Yesterday afternoon, I heard about something odd via Twitter. It all began with this tweet:

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/AdmMoody/status/275686302752571393″]

If you were so inclined, you could dig up my conversation with Adam, but let me save you some excavation. Seems as though a certain circle of movie fans over at Letterboxd are trying to drum up participants in a challenge to watch 100 films in December.

This stupefies me for several reasons.

Lets forget, momentarily, that December is not exactly known as a month where people have tons of time on their hands. Let’s also consider it understood that not everybody celebrates holidays, and likewise understood that there are some out there like students who have long stretches of time off. The challenge of trying to watch 100 films in 31 days smacks of compulsion. Hell – let’s start with the math.

100 ÷ 31 = 3.22

Three a day, every day for thirty-one days in a row. Add in a fourth on Saturdays and Sundays for a few weeks and there’s your hundred. Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

I can only imagine that this challenge was inspired by the 50 Book Challenge that was making the rounds on sites like Goodreads. The big difference though, is that a pace of one book a week results in a pleasurable pace. It encourages a routine, and even allows for people to take a bit of a respite. If I were to formulate a cinematic equivalent, I might suggest 31 films in a month…but that’s not what this group is suggesting.

You could ask why this irritates me – after all I’m not participating, and the people who are aren’t even in my close circle of movie-loving friends. So why think twice about it? Why parlay it into a full post?

Perhaps it’s because I see ideas like this, and I get bothered by its compulsive nature. It reminds me of the documentary CINEMANIACS CINEMANIA. In that film, we are introduced to half a dozen movie-goers in New York City. They all  live on welfare or assisted income, and all of them spend every day running around Manhattan watching movie after movie. As we meet each one, we can tell that they have long since passed the point of taking any joy from their hobby. To quote Norman Bates, “a hobby is supposed to pass the time, not fill it”.

There is nothing wrong with watching “a lot of movies”. If that’s what makes a person happy, and that’s what they want to do with their free time, obviously I can relate. There is a lot to be drawn from the cinema of the world, and a neverending list of “to-watch” titles to sift through. Heck, by the time the clock chimes midnight on New Year’s Eve, I am like to have seen over 400 titles myself. But that comes from balancing out what I watch with writing, reading, working, cooking, cleaning (admittedly not as much as I should), seeing friends, seeing family, and several other activities that vary by the day.

Were I ever to short-change any of these parts of my life under the banner of “I have movies to get through”, I’d feel like I had gone wrong somewhere. And that’s what I think this project influences.

Sure, there are comments in its thread of “see how close you can get” and “finally watch some of those unwatched titles”, but more than anything else it seems to be encouraging compulsion. I believe that it takes all of the meaning out of the movie-watching experience, and instead turns it into white noise. Think about watching five movies in a day: I’d wager that by the time you finish number five, you’d have a hard time discussing the details of number one.

This little hobby of ours – watching great stories unfold in a theatre, on our TV’s, on our computers – it’s meant to come with joy, passion, and enlightenment. If we start to consume it in mass quantities, the source loses its potency. At that point, the addiction becomes less about the drug and more about the high…or worse, about figuring out where the next fix is coming from.

I love the movies dearly, and if you cut off all of my other forms of entertainment, I would likely stay a happy man. However, even as a happy man, I could never dream of overindulging. I could never take those cinematic Mozarts, Picassos, and Balanchines and turn them into “just another hit”

Am I alone on this?

This idea will be explored further by Sam Fragoso at Duke & The Movies. Do check out his thoughts on the matter on his site.

27 Replies to “Love and Addiction: How Many Movies are Too Many?”

  1. I’d only usually watch 3-4 films a day if I was at a film festival (after which I’m spent). From my perspective, I watch more movies than the average person, but it’s still a reasonable number (I say it averages to about 5 a week).

    This post actually got me thinking of Ain’t It Cool News’ “Butt-Numb-A-Thon,” which is actually occurring this weekend in Austin. The premise of this (very exclusive) event is that you sit in the Alamo Drafthouse for 24 hours straight and watch movies non-stop. While this event might be cool to check out someday (though if features a somewhat challenging application process), it definitely seems like a case of overindulgence.

