The Importance of the Cinematic Experience

Tackling this for my first post may seem foolhardy, as it is perhaps not even answerable, but the reason for this is simple; the medium is in decline and I feel it may be useful to outline some of the reasons why the cinematic experience isn't just "the old way" people watched films.

When it's possible to watch almost anything from the comfort of your own home, or even on your phone whilst waiting for a train, why is the cinematic experience so important? Put simply - without it, films would not exist in the way they do now.

Of course, any legal way you view a film is valid, and there is no doubting it's simple, convenient, and often cheaper; just to pick a streaming service and click play. But that removes several rewarding aspects of the experience of watching a film. Firstly, films are still made primarily to be seen on the big screen, with crisp sound and stunning visuals that just won't look the same on a television, laptop, or phone screen, and in whatever ratio they intended. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, is the community aspect. Watching with other people, the excitement building around you as you take your seat and wait for that squeaky curtain noise (they may not exist everywhere, but that noise is amazing) , the 'thumbs up/thumbs down' as you watch the trailers, and then the film begins. But the journey began as soon as you walked into the cinema, as soon as you spoke to the ticket staff, the ushers, and purchased any snacks you wanted, preferably ones that can be consumed quietly. The cinema is the journey, the film is only a part of it. There is nothing like watching a film as it was always intended, on a big screen in a crowd of excited patrons waiting to be transported for a few hours. No distractions (hopefully), no pausing when someone needs to leave for a second that turns into 10 minutes, just you and the screen.

Take recent Netflix success The Power of the Dog. Arguably a much wider audience has the opportunity to see it on the platform, and that is brilliant. Watching it, however, you could be sat wondering how the western vistas and New Zealand (doubling for 1920s Montana) landscape would look on a cinema screen, with Johnny Greenwood's heavy, brooding orchestral score piercing through the speakers. I can't help but feel slightly saddened that I won't get to see it this way. Netflix have now, thankfully, begun releasing some of their tentpole films in cinemas before adding them to the service weeks later. Sometimes though, they release day-and-date, meaning a simultaneous release in the cinema and on digital platforms either to rent or for "free" provided you have the service. This is good, especially for those with families wanting to watch, making a cinema trip a expensive outing. As such, many people will understandably just wait until they can watch it at home for free, since the time they have to wait between theatrical and home release is minimal.

There are several cases of directors making films on phones (looking at you, Steven Soderberg) which, by design, means it is perhaps not necessary to watch them at the cinema, but, by and large, directors do not intend for their IMAX/film stock/digitally shot film to be viewed solely on the small screen. Many do not intentionally shoot for streaming distribution either. Films such as Cory Finley's 2020 sophomore effort Bad Education, starring Hugh Jackman, or Alan Ball's Uncle Frank were picked up by streaming services HBO and Amazon Prime respectively prior to film festival showings. In these cases, they became ineligible for the Oscars and BAFTA film awards because they were deemed TV films, having not had cinematic releases. Occasionally, this proves successful and does not hurt the film's impact, but the directors and stars of those mentioned have expressed their disappointment at missing out on theatrical distribution, due to streaming services not always offering a theatrical release window. And of course, it brings up the argument about what constitutes a film. Why is a made-for-tv film not a film in an awards sense? Why is a film made for cinematic release not a film when picked up, after the fact, by a streaming service? Does this make a mockery of the industry or does it just add another way for audiences to view a film? I'm not sure I have the answers, I'm not sure anyone does, but I do think it's worth noting. Personally, I think if a film was made with the intention of theatrical distribution, whether it gets it or not, it should be eligible for film awards. It's unfair to those involved to deny them this chance. This is perhaps more evident in the current climate, with awards ceremonies moving, eligibility windows and criteria shifting, to accommodate some streaming only films that fit whatever criteria they've devised. My argument would be, why is this change only temporary? Why are films submitted for the 2021 Oscars, but unreleased until 2022, now ineligible for 2022? There needs to be, in my view, a more universal rule for all awards bodies.

The DGA - Director's Guild of America - for example, made many high profile, awards-tipped films (including Jane Campion's The Power of the Dog, and Denis Villeneuve's Dune) ineligible due to reverting back to pre-pandemic release schedule rules. It's this disparity that makes a mockery of the industry, and of awards in general, because if you have to be a statistician and film nerd to know why certain films did or did not get nominated for or win awards, then they aren't really showcasing the best films; they are showcasing the films that fit their own criteria, films that they may not have even seen, because the campaign and noise surrounding them is louder than that of smaller films.

Awards ceremonies are also not important beyond getting a film a wider audience due to whatever value people personally put on a film being an award winner. For me, it's only use is for those smaller films, the indie and international directors, gaining recognition and perhaps finding funding for future projects easier.

This diversion into awards talk was simply to point out that, whilst awards shows may be fun to watch, they aren't actually a marker of the absolute best films ever made, though sometimes this can intersect, and should not be taken as the last word on film by anyone who's concern is only to see a good film at the cinema. Cinemas, whether independently run or operated by a big chain company, all survive because we go to them. That may seem obvious, but if films are to remain in the universally recognisable format they have been since the early 1900s, then it is vital that we keep on making the trip once in a while.

Perhaps this is just me, a bona fide film nerd, waxing lyrical about something most people do not care about and doesn't matter. And in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't, but I imagine if you've arrived at this site you at least feel some kinship with the film industry and might therefore at least understand where I am coming from. Despite what I just wrote, cinema is important. Entertainment is important. Whether to reflect the world we live in, the people around us, or to act as escapism, a tool for us to use to transport us wherever we want to go, it is for some vital for their mental wellbeing and, for others, their livelihoods.

For me, I think it is both, and I hope you will indulge me in that and find something worthy in my posts. Whether you want to learn more about film, hear my opinions on all things cinema, or just want something to read to pass the time, I hope my website is as beneficial to you as it is to me.