Monday, November 17, 2008

In with the In Crowd


Children are great at parroting their peers and parents. Over time their views are challenged, they realize they can't defend them since they have simply been parroting and they begin to develop critical thinking. It's essential to their development. It's also fun to watch. Our 14 year old son says this often of movies: "You have to see it on the big screen." Why does he say that? Because he's heard adults, peers and my wife and I say it. Does he know what it means? I'm not sure.

When I was a kid, one either saw a movie in the theatre or on commercial television. Later, cable and videotape became other options. When someone said, "You have to see it on the big screen" it meant something. Seeing a movie on television meant pan and scan, commercials, scenes edited out, scenes originally cut out edited back in and profanity either muted or dubbed with another word. Sometimes the filmmakers would go as far as film two scenes when profanity was used, one for the theatre and a cleaned up version for tv. If you only saw the movie on television, one actually could argue that you had not really seen the movie at all. A rough facsimile maybe but not the real thing.

Now it's different. When my son watches a movie on television, it's a fairly big screen (and relative to the size of the screen and his distance from it, around five feet, it is a rough equivalent of seeing the larger theatre screen from a distance of eighty five feet), there are no commercial interruptions, no pan and scan, no post release editing. Seeing a movie on television now, by means of a DVD player, does not present a radical difference visually from seeing it in the theatre.

But depending on the movie, the difference in social experience can be compelling.

I've never supported the idea that the movies that "must be seen on the big screen" are the great visual giants, the great special effects extravaganzas. The more I see on the small screen that I have already seen on the big screen, the more I realize that the big screen provides little difference for me visually. But emotionally, it's a completely different story.

This past October my wife and I saw The Crowd at the AFI Silver Theatre in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, and the experience was unforgettable. The film was featured as a part of the A.F.I.'s Labor Film Fest and as an added bonus had the original organ score played live for the film by accomplished organist Ray Brubacher.

Other features included the requisite film historian giving a brief introduction and a raffle in which the audience submitted their names on cards for a bag full of goodies. And I won! So if you happened to be present for this showing of The Crowd, that dashing young man who walked up front to collect his prize was yours truly. It wasn't much of a prize (a couple of free passes, T-shirt, cup, etc) but it was still exciting to win.

Then the movie started with Brubacher providing accompaniment. I had seen The Crowd twice before, both times on television, once on PBS and once on videotape. I was excited for my wife to see it for the first time. Only later did I realize I was seeing it for the first time too. Directed by King Vidor with a fluid movement of camera and lean pacing, the movie tells the story of John and Mary Sims (James Murray and Eleanor Boardman) making their way through an indifferent urban landscape as they struggle with marriage, money and parenthood. Watching it on the big screen I was reminded why so many film historians rank James Murray's performance as one of the best of the silent era. Remarkably free of over the top pantomime, it is a subdued and nuanced performance, one that draws the audience into the character and attaches them to him emotionally. Eleanor Boardman is also superb as Mary Sims, playing off Murray brilliantly as he slides deeper and deeper into emotional despair.

The film became famous for the fight over its ending by Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg. Mayer wanted to tack on a happy ending, where John and Mary win the lottery or John gets a high paying job dropped into his lap. What Mayer didn't realize, and it makes me wonder what if any understanding of story he had, is that The Crowd does have a happy ending, only it's real, not phony. At the end, as John and Mary laugh at the comedy they're watching in the theatre, they are still destitute, still jobless, still struggling. John is but 24 hours removed from a suicide attempt and Mary just hours removed from wanting to leave him. But they're happy, right now, in this moment. It took years but they finally realize that whatever is going to happen to them they can only survive it together. And that's a great ending, one that doesn't declare their troubles are over or their money problems solved, but states definitively that they've grown, together. That's a happy ending in my book. Vidor got it. Thalberg got it. Mayer? It flew right over his head. How could they be happy if they weren't rich? I'm glad I never knew Mayer.

That's the movie. Now for the experience. The audience present, the crowd, was there because of a love of classic film, a love of silent film. We all laughed together in the same places, gasped together, shared the same sense of excitement, the same sense of awe. When it was over we all applauded, ostensibly for Ray Brubacher and his excellent accompaniment, but I knew we were applauding the film as well, perhaps sharing a spiritual hope that somewhere, somehow, James Murray and Eleanor Boardman, King Vidor and Irving Thalberg could hear us and feel how much we loved their work. It was a wonderful experience, one I will never forget. And it taught me once again that seeing a film on the big screen as opposed to the television screen can make all the difference in the world. I'd recommend The Crowd to anyone interested in great cinema but feel like seeing it at home would be seeing a different movie than the one I saw at the A.F.I. This may be illogical and irrational, it may be challenged in this era of 70 inch screen televisions and blu-ray DVD players, but I have to say it anyway:

If you haven't seen The Crowd on the big screen, you haven't seen it.

54 comments:

Peter Nellhaus said...

My own experience is also that silent films work better seen theatrically. My former significant other, who prefers big budget Hollywood films, changed her mind about silents after seeing Pandora's Box and Show People with me in San Francisco a couple years back at their silent film festival.

Jonathan Lapper said...

Peter, absolutely. There are plenty of films that work wonderfully on the big screen but silents work better than most. And I don't think most people would believe that until you show them so I encourage anyone with a chance to see a silent film on the big screen to definitely see it. Even if it's not Sunrise or The Crowd it can be a great experience.

Fox said...

There must be a reason this film continues to be unavailable on DVD. I've been wanting to see it for the longest time due to some amazing stills I saw in a book or magazine (or on here!), but I couldn't see a VHS copy doing it justice. Perhaps, as you say, DVD won't either.

Also, I agree with Peter about silents on the big screen. It's a much better canvas for an art that is so awesomely visual.

Jonathan Lapper said...

Fox, it's one of the most revered of all silent films and yet is unavailable. I swear sometimes I think DVD companies and studios don't know cinephiles exist. I would like to think there are enough of us that a big, full treatment release of The Crowd would make money for the studio but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they don't care because there aren't enough of us to turn a healthy profit. I hope not but as I was reminded on my business trip hearing everyone at the conference bring up movies in casual conversation, we movie bloggers/cinephiles are few and far between indeed.

bill r. said...

Jonathan, I'd be tempted to agree with you, except for things like that Borzage/Murnau boxset that just came out. Why would that thing even exist if studios didn't at least occasionally market towards us? I can't explain the unavailability of The Crowd, however.

Jonathan Lapper said...

Bill, I know they do on occasion, it was just rhetorical way of saying, "what gives?"

As for that boxset, boy would I love to have that, especially with the whole rebuilding my DVD collection going on. But at $180, uh, I'm going to have to wait... a long, long time.

Gloria said...

An unforgettable experience for me was watching Sjostrom's "The Wind" with a full orchestra playing the music.

I saw it some time after at the TV, and of course, it remained a great film.

But again... Watching it on a big screen, along withy more people, made for a great evening: add Lillian Gish to it and is plain nirvana

Jonathan Lapper said...

Gloria, I haven't yet seen The Wind but I hope I get the opportunity to see it like you did. Sounds like an amazing experience.

As you said with The Wind, The Crowd too is great on tv, it's just such an underwhelming experience compared to full silent film treatment one gets in a theatre. The AFI doesn't do a whole lot of silents, maybe one or two a month, but I like to see as many as I can.

Arbogast said...

Very often when a big company deigns to release something precious and unlikely, there's a vocal champion in the shadows who urged it on and busted his or her ass to make it happen. Then the thing doesn't perform to Corporate's expectations (which are unreasonable) and the guy or gal who husbanded this project is never trusted again.

Jonathan Lapper said...

Then the thing doesn't perform to Corporate's expectations (which are unreasonable) and the guy or gal who husbanded this project is never trusted again.

Which is why so many silents released on DVD get the copyright has lapsed cheaporino treatment. If you look at the TCM DVD shop, which is where I order my stuff because it's meticulously separated out by categories, stars, directors and so on - much more than an Amazon.com is, you'll find just over 400 silents and most do not have deluxe transfers. By contrast check out any other genre (yes, I know, silent isn't a genre, but it's separated that way) and each is broken down into decades, with each decade of, say, mystery/suspense, having more titles available than the silents in their entirety.

Fox said...

Very often when a big company deigns to release something precious and unlikely, there's a vocal champion in the shadows who urged it on and busted his or her ass to make it happen. Then the thing doesn't perform to Corporate's expectations (which are unreasonable) and the guy or gal who husbanded this project is never trusted again.

That made me curious Arbo, do you speak from experience?

Jonathan Lapper said...

Yes, Arbo put everything he had into getting Cop and a Half released on a Criterion Deluxe Super Special Edition only to be burned badly.

Fox said...

Oh my god! You laugh, but how awesome would it be to hear a Criterion recorded commentary track with Henry Winkler and Burt Reynolds???

(OK, so maybe I'm alone)

But I think it was Marilyn ... or perhaps it came out during that epic drinking session between Bill and Rick ... that made parallel's between Cop and Half and Bicycle Thieves. Anything's possible!

Jonathan Lapper said...

I'd like Criterion or hell, anybody, it could be Mac Daddy's DVD Emporium, to start putting out commentary tracks with bloggers or just online writers who are not in the upper tier of paid critics. They could put the big end folks on there too on their own tracks but they could put a blogger track on there too. If Mac Daddy's DVD Emporium is listening, I'd be happy to provide commentary for a wide range of movies from the twenties through the seventies.

Drop me a line.

November 17, 2008

Fox said...

I think that's an excellent idea.

As much as some of the "scholars" currently providing commentary are full of facts, oftentimes it sounds like they are reading off a page and it gets tiresome.

Fresh voices would be nice. Or, maybe pairing two together... a young voice with a new.

Jonathan Lapper said...

Or a love-hate relationship. For instance, you and Bill could do The Dark Knight. Kimberly and Arbo could do Descent. Dennis and I could do Speed Racer. Marilyn and anyone who likes Sarah Silverman could do... uh... something with Sarah Silverman in it. You get the idea. A commentary track in which the commenters argue over key aspects of the film while you watch it. Damn, I like that idea. I hope Mac Daddy's listening.

Marilyn said...

Sarah Silverman is a pig.

Jonathan Lapper said...

The Diary of the Dead is atrocious.

Fox and Bill could do that one too.

Krauthammer said...

Of the things I miss from Silver Spring, I miss the Silver the most. To see The Crowd, one of my favorite movies of all time no question, would have been great. It may be the movie that gives me the purest emotional response of any picture, I have no idea how it would be on the big screen.

On a tangentially related note, for some reason the vast majority of the movies I've cried at have been silents. Sunrise, The Crowd, Nosferatu, Tabu, The Kid, La Roue, Broken Blossoms, The Thief of frickin Bagdad. I can count the talkies that I've cried at on one hand with digits to spare. I've never understood it.

Jonathan Lapper said...

Krauthammer, I didn't know you used to live here. The Silver is a great theatre. There are now so many classic films that I can say I've seen on the big screen thanks to it. And with cast members, or the director present. One such experience, again in October, I'll be writing up here shortly.

And I don't think the emotional response to silents is too unexpected. Like looking at a picture and getting an emotional response but hearing someone tell the story shown in the picture might not register the same way.

Fox said...

I'm game for the commentary track, but I hope Bill knows that sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NANANANANA... I can't hear you.... NANANANA" doesn't count as commentary.

bill r. said...

I'm game for the commentary track, but I hope Bill knows that sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NANANANANA... I can't hear you.... NANANANA" doesn't count as commentary.

Maybe not, but punching you square in teeth would!

I think this commentary track thing is a marvelous idea, and we should get the wheels turning. Who do we know who could get us an "in" with someone who can make this happen? Dennis probably knows some people. I'm a regular commenter at Glenn Kenny's site, which I think means I know him, and that he'd be willing to put me in touch with the Criterion folks. Arbogast is mysterious, but I bet he knows a whole mess of DVD people...

Seriously, gang, we can do this! And I'll finally be able to punch Fox in the teeth for real!

Jonathan Lapper said...

I'll contact everyone I know. Unfortunately, none of them work for a DVD company.

But screw it, I'm contacting them anyway.

Fox said...

I know a dude that sells bootlegs out of his truck on East 7th street. Does that count? I mean, the editions he sells are pretty bare bones, so he could use some extras.

p.s. I still think doing a Bloggingheads.tv type of film battles would be fun, but I have a feeling that many of us may be camera shy.

bill r. said...

Not me. I love the camera, and it loves me.

Peter Nellhaus said...

