This was so incredibly hard to do, namely because some movies that would be on my list right now may not be on it in a year, and some that I would have put on two years ago (Double Indemnity, for instance) didn’t make it. So, I’ve got a list, but man it was hard to whittle down to just 10. Also, there are some films that I absolutely love, but only for “turning off the brain” entertainment value (Hello, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) but would have to turn in my cinephile union card if I put it on a list with Fanny & Alexander. So, here’s my ten, for what it’s worth:
10 – Persona
9 – Blue (Hell, the whole Three Colours Trilogy, really)
8 – The Apartment
7 – 2001 : A Space Odyssey
6 – Fanny & Alexander
5 – Godfather 1 & 2 (this is one movie, really, isn’t it?)
4 – Citizen Kane
3 – Vertigo
2 – Casablanca
1 – Seven Samurai
You know, I think it all depends on the type of theatre and the type of film, to be honest. Back over a decade ago, I lived in NYC while going to school. The first month or so that I was there, there was a film festival sponsored by Warner Brothers that was an amazing experience. I went to see Casablanca, Dirty Harry and Blade Runner. They were all shown at Radio City Music Hall. Sweet God, I thought, THIS is how all movies should shown. Not in cramped multiplexes with no style or atmosphere, more concerned about selling popcorn and hot dogs and nachos than in the movies they show. Before each film, an organist played music on a platform that would retract into the wall as the film started. Clint Eastwood was thirty feet high on a massive screen. That was one of the best filmgoing experiences ever.
Also in NYC is the Zeigfeld, which is an incredible theatre. Saw Vertigo in 70mm and all three original Star Wars films there. The crowds were incredible for the Star Wars flicks. They were so joyous and enthusiastic. They cheered at every moment, even though they had seen it a thousand times. I really felt that that was an experience that typified the unifying experience that movies can create; the audience enjoyed it more because it was communal.
But, during a recent showing of 3:10 to Yuma, I actually had some loser sitting next to me explaining the whole movie to his girlfriend. Literally, after every single scene. I finally asked them politely (I’m Canadian) to quiet down, whereupon they got all irate, saying that they could talk through the whole movie if they liked, and that they were going to get the manager to kick us out. Needless to say, the guy did not return to the manager, who must have told them to keep quiet, because they did shut up. But I thought to myself that if you can’t follow 3:10 to Yuma, then you are too stupid to go to the movies. Seriously. You need to go home and find something less challenging, like watching someone else play Pong.
Well, firstly, I don’t get where the Hoffman haters are coming from. He’s amazing, and he’s always amazing. Granted, he doesn’t completely metamorphize into wholly different people with each role, but, jeezus, that’s a pretty hard fricking thing to do. I can think of only one actor who consistently completely disappears with each role and that’s Daniel Day Lewis. To me, what’s more important than building radically different characters each time out is whether the actor rises to and connects with the given circumstances to the piece in a way that reveals some sort of truth. Hoffman does that pretty much all the time for me. The tiny moment in “Synecdoche” where his wife admits in therapy that she’s fantasized about him being dead, and his reaction to that is tiny moment of amazingly honest acting. In the space of a few seconds, he shows a man who is so deeply hurt and betrayed. Gets me every time.
As for “Eternal Sunshine…” vs. “Synecdoche, NY” are like comparing apples and something else that isn’t even a fruit. I will say that “Eternal Sunshine…” is easier to watch, but “Synecdoche” is hugely rewarding every time I watch it. They’re both great, but as my friend said to me, “Synecdoche’s like reading a book in school. No matter how much you love it, you can’t escape the feeling that it’s homework”. And that’s true. It requires a more engaged role on the part of the audience, while you can more easily sit back and let “Sunshine” wash over you.
Bottom line: “Synecdoche” is the better film, but I’ll probably watch “Eternal Sunshine” more in my life.
Josh, I totally get what you’re saying here. Personally, I wouldn’t put Fincher on the same level as Bergman either. Then again, there’s maybe four other filmmakers in the history of film that I would put up with Bergman anyway. But the mistake in my opinion comes in looking at that as failure on Fincher’s part. Only in movies (and theatre) do we do this. You wouldn’t lambaste Rembrandt for not painting like Picasso. Rembrandt did what he wanted to do, while Picasso did what he wanted to do. Each has their own merits relative to what they were trying to accomplish. Same with directors of film.
To me, Bergman was trying to uncover and reveal deep emotional truths about humanity as a whole. He was literally trying to figure out why we behave the way we do. He was trying to decipher our place in the universe and our relation to God, and does God even exist, and who does this God fellow think he is anyway? Big stuff.
Fincher ain’t doing that. It doesn’t make him less successful as an artist at all. It means he’s concerned with other things entirely. No one would disagree with John Ford being called an artist except John Ford himself, who probably would punch you in the face for doing so. Fincher is an auteur, fo’ sho. His films contain a sense of authorship. He’s concerned with identity and conformity, urban decay both physical and psychological. He’s an artist, pure and simple. He’s not Picasso. Heck, he’s not Rembrandt. He’s more like Gainsborough. Still, not bad.
So, I have to say, my foreign language film knowledge is a tad dated. I love foreign langauge films, but I really don’t know what to look for in today’s generation. Of course I’ve seen the ones that get big attention in North America (Tell No One, Cache, Pan’s Labrynth, Almodovar’s stuff), but does anyone have any suggestions for some more hidden recent films/filmmakers I should be watching?
Wow. This discussion is a little crazy. Personally, I would be incredibly insulted if anyone, regardless of their so-called “qualifications”, insinuated that not only was a film that I loved “bad”, but that I was stupid for liking it. Look, the crime is not in watching films of lesser (or even no) quality over “meaningful” films. There’s not even a crime in enjoying films of lesser quality. The crime is in not knowing the difference.
