so that the invisible is revealed.
As

if by magic, a bullet's trajectory through the air or the many stages of a tlower‘s
bloom can be made visible and comprehensible. Film can afford us experiences
not available to mortals. Until movies such as Harry Potter and Avatar
normally

The Art of Watching Fllms

 fl

came out, how else—other than in our dreams—have beings human been able
feel the motion of swooping through a canyon on Wings Of a Wlld bird?
to
the
What better way to understand the depth, pathos, and gemus 0f Mozart 5 life than
through his own music (Amadeus)? Even the universe itself feels palpable Wm.“
Han Solo shifts his ship into warp speed and stars collapse outsrde hlS WlndOW 1n
Star Wars.
_
.

The medium is unlimited not in its choice of subject but also its
only In
approach to that material. A film's mood and treatment can range from the lyric to
the epic. In point of view, a film can cover the full spectrum from the
surface
purely objec-
and
tive to the intensely the
subjective; in depth. it can focus on
realities
A film
the purely sensual, or it can delve into the intellectual and philosophical.
few seconds
can look to the remote
past or probe the distant future; it can make a
seem like hours or compress a century into minutes. Film can run the gamut of
feeling from the most fragile, tender, and beautiful to the most brutal. violent, and
repulsive.

Increasing Realism as Technology Evolves

Of greater importance than film’s unlimited range in subject matter and
even

treatment, however, is the overwhelming sense of reality it can convey. The con~
tinuous stream of sight, sound, and motion creates a here-and-now excitement
that immerses the viewer in the cinematic experience. Thus, through film, fantasy
assumes the shape and emotional impact ofreality (Figure 1.1). The technological
history of film can in fact be viewed
continual evolution toward greater real-
as a

ism, toward erasing the border between art and nature. The motion picture has pro-
gressed step by step from drawings, to photographs, to projected images, to sound,
to color, to wide screen, to 3-D and beyond.
Attempts have been made to add the
sense of smell to the film
experience by releasing fragrances in the theater. Aldous
Huxley’s classic novel Brave New World depicts a theater of the future in which
a complex electrical apparatus at each seat
provides tactile images to match the
visuals: “Going to the Feelies this evening,
Henry? I hear the new one at the
. . .

Alhambra is first-rate. There's a love scene on a bearskin rug;

they say it‘s marvel-
ous. Every hair of the bear reproduced. The most
amazing tactual effects."3
Although Huxley‘s “Feelies" have not yet become reality, the motion picture
has succeeded—through Cinerama, IMAX. and other wide-screen. curved-screen.
large-screen projection or computerized virtual reality techniques—in intensify-
ing our experience to a remarkable degree. In fact, by creating
images that are
larger than life, films have sometimes been made to seem more real than reality-
A cartoon published shortly after the release of the first
Cinerama film (This IS
Cinerama, 1952) illustrates the effectiveness of this device. The
drawing pictures
a man groping for a seat during the famous roller-coaster sequence. As he moves
across a row of theater seats, another
spectator, in a his and panic, grabs arm
screams hysterically, “Sit down, you fool! You'll have us all killed!" This comic
exclamation echoed similar ones from
early silent film patrons who reacted ner-
vously to the first train that swiftly entered a cinema's “station.“ What awesome
delights must await us consumers of movie CGI
in future decades.
(computer-generated imagln's)

4 CHAPTER 1
FIGURE 1.1 Making Fantasy Become Reality The film medium gives such fantasy movies
as novelist and screenwriter J. K. Rowling‘s Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them the
texture and emotional impact of reality.
Source: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them/Warner Brothers

