2011 Progress Report

As I returned home from my trip out East I was thinking now would be a good time to take a look at 2011 in film and try in some way to make heads or tails out of it. If you’ll excuse the diversion from the ancient history of cinema for at least one blog entry, that particular project is being a little more difficult to complete than I thought.

Every year the goal is 50 films, a magic number that says “I’ve seen enough”, or at the very least a number that’s good enough to start the argument. It would make sense then that at the midway point of the year (or in this case slightly after the middle of the year) I’d have already seen 25 or more films. My friends I wish that was the case. Turns out I’ve only seen about 12 films this year. Now that doesn’t mean I’ve only watched 12 films, just that only 12 of the films I’ve watched would count as a 2011 release.

Things have not been too easy when it comes to getting to the show. Some films are sitting on my computer waiting to be seen. A few probably would have been seen previously if certain people were more reliable, but this is the way it always is year after year. So let’s start with the big boys, Marvel.

This year in preparation for the upcoming Avengers movie, and perhaps to make up for the lack of Marvel features last year we’ve seen three come out in successive months. Now I’m not complaining for a second, the newest release Captain America is a very decent film. Perhaps I’m still feeling the hangover from X-Men: First Class that this film naturally seems like a slight disappointment, but that’s not to say it’s bad.

I’d like to believe after the output of subpar Marvel films (Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Ghost Rider) that those days are over. Now that everything is coming from one studio the production values have gone up, and they’re trying a little harder. The problem is sometimes that can turn into trying too hard. Let’s face it there is not much need for CGI in a Captain America movie, he’s a steroid injected patriot out to kick some Nazi ass. However in today’s Hollywood that film couldn’t be made for under 200 million, and that serum needs to be tweaked a little to not sound completely like anabolic steroids. So a lot of crappy and unnecessary computer effects are the burden we have to put up with. Like Thor this film was made in 3-D, or converted, so there are a few of those blatantly overdone shots designed to make you say “glad I saw this in 3-D”, but makes the rest of us just think that it’s irrelevant.



There were good and bad moments about Captain America but at the end it really just seemed like their way of saying “just wait until the Avengers”. X-Men was the only one of the three releases this year that I think can hold it’s own as a just plain great film. The other two have to be viewed as a good-for-that-character or I’m-glad-they-didn’t-ruin-it type. More good fun than anything else. The X-Men have been extremely popular for the last few decades because of the nature of their powers and the inherent parallels that go with it. Their characters are complex, fleshed out for a long time by Chris Clairemont and others. Both Thor and Cap’ represent perhaps a more simplified “corny” era for comics. They haven’t had the necessary “gritty reboot” to make them seem more relevant today. Not to say that both characters don’t have their own excellent runs in comics. Just for pure character, you can’t really beat the X-Men when it comes to Marvel. Perhaps Tony Stark/Iron Man is the only possible exception which is why that would probably rank alongside First Class as the best films Marvel has put out.

Regardless this newest Cap film has helped erase the memory of that god awful 1990 straight to video release, as well as the even worse made for TV movies from the late seventies (that’s right there were two of them). The age of seeing our favorite super heroes on the big screen is well upon us, and the bigger the budget it seems the less chances filmmakers are willing to take. I’m looking forward to the upcoming Avengers movie in a big way, although I’m already prepared for Joss Whedon to kill at least one character off, because that’s what he does.

Now let’s go a little more artsy.

When the year rolls over most of the films coming out in theaters are either Oscar holdovers that are expanding from their select release, or a lot of crap that studios dump in the first quarter never to be heard from again. Somewhere in between these two extremes are the oddball independent and foreign films that were made a year or so earlier but failed to get distribution. This is why you’ll see a lot of films on a top ten list that were made the year before, sometimes as much as 5 years earlier.

So a good barometer to judge what films to look out for in the coming year is to find a best undistributed film list. Where might you find this? Well since you asked, Film Comment usually puts out a small list of the best undistributed films every year along with their regular poll. These are the movies seen at festivals and special screenings that didn’t get an official release. Sometimes even the films that did get official releases (like Manoel de Oliveira’s Strange Case of Angelica or Pedro Costa’s Ne Change Rien) are impossible to find though.

Thanks to the wonder of the internet though many times these undistributed films have already gotten a DVD release in another country. When Abbas Kiarostami’s The Certified Copy was getting rave reviews at some film festivals last year I was able to find a DVD quality print of the film online months before it got it’s official Chicago release. So checking out this undistributed list is a nice way to get a head start on the next year’s features, and you just may hear of a film you would have easily missed if it got one of those quiet select screen releases.

Topping Film Comment’s list of undistributed films last year was Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives. I have not found another filmmaker who makes movies anything like Apichatpong, and critics absolutely adore this. I think his films have gotten better with each release and although I’ve still only seen Uncle Boonmee once, this might be his best film yet. Since I’ve seen all of his other films at least twice, I’ll hold off on making an official decree just yet. Describing this film is tough, especially if you haven’t seen any of his films before. If you have this fits into the interconnected world that all his films inhabit but with a slightly more metaphysical quality. It’s profound and mesmerizing the way the best art house films should be, which might make it slow, boring, and confusing for someone not quite willing to invest themselves fully in it. Eye of the beholder for sure, but this was the first solid masterpiece I saw from this year.

Next on Film Comment’s list was good old Jean Luc Godard’s (yep he’s still making movies) Film Socialism. There was a time when a new Godard feature happened every couple of months, but the last decade that output has slowed dramatically. This is only his third feature film since 2000. That said it would seem a big deal. I was personally disappointed in it, which happens sometimes when you wait too long. However I was disappointed because I’m simply tired of Godard’s modern style. I often just wish he’d make something remotely coherent and then he can go back to his video editing self indulgent tirades. This film just seems like he doesn’t even have a clue what it’s about or what the hell all his trademark dejected people spouting radical political rhetoric are talking about. It feels like he ran out of things to rebel against but just isn’t quite willing to admit it. Perhaps another 40 viewings of this and it might make some sense, but if you expecting some great return to form from the master, you’re in for a disappointment.

Speaking of director’s who make the same film repeatedly, Woody Allen’s latest Midnight in Paris has gotten stellar reviews and seems to be that period Allen film that comes out every few years that people randomly decide to like. Sometimes it seems exhausting to keep up with Woody Allen especially when you more or less know what to expect. I wouldn’t recommend sitting through every one of his films, but please consult a known authority before you start blindly sitting through Anything Else. I’m still working on seeing this most recent release so I’ll have to fill you in later whether it deserves the extra attention.

Now the last film I’d like to talk about is another from an older director. This one makes films so rarely that it seems impossible that any of his films can live up to the outrageous expectations. That director is Terrence Mallick, and his newest film Tree of Life might very well be the best film I’ve seen in a decade. Mallick has always favored a looser narrative, he’s employed internal monologues quite a bit and dabbled with continuity in his previous four features, but nothing like what he did here. This is downright avant-garde nearly non-narrative and a film that dares to be so profound to question the very origin of all creation. The trailer which first was shown before The Black Swan, made little sense, watching the movie it did a perfect job of setting things up. If this doesn’t win a best cinematography Oscar there truly is no god. I know it’d be foolish to think Academy voters can give Mallick his long overdue Oscar for a film that did so little at the box office.

The fact that this film was given a good budget, a major studio backing, and even a few a-listers in the cast boggles my mind, like it’s a holdover from the glory days of the 70s when studios trusted their directors. Perhaps Mallick is just the guy whose earned it. The man makes about one movie a decade, so needless to say he’ll have a ready audience. That said you know he isn’t going to make a film he’s not completely committed to. Whereas The New World was cut down, I have not heard anything about that happening to Tree of Life. It seems like Mallick got to do exactly what he wanted and the result is simply incredible.

I feel apprehensive recommending this film to people because it can completely go over your head. This is the type of film that will either change how you view films forever or make you never listen to one of my recommendations again. Even though the projection of the film got messed up and they never fixed the lights my opinion of this film wasn’t dimmed. I don’t often get that excited about a new film in the theater, but well Mallick doesn’t make a new movie very often, and on first inspection this is his finest work. I’d be positively amazed if another film comes out this year that I have a stronger reaction to.

So hopefully I can pick up the pace so I’m not rushing to finish 50 films on New Year’s Eve again.

Cliffnotes version - see Tree of Life

History of Film - Chapter 2

America keeps it’s mouth shut

Welcome back to another installment of the history of film via Jack Ellis via me. I am in no considerable way attempting to add to Ellis’ book, simply offer my own perspective and commentary on the films I’ve (most recently) watched. I’m far from ignorant on film history but perhaps farther still from writing my own history of cinema textbook. That’s the type of project that takes about a lifetime to finish. So lets keep it loose, keep it personal, and hopefully moderately entertaining for my millions of readers.

So as I eluded to in my previous post I was jumping around a bit. I started working on chapters 3 and 4 first. So well we have to take a step back and discuss chapter 2. You might say “Hey Dave why not start with Chapter 1?” Well good question and one that I attempted to answer in my previous post. The first chapter is the only one in the book that really takes a look at all that was happening in world cinema at the time (or at least France, the US, and Italy). I’ve seen the majority of films from the chapter already but for reasons I can’t really figure I haven’t really tackled the chapter with any degree of determination.