I know that the work of Bergman is superior in almost every way to the work of say, Jack Arnold. So does that mean that I can’t watch “Creature from the Black Lagoon”? Does that mean I can’t enjoy it? Jack Arnold wasn’t trying to be Ingmar Bergman. He was just trying to entertain folks, period. He also made “The Incredible Shrinking Man”, “It Came Form Outer Space”, and “The Mouse That Roared”. Do any of those films reach the levels of truth of Bergman, Tarkovsky or Antonioni? Of course not, but they’re not trying to. When doing any real piece of objective criticism, the primary question is whether the film succeeds in doing what it sets out to do.
If you’re talking about “Die Hard” or “Tremors”, then it’s all about creating a fun thrill ride for the audience. I love Tarkovsky, but I can’t say his films are fun thrill rides, exactly. Surely there’s a place for fun in art? And surely when that’s all a film wants to achieve, there’s no shame in that.
Erik, it’s not as if I don’t see what you’re saying. I do. And your point that North American culture is in serious danger of collapsing under a weight of tripe and dreck disguised as “entertainment” is a valid one. However, there has always been escapist entertainment in every single society that has ever existed on earth. For every Shakespeare there is a John Webster, whom I would argue mostly wanted to simply scare the pants off of his audiences. The idea that the mere existence of, as you say, “escapist tripe” is somehow detrimental is, I must say, neither fair nor supported. Further, the implication that if you do watch films simply for enjoyment, that you are somehow “less than” is downright kooky.
Look, I completely agree that our society as a whole may be progressing more and more towards a barely literate one. I further bemoan the absolute dearth of critical thinking that is encouraged today as well. And it is something to be concerned about. However, just because a guy likes “Drag Me To Hell”, it doesn’t make him an idiot. And we (myself included) have to be careful that we don’t cross the line into intellectual snobbery. Because someone who only sees the latest Hollywood blockbuster won’t jump into Tarkovsky if people like us call him a moron for watching what he likes to watch. Otherwise you’re just playing the violin while the Titanic sinks.
Erick – While I disagree on the point that we are doomed (call me an crazy optimist), I will say that I concede several of your points. I still think you may be hardlining here, but I respect your stance. I still believe that simple entertainment is as vital to the health of the mind as any other type of art, but I do concede that we glut ourselves with it.
@Erick – “We live in a world and a society with far too many problems to simply sit back and turn off the ole’ thinking machine for hours each week. Let us revel in entertainment after we have solved our worlds problems. Until then, I think we have a responsibility to reject it”
However, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the above point. It just seems too minsanthropic and too elitist to me.
Loved him in “The Searchers”. I just thought everything about that film was so brave, none more so than Wayne’s performance. I also really like “They Were Expendable”.
I think pretty much everyone in “The Royal Tennenbaums” does a great job, but when Ben Stiller is petting that dog at the end and says, “I’ve had a rough year, Dad”, Jesus, that gets me every time. And while I kind of hate every other film he’s done, Stiller nailed that moment.
Gene Hackman is great in that film, too. Actually Gene Hackman is criminally underrated, but that’s mostly because, like Michael Caine, there was a time when he’d literally appear in anything. I mean, come on, “Loose Cannons”? Christ.
Wow, once again. You know, it isn’t as if European, Asian, and pretty much all other cultures haven’t done their fair share to lower the global IQ.
@Water Spout Film Tennis – "How many of you know anything about Goethe? Mahler? Joyce? Matisse? Cartier-Bresson?”
Well, whoop-de-do. I don’t have to name drop “Faust” or “Finnegan’s Wake” or listen to the Mahler Sixth to justify my entire culture’s artistic pedigree (although I just did name drop, pretty hugely, huh?)
What about the works of William Faulkner? Or Mark Twain? The music of Miles Davis and Charlie Parker? The theatre of Eugene O’Neil or Tennessee Williams? The poetry of Walt Whitman? The art of Jackson Pollock? The films of John Ford and Orson Welles and Martin Scorsese and John Cassavetes and Stanley Kubrick? America has contributed many good and bad things to the world, and it can be an obnoxiously overwhelming force, but it can’t shoulder all the burden for the state of global decay.
By the way, I’m Canadian – feel free to dump on my culture if you wish. I’ll probably just apologize!
Let’s not forget, Europe gave us Roberto Benigni, so it’s not all Mahler and Matisse.
It’s odd because I come from a slightly different place. Being Canadian who trained in the U.S., I was primarily trained in the Strasberg/Stanislavsky style of “the Method”, but in Canada, we are also quite familiar with the more text based British style. I read Mamet’s book as well, but this was when it first published ten or so years ago, so I can’t comment on it indepth except to say that I viewed it as yet another tool to put in the tool box. The older I get, and the more removed I am from theatre school, the more I come to realize that if an actor is to be truly successful, they must equip themselves with as many tools in their “tool box” as possible, and not exclusively limit themselves to any method.
Like any actor of my generation, many of my favorite actors are of the Method school; Daniel Day Lewis, early De Niro and Pacino, Duvall, Brando, etc. However, I also marvel constantly at the work of actors who never employed the Method. Let’s look at James Stewart. He was certainly not a Method actor, although he may have unciously used some of the technique. Still, his performances always strike me as hugely honest. Not realistic, mind you, but that wasn’t the style pre-Brando. But it was honest. And his bravest performances came in the middle to late years of his career. Vertigo. Rear Window. Anatomy of a Murder. Winchester 73. The Naked Spur. The Man from Laramie. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Few Method actors have runs like that, particularly in their middle years. Are they as blisteringly raw as say, Last Tango in Paris? Arguably no, but in those days, it was all about subtext, and Stewart was perhaps the best big-time movie star of his day at subverting his image to create risky and honest characters.
