by Allan Fish
(USA 2004 108m) DVD1/2
O my darlin’, o my darlin’…
p Steve Golin, Anthony Bregman d Michel Gondry w Charlie Kaufman ph Ellen Kuras ed Valdis Oskarsdottir m Jon Brion art Dan Leigh cos Melissa Toth
Jim Carrey (Joel Barish), Kate Winslet (Clementine Kruczynski), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Svevo), Mark Ruffalo (Stan), Elijah Wood (Patrick), Tom Wilkinson (Dr Howard Mierzwiak), Jane Adams (Carrie), David Cross (Rob),
If asked to name the most flat out inventive film of 1999, anyone who did not pick Being John Malkovich just cannot have seen it. The same might be said of Adaptation in 2002, another deliciously clever premise from cult author Charlie Kaufman, the one writer in movies today who could prove himself one of the greats in that capacity alone. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was lumbered with a title that hardly makes one rush to the box office, and hence it only performed moderately in takings, and like Kaufman’s earlier work, it is undoubtedly an acquired taste. For those willing to take the plunge, however, it’s the one essential romantic comedy of the modern cinema; a romantic film for anti-romantics, one for the age of sci-fi.
Joel Barish makes a decision not to go into work one morning and goes impulsively to Montauk, where he meets a young woman of very eccentric dress and hair sense called Clementine. Just at the point where they are about to get together, however, the narrative switches back in time and we find Joel devastated to find that his girlfriend, the very same Clementine, has not only dumped him but gone to a specialist clinic to literally have him removed from her mind. Hurt and distressed by this, Joel goes off to have the procedure done himself, only for him to change his mind during the procedure and try and keep Clementine’s memory sacred.
Elvis Mitchell famously referred to the film as like a Philip K.Dick Hallmark card, and one can see where he’s coming from. It’s undoubtedly confusing, leading to much scratching of the head, but this mental fog does clear in time for the viewer to be truly captivated by our hero’s predicament. Furthermore, on further viewings, you are able to take in the subtle intricacies of plot and throwaway lines and visuals. It has the fantastic quality of a dream, but ingeniously does not try to rationalise the insanity of the central situation, but rather runs with it as the audience breathlessly follows. As Joel seeks to hide Clementine in a portion of his memory where she doesn’t belong, such as his childhood, we come to realise not only how much he loves her but the memory of her. And if there’s a feeling that perhaps these people are not meant to be together, that’s irrelevant. This couple deserve a second chance, a chance denied to them by this invading procedure. The idea of such a procedure may look good on paper, but it can have a truly damaging effect. Just take the character of Dunst for example, rosy sunshine in adoration for Wilkinson throughout until she realises she, too, was a previous patient.
In truth, Eternal may not be the most accessible film in the list, by any stretch of the imagination, but it undoubtedly strikes a most touching chord. Visually alone it’s an astonishing experience, but it’s the emotional centre that gives it its heart. Carrey is quite wonderful as Joel, an eternal outsider, with his shirt collars worn one inside and one outside, and supremely tender and longing in the final moments before Clementine is finally erased. It’s a performance of such understated subtlety as to make you mourn that he isn’t given such opportunities often enough, while the ubiquitous Ruffalo, Dunst, Wilkinson and Wood (as a venal sick nerd – and worse was to come in Sin City - showing what three years carrying that blasted ring does to you) all impress, too. More than anything, however, it’s a showcase for Winslet, who relishes the opportunity to really let herself go, whether in the oddly romantic Honeymoon on Ice or in her offering drinks to Joel (“drink up, young man, it’ll make the whole seduction part less repugnant”) or in her continual self-analysis (“I’m a vindictive little bitch, truth be told”). In a film all about the power of remembrance, it contrives to be absolutely impossible to either forget, or want to.
A great film, an inventive script and two fantastic performances. It’s almost like a lighter version of Hiroshima Mon Amour. But the film, in my opinion, isn’t Kaufman’s greatest work. If I had to choose my favorite, it would probably be between his incredible directorial debut Synecdoche, New York (a film that continues to fascinate every time I think about it) or his equally brilliant, as well as crazy, script for Adaptation. While those two films never really found as big of an audience, especially Synecdoche New York, I believe they were more audacious and thought provoking works. But Eternal Sunshine does posses a certain charm that is lacking in most romances and it’s an easily film to adore. While I wouldn’t rank this film above many of the masterpieces that have already be mentioned in this countdown (In the Mood for Love, Yi Yi, Hunger), it’s still a staple in any decade’s best list. I also want to add how often we take Jim Carrey’s great performances for granted. He was great in this film, brilliantly dark in Cable Guy (I film i still think is an underrated gem of the 90s), phenomenal in The Truman Show, and nothing less than perfect as Andy Kaufman in Man on the Moon.
A Masterpiece Anu, and one of the greatest in contemporary American cinema.
INARGUABLY ONE OF THE CREATIVE GEMS OF THE DECADE… I caught this one late, just a few months back and its impressions of loss, grief and acceptance sing loud and clear. For anyone who has ever gone through a painful divorce or break-up (I’ve gone through both and the break-up just recently) they’ll realize the sincerity on display here. Kaufman’s screenplay proves why he’s one oif the great trteasures in modern film and Ghondry’s direction is tight and imaginative. Jim Carrey give a wonderful performance and tops his only other two good ones before it (if he’s reined in by a good director he really can pull it off). Then, there’s Winslet who is a revelation. Thinking she would forever be corraled into the same kind romanntic drivel that TITANIC pointed to, she beats the odds and gives a quirky, full bodied turn that rings completely true. This is a great film. Along with ADAPTATION, the 2000’s probably brought Kaufman his two biggest triumphs! I love this movie.
