Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Do documentaries belong in the theatre?
Rawl said something to me on Sunday before our D&D session that made me think. The night before, he went to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary, and he said that he could've waited until it was released on DVD to see it. Not because it was a bad movie, but because he said the theatre experience doesn't do anything for documentaries. That's interesting. I don't think I've seen too many documentaries on the big screen, and even the ones I have seen were Imax/Omnimax type of pictures (where the theatre experience definitely makes a difference).
However, with documentaries of the Michael Moore variety or Super Size Me, I have to wonder if going to a theatre is really worth it. Maybe waiting until the film is released on DVD is the best way to go.
However, with documentaries of the Michael Moore variety or Super Size Me, I have to wonder if going to a theatre is really worth it. Maybe waiting until the film is released on DVD is the best way to go.
// posted by Chris @ 3:27 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Just reading your blog on the bus home (very cool). I agree - theatres are generally for cinematic films. Still needs to be some place for statement.
Living in the 'burbs, I don't get much in the way of documents actually in the local AMCs, Famous Players and Cineplex Odeons. Fahrenheit 9/11 showed, but I didn't get around to seeing it ... and it's coming out on DVD pretty soon (which reminds me I still need to see Roger & Me and Bowling For Columbine). For the most part, documentaries don't require surround sound or a huge screen to show off special effects, which really are the big reasons to go to a theatre. So I'm thinking watching them at home is the best way to go. However, I would hardly turn down seeing documentaries in a theatre -- or attending Hot Docs one year, for that matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Number of visitors since Jan. 7, 2004:
