Numbers

Numbers and an update.

145 films to watch. That's a fair old number, but what are they? Do I have to watch 145 black and white silent films, or 145 films full of Italians living difficult lives, 145 musicals (please God no!) or even Stanley Kubrick in ever flavour imaginable?

Well less than 10 are silent, and there was only one musical (the actually pretty damn good “Singin' in the Rain”). Interestingly my viewing of “Singin' in the Rain” coincided with the second of the two jumbo thunderstorms that hit Newcastle last year, which somehow managed to partly flood the second floor flat I was living in at the time.

One of the more pertinent questions seems to be “How long is this going to take?” I'm not talking about the almost three years I've spend watching these films, but the actual total runtime, which comes in at:

Total runtime of the 145 films = 305 hours and 46 minutes

That is slightly less than 13 days. Not even two weeks. What have I been doing? I should have finished this ages ago, but then I need to be in the right frame of mind to watch and appreciate some of these films, and distractions persist (Skyrim I'm looking at you!).

I've done a bit more number crunching on those films I've now watched, and those I still have to watch and it's below:

What decades are the films from?

Going with the overall numbers first we get a fairly predictable bias towards the 1990s onwards, no doubt because most of the IMDBs members are younger so have seen more films from their own lifetimes than those produced in earlier decades. Even I had only seen one film in the list from pre-1960: The Wizard of Oz it so happens, but that is a film I saw as as child and can hardly remember (one to eventually re-watch perhaps).

In terms of what I would (and will) have to watch the 1950s seem to be winning with the 2000s in second place (I don't get to the cinema as much as I'd like so have missed a fair bit) and the 1940s and 1960s getting a fair showing too. Overall though it's certainly weighted towards older films. Only 41 of the 145 were released after I was born (mid 80s).

What Language are they in?

I don't have a problem watching a film in its native language with subtitles, but that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes harder to motivate myself to fully focus on the subtitles rather than just sitting back and letting the dialogue wash over me.

Mostly English, well that is/was a relief! It does show the language blinkers of most English speaking folks when it comes to film mind (I was recently baffled to discover that there is even a Troll Hunter remake on the cards)

Where are they from? (or which country is winning)

It goes without saying that the home of Hollywood gave us most of these films (116 were US productions or co-productions). The UK gave us 9, France and Italy each produced 8. Germany and Japan 6.

Do any directors crop up more than once?

23 directors were responsible for more than one film in the list.

Looking at that its hard to argue that Hitchcock was anything other than a master, and having seen 9 of the 10 films he has in the Top 250 I'd go further and say he definitely is.

Nearly every flavour of Kubrick too.

… And that update

16 to go now.

Since my first post I've watched “La Strada”, “Nights of Cabiria”, “All Quiet on the Western Front”, “Amorres Perros”, “Witness for the Prosecution” and “Anatomy of a Murder”.

“La Strada” & “Nights of Cabiria” were my first exposure to Italian cinema from the 50s. I'd already watched and enjoyed "Bicycle Thieves", which was from 1948 but seems to be cut from the same cloth. I'm not sure quite how I feel about Fellini and that particular style. They were both well crafted and gave an interesting look into the lives of poor Italians. That said the lead in each was played by Guilietta Masina and I can't decide whether I loved or hated her quirky performances and massive overacting.

Also “All Quiet on the Western Front”, is a very impressive film when you consider it was made it 1930. Action scenes like that wouldn't be out of place in Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers and although some of the acting is very dated, it still works.

“Amorres Perros” is three stories linked together in what is starting to look like standard fashion, sadly the middle one wasn't great, but the other two more than made up for it. Just imagine what it would've been like with a stronger second act.

“Anatomy of a Murder” and “Witness for the Prosecution” are both excellent tense courtroom dramas in one Charles Laughton is brilliant, and in the other James Stewart is even better. One thing I've learned watching these films is that James Stewart is just a brilliant actor.

One last thing

The Top 250 at the time I started; those I had seen and those I hadn't