I'll settle for an invitation to write liner notes explaining why The Giant Claw is my favorite film in the oeuvre of Fred Sears, or maybe a few choice words in praise of the wit and wisdom of Sarah Silverman. (I'm still waiting to see Diary of the Dead for myself.)

Jonathan Lapper said...

I haven't seen Diary of the Dead either, I'm just taking Bill's word for it. That being the case...

The Diary of the Dead is atrocious.

Fox said...

"I haven't seen Diary of the Dead either, I'm just taking Bill's word for it."

Oh... so now it's Bill's word, huh? What about MY word? You told me my word mattered when we having drinks last week. And now you're just dismissing me like I'm Rick Olson or something!

I'm gonna tattoo "DIARY OF THE DEAD RULES!" on Bill's abs one night while he's sleeping. You know, like how Tupac had "THUG LIFE" on his abs? Well, that's what Bill will look like now.

Jonathan Lapper said...

Fox - Bill saved my life in 'Nam. His word is gold with me.

Fox said...

You don't mean in the Viet Nam war... just while y'all were in Viet Nam on vacation and you choked on some food, right?

Cuz, if Bill was in "Nam" - as in "The Sh*t!" - then he woulda been like 10 months old in his diapers saving you grown ass life... and that's just absurd!

p.s. Ever since Marilyn got her own day over at Bill's, she doesn't come round here much anymore... what's up with that?

Peter Nellhaus said...

I thought some of you zombie lovers might enjoy checking this site.

Jonathan Lapper said...

Uh, Fox, you do know I'm way too young for Nam as well, right? But yeah, we were in Nam on a really long field trip one day from Bloggers PreSchool and I slipped on some jelly that had fallen out of Arbogast's PB&J. Well, my man Bill was right there and caught me before my head smashed into the pavement. I've never forgotten that, or the debt I owe him.

As for Marilyn, I think she hates me now. I have offended her in some way and she's punishing me by not showing up here. I miss her. Seriously, I hope she's not mad at me. But that's the kind of thing I actually worry about so there's nothing I can do. But if I have offended you Marilyn I deeply apologize.

Actually, I think Bill lured people over to his blog through some kind of mind control. If he hadn't saved my life, I'd feel betrayed.

Jonathan Lapper said...

Peter, I'll have to put that up on my other possessed zombie blog. Thanks for the link.

Fox said...

Nah... I knew you weren't THAT old. But now I am more concerned with this:

I slipped on some jelly that had fallen out of Arbogast's PB&J.

The way we know Arbo, are you sure that was an accident?

In my head, when Bill caught you, I see a rotating 360 degree camera shot with "Up Where We Belong" by Joe Cocker playing in the backgroung. FOREVER!... AND EVER.

Sheila O'Malley said...

I'm always late to the always-excellent conversation going on here, but I just have to say: wonderful post, Jonathan - I got goosebumps hearing of the crowd response to The Crowd. I love seeing silent movies in the theatre - I recently saw Modern Times at the Musicbox in Chicago and although I have seen the film before, I FELT like I hadn't because seeing it in a public setting with a piano player accompanying and a crowd of laughing hilarious people around me made it seem like a different movie altogether.

Great experience!

Thanks for the post!

Jonathan Lapper said...

Fox - Bill just grabbed my shoulders before I hit, said, "You okay buddy?" to which I said, "Yeah, thanks." Then he said, "No problem, you'd do the same for me." Pretty basic stuff. Then I said, "How'd that jelly get there? Isn't Arbo's sandwich still sealed inside a plastic bag?" That's when I heard a menacing laugh come from around the corner, turned around and discovered it wasn't Arbo after all - It was Olson! I tried to approach him but he threw down a glass bulb of liquid which shattered and produced an enveloping smoke screen. When it dissipated, he was gone.

Jonathan Lapper said...

Sheila, it's amazing to me how different an experience can be with a classic film in the theatre. So many of the classics we have all seen on our televisions or computers without knowledge of what the audience reaction would be. Then suddenly, after seeing them six or seven times on tv, we see them in the theatre and it's like seeing it for the first time.

That's happened to me with Citizen Kane, The Bridge on the River Kwai, 2001 and many others (including another that I'm going to write up this month) but with silent movies it always seems more dramatic. Maybe because knowing your laughter or gasps won't be drowning out dialogue the audience feels freer to let go and experience the movie on a more fully expressed emotional level. I think that may have something to do with it.

