Only once: ‘W’ by Oliver Stone. I disagreed with many of Bush’s policies, but I felt that Stone’s movie cheapened the man and the office with one personal shot after another.
8 1/2
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Double Life of Veronique
Eyes Wide Shut
Fanny and Alexander
Mulholland Drive
No Country for Old Men
That Obscure Object of Desire
The Shining
Winter Light
Edit: Had to, had to replace ‘No Country’ with ‘The Double Life of Veronique.’
This is yet another manifestation of the decades-old modernism v. postmodernism debate. Auteur theory is fundamentally modernist in its insistence on ‘truth’ emanating from a subject — the director. Postmodern readings, on the other hand, approach film from a much more diffuse, ‘de-centered’ perspective, as reflecting cultural, not to mention socio-economic, dynamics, blah blah blah…
The ’What’s Your Top 10?’ post got me thinking: which of the film released in the 2000s will be admired to the same extent as the truly classic, ‘great films’ of decades past, e.g. 2001, The Seventh Seal, etc.? I could only name a handful, and of those, I picked David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive.
Mulholland Drive is, first of all, pure cinema — it’s neither a filmed play nor a didactic meditation on this or that social problem as so many of our award-winning films are. Mulholland Drive fully embraces the medium, its strengths and limitations. It’s also a genre film, really a who-dunnit wrapped around — or, really, distorted by — the dreaming unconscious as only David Lynch can capture it. And while many films have been devoted to dreams, which of them has managed to immerse the audience in a dream world the same way Mulholland Drive does.
Simply put, Mulholland Drive is the best movie of the 2000s so far.
1. Parts of Inland were really unsettling for me. And I mean truly paranoid discomfort. It was excellent in this regard.
2. But, the reason I love Mulholland so much more than Inland is that Mulholland is a fundamentally logical film. As confusing and ‘upside-down’ as it all seems, everything in Mulholland Drive actually makes sense to me. I couldn’t say the same for Inland. The symbolism is just too esoteric in that one. There is no way I could decode Inland in the same, satisfying way as I could Mulholland.
I wonder if the studio’s claws on Lynch and its ‘glossiness’ are actually responsible for lending Mulholland Drive just enough narrative discipline to make it a good movie, rather than an unrestrained series of troubling episodes — even if those episodes themselves are really interesting?
Edit: by the way, I don’t really care that much about Naomi Watts’ performance. It’s great, but doesn’t really form the basis of my appreciation for the film.
As far as depictions of the passion go, I actually prefer Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ I say this as an atheist born into a Muslim family: If any representation of the passion was to convince me that Jesus is the Christ — and that I should seek out Jesus, who, as the one and only son of God, chose to endure so much so that we may be granted eternal life — Gibson’s would be it.
That said, the anti-semitic imagery and themes in ‘The Passion of the Christ’ are absolutely despicable.
But Tom, MD does have a ‘solution’ or set of solutions (as moronic as that sounds). In the first half, Lynch treats us to a subjective discourse whose purpose it is to distort a particular reality. In the second half, that particular reality punctures the glossy surface of the subjective discourse. This is the film’s basic — and, indeed, quite obvious — structure, i.e. the transition from dream to reality. What makes MD so powerful is precisely the way each of the memes in Naomi Watts’ dream world corresponds to something in the ‘real’ world, i.e. what you could call its ‘puzzle’ pieces. It is the gap between each of these signifiers and their corresponding signifieds which creates the unsettling, traumatic feel which permeates the film.
I’d agree with you on a lot of these points. What I’ve always found most compelling about the Christian tradition (as an outsider) has been Jesus’ sacrifice. Gibson is very brutal and direct in his representation of this sacrifice. Scorsese’s vision, on the other hand, is far more subtle, where Jesus’ ultimate gift to humanity was not his willingness to bear tremendous pain, but to give up the beauty of a simple human life.
