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.

TV screen = better than no screen.

Unless it makes you never want to see the movie again, and leaves you with a dislike for it, though.

I've been assured that I'll like 2001, but I've already given it two hours of my life--I'm not likely to gamble another two hours plus effort and cost do try it again. I'll try another movie instead, or just take a nap.

TV screen = better than no screen.

Generally true, but there are exceptions. And since ita mentioned 2001, I'll say I first saw it on videotape on a 19" TV screen. And I had about 15 minutes less than the running time of the movie. Let's just say I didn't appreciate it at the time.

Another example -- Lawrence of Arabia. You just can't get the vastness of the desert on a smaller screen.

I got so freaked out by the the part of 2001 where the guy is set adrift in space when I saw it on TV as a kid that I've never been able to watch the whole movie.

Another example -- Lawrence of Arabia. You just can't get the vastness of the desert on a smaller screen.

I saw this first on a tiny tiny TV! In Letterbox, even! The camels were as big as my pinky fingernail! And I can faithfully say that, although it's wowsers on the big screen, it's still a big movie on a TV. You can still tell.

I think it's kind of ironic, the idea that there are some movies that only make sense on a big screen, because the big philosophy about movies was that they were artwork that the masses could enjoy. Mass production as cultural democracy! ...unless you don't own a home theatre or live within shouting distance of an art house.

It's not ironic, it's just...progress. I wonder how many people dreamt that the jerky magical black and white pictures at the cinema could ever be shown in their own living rooms. Or, fuck it, in their hands.