If I ever get to teach a class in film, and I hope I do, I will fight to the death to show this controversial film. There is so much we can learn from it.
I bought this early 90's French film at the behest of my friend Paul when he was out here, and I totally forgot I did that until last week when I was cleaning up. SUCH A DISCOVERY! This is a fantastic dark comedy way ahead of its time. It's a mockumentary about a serial killer who invites a poor, rag-tag film team to accompany him on his killings. The lead actor (Benoit Poelvoorde) is a wondrous psychotic, intelligent and charming if not a little prejudiced. The film takes on a new level when the pretend film crew (who are played by the actual director and co-writers) not only tape the killings without turning the man in, but help him in the act. The vain killer even offers to help them finance the film with the money he steals from his victims. Thus, this becomes an absurdly genius take on media and violence. It's harsh at times, and was supposedly banned in some countries, but it's fictional and darkly comedic, so it's not to be taken completely seriously. Still, this has to be one of the most creative mockumentaries (and that's saying something) ever, and a great satire on modern media. I can't recommend it enough.
Directed by:
Rémy Belvaux
André Bonzel
Benoît Poelvoorde
(in trio)
Film reviews, criticism, discussions, rants, raves, and random pictures of Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Orphanage
The Orphanage (La Orfanata) -
Dear American filmmakers who like to do horror,
your contributions to the genre recently have been lacking. It seems like many of you like to employ old tricks like sensory activation, i.e. you have everything quiet and then something jumps out with a bang. Some of you are busy ripping off Asian scare films that you don't quite understand, and thus leave with odd adaptations. A lot of you are busy doing torture porn, where you sit around and ask, "What's the last thing you'd ever want to do?" instead of thinking about plot or character. This is not good.
I'd like you to direct your attention to Spain, where The Orphanage was well-received a few years ago. Unlike your repetitive and annoying work, this film has feeling. It has a deep emotional story, of children who tease and children who are sick. It has a strong female lead who isn't just a simple good girl, but a complex and driven woman. It has some of the old tricks, but also a lot of the classic ones that rely on suspense and mood. You may want to pay attention to this and its producer, Guillermo Del Toro. It's better than anything anyone here has done in a long time.
Sincerely,
Leo
Dear American filmmakers who like to do horror,
your contributions to the genre recently have been lacking. It seems like many of you like to employ old tricks like sensory activation, i.e. you have everything quiet and then something jumps out with a bang. Some of you are busy ripping off Asian scare films that you don't quite understand, and thus leave with odd adaptations. A lot of you are busy doing torture porn, where you sit around and ask, "What's the last thing you'd ever want to do?" instead of thinking about plot or character. This is not good.
I'd like you to direct your attention to Spain, where The Orphanage was well-received a few years ago. Unlike your repetitive and annoying work, this film has feeling. It has a deep emotional story, of children who tease and children who are sick. It has a strong female lead who isn't just a simple good girl, but a complex and driven woman. It has some of the old tricks, but also a lot of the classic ones that rely on suspense and mood. You may want to pay attention to this and its producer, Guillermo Del Toro. It's better than anything anyone here has done in a long time.
Sincerely,
Leo
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Kubrick and Marx: an academic reading
Stanley Kubrick met controversy many times as a filmmaker. From joking about nuclear war to producing several ultra violent films, Kubrick never backed down from tackling tough projects. His interest in Arthur Clarke’s science fiction novel, 2001: A Space Odyssey, created a unique and cerebral film that puzzles many people. Understanding Marxist ideas helps viewers in interpreting some of Kubrick’s scenes.
Kubrick makes a connection with Marx’s ideas about labor in this film. Through labor, man loses his value. This film depicts how man has lost value and importance as his mechanical sense has grown. It also shows, in a climatic sequence, the next phase in man’s evolution.
The film begins in prehistoric times as early humanoids first discover tools. When one finds that a bone can be used to attack, it leads to war, on a small scale. This creature has advanced beyond others by creating a tool. Kubrick then makes a daring jump-cut from the bone to a spaceship, eclipsing thousands of years of civilization.