    1. Yeah, events like Butt-Numb-a-Thon or the pair of all-nighters they’ve done at Lightbox for Burton and Bond are cool as individual events…and even then, I wonder who can stay awake and attentive through the whole thing.

      I’d like to try something like that once, but odds are when it was over I wouldn’t want to even think about film for a week.

      1. I can see doing something like that once in a while – same with film festivals. It can be great to be totally immersed in film for a short period (a day or two, I mean, at full throttle), but it’s not something you probably should do all the time. And all-nighters I think work better a lot of times with familiar films. I used to do New Year’s all-nighter movie-watching parties with my friends, but it was always a mix of stuff new to us and stuff various ones of us had seen before.

  2. Interesting discussion. I sometimes wonder if my own movie-watching habits are too addictive, even though they pale in comparison to others (I watch at least 1 movie a day, sometimes 2). I agree with you, if you’re watching movies only to fill time, then you’re not enjoying it.

    Btw, that “Cinemaniacs” documentary sounds interesting!

  3. This is one of the top reasons Jess and I decided to cut back to feature only 10 films per actor in our podcast discussions. It got to the point that we were trying to squeeze in so many, that when recording time came, I sometimes found myself having trouble recalling some films I had watched earlier in the same week. Not to mention we were spending a max of 2 minutes discussing each film before we were on to the next. It felt unfair to the movies to let them get lost in the shuffle.

    Most weekedays I’ve started limiting myself to one movie to watch, not worried about was comes next. I’ll allow two on the weekend days if time permits. It feels like I’ve slowed down a lot over the past couple of months, of course the one year I decide to keep count. But I feel like I’m absorbing and enjoying what I’m watching more than I was, instead of trying to get my numbers up. Things are certainly sticking longer than they use to, anyway.

    1. That’s a great attitude to have if you ask me. Sorta reminds me of one of Lindsay’s relatives who freezes her batch of Christmas cookies and allows herself one-per-day. Spreads the joy out over a longer timeline.

      You just reminded me that I didn’t mention watching-for-writing within the post. The folks on Letterboxd weren’t doing that, and even if they were, where would they find the time? Like you & Jess, I’ve tried to temper watching-for-writing. That’s why my Blind Spot series is 12 for the year, and why the horror syllabus and anime/bollywood syllabus had no timeline.

      While keeping to a routine might force your hand and finally prompt one to get to something they’d been procrastinating on, I don’t think it leads to full enjoyment.

      Your attitude and pace sounds like the model, Thuro. We should all aim to be more like you…but then, you already knew that.

  4. This CINEMANIACS movie makes NYC sound like a cinematic Hamsterdam. Just toss all the junkies into one place and let ’em fend for themselves.

    I can’t and don’t really want to watch anymore than 3 movies a day, even at film festivals. They won’t linger and I can’t process them as well and they just become these blurry things I spent two hours watching.

    I had a friend who made it his explicit goal to see 100 movies at the theater in a year and spent several years trying to reach this goal. When he finally did, it seemed like that in a lot of ways he fell out of touch with the magic of the movies. That’s so tragic. It’s not about chasing records, it’s about the love of the cinema.

    1. It sort of is like Cinematic Hamsterdam, and in many ways places like London, Chicago, Toronto, Austin, Sydney, San Francisco and L.A. are too. They give moviegoers such vast options that some don’t even know where to begin.

      100 at a theatre in a year? That would depend on location.

      Am I in one of those large cities that peppers the selection with indies, docs, and classics? No problem, I can do two-a-week easily. Am I somewhere else (read: most of the world) where I am constrained to what some multiplex chain thinks I want to see? Fuck that.

  5. I’ve slowed down a lot on moviewatching (down to one or two a week lately, though I’d like to bring that number back up a bit), but I definitely went through a phase where I was all about quantity over quality. I was at a point for a while where I was choosing what movies to watch based on running time so I could squeeze more into the same amount of time. That probably wasn’t healthy, but it was pretty early in my movie obsession phase, so I was starving for content. But yeah, I don’t remember a whole lot of detail about the films I was watching back then – I guess on the good side, a lot of them were pretty forgettable classic Hollywood programmers anyway, so I likely wouldn’t have remembered them that well anyway.

