For the Experience...
By Darren Williams
10th February 2010

A while ago I wrote an article for this esteemed website about the necessity of lists in cinema geekdom and the choices we make when it comes to making these lists. At the risk of just kicking up old ground, I've been thinking again about the choice aspect. More specifically why there is a pressure in film fandom to watch certain films. Like the original article, it's inspired in a small part by the conclusion of the 1000 poll at the Empire website. We're about to unleash the top 100 on the forum and it's got me wondering how many of the 100 will have been seen by the majority of the forum and how many films there will inspire first watches or even repeat viewings and why would one film from the list be singled out for that treatment when others won't? In some cases that may be an easy question to answer, you've seen 99 of the films in the last year and have fairly strong opinions on them and you're just filling in the blank with the one remaining title. In other cases it could be a film you always thought of as fairly average has made the top 30 and you'd like to see if you can understand why your peers have rated it so highly. But what if you've only seen 40 of the films and you make the decision to watch another 10? What inspires you to watch those 10 out of the remaining 60?

This has dovetailed with the hype around Avatar and the yearly event that is the Oscars and got me thinking about the decisions we make as viewers. "You must see Avatar!" How many times have each of us heard that over the last eight weeks or so? Not only do we have to see it, we have to see it in 3D. Because it's not going to be the same experience any other way. It's not going to work as well on dvd or in a regular 2d screening. It has to be 3D. As soon as I heard that I knew that the film wasn't going to be any good. I hate to make that kind of assumption but in this case I couldn't be wrong. A great film, a true masterpiece should work however you watch it. Yes, some films look better on the big screen, that much is a given. But they still work for a home viewing. The cinema screening is supposed to enhance the experience, it's not supposed to be the experience. Going in to Avatar, the odds were good that I'd hate it. I'm not a Cameron fan, even his best work (Terminator) I find a little tiring at times. And I don't think he's made a good film since, instead becoming progressively more bloated and self-important with each new release. So why did I need to see it? Because film culture dictated that I should, I guess. When a film becomes as big as Avatar, you need to see it. It's not enough to tell people you think Cameron is talentless, incapable of creating human drama, and that he focuses solely on the technology because it's easier for him than trying to create something human. You'll still get told how you need to see it, and not just at home but in the cinema, and not just in... yadayadayada. If anything, I probably dislike the film more because I feel forced into seeing it. Maybe I need to be stronger-willed, maybe I need to say I don't want to waste two and a half hours of my life watching a film that I'm likely to hate. Of course I couldn't offer an opinion on the film in any conversation after that, but why should I have to? Three episodes of True Blood were enough for me to know that it was a juvenile, badly written and badly acted show, trailer-trash Twilight with added sex and gore. I don't need to watch every episode of two seasons. The cast aren't going to learn to act between seasons, and unless the whole thing is given an overhaul, I have no need to waste my life on it or take part in discussions about it.

So why does this pressure exist in the first place? It doesn't exist in other art forms to the extent that it does in film. If you hate Oasis, nobody is going to try and force you to listen to an album by them you haven't heard. You know you hate them, you know what they do, why waste your time trying more and more of their work? Nobody demands you stare at more and more paintings by Dali until you appreciate them, or read Macbeth if you hated Lear and Hamlet. I think part of it is to do with cinema becoming an art form as the world started getting smaller. The more new technology that's invented, and the more popularly it's been adopted over the last century, has meant that more and more people know about new films. And I think part of the reason why cinema has become the artform of the masses, possibly even more so than music, is because there's less of a history and (despite all the films made in all the different countries) less of a canon. I think the popularity of the internet has both made the situation worse and better. The access to more films from more countries has meant that the pool of films has become larger. So no longer does there seem the same intense pressure where you 'have' to see Kane, Gone with the Wind, Bicycle Thieves and the rest of the long accepted classics. That's not to say that they're no longer considered essential viewing, it's just there doesn't seem the same accepted wisdom that these are the only films needed for cinematic literacy. Now you have more options where one small group will make a case for Satantango, another for Listen to Britain, another for The Sure Thing. At the same time, the pressure has seemed to have grown even larger for the next big thing. It doesn't matter if it's Avatar, The Dark Knight or There Will Be Blood, there is a huge online contingent that won't accept dislike of these films and the idea that you might not even want to see one of them in the first place is unthinkable.

