Why I'm so conservative

Sometimes I feel like a mutant when I try to extol the beauty of a great smelling book to my friends. Then again, being a young person in this day and age it seems hard to find friends who have read a book in the last few years, much less smelt one...

With movies, on the other hand, I am a junkie for HD picture. I don't suppose you can be conservative about something if the traditional attitude was formed before you were sentient.

Roger, I'm with you completely about digital books. It's not just that books are paper and I don't feel as bad about dropping one into the tub (as opposed to a $300-plus electronic device), or because of the battery life or what have you -- but because the very aesthetics of the device seem to go against my impulses as a reader.

The other month I was traveling for a work convention and could only take a certain amount of luggage with me. I had more than a few books I wanted to take for the trip, but I had to balance that against the inconvenience of toting all of them around. Finally, I selected the fattest of the books and did the one thing I probably should have done from the beginning: read it slowly and savor it like a good meal, instead of bolting several books one after the other like bonbons.

The sheer heft and bulk of a book grants a satisfaction to the senses that a digital tablet doesn't -- and in more ways than one. Just because I can carry around 40 books with me in the space of half of one doesn't mean it's always going to be worth the trouble.

(I should note that I also love my DVD collection and my digital music player, but maybe that's simply because a different aesthetic of use applies to each. Movies and music unfold at fixed rates; books can be read as slowly or quickly as you choose. I'm fairly sure there's a connection between such malleability and their validity as digital media.)

Fascinating entry Roger. As part of the younger generation I'm not as opposed to the whole digitization of the theatres (mainly because this will facilitate 3d movies, which I think this time could be the future). I do prefer the purity of real projection though, and I only wish I could some day experience 70mm.

I hope there's room in the future for the various technologies (both new and old) to exist in media. I've been noticing the quality of the printing and binding of the books I've been buying is somewhat degraded in consistency. If celluloid filmmaking is to survive through the next century I hope it doesn't have to become a cheap shell of itself in the process.

In this case, I see nothing wrong with being a conservative (wait, was that a political statement?), though it's equally important (as you've displayed) to be practical and realistic as regards the newfound technologies and their own possibilities. I'll always remember how Sophia Coppola rejected her father's suggestion to shoot Lost in Translation on digital: "Film is more romantic". Indeed, and something, perhaps intangible, to the magic of that movie would have been lost without it.

Digital is a new tool in the arsenal of moviemaking, not a replacement for all that came before it, as executives and businessmen with their dollar-lined pockets would like us to believe. The Blu-ray format is a double-edged sword for me: detail can astound, but I sense that people now care more about this high-def titillation of the senses more than art with feeling. A good litmus test is the ability to appreciate "dated" special effects and modern, polished ones. There's beauty and pathos in both Cooper/Schoedsack's and Peter Jackson's King Kong, in both Ray Harryhausen's The Golden Voyage of Sinbad and Revenge of the Sith. If - like silent/sound and b&w/color - you can't appreciate that range, I have to wonder how equipped you are to approach the language of movies. Will our grandchildren once scoff at those creaky old 2-D movies? Is Mike Judge's Idiocracy already becoming a reality?

These days I find myself enjoying movies more at $3, end-of-the-line theaters where actual film is still used, versus the big Carmike multiplex where everything is projected digitally regardless of its original format. In my experience, digital movies (Star Wars prequels, Speed Racer, Miami Vice) look wonderful in this high-def environment (no wonder; it's how they were deliberately crafted and they're at home in it), whereas film-based movies look fuzzy and flat, borderline ugly. An old pre-movie advertisement (I'd say propaganda) sported a nameless patron praising digital by saying "it's like the difference between records and mp3's!" Records still sound better.

And don't even get me started on these kids and their cell phones. I never thought I'd be such a curmudgeon at 23.

Mr. Ebert, another great essay. It's a shame MaxiVision 48 never took off. I remember hearing you talk about it at EbertFest in about 2000, and every once in a while Google to see if it's gone anywhere. Sadly, it hasn't.

But the big change that MaxiVision had was not the resolution or the vibration reduction, it was the 48 fps, and that's probably the easiest thing for digital projection to adopt. Standard consumer-grade DLP projectors will happily project 80 fps. You should advocate film-makers using digital recording record and master their films in 48 fps, which will only have a modest increase in costs. But, someday hopefully soon, theaters will flip a switch to double their digital projector's frame rates, and Blu-Ray+ (or whatever) will be 48 fps, and digital HDTVs will expect 48 fps, and everyone will be able to see panning shots of white picket fences. And with the resolution and color depth of digital soon to surpass standard 35mm film, there will be no argument for film anymore.

I like the observation about a film being projected from behind you, rather that simply coming towards you. You're right. When you're in the cinema there's that Allegory of the Cave sense of dependance on whatever's behind you to produce what's happening in front of you. It's mysterious this way - it suits the experience of watching a movie.

"The key words here are projected, celluloid, large screen and attention.@. No Roger, the key word here is Believe. It's an opinion, no more, no less. I agree that the best way maybe a traditional theater. But it is generalizing it a lot.

Let me explain. I hail from India, where the movies I want to see don't get shown at any theaters anywhere near me. Now the only English language film theater in my hometown elects to relaunch "Die another Day" rather than show any film previously not shown around here. I don't get Godard or Bergman, I get Bruckheimer(or however his name is spelled) and Cris Columbus. The other theaters showcase Indian Cinema. and although I know that many Western viewers are smitten by the world of Indian commercial cinema(perhaps you yourself included), and it can be sublime at times, mostly it's like watching a weird combination of "The Sound of Music" and "Die Hard" over and over and over and over.

I watch my movies in my 17 inch computer screen. Why? I can't afford anything better. With 2.1 speakers at that. I sit about 15 inches from this screen, with the room bolted shut, the speakers placed next to my ears, and my absolute unwavering attention. Oh, I have a T.V screen in the living room, twice the size(although you'll probably think that that is not even close to being enough). But the films that mean anything to me, I choose to watch in the former settings. It means Terminator in the living room, Tarkovsky's Stalker in my room. All alone

And I'll be darned if anyone thinks that my experience is any less than what a person goes through in a theater. Not the same, I'll admit. Different, Yes, but not lesser. It does not make me a lesser lover of cinema. The intimacy is there that is not present in a theater. I have seen your side of the argument, I have viewed films in a theater. Just that I feel that Artists can be collectively appreciated, but not art. Appreciating any work of art is a private process. More viewers does not make a good film great. It can ruin the experience of a great film. I once could not enjoy "Cries and Whispers" in a theater as some uninterested free entrants(film festival-go figure) spent the entire film howling after the women in the film...I'm fine by my "limiting" small screen thank you very much...

Roger-

I feel the same way about books. I have a buddy who marvelled that he had over 1000 books in electronic format on his PDA. My answer: Why? You can only read one at a time anyway.

Call me old fashioned, but nothing will ever replace the feel of turning the page to find out what happens next.

I enjoyed your article.... but you reviews are never conservative, for example take the review of SIN CITY ..i felt that you were anti-conservative

Roger,

You've written a very intriguing post, and one that has encouraged me to think about my own experiences in a cinema as my role as one of "those people sitting out there in the dark."

There's something wonderfully, strangely communal about going to the movies; it's one of those rare occasions in which one sits amid countless others of his or her species and gives emotion free reign. Always, to some degree, one is among strangers, and the darkness in which said experience occurs is one that offers both concealment and exposure.

We're often, as a culture, quite protective of our emotions; they're not things we readily divulge to others -- at least, that is, not in the critical light of day. But there's something about a cinema that encourages us to alleviate our hold on such inhibitions and, amongst hundreds of other human beings, give in to laughter, sadness, horror, outrage. It seems to me to be an almost primal experience, akin to a group of people sitting around a campfire, listening to stories that do not merely entertain, but inform as well. Each film comes with its own set of rules, the execution of which may best be described as organic.

Some of my experiences with films you mentioned (and others):

"The Silence of the Lambs":

I knew the story going in, having read Thomas Harris's masterful novel. I went to a sneak preview with my girlfriend, who knew nothing of the story. She didn't like "horror" films. I told her, "It's not a horror film; it's a mystery." So there we are; the screen darkens; Howard Shore's throbbing music comes up over Orion's celestial logo. About ten minutes in, one could hear a pin drop in the cinema; a sense of silence so electric that it hummed crackled around us. When Dr. Lecter appears ("Closer... Clo-ser...") and approaches camera, I saw nearly every audience member reflexively slink down in his or her seat. That's when I knew: "This picture will be a classic."

"There's Something About Mary":

Ah, those Farrelly brothers. This time, about fifteen minutes in, the now legendary "zipper" scene occurs. Shocked laughter, groans (mostly from the male contingent of the audience), and outright incredulity ensues. We, as an audience, have just had our safety net swiftly jerked from under us. If the Farrellys are going to show "this," what wouldn't they show? The one film I've seen when people were laughing so hard and no one else in the audience complained, for everyone else was laughing just as hard.

"Mystic River":

An example of when a film merits silence. I took my mother. We had the misfortune of sitting in front of a couple who felt it necessary to ask of each other questions from the super of the first credit. In the prologue, as Sean and Jimmy spy Dave in the window of his house, the woman says, "Who's that boy? Who is he? Which one is he?" Now, she had been chattering incessantly up to this point ("Why is he getting in the car with those men? Are those real priests? Is that boy supposed to be Sean Penn as a child? What did he write in that cement?" Etc., ad nauseam), so I turned, explained to her that the "boy" was he whom she had just watched being kidnapped and escaping, and she -- finally! -- adroitly piped down.

"Dreamgirls":

About an hour in, Jennifer Hudson gives what is one of the greatest muscial performances in the history of film. She does not merely sing the song "And I'm Telling You," she lives it. As the song ends, the audience -- no other word for it -- erupted in applause. It's something I'd never seen happen in a cinema. By the end of the film, again in regard to Ms. Hudson, I saw that happen two more times. In fact, the last time was during the credits. Many in the audience were already leaving, but halted on the stairs, in the aisles, to wait for Ms. Hudson's credit to appear -- then (number three), thunderous applause and cheers.

"No Country for Old Men":

The Coens, I have found, elicited with this film nearly all of the emotions I've previously denoted. Stunned silence, nervous laughter, shocked gasps, disbelief -- it's all here. I also experienced an echo of Mr. Demme's great picture, for whenever Anton Chigurh appeared onscreen, a ripple of unease worked its way through the audience. In the first four minutes of the film, Chigurh has committed not one but two murders. After that, all bets were off. He became, like Dr. Lecter, the quintessential boogeyman: fiercely smart, devoid of any logic save his own.

Well, a few thoughts to share.

A few months ago I stumbled across a youtube video of you on The O'Reilly Factor. The two of you were discussing microchip technology and its many frontiers. One of them in particular was the possibility of inserting microchips into the minds of human beings, allowing them to access the internet, place a phone call, write a research paper, play a video game -- all in their minds! You discussed with Bill in detail how the chip would project images onto the eyes, allowing the individual's head to become a sort of organic computer. Do you remember this?

I only mention this in order to properly respond to your discussion about the Kindle at the end of your entry. Not much of a discussion, actually. More an unwarranted bashing. Now Roger, you may be conservative when it comes to preserving nostalgia, and I agreed with everything in your entry, but you are certainly liberal-minded about preserving the environment, aren't you? Your four-star review of "An Inconvenient Truth" suggests you are. Then tell me: why would you bash a piece of technology that will replace the wasting of paper on crappy romance novels that seem to decorate bookstores more than anything? Are you so interested in smelling Ambrose Bierce books that you wouldn't want to prevent anymore of them from being printed on our trees?

If my tone suggests that I'm serious, I apologize. I'm giggling to myself as I write this, and I'm hoping I don't come off as a Kindle salesman. I'm all for preserving nostalgia, but at what cost? One thing you're reviews have taught me is to savor the old and embrace the new. It's time to embrace the Kindle, Rog.

Your friend,

Sean

Ebert: If I want to leave the house with 40 books, I'll get a wheelbarrow. Heh, heh. Cackle.

Most art is about more than just its content. It is the experience. We don't talk much about the experience of going to the movies because we all have different preference - we try to be objective, and we can only objectively discuss what happened onscreen. But our passion for movies, what compels us to contemplate their depths, is, I suspect, as much in the act of going to the movies as the movies themselves. It is an occasion. For you, Roger (that sounds too informal, but Mr. Ebert sounds too formal), part of your experience has been celluloid and black-and-white. You should lament their vanishments, even if that seems illogical. I miss traditional animation, which now has been replaced with computerized animation. Pixar is great... but I liked the old-fashioned cartoons.

Ebert: I'm going back and adding b&w to my final paragraph. Roger, please.No "Mr.Ebert."

Nostalgia - strange and deaf to valid criticism it may be - is sort of wonderful.

Oh, and on the smell of books... oh, the smell of books... is it one of the main reasons I read?

This is not unlike the CD vs. Vinyl debate that is constantly discussed within the music community. Nostalgia probably does have a lot to do with one's personal preference, but being as these are two completely different technologies, there are valid points for both the analog and the digital method. I personally believe that there is a warmth and immediacy in the sound of vinyl that does not exist within the range of digital music. I have yet to hear any blu-ray audio, but a lot of big vinyl supporters like Neil Young are blu-ray advocates. There is something about the sound of vinyl that in some ways is more lifelike. Maybe it's my own imagination, but it almost feels like Bob Dylan is in the same room as me singing "Subterranean Homesick Blues." However, vinyl is hardly portable, it's quite cumbersome, and it does not allow for the easy access to individual tracks the way CDs and mp3s do.

I can identify with those within the film community like Mr. Ebert and others who stand by traditional celluloid in the wake of digital cinema. The same fundamental method has been used to capture images for over one hundred years. Any deviation from this can't help but be perceived as radical. I find it rather ironic that two of the greatest friends and collaborators within the movie industry, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, are fundamentally opposed to one another in the film vs. digital debate. Lucas has been the driving force behind reshaping traditional cinema for a digital future, as has Spielberg, but the latter insists on clinging on to a tradition which his closest friend in the industry insists should be forgotten. From what I've read in interviews, Lucas just shrugs and says "Oh well, Steven's going to do things the way he wants and it's going to be brilliant either way." Which is really what it comes down to. Whatever benefits the artistic progression of cinema, no matter what form be it celluloid or HD, can only be a good thing.

I feel that way about my copy of the collected short stories of Colette. When my first one finally fell apart, I searched far and wide for another copy that had the same smell. I can't describe it, but it triggers something in my brain that was a big part of my developing a lasting affection for her work.

Ebert: I have a cheap hardbound edition of all her books in reddish leatherette that I bought in London. It has wonderful illustrations, which I also like in books. She is so good writing about her mother. Donald Richie wrote once about having to move house in Tokyo and being forced to put some of his books in storage. He lingered long in choosing between Shakespeare and Colette. My suggestion would have been: Start with anyone else.

Our minds are as outdated as the technology of our past. We eventually reach a point when the latest operating system isn't compatible with the hardware.

I don't think the question is whether 'light projected through celluloid onto a large screen' is better. I think it's a question of it being so much better than my home HD home theater system that it's worth it. The costs:

1) MONEY - For a middle aged couple with kids, a night at the movies is close to a $100 venture, with tickets, concessions, and babysitter. (Yes, I know there's cheaper ways, but when you start down that route, you are denuding the experience and may as well stay home. I want my popcorn!)

2) TIME - Symptomatic of our busy times is a premium on nights out. For once in our life, there's more to do than we can do. If we can get out once a month, we're more apt to see friends and catch up.

3) TASTE - Gone (for us) are the days of going to a movie for the sake of going to a movie. We need to want to see a particular movie bad enough to fight upstream against all other factors that would make us decide not to. This happens rarely (we're in a market where there's not much hope of seeing anything released on less than 3000 screens).

4) PATIENCE - Cell phones, commercials, bored teens, long line ups, bombastic sound systems, staff for whom minimum wage doesn't inspire 'extras' like, say, manners.

I miss going to the movies, I really do. But I'm afraid that what I miss just doesn't exist any more, like the corner book store.

Roger, I've long been criticized by my fellow filmmakers and instructors because I simply don't enjoy going to a theater to watch films. And I often have to defend myself by saying things like "what right do you have to tell me how to enjoy things?" And I ask you (whose opinion I've respected for as long as I've enjoyed the movies), isn't it fair to say that each person should view films in the environment in which they get the most out of the experience?

Ebert: Yes, but as a conservative I have the right to dictate the experience from which you will benefit the most, because I am formed by the past and you are recklessly adrift in the present. Close quotes.

I think there is something to be said for the sound experience in the theater as well. Even the best 7.1 Dolby Digital system with the best receiver that one can buy at a home theater store cannot compare to the likes of digital theaters and IMAX.

Also, the reason that watching a movie at home (even on Blu-Ray or on an as-yet-invented, even higher-resolution format) will never match the theater-going experience is because of an overwhelming feeling that movie-goers have that, "I'm going to a movie!" Sure it is convenient to have movies shipped to your house via online services, and even moreso to get them on-demand. But going out to the cinema feels like an event. There is nothing like seeing a movie on opening night: getting your ticket before the show sells out, securing your seat, and waiting excitedly for the house lights to cut off and for the movie to roll.

Finally, I would like to comment about the smell factor (you mentioned you enjoy books sometimes simply for their smell). Research shows that smell is, in fact, the human sense that triggers our memory the most. When you think about it, it really rings true. The smell of soft-served ice cream may remind you of amusement parks. The smell of smoke may remind of a crisp fall day when someone is burning leaves off in the distance. And the smell of popcorn triggers in all of us, I believe, memories of the cinema. These smells do not take us back just to a particular instance either; they take us back to periods in our lives. The urge to smell the works of Ambrose Bierce once a year probably stems from a memory that your mind likes visit.

Every new technology makes an old one nostalgic. I have a friend who misses VHS, who says that having the edges chopped off and the colors desaturated meant that a movie only seen on video was left mysterious, like he'd never actually seen it, just heard a description of it.

It's become a cliche that flashbacks are in black-and-white, because that's the technology of the past, but there's a little-seen new trend in making flashbacks look like faded VHS tape or security cameras, as if the older a memory gets, the more degraded the media becomes.

The "large screen" option is obviously not available for everyone, but I think I've found a decent way to make do. I watch all of my rented movies on my laptop through big stuido headphones, sitting on my bed, propped up against a couple of pillows with the laptop on my lap. The screen itself may not be that large, but it takes up the majority of my field of vision, especially if I turn off the lights. The headphones allow for the sound to fully envelop me. Essentially, with this set-up it creates the sensation that nothing else exists besides me and the movie I'm watching. It might not be quite as good as an actual movie theater, but it sure beats sitting on a couch watching a tiny screen positioned on the other end of the room while my roommate noisily cooks dinner in the adjoining kitchen.

Ebert: I've become enveloped in movies seen that way, using the Bose headphones.

I think the future of electronic books will have to mimic the feel of
real books. In "Minority Report", they showed an electronic newspaper that looked like a regular newspaper (but changes with new news). It wasn't a little block of metal.

I think future electronic books will be similar... Open the book, see two pages, flip with the movement of your fingers, etc. I don't know how you'd get the smell though... scented candles maybe?

Something else to think about.

Stories were originally told aloud, in person, which meant they were limited by the memory of the storyteller, how long he could keep talking, and how long until his listener had to do something else.

Along came books and the written word, which allowed stories to get longer and very complex, because it meant you could turn back the pages and re-read something. You could also read at your own pace, instead of the orator's. But you miss out on the inflections of the orator and a story that has to be memorized is almost certain to be more succinct.

But now some authors (Stephen King among them) are creating stories expressly as digital audiobooks. We're back to where we started, except the stories aren't limited by memory and how long someone can sit there. But as many recorded books readers will tell you, it's still tricky to hold your place and "re-read" something, so the audiobook can never be as complex as the written one.

First, a comment on Tom Crook's comment. Very well said! My analog core processor has yet to refuse any digital input, but the system's showing more wear and tear every week.

As to Mr. Ebert's essay -- our reaction to any art form is just so incredibly presonal and intimate. It's always amazing to me that you can have that kind of often embarrasingly personal reaction in a room/theater/arena/stadium with up to thousands around you. Filmgoing is simultaneously a group dynamic and an individual experience. I'll use a Farrelly Bros. example as well.

Seeing "Dumb & Dumber" in a packed opening night theatre made for one of the most explosively funny film-going experiences of my life. Seated in a group with close family, all with a similar anarchic sense of humor, it was just lovely. I've never been able to finish watcing the film again at home. It just does not work for me. "Caddyshack" is the inverse. In its original theatrical release, I despised it. On TV & video, it gets funnier every time I watch it - almost always by myself.

While age has not totally taken away my desire or ability to enjoy a film presented in its most perfect public environment, home entertainment technology evolved more quickly than that of the theaters in the past 15 years. Now, the ability to use captioning to unlock all the dialogue, often with more details than are given sonically, the ability to rewatch complex sequences or even plain old badly edited ones for more clarirty, and the ability to stop time and excuse oneself for a moment all combine to create my preferred viewing environment today.

It's also a matter of scale and personal training. "Dark Knight", "Iron Man", "Watchmen" ?? I'll treasure my Blu-Rays (eventually), but these experiences are meant to be larger than life. My HD home system doesn't do "larger than life". It does lifesize -- "Michael Clayton", "Juno", or just about any film where dialogue matters. Television itself has become lifesized, literally and figuratively, so it's become the medium of choice for me with any material of that nature. But, how much better would HBO's "Rome" have played in a full theatrical presentation?

Was there anything like going to the movies when I was a kid when the Disney matinee cost 75 cents? The big screen, the wide aisles, the smell of popcorn (and spilled pop). The audience gave of itself within the theater, once the previews were done (newsreels were before my time. Sadly, now there are commercials). And the audience APPLAUDED after the show. I miss that. Now movies are too loud, the audience mistakes the theater for its own family room, cell phone addicts just can't seem to turn the damned things off--going to the movies is not the joy it used to be. So, count me in the conservative camp, although I know almost nothing about digital vs celluloid etc.