Excellent commentary here Dennis informing a film of the deepest perceptions and profound sensibilities.
A little disappointing to see how Michel Gondry tends to be shortchanged for this film. First of all, his creative pairing with Kaufman is superb– so far he’s the only director who’s been able to turn Charlie’s scripts into fully fledged, vibrant films (Spike Jonze’s efforts are fine, but at the end of the day rather nasty, cynical little pieces, and Kaufman’s work on his own “Synecdoche, New York” is just plain messy). But perhaps more than that, he’s owed a bit more credit when it comes to the film’s genesis– along with Pierre Bismuth, he came up with the story of soured-love spurring the Dick-ian decision to forget the affair wholesale, and then teamed up with Kaufman to pen the script. Frankly, when you get right down to it, this is really more Gondry’s baby than Kaufman, though without a doubt the movie works best as a creative synthesis between the two. Still, this was the director’s moment to shine, and while I don’t think it’s the best of his works, it’s easily my favorite (“The Science of Sleep” is probably his strongest film to date, but it’s just too damn depressing for me to sit through it a second time).
Bob, Gondry is a genius – see my own post in a few hours. I also did not know that he helped come up with the concept, which is intriguing (unlike you, I do not think “Science of Sleep” is very strong, hence this would be by default his best feature, fun as the concept of “Be Kind Rewind” was – or unless I’m missing an incredibly underrated gem in Human Nature, which I’ve not seen).
But I really can’t see my way to giving Gondry as much credit as Kaufman for the movie. Of all screenwriters, Kaufman has the most right to call himself an auteur – the effect of his films is so tied in to the writing (in all senses, structure, concept, approaches to each scene) that it just becomes difficult to credit his films to the directors. Obviously, all films are collaborations and our habit of giving one person “authorship” are of course in a sense always misguided. But of course, it occurs for a reason (wouldn’t it feel a bit silly NOT to call 2001 a Kubrick film, despite the immense importance of Arthur C. Clarke and the effects team?). In this case, it seems hard not to pin the affair on Kaufman. The relative weakness of Gondry’s other efforts only seems to confirm this.
As a music video director, a sadly ignored profession in a now-almost nonexistent field, Gondry has no peer. I think several of his videos can stand proudly alongside the great short-form movies of all time.
“(wouldn’t it feel a bit silly NOT to call 2001 a Kubrick film, despite the immense importance of Arthur C. Clarke and the effects team?).”
Only if you come from watching Kubrick’s back catalogue. But if you just read the complete collected short fiction and his novels, such as “Childhood’s End” – then it’s far easier and more senisble. But it’s usually very demanding to ask cinestes to also be lovers of literature and to be able to fuse the two in reviews. Hence, it’s a shock to find Jonathan Rosenbaum bringing in Pohl’s ‘The Tunnel Under the Sky’ as the key work in the formation of ‘The Truman Show’.
I’m of the opinion that crediting authorship so easily to the director is a function of binarary, black and white thinking, easy short hand (a bit like seeing people as good or bad, rather than with traits along a spectrum). Some of the best reviews/breakdowns of movies are the ones that tease out the different influences (such as a Mark Twain short story sparking the famous dinner table montage in ‘Citizen Kane’). If it takes a village to raise a child, then it may also take a collaborating crew to raise a masterpiece…
Bobby, I agree that auteurism has its excesses. And even as I typed that example I was reminded how on my most recent viewing of 2001, I found myself thinking of Clarke a fair amount (and that’s WITHOUT having read much if any of his work!). I also agree that most interesting discussions of a film with factor in the rich potpourri of influences that go into a film, from direct collaborators to influences.
At the same time, I think we can appreciate this rich stew and still “credit” the work to someone, not in the sense that they are 100% responsible for it (even if we take an art like painting or literature, there are influences and representations to consider). Kind of like, as I said to Sam recently, Wonders in the Dark is a hodgepodge of different voices and sensibilities, and all contribute to it in one sense or another – but it’s still HIS blog. Incidentally, a film’s “auteur” (if that’s the loaded word we have to use) does not have to be its director – which brings us back to Kaufman, I suppose.
But the good thing about the auteur theory focusing on directors was that, indirectly, it led a lot of people back to film form and to an appreciation of vision and focus in movies, and a heightened appreciation of art since such appreciation is often facilitated by an appreciation of artists. The best and most interesting takes on movies (at least if they hope to be at all comprehensive) will probably take the best of what auteurism brought to analysis, without leaving out other interesting factors.
You summoned it up very concisely and elegantly
Way after the fact, but after watching Hawks’ Scarface last night, auteurism is on my mind. I think the auteur theory may be best utilized where it ironically seems least apt: in films were the director’s hands were tied by various contingencies – house styles, producers, written material, censorship, cuts and inserted material, genre constrictions, etc, yet his voice still shows through. In these cases (and, of course, not to be confused with an entirely comprehensive analysis) the “auteur” approach can tease out or work to tease out an individual’s artistic expression from a broader context, which can be an illuminating process and increase the viewer’s enjoyment and appreciation of what’s onscreen. When the subject is an “auteur” cinema in which the director is unfettered and can approach the material and express his/her vision unimpeded, an auteur approach seems somewhat redundant, no? In these cases, a sociological analysis, a genre approach or something else which emphasizes (in this case) the minor keys rather than the major, might be more illuminating.
