A Few Film Notes
Of course any post on the top 10 films in history is basically trolling for comments. But they were interesting comments. And here’s a few additional thoughts based upon them:
1. I recognize that there are good movies from the 1980s. But I would say that there are less good movies from that decade than any other. If I counted The Decalogue as a movie, it would be in my top 10 of all time, but it’s really more of a miniseries, as is Scenes from a Marriage, another clear top 10 contender. As is, Raging Bull is probably the decade’s best film.
2. I simply don’t get the love for Fight Club. It’s a good solid movie, but a total cop-out in the end with the two guys being the same person. I guess it serves as a touchstone for modern discussions of masculinity and I think that’s why people love it so much, even if they don’t think of it in those terms. But it’s really not that great. And neither is Children of Men, another recent film that people love more than is justified. Nothing against that film either, which I also liked a good bit. But really.
3. I’m interested, both in the original Sight and Sound list and in comments, of the increasing respect for Mulholland Drive. I’ll be the first to admit that I am not a David Lynch fan. But there’s no question it’s his best movie. His aesthetic is not really for me. But the key to reaching the S&S Top 10 is not to have your votes divided among multiple films. I think Lynch’s are coalescing around Mulholland.
4. I liked SEK bringing up Sunshine. Although I don’t much care for science fiction, the first 2/3 of that were really good. And then it was a complete meltdown. God the last third was garbage. But then I am also not a Danny Boyle fan. I think he jumps from genre to genre without really developing his craft around particular types of storytelling in a way that would deepen his films over time. I also thought Slumdog Millionaire was irritating poverty porn and it reinforced how stupid Oscar voters are.
5. Finally, just to throw another 10 films out that could easily have made my top 10 on a different day, think Wild Strawberries, The Godfather Part I, Pather Panchali, Kings of the Road, The Big Sleep, Raging Bull, The Gold Rush, A Generation, Army of Shadows, and All About Eve.
And just to troll a bit, and because I truly love this film, I’ll add an 11th: The Last Temptation of Christ.
Also, Moonrise Kingdom was really, really great.
The 1980s gave us the “Killer Bs” – Brazil, Blue Velvet, and Blade Runner.
I second Brazil. Gilliam’s a polarizing figure, but that’s one of the finer and more imaginative satires of the second half of the 20th century.
Thirded.
While Brazil was a work of sheer genius, The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen is my choice for best Gilliam movie.
“The Last Temptation of Christ.”
You know I really enjoyed Apocalypto.
You had to bring a gun to a knife fight, didn’t you.
Apocalypto is as clear a case of self-diagnosis as there is in film.
Children of Men may not have been a great film overall, but it managed to convey a greater sense of realism than anything else in recent years about what living in a war zone / police state must be like.
Given the enormous anesthetizing effect of most movie violence, this was quite a significant accomplishment.
I like Mulholland Drive way more than most, and it wears exceptionally well, but Blue Velvet was Lynch’s best film.
I agree. Big David Lynch fan here, and BV is the clearest statement of his aesthetic, IMO. I also think Lost Highway is a superior film to Mulholland Drive.
Also MD was originally conceived as a TV series, but was rejected by the network that originally solicited it. Lynch shot some more footage and cobbled it together with the series footage to make the theatrical film. That he made a pretty effective film under those circumstances is a really impressive achievement. But I also think that it’s the reason that movie didn’t make any sense, whereas the lack of narrative coherence in LH was intentional and was key to the film’s overall artistic point.
It might not make sense upon first viewing, but it’s actually a pretty straightforward, if non-linear, narrative. There are plenty of good explanations out there on the internet for what’s going on.
Mulholland Drive is actually pretty straight-forward, fits together snugly on every level and is perfectly intelligible on the first viewing if you go into it knowing you have to pay attention to everything.
Broad short-ish Film Crit Hulk overview that hits the main points
Analysis of everything plus the kitchen sink
Spoilers at both links, hope it goes without saying
I think I agree BV is the clearest statement of Lynch’s aesthetic. Hard to say it’s better than MD though. It’s like picking between cake and ice cream.
I swear I didn’t read the above comment before using the exact same phrase. We just use it a lot at the convention every year.
I pretty much agree with this…and, in fact, prior to the S&S poll I would have assumed that this was more or less the consensus view about BV and MD.
