A Guide to Discovery & Completionism in Film

WORDS: Kurt Sabatini

Imagine oneself boarding a boat to unchartered waters. Dining at a buffet supplying an endless stream of food. A party where drinks are flowing as much as the conversations being had. Only, these unchartered waters go on as far as the eye can see and offer no hope of land. The cuisines on offer you have never encountered. A breadth of language spoken seemingly by all, except you. No matter the comparison all varieties of discovery, at first, are daunting. In this guide, I will be delving into how one can navigate the many discoveries of film and provide the tools necessary by way of watching films in specific categories an individual may find personally interesting.

The reasoning behind this guide is to make sense of the infinity that film is. As the catalogue of films available is simply impossible. By this, I mean it is impossible for anyone to watch every film ever created. As impossible a task of trying every food, walking down every street, and learning every language. In theory, it would be incredible for anyone to achieve either of these things, but it isn’t viable. Therefore, what does one do. An overall completion of film can never be achieved. A completion of categories though can be.

I will now go into the intricacies of what I mean by categories. Categories are a personal choice one must make to begin the act of discovering film. They are personal in the fact that you must pick and choose what path you want to take when picking what films to watch based on your individual interests. For example, a category can be as simple and broad as choosing to dedicate watches to horror films. From picking this category, you have happened upon a sea instead of an ocean of options. Still daunting but more manageable.

Now, you can go deeper from this category choice. After watching a plethora of horror films and discovering what you like and dislike you can pick a new path, a more specialised one. Many examples such as, watching horror films from a particular decade, country, specific sub-genre like slasher or folk, or a director could be selected. Now the sea has made way for a lake as we make the scale of category smaller. What I want to get across is the fluidity one can have when deciding on the category in question and to follow what you want to do with them. As an exercise in bringing the sample size to that of a pond or even a puddle, still using horror films as a point of reference, categories can be combined to look something like, horror films in the 70s made in the US, or foreign language psychological horror films. However hyper-specific one wants to take it is their choice. I have found having multiple ongoing categories is a great way to counteract film viewings from feeling stagnant. Also, applying an arbitrary number limit on how many you want to watch before moving on to another category also helps as you have a natural end and then an ongoing progress if you want to return to it.

Going forward, I will dive deeper into types of categories, and though the list is not exhaustive it will provide parameters for one to follow and create their own.

A Director's Filmography

This category may prove to be the most accessible. Personally, this was the first time I realised films could be categorised. Instead of watching the newest releases at the cinema or what was on the television, I began seeking out certain director's appearing in the openings or credits of films I was enjoying. This was specific to Steven Spielberg’s filmography. 

Going down the route of discovering a director's filmography is a simple and linear path for choosing and completing a category of film. From watching them it creates a knowledge base to branch off from. As an example, specific to Spielberg, if you enjoyed his collaborations with Harrison Ford, you could divert to what he acted in outside of Spielberg. This technique can be applied to many directors as most have their favourite actors they reuse like Martin Scorsese with Robert DeNiro, Sofia Coppola and Kirsten Dunst, and Spike Lee with Denzel Washington. This is a very common practise and should be used as a stepping stone to discover more about your favourite actors/actresses. A director's filmography can easily be modified to an actor's/actress’ filmography category and branching paths will emerge from that. Whatever someone resonates with out of their experience with a director's cinematic language dictates where these paths will lead. 

When dedicating watches to certain directors following, what I like to call, a small, medium, and large approach can prove very useful. The sizes are in reference to the number of films included in their filmography. This allows for goal setting in a variety of ranges. As you slowly marathon your way through a prolific director's filmography such as Alfred Hitchcock's over fifty films (large), you can change courses if it were by dipping into Wes Anderson's thirteen films (medium), then to cleanse the palette jump into Elaine May's four films (small).

Through this you're being rewarded with completion and making constant progress. By the time one large is completed, two mediums could be finished and four smalls for example. Like that of a buffet, some dishes will be enjoyed others not. But you have learnt to distinguish between directors and next time when picking what's next in the cinematic diet, you'll know what plate to pick from.

Through my own directorial discoveries, I recommend four films from directors with varying levels of popularity, prolificacy, and style:

Jacques Tati’s, Playtime (1967),

Robert Altman’s, The Long Goodbye (1973),

Emma Seligman’s Shiva Baby (2020),

John Waters’, Female Trouble (1974).

A Year in Film

This specific category has been a personal favourite to venture down. A year in film consists of a singular year and watching the films released in it. This category can seem large as thousands of films are released every year, however, with some parameters it becomes a lot easier to manage. This is where applying a number limit will help most as a category may include watching the top 10, 25, 50 whatever metric one chooses of the most popular, highest rated, lowest rated or completely random films released in the year chosen. Some of the more highly acclaimed years include, 1974, 1994, and 2019 just to name a few and are fantastic places to start for this category. 

If you cannot decide on a year, it can be easily modified from A Year in Film to A Decade in Film. By broadening the sample size and watching a variety of films from all the years in that decade, a specific year might stand out as a highlight to delve into. Or it may provide enough information that the decade chosen is not what you were looking for and you can look elsewhere. Additionally, as an alternative picking a year that holds significance to oneself is an easy option, like birthyears or an event that interests you and seeing how that effected films before, during and after it occurred. The possibilities of choice vary so much in this category and can be as specific or as broad as one decides.

The years that interest me the most from a cinematic standpoint have been 1967, 1973, and 1981. The latter being a seriously underrated year and boasts a great variety of film I implore all to watch from a who’s who of directors. These include: 

Spielberg’s, Raiders of the Lost Arc,

Sam Raimi’s, Evil Dead,

Brian DePalma’s, Blow Out,

John Landis’, An American Werewolf in London,

Michael Mann’s, Thief,

John Carpenters’, Escape from New York,

David Cronenberg’s, Scanners.

This is a highly rewarding category as it feels as though one is becoming an expert in a specific time in cinema and provides someone with their own niche to follow.

Countries and Language

This category feels the most explorative in its approach. It is as simple as it sounds, watching films from another country and acclimatising to international cinema. By explorative I mean in terms of encapsulating the feeling of travelling the world through a screen and all that comes with it. Traversing new locations, seeing how different stories are told, the history and culture, and how cinematic techniques change country to country. As an example, one can delve into how different Japanese cinema is to that of American, though any countries can be selected to be compared. Or don't compare one to another at all, simply take what a country is offering on its own merits. Pick a country you've always wanted to visit, a favourite holiday, country of birth, or one that simply intrigues. Whatever the choice be open to cinema from anywhere in the world. I recommend seeking out Polish and Senegalese cinema. 

Languages offer a very similar experience though it has the possibility of bringing multiple countries together. For example, if someone picks an endemic language such as Finnish, Korean, or Hungarian, you will only get the countries native to its language, so the sample size is smaller. Whereas, picking a transnational language you broaden the choice. If Spanish is the chosen language, Spain and most of the South American countries become available, and though they share the same language the difference in culture between them will be on full display. Another way to experience cinematic language is cinema that is completely devoid of it. Silent film creates a universal language through a purely visual experience. As obvious as it may sound, it is important to learn to watch films with subtitles as this is an obstacle for some and eliminates opportunities for discovery.

Overall, the best tool to discovery is your own curiosity. To put aside pre-conceived notions towards a film and follow the curiosity that brought you to it. It doesn't matter if the film is good, bad, short, long, popular, or obscure. Allow yourself to discover and seek it out. A 100% completion can never be achieved, so don't allow the film to limit yourself. Instead limit the film using categories to achieve what you want to gain from it.