50 Books A Year

There was (is) this project where a group of people attempted to read 50 books in the year 2005 and using blogs or other devices, they would post a record of their progress, the books read, and their critiques. 50 books in a year. That's approximately a book a week. Not being a graduate of EWA (Evelyn Wood Academy), I find that a rather ambitious undertaking ...even if a lot of it were "light reading".

All that reading would definitely cut into my movie-watching. Now if we were taking 50 "films" a year, that would not only be do-able, it falls well below my usual intake of celluloid (or video/digital tape or whatever). I watch very little TV per se, but I'm constantly using my [big screen] TV as a monitor for watching movies ...I love movies, all types of movies. I watch a lot of movies.

Click here to view a [small] sample of my film choices.

I generally don't like seeing a movie after having [read] the book from which it was adapted. Invariably, the film will be a disappointment. The approach I prefer, if I like the film, is to then read the book. Yes, I still do find (make) the time to read.

Sure I like the hit movies and the blockbusters, the sensory roller-coaster created with all the latest technology, but my main appreciation of film is as an artistic medium ...not just a showcase for the "stars" used to draw an audience and put butts in the seats. Which means I watch a lot of independent and foreign films.

I really like foreign films, but, in spite of the language barrier, I prefer them subtitled rather than dubbed. In this respect, French films are better, because they tend to be more about emotion and ambiance. They're not heavily subtitled so you can really get immersed in the film. Hispanic films tend to be very heavy on the dialog, fast paced dialog, which means lots of subtitles. And since you can't (I can't) watch the movie and read the subtitles simultaneously, I generally (if I like the movie) have to watch it at least twice. The first time is mainly to read the subtitles so I know what being said. The next time through, I can concentrate on the visual artistry; the filmmaker's vision and how [he] uses the medium to express this; the techniques used by the cinematographer and how they differ from our domestic style of filmaking.

In the past I collected any movie that I really liked, but then after I'd amassed a considerable number of titles, I realized that liking a moving is not a reason to add it to your personal library. The movie has to be re-watchable, and not all of them are, even some of the good ones. Case in point: As much as I enjoyed the "surprise" in "The Crying Game", the movie has very little merit once you've seen it ...except to remember how unprepared you were (at the time) for that unexpected revelation. And a movie like "Bridges of Madison County" which was thoroughly enjoyable the first time through, is totally unwatchable a second time. The pace is waaay to slow. Now, take a movie like "The Ritz" (with Rita Moreno). I find myself rolling on the floor howling with laughter every time I view it, and I've seen the movie so much, I can quote all the dialogue and act out all the parts.

And then there are those titles that you love to watch and re-watch, but you find yourself watching them [faithfully] only when they're being "broadcast"; you never watch the copy from your own library. I think it has something to do with the time commitment. If you play your copy, you're obligated to watch it, giving it your full attention. But if it's being broadcast, you can watch it in a half-ass way -- you already know what it's about -- and divide your attention among other things.

I must admit, writing this post has given me pause to consider the [book] titles in my library that seemed so interesting when I picked them up in the bookstore, but have since languished on the shelf waiting to be read. I might, for the upcoming year, set some sort of [book-reading] goal for myself ...but nowhere near 50.

Quote of the Week: "It never turns out like the picture in the book."