For what its worth, Blue Velvet was bankrolled by the same people who ponied up for Dune to make Lynch go away. Orson Welles himself could have learned a thing or two there, and gets BV a few points.
The scurrilous rumor was that Lynch embezzled from Dune‘s cocaine budget to finance Blue Velvet.
If I had to choose a favorite film noir, I’d take both Out of the Past and Double Indemnity over The Big Sleep (not to take anything away from The Big Sleep).
I suspect that the failure to coalesce around a single film is what kept Powell & Pressburger out of the Top 50. My guess is that The Red Shoes, Black Narcissus, and A Matter of Life and Death all received some votes (and it’s entirely possible that I Know Where I’m Going and Colonel Blimp did, too).
The thing about The Big Sleep is that, while it’s definitely a great movie, it’s not really representative of genuine film noir. Some of the noir elements in the novel were played down onscreen because the movie was designed to feature the Bogart/Bacall pairing. Out of the Past or Double Indemnity, especially the former, are far more representative of film noir.
As for the “Archers,” while I Know Where I’m Going may not be their greatest film it will always be my favorite of their films and probably my favorite romance ever.
The Big Sleep – agreed, it ain’t noir, but it is a great movie. Perhaps Hollywood lightened it up because they couldn’t figure out who the killer was. Even Raymond Chandler, when asked, said he wasn’t sure either.
It’s clear who “the killer” was; the only question unanswered is who killed the chauffeur at the beginning (and why). Hollywood lightened it up to make it a Bogart/Bacall vehicle.
But yes, Chandler’s style of plotting has been well described as “stream of meaningless surprise.” (Or as Chandler said, “When in doubt, have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand.”)
Even Raymond Chandler, when asked, said he wasn’t sure either.
That’s because William Faulkner drafted the screenplay.
But Faulkner asked Chandler when Faulkner was writing the screenplay and Chandler didnt have an answer
argghh, fight club was based on a book – the movie didn’t have a tacked on ending – the book did. (Feel free to judge, but blame the book). And in the book, the movie’s reveal is obvious on literally page one. Don’t mean to troll, but it’s second time today I’ve corrected somebody who blames a movie’s story on hollywood when it was in fact in the original book the original was based on.
This isn’t actually a defense. If directors don’t jettison bad elements of the source material, they’re responsible for it.
Right–it’s not like Mario Puzo was some great (or even good) writer or something. And there’s no real saying the film adaptation has to follow the book.
Having Jack and Tyler Durden be the same person isn’t a “cop out”; the movie doesn’t make any goddamn sense if they’re different people. Take or leave Fight Club (I probably like it more than you but I wouldn’t defend it on this kind of list), “cop-out” isn’t the term you’re looking for.
Cop out is exactly the term I was looking for, at least if the movie was going to have anything interesting to say about modern masculinity. It’s not my fault if it wouldn’t make sense as presented in the book. Change the story.
Again, all valid points for disagreement (I disagree!), my quibble was with Mr. Loomis’ wording of the sentence – Fincher didn’t tack on the ending. And if Fincher had changed the ending it would have violated the entire story. The story isn’t about anarchists, it’s about a very disturbed office worker who taps into modern angst. It be like having Henry Hill in Goodfellas not rat out his buddies; Michael in the Godfather refusing to take over for his father; Scarlet in Gone With the Wind ending up with Ashley and living the same life she had before the war. That’s the whole story! Also thanks to Fincher, Norton, and Pitt (and the crew) it’s not a cop-out (which I interpret as a screenwriter saying, “Whoops, I wrote myself into a corner. My characters need a miracle”). If you pay attention the duality of the one character is literally threaded through the entire movie. I usually don’t argue about movies on the internet, but I’m seriously lost by the opposition on this one.
p.s. sorry about the typo above – also if you consider all the little extras put into the film (and if you trust IMDB there are a lot) then I think you have to give at least credit to Finch and Co. for attention to detail and craft – certainly better than “we got script, actors, camera – lets go!”
just saw the new batman movie, and the dark knight doesn’t rise, he blows.
i don’t mind suspending my disbelief for a film, but for this one i had to knock it out, stuff it in a burlap bag with some day old kittens and drop it in the river.
Safety Not Guaranteed, Your Sister’s Sister , and Bernie all have better dialogue and fewer plot holes than TDKR or Moonrise Kingdom.
