![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/O-Brother-500.jpg\" "\\"O")
<\/a><\/em><\/p>\nO Brother, Where Art Thou?<\/em><\/p>\n There is one hypothesis that I find interesting because it is so minimal, yet sufficient. This is that nobody cares where he sits, as long as it\u2019s not in the very front.<\/strong><\/p>\n —Thomas Schelling, 1978<\/p>\n DB here:<\/p>\n Where do you like to sit in a movie theatre?\u00a0If you\u2019re like most people, you sit fairly far back, maybe all the way in the back row.<\/p>\n Sitting in the rear is the default for public gatherings, it seems. Thomas Schelling famously offered seven hypotheses about why people don\u2019t fill up the front of an auditorium as fast as they fill up the back. His reflections were occasioned by his giving a lecture to 800 people, none of whom would sit in the first dozen rows. I know the feeling, though on a smaller scale. Seeing all your audience huddled so far away, you suspect you have cooties.<\/p>\n Schelling didn\u2019t, so far as I can tell, offer a definitive answer, and his charitable reflections on people\u2019s motives don’t keep me from finding the migration to the rear disquieting. In lectures, those distant auditors send off an air of foreboding. They seem poised to flee at the moment the talk reveals its fully catastrophic dimensions.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a debate about whether students who sit in the rear get worse grades than those who sit close. (See below.) Speaking from experience, I\u2019d be inclined to say that professors tend to give better grades to students sitting close because those distant, blurred ranks tend to give off an aura of desperate yearning to be anywhere but there. The folks up front at least seem to be trying to be part of things. The back-row brigade have not learned the great lesson of social life: Feign interest. <\/em><\/p>\n As this lead-in suggests, I\u2019m a front-zone sitter. But that predilection comes at a cost.<\/p>\n Rebel without a Cause.<\/em><\/p>\n For lectures I always try to get a front-row seat, close to the speaker if possible, or centered if there\u2019s to be a big visual presentation. This vantage point is great. If there\u2019s flop sweat, you see it. If not, you get to enjoy consummate performance up close. I\u2019ve sat in the front row for fine speakers like Chomsky, Pinker, and Bruner (to stay just with the Boston brain trust).<\/p>\n When a filmmaker does a Q & A, the front row is a must: you get a good chance at an autograph. The only time I regretted my prime front seat for a live event was for a concert\u2014a John Zorn one. Within five minutes I expected my eardrums to bleed. After that overture I don\u2019t think I heard anything else.<\/p>\n I saw back-row bias in the movies demonstrated dramatically in Madrid, where Tom Gunning and I went to a movie together. I forget the name of the theatre, but the film was\u00a0Welcome to Veraz<\/em>\u00a0(1991), a Euroduction featuring, inevitably, Richard Bohringer and, less predictably, Kirk Douglas. Once we got inside, we found that our tickets were for specific seats. The cashier had assigned us, and all other patrons, to the same row\u2014in the back, naturally. The absurdity of a dozen of us sitting side by side in a vast theatre was lost on the staff. Tom and I moved to the front, but everybody else piously stayed in the same pew.<\/p>\n You can study a less extreme case in graphic form in those remaining venues, mostly European and Asian, that still ask you to choose your seat on a chart. A glance shows you that everyone has piled into retreat mode, leaving lots of nice seats for you. Problem is, those overhead diagrams of the venue aren\u2019t to scale, and so you don\u2019t really know how close you are to the screen when you’re picking your seat.<\/p>\n When you were little, you didn’t mind sitting up by the screen. You sometimes fought to do it. But as we age, we seem to gravitate toward the rear. We’re even told that we should sit a prescribed distance back, usually the dead center of the auditorium. A distance of 2-3 times the screen height is a common recommendation. But\u00a0Kristin and I are\u00a0front-zone people. Speaking for myself, I like scanning the frame in great saccadic sweeps<\/a> and even sometimes turning my head to follow the action.\u00a0CinemaScope and Cinerama give your eyeballs a real workout.<\/p>\n I know that most people find this sheer madness. When the picture comes looming up, you do feel a little disconcerted and overwhelmed. But I find that I adapt in a minute or two. Even the keystoned angle isn’t a problem, partly because of our old friend perceptual constancy<\/a>.<\/p>\n Note that I said front-zone<\/em>. Not every theatre favors front-row sitting. Kristin and I once went to a screening of An Autumn Afternoon<\/em> in a tiny Parisian house, one of those that seem to have been carved out of a loading dock. We sat in the front row, but that was a mistake. We could put our feet up against the wall housing the screen, and we reckon we watched the movie at something like a 45-degree angle.<\/p>\n Something a little more peculiar happened when we went to a Fan Preview of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.