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.
I love 2001, but man is it not everybody's thing. Even on the big screen. But the big screen does make a difference. It
is
one of
those
movies.
May still not be your thing.
I love 2001, but man is it not everybody's thing. Even on the big screen. But the big screen does make a difference. It is one of those movies.
May still not be your thing.
Sittin' with Sean. Personally, I enjoy the movie (though there are bits where I go "Okay, Stan, you built a rotating set, you're very impressed with yourself, we get it, can we move on from the fucking stewardess and get to the spooky omnipotent aliens, please? Stan? Please?") but I know Aimee hates it. It is long and Kubrick does take his time and the acting is about as flat as a flat thing under a piece of paper in a flat world, but still. Compelling movie.
I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.
My god! It's full of stars!
My god! It's full of stars!
Not said in the movie. Which I didn't remember until I watched it again on, I think, AMC a few weeks ago.
maybe that's why I didn't like Lawrence of Arabia. On the other hand I've never seen Casablanca on a big screen and I love that. The first time I saw it was on a tiny little black and white. It was awesome.
I think it's the sweeping spectacles that need big screens. Casablanca is a more human-sized drama and doesn't need a huge screen to work.
It is long and Kubrick does take his time and the acting is about as flat as a flat thing under a piece of paper in a flat world
And it should be noted that the acting, like everything else in the film that tends to put people off, was a deliberate choice. Doesn't make the acting any less flat or the pace any less somnolent.