We had an in-depth discussion re books vs ebooks in library school (in Champaign no less). There is so much that is sensual about a book--the smell, the weight of it, the font size and type, the handed-ness of it--so much adds to the sheer pleasure and experience of reading. I will never let that go. There are people studying the "ritual" of reading and all that it entails--there's more to it than just picking up a book.
There will always be a place for paper books, I think, unless we ruin the planet so badly that there are no more trees (and then reading for pleasure will either be all we do until we die or something we will have no time for at all).

At the end of our lecture and discussion about this topic, two very old books were given out to the lecture hall and we were told to destroy them. (The reason for this is that there are many librarians who cannot bring themselves to discard old, outdated material). I was shocked at how hard it was for me to rip pages out--I wanted to at least read the book prior to destroying it. No such luck. Of course, these books weren't anything like Colette or Shakespeare, but it was a salient lesson in impermanence. Nevertheless, the exercise did not make me warm up to ebooks (which I must say I could probably smash without too much agony of conscience). I interact differently with my computer screen than I do the printed page. We all do. I'm wandering from the point (bad habit). Suffice to say that I am agree with you re conservatism in this aspect of things.

For what it's worth, the art of the radio drama went into career voice-over artistry. Perhaps I'm just a shameless animation geek, but if you check out the best cartoons on television, you can literally just close your eyes and hear great radio emanating out of these toons. It's a shame that radio dramatics akin to Norman Corwin has gone the way of the dodo, because I think a lot of the A-list voice actors in the animation industry could create all sorts of remarkable performances (outside of the boundaries of the Animation Age Ghetto) if serious radio drama were still in widespread production.

Living in the perpetually technologically one-step-behind UK, I hadn't heard of a "Kindle" before. I looked it up and it's a calculator. A calculator you read. I do not want to read a calculator. It has no charm.

Your review of Lawrence of Arabia, a great movie I had not seen, prompted me to go see a screening with the restored 70mm print in Maryland's remodeled AFI Silver theater last year. That experience convinced me to become a member of the AFI and reexperience films I've always loved in the setting where I was meant to see them (Jaws was great) in the first place. I later saw the movie being shown on cable, and it dawned to me that everyone who hasn't seen the movie in its original format was ripped off, even though they still sat through a great film.

About the old books and their pungent smells: be careful. My mom got pretty sick re-reading an old—and presumably moldy—copy of James Michener's The Source. At least now I know what to get her for Christmas now.

The Kindle offends me. It is utterly soulless. I grew up being taught that books were our friends; we were allowed to extend our bedtime by a half hour every night if the time was spent reading and my parents unwittingly created a lifelong habit. There are books I've toted around for the last twenty-five years and those volumes were the only thing I kept after a house fire my senior year in college--faintly tinged with smoke which at this point makes them part of my history as well.

Roger,

What do you think about directors that still edit film using a Moviola instead of digital editing?

I remember hearing Spielberg edited the latest Indiana Jones on one. He may be the last director doing this.

Is there any value in editing film on a Moviola? Is there any benefit that digital editing can not match? What directors do you know of who are still editing this way?

Brian

I'm only 22 but I have to agree with you completely that the best way of seeing a movie by far is in the theater. I remember about 2 years ago I was with my family vacationing in a beach house on Hatteras Island in North Carolina. We had a large screen TV at our disposal which was the best money could buy. I watched Peter Jackson's King Kong on it and later the same day went to watch Mission Impossible III at a mid-grade movie theater(the only one on the island). There was no comparison the ultimate commercial home video system, could not even begin to match a mediocre theater in terms of visual and sound projection quality.

That said I do think there is probably a tendency for individuals who have made a large investment in home entertainment centers to want to stay home as opposed to spending even more money at a theater.

Speaking of audiences. I saw Appaloosa this weekend and it was a perfect audience. No extra sound. Nobody discussing the film while it went on, discussing the movie while it went on etc. However, the Theater now has decided to have the annoyance of having one of their staff walk across the theater to go sign a clipboard and then walk back out, twice. OIts distracting when anybody leaves, but nobody was leaving this movie. It was only him.

That being said, I find movies have more interruptions when watching at home. Whether it is the telephone, people's desire to chat since "we aren't in a theater, we don't have to be quiet," pausing to go to the bathroom, pausing to get another drink, pausing for god knows what reason.

On screen quality. The only reason I prefer my movies in digital now is becasue the picture is cleaner. Why do I go to a movie on opening night and the film already has 'scratches', direct and other such annoyances? At least a digital picture tends to be clean, even if the color range isn't as good. But at the same time there is a certain amount of lifelessness of having it be so clean.

One day when I retire I'm going to build a theater with a couple large screens, great technology, great sound, a talented projectionist (don't get me started on how 50% of the movies I see aren't centered properly), and tell people outright that if they are disrespectful to other guests they will be removed and denied future entry. I'll probably go bankrupt.

I love seeing films in a theater, but more and more, I want to be the only person there, or with one or two other friends. I am too distractable, and as a former theater manager, I want to throw everyone else out for doing any annoying thing.
The only exceptions are for comedies, musicals or the really great films, where the audience is sucked in immediately and behaves itself.
I also miss 70mm, and regret only having had 2 chances to see Cinerema.

Ebert: My friend McHugh used to call out: "Clear the bar! I want to drink by myself."

At the end of each year, I like to mimic my favorite critics by making a top 10 list of the movies I saw. I've only done this for three years, but each time, I saw 9 out of my top 10 movies in theaters. Now I'm not sure if I predicted I would love these movies so I made a point to see them in theaters or if the theater-going experience augmented my enjoyment, but the correlation is there.

I do know that a part of me just likes the idea of "going to the movies". Even though the theater is just down the street (and even though it can occasionally be noisy or uncomfortable), for me it still has the feel of a privilege you got to experience as a child.

Hey Roger,

IMAX films are technically 70mm, but the film is threaded sideways, effectively quadrupling the size of the frame. I discovered this fact while trying to find a 70mm-equipped theatre in Toronto. Would you believe the only 70mm screens in this "movie town" are IMAX screens?

I wonder if there would be an audience for classic 70mm films such as 2001, Lawrence of Arabia or Playtime if the films were converted to IMAX prints and shown in commercial IMAX theaters?

I can't bear the thought of never seening Playtime in 70mm again.

You've brought back some great memories with this entry. I remember as a kid getting books for Christmas and inhaling that distinctive new book smell. I have not embraced the digital book craze, though I do understand the attraction. I go camping a lot, and I always take a box of books with me, despite the fact that I'll never get through more than a few of them (four kids take more of my time), though I did go on my own for five days this summer, and got through fifteen books. I never travel without at least five books, even just for a weekend. As for film, yes, the large cinema screen is very important. My then girlfriend took me to see Star Wars when it came out at the Odeon, Marble Arch in London. This was the biggest screen I'd seen in my life. But before the film started, I heard a whirring noise, and was stunned to see the sides and the top of the screen expanding to make it even larger. The film started, and I could have been with a million people or just on my own, the experience was so overwhelming. This is what a film should be like, huge, bright, loud, and completely absorbing. I love my home theatre with the 50 inch screen and surround sound, but the cinema is the place to really watch films.

Ebert: I remember seeing the Royal Screening of "White Mischief" at the Marble Arch Odeon. In the first row of the balcony, Princess Margaret. During the scene where Gretta Sacchi intimately touches the corpse of her lover in the morgue, someone quite audibly said: "Crikey, I'm glad they sent Maggie and not the Queen!"

Roger,

I'm a USC graduate film production student, and from where I'm sitting it seems that only "eccentrics" will be shooting on film in the near future. Very sad.

One of the biggest reasons that I love going to the Toronto Int'l Film Festival is that I can attend screenings with other film fans who are there to see and experience the movie. It is now pretty much the only time of year that I venture out to a commercial cinema. (Am I sounding old!)

I love sitting in the front so that the screen fills my entire field of vision. And so that the sound comes from all around.

I don't expect my fellow film goers to be silent BUT I expect them to be engaged and to allow me to be engaged. Texting, clutching lit blackberries (even if silent), taking/making phone calls, reading emails - all pull us OUT of the film experience. It seems so difficult for more and more people to simply "be" in a movie and experience it rather than pulling themselves out of it by having to have a running textual or verbal commentary.

Now that I think of it, being a film critic must have that challenge at times - letting yourself enter the film without having a running commentary of analysis. Is that even possible for you?

Luckily, on the film screening front, I have a home digital system with rear projection. About as close to a real film feel that you can get.

On the book front, I too enjoy the tactile experience of books. And the smell too.

Probably the only technology that I believe is amazing is the iPod - the ability to listen to podcasts has revolutionized radio for me. I used to often lament about the lack of VCR's for radio - now the podcast does that for me. It has opened up many many new shows on a variety of topics that I just never had the time to schedule to listen to when on radio.

roger,

i believe its genius for a critic to try and communicate with whoever needs to do it, people like myself for example. i have been reading you for the past 5 or 6 years. you 're the only one i've left who is still alive, and i've been through a lot. i like the way you write. i've studied film myself and i always write about them in my native language which is greek. i can understand you clearly because you have a power to communicate complex things to ordinary viewers.

i wish i could watch more films the way you describe it but my financial situation will not let me. i'm in a transitional period about my life and i want to ask u something

can u tell me something about life...

I'm a huge fan of Blu-ray and a 56" + DLP or LCD at about 6-8 feet distance with a 7.1 sound system. It replicates or exceeds any theater. I also appreciate digital projection at theaters since they do not scratch, break, or age while the movie is playing.

They've increased the resolution to the point where it's nearly film level. The color clarity and contrast is typically better than film as well. Ebert needs to be more conservative politically and less conservative technically.

I usually prefer to see movies sprawled out on my couch, with a huge bowl of popcorn at my elbow and a drink in my hand, the lights dimmed just right and the speakers repositioned perfectly, but some movies I could only see in the theatre. I remember when I walked in to find a seat for LOTRs. The narrow enclosed hallway sloped sharply down so that everyone entered the theatre near row one. My friends and I followed the crowd downward, turned the corner at the bottom, and whammo, I saw myself sitting in almost every seat in the already packed space. My precise demographic had come out to enjoy the film for the same reason I did, we loved the books as children and we were going to relive them together. The shared experience added a lot to the picture, I would not have enjoyed it nearly as much without the audience.

Another time, in a much smaller ‘art house’ style theatre with wooden seats (very comfy!) and an ancient projector, I went alone to see a Japanese movie. I’m the only fan of Japan cinema amongst my friends but no worries. I once again found myself with my peers. The only way to find this place is to seek it out intentionally, so everyone was there with a purpose. Wonderful!

Yet another theatre experience comes to mind. Dragon Slayer! Way back when I was 10ish. My friend’s dad took me and his son together. The theatres back then were Cathedrals, with huge balconies and a large red curtain in front of the screen. The movie would start to show on this enormous expanse of red cloth and then it would slowly pull to either side as if to reveal Kong himself behind it. Ah the memories. We sat right in the first row of the balcony. What joy! I had this huge box of chocolate covered almonds to munch on, what bliss! Sadly, at a frightful scene I JERKED my hand up to cover my eyes and my chocolate covered almonds shot out of the box in a large rooster tail of deliciousness to shower the shrieking children below. I’ll never forgive that dragon!

I find that seeing a movie in a theater with a lot of people can be a real crap-shoot... it's either a great experience, or maddening (due to talking, kicking-of-back-of-seats, texting, etc.). It can also be quite surprising, and make you realize that you really CAN'T always judge a book by its cover.

Two examples:
1) When I went to see 'No Country For Old Men', there were only about 40 other people in the audience, but they were an older (30s-50s) crowd, quiet and well-behaved. However, when the movie ended, almost everyone in the theater (myself not included) loudly expressed anger at the ending, and complained all the way out.

2) 'The Dark Knight' was almost full to capacity when I saw it, at a late show... and I swear 95% of the audience had to be under 17. They were loud and rowdy before the movie started, and I figured I was in for a very irritating experience... but when the film started, not one of them said a word. The popcorn-throwing stopped, not one cell phone rang... everyone's attention was on the screen.

Two excellent films, and two different audience responses. Seeing a film in a theater is never the exact same experience twice.

I was in a packed screening of Schindler's List on opening weekend. I had to sit in the middle instead of my preferred aisle seat. Halfway through the picture, the guy in front of me started talking loudly to his girlfriend. Everyone could hear him. Finally, the exasperated man behind me screamed, "Shut-up!"

Unfortunately, he had failed to appreciate that the man was enormous. He leaped up and yelled, "I'm going to kick your ass!" I ended up in the lap of the stranger next to me as the guy climbed over the back of his seat and then mine. He started to pummel the man before other audience members we able to summon the management.

Now, I prefer to go the afternoon shows that are almost always lightly attended. The disadvantage is that you get the cold popcorn that they pop by the truckload the night before, and then put under heat lights. More than one cashier has become annoyed at me when asked when they had popped the popcorn before making a purchase.

The other memorable experience was seeing United 93 in Arlington, less than a mile from the Pentagon. The sound of sobs from the audience during and after the film was absolutely haunting.

One of my professors was a noted Whitman scholar. She was in a used bookstore and found an 1855 edition of Leaves of Grass in a dollar bin. Since she was fond of the owner, she told the kid at the register what it was, and left without buying it, so that he could place it on auction. I don't know that I could have exercised her restraint.

I am sorry I've never had the chance to see MaxiVision, which I am only aware of through your extolling of it over the years. My worry isn't that 35mm will die out as the predominant way to see a movie in a cinema, as I think it's probably inevitable in the long run, but that in the future seeing a movie projected on celluloid at all will become rare. I read somewhere that digital IMAX cinemas are planned; how does that work? Is digital up to being shown on screen that big yet? When I saw "The Dark Knight" in IMAX it may be the first time I've been conscious of a regular cinema audience appreciating the medium; when they saw the scenes of the movie filmed with IMAX cameras there were 'ooh's and 'ah's throughout the cinema.

A couple of weeks ago I had the good fortune to do something I've wanted to for years: I saw "Lawrence of Arabia" on the big screen in 70mm. Since the last run of prints of the movie was a few years old I expected perhaps a few scratches but the print was near-perfect. It was so beautiful that I was genuinely moved by just looking at the damned thing. In years to come, if digital takes over cinemas, will the desert of "Lawrence" and the space station of "2001: A Space Oddysey" never be seen on this wonderful format? For 2001 maybe it's appropriate; I'm sure HAL would approve.

Yes to paper!! For sure....

Perhaps it is because I am a baby boomer but reading a book, smelling and feeling the paper, seeing the illustrations is magic. I am who I am today because of books.

Besides, paper books let you scan text if the writer meanders. I read the Adventures of Tom Jones and much of Stephen King that way.

Now, I am completely digital when it comes to newspapers.

I read the Washington Post, NY Times, Suntimes, New Yorker, and many, many other web sites DAILY. How much would I be missing if I couldn't do that?

As for movies, I rarely go to theaters because they are too expensive and, yes, because of the noise. A few years ago I went to the theater to see L.A. Confidential and this woman beside me kept up a steady stream of comments and noise ;finally, at that last fight scene, I told her to stop and she did. It was a shame because she was enjoying the movie and maybe I am just selfish and crotchety. But, I LOVE movies and hate missing key moments because of someone else's reactions.

I do take my grand kids when they ask.

Preach, Ebert, Preach!

Firstly, yes, let's reclaim that word "conservative" and rewire our thinking on it: conservative politics (at least for me, at least in this day and age) are bad; conservative attitudes towards all other things in life could be good, could be bad, but should not be thrown out like a baby with the political bathwater.

I agree that things that were unassailably good about American culture 35 years ago and 75 years ago are sorely missing in the culture of today... smart mass entertainment for adults, sincerity, emotion. grace, empathy pouring out of the radio, humor you had to read twice to get... This, to many people who are hard-wired to dismiss any backwards-glancing on any front, sounds fishy.

"Why," they say, "should I be interested in this older stuff? What would make me interested in it? I've got enough new stuff flying at me to choke a black hole. And isn't it true that every generation thinks their stuff was the best?"

These are the kinds of poor souls who disallow themselves to ever get into The Beatles, missing out on one of the purest pleasures of human life, all on account of the fact that their parents talked about the 60's too much.

I am 35 years old, but have been called a curmudgeon since my mid-20s. I don't see how it is possible that I could be a curmudgeon if I (since right around the weekend they released TOP GUN) began looking elsewhere (and into the past) for my fried eggs and bacon, culturally speaking.

But can I be a curmudgeon if I am rejecting that which was stuffed down my generation's throat over the 80s and 90s? (my formative years, and pretty bleak for music and movies in the grand scheme of things, if one later realizes the existence of BLACK NARCISSUS and BLONDE ON BLONDE.) Is there a word for someone who identifies a place in the recent past and "goes there", rejecting the flow of modernity based not on fears of the future, but on general critical dismissal of the product, no matter how functional and handy it is? Is there a word for someone who rejects much modernity and consumes mostly from earlier ears, but does NOT do so because he lived through that earlier era and wishes to return to his youth?

I've got a dear friend called Pete who was the first to show me what a dazzling modern creature is capable of, watching SIN CITY on his iPhone, on a screen smaller than a card from a deck of Bicycles.

I understood the idea ("Hey, wouldn't you rather watch a great movie while you're waiting for your dinner partner to arrive at the Japanese Curry place?"), but I'm fairly certain that if a renewed and revived Orson Welles were to wander into that curry joint and notice my friend squinting to watch a film on a little screen, he would eat him alive: one bite, with cocktail sauce.

Hi Roger,

I am actually from Hyderabad, India and now living in US. The reason I mention this is because I spent my childhood going to huge theatres(by today's standards). I know the feeling of sitting among 400-500 people and sharing the experience of a good movie with them. Your article reminded me of those times.

On my recent visits I saw that things have changed a lot in this area. Sadly, the multiplex culture has caught on even there(in place of old structures) and I missed going to those big screen theatres.

Looking at the direction in which technology is moving, probably in a few years, we will be looking back at the times when we used to see movies outside our living rooms or ipods.

Vijay

Ebert: Hey, Vijay, I actually saw two movies one day in Hyderabad, and I'm particularly fond of the article I wrote. If ever I saw movies on big screens with the correct audiences, it was that day. The piece is here:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19981128/COMMENTARY/111010347/1023

How about this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0

I am a relatively new convert to film-nerdism. I've always been more about books (paper only, please). Given that, I have a bit of a different take. If it weren't for DVDs, relatively high-quality transfers, and Netflix, I couldn't be a "moviegoer." I live in a rural area. There is a ten-screen cinema with digital projection about twenty miles away, but it shows only the latest Hollywood movies. Last year, I convinced a couple of my friends to travel sixty miles with me to see No Country for Old Men because it was directed by the Coens and based on a novel by one of my favorite authors. Along with the sheer cost ($8 for a movie ticket?), the total lack of access to any sort of independent theater is prohibitive.

Besides, whichever projection technology is used, I've found the films I've been to this year have been very disappointing in terms of "audience experience." Even in relatively serious movies there always seems to be a crowd of cell-phone using teens sitting at the back of the theater, giggling. Unless the theaters make an effort to improve audience experience by enforcing the rules, I'm afraid that we could be waxing nostalgic about all cinema attendance, whether DLP or celluloid.

Of course, if I could find a theater playing all of the movies of Godard I doubt this last bit would be a problem. Funny how that works.

Having been born in the mid-1980's, I grew up with the popularization of the personal computer and the Internet. Like most people of my generation, I would consider myself a technophile, but I agree that there is a certain magic to viewing films on the (truly) big screen. It's all well and good that people can watch films on their iPod Nano's 3" screen, but that sort of thing is not for me. But you'll never get me to part with my DVDs and HDTV... unless you're replacing them with Bluray versions and a larger HDTV.

I have to agree. I like how a book feels in my hands, how it sort of feels "alive" in some way. I remember the first book I got for myself, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury (at the time I was too young to know what it was about, the name sounded very mystical and authoritative in my little head) and fell in love with it instantly. I think I read it till it fell apart at the seams. Since then I've read more of Bradbury's work but none of it matches the emotional hit 451 still gives me from memories of reading it alone.

And I'm already sensing I'm falling out of the times with computers, I don't like how they're getting so small and fragile looking. I don't want "cyberspace" the way Gibson showed it to us. I like my mildly clunky mouse, my klacking keyboard and aged CRT monitor. It lets us know there is still a divorce between the machine and ourselves.

I'll agree with one thing wholeheartedly. Movies ought to be seen on a big screen. I have a projector at home to play DVD's on, and that helps tremendously. But the bigger the better when it comes to screens. I'm glad to be living in Chicago, a city where I have the opportunity through the Music Box, Gene Siskel Film Center, and movies at Grant Park, to experience older films in this format. Those films seem to jump out at me in ways they never did before. Seeing "The Apartment" in grant park changed my opinion of the film 180 degrees. I don't think I'd fully appreciated "Chinatown" before seeing it at a Music Box matinee about a month ago. But my experience with "The Searchers" is probably the most fascinating to me. The first time was on a bastardized VHS formatted to fit my screen. This format nearly choked the life out of the film. Later I decided to give it another try on DVD on a regular 24 inch tv. It seems better, more robust than before, but not quite the movie that I'd read Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, and many others wax eloquent about. Once I got a projector, it seemed that I should pull out Fords movie again. This time I began to fall in love with the Monument Valley vistas, John Waynes face in close-up, and the rich colors of the film. But when I caught it at Music Box matinee, I was completely unprepared. "The Searchers" is a beautiful film. The precision of Waynes performance is just incredible. You can sense Ford growing more and more cynical about western mythology, some created by himself, as the film moves forward. (and by the time he shoots "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" he's completely jumped ship).

I can only imagine what will happen to my appreciation for "A Man Escaped", "Harakiri", "Taxi Driver", or "Walkabout" if I ever have the chance to see them in this all enveloping format.

It's cheating, but I bet there's an easy way to slip that jiggle into a digital print. I've actually been noodling about ways of distressing digital prints for effect, of late - and you're right. That's a technique that might benefit any film, so long as it's subtle enough not to be perceived outright.

