- Illustration by Kalah Allen.
Hey, I wonder what Ebert’s up to?
Oh. He’s reading I, Anonymous, apparently.
That’s my favorite I, Anonymous in a long time, ’cause it echoes a lot of complaints I hear (and have) about various theaters in town. I’ve had it happen to me, too—you go to all the bother of putting on pants and leaving the house and you pay to see a film expecting to see, you know, film, but instead the theater just shows a DVD or a sub-par digital projection, and it fucking sucks. (Great digital theaters like the Roseway that have crystal-clear digital projection don’t count, here—I’m talking about artifact-y, blurry, outdated picture quality that looks like it’s being pulled off a DVD, a Blu-ray, or a torrent.) Lamely, few local theaters are exempt from this.
Ebert’s omnipotent and powerful gaze aside, this is as good of an opportunity as any for me to ask you, dear Blogtown denizens, what you think of an idea I’ve been kicking around for the past month or so:
In my capacity as Mercury Film Section Overlord, I’ve been considering altering the way we list movie times, both in the paper and online. The idea would be to let people know when films playing in movie theaters would be projected in crappy digital quality. For the most part, listings would look the same as they do now, and in general, no distinction would be made between standard film projection and the sort of high-quality digital you’d find at the Roseway or Cinetopia—but, whenever possible, we’d try to note when theaters are planning on showing films in any lesser quality.
Though our showtimes would remain as consistently accurate as they always are, this new aspect of movie listings might not be 100 percent foolproof—it’d be up to theater owners to inform us when they’re showing stuff in lesser quality, and for obvious reasons, some of them might not want that information public. But it’d be a start, at least, to letting Portlanders know what theaters and films they can patronize (and when they can be assured they’ll get quality projection like they wouldn’t be able to see at home), and what theaters and films they should avoid (and instead keep their pants on, save their money, and kick it with Netflix, their laptop, and/or their HDTV).
Anyway: Would this info be valuable to you? Would you use it? Vote below, Blogtown readers and Portland cinephiles! And if you’ve got anything else to add, feel free to weigh in in the comments.
SHOULD THE MERCURY ALTER ITS FILM LISTINGS TO WARN PEOPLE AWAY FROM MOVIE THEATERS WITH SUB-PAR DIGITAL PROJECTION?
The poll speaks for itself. Portland has a lot of film geeks.
Yes, please do tell. It’s irritating to sit down and see a glitchy, sub-par picture. I’m right along with The Eeb on this one.
Don’t bother to tattle on small, non-theater or impromptu projection events, though.
Why bust their chops for not hauling a projector and an expensive print around?
Do you know what also sucked balls? Seeing the Portland Mercury presents Machotaildrop, at Clinton St Theatre, and having the projector overheat 5 times (!!!) during the screening. No fun! That place is a glitchy sweatlodge.
And it was a DVD…
This article neglects the range of motivations behind PDX theater goers. Do you really think digital projection matters to folks who want to see a movie because:
– They can drink a beer with their movie.
– They can watch a movie for less than 3 bucks.
– They can see a movie w/o housemates interrupting.
– They can go on a cheap date.
– They can enjoy a movie away from the couch.
I value ACTUAL film as much as the next film buff, but is it worth taking away the livelihood of local theaters (via lost customers) by posting this information. Have you consulted the theater owners in question to hash-out the issue?
I believe many readers, not knowing the difference between a film and digital projection will default to whatever is favored in print. What is the real value of presenting this information for the Mercury, Mercury readers, and the Portland theater community?
@ROM: Man, that really sucks. Apologies. It’s no excuse, but there was a bit of a miscommunication with that one–the Machotaildrop screening was arranged and put on without the involvement of the Mercury’s film department. If the paper sponsors more screenings in the future, rest assured that we’ll go out of our way to present films with quality projection (and with far fewer technical mishaps). And if we ever do show anything that’ll be presented in sub-par quality, we’ll be sure to alert readers ahead of time.
Speaking from personal experience – yes, the fact it’s a film print matters to folks. Lots of folks. Audience members can tell, and there is a level of disengagement. They feel like their experience has been devalued. Most people don’t have a huge screen and a film projector. Going out means getting an experience you can’t get at home. Part of that experience is seeing a movie in a way you can’t at home.
Almost everyone who goes to the movies has a DVD player, and a netflix account, or a redbox nearby. There’s something in a LARGE percentage of the audience’s mind that immediately starts making the calculations once they realize part of what they paid for is easily replicated at their house, on their own. If the DVD is something they could do, by themselves, then what about this beer? This slice of pizza? How much of this experience am I just overpaying for? How much am I paying to SETTLE?