Harry,
To me, distanciation implies a specific critical and rhetorical strategy, whereas to distance oneself (emotionally or otherwise) has a much broader scope that is perhaps not as effective as distanciation.
Simply put, Kieślowski’s films are philosophical — that is, they explore fundamental questions about the possibility or impossibility of identity, the meaning of history, etc. through the medium of fictive cinema. It’s important to remember that Kieślowski’s narratives may not be straightforward but that doesn’t mean they lack drama. And the characters who occupy them are fully fleshed-out characters with real motivations, rather than operating as representatives of various political or philosophical standpoints. The philosophical questions, in other words, are given cinematic form in Kieślowski’s film but cinema is not sacrificed to philosophy or ideology.
Too many other important directors have made films about philosophy instead of making philosophical films, which is an important distinction. Take Godard (whom I admire): at his didactic worst, Godard’s films rant and rave about Marxism, the bourgeoisification of the proletariat, the loss of authentic modes of being in late capitalist society, and so on so forth. That, to me, is not philosophical filmmaking. I don’t mean to say it’s not valuable in its own right. But it’s not philosophical.
Clearly the community isn’t willing to get behind this. That’s fine. But I don’t see the need to bring in critical theory here, or to condescend to me as one of those petit bourgeois simpletons who gets pleasure — gasp! — out of plot. Sure, plot is not technically a part of cinematic language, but it is a fundamental aspect of narrative. What awaits the viewer at point b is just as important as how an auteur takes her from point a to b.
What Out of Print Criterions do you own? about 3 years ago
Amarcord (CC’s old ed.)
Contempt
Le Corbeau
Quai des orfevres
Ran
The Seventh Seal (CC’s old ed.)
Straw Dogs
Go to Comment
What Out of Print Criterions do you own? about 3 years ago
Amarcord (CC’s old edition)
Contempt
Le Corbeau
Quai des Orfevres
Ran
The Seventh Seal (CC’s old edition)
Straw Dogs
Go to Comment
What film scenes really make you cry? about 3 years ago
Rutger Hauer’s last lines in Blade Runner.
“I’ve see things you people wouldn’t believe…”
I know it’s strange, but I find those lines really moving.
Go to Comment
What films have you walked out on and why ? about 3 years ago
Only once: ‘W’ by Oliver Stone. I disagreed with many of Bush’s policies, but I felt that Stone’s movie cheapened the man and the office with one personal shot after another.
Go to Comment
What's your Top 10? about 3 years ago
In alphabetical order…
8 1/2
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Double Life of Veronique
Eyes Wide Shut
Fanny and Alexander
Mulholland Drive
No Country for Old Men
That Obscure Object of Desire
The Shining
Winter Light
Edit: Had to, had to replace ‘No Country’ with ‘The Double Life of Veronique.’
Go to Comment
GREAT SITE, BUT AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO'S NOT A BIG FAN OF AUTEUR THEORY about 3 years ago
This is yet another manifestation of the decades-old modernism v. postmodernism debate. Auteur theory is fundamentally modernist in its insistence on ‘truth’ emanating from a subject — the director. Postmodern readings, on the other hand, approach film from a much more diffuse, ‘de-centered’ perspective, as reflecting cultural, not to mention socio-economic, dynamics, blah blah blah…
I <3 theory.
Go to Comment
Mulholland Drive -- The Best Film of the 2000s (So Far)? about 3 years ago
The ’What’s Your Top 10?’ post got me thinking: which of the film released in the 2000s will be admired to the same extent as the truly classic, ‘great films’ of decades past, e.g. 2001, The Seventh Seal, etc.? I could only name a handful, and of those, I picked David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive.
Mulholland Drive is, first of all, pure cinema — it’s neither a filmed play nor a didactic meditation on this or that social problem as so many of our award-winning films are. Mulholland Drive fully embraces the medium, its strengths and limitations. It’s also a genre film, really a who-dunnit wrapped around — or, really, distorted by — the dreaming unconscious as only David Lynch can capture it. And while many films have been devoted to dreams, which of them has managed to immerse the audience in a dream world the same way Mulholland Drive does.