There is an episode of At the Movies from 1983 that can be viewed on You Tube in two parts. Gene and Roger discuss the top selling videocassettes that include Flashdance, 48 Hours, Psycho II, Live and Let Die, Space Hunter, Gandhi, Duran Duran videos, and Jane Fonda's workout video. They get into a home video vs. movie theater discussion. Neither of them owned a video cassette recorder and they did not have a desire to get one. Gene Siskel stated that although a love story like An Officer and a Gentleman might be fine to watch on a small television screen, he would much rather see an action or horror movie on a big screen with an audience. He further stated that he would rather see Singin' In the Rain at a revival theater than watching it on a television screen. Roger stated that he professionally views several films a week on a big screen which fulfills his movie needs, so he did not feel the need to own a videocassette recorder. Both agreed that seeing a film on a big screen would be more satisfying than watching one on a television set.

This episode shows that Roger has always been profoundly conservative. Gene was too.

I was once trapped in an airport for nine hours, with naught but three bags of luggage and a paperback copy of "Les Miserables" for company. That doesn't include the several hours in three airplanes that followed, nor the train and bus rides that same excruciatingly long day. I'm still thankful to Victor Hugo and his hundred-page rambles to Waterloo; I think that I would have gone insane, if not for him and Jean Valjean. The thought of reading as many pages as I did on a computer monitor gives me a headache

I am a proudly conservative bibliophile and cinemaphile; the smell of pages and fresh, buttered popcorn hold almost equal pleasure. I usually take a book into the movie theatre to avoid pre-film commercials, so I think you know on which side my toast is buttered...

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/80dec/ebert.htm

It's not as insane as I expected. I do wonder how the 2008 Roger would explain what's coming to the 1980 Roger.

I grew up in a small town that only had a drive in. When I was thirteen, an actual movie theater opened. It was then that I realized how much I loved the theater. And now at 24, I feel like I am the last of a dying breed. Maybe it was going without a theater that made me appreciate it or maybe I just love movies that much. But even today, when I am interested in seeing a movie in the slightest, I go to the theatre. A movie is better when viewed on a big screen. I think people need to remember what it is like not to have the option of viewing a movie at home and maybe then will conservative movie beliefs make a comeback.

I have to agree on all accounts.
one difficulty i have seen with everything become HD, is a new HD TV is back compatible with a standard DVD player, however it ruins the lighting, and makes even the most high budget lighting look like a home video. I would hate to think that a new TV means i'd have to make a new collection of HD DVD's.

Reading some of the comments here in tandem with your thoughts made me think of something else that seems to be in its death throes: the concert film. Yes, this year we did have at least two high-profile films open on the IMAX circuit (U2 3D and SHINE A LIGHT), but much like the actual live concert industy, if you're not a big name act nobody will attend.
I had chace to see some of Julian Schnabel's spare, ambitious film of BERLIN, the Lou Reed song cycle performed for the first time since the album's recording in the '70's, and the music was moving, and the visual elements were very effective. But sadly, I saw it in an empty theatre. It seems even the fans of an artist who dares to release a concert film won't support them in theatres - they'll either be so eager to get the show they'll download an advance torrent, or they just wait a few months for the DVD. (Concert films nowadays have an especially notoriously short window between theatrical release and DVD availability)

By contrast, about a year ago I went to a rare screening of URGH: A MUSIC WAR, a seminal document of early '80's punk and new wave artists with a lineup that is now legendary - The Police, DEVO, Oingo Boingo, XTC, UB40, and dozens more. It is also not on DVD, and due to the huge amount of clearances required to make it happen, probably never will be released in the format. It's not a flashy or theatrical film, in fact it's very spartan - aside from The Police, each band only gets one song, and there's no added visuals. But seeing these artists in their hungry youth was electric enough, and being in a reasonably large audience, you could feel the excitement just as if we were all watching a real live show on a stage instead of an old film. In fact, during some of the most energetic or outrageous performances (Klaus Nomi, Gary Numan, The Cramps, Gang of Four, 999), there were applause breaks!
It used to be music fans would go to revival screenings of THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME or PINK FLOYD AT POMPEII in large numbers - perhaps chemically altered - but more importantly, to enjoy a communal experience of beloved music and trippy visuals, a suitable fill in for artists who didn't tour or charged too much for concert tix. It's another tradition bleeding away that I don't know how to stanch.

Roger what do you think of 3D cinema and 4K cinema in digital theatres? Jeffrey Katzenberg thinks it's the wave of the future like color became. I've only seen U2 3D which was more natural looking than typical 3D where the characters look like cardboard cutouts.

Jeffrey's opinion in Variety:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117992974.html?categoryid=1348&cs=1

People always tell me that the theaters and books and newspapers will soon be dead. Everything will be on a computer. Not true. We all need something to hold and we all need somewhere to be. Magic isn't dead yet.

the Most interesting time i had in a theateer was when i saw borat with a group of 11 mentally retarded adults. The experience was surreal to say the least; made more memorable by laughing so hard i accidently broke my footrest off my wheelchair

Your last paragraph made me want to stand up and applaud. One of my recent rules of thumb when doing a write-up for a film is that by the end of the review, my reader should also have the title of at least one really good book to read. I don't think you can be an informed cinema goer unless you're also a good reader. One feeds the eyes, one feeds the brain. Both feed the soul.

Two comments, or perhaps more.

As a publisher of 30 years, I well understand the smell of a favorite book. It is best illustrated to those to whom it has never happened by the scene in "Ratatouille" when critic Anton Ego is instantly catapulted back to his boyhood upon smelling/tasting (can't recall) the dish of ratatouille placed in front of him. This filmic moment, perfect in a film of many such moments, demonstrates the power of the aroma to our brains.

It is no different in picking up an old and beloved book. When you've published your own for many years, it seems as if each of them has its own unique aroma--even though, of course, it isn't true. They were all printed in the same factory, on the same paper, and bound with the same thread and glue. But the moment in which each book was first opened, and that wonderful smell enveloped me, was different--a different time, different circumstances, and so on. Each one is unique.

Bravo to you, Roger: I can see your face clearly, smiling, as you hold the open book up and stick your nose in it. This is what books are: repositories of not just the text they contain, but of our lives at the moments we've intersected with that text. Will people be sniffing their Kindles in 50 years? I doubt it. There won't be any Kindles, but there will still be printed books.

My second comment.

I appreciate your conservative stance on viewing movies in a theater. I have many such memories from my youth in Manhattan, watching films on large screens: new films at the Ziegfield, Loews Astor Plaza, and so on. And old films at the Regency on the upper West Side. (Re my comment about Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein in an earlier blog: this was the first and only time I've had the pleasure of watching its luminous black and white photography on a large screen with a full audience. The amount of laughter surprised me.) I would not trade those memories.

But I don't find any such pleasure in attending movie theaters these days. Dimly-lit films, scratches, poor focus, poor sound, jibbering boobs around me. And it costs a lot for less.

Where I have found a haven of watching movies is, in all places, high in the sky. I travel a lot for business and have a portable DVD player. On 14 and 16 hour flights to Asia, when the cabin lights are out and most of my fellow passengers are asleep, I watch movies with a directness and intensity I haven't known since youth. My surroundings vanish and I become enveloped by the events on the small screen. I've discovered that the size of the screen doesn't matter; that the fact it's merely stereo over noise-cancelling headphones doesn't matter. It's the sense that there is nothing between me and the essence of the film ... 35,000 feet in air, in the dark cabin of a jetliner. A strange place to find such intimacy with the cinematic art.

Ebert: Are you THE Richard Kaufman, publisher of Genji, the Conjuror's Magazine? Author of "Coin Magic," "Card Magic" and "Amazing Miracles of Shigeo Takagi?" Don't get me started on magic.

What about me, a young aspiring film student trying to learn, and whose only time to watch movies is every night on his laptop from about 11:00PM to 1:00PM!? Okay, I'm exaggerating it a bit, but not too much. Of course, I saw the "major ones" (I'm sorry, I couldn't think of a better term) on a "big screen." I forced my friends and I to watch Lawrence of Arabia on a large screen by projector, but sometimes, most of the time, my laptop is all I got

Roger, you should google the Mike Figgis lecture or talk on this subject (it is audio) called "is there too much culture", i think. I think you have to download a realplayer....so you might want to google both of those two at the same time (like so: realplayer is there too much culture? Mike Figgis); I found it in a blog near the site web browsing on the same page.

He seems to be saying exactly what you are. He also is featured on a DVD of "Weekend" and seems to make a very persuasive argument for his opinions on the film, like saying that Godard is a complete film maker because he is using all of his senses---using the subtitles or text to get a different part of the brain activating, then throwing sounds too.

But if you don't want to look it up, it basically says he likes books because they are a completely personal experience, radio and music because its not in the "crude" exterior world (maybe you have to hear him say it, because it may sound wrong from me...or not) and old film projectors because they are like impressionistic portraits, not trying to be realistic or real (he uses Hithcock's Notorious as an example of that). He also goes into how we haven't evolved much as a culture as the technology hasn't really evolved that much, siting the year: 1957, pinpointing it....kind of like what you are saying, you can't beat 35mm....but then adding a therefore we value it less deduction,akin to painting: it was used to illustrate the real world, then the camera was invented and artists were liberated...they could just throw paint at the canvass. It's not conservatism, I think it's just good taste, Roger...same with the blogs, always right on the money.

Not all movies are created equally, or need to be seen equally. I think it's absolutely essential to see the old "King Kong" on a big screen; on a little screen, the gorilla looks like the clay model that he is. But on a big screen...

On the other hand, I don't think the big screen adds much to a movie like "Sophie's Choice." Maybe even the reverse. It's a little bizarre to see Meryl Streep's face span 25 feet; and that takes away from the experience. On my laptop screen, she looks like a person.

Lately I've been reflecting on the difference between watching movies in a theater, and watching them on my laptop computer (which functions as my home DVD player). I'm a film student, and this semester I'm taking a class on Hitchcock. When, for whatever reason, I find myself unable to stay after class for 35mm projections of Hitchcock films, I am forced to make them up at home. Other times, I stay and watch them in a fairly large (300-seat) theater (our classroom).

There's an interesting difference between the way I watch them, depending on the setting. The theater holds my interest more. When I'm watching these movies on the big screen (as I did for the great double feature of Notorious and Rope), I'm rapt.
On the other hand, on my computer screen, I can barely hold my attention to it. I end up pausing the movie every ten minutes or so, or even less, to check my email or something else online.

I think there are three reasons for this shift in attitude, none of them having to do with whatever movie happens to be playing.

1. My computer presents things to do, at the touch of a button. A theater has no ready distractions, primarily because there's no light. This may be circumvented for some people by their cell phones, hence the prevalence of texting these days. Even if I were the type to use text messages, though, I would never do it in a theater, because the light is distracting to everybody behind and around me--arguably more distracting even than sound pollution, because it shatters the "dark frame" (or whatever you call the cinematic analog to theater's "proscenium arch") around the image.

2. A film on my computer is literally a smaller image. The same shot on a giant screen takes longer for my mind to process, so I am less likely to comprehend it too fast (and hence become bored).

3. No matter how much I might want to, I simply can't stop a film unspooling in a theater. So I end up submitting to this, relaxing and accepting that the film will play out in its own time.

What can I conclude from this? I think there's something to be said for film being "above" you, in a metaphorical sense, larger than life, not under your control, not owned by you. If home video had been around in the early days of cinema, would the same great stars have had as much success? I think part of the Hollywood magic of those classic players, part of the mystical sense that makes their names (Grant, Cagney, Brando, Bogart, etc.) shine out in big bold letters in a way that just doesn't happen today (...LaBeouf! nope)--is that these stars were made special by the limitations of distribution. You couldn't see them unless they were large; you couldn't see them unless you left your house and got to a screening at a particular time and place; you watched, faces up to the light, almost worshipping. And when it was over it was over, and you wouldn't see them again until next time.

I think there's certainly some merit to this conservatism. Although I also think there's a lot of merit to the additions technology has brought us--DVD has allowed me to discover hundreds of films that I never would have had a chance to see. Home video brings movies to people who may live far away from art theaters or revival houses. It helps to preserve not only the films themselves but the memory of them and their creators in a way that the ephemeral nature of prints and screenings do not. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the best way to watch a movie is still to sit back in the dark in a crowded room and let it sweep you away.

Yes, Roger, I must confess, I am indeed the Chief Genii and writer/illustrator of many books on magic.

Ebert: What did you think of "The Illusionist?"

I hold out hope that digital projectors in theaters will be easier to focus. I'm sick of out-of-focus and dull-looking films.

I'm 32 and often feel painfully anachronistic, so I can relate to much of this. However, the Kindle or other devices do serve a purpose. I know a woman who is over 90 and a lifelong avid reader. She is now too frail to comfortably lift a hardbound book and her eyes are so poor that she struggles to read even large-print books, but with her digital reading device she is able to adjust the font size up, set it to a clear sans-serif font, and lift it with ease.

I wouldn't get one myself but it's certainly nice for some people.

Wow. I was just thinking about stuff like this, today. Not in particular the stuff about the large screen, the celluloid (which I do agree with, by the way), but the notion that much is lost today because of narrow tastes by average movie-goers.

One of my favorite movies of recent years was Sophia Coppola's Lost in Translation, a film that, of course, did not generate the kind of audience one would wish for. Now, why not? Was it because it was not backed well by its studio (although Focus features brings some of the best movies about these days)? No, I don't believe so. I think, if the film were playing in a town, and everyone actually wanted to see something GOOD, for a change, the film could have earned much more than it did.

I also, though, hate the fact that people tend to believe that a "good" movie is one that makes a lot of money. MY Uncle and I were having a chat a while back, and he said that The Lord of the Rings is quote / unquote BETTER than other films because it was able to draw in an enormous audience. Eroneous, I thought, which it is. Most of the time, in fact, people choose sucky films to see in theaters, because, it seems, they don't WANT to see something good. How many more of those "___ Movie!" will we have to endure before they realize that people do not care to see those film, and that they're audiences are getting tired of ridiculous trash? They wont, because people still pay to see what they KNOW is going to be garbage, just to laugh at how bad it is. This is ridiculous.

I was thinking about Francois Truffaut today, and about the whole Cahiers team, and thir radical approach, their big statements calling for the end of the films that were being made in France at the time, and for the new to rise, paving the way for better and better movies. That's something I want to do. There is so much out there that is good, but that is either 1) unaccessible (I can't find a copy of Godard's Weekend to save my life), or 2) not cared about. I think it's time for people to see what real films are, how good films can be seen, that people will know they are seeing something new, something special. Sure, there are good movies coming out nowadays, but the majority seem just low and intolerable to an intelligent audience. Why they pay to see them, I don't know. They should wish to actually see something for their money in the future, rather than just throwing it away on some vulgar trash that actually makes them more stupid as they exit the theater.

Savvy

Great Essay Mr. Ebert

I too am conservative in my feelings regarding film. I grew up with a Cinerama theater in my city of Calgary, Canada, and some of my greatest memories are sitting 16th row center watching 2001, or 70mm prints of Lawrence of Arabia, Superman, and Empire Strikes Back.

Digital projection makes me uneasy while watching a film, I think it's because of the lack of grain, or warmth in the picture from the lamps of the projector. Right now, it just feels like I'm paying to watch a Blu-Ray in a rather large living room. I know in time that will change, but right now it's conflicting with my idea of the ultimate movie going experience.

Roger, not to sound naive, but when you say the 'smell' of the book, do you mean it's initial scent or the one it has accumulated for years? Because my 'Bridge To Terabithia' has long since lost it's classic status in that respect.

And yes, I just mentioned a Newberry medal winner in a conversation about books. Please don't murder me.

Ebert: The Bierce book smelled that way right out of the box. Because it contains "The Devil's Dictionary," I fancied that it smelled like brimstone, although I don't know how that smells.

I refuse to read digital books when there is a printed version. You can't curl up with an ipod or a laptop. Well, you can...but it's not the same. I refuse to scroll and tap on a piece of plastic when a story is opening up to me. There's something about the physical touch of turning a page, the crinkling of the paper, the weight of the book, it's so...reassuring.

My favorite moments watching movies, however, are curled up alone in bed, on my ibook, with headphones, in the dark. It's the way I watched In the Mood for Love, and The Pianist. The screen is smaller, yes. But the sentiment is pervasive and intimate and intense, like the musky smell of jasmine incense, and it lingers long after the screen fades to black.

Mr. Ebert, I am 19 and I fully agree with you on all points, although I don't know anything about 35mm or 70mm or silent films or radio. There's something special about seeing a movie for the first time on opening weekend with a large crowd. It's an intangible. Seeing it alone, on DVD, months after it came out is less cool. And the screen will be smaller. I like having my field of vision filled, especially for films like The Dark Knight and WALL-E. Also, I can't watch movies in bright rooms. Have to turn out the lights. If a TV show is especially cinematic or epic, I'll turn out the lights.
And I always turn off my cell phone.
I love books, especially novels. Physical copies of things are great, you can collect them. Digital books are anathema to me, and I don't care for audio books either, unless it's by a comedian. You can't flip through actual pages. People talk about digital distribution but I like having physical copies of my music and videogames. If I download a movie off of the internet, will the file still be around in 10 years? But my VHS of Star Wars still works great.

Of course the first reaction to your confessions is to blame nostalgia, but it's more than that. As evident from most of the comments here, the most obvious cause is the mob effect. The mob effect is not only real, but the most compelling thing traditional theater-going has going for it. I deliberately seek out specific theaters in search of it. Viewing a movie alone at home and amongst a large crowd in town are two entirely different experiences, even when viewing the same movie. It has little to do with the cinematography lending itself to the big screen or the pre-release hype psyching everyone in the theater up. It has all to do with the quality of the movie: the experience. It's not to say a good movie can't be good when viewed in solitude, but that's another story. I think that movie theaters are here to stay, despite the whole digital distribution thing.

Of course, you raise interesting points about celluloid and medium. If I was making a movie today, I wouldn't even consider black and white. There's no economic advantage; it's a disadvantage. As computer capabilities advance, digital mediums will surpass analog mediums (celluloid) forever, in quality and practicality. I'm telling you this as a computer engineer: it's inevitable. But for the same reasons that some guitarists prefer vacuum-tube-amplification, some theater-goers will prefer celluloid projection. It has nothing to do with art-elite snobbery; you get something different. Sure, tube amps can be simulated digitally. But the process is different. And for guitarists who produce the music, as well as film-makers who produce the film, the process is what matters as well as the product. Same goes for the flip-side. For me, viewing Da Vinci's _The Last Supper_ in person in Milan blows away any digital reproduction I've seen. Sure, the wall is flaking and so much of it is barely discernible. It compares to viewing Star Wars on 16mm that's been dragged through the desert of Tatooine. But _The Last Supper_ has risen above its medium, and despite its failings in quality (hell, because of), it has risen to a level so high in our popular culture it is still well recognized by the world and referred to in modern film and literature. To go back to film, you could say the same of sergio leone spagetti westerns or kevin smith's Clerks. Phew, wrote too much.

Thanks for your entry. I am 19 years old and still somehow grew up with The Mercury Theatre Players, X-1 and Lights Out. I wait for books to come out in paperback as hardcover books never have that pulpy smell, the literary equivalent to film grain.
I too morn that these things are passing out of existence. I have seen the recent Star Wars films projected digitally, and I have not been impressed. Quality wise it seemed no better or worse then 35mm projection. Seeing The Dark Knight at the IMAX was sensational. I had seen 70mm films projected before, but never a new film, and the clarity was unbelievable. Nolan understands that while HD has many advantages in terms of cost and the speed of the production workflow, it is still inferrer to the best that 35mm can do and cant hold a candle to 70mm greatness of "old Hollywood". It is nice to see that Michael Bay and Jon Favreau are now experimenting with IMAX, they are not my favorite directors, but it is nice to see a return to large format film production.

P.S. There is a nice little podcast on the American Cinematographer website with Wally Pfster talking about his work on The Dark Knight with IMAX film and the "dumbing down" of technology

Hi Roger,

Your anecdote about a man who fell off his seat laughing during a screening of "There's Something About Mary" reminded me of a similar experience a few years ago. One of my high school teachers required us to watch a screening of "Ora Pro Nobis," a film by Lino Brocka, one of my country's most celebrated directors, at the state university's film institute theater. One of the characters, called Major Kontra, was the leader of a paramilitary group wielding unchecked authority over a small, rural town. Major Kontra has not only convinced himself of the righteousness of his work, terrorizing locals in an attempt to flush out leftist guerillas, but of his immortality as well. The actor, Bembol Roco, also an icon of Philippine cinema, played his role so well that, in a scene near the end of the movie, when Major Kontra is stabbed several times by a woman he attempts to rape, the audience gasped and applauded his demise.

The theater, large enough to house hundreds of people, was brimming with students for whom the realities the movie depicted--the story was set in 1986, a period of political turmoil in my country--were at best a hazy memory. Yet, never again have I been in a theater where a huge crowd became so immersed in the picture they were seeing, that they audibly condemned a character for his wrongdoings. I even remember hearing a girl nearby saying, "Mabuti nga sa'yo!" ("Good riddance!")

Just wanted to share.

Well, maybe a bit strange, but I literally almost fell out of my seat watching Terry Giliam´s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. My three friends did not like the movie, but sure they had a lot of fun watching me laughing hard throughout the whole movie.

When Braveheart came out, I was 14. I went to the cinema at 8 p.m, not knowing that it is 3 hours long. Of course, my parents were bit scared, where I am. But I loved that movie, and i guess, to this day, i have never heard such intense silence and felt such tension in the dark of the theather. By the way, I had a test from English language the next day, and becuase I return from the cinema almost at midnight, I hadn´t been learning for test. Naturally, I earned myself a nice F.:)

I don't like ebooks. At all. I most certainly identify as a conservative of media format (all media, I guess), if only just in hope for the best experience. It's as you've written, here and elsewhere, that books do have a meaningful physicality - the scent, for example, or the binding and cover - and that you always remember where you read them. "Siddhartha", on a packed Greyhound coming back to Ohio from Detroit, two years ago - I was 19, and I'll remember it when I'm 90. I remember the very seat in which I saw "28 Weeks Later", a far, far cry from my favorite film. THAT should have been how I saw "The Third Man", or "Taxi Driver".

