The Colorado Movie Tragedy

Today, the world of cinema changed forever. And it really fucking sucks.

What was once holy ground for cinema-lovers, and has been for over a century, has now been tainted  by the mindless, cruel and downright abhorrent actions of one hideous, hideous man.

The tragedy of the whole event goes beyond what words can describe. I’m sitting here trying to write, and words are simply failing me. That rarely happens.

This is a tragedy which strikes us on multiple levels. As movie lovers, as parents, as children, as brothers and sisters, as partners, but on a more primal level, as human beings. But it is one we have to overcome.

There’s talk of people being too afraid to go back to the cinema. Of it no longer feeling a safe place. This talk needs to stop. Cinema needs to prevail. It needs to continue. It needs to live.

These victims were people who had queued up, bought tickets weeks in advance, so excited were they by the prospect of seeing this movie which has been so anticipated for four long, long years. We need to take this to heart. These were movie lovers. They loved the cinema. And so do we.

To let this bastard’s actions taint the purity of cinema is to let him win, in simple terms. I can’t think of a more succinct way to put it. I could ramble on about gun control law and how fucking insane it is (particularly considering that it’s legal for pretty much anyone in the USA to own a gun but not for a person of the same sex to marry another person of the same sex), but this isn’t a time to stand on my soap box. This is a time for me, and us, to unite in the loss of movie-lovers. These were our people.

My thoughts are with all of the victims, both living and deceased, and of course their families. But please, please, do not let this scare you away from the cinema. It’s our home. It’s where we go to escape. To elope. To run away to fantasy worlds, and to jump back and reflect on reality. It is not a human right to own a gun, but is a human right to be able to go into a cinema, and come back out alive. It’s simple. We can’t let that change. 

Why independent cinemas are the future if you’re a serious movielover

When I first arrived at university in Bath over three years ago, I instantly sourced out the nearest cinemas. Coming from a small village in the Midland’s, where the nearest cinema was a half hour drive away and even then it was only an Odeon, moving to a city was most exciting for me as it meant I might finally get to see a larger variety of films where they are meant to be seen – the cinema. I was presented with an Odeon, a Vue and a Cineworld all closer than the Odeon back home had been to me, and a true gem of a cinema called The Little Theatre. This was my introduction to the world of independent cinema’s, and it was truly an eye opener. The Little Theatre was a gorgeous old building built in the 1930’s and barely changed since then, the only remaining cinema in the country which is still owned by it’s original owners (albeit in a roundabout way – the cinema is now owned by arthouse conglomerate Picturehouse Cinemas but a descendant of the original owner still has a large say in the running of the cinema.)

First things first, the price was considerably lower. For a student ticket, it was about £2.50. Compared to prices at the Odeon which were nearing £10, I couldn’t believe my luck. I started going to the Little at any and every opportunity I could find. Whereas before I had struggled to see anything at the cinema bar blockbusters, now I could see pretty much anything. World cinema was now available at my doorstep. Where large cinema chains fill their screens with blockbusters guaranteed to make money and therefore will always have a guaranteed cashflow, independent cinemas and particularly the Little, have to look for other ways to bring in revenue. They sold memberships, you could pay for a plaque to be put on the back of a cinema seat as a dedication, and it is one of only 3 cinemas in the country which holds a wedding license. Surely a wedding in an original, 1930’s art deco cinema is one of the ultimate film geeks dreams? I know for sure it’s one of mine.

The Little also put on event nights, they would have visiting directors and actors. Juliet Stevenson did a talk after a Truly, Madly, Deeply, Terry Jones attended a screening of The Life Of Brian. The Little almost became like a second home to me, and I lapped up every opportunity it presented me with.

Since finishing university and leaving Bath, I’ve kept up to date with what’s going on at the Little. They’ve had screenings of Metropolis and Psycho, had a silent movie screening accompanied by live piano, and had two outdoor screenings, one of Master and Commander, the other of Wes Anderson’s enchanting Fantastic Mr Fox (which, by the way, features a model version of The Little Theatre itself, a money couldn’t buy accolade). While I now live in Sheffield, which has it’s own independent cinema, its still The Little I find myself craving. Independent cinemas have a way of reconnecting audiences with a love of cinema which is rarely seen nowadays, forging relationships between film-lovers and cinemas themselves.

The difference between an independent cinema and a large chain is, quite simply, that one actually appears to know and care about film, whereas the other is simply interested in showing films which are guaranteed to bring in the big bucks. We need more of these independent cinemas, dedicated to the art of cinema, run by people who love movies for people who love movies.

To 3D or not to 3D?

A question which many have contemplated ever since James Cameron’s Avatar (or ‘Pocahontas with blue people’ as I like to call it) blew it’s way into cinemas at Christmas-time in 2009. (Sidenote: Anyone else think it was a bizarre time to release it? Half expected blue Santa to pop up halfway through…) What can 3D add to a film? More importantly, what can it take away from the cinematic experience?

I saw Avatar in 3D, and, unlike what seems like the majority of cinema-goer’s felt, I wasn’t entirely keen on it. Was the 3D incredible? Yes. It was like nothing I had ever seen before. Did the film blow me away? On a few occasions, but as a rule, I would say no. While the 3D looked amazing, it added nothing to the overall cinematic experience for me; in fact, I’d go so far as to say it took away from it for me. After the (spoiler alert!) death of Sigourney Weaver’s character, who I will happily admit was the main draw for me, I actually fell asleep. The film was too long, the 3D too exhausting. While the 3D was visually stunning, it did not excite me. When I bought the film on DVD, I actually enjoyed, nee, preferred, watching it in 2D. Avatar was far more impressive for it’s use of motion capture performance, something for which it was vastly overlooked.

Where I feel 3D will eventually settle, and what I feel 3D should be used for, is for pure entertainment. Among my many poor film choices is my obsession with the Resident Evil series, (yes, I’m aware that they’re awful: no, I won’t apologise for loving them). When I saw Resident Evil: Afterlife at the cinema in 3D, I realised that this was exactly how 3D should be used. The depth of the film was stunning, the 3D utilised to make the audience jump, scream, and drop their jaws. Were 3D to be used in this way primarily, on the right film and done in the right way, then I would quite happily let the 3D argument lie.

However, film after film is being released in ‘3D’, when all the filmmakers have done is a hasty after-thought conversion, which adds absolutely nothing to the film and in most cases actually detracts. The conversion on Clash of the Titans was painful to watch, and most importantly of all, left many audiences feeling out of pocket. Why shouldn’t they? It was clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense that the distributors had decided to convert it so that they were able to add an extra couple of quid to the ticket price. Director’s need to take a note from Christopher Nolan’s book, who has downright refused to film any of his films in 3D, simply because he didn’t feel it was necessary. The story didn’t call for it, and so he didn’t use it. There is no doubt in my mind that Inception in 3D would have equalled, possibly even surpassed Avatar in terms of it’s visual beauty, but it wasn’t needed to tell his story. Nolan has the good sense to know that, and his films are all the better because of it.

What I find encouraging is the fact that audiences seem to be realising this. Apparently, 3D screenings are falling while 2D screenings of 3D films are back on the rise. This is promising, but lets hope this doesn’t mean the death of 3D altogether. When used in the correct way (and in this critic’s humble opinion, the correct way means scaring the shit out of horror fans by throwing chainsaws in their faces, or splattering teeny-boppers in goo), 3D is a great tool for cinema to utilise. It breaks down some of the boundaries between the screen and the audience, making for an altogether more interactive experience, something which films should be capitalising on more often.