I have moved.

Sorry I didn't update this, but I am now posting on my tumblr

MPATHY.TUMBLR.COM

731. Pervasive Gender Politics and Sexual Confusion Through Life

…Or Hey! You’re All Gonna Be in This Experiment Film

(the only publicly available video is some shots of the film set to Charlotte Gainsbourg's excellent "5:55")

I am going to put on my pseudo-academic cap for a moment and discuss Je, Tu, Il, Elle, an experimental Avant garde film from Belgian-born Chantal Akerman. She would achieve international recognition for films like “The Rendezvous of Anna” and “Jeanne Dielmann,” (both of which are mentioned later in this list) but her auspicious debut is also a work of major note.

The film opens in the bedroom of “Je” (French for “I”) and features Akerman as the titular character. She is oft-nude throughout the film and examines her own body, its failings, and a recently doomed relationship. Throughout the film, she eats from a bag of sugar and contemplates her failings. The imagery is remarkably melancholy and depressing as she wanders from one part of her single room apartment to another only to return back to her original spot as a voiceover narration details her thoughts and movements. She gazes outside a large bay window but never leaves the confines of her room. The camera is always pointed towards her and looking outside the window so we are always in the same space as the narrator though we never see her view outside the apartment just the extremely poetic vision of her looking out.

The second major section of the film concerns “Il” (“he” in French). She leaves her apartment to hitchhike back to her former lover. Along the way, a trucker picks her up and the servile role she maintained in her apartment carries through to the cab of the truck. She gives the driver oral sex (shown off camera) as Il delivers a soliloquy on love and loneliness. The two characters form an immediate bond with each other based on the nothingness of their lives and hollow relationships. Both of the characters speak towards one another but do not truly converse and form a bond based on isolation rather than a true connection. Also, it would seem that the oral sex was a foregone conclusion though neither character wants to go through with it. It was not an act based on want or desire but from societal expectations. In the end, both characters part ways seemingly forgetting entirely of the other’s existence almost immediately.

The last section of the film concerns “Elle” (French for “her”). As Akerman arrives at her lover’s apartment, we see that her lover is a woman which would suggest that “Je” suffers from sexual confusion. What follows is a tense and at times violent love-making session filmed entirely in one static shot 15 feet from the bed. The passion and intensity in this scene would suggest that “Je” is gay rather than bisexual and the recent sexual contact with a man was based on an opportunity rather than something more emotionally tangible.

Akerman spent the whole film judging herself and basking in her own insecurities and faults though when reunited with her former lover, her life energy returns. She hugs her as if to hold on for dear life and the sometimes violent wrestling might even be allegoric and comparable to Jacob wrestling an Angel; the Angel representing Jacob’s own insecurities and struggles with faith. Though she is still wrestling with her own demons, the battle has become more passionate. However, the film ends inauspiciously as “Elle” leaves for work with the assumption that Akerman will leave never to see her again.

“Tu” refers to us, the viewers, as we watch the filmmaker’s journey through her own sexuality and loneliness. Perhaps Akerman wants us to reflect on the scared malcontent inside of us that exists from the inside looking out at the world. Her journey of self-discovery and love, albeit temporary was fraught with heartbreak, self-pity, wonton acts of forced carnality, and redemption though the films ends as it begins, with “Je” alone.

“Je Tu Il Elle” was a bold movie for first time director Akerman and it wasn’t just the nudity. To be nude on screen isn’t difficult but to allow herself to be truly naked, in the literal and existential sense is an enormous challenge. The movie wasn’t erotic or meant to titillate but to express intense overwhelming emotional desire. A recent parallel of such a role would be Riko Kikuchi in Babel, who was absolutely robbed of a supporting actress Oscar by Jennifer Hudson (whose performance in the truly awful Dreamgirls was passable, at best).

Akerman has spent most of her career making films about gender roles and small character studies of normal women. “Jeanne Dielmann,” largely considered a masterpiece and among the greatest films ever made, is an epic four hour film, shot largely in one room, about the title character who becomes a prostitute to make money to raise her son. No sex is shown in Dielmann and doesn’t need to be, as the statements of female independence from claustrophobic lives are strong enough. For her debut film though, Akerman, laid herself bare and expressed more emotions in 60 minutes than most movies show in 3 hours. It was an excellent hint of things to come and introduced to the world to a great talent and truly original mind.

About the Top 800 Project:

Using the They Shoot Pictures Starting List of 8800 films (LINK) and my Netflix ratings, I sifted through the list and of the 4500 films I’d seen, I selected a random number of films I liked more than the others. The list was about 812 films. I kicked off 12 to get an even 800. The list chronologically goes up to 2009. Each blog entry will list ten films, one of which will be discussed in detail. The ten films will then be posted toThe Top 800 Master List, a Google docs file compiling them. When the countdown finishes in what will be probably be a really a long time, I will begin discussing random films that I didn’t get to before.