I’m going to agree with most everyone else that it’s either Crimes and Misdemeanors or Manhattan. Each has things that I absolutely adore about them, but Crimes… is the stronger film. It definitely has the best performances in any Woddy Allen film. Anjelica Huston, Jerry Orbach, Sam Wasterston and Alan Alda are especially terrific, and Martin Landau is just sublime. So great in that film. How did he not win a Oscar?
Manhattan does contain a line that makes me laugh ridiculously hard every time, though:
Party Guest: “I finally had an orgasm, and my doctor said it was the wrong kind.”
Isaac: “You had the wrong kind? I’ve never had the wrong kind, ever. My worst one was right on the money.”
I concur with both Willi and Lester, and I have to add Broadway Danny Rose, mostly for Woody Allen’s performance, which I think is underrated. Mia Farrow was great too; she’s almost unrecognizable.
I thought Anything Else was mostly awful, but the character that Woody played in that film was just great. And, I may be painfully alone in this, but I loved Hollywood Ending. All of the stuff where he was blind is comedy gold as fas as I’m concerned.
I finally saw “Shane” and was really impressed. I was also impressed that “Rock n Rolla” wasn’t a complete waste of time and had some pretty good moments here and there.
I’m a huge fan of the Anthony Mann westerns, and while I also love the work of John Ford, I find I far prefer Mann’s westerns to most of Ford’s (with one exception).
Mann’s work was interested in the psychology of the people who populated the West, and by extension, the people who populated America. Stewart was the perfect actor to work with in this regard; he was always adept at highlighting a character’s moral and ethical battles, going as far as possible without creating an out and out unlikable character. In The Naked Spur, when he’s dragging Robert Ryan’s corpse to his horse, he comes as close as he ever did to being repellent. The reason why The Naked Spur is regarded most highly is because of Mann and Stewart pushing the character that far, to the point of violating every single moral precept he should have for his own obsessions. I also love The Man from Laramie for this reason; it’s about a man who is so angry and damaged that he has to battle his own trauma as much as any ostensible villains.
The only Ford western, to my mind, that approaches that level of examination of the dark side of rugged individuality is The Searchers, and it is the only Ford western that I think is a greater masterpiece to a Mann western.
These are all a matter of personal taste, of course. I also love Budd Boetticher’s films for their psychological bent. I also just saw Johnny Guitar for the first time, and how insane is that flick?
I’m a big Bergman fan, and while I get what everyone’s said here, I have to say that it just doesn’t mesh with my experience. I don’t think he’s mad, or particularly angry, even. I just watched the incredible episode of the Dick Cavett show from the 70s which is just an hour with Bergman and Cavett (Bibi Andersson shows up for a while too), and the most remarkable thing is how absolutely warm and gentle he seems. I say “seems” because who knows, really. But judging from that particular interview, he was a pretty even tempered and calm guy.
Now, an artist of his gifts could be many different things, and I have no doubt that when his ire was raised, he could be fearsome. But that’s what made him so great; he wasn’t just one thing or one type of person. He was complex, probably a tiny bit difficult in some ways, certainly he had incredibly high standards when it came to art, but actors and craftspeople loved working with him, and would do so over and over and over. If you’re mad, angry or impossible to please, you jsut wouldn’t inspire that kind of devotion, even if you’re Ingmar Bergman.
That being said, his films could be incredibly unsettling, but I think that he believed in using art to examine questions and feelings he struggled with, maybe so these things didn’t impact on his actual life. Like so many artists, he used art to expose some of the things that affected him deeply; questions about God, morality, insanity, and our preception of ourselves, each other and our place in the universe.
But he also made Smiles of A Summer Night, and that’s a pretty delightful film. I even think Fanny & Alexsander has a lot of moments of joy in it.
I actually think they’re both amazing shows, and they’re sort of inextricably linked. Homicide was really the first attempt to do what The Wire succeeded at, in my opinion; creating a piece as close to the richness and depth of a novel in the television format. These days, most TV shows have embraced the single most powerful aspect of television, namely that serialized storytelling can create an immersive, detail-rich experience. However, The Wire is the first TV show (in my opinion) to truly capture all the richness and complexity of the best novels. It’s one huge, rollicking story that is really trying to talk about the continuing corruption of all aspects of American society. It begins looking at the most obvious front-line battle, the war on drugs. But it starts widening its scope to take in education, urban living, politics, and journalism. By the end, it illuminates how the American city-life is in serious danger of spiralling into destruction.
In contrast, Homicide was the first step by a lot of these writers to reach for the richness and complexity I’ve noted above. It’s rough, experimental and not altogether successful. It also suffered from a huge amount of interference and uncertainity from the network. That having been said, it is still 7 seasons of compelling television. The show was about Homicide, pure and simple. Unlike a lot of cop shows, it wasn’t about solving the mystery or catching the perp. It was about Homicide and the effects that the murder of another person can have on cops, on survivors, on the perpetrators, and on the society that demands the police do something about our seemingly insaitiable need to kill one another. So, when Joshua complains about Det. Tim Bayliss becoming a bisexual buddhist in the final season, I argue that it was a reflection to how he dealt (or didn’t deal) with his job and what being surrounded by death meant.
Anyway, I’ve gone on waaaaaay too long here, but I love both shows, obviously. I just think The Wire is the perfection of an aspiration begun by Homicide.