If Ellis can have one principle criticism it’s the fact that he writes from a Western and particularly US perspective. This is fine for someone in the US who believes our cinema is clearly the most important of any nation. Now I’m not one to hate on old glory and say that our cinema doesn’t kick the most ass of any nation on earth (I hope someone’s chanting U S A as they read this), but Ellis takes this cinematic patriotism almost to a fault. Considering the 4th edition of the book has 20 chapters, 8 of them are dedicated exclusively to American cinema and the first chapter makes it almost seem like a half. This edition also cut out chapters on French avant-garde cinema and Scandinavian silents so considering two more foreign chapters were removed only draws more attention to the US and this book’s considerable slant.

Well ladi-di-da Mr. Fancy Frenchman now that you’re done complaining, let’s talk about the US and in particular the first chapter dedicated exclusively to American cinema in the silent era.

Rise of the American Film 1914-1919

Even with two chapters removed Ellis still offers a good amount of print (percentage wise) to silent cinema. For nerds who love silent film like me this is a good thing. The fact that the US gets two full chapters alone in this era is great. However Ellis takes an extremely streamlined approach to discussing film history in the US. Typically the American chapters feature more films than any other, but Ellis keeps things lean for Chapter 2. Perhaps he recognizes the large amount of lost films from the period (or believed to be at the time) or perhaps he knows many potential college students will roll their eyes and be bored by those goofy films without words. Either way it makes tackling the chapter relatively easy . . .almost.

Now for people who didn’t forget everything they learned in history class you might recognize the time frame as the years encompassing World War I. The widespread theory which makes a great deal of sense since it happens to be true is that American cinema rose to international dominance in the years of the first world war largely because of their own neutrality for most of it. Makes sense since if countries in Europe were busy killing each other and using all their resources to achieving that objective, America was free not just to make movies, but they could show them overseas because they had very limited competition. Now other countries were still making movies at this time, but French movies couldn’t be shown in Germany, and German films weren’t being screened in England, etc. So American movies were able to get everywhere, and since everyone had settled out in Hollywood by this time, things seemed to be settling in nicely for the US.

What seemed like a three horse race at the beginning of the decade, with Italians looking to be the leaders, soon became just the US in sole possession of first, a position that they still continue to hold internationally today. So if ever you wonder why American films are so bloated over done and so popular everywhere, it’s roots lay in WWI. As a side note peanut butter and jelly were also a combination made popular in WWI, so end of diversion.

Ellis takes a somewhat simplistic view of American cinema which he divides into a couple of key players. First and most important is D. W. Griffith. His work was discussed a bit in chapter one but well lets face it he is easily the most important figure in cinema during the 1910s and certainly the most noteworthy in America. Several pages alone are dedicated to Birth of a Nation which earns the distinction of being America’s first extremely important film. Griffith followed this up with Intolerance which is also discussed, and the chapter actually ends with his 1919 masterpiece Broken Blossoms. Oftentimes the history of American cinema in the silent era is “D. W. Griffith did everything first the end”. If I was offering a cliff notes version of film history that would probably suffice, but there’s clearly more to it than that.

Next up is a bit of comedy. Mack Sennett is basically considered the father of American film comedy and his Keystone cops produced some of the most god awfully dated comedic films of all time. Still the groundwork of those films helped define American comedy for a long time to come, and Sennett followed the age old principle that violence = funny. From this comes Charlie Chaplin who made his screen debut in the Keystone film Making a Living. Chaplin went on to lend some credibility to the genre and quickly outgrew the severely limited style of Sennett with his bumbling cops. For fans of handlebar mustaches though, please consult Chaplin’s The Pawnshop and The Rink, the latter of which features a man seducing a bovine woman by twirling his handlebars (yes that happened).

The rest of the chapter touches on a few miscellaneous features. One is a Theda Bara picture called A Fool There Was, and the other is Thomas H. Ince’s Civilization the one damn film I can’t seem to find a copy of now. It exists on VHS and apparently Grapevine put out a DVD of it. Someday I’ll locate it but until then this chapter remains incomplete. For those who know my list fetishism in it’s extremity will know that I’ve probably lost sleep over not seeing Civilization and a certain part of my soul feels incomplete without it. As a side note this is the film that made Yasujiro Ozu want to become a filmmaker. There’s also the mention of a whopping one Cecile B. DeMille film from this period, his first film The Squaw Man. There is a huge oversight in this regard considering DeMille directed an astonishing 10 films alone in 1915. So my own addendum, see The Cheat. Ellis also seems to have left out “America’s Sweetheart” Mary Pickford so well again this is concise.

Now for the films I’ve watched to complete this:

Making a Living (1914) - Mack Sennett

Chaplin’s debut feature is one that made Sennett scratch his head and consider himself a true failure. This is shortly before Chaplin established his little tramp persona that he would continue with for the next two decades. Basically Chaplin runs around trying to make a buck and failing miserably at it. Of course the trademark cops show up and feel free to groan when they do, but well everyone had to start somewhere and for historical reasons Chaplin’s cinematic debut still is worth watching.

A Fool There Was (1915) - Frank Powell

I’ve often heard of Theda Bara as the 20th Century’s first sex symbol, or the screens ultimate vamp. I have no idea what the hell a vamp is other than outdated teens slang from a billion years ago. My first thought, due to the heavy eye shadow and pale skin was that maybe she was a legit vampire, or played one in the films, but well apparently the word meant something different back then. Just as Clara Bow was the “It” Girl and along with Joan Crawford and Louise Brooks the definition of the flapper, Theda Bara wore the mantle of vamp forever. Her career as a relevant sex goddess was somewhat short lived and this film is probably the one best remembered. Watching it you may find it extremely hard to figure out why the hell anyone thought she was attractive at all, but again different era. The acting is the type that you see when people are making fun of silent film acting, big exaggerated gestures that make the performances in Caligari seem restrained. The entire film is available on Google Videos so feel free to check it out.

The Tramp (1915) - Charlie Chaplin

Chaplin’s definitive early short and the one that forever brought us arguably the most famous character in film history is The Tramp. Hard to even imagine Chaplin as a different character, something that’s made his later features good as they are somewhat forgettable by comparison. The story is somewhat typical of the films Chaplin would make for a long time, humor mixed with some pathos. After helping out a lady in distress he gets a job helping out around their farm, where he makes a comical blunder of things, then mistaking the lady’s excitement at her brother’s return for her lover, he takes his cue to exit. The familiar image of the tramp back on the road at the end is one that would return quite a bit for Chaplin, but for those interested in the evolution of the character need to see this. Would have been nice if the version I saw wasn’t a low grade Chinese bootleg.

The Pawnshop (1916) - Chaplin

I may have mentioned earlier that Chaplin was the star of this chapter, along with Griffith, and well I had already seen all the Griffith films. This might be Chaplin’s best short. In it he works at a Pawnshop, go figure and well as one would expect he turns the small storefront into one giant comic prop. The boss’s daughter gives him a degree of motivation and a much larger co-worker gives him some competition, as well as a setup for nearly all the gags. In it Chaplin proceeds to take apart an alarm clock piece by piece and then rejecting it, handing the scraps to the would be seller, he falls for a con artist who sells rings with an overly emotional plea, and inexplicably finds a way to save the day from a would-be robber (who of course has a huge handlebar mustache). It’s amazing to think how every one of the major silent comedians did their own stunts. In one unbroken shot Chaplin gets on top of a tall ladder, shakes back and forth while cleaning, and eventually topples over only to roll around and stand back up, something that would probably take 10 shots and a stunt double to do today. They don’t make ’em like that anymore.

The Rink (1916) - Chaplin

Ever want to see Chaplin’s little tramp wait tables and roller skate? Then you’re in luck. Essentially Chaplin donned some roller skates and decided that was enough of a gimmick to set this film apart. Now this has the aforementioned scene with the customer twirling his sweet stache to attract a rather overweight lady, but essentially Chaplin makes a horrible mess of being a waiter, serving people the wrong food, sometimes even serving them clothes, and eventually getting on some roller skates, dodging trouble and getting back at that always present big bully. At this point in his career though pretty much all of Chaplin’s films were golden.

Easy Street (1917) - Chaplin

See a pattern here? Easy Street has a bit of a street mob reeking havoc, mainly one extremely large and freakishly strong ringleader who makes mince meat out of cops. Chaplin’s tramp is given a job as a police officer and thrown into the proverbial lion’s den immediately. Noticing the police casualties he begins to panic but brains outweigh brawn here, after a time. Realizing that his lousy baton wouldn’t do anything, the big gorilla even bends a street lamp. Charlie thinks on his feet and puts the big louts head in the gas lamp where he knocks ’em out with the gas. He then has the time to woo a neighboring lady who gets kidnapped by the mob, and well lots of running around and comical violence commences. Chaplin fans will note that he was a one woman man, at a time that is, and Edna Purviance was the lady in nearly all of these films. Over 8 years she appeared in roughly 30 films with Chaplin, not a bad thing to put on a resume.