The bone and the spaceship are both tools, just of different ages. From the time of the first tool to the time of the spaceship, man has made astounding technological advances. These advances, however, are starting to limit man. Marx believes that the working man and his product have an inverse relationship. As the product improves, the condition of man gets worse. Marx says that “the worker becomes a slave of his object.” Kubrick uses this idea throughout the film. In the latter part of the film, the focus is on alienated labor.
Marx described alienated labor as part of this paradoxical relationship. Man can produce objects, but man is not an object. Man is estranged from the product, from himself, and from others. In the second part of the film, the people are supposed to be working together to fix a problem that has occurred on a lunar base. Dr. Floyd arrives to help. Floyd, though, offers little explanation as to the root of the problem. Even thought the people act civilized, their words are meaningless. They have polite but empty conversations. They are estranged from each other, and the technology is keeping them apart.
Technology in this film is not celebratory. The more technology man has, the more lethal it can be. The more lethal that technology can be, the less the value of human life can be. The depressing music played during the Jupiter flight emphasizes the sorry fate of man. Indeed, man has created marvelous machines. He has a computer that can think for itself. He has bases on the moon and other colonies planned. He is now just a pawn, however, for these creations.
In the first part of the film, man has not separated himself from nature. Man resides in the animal stage, but the invention of the tool begins a distancing of man from other animals. Man creates an object, and this eventually leads to him creating an objective world. From the first tool, man learned to make houses, and eventually, cities. He created this alien world of unnatural objects, imposed it upon nature, and now sets to do the same in space. As he tarnished Earth, so will he tarnish other planets. Man’s object world separates him from animals also because it shows man’s use of logic. We have a consciousness. This simple creation shows that we are aware of our ability to create.
This ability, though, does not always allow us freedom. Our existence in the object world separates us from nature. Our activity is important. Marx claims that activity defines us. When labor is our activity, it separates us from nature and from ourselves. The people in the spaceships in the film are there to serve the computers and instruments. The object, the product of man’s labor, has become more important than the person. HAL, the computer system, has more personality than the human astronauts do. He is in control of the mission, and determines himself to have more worth to the mission when he finds out that they are going to turn him off. He kills all of them but Dave, who finally shows some human aggressiveness.
The monolith is a much more complicated object. It is decidedly not manmade. It appears to be alien in a literal sense. It is really a visual interpretation of alienated labor. The spark that the monolith produced led the first man to build a tool- to kill. This spark could be consciousness, or awareness, or logic. In any case, it leads to labor, which leads to alienation. The object created alienates man from himself. The monolith is thus the literal form of how the product has power over man.
When Dave turns off HAL, it makes for a breakthrough in the film and its symbolism. HAL, who has shown forms of personality, begs Dave for his “life.” He seemingly takes revenge on the humans and control of the mission by killing the frozen astronauts and Frank. He admits to being scared. He claims that he is losing his mind, but he is a computer. Perhaps HAL has a consciousness as well. Every report Dave and Frank read states that this has never happened before. Computers should not make mistakes, they see. HAL appears to be more human than these dull humans.
This is the next step in the evolutionary process. Man creates objects, but man is not an object. Man has a consciousness, and this separates him from animals and objects. Now, man has made an object with consciousness. The product of man’s labor has overtaken him. This completely inorganic device has reached the level of man. This means that man must adjust or be dominated by his own creation.
Dave’s actions represent a positive step for humanity. Throughout most of the non-prehistoric part of the film, the humans have been very passive. Dave stands up to the powerful computer and shuts it down. This represents man’s rejecting technology as a dominating force. Marx wanted people to stand up to the powers that controlled labor. In a way, Dave does that. He does not allow the product to control him. He asserts that he is a human and has power. He is not a slave to technology anymore.
Ironically, what should be a triumphant scene plays out more like a slow murder. The audience may feel compassion for HAL as Dave slowly disconnects his circuits. HAL’s rendering of an old song shows more of his human side. If HAL does have a consciousness, perhaps the audience must feel sorry for him as he is shut down. Though triumphant, the scene is a stark reminder of how far man has gone with technology. In creating thinking, man has played God in a sense.
