Over on the Examiner, I’ve initiated a series to explore recent cinema. It’s called “Best of the 21st Century?” (emphasis on the question mark).
There are good reasons for this, both critical and personal. Critically, the motivation is obvious. We are approaching 2010; the first decade of our young millennium has come to pass, and as our own digits predispose us to think in tens, it’s a time to take stock of things. Personally, my inspiration for this exercise is even stronger: I just haven’t seen many movies from the 00s. That’s why I am only writing about the movies I haven’t seen on the guide list – a number that still encompasses just over half of the titles. (That list, compiled from various critics’ lists, is a fairly “objective” analysis of the most acclaimed films. This still leaves room for dreck like King Kong which, thankfully having suffered through once, I won’t have to review here. Sorry, Dennis.) The list will be updated in January 2010, and I may update my approach to reflect the new list. I’ll be posting every couple days until we’ve caught up with what I’ve already reviewed on the Examiner, and after Christmas we’ll probably take a one-a-week approach, which means this list could theoretically go into 2012 (on second thought, we may have to speed up my approach here…). In the mean time, it will serve as preparation for Allan’s own 2000s, a full-on canonical approach, to be initiated after his massive “100 best films of the silent era” is completed. All my pieces will be on the Examiner, which is where the series originated, but if you follow the embedded links on my posts here, the site will not be difficult to reach.
Follow the jump and you can read my introduction to the series, as well as a full list of all the titles, seen and unseen by me (an asterisk indicates the films I have not seen, and thus will be reviewing…as long as they are available on Netflix). Some of the films’ titles are linked to reviews I’ve already written, either for one of my blogs or for the Examiner prior to this series beginning. Feel free to share your own thoughts on recent cinema below – but save your top 25/50 lists for Allan’s countdown, which will begin in the springtime.
[The link is no longer active. This list has also been updated and the relaunch of the series started here.]
I’ll save a full list for when WitD circles back to the 2000s, as you suggested, but I will just say that there is no longer any doubt in my mind that Malick’s The New World is the best film of this decade, IMHO. In terms of personal preference, Mulholland Dr. and The Assassination of Jesse James come close, but Malick’s film is just on another level for me. It’s the type of film that I’m fairly certainly will see its reputation continue to grow over the years.
Dave, I know how much you adore THE NEW WORLD, so I am expected a placement at the very top. It will rank high on my own list as well.
Joel, your list here has some significant differences that the one just released today by the well-respected TIME OUT NEW YORK, which is mostly comprised of critics who are regularly resistant to giving stars to almost anything and everything.
The biggest surprised is that TIME OUT LONDON did not have MULHOLLAND DRIVE in their Top 10, though they did have IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE as their #1. My own #1 film (Haynes’s FAR FROM HEAVEN) made their #6 position.
Here’s their Top 100:
http://www.timeout.com/film/features/show-feature/9232/
In any case I applaud you Jowl for getting the ball rolling, especially as you know WitD’s coverage of the 200’s won’t begin until late March. But already I have begun to get together the preliminary choices for my own list, and Dave, you are quite right that Malick’s THE NEW WORLD is a certain Top 10 finisher, understandably you have it at the loftiest position. With me it continuously risen in my estimation. Films like Chereau’s SON FRERE, Arononovsky’s THE FOUNTAIN, Jackson’s THE RETURN OF THE KING, Almodovar’s TALK TO HER, Stanton’s WALL-E, Von Trier’s DOGVILLE and DANCER IN THE DARK, Dominic’s JESSE JAMES, Wright’s ATONEMENT, Carney’s ONCE, Von Donnarsmark’s THE LIVES OF OTHERS, Hershpiegel’s DOWNFALL, DEVILS AT MY DOORSTEP, and Campion’s BRIGHT STAR, Coens’ A SERIOUS MAN and Denis’s 35 SHOTS OF RUM are all in major contention.
