Ryan McNeil
Yesterday afternoon, I got into a spirited discussion on Twitter with my friend and one-time podcasting partner Simon Columb. The subject of our conversation was the new film HITCHCOCK – a film I have seen and enjoyed to an extent, and a film Simon isn’t anxious to see.
When I suggested that Simon should give it a spin, the man brought up an interesting point. He mentioned that he already had a pile of dvd’s sitting next to his TV that he was actively looking forward to watching…films that he had happily paid his hard-earned to own.
This reminded me of the fact that I didn’t pay a dime to see HITCHCOCK: all it cost me was 90+ minutes of my time. While I am confident in my assessment of the film, I’m suddenly somewhat curious if I was easier on it because the cost of admission wasn’t a factor.
In reading what people have watched, and listening to podcasts, I’ve often heard “It was nothing amazing, but if you are looking for something to put on during a grey Saturday afternoon, it’s alright”. Further, I’m left to wonder about you Netflix users. Since all you had to do was click a few buttons to indulge, are you more easily amused than if you’d made the trip to a shop…or even if you;d braved the crowds and hit a theatre?
What say you folks?
My prefered method of seeing a film is in a theatre. Those unopenned blu-rays on my shelf will have to wait.
OK, so going by that criteria – are you more likely to be impressed by a film that you saw for half price with a well-behaved audience than you are an audience that was playing with their phones, talking, and all after you’s paid $19.50 for the ticket?
No, how I see my movie does not influence my opinion of it.
For me, the price of admission is a total non-factor. I’ll dislike a movie I checked out from the library for free just as much as any that I’ve paid to rent or gone to the theater for. The only exception is if I’m lured into blind-buying a DVD for some reason, and my leap of faith turns into a colossal mistake. Then I’m not only left with my disappointment, I have a physical reminder of it laying around!
Congratulations on figuring out why I buy so very few films blind!
It does not, no. Ticket price, screen quality, theater size, crowd control, bar in the theater, comfort of my own couch, etc., none of those things matter. The movie – to borrow the phrase of our times – is what it is regardless.
The ONLY time I would say context can affect a movie for me is on vacation. In that case I might put on the rose-colored glasses depending on where I am and who I’m with, but I’m also rarely seeing new releases or choosing to think as analytically in those situations.
I hadn’t even factored that in. As an example, I think that ROBOCOP is “pretty cool”, but it gets bonus marks for the fact that I got to see it with you and the other Second City folks at Music Box.
The only time I’ve noticed a venue swaying my opinion is during film festivals – both for better and for worse.
I don’t think I dislike a disappointing film more if I see it in the theater, but I will be more disgruntled in my dislike, if that makes sense. In other words, I’ll remember the film and why I disliked it more than if I saw it at home and disliked it. If it’s a disappointing rental, I’ll likely forget about it within in a month, but if I paid for a movie ticket, arranged to get a sitter, and deal with crowds, I’m going to hang on to that disappointment longer in my memory bank. However, on the flip side, a great film is a great film, be it at home or in the theater.
What about the inverse? If you only rented it/Netflixed it are you less disgruntled and more apt to say “Yeah, it was OK”?
I don’t think so. I may be more relieved that I skipped it in the theater, but it doesn’t get a pass, like last night when I watched The (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
(Sorry – finally replying to this)
I heard your mentioning of it on the Christmas RI. Made my trip into work amusing since I disagreed with you whole-heartedly.
I guess my question though, is that for you and your fella to go to a show, it’s $20 plus snacks not to mention a babysitter. For you both to watch it at home, it’s just two hours of your time.
Doesn’t that lower the bar a bit?
(Sorry – finally replying to this)
I still think a “bad movie is a bad movie.” Perhaps w/o the theater experience, said bar is lowered, but if that’s the case, recent catching up I did must have been really pitiful if I hated things like Spider-Man and John Carter as much as I did from a dvd rental.