Dave finally heads off into the infinite in the last part of the film. This is the most confusing part, but Kubrick may also have Marxist ideas in mind here. Dave, after traveling for however many hours or light-years, discovers a strange hotel. This hotel is a representation of how man has created an inorganic world. This world seems like an alien’s depiction of human quarters. Dave then sees himself as an older man, and finally, as a fetus.
Since man, at this point in the film, has created an object with consciousness, he must move on to the next stage of evolution: pure consciousness. “Nature is man’s inorganic body” Marx says. “Man lives from nature. Estranged labor estranges man from nature.” Man becomes an individual. If man has shunned nature and created a completely unnatural object with consciousness, then the next step is for man to become totally estranged with nature. Man leaves his organic body and becomes pure thought.
This is just my interpretation of the film, based on Marx’s text about man. I believe that Kubrick, in the end, intended to show man evolving again into new a new form. I know that Marx does not talk about it in the text, but I think this is the next step. I also think that Kubrick wanted to use this triumph of man over machine to send a warning to people. In the age of the cold war, the concern was that we would blow ourselves up with our brand new atomic bombs. Kubrick made a great farce out of this idea with Dr. Strangelove.
Kubrick uses many Marxist ideas in his film 2001: A Space Odyssey. The alienation of labor, as Marx described it, becomes a major part of the film. Marx’s theories on man as a species and as a conscious thinker also influenced Kubrick in the development of the film. Kubrick’s classic remains a mystery to many viewers, but with a Marxist reading, its purpose becomes clearer. Man cannot fall to his own creation. Labor must not make men slaves.
Kubrick makes a connection with Marx’s ideas about labor in this film. Through labor, man loses his value. This film depicts how man has lost value and importance as his mechanical sense has grown. It also shows, in a climatic sequence, the next phase in man’s evolution.
The film begins in prehistoric times as early humanoids first discover tools. When one finds that a bone can be used to attack, it leads to war, on a small scale. This creature has advanced beyond others by creating a tool. Kubrick then makes a daring jump-cut from the bone to a spaceship, eclipsing thousands of years of civilization.
The bone and the spaceship are both tools, just of different ages. From the time of the first tool to the time of the spaceship, man has made astounding technological advances. These advances, however, are starting to limit man. Marx believes that the working man and his product have an inverse relationship. As the product improves, the condition of man gets worse. Marx says that “the worker becomes a slave of his object.” Kubrick uses this idea throughout the film. In the latter part of the film, the focus is on alienated labor.
Marx described alienated labor as part of this paradoxical relationship. Man can produce objects, but man is not an object. Man is estranged from the product, from himself, and from others. In the second part of the film, the people are supposed to be working together to fix a problem that has occurred on a lunar base. Dr. Floyd arrives to help. Floyd, though, offers little explanation as to the root of the problem. Even thought the people act civilized, their words are meaningless. They have polite but empty conversations. They are estranged from each other, and the technology is keeping them apart.
Technology in this film is not celebratory. The more technology man has, the more lethal it can be. The more lethal that technology can be, the less the value of human life can be. The depressing music played during the Jupiter flight emphasizes the sorry fate of man. Indeed, man has created marvelous machines. He has a computer that can think for itself. He has bases on the moon and other colonies planned. He is now just a pawn, however, for these creations.
In the first part of the film, man has not separated himself from nature. Man resides in the animal stage, but the invention of the tool begins a distancing of man from other animals. Man creates an object, and this eventually leads to him creating an objective world. From the first tool, man learned to make houses, and eventually, cities. He created this alien world of unnatural objects, imposed it upon nature, and now sets to do the same in space. As he tarnished Earth, so will he tarnish other planets. Man’s object world separates him from animals also because it shows man’s use of logic. We have a consciousness. This simple creation shows that we are aware of our ability to create.
This ability, though, does not always allow us freedom. Our existence in the object world separates us from nature. Our activity is important. Marx claims that activity defines us. When labor is our activity, it separates us from nature and from ourselves. The people in the spaceships in the film are there to serve the computers and instruments. The object, the product of man’s labor, has become more important than the person. HAL, the computer system, has more personality than the human astronauts do. He is in control of the mission, and determines himself to have more worth to the mission when he finds out that they are going to turn him off. He kills all of them but Dave, who finally shows some human aggressiveness.