Interesting, quite a few 2009s mentioned there. I’ve hardly seen any films from this year – Antichrist is probably the only major one – and my guide list only goes until 2008, but it will be updated in January, at which point I’ll probably update my approach to fit it.
In the Mood For Love is a towering work. It’s prominent position on both lists further demonstrates it’s popularity with the most discerning critics. But Mulholland Drive is among the best too.
Gee, no stone untuned on this list, Mr. Bocko. I enjoyed the introduction, and also need some catching up to do in preparation for compilation. There’s so many off the bat I can think of that are certain inclusions, like ‘4 Months,’ ‘There Will Be Blood,’ ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,’ ‘I’m Not There,’ ‘Russian Ark,’ ‘Talk to Her,”The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,’ ‘2046,’ ‘Pan’s Labyrinth,’ and a number of others.
True, David – but since I’ve seen all of those ones already, they will not be a part of the series. On the other hand, Assassination of Jesse James & 2046 have already been reviewed on my blog – and if you click on their titles on the list above, it will take you to my review of them.
In answer to your question, I do believe the decade peaked out of the gate, though I know Sam might at least partially disagree. The last few years seem to have produced far less truly great films then the first few years, as can be evidenced by your listing of titles. I will have my own list ready for March. Al least the hiatus gives me some time.
Peter, remember greatness is not bestowed in an instant but over time, and the feeling you’re getting may just be that the earlier films have had more time to mature than the later ones. Give it time.
Apologies for my absence on the site as well, fellas. Sam and others are aware, but I have major PC problems at the moment and it’s only partly up and running. I will endeavour to ensure that the countdown for the silents begins on schedule (by going in really early to work with the files on disc), but I may not be able to comment.
Your point is well taken Allan, but beyond that I genuinely feel like the greater films were the earliest. As far as what Movie Man says about 2007, I’ll have to go back now and look at that year more closely. I know we had that Romanian film and two visionary works, The Assassination of Jesse James and There Will Be Blood.
I actually agree, Peter, but with the exception of 2007 which was a very strong year.
Then again, who am I to speak, especially since I missed out on so many movies over the past few years? Judging from critical reaction and what I have seen, however, this seems to be the case. I think in part this is due to a changing aesthetic and diminishing enthusiasm for new cinema but I’ll be in a better position to assess those suspicions after finishing this series and watching more movies from the decade.
Indeed, MM, indeed. I won’t go into details of course, as it would spoil my eventual countdown, but a vintage year more so because it was a vintage year for American cinema, not just world.
True – as the asterisks make clear above, if I haven’t seen much American cinema of the 00s I’ve seen almost no international cinema, one reason this series will be great for me. Just last night and saw Syndromes & a Century, which I’ll be reviewing soon…
……..It’s funny how in 2005 there was a war when “Crash” beat out “Brokeback Mountain” and now neither film is ever mentioned by anybody……….
That’s because though BM is still excellent, some people watched it and applauded in penance to make them look liberal, but there’s still a lot of sexual prejudice against gays in Christendom, I’m afraid to say. Mind you, for all that, I don’t think BM is Lee’s best film at all.
Crash was shit then and is still shit, so it’s ignored. It’s like a film Altman or Anderson would have made when in their teens. Even Moart had to start with Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star…
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN remains one of the best films of the decade, but I kind of agree with you on CRASH.
I agree with Allan, greatness really comes with time… Here’s a preview of fims from this century that I feel will achieve it: 15. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND 14. UP 13. MULHOLLAND DRIVE 12. SPIRITED AWAY 11. GANGS OF NEW YORK 10. THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING 9. THE FOUNTAIN 8. Y TU MAMMA TAMBIEN 7. THE LIVES OF OTHERS 6. ROAD TO PERDITION 5. CITY OF GOD 4. THE DARK KNIGHT 3. TALK TO HER 2. DANCER IN THE DARK 1. THERE WILL BE BLOOD. Give these babies time and, like a regularly watered tree, watch them grow.