<\/em> Firmly ensconced front and center, we were packed in by comic geeks, nerds, dorks, wonks and other damned souls, all determined to enjoy this movie. So we had the strange experience of hearing a line of dialogue and then, because its eloquence had a rich bouquet, hearing yelps of appreciation rolling back behind us, as row after row (a) heard it, (b) laughed, and (c) did an instant commentary on it. I can\u2019t judge this movie objectively to this day.<\/p>\n So sometimes the front row isn\u2019t ideal. Through experience, we know our local venues and favorite festival sites. In some theatres, such as most of our local Sundance screens<\/a>, we sit 2-5 rows back, with C being a common choice. Still, the ticket seller usually does a double take and reminds us where the screen is. Then we get a shrug and something on the order of “Well, you won’t be crowded down there.”<\/p>\n Bologna Cinema Ritrovato 2008: Olaf M\u00f6ller, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Don Crafton, Haden Guest, Kristin Thompson.<\/em><\/p>\n But in many venues the front row is perfect. Sitting there is hard-core moviegoing. I started aiming for it about forty years ago, when I began taking notes on every film I saw. If you sit too far back, how can you see your pad? You can\u2019t be one of those idiots brandishing a lightbulb pen (even though I have some of those). The screen casts a little light that makes scribbling easier.<\/p>\n But even those who don\u2019t write notes see the advantage of the front row. Nobody\u2019s head looms in front of you. You\u2019re less disturbed by latecomers. You have more leg room, and it\u2019s easier to stretch out for a snooze. And should you wish to leave, the front row is the only one that lets you sneak out easily from any seat.<\/p>\n That last advantage, I should mention, can lead to trouble. Once at VIFF I was firmly planted in the front row, nose in book, as the auditorium filled. But I began to realize that these didn\u2019t seem to be my tribe. There were more beards, nicer clothes, better hygiene, more sensitive faces. The place filled, and someone came forward to thank the sponsors for bringing a film about the efforts to save remote wetlands. I was in the wrong auditorium<\/em>. To glares and mocking comments I slunk out in search of some obscure art movie I’ve forgotten.<\/p>\n Like everything else you do, front-row sitting sends a message. What message? For one thing, that signal of interest I mentioned in my classroom example. Somehow the front-row sitter seems to be more engaged, more eager to be swept up in the magic. You probably know the urban legend that the Cahiers du cin\u00e9ma<\/em> writers sat devoutly in the front row at Langlois\u2019 Cin\u00e9math\u00e8que. We belong to a noble tradition, and we flaunt it. Chevaliers of cin\u00e9philie<\/em>, we risk eyestrain, neckache, back pain, and leg cramps for the art of cinema, or so we like to think.<\/p>\n Speaking of the Cin\u00e9math\u00e8que, back in 1970 I went to the Chaillot venue for a screening of Liebelei<\/em>, to be attended by Luise Ullrich, one of the principal players. The place was full, but I had nabbed a nice spot up front. Before the film started, though, a Cin\u00e9math\u00e8que functionary started going along the front row asking every patron there a question. Everyone asked said no. I couldn\u2019t hear the question at a distance, and perhaps might not have understood it if I had. So when the staff member came to me, I scarcely let him finish before declining. If non<\/em> was good enough for other front-row denizens, it was good enough for me.<\/p>\n After the lights came down, Henri Langlois stepped onstage with Mme Ulrich. After a brief introduction, they descended. Only then did two people on the aisle surrender their seats for them. Then I realized all the French guys sharing the front row with me wouldn\u2019t give up their seats even for the guest and the boss of it all<\/em>. You see why I say front-row people are hard-core?<\/p>\n Le Pied qui \u00e9treint 1: Le Micro bafouilleur sans fil\u00a0<\/strong>(1916).\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n I must report, however, that front-row sitting sends other signals too. Theatres in film archives have their regulars, and these folks, like me, believe that there\u2019s only one good seat in any theatre, and they must occupy it. Fortunately, they mostly don\u2019t agree on what that seat is. I\u2019m always befuddled when the first person in the queue makes a dive for a seat far back and in the corner.<\/p>\n Alas, though, so many regulars have aimed at my target that every cinematheque has a coterie of front-row fans.\u00a0And they\u2019re perceived as, well, strange. I remember going to London\u2019s National Film Theatre during a visit and getting in early enough to nab a prime front seat. Many regulars shuffled in to join me, and one seemed a bit miffed after the rank had filled. My neighbor told me apologetically that I was sitting in his friend\u2019s seat. Of course I moved. Local loyalists have privileges. On another occasion a BFI staff member said that she worried that one of her friends might become \u201cone of those sad front-row people at the NFT.\u201d They didn\u2019t seem unusually unhappy to me, but then they wouldn’t, for I am one of them.<\/p>\n My strangest contretemps with a front-row devotee came during a visit to the Munich archive. They were running Get Carter<\/em> and I was the first entrant. I secured my front-row center post and settled down to read. (Front-row people show up early enough to finish substantial portions of Dostoevsky novels before the lights go down.) Suddenly an aged German lady, fortunately not Luise Ullrich, stood before me.