First of all, while I can honestly say that I’ve enjoyed more of Kaufman’s works as a whole than Gondry’s (BJM and “Adaptation” are fine films even if I find Jonze’s meanspirited mis-en-scene a bit grating, and the Gondry movies are both great; he can call mulligan on “Synecdoche, New York” and still make par). Still, even if I’m only judging Gondry by his videos, “Eternal Sunshine” and “Science of Sleep”, I’m more inclined to call him the superior artist. I’m continually amazed by how much his work as director of this film goes undervalued, especially when you consider just how many different balls he’s juggling at once– realism, surrealism, different cinematic styles for different waking/dream states, not to mention how deftly he manages to mix this all with some very palpable connections with the actors (a lot of my favorite directors– Lucas, Mann, Lang– often only have a very cursory, hypothetical idea of what to do with their performers, so it’s enlightening to see a strident visualist who hasn’t forgotten the people in front of his cameras, as well as behind them).
Furthermore, I can honestly say that the story of this film is probably my least favorite aspect of it. The presentation is incredible, yes, but it’s all pretty much Dick-lite in some respects. The premise of having your memory erased to escape past traumas is great, but when you add that to a finite narrative, it loses a little bit of its all-encompasing everyman accessibility– I wonder if this is a story that might’ve worked a little better at first as a Paul Auster-style novel before coming to the silver screen. However, Gondry does a fantastic job of making it all work, and really I do think it has less to do with the written-word of the script than his development and interpretation of it– and this is the key difference, in my opinion, between himself and Jonze in their approach to Kaufman’s work. Jonze seems to have followed his scripts more or less to the letter– there aren’t any fourishes or key visual/dramatic insights that you wouldn’t imagine being right there on the page in some way. With Gondry, it’s easy to see where his directorial influence colors within and outside the lines Kaufman supplies in a very different way. It has a feeling at once more mindbendingly epic and almost claustrophobically intimate– that homemade, DIY aesthetic of his really works wonders as an expression of psychological interior experience.
Now, without Kaufman I think his work definitely has suffered (with the exception of “Science of Sleep”, of course– I can appreciate that it’s an acquired taste, but I’ve yet to have a stronger reaction to a movie), just as I think that Kaufman’s scripts all tend to be either weakened or just plain weak without Gondry’s hand guiding them (“Synecdoche, New York” might’ve actually worked, then). I just hope they work together again, because there’s one thing I think we can agree on– as creative partners, they bring out the best in each other.
You raise a lot of good points here. The first time I saw the movie I didn’t know Gondry from Adam (the ubiqutuous – at least in my circles – Palm Director’s DVD hit me like a bolt from the blue a few months later) so of course I picked up only on Kaufman’s touch. That may have colored later viewings – although the next time I saw it (and I think I’ve still seen it only twice) I obviously picked up way more on Gondry’s influence. (There’s one scene in particular, where Wilkinson’s face is blanked out that made me feel – for a few memorable seconds – that I was actually high.)
I think more viewings would probably further this impression, maybe even to the point where I’m in line with you. Still, the Kaufman imprint seems so hard to shake I’m not sure. I do know this is my favorite Kaufman film so far, and that while I loved Adaptation upon first seeing it, it kind of shrank with repeat viewings. It’s absolutely brilliant, yes, but it does not work on intellect or emotion alike. If you find yourself moved by any part of it, you instantly scold yourself – or the films scolds you itself. That’s not really a healthy vibe for a film to cultivate.
If a movie’s going to be Brechtian, alienating, and deeply subversive it pays to be so about something deeply resonant – like Salo about fascism, sexuality, and spectatorship or Kaufman’s own Syencdoche, which circulates around questions of time, aging, or art writ large. Adaptation’s audience-mockery is at the service of examining screenwriting cliches, kind of lame in comparison. I still tip my hat to it, but it seems a bit of a one-trick pony in retrospect.
Oh, and as far as Gondry v. Kaufman, it’s a bit too apple/orange for me to call one or the other a “superior artist” but I’m certainly sympathetic to your statement. And in terms of personal taste, I’ll take Gondry in a heartbeat; I still hope he’s got a feature masterpiece in him (or rather, one that comes mostly from him, rather than an at best 50/50 proposition like Eternal) but even if he doesn’t, I am perfectly comfortable with his videos representing his legacy.
Yeah, more than anyone else, Gondry might be the king of videos. I wonder if perhaps he should take that creative impulse into dedicated short-form filmmaking, something which is only really a commercial viability nowadays in music videos. Perhaps with the rise of internet avenues like YouTube and the like, there might actually be a potential outlet for more directors experimenting with shorts (provided you find some sort of sponsor– look at Lynch’s latest work, backed by some perfume company whose name escapes me). A little bit of Gondry goes a long way, and unless his impulses are tethered to a serviceable narrative framework, it’s easy to see how audiences can be overwhelmed and even turned off by his style.
