Ambling ahead a decade…
THE HORROR, THE HORROR…
The next decade of big-screen movie-watching belongs to the purveyors of technological shock-and-awe. Everyone else, head for your television sets!
JAN 3, 2010 – THE PAST THREE DECADES HAVEN’T BEEN KIND to big-screen cinema, its allure halved by the VCR, then quartered by high-definition DVD, and now, splintered to pixels by broadband-empowered downloaders, indifferent about resizing the dimensions of the greatest art of our times to the length and breadth of their computer monitors. That’s movie-watching today – the sweep and sand-soaked majesty of Lawrence of Arabia reduced roughly to the size of a Word document, with Maurice Jarre’s strident fanfares croaking out of speakers no larger than a palm. And I haven’t even gotten to YouTube, where the entire image spans the space formerly occupied by Peter O’Toole’s eyeball, in that archaic format we know as 70mm. Perched on the cusp of the transition, as the seventies slipped into the eighties, who but the canniest Cassandra could have foretold this turn of events?
More amazingly, how effortlessly we have adapted. Save the duty-bound film critic, who, anymore, endeavours to catch every release in the cinema hall? From an age where the good, the bad, and the ugly were equally feted at ticket counters, the alternative entertainment options around us – not to mention distractions such as surfing and tweeting and refreshing your Inbox for the 28th time in an hour – have ensured that it’s task enough keeping up with just the worthwhile releases. Is it any wonder, then, that a cold “product” like Avatar is being hailed as the next major milestone? Who wants “narrative cinema” when the next big technological advance is the only surefire shot at putting bottoms on seats? Big-screen movie-watching is alive, oh certainly, but the movies we watch on the big screen – as opposed to reserving for home viewing – aren’t quite movies in the sense that was prevalent when mammoths like David Lean roamed the planet.
And the future looks undeniably grim. Cinema depends on its patrons more than the patrons need cinema – and as I peer into my crystal ball, all I see at the multiplexes are lowest-common-denominator blockbusters, technological shock-and-awe campaigns aimed at conquering audiences across the globe. It’s the updated WYSIWYG effect: What You Seek Is What You Get. I am second to none in my surrender to the visual wonders of the movies, but I worry about the art. Even in India, the so-called hits have begun to unspool on pay-per-view television barely a month after release, and as ticket prices scrape the stratosphere, I see fewer loyalists coughing up hard-earned cash to subject themselves to off-the-mainstream stories about the lives of others. Direct-to-cable, I suspect, is where the best and brightest of our talents will wind up, the bigness of their skill in no way compromised by the smallness of the screen.
Theatrical-outlet mainstream cinema, in short, will be further effects-enhanced in order to seduce audiences, further stripped of significance in order not to tax our already dwindling attention spans. A sample of the future? James Cameron unleashes his 4-D epic, where the audience is drenched to the bone when it pours on screen. The Bourne series is deemed too slow and re-cut in accordance with modern sensibilities: the films, now, are essentially a blur. Taking a cue, Karan Johar stuns the nation with a weepie clocking a mere two hours, fifty-nine minutes. Akshay Kumar’s son takes over as Action King in our most expensive production ever, hunting for treasure on the outer rings of Saturn, stopping only to chiggy-wiggy with Lady Gaga. My hopes are pinned solely on Aamir Khan, who, having exhausted his store of socially relevant issues, will finally pick on our loathsome movie-watching habits. Go forth and encourage good cinema, he will instruct sternly (yet benevolently), and after dabbing our eyes, we will hopefully follow.
Copyright ©2010 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
This was written for a special issue about “looking ahead” — the next decade. I’ve never been a fan of prognostic writing, and I’m not very happy with this piece.
BR: “I’ve never been a fan of prognostic writing” – Perhaps thats why you did not take yourself seriously when you wrote this. For the first time while reading your article I laughed out a few times!!
I watched Inglourious Basterds in the Cinema, and I found it undeniably entertaining.
But don’t you think the best of narratives typically come alive in the privacy of the home? At least in my case, I ‘ve often found
the second viewing of an intricate plot more rewarding when I watch it at home.
For a lay cine-watcher like me, the big screen seems to trigger a discounting process that dumbs down the cognition process. Or may it’s just my generation. Or perhaps it’s just me.
So the point of going to the movies has been steadily chipped at, to the stage where an Avatar-like experience is what seems to justify the effort and opportunity cost.
India doesn’t have HBOesque made-for-TV releases galore yet; and like you say, may well see them in the future.
But from where I am, that seems almost wholly optimistic. How’s Himesh going to Radio us then? But certainly, Dibakar Banerjee will be more insulated from falling on his face after making a super movie.
Krishna: that’s an interesting comment. I think you might enjoy this post from Jim Emerson’s blog, about movies that are too personal to share with an audience.
stick to movie reviews.. and leave this to the experts….this is boring, brangan.
Hi Rangan, is that your cell phone ?