<\/p>\n Seeing I was reading a book in English, she said, \u201cPardon me, you\u2019re in my seat.\u201d<\/p>\n I looked around and saw that we were the only people in the theatre.<\/p>\n \u201cI always sit here,\u201d she said. \u201cI come every night.\u201d<\/p>\n Nerdesse oblige<\/em>. I relocated to the seat behind her. Moved by my gallantry, she twisted around to talk with me. I asked if she really came every night.<\/p>\n \u201cWell, not every night. Not if they\u2019re showing a Jap movie.\u201d She looked severe. \u201cI don\u2019t like Japs.\u201d<\/p>\n Comments about disloyalty to old friends leaped to my tongue, but I kept quiet.<\/p>\n Soon Get Carter<\/em> started. The old bat immediately fell asleep.<\/p>\n She slept through the whole movie. I wanted to knock her upside the head. When I left, she was still out, snoring in my<\/em> seat.<\/p>\n There are other drawbacks to the avant-garde spot in the movie theatre. Most people are bothered by handheld shots and 3D if they sit close, but I don\u2019t find myself affected. Granted, I probably miss some of the surround-sound effects, which are apparently designed for a sweet spot far behind my territory. If it’s any compensation, the left\/ right channels are really vivid for me.<\/p>\n The biggest drawback, though, is that you don\u2019t have eyes in the back of your head.\u00a0During Q & A sessions, you can\u2019t track the conversation without twisting around in your seat. So I sit there as if I were listening to the radio. Worse, sitting close can render you oblivious to things going on behind you. If a fistfight broke out in that heavily populated rear section, you\u2019d be in a poor position to watch it.\u00a0Occasionally being in the front row makes me miss an outburst that was probably pretty entertaining but leaves me feeling like the guy in Pompeii who wondered why everybody was running past him just before a couple of tons of ash buried him.<\/p>\n A Drunkard’s Reformation<\/strong> (1909).<\/em><\/p>\n On the obliviousness scale, my most memorable front-row experience came during another overseas festival. A visiting actress of consequence had directed some feature-length films, and the festival had arranged a screening of one. This entailed setting up a video projector and preparing, far in advance, electronic subtitles in the local language. When the director saw me planted in the pole position she said, \u201cYou shouldn\u2019t sit so close. This movie is like Dancer in the Dark<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n No problem, I assured her; I\u2019d seen that from the front row too.<\/p>\n No one joined me in the front. But there was a sizeable audience. Once people had settled down, her introduction explained five things, each one adding to a litany of doom.<\/p>\n (1) She played the protagonist.<\/p>\n (2) The film was improvised.<\/p>\n (3) It was shot handheld.<\/p>\n (4) The actors were her friends.<\/p>\n (5) It was a satire on the superficiality of Los Angeles life.<\/p>\n She wished us a good screening and said she\u2019d see us afterward for a discussion.<\/p>\n The film was as dire as I\u2019d feared. When the lights came up I noticed that nobody was setting up the microphone on stage. I turned around. The technicians were putting away the projection equipment. I was the only viewer who’d hung on to the end.\u00a0Needless to say, there was no auteur and no Q & A.<\/p>\n Despite all the drawbacks of front-zone sitting, I feel vindicated by a recent revelation. A review<\/a>\u00a0quotes James Wolcott’s acount of Pauline Kael’s preferred viewing station.<\/p>\n We take up mortar position in the back row. Pauline nearly always sits in the back, often right beneath the projectionist\u2019s portholes, flanked by fellow critics on her squad. . . . (The auteurists \u2014 those ardent members of Andrew Sarris\u2019s Raccoon Lodge \u2014 tended to huddle closer to the screen, as if to meld mind and image into a blissful, shimmering mirage of Kim Novak with her lips parted.)<\/strong><\/p>\n I rest my case.<\/p>\n Thomas Schelling’s reflections on lecture-hall seating open his classic Micromotives and Macrobehavior<\/a><\/em>. Among his more entertaining speculations on why people sit in the back is this one:<\/p>\n A fourth possibility is that everybody likes to watch the audience come in, as people do at weddings.<\/strong><\/p>\n For some research on whether students sitting up front get higher grades, go here<\/a>\u00a0(abstracts only)\u00a0and here<\/a>. Jonathan Cohen provides a nice analysis of the research on perceptual constancy here<\/a>. 3D has rekindled debates about where to sit; for one exchange among cinematographers, go here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Le Pied qui \u00e9treint <\/em>is discussed in more detail here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Joe Dante at University of Wisconsin–Madison, November 2011. Photo by Jeff Kuykendall. For more on Dante’s visit, go to this earlier entry<\/a> and to Jeff’s coverage here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n PS 23 January 2012:<\/strong> Please note that another couple likes to sit in the front row (from here<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n