And they both had some of the best casts ever on TV.
Well, I think “What’s Up Doc?” is definitely one. But to me, the best and wittiest screwball-esque dialogue in recent years were the first four seasons of “The West Wing”, as well as “Sports Night”. Seriously, Aaron Sorkin is one of the few writers who get the speed, wit and rythymn of screwball like Hawks and Lubistch and Sturges used to. Some examples:
Bartlet: We meant ‘stronger’ here, right?
Sam: What does it say?
Bartlet: I’m proud to report our country’s stranger than it was a year ago?
Sam: That’s a typo.
Bartlet: Could go either way.
Engineer: Cut take.
Bartlet: Sorry, everybody. This is gonna be it. Four is my lucky number.
Donna: This is take five, sir.
Bartlet: Five is my lucky number. “Fifth-take Bartlet” – that’s what Jack Warner used to call me.
Donna: Did you really know Jack Warner, Mr. President?
Bartlet: Yeah, because I used to be a contract player in Hollywood and I’m 97 years old.
Josh: [quoting] We have the greatest technology of any people, of any country in the world, along with the greatest – not the greatest but very serious problems confronting our people. And I want to be President in order to focus on these problems in a way that uses the energy of our people to move us forward, basically.
C.J.: Yes!
Josh: It’s the ‘basically’ that makes it art.
Well, if something is rapid-fire and banter and funny, how is it not screwball-esque? I mean, what’s the definition we’re using here for screwball, exactly? Is it thematic or stylistic?
What I love about Sorkin is the stylization of dialogue; the idea that dialogue can have a music or a meter to it. When it works (The West Wing, Sports Night, Charlie Wilson’s War) it’s a treat to listen to. When it doesn’t (Studio 60) it can be indulgent or painful. Still, it’s great to have people writing things that aren’t steadfastly tied to realism or naturalism and take a chance. Mamet’s the same; he’s got his own music within the dialogue, adn sometimes it’s too forced, but when it clicks, it’s really beautiful to listen to.
Got to agree with Allen Grey above. Homicide was hugely compromised because it was produced on network TV. The cable environment did not exist then as it does today, and showrunners did not have even the minute creative freedom on network that they have now. Homicide struggled from day one; I think their first season was nine epsiodes and their second was four episodes long. FOUR. How does a network even position that as anything less than a colossal “fuck you”?
Anyway, cast changes were constantly forced on them, which, as Allen pointed out, resulted in the “prettying up” of the cast. The makers of Law & Order loved the show and tried to inject new viewers with crossovers, which didn’t really work. The network asked for more action, more female cast members, more glitz, et ceterea. Homicide is amazing to me because it was the scrappy little underdog, scrabbling along just trying to do something original amidst all this interference and compromise. And every season, it managed to astound me more than many shows have since. Even in its last few, less effective, seasons.
I seem to recall him saying in that Dick Cavett interview that he quite like Five Eay Pieces, too.
As for his comments on Hitchcock, well, whatever blows your skirt, Ingmar. I find his comments about Hitch’s infantile obsessions absoultely correct, but not in any way a detraction. I wouldn’t want to see a film directed by a Hitchcock without issues. His issues with women and guilt and so on are what made him such a genius. It also doesn’t surpirse me at all that Bergman wouldn’t get that. They’re maybe couldn’t be two more opposite film makers in terms of what they wanted to present to an audience.
Hitch was the great technician; he famously descirbed his job as the assemblage of pieces of film to create fright, after all. No ambiguity allowed. Bergman loved ambiguity. Hitch wanted actors to fulfill HIS purposes, Bergman was a collaborator. But, even though I love Bergman, probably more than Hitchcock, Bergman remains remote. His films reveal little cryptic pockets. But, after watching Hitchcock’s ouevre, I feel like he did honestly and somewhat mercilessly reveal a great deal of his obsessions, drives and emotions on screen. I feel like I know Hitch better while Bergman is still a mystery.
And as for Hitch’s treatment of women, well, he was married to the same woman all his life. How many wives did Bergman have?
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection over 3 years ago
I’ll add my voice to those who have pushed for The Night of the Hunter and In A Lonely Place.
I’ll also add:
L.A. Confidential
More Anthony Mann, preferably The Naked Spur or Winchester ’73
The Last Detail
Go to Comment
What's your Top 10? about 3 years ago
This was so incredibly hard to do, namely because some movies that would be on my list right now may not be on it in a year, and some that I would have put on two years ago (Double Indemnity, for instance) didn’t make it. So, I’ve got a list, but man it was hard to whittle down to just 10. Also, there are some films that I absolutely love, but only for “turning off the brain” entertainment value (Hello, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) but would have to turn in my cinephile union card if I put it on a list with Fanny & Alexander. So, here’s my ten, for what it’s worth:
10 – Persona
9 – Blue (Hell, the whole Three Colours Trilogy, really)
8 – The Apartment
7 – 2001 : A Space Odyssey
6 – Fanny & Alexander
5 – Godfather 1 & 2 (this is one movie, really, isn’t it?)
4 – Citizen Kane
3 – Vertigo
2 – Casablanca
1 – Seven Samurai
Go to Comment
Importance of Seeing a Film in Theatres? about 3 years ago
You know, I think it all depends on the type of theatre and the type of film, to be honest. Back over a decade ago, I lived in NYC while going to school. The first month or so that I was there, there was a film festival sponsored by Warner Brothers that was an amazing experience. I went to see Casablanca, Dirty Harry and Blade Runner. They were all shown at Radio City Music Hall. Sweet God, I thought, THIS is how all movies should shown. Not in cramped multiplexes with no style or atmosphere, more concerned about selling popcorn and hot dogs and nachos than in the movies they show. Before each film, an organist played music on a platform that would retract into the wall as the film started. Clint Eastwood was thirty feet high on a massive screen. That was one of the best filmgoing experiences ever.
