March 20, 2006
No Thanks, Sir, I've Had Enough
What's your policy about not finishing movies? Are you a walker-outer, a sit-and-sufferer, a go-to-sleeper? Back when I started my Oscar quest, my (and my friend Shane's) rule was that halfway was good enough if the movie was bad enough. Later, when I started my site, I reviewed two films that I thought were so awful that I turned them off.
But I had a change of heart several years ago. Someone pointed out, in a nicely written email, that I shouldn't dismiss a movie until I had seen all of it (even though one of my favorite critics, Jonathan Rosenbaum, apparently does this). I started to feel bad about it, and I deleted one of those reviews (for Palmetto) and rewatched the other (Gates of Heaven). And I actually ended up liking the latter, although the great second half didn't exactly excuse the difficult first half.
It's now my policy to stick it out, no matter what. Once I sit my butt in the theater, I'm not getting up unless I have to pee, and even then it's a toss-up. At home, I might only half- (or three-quarter-) watch, but I finish the damn thing.
But now I find myself in a fix. The movie in question is Hollywood Revue of 1929, one of those early talky Best Picture nominees that are sometimes painful. This one is different, though, because it's not really a movie. Yeah, it played in theaters and was shot on film, but it's basically a filmed variety show in which MGM shows off that its stable of stars can, indeed, talk and sing. Well, some of them can sing; Joan Crawford, who does a pretty awful song-and-dance number, sums up why she's known as a dramatic actress. It's such a drag. I got halfway through it, not even fast-forwarding through some of the awful musical numbers—in which forgotten or never remembered crooners sing treacly songs in very, very, very long takes—although my finger kept twitching toward that button.
But then I got tired, and I turned it off, intending to finish it later. That was over a week ago. It sits atop my television, mocking me, reminding me that if only I were to finish it, I could send it back to Classicflix.com and get a movie I might actually enjoy—the next films on my queue are William Dieterle's The Last Flight, Tod Browning's The Unholy Three, and Alfred E. Green's Parachute Jumper. Sure, I could just copy it and return it (not that I would do such a thing, no sir), but then it would sit around unnoticed; at least now it's sitting around reminding me of itself.
Writing this has energized me. I'm going to sign off and put that darned movie in. Oh, but I just got another Battlestar Galactica disc... and Netflix just brought me Point Blank...
Posted by mike, March 20, 2006 8:36 PMI have this experience with books a lot, and I've found that if I put the book down, I'll come to it again years later and start over. There are a few books I've read that I've had to put down several times, until, eventually, I was in the right mind to read through it, and I was glad I did.
If I had forced myself through the book at any point, I wouldn't have gotten out of it what I did that last magical time that I finally did pick it up and find that I had a hard time putting it down.
Granted, some books are just not for me and I've never gone back to them, but I still try every once in a while, hoping that I'm finally ready for it.
Posted by: travis at March 20, 2006 9:45 PMThe problem with only watching the first half of a movie is that you're than missing important information that you might need in order to make an accurate judgement of it--you criticize it for lacking something that someone else then points out it *did* address--in the last 15 minutes. Still, your time is finite & you don't want to waste it unnecessarily. I would suggest multi-tasking--darn socks, paint your nails--then at least you don't have to feel you've totally wasted your time.
Posted by: Jennifer at March 21, 2006 7:44 AMHollywood Revue of 1929 sounds like a movie you can completely forget about. Tell the reviewer that you didn't watch all of it and they shouldn't either. Usually, I have a very hard time not finishing a movie (masochistic, I am) but sometimes, if it's obvious that the movie has nothing to say and I'm suffering for it I've got no problem shutting the damn thing off (especially if it stars Richard Gere.) This particular one, though, doesn't sound worth the time. I mean, it's barely a movie even.
Posted by: Shawn at March 21, 2006 9:22 AM