Thanks a million to those of you who read and debated my debut blog. It's much appreciated, nice to know I'm not writing into a vacuum, that it's actually getting people talking.
Now, after bemoaning the state of cinema -- and, in particular, Hollywood cinema -- in 2007, while nothing new REALLY knocked my cotton socks off (one or two films came VERY close), I did manage to have some genuinely rewarding film experiences this last year. But before I get on to the '07 stuff, I'd like to give a shout-out to five older films I happily discovered on DVD and the big screen retrospectively:
- The thrilling Gulf War drama JARHEAD, which had more of a visceral kick than any other film I saw this year. Killer, almost heartbreaking, stuff and so incredibly vital and stylish. My man-love for Peter Sarsgaard grew another few inches after this, and his soon-to-be-brother-in-law Jake Gyllenhaal is so damn good -- both burn and pop with the internal frustration of active minds being wasted and potentially eroded as they're gradually dehumanised, keyed-up then left alone to tick till detonation. Greatness. After plodding somewhat with the elegant yet strangely ineffectual ROAD TO PERDITION, Sam Mendes got his game back in a massive way. My only question was: Why the hell did it take me so long to see this???
- Stephen Frears' little-known, little-seen and (most unfortunately) little-appreciated crime picture THE HIT, which is exceptional principally for introducing the talents of Tim Roth to the screen... and what an introduction! Criminal-turned-supergrass Terence Stamp lives out his days under protection in Spain, when he's ambushed by hitman John Hurt and Hurt's protege Roth, who've come to finally settle Stamp's debt. The plan is to drive him to Paris, where Stamp will reunite with the boss he snitched on all those years back and ultimately meet his maker. From here, what looks like a crime drama with Stamp and Hurt essentially vying for Roth's soul, gradually turns into a hugely engaging road movie of sorts, dealing out humour and menace in equal measure, even flirting with existentialism. Such a fun watch -- and even Bill Hunter pops up, watching Aussie Rules no less! If you can find it, get it.
- Another in the "if you can find it, get it" department is THE NINTH CONFIGURATION, the directorial debut of the author/screenwriter of THE EXORCIST, William Peter Blatty, and the first of only two film projects he's worked on since that horror touchstone. Imagine a very Eastern European-style castle hidden in the American Northwest (in truth, it WAS shot in Budapest) serving as a HIGHLY experimental psychiatric hospital for military veterans -- from hardened Vietnam vets to astronauts -- where they're encouraged to act out whatever psychosis-driven idea possesses them... whether it's believing you're Superman, obsessively quoting old movies or directing Shakespeare for dogs. What passes for reverie in this place is broken by the arrival of a new head shrink, who may just be... well... that's where the fun begins. Starts off as satire, swerves into psychodrama, veers into thriller before ending up somewhere else completely... I like to call it a "metaphysical psychodramedy" but that's probably not quite it. A bit baffling at time, but chock full of great atmosphere, even better dialogue and some cracking scenes... even if you don't agree with it's ultimate point of view, you should find something challenging and entertaining here. Assuming you can find the fucker, which has never been released in Australia, to my knowledge (I got the Region 1 DVD from Amazon, FYI)...
- Another film that takes some finding, but well worth the effort, is Kenneth Branagh's affectionately loopy theatrical comedy IN THE BLEAK MIDWINTER (aka A MIDWINTER'S TALE). Made right after stinking up the screen with his abominable FRANKENSTEIN remake, this feels like Branagh getting back to basics, making a story (from his own screenplay) about the kind of people he has met, known and loved over a half-lifetime (he was 34 at the time) spent in the theatre, written for actors he has met, known and loved over the years. It also feels very much like this is his stab at a Woody Allen film (if Woody had grown up in the British theatre rather than NYC comedy clubs), particularly early on, from the white on black alphabetical credits backed by a jaunty old song, to the black and white photography and fast-talking characters and overlapping dialogue. Such a funny, sweet, sad and just flat-out-enjoyable film -- Branagh clearly loves his characters and you will too, despite (and, eventually, including) their rampant eccentricities. It's funny Branagh scaled down to make a film about a ragtag theatre company putting on Hamlet, then followed this up with a lavish all-star HAMLET for the big screen. It's as if this film helped him rediscover how fun it all is again.
- Dario Argento is a man whose films have kind have swirled around me since I was a kid: When I was 11 or 12 and started renting horror films, I'd see countless trailers for CREEPERS (aka PHENOMENA), TENEBRAE, OPERA and so forth -- as well as the trailer for the doco DARIO ARGENTO'S WORLD OF HORROR which would amuse my younger self no end, by juxtaposing scenes of the most sickening violence imaginable with shots of this very meek-looking little Italian man with bushy hair staring beatifically off into the distance, backed by rather happy music. Fucking slayed me. I'd even rented a film he produced, DEMONS, multiple times. But I had never seen a film he directed until I was about 25 or so, when I caught CAT O' NINE TAILS on SBS one night. And that was it... until this year. The loveable folks at ACMI did a retrospective on his daughter Asia, but included three of Dario's films: PROFONDO ROSSO (aka DEEP RED aka THE HATCHET MURDERS, which was the title we got, amusingly), SUSPIRIA and INFERNO. I'm sorry to say I missed INFERNO, but caught the other two. While DEEP RED was incredibly fun, blissfully incoherent and backed by possibly the most assaultive music score ever recorded (gotta love dem Goblins), SUSPIRIA was the real steel deal. Starring the terrific Jessica Harper (where is she now? Writing children's books and married to 20th Century Fox chairman & comic book franchise wrecker Tom Rothman) as an American girl who comes to study at a German ballet school, which turns out to be front for a witches' coven... and giallo hijinks ensue. Truly psychotic production design, another grinding, screeching Goblins score and Dario's nutty imagination make this one of the all-time great fun horror films -- and it has some genuine frights, too! Classic.
Okay, now to what you've all been waiting for...
TOP 11 FAVOURITE FILMS OF 2007 (#1 being the bes-- uhh, Most Favourite...)
11 - THE HONOURABLE MENTION:
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Yes, I'll freely admit it: I'm one of those people. The ones who were loving the hell out of this Neo-Western Noir until the last 20 minutes, where it just... lost me. I didn't hate it, mind you, in fact I didn't feel viciously one way or the other, just... bemused. A little cheated, but even more intrigued. Since then, I've talked to my partner, my friends, and read and listened to various discourses regarding this already-infamous ending. And I've heard some cracking theories. In the end, despite my somewhat muted reaction to it -- and it's not just my comprehension of the ending, there are a handful of little issues I had with the film overall -- any picture that builds tension and mood so masterfully, carries itself with both savagery and elegance, chills to the bone during and after the screening, stirs up this much debate and gets its audience thinking has to be applauded. The fact it features three of the best five male performances of the year -- a career-defining demon for Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones' best work in over a decade, and a perfect capper to Josh Brolin's breakout year -- doesn't hurt. See it. I may not have loved it, but I liked it a lot... and I'd love to know what you make of it.
10. EASTERN PROMISES
I didn't go as gaga for this as a lot of people did, but what I really liked about it was it was a good little story, told simply, tightly and with enough regional flavour to make it interesting. Loved all the stuff with the Russian Mob, the tattoos and customs were fascinating. But the real rock here is Viggo Mortensen, who is in career-best form here -- so fucking strong and chilling and irresistible to watch. A shout out to Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl, too. Cronenberg really makes this one sing, which is more than I felt for the atmospheric yet strangely simplistic A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. For mine, this effort kicks that one's arse up and down the street.