At least Anderson’s latest was at least watchable, which is more than I can say for The Life Aquatic or The Darjeeling Limited, though he really needs some help with casting. While one doesn’t go to his films expecting anything but whimsy, a 60-year-old Murray and 55-year-old McDormand aren’t terribly believable as the parents of three under age 10 boys in 1965. Actor loyalty has its drawbacks.
The most depressing film this summer was Magic Mike. WTF was Soderbergh doing involved with that project? Haywire is a work of genius in comparison.
Your Sister’s Sister is a wonderful picture.
Damn it, I was going to see that in Seattle and then I didn’t.
def. going to see bernie, and will prob. netflix moonrise kingdom. tho the premise of safety not guaranteed is enticing, i’m no fan of the mumblecore bros.
i’m sorry to say my wife dragged me to magic mike. the things we do for love…
Duplass can get on one’s nerves, especially when the improvisation makes it into the final cut and there aren’t any jewels, though he’s pretty good in both films. And if you want a few chuckles, check out Humpday.
The 80s had a lot of great stuff. Once Upon a Time in America, the full version, Do the Right Thing, Atlantic City, Wings of Desire, Das Boot, and that’s all I can think of right now, but I know there were some pretty good and pretty influential films. Not in the ‘high art’ sense of the term, which I think is a little strange to apply to films, but in the ‘impact on other films and the wider culture’ sense.
Wim Wenders’ other classic from the 1980s, Paris, Texas, also warrants mention.
“Paris, Texas” is magnificent, and I’ve been cold on Wenders’ other movies except “Alice in the Cities”.
Koyaanisqatsi is another one that makes my “Best of 80s” list.”
Koyaanisqatsi is warmed over Stan Brakhage albeit with a Philip Glass score. It would have been a nice stand-in for the metaphysically confused last five minutes of 2001.
I haven’t seen the movie, but the ending of the book was whole point of Fight Club.
Thanks for the Fight Club spoiler :(
I wuz just gonna watch it finally.
A lot of Lynch fans I think really like Lost Highway. I think I have only seen Mulholland Drive- and I felt it was mesmerizing. I think it was a phenomenal film. I don’t know if I would want to see it again.
All About Eve, however, I can watch a million times. Something about it, among all the contrivance and scenery chewing, still seems real. It is totally artificial but massively entertaining and superbly acted.
Does Road Warrior count as 80s?
Incontinentia- of the Powell and Pressburger- I think I liked Blimp best in terms of ambition and interest, but I love almost every scene of Black Narcissus and Red Shoes.
Also, Carol Reed should get some love- The Third Man is phenomenal, and The Fallen Idol plays more Hitchcock than Hitchcock. I really do think it is a genre masterpiece.
Other genre masterpiece’s I love- M, Shanghai Express, Queen Christina.
Agreed about Mullholand Dr.; I prefer it to Blue Velvet, although BV is very good. I thought Lost Highway didn’t really work, although certainly better than Wild At Heart.
All the comments on Lynch and not a single mention of Elephant Man? Very sad.
As a Hitchcock fan, I struggle to understand why Vertigo is seen as a better movie than Rear Window.
Is it because Vertigo is somehow seen as more “complete” movie? It just feels so plainly obvious that Rear Window is the better movie.
This. I’ll post about this later, but Vertigo wouldn’t make my Hitchcock top 5; I’m not sure it would make the top 10.
I think Vertigo is pretty awesome, but I’d rank Notorious, Stranger on a Train, and The 39 Steps higher.
I can’t help it but – the 39 Steps was an abortion of the book, which was an entertaining if not sublime thriller. IMHO it’s the most disappointing book adaptation of all time.
I don’t care about the book. But I thought the film was just outstanding.
Read the book. You’ll like it.
Notorious is my favorite Hitchcock for sure, but Vertigo is just totally different. It is extremely Hitchcocky but also a little weird. It is super boring so it plays a lot better on the big screen where you can take the images in and let the score settle in.
Vertigo just has some raging raging psychological depth and complexity. They are different movies. Rear Window is a masterpiece of technique and confined storytelling. Vertigo is hypnotic and mesmerizing and odd and far-fetched yet unforgettable and sort of heart breaking.
I guess this is the disagreement; it’s clearly the pretentious psychological material that compels so many critics to tab Vertigo over the movies where Hitchcock’s reach doesn’t exceed his grasp. But deep? I don’t see it.