Also in NYC is the Zeigfeld, which is an incredible theatre. Saw Vertigo in 70mm and all three original Star Wars films there. The crowds were incredible for the Star Wars flicks. They were so joyous and enthusiastic. They cheered at every moment, even though they had seen it a thousand times. I really felt that that was an experience that typified the unifying experience that movies can create; the audience enjoyed it more because it was communal.
But, during a recent showing of 3:10 to Yuma, I actually had some loser sitting next to me explaining the whole movie to his girlfriend. Literally, after every single scene. I finally asked them politely (I’m Canadian) to quiet down, whereupon they got all irate, saying that they could talk through the whole movie if they liked, and that they were going to get the manager to kick us out. Needless to say, the guy did not return to the manager, who must have told them to keep quiet, because they did shut up. But I thought to myself that if you can’t follow 3:10 to Yuma, then you are too stupid to go to the movies. Seriously. You need to go home and find something less challenging, like watching someone else play Pong.
Go to Comment
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Synecdoche Newyork almost 3 years ago
Well, firstly, I don’t get where the Hoffman haters are coming from. He’s amazing, and he’s always amazing. Granted, he doesn’t completely metamorphize into wholly different people with each role, but, jeezus, that’s a pretty hard fricking thing to do. I can think of only one actor who consistently completely disappears with each role and that’s Daniel Day Lewis. To me, what’s more important than building radically different characters each time out is whether the actor rises to and connects with the given circumstances to the piece in a way that reveals some sort of truth. Hoffman does that pretty much all the time for me. The tiny moment in “Synecdoche” where his wife admits in therapy that she’s fantasized about him being dead, and his reaction to that is tiny moment of amazingly honest acting. In the space of a few seconds, he shows a man who is so deeply hurt and betrayed. Gets me every time.
As for “Eternal Sunshine…” vs. “Synecdoche, NY” are like comparing apples and something else that isn’t even a fruit. I will say that “Eternal Sunshine…” is easier to watch, but “Synecdoche” is hugely rewarding every time I watch it. They’re both great, but as my friend said to me, “Synecdoche’s like reading a book in school. No matter how much you love it, you can’t escape the feeling that it’s homework”. And that’s true. It requires a more engaged role on the part of the audience, while you can more easily sit back and let “Sunshine” wash over you.
Bottom line: “Synecdoche” is the better film, but I’ll probably watch “Eternal Sunshine” more in my life.
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
Josh, I totally get what you’re saying here. Personally, I wouldn’t put Fincher on the same level as Bergman either. Then again, there’s maybe four other filmmakers in the history of film that I would put up with Bergman anyway. But the mistake in my opinion comes in looking at that as failure on Fincher’s part. Only in movies (and theatre) do we do this. You wouldn’t lambaste Rembrandt for not painting like Picasso. Rembrandt did what he wanted to do, while Picasso did what he wanted to do. Each has their own merits relative to what they were trying to accomplish. Same with directors of film.
To me, Bergman was trying to uncover and reveal deep emotional truths about humanity as a whole. He was literally trying to figure out why we behave the way we do. He was trying to decipher our place in the universe and our relation to God, and does God even exist, and who does this God fellow think he is anyway? Big stuff.
Fincher ain’t doing that. It doesn’t make him less successful as an artist at all. It means he’s concerned with other things entirely. No one would disagree with John Ford being called an artist except John Ford himself, who probably would punch you in the face for doing so. Fincher is an auteur, fo’ sho. His films contain a sense of authorship. He’s concerned with identity and conformity, urban decay both physical and psychological. He’s an artist, pure and simple. He’s not Picasso. Heck, he’s not Rembrandt. He’s more like Gainsborough. Still, not bad.
Go to Comment
Best foriegn language films/directors of the last 5 years? almost 3 years ago
So, I have to say, my foreign language film knowledge is a tad dated. I love foreign langauge films, but I really don’t know what to look for in today’s generation. Of course I’ve seen the ones that get big attention in North America (Tell No One, Cache, Pan’s Labrynth, Almodovar’s stuff), but does anyone have any suggestions for some more hidden recent films/filmmakers I should be watching?
Thanks.
Go to Comment
Do You Only Watch the Art House? almost 3 years ago
Wow. This discussion is a little crazy. Personally, I would be incredibly insulted if anyone, regardless of their so-called “qualifications”, insinuated that not only was a film that I loved “bad”, but that I was stupid for liking it. Look, the crime is not in watching films of lesser (or even no) quality over “meaningful” films. There’s not even a crime in enjoying films of lesser quality. The crime is in not knowing the difference.
I know that the work of Bergman is superior in almost every way to the work of say, Jack Arnold. So does that mean that I can’t watch “Creature from the Black Lagoon”? Does that mean I can’t enjoy it? Jack Arnold wasn’t trying to be Ingmar Bergman. He was just trying to entertain folks, period. He also made “The Incredible Shrinking Man”, “It Came Form Outer Space”, and “The Mouse That Roared”. Do any of those films reach the levels of truth of Bergman, Tarkovsky or Antonioni? Of course not, but they’re not trying to. When doing any real piece of objective criticism, the primary question is whether the film succeeds in doing what it sets out to do.
If you’re talking about “Die Hard” or “Tremors”, then it’s all about creating a fun thrill ride for the audience. I love Tarkovsky, but I can’t say his films are fun thrill rides, exactly. Surely there’s a place for fun in art? And surely when that’s all a film wants to achieve, there’s no shame in that.