I also feel that projection is 'right'. It does seem to be actively happening, and happening from some input, as if it's a sensitive and real thing, and it becomes a different sense of "projection". I like feeling submissive to the movie, and I am almost always submissive when a movie is as big in my eye as a basketball court.

I've never read a book or watched a movie on any computer. I'm just not a fan of anything as a file, as it doesn't lend to much of an experience in enjoying it, 'same movie' or not. If I have no choice but DVD, I'll watch that movie on a very large TV. An ebook just seems... weird. I guess it's like downloading an album - I'm not really inclined to admire a pretty JPEG of an album cover and then scroll through the inserts and print out a little label to slap on a burned CD as art. The music or writing is essentially the same, sure, but how do I just sit and admire it as that thing I toted around and read? The iPod is a great little chunk to have, but give me the CD (actually, the vinyl, please) and let me work on converting it if I want to stuff it into the adorable little rectangle of technological marvel.

A friend tried to get me to watch "L'Enfant" on his iPod. I have to admit, it did look and sound pretty nice on the saltine-sized screen and the Milk Duds in my ears. But, I just gave it back and rented it. I thought that was just so odd, especially in his choice of movie. Ah, but he just pirates and watches specifically French language movies as a study aid, to improve his proficiency in French and understanding the various accents of its speakers. He is in France, studying the language as I type this (thereby, yes, he could have at least afforded a rental). He said the movie was "pretty good" and "[messed] up". Oh, the insight. On a side note of that, then, I see the war on digital piracy as misguided in believing that the people who download every last nugget of art they'll see actually really care about any of it enough to ever be willing to pay for it in the first place. The term is 'filesharing', but what, exactly, is being shared? I'm rambling.

Cute "kindle" pun.

This blog entry comes two weeks after I have committed to finally reading Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon. I have tried about 6 or 7 times over the last 15 years, only to be stymied by boredom, confusion, or distraction (yes, it begs the question "why bother?" and I have also resolved that, if I fail this time, life is too short and won't try again). I have started it so often I practically have the first 20 pages memorized (notice that if anyone ever quotes Ulysses by James Joyce, they usualy quote from the first 30 pages: "Agenbite of inwit"; "snotgreen scrotumtightening sea" ; "Stately plump Buck Mulligan")

But I have owned the book for 17 years, and it has the creases, tears, and textures of that entire period, including 9 moves, 1 divorce, 2 births. It kept me company on a driving vacation to Nova Scotia, waiting in line to get Bob Dylan tickets on a cold March night in 1996, and now with a red pen while NHL 09 blares in the background on our son's XBOX 360. It's part of the family.

Let's not forget the sense of curious awe of something new about to be discovered that began with the sound of the film clickity clickiting through the projector. In digital presentations there is no sense of the technology being used to present the movie as it plays. Is that better? I don't know, but I feel something precious about watching movies has been lost. No sense of an effort to present the final art is apparent. The environment is becoming more clean and sterilized like a fine art museum, and getting more and more removed from the neighborhood crowding into the Globe theatre.

Roger, I am reminded of your introduction to the first Great Movies book, which talks about the death of film societies. The closest things we have to those are 11:30 pm classic film showings once per week and cinema study courses in college. Unfortunately we are losing the "correct" means of watching classic films, and are reduced to seeing them on a small TV or a laptop for the first time. I am included in that, as I have seen most classic films on a TV or laptop screen, most recently "Ali: Fear Eats The Soul" or "The Conversation". Thankfully, I've been able to see films projected on a larger screen for my film class, which is the way to see them. I've seen Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin", Scorsese's "The Age of Innocence", Ousmane Sembene's "Black Girl" (which is a film I hope you have seen), and De Sica's "Bicycle Thieves" on a larger screen, but unfortunately it was through a computer projector. While the quality was somewhat good, it was ruined just a little by a green tint at the top. So perhaps things aren't so great. Thankfully, we have over 20 students in the class to contribute their likes, dislikes, and general thoughts about the film, which is something you cannot get just by watching by yourself.

Nevertheless, I fear the future of viewing films. I was sent an file of Dark City to watch on my laptop, and found myself turning it off after a minute. Not because I thought the movie was boring, but because I realized that this was no way to watch a movie for the first time. The size filled up a quarter of my my macbook's screen, the sound was not nearly good enough, and because my roommate was there the lights had to be on. I'm just going to have to wait til I can watch it on my TV with the surround sound, because frankly that's the best I'm going to be able to do these days.

Two years ago, I began a movie club at the high school where I teach art and art history. The focus is to introduce students to movies outside their usual viewing experience (older films, foreign films, independents, etc.). Now in our third year, we have shown over fifty movies and now have about 25 regulars who stay after school every Thursday to watch whatever I throw at them. Recently, I have also begun to work Hitchcock's Psycho into my general art curriculum as well. We spend 5-6 days watching, rewinding, discussing, analyzing and writing about the film.

So far, the results have been encouraging. I have had students tell me that their favorite Halloween movie is now Night of the Hunter, or Eyes without a Face. Another student told me that her favorite movie is now The Third Man (she may have been looking for extra credit though, as it is widely known that this is my favorite movie as well.) Students who have already graduated come back, week after week, just to sit in the dark and watch movies with us. I like teaching kids how to draw and paint but I most look forward to Thursday afternoons---it’s the most rewarding part of my job.

I have, however, made some troubling observations. It is true that today's teenagers are what a NY Times writer called "platform agnostic". We have a massive projection screen in the art room but, to them, the experience is no different than seeing a film on a TV or even an ipod screen---they simply don't immerse themselves in the image. Also, their ability/desire to multitask greatly undermines their viewing experience. In short, they would text through the whole movie if they didn't know I'd have a meltdown over it.

Lastly, and, to me, most troubling, is their need for constant payoff, action and exposition. Any film that has an inkling of setup, real conversation that doesn’t simply propel the action or character development is deemed "too slow" or "boring". Last week our movie was "Alien" (shockingly, none of them had seen the original). After the film many of the students proceeded to tell me that the beginning was "too slow" and that I ought to check out "Alien vs. Predator" if I really wanted to see a "good Alien movie". *Sigh.....I haven't given up on them yet though. This week I’m showing "The Orphanage" and next week it will be "Peeping Tom". They're going to learn to love good movies whether they like it or not!

I'm the only 20-year-old in America that doesn't pirate movies. Not because of any ideological reasons- I don't care if studios lose a percentage of their millions.

I don't pirate cause it is no way to watch a movie. Watching something on your computer screen, whether from a legit DVD or from a download, or on your Ipod is not the way to enjoy a movie. I never even got with portable DVD players.

Even watching a movie on TV or on home video is something I try only to do with "three star movies". Movies that Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz would deem "rent it!".

I was born in a time when silent movies had become a thing of the past, but I was also lucky enough to witness the golden days of the Disney movies. I was 6 years old when I saw, for the first time, a movie in a grand theatre... and it was "The Lion King". Such an amazing experience leaves a lasting memory.

Nowadays I find the theatres too noisy, with too many people talking loudly, incessantly eating popcorn and paying more attention to their cell phones. To watch a drama or a thriller, I'd rather sit at home watching a DVD on a moderately-large screen. It's not the same thing... but at least I can pay more attention to the movie itself.

And yes! Nothing can replace books. No e-book will ever replace my old copy of The Secret Garden, ever!

I wish you luck, Mike, on your Gravity's Rainbow journey, and confess that I'm a little envious of your ability to make this commitment. I, too, have owned the book for 15 years and made 6 or 7 attempts to read it. I get further each time, though, so perhaps one day I'll make it to the end.

Heartily agreed! Seeing "Man on Wire" this last week wouldn't have been half the experience on a smaller screen and without my fellow audience members gasping and oohing and aahing throughout it.

There's one effect of film projected onto a screen, which I've been noticing and puzzling over since high school, but you didn't mention. Nobody has mentioned it, that I can find:

The smooth, lively, flickering feel of the onscreen motion itself. There's something about the shutter flicking along - and the whole room flicking along with it - at 24 fps, that lends to the film an almost regal liveness which my vocabulary can't find words for. I only see and feel it in theaters, only with real projectors running real celluloid film.

TVs and HDTVs and computer screens with their sixty- and hundred-plus fps refresh rates cannot and will not ever recreate this subtle but very real effect. God forbid if digital video projectors ever took over our theaters. I'd never set foot in one again.

Hi Roger,
I thought you might find it interesting to know that projection has a scientifically proven effect. It has been shown that when an image is projected on a surface, rather than originating from within a picture tube, the viewer is at an intellectual distance. Picture tubes tend to be involving, leading to passive enjoyment rather than active analysis. I'm not sure if that applies to modern HD televisions.
Incidentally, McLuhan thought the same thing, albeit for different reasons. (He thought it had to do with definition, as you and most readers here would know.)

Take care!

I agree with you. I'm willing to submit myself to a double blind test, if that's even possible, with digital vs. film, to see if I notice anything, but there's something about film that seems still far removed from digital's current capabilities.

What caused me to respond, though, was radio drama. I know I'm in the minority here, but I also have to point out that I grew up PAST the radio drama heyday. I did, however, have the privilege of hearing the Star Wars radio dramas and I was captivated.

To paraphrase the anonymous child who was asked why he preferred radio to TV: "The special effects are better."

It's my dream to see a resurgence in radio drama. Podcasts may be the answer to this, but it will take more energy than any single person can muster. Here's hoping.

Although I agree that an audience that has paid an admission price to see a film is generally preferable to one that has not, one of the best moviegoing experiences I've had recently was at a free screening of The Orphanage at an art house theater. The audience was an eclectic group of people, some of whom came because it was an art-house film, some because they had actually heard of that particular film, and many more because it was a free screening. The "free movie" people would, by and large, never have attended a foreign language film at full admission price, and there was a rumble in the theater as the film started and people realized that they would "have to read." However, the unsuspecting audience was absolutely wrapped up in the intensity of the suspense and emotion, and it was a singular pleasure to feel minds being opened, even if only temporarily...and all because it was a freebie.

I always thought i was a weird kid because, even when I was young, I had a love for older things in movies. I grew up in the 70s and 80s, when special effects were advancing by leaps and bounds. Yet, I still marveled at the antique quaintness of "King Kong" or anything done by Harryhausen.

I also had a strong love of silent film. I still do. I would match Buster Keaton against any of the modern comedic filmmakers. I remember watching my first Keaton film in a college film class, filled with cynical college-age know-it-alls who all thought modern film was the best in everything. Before long (I believe the movie was "Steamboat Bill, Jr.") the entire class had turned into kids again...laughing uproariously at the stunts and humor. It was great.

I love film. I love going TO the movies. I bristle at friends who only wish to watch movies on DVD. I love old movie houses like the Pickwick in Park Ridge even though the seats are old and the sound not the latest. I wish I could have seen when the Chicago Theater showed movies.

I sometimes fear I was born in the wrong era.

This is sort of a gilt-edged invitation for me to talk about Kindle and ebooks.

When I reviewed the Kindle shortly after its release, I gave the "purchase, download and read books" feature very little attention. I was only enthusiastic about the Kindle because it included a free, high-speed connection to Sprint's nationwide data network; the device could make reading Google Reader or Bloglines more like reading a physical book.

In fact, I had never committed to using the Kindle to actually read books. But a couple of months later, it came time to pack for a weeklong conference in San Francisco. I was less than 100 pages into a recent biography of Harry Houdini and I faced the eternal dilemma of readers everywhere:

Did I really want to carry this immense slab of wood with me across the country and then back again?

I decided to give the Kindle a shot. I downloaded the electronic edition just so I could keep reading the book during my trip. It was solely a stopgap. I was certain that by the time I got back, I'd switch back to the hardcover.

After a week of reading it on the Kindle...funny thing, I never got back to the hardcover.

I had to stop reading hardcovers cold-turkey before I embraced the Kindle fully. For my entire life, a book meant a stack of bound pages, one stack on my left hand, the other in my right, turn a page over every couple of minutes. Translating that to "flick the big button on the left side and wait for the screen to redraw itself" required a bit of a mental adjustment but soon, I didn't care.

Yup, by the end of the week, the Kindle had become simply The Way I Buy And Read Books. It's an upgrade on the concept of printed books.

Yes, it's blasphemy, I know. Drown me as a witch if you must but on Ihnatko Planet, it's just the truth.

I read more now, thanks to my Kindle.

Think of the advantages that the iPod presented, over a CD player and a wallet of CDs. When you left the house, you no longer had to really think about whether or not you really planned on listening to music or not. It's a tiny device; why wouldn't you take it with you?

And you no longer had to think "But will I want to listen to this album? With the iPod in your pocket, you had music for every taste and scenario.

That's the advantage of the Kindle. It's not a big slab of wood. It's a trim, lightweight device. Of course I'll take it with me to my briefing downtown. And why fuss over which book to take? The Kindle totes every electronic book I've ever bought.

I no longer have to think "Crimeny...I want this book, but $25?!?" Nearly all titles are ten bucks or cheaper.

I no longer have to make a judgment based on a review or a couple of quick peeks at the bookstore. The first half an hour to an hour's worth of nearly every book is available for a free download. When I reach the end, I tap another button and buy the whole thing. And two minutes later, I'm reading the book.

And that's just the Kindle. I also have an ebook reader for my iPhone. I often leave home without my Kindle but I never leave home without my iPhone. Which means that at any moment, I can dip back into Huckleberry Finn or some early Wodehouse or even the Neil Gaiman book that was released last week.

And fire at my house would absolutely break my heart. I have a library containing a lifetime's worth of favorite books. Poof, up they all go. But all of my ebooks will be safe on the network server a thousand miles away that backs up my computers every night.

Technology has to earn its spurs with every new innovation and idea. eBooks will never catch on if all they can offer is a gadgety alternative to a system that everybody's already happy with. The new tech has to offer features and power that the old tech can't deliver.

I have great nostalgia for books. When I finish an ebook that I truly loved, I buy the treeware edition for my library.

But it's helpful to try to stop seeing a hardcover for what it is and start thinking of it in terms of the role it serves. That's when you start to see the possibilities of electronic text.

A book is something that allows me to read. A hardcover is one such device. By making books cheaper, more readily available, and easier to carry around wherever I go, electronic books allow me to read more.

For me, that's the end of the argument. Your mileage may vary.

I recently watched my first film on my iPhone during a flight to Los Angeles. It was "The Orphanage". I had to hold the iPhone up to watch the film, and was kind of embarrassed when scary moments jolted me. Whenever I got scared, my whole body jerked, causing me to jerk the iPhone as well. I felt a little ridiculous.

The cinematography and art direction were of such high quality, I wished I had saved the film for my home HD projection system. Oh well...

By the way, I saw Bill Maher's Religulous and loved it! Unfortunately, the guy behind me had horrible halitosis. Being that it was a comedy and he was laughing as much as I was, I was subject to the awful stench of his breath far more than I would have had it been any other genre. That was the first time I had ever watched a film holding my shirt over my nose and mouth.

I miss regular books somewhat, but my Kindle- with its instant bookstore experience- is just too enlightening and fun to dismiss. I can get the first chapter or two of anything for free, see if I like it, and only then buy it. I can read customer and professional reviews of same, too, before buying. I can buy today's paper from any city... NOT the web site version of the paper, but today's paper (which, in my opinion, honors newspapers, not tries to make them extinct, like web sites and other technologies). Anyway, I do miss the tactile feel of books, nice color jacket art, etc., so what I think I'm going to do is pick two or three favorite authors and continue to buy their books the old-fashioned way, but no way am I throwing the baby out with the bathwater and stop using the wonderful Kindle.

Here's the thing: I want to agree with this, desperately, but I find that I can't anymore. As others have already stated, the cost of going to the movies simply doesn't live up to the experience of it anymore. A date for two to the movies costs somewhere in the realm of 30-40 dollars, and for that I'm not guaranteed a decent projection, or more particularly, a decent audience.

I was quick to leap into Blu-Ray because, as much as I love my DVDs, I felt they were lacking something. Now that I can watch movies at home in full 1080p with uncompressed PCM sound, without cellphones, texters, or any of the other claptrap that's become so common, I can't say I'm missing anything. Especially since I frequently gather friends over to watch the more audience participation-friendly films like blockbusters and comedies.

There are exceptions of course. I am fortunate enough to live less than a mile from the AFI Silver Theater and minutes from the Uptown, both well-known and respected movie houses in the DC area, so whenever anything special comes to town that I have to see on the big screen, I can still check it out. Mongol was a perfect example of a movie that I'm glad I saw at the AFI before watching it at home. It just wouldn't have been the same.

I'm remodeling the third floor of my house to be a (video) home cinema (not a "media room", thank you). It'll be quite impressive, and larger than many. The contractor asked me how many people it would seat. I said "One."

I rarely find an acceptable movie-going audience in the local multiplexes, so I do retreat to my home court. There is some joy to seeing a movie with a good crowd, but the gamble just isn't worth it to me. I'll worship in my own temple and commune directly with the Film Gods, thank you.

On the more social side, I'm hoping to use my new facility to host frame-by-frame analyses with like-minded people. Guess I'll need some more chairs after all.

Shoot, I knew I had a second point. What do you think of the idea of recommending someone "wait for video" to see a movie? What the heck is that supposed to mean, really?

I'm sure that could be taken as a dig at the new "At the Movies", but I know you mentioned it before, and it's been bugging me. What does that really mean?

I've always seen your video recommendations as a chance for people to catch things missed in theatrical distribution, and that makes sense. But many other people seem to think "wait for video" means something.

Ebert: If you're told to "wait for the video," translate that as "don't see it." Any movie worth your time is worth seeing in a theater, if that option if available. Use video to view good movies you want to catch up on. It's two hours of your life, no matter where you park your butt.

I would love to be a movie conservative, but for convenience sakes, I can't. Locally in Richmond, VA, I am lucky to live within walking distance of The Byrd Theater, which is like your Virginia in Champaign-Urbana. Every Saturday night, an organist plays on an organ that rises from the floor. It only shows second-run movies, but at the charge of $2.00. The decor is something straight out of the 1920's, and I feel bad every time I show up in jeans and a t-shirt feeling under-dressed. It's a college student's dream, and when I am not busy I look forward to watching whatever movies I missed in the multiplex months earlier. I watched No Country For Old Men there, and I still remember being mesmerized in those tiny, old-school angled seats. It definitely enhanced the viewing of the film, like I was truly finding something out of the past, and I refuse to watch the film at home simply because I think it'll ruin the experience I had with the film before in such a grand traditional theater.

With stadium-seating multiplexes and all the comforts they provide, I feel that a little bit of soul was taken from the movies. While it is awe-inspiring to seat below on the bottom row and look up to watch a blockbuster, it just feels too refined and slick. I would love some of that old-time character to return to movie theaters, but I know I am in a distinct minority...

Perhaps we're simply witnessing the transformation of several mass-market commercial arts into smaller circles. Film used to be the popular medium, and now it is digital... but film will still be appreciated by a select few. Heck, wasn't theater supplanted by film in the '20s? Same for books. There will be some who will love the smell and tactile nature of a book, but most will read electronically, the same way I just read Mr. Ebert's entry today. Nothing wrong with that. I watch most of my movies at home (digitally) and read most of my news online, but still enjoy a projected movie or a printed book when the occasion warrants.

This might be just a bit tangential to our topic here, but... since all movies used to be seen in the manner you've so lovingly described here, I'm wondering what you'd think about watching a well-restored print of, say, CHARLIE CHAN AT TREASURE ISLAND, or the Bowery Boys in SMUGGLER'S COVE, or any given Three Stooges two-reeler, or the Republic western and/or cliffhangeer of your choice, or (add your own unlikely candidate here). I have at home a somewhat raggedy collection of early filmed TV sertes episodes, and I sometimes wonder how they would come across on a big theater screen - not just the obvious ones, you understand: the occasional forays by HItchcock or John Ford, or the early work of Robert Altman, Richard Donner, or a whole bunch of others - but the bread-and-butter stuff from Ziv, Screen Gems, Revue, Hal Roach jr, etc. They were all shot on celluoid, as msot scripted TV is to this day. Many of the leading TV producers, such as Aaron Spelling, Quinn Martin, and nowadays Jerry Bruckheimer and Dick Wolf, are all on record as preferring film for its pictorial quality, even with the latest advances in video technology. Okay, I know it'll probably never happen - but I have a kind of cockeyed dream of seeing a festival: SMALL SCREEN ON THE BIG SCREEN! (Would you believe... ZIVMANIA?)

Hi Roger,

I read your review about 'Taal' but not the one on 'Malli'. Thanks for providing the link.

I just want to share my thoughts on that article. I agree with everything you wrote in that article. I am no expert on Indian films but I just want to give your readers a glimpse into that world.

".......heavy on melodrama, romance, action and song and dance - all in the same movie. "
That is so true. The reason is that till fairly recent, movies were the only source entertainment for the masses. Most of them live on less than 10$(price of a movie ticket here). So when they watch a movie, they want to make the most of that experience. Hence movies are usually 2-3hrs with everything thrown in to fill their appetite.

Usually these people are willing to entertained and open to become naive(in a good sense) viewers for that brief period. I mean these are the kind of people whom I call "a director's dream audience."

Indian movies have their own grammar in terms of movie making. This grammar evolved not because of advances of technology, but as a result of the conditions and expectations of the viewers.

Usually foreign viewers do not like the idea of breaking away to song and dance and then seeing action in the very next scene. But then, I ask, if your only source of entertainment is movies, and you cannot afford to see more than one in a month or two, than wouldn't this be the only kind of movies you would like to see ? I would have paid the ticket price, just to sit in air conditioner theater for a few hours.

Btw, things have changed a lot in the past decade.

