Theaters give movies more impact

Kirk Baird

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 | 2:27 a.m.

Ever try watching a concert in a club or arena by yourself?

Or see a comedian perform when you're the only one in the audience?

How about a play for an audience of one?

So why is it, then, that movies are acceptable to watch at home?

Since the advent of the VCR and home-movie rentals, more and more of the theater-going public are shying away from the cineplex and cloistering themselves in front of their TVs like hermits to watch the latest Hollywood releases.

Missed the movie in the theater? Just wait for it to come to DVD.

After all, why fight the crowds? Why deal with noisy interruptions? Why pay high ticket prices?

Why, indeed.

Head-to-head

The home-theater business took off in the '90s, mainly because of the introduction of the DVD, which offers a much sharper, more filmlike quality than videotape.

Notice I said "filmlike."

That's because even the highest quality DVD isn't as sharp as 35 mm film, which has, roughly, two to three times the resolution of its digital counterpart.

This means the bigger the screen, the bigger the gap between DVD and film.

Of course, DVD owners (myself included) don't have to worry about that since even the biggest high-definition plasma screen in the world is only 80-inches wide -- or about 23 feet smaller than the average movie screen.

When comparing surround-sound capabilities, perhaps in the best of circumstances, home theater might have a slight edge.

The trouble is, to have a system capable of such a feat costs several thousand dollars in the initial purchase, not counting replacements because of wear and tear or costly upgrades.

To be honest, I've never encountered a home theater with enough powerful speakers and subwoofers to fully replicate the butt-rumbling growl of the T-rex in the first "Jurassic Park." And that includes an incredible home theater with $50,000 in audio gear.

Suppose, however, money isn't an object and you're able to purchase an elaborate home-theater setup, with a state-of-the-art, high-definition plasma TV mounted on a wall; a $50,000-plus sound system and comfy recliner theater-style chairs.

Everything is there ...

Everything but the fun and sense of community.

Years ago I interviewed the theater director of a small playhouse. He said movies had replaced the theater as the definitive communal experience for most of society.

"People go to movies not only to watch the movies, but to be a part of something larger ... a shared experience," I remember him saying.

Humans are social creatures. And when you put them in the same room, watching the same film, something wonderful happens: bonding.

For approximately two hours, everyone in that theater is bound to the connective force of whatever is onscreen.

Depending on the movie, the audience of complete strangers will laugh together. They will cry together. They will grit their teeth together. They may even cover their faces in terror together.

For me, one of the best moments in going to movie theaters is walking out of a packed auditorium after seeing a great film. There's an almost rapturous feeling.

It's a collective joy -- a high, really -- in which nearly everyone in the theater is a part.

But reduce the audience to one or two -- as is most often the case when watching movies at home -- and the bonding between strangers over a piece of celluloid is gone.

After all, film is art, and art is meant to be shared.

Think back to when you saw "Schindler's List" at the theater. Then watch it it at home. Tell me you have the same gut-aching reaction, of a sorrow so deep, you somehow feel hollowed out.

That's because watching a film at home on a much smaller screen and without an audience, robs it of a psychological connection and, consequently, stunts much of its visceral impact.

After all, why do networks insert laugh tracks in the sitcoms? It's because when watching at home -- especially by yourself -- there's a far less urgency to laugh, much less show other emotions.

To my knowledge, there's never been a laugh track inserted into a film.

Convenience

Of course, the argument for watching movies at home invariably revolves around distractions.

At home, you don't have to put up with cell phones going off in the middle of the film, or noisy neighbors talking over the dialogue. And you can pause the movie whenever you need a break, unlike at a theater.

Sure.

But how many times does the phone ring at home during a movie? I doubt anyone consistently turns off his or her home and cell phone when watching movies at home. They may choose not to answer the call, but the interruption is every bit as annoying as in a theater -- if not worse.

Also at home there's always the chance of children interrupting a movie, if you have children, or even a neighbor or friend knocking at the door asking to borrow something.

Plus, there's a greater propensity to talk during a movie when watching it at home. It's all part of the "freedom to do what I want because it's my home" mentality.

As for bathroom breaks, I make sure to go before the movie starts, which is usually sufficient for me to make it through a two-hour film or longer.

And even when I'm at home, I try never to use the pause button, since it disrupts the continuity of the film and takes away from the overall mood.

Ultimately, it's mainly about convenience when choosing to watch a movie at home instead of a theater. But given the choice, would you choose McDonald's over a nice restaurant dinner simply because it was easier?

Clearly one option is better than the other, and those who choose for the sake of convenience miss out accordingly, such as movie-theater popcorn.

Yeah, there are all sorts of microwavable popcorn varieties at the grocery store. And sure, the store-bought variety is cheaper than even the smallest bag at the cinema. But nothing -- and I mean nothing -- compares to the kernel goodness of movie-theater 'corn.

That alone is worth the trip to the cinemaplex.

I'll acknowledge that watching movies at home has its place. It's cheaper. And the way DVDs are stacked with extras these days, you can almost take a scholarly approach to movies as you listen to the director, writer(s) and actors explain the nuances of every frame.

Just keep in mind that what they're explaining was meant for the big screen.

And in this case, bigger is definitely better.