9. REPRISE
A real surprise packet, and the film that opened my Melbourne Film Fest this year. Debuting Danish director (how's THAT for alliteration, bitches?) Joachim Trier -- no relation, don't worry -- tells a vivacious story of two best friends and aspiring novelists whose lives and ambitions divert and dovetail in interesting directions, leading them to conflict, jealousy and, ultimately, understanding. The two hang out in a larger group of friends, who are possessed with their own peculiar habits and worldviews, and one of the major victories of this film are their conversations, which feel so real and off-the-cuff they'll scarily remind you of many inebriated roundtables during your piss-and-vinegar twenties. Very much influenced by TRAINSPOTTING but uses that to its advantage with energy and verve to burn... and, let's face it, there are worse films to be influenced by. Here's hoping Trier builds upon this highly engaging debut.
8. CONTROL
Another MIFF discovery, and equally powerful. The rise and fall of Joy Division singer/songwriter Ian Curtis is a tragic tale, with affectingly real characters, performed brilliantly by Sam Riley as Curtis, Samantha Morton as his long-suffering wife Deborah and Alexandra Maria Lara as his mistress Annika Honore. But it's the way this story is told which registers so strongly. This is clearly a passion project for first time feature director Anton Corbijn (it's shocking he wasn't attached as director from the start), who photographed Joy Division in their prime back in the late 1970s. This isn't like any other music biopic, told in a matter-of-fact fashion, yet with an overall look and mood which greatly reflects Curtis and his music. Then there's the photography... my god. Corbijn's extensive experience as a photographer and music video director comes into play big time, and so strongly in service of the story. This isn't a show-offy film, yet every single frame in the picture could be frozen, blown up and hung on a gallery wall, such is the breathtaking artistry on display here. It's the best shot movie I've seen not only in 2007 (sorry Lee), but in many, many years. The film loses momentum in the second half, feeling a bit repetitious at times, and could've benefited with some tightening, but this is as impressive a directorial debut as I've seen in this decade.
7. ZODIAC
A new picture from David Fincher is always cause for celebration at my place. For me, the man has made two innovative, life-changing, unassailable classics: SE7EN (the perfect thriller in every conceivable way) and FIGHT CLUB (which is to Generation X what A CLOCKWORK ORANGE was to Baby Boomers). While PANIC ROOM (compact, tight and tense) and THE GAME (a gorgeous, dark-humoured headfuck) are two of the better thrillers of the last decade, and ALIEN 3 is what it is, but has its benefits. So I was busting out of my skin for ZODIAC... but like everyone else, I was all, "Again with the serial killers? Really?" I needn't have worried. Yes, a serial killer is a pivotal character. Yes, there are a couple of creepy murder scenes (and one spectacularly creepy interview scene). But that's where the similarity to SE7EN pretty much ends. This is a procedural, all about the investigation, not the killings themselves, because the Zodiac murders were a siren song that ensnared and destroyed -- or, at the very least, upended -- every curious party who came into contact with them. Playing this cadre of obsessives are one of the best ensemble casts assembled in recent memory and, while I won't name them all here, for a start Robert Downey Jr, Mark Ruffalo and (in two scenes) John Carroll Lynch are all brainjuicingly good. In this age of CSI, LAW & ORDER and all the other shows that have dulled us to police investigations, Fincher's greatest gift is to burrow into the minds of the people who do this for real and watch them emerge on the other side, changed. But he doesn't stop at showing the obsession and righteousness of these investigators, but the perverse playfulness, the gamesmanship of it all, as well. He makes us care again. And the '70s period detail is just fucking sublime.
6. SUNSHINE
Is Danny Boyle quietly becoming the world's best multi-genre filmmaker? Since coming back from the fiasco that was THE BEACH, it seems that every genre he turns his lens to, he strikes gold. 28 DAYS LATER is pound-for-pound the best horror film of the new millennium and, although I haven't seen it, I've heard MILLIONS is an excellent family fable of sorts... and now, with SUNSHINE, he's taking on sci-fi. And, some of my geekier friends will be glad to know, it's actual sci-fi. Not in that the science is correct, I'm sure that's all over the place (I myself am a scientific nufty), but in really examining the psychological and spiritual effects of all this exploration and envelope-pushing. Boyle really takes you on a trip, reuniting with his 28 DAYS LATER screenwriter Alex Garland to get under the skin of this tale and bring us one of the best sci-fi pictures of the new decade. (Digression: Would you call ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND science-fiction? Discuss.) Another winning feature of the film is its terrific international cast and, although they're mostly playing Americans, it is impressive to see, alongside a trio Americans (of Anglo, Jewish and Vietnamese stock), an Irishman, an Australian, a Japanese, a Malaysian, a New Zealand Maori in a big-budget picture. Why don't big movies, particularly those with a global or apocalyptic focus do that more often? While it's not perfect and occasionally confusing, SUNSHINE is visually, aurally, intellectually, viscerally and emotionally impressive, and not many films -- never mind sci-fi -- can claim that these days.
5. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM
The year's best blockbuster by miles: it's tight, efficient, doesn't overreach... and hugely enjoyable. British director Paul Greengrass stepped into the shoes of Doug Liman after the effective but occasionally flat setup of THE BOURNE IDENTITY, and made the series his own with THE BOURNE SUPREMACY by injecting some real energy, style and a bit of a cheek. I've heard a lot of people complain about the shooting and cutting of the action in SUPREMACY and ULTIMATUM, but I don't agree. I really don't believe he shoots too close and obscures all sense of time and space, like Michael Bay does. Sure, Greengrass' style is fast and shaky but, in my opinion, you can always tell what's going on. I found the action scenes invigorating, so much so I think they set a new standard for the genre. Bourne fights like an angry whirlwind; every motion, every blow is focused on the shortest route to taking his opponent out. (I came out of these flicks wanting to learn Cali/Eskrima, yesterday.) The cast in these films are incredible, and new addition David Strathairn is one of my favourites. Although the film does make some logical leaps, they aren't as wild or as plentiful as most action films these days and it's so well played, economically written and tightly directed that it sells it, each and every time. Possibly due to the source material, more than most "franchises" today the BOURNE series has retained had a real sense of being a trilogy which tells a unified story, rather than perpetuating a machine. Let's hope Universal show the same respect to the property by ending it here, as the books did, and being justifiably proud of producing the best action series of the new decade.
4. BUG
Let's face it: William Friedkin has been living off THE EXORCIST and THE FRENCH CONNECTION for far too long now. Great, classic, innovative films they may be, but they're over three decades old now. It's time to restock the cupboard, Billy, to become the director those films promised. With a string of unmemorable films including BLUE CHIPS, RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, THE HUNTED, JADE and THE GUARDIAN (the one where a nanny feeds babies to trees, fer chrissakes), it's easy to lose faith that he'll ever show that side of himself again... which is why we should thank the movie gods for hooking Friedkin up with BUG, the smartest, scariest and edgiest picture the man's made since the mid-70s. A paranoid's fantasy, mostly taking place in one room, it makes us sit and watch two people slowly go insane... and, even scarier, maybe give us cause to join them. As the two we share this journey into psychosis with, Michael Shannon, long a supporting player of untapped depth, is flat-stick awesome in this film and Ashley Judd -- that's right, get the finger out of your ear, you heard me just fine -- is right there with him. The less you know about this going in, the better, only to say that Friedkin is finally in sync with a story which allows him the freedom to push it into a heightened, hysterical place and push his audience's buttons, leading them to ask questions and formulate theories before eventually -- like some creatures in this film -- getting under their skin.