Vijay

Ebert: I completely understand. Here in America, for decades every theater had banners outside in the summer: "It's cool inside." In my childhood, for nine cents, I attended Saturday matinees that included a western, a comedy, five cartoons, a newsreel, a serial ("Batman" for example), advertisements, and sometimes a Yo-Yo contest on the stage. After gobbling lollypops, licorice ropes and jelly beans, we staggered out into the daylight four hours later with joyous hearts and sugar headaches.

Watching a 70mm print of a great movie is such a delight. I recall a four-hour round trip (Montreal to Ottawa) one evening by myself just for the rare pleasure of watching 2001 in 70mm. Remembering the sun rise over the obelisk for the third time, Also Sprach Zarathustra filling the auditorium... I still have goose bumps!

I thought "The Illusionist" was an entertaining, well-acted film made by people who had no negative agenda regarding the art of magic. (Which is unusual.)

Edward Norton was properly confident and mysterious as Eisenheim. The film makers understood very clearly not only what goes on in the mind of a magician, and how he is perceived as almost superhuman by many in the audience, but that it isn't silly to take this stance. It doesn't demean them intellectually to treat the art of magic in an intelligent way.

Paul Giamatti was quite wonderful as the police inspector and amateur magician who is simultaneously mystified and mildly resentful of his admiration of Eisenheim. And the end, of course, makes the illusion perfect.

The film makers hired good magicians to tech the film: Ricky Jay and Michael Weber did the advance work, while British magician James Freedman was with the shoot overseas. And Edward Norton, and the actor who played him as a young man, took their parts seriously, but not too seriously.

All in all, it was the best major film done about a magician I've ever seen and it pleased me to see it do well in theaters.

We devoted about 15 pages to it in Genii, with much behind-the-scenes information about how the magical effects were accomplished. It's always dicey trying to create the illusion that an actor is a magician.

Dear Roger,

When you mention that you read all of your reader’s comments, I feel an honest sense of gratitude. That’s mightily magnanimous of you. I certainly can’t read all of the postings on your blog without feeling that I’m procrastinating. Never-the-less, I do at least scan most of them. Feel free to scan all of this except for the last two paragraphs.

This last blog of yours is dead on. I’ve only ever known about Maxivision through your essays and I can’t agree more with one of your readers who backed your opinion that film projected from behind us is something akin to Plato’s allegory of the cave. I also think it’s worth repeating that Spielberg (in my opinion, the most gifted director that doesn’t make good movies anymore) still embraces good old photo emulsion projections. I believe it was one of your 10,000 film essays that mention how twenty-four frames per second kicks our brain waves into a state that’s different from digital. This is an arena so “inside baseball” that, as a novice, I find it endlessly fascinating.

I would like to take a second to totally disagree with you and all your e-book bashing compatriots. The interface isn’t there yet, but I have no doubt that the advantages of a wheelbarrow of books or even the entire world’s library, plus Internet, in the palm of your hand will outweigh the quaint notion that a book is a sense object to be lovingly caressed and inhaled. I think we’re about five years away from a major sea change. You are probably aware that many college textbooks cost over two hundred dollars. I have that same Ratatouille sensation of smelling some of my old books, but about a year ago I made a vow to only get my new reads from the Santa Monica public library. Honestly, I’m much happier with this decision.

Applepollylogies for being long winded, but what I really want to talk about is only one thing from your blog above, and then a follow up:

One: You mentioned your film going experience in India. It’s a brilliant piece of writing and I’m not surprised you are particularly proud of it. Just one thing: I remember reading a different essay of your’s in which you were particularly rhapsodic about a theater experience, one in which, if memory serves, you were offered food (maybe a slice of pizza) in another India theater. This was not that article. Maybe you were on a cruise line... Do you recall the piece I’m referring to? Does anyone else?

Which leads me to:

Two: I mentioned before that I think your website has reached that critical moment when it’s time to include discussion boards beyond your blog. I do think it is time. I really want to comment on your review of Free for All. I have not even seen the movie, but let’s face it, if your shot-by-shot analysis of films proved productive, a global village where we can all share and learn would be a lasting legacy for you that goes above and beyond your already awe-inspiring life’s work.

And finally (whew), I just want to thank you for bringing your politics to the forefront lately. We are, as you mentioned in your review of the Happening, (haven’t seen it, don’t really want to spend the time seeing it) living in dangerous times. I hope you will continue to speak your mind, add your voice to the chorus, and change the world.

You really are awesome, dude.

P. S. I’m trying HTML based on one of your reader’s instructions. We shall see...

Ebert: We give fast service: (1) That piece should be online, and I've asked Jim about it. (2) We are currently implementing discussion boards.

Robert F - your approach to Gravity's Rainbow is like mine - a little deeper each time. Truth of the matter is - I am not even sure I like it! I'll admit to being motivated by its difficulty - the challenge - and whatever weakness of ego makes us want to conquer challenges. In my crowd, "Ahem, yeah, so, um, I just finished Gravity's Rainbow" would elicit more shrugs than, say, a dancing dog. They'd be surprised to see it done at all.

R., there is a key element that I wished you had addressed. Sound. I surely agree that the best viewing experience is on clearly projected, quality film, in a theatre setting conducive to gaining and maintaining one's attention and enjoyment throughout. But if the sound system sucks, the whole experience suffers. A case in point involves Pan's Labyrinth. Liked it so much, I paid to see it again in a different theater. On my second viewing, the volume was so damn loud, I couldn't enjoy the movie,nor did the friend who I talked into going with me. All other elements were about the same. Not sure what system was used, but think it was SDDS in both. But it sure was distracting, and this unfortunately hasn't been an isolated example lately.
Quality sound is like magic. It can heighten and enrich both the texture and emotion of the moment,or like black magic,cast a spell over the whole proceedings.

Hi Roger! A key word running in many of the posts is experience. This is a description used by planetarians to convey the type of feeling a visitor will walk away from a presentation in a planetarium after viewing the heavens above projected in a darkened dome. That experience being the awe from seeing the beauty and immensity of our universe.

Of course the universe can also be seen easily on your computer screen, at home, courtesy of numerous software packages. Yet to experience the awe and majesty of seeing the stars filling-up your entire vision (field-of-view), a computer screen will always fall flat.

This holds true with movies. To experience the movie on a wide screen is the closest thing to being there, for it will nearly fill your entire vision. It would be nice if that experience could be carried home, but it has not. Thank God! I still enjoy going to theatres!

Wow Ebert, looks like you have aspergers.

Ebert: I had to look it up: "aspergers (noun) the rite of sprinkling holy water at the beginning of the Mass, still used occasionally in Catholic churches."

I have a theater, an old vaudeville house with a balcony. It's been a ton of work and is still being restored (it had been triplexed in the seventies) but as soon as the major work was done, we started showing movies. Now we play mostly live concerts (the Doobie Brothers last week, Randy Newman next), but I try to show movies as often as I can.

I like what you wrote about projected film feeling as though it's coming out of your own thoughts and onto the screen. That's a great characterization of the theatrical movie experience. To me, this is not conservative or even nostalgic; it's just the way you like to watch movies.

One of our first shows was Buster Keaton in "The General", with Robert Israel at the pipe organ. That movie is great, but the most interesting part of the show for me was a Charlie Chaplin short subject that played first-- "Pay Day". I was out in the lobby, nervously pacing around, hoping everything would go okay, and enormous waves of laughter started rolling through the auditorium. You could feel it! These people were out of control --being thrilled and astounded by what they saw. It didn't matter that they were looking at mute, low-tech, hand-cranked, black and white images from 85 years ago. This 20 minutes of ancient footage was assuredly NOT a museum piece. It was just incredibly funny.
I knew at that moment that I had done the right thing.

Ebert: I taught a class on the complete Buster Keaton silent features, plus 2-3 shorts every week. The class members were suspicious at first. They ended up laughing more than they ever did during sound comedies.

Considering my age (20), it's nigh impossible for me to be a true film conservative. Up until I saw a screening of Gojira at the 1200-seat Detroit Film Theater a few years ago, the closest I got to celluloid was elementary school educational films on the projector, which doesn't compare to the big screen, projector noises be damned.

I love sitting in theaters though - packed, empty, whatever. Packed is obviously preferred, as it's something to see an entire theater pulled into a great movie or utterly repulsed by an awful one.

My mom tells this story about a time when her Aunt took her and her six siblings to see the Sounds of Music. They were told that they could only get popcorn and candy during intermissions. Naturally, a projector broke, there were plenty of admissions, and Aunt Kay went home penniless.

I think the closest I've come to that was with the Star Wars re-releases. A New Hope is the first movie I can remember seeing vividly, from the title crawl to what was playing in the lobby as we walked back to the car. Pop, candy, popcorn, and one hell of a rush.

I still like sitting in the dark, and I still like it when a movie is projected at a screen. Movies feel right when they're playing through us instead of at us, when the only thing that can pull us out of their world is the blah-boringness of what's being presented...or a person on their damn cell phone.

I meant "older cameras", not "old film projectors" in my last post concerning what MIke Figgis was saying about them: that older cameras are more impressionistic and also records, as opposed to cd's, are more impressionistic and poetic.

Basically, saying we need a new cultural revolution, the way the beatles changed everything...thats the kind of thing that needs to be blossoming, because it will happen sooner or later anyway. He says that the reason film studios are rehashing all these old ideas and remakes is because they know that their days are ending soon and people, as Spike Lee said,could very well make a graet movie on a cell phone and may very well start making their own movies on cheap equipment, and bring the industry down with pirating etc. Do you think in some 30 years more or less--I don't know--that these studios that are making these remakes, such as "death race"...whatever it was with Joan Allen cursing, and "speed racer" and on and on, is for that reason--trying to stack the cash because they know piracy and the internet and perhaps cassavettes spirited films will crush them?

I agree that projected movies are the best. Rather than go the HD route like the rest of the civilized world, three months ago I purchased an Optoma projector and 6 foot wide screen. Nothing beats projected films, I don't care how clear the picture is. HD continues to be touted as better, the overwhelming benefit being 'you can see every blade of grass on the field in a football game!' As exciting as grass is, I still prefer a bigger, projected image. There's is no doubt clarity suffers in some way, as the image originates from 15 feet away, but that loss is no deterrent to being able to tell the time on the watches of the jurists in '12 Angry Men'.

And digitized books are just insane. The smell of a book is important. My 1940 collection of Churchill's speeches smells like Parliament.

P.S. After three months my Optoma lamp bulb exploded now I have to send it off. The theater is closed for a bit, so I'm off to read...

Mr. Ebert wrote: ... Roger, please. No "Mr.Ebert."

Copy,

Wilco,

Out.

(*back to Dickens)

I think I just might take this oppurtunity to express thanks.Here in India, my cinema watching oppurtunity and interest came in later years when time was scarce.You provided landmarks of the terrain and criteria of selection which have taken me along a rewarding journey.I saw a few more than half of your great movies and could skip some which seemed off my route.You are more an appreciator than a critiser and that seems natural.You are our household name....honest!As for what you have called conservatism in above essay,I am content to re-view even Lean and Herzog on my tiny computer and dont miss much not being bowled over or levitated in an ultra modern pallidrome .If the movie is good it soaks in and wraps up.

Ebert: I am so pleased to learn the site has quite a few readers in India. I had the experience of a lifetime while visiting your country, and have been fascinated by fiction about India ever since my somewhat obvious start with "Kim." Oddly, my best overview of life in India before and after the fall of the Raj was provived by "The Raj Quartet," by a Brit who I think only visited you briefly. Its flaw is too much emphasis on Anglos. The greatest novel about India I have read--indeed, one of the best novels I have ever read--is "A Fine Balance," by Rohinton Mistry. That's one Oprah's book club got exactly right. Don't smile--any book Oprah picks becomes a best-seller, usually among people who would never have heard of it.

Attention and distractions in the theater are probably my biggest pet peeves of the movie going experience and the things that I write about most frequently.

http://motiondefined.com/2008/10/07/attention/

Thank you, Mr. Ebert, for saying what is always on my mind. I've been to the cinema probably 25 times this year....but maybe 7 of them were new releases. No, I've been seeing my favorite films on the big screen From North by Northwest to Manhattan, from The General to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Seeing my favorite films amplified in front of me was always revelatory, and that's because you simply can't match the look of film. I've heard Spielberg and other film makers talk about this bizarre love of celluloid, an attraction that is almost psycho-sexual. It's the feel of celluloid, the smell of it, the sound of it (is there anything more beautiful than a strip of film going through a projector? I think not) that attracts real film-o-philes. With digital on the horizon I do fear that the medium we all love may be going out of style. Once it stops being cost effective, it's sunk.

Recently, I saw "Eagle Eye" at the Imax Theater. Though the picture took up the whole screen, my experience was really no different from seeing a movie at a multiplex. I never saw "The Dark Knight" in Imax form ,I heard it was great, and I was hoping to get that feeling by watching "Eagle Eye" in that form. Instead I was vaguely dissappointed. My guess was that my expectations were a little too high. I really expected to be dazzled by the contents on the screen. Or maybe becuase I didn't get the 3-d glasses they would occationally pass out. I don't know much about film projectors, but would Imax be considered 70mm or bigger?

I never thought of that before - the two greatest things to come out of Chicago: Roger, Wilco. Roger Ebert and Jeff Tweedy's excellent and much-loved band. Surely you've crossed paths.

Sacred Games by Vikram Chandra was an excellent recent book set in India.

All this talk of books: Roger, ever think about pulling a Maislin? (everyone: that's not as dirty as it sounds)

Ebert: Didn't sound dirty until you said it wasn't. What is it?

TO smrana: I'd like to try transcendental meditation and I know in India that it is free....over here its a couple grand...2,500, I think. If I were to go to India, would it be easy to find a transcendental meditation teacher or school to learn it?

I think I do feel like dvd are just going on, and I also think that after watching a movie at a theater there is some weird endorphin in my brains that basically puts me in a good mood, even if I didn't like the movie or walked out on it, as I did with "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" a few years back--terrible, and I love a lot of scary movies beyond all reason.

But I think the theater itself is like a character in the movie because it will give me a very distinct feeling or mood that is not gotten for me watching a movie at home. Seeing a movie at a theater is more poetic in it's artistry as opposed to the crass electrical---like the movie "theremin", where he was talking about his invention's beauty. The endorphin---natural high.

Roger,

With regard to the audience's attention: What is the conservative moviegoer's attitude toward applause for a movie in a theater? A friend of mine says that it (especially at the end of the film) is a useless and embarrassing gesture, and thinks I should discourage my young sons from doing it -- but I feel that it's entirely appropriate to applaud if your heart tells you to applaud, and the goodwill surely reverberates back to the filmmakers somehow.

Ebert: At the end, it's a perfectly respectable way to share enthusiasm, but should be used very sparingly, ir at all, during the film.

Firstly, I've only recently become a fan of your journal here (it was the brilliantly snarky Q&A on Intelligent Design that drew me in) and wanted to let you know how much I enjoy reading each new entry of yours. Thank you for that, Roger.

As far as books go, I will fully admit that I'm a lover of books. I started reading at the very young age of two-and-a-half and haven't stopped since. But as I get older and thoughts of raising a family come into play, there becomes a space issue when it comes to all my books. Simply put, they've gotten to the point where they're taking up too much real estate and as a result, I've had to start selling them off on Half.com (or in instances when selling/shipping them wouldn't be worth it, I donate them to the local library so other people can enjoy them).

Again, I absolutely love my books and it hurts like hell to be parting with stories that shaped my world as I grew from an angsty teenager into an not-as-angsty adult (only 29, but still an adult). The day when I received a notification from Half.com that I had sold Nick Hornby's "High Fidelity" was a tough one, since that was an especially influential one for me, but I knew it had to be done. The proceeds from the books are funding my purchasing of a Kindle - and I have enough money now, but I'm waiting for the inevitable hardware revision in 2009 - as well as re-purchasing works that are especially important to me in a Kindle format.

That's not to say that I'm done with physical books, not by a longshot. Certain older works still aren't available in eBook format. Certain newer works haven't licensed themselves for the Kindle yet. And I still have a few dozen as-yet-unread books on my shelf purchased over the past few years that I still need to sink my brain into, so I definitely haven't abandoned the printed page yet.

My local annual film festival (Cinefest Sudbury, which, I believe, is Canada's 4th largest) screens, amidst its few hundred features, films which were in release years to decades ago. By virtue of this, I am delighted to have experienced my first viewings of 'Cinema Paradiso', 'A Hard Day's Night', 'Jesus Christ Superstar' and the VistaVision feature 'White Christmas' in celluloid on a projection screen.

I've overheard numerous people, over the years, complaining of the wasted effort in showing old films they've already seen elsewhere (most likely on TV), and it's a pity they don't get it.

I'm going to be speaking with the festival's organizers, over the next few months, and request that they obtain 'Hidalgo' (one of the best-looking films of recent years, which critics like Leonard Maltin can attest to), as, having first experienced it on a 13" laptop screen, greatly regret my not having seen it when it was released theatrically.

gn

P.S. While I agree that projected celluloid images are the superior medium, non-celluloid films have their advantages, in terms of, among other things, formation and theatrical distribution. Digital being cheaper to work with, and therefore more accessible, more potential filmmakers have opportunity to make their voices heard. And the cost of celluloid prints have impeded the ability to maximize the distribution of some films, e.g. the 2002 release 'Bubba Ho-Tep', where some film houses waited for weeks to get one of the thirty-two available prints.

And while Sofia Coppola snubbed digital for the aesthetics and discipline of film when making 'Lost in Translation' (for which we thank her), some filmmakers don't have the luxury of time, especially those who have yet to be established. Digital film, besides being cheap, is also more convenient and requires fewer man hours to shoot and assemble. When one is established, and has the luxury of time, one can advance to film, but for the budding, digital is the preference.

I saw "Jackie Brown" when I was 14 or just turned 15, (well, snuck in to see) and during that part that you applauded, I think I jumped out of my seat practically and yelled "that's what I want my girlfriend to be like!". My jaw also dropped during the final scene in "Drunken Master"...haha.

A lot of what you're saying seems spot on to me, but I think you're expressing your opinion in a way that's unnecessarily narrow, and which makes it hard to get some of the nuance involved in our choices.

What I would say is that how we experience movies is important, and the experience you've described (projected, celluloid, large screen, attention) is really wonderful, and it's worth fighting to keep that experience alive.

It's not the only great experience, though -- it's one of many great experiences. When I was a kid, I took an old broken B&W TV, and tested the tubes, and fixed it for a few bucks. And I would watch TV late at night, alone in my room, with the sound down so my parents couldn't hear. And that was great too. It's great watching video on my laptop under the down comforter in winter, too.

So what I would say is, yeah, the experience you described is really fantastic, and it's important that people continue to have access to it. But you're wrong to the extent that you say this is the only way to do it, or the way everyone should do it. (Which I don't think is your intent anyway.)

The thing about digital, though, is that it revolutionizes distribution. And that's a really big thing. I used to live in a rural state, and I used to watch odd experimental films I found on the net there -- stuff you'd never be able to see unless you were in a big city, previously. Digital means that anyone anywhere can escape the tyranny of the multiplex, if they're sufficiently motivated. And that's a really big deal.

I was glad to see your article though. I had recently submitted an answerman question, asking you if you had changed your mind about digital. One of the theaters I go to regularly is all digital (I think), and I was surprised by how much I like it. It's very bright and sharp.

I, too, love the smell of books, although I do find the convenience and availability of digital books quite appealing (Project Gutenberg is this biblioholic's dream come true). I sometimes wonder if, when they began printing books on paper, the literates of the day complained they missed the smell of parchment?

Every new technology has both its advantages and its disadvantages. I, for one, still lament the demise of Technicolor. Modern day film looks washed out to me after 50+ viewings of The Adventures of Robin Hood (on DVD, although I have seen it twice (only twice, alas) in an actual movie theater). One of the pleasures, to me, of the LOTR trilogy was the film-makers' digital enhancement of the color. Maybe we may see the rebirth of that fully saturated color once only gotten with Technicolor and B&W film.

Roger, first of all, you must have the most diverse and learned contributors to your "Journal" than just about any other blog out these in cyberspace. Your and others' discussions of their experiences reminds me of the first time I saw "2001" when it came out in Cinerama (which many of your readers are too young to remember) in one of the largest theatres in South Florida. It was both a life-changing and affirming experience (even if my poor mother, who took me to the film, thought it made no sense). Since that time, I have loved seeing movies in large big screen theatres.

Sadly, they are all but disappearing. In Atlanta, we have the Fox Theatre, which was built as a movie house in the 1920s, was nearly torn down in the 1970s to make way for an office building but was saved through the efforts of a lot of great Atlantans, and is now primarily used for stage plays and concerts. However, the Fox still has a summer film festival where they show both recent and classic movies on the big screen in front of at times more than 4,000 patrons. It is quite an experience.

I fear that with the advent of bigger and better home entertainment systems, the multiplexes at the malls, and often clearer pictures on DVDs than at local movie houses, the experience of seeing a classic like Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen will no longer be possible. I hope that there are enough film conservatives out there that prevent that fear from becoming a reality.

Hi Roger,

I'm adding to my original comment. As I said, Star Wars at the Odeon, Marble Arch was so overwhelming that I could have been alone in the cinema. This was perfect for that particular film. There are other times though when the audience is part of the experience, certainly in comedies, and many times in thriller/suspense movies. I am particularly reminded of when I saw Jaws for the first time. It was in Great Yarmouth while on holiday with my parents. I went on my own and sat with a couple of hundred other people and watched wide eyed. At the part when Richard Dreyfus is examining the bottom of the boat (you know the part, I won't mention what happens in case it's a spoiler for someone)and what happens happens, I jumped about a foot out of my seat and a certain expletive burst from my lips. I felt like a complete idiot and thought that everyone must be looking at me, but then realized that pretty much everyone in the cinema had just done exactly the same thing. Although the Star Wars experience was absolutely great, there is something to say for the shared experience with the other cinema goers.

