Dead Serious Question for Filmgoers Over 50
mut...@yahoo.com
in 30 years--which somewhat unique fact motivates this post. This
person, 63, has a stressful government physical-labor type job
requiring great mechanical precision, has been asked *not* to retire
because of superior job performance, and unlike me has no history of
vertigo. Leaving the theater, I said how much I liked the film but
that it made me sick to my stomach and that I had to keep my eyes shut
during the roller-coaster and flying sequences. My companion
expressed great relief to hear this because of the exact reaction and
added it would be another 30 years before another visit to the
multiplex would be on a To-Do list.
I kept my eyes shut through 70% of The Bourne Ultimatum. Last winter
leaving Dreamgirls, I thought I was going to have a stroke. I'd like
to know if people here over 50 who regularly see movies *in theaters*
and who are NOT bothered by sensory overload also take blood pressure
medicine, statins, or any medication/narcotics that might blunt
reaction to modern cinematic noise/FX/CGI. I have been a vegetarian
my entire adult life, am thin, have been told I do not seem my age,
and have had normal brain MRIs.
If you are over 50, see movies regularly in theaters, and DO take
medication for vascular problems, I'd like to know if you experience
high BP readings after going to a film. Finally, if anyone is aware
of any research into this specific phenomenon, bad vascular reactions
to (film) theater-going, I would be very grateful to get links.
Alric Knebel
Was the other person you were with on any sort of medication?
I don't take any medication of any type (I'm 55), so I can't say for
sure, but I go to theater FOR the sensory overload. There are certain
types of movies I see in theaters because I can't really recreate the
experience at home. These will be the CGI things, like THE GOLDEN
COMPASS, and today I'm seeing I AM LEGEND.
It's going to be interesting to see how other people answer this question.
--
_________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
mut...@yahoo.com
>
> Was the other person you were with on any sort of medication?
>
> I don't take any medication of any type (I'm 55), so I can't say for
> sure, but I go to theater FOR the sensory overload. There are certain
> types of movies I see in theaters because I can't really recreate the
> experience at home. These will be the CGI things, like THE GOLDEN
> COMPASS, and today I'm seeing I AM LEGEND.
>
> It's going to be interesting to see how other people answer this question.
The person who saw Bee Movie with me was on Hydrocodone for a work-
related injury. If anything, Hydrocodone should have had a relaxing
effect (and how!).
I'm interested in your response because it suggests that anticipatory
feelings about a particular "social" event influences response--over
50 or not. Medical and laypeople have suggested I have a fear of big
places filled with strangers, but this is nonsense. I attend (or
attended) movies because I anticipated, not dreaded, them, so a
psychological explanation pure-and-simple doesn't jive. It especially
doesn't address the fact that other people on this newsgroup have
agreed about the affect of hyped-up sound effects during coming
attractions.
trotsky
Well, I'm not fifty yet so I guess I'm excluded but I really don't think
a lot of people will find the "question" credible when somebody posits
that the filmgoing experience is more or less similar to waterboarding.
moviePig
(You might want to phrase it differently. People over 50 already have
enough "dead serious" questions...)
You seem to be describing simple motion-sickness... which worsens with
age, but that worsening can commence decades before, say, arthritis.
(If there's any room for worsening, that is. In my pre-teens, I had
*some* friends who, astonishingly, could *not* join the rest of us for
a seventh consecutive whirl on the Vomit Comet...)
Meanwhile, I'd expect "bad vascular reactions" at movies to more often
arise from highly-directional midrange speakers at volume that could
light kitchen matches...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Mark Jones
> I kept my eyes shut through 70% of The Bourne Ultimatum. Last winter
> leaving Dreamgirls, I thought I was going to have a stroke. I'd like
> to know if people here over 50 who regularly see movies *in theaters*
> and who are NOT bothered by sensory overload also take blood pressure
> medicine, statins, or any medication/narcotics that might blunt
> reaction to modern cinematic noise/FX/CGI. I have been a vegetarian
> my entire adult life, am thin, have been told I do not seem my age,
> and have had normal brain MRIs.
I am 47 and take blood pressure medication and wear progressive
lens bifocal glasses and I can't remember experiencing vertigo.
I also have benign brain tumors, but they are not causing me
any issues related to this because they are still too small. Now
that you have mentioned this, I will use what you described
as a means to judge whether they are becoming a problem
where I will need to request another MRI.