3. HOT FUZZ
With SHAUN OF THE DEAD, Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright made one of the funnier films, and more assured feature filmmaking debuts, in recent memory, and HOT FUZZ proves it was no fluke. (Digression: I haven't really seen SPACED. How criminal is that??) When I heard about this, and even when I saw the trailers, I couldn't quite get my head around how they were going to successfully take on such a brash, uniquely American genre in such a doggedly English fashion, but of course that ended up being part of the joke -- watching London uniform Nicholas Angel (Pegg) burst onto the screen being so gung-ho and LETHAL WEAPONesque is so patently absurd that it warms you to the concept immediately. These are immensely clever guys with a firm grasp of genre and a perfectly judged comic take on things -- they don't always go for the cheap joke like so many modern US comedies, but will go there in a second if it's well-timed and, you know, actually funny -- and Wright does love to throw around a camera, which is nice to see in an English flick, particularly when genre demands it. The Wright/Pegg/Frost triumvirate have to be the most purely fun filmmaking team going around at the minute, and what I like most about them are, they're my favourite kind of film buffs: they've seen everything but they're not snobby or exclusionary, giving multiple shout-outs to tragic stone geeks like themselves while inviting the Saturday night/Tightarse Tuesday crowd to come play as well and, most importantly, they respect the genres they have fun with, rather than teasing them (which is why they refuse to call their films "spoofs"). It's no wonder everyone loves these guys.
2. PAN'S LABYRINTH
One of those few times you go into a film having no clue what to expect... and are massively rewarded. (Why do we film buffs crave every little scene/tidbit/story/review/trailer of a film when we all powerfully remember the experiences which caught us pleasantly by surprise?) This is such an imaginative and immensely intelligent film... and one of only two films this year (the other being NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN) which I freely admit I'm still trying to comprehend. In a good way. Ofelia's fantasy world is obviously an escape from a dark, oppressive reality, but I believe the reality informs the fantasy more than is immediately obvious, and I'm still trying to make all the connections... sure, there's many a metaphor about the girl's pubescence and emerging sexuality -- and Pan often acts suggestively toward her -- but there's other stuff there. About perverted or aspirational father figures. About the war. About Spain. I know it's there, and I wasn't smart enough to catch it on first viewing, but I plan to attack it again on DVD. Ample proof that a film doesn't have to be ponderous and self-serious to carry intellectual weight. Guillermo Del Toro's magnum opus (to date) hit Australia in January, and though a whole year has passed, I've only seen one film I liked more...
1. BLACK SNAKE MOAN
I love a film that just comes right out, grabs you by the lapels and tells its story in a weird and wonderful way, but gets right to the point. Damn, I love that experience. Doesn't happen often, but when it does, you can't drag the smile from my face. This Southern American modern "gothic fable" of sorts draws so much power from its sense of place and atmosphere, which is no accident as writer/director Craig Brewer is a Memphis native, steeped in Southern lore, and man, does he put it on the screen. This film is hot, sultry, raw, funny, sad, sexy, slightly cockeyed, underlined by pain and ultimately redemptive -- the Delta Blues in a nutshell. More power is drawn from powerhouse performances from Samuel L Jackson and Christina Ricci, and backed up by a terrific supporting cast (yes, that even includes Justin Timberlake). Jackson and Ricci have a tough assignment; playing larger-than-life, rather extreme characters with the right amount of reality and genuine soul to express the very real depths of suffering these people have plumbed, which is the only way the resolution -- which is by no means definitive -- works. Such a great, great flick... and, might I add, probably far closer to a 70s grindhouse film that GRINDHOUSE ended up being! BLACK SNAKE MOAN, for me, was nothing less than 111 minutes of pleasure.
Well, that's my first blog, ladies and bruisers. There will be more over the coming weeks, on whatever popular cultular subject...ular... bounces around my cavernous crainium.
'Til then, feel free to reply to this post with your views, expressions, digressions, etc.
Cheers for reading, catch you soon!
TSIK out.
32 comments:
FIRST!
Very nice list Pauley.
Quite clearly a Favourite list - no-one in their right mind would put Bug in their top 5 Best.
And very refreshing to see so many genre films in a year end compilation.
You're showing your hand very early though...
Comments:
- I only saw Pan's about 2 months ago at the Astor. What's the big deal? The Dark Crystal shits all over it. Labyrinth too.
- To continue with the cards analogy, I'll see your Danny-Boyle-as-best-multi-genre-filmmaker and raise you a Michael Winterbottom. Game over. Or I could call you with an Ang Lee, and still win the pot. I was just bluffing with my Woody Allen.
- Glad you saw Suspiria on a big screen. Fucking rocks.
- I'll start the insanity: Eternal Sunshine - not science fiction. The concept needs to be supported by the style. Eternal Sunshine is grounded too heavily in reality. What about Face/Off? Sci-fi or pure action film?
Who says I'm in my right mind?
About your comments:
- Don't be bringing that Henson shit. I can't weigh in on DARK CRYSTAL, as I haven't seen it since I was a kid, but saw LABYRINTH for the first time a couple years back... and it sucked ARSE. Just really silly with too much big hair, synth drums and shots of David Bowie's package... not to mention a mostly uninteresting story and unmemorable characters. Props for trying to be dark with the whole baby-stealing business, but it was all horribly lame.
- I agree Winterbottom is an intelligent filmmaker of rare diversity, but I don't think his films don't have the kick that Boyle's do. I saw A MIGHTY HEART this year, which was very intelligent, very efficient... and packed all the emotional punch of a toaster. I liked 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE and WELCOME TO SARAJEVO a lot, and 9 SONGS was an interesting experiment (the man does get props for being the only genre filmmaker to try his hand at the, uh, "Adult" genre), but Boyle's films are so much more exciting, stylish and... well, alive. I hate to keep coming back to the "visceral" thing, but I tend to find Winterbottom a largely cerebral filmmaker, whereas Boyle's work comes in equal measure from his gut as his brain. I think Ang Lee's much closer to the mark, even if the otherwise fine HULK did have Nick Nolte and the Worst Ending Ever working against it.
- Oh yeah...!
- FACE/OFF's a tough one. I'm temped to sit on the fence and call it a hybrid (Hey - I'm an agnostic, whaddya want from me??) and I've always thought of it as an action film, only because of the way it was promoted upon release, but it really does have a vaguely futuristic feel. I'm going to think this one over a while longer... and I still think there's a case to be made for ETERNAL SUNSHINE (at the very least a sci-fi romantic drama). Because a lot of the time, pure science-fiction is a what-if situation: what if robots were accepted into mainstream society, what if scientists invented androids and it all went wrong, what if we were defined and segregated based upon our genetic coding, etc. For me, what if we invented medical technology which enabled us to erase selected memories/assume another's physical identity are equally notions of science fiction. It all depends on what you consider the "form" of a sci-fi work to be: must it be set in the future, must it contain fantastic feats, aliens, a larger-than-life approach, etc.
This one's worth chewing over...
TSIK aka P
PS. And thanks heaps for the kind comments, sir.
Did you expect to see some of your own favourites in there (HOT FUZZ, CONTROL, etc)?
Pan V Bowie - it's essentially Horns V Genitals isn't it? And if you want to get into ancient mythological subconscious interpretive symbolism, the horn represents masculine virility, so it's a solo crotchfest either way.
Anyway...
I love Labyrinth and Dark Crystal as much as the next guy who didn't really experience sunlight till the age of 13, but Pan's Labyrinth cut out the childishness and threw back something that told us exactly why we have fairytales and where they came from. Chronology aside, Pan would have been what the Brothers Grimm wrote if they had provided source material to Jim Henson. They're both fantastic films, I just prefer seeing the parallels between fantasy and reality in such a brutal setting and the whole issue of reality being self created anyway.
Now, I hate to get scrabble-ish on you all, but...
science fiction
–noun
a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme,etc.
I would say that it's definitely Sci-Fi because the basic concept draws heavily on fictional science, everything else draws from there. Face/Off is mainly action with a sci-fi premise - and who says movies re one definite genre? They're only classified that way so video store jerks don't have a conniption trying to shelve everything.
Ultimately I would like it classified as something like 'spiritually thoughtful' or 'holistically introspective', but then people would laugh at me. More than usual.
