From a business standpoint, it’s not rocket science: running a multiplex in India is a far better economic proposition than a single-screen cinema. But from the cinematic standpoint, in my opinion, a movie watched at a multiplex cannot be compared to one watched in a single-screen theatre.

This is because cinema itself is a community experience. It’s about watching a film with many other people in a given ambience. It’s about imbibing what’s around you. That is what a single-screen offers, what a multiplex can’t. You can’t compare watching a movie in a 150 seat theatre to watching it in a 1000 seat theatre. There is a whole experience that comes with the euphoria of buying a ticket on the opening day of a much anticipated film, of charging into the hall, popcorn in hand and then watching the first show with a thousand other people!

The movie hall, in its basic structure, is a dark place that envelopes you and in which you get lost while you watch the film. The director wants your undivided attention for those two or three hours. But at the multiplex, because it is so small, you can see the four walls around you. The feeling of getting lost isn’t there!

Technically speaking, sound is better in the single-screen theatre. The viewer is not a professional; he is there for the fun of it, but the moment he can distinguish where the sound is coming from — the centre, right surround — it adds flavour to the movie. Today there is an effort to distinguish each and every sound in a movie. When it reverberates in a 1000 seat hall, as opposed to a 300 seater, it is completely different. Hearing 1000 people laugh together is a different experience from hearing 300. When the director wants deadpan silence — sequences in Black required it — the silence can be felt more if you are sitting in a larger hall.

... contd.