Teddy at the Throttle (1917) - Sennett

There are plenty of people who discover classic film and see a movie called Sunset Boulevard. They get an idea that Gloria Swanson was this huge over the top drag queen and then they look back to her silent film days and their opinion is somewhat reinforced, at least about her being a diva. Von Stroheim’s Queen Kelly is a good indicator, and well anyone who worked with Cecil B. De Mille is always in danger of being over the top, clearly no filmmaker in Hollywood history can claim to be as pretentious for his time. Then you dig a little deeper and find that Swanson started out as a comedian, at that one time factory of stars, Keystone. Now if there’s anything Mack Sennett was it certainly wasn’t subtle, so perhaps her over the top training started immediately, but watching this film, which also features an early Wallace Beery performance as the villain is quite perplexing to notice just how young everyone was at one point in time. Rather than bumbling cops, the “star” of this one is actually a dog, and those looking at the novelty of dogs in silent films might just get a kick out of this pre-Lassie smart dog who saves the day.

Films of the Period

1914
A Fool There Was (Frank Powell)
Judith of Bethulia (David Wark Griffith)
Making a Living (Mack Sennett)
The Squaw Man (Cecil B. De Mille)
Tillie’s Punctured Romance (Sennett)

1915
The Birth of a Nation (Griffith)
The Tramp (Charles Chaplin)

1916
Civilization (Thomas H. Ince)
Intolerance (Griffith)
The Pawnshop (Chaplin)
The Rink (Chaplin)

1917
Easy Street (Chaplin)
The Immigrant (Chaplin)
Teddy at the Throttle (Sennett)

1918
Hearts of the World (Griffith)
Shoulder Arms (Chaplin)

1919
Broken Blossoms (Griffith)

A Journey Through Film History Courtesy of Jack C. Ellis

First off I’d like to apologize for my lack of bloging of late. Having a monumental task like the one I did the previous year gave me a dedicated project, something to watch, and follow. Add that to the end of the year best of lists, and some Academy Award bitching and well I was out of easy topics. I started writing another blog entry about my inability to remember all the films I’ve seen (to be revised and finished in the future I suspect), but never quite got around to finishing it and like many things in life I put it down in favor of a new shiny topic.

The world of film has recently focused their attention on the Cannes film festival and not surprisingly Terrence Mallick won the top prize for his film Tree of Life. Now I am yet to see this film, but a little about Terrence Mallick for those reading who have no idea who he is. Mallick is a filmmaker who started with a “lovers on the run” story in 1973 called Badlands. A pretty damn great film that was followed up five years later with Days of Heaven. This film is beloved by critics and cinephiles the world over in a way that frankly disturbs me a bit. As legend has it, someone gave the film a bad review, and Mallick took it super personally and decided not to make another movie again, for twenty years. He returned in 1998 with The Thin Red Line which had traditional war movie aficionados scratching their heads wondering what boring nonsense they were watching, and the critically inclined art house crowd declaring it the most profound film of the decade. Of the bunch this is easily my favorite film of his and the one I’ve seen the most. Seven years after came The New World which I hope most of you can vaguely recall since it happened during all of your lifetimes. Critics fell over themselves praising it, and then the debate raged that the version released wasn’t Mallick’s intended cut so film snobs the world over went to hunt down the complete “director’s cut” and praised the film emphatically and told people who had to suffer through the theatrical release (like me) that they had no idea what they were missing.

Well as you can tell my feelings towards Mallick are somewhat complicated. Few directors ever receive as much praise as he does, I guess when you release a film a decade (like Kubrick in his later years), you can build up an unprecedented level of expectation for your next project. That said there is no film I’m more looking forward to seeing than Tree of Life, and the one preview I saw before Black Swan did absolutely nothing to let me know what the film would be about, which is great because anyone who knows me will attest that I like to know as little about a film as possible before seeing it. Like The New World though this will have my expectation chart at 10, so I have no idea how it might deliver, but I’ll find out soon.

The other big film at the fest was Melancholia which won a best actress prize for Kirsten Dunst (yep she IS still alive). I’ve always been a Dunst fan, sometimes to the point of absurdity, but the fact that she was teaming up with Lars Von Trier has got me even more excited for what it’s worth. Von Trier made an ass of himself again by making anti-Semitic remarks and discussing his apparent Nazi heritage, then promptly asked to leave the festival. This is the same man who film people acting like retards (which they called “spazzing”) and filmed hardcore penetration in that same film called The Idiots in what may very well be the most defiant anti-PC film of the 90s, and bless his heart for it. No stranger to controversy and self promotion this sounded like more of the same, but I don’t care if he’s the illegitimate grandson of Adolf Hitler himself, I’m still seeing his next movie.

Now on to more pressing matters:

Even with a brief apology/re-cap I find myself babbling, oh well, I’m sure you’re used to it, or have gradually skimmed through the aforementioned type to get to what must surely be another list, if not hold your horses there’s more. Most of the time I watch anything. Now I don’t watch any and every movie that comes out that would be a monumental waste of time, but there is very little if any rhyme or reason to what it is I watch. I may catch a Japanese film from the 60s followed by a British film of the 80s and then some recent comedy, and go back to watch a silent film no one heard of but me. I dubbed the tendency film schizophrenia several years ago and I think it fits. Following the decade by decade research I found myself settling into another wave of lazy film schizophrenia again. Then one day I got an idea, and went to pick up an old standby off the shelf.

A History of Film: Fourth Edition by Jack C. Ellis has been in my library for a decade now. When my brother attended a film history class for a couple weeks this was the required textbook, and he passed it to me and I’ve been referencing it ever since. Now there is one fatal flaw in the book, it was printed in 1994, so even when my brother was taking the class in 2001 it was obsolete. Ellis in his defense was busy working on updating his History of Non-Narrative film book which follows a similar structure to this book and is complete with my favorite feature of all films of the period.

Now it may be overstating it to say that “everything I learned about film I learned from Ellis”, but that isn’t far from the truth. Ellis reinforced particular ideologies and prejudices (good and bad) that had long preceded him and which colored my own attitudes towards film. A lot of what I’ve seen was based on what was available, and 10 years ago before people were uploading every film on earth to the internet and when VHS was still your best option, it was not terribly easy to tackle this whole book. So my ideas of Italian neo-realism were formed by Visconti, Rossellini, and De Seca because they were the ones whose films were available. Thanks to some obscure sources I’ve been able to look more closely at the films of Alberto Lattuada, Pietro Germi, and Giuseppe de Santis. If you don’t know who those last three are, then that’s because their lack of distribution exists even today.

This book was written long before Mikio Naruse got his due and had everything re-appraised in his filmography so Japanese cinema was still Kurosawa, Ozu, and Mizoguchi plus others. And of course since this entire book was largely written from the perspective of the West, Japanese cinema is little more than a quaint historical curiosity before 1950 and Rashomon. These faults can seem major, this book is in no way near complete, but there are some features to it that make it supremely vital and an absolute essential for any serious or potentially serious film fanatic.

No other film history book I’ve seen contains nice little bullet point lists of key films of the chapter discussed. Sometimes you get a timeline (as in Bordwell and Thompson’s listing of French impressionism), but rarely will someone give you a clear summary of what you may have missed, a sort of cliff notes version of the chapter, and a place to explore more about what you just read. Ellis book does that and it’s one of the reasons why I wish he would update it, I’d say 17 years is a long enough layoff. I have recently returned to this book with the determination to see all of the films referenced, or at least consciously work on it, whereas in the past decade I’ve only sporadically worked on tackling it, mainly because twenty chapters, each with films of the period listed can seem more like a lifelong goal than something to tackle over your summer break. Perhaps because I’ve been slowly chipping away at it for so long, and because I have a horribly obsessive need to complete lists, I’ve decided now is the time to make this book my bitch.

So let’s start tackling it shall we:

Chapter 3: Great German Silents 1919-1925

It might make sense to start with Chapter 1, but well I’m special and decided to go right for the Germans. Chapter 1 is all about the earliest days of cinema, from 1895-1914. It touches on the films from the Lumiere brothers, Georges Melies, Edwin S. Porter and continues with some Griffith and some of those Italian epics made just before the first World War. Chapter 2 focuses on American film during the first World War, and I’ll get to that later.

Now there is a tendency to classify all silent German films as Expressionist, simply because that’s the style most readily associated with films of the period. Truth is, as Ellis points out that there were three dominant styles in German cinema. The first was expressionism, which takes the form of Caligari, Nosferatu, Genuine, and even Metropolis to a great extent. Then there are the historical epics, like Ernst Lubitsch’s Passion/Madame du Barry and Deception/Anna Boleyn, as well as a picture like Fritz Lang‘s monumental Die Nibelungen. The last style was the “street” film or the Kammerspielfilm also known as chamber play film, which included such titles as The Street (fancy that), The Joyless Street, and The Last Laugh. Now some times these films cross over. There are expressionist tendencies in nearly all of these films. A film that is something of a historical drama like The Treasure or Vanina have the same characteristic high contrast shadows, stagey acting, and overall appearance of those earlier films. Vanina also combines some elements of the street film which makes it rather versatile in terms of German film. It also features the most ludicrous Paul Wegener performance in the history of cinema. See below for a brief example.

I’m not sure why Ellis cut off his chapter at 1925. He makes his case for a change in German film of this period, although he does go on to mention Metropolis which was released in 1927. So if you’re wondering why there’s no mention of Murnau’s Faust, Pabst’s Pandora’s Box or Secrets of a Soul, and others you know why.

Now a brief word about the films I needed to see to complete this chapter.

