Film Studies: Watching Movies Now and in the Past | Free Essay Example

Film Studies: Watching Movies Now and in the Past

Words: 605
Topic: Art & Design
Updated:

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Consequently, different people have different activities that they enjoy doing during their free time. Some like watching movies; others prefer listening to music, while others fancy visiting new destinations. The movie industry has seen numerous changes from early times. These changes have brought differences in utilization of movies as an entertainment medium. This paper gives the differences between watching movies now, and more than ten years ago.

The first difference is the quality of pictures. In the past, movies had motion pictures. Motion pictures were images following one another at extremely small fractions of a second to mimic life and motion (“Fooling the eye” 44). Nowadays, movie pictures are real objects with actual but recorded motion.

The second difference is the venue. Theaters staged most movies in the past. The characters in the play showed live performances of movies. People had to make trips to the movie theaters to witness live performances of their favorite movies. Therefore, watching movies in theaters was the norm. However, with a little technology most live performances transformed into films (“Theatre History” 1098). This change allowed people the luxury of watching movies as audiovisual tapes in the comfort of their homes. Nowadays, people watch movies in their houses instead of going to theaters.

The screen used for viewing a movie is the third difference. Some time back, cinema halls showed movies on large screens using projectors. Darkness was a basic requirement for viewing of quality pictures. Therefore, total darkness engulfed cinema halls before the start of movies. The screen was the source of light as the movie progressed. Currently, people watch movies on diverse screens ranging from television screens and personal computers to iPhones and iPads. Total obscurity is no longer a prerequisite for quality picture observation. Modification of movies from analog to digital made it possible for us to watch movies on computers and other modern gadgets.

The curiosity aspect is another difference between movies in the past and now. Some movies are exceedingly lengthy and take a long time to complete the storyline. Such movies are aired as a series because of their longevity. Crime scene investigation stories (such as CSI Miami and CSI New York) are examples of series. A series divides into seasons with each season consisting of many episodes. Several TV media houses air some TV programs as a series showing an episode or two in a week.

In the past, a series fanatic had to follow each episode religiously over a long lime. The level of suspense was incredibly high as one waited anxiously to observe what would transpire in the next episode. Currently, however, this suspense has significantly reduced. A series is available for watching and downloading on numerous internet sites. A series lover does not have to suffer moments of suspense waiting for a TV channel to air their favorite program. An easy purchase or download of the entire series does the trick. What would normally take two years to watch presently takes only a few days?

The final difference is convenience. In the past, specified cinema halls showed movies according to a prearranged schedule. It was possible to miss such opportunities because of other commitments. However, the current packaging of movies as DVDs and other soft copy variants has increased the expediency of watching movies. People watch their favorite movies anywhere and at their own convenience. Consequently, it is easier to watch movies now than it was in the past.

Overall, we are lucky living now when most obstacles to watching movies have been eliminated so that we enjoy watching movies.

Works Cited

“Fooling the eye.” Popular Science. 2002: 44. Print.

“Theatre History.” Encyclopedia of Literature in Canada. Ed. William H. New. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. Print.