Well, Dennis, of those 15 you will only see 8 in my top 50, but which 8 would be telling.
I’m gonna go with Eternal Sunshine, Mulholland Dr., Spirited Away, The Fellowship of the Ring, City of God, The Lives of Others, Talk to Her, and There Will Be Blood. With Y Tu Mama Tambien and The Dark Knight as possible outliers…
sorry, just realised it’s 9 not 8, but you didn’t do bad at all, MM.
I’m getting the hang of it!
I think you’re Mabuse in disguise, reading my mind via Transatlantic manipulation to predict future countdowns.
A lot of great films on the list of course and a lot of dross (Eternal Sunshine, There will be blood, Adaptation, The Queen etc. etc. etc.).
There is an over-abundance of the maudlin and pretentious here.
I’m severely disappointed by the poor representation of top quality Japanese works in Animation (nothing beyond Miyazaki, like Oshii or Satoshi Kon and much more besides) and Horror (Pulse, Ring, Dark Water etc.) Actually, critics seem to look no deeper in foreign films beyond what they are hand-fed – 144 of the top 250 American??. I don’t think that’s because American films are so much better.
4 Japanese films in fact. Level with Paul Thomas Anderson and Wes Anderson put together. That makes for rather depressing reading.
I think it is best to explore on one’s own beyond the canons set down by They Shoot Pictures Don’t They? or similar sites/organisations. It’s very difficult to ignore the siren call of acclaim and popularity and look for films that have no international stage or fame but it is more rewarding in the long run.
I disagree, Stephen. I would not have discovered 50 – 75% of my favorite films had I eschewed canons. There’s a lot of junk out there, and one won’t agree with guidelines all the time but they are very helpful in finding good movies. One should ultimately go further than just following lists, but they are an excellent place to start.
Stephen, looking at your other comments (my first was just a respone to your last one) I don’t entirely disagree. Just that, as I said, this is a good starting point, and it gives the series a “hook” which it would not have otherwise. Anyway, why is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind dross? I found it both extremely imaginative and formally accomplished. There Will Be Blood struck me as a mess on first viewing, but not one to be excused lightly. I am struck by the contradiction between your feeling that all judgements are purely subjective and yet your willingness to dismiss the list as somehow “inadequate” – by which standards?
Stephen, you make some superb remarks about the lack of non-mainstream animated movies, but i think it would be more productive for you to add your own canonical listing, perhaps with even a one sentence comment. I’m sure mm would investigate them.
For me Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was dross because every single drop of emotion was unconvincing and the film’s interesting concept was made to drip with mawkishness.
“This still leaves room for dreck like King Kong”
You didn’t feel the need to explain your dismissal of King Kong either.
“I am struck by the contradiction between your feeling that all judgements are purely subjective and yet your willingness to dismiss the list as somehow “inadequate” – by which standards?”
All judgements are purely subjective but I was merely calling into question how far the net had been cast by these critics.
Another point: The fact that this canon is based on end-of-year lists leads to a flaw. The flaw is that films that weren’t caught theatrically (there are only so many one can see) and could only be seen on DVD at a later stage would likely not be eligible for the year in which they were released (and could not be included the next year). Therefore they would not appear here at all.
It would be better therefore were the canon based on end-of-decade lists.
I agree that a canon can be a good starting point. My only point was that there is a lot of junk in the list too and a lot of gems not. I have books like ‘1001 films to see’ but I don’t use it as a guide as to what to watch. Instead, whenever I hear or see anything about a film that might interest me I investigate it. Doing it this way, I have not managed to miss the films that made the list.
