The Medium is the message

A few months ago I wrote about the meta awareness of the actors that we watch on screen. The casting of a certain actor will develop certain expectations from the audience - certainly leading to both type casting, but also an amount of comfort for the audience in watching their particular fan favorite develop their skills through the years. The development of Hollywood stars has always been part of the business- which can be a detriment if that stardom gets in the way of the film's ability to create a good story. Hollywood vehicles that seem to only exist because of the attached talent- the new hot Hollywood "commodity" or actors people attach nostalgia to.

For the streaming age this can mean that we'll get another 10 Adam Sandler films so that Netflix can define itself through having "originals." Really these films are direct to video on demand - having limited or no theatrical release- media that is supposed to be consumed and mostly forgotten about in the future for the cult of whatever is new to sell via the algorithm that their tech has decided you should watch.

Breaking free from that loop is hard- harder still if you're flipping through a whole catalog of movies and really can't find anything to watch. So what becomes the easiest thing? That newest reality tv show/documentary that skews reality and story through a prolonged 5 episodes? A "binge" watch a barely there "season" of only 4-8 episodes that the streaming service can pay as little as possible to the writers while also stretching the story of what should have been a 2 hour film.

All of this is to sap your time and energy- to give enough hours of viewing for the bottom line. As the CEO said- Lawrence of Arabia is the same film on your phone as it is on theatrical release. The reality is for a streamer that's very true. It doesn't matter if content is good or if it's really given attention to at all while the audience scrolls 10 second videoclips to fill in the quiet parts. Whatever keeps the audience there is the best thing- and finding another film takes more effort than binge watching something.

Even a Director held highly like Martin Scorsese can take his artistic vision and dump it in 3+ hour epics- or take prolonged footage of slow-mo wheat like in the newest Snyder film Rebel Moon that was greenlit at two parts of a PG-13 film for 2+ hours each. But just wait for the 3 hour R-Rated director "cuts!" Scorsese may as well be creating hour a mini-series at this point- everyone will be pausing in between anyway so why bother having a film meant to be watched all in one sitting. Does the medium really change anything about the viewing experience?

Yes... Yes it really does. There is a huge difference in being surrounded in a cathedral like awe of a true Imax screen (even most theaters don't have a big enough screen). Watching the Roadshow 70mm viewing of The Hateful Eight was a truly harrowing an epic viewing experience. Coming in at over 3 hours it also included an intermission. Watching the same film later split up into several chapters ruined a lot of the built up flow and tension for that movie. The viewing experience of watching the Villeneuve Dune movies on those huge screens felt like the best kind of transcendent cinema.

However the audience has been taught the benefits of convenience. Even I appreciate the home viewing experience more after our covid bubble- my first thing to buy was better speakers. The unfortunate side effect is that my ability to control the food, sound, image quality, and intimacy of the viewing is fit to my needs- and leads to a better viewing experience than in many theaters where sound may be off- the seats not to my liking, etc. Studios have become attached to the streaming services too- each trying to get control of the pipeline and splitting their offerings until each "channel" of streaming service just feels like a different version of old cable tv. They can eventually dilute the production of their streaming service shows and content and then charge more for better streaming quality. Complete with ads unless you pay the extra! extra! tier!

Certainly the viewing experience matters, but when a movie like Fall Guy (loosely connected to an 80s tv show) is available to rent on demand or stream within a month or so of the release date- the theatrical viewing experience has been cannibalized. Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga being a spinoff star vehicle for Anya Taylor-Joy of Netflix fame doesn't really resonate with audiences if the interest was for a film almost a decade ago.

Unless you go the Eddie Murphy route and start digging up old franchises like the Coming 2 America direct to Amazon Prime movie or the new Beverly Hills Cop sequel on Netflix! It's all just rehashes of nostalgia, and if you don't actually give the audience some of that nostalgia through casting or characters they resonate with you'll lose them. Not to mention that the theaters and studios have ballooned budgets so that medium sized films don't work. There is no lack of nostalgia at the box office. But dang it Keaton was Batman again (all too briefly in the ill fated Flash movie)-- and he'll be in a new Beetlejuice sequel?! With the Netflix Wednesday actress Jenna Ortega?! Tim Burton is back!? I digress...

Better stories are now within the format of TV shows. Since HBO put quality and time into a format that mature audiences appreciated and could grow with characters shows like The Sopranos, Sex in the City, The Wire, etc. have really been the best way to both engage an audience with a good story, and are fit for streaming viewership. Breaking Bad was one of the first shows that probably had better viewer numbers because of Netflix itself- but that was almost 10 years ago.

Now the Netflix pipeline tends to hide shows that aren't within that pipeline. We're at the toxic part of streaming where a show like The Minx never finds an audience after being shifted to a different streamer. Even the encouragement of binging shows all at once gets pilfered to a part 1 and part 2 season so that the streamer can get a few more months of you subscribing.

The different engagement time informs how people will be interacting with the show itself. I actively look forward to House of the Dragon being released weekly so there's a sense of tension and commitment to each episode- aka episodic writing is different than a mini series or movie.

That's part of the reason I wanted to start writing about film in particular- because films have been pushed aside for other forms of entertainment. I love TV but feel there's so much of it that actively finding a good movie that I can finish in a couple hours is a totally different experience than watching a season of TV. I enjoy videogames too, but there's an element of getting attached to your character as you play and interaction that's not available to film.

There was a discussion online about on how active we are in watching a film- whether we turn our brains off or not. If someone is badly cast that will automatically throw one's mind from what's happening on screen to how badly the actor fits within the film (the meta awareness of other roles/real life events, etc. contributes to this). The critical analysis of these films is a felt experience first for me- then later on reflection or other watch-throughs the film can take on additional insight.

The medium of film offers a more specific viewing experience that's suited to condensed storytelling and emotional impact. The ability to watch a film repeatedly throughout the years for that emotional impact it is what makes the film special. Without that impact the film will be lost to the weight of hundreds of hours of content.