DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
It still happens in theatre does it not?
The case for:
A 2-3 hour film is long. If you leave your seat for that much-needed slash/burger/fag/spliff you miss what might be a pivotal scene. There is no way to judge when you can duck out for 10-15 minutes without missing important bits. With the hectic pacing of modern films sometimes a few moments discussing it over a fag and thinking can help
The case against:
Some films rely on a taut and punchy style- you run the risk of losing the dramatic tension. A lot of cineastes want FULL IMMERSION and would resent the break.
what say you?
The case for:
A 2-3 hour film is long. If you leave your seat for that much-needed slash/burger/fag/spliff you miss what might be a pivotal scene. There is no way to judge when you can duck out for 10-15 minutes without missing important bits. With the hectic pacing of modern films sometimes a few moments discussing it over a fag and thinking can help
The case against:
Some films rely on a taut and punchy style- you run the risk of losing the dramatic tension. A lot of cineastes want FULL IMMERSION and would resent the break.
what say you?