That’s the train of thought that people can, and often DO go on once they recognize that they’re not watching a Film print or a 4k digital projection.
And considering a large amount of the beer theaters in town make it a point to only secure film prints, and their prices rarely go beyond the 3-5 dollar range, it’s definitely advantageous for the customer reading to know what it is they’re purchasing a ticket to, especially if the reason for their getting out of the house is that experience that they can’t just get at home.
And besides, there’s nothing wrong with knowing as much as you can. If, as papaphreaky posited, the audience doesn’t care enough – then there shouldn’t be any problem in putting that information up there. The lack of importance re: the projection method should bear out in the steady ticket sales. And the people who do care will know and either avoid, or weigh whether the lesser quality presentation matters that much.
But to me, how the movie is projected is just as important as the running time, the sound processing being used, and the rating of the content. There’s really no reason it shouldn’t be printed if the other 3 elements are.
@papaphreaky: Yeah, I do think decent projection matters to most moviegoers, regardless of if they’re seeing a movie for the reasons you listed above. Personally, being surprised by a DVD when I’m expecting a print–even if I’ve only paid $3, am drunk, and on a cheap date–leaves a negative impression of the theater. If I knew in advance a DVD was showing, that’s not to say I wouldn’t go anyway–but I would weigh my options more carefully, and I wouldn’t end up feeling surprised and pissed off at the theater.
And yeah, I think many readers DO know the difference between film and a crummy digital projection. Portland’s a film-savvy town. Am I sure that it’s a dealbreaker for a majority of our readers? Nope–but finding that out is part of the reason I wrote this post and posted this poll.
Lastly, no, we haven’t spoken to theater owners about the issue yet. First, I wanted to get a gauge on how our readers felt about it–to see whether it was a significant enough issue with all of you for me to address with them. And ultimately, it’s not our job to police theaters, but rather to let the public know what they can expect when they patronize them.
YESSSSS. And to add to what fatboy said, the fact is, a DVD at your house will look BETTER on your TV, unless your TV fills an entire wall, than it does projected at a resolution never meant for the big screen…I hated walking out of Metropolis the other night, but I’d rather wait til the lines in the image don’t look like a tiny staircase…as to addressing theater owners, I have done it myself and no one is too interested in agreeing to post notices on their websites…the Clinton said it would try but it never has. That was the most anyone agreed to. NWFC won’t do it, although they did finally for PIFF screenings online, for which I was very grateful.
“I value ACTUAL film as much as the next film buff, but is it worth taking away the livelihood of local theaters (via lost customers) by posting this information.”
Yes. Just as much as if a Vegan food place was discovered to be in fact using real animal products instead of the fake soy/tofu stuff they advertise (to use a very Portland example). It’s dishonest. Especially if they end up charging the same price as when they use 35mm (at least the FifthAvenue waived the admission the last I went there; I don’t ever recall the NW Film Center doing the same.)
To clarify my hasty grammar: PIFF finally made online notices of digital screenings–nothing was screened on the web…
Getting ahead of ourselves here : I think a note at the end of a review saying (DVD) or (Digital) would be simple, unobtrusive, and effective for those who care…Granted, it would require honest disclosure, but I think over time theaters might feel pressure to be upfront if people question why they won’t disclose digital projection to whomever makes the listings…
@fatboy roberts, @erik henriksen:
Before labels, I believe addressing the range of projection types available to movie watchers in Portland would be valuable to readers. Such an article might address the current ecology of projection technology, which now allows viewers to experience movies away from familiar venues (like Regal, Cinemark) and into non-traditional atmospheres: McMenamins theater pubs, local parks, some cafes, and museums.
Because the range of theater environments has evolved that certain qualities of projection may be irrelevant. Viewing Nightmare on Elm Street at an Alberta St. Pub on Thursday night while I drink a beer, I am willing to compromise quality in my mind for the novelty of the situation. If the Avalon theater were to project digital video for children’s movies I don’t believe I would care because I consider that venue somewhat of a babysitter. When I see second runs at the Laurehurst I enjoy viewing film, it’s a classic theater and I believe it’s history demands some attention to it’s film roots.
Larger projection screens do not accommodate low-quality digital projections. Some low-quality films look AND sound awful with outdated projection equipment. The balancing factors go on-and-on. If the Mercury must distinguish between digital vs. film projection in theaters, I believe it must be qualified with an analysis that covers some of the issues mentioned above.