I've certainly got some 07 catch up to do - I'm ashamed at the number of films there that I intended to see and still haven't.
And another thing...
Forgot to add that I'm completely in love with No Country, especially the ending. Don't pretend I understand it for a second, but it just sits very nicely with me.
And, out of interest, how would you classify that one Shannon?
No Country - I'm hearing all sorts of rubbish about neo-Western-noir (jeez some people crap on).
I'd call it a chase movie. No, I'd call it a Coen Bros movie. They really are a genre unto themselves. Even when they're doing genre films.
Sci-fi - Hmmm. By that definition, Eternal Sunshine is totally sci-fi. But then, so is Click. And Jaws. And Groundhog Day. "Draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge".
What about A Beautiful Mind? Maybe James Bond too? I think there should be some more clarification; that definition is too vague.
Pan's - The big problem I had with Pan's is that after the girl eats the food when she's not supposed to and she gets banished or whatever, the big Faun thing comes back and gives her one more chance.
What?
Why?
That's not a fairy tale. That's conceited movie logic. That would never happen in a fairy tale. It lost me after that. Dark Crystal and Labyrinth at least obey their own rules. And Fizzgigg - c'mon.
And if you want a real adult fairy tale - go see Tideland.
Well, this IS fun. My opinion?
For starters, I don't believe PAN'S LABYRINTH or TIDELAND are fairytales. Fairytales and Fables were traditionally created to utilise a fantasy world to espouse a social moral or adage of some kind. In this case, Henson's LABYRINTH and DARK CRYSTAL fit the bill, but the other two don't. If the former two were fairy tales, what would TIDELAND's moral be? "If you shut out and completely deny the real world, almost lose your pre-pubescent virginity to an intellectually challenged paedophile and nearly kill dozens of people in a contrived explosion, then clarity will be yours and everything will be okay?" Both are stories of young girls who contrive a fantasy world to help them process and ultimately survive their horrible realities. (Although, to me, TIDELAND's Jeliza-Rose is balls-out insane. One man's opinion.) A Fairy Tale, by definition, fully exists within that fantasy world -- there is no reality at all, because the fantasy IS the reality.
And I don't know if I'd stand behind the "rule"-making aptitude of a film which orders its villain to burst into song for no other reason than he's a singer and, hey, maybe we should get him to sing something (at length), rather than actually moving the plot forward (Yes, before you say it, I know this rule applies to RIO BRAVO as well... oh shut the hell up, it's Howard fucking Hawks!). Nothing destroys the timeless quality essential to a fairy tale like a synth-heavy pop song. What's more... it's Eighties Bowie, which means trouble for everybody.
The trouble with LABYRINTH is, most of its supporters haven't watched it since they were thirteen... it's really quite boring. Considering the talents involved, I found it massively disappointing and you can't blame it on the 80s. (From the little I can recall, I'd even wager DARK CRYSTAL was visually and technically superior.) When it comes to cinematic fairy tales, give me THE PRINCESS BRIDE any day.
You've both raised awfully interesting points pertaining to the Sci-Fi argument... So much so, I think what we have here is a Mexican Standoff. I'm gonna break the tie thusly: Shannon, what's your opinion of what "form" a Science Fiction film should take?
(The sound you hear is a gauntlet, clanging upon the floor.)
TSIK
WHOA!
First and foremost, DO NOT be ragging on 80s Bowie.
You are at risk of discrediting everything you have said or ever will say.
China Girl, Modern Love, Fashion, Let's Dance, Blue Jean, Ashes to Ashes, Under Pressure - this is totally on par, if not better than anything he did previous.
Very thin ice.
Now I'm enjoying this sci-fi debate. As I said earlier, I think a film's style (or how it presents its sci-fi-ness) needs to be included in the definition somehow. Again, using Eternal Sunshine as the example, memory erasure is definitely a sci-fi concept. But the way it's presented, with MRIs and weird helmets and brain scans (all current forms of technology), it sets its universe squarely in the present. This, I think, makes it difficult to singularly categorise it as sci-fi. As opposed to something like I, Robot or Minority Report, where the key concepts of the film are only available due to a future technological evolution.
Perhaps there also needs to be some sort of "futuristic-time" element in the definition. As in, the story must take place in the future. But then again, Star Wars was "set" a long time ago, so maybe that's no good either.
They're my immediate thoughts: Style and time of story need to be included in the definition somehow.
We are the goon squad and we're coming to town - beep beep.
Haven't seen Tideland, I'll add it to the list. Quite near to the top.
As to your SciFi - I never said Eternal Sunshine was *totally* SF, but I would agree that Click has a SF premise, but is mainly I comedy. Or so I am given to understand. Groundhog Day has no SciFi premise - there's no scientific explanation of why what happens does, it's a self-exploratory thing. Same with A Beautiful Mind - he is a scientist (mathematician, whatever), but science doesn't cause his mental state.
Jaws is, if anything, a nature film. I haven't seen it in a long while but I don't recall any discussion of deliberate experimental shark mutations. And yes I know, it's a thriller.
Onto Pan's - I'm still working out what I think, so this will become tangentish. Fairytales were traditionally created to espouse yadayada - sure, I accept that, but another function was (as with comic films and futuristic things with aliens and what not) to show parts of our own natures and societies that we may not fully understand in different guises to help us cope with death/war/famine/injustice/loss/pain/clowns/whatever.
What I loved about Pan's is that it combined the fairytale with the horrible reality and shows you where and why this fairytale has been created (apart from in the girls head) and lets you believe, if you want to, that it could still be real. Things like the Mandragora Root appearing in reality. I think she was allowed a second chance in her fairytale because she wrote herself a guide that wsa harsh but forgiving, combining what she had in the real world with what she wanted.
There's my theory, poke away.
And Paulie, I have seen both Labyrinth and Dark Crystal in the last year and still love them and find them thoroughly entertaining. Even though I know they're bad. I will allow that it's probably due to fond childhood memories.
On 80s Bowie:
Okay... I'm going to be careful and delicate here, as I have no desire to crack the ice... To put my comment in perspective, I'll quote yours:
"China Girl, Modern Love, Fashion, Let's Dance, Blue Jean, Ashes to Ashes, Under Pressure - this is totally on par, if not better than anything he did previous."
On par, maybe. But better? From that bunch, I'll absolutely, unreservedly grant you Ashes To Ashes and Fashion -- they're up there with the best. As for the rest...
I like Blue Jean and China Girl, but are they really up there with Space Oddity, Jean Genie, Diamond Dogs, Young Americans, Heroes, Changes, Ziggy Stardust, Suffragette City, etc? And, maybe this is just me, I always thought of Under Pressure as a Queen song on which The Thin White Duke guests.
You have to remember all the various synth crimes and "Loving the Alien" and ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS gear he was serving up that decade... I'm not gonna even mention Nineties Bowie and Tin Machine... I love the man, but the late '60s & entire 1970s remain his prime. (Actually, now that I think of it: Ashes To Ashes & Fashion were produced in 1980, and quite often the first year of a new decade is a hangover of the one which preceeds it. That's my theory, anyway, and I'm sticking to it.)
On Sci-Fi:
I see your point, but it's almost as if we should be calling sci-fi "future-fi" or "space-fi". It's almost as if a defintion of science-fiction is "a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc... and concerns itself with what effect such imaginative use of scientific knowledge may have in a) the future or b) a parallel universe". (Or something much less clunky.) But is that a condition placed upon us by tradition or by form? I feel like the snake is going to swallow its tail any second...
On Dave's PAN comments:
As you say, Ofelia creates a fairytale for herself... but, as this is the case, and reality frequently intervenes (and is an active part of the story, not passive like with THE PRINCESS BRIDE, where the only present-day scenes have little-to-no-effect on the story), the film itself is not a fairytale. All I'm saying. (All this talk of Pan has got me wanting to watch it again!)
And I'm still waiting for the fairy tale that helps me deal with clowns...
TSIK
I missed Shannon's last comment when I was posting mine, just wanted to add I agree with 'a film's style (or how it presents its sci-fi-ness) needs to be included in the definition', and in the end style goes a long way to defining genre, yes? In which case No Country really can be classified as Coen - we just birthed a genre, yay us!
As to the 'future-time' thought - screw Star Wars, what about E.T.? Absolute SciFi, set in what, 82? But Paul's got something with the 'what effect such imaginative use of scientific knowledge may have' - like fairytales it (often) shows a part of our nature that is (sometimes) unfamiliar to us or misunderstood, it's all in the interpretation!
And finally, a fairytale to help you with clowns - Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Season 1, Episode 10, Nightmares. You'll never be scared again.
Off to enjoy WA sun - I now want to see your list of films that excite or disgust you in the new year, let me know now what I should see so I can tell you it rocks when I do.
ET!
Man, I totally forgot about that.
And you can throw in Flight Of The Navigator, Explorers, Cocoon, etc; all contemporary-set sci-fi films (that I can currently think of).
That throws a spanner in the works somewhat.
There should be more discussion.
And just to justify my earlier argument (is anyone even listening anymore?):
Jaws - Jaws was 20-25ft (depending if you believe Hooper or Quint), exaggerating the maximum length of a typical Great White. The whole story is "drawing imaginatively on scientific knowledge".
Groundhog Day - gotta be in the same category as Back To The Future. It's alternate realities, bending space and time. Totally a sci-fi concept.
A Beautiful Mind - that was a joke, 'cause Nash's real story is so far removed from the film version. Biting satire.
That's all for now.
And Modern Love is criminally underrated.
Mmmm...satire in plain text, doesn't always get through...
I do see your point - I think it's a combination of incomplete definition and you trying to win an argument - but I do see your point.
I don't think Groundhog Day and Jaws are SciFi because science is not the instigator of the crisis in the film, in fact science is not mentioned in either of them. I'm not saying that science-as-instigator should be a benchmark for SciFi, but possibly an option.
I'm thinking something with 'visible evidence of science or technology other than or more advanced than our own' might go somewhere in a definition, coupled with something akin to 'studying social and moral implications of use of such technology'.
And if a movie doesn't, it should!
Goddamn it. I missed the SF debate. I'll chime in momentarily, first to Paulie's list...
- Road To Perdition is not strangely ineffectual! It's the opposite! It's unstrangely effectual! Beat that. It's also his best film. American Beauty I still dig, but it hasn't aged brilliantly. Jarhead is great. Road To Perdition is perfection.
- Bourne: Actually, the books stop with the end of Supremacy, I'm told. The films invent the rest. But I agree, no fourth film. Don't mess with a good thing.
- I quote you: "(Why do we film buffs crave every little scene/tidbit/story/review/trailer of a film when we all powerfully remember the experiences which caught us pleasantly by surprise?)" Weren't you and I arguing about seeing the first minutes of Dark Knight on Imax... eh?!?
- I totally picked Black Snake Moan as your favourite. Knew it.
More soon.
Now, to the science fiction debate...
It seems most of my arguments have already been made by Mr Lamb.
But even so, science fiction is where something extraordinary has happened because of an advance in science. This extraordinary event and/or its consequence is key or notable in within the plot.
Fantasy is where something extraordinary has happened because of a mystical and scientifically inexplicable thing.
Eternal Sunshine is definitely science fiction, because core to its story is the idea that someone has invented a device (using science) that removes memories.
Click is also science fiction. Just bad science fiction. (My dad refers to bad science fiction as "sci fi" and good science fiction as "SF". This is an old school, Asimov-era definition.)
Back to the Future is science fiction. Groundhog Day is fantasy. There's nothing sciencey about him repeating the same day over and over, nor -- and this is key -- is the problem solved using science. The plot is resolved when he learns to be a better man. Back to the Future is resolved when the lightning hits the power converter, thus getting it to the scientifically-determined necessary speed.
I disagree that the science fiction definition is lacking, or that the "feel" of a film should play into this. Eternal Sunshine isn't a typical science fiction film because it's a science fiction romance.
Not all science fiction is set in the future, only most of it, because that's logically when most scientific advancements will happen.
And just in case I've wowed you with my extraordinary logic and sated your need to argue further, allow the following potential spanner:
Star Trek is science fiction
Star Wars in fantasy
I would counter that argument with expletives in force if I believed you believed that, or could prove it to any logical degree.
Now, not to counter your argument, just to refine - would you call I Am Legend SciFi? Comes about because of extraordinary advances in science, but I wouldn't call it SciFi at heart.
If you can't respond because you haven't seen it, I don't blame you - I shouldn't have.
But something like Logan's Run - imperfect example,I know - where the story depends completely on scientific advancements, but focusses more on the human story, how would that be placed?
Star Trek: "All we need to do to win is to recalibrate the deflector shield so that it locks onto subspace particles, which everyone knows is the only way to counter the effects of a black hole!"
Star Wars: "Feel the force."
I Am Legend is definitely science fiction, in that it's a science fiction horror. Keep in mind, Will Smith isn't trying to defeat the "vampires" by holding up religious imagery. He's trying to develop a serum using science.
I haven't seen Logan's Run, I'm afraid, though I am familiar with the concept.
Mr Z, welcome to the show!
1. Whomever has informed you there are two Bourne books is sadly mistaken. The late Robert Ludlum wrote all three, long before the film adaptations: The Bourne Identity (1980), The Bourne Supremacy (1986) & The Bourne Ultimatum (1990). (Apparently the latter movies differ greatly from the books, but the books do exist.)
(For more info, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ludlum)
2. I know what a ROAD TO PERDITION nut you are, but for me, it just didn't grab me like I thought it should. For all its style and elegiac mood, I just felt like I knew where it was going the whole time, and it didn't pack a punch once it arrived.
3. I ultimately decided against seeing the first 6 minutes of TDK in IMAX. (And I did say, "WE film buffs..." I'm as guilty as the next guy.)
4. I absolutely agree with your thoughts on SF/Sci-Fi. I thought the same thing about GROUNDHOG DAY... but unbelievably couldn't think of the alternative genre (ie. Fantasy) -- all this talk of Fairytales vamped it out of my head. I'm convinced ETERNAL SUNSHINE is science-fiction (probably why I suggested it) as it uses the implications of a fictional scientific advancement to instigate a human story... it has a very Phillip K Dick feel to it. Hey, if A SCANNER DARKLY is considered SF, then ETERNAL SUNSHINE has to be.
5. Dave's example of LOGAN'S RUN -- particularly as described by Dave -- has to be SF. "something... where the story depends completely on scientific advancements, but focuses more on the human story..." is pretty much the definition of Science-Fiction, I would've thought.
6. I love it someone gets STAR WARS fans' hackles up. In fact, the only thing better is getting STAR TREK fans' hackles up... But didn't "midichlorians" reduce STAR WARS to Sci-Fi, now the Force can be measured and explained on a pseudo-scientific level (much like, say, a Metagene)?
7. Which sort-of leads me to... (awkward segue, but go with it) As if we don't have enough going on, here's another one for ya. Taking into account the definitions we've brought up during this discussion:
Is Batman SF or Fantasy? The rest of the JLA are as fantasy as you like, but Bats is built purely upon hard work and psuedo-science (and, occasionally, actual genuine-like real-life science).
8. Nothin' for nothin': I totally got Shan's BEAUTIFUL MIND gag.
TSIK
Oh, I know there are three Bourne books (technically more; I think Eric Van Lustbader or someone has been writing further sequels), but the story that the first three Bourne books cover -- I'm told -- ends with the second film. The third film is mostly invented material by the filmmakers.