    I think it’s easy to fall into this trap, though, especially when you’re the type of person (as I am) to try to watch through lists – it’s all too easy to get into the mentality of watching things just to cross them off the list. I don’t think that’s wholly bad; I’ve seen a lot of great things that I wouldn’t have sought out if they hadn’t been on some list I was watching through, but there’s a balance. 100 movies in a month definitely sounds like an extreme rather than a balance, especially a month like December. (For the record, my biggest movie-watching month as a student was always January – we had about a week and a half off in December, most of which was taken up by holiday activities, but three weeks in January, and I splurged big-time.)

    1. Interesting.

      I don’t think that mowing through a list is a bad thing – sometimes it helps having a guide to take us places that we wouldn’t ordinarily go. But if I’m going to those places, I want to enjoy myself. I mean, a person could drive through all 50 states in a month, and if they did, they could rightfully say “I’ve been all over America”. But in doing that, think they soaked up the best of what each place has to offer?

      My biggest month is consistently September. Nothing like a film festival to jack up one’s numbers.

  6. I agree. I have gone on watching sprees before, but usually when I was off and had a desire to catch up with a lot of movies. And given I sometimes have some cram times with schools, sometimes its essential for me if I want to watch more than just a couple hundred movies in a year. This year in particular had several months where I was too busy to watch a movie every day. If I just watched a film a day, I’d maybe see 200 films this year. Right now I’m maybe straining to hit 300. I do know some people who watch an obscene about of movies each week and I always wonder how much they retain or enjoy from those films.

  7. I get it. I mean, I wouldn’t do it (and probably couldn’t), but I get it. After all, we’re coming off NaNoWriMo, in which thousands of people attempt to write 50,000 words in a single month. I could see trying to get through 100 films in a month as a challenge and an accomplishment to brag about.

    But it really does get to the idea of watching something just to check it off–an ironic comment from a guy watching films based on a huge list, I realize. But I rarely watch and review more than one film in a day. I’d rather really enjoy what I’m watching (hence my break-neck but controlled pace) instead of watching because I’m forced to.

    I’m rambling a bit here, I know, and I’ve also gutted through a number of films simply because they were on the list and the list is my cinematic raison d’etre. But truth be told, I’ve genuinely enjoyed the bulk of what I’ve watched, I’ve learned a lot, and I’ve discovered a number of films I’ve really enjoyed that I’d have never seen otherwise.

    But shooting for a specific number just to get that number seems…not quite pointless, but of dubious value.

    1. See, that’s the funny thing:

      I get shooting for a specific number, but why choose such a ridiculous number? I mean, why stop at 100? Why not aim for 125? That’s about 4-a-day for 31 days in a row? That’s a challenge, right?

      The challenge could have been for 31 or even something like 65 and seemed somewhat reasonable. 100 just feels like a schoolyard dare (“Bet ya can’t eat fifteen Fruit Roll-Ups before recess is over!”)

  8. Jeez, 100 movies in one month? That’s a special kind of insane. It actually kind of sickens me.

    This year I made a goal of watching 300 new-to-me movies. I’m just about there, but I don’t know how – I’ve lost a bit of interest in watching movie after movie. Mind you, I have ended up watching over 370 movies altogether already.

    This year I watched five movies between 2pm and 1am, and then I woke up at 8am and watched another. That was back when we had a whole lot of releases, and Tuesday’s are only really the only days where I force myself to watch a whole lot (so I’m up with all of the DVDs of the week). I had a huge movie hangover after that, and I definitely don’t want to ever watch so many movies in such a short vicinity of time again. Two weeks later I saw five films in one day, but I was able to spread it out over the whole day and I was finished quite early. That was a lot better. Cramming in viewings never does anyone any good.

    I’m not really someone who likes to sit through lots of movies at once, since I find it to be a little bit stressful. Therefore, I don’t see the point of watching so many movies when it just stresses people out.

    1. The funny thing is that I can understand certain moments of going on a bender. For instance, my wife and some of her friends will be trying to marathon the extended Lord of The Rings dvd’s in honour of THE HOBBIT. That’s something like 12 hours of straight watching.