Just to clarify, Roger, I'm pretty sure Ryan Crow meant Asperger's Syndrome, not that other kind of aspergers. It's a form of autism. I have a mild version of it, myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers

Hey Roger. That should have said 'pulling a Maslin', as in Janet, as in moving from the movie beat to the book beat. Have you ever considered it?

Roger,

I find I tend to agree with your "conservativism" about film: watched in theaters, on celluloid, being projected on a wall. This enriches and adds so much to a film-going experience (notice the term "film-going," meaning having to go out of one's way to enjoy - or detest - a film)... It IS supposed to be an experience, after all.

That being said, I nevertheless find myself more and more watching films on DVD, Digital Cable (if necessary, though I look for widescreen presentations of films in this format), and even VHS (for those rare movies not yet on DVD/Blu Ray. I don't consider it to be heretical to enjoy films in the home video format, though I do find that "attention" and enjoyment is lessened somewhat by this "experience." However, when a film's working, it's working, and no amount of pixels can ruin it...

Just remembered and wanted to add:

My feelings about audiences are somewhat less conservative. I find I like to watch films by myself at home, because I live in an environment that seems to foster talking/joking during films, getting up and walking around while a movie is being played, and loud yelling at the most inopportune times (kids and parents alike).

As for movie-going audiences (in cinemas)? I feel okay about them. Now if we could just do something about those commercials before the trailers!

P.S. An anecdote: In 2001, around Christmastime, I went with my mom and saw a wonderful Frank Darabont picture called "The Majestic." I GREATLY enjoyed this film - or had been - prior, that is, to a guy down the aisle from us who actually answered his cellphone and talked for a good chunk of the middle of the film's running time! The nerve! And to think, the theater was virtually empty, so he got away with it because theater checkers never bothered to come in and "spot" the film! Never forget it.

Just remembered and wanted to add:

My feelings about audiences are somewhat less conservative. I find I like to watch films by myself at home, because I live in an environment that seems to foster talking/joking during films, getting up and walking around while a movie is being played, and loud yelling at the most inopportune times (kids and parents alike).

As for movie-going audiences (in cinemas)? I feel okay about them. Now if we could just do something about those commercials before the trailers!

P.S. An anecdote: In 2001, around Christmastime, I went with my mom and saw a wonderful Frank Darabont picture called "The Majestic." I GREATLY enjoyed this film - or had been - prior, that is, to a guy down the aisle from us who actually answered his cellphone and talked for a good chunk of the middle of the film's running time! The nerve! And to think, the theater was virtually empty, so he got away with it because theater checkers never bothered to come in and "spot" the film! Never forget it.

At 19 years of age, my memories of attending movie theatres are few and scattered. For reasons of time and money, in addition to my mother's bad experiences with mobile-phone-wielding teenagers on the row behind her, we are basically a DVD-renting family (or at least used to be). My rare cinema ventures have often been pleasant, but, I'm really sorry to say, not magical. I haven't quite given up hope yet, but I think I've pretty much missed on most of what you cherish so much, Roger.

When I was young(er), I remember going with my mother and little sister to see Disney films like Pocahontas; mercifully, animated films in Greece were and still are dubbed, in contrast to most other films, which (equally mercifully, as I now hate dubbing) are subtitled. I can remember, through rose-tinted glasses now but not at all amused back then, when we took her along for her first subtitled film. She couldn't read the subtitles fast enough, so I read them out for her, risking glares from nearby viewers; in the end, she hadn't heard a thing and I had missed half the film (I don't even remember which one it was).

Those years I believe the screen was relatively large (can't remember clearly, though), on the back of a stage—where we children used to run and play during the intervals—and the theatre had a single large hall with a flat wooden floor and a hundred or two of director's chairs folded away for parties and events. I often remember having a problem with the heads of taller viewers sitting in front of me. The one film I did enjoy was Titanic, for its spectacular visual effects which I remember appreciating thanks to a mixture of luck and me having grown tall enough. At that time I only attended theatres for blockbusters. And the large screen would soon be gone.

A second, much smaller, modern hall was built on the first floor, and co-existed for a while with the main hall (which it robbed of ceiling space, and through which one had to pass to reach the upstairs hall); later, another small hall was added next to the first, and the remaining space of the ground floor was converted into a supermarket. The theatre was now handsome, comfortable, with modern facilities, air conditioning, two screens, and even a new bowling alley (on a new second floor). I've never again had a problem seeing from the soft, amphitheatrically positioned seats. But I've never again watched a film in a large screen, either. (And I daresay that wouldn't even be large from an American's perspective.)

Conduct is another problem in Greek cinemas, where there are no ushers and there is no means of having patrons expelled for engaging in disruptive behaviour. (I don't understand why some people would pay so much money to play with their phones and annoy everyone in the process.) In one occasion a few years ago I did have some fun with friends (for the first and only time more than two), commenting merrily throughout a zombie film. That was, however, in a half-empty theatre during a midnight projection, and we sat at the very back (a gallery sort of thing).

And so we mostly watch films at home. We used to wait for them to become available in video cassettes, then in DVDs, and since we've installed broadband, straight from the Internet. Now we usually watch films on a laptop monitor (not even on TV), and although it's a rather poor viewing experience (especially for films with great special effects), it has literally brought the family closer together than ever, as the three of us cram ourselves into two seats of the sofa to see. It's not nearly the best possible arrangement, but it's the only option that can fit our now convoluted schedules. And things have been somewhat better with the new speakers I bought last summer.

I hope I haven't ranted too much; even though not entirely relevant, I think these recollections touch on the general issue of cinema-going. The big screen is, under certain circumstances, better than watching TV at home, but I don't think it's so much better nowadays, at least here. And now that I can watch films on my own television set, relatively close to the sofa in my small living room, whatever time I like, alone, with lights off and snacks of my choosing, it's almost comparable (not similar, but equally delightful). Even if low-tech, the experience can be absorbing and comfortable.

If only it weren't for the commercial breaks.

It is often not fun to read and post on message boards around the internet because people can be so mean spirited, angry, offensive, childish, and ignorant in many ways including being racist, sexist and homophobic. The boards at the Internet Movie Database are particularly bad in that it is hard to find people willing to get into intelligent discussions.

There seems to be a lot of intelligent, thoughtful, polite, and mature people contributing to Roger's online journal, and who are willing to have thoughtful discussions. I do like the idea of Roger and Jim Emerson opening up a message board at rogerebert.suntimes.com. It would be a much better place to talk about the movies.

Maybe Roger does receive many offensive and mean spirited messages, but just does not approve them; I don't know. I will say that I enjoy and even appreciate Roger's journal because he is a great writer and since everyone else has wonderful things to say.

Ebert: I agree about the quality of the messages here. They're a pleasure to read, which is why I enjoy personally reading and posting them. HOWEVER, Jim
Emerson informs me that with the coming redesign, we'll be adding message boards to the bottom every review--about 8,000 or so. Obviously, Jim and I don't have the time to read all those messages, and no, we don't have a "staff." The webmaster informs us that readers--you!--will be asked to flag "inappropriate content" when you encounter it, and then we can delete those messages.

To me, applause during the film fills a place for enthusiasm when laughter doesn't apply. For example, the second act reveal in The Dark Knight, when that one character returns, was met with a huge round of cheers and applause from the audience I was in. The same thing happened the other night at Nick and Norah, when the obnoxious exes finally got what they deserved. I agree that it should be used sparingly, but a lot of movies have at least one point where it fits and fills the moment.

One should always applaud at the end of a film, if you've enjoyed it; to do otherwise is much more embarrassing, and, worse, anticlimactic, after a great filmgoing experience. To not applaud, and just disband and slip away, pretending you didn't just share something wonderful, seems dumb to me. If liked something, show your support, and your thanks. It's part of respecting the films and the filmmakers.

It all depends on which movie you're watching. It's the same as with other art forms, such as painting. When I was younger, I found it easy to appreciate the paintings of Rembrandt simply from the reproductions that I saw in art books, but I couldn't see the point to Jackson Pollack's work -- until I actually saw a full-size real Pollack hanging in a museum. Some art only really "works" at a large size.

Similarly, some movies -- but not all -- really have to be seen on a big screen to be fully enjoyed. I think the large-screen treatment is best for some masterpieces such as "Lawrence of Arabia" but also for action-film schlock such as "Independence Day." Watching an alien space ship blast the White House into oblivion just isn't as much fun unless the image itself is also blown up. Also in the category of "needs to be big," I recently made the mistake of watching "That's Entertainment" on my iPhone. I'm sorry, but watching Cyd Charisse and Fred Astaire dance around on something the size of a playing card just doesn't cut it. On the other hand, my iPhone was just fine when my brother and I used the other day to it watch some of Tina Fey's recent Saturday Night Live skits. Her Sarah Palin impressions work just fine on a tiny screen. I think that in fact you could probably shrink Palin down to the size of a postage stamp and not lose much.

"...we'll be adding message boards to the bottom every review--about 8,000 or so."

As a long time reader, fan, and a frequent user of the IMDb message boards and their many brethren (Rotten Tomatoes, etc.), can I please say that this is a very, very, very, very, very bad idea? It will be like the plague of locusts followed by the plague of fire in Days of Heaven, every day all the time. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Ebert: I'd like to hear from more readers about this.

I love the whirr of a projector in the dark. It sounds like magic.

There is nothing as magical as going to a cinema with a beautiful waterfall curtain lit up in colors that represent the atmosphere of the movie. I used to love going to the cinema when I was younger to a horror film with the cinema lights bathing the theatre in greens and blues and the mood music ominous and foreboding.

Now when I go to the movies I feel like I am in a supermarket - the screens may be huge and the sound intense but all the atmosphere is gone. I may as well be grocery shopping.

The art has gone out of projection much to our detriment.

Great Mad Magazine article! Too bad theyre a shadow of their former selves and there isnt anything on the internet to influence future critics beyond awful memespeak and fratire.

Also you should have written more about Mort Drucker

Roger, you make me feel spoiled. The majority of the films I see in New York are shown in cinephile joints like Film Forum and Anthology, where one can rely on real film, even if the movie was originally shot in digital...

What theaters are left in Chicago where people still share our conservative tastes, and do you ever sneak into them?

I remember once seeing Peter Bogdonavich speak after a screening of "The Last Picture Show." He lamented the loss of some sort of silver product in the screen that would literally make films sparkle as you watched them (am I getting that right?). There is always a loss as technology advances.

I love reading articles like this by real people (over 50) about how technology sacrifices ephemeral joys.

Its impossible to debate this sort of thing with a technophile though, its sad to read an article by someone like Vonnegut about typewriters and chatting with shopkeepers and the comments are "shut up old man" "epic fail"

I can only imagine some of the lunatic emails you got over your observation that videogames aren't art

Re rob's comments about the ability to comment on over 8000 movies:

I was actually looking forward to the ability to discuss specific movies in the same format as this blog, but perhaps I was being a little naive about the level of discourse. Would a 'trial' roll out be an option, in that message boards would be open only to new reviews from the date of the redesign forward? I'm guessing those reviews would attract the most attention anyway, other than films with a devoted following or those reviews about which you continue to get grief . You know, the usual suspects such as, well, The Usual Suspects.

(On the bright side, maybe you'll get less emails. What one hand giveth...)

I must admit that a kind of chill ran down my spine when I read your announcement about implementing message boards at the bottom of your reviews. This is mainly because of the fact that every other reader comment section I've seen following a review (on imdb, Ain't It Cool News, Joblo, among others) has been home to ignorant, vile, frustrating, mispelled, and often monosyllabic contributions that somehow collectively cheapen the original work (the first reply is often just a user proclaiming "I'M FIRST TO REPLY!"). It's a subtle effect, but I tend to find myself losing a slight spark of interest and excitement knowing that people far less informed, thoughtful, and eloquent than the reviewer are lurking just beneath the margin, ready to ruin my good time.

I fear that the excellent results on your blog are because more "casual" readers are less likely to stumble upon this particular site- your reviews are more accessible to non-fans and more commonly linked to at other sites, which could result in a much larger number of not-so-friendly readers thinking "Oh, look, I can post a comment here screaming in all caps "HOW COULD U NOT LIKE THIS MUVIE JESSICA ALBA IS A GOOD ACTRES U DONT NO WHAT UR TALKING ABOUT". Of course your screening process also contributes to the success. James Berardinelli has repeatedly mentioned his own reluctance to implementing message boards for the same reasons. However, it's hopeful that you have faith enough in your readers- perhaps we are overreacting, but I would at least ensure that commenters would have to be registered members (which would help weed out the casual surfers), and not make the comments too intrusive on the actual review (i.e. so we could choose not to view them). Forgive me for my (and others') relative "conservatism" on this issue, but I'm sure you can understand, given the topic of this entry. I wish you the best of luck, however, and hope sincerely that our instincts are proved wrong!

On an unrelated note, I want to thank you for mentioning me in your entry about seeing the "invisible quotation marks" in your Creationism article. It was a small thrill for myself and family members, all longtime Ebert readers.

I think Ron may be right about what he is saying, although, it is as easy as a click of a button to flag a comment as inappropriate.

I would like to add my voice to those saying message boards for each review are a BAD idea, esp. since you have no staff. You'll be spending so much time deleting inappropriate comments, you'll have no time to devote to this wonderful blog.

I've been on the Internet since long before there was a WWW, and although I have made many friends there, and have found some wonderful, well-moderated refuges, the anonymity of it does bring out the worst in many people. You may be lucky - your erudition may attract only the intelligent and those who truly care about film, but your name and notoriety seem more likely to attract all those script-kiddies out there who just adore making mischief.

You were right - your math for the conversion to digital is off by a factor of 10 ($135,000 x 36,000 = about 4.8 billion).

Another reason to favor going to the theater over any home movie setup is the commitment to the movie that the journey to the theater entails. One goes to the theater only to see the movie, and you have no control over the process once you take your seat. You surrender yourself to the movie, giving it your undivided attention without guilt, because that is what you are there for. No matter how nice the setup at home, some part of your mind knows that the movie is interruptable, and there are other things that you can do. For me at least the home environment inevitably lessens the immersion in the film.

Hello Roger.

The first time I went to RottenTomotatoes because you referenced it. You know in that respect - getting people to look at movies and sites about movies and making discoveries that they wouldn't have otherwise - you are Oprah's Book Club.

Some time later I had an occasion to review its message boards and was off-put by a fair number of their comments.

So, since you asked, I think a message board on your movie review site might be akin to serving a really wonderful steak on a very dirty dish.

(And pardon me if that sounds conservative.)

Regards,

another fan.

Back again, because the comments about applause in a theater triggered memories about one of my all-time favorite movies - THE IN-LAWS (the original with Falk and Arkin - you know, the good one). I saw this one at least four times in its original release, always with full or nearly full houses. The laughs came fast and emphatic - one scene in particular got the longest and loudest laugh I've ever heard in a movie theater (I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it), and this was every time, every audience. Even seeing this scene at home with just family, same reaction (my father had a distinctive laugh, and he roared just as loudly in the privacy of home). At the end, the audiences were always enthusiastic, but one little fillip in the last scene (again I won't spoil it) triggered cheers in the theater, and full applause as the credits rolled (to John Morris's wonderful score, the best I've ever heard that wasn't released in album form). This sort of thing doesn't happen often, and I've never forgotten it.(OK, confession: the real reason I haven't gone into detail on those two scenes is because I can't: there are no punchlines to quote, and the visuals would lose their humor out of context.) I can't seem to come up with a closer here, so I'll just toss it back to all the rest of you.

Roger,

You asked "to hear from more readers about [potential drawbacks to having a message board at the bottom of every film review you post]." It's always a little difficult to imagine "unintended consequences;" at the same time I've learned that unintended consequences do occur quite frequently....[like the state legislature that decided to "tax the rich" only to find that all the rich then moved away to other states....oops!]

I imagine that you expect the posted dialog there to mirror the dialog you've received on your journal, and the optimist in me does hope that you will indeed get the same kind of thoughtful, mostly polite, conversation about the subject at hand.

On the other hand, it is also possible that a few posters will go off into tangents, especially if they start to "mix it up" with each other, going back and forth, which then in turn seems to draw other people into their dialog as well. I've seen this happen on some very fine special-interest message boards, too, not just "open to the public / general interest" websites.

Relying on readers to flag "inappropriate" comments could work very well with the quality of readership I've seen; however some people get so passionate about certain subjects that they think anyone who disagrees with them is "inappropriate" (even on your journal, with a very fine quality of posters, I am sometimes surprised that many people just can't seem to accept that reasonable people can reasonably disagree, without either being wrong, and instead decide to characterize people who hold views that differ from theirs in unattractive ways, suggesting that something must be wrong with them to think that way).

On the other hand, [insert joke about the three-handed economist...], if it works really well it could be like those movie sessions you hold in which any viewer could yell "stop" at any time during the movie, to point out subtle points, provide supplemental background information, engage in some Q&A, etc.

My suggestion would be that, before you roll it out in full scale mode, you do a limited trial run first, assess how that goes, and then make a decision.

Ebert, the problem with message boards is that, to be successful, they rely on the existence of a community. They have to be somewhat independent of the content of your reviews and they have to be well-moderated. Putting a message board on the bottom of each post is a bad idea because they can't be moderated and they will be ephemeral; good posters will have no incentive to stay and post there, and will have no recourse against trolls, flamers, script kiddies, spammers, and the other half-a-thousand plagues of the Internet.

I could understand if you wanted to create a single, overarching forum for your site, but understand that in order for it to be effective and pleasant you would need to hire moderators and, perhaps, divorce the concept from your content to some degree.

Hi Roger,

I agree that adding message boards to all the reviews is a bad idea.

But, I would definitely want to see the message boards on the movies in the "great movies" list.

Vijay

Dear Roger,

Using your first name is not natural for me after 16 years in Switzerland but I'm glad I can, at least, be flexible enough to comply.

Message boards could be like the muddy waters of the Mississippi River with hidden sand bars that are constantly shifting and never seen. On the other hand, the Mississippi is one of the world's great thoroughfares.

But, your good name would be attached to something with little control. It would be a leap of faith that could only be partially rewarded. I think all your loyal readers would want what is best for you.

I am one of those who remembers well the single-screen theater with lots of seats while growing up in New Orleans. Places like the Sanger, the Robert E. Lee, even the General Cinemas at Lakeside (which were a grand total of two [!] screens, both showing Star Wars when it came out in 1977) were wonderful places to view a movie. There was something to the experience that today's cinemas can't recreate, much as they try. Watching a spinner flying past from Blade Runner (at the Robert E. Lee), or being stunned by the opening scene of Star Wars when the Star Destroyer fills the entire screen and just keeps flying past may be memories, but they are cherished memories of my movie-going experiences.

I also remember nearly dying of laughter from both Aladdin and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the kind of laughter that yes, you fell out of the chair doing so. But in both cases it was the laughter of someone who understood the in-jokes (Robin Williams' imitations and the tributes to Tex Avery and Bob Clampett). Such things are a jewel when you get to experience it.

But with the way that the cinemas have shrunk the screen size in the ever-constant search of more movies to show at once, it seems the home theater is becoming the better experience. Going to a movie with a group of friends to clap and cheer the exploits of Indiana Jones, or cheer Han Solo's rescue (wielding a light blaster from General Technics and 'shooting' the kids behind us) is replaced with movie nights where the gang surround the big-screen television and watch bad movies, doing your own version of MST3K. The location might change, and the way the movie is displayed may be more modern, but the fun remains eternal.

[Many years ago, I used to run the movie rooms at several science-fiction conventions. There is nothing more fun than a theater (or room) full of folks who appreciate your efforts to show the films and make it fun for all.]

Dear Robert of Taiwan,

I sent you a post at the previous journal entry about the debates. I envy you your Dickens.

Anna Maria

Bless you Mr. Ebert. It is a joy to hear the heartbeat of another film conservative, or a "purist" as I would call it.

I remember being a kid and being invited to my neighbor's house to watch "The King and I." His dad was a deaf professor and had invited his class to watch the film with subtitles at his house. This was years before a simple push of a button would cut them on so they had gotten a film projector to show the film, i'm guessing this was the only way they could ind a copy with subtitles. They had a sheet hanging in the basement and I'll never for get the feeling of watching this movie with my best friend. I was 8 and I still remember being fascinated with this "film" being played in front of me.

I must admit, there are time I wish i had a home film projector.

Perhaps it was a good idea after all.

Re: The message board idea
Ebert: I'd like to hear from more readers about this.

If it was moderated in some fashion, I would think it would be great. But as an unmoderated forum (or moderated by the users themselves) it could lead to a potential disaster. I remember when J. Michael Straczynski's area on rec.arts.sf.babylon5 had to become rec.arts.sf.babylon5.moderated because of the actions of a few posters who refused to abide by the rules of the group. And even way back in the days of GEnie, the area for the fans of Mercedes Lackey's writings was moderated in order to keep folks from causing havoc in the forums.

As an example, look at the various forums on the Washington Post website, particularly the discussion areas on politics and religion. While they do censor postings with obscene language, it is usually a fire zone when it comes to posting there, as the extremes on both sides will come out firing with no concern for the topic at hand. Along with the occasional carpet bombing poster who resends the same message 10 times in a row, annoying the readership.

It might work, but again it depends on how such a forum would be established and handled.

I was a small kid in the late 70's and early 80's, and I still remember the experience of a large movie theatre showing ONE film that was the big film of the Summer-

I grew up in San Jose and at that time we had the Century Theatres, which were dome shaped like the Cinedome in Hollywood...these theatres were sort of the closest San Jose got back then to feeling like Hollywood.
My mom took my sister and I to see E.T. at the Century 22 around the first week it came out in 1982- that was a great experience...the long line of people waiting outside, the doors opening, everyone going in to get their seats- we used to look as kids to the high ceiling which we used to say looked like a giant spiderweb, we would say that we were Spiderman and were going to crawl up there....I still remember that experience of seeing E.T., probably the most memorable movie-going experience of my childhood--the whole audience was like right with that movie, and enjoyed every minute of it...When ET made the bikes fly near the end, it was like the whole theatre jumped up out of their seats pumping their fists going "Yeah ! Go!" (even grown adults)....there were other memorable experiences going to the movies, like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Karate Kid, Ferris Beuller, even Stand and Deliver with Edward James Olmos...I for sure remember those, but that childhood experience of seeing E.T. in the theatre stands out in my memory

You dont see that anymore- the whole anticipation of films like we used to have, the experience of seeing them on a big screen...it has gone down significantly. With these mall multiplexes, the screens are smaller, the tickets way more expensive- it's almost like a bunch of friends lounging around at home watching tv on a big screen, rather than the movies...there's commercials, etc...

