(originally published in The Outreach Connection in May 2005)
For me, watching movies is a matter of
considerable planning and strategy. I have an ongoing aspiration to be someone
who can comment at least semi-articulately at any given time on almost any notable
film, as though the encyclopedia of world cinema were lodged prominently in my
cortex. Given the number of pages in the encyclopedia, this is an impossible
object, involving not only seeing the major new releases (I’m using “major”
here to denote artistic interest rather than commercial prominence) but also
constantly visiting and revisiting films from the past. One could easily watch
three or four films a day and barely crack the surface of this task; since I
have a full time job and a wife and a dog, such a commitment is clearly
impossible. So as a compromise, I’ve long aimed to watch a film a day on
average, from all sources.
Movies all the time
As I write, I’m doing rather well on this
year’s target – I’m actually ten or so films ahead. I can’t fully explain how
this happened, although it helped that I acquired a laptop that plays DVD’s and
I thus have additional flexibility in cramming movies into otherwise
unproductive time. For example, on a recent trip to my parents’ house in Wales,
I watched The Killing of a Chinese Bookie
in bed across a succession of early mornings. That aside, the average week
might take in two or three new films in the major chains, a couple at the
Cinematheque or other repertory venues, with the balance coming on DVD or
video, usually in fifteen minute or half hour chunks here and there. Some
people can’t watch films this way, and I wouldn’t say it’s ideal either, but
for me it’s a matter of logistical necessity.
It’s a little puzzling that I’m watching so
many movies this year, because I’ve been spreading myself potentially a bit
thin. Work takes up nine or ten hours a day. I do these weekly columns of
course, and I also wrote an article in the current issue of CineAction. I’ve also been writing a
novel (you’ll probably never hear of it again) which is nearly at 50,000 words.
I spend half an hour a day studying French and have been exercising diligently.
My wife and I eat out at least twice a week. I’ve been socializing more than in
years, in some weeks scheduling something for virtually ever night. I’ve read
more books so far this year than I usually do (albeit mostly books about
cinema, which I was trying for a while to avoid), as well as numerous magazines
and papers and the ever-growing roster of websites I visit regularly. And I did
all my share of the dog walking and my other designated household duties. And
much else. Before you ask, no, I don’t sleep a lot, and it’s getting to be
less.
Money in the Bank
You can probably see from this that I don’t
spend much time doing what people term “nothing.” Of course, some might say
that seven movies a week is a big investment in doing nothing, but it doesn’t
feel that way to me. Most of my days are like relays, the baton constantly
being passed from one activity to the next. But I don’t think (not that it’s
completely in my power to judge) this makes me one of those highly-strung
perpetual motion types. I walk fast, sure, and I make decisions fast, but most
of the time I feel pretty laidback. In the middle of this hurricane of
activities, I like to claim there’s a peaceful eye.
And not the least of the reasons for this
is that I’m on a real movie high this year. I think I may have seen a better
quality of films this year than I ever have before. Virtually everything I
watch is just thrilling. In the last few weeks alone, for instance, I’ve
watched films by Bunuel, Dreyer, Resnais, Kurosawa, Antonioni and (courtesy of
MoviePix) seven by Hitchcock. This is all like money in the bank. Many of the
new movies have been good and diverting – the six hour The Best of Youth, the documentary Darwin’s Nightmare, the German Head-On
caught at the Goethe Institute (unfortunately that one didn’t get a wider release).
Just as you sometimes appreciate simpler food
as a contrast to a series of high-end meals, I’m also finding heightened
pleasure in the second-tier films I’ve been watching. For example, I watched
Susan Seidelman’s Desperately Seeking Susan
for the first time in twenty years. The film looks cumbersome and rather
laborious now, and the progressiveness of its sexual politics is certainly
compromised. But the central axis of a bored housewife breaking out of her
prison through identification with another more self-defined woman still seems
fresh and exciting. It’s a film in which every element seems culturally and
politically intriguing.
I actually went to see Monster in Law, for Jane Fonda of course, and although I could
certainly see all the weaknesses and idiocies that some critics were so
vituperative about, I regarded the movie with general goodwill (any review I
might have written would have been somewhat wet and bloodless, which is why I
didn’t bother with it). Fortunately for my future prospects in this space, I
found there is a limit to this wellbeing, and I reached it with Paul Haggis’ Crash. The film received some terrific
reviews (The New Yorker thought it
the best American movie since Mystic
River) and some damning ones that saw it as an absurd preachy fake (albeit
well-orchestrated). That’s pretty much my own view.
Valid Investment
And yet, watching Crash was a scintillating experience, and my wife and I discussed
it solidly for at least half an hour afterwards. With so much to choose from,
there’s no excuse for anyone watching a movie that’s at least stimulating and
interesting. And the network of decisions and inputs and compromises and
tensions underlying a failed or unsatisfying movie can be at least as
interesting (and often more so) as those underlying a conventionally successful one of limited
ambition. It seems to me that everyone would acknowledge that on some level,
and yet given the choice, I’m always surprised and dismayed how people choose
to opt for something simple and reassuring, without concern for how this marks
them as puppets of mass commerce.
When I was growing up in Wales, I latched
on to films fairly early as a central means of self-definition – I desperately
wanted to transcend my surroundings, to be the kind of person who could get
out, and cinema helped me acquire the expanded parameters to accomplish that. I
suppose I feel more settled and fully defined now, and yet every time I watch a
movie, or rewatch a good one, I feel something meaningful is added. Chasing
movies may sometimes be arduous, but I’ve never seriously doubted the validity
of the investment. I wish more people realized the richness of what’s available
to them, but I also know how much I’m ignorant of in areas I don’t pursue. I
wonder, truly, if I could expand my range of activities a bit, if I could get
by on half an hour less sleep a day...
No comments:
Post a Comment