THE CHALLENGES OF FILM ANALYSIS

The properties that make film the most powerful and realistic of the arts also make
analysis challenging. A motion picture moves continuously in time and space.
Once frozen, a film is no longer a “motion” picture, and the unique property of
the medium is gone. Therefore, film analysis requires us to respond sensitively to
the simultaneous and continuous interplay of image, sound, and movement on the
screen. This necessity creates the most challenging part of the task: We must some-

how remain almost totally immersed in the experience of a film while we maintain
a
high degree of objectivity and critical detachment. Difficult though it may seem,
this skill can be developed, and we must consciously cultivate it if we desire to
become truly “cineliterate.” Innovations in digital videodisc (DVD), Blu-ray players
and recorders, and streaming video can help, initially at least, by simply making
screenings (as well as multiple viewings) of a film easier than in the past.
The technical nature of the medium also creates challenges. It would be ideal
if we all had some experience in cinematography and film editing. In the absence
of such experience, we should become familiar with the basic techniques of film
production so that we canrecognize them and evaluate their effectiveness. Because
a certain amount of technical language or jargon is necessary for the analysis and
intelligent discussion of any art form, we must also add a number of important
technical terms to our vocabularies.
The most challenging part of our task has already been stated: We must
become almost totally immersed in the experience of a film and at the same time
maintain a high degree of objectivity and critical detachment. The complex nature
of the medium makes it difficult to consider all the elements of a film in a single

viewing; too many things happen too quickly on too many levels to allow for a
Complete analysis. Therefore, if we wish to develop the proper habits of analytical
Viewing, we should see a film at least twice whenever possible. In the first viewing,
we can watch the film in the usual manner, concerning ourselves primarily with

The Art of Watching Films 5

 plot elements,the total emotional effect, and the central idea or theme. Then, in
subsequent viewings, because we are no longer caught up in the suspense of what
happens, we can focus our full attention on the hows and whys of the filmmaker’s
[Link] practice of the double- or multiple-viewing technique make
it
should
possible for us gradually to combine the functions of two or more Viewings into
one. Still, few of us
possess the kind of total recall claimed by
celebrated film critic
Pauline Kael, who often insisted that she never watched any movie more than once

before she composed a review.

We must also remember that film analysis does not end when the film is over.
In a sense, this is when it
really begins. Most of the questions posed in thls book
require the reader to reflect on the film after viewing it, and a mental replay of
necessary for any complete analysis.
some parts of the film will be

Finally, as we move through the chapters that follow toward the analysis of indi-
vidual films, we must always remind ourselves that if the medium can truly be called
an “art,” then it is
definitely a collaborative one. Scores, if not hundreds, of commercial
professionals are involved in the production of the average “picture” (to use the term
that many filmmakers themselves prefer). When we analyze a literary work such as a
novel or poem, we judge the toil of a single creative individual. By contrast, our close
examination of a film requires of the talents of many different artists,
an awareness

including producers, directors, production/costume/makeup designers, and, of course,

actors. Usually, though, in the
beginning is still the word, and the screenwriter—who
has historically been viewed as the least respected major team in player Hollywood—
remains the primary originating force within cinematic art.

THE VALUE OF FILM ANALYSIS

Before we turn to the actual process of film analysis, it

may be worthwhile to look
into certain fundamental questions that have been raised about the value of
analy-
sis in general.

Either/0r Positions About Analysis

Perhaps the most vocal reactions against analysis come from those who see it as
a destroyer of beauty, claiming that it kills our love for the object under study.
According to this view, it is better to accept all art intuitively, emotionally, and sub-
jectively, so that our response is
full, warm, and vibrant, uncluttered
by the intel-
lect. However, an either/or, black-and-white polarization of intuition
and analysis
is flawed. It denies the possibility of some middle
ground—a synthesis that retains
the best qualities of both approaches and embraces as
equally valid both the emo-
tional/intuitive and the intellectual/analytical avenues.

The Two Sides Can Coexist: This Book’s Position

This book rests on that middle ground. It assumes that the soul of the
poet and the
intellect of the scientist can coexist within all of us,
enriching and enhancing the
film experience. Analysis need not murder our love of the movies. We can
experi-
beauty, joy, and mystery
ence
intellectually as well as
intuitively. With the tools of