The monolith is a much more complicated object. It is decidedly not manmade. It appears to be alien in a literal sense. It is really a visual interpretation of alienated labor. The spark that the monolith produced led the first man to build a tool- to kill. This spark could be consciousness, or awareness, or logic. In any case, it leads to labor, which leads to alienation. The object created alienates man from himself. The monolith is thus the literal form of how the product has power over man.
When Dave turns off HAL, it makes for a breakthrough in the film and its symbolism. HAL, who has shown forms of personality, begs Dave for his “life.” He seemingly takes revenge on the humans and control of the mission by killing the frozen astronauts and Frank. He admits to being scared. He claims that he is losing his mind, but he is a computer. Perhaps HAL has a consciousness as well. Every report Dave and Frank read states that this has never happened before. Computers should not make mistakes, they see. HAL appears to be more human than these dull humans.
This is the next step in the evolutionary process. Man creates objects, but man is not an object. Man has a consciousness, and this separates him from animals and objects. Now, man has made an object with consciousness. The product of man’s labor has overtaken him. This completely inorganic device has reached the level of man. This means that man must adjust or be dominated by his own creation.
Dave’s actions represent a positive step for humanity. Throughout most of the non-prehistoric part of the film, the humans have been very passive. Dave stands up to the powerful computer and shuts it down. This represents man’s rejecting technology as a dominating force. Marx wanted people to stand up to the powers that controlled labor. In a way, Dave does that. He does not allow the product to control him. He asserts that he is a human and has power. He is not a slave to technology anymore.
Ironically, what should be a triumphant scene plays out more like a slow murder. The audience may feel compassion for HAL as Dave slowly disconnects his circuits. HAL’s rendering of an old song shows more of his human side. If HAL does have a consciousness, perhaps the audience must feel sorry for him as he is shut down. Though triumphant, the scene is a stark reminder of how far man has gone with technology. In creating thinking, man has played God in a sense.
Dave finally heads off into the infinite in the last part of the film. This is the most confusing part, but Kubrick may also have Marxist ideas in mind here. Dave, after traveling for however many hours or light-years, discovers a strange hotel. This hotel is a representation of how man has created an inorganic world. This world seems like an alien’s depiction of human quarters. Dave then sees himself as an older man, and finally, as a fetus.
Since man, at this point in the film, has created an object with consciousness, he must move on to the next stage of evolution: pure consciousness. “Nature is man’s inorganic body” Marx says. “Man lives from nature. Estranged labor estranges man from nature.” Man becomes an individual. If man has shunned nature and created a completely unnatural object with consciousness, then the next step is for man to become totally estranged with nature. Man leaves his organic body and becomes pure thought.
This is just my interpretation of the film, based on Marx’s text about man. I believe that Kubrick, in the end, intended to show man evolving again into new a new form. I know that Marx does not talk about it in the text, but I think this is the next step. I also think that Kubrick wanted to use this triumph of man over machine to send a warning to people. In the age of the cold war, the concern was that we would blow ourselves up with our brand new atomic bombs. Kubrick made a great farce out of this idea with Dr. Strangelove.
Kubrick uses many Marxist ideas in his film 2001: A Space Odyssey. The alienation of labor, as Marx described it, becomes a major part of the film. Marx’s theories on man as a species and as a conscious thinker also influenced Kubrick in the development of the film. Kubrick’s classic remains a mystery to many viewers, but with a Marxist reading, its purpose becomes clearer. Man cannot fall to his own creation. Labor must not make men slaves.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Rendition
This 2007 film came on cable. I was a little skeptical about this take on post 9-11 torture antics. Would it be too preachy? Would I get tired of Reese? Would it dwell on Washington "fat cats" rather than look at the big picture? As it turns out, it takes a fairly even look at things, even if Maryl Streep starts to come off as an icy dealmaker with no soul, and I'm not sure if Jake Gyllenhaal represents a real CIA agent. This has good drama and a fairly low dose of Reese (I don't hate her, I just don't like her notion to be overly serious). I don't know if the Middle Eastern subplot about the daughter really matters that much in the end, but I like how everything comes together.