I’ve explained the King Kong dislike elsewhere, Stephen – the line was a humorous aside and I didn’t want to bog down the intro with anything else. My point is not so much that you disliked Eternal Sunshine – more that you’re willing to criticize others’ placement of films on their list even though you eschew any pretense of objectivity in your judgement calls. Which means that, even though you think everyone’s opinion is not based on anything that can be analyzed or picked apart, you’re still willing to criticize it. Which doesn’t seem fair. And you are still using words loaded with objectivity. You can say that they mean something else to you, but when you flat-out state Eternal Sunshine is “dross” and “every single drop of emotion was unconvincing” you imply that this is true beyond your personal emotion. But then you’re not willing to back that up with anything. I guess I’m saying if you don’t believe anyone’s opinion can be “wrong”, how can you then go on to malign their choices? That just seems unfair – taking a shot at someone’s taste which they can’t help (whereas if you think other factors are in play, criticizing their choices make sense).
I guess I just still don’t understand how criticism is supposed to exist absent any recourse to judgement outside the whims of the viewer. (Not that the viewer’s impression shouldn’t be the basis of their critique, but if they fail to take anything else into account, they’ll end up dismissing a lot of interesting and ultimately rewarding works.)
As for the rest, to each their own. I love following canons – I enjoy making my way through various lists, I love the way it structures my viewing chronologically (as a history buff, I like to see how things develop over time), and of course I still leave plenty of room for random “wanna see this now” viewing. I’m also prepping a big list of my favorite great movies which will launch a series some time in the spring so that is further organizing my viewing, as I am mostly seeking out alleged masterpieces I’ve missed and classics I haven’t seen in a while, in anticipation.
There’s also a time issue. Over the past few years, I’ve seen probably a thousand films. Most of these were older movies. So I haven’t seen a lot of films on this list, but I don’t have all the time in the world and I already devote a massive amount of my free time to movies. I may not be well-versed on 00s cinema, but I’m quite well-versed in the classics, and growing more so by the day. I prefer it that way – better to be grounded in the past more than the future. We have to prioritize somehow. There’s no way, if I had sought out every film on this list, I would have had all the great classic film experiences I’ve had in the past three years.
I’ve had friends tell me that the “I saw this because someone recommended it to me or I saw it in a video store” approach works for them. Fair enough. For my purposes, these lists, however flawed (1001 Movies, They Shoot Pictures? all-time list, which is assembled similarly to this one) have been godsends. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.
“…more that you’re willing to criticize others’ placement of films on their list even though you eschew any pretense of objectivity in your judgement calls”
I was criticizing the film.
“…when you flat-out state Eternal Sunshine is “dross” and “every single drop of emotion was unconvincing” you imply that this is true beyond your personal emotion.”
I stated it ‘flat-out’ because I have no doubt about it. I do not see the implication of truth beyond personal emotion. Am I allowed to say it is bad but not very bad? If what is written is written under ‘Stephen’ it is my opinion and my view and I can be as adamant about it as I wish. There is nothing to indicate that I believe these are truths shared by everyone – only my truth: the film is awful. I would never take a shot at someone’s taste. That is the last thing I would do. It was all about the film.
As for not being willing to back something up: I was offering my bare opinion. I didn’t have the time to go in depth. I don’t really need to justify my opinion or have it validated to make it mean something. Most of the time I’m not sure why I like something (I don’t even back it up to myself).
“I guess I just still don’t understand how criticism is supposed to exist absent any recourse to judgement outside the whims of the viewer”
I still don’t understand how it could be any other way. We seem to have two contrasting philosophies on this. You say the ‘whims’ of the viewer as if they are throwaway. The viewer is King. If he is not King and there exists objective value judgments then that would mean that I could say:
‘I have not seen In The Mood For Love but it is a masterpiece’
That makes little sense.
By the way, I’m sorry if any of what I write sounds abrasive. I’m still not used to having written conversations where you can’t hear a tone of voice or see body language. I really do enjoy discussing these types of issues.
