One Side Note Before I Get Started
Those 717 movies I mentioned that are on my list?? Barring only 11 of those movies, every single one was seen in an actual movie theater, not on a television. I've certainly watched more than a few movies on TV over the last 13 years, but I don't count them.
There are many valid arguments for watching movies on a television, but given that
[a] Movies were designed to be projected on a large screen in a dark room with good sound.
[b] Most of the times I've watched movies on a television, there's been a non-stop snarkfest going on among the audience. That's not a criticism of anyone as I frequently join in the snarkfest, but it definitely detracts from watching the film
[c] I live in a city with multiple world-class art film options (The Cinematheque, the Cedar Lee, the Cleveland International Film Festival) plus several solid second tier options (CWRUFilm, the Playhouse Square summer movies) it turns out that most of the important movies of the past and present make an appearance on a big screen here at some point. Why not see them the way they were intended to be seen?
I know many people who mildly disagree with me on this issue, and that's fine. They can count their movies their way, and I'll count mine my way.
So what about those 11? In the fall of 2000 I was fortunate enough to take ENGL 368C, which was taught by Louis Giannetti, author of the definitive intro to film textbook used in American universities, Understanding Movies. Movies for that class were screened in a room somewhere under KSL Library. It wasn't a movie theater, but it had a very large screen (far bigger than any TV any of my friends owned then or now) and had good sound, and perhaps more importantly all of the films in that class came out between 1930 to 1950 or so. So I've made an exception and listed those 11 on my list, even though it wasn't really a movie theater.
Don't like that answer? In that case, I refer you to Walt Whitman:
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.
Reviews coming this week.
There are many valid arguments for watching movies on a television, but given that
[a] Movies were designed to be projected on a large screen in a dark room with good sound.
[b] Most of the times I've watched movies on a television, there's been a non-stop snarkfest going on among the audience. That's not a criticism of anyone as I frequently join in the snarkfest, but it definitely detracts from watching the film
[c] I live in a city with multiple world-class art film options (The Cinematheque, the Cedar Lee, the Cleveland International Film Festival) plus several solid second tier options (CWRUFilm, the Playhouse Square summer movies) it turns out that most of the important movies of the past and present make an appearance on a big screen here at some point. Why not see them the way they were intended to be seen?
I know many people who mildly disagree with me on this issue, and that's fine. They can count their movies their way, and I'll count mine my way.
So what about those 11? In the fall of 2000 I was fortunate enough to take ENGL 368C, which was taught by Louis Giannetti, author of the definitive intro to film textbook used in American universities, Understanding Movies. Movies for that class were screened in a room somewhere under KSL Library. It wasn't a movie theater, but it had a very large screen (far bigger than any TV any of my friends owned then or now) and had good sound, and perhaps more importantly all of the films in that class came out between 1930 to 1950 or so. So I've made an exception and listed those 11 on my list, even though it wasn't really a movie theater.
Don't like that answer? In that case, I refer you to Walt Whitman:
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.
Reviews coming this week.