Go to Comment
Do You Only Watch the Art House? almost 3 years ago
Erik, it’s not as if I don’t see what you’re saying. I do. And your point that North American culture is in serious danger of collapsing under a weight of tripe and dreck disguised as “entertainment” is a valid one. However, there has always been escapist entertainment in every single society that has ever existed on earth. For every Shakespeare there is a John Webster, whom I would argue mostly wanted to simply scare the pants off of his audiences. The idea that the mere existence of, as you say, “escapist tripe” is somehow detrimental is, I must say, neither fair nor supported. Further, the implication that if you do watch films simply for enjoyment, that you are somehow “less than” is downright kooky.
Look, I completely agree that our society as a whole may be progressing more and more towards a barely literate one. I further bemoan the absolute dearth of critical thinking that is encouraged today as well. And it is something to be concerned about. However, just because a guy likes “Drag Me To Hell”, it doesn’t make him an idiot. And we (myself included) have to be careful that we don’t cross the line into intellectual snobbery. Because someone who only sees the latest Hollywood blockbuster won’t jump into Tarkovsky if people like us call him a moron for watching what he likes to watch. Otherwise you’re just playing the violin while the Titanic sinks.
Go to Comment
Do You Only Watch the Art House? almost 3 years ago
Erick – While I disagree on the point that we are doomed (call me an crazy optimist), I will say that I concede several of your points. I still think you may be hardlining here, but I respect your stance. I still believe that simple entertainment is as vital to the health of the mind as any other type of art, but I do concede that we glut ourselves with it.
@Erick – “We live in a world and a society with far too many problems to simply sit back and turn off the ole’ thinking machine for hours each week. Let us revel in entertainment after we have solved our worlds problems. Until then, I think we have a responsibility to reject it”
However, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the above point. It just seems too minsanthropic and too elitist to me.
Still, well argued,sir.
Go to Comment
Best foriegn language films/directors of the last 5 years? almost 3 years ago
Thanks for the suggestions so far!
Go to Comment
Marion Robert Morrison (11 June 1979 - 11 June 2009) almost 3 years ago
Loved him in “The Searchers”. I just thought everything about that film was so brave, none more so than Wayne’s performance. I also really like “They Were Expendable”.
Go to Comment
Which Kurosawa film to record? almost 3 years ago
I’d say Red Beard. It’s more cohesive. Kagemusha often feels too episodic for me. Still, a lesser Kurosawa film is worth ten of an ordinary film.
Go to Comment
Great performances that hardly ever get discussed almost 3 years ago
I think pretty much everyone in “The Royal Tennenbaums” does a great job, but when Ben Stiller is petting that dog at the end and says, “I’ve had a rough year, Dad”, Jesus, that gets me every time. And while I kind of hate every other film he’s done, Stiller nailed that moment.
Gene Hackman is great in that film, too. Actually Gene Hackman is criminally underrated, but that’s mostly because, like Michael Caine, there was a time when he’d literally appear in anything. I mean, come on, “Loose Cannons”? Christ.
Go to Comment
Great performances that hardly ever get discussed almost 3 years ago
Yeah, Robert Ryan is amazing. Loved him in The Wild Bunch and Bad Day at Black Rock and The Naked Spur. So good.
Go to Comment
Marion Robert Morrison (11 June 1979 - 11 June 2009) almost 3 years ago
Oh yeah, and The Flying Leathernecks, where he’s such an incredible prick to Robert Ryan for pretty much no reason.
Go to Comment
Great performances that hardly ever get discussed almost 3 years ago
And Flying Leathernecks.
Go to Comment
Do You Only Watch the Art House? almost 3 years ago
Wow, once again. You know, it isn’t as if European, Asian, and pretty much all other cultures haven’t done their fair share to lower the global IQ.
@Water Spout Film Tennis – "How many of you know anything about Goethe? Mahler? Joyce? Matisse? Cartier-Bresson?”
Well, whoop-de-do. I don’t have to name drop “Faust” or “Finnegan’s Wake” or listen to the Mahler Sixth to justify my entire culture’s artistic pedigree (although I just did name drop, pretty hugely, huh?)
What about the works of William Faulkner? Or Mark Twain? The music of Miles Davis and Charlie Parker? The theatre of Eugene O’Neil or Tennessee Williams? The poetry of Walt Whitman? The art of Jackson Pollock? The films of John Ford and Orson Welles and Martin Scorsese and John Cassavetes and Stanley Kubrick? America has contributed many good and bad things to the world, and it can be an obnoxiously overwhelming force, but it can’t shoulder all the burden for the state of global decay.
By the way, I’m Canadian – feel free to dump on my culture if you wish. I’ll probably just apologize!
Let’s not forget, Europe gave us Roberto Benigni, so it’s not all Mahler and Matisse.
Go to Comment
method actors almost 3 years ago
It’s odd because I come from a slightly different place. Being Canadian who trained in the U.S., I was primarily trained in the Strasberg/Stanislavsky style of “the Method”, but in Canada, we are also quite familiar with the more text based British style. I read Mamet’s book as well, but this was when it first published ten or so years ago, so I can’t comment on it indepth except to say that I viewed it as yet another tool to put in the tool box. The older I get, and the more removed I am from theatre school, the more I come to realize that if an actor is to be truly successful, they must equip themselves with as many tools in their “tool box” as possible, and not exclusively limit themselves to any method.