5 CHAPTER 1
 -

._-—w‘u
_
_

. .c- c ..3'. 5.; Learning to Dive Watching classic film dramas such as Ingmar Bergman‘s
The Seventh Seal helps us to understand our human selves with a depth that might elude

us otherwise.
Source. The Seventh Seal/The Criterion Collection

analysis, we can deepest reaches of understanding that only the poet

discover the
within us can fully appreciate (Figure 1.2). By creating new avenues of awareness.
analysis can make our love for movies stronger, more real, more enduring. The ana-
lytical approach is essential to the art of watching films, for it enables us to see and
understand how each part functions to contribute its vital energy to the pulsino,
dynamic whole.
the whole to discover the nature.
Analysis, generally, means breaking up
of the parts. Film analysis, then,
proportion, function, and interrelationships
and rationally structured artistic whole.
presupposes the existence of a unified
Therefore, the usefulness of this book is restricted to structured or narrative films—
films with a definite underlying purpose and unified around a central
developed
theme. Limiting our approach to structured films does not necessarily deny the
artistic value of unstructured films. Many of the movies that experimental and
underground filmmakers produce do communicate effectively on a purely subjec-
tive, intuitive, or sensual plane and are meaningful to some degree as experiences.
But because these films are not structured or unified around a central purpose or

theme, they cannot be successfully approached through analysis.

It would be foolish to suggest that a structured film cannot be appreciated or

understood at all without analysis. If a film is effective, we should possess an intui-

tive grasp of its overall meaning. The problem is that this intuitive grasp is generally
weak and vague; it limits our critical response to hazy generalizations and half-
formed opinions. The analytical approach allows us to raise this intuitive grasp to a
conscious level, bring it into sharp focus, and thereby make more valid and definite
conclusions about the film's meaning and value. The analytical approach, however,

The Art of Watching Films ‘I

 does not reduce film art to rational and manageable
proportllogieAgziyis: [Link].
film. The
claims nor attempts toexplain everything about
and
comp
e el tie ufiderstangdmg
In
of images will always escape complete analysrs h. else afgm
A anyt mg e

ofdagt. tilgrsiighke
fact, no final answers existabout work
any
ana
be entirel ca ture y
. .

a ver

65t1113€fiicttv21g2tctigpfhere are no firiIal apnswers should not prevent us from pursu-

reach
through analy51s,
ing some important questions. Our hope is that, we are co on weflcartii
a level where
a
higher level of understanding about films,
the most significant aspects of the film art as opposed
to the mere y mun ane, {e 13g
to understand ele-
the practical, and the technical. Film analysis enables some
us

on the most Slgn1ficant

ments habitually, thus freeing our minds to concentrate

questions.

Analysis Enhances Our Love of Films

it in
Analysis helps us to lock an experience in our minds so that
we may savor

with it intellectu-
memory. By looking at a film analytically, we engage ourselves
ally and creatively and thus make it more truly our own. Furthermore, because our
critical judgments enter into the process, analysis should fine-tune our tastes. A
mediocre film can impress us more than it should at first, but we might like it less
after analyzing it. A great film or a very good one will stand up under analysis; our
admiration for it will increase the more deeply we look into it.
Film analysis, then, offers several clear benefits. It allows us to reach valid con-
clusions on a movie’s meaning and value; it helps us to
capture the experience of
a film in our minds; and it sharpens critical
our
judgments overall. But the ulti-
mate purpose ofanalysis, and its greatest benefit, is that it opens up new channels
of awareness and new depths of
understanding. It seems logical to assume that
the more understanding we have, the more
completely we will appreciate art. If
the love we have for an art form rests
on rational

and of greater value than love

understanding, it will be more
solid, more enduring, based solely on irrational and
totally subjective reactions. This is not to claim that analysis will create a love of
films where no such love exists. Love of movies
does not emerge from a book or
from any special critical approach. It comes
only from that secret personal union
between film and viewer in a darkened room. If
the viewer, this book and its analytical
that love does
y exist fornotalread
approach can do little to create it
But if we truly love films, we Will find
that analysis is worth the for the effort
understanding it brings will deepen
emotional experience of
our
appreciation. Instead of
watching the movie, analysis will enhance and enrich that
the canceling’out
experience. As we become more perceptive and l 00k more d '

levels of emotlonal experience will

.
eeply into the film new ’

emerge.

