As Pavlov's dog might say, there are so many movies and not enough time
I recently realized that I am often like Pavlov’s dog when it comes to movies. With the dog, you ring the bell and he drools in anticipation of being fed. With me, you mention the name of a film, and I instantly want to see it.
This is the case even if I have seen the film before – in fact, it is especially the case if I have seen the film before.
It’s not a big deal when a single film is referenced in a conversation. I hear the title of the film, or one comes to mind, I feel the resulting enthusiasm, and I file it somewhere in my mind as a future viewing choice.
This tendency – this conditioned response to the mere mention of a film – can get overwhelming in the summertime. That’s the time of year when I most enjoy reading books about movies. Right now, for example, I am about two-thirds of the way through a memoir written by veteran film editor Paul Hirsch, who won an Oscar in the 1970s for his achievement in cutting a little movie called “Star Wars.”
More: For Aroha Walsh, her stint as one of the state's 'Stream Explorers' is just the beginning
It’s a fascinating book, a look at the last 50 years in cinematic history, as seen through the eyes of a craftsman whose position is all too often one of the unsung heroes of the movie business. But here’s the thing. As a result of reading this book, I now want to see, all at once, “Star Wars,” “The Empire Strikes Back,” “Footloose,” “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” “Planes, Trains and Automobiles,” “The Secret of My Success,” and so many other movies that Hirsch has edited and I have loved throughout my lifetime.
And those are just movies I have already seen – in some cases. Hirsch’s book has also inspired me to watch “Obsession” and “The Phantom of the Paradise,” two Brian DePalma thrillers from the 1970s that I had not seen before. “Obsession” was so-so, hampered by a lackluster lead performance and a plot whose details and twists did not exactly pass the smell test. “Phantom,” a campy rock opera, was loads of fun, a film I am sure to revisit during the Halloween season in the years to come.
I watch a movie, say, four or five nights of the week. That's my reward at the end of the day, my way to unwind and escape. The chances are probably good I will get around to watching at least some of the titles I have mentioned here – though they will have to compete with other films I also am itching to see, either again or for the first time.
Tom Cruise's latest mission: Restoring the all-American summer blockbuster season with 'Top Gun'
And I will have to pace myself. At this moment I can see six books on the shelf in my home office that I am hoping to read this summer. One is about the making of “The Godfather,” and another is about the making of “Mad Max: Fury Road.” A third book takes a discerning look at ten films by Alfred Hitchcock. Yet another book provides oral histories of the “Star Wars” saga. The last two books focus on films from the 1970s that either reflected or reshaped the cultural landscape.
And I just know that each of these books, even the ones about the making of a single film, will have numerous titles splashed across their pages. And I know that the mere mention of each one will make me want to view them.
It’s a good thing I’m not Pavlov’s dog, who became conditioned to drool and crave chow every time he heard that bell or detected footsteps in the general vicinity of his bowl. I have to watch what I eat as it is. If films had calories, I would be on a constant diet, with a weight-loss goal that too often would feel insurmountable.
Shawn P. Sullivan is an award-winning columnist and is a reporter for the York County Coast Star. He can be reached at ssullivan@seacoastonline.com.
This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: As Pavlov's dog might say, there are so many movies and not enough time
