Shyamalan Versus DVD
What’s really sad about this is that there are one or two respected filmmakers out there supporting this half-cocked idea. Steven Soderbergh in particular. So far, everyone else has been silentâÂ?¦ at least until last week when finally, someone of note spoke out against this shortsighted idea. M. Night Shyamalan has come out against it, and he has this to say about it, “It’s heartless and soulless and disrespectful. And of course, cable companies are behind it, and internet companies. They need their product. But they have to wait their turn. Wait for the thing to finish its life.”…”If you inspire audiences, cinemas will be packed.” And the man is right. This isn’t about what’s best for the art form, or what will help bring more movies to more people or whatever malarkey is inevitably going to be used to sell it, it’s about green corporate greed.
The thing is, there’s a difference between watching a movie on DVD and in theaters. Don’t talk to me about how kickass your home theater setup is, that’s not what I’m talking about here. Seeing a movie in the cinema is an experience, and that experience is also a part of the film itself. Now in some cases this is irrelevant. Crappy, low budget Indies play just as well on your television as they do on a theater screen. But a movie like King Kong needs the heart and soul of a movie theater. It needs the big screen, it needs to be a shared experience. Shoving a movie like that, which was made and intended to be seen on a big screen out on DVD is just flat out wrong headed.
Look, there’s a reason we have a dividing line between movies and television. They are different! A simultaneous release on DVD and in theaters blurs that line. Why not simultaneously release CSI on television and in theaters while you’re at it? Because it wouldn’t work. It’s a television show and it doesn’t belong anywhere but on the small screen in your house. Putting movies right onto your TV means the artform loses something by doing that, and eventually it’s going to affect the quality of the product you’re getting. It becomes less about creating a big, powerful, art event, and more about how many DVD units can we ship by Thursday.
“Movies are the definitive art form of our lives,” continues Shyamalan, “We have been seduced by the DVD and what will sell the DVD. It has been the worst year in cinema for quality.” It almost sounds like he’s blaming the over emphasis on DVD sales as part of the reason for this year’s decline in quality. Is he right? Is this a symptom of the blurring of the line between cinema and television? Are movies becoming more like low-quality TV movies of the week than cinematic adventures? For the most part, television folks, isn’t art. It’s product. Sometimes it’s a good product, but it’s still a product. Movies have managed to separate themselves as an artform, but as that line between TV and Movies blurs further, I think we’re going to lose that.
Like it or not, simultaneous release for DVD and theatricals is happening. So far though, it’s only for low budget projects that probably wouldn’t have gotten much notice anyway. For films like that, maybe it’s a viable alternative. But for the movies of a filmmaker like Shyamalan, we can’t allow it. “Great movies connect everybody. That’s when humanity grows. What is art? Conveying that we are not alone,” says Night. It’s great that he’s talking… but when are other filmmakers going to speak out?