BECOMING A RECEPTIVE VIEWER

Before begin our analysis, we need t 0 consider
we
obstacles to objectivity and
maximum enjoyment that we create th
rough our prejudices and misconceptions
and by the particular circumst in which we
.

in a unique and complex ances watch the film. Each of us reads

way to internal and external
forces that are beyond the

CHAPTER 1
FEGURE 3.3 Suspending Our Disbelief
enjoy movies such as Lord ofthe Rings: The Return ofthe King, we
To
must undergo the memorable experience of challenging our preconceived notions of reality—or, as the Romantic

poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge suggested, “suspend our sense of disbelief" in narratives that break the natural,
logical rules of everyday existence.
Source: Lord oflhe Rings: The Return ofthe King/New Line Cinema

filmmaker’s control. Although these forces lie outside the film itself, they can have
an effect on how we experience a film. Awareness of these forces should help us

overcome them or at least minimize their effect.

Be Aware of Personal Biases

One of the most difficult prejudices to overcome is that which leads us to dismiss
certain categories of films. AlthOugh it is natural to prefer some types to otherS,
most of us can appreciate or enjoy aspects of almost any film. We should keep in
mind that not all films will fit our preconceived notions. For example, a person who
dislikes gangster movies might stay away from Bonnie and Clyde; another, who dis-
likes musicals, might shun Chicago, and a third, who dislikes fantasy movies, might
ignore The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (Figure 1.3). All would lose a
than simple formula
memorable film experience, for those three films are more

pieces.
Others may reject worthwhile movies because of their unwillingness to ven-
ture beyond the norm. Some may stay away from black-and-white films, always

preferring color. Others may shun foreign-language films because they dislike read-
ing subtitles or because they are bothered by dubbing that is not perfectly synchro-
nized with mouth movement.
Also narrow filmgoers who have inflexible preconcep-
in their outlook are

tions about what movies are supposed to be. This type of categorical rejection
may be illustrated by two extreme examples. At one end of the spectrum are
filmgoers who say, “I just want to be entertained," and are offended by a film
that is grim and depressing. At the other end are viewers, equally limited in their
outlook, who expect every film to make a profound artistic statement about the

The Art ofWatchlng Films

 not gum and depressmg.
human condition and who are disappointed if a
film is for a good
set up their
own criterla .what
mall cesdemand
Closely related are those who different rules. VIewers
w o

film and reject movies that operate under for

reject:
the film’s end would e'xanaple,
to comprehend all the plot details by
which deliberately reques multiple'wewmgs.
Christopher Nolan’s Memento, may dlsmlss Stanley
that a film hold
them in a tight grip
Moviegoers who insist
its slow—moving segments. Excellent films
Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey for or the action is not
not sympathetic
the charact ers are
may be discounted because and Instead try to be Open
.

avoid these kinds of misconceptions

realistic. We must
to the film’s goals and meanings.

Watch the Whole Film

is the blindness caused by
over-
Almost detrimental as categorical rejection
as
as a whole. An example
rather than to the film
responding to individual elements near-fatal case of
who are infected with a
of this prejudice is offered by viewers
or “I can’t stand
actor worship or antipathy: “I just love all Johnny Depp pictures!”
are certainly common among
view-
Julia Roberts movies!” Such extreme reactions
as subordinate to the film.
ers who refuse to see the actor

Less radical illustrations of this blindness

include over— response to certain film
to cause this kind of reaction are sex
elements. The two ingredients most likely
these ingredients and emphasize
and violence. Certainly, some filmmakers exploit
this is not always the case. Films some-
them to the point of the ridiculous, but
to present honestly the story they have
times demand the use of nudity or violence
does not condemn the use of sex or violence
to tell. Thus, a perceptive filmgoer
the film as a whole, and neither does he or she reject
per se, without considering
a movie simply because of its treatment of sex or violence. For example,
or praise
that the violent ending of Bonnie and Clyde does not, by itself,
many would argue
determine the overall quality of that film. And works as diverse as The Girl Mth
the Dragon Term and The TWilight Saga: Eclipse actually require some emphasis
on

sexuality to tell their stories. The popular film reviewer Roger Ebert in responding
to an objection by one of his readers about the sexual scenes in Schrader’s Eaul
Auto Focus, repeated what Ebert often identified as one of his favorite and most

telling critical observations: “a crucial rule for anyone

seriously interested in mov-
ies: It’s not what the movie is about that makes it good or bad but how it is about,,
it,” Even if viewers reject this suggestion about the Supremacy
of style or “for m
they also must surely not insist that subject matter or “Content” is always mogt
significant.