Some will probably say that this is a Hollywood attack on policy, and it's more than a little biased. Still, it works very well as a story, and as an interesting film, and it makes a solid point on how torture doesn't always work. I feel like I need Danno's take on this before commenting further. I'm not sure if I can totally buy what they're selling, but I like the package.
Some will probably say that this is a Hollywood attack on policy, and it's more than a little biased. Still, it works very well as a story, and as an interesting film, and it makes a solid point on how torture doesn't always work. I feel like I need Danno's take on this before commenting further. I'm not sure if I can totally buy what they're selling, but I like the package.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Classics in short: The Sound of Music
The Sound of Music -
After all the references made to the musical classic in pop culture, from a wide variety of sources (from Family Guy to every 5th grade music class), I wasn't sure if I needed to watch this the whole way through, which I never had. I knew most of it, right? Well, I bought it for my wife for the holiday, and I was surprised to see how enjoyable a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical from 40 years ago remains today. I get why it's so famous - it's probably the best musical ever, at least classically. Plus, it's fun to see Christopher Plummer in his hunk days, not grizzly and old and telling people to send a car, you imbecile.
After all the references made to the musical classic in pop culture, from a wide variety of sources (from Family Guy to every 5th grade music class), I wasn't sure if I needed to watch this the whole way through, which I never had. I knew most of it, right? Well, I bought it for my wife for the holiday, and I was surprised to see how enjoyable a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical from 40 years ago remains today. I get why it's so famous - it's probably the best musical ever, at least classically. Plus, it's fun to see Christopher Plummer in his hunk days, not grizzly and old and telling people to send a car, you imbecile.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
films in brief
The OH! in Ohio -
I remember people really looking forward to this indie debut and then it disappearing quickly. I hadn't heard much good about it, which was disappointing, because the duo of Parker Posey and OMCK (official man-crush king) Paul Rudd tantalized me. But honestly? It's not so bad. It goes in weird directions, but this is a solid quirky indie story about love and sex. And Rudd is hilarious in his grouch-slacker mode. You could watch it just for him. Posey lets loose as a sexually frustrated woman seeking answers. It's funny with some nice acting by these two faves. I don't see why it died down. It's worth a shot for all us Rudd admirers.
Fifty Pills -
We caught this late on cable primarily for the involvement of Kristen Bell. She's cute, but she can't save this half-arsed college tale about a kid who needs to sell 50 ecstasy tablets in one day to pay his tuition. The people who wrote this probably THOUGHT they were hilarious and had another Rules of Attraction / Go / Igby Goes Down on their hands, but, well, they failed. It's annoying at best.
[We also caught another late-night cable movie, Deepwater, for the same reason. Wasn't any better, and she only had two brief scenes. Alas.]
Don't Look Now -
We saw a primer for this 70's thriller on Halloween Random Scary Movie List week and it looked cool. I have to say, scary movies from this time are usually good. This one is interesting, but it gets weird. I love the zippy 70's style, and Donald Sutherland in his fro, but it almost dragged. The action doesn't really come in until late, but it is captivating and well shot. It was directed by Nicholas Roeg, who had a weird career but was a cinematographer for some great directors. It's a weird but interesting take for fans of horror and films of this era.
I remember people really looking forward to this indie debut and then it disappearing quickly. I hadn't heard much good about it, which was disappointing, because the duo of Parker Posey and OMCK (official man-crush king) Paul Rudd tantalized me. But honestly? It's not so bad. It goes in weird directions, but this is a solid quirky indie story about love and sex. And Rudd is hilarious in his grouch-slacker mode. You could watch it just for him. Posey lets loose as a sexually frustrated woman seeking answers. It's funny with some nice acting by these two faves. I don't see why it died down. It's worth a shot for all us Rudd admirers.
Fifty Pills -
We caught this late on cable primarily for the involvement of Kristen Bell. She's cute, but she can't save this half-arsed college tale about a kid who needs to sell 50 ecstasy tablets in one day to pay his tuition. The people who wrote this probably THOUGHT they were hilarious and had another Rules of Attraction / Go / Igby Goes Down on their hands, but, well, they failed. It's annoying at best.