      I get it for that one moment, but if I heard that for three or four days running somebody was watching in 12-hour blocks, I’d worry about them.

      Of course, all of this comes from a guy who watched over 400 films in 345 days

  9. It’s not possible to make a blanket statement about how many is too many.

    It is also no more accurate to say that anyone who watches 100 films in a month is getting enough joy and appreciation out of them than it is to say someone who sees one movie a year must have truly savored the experience.

    Everyone’s lines between hobby, passion and obsession are drawn differently. I would define an unhealthy obsession as one that interferes with normal life functions. Someone who is so obsessed with an actor that he skips work to drive to another town to see his new film (thus knowingly putting his job at risk) may be obsessed where a cinephile who sees two or three a day for a few months may very well not. Or they may be – you really would need to look at the individual circumstances.

    As for me, I regularly see between 45 and 55 movies in about a 10-day period, at film festivals. I would argue that since my job, relationships and overall health are not suffering in order to do this, and because I most certainly derive enjoyment from it, this is not too many for me.

    Of course, it is a different experience than most other ones. As you can imagine, I become a more discerning viewer. I also get a different type of stimulation in that there are cast and crew Q&As that add a layer of substance to the material. So, it’s just a different way to consume. Not better or worse, to me.

    I set a goal to see 200 movies this year and I’m probably going to clear 300. I’m lucky that I have a few friends who like to join me in these endeavors.

    The people in Cinemania were 1) Not representative of most cinefiles, 2) likely chosen for the level of crazy they exuded and 3) Not warmly or sympathetically profiled by the filmmaker. In my opinion anyway. 🙂

    1. OK, you’re right to say that a blanket-statement might not be the best idea, primarily because I neglected to mention anything about festival-going within the span of the post. And for the record, if someone is attending a film festival, I think anything between 30 and 60 films in a ten day span comes with the territory. Even then though, the whole experience starts getting blurry to those who see 50 and up.

      That’s a good point about becoming a more discerning viewer with consuming more material, but I think even that has to come at a certain pace. I’ve learned a lot by digging into the films of Miyazaki, Polanski, and Kubrick for instance…but I’ve learned even more by taking the time to sit down with people who love or hate all of them and discuss why their works spark love and hate. That’s time I wouldn’t have had if I were in the habit of watching 4-5 a day.

      I’m like you in that a lot of my friends are people I’ve met through filmgoing (you met several of them during TIFF)…and like you, these are people I’ve discovered I have things in common with besides our love of film.

      Passions are important – I’m saddened by people who have none – but passions need balance to become worthwhile. You know those days where you’ve had a shitty afternoon at the office, but it all goes away when you get home, pour a drink and turn on a movie you love? How less potent would that medicine be if it was the same damned thing you did every other day?

  10. I decided last week I needed to fail hard at something before the end of the world or 2013, which ever comes first. I think I’ll start this challenge right now, and fail by the time I get to the weekend. Thanks buddy!

  11. That would be way too much and I wouldn’t do it. Of course there is a way to do it and just compile a list of 100 short movies, which would make the challenge quite easy. I rarely watch more than one movie a day. Occasionally on a movie festival I will watch 5 in one day, but more then two on a normal day would probably be too much. I want to spend my time on other things as well. Those numbers might be different to other people, but those are the ones I’m happy with.

    1. Yeah, I could see how short films could be a bit more conducive to this sort of thing…but I never got the impression that this challenge was targeting shorts.

      There’s been a lazy Saturday now and then when I’ve watched a whole heap (four or five), but they’re pretty rare.

  12. A month-long movie binge? Sounds exhausting. A small part of me is envious of people who have that level of physical stamina, but a bigger part wonders at what point it all starts to blur together.

  13. Wow that is a pretty intense and crazy challenge. I don’t think I could manage properly watching that many films in a day, for 31 days in a row. I sometimes do 2 at the cinema and that’s more than enough.

    1. Sorry for the late response CAZ (how ya been!?)

      Theatrical screenings are an animal all their own. During TIFF I’ll sometimes go a little foggy on days where I have four screenings in a day – remembering what happened in the first one is a push!

      As it happens, it looks like a lot of the obsessives who thought they’d try their hand at that challenge fizzled out.

Comments are closed.