I don’t know about disagreement- Vertigo IS overrated if it is considered the greatest film of all time. I also don’t think it is an overreach- it is totally hokey as well, but it is in the Hitchcock vein of regular guy ensnared by circumstances- but this is one of the few where the entrapment is both emotional and diabolical. The audience is like Midge’s character- they kind of want to make fun of Scotty’s predicament, but he just gets broken down in the end. I do think the location, the score, the images, along with the love triangle (though totally unbalanced) make it a very interesting film. There are essentially three characters- and one is not necessarily real- and none of them can have what they really want. I mean, the ending is as dark as Dr. Strangelove. It is much harder to see under the weight of expectations I think. Weirdly, i think Citizen Kane can live up to the expectations.
A lot of these films I had to privilege to see for the first time on the big screen, so they have a different impact I think. Now, I won’t make any excuses for Marnie. I think it is almost unwatchable, though with some good scenes.
I love the inclusion of Army of Shadows and your choice of Seven Samurai as these are two of my favorites, as well. Worth noting that both these movies have excellent commentaries on their Criterion DVDs by historians – it would be excellent if that could become a wider trend.
Yes, Rear Window is better than Vertigo. Much. North by Northwest is also much better than Vertigo. (A lot of movies are better than Vertigo, which is Hitchcock at his Freudian clunkiest. His other movies are more than saved from all that tedious psychoanalytic textbook stuff by their wit.)
I have little interest in these greatest lists, but as long as people are making them and I am sleepless…. How many people have seen Bertolucci’s first and greatest, Before the Revolution? One of the all-time greats, in my book. Maybe the all-time great, though I refuse to rank! (Btw, then watch Scorcese’s Age of Innocence. Scorcese, like Hitchcock or Bertolucci or Truffaut or I could go on, is unto himself.)
And yes, Fight Club. I don’t know if it’s great, but it’s truly important and insightful and amazing. Some kind of great. Also, Gods and Monsters, a wonderful movie, truly wonderful. Others on my list (not exhaustive!): Tender Mercies, In the Bedroom (up there with Before the Revolution), Groundhog Day, Little Miss Sunshine, Office Space (comedy, if that’s the right term, deserves more attention here…). Then there are so many other little gems, like The Day I Lost My Voice. Gee, how could I forget my very favorite “light” movie (dare I love one more than another?): Local Hero!
And Nora Ephron’s (and her sister’s) first film, This is My Life. Okay, not a great. But awfully good. A truly feminist angle, which LGM could use!
Meanwhile, I will watch any noir film. Too many greats there to try to catalogue, but even the ho-hums are always a pleasure.
“And yes, Fight Club. I don’t know if it’s great, but it’s truly important and insightful and amazing. Some kind of great.”
Is it? I absolutely disagree on all fronts.
Probably because you were in a real fight once
Obviously fight club whooshed over your head.
The whole point is that they had ne’er been in real fights, that their lives were false, hollow shells that needed filling.
Little Miss Sunshine was a terrible atrocity. Vertigo may be a little “Freudian” but it’s not Marnie, and one of the reasons it is great is it (for most people) overcomes that pop psychology and seems real even when you can’t believe what you are watching.
Age of Innocence was excellent but I though Elmer Bernstein’s score was really poor- I would have liked something more Philip Glass-y.
I really enjoyed “Little Miss Sunshine,” which is a flawed but mostly great, poignant, funny little film.
Hell, the dance scene alone is worth the price of admission.
This! A thousand times from the bully pulpit! I thought it was one of the worst movies I ever saw. Trying so hard to be edgy. Yet completely predictable and sappy (hey, anyone think the silent kid will start to talk? Any chance she’ll actually WIN the contest? Will this strange family come together in the end and teach us all something about ourselves?….gag). And if IIRC it won best screenplay over Memento!! I don’t think I laughed once while watching LMS.
I never thought it was going for edgy. MAYBE quirky.
Memento preceded it by six years, and was never nominated (that’s more of a knock on the Academy; Almost Famous beat out Gladiator, Erin Brockovich, Billy Elliott and You Can Count on Me). The best of the other nominees for Best Original Screenplay in 2006, the year LMS won, was Pan’s Labyrinth (which was better).
Wow. Talk about the morning coffee not kicking in yet. My bad. I was thinking of a completely different year. According to Wiki, Memento was nominated in 2001 but lost to Gosford Park.