Simply put, Mulholland Drive is the best movie of the 2000s so far.
Go to Comment
Mulholland Drive -- The Best Film of the 2000s (So Far)? about 3 years ago
Rumplesink, No Country was my other contender.
Inland Empire, on the other hand, was so ‘Lynch-esque’ as to reach the level of self-parody.
Go to Comment
Mulholland Drive -- The Best Film of the 2000s (So Far)? about 3 years ago
Beer,
There Will Be Blood was a revelation — all in all, 2007 was a fabulous year for movies!
Go to Comment
Age / Level of education? (An informal poll) about 3 years ago
24, BA in Philosophy — “Philosophy huh? There’s a good buck in that racket!”
Go to Comment
Mulholland Drive -- The Best Film of the 2000s (So Far)? about 3 years ago
Rumplesink,
Couple of more thought on Inland vs. Mulholland:
1. Parts of Inland were really unsettling for me. And I mean truly paranoid discomfort. It was excellent in this regard.
2. But, the reason I love Mulholland so much more than Inland is that Mulholland is a fundamentally logical film. As confusing and ‘upside-down’ as it all seems, everything in Mulholland Drive actually makes sense to me. I couldn’t say the same for Inland. The symbolism is just too esoteric in that one. There is no way I could decode Inland in the same, satisfying way as I could Mulholland.
Go to Comment
The Auteurs' Fake Criterion Covers about 3 years ago
You guys are amazing — I could see CC using so many of these!
Go to Comment
Mulholland Drive -- The Best Film of the 2000s (So Far)? about 3 years ago
Wow, we have consensus around three films as representing the best of the 2000s (in alphabetical order):
Mulholland Drive
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
Interestingly, all three are American films (although I think Mulholland is an American-French co-production).
Go to Comment
Does Criterion have an actual store somewhere? about 3 years ago
That would be nice though!
Go to Comment
Mulholland Drive -- The Best Film of the 2000s (So Far)? about 3 years ago
Roscoe,
It sounds like I won’t be able to chane your mind on Mulholland Drive. I’m with you on Gomorrah though.
Go to Comment
Mulholland Drive -- The Best Film of the 2000s (So Far)? about 3 years ago
Tom and, to some extent, Justin,
I wonder if the studio’s claws on Lynch and its ‘glossiness’ are actually responsible for lending Mulholland Drive just enough narrative discipline to make it a good movie, rather than an unrestrained series of troubling episodes — even if those episodes themselves are really interesting?
Edit: by the way, I don’t really care that much about Naomi Watts’ performance. It’s great, but doesn’t really form the basis of my appreciation for the film.
Go to Comment
Last movie you saw and rate it about 3 years ago
Salo: or, the 120 Days of Sodom — 6.0/10
Go to Comment
"The Last Temptation of Christ", Scorsese's most underrated film? about 3 years ago
As far as depictions of the passion go, I actually prefer Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ I say this as an atheist born into a Muslim family: If any representation of the passion was to convince me that Jesus is the Christ — and that I should seek out Jesus, who, as the one and only son of God, chose to endure so much so that we may be granted eternal life — Gibson’s would be it.
That said, the anti-semitic imagery and themes in ‘The Passion of the Christ’ are absolutely despicable.
Go to Comment
Mulholland Drive -- The Best Film of the 2000s (So Far)? about 3 years ago
But Tom, MD does have a ‘solution’ or set of solutions (as moronic as that sounds). In the first half, Lynch treats us to a subjective discourse whose purpose it is to distort a particular reality. In the second half, that particular reality punctures the glossy surface of the subjective discourse. This is the film’s basic — and, indeed, quite obvious — structure, i.e. the transition from dream to reality. What makes MD so powerful is precisely the way each of the memes in Naomi Watts’ dream world corresponds to something in the ‘real’ world, i.e. what you could call its ‘puzzle’ pieces. It is the gap between each of these signifiers and their corresponding signifieds which creates the unsettling, traumatic feel which permeates the film.