Like any actor of my generation, many of my favorite actors are of the Method school; Daniel Day Lewis, early De Niro and Pacino, Duvall, Brando, etc. However, I also marvel constantly at the work of actors who never employed the Method. Let’s look at James Stewart. He was certainly not a Method actor, although he may have unciously used some of the technique. Still, his performances always strike me as hugely honest. Not realistic, mind you, but that wasn’t the style pre-Brando. But it was honest. And his bravest performances came in the middle to late years of his career. Vertigo. Rear Window. Anatomy of a Murder. Winchester 73. The Naked Spur. The Man from Laramie. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Few Method actors have runs like that, particularly in their middle years. Are they as blisteringly raw as say, Last Tango in Paris? Arguably no, but in those days, it was all about subtext, and Stewart was perhaps the best big-time movie star of his day at subverting his image to create risky and honest characters.
Go to Comment
Most Accomplished and Cinematically Complete Woody Allen Film? almost 3 years ago
I’m going to agree with most everyone else that it’s either Crimes and Misdemeanors or Manhattan. Each has things that I absolutely adore about them, but Crimes… is the stronger film. It definitely has the best performances in any Woddy Allen film. Anjelica Huston, Jerry Orbach, Sam Wasterston and Alan Alda are especially terrific, and Martin Landau is just sublime. So great in that film. How did he not win a Oscar?
Manhattan does contain a line that makes me laugh ridiculously hard every time, though:
Party Guest: “I finally had an orgasm, and my doctor said it was the wrong kind.”
Isaac: “You had the wrong kind? I’ve never had the wrong kind, ever. My worst one was right on the money.”
Go to Comment
Most Accomplished and Cinematically Complete Woody Allen Film? almost 3 years ago
I concur with both Willi and Lester, and I have to add Broadway Danny Rose, mostly for Woody Allen’s performance, which I think is underrated. Mia Farrow was great too; she’s almost unrecognizable.
Go to Comment
WHAT AUTEUR WOULD YOU MOST LIKE TO WRITE A BOOK ABOUT, AND WHY? almost 3 years ago
I’d love to write a book about Anthony Mann. And Douglas Sirk.
Go to Comment
Most Accomplished and Cinematically Complete Woody Allen Film? almost 3 years ago
I thought Anything Else was mostly awful, but the character that Woody played in that film was just great. And, I may be painfully alone in this, but I loved Hollywood Ending. All of the stuff where he was blind is comedy gold as fas as I’m concerned.
Go to Comment
RECENT FILMS YOU'VE SEEN THAT IMPRESSED AND OR ANNOYED YOU almost 3 years ago
I finally saw “Shane” and was really impressed. I was also impressed that “Rock n Rolla” wasn’t a complete waste of time and had some pretty good moments here and there.
Go to Comment
Anthony Mann Westerns almost 3 years ago
I’m a huge fan of the Anthony Mann westerns, and while I also love the work of John Ford, I find I far prefer Mann’s westerns to most of Ford’s (with one exception).
Mann’s work was interested in the psychology of the people who populated the West, and by extension, the people who populated America. Stewart was the perfect actor to work with in this regard; he was always adept at highlighting a character’s moral and ethical battles, going as far as possible without creating an out and out unlikable character. In The Naked Spur, when he’s dragging Robert Ryan’s corpse to his horse, he comes as close as he ever did to being repellent. The reason why The Naked Spur is regarded most highly is because of Mann and Stewart pushing the character that far, to the point of violating every single moral precept he should have for his own obsessions. I also love The Man from Laramie for this reason; it’s about a man who is so angry and damaged that he has to battle his own trauma as much as any ostensible villains.
The only Ford western, to my mind, that approaches that level of examination of the dark side of rugged individuality is The Searchers, and it is the only Ford western that I think is a greater masterpiece to a Mann western.
These are all a matter of personal taste, of course. I also love Budd Boetticher’s films for their psychological bent. I also just saw Johnny Guitar for the first time, and how insane is that flick?
Go to Comment
was bergman mad? almost 3 years ago
I’m a big Bergman fan, and while I get what everyone’s said here, I have to say that it just doesn’t mesh with my experience. I don’t think he’s mad, or particularly angry, even. I just watched the incredible episode of the Dick Cavett show from the 70s which is just an hour with Bergman and Cavett (Bibi Andersson shows up for a while too), and the most remarkable thing is how absolutely warm and gentle he seems. I say “seems” because who knows, really. But judging from that particular interview, he was a pretty even tempered and calm guy.
Now, an artist of his gifts could be many different things, and I have no doubt that when his ire was raised, he could be fearsome. But that’s what made him so great; he wasn’t just one thing or one type of person. He was complex, probably a tiny bit difficult in some ways, certainly he had incredibly high standards when it came to art, but actors and craftspeople loved working with him, and would do so over and over and over. If you’re mad, angry or impossible to please, you jsut wouldn’t inspire that kind of devotion, even if you’re Ingmar Bergman.
That being said, his films could be incredibly unsettling, but I think that he believed in using art to examine questions and feelings he struggled with, maybe so these things didn’t impact on his actual life. Like so many artists, he used art to expose some of the things that affected him deeply; questions about God, morality, insanity, and our preception of ourselves, each other and our place in the universe.
But he also made Smiles of A Summer Night, and that’s a pretty delightful film. I even think Fanny & Alexsander has a lot of moments of joy in it.
