If you haven’t seen The Dark Knight, the newest biopic of legendary fictitious millionaire Bruce Wayne and his alter-ego Batman, please go find someone who has seen it and ask them to slap you in the face. If you haven’t seen it because of some moral obligation, fine, ask them to place their left hand on the spiritual text of your choice, and then slap you in the face. If you haven’t seen it because you haven’t had time, forego some napping or eating to go see the movie.

 

 

It’s that fun, and you’ll be glad you’ve seen it because you can at least have an informed opinion about the conversations surrounding the movie. Was it over-hyped? Does Heath Ledger deserve a posthumous Oscar nod? Or was he a hack who didn’t deserve to live on the same Earth as Jack Nicholson? Wasn’t it TOTALLY AWESOME when the Joker made that pencil disappear? That’s all I’ll say about the movie, though, as I don’t want to spoil it for the sub-rock-dwellers who haven’t seen it, and this article isn’t about whether the movie is worth seeing. It’s about which theater it’s worth seeing at. (One day I will get around to writing a story that doesn’t have a gimmick of some sort, but not today).

 

There are basically two options for residents of Seattle, and if you live in another city you may not be so lucky as to have both or even either an IMAX or a giganto-screen like the Cinerama. Sure, you can go see it at your local theaters in the largest screen they have at your theater, next to Mamma Mia (actually not as disappointing as the first act made it seem like it would be) and whatever Will Ferrell is doing (which will be great, I’m sure; the sonofabitch just keeps making funny movies). You can wade through the multi-plex and screaming children and even enjoy the Dark Knight. Good for you, you aren’t dead. But the only true options in Seattle to see the SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER MOVIE EVENT OF THE SEASON are the IMAX and the Cinerama. It’s that simple. Each one is pricier than regular theaters and each has its drawbacks and credits.

 

 Outside of the Seattle IMAX

 

The IMAX is a big mother-fucking screen. It’s so big it’s in a special building, deep underground (like Bruce Wayne’s Bat-Cave at Wayne Manor, which doesn’t appear in The Dark Knight, because if you’ll remember it was blown up at the end of the last film, Batman Begins) at the Pacific Science Center. It’s so big they have to shoot it in a special 70mm film stock to accommodate the towering aspect ratio (1.43:1 vs. the standard 1.85:1 for movie theaters).

 

Lately the trend has been for sure-thing smash hits with lots of special effects to film some or all of the production in IMAX, sometimes even in 3D. (IMAX 3D is, by the way, no less cheesy and sucky than 3D Comix or 1950s-era 3D; it hurts my eyes). Then they release it in IMAX theaters, previously doing only moderately good business thanks to their locations in science centers and some awesome underwater and nature-related films. IMAX lends itself to immersion and panorama: the sheer gigantia of the screen and its proximity to your face ends up filling your entire periphery with whatever is on the screen, which makes it a problem for a lot of movies – close shots look bizarre and unnecessarily large in IMAX format.

 

 

The producers and director of Batman shot only a few scenes of Batman in IMAX and they actually work pretty well. The opening bank robbery scene, which doubled as the trailer for the film, worked well, and there were quite a few panoramic crane-shots (of downtown Chicago, of Batman standing on top of a building) and even some medium shots (notably, the Joker driving a cop car with his head waggling out the window like a dog in pure freedom) that added to the film and lent the legendary Dark Knight and his Gotham some weight and heft; or in the case of the Joker, some menace. A few of the shots seemed superfluous or contractually-obligated (Bruce Wayne in a Lamborghini in full format. Why?), but for the most part, the IMAX added to rather than detracting from the film.

 

The seats in the theater are another issue entirely. The Pacific Science Center has got to do something about the seats in that place if they are going to continue to show films over 2 hours running time. Most of the IMAX fodder up to a few years ago was clean, 90-minute natural-world-related fare, and making the seats more comfortable for the squirming or over-tired children who are most likely to attend these films presents two separate problems: the squirmers won’t stop squirming even if they are ensconced in giant marshmallow chairs and the tired kids might fall asleep and piss themselves (who hasn’t?) if the chairs are too comfortable. Part of the problem, too, is the medium: IMAX is so big you have to be aimed pretty precisely at the screen to catch everything, and the position/rigidity of the chairs probably puts you at the best possible viewing angle; but for adults wanting to enjoy an overlong summer blockbuster, the seats detract from the experience. At hour two-and-a-half, it was really hard to sit there and watch the movie. Because my ass hurt. And my legs were cramped.

 

 

The Cinerama, on the other hand, has no problem with seats being uncomfortable. The Cinerama seats are like aforementioned giant marshmallows. They lean back, there is plenty of cushion, and cup-holders abound. Cinerama’s screen is also huge (90ft long x 30ft tall). Absolutely a close second to biggest goddamn indoor screen I have ever seen (the IMAX), and in no way an issue for immersion into most films.

 

The Cinerama loses nothing to the IMAX from a standard film point of view, though a film shot entirely in IMAX would have to be cut down to fit on a Cinerama screen. The prices of concessions at both theaters are comparable, and the seats are far and away superior at the Cinerama. Cinerama is owned by Microsoft Gajillionaire Paul Allen and thus presents a problem for some, though if you are considering seeing a film there, you probably should consider what the film industry is doing to your life and the lives of others before you boo Paul Allen too much. Seeing a movie at the Cinerama is like the Cadillac of movie-going; you will pay too much and you will probably get fat, but it’s a Cadillac; what’s not to like?

 

 

So, which theater to choose? The correct answer is both – you ought to see the IMAX version, just to see if you can stand looking at Christian Bale’s one-and-a-half-story head, and the Cinerama version so you can comfortably enjoy the view of a modern marvel of film production, the integrity of the art of filmmaking notwithstanding. The Dark Knight is a good movie with a giant budget – if you like action, it might be the best thing you see this summer, and so far (Aug 11^th) it’s grossed $441.5 Million this year, slightly less than the Gross Domestic Product of American Samoa (more than Kiribati, though) and just behind Titanic and Star Wars in top gross all-time, which means either millions of people have been fooled into seeing something that sucks or millions of people have had a great movie-going experience. If you have to choose just one, though, go see it in IMAX and bring a seat-pad with you, because my sister works at the Science Center. If you live somewhere other than Seattle, go see it on the biggest screen you can find, or on the IMAX if you have one in your local science center. I cannot guarantee, however, that my sister works there.