Sheila O'Malley said...

There have been times I've had a hard time seeing classic movies I love in the theatre because the audience response is either snarky or restless ... I saw High Noon at the Film Forum and I was so excited to see it on the big screen, but there was a big group of people there who just wanted to make fun of it - and it totally ruined my experience for me.

Conversely, I went to see Stalag 17 at the massive theatre at Lincoln Center and the place was packed - people had brought their kids, there were people who were not a day over 98 years old struggling in with walkers - and THAT was awesome. The movie works on you like a conductor - we would burst into laughs, we would subside as one in the serious moments ... I was just amazed at how well it worked in that huge impersonal setting. It was great!

Jonathan Lapper said...

I saw High Noon at the Film Forum and I was so excited to see it on the big screen, but there was a big group of people there who just wanted to make fun of it - and it totally ruined my experience for me.

That would make me furious. I would see to it that their fun was spoiled as well. There are many ways to deal with a movie spoiler, some more effective than others. I prefer loudly making them seem stupid for coming to a movie and talking but there are methods as well, including as a last resort, physically making them shut up.

Sheila O'Malley said...

Jonathan - we could have used you in that audience! I kept shushing people but to quote Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar, "There are too many of you!"

More than making me furious (and it did that as well) - it hurt my feelings. Which is so strange. Because, what, did I direct the movie?? No. But it did ... I took it personally and it really hurt my feelings.

Like - these people were snickering at the music, laughing at the closeups, the dramatic moments, the patriotic moments ... they just could NOT take it seriously as a work of art.

It was so f***ing condescending. Drove me crazy!!!

Jonathan Lapper said...

Why were they there, don't you wonder? Why go to a classic film to make fun of it? If that's your thing, rent it and have a "make fun of the movie" party in your damn basement. It's disrespectful to all the people present who have paid money and are looking forward to enjoying a great film. There are plenty of kids' things that my seven year old watches that I find ridiculously bad, but I'm not going to hurt her feelings by making fun of them while she's watching them. People are insensitive jerks, exposing their insecurities and cultural shortcomings with behavior like that in a theatre.

Sheila O'Malley said...

I know - it was really annoying and totally rude. Immature and snotty. Let me think up some more adjectives. They seemed to think that it was Mystery Science Theatre or something.

The audience at Modern Times, on the other hand, was awesome. People were HOWLING with laughter, it was a blast.

Jonathan Lapper said...

So far, at the A.F.I., I have been lucky to only encounter good crowds who seem to understand and love classic film. Knock on wood.

Krauthammer said...

I hated it when I was watching King Kong at the AFI and there was one guy behind me who seemed to find it high camp. He did shut up around halfway through the movie though.

Otherwise I've had nothing but good experiences at the AFI, The Film Forum is definitely more prone to laughing at sincerity from what the few movies I've seen there.

Jonathan Lapper said...

King Kong is one of my favorite movies of all time. I think I would have had to punch him.

Krauthammer said...

It's bearable when it's just one doofus, but when a third of the theater is snickering (like my Film Forum experience with The Maltese Falcon)a wave of despair washes over you.

Jonathan Lapper said...

The Maltese Falcon!?! Jesus, who are these cretens?

Sheila O'Malley said...

It's really upsetting when that happens. Not that everyone has to be REVERENT to the point of being DEAD ... but the rest of it? Just people being douchebags!

I saw Notorious at the Film Forum and that was an awesome experience. I remember when he dropped the wine bottle a woman sitting a few rows ahead of me gasped so loud that the whole place could hear it. The moment was so real for her. It was great! I also hadn't realized the humor in that film, seeing it by myself - the stiff German mother of Claude Rains for example - she is awful, but she is HILARIOUS - and the crowd there really helped me see that.

But with High Noon audience had a problem with the entire concept of the movie - they would have let the town be run over by bandits in a second, because who gives a crap?? - they had a problem with anything even resembling patriotic feeling - they had a problem with Grace Kelly - they just made fun of the whole thing.

In retrospect, I think I felt some anxiety there. Like there was something powerful and raw in that movie that they couldn't face. Or something.