Go to Comment
The Wire vs. Homicide: Life on the Street almost 3 years ago
I actually think they’re both amazing shows, and they’re sort of inextricably linked. Homicide was really the first attempt to do what The Wire succeeded at, in my opinion; creating a piece as close to the richness and depth of a novel in the television format. These days, most TV shows have embraced the single most powerful aspect of television, namely that serialized storytelling can create an immersive, detail-rich experience. However, The Wire is the first TV show (in my opinion) to truly capture all the richness and complexity of the best novels. It’s one huge, rollicking story that is really trying to talk about the continuing corruption of all aspects of American society. It begins looking at the most obvious front-line battle, the war on drugs. But it starts widening its scope to take in education, urban living, politics, and journalism. By the end, it illuminates how the American city-life is in serious danger of spiralling into destruction.
In contrast, Homicide was the first step by a lot of these writers to reach for the richness and complexity I’ve noted above. It’s rough, experimental and not altogether successful. It also suffered from a huge amount of interference and uncertainity from the network. That having been said, it is still 7 seasons of compelling television. The show was about Homicide, pure and simple. Unlike a lot of cop shows, it wasn’t about solving the mystery or catching the perp. It was about Homicide and the effects that the murder of another person can have on cops, on survivors, on the perpetrators, and on the society that demands the police do something about our seemingly insaitiable need to kill one another. So, when Joshua complains about Det. Tim Bayliss becoming a bisexual buddhist in the final season, I argue that it was a reflection to how he dealt (or didn’t deal) with his job and what being surrounded by death meant.
Anyway, I’ve gone on waaaaaay too long here, but I love both shows, obviously. I just think The Wire is the perfection of an aspiration begun by Homicide.
And they both had some of the best casts ever on TV.
Go to Comment
What are the best Neo-Screwball comedies? almost 3 years ago
Well, I think “What’s Up Doc?” is definitely one. But to me, the best and wittiest screwball-esque dialogue in recent years were the first four seasons of “The West Wing”, as well as “Sports Night”. Seriously, Aaron Sorkin is one of the few writers who get the speed, wit and rythymn of screwball like Hawks and Lubistch and Sturges used to. Some examples:
Bartlet: We meant ‘stronger’ here, right?
Sam: What does it say?
Bartlet: I’m proud to report our country’s stranger than it was a year ago?
Sam: That’s a typo.
Bartlet: Could go either way.
Engineer: Cut take.
Bartlet: Sorry, everybody. This is gonna be it. Four is my lucky number.
Donna: This is take five, sir.
Bartlet: Five is my lucky number. “Fifth-take Bartlet” – that’s what Jack Warner used to call me.
Donna: Did you really know Jack Warner, Mr. President?
Bartlet: Yeah, because I used to be a contract player in Hollywood and I’m 97 years old.
Josh: [quoting] We have the greatest technology of any people, of any country in the world, along with the greatest – not the greatest but very serious problems confronting our people. And I want to be President in order to focus on these problems in a way that uses the energy of our people to move us forward, basically.
C.J.: Yes!
Josh: It’s the ‘basically’ that makes it art.
Go to Comment
What are the best Neo-Screwball comedies? almost 3 years ago
Well, if something is rapid-fire and banter and funny, how is it not screwball-esque? I mean, what’s the definition we’re using here for screwball, exactly? Is it thematic or stylistic?
What I love about Sorkin is the stylization of dialogue; the idea that dialogue can have a music or a meter to it. When it works (The West Wing, Sports Night, Charlie Wilson’s War) it’s a treat to listen to. When it doesn’t (Studio 60) it can be indulgent or painful. Still, it’s great to have people writing things that aren’t steadfastly tied to realism or naturalism and take a chance. Mamet’s the same; he’s got his own music within the dialogue, adn sometimes it’s too forced, but when it clicks, it’s really beautiful to listen to.
Go to Comment
The Wire vs. Homicide: Life on the Street almost 3 years ago
Got to agree with Allen Grey above. Homicide was hugely compromised because it was produced on network TV. The cable environment did not exist then as it does today, and showrunners did not have even the minute creative freedom on network that they have now. Homicide struggled from day one; I think their first season was nine epsiodes and their second was four episodes long. FOUR. How does a network even position that as anything less than a colossal “fuck you”?
Anyway, cast changes were constantly forced on them, which, as Allen pointed out, resulted in the “prettying up” of the cast. The makers of Law & Order loved the show and tried to inject new viewers with crossovers, which didn’t really work. The network asked for more action, more female cast members, more glitz, et ceterea. Homicide is amazing to me because it was the scrappy little underdog, scrabbling along just trying to do something original amidst all this interference and compromise. And every season, it managed to astound me more than many shows have since. Even in its last few, less effective, seasons.
Go to Comment
Bergman on Hitchcock almost 3 years ago
I seem to recall him saying in that Dick Cavett interview that he quite like Five Eay Pieces, too.
As for his comments on Hitchcock, well, whatever blows your skirt, Ingmar. I find his comments about Hitch’s infantile obsessions absoultely correct, but not in any way a detraction. I wouldn’t want to see a film directed by a Hitchcock without issues. His issues with women and guilt and so on are what made him such a genius. It also doesn’t surpirse me at all that Bergman wouldn’t get that. They’re maybe couldn’t be two more opposite film makers in terms of what they wanted to present to an audience.
Hitch was the great technician; he famously descirbed his job as the assemblage of pieces of film to create fright, after all. No ambiguity allowed. Bergman loved ambiguity. Hitch wanted actors to fulfill HIS purposes, Bergman was a collaborator. But, even though I love Bergman, probably more than Hitchcock, Bergman remains remote. His films reveal little cryptic pockets. But, after watching Hitchcock’s ouevre, I feel like he did honestly and somewhat mercilessly reveal a great deal of his obsessions, drives and emotions on screen. I feel like I know Hitch better while Bergman is still a mystery.
And as for Hitch’s treatment of women, well, he was married to the same woman all his life. How many wives did Bergman have?
Go to Comment