Blogs

  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science

A history of the future that never was


History with all the interesting bits left in


March 2, 2012

Watching Movies in the Cloud

Showgirl Joan Blondell will soon join the ranks of Havana Widows.

You can’t say you weren’t warned. A year ago New York Times critic Dave Kehr was proclaiming the end of DVDs: Goodbye, DVD. Hello, Future. Unit sales were down 40%, Blockbuster had gone into bankruptcy, and Netflix was shifting from a mail-order purveyor of DVDs to “a streaming video company delivering a wide selection of TV shows and films over the Internet,” in the words of chief executive Reed Hastings.

Kehr pinned his hopes for home video on Blu-ray, citing that format’s ability to deliver high-definition versions of films. But despite industry efforts, Blu-ray has never really caught on with consumers. Released to the public in 2006, Blu-ray currently accounts for 23% of total disc sales, according to Home Video Magazine. When you examine the Top 20 Sellers last week, that proportion can drop even further—15% of sales for The Help were on Blu-ray, 11% of “Downton Abbey”—unless, like Disney did with Lady and the Tramp: Diamond Edition, you force buyers to purchase a Blu-ray package.

Especially for older library titles, studios are scaling back on disc releases. Warner Bros. (which also controls most of the classic MGM titles), Universal, 20th Century Fox, and Sony are now all offering what they refer to as “MOD” or “manufacturing on demand” titles, essentially burning new discs only after they are ordered. MOD discs lack the extras—and the longevity—of consumer discs, but in many cases they are now the only way to see obscure movies.

The industry seems to be heading toward forgoing discs of any kind, aiming instead for an environment in which viewers stream content to their computers and televisions. Cable companies have been offering “video on demand” options for some time, both at home and in hotels. Also in the hunt for viewers: Apple’s iTunes, Hulu, Wal-Mart’s VUDU, and Amazon Instant Video, Vimeo, and Netflix. Even PBS is into streaming. This week the broadcaster announced its first Online Film Festival.

Search engines want a piece of the action as well. Search for “Harry Potter” on Bing, and you will get an option to “Watch Now.” Google, meanwhile, will be happy to send you to YouTube.

MediaHound, a search aggregator that resembles a Kayak for TV and movie titles, shows some promise. Pop in a title, and MediaHound will give you options for purchasing and streaming. Right now it does fine for recently released titles, but draws a blank for lesser-known items.

Joan Blondell and Glenda Farrell in Havana Widows.

Is this good news or bad for film buffs? On the one hand, it’s easier than ever to find and purchase specific titles. I caught the sparkling Pre-Code comedy Havana Widows a few years ago on Turner Classic Movies, but despaired of ever seeing it again. Now it’s available at Warner Archives, and for a fairly reasonable price.

But step outside releases from major studios, and it suddenly gets much harder to pin down a title like Ride the Pink Horse or Under a Texas Moon.

I find watching films on my computer disconcerting. Without a high-speed Internet connection, a film may sputter, skip frames, or stop entirely during playback. Rewinding and fast-forwarding are ostensible options, but in reality they disrupt the feed so much that they are unusable.

The quality of the image suffers as well. Projected nitrate, even that which has been restored and preserved on polyester stock, has a lustrous look and sheen to it. At low resolution on a computer monitor, it can seem pixellated, corroded with digital artifacts, lacking balance and contrast.

But get used to it, because streaming is taking over the home consumer market. It is impacting the archival world as well. As Annette Melville, director of the National Film Preservation Foundation, wrote me, “Viewing film online is already becoming the 21st century way to enjoy films that once screened on the repertory circuit. But it also holds promise for revolutionizing access to archival films—films of historic interest that were formerly seen only by scholars who had the resources to travel to film archives to do research.”

The NFPF has assembled five DVD packages under its highly recommended “Treasures” umbrella, 214 titles in all. They range from studio features to home movies, from animation to documentaries. But the NFPF also posts titles for streaming to its website, like these films recently discovered in New Zealand.  (Check out comedienne Mabel Normand’s charming Won in a Closet, or the early Western Billy and His Pal, starring director John Ford’s older brother Francis.)

“With the web, we can make available other movies—without costly-to-produce ‘extras,’ such as new music and commentary. We don’t see this web exhibition as replacing the Treasures DVD sets—or the experience of enjoying films in a movie theater—but rather as a way to democratize film access,” Melville said.

Mabel Normand in Won in a Closet, a film she also directed.