Bloody midichlorians... They do push Star Wars closer to being science fiction, but it still remains squarely in fantasy. Much like myself...
Mmmmm.
Still very unhappy with all this(what's new?).
Makes me appreciate what politicians go through when they write laws.
Well, their secretaries anyway.
So if any film makes use of a scientific concept in an imaginative and key/noteworthy way, it automatically becomes a sci-fi film?
By definition then:
The Nutty Professor = sci-fi
but
The Day The Earth Stood Still = fantasy.
Any film like Die Hard 4 or Swordfish (that uses computers to do something that they currently can't) = sci-fi
but
Close Encounters = fantasy.
Wrong.
This is why I think style needs to come into it somehow.
The way a film is presented should contribute to what genre it belongs to; not just its content.
Then you can have something like Die Hard 4, where computers doing stupid things are just a given, exclusively being what it's supposed to be: an action film, not a sci-fi film. Same with Click. Same with Eternal Sunshine.
But I'm intrigued by your comment Pauly about such conditions being placed on our definitions by virtue of tradition or form/style.
That's a head scratcher.
Also,
James T Kirk actually being competent enough to be a real spaceship captain: fantasy.
And just in the spirit of this discussion:
http://www.worth1000.com/contest.asp?contest_id=18241&display=photoshop
A Photoshop contest to merge sci-fi elements with non-sci-fi films.
Saving Private Ryan = gold.
Nutty Professor isn't disqualified as being science fiction just because it's garbage. It's primarily a "comedy", but yes, the science fiction elements are science fiction.
Die Hard 4 and Swordfish are not science fiction. I know computers don't do those things, but they could. Science fiction would be if Timothy Olyphant's character gave all the computers artificial intelligence and they then decided to take over America, or whatever it was he was trying to do in that piece of shit.
The Day The Earth Stood Still and Close Encounters are both science fiction. Alien beings having the technology to visit our world is within the realm of science. If they were beings that magicked to our world from the Realm of Dreams and Faeries, which exists in the corners of the eyes of children, just before they fall asleep, then that would be fantasy. And unwatchable.
Click and Eternal Sunshine are, as I said, science fiction. But Click is science fiction/comedy, and Eternal Sunshine is science fiction/romance. Or science fiction/drama. Or whatever the hell it is, aside from brilliant.
Everyone covered most of the rest so I'll jump back to Paul's postulation of Batman as SciFi V Fantasy.
In all the films, as well as what I've read of the original comics, although there is technology that isn't readily available to the general public it is available in some manner to either private industry or government agencies. Technical specifications aside, as well as arguments about destructive force of rockets firing out of cars and so on, all the gadgets are possible. That rules it out as SciFi.
As to fantasy - while the events may be fantastical, there isn't an inkling of witchcraft, wizadry or wiley warlocks to be seen. Everything that takes place does so within the natural laws of our world.
Therefore I say it is neither. If it isn't a flatout action film as most would say, I would classify it as 'Comic Book'. Two genres in one thread, go us. Or me.
Most comic book films have the same feeling about them in terms of story progression and the way foes are defeated (drawing on inner strength through fond memories/experiences of family/friends/sex etc. *don't bitch, it's a generality*). And while something like Spidey, X-men or Craptastic 4 has it's genesis more in SF, Batman is the most 'normal' in it's origins, so it can only really be defined as comic book.
I would still like to add it to my list of spiritually thoughtful and holistically introspective new age karmic films.
Dave, you again make excellent points. Allow me to elaborate, 'cos we got onto the subject of Batman the other night, and where it fell.
Similar to "comic book", I'm going to file it under "superhero". "Comic book", though it does evoke a specific type of story, is more the medium. "Superhero" covers it, I think. And "superhero" doesn't necessarily mean he has super powers, and so it quite comfortably includes Batman, Green Arrow, The Question and Jon Peters.
What we realised after a brief discussion was that there are some Batman stories that are science fiction, some that are fantasy, some that are noir, etc etc. It largely depends on who's writing it.
If you're referring to traditional genres, I don't think there's one that covers the Adam West Batman, the Christopher Nolan Batman, the Frank Miller Batman, and so on. They're all so wildly different. The genre needs to cover the character itself, because that's really the only continuous through-line. It's quite unique in that respect.
So yes, Batman is science fiction... but only every now and then.
I bit my tongue during the recent Lee vs Pornography debate, refusing to comment any further for fear of Lee taking his bat and ball and going home.
I was going to similarly lay down here too, but I just can't help myself.
Contrary to my yellings the other day, I'm not against labelling some films multi-genre.
But only where applicable.
American Werewolf - yes Pauly, unequivocally a horror-comedy (you'd still find it in the horror section of a video library, but still a horror-comedy).
But, again, JUST BECAUSE A FILM CONTAINS A SCI-FI CONCEPT DOES NOT MAKE IT A SCI-FI FILM, OR EVEN A HYBRID SCI-FI FILM. You're not seeing the forest for the trees. It's like calling My Dinner With Andre a film about food because it's set in a restaurant.
Again, using crap like Click and Nutty Professor, the sci-fi elements may be relevant to get the plot going, but they're totally incidental to the actual intention of the film as a whole. It's a textbook MacGuffin. They're comedy films, not sci-fi films. They're not even sci-fi/comedy films. It's got to do with the way the film is presented.
I believe it's the same with Eternal Sunshine. It's not sci-fi, nor rom-com/sci-fi. It's just a rom-com. The memory erasure business is just to get the plot going before the story kicks in.
That's it. I'm spent. I can't say it any clearer.
Except perhaps - ETERNAL SUNSHINE IS NOT A SCI-FI FILM.
Okay, the My Dinner With Andre argument doesn't hold up. "Food" is not a genre. If it was, then My Dinner With Andre would be a drama food film. And Ratatouille would be an animated food film. And so on.
Science fiction is a genre. The problem with saying that it's how to do with how a film is presented is that you're ultimately relying on something *feeling* like it's science fiction, which isn't how film theory works.
Relying on something feeling like science fiction belies the need for evidence and proof. Just because most science fiction films subscribe to a common type of thing (spaceships, or time travel, or teleportation, or whatever), it doesn't mean that those are the exclusive traits of the genre just because we're comfortable with it.
It's like somebody spending their lives only watching Neighbours and Home and Away and Bold and the Beautiful and so on, and then being shown Six Feet Under. It's not really a drama, they say, because my TV guide tells me these other things I'm used to are dramas, and this doesn't *feel* like a drama.
Actually, I've got a better one. Someone watching sitcoms that always have laugh tracks, and then being shown something like Extras or Spaced and refusing to classify it as a comedy because it doesn't have the element that they always associate with comedies.
science fiction (abbr.: SF or Sci Fi)
noun
fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.
The entire plot of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is incumbent upon a scientific invention that removes memories from the brain. It is not purely science fiction, but it is partly science fiction. If a wizard removes the memories with a magic wand, it would be fantasy.
Memory removal is an "imagined future scientific or technological advance[ment]". Science fiction may "frequently portray... space or time travel and life on other planets", but it does not do so exclusively.
Hey there Mr Knight,
I'm dodging between the sci-fi posts here to chime in about your Top Ten and give you mine. (I know I said I had... was it 15?... 15 great films of 2007, but it's actually blossomed to a pudgy 18 now.) (Oh, I also posted my worst on the other thread. Check it out.)
(Other posters, just ignore me, if you like, and continue around me as if I'm some nerd in a tutu standing on a battlefield in War World One hoping to die quickly but, according to your honour or something, it just wouldn't be sportsmanly to shoot an idiot, so you just keep firing around me, still trying to hit the other side.)
First, Mr Knight, your ten.
(Before that, kudos on finally taking in Jarhead. Saw that opening night and loved it completely. I'm with you on Perdition too.)
