It has been argued that films are best watched
in a theatre and in one sitting. And it would probably be fair to say this is
how films were designed to be viewed. But that does not prove this is the best
way to do it. In order to keep this discussion simple, let us agree to ignore
the obvious fact that a theatre has better sight and sound and home viewing
allows for better, cheaper food. We can focus on the basic difference between
watching a film straight through uninterrupted versus breaking a film up into
two or three parts to be viewed over a space of time. As usual, we should begin
with an email sent to me:
"Solaris. Wow. I watched it in two nights,
because I had to, and
you're right, that's better. However, I'm not sure that a movie that has
to be watched in two sittings is necessarily a good thing - a movie seems to me
to be designed to be watched in one sitting. if it gets boring, that's its
fault." - t
True, but just because you can watch a film over two sessions does
not mean it couldn't be watched in one, as I would argue is the case with Solaris.
I am interested in just such films, those which could be enjoyed either whole
or in parts. This way there is a real and valid choice. And the question is not
how to make a boring film tolerable, but how can we get the best experience
possible.
The basis for watching a movie in parts the
first time is rooted in the way people read works of literature. People tend to
read books one segment at a time over a span of time. What are the advantages
of doing it this way? First, time away offers an opportunity for subconscious
processing. Often in high art, the meaning of the whole is suffused
through every part in accordance with the demands of coherence (and
gobbledygook). The point is watching even the first 30 minutes of a film should
give you enough to begin forming a sense of the larger meaning. "But wait,"
you say, "Why can't I just process it after I see the whole thing one
time?" Well, you can. But remember you only get one chance to see
something for the first time. Allowing for some interval reflection (go ahead and
click now) affords you the ability to enjoy the latter portion of the film
having already begun to form a sense of its overall meaning. If you've ever
wondered what it would be like to see a film again, for the first time. This
could be the closest thing to it. It is.
In fact the idea of waiting is already built
directly into many films. For example, Tarkovsky gives us many long sequences
where we can just meditate to the sound of his father's poetry or drive through
a tunnel on the way to the airport. These are like little
intermissions built right into the films. Antonioni and many others
also provide such pauses.
Intervals allow not only processing but
informed anticipation, which can prime and heighten your sensitivity to the
work. You yearn for the story's completion. But why rush it?
Action movies need not apply.
Of course, the final viewing session should be
of sufficient duration as to allow emotional immersion. Obviously, it would not
do to sit down to watch the last three minutes of a film. Common sense should
be applied.
Films amenable to this
strategy:
1. Andrei Rublev
2. Solaris
3. Children of
4. Once Upon A Time In
The West
5. Once Upon A Time In
April 2007