The thing is, watching a movie in a cold, uncomfortable, smelly theatre with noisy jackasses kicking the back of your seat and a basketball team in front of you while you have to pee badly but you can't pause the movie isn't any fun either.

But I get what Lynch is passionately saying.

The thing is, where does one draw the line? I think only the dimmest witted among us would completely disagree with Lynch and say that watching a movie on an iPhone is the best way to do it. But what about watching a movie in a home theatre with surround sound (not that I've ever experienced anything like this), is this better or worse than a theatre with much larger screen? Is it better because you don't have tards in the audience, just your close friends who are civilized with washed bodies and quiet chewing habits? Or worse because it's not purist, i.e., a bona fide theatre? What about watching it at home on a good-size flatscreen tv? A small flatscreen tv (like mine?)? An old fashioned CRT display tv like my parents'? A small tv like the one I used to have that is smaller than my desktop computer monitor? What about watching it on a laptop? See the shades of grey? At what point does one say, "your movie viewing experience is not legitimate." For the record, I watched both seasons of Twin Peaks and reruns of it recorded off of the television on video tape for several years on a 13 inch CRT tv, and no one could've loved that show more! I've since upgraded my tv sizes twice, not for status but for failing eyesight reasons. For some of us, the best we have is when a movie comes to DVD...or Sundance or IFC...or even, for some people like my parents who don't have cable, to Network... on our small tv set at home. Can someone say that we didn't experience it correctly because it wasn't under optimal theatrical conditions with surround sound and a large screen during its first run? See, to me, that's just plain snobby, like the rich college kid with the tricked out stereo in the dorm room making fun of your pitiful portable picnic player, claiming you're not a real music fan otherwise you'd have a better stereo. Who's to say you can't love the music just as much, even if you can't afford a better system? By that justification, am I not as much a human as people with money living in new houses with insulated walls and home security systems with the best health care, latest gadgets and holidays in the sun? Is a child growing up in poverty in Africa not as much as a human as me? Of course that child is just as human as me and I'm just as human as a rich person--only the most hardcore economic-Darwinism racists would question that (and I don't think *they're* human so they don't count, but that's a whole other can-o-worms). But see the slippery slope we can get into when claiming one's "experience" is superior? Obviously, if you have an iphone, you're not viewing a movie on it because that's all you can afford. But you see how it could lead down that path, if for example, you're viewing a movie on a small tv, which is all you have?

As a visual artist I am completely frustrated with trying to translate my mediums cross different platforms. Works I create onscreen never fully translate with the glow and depth onto a printed surface. Likewise, my paintings which involve so much texture and metallics and iridescence cannot be experienced in a JPEG file or a flat printed reproduction. Some platforms are best used for one medium and completely inappropriate for another. Invert the movie-on-an-iPhone scenario and imagine having to go to a theatre to make a phone call...completely inappropriate (not that some boors don't do this already, but they're the kind that enjoy watching movies on their iPhones too, probably).

All I'm saying is that although I cheered when I watched the Lynch clip, it also brings up a whole host of issues, and the inevitable slippery slope of snobbery and classism.

Labels: Absurdity, This Boring Life, TV