At any rate, I still got into SOS (my god, that’s an apt acronym), so I have faith in Gondry’s abilities on his own. BKRW is useless, but at the same time rather harmless. That horrid-looking “Green Hornet” movie will hopefully tank so bad as to steer him clear of ever trying to go mainstream again. I’ll repeat what I said before, though, that Gondry and Kaufman bring out the best in one another, and should really collaborate again. Exactly how do you feel about “Synecdoche”, Joel, because I suspect that you may feel the same way about that movie as I do, roughly, about SOS (and vice versa, which would make sense).
Synecdoche was a fascinating movie, compellingly if somewhat messily written, but only serviceably directed which was a disappointment after Jonze (who, as you note, didn’t really add much to the picture, but at least gave them a stylish, well-made gloss) and of course Gondry. Without the directorial sheen Jonze & Gondry provided, Kaufman’s ideas were a little more “exposed” which I kind of liked: he seemed less sure of himself than in, say, Adaptation, where his self-mockery is mitigated by the obvious self-confidence of the whole enterprise.
It’s not just a glass that guys like Jonze and especially Gondry add to Kaufman’s scripts– perhaps in taking the time and effort to match the screenwriter’s ambition and imagination in their visual, kinetic and dramatic responsibilities as director, they make a certain kind of sense out of the mental mazes in stuff like BJM and ESOSM. Kaufman’s a brilliant scribe, but he doesn’t really know how to deal that well with the performative or visual elements of filmmaking with the same creativity or panache– if he had either one, he’d be a cinematic talent to be reckoned with beyond the typewriter. A shame, really. There were parts of “Synecdoche” that came close to working for me, but in the end it was a great big quagmire.
I didn’t have a problem with his direction of actors – I though the performances in Synecdoche were quite good, and not just because they were good performers forced to rely on their own instincts. And visually, he was competent (he pulled off the conceit of the giant set, only glimpsed rather well) but with none of the control or flash of a Jonze or Gondry. It will be interesting to see if he develops as a filmmaker, if he returns to using other directors, or what-have-you…
Competency is not the same thing as talent. I can’t say there was anything in the film’s performances that really stood out for me– mostly it was Phillip Seymour Hoffman merely reacting to one absurdist situation after another, until both the story and his character lost any real sense of effect from all the over-the-top overexposure. Same thing with the visual scheme– I can see how Kaufman probably wanted to adopt a more restrained aesthetic to help ground the confusing machinations of his plot, but it actually does more harm than good. The scripts that Jonze and Gondry directed didn’t make a whole lot of sense either, but they matched the page’s scope with their own artistry behind the camera. Kaufman’s problem is that his ambition only extends so far as the screenplay itself– at least that’s how it is for me.
By the way, when is Jamie’s pic going up for comments, because I think I already have a guess.
8 am tomorrow – I will probably either enable comments on the page, or put up a post on the main page as usual (I just wanted to run it by Sam first due to the graphic nature – given our nipple-peeks and f-bombs I don’t think he’d mind and personally I laughed aloud when I saw the pic, but it seemed kosher).
Anyone with guesses reading this can e-mail me, and I’ll mention them with the first comment tomorrow. Sorry for the delay…
I really like SNY! Despite the number of times that I have watched it, I still struggle to say quite why it clicks so well with me. If it did not do so, I suspect that the more critical of my two cerebral hemispheres would be fully capable of deriding it too, as I can understand well why others would not respond to it as I do!
What I would say though is that what some see here as a quagmire, I see as a reflection of the complicated, messy course of our lives and our ultimately doomed attempts to make sense of them, no matter how great the obsession. There are never any satisfactory answers, just more questions and we get more and more and more bogged down, the harder that we try to lift ourselves free of the grasp of such thoughts.
Another surprise! I knew your affection for this movie, and thought it might crack the top ten, or else place highly in the teens. You’ve already knocked off many of the films I expected to see highly, though I have to say there have not been as many Asian films as I might have hoped (many of which I’m just discovering now in my own series). From what I’ve seen, Asian cinema easily outstripped American and European in creativity. But it’s your list, and I can’t wait to see what remains – obviously Mulholland will place highly, but having already dealt with Eternal, Yi Yi, In the Mood, Antichrist (God knows Dogville, right up your alley, will place highly – #1?! I think a bigger surprise is in store, but top 5 probably, top 10 for sure – I think…), Lost in Translation, the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy – we shall see. Keep ‘em comin’!
MovieMan, I can’t go into detail (and I’m restricted because BT is down and I have no home internet at the moment) but what makes you think there are no more Asian films to come? By the time it gets down to 11 you will be scratching your head.
MovieMan I still challenge the Asian over Europe in creativity in the 00s comment, as I did before! lol. Though I do think for art cinema these two rank over the US, for me at least.
_ _ _ _
I wonder how high THERE WILL BE BLOOD will place based on Allan’s thoughts on MAGNOLIA. I also recall him saying once how much he like ASSASSINATION OF JESSIE JAMES, and then yes there is his von Trier affection. Should be fun till the end!
Allan, oh no I definitely expect more Asian films to come just that, proportionately, they didn’t seem to play as big a part in the top 100 as I might have thought (but maybe you’re saving lots of ‘em for the big push…).