There are certain movies now that I will not go see there. I would not see a John Wayne movie there, for example, as much as I am dying to see some of those on the big screen.

They're having a Carole Lombard festival starting this weekend and I'm considering going to see 20th Century on Friday - I think that one will be safe from the hecklers.

Krauthammer said...

I think I felt some anxiety there. Like there was something powerful and raw in that movie that they couldn't face. Or something.

I think a lot of people of my generation are afraid of sincerity. And after years upon years of camp takeoffs of that period of film, people are looking for "cliches" or something. Strong emotion is dangerous and is ripe for mockery.

It's even worse when you screen any Capra. ANY Capra.

I have had some great experiences in the theater though, like when I went to a great restored 40's theatre in Jersey City of all places. They were Playing Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast I was worried because this was around a week after my Maltese Falcon experience, and I knew that COcteau's movie had some elements that could be laughed at, but no. There were a few teens, a few older people and, most encouragingly, a lot of parents with their kids, all of whom loved the movie to pieces. You could feel that everyone had had a great time, especially the kids.

Wow, that was a long diversion.

Jonathan Lapper said...

I agree that the audience doesn't need to genuflect before the altar of classic movies but basic respect should be expected. And it's okay to laugh at some things that are meant to be funny, or just seem a tad out of place. One thing that got giggles in The Crowd occured before the opening credits when MGM's Leo the Lion is on the screen, clearly roaring but it's absolutely silent. I chuckled too. It never occured to me before but how utterly ludicrous in a silent medium to make your logo a live action lion roaring. Once sound came on the scene the logo became the classic it is today but before then, when they didn't even know sound was going to ever come in, it just seems stupid.

But after that the only thing that got laughs were the parts of the movie that were supposed to get laughs. It was a really great audience.

I also agree that a John Wayne movie might get heckles. The Searchers is a wonderful film but I would be apprehensive to see it in a theatre with people who, as Krauthammer said, are looking for the cliches. And yes, I think people are afraid of sincerity, or don't even know what it is anymore. I get so sick of all the cynical, snarky reactionary behavior from underdeveloped characters in movies and on television today, where sullen disaffection is supposed to pass for character depth.

Arbogast said...

The Film Forum was always a mixed bag for me. I went to go see M and this couple behind me must have thought they were running their own audio commentary... I finally turned around and said "Are you going to keep this up for the whole goddamned movie?" and that shut them up. After the film, as everyone was filing out, my companion told me the guy did strangle hands behind my back, as if I'd ruined his movie-going experience. (He was a total fat-ass with an funky-ugly-but-still-ugly girlfriend and I could have taken him apart like a wet bread.) I remember a run of trailers shown at The Film Forum at which the audience howled every time a man took a woman in a romantic clinch, as if heterosexuality had been disproved or something. But my good experiences far outweighed the bad there.

Jonathan Lapper said...

The Film Forum does indeed sound like a mixed bag. Recently becoming a frequent patron of the AFI it seems to me that the audiences for the classics have already seen them and love them. For instance, there's enough variety (a constant showing of new foreign, classic foreign, new films, old films, docs, etc) that specific audiences stick to specific genres. My wife and I go the old ones. At a recent one I will write up soon, in which the star of the movie was present (and I got to talk with him and he was a great old guy) the audience was asked by the film historian introducing it how many had already seen the film. Practically every hand in the packed house went up. The number who hadn't seen it were in the single digits. So right there you knew everything was going to be fine.

VP81955 said...

Sheila O'Malley, I hope you went to Film Forum (a place I regularly patronized when I lived in the NYC metro area) this weekend, especially since Carole Lombard is my all-time favorite actress. No one who claims they're a true cinema buff would dare heckle her.

The Silver is a wonderful venue that dates back to the late 1930s, as its architecture attests. I'm sure that when Goldie Hawn (who turned 63 this past Friday!) was growing up in neighboring Takoma Park, she attended her share of films at the Silver -- little knowing that many years later, her giant image would appear on that screen (before it was multiplexed).

Jonathan Lapper said...

VP - Sheila did go (see her article on it here) and loved it, as did the audience. It was reassuring to read it.

The Silver is a great theatre and I like that they have retained the one big theatre and created two extremely intimate theatres to the side, each seating about forty, so it doesn't look or feel like it got the multiplex treatment.