I still like the big blockbusters and the 80's was a good time for that, but it is important for newer generations to have their own films. Today's young people are trying to find their own voice, and maybe the smaller "Napoleon Dynamite/ Juno/ Superbad" type of films are their attempt. But I think that a lot of the experience of the past at the movies has diminished due to the studios putting out "product" more than "works of art/entertainment" (Speed Racer) ...there's little feeling of anticipation for movies like their used to be. I think that's what caused that major buzz for Indiana Jones and the Kindom of the Crystal Skull this past summer. People wanted to sort of relive that whole thing...but it, sadly, didnt (not entuirely). Ultimately, movies are what they are, just a form of entertainment, but I hope that some of the feeling of the former eras can come along into the new generation.

Roger, I agree with Rob...please don't add message boards to the bottom of all reviews. This will make a mess out of your site and take away from what is now in my humble opinion the best blog out there. Your reviews stand on their own, and your followers are frankly not interested in a laundry list of whether people agree with them or not. We are very interested in your journal topics and reflections. Keep a good thing going.

In this case, I wholeheartedly agree. Celluliod is the essence and soul of a film. Just hearing an old projector whirring sends a wave of adrenaline through my body. 70mm is simply the most beautiful way to express art mankind has ever devised. As for books, I regularly take my tattered James Bond signet paperbacks with the red edeges and little cover illustrations down just to smell them. Theaters have no sense of the majesty of cinema. To me digital projection is a total and utter travesty. There is nothing, absolutely nothing like Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm or 2001 in Cinerama. Those are life shattering events. Now we are reduced to DVDs which can only provide a miniscule sense of what David Lean and Stanley Kubrick painstakingly crafted. I hope MaxiVision 48 does not die out. I can't understand why theaters would go digital instead! It makes no sense!

Hey Ebert,

This is the Asperger's I meant, but the other one is interesting too. When I was a freshman I used your movie reviews as a template for my essays because they had a clear point and were written in an interesting way. So, thanks for teaching me to write.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Aspergers

I also object to the implementation of message boards and agree that they would quickly descend into chaos. I think that part of the reason that you get better quality comments is that you make it known that you will read and approve them. Most bloggers don't do that, even when they claim that they do. The inability to reply directly to other comments also keeps things under control.

You replied to a comment a few posts back asking how often you have to delete "First!" as the comment. I don't know whether that person came back to explain. That was a reference to other blogs (like that very popular gossip blog named after that "socialite") where people spend all day waiting for new posts, and trying to be the first commenter, only to leave "First!" and nothing more as a comment. Since there are delays in posting times of the submissions, the first 10-30 comments are inevitably comments of that nature.

P.S. Now we know why you Chicago folks prefer going to the theater. You've got a $3 million projector!

I am a devoted conservative when it comes to both film and literature. The smell of my late mother's second edition copy of Gone With The Wind and the memory of seeing the film in a revival house with her when I was eight... I don't have many happy memories of my childhood, but those where my mom and I shared books and movies bring me the most joy and peace.

My kids, though, watch TV on the internet. Which is so wrong to me. And they download movies to their I Pods and their three inch screens, which is even worse. I didn't realize that when I bought those claptrap inventions, they would cease going with me to the movies, instead prefering to buy the newest releases with their allowances on I Tunes. They don't know what they're missing, I guess, or they don't appreciate the artistry. And my eldest has a Kindle account. That borders on blasphemous.

BTW, I will never sell that second edition copy of Gone with the Wind. It is in my will that I be buried with it. I am not kidding. My ex husband thinks I'm crazy. I figure I'll need something to read in the afterlife and it might as well be a long book.

Mr. Ebert,

I have been an avid reader of your movie reviews for many years now. In fact, they are the very first thing I read when I return home from the theater. I only skim the first and last paragraph before viewing a film (the same way you skim the back of a book before deciding to purchase it). Any ways, your writing always enlightens regardless of wether or not I agree with your overall take on the film being discussed. Your blog posts are a much newer delight, but I'm catching on. The forum suits your talents a great deal and I thought I'd say thank you.

Garrett

PS I was wondering if you would be posting a review of our historic election. Your insight and commentary would make a great read (especially given the fact that the race has many cinematic elements)

Roger, where do you draw the line?

I HATE the digital ads with their giant interlaced lines projected on a movie screen. Horrible. Distracting.

So that's the bottom end.

But what about editing? No one does hand-edits anymore. It's all AVID, Sony Vegas, and the pornographer's best friend, Final Cut Pro (FCP). I use two of these systems and rely on the third for lonely late-night emissions. (And there's the bottom end of that!)

But the question is: if you're going digital in the middle, why not stay digital in the acquisition phase? By the time you get done editing, you're already in a non-linear realm. You've saved nothing by starting with real film.

And if you give in on that, then, why dump to film for distribution?

Here's a good question for you: what looks good in digital?

For my money, I loved the running scenes in Apocalypto. Beautiful the way the camera tracked and the runner appeared and disappeared in the brush.

Also, the little snippet of Rear Window that Kodak restored as a promo piece, where Grace Kelly floats up into focus and kisses Jimmy Stewart (lucky devil!) against a blown-out background. Terrific.

I'd rather see film, too. I detest NLE, whether it's video or film based. You know, in the latest Sony Vegas, you can specify that ALL of your edits are fades by batching them together and hitting only one key. It's madness. The whole syntax of film is swirling into the toilet thanks to innovations like that. As Homer Simpson once said, why use anything else if you're got a star wipe? I feel like I'm being battered by all these worthless wholesale changes available to anyone who can do a tutorial and become (voila!) a filmmaker.

Real Film. Hard Cuts. Tight Script. Wide Medium Over CU and out. Please god, save me from dimestore Nic Roegs and their horrible output.

Go get 'em, Roger.

Roger, I have to agree with Rob's point. Of course, it'd be great to look up any of your reviews and find a set of comments of the quality seen on this blog. But I worry the comments section is more likely to be dominated by off-topic rants by those eager for an audience -- your high-traffic reviews offer a pretty tempting soapbox.

Many news sites have opened up most/all of their articles for comments and those examples don't offer much hope. It seems like the wider the audience, the lower the chance of an insightful (and respectful) discussion. Maybe your page stats would prove me wrong, but I wonder if part of the reason this blog is successful is because it attracts the subset of your readership that's most passionate and most thoughtful about film. Also, I think there's a deterrent effect to your presence as moderator: many people assume you're weeding out comments that aren't constructive (even if you haven't actually needed to).

I guess I'm conservative too in the sense that I'd encourage you to start small with this. Instead of all 8,000 pages, why not turn comments on at first for the Great Movies reviews? My guess is that those are likely to attract the most interesting comments, with reviews for new releases at the other, riskier end of the spectrum.

I just imagine.. how much you owe all this to Chad.. I've cherished movies and wondered why they are not in your great movie collections, viz., cool hand, dog day and so many many more.. but jus when i think about these, you have r a magician - to go on and add them to the truly greatest list of movies that i've ever seen... but, now when i'm struck with a blow in my love life, i can only see movies like ghost rider, spidey3.. jus because i wanna beat the time.. the time i used to beat while i spent it with her! that's the problem we always forget the SMALL fun things in our lives while we never forget the BIG bad things.. actually there are always a whole bunch of SMALL things to make em greater than any number of BIG bad things... Hopefully I'll complete atleast this one script in her memory!

And yeah, I jus remembered your line.. "The war in Iraq is a much sexier issue. But no matter what happens in Iraq, the real crisis we face is the debt.".. yes, it is a much sexier thing.. I haven't seen I.O.U.S.A, I being a non-American, can still feel the real reasons - Sadam was the first to sell oil jus for EUROS.. this breaks the tradition of $ and why the world economics (especially our fellow Americans' future!) depends so much on it!!

I had an odd movie going experience today. The Clearview Chelsea, located in one of NYC's largest gay neighborhoods, was showing "The Exorcist" as a camp classic mainly for its gay audience. A drag queen comedian "hosted it", which means she sat with a microphone and made loud, obnoxious jokes throughout the movie (ok, some of which were kinda funny) and the audience was encouraged to scream out favorite lines and clap and cheer throughout.

I wasn't aware that it would be like this (I've been at the Clearview a few times before for classic movies and it wasn't like that...allthough I am very well aware that it's about the gayest movie theater in New York :P) and rather regret having gone.

Strangely, some of the audience actually didn't react as rudely and obnoxiously as the "host" expected them to and actually did become pretty absorbed and involved in the movie.

I reflected that The Exorcist is not a movie you can mock or make light of- it's a movie you have to go with to enjoy. It doesn't work with a running commentary or audience participation and it can't function too well as camp, except among the most adolescent and jaded viewers.

The theater is showing Psycho the same way next week. I propose that the managers all be arrested and beaten with canes.

Ebert: What the h-e-double-hockey-stick is camp about it?

Re: Agatha (& Roger) -- Yeah, what is even remotely campy about The Exorcist? Anyone who laughs at that (whether they like it or not) is either demented (as many of the desensitized are) or ignorant to the language of film, i.e. the "technical" qualities versus the poetic. Same goes for those kids who laugh at the '33 Kong, even though he's far scarier and boasts tons more personality than Jackson's (a film I liked very much). Again, the drawbacks of misunderstood evolution.

Time to chime back in on the discussion I started... I think the idea of the message boards is great (especially with this awesomely stimulating crowd; between Jim Emerson's blog, The House Next Door, and here, I feel like I've all the online film community I'll ever need), and that some sort of a registration system could be the key. IMDb thankfully doesn't allow anonymous posters (the bane of existence for any blogger with an opinion), but even there it's a madhouse (the 2001: A Space Odyssey board is the only place I've found there to have steady, intelligent conversations; anything more canonized/popular -- Citizen Kane, The Godfather, etc. -- becomes a haven for haters [a.k.a. fans of the latest blockbuster, a la The Dark Knight] wanting to tear it down from its pedestal), and without close scrutiny it could spread here as well ('cuz, you know, if you dislike Fight Club and The Usual Suspects but liked Garfield, you don't know anything). Abusive posters could be banned with ease if the problem was anticipated.

Oh, and The Usual Suspects is a total p.o.s. Thank you for calling it out on day one.

To Kate Halleron: What is a script-kiddy? If it's reading scripts on the internet, that is about all I had when I was a teen about 8 years ago when we first got the internet because they put the parental lock (it seems a MAC is better at doing that, than a PC that I use now is for locking out adult stuff...never mind.) I read "Dogma", well much of it, but couldn't imagine kevin smith making it, until I saw it, of course. Reading scripts is fun, although, I haven't really done it since then. Anyway, my question still stands, what is a script-kiddy?

There's something that annoys me about the current film going experience. You arrive in the theatre, you're enjoying yourself considerably, then, all of a sudden that little high school kid or 'thirty-something' dork appears out of nowhere with his clipboard in hand, cheezy suit and fountain pen; walks out into the auditorium and begins the shrill process of glancing around. He then proceeds to write down how many people are sitting there, as he scribbles distractingly into his little corporate piece of parchment paper.

I don't know what the purpose is, I don't really work at a theatre, and I suspect they require it for economic reasons (personally I tend to ignore it) But, I can honestly imagine what it signifies: This represents the end of the romantic notion of moviegoing. Since the industry is now owned by advertising companies, rather than studios full of artists and producers. Instead what you have is firms designed to fuel the ever-changing and expanding machine. Expanding mind you, not growing. This kind of attitude ensures that more and more people fill the seats, beit they are smart, dumb or don't care; they don't put a personality to these faces mind you, we are simply rats in an inhuman experiment. Movies should be like going to the library or a rock concert. A public service institution that looks at their customers with a sense of earnestness and fun; complete with a dignified sense of service. Much like the theatre.

Maybe it was always that way, then again, maybe it wasn't. I really don't know. What I do know though is that I believe movies are a little bit more special than that.

Remember when the movies were actually fun? Kids and their parents would get dressed up, dates and high school kids would go with their family and friends. You could even feel comfortable discussing it after you got out into the lobby. You had a blast, you were part of it. Nowadays, going to the multiplex is as exciting as getting a rectal exam from your grandmother's ex. People lurk out after a rather disappointing experience, since they spent most of the runtime sitting through endless commericials and ads for that brand new Prius you always wanted. Watching helplessly as you see those twenty something parents drag a 5-year old into Saving Private Ryan or Saw V. With the occasional cancer ad.

Mind you I wasn't born yesterday. I know that the heyday of Hollywood is over. That its not really true "stars" now, but instead actors; often not very good ones, but rather ones that are sad echos of their previous idols (Hell, if it ever existed to begin with, at least you believed in it) That movies like "Patton" or "Lawrence of Arabia" take a back seat to fodder like "Beverly Hills Chiwawa" and "Kangaroo Jack" (#1 Movie--LOL). Screens get smaller and smaller, while snack stands get larger and more pricey. Its not fun anymore to bring along six kids to the movies, when they're all crying their eyes out, while the stupid parents sit them down to Hostel Part II, simply because the way they worked the ads suggested that this will be an educational experience for kids.

In fact, every movie is now marketed to be an action film, and I mean all of them, whether it be a melodrama like "Changling" or movies like "Revolutionary Road". There must be a promise to not waste time, rather than to soak in an experience. Wonderful films like "The Visitor" starring Richard Jenkins and "Rachel Getting Married" and "The Lookout" play in limited cities, when Hollywood is so quick to put out films like Disaster Movie and National Treasure 2 (Rapper 50 Cent Curtis Jackson starred with Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino this year!!). Movies of course were always meant to be a distraction, but it is only current phenomenon that the studios market "dumb" in order to show you that you're getting your money's worth. Apparently, people don't want to simply sit through a good story anymore. Who knows, perhaps we have outgrown it, or maybe simply, we do not care. Hell, there will always be books. Or will there?...

... Films reflect the times. No longer, at least for the time being are people concerned with romantic notions of flight, the exploration of vast landscapes, the frontier and glamour of love, the examination of humanity and nature. We instead spend most of our days at jobs we hate, bringing home paychecks that don't pay bills, watching the war on television while we complain about the color of our I-Pods as our world leaders act like degenerate clowns. Films in turn, reflect that mentality. Instead, movies are about paranoia, cheating, the declining economic state, the absense of faith and the rise of hapless losers in the face of corporate control for personal gain and revenge.

What happened to our self-respect, our abilties to learn and our capacity for exploration? Our ability to show love and respect rather than hate and depravity? Selfishness vs. selflessness? The climb up an imaginary social ladder to obtain a nonexistent notion of respect and love rather than true friendship and generosity? It seems we want things handed to us on a silver platter, even if we weren't born into it. We're not concerned with charity, rather we are too busy glamorizing ourselves with cheap make-up, breast augmentations and crude self-help manifestations as we gag down our 10.00 dollar coffee from Starbucks. Movies offered an escape from all that, an art form that showed us that what we were doing was fine, we were O.k. and it was cool to be human. Instead, now most marketing of films reflect our own hapless self-referential irony of doubt, which causes us to hate ourselves even more and to not approach our neighbors with a sense of honesty. That's not a world I'm ready to embrace, even if it really is all screwed up.

The real movie experience comes not from the externalities, but rather it comes from within. Its not the posters and candy and sound system that counts, but the movies themselves. Good movies make for great audiences and great audiences make for huge profits; not the other way around. Regardless, it is still projected celluoid on a piece of paper, that is what makes it a beautiful thing. Sometimes I feel the whole new HD thing ruins the movies. Eliminating that beautiful 'film-look', with its wondrous texture transporting you to another world, instead now, all movies are made to look like your cousin's digital camera, rather than a process of painstaking cinematic craftsmanship. What you get is a depressing video game rather than a work of art. You can now download movies illegally, sometimes for free on a tiny digital phone screen. I ask you, does such a thing do a movie like Lawrence of Arabia or Return of the King justice? (Not to say that I haven't seen beautiful looking films on Blu-Ray, often the experience can be a good one, often it cannot. Most probably don't care at this point. But that's a topic for a different discussion).

The fact that perfect strangers can assemble in a dark room to watch moving photographs and drawings go by, which in turn make us feel better about ourselves, and continue to cherish and preserve the art of storytelling. An art that has been around since mankind began and has made us better for it. Regardless of who we are, where we came from or where we're going.

Thats what the 25 year old Coke ad exec doesn't understand. People deserve more than simply to be brainwashed into thinking we're getting more than we bargained for.

You probably all don't care about this I'm sure. Perhaps, rightfully so. Or moreover, maybe you simply don't care, they are just movies after all. Then again, replace the word: "movies" in this situation with any number of given crucial topics and then maybe you'll see what a concern this really could be. Think about it and maybe you'll look at La Dolce Vita a little different than you did before. Maybe you'll postpone Beverly Hills Chiwawa and Distaster Movie and go rent Cool Hand Luke and Marty. Try it, you may just well become a better person for it. Or perhaps you like sports, religion, recreation or politics. Drugs and sex, skydiving, mountain climbing or weaving. Thats all well and good too. Just remember, movies are also a good thing. We should try and remember that before we're taken over by virtual reality and instant grativication pills. Then perhaps, the world will truly be finished. Whos to say. Hopefully by then people won't care so much about creating illusion, more than they will about going out to meet new friends, dating that long lost love or to actually do something for the betterment of mankind (Yes, outdoors--if we still have an outdoors thrity years from now). Hopefully The Godfather and La Dolce Vita will still be around.

Would you rather read "Catcher in the Rye" or simply have a microchip implanted in your brain to simply summarize the story for you in your head. Saving you the trouble of reading it? I feel movies sadly are headed down a similar road. I just hope I don't live to see it.

Sorry for talking so much. I'm sure people like the ones writing on this blog are beyond these kinds of things. I doesn't hurt to bring them up though.

Agatha,

I guess you never heard of the recurring audience participation at The Rocky Horror Picture Show (Roger, did you ever go to the midnight show at the Biograph during its interminable run there?). People would go in costume and bring props, week after week...they even communicated with each other in their stage names with weekly personal ads in the Reader (free weekly alternative newspaper...Roger, I've since moved from Chicago, do they still publish the Reader and give it away at CTA stops?)

Ebert: Yep!

I think it's interesting and, in its way, contradictory that you insist on the highest fidelity in the reproduction of movies, yet you listen to music on an iPod. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

All lossy compression schemes throw away elements of the audio signal in favor of storage capacity; these losses are clearly audible. You may be using lossless compression with your iPod, but most don't.

I'd be interested if you would publish a piece on your home viewing environment and AV equipment. I believe you have a Stewart Filmscreen (me too). What else?

Audiophiles would love it and I'm sure you would get a whole new dimension of incoming email.

Chris V.

In this digital age, I end up watching a lot of film and TV on my laptop screen; it's a sacrifice I endure as I would not be able to take in nearly as much without it. It's definitely a sub-par experience, however, as LCD is horrible at portraying those vital black shadings (especially as they are digitized), and the sound is not nearly as good through headphones.

The times that I do get to watch things on my old analogue tube-based TV, or even rarely a film in a real theatre, the difference is night and day. There's a certain glow and snap to an analog image, something visceral that you just can't get otherwise. In that regard I'm with you all the way.

Don't use the message boards!

Hi Roger - just wanted to chime in concerning the message boards. Adding them to all of your movies is going to be taking on a herculean amount of policing - even with users helping. Even large, well funded topical message boards like slashdot (or imdb, for a more pertinent example), struggle to find a good way to moderate and police properly.

If you are interested in doing it, I would humbly suggest rolling it out slowly - perhaps just on your blog, or on the great movies, to get a feel for how it will go.

i just got a library card yesterday after not having one for about 6 years. when i was in the library, i could not stop smiling. i wanted to stay there for hours. i wanted to sit on the floor and look through books. i felt like i was a kid again. my mom took us to the library all the time. i didn't even realize i had so many memories about that. it was wonderful. i know i will be a regular there.

Roger,

As I was reading your words above, I was reminded of Cinema Paradiso. No other film I have seen (not even by Fellini or Truffaut) has captured the love of movies so well. Watching it -- even watching it alone -- always reminds me that the true joy of experiencing a movie resides in the shared response of a completely engaged audience. Giuseppe Tornatore captured that experience, among others, so absolutely right.

Roger,

You "done said a mouthful" about Kindles. They're convenient, they allow the readers to upload 2 kazillion books at a time, but they are mighty hard to underline with a good pen, or write comments in the margins. They don't have the beauty of a classic binding--you know, like the old red bindings of Winston Churchill's World War II series. I bought a set of those at a used-book store in order to have those faded red covers and the soft-as-butter pages, rounded at the corners with gently furred edges.

And I'm in complete agreement about quet and attentionin the theater. When I saw The Dark Knight, other than a few texters, the audience was enraptured by the film. There was that hush that is not the same as silence. I remember that same "hold your breath" feeling during Sling Blade when Carl tells about the experience with "that little ol' baby" in the towel. An entire audeince exhaled quietly after that scene.

The almost tactile beauty of Casablanca or Citizen Kane in black and white is why colorizing is obscene; the respect for something magical and filled with wonder happening in a darkened theatre is the reason we need many more film conservatives of our ilk.