Jamie, yeah I knew you wouldn’t like the Europe knock! Though in this case it’s less of a knock, and more of an Asia compliment. There’s always interesting work coming from all corners of the globe in every era, but I do think certain regions stand out in some more than others. As I’ve been catching up with a lot of 00s films, I’ve been continuously thrilled and provoked by the films from China, Thailand, etc. – countries which were quieter in past decades but now are making their presence felt (at least in the West) in a big way. Also when I say “creative” I’m not necessarily saying “best” (though I might want to say that too) – just the most original uses of cinema. Just taking the small sample I’ve got so far, I watch the “best” European films of the decade and usually feel, that was interesting. I appreciate it but it does not seem to open up any new doors for me, show me something I haven’t seen before. Whereas almost every critically acclaimed Asian movie I’ve seen recently has made me feel excited, invigorated, much like films from the 60s Europe or Hollywood’s golden era or the 70s New Hollywood make me feel. Personal, perhaps – but we’ll see as I keep exploring, maybe I’ll change my mind. For now, the only European director whose work has affected me on the same level as a Wong Kar-Wai, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, or Zhang Ke Jia is von Trier – and his works are kind of standalones, “don’t this path you shall not follow” type of stuff, whereas as Wong and Jia and the like seem to be pioneering new rich and fertile grounds. Put differently, von Trier is a “post-” director, the kind of great filmmaker who emerges in the wake of, or in reaction to, a passionate era (I think others like the Dardennes or Haneke, from what I’ve seen, might fall into the same category), while the others seem more like trailblazers.
All to be taken with a grain (or a mountain) of salt of course and just meant to sort of tease out my own subjective experience, here, for whatever it’s worth . Just to sort of clarify what I mean, personally, when I say the above…
The only disappointment in this is the tacked on happy ending, a bit like the corporate guys in ‘Seconds’ unstrapping Hudson and giving him a second chance after the scare. It feels like a studio interference.
The title is one of the best in cinema, one of the few poetic provacations to thought set in the title. Movies usually gear themselves to the mundane (‘Suspicion’, Notorius’, ‘Vertigo’, ect); hence ‘Bladerunner’ vs. ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’, me thinks
I dunno, man– “Blade Runner” is a hell of a lot more evocative to me than Dick’s hamhanded existential question. Seriously, “Do Androids Dream…?” sounds like the title of an “Outer Limits” episode. “Blade Runner” however, is much more subtle, more open-ended in its point-of-the-knife image. No wonder it was cribbed from William S. Burroughs (with his permission, of course), therefore making it the more poetic title nearly by default. It’s almost as delicious an enigma of a name as “Naked Lunch”.
add the rather lame ‘Quantum of Solace’ to the bad heap. Give me the rather utilitarian ‘Man with the Golden Gun’.
Oh dear, or dear…
Bob, one man’s poetry is another man’s advertising jingle….so I’ll have to differ on the titles.
As for ‘Blade-Runner’ – the title was chosen by the producers because it sounded soooo “sci-fi” and they wanted to cash in on ‘Star Wars’, not have a provocative thoughtful one that might make the sheep-like masses ponder if they should drop down their dollars on the counter. It had nothing to do with being sublte or creating any imagery, though if it does for you, that’s all good.
It wasn’t “cribbed from William S. Burroughs” but the title of an Alan Nourse novel, whose works have hardly ever been called poetic, even by default.
He didn’t give permission but they licensed it’s use by paying for it.
And I love ‘The Outer Limits’ and titles like ‘The Sixth Finger’, ‘Forms of Things Unknown’ and ‘Demon with a Glass Hand’ have both a touch of poetry, and a provocative intrigue about them. Something that can be done for the small screen or the printed page but would be too daring for the big screen and the invested dollars.
Actually, it’s apparently both– first Alan Nourse wrote “The Bladerunner” novel, then William Burroughs wrote a screenplay for a movie adaptation that never happened, and eventually turned that into a novella. So the phrase is originally from Nourse, but Burroughs was still involved. Oddest of all is the idea that anyone thought Burroughs was the go-to guy to turn somebody’s novel into a coherent script.
Bobby, what about some horror-thriller titles? Do you think ‘Strip Nude for Your Killer’ is a poetic title? How about ‘Twitch of the Death Nerve’ or ‘Who Can Kill a Child?’
Personally, I love the titles of the Coffin Joe movies, even though I’ve not seen a single one of them. “At Midnight I’ll Take Your Soul”, “This Night I’ll Possess Your Corpse”– I almost don’t want to see the movies themselves, because how could anything live up to the brilliance of names like those?
lol….Jamie
Never heard of those films but I’m sure they had an audience….from the Addams family
Except Gomez, who’d be busy having train crashes in the back anteroom.
What a great film this one is and one that runs the whole spectrum of emotions. It also depicts the arc of a relationship rather authentically on an emotional level if not depicting it unconventionally visually, which, of course, sets it waaay apart from other films of its ilk.
Have Carrey and Winslet ever been better? You’d be hardpressed, alto I do have a soft spot for Winslet in REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, and, as others have noted, Carry was fantastic in THE TRUMAN SHOW and MAN ON THE MOON (a film that doesn’t get enough props IMO). The chemistry between them is incredible and believable, keeping us hooked through the entire film to see where their relationship will go next.
