While space particles were barreling towards my face at the 2:30 p.m. IMAX theater showing of Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity in New York City, a couple of things struck my mind: 1) I would never want to see this movie on a laptop or in 3-D; and 2) Sandra Bullock’s lips looked weird. I’d rather focus on the former, though. I am very vocal about my disdain of 3-Dimensional technology, but I could not imagine seeing Gravity without that otherworldly (pun intentional) view. The film just would not work as well. Similarly to James Cameron’s Avatar, this film is not likely to translate seamlessly from the large screen to an at-home viewing. (Perhaps not coincidentally, both films deal with revolutionary technology rather than a more menial narrative.) Though Sandra Bullock carries the film with her bit role, and George Clooney’s smile as a catalyst for her action plays a nice supporting part too (I smell an underdog Oscar nom, perhaps?), it is the technology that leaves the lasting impression on the viewer.
Similar films, like Avatar or Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean, 1962) or Gravity’s logical predecessor 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) demand that the spectator admire the grandeur and the minutiae made visible by the director in the confines of a darkened movie theater. Watching Avatar on a laptop would leave me with the impression that it was a two-hour saga of Zoe Saldana finding ways to scream in an extraterrestrial blue suit. Even though I do not care for Avatar as a narrative triumph, I appreciate it as a cinematic explosion stretching my imagination far further than I thought was possible. This is only because my first interaction with the film was in the theater, in 3-D. As 3-D waxes and wanes in popularity, it is apparent that cinematic technology is expanding, making it more difficult to appreciate film on a smaller scale. This exclusive 3-D club does not appeal to all, so it divides those willing to tolerate the glasses and pay the extra money from those who are happy enough seeing the film as it normally appears on-screen.
I talked to students who saw Avatar for the first time on their laptop and their opinions complement mine in regards to it being a film about alien teen angst. It is difficult to decipher if the faddish 3-D club takes away the joy of seeing a film in theaters from those who choose not to abide by the instructions of wearing the glasses. Films like Gravity that are paraded as spectacles are meant to be seen like a visit to the science museum. The film allows a malleable viewer to be in contact with space in the same way that a science museum allows the museumgoer to scrutinize the complexity of the unknown. Watching Gravity on a laptop in a dorm essentially keeps the viewer outside the doors of the museum. Instead of entering, the viewer is just listening to the excitement inside.
I constantly grapple over whether to see a film in the theater or in my own home-viewing way. Going to the movie theater is an escape for everyday voyeurs. It allows them to suspend their disbelief and escape into a new world for two hours. This escapism does not seem to translate when sitting alone between the barren white walls of a college dorm room. Most movies watched within these walls typically err on the lighthearted side. These films seem to be background noise in a multitasking world filled with papers and studying for tests (I can even attest by saying Spike Lee’s 1989 Do The Right Thingis playing in the background as I write). This solidarity and attention-depriving viewing style is not how film was meant to be watched.
After seeing Gravity, I was foaming at the mouth to discuss the film with others, but it was primarily to allude to the awe of the experience rather than the plot of the movie. Sitting Charlie Rose-style in the Jane Addams dining hall, I was shocked to hear the opinions of other students who had similar stances on seeing movies in the theater versus watching on their laptops in the dorm. I am a full supporter of seeing /Gravity/ in theaters, but would not promote such a viewing style for all types of cinema. The other students I was sitting with seemed to agree. As college students, we are also faced with another deciding factor: the cost of going to the theater. All Bargain Tuesdays aside, giving Gravity its proper viewing will cost a little chunk of change. Adding the IMAX experience plus 3-D can cost upwards of $30. In an age when we rely so much on illegal downloads and viewing things the Internet are we losing the thrill of going to the cinema because of financial constraints?
The issue is not just about seeing a film at home or in a theater; it also concerns the time frame in which the film appears in theaters. For many of the ‘Oscar Bait’ films (typically occurring in the later fall through early winter months), it seems reasonable to see these films in the theater. These films are supposed to be the year’s ‘best of the best’, so it makes sense to pay to see them in their intended form, and at their earliest release. Other films, like We’re The Millers (Rawson Marshall Thurber, 2013), which I unfortunately saw in theaters, can stew in the purgatory where films go before they are released into heaven (Redbox, Netflix or OnDemand) or hell (the five-dollar bin at Walmart). No matter the fate of the film, it will be released for a greater convenience to the masses.
Netflix has revolutionized the way that college students view TV or movies, but it does not change the fact that these programs are not released online until they become passé. During my dining room debate, this issue also came about: which films are worth spending money on versus those that can be seen at a later date. No matter whom I talked to, one thing was clear, though: the greater the technology, the more likely a student was to see the film in the theater.
This point again prompts me to question if there a right way to view film for a college student with possible economic constraints. In conclusion, there is no conclusion. As the technology changes this answer becomes harder and harder to answer for the inquisitive film viewer. The spectacle of the theater is not lost on the film students of Conn, though. Luckily, we have classrooms like Olin 014 that allow us to have the cinematic experience on a college campus. Screenings for film classes are hosted there, as are other film events. And no, this is not just a plug for me to promote the film department (which is awesome) but also for me to say that there are multiple outlets through which film can be viewed. One does not have to sit alone and view Zoe Saldana in his or her twin-sized bed, but instead can join the community of other Conn students who revel in such an experience as well.