Before I address the rest of your comment: “I’m sorry if any of what I write sounds abrasive.” Same here; while I may take others to task at times (rightly or wrongly) I too greatly enjoy these conversations, and hope I’m not appearing to step over the line in terms of rudeness. Online conversations are sort of an unconquered territory as for as etiquette goes. By and large, my objections are not with your mode of expression so much as what’s being expressed, and while frustration may pop up from time to time in my tone, I’d rather be frustrated – to a certain extent – than placid, so thanks for that!
Stephen, perhaps we shouldn’t be using the terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity” but since we are, let me define them. Objectivity rests on a bed of subjectivity, but it is the “greater” subjectivity so to speak: it’s the ideal reaction someone could have to a film. If I see a movie and don’t like it, but I read someone else’s views and they point out something interesting in the film that I may have “missed” (not so much intellectually, as emotionally) I will consider that maybe I didn’t “get” the film. My subjective reaction is one of dislike or indifference, but my “objective” reaction is recognizing certain values in the film, perhaps in its crafting, in its effect on others – so that even if I don’t react personally as if it’s a masterpiece, I can see the signs that it MIGHT be. I might even come to the point where, like Moses glimpsing the Holy Land, I can see all the signs of greatness in the work even if I don’t respond to it personally. At this point it would be reasonable to say, “I don’t like the film but it’s a masterpiece.”
Thing is, perfect objectivity is so elusive as to be unattainable. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek it, the way striving for perfection in creating a work can improve the work (without ever making it perfect) so can striving for “objectivity” in appreciating a work fine-tune and enhance the appreciation without ever actually achieving that objectivity. It’s a guidepost, not a destination.
That’s to speak of principles, but what of pragmatism? Practically, it makes sense not to completely subjectivize a critical response because it makes communication easier, and it also deepens understanding of the work rather than resting on the complete mystification of hidden, personal reaction. Subjectivity is undoubtedly essential to the critical reaction – judgement of a work’s “effect” (aside from its plastic or other qualities) can only be filtered through that lens, of course. BUT I think at least a dash of “objectivity” is also vital – pure, undiluted subjectivity can become solipsistic and isolated.
Most of what I’ve read by you has been in praise of a work. I find your observations illuminating – and it reminds me of the Cahiers policy of only writing about films which one liked, which is fair enough (though even this seems to presuppose a kind of objecitivity – an assumption that if one doesn’t like the film, one might not be “getting” it and is thus better off leaving it to others; then again, there are other non-“objective” reasons to take this approach too).
I think this is because when you like a film you’re “getting” it in some sense, you’re able to discuss what it is about the film that works. I’d be interested to see a negative piece from you, because I think this is where the subjectivity vs. objectivity approach to criticism becomes vital. From what I’ve seen so far, your criticisms of works – like Citizen Kane and Eternal Sunshine – lie purely on emotional grounds. They are easily “refuted” by me or someone else saying “but Citizen Kane and Eternal Sunshine DO engage me emotionally” – and you reject this refutation by saying you’re only interested in your own reaction.
But I’m not sure why this should be so. Isn’t it beneficial to get an understanding of someone else’s perspective, and thus perhaps change your own? By “objectivity”, then, I mean taking the widest possible view of a subject and trying to synthesize the divergent reactions. Then if one dismisses a work, it’s not because one didn’t “like” it, but because one considered the other point of view, found them wanting – feeling that the “positive” response has more to do with what the viewer is bringing to the work than what the work contains, or is not taking into sufficient account the potential of the work, or some other standard which looks at the work as an integral whole, seeing what it contains and how this reaches out to engage the viewer. Taste is taste, and it is subjective, but that’s only one area for art and criticism to cover, if in some ways the most crucial (there’s also admiration of craftsmanship, appreciation of what was attempted, comparison to other works of art – all of which, see the next point, can effect taste). What’s more, taste is flexible – it can change from one moment to the next, particularly if it has no fixed points of reference, no “objectivity.”
Sorry, this is getting somewhat convoluted, I’m thinking as I type. All in all, this whole subject is worthy of a complete, self-contained, well-managed essay, one I hope to tackle someday. In the mean time, I hope these fragments and tentative parries make my position a little clearer.