Take a look at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/movies/03dargis.html?ref=movies
Cinema always comes up with some sort of technological development to compete with competing technologies. Color (radio), widescreen formats and multichannel sound (TV), and now 3D (home video, downloads). Avatar is hailed more for its use of 3D than its storytelling, but eventually we will see more and more 3D films that are simply good films in 3D. There will always be a back-and-forth between technological razzle-dazzle and the art. Once people get used to the technology, then filmmakers use it as simply another tool in their arsenals. Fritz Lang once said that CinemaScope was “only good for funerals and snakes.” Can you imagine a film made today not in some sort of wide aspect ratio?
However, I can still be awed by Lawrence of Arabia on DVD. I will buy the Avatar DVD just for the special features
But then don’t you think like everything else that is ‘popular’, this will be cyclical too? Until some other Bhansali comes along and decides to make a vision that stretches from one end of the big screen to the other.
Rangan – Arent you looking forward to Raavana?
“I’m not very happy with this piece.” – Fair enough.
Not at all boring and brangan is an ‘expert’. In fact, he makes a very pertinent point regarding the “experience” of movie watching in general.
Its a fact that movies are made to be seen on a big screen, in the confines of an auditorium in crystal clear state of the art projection and noiseless pure Digital sound. On the ever shrinking screens of our future, Movie watching as an experience is being diluted for sure. And how it really affects everything is clear if we mull upon the medium of Cinema in general. Can 640*480 do stand up to 35 MM, 70MM or the latest IMAX format? Can a home watching experience give you the same bang as watching the same movie in a theater?
I totally believe that home watching can just not compare to watching something in a cinema. Firstly the lesser quality mediums of TV and Laptops dumb down the quality aspects and lead to less immersive movie watching experience, Secondly there are more distractions in the confines of a home than in a theater (assuming well mannered audiences sharing seats with you).
Would anyone say that watching Jurassic park on a laptop screen can beat the experience of watching it on 70mm with Dolby surround?. Its not even about sci fi movies or effects laden movies, even normal dramas seem lackluster on a TV screen. Its only on a big screen that the Cinematography, the expressions on the faces, the twitch on the eyebrow of a character, the tension created by a great background score can come to life.
Personally for me, the preference of these quick fix mediums are destroying the movie watching experience. Its okay if you arent able to catch the movie on the theater and are watching it on the screen. The only thing if theres a choice, the Theater should be the choice. Anyhow its upto anyone to choose the way they wish to see it.
In the end, very important point Brangan. We need more articles on the “art” of cinema maybe.
Rangan – Have you checked this out yet? Someone who deviates from the adulation being showered on Three idiots!
http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sagarikaghose/223/54036/from-three-idiots-to-a-nation-of-idiots.html
James Berardenelli ran a similar piece some days ago..
http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts.php?identifier=623
My personal grouse is that less good quality Hollywood movies are being released in India in the recent months. Movies like 2012, Year One, Couples Retreat, Orphan, other Animated stuff are the ones finding screen space.. Where is A Serious Man, Frost/Nixon, Precious, Moon, Up in the Air, the Road? .. I saw the posters of “Did you hear about the Morgans” as a Coming Soon poster and went to the nearby can and puked.
@karthik: Wow, The essence of the film (and more importantly the debate over the educational choice system that we have) has completely flew over the Stephens and Oxford graduate’s head. Good for her though.
Bardwaj, I agree with the general tone of the article but disagree with some points.
Cinema is primarily a visual medium and visual effects are key to how its defined.It is here that it differs from a play or a book.So Avatar is important,and big screen experience is important.If you give the viewers something that can be better enjoyed from their living room,they will do so.
Also,it doesn’t have to be an either\or scenario.For example, imagine Fritz Lang’s Metropolis in 4-d.Wouldn’t that be a treat?
One really key point you’re forgetting: The TVs of today are of higher quality than the big screens of yesterday.
kylie minogue, not lady gaga
Krishna: Reg. “But don’t you think the best of narratives typically come alive in the privacy of the home?” Absolutely. Moreso because it’s become extremely annoying to watch serious films in the theatre, what with people never stopping to whisper or else whipping out their blinding-light cell phones.
Speaking of big screen to vcr to dvd to youtube, I am so surprised that this baby hasn’t caught on more. A friend of mine has it, point it to the wall in your living room, connects to your laptop through a usb, and voila, big screen cinema right at home. I might sound like an ad but I’ve been completely taken by it. I don’t know if/which models are available in India, but it costs less than what you’d pay for an ipod or iphone – the equivalent of 12-15 thousand rupees. An absolutely fantastic thing to have.
Update to previous comment: Missed out on the link! Google search for Clearco or Proxima Projector.
Comment from Rohan: @Vikas Bhargava: My personal grouse is that less good quality Hollywood movies are being released in India in the recent months. Movies like 2012, Year One, Couples Retreat, Orphan, other Animated stuff are the ones finding screen space.. Where is A Serious Man, Frost/Nixon, Precious, Moon, Up in the Air, the Road? ..
This has always been the case hasn’t it?! It’s the money-makers and the crowd-pulling english films that have always reached the screens; rarely the good ones.