Form/Content

I asked Doug some questions in response to his world animation series. I am increasingly frustrated with seeing things that are made for a certain format in an inferior format  - a film made for the theater seen on a computer monitor or television screen. I wonder sometimes if it is better to see these things through levels of windows darkly -like paintings reproduced in books - or not at all since form is content.

Doug responded:

I am a firm proponent of the very real aesthetic differences between film and video; no matter how good the quality of the latter, the texture, grain, greyscale and resolution does not compare. Also film displays via a shutter and video displays via scan lines, so the actual delivery of the image (and subliminal feel) is different.

That being said, I'm a proponent of watching movies however one can, with the implicit understanding that anything less than celluloid is inferior and if you really like the movie in question, you'll keep an eye out for a film projection of it. I go to a lot of film screenings here in Los Angeles of movies that I already own on DVD, just to see and experience them on celluloid, which is always a new--and often revelatory--experience. (Contrary to what you might expect, it's the slow, quiet, meditative films that suffer the most on small screens.)

Of course, there is a line to be drawn somewhere between quality and opportunity. Occasionally, I'll come across a DVD that I think is so sub-par that I really can't watch it in good conscience. On the other hand, I have a few ultra-rare movies on video that I know I will die before I ever get a chance to see them on film, so I slug through them, keeping in mind that I'm only seeing a rough facsimile and not an original.

You'll definitely get better resolution through a monitor rather than a standard TV. But video projectors are really coming down in prices, too, even though they can still be prohibitive. But some stores sell them with a built-in DVD players for around $800. Projectors won't increase the resolution, but they will totally amplify the atmosphere (and save space by getting the idiot box out of your living room).

I also asked about watching the subtitles rather than the English audio track.

As to subtitles, I always prefer subtitles because it preserves the original voices and nuances of the film in question. I myself don't feel like subtitles are a distraction, but I've watched well over a thousand subtitled films through the years, and I think my brain has adapted to the process pretty fluidly. Sometimes, I honestly can't recall if a film was subtitled or not. No doubt it's a learned skill.

But as I mention on the blog, I do appreciate good dubs for little kids who can't read or can't read fast enough. I do think kids should be exposed to subtitles early on, though, and hopefully accept them as a natural aesthetic. I still have fond memories of showing my four year old niece "Hedgehog in the Fog" and reading aloud the subtitles to her like a storybook. She loved it. My brother and his wife read the silent intertitles of "Prince Achmed" to their kids, and had a grand time. Every now and then, my niece stills asks me, "Uncle Doug, remember "Hedgehog in Fog"? She never says, "What was that weird movie you showed me with subtitles?"

Doug writes about film in our magazine and at his blog, Film Journey.