Just to take one specific example, in order to at least expand my own understanding of what’s under discussion, you write: “every single drop of emotion was unconvincing and the film’s interesting concept was made to drip with mawkishness.” Could you outline what specifically the director and writer did that made this so? Don’t worry, I’m not asking for a 10-page thesis paper, just a few examples and perhaps an overarching comment on the film’s style would suffice. Then I’d have a better sense about what it was about the film itself that gave you this feeling of “mawkishness”. Otherwise, if it’s just your immediate, unquestioned reaction to the film that’s in play, your criticism is really of yourself rather than the movie, isn’t it?
P.S. the above might better suggest what I’m getting at than all the paragraphs before: criticism is the personal reaction PLUS the movie itself – the combination of subjective experience and concrete object.
“My subjective reaction is one of dislike or indifference, but my “objective” reaction is recognizing certain values in the film, perhaps in its crafting, in its effect on others – so that even if I don’t react personally as if it’s a masterpiece, I can see the signs that it MIGHT be”
But surely every film has this effect on somebody, the effect that you recognise as the potential mark of a masterpiece. This comment suggests your approach is merely a greater openness to and assimilation of other subjectivities.
“Most of what I’ve read by you has been in praise of a work”
“I think this is because when you like a film you’re “getting” it in some sense, you’re able to discuss what it is about the film that works. I’d be interested to see a negative piece from you, because I think this is where the subjectivity vs. objectivity approach to criticism becomes vital. From what I’ve seen so far, your criticisms of works – like Citizen Kane and Eternal Sunshine – lie purely on emotional grounds. They are easily “refuted” by me or someone else saying “but Citizen Kane and Eternal Sunshine DO engage me emotionally”
Actually, it is because I prefer to relive enjoyable experiences. I don’t have a scrapbook of unpleasant memories nor a photo album of people I don’t like. Poring over a film that didn’t impress me can be interesting but I wouldn’t want to invest too much time into it.
Generally, I find it easier to know why I didn’t like something.
Your liking something I don’t in no way “refutes” it, no matter what arguments I may put forward. My criticisms do not lie on “emotional grounds” so much as finally express themselves in that way. For me the emotional is the end product of intellectual / visceral consideration both conscious and subconscious. When I watch a film the intellectual and emotional are always linked.
If I don’t ‘get’ a film, is the failure with me or the film? The film is the thing that must do the most work.
“But I’m not sure why this should be so. Isn’t it beneficial to get an understanding of someone else’s perspective, and thus perhaps change your own?”
It’s hard to rewrite the history of one’s experience. This hasn’t really happened to me. It is interesting and beneficial but if the perspective didn’t come from within me at the time t is not going to take root in the same way.
“Just to take one specific example, in order to at least expand my own understanding of what’s under discussion, you write: “every single drop of emotion was unconvincing and the film’s interesting concept was made to drip with mawkishness.” Could you outline what specifically the director and writer did that made this so?”
I’m afraid all I can remember of the film is my general impression of it.
I don’t believe that you can always outline what causes a certain feeling or tone in a work. There are so many variables in a work of art that often pinpointing the whys is difficult – rhythm, acting, colour, the look, the angles, editing, the sound of someone’s voice, the dialogue…
All these things work together as a kind of witch’s’ brew. Pulling one ingredient out of the cauldron and saying ‘this is why I don’t like the soup’ is not always possible.
I was going to post my ‘negative’ thoughts on Inglourious Basterds.
Again, though, I don’t see why anyone’s thoughts or reactions should be answerable to or justified by anyone else. If someone unsatisfied with the reasons for my like or dislike (it’s strange that if I say Wall e is incredible I don’t need to justify it and if I say it is poor I do – this is not intellectual rigour but simply people disagreeing) of something it doesn’t change what I feel – they may be irritated but that, in the end, that is their problem.
