You mean at 60 fps. No films have been released at 120.
Lee’s preference is for viewers to watch the film in 3D, at 4K resolution (one of the crispest, sharpest pictures available), and 120 frames per second. Most theaters can display films in 3D, and quite a few can handle 4K. It’s the 120 fps that’s causing the consternation, as only
a few theaters in the world are equipped to handle it.
Briefly speaking, 120 fps allows for five times as many frames per second as is typical for films. The increased amount of visual information makes for a smoother, more realistic-looking picture — but that has its pitfalls. The standard 24 frames per second allows for a certain amount of remove, a distancing effect that always lets you know you’re watching a movie. At 120 fps, things look a bit like higher definition video — or, as many people put it,
like a soap opera. (
Billy Lynn is the first film released at 120 fps, but
Peter Jackson’s first
Hobbit movie made a go of getting the public used to 48 frames per second in 2012.)
The technology has been lambasted by critics, who don’t like its eerie, lifelike images, which can almost prompt an uncanny-valley effect. Especially with 3D and the high resolution image, there are times when
Billy Lynn feels almost like it’s really happening in front of you. At times, it gave me a headache from the sheer contrast between the dark theater I was in and a bright, bright screen that seemed almost a window into the real world.
Far be it for me to be a booster for technology that causes me physical discomfort, but
Billy Lynn did convince me there’s something to higher frame rates as a filmmaking technique. (Numerous other directors are interested in HFR filmmaking — including
James Cameron, who’s using the technique for the
Avatar sequels.) I’ll explain why below, but first let’s talk about if the film works at all as a movie.
As a film, Billy Lynn is pretty clumsy