I still agree that "policing" the blogs would be a great undertaking, but this is America and free speech, even if it's from trolls (im still not sure what that is...not sure at all ::ironical tone::) or internet whores (you're on thin ice, if you're lookin in my direction), WARNING: TROLL TIME, but environmental psychology studies show that people have more positive responses the closer they are to people and that talking to someone, for instance, just about 9 feet away can necessitate more or less a negative response. I know this probably sounds like some read this in Homer Simpson voice so I'll let him quote me "Wonders, Lisa?..or Blunders?" There ought to be this kind of teaching in every message board....such as WARNING: YOU'RE COMMENTS MAY APPEAR MORE NEGATIVE THAN YOU WANT THEM TO BE....GO HUG SOMEONE OR JUST KEEP THEM IN PROXIMITY...OR GET A PET NEARBY BEFORE POSTING

I understand and agree with what's already been covered here regarding how the experience of watching a movie is superior in a movie theater than it is at home, regardless of the setup's sophistication. In principle, anyway. However, I've finally been overcome by the challenges of filmgoing in real world.

If I show up for a 7:00 showtime, I know that the movie itself won't begin until 7:20 or later, and the trailers are not the problem (I particularly enjoy watching the studio's marketing department desperately trying to sell something that obviously sucks). The problem is the commercials, and I'll no longer willing serve myself up to be a captive audience to feed the management's short-sighted greed.

There are plenty of other factors, such as substandard concessions (how can the top of a fresh vat of popcorn yield so many burned, unpopped kernals?), seating in disrepair (even in the theaters showing the "art house" exclusives), and the certainty that I'm not seeing the full movie I intended to see (due to insufficient film lighting, clumsy framing, sound systems that hiss and pop loudly throughout the movie, and prints that have lines and streaks, even on national premiere day). One might expect these aspects to be part of the experience at the older, second-run theaters, but all of the above are common at newer theaters as well.

However, foremost on my list of "stuff that makes me not want to go out to see movies anymore" are the other people in the theater. Certainly not everyone else, but just those few who seem to go out of their way to make the experience miserable for everyone else. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to:

- The Texters, who possibly think they're being considerate ("I could be talkin' on it instead, dude").

- Those who Must Keep In Touch, by answering their cell phone when hearing the sound of its bouncy (and loud) ringtone, and then proceed to give an extended synopsis of the movie so far ("The guy's name is Sugar, and he killed this dude with this air thing, and it's pretty freakin' dumb so far.. When you gonna be at Jimmy's, anyway?")

- Others who Must Keep In Touch, but do it more actively, by pulling out the cell phone and making their own calls during the movie.

- The Living Room Transplants, who still think of themselves as sitting on the couch at home in front of the TV, and act accordingly ("Who's he? Was that the same guy? Why didn't she say something? I was talking - what happened?")

- The Clash, so named for their indecision regarding whether they should stay in their seat or whether they should go to the restroom/concession stand/wherever-they-go. Said indecision continues for the entire length of the movie.

- The Babysitter's Club, who bring the five-year-old, the 30-month-old, and the infant to the R-rated movie, and crying, spilled drinks, "outside voice" requests to visit the restroom, and other hilarity ensues.

There's generally at least one of these people near every single other person in the theater, and the good old days when you could respectfully ask a person to not talk during the movie are long gone. These days, you might get either a fist or a pistol in your face for disrespecting that guy in front of you. If the theater's management would do something to limit the disruptive activity, I might still be willing to go, but they're not, so I'm not.

Honestly, the loss of courtesy among people in general and the exhibitors' lip service but ultimate lack of enforcement have made it impossible for me to enjoy a movie in a theater. Sad, yes, but now just another fact of modern life. Thank goodness for Netflix.

How about this:

Pull one review from your weekly output, or a Great Movie review, into this blog, and see what kind of discussion it generates. I think you may have tried this with Iron Man early on, but it didn't appear on rogerebert.com as a review. Publish it simultaneously on both sites, and the discussion will take hold on the blog.

Ebert: I may try that, and deliberately publish every comment I receive. Of course, the blog is reached by deliberate choice, and people wander in from all over to go to a specific review.

Hi Roger,

As you indicated, the difference is in the kind of traffic you get to reviews and your blog.
My guess is that the comments on the great movies list will be similar in nature to your blog comments.
But, you will still not get an accurate idea if you publish the review in your blog.

I believe you will get a very good idea of the kind of comments you will be seeing, if you roll out a "beta" version on only your NEW reviews. Of course, it will much more accurate if it is a highly anticipated movie. Personally, I think comments on the movie "W" will definitely tell you whether this is a good idea or not.

Thanks,
Vijay

Roger, as the owner and chief moderator of a Forum myself (it's like riding herd on a bunch of feral cats), I think what you and Jim are proposing is something that will lose the soul of what your blog has created: direct communication with you.

We all admire your writing and feel moved to speak with you directly here--we know you read all our responses prior to allowing them to be posted. We know that this is a tremendous amount of work and it can become overwhelming and suck up as much time as you allow for it (the Peter Principle in full force).

Running feedback under your reviews that doesn't pass through the same conduit that this blog does will lead to the chaos that all of us have seen on many websites where the commentary is essentially self-regulating.

If you have the time and can continue to deal with the system you've set up as it exists now, please continue.

Keith Carrizosa: Keith,my knowledge of TM is not exactly next to zero: it is zero .But I wouldn't touch it with a pole. Americans may be ahead of others in several things but I think they are certainly so in being suckers for spirituality. I consider myself a moderately spiritual guy myself (as everyone may be at a stage of life) but it would be in terms of respecting Dr King, our own Gandhiji and Tolstoi.Incidently,a great spiritual document on celluloid is Ikiru-----the essence of meditation-------$2500.....oh,no!

Roger, thanks for the personalised response--my folks were mighty pleased to have it straight from you! Its nice to be part of this discussion forum and to be able to release one's 'cinematic' steam! I understand your curiosity about India but I think one lesson from the celluloid universe---I never stepped out from here,though I did step in from Pakistan at the ripe age of six months---so not an authority-----is that every goddam place is the same, in being equally fantastic.... Ruanda,Chicago and Younameit! Just checking I find you have not reviewed "Shatranj ke Khilari" --Ray's only film in India's largest (and official)language -Hindi.(Indian Constitution recognises nineteen languages--that's a prime fact aboutIndia-multiethnic,multicultural,multilingual and multimulti cuisine}.The movie I mentioned is an exquisite vignette of the Raj--set in 1850s---the tragicomic East-West encounter-here certainly very comic--can you beat it , a ribsplitter from this serene maestro----a seasoned brew of a cinematic drama which surely deserves a place in your 102---if you can leapfrog the linguistic and cultural factors.

Ebert: I have just now ordered it. only $10 on DVD. Unlike most of Ray's films, it doesn't seem to have an English title.

I like the experience of going to a movie but for me it depends entirely on the movie. Because the cost is so high we try to see those movies that are "big-screen" ones- you know, how a lot of special effects in them. I think they look better on a huge screen and the darkness of the room as well as the booming sound system of a theatre can really make it an experience you are participating in rather than you watching something happen apart from yourself.

A good example for me, strangely, is the Godzilla movie that everybody hates but somehow managed to see. There is a scene when the helicopters come on screen and it scared the pants off me. Why? Cause before you saw the helicopters you could hear them. As a matter of fact, the sound of them started behind me and then worked its way up to the front of the theatre where they suddenly appeared on the screen. That loud noise coming from behind in a black theatre was surprising and yeah, I jumped. It was also cool.

Another movie experience I had was with Pitch Black. When the sun went down in the movie, the lights went off in our theatre. We were suddenly in the movie...awesomely cool, and scary as all heck! It reminded me of that Audrey Hepburn movie where she's blind and at the end she knocks out all the lights so she has an advantage...I read somewhere they also shut all the lights off in the theatres to scare the audience, too.

I guess I'm saying I am conservative when it comes to some movies, but maybe not others. Yeah, you can turn the lights off at home and have a really good sound system, but I think convenience of watching a movie at home stops most people from doing this and interrupts the movie-watching experience overall. How many people pause to use the bathroom or get a refill during a suspense movie? Doesn't that destroy the movie because isn't suspense something that has to build? A break stops the suspense and you have to wait for it to build again- but it won't reach the same crescendo cause you already cut it in half. And, more importantly, had time to breathe. If you are paying attention to a movie in a theatre, you won't leave your seat and will be somewhat forced through the tension. I guess it's like being locked into a roller-coaster ride. You can get off at home but not in the theatre.

And I guess that is what I am ultimately trying to say. Watching a movie is best when it is an experience. Then, sad movie, comedy, drama...don't matter. It's the best ride around.

Roger, this is something I've wanted to ask you about, but have not had a suitable forum. I live in city of approximately 50,000 in Southeast Idaho, and although we have a 14-theater multiplex, I could almost swear that whoever picks the films it will show must either 1) not read your reviews, or 2) must deliberately pick those films you rate lower than three stars. There are exceptions, of course, but I can't tell you the number of times I've been excited to see a film after reading a four-star review in your column only to look in vain for it to appear at our theater. Films such as The Lives of Others and Eastern Promises never made it to our town. Even after resigning myself to wait until a film comes out in video, I've been dismayed that our local video rental store (part of a sizeable chain), doesn't have it either (this store also carries books, and after reading Cormac McCarthy's The Road, which our public library did carry, I wanted a copy of my own. I went to both our chain bookstores and learned that it wasn't available--unless I wanted to special order it--until Oprah gave it her imprimatur--then it was on end aisle displays). So even though I would like to patronize the local theaters and bookstores in my town, I usually wind up waiting to see films as soon as Netflix has them and ordering my books from Amazon.com. I have mixed feelings about this: I'm thrilled that technology and commerce have made it possible for me to see films I would probably never get to see at all, but I'm frustrated knowing that some films that I would prefer to see in the theater (such as the upcoming film version of Cormac McCarthy's The Road) will most likely never be available, while the modern equivalent of the B-movie drones on week after week at the multi-plex. I've tried to figure out why this is the case, and although this is a politically and religiously conservative region, my guess is that this is how free markets affect what's seen in theaters. Even if the multi-plex theater dedicated one theater to showing your four-star rated films for one week each, I would think that it would draw enough patrons to make it a paying proposition. What are your thoughts about this?

Ebert. Sigh. You and just about everybody else. I'm sure bookers for national chains read my reviews only to laugh at them. They book films to attract fanboys and fangirls and families, who are all big spenders on concessions (which represent more of their income than tickets). Even the big bookstore chains have cut back on inventory. They're dialing down on backlists and classics, and adding more greeting cards and magnetized poetry words. Netflix and Amazon are great rescue nets. Our country is dumbing down. Hold on for the ride.

"Ebert: I'd like to hear from more readers about this."

Adding a comment board to every review? Yikes! It would be like caking your sweaty body with sugar and wandering into a humid swamp, hoping you would not attract mosquitos. Instead they will overwhelm you so completely that by the time you safely run screaming into the waterfall to cleanse yourself, you'll forget why you went out there in the first place.

The best words of caution might be your own..."Our country is dumbing down. Hold on for the ride."

Cheers to you regardless - be well!

to anonymous,

TM seems like a good thing. You hear the same stories from everyone: sound differently. Howard Stern's mother did it, he said she sounded differently and it saved her life...and by differently I mean in the highest of spirits. This is something I need, if anybody does. The film director david lynch does it, and he made Mulholland Drive, and he had the same story. He sounded different after about 2 weeks.

I don't know about a message board for every indivdual film reveiwed at the site, but would a general forum be so bad? Ken Jennings has one attached to his blog (he uses it instead of allowing comments), and because he, like Roger, seems to attract a classy bunch of regular readers, it's a good one.

I think the only pressing reason to read a digital book would be to read something that you can't read elsewhere, because it is out of print or difficult to obtain or because it is unpublished. I think it might be a worthwhile exercise to create a digital archive for unpublished authors. If you're willing to allow your work to be public domain you could even submit it to Project Gutenberg; I wonder if they'd take them. If readers don't want to read a computer screen they can print it off.

Roger, interesting though that you're willing to read large volumes of prose in a digital medium so long as it isn't fiction. Probably for the same reason: you can't read it elsewhere. Or perhaps you're not willing to read every comment but need to in order to keep the blog alive, and would prefer a meaningful but not necessarily comprehensive engagement with your readers, whilst still finding time to read real books and make love to your wife.

I'd be your staff. I'm experienced, unemployed, liberal, disabled (though given the variable nature of "schizephreniform psychosis" I feel presumptuous describing myself as "disabled") and through recklessness and poor judgement have probably alienated myself from other endeavours. As soon-to-be law/journalism graduate I know something about vilification, unpopular speech, intellectual property and the problems associated with near-instant publication and especially the mental health concerns that arise from this. What more could you want? You'd be saving a life. But the most compelling reason wouldn't be to save me, but rather, to save me for the sake of those that might love me, or might yet love me, if I were in a position to propose.

I have to admit that while I do like movies, I can't say I love them as much as you do. I certainly don't watch as many as you have. But I do love radio drama, and I don't have to miss it! I just pop over to the BBC. Both Radio 4 and Radio 7 stream new dramas and comedies free of charge, and Radio 7 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio7/ carries shows from the archives going back decades (The Goon Show every Monday!). I think I'm more word-oriented than picture-oriented. With rare exceptions I don't enjoy films adapted from novels; directors seem to think that whatever is important in a book can be turned into a picture, and I end up missing the sound of the narrator's voice. So when the BBC dramatizes a Raymond Chandler mystery, say, it works better for me than a movie.

Ebert: There's free software named RadioShift that allows you to listen to stations in every country on earth.

I've since written a letter of complaint to Clearview Cinemas. At the very least, I think they should have made it clearer to patrons what Hedda Lettuce/Steven Polito would be doing.

This theater often shows movies such as "Mommy Dearest" and "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" with the audience coming dressed as characters and providing their own soundtrack but this really caught me off guard. I'm sorry I didn't walk out and ask for my money back.

I wonder if the problem is that people don't understand that not every horror movie featuring violence of the blood and gore type is not meant to be "camp" and isn't fit to be mocked.

"The Exorcist" isn't a movie you can be rude at- or even make fun of later- even if you actually really dislike it as a film, the way that Pauline Kael and Vincent Canby did.

I have to agree with oldmoviegirl that a general forum, similar to Roger's entry on the old CompuServe Showbiz forum, might be workable. Such a forum would definitely require registered members, and should employ a volunteer staff of moderators (call them "sysops" for nostalgia's sake) to keep discussions on track and civil. And Roger could pop in on a discussion if it behooves him to do so.

Ebert: Isn't that kinda happening here?

Keith Carrizosaa:About TM.Being an Indian in India does not really qualify me any better on the topic.My own assesment is that its not the genuine article irrespective of who is doing it.I would put it in the same category as counting sheep to go to sleep,which may work at times.How about catching Orlando Bloom for advice----a bright young man.

The title means "Chess Plaayers."Its based on a short story by Premchand, a very great Hindi writer,close to the heart and soul of India even more than Ray or Tagore (I just wondered whether the latter rings any bell).Ray's adoptation is very free.I'm taking the liberty to include a para I wrote about the in my journal afew days back.
"Saw 30 years back and again about a year ago.A historical comedy based on a story of Premchand.Ray's only Hindi film and the greatest Hindi film , if not Ray's greatest.A realistic pageant of Indian history in the 1850s,the mingling and clash of civilisations , a celebration of languor , the poetry of the spoken Urdu language, two chess games side by side, opium and guns........... subtle,nuanced,philosophical ,sad and funny.....the fragrance is fresh even after decades.....there are many great directors but to find such perfection and beauty in one's own tongue and culture and milieu is a thing to cherish and share....it is an essay beyond its content and context,quintessentially of the Orient:quiet,meditative,gentle and eternally nostalgic..."

Ebert: Tagore? He lived and studied for two years in my home town of Urbana, Illinois.

Roger:About Tagore:Nobel(1913),the first Asian Nobel:Wrote in Bengali,like Ray:Regarding his US sojourn I took this off the net:
"In Sep 1916, got invitation from different institutions in USA and reached Seattle (Washington). Lectured at Portland, San Fransisco, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Salt Lake City, Chicago, Iowa, Milwakee, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Boston. At Columbia Theatre, New York read translation from his novel Raja. Returned to Calcutta in 1917."

Ebert: Urbana has a much longer and deeper association wth Tagore, and a Tagore Center and Tagore Festival. See http://tagore.business.uiuc.edu/history.html

Hello Roger,

The tactile and the olfactory aspects of a book; plus the recollective. Among the treasure-trove found on my bookshelf are two hardbound volumes of Dame Agatha Christie's detective novels by Avenel, now nearly 20 years in my possession. These were my first ever "descent" into the literary world of murder and detection. I strongly remember wondering about "Ackroyd" and where I had heard that name before (from Dan Ackroyd, a surname I thought rather strange, it struck me odd that others would have it, too). I also remember a distinct antipathy towards the murderer after "Ten Little Indians." And him a man of law!

Opening one of the volumes now, I discover hiding between the pages a strand of hair from long ago. There is also what appears to be the fossilised remains of a silverfish; and somewhere between the chapters of "Evil Under The Sun" are the stains of a pressed flower.

Turning now to the other volume.... what's this? Dried-up snot from way back. I quickly scratch it off to redress the grievance of the book which I have so wrongly abused. What irony, that the offensive thing should be stuck there inside "The Moving Finger"!

~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~

No one should be murdered for mentioning a Newbery winner. In fact, our fondest book(s) may very well be those from our childhood. Mine is Roald Dahl's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." No Newbery winner but still a winner of other book awards. I must have read it a hundred times until the paperback cover nearly came off. When I lent it off to a friend and he lost it, I felt my heart broke. I was in low spirits for days. No other juvenile novel came close to offering the value of Roald Dahl's magnificent world. No, not even the subsequent movies, although they were very good, but none can replace the book.

Here's another favortie book, this one staying with me throughout the years, "The 21 Balloons" by William Pene du Bois. A definite winner of a Newbery Award, and a second favorite juvenile book, my early excursions into learning English.

Other early favorites are the works of Enid Blyton, most specifically, "Five on a Treasure Island." Those were the days....

Dear Robert of Taiwan,

My family is wondering why I am laughing so immoderately. Agatha Christie has never been so funny.

Roger:Thanks.In fact I was not aware of Tagore's connection with America,Illinois or Urbana.

Open forums = disaster. You'll be getting V1agra ads and links to "pics of britney naked" before you can blink a bleary eye.

While I don't get as heavy into film introspection as some people do here, I think anyone would agree that the posters here are intelligent and eager to carry on an insightful discussion. Of course, we don't see the comments you don't approve. My guess is there's very few though. The only way to keep it that way is to moderate it. Pretty hard to do all by yourself. Or even for the two of you for that matter. Besides, I get the impression that most people like posting here because they know you are going to read what they have to say. Somehow it wouldn't be the same.

Oh, and by the way, the first poster is supposed to write FRIST!, not First.

Roger:Apart from Chessplayers two other fifties' highiy regarded and Indian hearted films,both in Hindi,by the Bengali director Bimal Roy, are "Do Bigha Zamin"(two measures of land)(a portrayal of poverty)and "Devdas"(a name) enacted by the great thespian of Hindi cinema,Dilip Kumar,a romantic tragedy about a keatsian self ruinous character...

Roger, I guess I'm also a conservative, by your measure. I work in corporate/industrial films and started back when it was all 16 or 35 millimeter film. I worked on several 70mm productions for large-scale conventions. I've been through the cost-cutting days of switching to videotape in the early '80s, and more recently, shooting and editing HD.

The currently available 4k digital cine cameras certainly can't keep up with the detail, luminance range and saturation of the best film stocks, but that's not the biggest reason why digital still looks comparatively flat. The weakest link in electronic delivery is the projection system. Video projection has always been the worst way to view the medium, and it will be for yet a while.

I recently watched an HD production on a thirty-foot screen, delivered by what is accepted as state-of-the-art in digital projection. I stood six feet from the screen and thought I might be losing my eyesight; the lack of detail, swimming color and motion blurring (the result of fast lateral motion and digital GOP structure) made for anything other than what I would describe as "high definition".

Film doesn't require a digital re-interpretation of itself, it doesn't have any GOP structure, there's no file compression or clever means of 'hiding' such compression, and the projector projects and does no more...a light, a transport and a lens; just the reverse of a camera. Can't get any simpler or purer than that.

Until technology re-invents the digital projection wheel, it will be this way. Trouble is, the public has become so accustomed to the 'dumbing-down' of motion media that we readily accept half frame-rates, posterized colors, blotchy pixelation and stuttering. It's likely to be accepted as an art form.

I am an electronics student studying to become an engineer. I have lived, breathed, and loved electronics since I could turn a screwdriver. Funny enough, I feel that I too am a conservative person when it comes to media. I just recently ditched my PDA for a moleskin notebook (it never crashes!), and I find myself absolutely loving watching 35mm film and listening to vinyl records. I can't stand reading books on computers or eBook readers either, they strain my eyes too much and books are just more fun.

I've had some interaction with engineers with some electronics companies. I've heard some interesting stories behind the 'magic' of modern consumer electronics.

One example: Many big television and projector companies have adopted using the 'man with the magic eye' for determining what makes a good TV. He gets ultimate say over what the company makes. With the 'magic eye' approach, engineers are forced to shoot in the dark, to more or less satisfy what one person deems 'marginally better' in a lot of cases. Because of that companies cannot afford to make major changes and risk losing their biggest customers, but instead must stick with 'what has worked' (or worse, make it as bad as they can get away with to still make this one guy happy). Viewer experience hasn't really changed much, and has arguably gotten worse because of this. There's a lot of room for research on what makes for great viewer experiences.

New technologies are not always better than the old. Some things they do better, some they do worse. That's just engineering. But I think a more scientific approach to what makes for good viewer or listening experiences would really open some doors for awesome experiences. Engineering is ultimately about making trade offs until you have a product that people like and can afford. That means knowing what people care about when they watch a movie. At least some consumer electronics companies don't seem to really get that. I can envision some company doing major studies, and releasing a projector that just blows everyone out of the water, because they know exactly where they need to be strong and where they can slack off and save money.

Then again, judging by the way studios slip tons of unskippable advertisements into DVDs and theaters, they don't seem to care much for what makes a great movie-going experience either.

I still prefer my movies on celluloid, but I see no reason why digital projectors and big screen TVs can't be much, much better than they are now. We're nowhere close to where technology can take us, and human error has a lot to do with that.