This afternoon Craig published an article explaining why he will never compromise by watching a movie on a phone. You can find said article here. To be clear, this isn’t meant as a direct argument against Craig’s views. How we watch film is a personal thing, i would never claim someone else’s decisions as ‘wrong’. The beauty about the world we currently live in is that we are presented with a huge range of options for how we view movies, and are all free to choose that which works best for us.

I did feel, however, that it was important to point out some of the advantages to watching media in this way, and share my positive experience of it, because it would be a shame for people to be put off of watching films on their phones. It offers a very efficient, convenient and unique way to enjoy the films that we love, and i personally don’t feel that it has to be an inferior experience.

My own introduction into watching movies on a mobile device came from my series of reviews last year on the iTunes 99p rental. I watched these films on my iPod touch, not strictly a phone, but it is still a mobile device, and the screen is the same as the iPhone’s.

I’ll admit, it was difficult initially. It isn’t particularly comfortable to hold up to your face at first, so finding a comfortable position is key. The advantage is that you don’t need a seat on the train, which you would with a laptop, and on a packed tube you don’t face the difficulties of trying to squash into an overfilled carriage with an unwieldy laptop case. For me, the biggest advantage is that, wherever i am in the world, whether it be stuck at an airport, on a boat in the ocean, or just in the dentist waiting room, i have instant access to my favourite films of all time.

A bit of background on the iTunes 99p rental is required here, i think. The idea behind it is that Apple offer a particular film a week for rental at a discounted price, the usual cost being £3.50. They do this as a way to entice people in to trying the format, and it works in theory. Whilst you might not be willing to spend the cost of a lower priced DVD in HMV on one watch of a film on a tiny screen, for 99p you are much more likely to try it.

The problem i found was, though the theory was sound, in practice iTunes were just shoving up pretty rubbish films that no-one would have chosen to watch otherwise. You can find a classic example here, and the problem of course is that if a film isn’t engaging, it isn’t going to sell the format. But here is where it becomes interesting. There were one or two films that i had seen before, and hadn’t liked. I actually feel that the experience of watching these films on a tiny devices on a packed train actually helped me appreciate them.

When you are surrounded by hustle and bustle, trying to concentrate on a 3.5 inch screen, you somehow feel much closer to the work on screen. I don’t necessarily mean just through proximity, i mean you are forced to immerse yourself fully in the film to offset the disturbance around you, and suddenly despite being surrounded by dozens of strangers, you find yourself connected with a piece of artwork. 50 First Dates, a film i’d watched on a rental DVD in my living room, and had felt contrived and saccharine, suddenly engaged me, and became genuinely affecting.

The point here is really that an engaging film should work in any environment, through any medium. Watching Gelngarry Glen Ross on an iPhone doesn’t make the powerful performances of Jack Lemmon, Ed Harris or Al Pacino any less brilliant. By the same token, watching Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen on a 40 foot Imax screen doesn’t make it a good film. In fact, it probably only helps to expose the continuing limitations of CGI effects.

I appreciate that film is called a visual medium, and that for many bigger is always better. But a film shouldn’t just be visual, a great movie requires the whole package. I didn’t like Avatar because the effort had all gone into the visual element, with only passing attention given to the story, plot, dialogue and character development. I’d rather watch an all around great film on a small device, than an overblown visual epic on an Imax screen.

I have a more direct comparison, because really the only way to judge is through watching the same film in different formats. I’m a huge fan of The Dark Knight. It does a good job with all the required elements. There were scenes shot with Imax cameras, there are fantastic action scenes. There are a couple of great performances, and the plot is well constructed. I saw it twice at the Imax, and have since watched it a dozen times on my iPod Touch. Every viewing is a joy, because a great film will always be a great film. If a movie lives or dies on its cinematography, it simply isn’t great.

I watched scratchy, jumpy VHS cassettes on a Granada VCR for fifteen years. I have suffered through poorly converted, badly transferred DVDs, some which i had to flip over halfway through. I have sat in a cinema, and watched a movie with the sound out of sync by half a second, and missed several minutes of movies because of projection problems. To me, the crisp transfers, great sound quality and feeling of complete control i get with watching movies on a handheld device offer a better experience, consistently, than i have often had with other formats.