[We also caught another late-night cable movie, Deepwater, for the same reason. Wasn't any better, and she only had two brief scenes. Alas.]
Don't Look Now -
We saw a primer for this 70's thriller on Halloween Random Scary Movie List week and it looked cool. I have to say, scary movies from this time are usually good. This one is interesting, but it gets weird. I love the zippy 70's style, and Donald Sutherland in his fro, but it almost dragged. The action doesn't really come in until late, but it is captivating and well shot. It was directed by Nicholas Roeg, who had a weird career but was a cinematographer for some great directors. It's a weird but interesting take for fans of horror and films of this era.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Films of the decade: an introduction
As we get closer to the end of the decade, I've been thinking about movie best-of lists. Many various outlets have been putting together lists of the best and the worst movies of the decade. My friend Paul is working on his list and I know we will have a lot of similar ones. I want to do this, to get myself writing about film more, and because it's really one of the few things I can claim to know anything about anymore.
As I've said before, I never really know what exactly a top film list means. Is it made up of the ones I enjoyed the most or is it the ones that I think are the best artistically? Are those two the same thing? I don't think they are; I can admit to loving horrible films and being bored by ones that I know are great. Bill Simmons, ESPN's Sports Guy, is having people vote for the most memorable films of the decade, which is a nice way to narrow down things.... but I can remember lots of movies and that can take things in another direction. (I.E. I'll never forget The Wicker Man remake, just for the sheer anger I felt at Nicolas Cage.)
I guess I'd like to do something that has my favorites that I truly believe are great and fit this decade. These are the films I will remember - for being good - and films that influenced me into going to LA and trying to work on/with movies and such.
As I do this, I've been thinking about the state of film and how it has maybe gown downhill a little. Has television surpassed it? I think so. Patton Oswalt recently said that the most memorable movies of today are TV shows, and that television has reversed from movies. He said that some channels are acting like movie studios in the 70's, where they let the rules go and tried to be different, while the big studios (owned by big companies) only want to bank on sure things, so they take on Transformers-like crap or name stars, while the indie movies try to fit some kind of pattern (quirky for no reason, road trip, misfits that get girls, etc.). I've heard this from other people, and from my experiences at work, it seems to be the case. No studio wants to take chances, but there are so many networks, some of them have to experiment to get ahead.
It is interesting, looking over my rough list, that most of my favorites are in the early part of the decade. Were movies really better then? Does it take longer for them to seem important to me? Am I remembering things wrong? It seems skewed. But while I have very few entries in 2005, 2006, and 2008, I have a ton from 2007. I don't know what that means.
I'm hoping to post one everyday for the rest of the year. I probably can't match that exactly, but I will have 50, maybe 100 if I can't cut enough. I invite everyone to get involved, debate, ridicule. This is a major project that I will be working hard on for the next few weeks / months and I hope to inspire... something.
Here's a few notable ones that did not make my list:
Lord of the Rings (any of them) - I know, I know, they were all well made. I just don't care about Tolkien.
Star Wars (either of them) - ....or Lucas.
Paul Haggis' Academy Award Winner Crash - everyone realizes this was a horrible mistake, right?
Freddy Got Fingered - I love it, it's one of my favorite comedies of the decade, it has brought joy to a lot of people, but is it truly a good movie? I still say no. It's lovable in its deranged state, but I can't argue its value to everyone.
Pootie Tang - same as above. It would be even weirder and better if the studio let Louis C.K. alone.
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story - one of the funniest of the Apatow collection, but not a lot of story.
Super High Me - Doug Benson's doc is funny with some decent stand up parts, and surprisingly insightful on the weird process of legalized marijuana in this state.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - too silly, and too abrupt of an ending, but a nice way to get people interested in Douglas Adams. Sam Rockwell, Zooey Deschanel, and Martin Freeman were still relatively unknown, and this helped out.
