Classic Movies

[Blarg]

I understand what you're getting at when you say you like Hitchcock, and I value him a lot. He knows how to tell a story and keep it going, with personable actors, and does that very well visually too. He doesn't tend to let a story sit around till its bottom gets soggy.

CLIFF NOTES: Picking some theme or time period or film author gives a purpose to what you do and makes it much more fun too. And it gives you much more of a chance to take away a developed understanding and appreciation rather than be left with scattered, unrelated memories of something that you may ultimately not understand that well. Why don't you pick Hitchcock and give it a shot?

STING TANTRIC STYLE: DA, I'd suggest you might find, if you're really developing an interest in movies and they're not just entirely quick entertainments that you have no curiosity about and would just as soon substitute with any other, that you can inject some intrigue into your movie watching by doing something I've found very rewarding with both books and movies. That is, pick a subject, and engage yourself on multiple levels with it by deciding to not just watch, but learn. That learning process will greatly broaden your interest in each movie and dramatically increase your anticipation of what's coming next. And your enjoyment, as well.

Example from books: Someone picks up a book of Raymond Carver short stories. He finds he loves the tremendous power of what is implied when the author writes, and likes that style more than something more florid or painfully elaborated so that nearly everything is spoon-fed to him. He finds himself engaged when dealing with Carver's somewhat eliptical style, and enjoying that style's demand that the reader be fully present and open to nuance if he expects to realize the full and sometimes shocking power of a story. Curious after reading the first book, he reads up a bit about him, then determines to start at Carver's beginning, with his first book, and keep going if he likes it. He does, and soon he has gone through everything Carver has done, and now moves onto his stylistic predecessors, Hemingway, and even a bit of Sherwood Anderson. Maybe he even picks up biographies of these guys, pays a couple bucks to the New Yorker to read a story in their archives about Carver, and reads some history from around the time these authors wrote to put them into context. Surprised to see someone writing about the segment of society Carver concentrates on, maybe he picks up a couple of Studs Terkel oral history books about working life. Maybe he sees some of the movies made from Hemingway novels. What he has done is, at an enjoyable pace, developed a broad, rich understanding of not just an author, but an influential and enjoyable writing style and its place in culture and history. In his own way, he has actually accomplished something. He has put some stuff in his head worth keeping, and that he may use as a buttress or springboard when learning about other things. Because of what he already knows, learning the next related thing becomes easier, too.

The more he learns, the more connections he begins to make between things, and the richer every further experience becomes. In this way, being exposed to new things, even when they suck, still doesn't seem entirely awful, because he can fit them into a solid context and use their failings to help him get a better measure of what he thinks and believes.

Example from movies: Why not see everything Hitchcock has ever done? Books about him are often pretty entertaining, too. Start with Francois Truffaut's and learn what a MacGuffin is, and instantly a lot about storytelling from just a quick anecdote. You like Hitchcock already, and he's well worth really exploring. Happily, so many other people do too that you won't have to look far to find people to talk about him with.