Well, we’ve explained our point of view a number of times, so I think we both see where we’re coming from. More fruitful to disagree on specifics than general principles at this point. I will, say, however, I have a few very, very fundamental disagreements with you. For one thing: “If I don’t ‘get’ a film, is the failure with me or the film? The film is the thing that must do the most work.” No, it lies with the thing that HAS done the LEAST work. In most cases, this is the viewer. After years of assembling a movie and fretting over every detail, if someone comes into the theater, their mind somewhere else, and doesn’t like what they see we’re supposed to assume that they get the benefit of the doubt? Sorry, I’m not buying…
Also, “good” and “bad” are not relative terms. “Like” and “dislike” are. Something isn’t “good” or “bad” because you “like” or “dislike” it and this is where your employment of objective terms for your own subjective purposes frustrates me. But we’ll just have to continue disagreeing over specific cases because this is the language you want to use.
Finally, it’s the critic’s duty to go to the film itself and discover what did and didn’t work about it – WHAT specifically engendered a certain reaction. This is far more foolproof than saying, “eh, I didn’t like it” and it’s usually much more interesting. At any rate, I’ve seen you doing it in pieces I’ve read – and you yourself complained about critics not doing this in regard to action films (i.e. discussing the text, instead of ignoring it) – so I’m not sure why you’re taking the “just describe how it feels” approach. Anyway, not all movie-writing is criticism, of course. Much of mine certainly isn’t, particularly the shorter pieces (though I usually try to engage with elements of the work, even in these). Maybe you are not really interested in criticism, which is fair enough – perhaps you are more interested in a diaristic approach to film-viewing. But then your statements should leave more room for it, and they don’t seem to.
And I still really need to hear a bit more on Eternal Sunshine else I have to assume that you were just in a bad mood when you entered the theater or you didn’t “get” it (not in the intellectual sense, but the emotional) – i.e. I need evidence that the fault was in your stars, Brutus, and not in you…
And one last comment, just to clarify:
“This comment suggests your approach is merely a greater openness to and assimilation of other subjectivities.”
Exactly, that’s why I’ve tried to put “objectivity” in quotes – what I’m speaking of is not a godlike omniscient perspective, but a wider view than just going 100% with your gut on value judgements. Gut plays an important role but if we’re going to converse, at least take the other person’s gut reaction into account and wonder why you didn’t have the same. Could it be something in you, and not in the movie? And if so, is it fair to judge the movie for that? But I think I’ve established where I’m coming from here.
“After years of assembling a movie and fretting over every detail, if someone comes into the theater, their mind somewhere else, and doesn’t like what they see we’re supposed to assume that they get the benefit of the doubt? Sorry, I’m not buying…”
They fret over every detail for what end? To fulfil their vision, sure, but also to make the viewer get it. To communicate exactly what they want to communicate.
“Something isn’t “good” or “bad” because you “like” or “dislike” it”
I dislike it because it is bad and it is bad because I dislike it. It is circular.
“Maybe you are not really interested in criticism, which is fair enough – perhaps you are more interested in a diaristic approach to film-viewing. But then your statements should leave more room for it, and they don’t seem to.”
I am very much interested in criticism (
I wrote a 20-page review of A.I. a few years ago, now sadly lost). What I have written on my own blog for my own purposes may not show that but nor do my pieces show my love of deep snow in the winter. Both loves may reveal themselves over time. If I write an emotion-led piece about Antichrist it does not mean I have ignored other factors. In fact those other factors are at the core of the emotion. I just chose not to mention them.
“And I still really need to hear a bit more on Eternal Sunshine else I have to assume that you were just in a bad mood when you entered the theater or you didn’t “get” it”
I was not in a bad mood. The film put me in a bad mood. I have already said that I cannot remember the specifics of the film – only that it was amateurish and irritating.
Why would you be frustrated by me?
