I agree with your sentiments entirely. I like to see trailers and read reviews of a film AFTER I've seen it except when I'm sure I won't see it. I see the director as being a story-teller telling a story, and it's always more enjoyable for them to tell it as intended without pre-emption.

I find it curious that of the films you've listed above that I know anything about, that's all I know about them also.

Jim,

exactly how movies should be seen, knowing little to nothing. The further I progress in life, the stronger I hold to this. I never read a review before seeing a film. I retain far too much from film trailers, so many times I close my eyes.

And poor Woody Allen, or should I say poor you, first you compare yourself to him then tease him. What does that say about you? ("Cassandra..." unfortunately didn't make my list of movies I'm expecting for fall season.) I had a similar experience once though. It was with Kurosawa's "Ikiru". My friend and I got together to watch, ready to ball by the end of the film - Kleenex prepared! It began, then an hour and a half later was over. I was nonplussed. It was the shortest Kurosawa film I'd ever seem! And while it was sad, never brought a single tear to my eye. I emailed Roger Ebert immediately wonder if there were two versions of this film available. He emailed me back completely perplexed. I ran back to the DVD and realized it was a double sided disc! and we had began with the second side. The thing is, even watching it from the point we began, it was still better than most films around today.

Jim,

What a luxury! I'd love to be able to go into a movie blind, but I rarely get to. The closest I come is that I get a lot of preview passes to stuff that I get to see before the reviews come out, but often even then the t.v. trailers have given half the plot away.

As it is, I do try to keep up on the titles coming out of the big festivals, as often many of the best films never make it here and I want to make sure they're on my N'flix list. And of those that do open here, while I do see a lot (make that a whole lot), my time and budget for movies in the theater isn't unlimited so I have to choose carefully. In order to chose, I have to read up on what's out there. And unfortunately, the more you read, obviously the more you know about what a film's about. Also, since I'm the so-called movie expert amongst my friends, they tend to call me for recommendations--even of films I haven't seen. Aaargh! I like to be able to give them some insight.

Of the films you mentioned here, the ones I know most about are the ones I've read the books for (4 of them) and those that you and Roger have written about already. I'm most curious about Atonement, as it's one of the best books I've read in a long time, but I think most of it's best qualities are literary, and I'll be curious how it translates to the big screen.

Uh, Phillip...

You mean "ready to BAWL by the end of the film."

"Ready to BALL" is something COMPLETELY different.

You forgot Hou Hsiao-hsien's "The Flight of the Red Balloon." (At least I think that's playing there.)

Phillip: Glad you noticed that. It wasn't an accident. I'm also tweaking myself for even putting myself in that situation, but there were circumstances beyond my control and I just wanted to be sure I saw Todd Haynes' movie!

William: Thank you for clearing that one up. "Ikiru" sure doesn't make me feel sexy.

Liz: Yes, it's a rare luxury -- and one made possible only in special circumstances, like a festival. (Even attending advance critics' screenings usually involves some kind of pitch from a publicist when you're invited.) I just saw "Atonement" about an hour ago and will be writing about it tomorrow or Friday. I wish I had the book with me, but I think it's a really striking and ambitious adaptation. Tell me this (or send an e-mail): How did you read the ending of the book? I don't know that the 2,000 or so people at the Elgin Theater today interpreted the ending the way I do...

i just took out some movies from the library that i've not yet seen. heres what i know about em.

toni - a 1934 jean renior movie.

being two isn't easy - a kon ichikawa movie. something from a two year olds perspective

family plot - alfred hitchcocks last movie

body and soul - it's got john garfield and it's about boxing.

there are others i could list, but the point is that knowing is really the way to go.

i read atonement about 2 years ago. what aspect of the ending are you refering to?

nathan: I hope you mean NOT knowing is the way to go! It's not often possible, but it's a great way to allow yourself to really discover movies without having to worry about your expectations of what they should be (or someone else's).

I could very well have misread the 2,000 people at the public screening at the Elgin today, but I got this feeling that they thought it was a much warmer, more sentimental ending than I did. Knowing Ian McEwan's work, I thought it was fairly devastating (since when doe he have anything like a "happy" ending), but I wasn't sure most people in the audience read it that way. They seemed to believe a certain character rather than the evidence in the film itself. Again, I may have misread THEM, but it bothered me enough to ask how some other people saw it. I don't think my response (or the film's intentions) were false...