My main point here, education first – then labels. Otherwise the label is simply pretentious and neglects the ecology of modern cinema.
@paraphreaky–That proposed article is a reasonable idea. I would take issue with something, though: what you consider a place where one can “expect” 35mm unless told otherwise. Believe it or not, I have seen 35mm screened in parks. The fact that Bagdad (McMenamins) shows 35mm is what makes it such a rude surprise when they don’t. (Well, until you’ve been burned enough times.) Museums? Are you serious? Maybe you mean installation art, but the theater at NWFC is more than capable of showing 35mm, and like most places, prefers to (even if they don’t like to warn you when plan B arises). Pub? Ok, I’m with you there. There I expect a DVD. That’s about it, though. These days, I imagine no one shows real movies in parks, but digital didn’t allow them to start showing movies–it allowed them to stop showing celluloid. And that’s not just about parks, my friend. Want to see the new art/ foreign film that is getting such buzz everywhere? Sorry, ten years ago it might have come to the Hollywood. Now it’s showing in digital at the Living Room. So it won’t be playing for real in Portland unless it’s 20 years from now as a repretory film at the museum–if they aren’t showing the DVD, that is. Wanna see the Complete Metropolis in 35mm? Not only can you not in Portland, you can’t anywhere. The distributors did not make a 35mm print. Wasn’t worth it financially. Would they have if digital projection was not an option? Perhaps not. But if you think that lousy digital projection isn’t keeping real film prints that DO exist out of theaters, you are dead wrong. That is already happening (films that showed in prints one day at PIFF came back as digital for their normal run, for instance), and it will only get worse. This is the real issue at the heart of this, even more serious than the aggravating duplicity and inconvenience of lowgrade digital and DVD screenings. If we decide not to worry about what theaters show, eventually 35mm will be a pleasant surprise, not an expectation. Transparency in listings, allowing people to choose if they are okay with real film getting nosed out for a sloppy alternative, may be one of the few ways we have of staunching the bleeding…
New 35MM film print of Aguirre The Wraith of God at The Clinton St. Theater this week.
I think that we can all thank Andy Davis for this thread. He sent the following Email all over town including all the theater, and local papers and TV Stations
Dear Tom (and, further down, others),
I have just come back from wasting an hour
and 30 minutes of gas to discover that you have decided once again to show a DVD
or whatever that was instead of a film print without informing the paying
public. Obviously, it’s your establishment, and you can do what you like
with it. But if you say Cher is performing at your venue, don’t hire an
impersonator, no matter how thin a line between Cher and her impersonators may
currently exist. If you say you are showing the restored Metropolis, and you
(currently) still have the reputation of a proper film theater, it is a
reasonable expectation that a film, and not a video copy (yes, I only got
up and left the theater once it was obvious from the piss-poor visual
presentation that I had been suckered), will be shown. I know if a film is
advertised as “playing” in a bar somewhere it will not be a film print. They
don’t need to tell me. I expect more from a proper theater with a reputation.
(And yes, proper theaters now often show immaculate copies of films off a hard
drive–but whatever the merits or drawbacks of that, that is clearly another
issue, since this was nothing like that level of quality). I had heard from
others, as your reputation slips away, however minutely to you, that Cinema
21 has done this previously, such as with Hausu (I had caught the first,
authentic run, fortunately) and…if it’s true…The Third Man. I had actually
assumed the person who said you showed the latter as a DVD must have been
mistaken. Showing an (unadvertised) DVD of The Third Man, of all things
(weeks after a print had played elsewhere in town, no less), seemed too
gross an offense to credit you with, so I wasn’t sure whether to believe it.
After tonight, obviously, I do.
If you have read this far you have my
profuse thanks for your time, even though I may not have wasted quite as much of
yours as you have mine. The reason I say this is: I know you do not care. I have
spoken about this with you in person, and not only did you not not care then,
you bragged about how people can’t tell the difference (the film from your
anecdote was, I believe, Duck Soup). It is also clear that your cheerful
indifference to what you serve the movie-going public has trickled down to at
least some of your staff. When I politely (I swear) expressed my disappointment
at the management’s decision to show a video projection tonight, the woman I
spoke to informed me she was sorry I felt that way. This is a polite(ly
rude) way of saying that the problem is with me. I’m not getting my
money back because I feel a certain way, I’m getting it back because you were
showing an unadvertised DVD instead of an actual film. But you know what?