No Country
Yeah, again, I'm with you. Didn't make my Top Ten. It was close, but not quite. I liked it all, and say what you will about how innovative the end is, it just didn't work for me. And maybe that's my fault, it's my schooling on how endings should be etc, but who cares why? It didn't work for me, and that's all the matters in a Favourite list.
Control
Disagreeing big time on Control. I'm not a Joy Division fan, so maybe that's it, but I shouldn't have to be, right? Shouldn't this be the medium to turn non-fans INTO fans? I just saw a well directed, well acted story that I've seen MANY times before. The only variable in this is that he had epilepsy.
Bourne
It's funny. I really liked this film, a lot. More than the second, (but I liked the story of the second better, if that makes sense) but it never crossed my mind to include it in my favourites. Don't know why.
Bug
Didn't see this but certainly want to after your write up.
Pan's
See above RE: Bourne. I liked it, but didn't REALLY connect. It was brilliant, shocking and all those things. But didn't connect with me.
Black Snake Moan
Loved your write up on this. Really liked the film, (it's in my 18) but hadn't really dissected it. I saw it alone so had no one to chat about it with. But what you wrote really captures it. Kudos times two.
My list. I'll try to be brief as I still don't want to take over your blog.
Honourable mentions
18. The Namesake
17. Black Snake Moan
16. Pan's Labyrinth
15. No Country For Old Men
14. Hot Fuzz
13. 28 Weeks Later
12. Paris Je'Tieme
11. The Hoax
10. Eastern Promises
You already said it all with your response. I agree with it all. (Although it seems I liked History of Violence just a smidge more than you did.)
9. 300
Guilty pleasure? Sure. But DAMNIT I HAD FUN in this. This delivered in spades where Death Proof spluttered and conked out on the highway. What is this film? It's an OPERA. That's exactly what it is. It's stylized, it's over the top and it's supposed to be. Just, instead of singing, they slaughter. Opera. Think about it.
8. The Darjjeeling Limited
A comeback to brilliant story with brilliant characters after the unfortunate Life Aquatic Which Featured A Shoot Out In The End.
7. We Are Marshall
After I saw Any Given Sunday I said THAT'S IT. No more American Football films for me. Just saw the best one, don't need any others. Then I saw this. And I cried. And I laughed. And I just loved it. And yes, it makes mistakes, but I couldn't spot them for the world.
Didn't get a theatrical release in Australia, because it bombed in the U.S. But it WOULD'VE come out in '07. (Released in U.S. in December '06. Catch it on DVD.
6. Stranger Than Fiction
One that occurred so early in the year that many have forgotten it. LOVED this flick. Lots of fun.
5. Sunshine
You said it all already.
4. Breach
DAMN good FBI film that apparently no one saw. Ryan Phillipe and Chris Cooper in a story so damn good it had to be real.
3. Zodiac
Again, you said it all.
2. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
But you didn't even MENTION this one. LOVED this film. LOVED it. In the first 30 seconds I turned to my better half and told her so. 30 seconds in! And she replied "Me Too."
I could pick maybe a good dozen scenes that you could've easily cut from this film and it wouldn't have hurt the plot. But I wouldn't want them to. Hell, I could've watched this film for five more hours and wouldn't have complained for a moment. Cinematic Beauty? I give you Jesse James by Andrew Dominik. In any other year it would've been number 1, however...
1. The Fountain
I don't know really what to say about this. It's a hard thing to put into words. This film was all I hoped for and much more. With Pi and Requiem, Aranofsky took us to some dark places. Here he takes us to heaven. Love. Eternal Love. Loss. Drive. Passion. Dedication. ...
This film just spoke to me. I know it didn't work for some other viewers. (A LOT of other viewers) But for me it was divine.
If you haven't seen it, at least try it.
Ok, I'm done.
Everyone else... CONTINUE!
Just a quick nod to Stradlater on 300 - it is Opera, you're quite right, and like a lot of Opera it's a lot of showing of with no point. Doesn't mean it's bad - I had a bit of fun with it too - but in the end it was just a lot of showing off with no point.
But I'm right with you on The Fountain, that's a classic right there. And mostly on Jesse James, but I think that movie was made by the last 30 minutes. The first 2 hours were good, I especially liked that he tried to show character th the shots rather than the acting, very interesting, but the ending was what sewed it up for me.
Back to the Shannon V Lee V Eternal Sunshine V SciFi Tag team cage match extravaganza...
I think the argument is now one of whether films can be multiple genres, and I'm siding with Lee. The reason we have single classifications is so a) video store jerks don't have a conniption trying to shelve everything (I may have mentioned this before); and b) because that's the way it's always been.
Films from a bygone era would mostly only be one genre. You would go to a cinema thinking 'I want to see a [noir/action/horror/romance/ comedy/Italian Expressionist] film tonight', and you wouldn't be surprised by what you got because they were generaly one thing. Single genre definitions made complete sense in the past.
Now we get films that are maturing with an audience that is (supposedly) seeing more in everything. If you make a single genre film today critics say you have no depth or you're falling back on repetitive and safe methods. I think that the best films are beyond simple classification - how do you watch something by Lynch or Aronofsky and think it can be classified next to a Spielberg or Scorcese? Not that it's a judge of credibility, just that some films have more layers and themes.
At my local (heavenly) video store the two biggest sections are 'Festival' and 'Cult', which I think says more about the audience of those films than the actual content, because they can't really be genre classifications.
You can't possibly say that something as complex as Eternal Sunshine is not SciFi, just as it isn't really accurate to say it is. It's something that's beyond simple classification, but has heavy doses of Romance, Comedy and SciFi.
I'll just chime in (yet again) to say that the video store analogy is one I'm tempted to shy away from because of the politics of video stores (or, at least, the one I worked in).
I think when working in a video store, it's important to almost second-guess audience expectations. Though I believe Eternal Sunshine to be a hybrid of genres (one of which is science fiction), I would actually place it in drama, because I suspect it would appeal more to people browsing the drama section than people browsing the SF section (who are probably looking for some Wraths of Khan and Days The Earth Stood Still).
I realised that video store labels carried absolutely no bearing on the film itself when I found Walkabout and Picnic At Hanging Rock in the "Foreign" section.
Dave, your local video store sound infinitely more appealing that the one near my house...
Mr Stradlater,
Nice list -- how did you see THE HOAX, by the way? Last time I checked it wasn't released here yet...
Crime of crimes, I haven't seen THE FOUNTAIN. My partner did buy it for me, though, so I'm hopefully going to see it very, very soon. Can't wait, but I'm trying to dial down my expectations... you're about the 5th person I know of who's slotted it into their best for last year (and three of them have left comments on this very blog).
I also haven't seen BREACH (along with everyone else, it seems), THE NAMESAKE (ditto), STRANGER THAN FICTION (just looked like Kaufman-lite to me... but it does have Emma Thompson going for it), WE ARE MARSHALL (this one I do want to see... it's got an ace supporting cast & I'm a huge American Football fan -- and, yes, I too love ANY GIVEN SUNDAY) or THE DARJEELING LIMITED (I tired of Wes' contrived quirkiness some time ago, I'm afraid... I may see it, but I'm not in a rush).
You've also pointed me toward my biggest omission and first mistake... It wasn't until I'd posted my 11 Favourites list that I decided to check out the list of movies released in Australia in '07... and discovered to my chagrin that PARIS, JE T'AIME, which I caught on DVD and thought for all the world was an '06 cinema release, was on it! I loved it, and it seriously would've ranked 8th. So it's an unofficial Top Tenner.
As for 300, I can see your point about it being operatic, and it's visually stunning and everybody sure as hell commits themselves 100% to the cause but... you know what you were saying about all those films you liked but didn't really grab you? Same deal here, for me. I just felt it was incredibly one-note, and there's only so much CGI blood you can watch fly before it all gets rather monotonous and mechanical. It's a fun watch, but not nearly as rousing as I was expecting. Give me LOTR's Helm's Deep stoush any day of the week.
