Saturday

I was asked by Adrian last week if I was more critical of movies when I watch them in the cinema or at home. I immediately said at home. I said that in the theatre you are seeing the film exactly how the director wanted you to see it - on a large screen, in darkness, in silence, with full surround sound. You become immersed much more quickly, and it is harder to pull yourself out to start analysing. Usually, I have sat through 30 to 40 minutes before I realise I'm supposed to write a critical review of what I'm watching. This happened especially with Zodiac on Thursday. At home, I said, criticising is much easier because you can step outside the film - you can pause and rewind, and turn the volume down. However, this was not the answer he was expecting, and since then I have begun to doubt if there really is a difference. He said at the cinema you've paid for what you're watching, and are thus much more invested in the worth of the film. You're also in the perfect environment for criticising and appreciating the film, rather than being at home and getting distracted from it. You can concentrate solely on the movie, it flaws and its successes etc. So I'm not sure. There are some people who think cinemas are pointless and that you might as well watch films at home. I don't agree. But I'm not sure which environment is more conducive to criticism. An extra question is: do I find myself liking movies I've seen in the cinema more than those I've seen at home? The answer has to be no, although I do remember with greater significance those I've seen in a theatre, because it was not just a time that I watched them, but a place, and a people.