She’s right. The problem is with me because I rest in the minority. I doubt you
get many walkouts. So how can what you are doing possibly be wrong? I know from
hearing from others that most who come and realize they will not be
seeing a film (yes, Tom, just because you will never suffer a
deficit of morons who cannot tell the difference doesn’t mean the rest of
us can’t) do one of two things: 1) decide they don’t care, or 2) slump down
in their seats and bear it unhappily, making a mental note that the theater
cannot be trusted. You do not hear from those people. I myself have had to
resort to option 2 rather than spoil the time of the people I came
with. Even if you don’t care about these people so long as their money
stays in your cash drawer, they do exist. The problem is with them too,
though–I know, I know. I’m sure it’s a solid business decision to
hire fake Cher, that she is cheaper and easier than the real one, and if people
aren’t boycotting the joint as a result, you made a smart move.
Some theaters don’t feel that way, and
stick to film no matter what falls through or what they can get away with.
Regrettably, they are starting to seem like a minority as well, as you do of
course have company. (I wish there were some sort of movie analogy for a group
of principled rebels fighting for what’s right no matter the cost while a bigger
coalition works to destroy their cherished way of life, but none comes to mind.)
I think I will copy both the offenders and the principled few on this email.
Everyone will know which they are, obviously. For those steadfast film-only
theaters, consider this a thanks. As to the offenders, rest assured, I have
heard grumbling from others or personally witnessed people walking away at each
and every one of your theaters. None of you are not known as a
disappointing, suspect joint among that small group in option 2. I suspect (or
in some cases know) that none of you care, particularly, and I know from asking
most of you that you feel no need to warn the public on your website what you
are showing, which is literally all I am asking (is that honestly asking a lot?
To lose a few dollars gotten from people who would have felt fleeced by you? Is
profitting off of people who begrudge you for it really part of your business
plan?). I know I can’t turn back the tide of indifference as to what connotes a
film screening in Portland currently. I just wanted you to hear one last little
voice crying out as the film culture you are helping to kill crumbles down
around us. There, it’s over now. Go back to what you were doing. Viva
DVD.
Andy Davis
997 words, if you were wondering.
Er, yes, you will get the taser. From me. I’m not sure what the need for that was, unless it’s to paint me as a raging asshole (painted!), but since this has been outed, allow me to point out a few things. I stand corrected in that Metropolis was not a DVD but a less-than-stellar digital projection, and was only available to Tom as a digital screening (as I already mention in another post here, but it’s only fair to repeat the correction). Whether it was a worthy idea to accept the film in this event, and whether he should have mentioned it on the website, are two other issues.
Just wanted to duck in and say thanks for your comments, everybody. Keep ’em coming.
We definitely have some specifics to figure out as we consider whether to change our listings process, and if so, how to go about it. But as we start to figure that out, the more input we have, the better–especially when said input is coming from those who go to movies in Portland and who support Portland’s film scene.
And, uh, just to be clear, I didn’t mean that I myself had been outed…just the letter. I signed my name to the email below. I only wrote a piece for I Anonymous for lack of another outlet, not to hide in anonymity.
And in New Zealand, they are way ahead of us:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/movies/news/arti…
Here is a voice with a somewhat different perspective. Dan from the Grindhouse Festival, doing his darndest to keep celluloid alive, weighs in with an understanding of some of the difficulties in the film vs digital debate (reprinted with his permission):
“I love film more than anybody, but I also understand the reality of what theater owners have to do to survive. For my screening of Gone With The Pope tomorrow, I have to get 100 people in the door just to break even. That’s insane. Someone like Seth [at the Clinton] can’t afford to do that on a regular basis, or he’d lose his business. I also know what a HUGE pain in the ass film can be. Wrestling around with a ratty ass print at 4 am the night before a screening, trying to figure out how to bypass a multitude of problems isn’t fun. You have to learn to hate film as much as you love it before you can truly appreciate it.
I do think everyone should be honest about it though. I would be pissed to pay money for a repertory film that ended up being a dvd. I also think it’s important (as Erik has done with his post) to note the difference between a “digital” dvd screening, and a DCI compliant digital screening like what the Roseway does. The Roseway’s projection is incredible. Also worth noting that for modern independent movies, cutting a blue ray is a much more realistic option for distribution than striking a 35mm print.”
I will second that the Roseway’s digital offerings are indeed incredible–even though I would rather see celluloid, I would never be sorry to see a film there (and they tell you on the website that it’s digital to boot). Also, “Gone with the Pope” is a perfect example of a film that would typically be shown digitally rather than go to the bother for just one night, so kudos to Dan and the distributor for going to the bother.