Just a bunch of things

Every now and again I feel the need to write about various things I've been thinking about in recent days, but usually they're not really interesting enough to warrant a full post. I've not done anything serious in a while because of a busy (sleeping) schedule but hopefully I'll be able to put out something about a defence of censorship (really) in a week or so. But in the meantime I'm going to blather about some shit.

King Kong and the length of films.

I've just finished watching King Kong (2005) on ITV and a few thoughts have crossed my mind.

It's been heavily criticised for being too long - it's over three hours - but I find in general accusations of being too long to be such an odd criticism. Films feel long not because they're lengthy, but rather there is a dearth of content. The first hour of King Kong admittedly could do with being put through a vigorous weight-loss programme, but once things get going with the appearance of Kong it does not drag at all. The film is not without its flaws, but merely judging it on the run-time feels just a little bit immature.

I like films to be able to compete with books, and no one would for one second think to complain about the length of a book. Is three hours really such a long time? Perhaps the nature of film is more fatiguing on the eyes than reading, but in my experience a boring book feels just as tedious as a boring film, and I've become accustomed to both (cheers uni). At least the boring bit in Broken Blossoms only lasted an hour and a half - the boring bit in Sense and Sensibility lasted about fourteen...

Similarly, why is 90 minutes the golden length for a film? That is extremely restrictive, and extremely arbitrary. The only important thing is for the run-time to suit the narrative: even 90 minutes can feel like an age if it's packing an underdeveloped script. Perhaps the best case for this is the Ridley Scott film Kingdom of Heaven. Ripped apart upon release, the DVD version contained the director's cut which restored 45-minutes of footage to push it up to a massive 194 minutes, turning a bad film into one of the best of the year. Often, director's cuts are over-indulgent but that was not the case here. Why the initial studio-imposed cut? Because it was too long. And too political. Despite being so much longer, the extended version feels so much shorter, because it is more engaging.


Radiohead

Let's stop prevaricating, Radiohead are one of the all-time greats. The established pantheon of The Beatles,  Stones, Dylan, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and Jimi Hendrix etc. has been unchanged for decades; probably the last act to break into it is (debatably) U2. Put Radiohead toe-to-toe with the aformentioned musicians and they can hold their own.

There seems to be, broadly, four boxes that need to be ticked in order to be considered one of the best. These are:

An all-time great album:  The likely candidate album is OK Computer, widely seen as one of the best ever. Kid A and The Bends are also in with a shout, which brings me to the second point.

Consistency and longevity: The heavy-weight bands all enjoyed a period where they could do little wrong, and every release was met with acclaim. Pablo Honey aside, Radiohead haven't released a bad album. Even the one seen as the weakest, Hail to the Thief, is fantastic.

Popularity: Usually quality begets popularity, so it is unsurprising that Radiohead are popular. They sell out every venue they play, they draw thousands to festivals across the world, they sell huge numbers of albums, which keep selling beyond initial release.

Trend-setting:  Kid A changed music (moreso than OK Computer, which although outstanding, has spawned few imitators). Soft and sparse yet complex and dynamic has been a hallmark of American bands, such as Animal Collective, for several years now, which attempt to follow the Radiohead template.