Southland Tales - you laugh, but this is one of the movies I'll always remember for this decade. It's weird, the jokes don't land, and the acting is mostly bad, even disastrous in some points, but it captures some of the zeitgeist for the post-9/11 Patriot Act era. If Richard Kelly had made this right after Darko, it wouldn't seem so ridiculous. I mean, it would still be so, but not as much. Maybe if he hadn't set it in the very immediate feature and used some real names and events mixed in with false ones, it would come off better. But he did, and when it finally came out in 2007, it was already dated. This is spastic, but it fits the times. You'll never find a better assortment of pop culture icons for this decade. This is a movie for the oughts if there ever was one.
WOW! So much to think about. I'm hoping I can come up with a list soon.
As I've said before, I never really know what exactly a top film list means. Is it made up of the ones I enjoyed the most or is it the ones that I think are the best artistically? Are those two the same thing? I don't think they are; I can admit to loving horrible films and being bored by ones that I know are great. Bill Simmons, ESPN's Sports Guy, is having people vote for the most memorable films of the decade, which is a nice way to narrow down things.... but I can remember lots of movies and that can take things in another direction. (I.E. I'll never forget The Wicker Man remake, just for the sheer anger I felt at Nicolas Cage.)
I guess I'd like to do something that has my favorites that I truly believe are great and fit this decade. These are the films I will remember - for being good - and films that influenced me into going to LA and trying to work on/with movies and such.
As I do this, I've been thinking about the state of film and how it has maybe gown downhill a little. Has television surpassed it? I think so. Patton Oswalt recently said that the most memorable movies of today are TV shows, and that television has reversed from movies. He said that some channels are acting like movie studios in the 70's, where they let the rules go and tried to be different, while the big studios (owned by big companies) only want to bank on sure things, so they take on Transformers-like crap or name stars, while the indie movies try to fit some kind of pattern (quirky for no reason, road trip, misfits that get girls, etc.). I've heard this from other people, and from my experiences at work, it seems to be the case. No studio wants to take chances, but there are so many networks, some of them have to experiment to get ahead.
It is interesting, looking over my rough list, that most of my favorites are in the early part of the decade. Were movies really better then? Does it take longer for them to seem important to me? Am I remembering things wrong? It seems skewed. But while I have very few entries in 2005, 2006, and 2008, I have a ton from 2007. I don't know what that means.
I'm hoping to post one everyday for the rest of the year. I probably can't match that exactly, but I will have 50, maybe 100 if I can't cut enough. I invite everyone to get involved, debate, ridicule. This is a major project that I will be working hard on for the next few weeks / months and I hope to inspire... something.
Here's a few notable ones that did not make my list:
Lord of the Rings (any of them) - I know, I know, they were all well made. I just don't care about Tolkien.
Star Wars (either of them) - ....or Lucas.
Paul Haggis' Academy Award Winner Crash - everyone realizes this was a horrible mistake, right?
Freddy Got Fingered - I love it, it's one of my favorite comedies of the decade, it has brought joy to a lot of people, but is it truly a good movie? I still say no. It's lovable in its deranged state, but I can't argue its value to everyone.
Pootie Tang - same as above. It would be even weirder and better if the studio let Louis C.K. alone.
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story - one of the funniest of the Apatow collection, but not a lot of story.
Super High Me - Doug Benson's doc is funny with some decent stand up parts, and surprisingly insightful on the weird process of legalized marijuana in this state.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - too silly, and too abrupt of an ending, but a nice way to get people interested in Douglas Adams. Sam Rockwell, Zooey Deschanel, and Martin Freeman were still relatively unknown, and this helped out.
Southland Tales - you laugh, but this is one of the movies I'll always remember for this decade. It's weird, the jokes don't land, and the acting is mostly bad, even disastrous in some points, but it captures some of the zeitgeist for the post-9/11 Patriot Act era. If Richard Kelly had made this right after Darko, it wouldn't seem so ridiculous. I mean, it would still be so, but not as much. Maybe if he hadn't set it in the very immediate feature and used some real names and events mixed in with false ones, it would come off better. But he did, and when it finally came out in 2007, it was already dated. This is spastic, but it fits the times. You'll never find a better assortment of pop culture icons for this decade. This is a movie for the oughts if there ever was one.
WOW! So much to think about. I'm hoping I can come up with a list soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)