Posted on August 19, 2021
In which I answer a few questions on an older film… or a new one… or talk about actors and directors… or take on a few YouTube comments…
For more, subscribe to FILM COMPANION SOUTH: http://bit.ly/2xoNult
Copyright ©2021 Film Companion.
 | Yay on Era Saravanan’s ‘U… |
 | Satya on Era Saravanan’s ‘U… |
 | shaviswa on Era Saravanan’s ‘U… |
 | Spandana on Sundar C’s ‘Aranma… |
 | Yay on Era Saravanan’s ‘U… |
 | Madhusudhan Narasimh… on #AskBR – Doctor |
 | Yajiv on Era Saravanan’s ‘U… |
 | hari on Readers Write In #414: Kuttipa… |
| shaviswa on Era Saravanan’s ‘U… |
| Yajiv on Era Saravanan’s ‘U… |
 | MumbaiRamki on Era Saravanan’s ‘U… |
 | Jeeva Pitchaimani on Readers Write In #414: Kuttipa… |
 | Jallikattu lover on Nelson Dilipkumar’s ente… |
 | brangan on Readers Write In #414: Kuttipa… |
 | Aman Basha on Interview: Mohan G (Draupathi,… |
An Jo
August 20, 2021
MISSING. THEATERS. HATING. OTT/IDIOT BOX.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
August 20, 2021
I agree about the point about old films you make. I find that a lot of Hollywood films I missed out on watching from the 70s-90s aren’t on OTT at all. The only way even now is to hope your movie channel shows them on a day when you have free time or to buy CD/DVD. For eg, Mulholland Drive isn’t on any of the OTT platforms. Considering that lots of laptops don’t come with DVD players anymore, there is a danger here of a lot of content simply disappearing for good. I have to check out MUBI, probably will do sometime in the future.
LikeLike
Madan
August 20, 2021
Count me as the exception when you say “If you haven’t heard jazz before the age of 25, you are going to find it very difficult if you start listening at 35”. I had tried to get into jazz around 2009-10 (when I was in my mid 20s) and it didn’t do it for me. But over the last couple of years, I am much more receptive to jazz. Why, as long as I get a regular supply of jazz performance videos that I have never heard before, I could live without having to listen to anything else. I would say in my case, my understanding of music had to reach a certain level before I could get the hang of jazz, before I could stop drawing a blank as they went into entire sections of outside notes. When the outside notes started to sound like music to my ears is when I fell in love with jazz.
It’s sort of the same with cinema. I have much more patience for art cinema now than when I was younger. I haven’t yet read Anna Karenina but I am much better placed to make it through to the end if I pick it up now or in future than back then.
I understand what you’re saying, of course. Most people just get very set in their ways when it comes to approaching art forms and I don’t blame them for it. Most people also look at art as a stress-reliever from work and don’t want to apply too much mind to it. For me, the prospect of learning something new from art is the most stimulating part of it all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 20, 2021
Ah, you addressed it in the next part of the answer where you mention cinephiles.
LikeLike
Madan
August 20, 2021
A great film will still look great on TV. But the big screen experience would still be better for a well made film. I don’t think it’s romantic. I know traffic is terrible in Bangalore but that doesn’t apply everywhere, right? For me, I have at least three different multiplexes all within a 10-15 min auto ride. That’s not a biggie. And the experience itself is superior. Would you choose crap BOAT earbuds over Dolby sound, really? I am not talking about the convenience aspect itself; I am very much an OTT guy for the same reason. But the audio and visual experience you get on theater is so much better; there is no comparison, really. You mentioned Peaky Blinders – how wonderful it would look on the big screen? Or Queen’s Gambit for that matter.
Now…noisy mass films are much better watched at home (at least imo) where you can fast forward the useless mass songs and fight scenes and watch whatever remains of the movie after all that. But for an actually well made film that lives up to the name of the medium…theater any day!
LikeLike
shaviswa
August 23, 2021
I seldom watch movies at the theaters. I prefer watching them at home, at my convenience and with comfort of the home setting.
Reasons are plenty. It includes the fact that you don’t need a large screen for most movies that are made. Plus a 65 inch TV with a good home theatre system gives an equally good feel.
More importantly, the time it takes to commute to a cinema hall/multiplex, the cost of watching one movie there – ticket prices, parking charges, snacks amd drinks and time – make it a very expensive affair. Also, at home I am not forced to watch the film at one go. I can stop and start, rewind if I missed something, fast forward absolutely mokkai scenes and if I really like a film, watch it one or two times more.
The convenience that OTT gives me can never be replaced by just the visual spectacle on the large screen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ravi K
August 23, 2021
Madan: “Now…noisy mass films are much better watched at home (at least imo) where you can fast forward the useless mass songs and fight scenes and watch whatever remains of the movie after all that. But for an actually well made film that lives up to the name of the medium…theater any day!”
I think it’s the mass movies that need the theatrical experience the most, especially with an enthusiastic audience. Otherwise you’re typically left with a middling film with no spectacle, and you might as well watch something else.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Madan
August 24, 2021
“I think it’s the mass movies that need the theatrical experience the most, especially with an enthusiastic audience” – Well, that is provided you are talking about the kind of viewers who submit to that breaking the fourth wall experience. At the risk of sounding like a snob (which perhaps I am in any case), that always looked a bit like WWE to me and never appealed to me. And it’s not hollering in itself that I find laughable, it’s hollering at what is already known to be make-believe. I am very happy screaming my throat off at sporting events or at rock concerts. But I can’t bring myself to do that for 70ish Rajni with tons of makeup STILL pretending to be able to beat up 10 guys at the same time. I can accept that as the necessary suspension of disbelief that’s part of cinema but what’s to celebrate about it.
I would have loved, OTOH, to have watching that terrifying opening shot of Shining in a theater; it is disorienting even with bad print on a computer so I can’t imagine what it would have been like on the big screen. I was really trying to address what Kairam was saying, that great films don’t lose much when you see them on TV/PC/mobile. I would put it the other way, that they are still great on these mediums but because they use the power of cinema to the fullest, they are best experienced on the big screen.
Now, yes, if it’s inconvenient for you to go to the theater and that makes OTT preferable, I understand that. But that doesn’t mean the pure audiovisual experience of watching it at home compares to TV. And to what shaviswa said, if you can afford a 70 inch TV and presumably a set of good speakers, you can easily afford to watch movies in the theater. Yes, of course, if you make that investment to have such equipment at home, you should maximise it by watching at home as much as possible and I would do likewise. But a person who can have a giant screen at home does not lack the purchasing power to watch a movie on 35mm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
shaviswa
August 24, 2021
@Madan
Agree it is not just the affordability. And I see it as a difference between capex and opex. Once you have sunk it into Capex, you would want to use it as much as you want to ensure you get the ROI. OTOH with opex, you will evaluate every time you need to spend even if the amount is quite small compared to the capex you incur for the home theater system. 🙂
That said, in my case time and the sheer laziness to go all the way to a theater makes me prefer to watch at home.
LikeLiked by 1 person