I watched The Bourne Ultimatum last night on my 65 inch HDTV,
that I sit 8 feet from, and it was no problem. This viewing distance
gives me close to the same viewing angle that I like at the theater,
so it should be comparable. I had the surround sound cranked up
higher than normal too so it was at close to the same level that the
theater would be likely to use.
I would highly recommend this movie.
Harkness
I'm over 50, take a full load of BP medications, and I've gotten
nauseous from camera movement exactly once, in breaking the waves,
which happened before I was 50 and before I was medicated.
but otherwise, no.
But then, I like the occasional extreme movie experience.
Bee Move? WTF?
John Harkness
Red Cloud
I forgot to mention about the health effect by the sensory overload in
film industry.
In old day like you used to watch film with a little sensory overload
film. Black
and white film has little sensory overload compare to the today
version . So there
is a big different. I don't know if 3-D film could be bad on eye
sight. There is
no research on this subject so we must be aware there is always always
negative
effect watching so much sensory overload. I don't watch most of
today Hollywood film. I hard spend my money on what I believe just
another garbage.
I like non-Hollywood and non-American film. I just watched old film
from
Eastern Europe.
Richard Evans
>
>If you are over 50, see movies regularly in theaters, and DO take
>medication for vascular problems, I'd like to know if you experience
>high BP readings after going to a film.
Never checked my BP. Do you carry a cuff to the theater?
I'm 61, I go to the theater 30-40 times a year. Sometimes the volume
is too loud, and jerky camera movement (e.g. The Blair Witch Project),
or sitting too close to the screen get to me, but that's about it.
Flasherly
I get that too, especially when I feel detached from youthful sexual
athleticism, almost as popular for filler as a directorial style of
motion sequencing similar to jumping up and down, forward and
backward, while filming stylistic action. A style of movies perhaps
not to be taken seriously, or capable of involvement over extreme
acts, six or more hours continuously with others young enough not have
taken obligatory movie warnings to heart, such as do not try this at
home. Inasmuch that I do, I should invariably come to regret by
extreme instances of beauty ill-suited an advanced temper, a cursory
toss and fling ought contain as wholly more significant. What I
should detest, is if ever to find myself whining and clinging,
obviously lacking to continue what meaning must then relinquish, in as
much that what is felt is adequate to be reciprocated from within an
immediacy, solely as beneficial to engagement suited both parties
without undue significance otherwise stressed.
For instance, a younger broad just now, while writing this, left me
another one of her messages, playing me as she's been attempting all
this week, nothing short for a coy flirt. On the other hand, as much
as I like Bernardo Bertolucci, I wonder if an uncensored "I
Sognatori", by recent means an addition to the schedule, is more
appropriate a mind to engaging the evening, than anything worthwhile
for further repeating to her I haven't said already. A pressing
dilemma posed, so to find oneself, whether life events are in any
conjunction articulated by movies -- that one might come to ask
someone like her if she'd care to climb on a leather couch and watch a
six-hour take from Ingmar Bergman's "Fanny & Alexander" -- in nothing
short of inconceivable unfolding of events, less importune than
improbable.
--
"I can be stabbing a man in the neck with a knife, and all the while
he'll still be humping me." -Some HW starlet on TeeVee last nite.
trotsky
Are you unfamiliar with mutefan's posts, then?
mut...@yahoo.com
>
> I am 47 and take blood pressure medication and wear progressive
> lens bifocal glasses and I can't remember experiencing vertigo.
> I also have benign brain tumors, but they are not causing me
> any issues related to this because they are still too small. Now
> that you have mentioned this, I will use what you described
> as a means to judge whether they are becoming a problem
> where I will need to request another MRI.
>
> I watched The Bourne Ultimatum last night on my 65 inch HDTV,
> that I sit 8 feet from, and it was no problem. This viewing distance
> gives me close to the same viewing angle that I like at the theater,
> so it should be comparable. I had the surround sound cranked up
> higher than normal too so it was at close to the same level that the
> theater would be likely to use.
I'm glad I made this post, because bifocals are something that
basically accompanied the onset of this problem for me, and I never
considered that the problem may be eye-related. I watched The Good
German two times this weekend on DVD. It didn't make the same kind of
demands on the eyes The Painted Veil, which I watched also watched,
made. It's difficult to know where ocular problems start and vascular
problems end; but the general consensus here seems to be that
sensitivity to modern film technology/techniques is not an age-related
issue. Thanks.
mut...@yahoo.com
>
> I'm over 50, take a full load of BP medications, and I've gotten
> nauseous from camera movement exactly once, in breaking the waves,
> which happened before I was 50 and before I was medicated.