I would argue that Babel was also far better than LMS, in 2006.
Oops – I looked at the 2001 nominations, but I guess it didn’t qualify til 2002.
I really hated Little Miss Sunshine.
Yeeeeeeeeah. Threads like this remind me why I hate threads like this.
“And just to troll a bit, and because I truly love this film, I’ll add an 11th: The Last Temptation of Christ.”
Still the only Scorsese film I can stand (despite my wife being in several others); the only time the “yes, I’m smarter than any other filmmaker” attitude that pervades his films (think The Aviator) actually works with the subject matter and it’s trick-of-the-tail solving the Scriptural, er, inconsistencies.
Oh, right, Sunshine. The remake of eXistenZ without the art direction. Is there any other director whose first two feature films showed such promise and whose career has both continued and never matched the originals? only Tim Burton comes to mind, and he’s never really made a complete film.
No love for Big Fish?
The Sacrifice (1986)
I’ve never gotten the adulation of “Sideways,” which I thought was…AWFUL.
One reason discussions about movies usually irritate more than delight me is because people usually go–straightaway–to their most pretentiously hyperbolic place when offering an opinion on what’s good or bad. But if someone wanted to pretentiously and hyperbolically go after “Sideways,” I’d happily kiss him/her. And then join in the hyperbole.
But if someone wanted to pretentiously and hyperbolically go after “Sideways,” I’d happily kiss him/her.
The hegemonic discourse of postmodernity valorizes modes of expressive and “aesthetic” praxis which preclude any dialogic articulation (in, of course, the Bakhtinian sense) of the antinomies of consumer capitalism. But some
emergent forms of discourse inscribed in popular fictions contain, as a constitutive element, metanarratives wherein the characteristic tropes of consumer capitalism are sub-verted even as they are apparently affirmed. A paradigmatic
text in this regard is the moving picture “Sideways”, whose one hundred twenty sic minutes constitute a master-narrative of imprisonment, escape, and reimprisonment which eerily encodes a Lacanian construct of compulsive reenact-
ment within a Foucaultian scenario of a panoptic social order in which resistance to power is merely one of the forms assumed by power itself.
You bring the Skittles.
one hundred twenty sic minutes
The typo is central to my point, of course.
Holy shnikies. That must be some pretentious shit because I didn’t understand a word of it. But if you say you gave “Sideways” a sound pounding I’ll take your word for it.
Have I ever lied to you?
Never.
I’d do this for you except that after 15 minutes I took the disk out of the DVD player and mated it with an M-80. So all I can say is that the first 15 minutes was the worst week of my life.
I like your style, Stag!
I liked SEK bringing up Sunshine. Although I don’t much care for science fiction, the first 2/3 of that were really good. And then it was a complete meltdown. God the last third was garbage.
Science fiction, as a genre, is at its best when it’s instilling a sense of a wonder in our otherwise cynical selves. And Sunshine actually accomplished that, as I’ve likely had more dreams as a direct result of that film than any other. But science fiction is also terrible when it, inevitably, explains away the source of wonder. It’s why incomplete series like Firefly and SG:U are revered, while BSG is roundly mocked. BSG finished, and was stupid, and that stupid washes over all the brilliance that came before it. (I still, for example, that “33″ is one of the single best episodes of television ever, but it’s still difficult for me to re-watch because I can’t take the cast as seriously as I could before.)
Glad to hear the love for “33″! I often describe it to people as one of the best standalone hours of dramatic television ever. It does an amazing job of sucking the viewer in even if they know nothing about the underlying story.
So what would be an ending that wouldn’t be a copout? Tyler and the main character become lovers, and forswear violence? The main character realizes that violence is bad, becomes a peace activist, and joins a union?
Part of why the twist is so powerful is that it means that the main character isn’t off the hook. He wasn’t a weak-willed unhappy person who fell in with a cult led by a strong person. He’s an unhappy person who makes himself feel better by starting a cult.
[...] I’ve noticed while reading and commenting at political snark blogs is that as soon as the conversation turns to things like music and movies, once-terrific posters suddenly become insufferable to me. It’s like everyone [...]
Aguirre: The Wrath of God
That is all.
Manos: The Hands of Fate
That is all.
I watched Bernie last night, and I gotta say, its been a long time since I enjoyed a new movie as much as that one.