Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese Hate This New Kind of Movie, But We Still Need It

A modern trend in cinema is despised by big-name directors including Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and the late David Lynch, but I'm here to argue that it deserves to be celebrated - at least in artistic terms.

The rise of streaming and mobile computing technology has fundamentally changed how we experience television and film. And while there are a lot of drawbacks, there are also elements that should be celebrated.

Indeed, we still need a formalized term for a new kind of movie that millions enjoy.

'Second-Screen Viewing' Is a Controversial New Reality

In recent years, some of the world's biggest directors have railed against streaming platforms' approach to cinema, and the phenomenon of 'second-screen viewing.'

Second-screen viewing is exactly what it sounds like - watching TV or a movie while also utilizing another screen device like a tablet, phone or gaming console. This practice can technically even take place without a "first screen," if your attention is on something else like a household task.

Second-screen viewing is now so common that projects are reportedly being turned down by streamers for not being 'second screen' enough. Meanwhile, an article from n+1 went viral after alleging that Netflix executives have requested characters "announce what they’re doing so that viewers who have this program on in the background can follow along."

As an example, n+1 targets Netflix's Irish Wish, pointing out that some lines seem dedicated solely to recapping the plot and stakes: "That will be the last you see of me because after this job is over I’m off to Bolivia to photograph an endangered tree lizard."

Major Directors Hate Second-Screen Viewing

Various big-name directors have called out the way that movies are now being made for second-screen viewing, criticizing both the small screen of phones and tablets, and the way they encourage viewers to only partially commit to the art in front of them.

David Lynch stated that, "If you're playing the movie on a telephone, or on your computer, you will never in a trillion years experience the film. You'll think you have experienced it, but you will be cheated."

Meanwhile, Martin Scorsese has asked fans "I would suggest, if you ever want to see one of my pictures - or most films - please, please don’t look at it on a phone, please." Likewise, Steven Spielberg has branded streaming films "TV movies" that shouldn't be considered for awards like the Oscars.

While these directors are more than entitled to their opinion (and in many cases, their specific points have been warped by wider application), the age of second-screen viewing is worth both understanding and celebrating.

Modern Life Is Better Thanks to Second-Screen Viewing

In 2019, Martin Scorsese asked fans not to watch his three-and-a-half-hour epic The Irishman on a phone, and I went and did exactly that.

Why? Because I love movies, but I also have two kids under three. If I'm not looking after my daughters, I'm working, and if I'm not doing either of those, I want to spend time with my wife, who has a different taste in movies - or at least different enough that an over-three-hour meditation on the toxic overlap between American crime and labor politics is a hard sell.

Did I get the full experience of The Irishman by watching it on the (very) small screen? No. But I got something out of it, and I did so while cutting the crusts off cheese sandwiches and answering emails.

Modern life is busy, and while 'second-screen viewing' may not allow me to fully experience a movie, it brings art into everyday moments that would otherwise be all about function and necessity. Maybe this is just my experience, but my second-screen viewing isn't an alternative to going to the cinema - it's an alternative to just not seeing that movie at all.

We Need a Name for Movies Designed for Second-Screen Viewing

What's particularly interesting about second-screen viewing is that we're seeing more and more hints that movies are being made with this type of enjoyment in mind.

While master directors shouldn't have their work warped by streamers, it actually might be helpful if the latest Netflix romcom was created with the knowledge that I'm probably watching it while dedicating 10 or 20% of my attention elsewhere. In fact, maybe I'd rather watch a slightly less well-written espionage thriller while also playing Balatro than enjoy a marginally better movie by itself.

Movie theaters used to screen B movies, with the attendant expectation of lower production values and shorter run-times. Today, I'd argue we have second-screen movies, and while it is a crime to cram a cinematic masterpiece into that mold, it's actually fine to have a whole genre of movie to enjoy when you don't have the time, inclination or ability to commit 100% of your attention.

Second-Screen Movies Aren't Going Anywhere, So Let's Enjoy Them for What They Are

Before I had kids, I went to the cinema once a week, if only to feel like my membership card wasn't a rip-off. Today, I know that's never going to be my reality again, and I'm fine with it. But I'm also grateful that, thanks to the tiny screen I can carry around anywhere, I don't have to just give up on seeing the movies I used to travel for.

Great artists have earned their right to complain about audiences and the wider industry, and there's a lot to criticize about streaming platforms and how they do business and make art. However, the existence of second-screen viewing and the growing trend in second-stream movies isn't a blight on the artform - it's another way to engage with it.

Is giving 60% of your attention to a movie a worse experience than giving 100%? Absolutely, but if it's an alternative to 0%, it's better than nothing, and it can still be a rewarding experience. And if Netflix and Amazon want to start making movies custom-made for the way I'm actually able to watch them... well, it's hard to see that as a bad thing.