I don't remember camera shake in Breaking the Waves. So you're saying
camera shake might set off your BP if you weren't medicated?
nick
> mutefan wrote:
> >reactions to (film) theater-going
>
> The Kingdom is the film that finally provoked Richard Roeper to take a
> stand against excessive wobbly camera work in his review. �I think my
> physical reaction to The Kingdom was a case of sore eye muscles which is
> the first time anything like that happened to me after watching a movie.
Was it the wobbly camera work that made your eyes sore or the 4-hour
running time?
Anthony Buckland
<mut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6f04abf0-72eb-4d5e...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> ... I'd like
> to know if people here over 50 who regularly see movies *in theaters*
> and who are NOT bothered by sensory overload also take blood pressure
> medicine, statins, or any medication/narcotics that might blunt
> reaction to modern cinematic noise/FX/CGI. I have been a vegetarian
> my entire adult life, am thin, have been told I do not seem my age,
> and have had normal brain MRIs.
70s, normal blood pressure (never measured on leaving
a theater, though), no narcotics, omnivorous. The
last time I recall even the mildest vertigo was decades
ago on first seeing a widescreen movie conveying the
experience of riding a roller-coaster. Some movies do
seem a tad over-noisy, but in general I've completely
adapted with changing movie technology.
Recently, the 3D version of Beowulf with its airborne
violence gave me no problems. Neither has the sound
level in any of the FX action fests I've recently seen (and I
see a lot of them). The last time I experienced emotional
upsetness was on seeing Hostel (the first one), and I
quickly got over it; that was due to dramatic content,
not technology.
tomcervo
know where you are, but in the hinterlands the guy cues the reel and
goes off for a smoke or something. Crappy sound or focus, or a bad
print, or crap on the screen. Ebert used to go ballistic about the
bulb being turned down to save money, and that was in Chicago!
I envy you your positive experiences--out here, a movie theatre is a
venue for selling stale, overbuttered popcorn while something flickers
on the screen.
trotsky
Don't forget the red herring about the medication.
lorinc...@yahoo.com
Please post which theatre, in which city you went to. If it is a
large multi-or-mega-plex built in the last few years, it's probably
guilty of cramming a too-large screen in a two small theatre. My
favorite theatre, long since torn down, was built in '67 and had a 70
ft curved screen. It also had 819 seats and a sloped floor. Sight
lines were perfect without knee killing stadium seating and you could
set near the screen or far, whichever your preference. Now I'm seeing
40-50 foot screens in stadium houses which seat 200. Feel like you're
right on top of the damn screen. Sure, some people like it, but they
have Imax for them.
In a few years, 60 and 70 inch TV's will be as affordable to us as 20
inch TV's were to our parents and grandparents. I intend to build a
true home theatre at that time and never go back to a mega plex again.
-beaumon
Peter Brooks
> I have been a vegetarian
> my entire adult life, am thin,
>
Peter Brooks
<anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> 70s, normal blood pressure (never measured on leaving
> a theater, though), no narcotics, omnivorous. The
> last time I recall even the mildest vertigo was decades
> ago on first seeing a widescreen movie conveying the
> experience of riding a roller-coaster. Some movies do
> seem a tad over-noisy, but in general I've completely
> adapted with changing movie technology.
>
> Recently, the 3D version of Beowulf with its airborne
> violence gave me no problems. Neither has the sound
> level in any of the FX action fests I've recently seen (and I
> see a lot of them). The last time I experienced emotional
> upsetness was on seeing Hostel (the first one), and I
> quickly got over it; that was due to dramatic content,
> not technology.
>
shortage of vitamin B12, haem, and essential fatty acids as well as a
self-righteous attitude can do serious damage to your brain.
mut...@yahoo.com
>
> Please post which theatre, in which city you went to. If it is a
> large multi-or-mega-plex built in the last few years, it's probably
> guilty of cramming a too-large screen in a two small theatre. My
> favorite theatre, long since torn down, was built in '67 and had a 70
> ft curved screen. It also had 819 seats and a sloped floor. Sight
> lines were perfect without knee killing stadium seating and you could
> set near the screen or far, whichever your preference. Now I'm seeing
> 40-50 foot screens in stadium houses which seat 200. Feel like you're
> right on top of the damn screen. Sure, some people like it, but they
> have Imax for them.