"Not knowing is the way to go"--I fully agree. I'm glad that the trailer for "Old Country For Old Men" that I saw in theaters didn't give away much, or at least didn't seem to. It bothers me when trailers give away too much from later scenes in a film--or includes the very last shot!

But even though I don't know a whole lot about NCFOM's plot, I almost wish I hadn't read your's and Roger's great praise for the film, because now I'll have very high expectations. Then again, I may not have decided to see it in theaters if it weren't for the both of you, so there we are.

At Toronto, I like to combine my choices, probably going 2/3 with "stuff I know about" and 1/3 with "total random picks." Well, I read the start of the description in the catalogue and check the country (I'll always angle more for the national cinemas I am less familiar with).

That way I feel I catch the auteur stuff I want to see (the latest Bela Tarr, the latest Guy Maddin, etc.) and then get some surprises.

The surprises are good or bad. One good one this year: "With Your Permission" by Paprika Steen. One bad surprise: A Korean film with the ambitious title "M." I walked out after 20 minutes and went to the regular part of the theater to watch Balls of Fury instead.

Haven't had time to read the rest of the blog or Jim's take on any films beyond a few of them, but so far I thought Redacted was a total stinker, and "the new Guy maddin" called "My Winnipeg" was just phenomenal.

Yes thank you Will.

I have been holding off for a few years to separate myself from the initial half viewing. I'm afraid now if I sit down to watch it, I won't be able to make it through with a straight face.

So thank you for pointing out my typo. Really.

"Not knowing is the way to go"

I dunno, I think you're all over-rating this.

Yeah, it can be nice to walk in without any preconceived notions and to just let the film take you where it's going to take you. Fair enough.

That's good for film buffs. But what about an undergrad student (or even a grad student) in a film class? Sorry, but I think my own students, as bright as they are, would be bored with, say, most of the French New Wave without first having the films placed in historical context. Newbies need guidance. Maybe they're even entitled to it.

On the other hand, I realize you're talking about PERSONAL preferences, not about educating students.

But they again, we're all students. We all have our blind spots and we all have much to learn. That never ends. Roger Ebert, for example, has admitted to not knowing much about Korean cinema (this may have been in his "Oldboy" review) while also stating that the country has a reputation for some of the most exciting, innovative cinema in the world right now.

in reading atonement i don't recall feeling warm or fuzzy. the book seemed rather harsh (though beauiful, i thought). i could see someone looking at the ending of the book and thinking about how the character was trying to atone for her misinformed decisions, but it's hard for me to think of that book as happy. i've only read one other mcewan book (the comfort of strangers) and it wasn't very uplifiting either.

I belong to my local film society that has screenings every Monday night, and each week I make it a rule to know nothing about the movie I'm seeing. I might look at the list of films when it is released at the start of the year - mostly so that if there is a particular must-see film, I can reserve that evening and ensure nothing pops up to stop me from going - but other than that, I try to go to the screenings not even knowing the name of the film, let alone what it's about. And it's great, because I can approach the films with absolutely no preconceptions or expectations, and just discover the film, good or bad, as it unfolds. I've sat down at screenings to be surprised to realise I'm watching a silent film, or a documentary.

It's rather a nice way to watch movies, especially when I find most modern movies you know what you're going to see.

(Amusing story - I went to see Knocked Up earlier this year. Immediately after the one-night stand, they show you a single cell, that divides into 2, 4, 8, and so on. And the woman sitting behind me said, quietly to herself but still audible to me, "Oh no". She seemed genuinely surprised that this movie involved a woman getting pregnant. I would love to know how she managed to not know this.)

Phil C: Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about knowing something about the context (or the director's previous work) in advance. I object to being given too many details about the particular film itself beforehand. In my college film classes, we would be told some useful (maybe anecdotal) background before the first screening -- including some things to look for in the film (use of certain leitmotifs or long takes or compositional frames within frames, for example). Then we'd watch the film. The next day we'd get the prof's lecture and discuss what we'd seen. Then the day after that we'd watch the film again.

I guess that's why so many of us film critics like to assume people will read our stuff AFTER they see the film -- and maybe just skim a few paragraphs if they're looking for advice on what to see. To me, it's the difference between reviewing and criticism.

Second to the trailers that give away major plot points or, in that rat-a-tat style, every single good joke, are the ones that seem to give something away but, as it turns out, don't--the scenes were just scrambled to appear that way. If this is intentional, and often it can't not be, it's both pointless and perverse. I've actually become confused by what I thought I knew (though didn't want to) going in. Is it possible that the editors of trailers truly don't pay attention to the context and just look for cool scenes and make their own little flick out of them? Is it naive to ask that question?