If you don’t want to watch films on a phone, that’s fine. You shouldn’t, and indeed don’t, have to. I won’t criticize you for it, and i don’t think it is the wrong attitude to have. But for those who have never tried the medium, or are contemplating whether to spend the money on a digital film for consumption on your journey to work, my advice is give it a try. If you don’t like it, that’s fine, it’s all about personal choice. But i do think it’s a shame not to give it a chance, just once. And hey, for 99p, why not give the iTunes weekly rental a try. You never know, you might get the chance to sample Surfer, Dude too. That’ll really harsh your morning mellow…

What do you think? How do you choose to watch film? You can find the related forum thread here, and join in the debate.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

It’s been ten years since The Blair Witch Project hit movie theatres. Yesterday i looked at it’s production and the impact it had at the box office and on the industry in general in The Blair Witch Project: Ten Years On – Part 1. Today i’m looking at the film itself, and tomorrow i’m going to discuss how the Blair Witch phenomena still influences Hollywood today in The Blair Witch Project: Ten Years On – Part 2 .

Due to one of the biggest marketing campaigns in history, there was a tremendous amount of buzz around Blair Witch when it was finally released. Everyone was talking about the movie, and it was ambiguous whether the film was authentic ‘found’ footage, or a fictional movie. Many attended showings of Blair Witch fully believing what they were about to see was genuine, particularly in the early screenings.

Heather, Josh and Michael are three student filmmakers, and they have come together to film a documentary about an old local legend, The Blair Witch. Using rented equipment, they begin by travelling around the small town, questioning locals about the story. Some know very little, but others know a lot more about it. The filmmakers are told that an old witch lived in the woods, and murdered local children. Once finished in the town, the trio set off into the woods, with a tent and supplies, to look at where the killer supposedly roamed.

They find some mysterious small rock formations, and film plenty of footage. On their second night, they make a fire. During the night, they are terrorised by frightening noises, and are freaked out. They decide the next day to leave the woods, but in the middle of a non-descript forest, struggle to make sense of the map. Over the next couple of days, still lost, desperation sets in. Constant disturbances at night deprive them of sleep, discoveries of unusual symbols and formations haunt their day.

Hungry and terrified, infighting begins. As the band begin to lose their grip on their sanity, Josh becomes separated. Fearing they’ll never see their friend again, Heather and Michael discover a derelict old house. Is that Josh they can hear inside? Or the unspeakable evil of the Blair Witch?

In trying to track down a copy of Blair Witch, i was surprised at the reaction i got from people about the movie. No-one had a good word to say about it, and for a movie that made hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide, that baffled me. There are two ways to assess Blair Witch, so i’ll explore both routes.

The first is to look at it through the eyes of those who saw it at the time, in an atmosphere of ambiguity. The (often very poor) handheld camerawork does give the film a very convincing air of authenticity. The interviews with locals come across realistically, and are indistinguishable from those in real documentaries you’d find on obscure cable channels. The trek into the forest begins convincingly, and the young actors are enthusiastic and good natured. Many of the scenes, particularly during the night, are shot in a very organic way, with short cuts and fast movement. As the fear builds up over the days, the changing attitudes of the filmmakers and their fraying relationships are portrayed well.

As the movie progresses, however, and the disturbing phenomena become more pronounced and therefore farfetched, the boundaries of believability then close in. When their equipment is interfered with in the night, the fantasy element begins to come clear. Then when a present is left for Heather and Michael outside the tent after Josh vanishes, any semblance of realism disappears. As a result, the spooky conclusion, though eerie and well shot, is rendered moot. The illusion has already been shattered. A shame, because if the lead up had been toned down to believable levels, audiences would have left the theatre still unsure of whether they had witnessed a true story.

The other way to look at Blair Witch is as i look at it now, as simply a fictional movie. The legend is laid out quite well, and as they enter the woods it’s still holding your interest. The problems begin when it gets dark in the wood. The poor camera work, combined with a lack of light, make the movie difficult to follow. During the night disturbances, the poor sound quality makes it difficult to hear what the protagonists are reacting to. As the movie goes on, the lack of scripted dialogue and hands-on direction means the storyline meanders, with very little interesting progression. The dialogue becomes repetitive, and the whole experience is in danger of becoming tedious.

The storyline picks up somewhat when Josh disappears, and ironically the elements which disable your suspension of disbelief are the saving grace of the plot. With the possibility of a visceral finale, some momentum is generated. Unfortunately, the conclusion is nowhere near just reward for the patience required to reach it.

As an experiment, and a marketing phenomena, The Blair Witch succeeded in it’s goals at the time of release. Going into the movie with some level of faith in it’s authenticity would have made it a great watch. Re-watch value, however, is virtually nil. Difficult to watch for all the wrong reasons, it’s best left remembered as a one time great movie experience.

Come back tomorrow, as i look at movies that have taken a cue from The Blair Witch Project over the last ten years, and discuss how the phenomenon fundamentally changed Hollywood marketing techniques forever.

Bazmann