Consider Your Expectations

Another subjective factor that influences film evaluation is expectin too much
from a movie, whether it has won awards. critical acclaim or great revieigNs from our

friends. Expectations may also run too high if we are particularly fond of a novel that
is later adapted to film. When our expectations are too high a film can’t p ossibly mea-
sure up, and our disappointment clouds a work that we whuld o th erw1$e have liked

immensely.

CHAPTER 1
10
FIGURE 1.4 Sharing Happiness With Others in the Dark Here, in a scene from one of
Woody Allen’s most popular films, Annie Hall, the title character (Diane Keaton) and her boy-
friend (Woody Allen) wait in a cinema queue. While impatiently discussing their own relation-
ship, they interact with other offbeat moviegoers, who provide laughs and groans in equal
measure for this film’s “mirror" audience.
SDJlCEZANfl/e Hail/MGM

THE FILM-VIEWING ENVIRONMENT

Many movie lovers argue should View any film in what they call its
that ideally we

“proper” environment: a comfortable and attractive theater, preferably one with

modern stadium seating and the highest quality projection and audio equipment.
There, these advocates further claim, we may not only consume films in their state-
of-the—art glory, but we can also participate in one of the primary social rituals of
modern life: watching movies with others in a public setting (Figure 1.4). In fact, our

theater‘going experiences are often much less than perfect. Noisy patrons chat and
their popcorn bags and candy wrap-
argue over and about the film’s dialogue, rattling
to ring repeatedly, but then talk loudly
pers; often, they not only allow cell phones
into them. Certainly, in a well—equipped theater, sound and image wash over you,
immerse you, massage you. You need not direct your attention. Seeing a movie in a
good theater is like diving into heavy surf with the tide coming in; seeing a movie on
a standard television screen is like taking a sponge bath out of a gallon pail. As the

actor Richard Dreyfuss describes it, “[F]i1m has a power over us. When we sit in a
darkened room and symbolically hold hands with one another we will be swept . . .

up With it. . But if it's on TV, who cares?

. .
It has no impact on a primal level.“4
. . .

Still, even as attendance at movie theaters continues to grow (although prob-

ably never again to the numbers during the glory days of American film in the late
19403), more and more of us most frequently view films in our own homes via the
domestic magic of modern technologies. Increasingly, we have larger and sharper
television screens—wondrously flat and lightweight. constructed of LED panels.
The wealthiest movie watchers, of course, may also be able to afford spacious,

The Art of Watching Films 11

 films as Captain America: Civil
FlGURE 1.5 Reducing Viewers’ Involvement Watching such Iarger-than-life
total m ovie
War on a small screen may decrease the intensity of our involvement and. hence, the quality of our

experience
Source Castor" America C‘Vii’ War/Marvel Studios

elaborate, and elegantly appointed home theaters. But even those viewers must be
aware that the home film-watching experience still differs radically from that in the

multiplexes—in both negative and positive ways.

Most of the negative aspects of home viewing center upon the quality of the

sight and sound delivery systems. First, consider the simple factor of size. An
image approximately 20 feet high on the average movie screen is reduced to a
maximum height of about 3 feet on the typical home TV. Becoming physically
involved in the action of a narrative as we would in a theater is nearly impossible
at home. For example, a theater viewer who is susceptible to motion sickness may

get a little queasy during the chase scenes in The Dark Knight or the Quidditch
matches in the Harry Potter movies. But the same visceral sensation is nearly
always lacking when we’re watching at home. The events occurring on television
seem remote, locked in the safety of a 27—inch (or even an
80-inch) screen. The
change in size reduces the intensity of our experience and decreases our involve-
ment (Figure 1.5). .