Winslet is immediately a given here. The decade 2000 was her moment in the sun to really prove herself and, boy, she didn’t disappoint. I’m hard pressed to say which of her five big performances is the best (don’t forget LITTLE CHILDREN and IRIS). While I’m partial to her work in REVOLUTIONARY ROAD and THE READER, I’m also hard-pressed to name this film any less than her finest work. Jim Carrey, on the other hand, is the BIG surprise. Regardless to what some think about his prior work, to me he always seemed on the verge of retracting back to the rubber-faced moron he is known for. Here, his performance is so deeply informed of grief that here never allows the retraction to surface. You can keep MAN IN THE MOON and TRUMAN. Here is Carrey’s offering for the one that never goes away.
Great film, and one which I owe a re-watch to.
I liked this film, but I couldn’t rate it as it’s been easily 6 years since I’ve seen it, and I only saw it once. I really like this write up though.
ADAPTATION remains my favorite of this type (though as I said I need to see a few again).
JAMIE-Im willing to bet that THE ASSASINATION OF JESSIE JAMES and THERE WILL BE BLOOD will be the highest ranked American films on the count. Matter of fact, I’m willing to entertain the idea of both cracking the top 10. Of course, I’m really pulling for BLOOD to place in the TOP 5 (its my pick for BEST OF THE DECADE).
mmmmm…. THE NEW WORLD is a US film that might outrank both…
Aye Jamie. And there are a few others, one of which is really piling up points. But my lips are sealed.
I don’t think Zodiac has been mentioned either.
Jeez, I hope not. Mallick’s so terribly overrated I don’t even know where to begin, especially with his modern stuff. I don’t understand why he’s shooting in 2.35:1, I don’t understand why he took so much time off between films only to direct a limp WWII drama and a drowsy retelling of the Pocahontas myth. This is the filmmaker who captured cineaste’s imaginations everywhere decades ago? Granted, I don’t get “Badlands” or “Days of Heaven” either, but those can at least be excused as pieces of lazy 70’s art-house fluff. By now, I’d think we all ought to know better. No quote Gibson– there’s no there, there.
Bob, we’ve debated him in the past so we’ll agree to disagree, to me Malick is the American director.
What frame of reference are we talking, here? Just the past few decades, or all of American cinema? Because then we’d easily have guys like Ford, Huston and Welles ahead of him. While I don’t enjoy all their works, I’d also put fellows like Capra, Sturges and Hawks in front of Malick, as well. Closer to him time-wise, there’s also Cassavettes, and then the biggies of the Movie Brats, any of whom have contributed more to the cinematic canon (except maybe for De Palma). More recently we’ve seen the rise of modern-day mavericks like Michael Mann, Spike Lee, Oliver Stone, Steven Soderbergh and Quentin Tarantino, and while their respective bodies of work aren’t always as strong as others (Soderbergh and Mann at times do seem to owe a debt to Malick’s impressionistic style, especially since their DV conversions), they still feel far more essential to me as distinctly American works.
If I were to pick out anybody who I would call “the” American filmmakers, however, I think my top five would be– Nicholas Ray, Robert Altman, Samuel Fuller, John Frankenheimer and Ray Harryhausen. Thy aren’t necessarily the best, but I think they each in turn sum up the best of what’s possible in American filmmaking.
yeah it’s differences of opinions.
to me it’s Malick. then Ray, Woody Allen, etc.
Actually we talked (or someone and I) about this prior. this is what I said then:
“and to everyone great convo… i was away and quite a topic blew up. i will say my favorite few American directors are (and I’m probably missing a few):
1. terrence malick
2. woody allen
3. martin scorsese
4. nicolas ray
5. david lynch
6. billy wilder
7. paul thomas anderson
8. jim jarmusch
9. robert altman
10. francis ford coppolla
11. elias kazan
12. coens
13. orson welles
14. sam fuller
15. john carpenter
16. brian depalma
i’m not a huge howard hawkes or john ford fan, though i don’t dismiss there importance at all. i also consider hitchcock and kubrick british (not sure they make the list anyways).
i didn’t consider charlie chaplin or (my personal favorite) buster keaton. not really sure why… all the modernity we are discussing i’m sure is the reason.
as far as lucas directing career goes, i’d take a walter hill, john huston, a tarantino, heck even neil labute’s first three films over lucas. i’d watch stuart gordon’s next horrorfest over lucas. Alexander Payne, Spike Lee, Abel Ferrara, the Wachowskis, ect…
basically i could name about 30 american filmmakers i’d take over lucas. lucas has made one great masterpiece, so has Haskell Wexler (and I like Wexler’s better). ”
and I more or less stick by that now.
You know how I feel about Malick. Allen, I think he’s made three good movies, and since then he’s just recycled his shtick over and over again worse than stand-up in the Catskills. PTA has made one masterpiece so far, and the rest of his stuff is nothing but fodder for critic circle-jerks. Jarmusch– I don’t hate his stuff, but I don’t like it either, so he’s a pretty disposable filmmaker to me. Carpenter’s made some good stuff, but it’s all way, way behind him, and at times drowned out by the generic crap he directed in the interim (seriously– “Starman”? “Memoirs of an Invisible Man”? “Ghosts of Mars”?). As for De Palma, to me he’s just a variant mutation of Hitchcock, only a little less hypocritical. He’s okay, but I’ll take Argento if I want that kind of stuff.
