Films The Way They Were Meant to be Seen

Photo via IWatchStuff.com

At no point will I deny that IMAX 3D is the pinnacle of modern cinematic experiences. I also won't argue against, ignoring money and travel difficulties, the belief that IMAX 3D should be the preferred way you watch a film when available. Yet, I find myself taking issue with a recent phenomenon among 'catchphrases' used by reviewers and directors for describing the way in which someone watches a movie. That being, because said someone saw it in "IMAX 3D," they saw it the way it was 'meant to be seen.'

Implicit in this statement is that anyone who, for whatever reason, doesn't watch the movie in this format, hasn't seen the movie correctly. They've seen a bastardization of the film. A lesser version, if you will. They're opinion is undermined by the fact that they either couldn't afford, or merely didn't have the opportunity, to see the film in its 'proper' format. However, I often notice this only comes up when people are trying to discuss films with mediocre stories but amazing visuals.

You see, no matter how amazing a film might be to watch in such conditions, we all know that truly great films can be watched in any format. A film whose quality can only be attained in a strict, optimum, environment is inaccessible, and distanced from mainstream audiences. According to NATO (National Association of Theater Owners) there are 5,942 cinema 'cites' (indoor + drive in) in the USA as of 2009. There are roughly 400 IMAX theaters in the world (couldn't find exact US statistics but I'm guessing it's around the 300 range).

What I truly and honestly dislike is that somehow not seeing a movie in a format which doesn't quite manage 10% of US cinemas devalues my opinion. That goes with the fact that opinions are not static things. They fluctuate and flow as films traverse the various stages of distribution, and over longer periods as we grow and change as human beings. Pointing to a film's optimum viewing as being only appreciable during one tiny fraction of one's life is asinine. A movie can have an ideal viewing environment, but there should never be a concrete way it's 'meant' to be seen. If a film can't prosper in all environments, then irregardless of how good it is in one, there's never going to be widespread love for it.

Now, I don't want you to misunderstand me, and think I'm saying directors shouldn't use the best technology available to them. I think they should. Pushing the boundaries of technology only helps further cinematic techniques. Yet, if they're going to do so, they must recognize the vast majority of people may not be able to see the film exactly how they want. At least until that manner becomes readily available to everyone. Until then, that's where little things like cohesive plots and interesting characters come into play... but that's another debate entirely.