Spike ,'Help'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
One of my friend's from High School refused to loan me Ran on video because he said it absolutely had to be seen on the big screen fro the first time.
He's not wrong, although with a good home theater system and the Criterion edition it might finally be acceptable.
(shrug) I saw it on VHS in a high school classroom on a 32" TV, and it still stands out as an amazing movie-watching experience. So may be better on the big screen, but definitely has more to it than largeness.
I hate when people say stuff like that. Whether it's true or not. It's so "Check it. I'm a cineaste and I'm deep. And I have the secret handshake,"
I think if you see Ran first on video, it would be fine, as long as it's on a decent-sized TV. But having seen it on the big screen, I have no desire at all to ever watch it on a smaller one, because the experience would be so much less.
I don't know anything about the film in question, actually. Just a little overstocked on Those Guys. It's completely fine to say "Oh! You should see it on the big screen,"although, living in a cowtown and no longer being in college, I don't know when I would.
I hate when people say stuff like that. Whether it's true or not. It's so "Check it. I'm a cineaste and I'm deep. And I have the secret handshake,"
What Erika said. And really, even leaving that aside, the fact that this:
One of my friend's from High School refused to loan me Ran on video because he said it absolutely had to be seen on the big screen fro the first time.
is so often followed by this:
I still haven't seen it.
makes me bristle.
I think Jessica's right. Watch it, but watch it on the largest screen available for god's sake. You know how people look at Jackson Pollack reprints measured in inches in books and think they know what he's about? Seeing a real, live Pollack is a little like looking into the mind of a god - maybe a minor household deity, yes, but maybe more - and it's completely impossible to appreciate the scale and scope of his original work when it's small and 2-dimensional. Ran is like this.
I don't know anything about the film in question, actually. Just a little overstocked on Those Guys. It's completely fine to say "Oh! You should see it on the big screen,"although, living in a cowtown and no longer being in college, I don't know when I would.
But, the thing is, that it's sometimes an absolute fact. For example, I had to watch Felllini's Satyricon for a film class, and on video it came across as a huge boring incomprehensible piece of crap. Then I saw it on a big screen and was like, "Whoa, this movie is total genius." So I bought it on DVD, where it turned back into an boring incomprehensible piece of crap.
is so often followed by this:
I still haven't seen it.
Brenda, don't assume that's the reason I still haven't seen it. It's not.
To this day I'm glad I waited to watch Casablanca until it was playing in an actual theatre. Even though I'd had it on videotape since 1987.
See, I understand that there are a lot of movies that would be better viewed (especially for the first time) on the big screen, but if I waited until they made a return appearance to an actual theatre, there would be a shitload of movies that I would never see.
TV screen = better than no screen.