Democracy comes with a cost, however. “Exhibiting films on the web is far from ‘free,’” Melville said. “Currently the NFPF is planning two major web premieres for later in 2012. The biggest obstacle is paying for the bandwidth to carry the surge in web traffic. We had a wake-up call when a single repatriated film went viral, increasing our web-hosting bill more than 3000%! Clearly to continue on this route, we will need donors committed to increasing film access and willing to support it.”

As a consumer, you’ll pay coming and going. Yes, you can watch some titles for free on IFC (like The Larry Sanders Show), Hulu (currently offering six silent titles—with commercial interruptions—from The Criterion Collection, including Pandora’s Box with Louise Brooks and Charlie Chaplin’s City Lights), and other sites. But most titles cost between $3 and $10.

And now cellphone carriers want to charge you for hogging bandwidth while streaming and downloading movies. As The Wall Street Journal put it, AT&T Ends All-You-Can-Eat.





7 Comments »

  1. Many moons ago high quality music systems were the rage. My friends and I bought as much quality as we could possibly afford. Amazingly, decades later, I do not hear anything near that kind of quality in sound systems today. Today music is all about fast, cheap, and easy, and getting a lot of it. Seems like a similar trend is happening with film? Not saying that anything is wrong with this trend. Maybe it is or isn’t a good thing. It is just fascinating to me.

    Comment by Wison — March 2, 2012 @ 6:18 pm


  2. Available at “Warner Home Movies”? I think that you mean “Warner Archive”.

    Comment by John — March 3, 2012 @ 11:14 am


  3. Thanks for pointing that out, I’ve corrected it above.

    Comment by Daniel Eagan — March 3, 2012 @ 2:37 pm


  4. I share the hope that the art of filmmaking, and in fact, the art of the medium of film doesn’t completely fade away (even if that look of film must now be achieved through digital means). However, the streaming revolution may appear to limit our experience with Hollywood films but it also opens up the door for many indie producers who are all about story and the art of filmmaking. Streaming films from these filmmakers who never would have an audience otherwise, exposes audiences to new voices in the world of filmmaking. My non-profit, Storytellers International, is helping unknown and known documentarians reach new audiences at DocumentaryTV.com. As with all technological advances (or should we just say changes) there are positive and negative aspects depending on what is most important to you. But I don’t agree that the change in the medium has cheapened the content industry wide. The industry has exploded with many creative storytellers now having access to new audiences.

    Comment by Paul Kakert — March 3, 2012 @ 5:48 pm


  5. Portraying the consumption of streamed film and video as synonymous with watching it on a computer monitor, and then complaining about the quality, is misleading. Most decent flat screen TVs these days are Internet ready, so that downloaded video can be stored on a hard drive and watched on demand on an HDTV screen that is of much higher quality than anything we saw only a few years ago. That may not be the same as watching it projected in a theatre, but it’s a close second. The scope and breadth of available movie archives is another matter, but if what you’re hunting for is truly obscure ( let’s say Dusan Makaveyev’s “Sweet Movie”) then the problem of access is nothing new- There are countless little-recognized but worthy films that have been impossible to find on Betamax, VHS, and DVD. If the market is too tiny it simply won’t be worth the bother to make it available.

    Comment by Arnie lipsey — March 4, 2012 @ 9:37 pm


  6. Paul makes a good point that filmmakers no longer face as many hurdles in completing their projects. Getting those films to an audience is another matter. If it is difficult to find many feature films from Hollywood on streaming sites, how hard is it to find independent projects from unknown artists? And perhaps more important, who can winnow out the truly deserving titles from the millions of clips that litter sites like YouTube?

    Comment by Daniel Eagan — March 4, 2012 @ 10:19 pm


  7. In answer to Arnie, I agree that in the right conditions digital projection is a valid way to view movies. It doesn’t matter if I agree anyway, as soon there won’t be much choice in the matter. But although many of my friends defend Internet-ready TVs, I believe watching a film on a television is an entirely different experience from watching a film projected in a theater. That said, nothing can turn back the clock, and I readily admit to screening material on both flat-panel TVs and on computers. I believe image quality suffers. The NFPF Treasures films look much on DVD than they do streamed from the NFPF site. I also believe it’s more difficult to surrender to a film on TV than in a theater. One problem Arnie doesn’t address is that studios are trying to establish streaming sites that won’t allow you to (legally) download films to your hard drive—you see the material on their terms or not at all. And yes, access to obscure titles has always been a problem, no matter what the format. Weirdly, several thousands of previously unavailable titles have surfaced on DVDs and streaming sites anyway. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the gatekeepers have changed. Previously studios determined what would be available to consumers, but increasingly that decision is being made by sites like YouTube (owned by Google), Hulu, etc.

    Comment by Daniel Eagan — March 4, 2012 @ 10:32 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement