criterionforum.org

Both of those venues are in cities, but if by "urban" you mean "black," I'm not gonna respond to that.

Zot! wrote:Most arthouses I've been to are deadly silent.

My idea of heaven.

RossyG wrote:

Zot! wrote:Most arthouses I've been to are deadly silent.

My idea of heaven.

All I know is that I felt quite vindicated when I watched Tokyo Story with a mostly Japanese audience -- and they laughed or chuckled at (pretty much) all the same parts I had felt were _supposed_ to be funny. Watching Tokyo Story with an audience that remained "respectfully silent" at all times strikes me as likely to be a rather dreadful experience.

RossyG wrote:

Zot! wrote:Most arthouses I've been to are deadly silent.

My idea of heaven.

They can be too silent, though. I love a good audience reaction if everyone's actually in sync.

In fact, one of the biggest belly laughs I've ever heard in a cinema was during a ridiculously overwrought scene to which my then girlfriend understandably reacted with an involuntary "oh, fuck off!".

Unfortunately, the scene in question went totally silent at that precise point, so she was a lot louder than she'd intended - but it went down a storm as she was clearly giving voice to what lots of other people were also thinking.

(I can't remember the film. Probably just as well.)

Black Hat wrote:

Gregory wrote:I guess I'm glad I don't watch movies surrounded by the "Lincoln Center crowd." I mean, even if there was "giggling" at some screenings, how is that necessarily a sign of any problem with the film?

This is perhaps what I failed to express appropriately, the people weren't laughing because they were watching two lesbians having sex, they were laughing because they felt that the depiction of two lesbians having sex was ridiculous.

Oh? Did you start polling strangers after the movie was over? Did you ask people why they were laughing?

I once got complimented for my laughter -- by an unknown-to-me audience member -- who seemed to be sincere. ;~}

Matt wrote:The tonier the audience, the worse they usually are. They giggle at everything because they're "too cool" to respond in any other way.

I had a rather bizarre (I felt) experience seeing The Master at a multiplex last year, and maybe this explains it. A young couple was sitting near me and giggled or laughed every time there was nudity or anything sexual onscreen (which of course is rather often). I couldn't determine whether this was derisive or nervous laughter but either way it badly colored that particular viewing experience, less because of the reaction itself than because I had no clue what was prompting it.

dustybooks wrote:

Matt wrote:The tonier the audience, the worse they usually are. They giggle at everything because they're "too cool" to respond in any other way.

I had a rather bizarre (I felt) experience seeing The Master at a multiplex last year, and maybe this explains it. A young couple was sitting near me and giggled or laughed every time there was nudity or anything sexual onscreen (which of course is rather often). I couldn't determine whether this was derisive or nervous laughter but either way it badly colored that particular viewing experience, less because of the reaction itself than because I had no clue what was prompting it.

I had the opposite reaction at another PTA film, Boogie Nights. My friends and I had been anticipating that one for months previous to it's release and we burst into peals of laughter at several obviously intentionally funny parts. The audience was incredibly stodgy, and appalled by our fecklessness.

dustybooks wrote:I had a rather bizarre (I felt) experience seeing The Master at a multiplex last year, and maybe this explains it. A young couple was sitting near me and giggled or laughed every time there was nudity or anything sexual onscreen (which of course is rather often). I couldn't determine whether this was derisive or nervous laughter but either way it badly colored that particular viewing experience, less because of the reaction itself than because I had no clue what was prompting it.

I'm probably ready to give Being John Malkovich another go, but when I saw it for the first and only time back in 1999 it was ruined by me sitting next to a couple who not only had the most annoying laughs imaginable (one was a brayer, the other a high-pitched giggler), but they found everything hilarious, even when it was clearly only very mildly amusing even first time round (people crouching down to traverse a corridor with a low ceiling, for instance). Unfortunately, it was sold out, so I couldn't move elsewhere.

On the other hand, I'll always treasure my first exposure (as it were) to Walerian Borowczyk's The Beast - it was at the ICA, so you'd expect a pretty quiet and respectful crowd, but I got the distinct impression that this wasn't the kind of film that many were expecting. Especially when it became all too graphically clear that it was the uncut version, very possibly the first time it had been shown in London since its notorious London Film Festival debut a decade earlier. I overheard a bloke afterwards saying "That was just hardcore porn!", but I couldn't tell from his tone whether that was a complaint or not.

Michael Kerpan wrote:

RossyG wrote:

Zot! wrote:Most arthouses I've been to are deadly silent.

My idea of heaven.

All I know is that I felt quite vindicated when I watched Tokyo Story with a mostly Japanese audience -- and they laughed or chuckled at (pretty much) all the same parts I had felt were _supposed_ to be funny. Watching Tokyo Story with an audience that remained "respectfully silent" at all times strikes me as likely to be a rather dreadful experience.

The last thing you say reminds me of when I saw I Was Born But... in a pretty packed house, and the person in charge of the screening announced the print had unexpectedly come with no soundtrack and would have to be shown totally silent. It was strange to be in a crowded theater and be able to hear a pin drop nearly the entire time. The crowd seemed to loosen up a little eventually, but with no music and when the laughter is that audible, it can be awkwardly inhibiting.

Matt wrote:The tonier the audience, the worse they usually are. They giggle at everything because they're "too cool" to respond in any other way. The worst movie theater crowds I've ever experienced were at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Cinematheque and the Walker Art Center.

Well count me (and my same-sex partner) among the cool crowd, as we laughed at the sex-in-the-restaurant scene (just as we would at Joan Crawford yelling "Trog!"), because it was completely ridiculous & not the least bit plausible and a number of other people in my college town seemed to agree (judging by the other laughs)....and speaking of John Malkovich, another friend & I couldn't control ourselves from laughing so hard at him in Beyond The Clouds in an otherwise silent (and full) theater, because the sight of a girl less than half his age succumbing to his pedo/predator advances was even more ludicrous than Joan Crawford taming Trog (and because he he's played the same pedo/lech character in several films, I just can't watch him in anything without cringing, so I still haven't seen Being John Malkovich).

I saw Konchslovsky's Maria's Lovers in Paris on release, and after about an hour of John Savage implausibly failing to muster the motivation to bed his delectable and extremely willing wife (Nastassja Kinski), one frustrated Frenchman could bear no more, stood up and bellowed at the screen BAISE-LA!!

MichaelB wrote:I'll always treasure my first exposure (as it were) to Walerian Borowczyk's The Beast - it was at the ICA

Michael, I'm astonished this first viewing wasn't at the Scala, where La Bête was a staple, often on a double bill with Immoral Tales.

DC area folk: What do you prefer, the Bethesda Row Cinema or the E-Street Cinema?

mfunk9786 wrote:DC area folk: What do you prefer, the Bethesda Row Cinema or the E-Street Cinema?

E Street, for sure, though it may just be down to the clientele. At E Street, you generally get a younger, hipper crowd. At Bethesda Row, it's an older, more genteel scene. E Street also takes more chances with its programming, and Penn Quarter (where E Street is) is much cooler to walk around and hang out in than Bethesda is (if you need restaurant recommendations, just ask). However, parking is cheaper in Bethesda, if that's a factor.

Ha, and to think, I prefer an older crowd because they tend to be quieter, all things being equal. Parking doesn't hurt, either. Both are playing Her starting on the 25th and I'd rather drive to DC than NYC.

mfunk9786 wrote:Ha, and to think, I prefer an older crowd because they tend to be quieter, all things being equal. Parking doesn't hurt, either. Both are playing Her starting on the 25th and I'd rather drive to DC than NYC.

Shit, I saw Tree of Life at Bethesda Row, and it was ruined for me by this gaggle of old people babbling all through it. They just kept narrating what was happening ("oh, he's got ice!"). The theater was packed, so there was nowhere I could easily move.

The only mildly bad experience I've had at E Street was during Moonrise Kingdom, where there was some drunk asshole commenting loudly on the other side of the theater. Fortunately, I couldn't hear what he was saying, I could just hear the drunken flatulence coming out of his mouth, so that didn't ruin the movie for me. Still, pity me.

E Street for sure-- great and subterranean. Comfy seats, good a/v too. You could park somewhere down the line and take the metro close to the theatre-- just find a park and ride stop

Had similar problems multiple time at Bethesda with old people yammering through the film. They also just started a reserve seating system, which I found out the hard way a couple weeks ago (as did Chris Matthews, who was in line ahead of me).

Deal is sealed - E Street it is. Thanks!

I happened to be at Bethesda tonight seeing Inside Llewyn Davis. As advertised, there were old people talking through the films, but what wasn't mentioned is how often they would get up and walk across the screen to go to the bathroom in the middle of the film. I think you made the right choice, Mfunk

Old people: Ruining movies for the rest of us since 1895.

domino harvey wrote:

Serenity now, serenity now

domino harvey wrote:

It certainly takes an expert to point out where CGI is used in a Hobbit movie.