Odd that you’re focusing on Lucas so much here, when I didn’t even mention him directly by name this time (yeah, I know this is from a previous conversation, and that my mentioning with high praise is sort of a given most of the time, but still– simmer down, man!). As for the guys you compare him to– Hill’s best film is “The Warriors”, and frankly it isn’t very good. Huston is great, but you can easily see where he borrows from German expressionism and guys like Lang. Tarantino’s the same, just with a different set of cinematic allusions (at least he’s honest about it). For everything that’s been said about Lucas as far as his influences go (even by himself), I frankly think he’s more original a voice than either of them, especially when you look at stuff like “THX 1138″ (one of my two favorite films). Mostly it comes down to taste and how much you can see through the ubiquitous pop-culture fog. And granted, it mostly comes down to taste– guys like Gordon, Ferrara and Payne are all more or less jokes to me (Ferrara and Payne especially– one is a Mann rip-off artist, the other just another Coen-brand misanthrope).
I’d forgotten Lynch in my own roll-call– an oversight on my part. I also left off Cimino, who I wish was a much bigger presence in American cinema (“Heaven’s Gate” is my other favorite film). Someone else worth mentioning, perhaps, is the late John Hughes– he only made three really great films (“Candles”, “Breakfast” and “Bueller”), but they’re all classics, even if they’re only minor ones.
yeah sorry about the Lucas stuff, as you note that was the baggage from the earlier conversation…
Walter Hill also made THE LONG RIDERS and THE DRIVER both pretty good film (I also like THE WARRIORS best), plus 48 HOURS is a damn hoot, and he had quite in impact on the first two ALIEN films.
John Hughes I do like more then most, I love PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES. So freakin’ funny. I also don’t want to write off my statement about Wexler, MEDIUM COOL is asstone cold masterpiece to me. One of the greatest American films ever made to me.
It really does all come down to individual preference, and hence my wanting to just agree to disagree. And what I can say of your taste is that if you recommended me a film I had never seen I’d seek it out. Which is about as good of a compliment as I can give to a fellow film fan.
What was that, the two early Cronenberg films? Yeah, I appreciate knowing that I’ve steered somebody towards those, or anything, really. I know you watched “Stereo”, but did you ever get to “Crimes of the Future”?
I’ll also say this– if we were talking about the greatest Canadian filmmakers of all time, I really don’t think there’s anybody who could top Cronenberg. Maybe Norman McLaren, but that’d be a stretch.
Walter Hill I can respect the admiration for, just not really get into myself. Comparing him to Lucas seems a bit of a reach, frankly, though it’s easy to line him up with a contemporary of his– John Milius, our very own cinematic Rudyard Kipling. Not a lot of people get into his movies, but I’d say he’s an underrated director– I watched “The Wind and the Lion” on TCM recently, and it’s a GREAT movie if you can get past the fact that the dashing Barbary pirate is played by Sean Connery, and of course “Red Dawn” is a pure Wonderbread classic, a movie that’s both a Neo-Con’s worst nightmare and wet-dream rolled into one. Too bad nostalgia blocks the way for its appreciation, but there are worse fates.
No I have not gotten to CRIMES, but another I watched was HOW TASTY WAS MY LITTLE FRENCHMEN, a film I loved.
Oh yeah. Hard to believe I could forget about that one. I wonder at times if “Avatar” would’ve been a little better with a bit of Na’vi cannibalism (well, I guess just carnivorism, since we’re different species, but you get the idea).
What about Egoyan?
Jeopardy Girl: I suspect he won’t show up in Allan’s remaining choices, though I know he does love THE SWEET HEREAFTER, as we both do (and many others here). But of course, that’s a 90’s film. of the 2000 films, WHERE THE TRUTH LIES, ARARAT and/or ADORATION would certainly be valid choices, but I doubt Allan will be choosing any of these. In any case, Egoyan is a major artist on the strength of THE SWEET HEREAFTER alone, no doubt about it.
Jamie, where’s Spielberg???
Just kidding. That’s quite a list! I’ll chime in after Dave’s director’s countdown is over at GOOD FELLAS, though he is combining American and foreign.
I will be leaving shortly to head over yet again (the fourth night in a row) to the Anthony Mann Festival for BORDER INCIDENT and DEVIL’S DOORWAY, with visits lined up for tomorrow night and Friday night as well. I think I’ll have Mexican before I enter the Film Forum! Ha! I’ll check on later on. Quite a conversation here.
Sam I thought my feelings on Spielberg were well known around here… his omission from that list was NOT an accident.
JG, if you mean where does Egoyan stand amongst Canadian filmmakers, he’s one of the best, no doubt. But it’s a smaller club. Cronenberg is tops, but there’s also McLaren, Guy Maddin, Claude Jutra, Denys Arcand and others. I might also add Vincenzo Natali if I were feeling charitable, but his stuff isn’t quite up there.
Oh, and Mary Harron. Who I always forget is Canadian (probably because her three films so far– “I Shot Andy Warhol”, “American Psycho” and “The Notorious Bettie Page” are all largely set in New York).
Bob I love the Na’vi idea. It could have ended with Jake eating his own abandoned human body and then it coming alive and resisting him – a weird doppelganger/wait-who-am-I-really?/Moon moment…
I don’t think James Cameron ever would have made that movie, though, sadly…
Joel, the avatar part of “Avatar” was the least interesting aspect of the film. I really wish we didn’t have Jake Sully or artificially-grown Na’vi bodies at all in the film. It would’ve been much more interesting just told from the point of view of the indigenous aliens and the human outsiders looking to exploit their land. We really didn’t need Sam Worthington as a go-between.
can I also use this thread to point out one of my favorite and most underrated American actresses Jane Adams? Everything I’ve seen her in I’ve loved her performance (even when it’s a fluff piece). She was heartbreaking and dysfunctional in Solondz’s HAPPINESS (a film and director I love that few others do), and beautiful and uptight as Niles short lived wife Mel on FRASIER. She’s what an actor should be in their late 30’s early 40’s– off beat and willing to grow into their age.