Not only is the size of the image changed, but in of

many cases. the basic shape
the composition is altered as well. For
instance, when a film shot in a wide-screen
(rectangular) format (see Figures pp. 79—80) is squeezed
4.1 and 4.2 in Chapter 4,
onto an essentially square traditional TV screen. crucial visual information is often
lost. Wide-screen formats were initially adapted to the standard television shape by
a special editing process called
panning and scanning. A scanning device deter-
mined when the most significant information in each frame was so far to the left 01'
right of center as to be outside the perimeter of the narrower television picture. TV
(and also videocassette and DVD) producers then adjusted accordingly by centering
this peripheral information in the transmitted or re-recorded
image. Of course, the
cinematographer's art suffered from this process. because the visual
composition

12 (HAPH Ill
was compromised when
large portion of the original image was sliced off each
a

side. The process frequently introduced camera movement not intended by the
film’s creators and thereby could alter significantly the visual rhythms of the film.
The alternative to this cinematic mutilation—at least when the
“square” TV shape
is involved (vs. the newer high-definition television’s [HDTV] 16 [wide] X 9 [high]

aspect ratio)—is the of black bands at the top and bottom of the screen (termed
use

letterboxing). This feature irritates many viewers and, ironically, makes some
believe that they are being cheated of the whole But most TVs
original image. now

sold, permit viewers to choose

among screen ratio options.
Throughout its brief history, the videocassette machine (whose use is now
essentially defunct—and whose recorder feature has been superseded, for many,
by the DVR function on cable or satellite reception systems) seldom presented
wide-screen films in their original format, and, even now,
among television cable
channels, few except Turner Classic Movies adamantly present films in what is
called their “theatrical release aspect ratio.”
Initially, the advent of the DVD for-
mat brought great hopefulness to enthusiasts of
watching wide-screen films at
home. Often, in fact, the enormous storage space on DVDs allowed producers to
satisfy everyone by offering both the wide-screen and the pan and scan version
on opposite sides of the same disc. For a few
years, however, large-volume video
rental and sales companies reportedly convinced producers to release more of their
films exclusively in the “standard,” “full-screen" version, fearing that their custom-
ers would be too naive to understand the
beauty and practicality of wide-screen
films. Happily, though, the expanding sales of wide-screen televisions has stopped
this practice.
Television viewing of films has traditionally compromised sound even more
than image. A modern movie theater equipped with multiple speakers can surround
viewers with sound, immersing them in an encompassing aural environment. In
the Jurassic Park movies, for instance, the rumble of a dinosaur passing back and
forth in a landscape moves all over the theater as the sound dramatically increases
and decreases in volume and shifts from place to place. Historically, most common
television sets, even the largest ones, have had inadequate speakers by comparison,
and many didn’t even have tone controls. However, electronics manufacturers have
been vastly improving sound quality, and so-called “home theater sound systems”
have become commercially commonplace during the past few years.
Thus, seeing (and hearing) movies at home, though still
for many not “ideal”
of us, may rapidly be gaining desirability. The sales momentum of the DVD player
since the device’s first wide availability in the fall of 2001 has greatly outperformed
even that of the audio compact disc. And Blu-Ray’s sharp potential for swiftly

increasing our “cineliteracy” surpasses even that of the so-called “video revolu-

tion" with the advent of the videocassette in the late 19703. DVDs and streaming
video services such as Netflix and Hulu are beginning to re-educate film viewers
about the art form's
possibilities. Director David Cronenberg (Eastern Promises, A
History of Violence, Spider [2003], Crash [1996], The Fly [1986]) has expressed well
what many filmmakers and fans now feel: “I love, love, love DVDs. You have to . . .

understand, when I was a kid, you had to see the movie when it came to the theater,
and that was it. So the idea that you could possess a movie like a book on your
. . .

bookshelf . . . is fantastic."5

The Art of Watching Films 13