Genuine (1920) - Robert Wiene

This was a bit of a questionable call. Apparently the only complete print of this film is in the Munich film archive, so how’s a guy like me going to see it? Well looking at my DVD of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (from the very same director) one of the special features is a 45 minute near complete version of the film. All the basic plot elements are there, and it’s not like it abruptly ends or leaves huge gaps. The film is also available in its entirety on youtube where I had to finish it up thanks to my never before watched DVD freezing halfway through the film. I really wish it was available in it’s full form because this is one of the true expressionist films. I mentioned earlier that a great deal of German films from this period (and films made elsewhere that were influenced by it) incorporated a lot expressionist elements. Typically in the acting, the lighting, sometimes the set design, and often in terms of plot structure (stories within stories within stories etc). However very rarely do all the elements come together quite like they did in Caligari, perhaps the most perfect realization of the style. Genuine is really more of the same, with elaborate painted sets, plenty of psychological insanity, laughable acting, and all those things you’d hope for in an expressionist film. So for those who wish to pick up the Kino DVD of Caligari, do yourself a favor and don’t overlook this supplement. There’s even some female nudity to boot, and our female lead has an outrageous afro for a bit.

Vanina (1922) - Arthur von Gerlach

I touched on this film earlier in reference to Paul Wegener, but oh man let’s go on. Often times to attract audiences German films would try to use a gimmick, something to draw audiences in. Some filmmakers like F. W. Murnau tried making films with no intertitles (The Last Laugh the most famous of these), and other films tried using one set, or in the case of Vanina, all the action takes place in one night. A group of would be revolutionaries storm a party, where one of the ringleaders meets the governor’s beautiful daughter (the Vanina of the title), and of course instantly falls in love. The ridiculous thing is she falls for him rather than scream at an intruder. They then get married the same night, and after he betrays his friends, handing over all their plans to her father, he elects to have him hung and sent to prison. So needless to say much melodrama, and with all the action taking place at night you can rest assured that this delivers in deep shadows and dark mood. It’s hard to watch any scene with Wegener who was considered one of Germany’s greatest actor/directors in his day, perhaps best remembered for his turn in The Golem. He did appear in a few Hollywood films, such as Rex Ingram’s The Magician in 1926, and like that film it’s amazing to see how anyone could have thought he was an actor. This film he’s given a comically absurd haircut, put on crutches, and walks around grimacing like he’s horribly constipated for the entire film. No one on earth could possibly walk around frowning with so much emphasis 24/7, but realism be damned Wegener did it. This film is certainly more style over substance (one of the criticisms of many German films of the period), so best not to take it too seriously.

The Chronicle of the Gray House (1923) - Arthur von Gerlach

Also from Gerlach is his follow up, The Chronicle of the Gray House. Most German films, no matter how elaborate were shot entirely on a sound stage. Labor was cheap and for this reason Ufa, the biggest German studio was able to exploit it to make astronomical sets that would sadly be created with a computer and look like shit today. This film however was one of the few that was actually shot outside, although sets were designed and built, and some of the locations look very expressionistic even if they were found in nature. The film itself wasn’t as interesting for me as Vanina but still worth hunting out.

The Treasure (1923) - G. W. Pabst

The first film from the great filmmaker G. W. Pabst shows a director already with a firm grip on how to make a picture. A rather simple story of greed taking precedence over a quaint village as they all try looking for buried Turkish treasure. Like many of these films the sets and camerawork take center stage. Pabst would go on to direct Pandora’s Box as well as Westfront 1918, and The Threepenny Opera, but his first film is a gem. Ironically I watched the film with the original German title cards, which had French and Spanish titles imprinted over them, and I had to upload a separate English subtitle file for the film. So I got to see the film and understand it in four different languages, good for me. I believe Grapevine put out a copy sans English titles, but look hard enough online you should be able to find it, and I was able to locate an external subtitle file, ah the wonders of the internet.

For additional reference, I’ve decided to list all the films included at the end of the chapter:

1919
Passion/Madame du Barry (Ernst Lubitsch)

1920
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Robert Wiene)
Deception/Anna Boleyn (Lubitsch)
Genuine (Wiene)
The Golem (Paul Wegener)

1921
Destiny (Fritz Lang)

1922
Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler (Lang)
Nosferatu (F. W. Murnau)
Vanina (Arthur von Gerlach)
Warning Shadows (Arthur Robison)

1923
The Chronicle of the Gray House (Gerlach)
The Street (Karl Grune)
The Treasure (G. W. Pabst)

1924
The Last Laugh (Murnau)
Die Nibelungen (Lang)
Waxworks (Paul Leni)

1925
The Joyless Street (Pabst)
Variety (E. A. Dupont)

1927
Metropolis

Now for the next chapter:

Chapter 4: Art and Dialectic in the Soviet Film 1925-1929

Picking up right where the Germans left off were the Soviets. Although Russia had been a film producing country for quite a while, it really wasn’t until the “montage” school led by Lev Kuleshov that historians took note. Since the book is largely introductory there is only brief mention of what came before. Ironically enough even though Kuleshov is mentioned, and the book even includes a still from his 1926 film Dura Lex/By the Law, it isn’t included at the end in the films of the period.

Now each director had his own unique style at the time. There are moments when the full montage effect is present like one of the flashback sequences in Fragment of an Empire. Yet the degree to which is scarcely as extreme as Dziga Vertov’s Man with a Movie Camera. Eisenstein is the best known of these filmmakers and for that reason his films are generally the easiest to find, so I was able to cross his off relatively early in my quest. It’s more the peripheral filmmakers to focus on this time.

The Cloak (1926) - Grigori Kozinstev and Leoind Trauberg

For a brief period of time Kozinstev and Trauberg were something of a dynamic duo of directors in the silent era. Both went on to other things, Kozinstev directing up into the 1960s, but this is the earliest film of there’s to still get mentioned. It’s an often told tale that’s been remade at least three times, including an Italian version by Alberto Lattuada in 1952 mentioned in the neorealist chapter. That said it’s not that great of a film, and this removes all the humor present in the Lattuada film. That film ran the gamut of comedy, to melodrama, to even a bit of a supernatural element towards the end. The Kozinstev/Trauberg version is a bit more dire, because apparently humor was frowned upon in the USSR, or so we’re led to believe at times. The film contains an unrelated prologue that shows the main character in his younger years before he’s at his boring office job forever. Basically it’s a parable about the clothes making the man, and unlike the Lattuada film where he loses his beloved overcoat, here the man’s coat is stolen after he is mugged and left in the cold. Much more pessimistic and stylistically not as montage heavy as one would expect. The Soviets were probably most influenced by the French and their own school of impressionism (which Ellis had an entire chapter dedicated to in an earlier edition which was removed in this printing). In that regard this film probably resembles the French films of the period more so than the Soviets.

The Fall of the Romanov Dynasty (1927) - Esfir Shub

This film is pure documentary. Full of archival footage about the rather ridiculous pageantry associated with the previous Czar. As a view of what actually went on in the years leading up to WWI and the Soviet revolution the film is certainly worth a look. Like any documentary this does have a tendency to make it’s own point. Shub uses some montage techniques to show the growing militarism of Europe as well as the manufacture of weapons as Russia becomes more industrial. As well as some celebratory touches once the revolution is one. This isn’t entirely archival though, some footage was shot new for the film, but it’s a perfect example of history being written by the victors.

Fragment of an Empire (1929) - Friedrich Ermler

Easily the best of the films I’ve watched since most recently tackling this book. I know little about Ermler, in fact I’ve found two different spellings of his name (I’m going with the one used in Ellis’ book). This film however is just brilliant. Surprisingly anti-war for what is so typically considered a militaristic nation. However in 1929-1931 there was a tendency towards pacifism the world over so this film will fit right in with Pabst’s Westfront 1918 and Lewis Milestone’s All Quiet on the Western Front. This tells the story of a wounded soldier who has amnesia and spends the better part of the decade not knowing who he is. In a brilliant montage sequence complete with plenty of surrealistic touches (including a crucifies Jesus wearing a gas mask that Salvador Dali would approve of), he begins to remember who is. He returns to St. Petersburg where he realizes just how much everything has changed. Women are wearing their skirts shorter, he can’t find his family, his former boss is now on equal terms with the rest of his workers, and everywhere he looks are statues of Lenin and the new Revolution. It’s almost too much to comprehend, after all imagine being out of it for a decade and coming home to find a revolution just happened. The film is available with subtitles online, so hunt it out, it’s certainly worth it.

The New Babylon (1929) - Kozinstev and Trauberg

The second film from Kozinstev and Trauberg shows the two perhaps more in tune with the times. This film makes an even greater connection to the French. It is probably the first film to compare the Paris Commune of 1871 with the Soviet revolution. They go through great lengths to show the decadence of Paris at the time, and drawing comparisons to the aristocracy of Russia before Lenin. The film cuts back and forth between nightclub dancers drinking and laughing and soldiers dying. It’s a film of contrasts and probably the best known of Kozinstev and Trauberg’s films.