Then there's JESSE... I actually saw a preview screening of this, and really liked it. Honestly? It was in 12th place. (13th if you count the absent PARIS.) I thought Dominik did an ace job, Affleck was outstanding, Pitt pretty good (and perfect casting), the cinematography stunning and the film revels in the power of small actions... but I'm a great fan of Terrence Malick's work, and I thought this was trying much too hard to be a Malick film... without the existential depth of TM's man-as-affront-to-nature epics. As a comment on celebrity culture, it was quite effective, but the subject seemed slightly unworthy of the epic tone and visual style this film adopts. A weird criticism, I know, and maybe I'm being unduly harsh/prejudicial, but while I thought it was a perfectly good film, it didn't quite feel capital-G Great to me. Props to Dominik, though, for going over there and taking all the time in the world to make the film he wanted to make.
Oh, and a nice -- albeit demented -- WWI analogy. Cracked me up!
TSIK out.
Mr Knight,
How did I see 'The Hoax'?
Same way you saw Grindhouse, it seems. Downloading is wrong, downloading is bad, unless it lets you see movies that either aren't coming out here or are taking their time reaching us. Also, I review movies for some publications, so sometimes get preview copies of things.
The Fountain
Yes, lower your expectations like a limbo bar. If you're expecting gold, you'll no doubt see trash. And even with low expectations, it just might not hit home for you. I have a friend who we see eye to eye on many a film, but he just did not get this film.
And that's, essentially, what I love about the medium. We all are coming at these things from different perspectives. We'll see the same film, but have completely different ideas or interpretations and some will work for some people and completely lose others. Just like...
300
Every CG blood streak just got me more and more pumped up. And the shot with the Rhino, just coming down to rest at the guy's feet, you know the one. Just loved it. Then there's...
Jesse James
Same again. Some people see genius, others see boredom incarnate. (Or a Malick try hard.) And that's cool. But the score, the imagery, to me it was just kicking goals all over the place. And I love Malick's films, but none as much as this one.
Breach
Hell yeah you need to see this. Such a human story. I saw this without knowing basically anything. Just saw the poster and for some reason it just clicked. I saw the Good Shepherd and liked it, and others similar, but Breach just nailed it. The thing is, I spent the first half of the film BELIEVING Chris Cooper. He just played it so damn well I actually believed his was this great man. Even though the poster TELLS YOU that it's the 'greatest security breach in U.S. history.' I don't know what my brain was doing, but I was just thinking, 'they've got the wrong guy, or something'. And then when she opens the door, shows Ryan Phillipe (Trust me, you'll know the shot when you see it.) My God.
The Namesake
Yeah, really liked this one. But, you know, when it's all said and done, the trailer for the film is better. Don't get me wrong, I loved the film, but I could watch that trailer over and over and damn near cry every single time. I'm reading the book at the moment, (in between about eight others).
Stranger Than Fiction
Kaufman, yes. I'm going to have to come clean here. I thought I might get away from it. But I didn't dig on Eternal Sunshine. Not at all. My impression at the end of that film is that he's trying so hard to be quirky and off beat and everything that he forgot to tell a good story. Now, must quickly state before I get shouted off this blog, I'm a HUGE Kaufman fan. I even designed Kaufman DVD covers so I could have his four previous films all sitting side by side on my shelf. But when I saw Eternal Sunshine, he just lost me. Kind of like when I saw Science of Sleep. I just lost interest cause it was too out there, and didn't pay enough attention to storytelling which is what these people are usually brilliant at.
Anyhow, back on track, so when I saw Stranger Than Fiction, I fell in love with the characters, the story just swept me away and the quirkiness didn't distract from the great narrative. So, you can say it's try hard Kaufman, but I retort and say it's more Kaufman than Kaufman.
Darjeeling
Case in point, this film. Wes Anderson and his quirky, off beat families. And Life Aquatic didn't tell a very good story. Just wasn't interested in the end. But this film did. And maybe because I'm a middle child with an older brother I could relate to the sibling behaviours... I don't know. I just enjoyed this a lot.
As you will enjoy...
We Are Marshall
I HAVE FOUND A KINDRED SPIRIT! Any Given Sunday! Mr Knight! Not many people in oz give these films much interest at the best of times... You HAVE to rent this thing. The cast is spectacular. The story is amazing and all the more cause it's true, and just, my God. Rent, watch, thank me.
And lastly, Paris
Yes. Amazing little stories. Some better than others. Can I ask, which was your favourite? I've got mine. No doubt. A few I really enjoyed and just kind of breezed through the others, but this one... man, it was very close to the perfect short film.
Tell me yours and I'll tell you mine.
Talk later (and thanks for having me)
Stradlater
Stradlater,
Hopefully you're still checking this page or getting e-mail alerts... I was about to write my latest blog when I realised there were still some unfinished questions/unresolved issues here.
1. ANY GIVEN SUNDAY/American Football movies:
As I said, I'm a huge NFL fan. I've been a New York Giants fan since 1990; I chose them 2 weeks into the season and they went on to win the Superbowl... which they haven't done since, except... they're in the Superbowl this year!!! Don't think we stand a chance against the undefeated Patriots, but hopefully we put on a show. And, as an avid NFL watcher, I found much of AGS rang very, very true. What's more, the game-time scenes are fantastic. For mine, it's the best Stone film since JFK (though I haven't seen NIXON). And don't worry: WE ARE MARSHALL's been on my radar for some time. I'm a DEADWOOD nut, a LOST nut and love me some GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK (among many others)... so between the football and Messrs McShane, Fox and Strathairn, you can imagine why it's on my list.
2. ETERNAL SUNSHINE isn't a good story? Sir, sir, sir! To my mind, it's the perfect love story.
Seriously.
So many people's relationships fail because they're continually focusing on the fight they had last night, or last week, or all the ways in which they're different, or petty jealousies, or their unrealistic expectations, you name it... and they all forget what bonded them, what brought them together and made them fall in love in the first place. And this is exactly what ETERNAL SUNSHINE tells us (among other things)... if we cut out all the bullshit and always remembered the core things we loved about our partners, maybe a lot of us wouldn't be so quick to throw away flailing-but-potentially-great relationships. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND and PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE are the two most romantic films of the new millennium so far. Far from quirk for quirk's sake, these two pictures really address the heart (and mind) of what love is, more than a million ridiculous airbrushed Jennifer Lopez or Matthew McConaghey vehicles can ever dare scratch. (And, just so we're clear: I'm not averse to fluffy romantic fantasy, as long as it's either witty, clever or has some basis on Planet Earth... and, yes, I'm a LOVE ACTUALLY fan.)
3. BREACH: Don't know what stopped me from seeing this... guess I just wasn't in the mood at the time. Between the inimitable Chris Cooper and the talented (if unfortunately named) writer/director Billy Ray, whose SHATTERED GLASS I greatly enjoyed, I really should've sought this one out.
4. PARIS JE T'AIME: I'm curious to see which story blew your skirt up so much! I had six favourites of varying effect:
- Bruno Podalydias' the guy sitting in the car who helps the woman who's collapsed (my memory's a little hazy, bear with me)
- Olivier Assayas' stylish Vampire story
- the terrific, tragic story (from Oliver Schmitz?) where the homeless African guy is stabbed (again, please forgive my recall, or lack thereof)
- the Coens' tale with Buscemi being drawn into a nutty French psychodrama
- Wes Craven's stroll through the graveyard with the Oscar Wilde cameo
- Alexander Payne's story with the older woman holidaying alone (very ABOUT SCHMIDT, but still effective).
I'm going to guess your favourite is the Oliver Schmitz one. Am I right?
TSIK
Post a Comment