Time is also an important factor. The reason I probably won’t see Hitchcock is because I’ve got better films to watch, like every Hitchcock film I haven’t seen. Wouldn’t it make much more sense to watch those first before some mediocre biopic?
And yes, unlike some bloggers, I still pay for my tickets, which is why I’m so finicky about what I go to the theater to see. A lot of times I’d just sooner wait for home video, or just not bother with a film at all. Got too many other films to watch I’m more interested in and are more worthy of my time.
You’re sort of a special case, someone immune to most of what I wrote in the post.
Besides the fact that you’re in the busiest stretch of your academic career, you’re also a filmgoer with very specific tastes. For you I don’t see the decision coming down to medium so much as I see it coming down to you as a currator:
Hearing Ewing watched it makes me curious – hearing Ewing liked it makes me excited.
Ryan, I’ll echo what some others have said about time being the big issue. Like James, this (and the cost) make me choosier about what I see in the theaters. Still, I’m trying to get more focused in what I watch at home too. In terms of whether I feel like a bad film is a bigger waste in the theaters, I don’t think that plays a huge role. The fact that I watched Gigli and Battlefield Earth back to back was just as painful at home (maybe even more so). Those were not the best use of my time.
And if time wasn’t a factor?
Back when I saw more movies in the theater, I think it might have been a bigger issue. Even so, I was still fairly choosy and saw more indie films. There were some clunkers, but I don’t think my reaction was that different than it would have been. Of course, it’s hard to know since each experience is so different.
Admission costs don’t figure into my opinion of a film. I don’t ask for my money back if I don’t like a movie either. It’s a gamble what you’ll think of the film and what you paid toward it shouldn’t matter.
I saw J. Edgar for free last Sept/Nov and didn’t care for it, plunked down $9 for Take Shelter and absolutely loved it.
For admission costs though, do you think about that beforehand?
ie “Multiplex A charges $14 for a Saturday show. I’m curious to see (film title here) but don’t know if I want to cough up that much to see it”
That particular scenario does play a factor. I am curious about The Hobbit but not at $15 for this weekend.
For the most part though, I can take in matinee showings of non-3D films during the week, so it usually doesn’t come up.
For me a good film is a good film regardless of how it is watched.
I just watched The Dark Knight Rises on blu however and absolutely loved it, whereas when I watched it in Imax I loved the set pieces and the ending but I didn’t love it overall.
It didn’t drag this time and I appreciated the nuances of the Nolan’s script much more. Same thing happened with Prometheus.
I think the reason for these 2 about turns is related to expectation. I haven’t looked forward to films as much as I looked forward to Prometheus and TDKR in quite some time.
With that in mind I’m trying to dial back my enthuisiasm for the Hobbit and Django, as far as you can consciously control expectation, in the hope that they’ll exceed my lowered expectations. Ain’t gonna happen though, is it.
I recently watched Moonrise Kingdom for the first time and was disappointed. Reasonably good but never got near the high of Fantastic Mr Fox. Expectation again, but in this case I think Moonrise genuinely wasn’t that great and I’m beginning to think Wes Anderson works best with Noah Baumbach.
Re how you watch a film, I really hope cinema doesn’t die as the opening plane hijack scene in TDKR didn’t look anywhere near as magnificent on my TV as on Imax.
The other action scenes were still compelling however and Nolan, for me, makes Mendes look like a film student when comparing action in TDKR to Skyfall.
I’m new to this podcast by the way and I’m absolutely loving it.
I find you to be lively and enthusiastic, I love the chapters and you manage to capture the essence of a film in a short time without being ultra spoilery. I’m looking forward to working my way through your back catalogue.
Welcome to The Matinee, Gerry and thanks for the comment!
What you’re discussing here is a little bit of a separate argument…though it gives me a smile since it reaffrims my mantra as a critic (“Watch it again”).