SAM/JAMIE-Yup, I may be mistaken and I pray I’m wrong. However, after Jamie mentioning THE NEW WORLD, it suddenly hit me. There is another American film that could displace em all for the highest ranking by our country and, gulp, that would be David Lynch’s MULHOLLAND DRIVE. My error is that, because I really don’t like the film AT ALL, I have tendency to forget it all together. More I think about it, the more I predict it will probably usurp JESSIE JAMES and, sigh, THERE WILL BE BLOOD. But, I have hope!
I’d rather see “Mulholland” on top than “The New World”. Yeah, I wish it had gone to series, too, but it’s as good as Lynch gets. And while I like TWWB, I’d like to see an American film up there that isn’t some form of a Western, really.
Personally, I wish “American Psycho” (which Jamie correctly fingered as my guess-pic) stood a chance of being somewhere on the list. It’s one of my absolute favorites, and easily my top pick for the decade, and yet sadly it seems to have gone mostly forgotten. Too bad. Christian Bale has never been (and never will be) better than his turn as Patrick Bateman, and Mary Harron’s directorial hand is the surest, coolest thing I’ve ever seen in a serial-thriller like this.
Was AP in the nearlies? Has Allan committed himself on it in the past? If the answer to both is “no” I think you may be in for a Heaven’s Gate-style surprise. I didn’t care for the film at all, but I could definitely see it making a Fish top 20.
It’s not in the Nearlies, Joel, but it’s also not in his timeline for the decade, either. So I think it’s pretty much screwed. Granted, I’d love to be proven wrong, but there’s not much chance of that, I think.
I’d be shocked if it was in the top 19. Absolutely shocked.
I don’t mind saying, guys, AP is not in the list.
Dennis, I completely understand why you wouldn’t like MULHOLLAND DRIVE, as it’s difficult to think straight when you have all the Pixar fog resin clouding your brain and impairing your judgments. Zing! jk, lol.
This movie is in my Top 10 of the decade, I think.
At the beginning I entered this movie with resistance, may of the people who had liked where people that got obsessed and that wasn’t healthy for me.
I ended up liking and admiring the movie for all the other reasons people didn’t. I loved the sci-fi aspect, the low sci-fi is one of my favorite aspects in movies nowadays, I tend to not like hard sci-fi.
The other thing was the disjointed narrative, which I thought was genius and well used.
My list of favorite American directors or directors working in America.
1. Kubrick
2. Welles
3. Malick
4. Hitchcock
5. Wilder
6. Scorsese
7. Ray
8. Coppola
9. Lynch
10. Huston
11. Polanski
12. Coen Brothers
13. Tourneur
14. Hawks
15. Ford
16. Altman
17. Peckinpah
18. Carpenter
19. Fincher
20. Cronenberg
21. M. Mann
22. Eastwood
23. Cimino
24. Lang
tie
25. Scott ( just for Alien and Blade Runner)
25. Spielberg
I’m sure I forgot a couple of people though Allen was intentional.
Funny that you include so many foreigners on your list, but you’re counting “favorite filmmakers who worked in America”, so that’s fair. As for my own stuff above, I wasn’t even necessarily citing my favorite American filmmakers, but rather those who I see as the most distinctly emblematic of American cinema.
And hey– I’m with you on Allen.
Wow I forgot Siodmak, Dassin, A. Mann, Kazan, etc……
I’m with you Bob that Heaven’s Gate is amazing. I wonder if most critics of that film have ever watched it since its opening. I must admit though I am no fan of THX 1138.
I was going to call it an acquired taste, but that’s not quite right– it’s one of those movies that you pretty much know from the first viewing whether you love or hate it. You can’t acquire a taste for “THX 1138″, or if one can, it’s outside my experience of those who’ve seen it. Something to chew on, though– I’ve introduced quite a few people to this movie personally, and they’ve all loved it (even the ones who still can’t stand “Star Wars” or the prequels). That’s something I can’t say about any other film.
My filmmakers to watch are also foreigners who work in the US. Dominik and Hillcoat primarily.
The only Sodenbergh I enjoy is his take of Solaris which I think is terribly underrated. Nolan’s only film I like is Memento. Both though could eventually crack the list with more great works (which they are capable of).
Funny– “Solaris” is about one of the few Soderbergh films I have little use for. My personal favorites of his are “Schizopolis” and “Che”, but there’s other good stuff strewn about, too. He might’ve directed the best Spalding Gray monologue-film with “Gray’s Anatomy”, but the only other one I’ve seen is “Monster in a Box”, so I can’t really judge fairly.
I suppose I did enjoy ESSM, but I must have blinked when there was some measure of profundity. What can you say if after a couple years all you can remember of it is a train to the beach, a girl with red hair, and a crumpled car fender?
Many find meaning and purpose in their lives. Perhaps those of us who go round in circles are asking the wrong questions?
Helpful information. Lucky me I found your site accidentally,
and I’m shocked why this twist of fate didn’t came about in advance!
I bookmarked it.