Turksib (1929) - Victor Turin

The last film from this chapter is another documentary this one about Kazakhstan. In order to perhaps justify Soviet expansion they made this film to show how much progress was made in the region. It begins showing dried up fields and busted crop plants as the poor farmers pray for water. Then harvesting the grain and making nearly impossible 1000km journeys across the desert to deliver the goods. So here comes mother Russia to blast through mountains, and set up rail lines, build factories and machines, so everyone can live happily ever after. The film is unintentionally anti-environmentalist as they constantly refer to conquering nature. There is a degree of sarcasm that is hard to detect in the film, but nowhere near as rampant as the nearly impossible to decipher titles in Eisenstein’s October/Ten Days that Shook the World. Part of the film is interesting in a Robert Flaherty sort of way looking at the natives of this region during this time, but with some clever montages we see the triumph of industry and the USSR making good on it’s promise of a better life for their conquered neighbors.

Films of the Period

1925
Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein)
Strike (Eisenstein)

1926
The Cloak (Grigori Kozinstev and Leonid Trauberg)
Mother (V. I. Pudovkin)

1927
Bed and Sofa (Abram Room)
The End of St. Petersburg (Pudovkin)
The Fall of the Romanov Dynasty (Esfir Shub)

1928
The Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov)
October/Ten Days that Shook the World (Eisenstein)
Storm Over Asia (Pudovkin)
Zvenigora (Alexander Dovzhenko)

1929
Arsenal (Dovzhenko)
Fragment of an Empire (Friedrich Ermler)
The New Babylon (Kozinstev and Trauberg)
Old and New/The General Line (Eisenstein)
Turksib (Victor Turin)

1930
Earth (Dovzhenko)

I shall continue with the silent American chapters later.

Best of the Decade - The 2000s

Well it took nearly a year (April 26th was the first list), and you may argue I still wasn’t ready. If I had known just how much damn work I would have put into this “fun little project” I probably would have run screaming before I started it. Had I to do it over again though I actually would have worked harder, I feel my 20s, 30s, and 40s lists were somewhat arbitrary. However it’ll be awhile before I update those. As of now I’m still debating even what my numbering will be but keep in mind after the top 20 or so the numbering becomes less important and it’s more a happy to have you aboard sort of ranking.

Perhaps in a few instances I opted to include a director (or even country) as a representative but even some of my favorite film makers were left out (where’s Spike Lee?). Oh well this list won’t please everyone, in fact I’m not sure it’ll please anyone, can’t even say I’m completely happy with it. Before I get into the list (no cheating and scrolling down) I’d like to talk briefly about the decade itself.

If you’re old enough to surf the internet chances are you lived through the 2000s and remember each of the years, from the major international milestones to two supremely pointless elections and an Olympic games or three no one remembers. As for film the dust is still settling as far as what came out and when. For the sake of the list I chose to limit myself to films released theatrically in 2009. I know that in the year and change after the end of the decade a few films made in 2009 and before have come out, but well it doesn’t seem wholly fair to include films that made my top ten of 2010 on this list. In all honesty I’m just cheating so I can fit more films on, but that’s how I’m justifying it.

Sorting out the film movements and major players may take a long time to figure. Most people familiar with international cinema will recognize the emergence of Romanian cinema as a major movement, and the steady increase of South Korean cinema thanks to directors like Bong Joon-ho, Hong Sang-soo, and Park Chan-wook. Elsewhere internationally Iranian cinema began the decade quite strong with such great films as Baran, The Hidden Half, The Day I Became a Woman, and others before increased censorship made great Iranian cinema a thing of the past by the end of the decade. Damn shame even the output of legends like Kiarostami, Makhmalbaf, and the imprisoned Jafar Panahi have diminished or completely dropped off.

Jia Zhang-Ke has been leading a one man Chinese renaissance to combat the bloated overdone “sell-out” films of former 5th Generation giants Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige. His cinema is far from indicative of the norm for Chinese cinema, which has adopted huge budgets and stars since adopting Hong Kong cinema as it’s own. Wong Kar-Wai started the decade off with one of his most praised films In the Mood for Love but by the end of the decade was having to defend his poorly received English language debut My Blueberry Nights. As globalization continues the very definition of a national cinema is becoming quite blurry.

Many of the best directors of this decade may still be waiting to be discovered. I showed up late to the party with Jia, who I first heard of when The World (his fourth feature) was released here. Thailand’s Apichatpong Weerasethakul is another late bloomer for me who I didn’t discover until Tropical Malady (his third feature) was released. Their story is similar and makes me wonder how many great directors are already making gems. Early decade mavericks like Christopher Nolan and Darren Aronofsky have become part of the establishment with recent blockbusters Inception and The Black Swan, while still maintaining a large degree of artistic credibility.

Animation grew as a respectable form of cinema throughout the decade. Starting in 2001 the Academy decided to give an Oscar for the best animated feature, and aside from that first year, it has pretty much been the Pixar award. The Disney subsidiary has consistently proven itself the best name in the animation world and seem to produce a masterpiece on an annual basis. Needless to say they’re represented here. Hayao Miyazaki also made inroads on American soil (thanks perhaps to a Disney distribution deal) and made arguably his greatest film with 2001’s Spirited Away.

*After several years I decided to add years,countries, and directors for each film.  I had originally done this but a computer crash lost this info, and I was too damn frustrated to fix it.  So enjoy the amended list, and let it be noted, that although my tastes have slightly changed this list is left in tact.  Feel free to revisit my top 100 list to see which of the top films shuffled, or just take this as a pretty accurate ranking as of 2011.  I know I often blog and write about older films, so perhaps a more contemporary list can give you some suggestions going forward.  Perhaps in another 5 years I'll write about 50-11 on here.

50. Edge of Heaven (2008) - Turkey/Germany Faith Akin
49. Dancer in the Dark (2000) - Denmark/France/Sweden Lars Von Trier
48. Gran Torino (2008) - US Clint Eastwood
47. Memories of Murder (2003) - South Korea Bong Joon-ho
46. La Commune (Paris 1871) (2000) - France Peter Watkins
45. The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) - US Wes Anderson
44. Last Days (2005) - US Gus Van Sant
43. Rambo (2008) - US Sylvester Stallone
42. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2007) - Romania Cristian Mungiu
41. Regular Lovers (2005) - France Phillipe Garrel

40. Traffic (2000) - US Steven Soderbergh
39. The Saddest Music in the World (2003) - Canada Guy Maddin
38. Moulin Rouge (2001) - US/Australia Baz Luhrmann
37. Eureka (2000) - Japan Shinji Aoyama
36. Zodiac (2007) - US David Fincher
35. Cache (2005) - Austria/France Michael Haneke
34. Million Dollar Baby (2004) - US Clint Eastwood
33. Elephant (2003) - US Gus Van Sant
32. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006) - US Larry Charles)
31. Two Lovers (2008) - US James Gray

30. The Death of Mr. Lazerescu (2005) - Romania Cristi Puiu
29. Kings and Queen (2004) - France Arnaud Desplechin
28. Bloody Sunday (2002) - UK/Ireland Paul Greengrass
27. The Day I Became a Woman (2001) - Iran Marzieh Meshkini
26. Angels in America (2003) - US Mike Nichols
25. Syndromes and a Century (2006) - Thailand Apichatpong Weerasethakul
24. Brand Upon the Brain! (2007) - Canada/US Guy Maddin
23. The Departed (2006) - US Martin Scorsese
22. Hero (2002) - China/Hong Kong Zhang Yimou
21. Up (2009) - US Pete Docter

20. Spirited Away (2002) - Japan Hayao Miyazaki
19. The Pianist (2002) - Poland/UK/France/Germany Roman Polanski
18. The Young Victoria (2009) - US/UK Jean-Marc Vallee
17. The World (2004) - Japan/France/China Jia Zhang Ke
16. Yi-Yi (2000) - Taiwan Edward Yang
15. No Country for Old Men (2007) - US Joel and Ethan Coen
14. Dogville (2003) - Denmark Lars Von Trier
13. Pride and Prejudice (2005) - US/UK Joe Wright
12. A History of Violence (2005) - Canada/Germany/US David Cronenberg
11. Sin City (2005) - US Frank Miller/Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino

10. Talk to Her (2001) - Spain Pedro Almodovar

Coming right after All About My Mother it’s hard to say this is Almodovar’s best film, but I’ll make that claim and stick by it. Much more subdued than his more hysteric earlier work but just melodramatic and perverse enough to let you know it couldn’t have come from another director. Along with the previous film it’s a fine place to start with Almodovar whose earlier work might seem too crazy to be taken seriously. Essentially it is the story of two men who form a bond caring for women who happen to be in a coma. That makes it sound like a regular talk fest that will bore you to tears but never with Almodovar, it gets creepy, provocative, brilliant, and somehow throws a miniature (in more ways than one) silent film in the middle of it. It’s rare when a director is so completely in control of his craft as Almodovar is on this, even enough to earn himself a best original screenplay Oscar as well as a best director nomination.

9. Requiem for a Dream (2000) - US Darren Aronofsky

The first great film of the decade took so long to follow up that the cult/legend of Aronofsky grew exponentially to a point that his subsequent films were at a decided disadvantage. One of the bleakest films of the decade this is a classic “everyone loses” sort of melodrama about addiction in myriad forms but one of the most fascinating to watch. Flexing some serious film school muscles Aronofsky has a new trick in store for virtually every shot in the film, recalling the carefree experimental days of the French New Wave, without the humor. The performances are great all around, particularly Ellen Burstyn who makes a welcome return to the screen as the diet pill addicted mother. Seen by very few during it’s initial theatrical run, like Donnie Darko and Memento it became a favorite of nearly every kid entering film school that decade and unlike those two films well it’s a hell of a lot better.

