High-Definition Video Films

I am filled with dismay at the prospect of walking into a movie theater, viewing a film on high-definition video, and deciding how it will end (“PacBell to Test Movie Distribution by Phone,” March 21).

In its current form, high-def is a poor substitute for the traditional approach of shining light through celluloid. It has a fall-off on either end of the black-white spectrum, so that a black-and-white picture like “Schindler’s List” would look muddier and less distinct. Nor would colors be as bright and sharply defined in the medium.

Just as alarming is the cheerful prediction by PacBell’s Bob Stewart: “A studio could have 10 or 15 different endings and the audience could vote when they come in on which one they want to see. Majority rules.”

Has Stewart ever seen a movie, or ever met a film executive? On the basis of this statement, I doubt it. Can he name an executive prepared to authorize the cost of shooting 10 or 15 different endings for a film? Or even two or three? Does he know that audiences hate it when someone “gives away the ending?” Would he personally like to linger in the lobby before a film, reading a ballot with 10 or 15 possible endings for a movie he has not yet seen?

A movie is not a democracy, and the majority should not rule. The director should rule. The average audience for “Casablanca,” prior to seeing the film, would undoubtedly vote for Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman to live happily ever after. Joseph Cotten would get Alida Valli at the end of “The Third Man,” Hannibal Lecter would be executed on death row. Tom Hanks would not die in “Philadelphia.” The characters of Ike and Tina Turner, in “What’s Love Got to Do With It,” would go to a marriage counselor.

Interactivity works just fine for computer games. The few times it has been tested with real audiences at real movies, it has failed dismally. A movie’s purpose is for it to act upon me, not for me to act upon it. When Indiana Jones is running hellbent from that rolling boulder, do I want an opportunity to vote on whether he leaps aside? Not a chance. That would destroy the movie’s headlong momentum, and break the suspension of disbelief necessary to almost every movie.

The exploitation pioneer William Castle once released a film in which the audience was given the “choice” of an ending, after seeing Castle, seated behind a desk, promise them that the projectionist was “standing by” with two alternate conclusions. Oddly enough, the audience always voted for the more violent and horrific ending. Just as well, since of course it was the only one Castle bothered to supply.

ROGER EBERT

Chicago