Week 2: Would you rather watch a film in a theater or at home?

Above is a picture of the North Park Theater, on Hertel Avenue in Buffalo, NY. When I was a kid, I lived 2 blocks from the North Park, and I'd walk there most weekends to see a Saturday matinee or a nighttime movie (if it wasn't rated R). The theater's 90 years old and only a single-screener, but it's still open!

In class yesterday, I mentioned a generational difference between most of you (in your early 20s) and me (age 46): I saw many of my strangest films in movie theaters (especially at midnight showings of Supervixens [1975], Eraserhead [1977-9], Reform School Girls [1986], Tales from the Gimli Hospital [1988], etc.) while many of you saw your weird films on cable TV or video. What's the difference?

I still prefer to watch movies on the big screen, but there's no denying that the video revolution has made it possible to watch a range of films incomparably more vast than what was available twenty years ago. In fact, it's only because experimental films have begun to appear on DVD that I'm able to teach this class; there’s no way the English Department could afford to rent all the films on our syllabus in 16mm. (It would cost thousands of dollars.) So hurrah for VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, downloading onto your iPhone, and the confluence of computer and TV that'll make instant downloading the industry standard in about three year’s time! (Or sooner?)

But are we losing something as we move away from the movie theater? In his book Bowling Alone (2000), sociologist Robert Putnam claims that post-WWII Americans have been cocooners, stay-at-home types. Less and less Americans get out into the world by joining organizations, lobbying for political candidates, and, yes, going to the movie theater. (The title Bowling Alone refers to a post-war decline in bowling league memberships, and a rise in men bowling solo, without friends.) Putnam believes that this increased isolation has led to a perilous decrease in social capital, very roughly defined as the sense of well-being a person has when they learn to trust the people in their environment.

When I lived in Illinois, I used to eat a couple of times a week at a fast-food restaurant called Wonderdogs, run by a chef nicknamed "Jay." Every time I went into Wonderdogs and said something to Jay besides "A Coke and a basket of fries," I built social capital with him. We became friends, and I found out that he was originally from Tehran, with beliefs considerably different from my own. But we were still friends, and Putnam believes that little encounters like this, if they happen often enough, create people happier and healthier than those folks who spend most of their waking hours alone in front of a screen. (Putnam cites evidence that joining and participating in a new group cuts in half your odds of dying next year!)

And is it ironic that I'm writing about this while sitting alone in front of a screen in my office..?

Nevertheless, I worry that staying home and watching movies on TV has lead to a decrease in social capital. This semester, we'll be discussing several theaters that were key to the development of the American avant-garde cinema--Art in Cinema in San Francisco, Cinema 16 and Anthology Film Archives in NYC, the Blinding Light in Vancouver--and these venues nurtured non-mainstream filmmakers and encouraged young artists to make their own bizarre films. Has this sense of community been lost? I don't know, but maybe you do.

So: would you rather watch a film in a theater or at home? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Is it possible to build a sense of community watching movie at home as well as watching them in a theater? (As Josh's post for Week 1 shows, it's possible to destroy a sense of community by showing Gummo, but that might be an exception.) I look forward to hearing your answers and thoughts.

Incidentally, Putnam first presented his ideas in an article called "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital," and you can find that article here.