8. The Dark Knight (2008) - US Christopher Nolan

Although Memento put him on the map, it wasn’t until Batman Begins that Nolan made himself a household name in the director’s chair. As great as that first Batman film was, and spawning a whole wave of “gritty reboot” films it was the follow up The Dark Knight which may arguably lay claim to being the best sequel possibly ever made, and on the very short list of the best super hero films. It’s exclusion from the best picture race in 2008 is what many people are citing as the reason for the Academy nominating 10 pictures in the two years since. Heath Ledger delivered a memorable swan song as one of cinema’s greatest villains. Batman the character has never been better in any form than on screen here. Nolan proved that he was far removed from the backwards trickster he seemed to be with his first two films. He also proved that sequels could be better without necessarily having to be bigger. Doesn’t hurt that it was shot in Chicago, and well every movie can use a little more Eric Roberts. All that aside there is no shortage of great moments and juggling Harvey Dent’s descent and Joker’s unequaled mayhem made Scarecrow and Ra’s Al Ghul all but forgotten from the first. Perhaps the only downside was Rachel Dawes whose character was pointless for the most part and inexplicably replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal. That aside you can scarcely find a comic book movie more perfect.

7. The Incredibles (2004) - US Brad Bird

OK so maybe this is the best super hero film of the decade. Brad Bird’s Pixar debut was made as the company was already riding high on the success of Finding Nemo. Rather than adapt a wellknown super hero group, Bird created his own borrowing on plenty of traditions. In it’s place he made a family comedy that was all about the actual family. It’s humor was universal and didn’t pander to 3 year olds as many earlier Disney features did. This was designed as much for the comic book fan boy as the average first grader. In the process Bird made what is in my opinion the best animated film of the decade and the crowning achievement of the Pixar studio to date. So much of the humor arises from the mundane, Mr. Incredible’s massive weight gain, the weight gain in only one particular area of Mrs. Incredible, Fro-zone searching for his super suit and simultaneously arguing with his wife, and on and on. It’s sound design is also among the best of the decade an art much more felt than seen. Not to detract from other Pixar films of the decade like Finding Nemo, Up, Wall-E, or Ratatouille but well one of them had to be the best.

6. Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) - US/New Zealand Peter Jackson

A massive trilogy planned and executed at once that turned out to be one of the most mammoth undertakings in cinema history forever took Peter Jackson from the quirky disgusting filmmaker of Meet the Feebles and Dead Alive and made him a major Hollywood player. It did more for New Zealand cinema than any film before it, and almost instantaneously joined the discussion as being one of the best science fiction/fantasy franchises of all time. Motion capture became a new cinematic term, and even the most ardent of Tolkien fans had to admit these films got things about as right as they were going to get. Multiple viewings can only hope to reveal how much is going on and truth be told it can be a little tricky following all the various battles and wars going on but it never ceases to be an entertaining ride. The deluxe DVD’s set new standards for special features and behind the scenes access, a nice added bonus. Different people have a different favorite from the franchise, but as a collective whole this is one of the most impressive feats of cinematic storytelling you’re likely to find.

5. Children of Men (2006) US Alfonso Cuarón

As the debate raged amongst which of the Mexican director’s had the best 2006, I was casting my vote for Cuarón. As a fair comparison I went to see Children of Men immediately after Pan’s Labyrinth (I paid a then astonishing $10 for a movie ticket and I was going to turn that into a double feature damnation). You may already know I’m a sucker for long takes, and this film had them in abundance. Free of typical trickery entirely new rigs were built and designed to accommodate the ever elaborate photography. Aside from a mere technical marvel though the film’s political backdrop is enough to fill an entire philosophy and ethics class. Perhaps it is the best films that make us think, and this one does that, perhaps what would it be like to live in a world where no one can have kids anymore? What would we do if after 18 years someone was found pregnant? What would it mean if that person happened to be black? What would be the point at all of maintaining in that environment? 2006’s best film is densely layered indeed and is one of the most impressive works of cinema I have ever seen. The highlight of what was a very productive decade for Cuarón, who broke through with Y Tu Mama Tambien, and even helmed a Harry Potter film, which consequently happened to be the best of that franchise.

4. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) US Michel Gondry

Before Michel Gondry was at the helm of a painfully unnecessary Green Hornet movie, and before Charlie Kauffman took his first turn in the director’s chair the two teamed up for what was one of the most unique and original cinematic tales of the decade. Although un-nominated Jim Carrey was never better and isn’t likely to get any better than he was in this film. Kate Winslet earned another well deserved nomination for her work, but this is really Kauffman’s show. Taking us into an ethical dilemma of what would we do if we could erase painful memories but without lecturing or sounding like a philosophy professor. Juggling a few multiple plot strands and jumping into rapidly fading memories, there is a whole lot going on here. Even a third or fourth viewing won’t reveal all the things going on in the background of the shots. Gondry has a penchant for cluttering up his frames, as was evident in The Science of Sleep and Be Kind Rewind, but it makes some of the images appear almost like a Where’s Waldo drawing. A perfect compliment to Kauffman’s scatological style which never found a better marriage than here. Reminding us that two people who are supposed to be together will find some way, somehow.

3. Kill Bill (2003-2004) - US Quentin Tarantino

After a rather prolonged absence during which he tried to make Inglorious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino decided to put all his influences on his sleeve. In the process he made a film that combined all his love of kung-fu, samurai, blaxploitation, spaghetti westerns, and everything else in between to form the most awe-inspiring revenge story in all of cinema. As a collective whole the two films (originally intended to be released together) are an excessive, kinetic, over the top orgy of blood and guts with that wonderfully nuanced sense of character and dialogue that only Tarantino can use. It’s what separates this film from countless Japanese slaughter fests made throughout the decade. The reason why so many bloody films are so easily forgotten. Trimming the majority of the dead space away from the films this was paying homage to, it’s an all-killer no-filler thrill ride for a new generation. Yeah you can quote me on that, but clichéd movie critic speak aside this is a film that was well worth the wait and sadly Tarantino’s next two features didn’t come anywhere near equaling it. Greater than the sum of it’s parts Kill Bill ranks among the decades best just like Pulp Fiction does for the 90s and has already inspired a host of younger people to hunt out films like Shogun Assassin, Lady Snowblood, and The Streetfighter among countless others. Always wearing his influences on his sleeves but finding a way to supersede and improve upon them Tarantino every so often can remind people just why the hell he’s so damn good.

2. City of God (2002) - Brazil Fernando Meirelles and Katia Lund

The decades best foreign film drew plenty of controversy for itself. Many people claimed this was exploitation at its finest with small children brandishing guns and quick to shoot anyone. Romanticizing the slums and exploiting intolerable conditions the film did none of that for me. Perhaps a criticism of sensationalism is understandable but it doesn’t detract from the film. There is nothing wrong with finding a way to make a film entertaining, and there is nothing romantic about this film. For most of the characters you can’t get away fast enough and it shows a Brazilian idea of what American films have been showing with countless gangster films for decades. Shown from the eyes of an outsider makes the film that much easier to identify with for us who see just how scary the situation can be and how easily falling into that life could be. There’s a lot going on and there is a quite a bit to take in over the three decade story which doesn’t seem so much a nostalgic recollection of the good old days as a tale of whose who from the eyes of a first hand witness standing just outside of it all. Some of it is brutal and hard to watch, but ultimately redeeming I find and I’ll take this film any day over the whitewashed garbage that Walter Salles has been turning out the last two decades. This has all the excitement of classic cinema novo ala Glauber Rocha with better production values.

1. Mulholland Drive (2001) - US David Lynch

Well before I even started this project I knew Lynch’s film would top my list. In fact not long after I saw it I knew it would top my list. For the past 9 years or so I’ve been wondering if any film would come out that would be better, and well you have your answer to that question. Most of the films in my list I’ve seen more than once, and the upper echelon always benefit from repeated viewings. Not only do repeated viewings reveal more layers that were previously missed, but they also serve as the best judge of a film’s quality to decipher whether or not it can hold up. Mulholland Drive more than holds up. It is in my opinion Lynch’s masterpiece which is saying a whole hell of a lot. It’s disturbing, provocative, enigmatic, mesmerizing, and just damn perfect. Every time I watch it more and more of it makes sense, but there’s always a scene or two that make me scratch my head. Perhaps it’s Lynch’s way of saying “that’ll teach you to try and decipher meaning in my work” or perhaps it’s just another mystery waiting for me to reveal. As a side note this film also contains the best sex scene of the decade and well it made me a Naomi Watts fan for life. As he goes digital it’ll be interesting to see if Lynch will ever come close to topping this, or even bother being this coherent again. As it stands though this is the finest film of the decade and I will stand by that for a long time.

A slight deversion - about baseball

Well I know that it is a film blog, but well those of you who know me are aware that I'm about as obsessed with baseball as a person can be. As against tradition as it might be, baseball is starting on a Thursday with not one but three games, and well a few things I'd like to jot down before opening day.