Using the examples you just mentioned, do you think you might have like PROMETHEUS or TDKR more on first watch if you hadn’t doled out IMAX prices for them and planned to see them for weeks in advance. If you’d just stumbled upon them one quiet evening while flipping channels, for instance?
I don’t really have this problem, seeing as I get 85% of my movies for free! The only time it does bother me is if I see it in theatre, since it costs around $50 per theatre trip for me. I’m very picky with what movies I go and see. However, I did spend some time convincing myself that Skyfall was really good because I’d spent so much on the trip. It is pretty good, but it wasn’t the amazingness that I often search for when I go to the movies.
Alas, every movie trip is wonderful and sometimes I do find myself liking the films a little less when I see them outside of a cinema. I had that problem with Hugo and The Hunger Games recently.
Think about the last film you watched on dvd that was just “OK”.
Had you paid the $50 and made the long trip to see it, would it still only be “OK”? Or would it spill over into “That was bad”?
Anything I really want to watch I try and see at the cinema (or theatre as you would say in North America). Rather than pay for individual tickets I pay a monthly subscription and get to see as many films as I want. For it to be cost effective I would need to use it twice a month, I use it about ten times a month. So to put this in context, I don’t see movies for free but I don’t pay to see any one individual film either, so my cinema viewing is a little like the way Netflix users pay.
Now we have the context, I don’t judge a film on what I have paid to see it, I just like it or I don’t. However I do go and see movies that I may give a miss or wait for DVD or streaming if I had to “pay” to see them.
I really wish a handful of theatres here in Canada would do subscriptions. Even as a member at Lightbox, the best they can do is give me half-off.
Movies are meant to be seen in a theatre. I tend to like a movie more when I see it on a big screen. A mediocre film seems much worse when watching at home on a smaller scale and I find I’m angrier I wasted downtime at home vs social experience of seeing it in a theatre with a friend, as an excuse to unplug the phone and have a cinema experience, etc. I don’t enjoy movies I loved in theatres as much as I do when I watch at home, and that’s not just distance and second viewing wearing off the high from seeing it for the first time.
The only time I’m harder on a film is during TIFF. TIFF is the only time where a movie I didn’t enjoy might be better on TV once I’m awake and out of the TIFF haze. On the flipside a film might make my list of favourites at TIFF if it came after a string of bad movies but outside of the festival setting I think it’s just “okay.” And TIFF makes those bad movies harder to stomach when you factor in all that time, money and effort that goes into attending a public festival screening.
In my current job I don’t pay for movies and before that 90% of my movies were free via SCENE points or advanced screenings so I’ve never been totally picky when it comes to choosing what film to see, it just comes down to a matter of how much time I want to spare and in what order I’ll watch films in.
And I liked Hitchcock for free just as much as I would have for $12. My expectations were very low going in, so that contributed more to surprised enjoyment of the film more than viewing context.
Funny – I’m the opposite. If I took the time to get out and see something at a theatre and it’s not to my liking, I’m more grumpy than if I saw it at home. At least at home, I’m lounging. Funny the way that happens, isn’t it? And you’re absolutely right: Movies are meant to be seen in a movie theatre.
I’m beginning to wonder where all the hate for HITCHCOCK is coming from. I mean, it’s flawed – but it’s not so flawed that it deserves some of the venom and hyperbole it’s getting. Maybe people are just sick of bio-pics.
Thanks for the comment Rach – as someone who has so much access to so many films, yours is the sort of opinion I was curious to hear.
I think I can say at this point in my life that the money spent on a film is no object, but the time spent is. If it runs for more than two hours, it’d better be exceptionally well-made.
Welcome to the Matinee, Monkey! Apologies for the late response.
See, I take that response to say “Yes, how I watch affects what I think” given that you get apprehensive when the runtime climbs over 120.
My wife is like that – she was pretty jazzed to see DJANGO UNCHAINED, but the minute she discovered that it was 165 minutes she said “Forget it – I can wait”