The need to see classics like "Citizen Kane" has lessened...

So basically, do we have that much of a choice in the first place? If you're reading this then you're enough of a geek to be a part of at least one website devoted to cinema so you'll probably have several films in mind that you've been told you just have to see over the last year and you'll probably be aware of several conversations you can't take part in because you haven't seen Avatar, District 9, The Hurt Locker, Up in the Air or Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. So I tried an experiment, I went to the imdb top 100 films for 2009 and checked how many of them I've seen that I had absolutely no interest in watching - The Firm, The Proposal, G.I. Joe, Transformers 2, Terminator 4, Harry Potter 5000, Julie & Julia, The Time Traveller's Wife, 2012, The Invention of Lying, New Moon, It's Complicated, Invictus, Precious, Avatar, and of course, The Squeakquel. That's 16 out of the top 100 that I watched, despite having no interest in them. How many of them did I enjoy? Not a fucking one. Well, ok, The Squeakquel. So why did I watch them? Why did I feel I had no option but to put myself through another Transformers, another Terminator, another two Meryl Streep films? Streep is more frightening than the prospect of a giant robot war and I saw two of her films. Why? Because she might have been (and was) Oscar nominated for one of them. So call that an average of 32 hours spent watching that crap when I could have been doing anything else in the world.

But did I hate these films because they were bad or because I'd pre-judged them and convinced myself they were going to be bad in advance? Could Precious actually have been a good film? No, it was fucking awful. I watched that film simply because it's gotten enough undeserved acclaim to get an Oscar nomination and enough hype to be in everyone's face about it. If it had been a good film then I could have admitted it. I know enough about these films, about their directors, about the actors, to know that I am highly unlikely to enjoy these films. So why didn't I just ignore them? All it would have meant is that I would be unable to offer an opinion on these films on an online message board or two. But am I that desperate to be part of some bullshit make-believe culture that I force myself to keep doing these things I dislike? Surely two Harry Potter films books were enough to tip me off that it was wank of the highest order? Do I really need to see the final film? No, and fuck it, I'm not going to. If something is a cultural hit does that mean we should watch it, read it or listen to it? Do we need to listen to Susan Boyle simply because she's selling records? Do I need to hear the Haiti charity single in full to know that it's going to be an abomination? It may do good for charity but I do not need to hear or buy it, I can donate to charity without making Simon Cowell more smug. Of course I would never be able to slate a film without seeing it, that would make me an idiot, you can't have an opinion on a film you've never watched anymore than you can talk about how good sex is with a person you've never slept with.

And am I innocent of trying to get people to watch films they know they're going to dislike? No, of course not. The very nature of discussing films here and having a Cult column among other things is to try and persuade people to watch these films. But at least I'm pushing films from my heart rather than from an advertising campaign. And people aren't going to watch one of the films I recommend simply because I tell them to do it. Nobody is going to watch a film like Unwilling Lovers unless they've already crossed over to the dark side, I was just holding the gate open for them and handing out 'What's good in town?' brochures.

Ultimately, our lives are finite and even if you adore cinema with all your heart, you should pick and choose the films you watch wisely. The world doesn't need Kickass and I certainly don't need to see it. I hated Wall Street and I'm not an Oliver Stone fan, why do I need to see Wall Street 2? I'd rather my dilemmas to be am I more interested in the new Gasper Noe or The Killer Inside Me? Am I being a snob? No. These films just hold my interest more, I'm also excited about Toy Story 3 and Shutter Island. I'd just rather spend my time exploring films that appeal to me rather than watching ones I feel I'm supposed to watch. And I'd rather be in the position of not seeing Shrek 4 and knowing that I could at any time if I chose to than having to remember any of the scenes from Shrek 3, Julie & Julia or Precious. So this is a wake-up call for myself, no more wasting time on Meryl Streep films simply because certain Academy members think she's the only actress alive. No more watching the latest big-budget sequel just so I can be absolutely sure I'll dislike it. And never again will I watch a film in 3D, simply for "the experience."

I give myself a month.