After reading all these posts, some of which are from people older
than me (51), I see that this problem isn't stopping anyone from going
to the multiplex. I saw Bee Movie at a Cinemark in Norfolk, Virginia--
and think you're right about a too-large screen being crammed into the
particular theater. It occurred to me after posting that simply by
posting in this particular newsgroup, responses would be skewed. I
should have posted to newsgroups that deal with cardiology or vision
issues.
I think the psychological component with me is resentment film
technology always has to be sharper, louder, more intense. I wonder
if men who have been through actual decimating battles remember them
for their Dolby SurroundSound quality, or if Dolby somehow glamorizes
something ten times more hideous on the heart and mind but possibly
less relentless on the ears.
If Hitchcock or (take your pick of most-discussed directors) still
provoke discussions on newsgroups like these, you have to ask yourself
how sharp, loud, intense technology has to be in order for the product
to be appreciated. A Hewlett Packard customer service rep told me in
2000 that she and her coworkers noticed that people over 40 were
calling increasingly to complain about computer monitor screen
resolution, and that the company's response was to tell over-40
computer uses to lower the resolution on their screens and see if
their dissatisfaction went away. The growing popularity of alternate
computer operating systems (widely mocked as old folks' hobbies on
tech groups) might have something to do with their less "advanced"
graphics technology.
So maybe it's a combination of blood pressure, bifocals, screen size,
and mal de sixieme siecle that's responsible for what I and my Bee
Movie companion felt.
Alric Knebel
I'm going to ask: "mal de sixieme siecle"? What does it mean? Is it
something like "evil of the seventh year of the century"? And what the
hell is that supposed to mean? I don't speak French and I did a little
research to translate it, and at the end, it really didn't make sense.
George Peatty
>If you are over 50, see movies regularly in theaters, and DO take
>medication for vascular problems, I'd like to know if you experience
>high BP readings after going to a film. Finally, if anyone is aware
>of any research into this specific phenomenon, bad vascular reactions
>to (film) theater-going, I would be very grateful to get links.
I fit the profile, but I do not have the problems. My blood pressure is
under control with medication, and I scrupulously avoid movies where I think
I might react in this way. On those rare occasions where I misjudge a
movie, or I'm stuck watching a preview I don't care for, I'm not the least
bit hesitant about closing my eyes .. I don't miss anything of importance to
me ..
mut...@yahoo.com
wrote:mute...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I'm going to ask: "mal de sixieme siecle"? What does it mean? Is it
> something like "evil of the seventh year of the century"? And what the
> hell is that supposed to mean? I don't speak French and I did a little
> research to translate it, and at the end, it really didn't make sense.
"Mal de siecle" is a common French term meaning two things: literally,
"disease of the century" or figuratively boredom/anger with the times,
in my case, in my sixth decade.
mut...@yahoo.com
>
> I fit the profile, but I do not have the problems. My blood pressure is
> under control with medication, and I scrupulously avoid movies where I think
> I might react in this way. On those rare occasions where I misjudge a
> movie, or I'm stuck watching a preview I don't care for, I'm not the least
> bit hesitant about closing my eyes .. I don't miss anything of importance to
> me ..
I'm really glad people have taken the time to answer. Your post made
me remember the first time I had a really negative reaction--and I
mean as negative as I personally can think of. I had traveled to a
multiplex for the first time to see "Elizabeth" back in...whenever.
The SurroundSound knocked my boots off for a trailer of the film "8
MM," whose subject matter repulsed and terrified me.
Then "Elizabeth," which I had waited a long time and traveled to a
considerable distance for, began...with scalpings of the Oxford
martyrs. When I realized what was happening in the opening scene, I
literally ran. I sat through Star Trek: Insurrection grateful for how
bad it was, because I hadn't recovered from the luxe S&M combo of the
trailer, SurroundSound (for the first time), and this movie (which
Ebert and Siskel warned viewers presented the wonderful sixteenth
century as it really was, unvarnished).
Thank you. There might be more of a psychological element to this
than I thought when I made the post. I don't think my reaction is
entirely psychological, not ten years down the pike, but maybe high
blood pressure and anger have a stronger equation with me than with
other people.
trotsky
Speaking of such terms, have you considered "maladjusted"?