You Can’t Watch This

Heather Huston wrote:
The Thorn Birds. I think its just under the time limit.

Sadly, Heather the total runtime of “The Thornbirds” is 477 minutes (do the math and that’s almost 8 hours). Since I have a 4 hour time limit for the site, I don’t feel so bad that I didn’t watch the WHOLE THING. I did, however, watch the first disc, and what a disc it was! 

The Thornbirds (mini-series) - Dir. Daryl Duke 1983

The Plot (of disc one, anyway): A money/power hungry traveling priest in the outback of Australia is seduced by an old lady and romantically attracted to a little girl.

What Makes it Watchable: I had a conversation with my girlfriend the other day about me and romantic movies. She finds it odd that films like “She’s All That” and “Sweet Home Alabama” hold my interest, but I had a very difficult time making it through “The Notebook”. We came to the conclusion that I don’t like “romances” but can enjoy “romantic comedies”. I think I’ll have to ammend that conclusion, cause “The Thornbirds”–a romance if ever there was one–held my attention for like 3 hours. In fact, had I asked Netflix to ship me the other 5 hours, I’d probably have watched those, too.

So, I’ve come to my own conclusion about romances and romantic comedies: I can enjoy either as long as they are entertaining. To put it another way:”The Notebook” just plain sucks.

“The Thornbirds” was actually fun. Maybe some people don’t find old ladies seducing traveling priests and priests staring longingly at little girls entertaining, but I did. The film is a little over the top–just enough that the acting is convincing but campy at the same time. There’s not a lot of humor in the story, but there are plenty of opportunities to laugh. If you’ve ever watched a movie where about 40 percent of the screen time is dedicated to accusing stares and expressions of shame, you’ll get the picture.

Averted Eyes: 0

Needed Breaks: 2

Overall Rating from One to Ten: 6

Bookmark to:

Inland Empire- Dir. David Lynch 2006 

After viewing this film in all its 3 hour glory, I must say I’m impressed with myself.

The Plot: Good Luck!

What Makes it Watchable: I have a certain affinity for interesting story telling, which makes even the most convoluted of David Lynch’s films worth the time it takes to watch them. I gotta say, though, that I never really “get” movies like Lost Highway, Eraserhead, or Mulhulland Drive the first time I see them (if it happens at all). Does this matter? Sometimes. It matters when the movie is 3 hours long. Absurdity is great, and Inland Empire has it to spare. Darkness, style, intrigue, atmosphere–they’re all there, too. Unfortunately, I’m not looking forward to watching this again because of its length.

If someone were to call this a masterpiece to my face, I see myself agreeing with them. If another person called it about 2 hours and 40 minutes too long, I’d probably agree with them, too (at least presently). I think that this is a movie that is impossible to digest on your first viewing, and one that is incredibly intimidating to pop in for a second viewing, so where does that leave us?

There’s all of this time taken up in the film by stillness and silence, but if you take it out, perhaps the atmosphere (and maybe the whole point) would be lost. I enjoyed watching it–really I did–but much of it was still very difficult to get through. I at once want to dismiss it forever and show it to everyone I know.

To be fair, I’ve made some somewhat incoherent crap in my day, and a few of these films make a bit more sense when you watch them a couple times. The difference is nothing I make is more than 5 minutes long. If given three hours, I am far from positive that I could fill it in near as interesting or unique manner as Mr. Lynch. I am in his debt and in awe of him as a filmmaker. However, is it possible to give a movie like Inland Empire a fair shake? Maybe not, by design.

Averted Eyes: none

Breaks needed to complete viewing: surprisingly, none

Overall rating from 1 to 10: axxon N

Bookmark to: