Almost surely, if you totaled up the number of hours of movie watching I’ve done and the hours of TV show watching I’ve done, TV dwarves movies. It’s not a conscious choice; just how it shook out for me.

Via the internet, I “know” a couple of people who are consciously movie-only.

Khoi Vinh does all these movie reviews and has more or less said he’s only got time for movies. Sean Fennessey, host of The Big Picture has said he only watches movies as well. Paraphrasing from what I remember, it’s that TV’s incentives are to make the most of it, not to make the best art possible, which is more aligned with movies. I’d think the budget and talent also favor movies.

So why the imbalance in the other direction for me, and maybe a lot of you?

Is it the shorter format? Is it designed to hook you in with more digestible structures and cliffhangers to keep us coming back? Is TV traditionally less expensive to have access to?

My defense of TV is that there is just more to sink your teeth into. I can feel more for a character I’ve seen for 20 hours than for one I’ve seen for two.

Not that I want to defend it. I kinda wish I were more of a movie guy, hours-wise. I love art, and movies are closer to a form of art. I’m going to at least try to be more conscious of my choices.

Two nights ago, I watched Tell No One, a French murder mystery thriller that turned out to be a real banger, and I was quite happy with my choice. Last night I watched The Outrun, with Saoirse Ronan as a recovering alcoholic on some Scottish isle. Very beautiful. The art was oozing out of it. But truth be told, I was so tired, I could tell my dumb brain wasn’t appreciating it fully. I probably should have just watched some shitty episode of Dutton Ranch and gone to bed.