Last Saturday I watched Major League for what might be the 40th time. It's become something of a tradition, similar to many people watching Christmas Story or It's a Wonderful Life before the holidays. Every time I watch it I seem to catch more. The product placement of Tecate on Jake Taylor's shirt when he arrives at Spring Training. There's the background player with a mullet who walks past Roger Dorn on two different shots (bad continuity Mr. Ward), and other such nitpicking items that only a billion viewings can reveal.

Major League might be my favorite sports film ever (wait it clearly is far and away my favorite sports film ever) but it does fall into a few cliches. For starters virtually every sports film from Rocky to The Fighter it is about an underdog. The Indians are purposely bad and anyone whose gone into opening day with a roster full of ?'s then they can feel the pain of the citizens of Cleveland at the beginning of the film. Perhaps if the film were remade the Pittsburgh Pirates might provide a suitable backdrop considering they're working on 19 straight losing seasons and nothing is letting me think that's going to change this year.

There is also the forced love story between Corbin Bernsen and Rene Russo. Russo made a career for herself in the late 80s and early 90s dragging down nearly any film she was in by being thrown into a half cocked and unconvincing love affair with someone just so that Hollywood could fulfill it's unofficial quota of appealing to women who clearly are only going to the film for that same reason (Kitty Carlisle in A Night at the Opera anyone?). Her role here is much more fleshed out that the supremely clumsy part she plays in Wolfgang Petersen's In the Line of Fire with an aged Clint Eastwood who is far too old for such nonsense. I won't blame her presence on the decline of the increasingly silly Lethal Weapon franchise, but let's face it she's no Patsy Kensit.

Not to beat up on the girl too much, but clearly the scenes she shows up in do grind the film down a lot, even with the faux-romantic score changing. The scene at the library provides plenty of comedy thanks to the quick pace and ever ready steadi-cam tracking a rather rapid fire exchange. The scene where he crashes the fiance's party was one I actually used to fast forward when I was a kid, and at the very least we could have gotten some nudity to spice up their "one last time" fling. Unlike the largely reprehensible sequels to this film, the first was at least rated R, which I know is a novelty in Hollywood to think that an R rated film can actually have an audience, make money and spawn a sequel without being a shitty slasher film. There was a time in the 80s when people in Hollywood actually seemed to give their audience some credit, hell even a children's film like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? had a little profanity, some sex appeal, and some casualties. But I digress and won't start shouting from my "They don't make 'em like they used to" pedestal quite yet.

For quotable dialogue and arguably the the best representation of life in the big leagues few people will point to a better film than Major League to the point where I'm not even sure what a possible number 2 would be. The vicarious joys of having the Indians defeat the evil Yankees in a one-game playoff would suffice for a few years, but in 1995 and 1997 the Indians would make it all the way to the world series before the unfortunate fate of all Cleveland sports teams befell them. Still game 7 of a world series would be a hell of an improvement for Cubs fans who haven't even appeared in the fall classic since 1945 (which is three years before the last Indians championship). For the record the Indians have the second longest active world series drought, so goes to show you how sad the life of a Cubs fan can be.

On that note let's get to some non-film related baseball predictions. I'm wrapping up my 2000s list and should have it posted tomorrow, perhaps while watching the three televised games on ESPN.

AL East
1. Red Sox
2. Rays
3. Yankees
4. Orioles
5. Blue Jays

Well this may shock you a bit. I despise the Red Sox (and Yankees for that matter) perhaps more than any sports franchise in the country. Yet hard to deny how souped up their lineup is. True I don't have a lot of faith that Josh Beckett, John Lackey, and Daisuke Matsuzaka will have bounce back seasons, and I'm convinced that Bobby Jenks will be an overweight trainwreck setting up Papelbon, but that lineup can easily drive in a billion runs this year. I believe that the Yankees will keep it interesting and although the loss of Pettite is huge, they're the type of team that will make a move if necessary at the deadline. Tampa Bay is a bit of a dark horse and lord only knows how they'll play without Pena, Crawford, Garza, and Soriano. However few teams have deeper farm systems and as the steroid-less Yankees and Red Sox keep getting older the Rays may just sneak past both of them. The Buck Showalter era seems promising in Baltimore, and the addition of Vladimir Guerrero and Derrek Lee should help out their lineup, but I'd be amazed if they won 80 games. Toronto seems like they've finally given into the idea of rebuilding after years of being half-in half-out, so I expect them to be bad, and someone has to be in last place. As always I'm picking the wild card out of this division.

AL Central

1. White Sox
2. Twins
3. Tigers
4. Royals
5. Indians

There are only so many times that the White Sox can lose to the Twins before things change. While the Sox have made another step forward with the addition of Adam Dunn and arguably the best bullpen in the league, the Twins have stood by re-signing Thome and Pavano and failing to make that big acquisition. Granted the Twins find a way to win from mid-July to September, yet comically fail as soon as the playoffs start, I think their run may be ending. They'll give the Sox a ton of problems as they always do, but providing the White Sox can stay healthy they should win this division and make a run in the post season. The Tigers did get Victor Martinez but that team still seems to be missing a few major pieces, but again if healthy (or if the Twins and Sox are facing serious injuries) they might surprise a few people. The Royals are campaigning for the position of the AL Pirates, trading their best pitcher this off season. They may have 8 of the top 50 ranked prospects but I've seen more than my share of highly touted prospects fail miserably so I think the best the Royals can do is not finish dead last. That spot is reserved for the Indians who have awful attendance, an often hurt lineup (even their golden catching prospect Carlos Santana will start the season on the DL), and a questionable rotation. I'm not picking good things for the Indians, and it might be a very dark time for Cleveland sports for the next couple of years, but with a new manager and a new outlook perhaps they can start to make progress.

AL West

1. A's
2. Rangers
3. Angels
4. Mariners

I've been burned by this prediction far too often, and up until today I wouldn't have gone so far as to predict the A's to win the division. The Rangers are the defending champions, but losing Cliff Lee and essentially replacing him with injury plagued Brandon Webb is not a fair trade. Adrian Beltre is a prototypical player who mysteriously is at his best in a contract year. His numbers last year for Boston were significantly better than expected and I expect a drop off. However in a hitter's paradise like Texas he may do just fine. The A's on the other hand have a great rotation, excellent bullpen, play great defense, and should have just enough offense to finally get back to the post season. The Angels are easily as good as these two teams but with the continued saga of Kendry Morales' injury and a few other question marks I'm not sure they can quite make it. I wouldn't be surprised if all three teams finish with a winning record. The Mariners are garbage and I'd be amazed if they lost fewer than 100 games this year.

NL East

1. Braves
2. Phillies
3. Marlins
4. Nationals
5. Mets

Now to the National League. Everyone's eyes are on the Phillies, and I mean everyone. Their supremely touted rotation is getting comparisons to the 90s Braves staff and everyone seems to be penciling them in for a world series appearance or at the very least a division. If this sounds familiar it's because we saw it last summer with the Miami Heat and there was a team that clearly had its problems living up to the hype. With the decline of Rollins, Howard, Ibanez, and the injury to Utley as well as the departure of Werth this lineup isn't nearly as imposing. Their bullpen is suspect and their farm system all but depleted. Yes Roy Halladay will be great, Cliff Lee may win 20 games, but they're far from a lock. The Braves on the other hand have a great rotation, one of the leagues best farm systems, and have made a wonderful addition with Dan Uggla at second base. They might not have the glamor of the Phillies but they're on par with talent and other than Derek Lowe and Chipper Jones far younger. The Marlins are the perennial "wait and see" team. They have some great pieces but have failed to put them together for the last several years. Any given year could be the year for them, but I can't see them passing the Braves or Phillies. The Nationals are definitely on their way up, the addition of Werth should lessen the blow of Adam Dunn's departure, but clearly their eyes are on the future, and their two number one picks who should be helping the team out in the second half. The Mets on the other hand could very well be the most dysfunctional and worst team in baseball right now. Hard to imagine this team was a serious contender just a couple seasons ago. Nearly every one of their one time all stars are hurt including ace pitcher Johan Santana, and their lineup is comprised of a host of triple-A players no one's ever heard of (Cubs fans remember Angel Pagan?). It's a disastrous soap opera and with ownership issues and massive financial trouble this could be a seriously ugly year for the team from Queens. Just go ahead an celebrate the 25 year anniversary of your Miracle Mets and pray next year isn't as bleak, but don't ask me to feel sorry for you.

AL Central
1. Cardinals
2. Cubs
3. Brewers
4. Reds
5. Astros
6. Priates

Yeah that's right I'm picking the Cardinals. Injuries or not, if anyone can weather the storm of losing one of the three best pitchers in the National League it's the Cardinals. Dave Duncan is a wizard whose made a career getting pitchers to over achieve and someone will step up to fill Adam Wainwright's vacancy. The Pujols contract talks will be an issue but probably not for the most consistent power hitter in baseball history. I would have picked the Brewers to win, but the fact that both their off season pitching acquisitions (Marcum and Greinke) are starting the season on the DL has me slightly worried. They can hit the hell out of the ball and with a potential rotation of Greinke, Gillardo, Marcum, and Wolff they could be outstanding, especially with the issues with other teams, but well they're one of those injured teams. The Cubs are a huge question mark but have enough solid pieces to make a decent run if some of their players can rebound from a dismal 2009-2010. It'll take a long time to see just how they'll shape up, but their rotation should be solid (provided Zambrano doesn't self destruct a huge if), their bullpen should be remarkably better with Wood back in their, and after years and years they finally have their power hitting left hander with Pena. I imagine a fun an interesting season on the North Side and if Quade is anything like the Cubs last two managers, then they'll win the division, we'll see. Speaking of former Cubs managers, I have no faith at all in the Reds abilities to repeat. They had good years from nearly everyone, but now that all those young players have gotten paid I wonder if they'll be able to repeat their performances. Dusty Baker has a wonderful capacity to destroy young pitchers and there's already evidence of that this season. They won't be bad, but can't see them winning the division again, the Brewers and Cubs made too many improvements. The Astros are in transition and are probably more concerned with finding out what they have rather than making a serious run. And well poor Pirates, Jesus that streak won't end this year.