Second to the trailers that give away major plot points or, in that rat-a-tat style, every single good joke, are the ones that seem to give something away but, as it turns out, don't--the scenes were just scrambled to appear that way. If this is intentional, and often it can't not be, it's both pointless and perverse. I've actually become confused by what I thought I knew (though didn't want to) going in. Is it possible that the editors of trailers truly don't pay attention to the context and just look for cool scenes and make their own little flick out of them? Is it naive to ask that question?

Then why give a synopsis and conclude by a viewing recommendation in a review if readers have already seen the film?

In a perfect world, I would never see any trailers, and would see every film knowing nothing before the lights dim.

But the reality is that I only get a chance to go to the cinema roughly twice a month, and when I'm shelling out $9.50 for a ticket, I need to make an informed choice. While I hate that trailers are almost always created directly by the studios with little to no input by the director, I find myself seeking them out on occassion (depending on the type of film, or course - sometimes I just trust the director or someone else involved in the film whom I respect). I also hate the star rating system, but I have to admit that there are certain critics that I have come to trust, as I share a similar taste and sensibility, and while I don't want to know too much going into a film, I most certainly sneak a peak at how many stars a film has received (rottentomatoes is wonderful for this - a general consensus, and just brief snipets of each review).

I have to admit that I'm rather envious of those who get to experience a festival like the TIFF. I would LOVE to walk into a screening, knowing nothing more than the director and title. To see the new Cronenberg film, or the new Woody Allen piece, without knowing anything about them would be wonderful.

Dane Walker,

Many times trailer makers are only looking for the most impressive visuals or most "meaningful" ones so as to create their own little piece of art. That's why when one watched the trailer for "Children of Men" you see Clive Owen in a boat leaving leaving the sewers. A moment that should have been left a mystery because it's the ultimate goal of the film; to get there.

As for comedies, don't even get me started. I guess this new Richard Gere film is supposed to be a comedy, but the trailer is so self-important you wouldn't be able to tell. And is "Across the Universe" a musical? No one sings in the trailer. Or is "Lust, Caution" a film in English or not?

One of the best trailer makers was Stanley Kubrick. "How did they make Lolita into a movie" is great and the trailer for "Eyes Wide Shut" is also great. "Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing" blaring over the top of a montage of Cruise and Kidman being sexually frustrated, then the director's name. You wonder what the heck did baby do? Too bad I didn't care for the movie.

I agree with Nathan R. that I will probably continue to watch trailers even though they so often infuriate me. Part of it's the informed decision he mentions and part is just tradition. I know quite a few movies back in the day used no clips at all. Psycho, for instance, had Hitchcock talking directly to the camera about the movie (there were spoilers, anyway, of a sort). I don't know if that's way too expensive or just not what people would want but I would prefer that: No clips, just a tease. And I do want to know the director, which is often the one secret trailers don't give away these days.

Nathan R. & Dane: I have a friend who used to close his eyes, put his fingers in his ears and mumble to himself during trailers for movies he wanted to see, just so they wouldn't ruin anything for him.

I reluctantly watch trailers (though I'm inclined to do the same thing if it's something I'm really looking forward to seeing -- I don't need a sales pitch for such movies, and that's all trailers are). Phillip mentions a couple Kubrick trailers -- my favorite being the single-shot blood elevator teaser for "The Shining," which was so effective Kubrick eventually included the image in the movie (although it was not intended to be used in that way).

It's hard to avoid advertising that is so pervasive: TV, web ads, print, busses, bus stops, billboards, radio, retail tie-ins -- you honestly never know when you're going to get hit with a promotion for a movie. That was the motivation behind this post: Film festivals are often flashpoints for hype, but they can also offer you a luxury rarely found in your normal moviegoing life to avoid the hype and see movies pretty much on their own terms.

And Dane, your comment about directors is all too true. Sometimes when I'm speeding through TV ads on my TiVo (like during "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report" or "30 Rock") I'll catch a title and back up to freeze frame the credits they used to always at least flash on the screen at the end, just so I can see who the director or writer or DP is. Much of the time now -- in TV spots and theatrical trailers -- they don't even provide that info! First, I'd think it would be a union contract requirement. Second, don't those names help sell tickets to at least some segment of the moviegoing audience?

Jim,

Yes, I forgot the Shining trailer. Bliss.

And I too close my eyes, plug my ears and mumble or hum a tune. Mainly event movies and such where the theatrical experience is a necessity and the trailer experience is secondary.