Go to Comment
Best horror film ever made...."Hasta el Viento Tiene Miedo" about 3 years ago
I don’t think Aaron’s asking us to list our fav. horror films; he’s saying ‘Hasta el Viento Tiene Miedo’ IS the best horror film ever.
Go to Comment
"The Last Temptation of Christ", Scorsese's most underrated film? about 3 years ago
Nick,
I’d agree with you on a lot of these points. What I’ve always found most compelling about the Christian tradition (as an outsider) has been Jesus’ sacrifice. Gibson is very brutal and direct in his representation of this sacrifice. Scorsese’s vision, on the other hand, is far more subtle, where Jesus’ ultimate gift to humanity was not his willingness to bear tremendous pain, but to give up the beauty of a simple human life.
Harry,
To me, distanciation implies a specific critical and rhetorical strategy, whereas to distance oneself (emotionally or otherwise) has a much broader scope that is perhaps not as effective as distanciation.
Go to Comment
Submit to the 1st Annual Doomsday Film Festival and Symposium about 3 years ago
Can you submit scripts?
Go to Comment
Mulholland Drive -- The Best Film of the 2000s (So Far)? about 3 years ago
Glad no one’s suggesting Crash (2004).
Go to Comment
Recent Acquisitions. about 3 years ago
Quai des Orfevres
Le Cobeau
Ran
Contempt
Sale: or, the 120 Days of Sodom
Go to Comment
The Auteurs' Fake Criterion Covers about 3 years ago
Oh it’s been broughten…
Wait, how do you post pictures?
Go to Comment
Most Philosophical Filmmakers? about 3 years ago
Krzysztof Kieślowski.
Krzysztof Kieślowski.
Krzysztof Kieślowski.
Go to Comment
Most Philosophical Filmmakers? about 3 years ago
Okay I’ll elaborate (albeit briefly).
Simply put, Kieślowski’s films are philosophical — that is, they explore fundamental questions about the possibility or impossibility of identity, the meaning of history, etc. through the medium of fictive cinema. It’s important to remember that Kieślowski’s narratives may not be straightforward but that doesn’t mean they lack drama. And the characters who occupy them are fully fleshed-out characters with real motivations, rather than operating as representatives of various political or philosophical standpoints. The philosophical questions, in other words, are given cinematic form in Kieślowski’s film but cinema is not sacrificed to philosophy or ideology.
Too many other important directors have made films about philosophy instead of making philosophical films, which is an important distinction. Take Godard (whom I admire): at his didactic worst, Godard’s films rant and rave about Marxism, the bourgeoisification of the proletariat, the loss of authentic modes of being in late capitalist society, and so on so forth. That, to me, is not philosophical filmmaking. I don’t mean to say it’s not valuable in its own right. But it’s not philosophical.
Go to Comment
Spoiler Warning / Etiquette about 3 years ago
Surfing the forums, I’ve had the endings to two key films I’ve yet to see spoiled by user comments.
Can we agree to institute a spoiler warning system for posts? Say, something at the very top of a comment that looks like:
[SPOILER WARNING]
Go to Comment
Spoiler Warning / Etiquette about 3 years ago
Matt, Justin, Witkacy,
Clearly the community isn’t willing to get behind this. That’s fine. But I don’t see the need to bring in critical theory here, or to condescend to me as one of those petit bourgeois simpletons who gets pleasure — gasp! — out of plot. Sure, plot is not technically a part of cinematic language, but it is a fundamental aspect of narrative. What awaits the viewer at point b is just as important as how an auteur takes her from point a to b.
Go to Comment
Spoiler Warning / Etiquette about 3 years ago
[Deleted for repetition]
Go to Comment