I understand that you want to press me on these matters but you talk as if I have to have my thoughts rubber-stamped by you so that my opinions can have some worth.
Of course you don’t need your own thoughts rubber-stamped by me or anyone else. Your thoughts (and feelings) are your own, and I respect that. What bothers me is your using loaded words without any kind of accessible standard to back them up. If you want to talk about what you like and dislike, and little else, that’s your prerogative and what’s more I often enjoy that type of writing (and engage in it myself). However, it isn’t criticism unless you are meeting the work somewhere, rather than forcing it to come entirely into your territory. That seems totally unfair.
“To communicate exactly what they want to communicate.” Communication is a two-way street. For the viewer to expect the filmmaker to do all the work, and not be challenged himself/herself, to not have to question one’s own views at all seems lazy to me, particularly if the aim is to “criticize” the work and not just relay one’s own experience.
So that’s that – we’ve established our positions rather clearly, and have major, major fundamental disagreements at the very foundation of our outlooks. We will not see eye to eye on this. Suffice to say I absolutely don’t think Citizen Kane is “bad” one moment and “good” the next simply because you like it one day and not the next (though you haven’t talked about changing your opinion; I know mine changes all the time). The work hasn’t changed – you have.
All in all, the conversation is largely theoretical with you because, aside from Citizen Kane and a few other films, we have pretty similar tastes. But if someone was to come to this board and declare, “All the films of Godard, Tarkovsky, Welles, and Dreyer are terrible; Fantastic Four is the best film ever.” I would want to be able to challenge them and not just throw my hands up in the air and submit, “You’re just as right as I am.” That’s why I’m holding your feet to the fire on this – your own diverse taste and thoughtful analysis notwithstanding, I find your basis of judgement a slippery slope indeed.
By the way, lest you construe the above as a criticism of yourself, keep in mind I don’t think you follow your own prescriptions to the T. I like your work precisely because it combines an emotional approach with a discussion of the work – when I criticize the emotion-only approach I’m not criticizing including an emotional aspect to the writing, just saying it should not exclude other elements of analysis, at least if the aim is criticism.
Looking ahead (and I just submitted my 90’s list) I would have to say that Sophia Coppola’s “Lost in Translation” might be my top film of the new millenium. But I know that isn’t happy news for Sam. But I do like “Far From Heaven” and “Wall-E” which should please him, and any tasteful film lover. I am surprised at the general agreement on “In the Mood For Love” which is a distinguished film, but perhaps not the masterwork so many believe it to be.
Hey Mike! I’ll forgive you for the Coppola, as you have admitted a fondness for FAR FROM HEAVEN and WALL-E!!!!!
That’s one heck of a list.
Have seen a few of the films listed, I found a lot of the ones we didn’t see, personally, we’d by pass on the most part.
I saw Miyazaki mentioned. Some of his work is obviously for younger audiances, but Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, Porko Rosso and Howls Moving Castle we have purchased and enjoy from time to time.
Satoshi Kons Tokyo Godfathers is another good one and we only wish we can find more like these and only came to find them accidentally.
Enjoying to comments, Thanks!
Well Mr. Messiah, I also like Millennium Actress. Have you by any chance seen his TV series Paranoia Agent? It’s probably his best work.
Stephan: Oh yes, we saw and enjoyed that one too. Haven’t seen Paranoia Agent but have marked it down for Jan – netflix.
These types of anime we enjoy, but stumbled on them. Out here, unless it’s for the masses, it’s hard to read about too much out of the ordinary ; (
Thanks for the insight!
Thanks Stephen!
And thanks my dear Coffee Messiah for your sustained insights and enthuiasm. It is so much appreciated here.
My youngest brother (age 39) and his lovely wife Rita are having a baptism celebration for their second daughter (and second child) Olivia Sophia today, so I will be away from the computer until early this evening when I plan to watch THE WHITE RIBBON and then prepare the Monday Morning Diary for tomorrow as I await the polling to conclude at 11:00 P.M.