NL West
1. Rockies
2. Giants
3. Dodgers
4. Padres
5. Diamondbacks

The Rockies have been jilted the last season and are not quickly to forgive the Giants their recent success. With Gonzalez and Tulowitzki locked up they should be as good if not better than last year, and well someone has to win the division. The Giants may have a bit of a sophomore slump, and it doesn't help that Brian Wilson will be starting the season on the DL. The Dodgers should be interesting with first year manager Don "I thought I told you trim those sideburns" Mattingly, and still have a few great young players. With their ownership situation of recent years I'm not sure how well they can add an impact player when needed. The NL West has been a tough division to win and with the surprising performance of the Padres last year the race has gotten even tighter. The Padres shocked me and most of the baseball world by winning 90 games last year when everyone (myself included) picked them to finish dead last. The departure of Gonzalez is huge, but their rotation and bullpen is still among the league's best, who knows. The D-Backs are that other team in transition, and I honestly don't know a single pitcher in their starting rotation (is Micah Owings still there?). That said I have no idea how this team will play and won't predict much.

So to recap

AL
Boston
Rays (wild card)
White Sox
Athletics

NL
Braves
Phillies (Wild Card)
Cardinals
Rockies

Fear of Cinema

I’ve been thinking a bit about certain prejudices and often irrational fears in the world of cinema. Some are glaring points of contention that have the mark of the uncultured or downright ignorant, some the opposite with distinct odor of film snobbery, but even the most balanced of us regular movie watchers have some fear of cinema and it comes in places you might not expect it.

Let’s discuss some of the types of fear I’m referring to. Type one is rather simple it’s the fear of a genre. Have you ever met someone who absolutely refuses to watch horror films because they’re total wussies and are too scared of their own shadow that even the most mundane Saw film can actually terrify them? Chances are we’ve all met someone like that and usually shook out heads wondering how the hell these people still exist but realize that this is the most pure form of film fear. In a literal and figurative sense it really is a fear of a type of film, much in the way other people are scared of clowns, spiders, or heights.

This genre fear can take a few forms, the straight man who won’t watch any “chick flicks” or sit through some “faggy musical”. These people swear to their masculine allegiance and realize that anything that doesn’t involve gore, titties, and massive casualties better be a Coen brothers film otherwise you’re a total fag for watching it. Now this macho man/repressed homosexual is another type of friend most of us has who is free to dismiss a film like Brokeback Mountain while proudly proclaiming to never see it, and vowing never to see it. Musicals ranging from Singin’ in the Rain to the Sound of Music, and even more recent offerings like Chicago and Moulin Rouge are clearly not “manly films” so therefore have to be disregarded while that manly man spends his time watching Transporter 3 confident that his sexual preference won’t come into debate again.

There are also the nerdy connotations associated with science fiction and fantasy that make other people proud to avoid Star Wars for a lifetime rather than ashamed. The people who might love Lord of the Rings but dismiss Harry Potter as a much weaker franchise. Often the people with this prejudice are actually fans of the genre. Chances are there are more Star Wars fans who hate Star Trek than average people who dislike both. Nerds are a passionate group of people who will defend their champions with their last breath and campaign against everything in opposition. Perhaps like the macho man the fear here might be that they actually like the film(s) they’ve been bashing and have to proceed to apologize to all those friends whose opinions they bashed.

The fear of horror results from direct fear of being scared so I don’t think many people avoid horror films because they secretly worry they might like them, instead I think they avoid them because they don’t feel like having nightmares all night long. However there is a different reason to avoid films in this genre, and that is the lack of quality/waste of time quotient. Every year no matter how much we wish for it several horror films are remade. It seems that every one of these remakes removes nudity, dulls everything interesting about the original, and uses more handheld cameras to give it an “edgy” tone. So most of us might not fear watching the remakes of The Crazies, Last House on the Left, or The Stepfather, but would rather stick to the originals and save ourselves the headache of sitting through an inferior remake of a film that probably could have been improved upon. Call this a fear of wasting time, which certainly can fit into this blog topic.

However the idea of fear isn’t so simple regarding genre prejudices. Have you ever been scared to watch a film a second time because you fear you might not like it as much upon a closer inspection? Some films captivate us so perfectly on a first viewing that sitting through the film again might diminish that original opinion, sour the taste for us, reveal that the film we loved so desperately was in reality somewhat average. Or perhaps that film with a surprise ending won’t seem as extraordinary when you know the ending. The night I saw Pride and Prejudice in the theater was the result of a lot of changed plans and wound up being one of the loveliest evenings I’ve spent in the past decade. I wondered if with the situation and company change would the film hold up as well. After over 5 years I finally decided to give the film another chance and loved it as much as ever, proving that a great film can transcend any conditions, or perhaps the memory of that original night gave me a warm feeling of nostalgia sitting through it.

The last real fear of cinema I want to mention is length. This goes along with the fear of wasting one’s time. Plenty of people have probably noticed that I recommend a lot of ludicrously long films. My number one from 2010 was a solid 5 hours plus, my favorite film of the 80s was a good 15 hours long. Many of the greatest films of all time are long, sometimes to the point of absurdity. Yet very few people feel like spending multiple hours following one story, just like many people who love to read are scared to pick up that 1000 page book and may be more comfortable settling into that 200 pager. After all you can spend 100 minutes watching a film, or 210 chances are you might prefer the shorter because it’ll take up less of your time. This is one fear that seems hardest to overcome for many people, but looking at my numerous lists of favorites, there’s plenty I’d recommend.

There are plenty of happy endings when we conquer our fear of cinema however. What seems like a century ago I had the American Film Institute’s 100 Years 100 Movies list, the first one. It was in late 1999 and I had spent the night at my grandmother’s house the night before. I turned on TCM the next day and found Yankee Doodle Dandy was coming on. This was #100 on that list and a *gasp musical. I couldn’t stand burst into song crap or so I thought and wanted nothing to do with any of the numerous musicals on the list. I recorded it anyways because it was on. As it progressed I started to watch it, and was amazed. Not necessarily because the film was so great, although I enjoyed it immensely, but because the songs were in context. People didn’t spontaneously start singing and dancing, instead the songs were part of the narrative, recreated in stage productions, rehearsals and all serving the narrative. The concept of the old backstage musical was new to me at this point in time and I wondered if this film could surprise me, maybe it was time to get over my bias towards musicals. Later that day on the way home I stopped at a used book/video store and purchased Singin’ in the Rain. When I got home I helped put up Christmas decorations while watching the film and was even more impressed. I realized then that I’d watch all 100 films on this list.

Overcoming my musical fear was just the first step. I realized if this genre could house gems then so could the scary world of silent cinema, foreign movies, even an animated Disney cartoon. The next steps were fairly swift and I realized that if a film was given a good rating I’d watch it free of fear. Now don’t get me wrong there are some films that I approach with great hesitation, make no effort to go out of my way to see, and put at a disadvantage. In 2008 Doubt came out and I couldn’t be less interested. I was growing tired of the annual Meryl Streep Oscar nomination, and a somber film about a priest being accused of molesting a child sounded like a plea for Academy recognition that plagued plenty of previous would be contenders (Cold Mountain anyone?). After two years I finally saw the film and wasn’t impressed much. To say it was a bad film would be misleading, but to say it was worth seeing wouldn’t exactly be true. Perhaps I had unfairly relegated the film to the dungeon before I saw it, but if the film was exceptional it would have overcome that obstacle.

Take another film from 2008 that worked the opposite direction. Ever since Ron Howard inexplicably won a best director Oscar for A Beautiful Mind I’ve had very little if any interest in his work. When Frost/Nixon made a few top ten lists I wasn’t interested, but then it appealed to my weakness, it got nominated for best picture. For those who know me will know that I’ve seen all but 4 films nominated for best picture since the Academy began handing out awards, so there was no chance I would avoid this film for much longer. I took myself to see it and was quite impressed. Perhaps I set the bar so low that this film had to live up to it, or perhaps this just overcame the prejudice I assigned to it. I’m not saying the film was a masterpiece, but it certainly struck me as a better film than the guilt trip known as The Reader.

So perhaps I need to make a final appeal to sum up my argument. It’d be a cliché to say “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”, and well I think it applies. We can avoid films that are scary because we’re big babies, or plenty others because we feel uncomfortably homophobic about its content, maybe another because its too long, but well there’s greatness everywhere. So get over it, and dig in people, there’s nothing to be afraid of.