745. Sneakers: The Obsession Begins

…or I Should Have Kept My Mouth Shut

It was on a Monday in 7^th grade that my science teacher asked our class if they saw any movies over the weekend. Several students responded with what film they saw and if they liked it or not. When it came to me, I got up and proceeded to review a film detailing such features as the script, acting, and cinematography (while I didn’t know what that was, I had read in Premiere Magazine that it was a “coffee table award” at the Oscars). That movie I reviewed Sneakers, with Robert Redford and Ben Kingsley. So out of all the movies on the list, this forgotten and profoundly outdated cyber-crime film from the early 90’s, is the one in which I have the biggest personal connection.

That chance encounter in the beginning of the school year started a trend in which every Monday, I would give a movie review. This meant that I had to watch at least one movie a week and then put some thought into a review. By the end of the year, it was the highlight of my week and I started to write up my reviews for other classes and the school newspaper. Interestingly, I was recently digging through relics of my middle school career and found my English journal from that year. I saw as the focus slowly shifted from mundane details of my life to reviews of movies giving the beginnings of my love affair with film a clear start date.

The oral, weekly movie reviews continued through 7^th grade into 8^th grade and a few months into 9^th grade (when my English teacher put the kibosh on it when double entendres took over for actual content). Though by that point, I had already taken up a column in the school newspaper to complain about the poor quality of films and hail art house and independent cinema much to the ire of my blockbuster loving classmates. Slowly but surely, I learned that I loved being hated for my reviews and that having an unpopular opinion and flaunting it was fun. I was already an unpopular kid and with the reviews, I wasn’t invisible anymore and that I was getting attention for my reviews, albeit negative. My parents tried to correct my shameless elitism but my insecure high school self decided that if I wasn’t going to be loved by all, then I might as well be hated.

Thankfully, over the years, I have since matured and learned to respect other’s opinions and not like independent and foreign cinema just for the sake of liking it but because its well-made and interesting. I have a feeling that my 13 year old self would have loved films like “Rachel Getting Married” and “The Kids Are Alright,” when my twenty-something self cringes at the pompousity of them.

Still, along with the negativity, I was finding that a few people were hearing from I was writing and that I was getting some of my classmates to give indie films a chance. As I continued to write reviews through my teens and twenties, my passion went from irritating others to sharing my love of movies and this is what the Top 800 Project is all about. Not a “look at all the movies I’ve seen!” thing but a “these are some really good movies that I recommend you watch” blog.

This brings us back to Sneakers. To be perfectly honest, if I never reviewed this movie for my 7^th grade class, I would have completely forgotten about it and it never would have ended up on here. But this is a list of my favorite movies and many of them have personal emotional ties and this is the magic of cinema. Like a good song, seeing a movie again can you bring back a stream of memories, positive, negative, or neutral. This is why I am not giving straight up reviews of these movies but rather, highlighting something about the film that really grabbed me and drew me into the film even if it wasn’t the film itself! That being said, Sneakers is still a pretty fun movie.

About the Top 800 Project:

Using the They Shoot Pictures Starting List of 8800 films (LINK) and my Netflix ratings, I sifted through the list and of the 4500 films I’d seen, I selected a random number of films I liked more than the others. The list was about 812 films. I kicked off 12 to get an even 800. The list chronologically goes up to 2009. Each blog entry will list ten films, one of which will be discussed in detail. The ten films will then be posted toThe Top 800 Master List, a Google docs file compiling them. When the countdown finishes in what will be probably be a really a long time, I will begin discussing random films that I didn’t get to before.

A Quest to Get Lost

On Sunday, May 23rd, 2010 the cultural phenomenon and highly addictive science fiction drama Lost ended its run after 125 episodes of David Lynchian worthy mind games, false starts, fake endings, and general nuttiness. It was a polarizing show. If you were into it, then you were obsessed. If you weren't, you were either turned off by the incessant discussion about it among your friends or checked out of the show due to its inability to provide the viewer with the slightest bit of closure.

I never watched Lost; that is, until the last episode.

After six years of hearing my friends theorize and ponder the shows many twists, I knew that I would have to check it out at some point but the procrastination to do so made diving into it already a few seasons deep a daunting task. My wife felt the same way. So, somewhere in season 4, we made a decision to watch the last episode and if we liked it, then we would watch the entire show. This way, we knew how it ended and wouldn't be disappointed in the result. On the other hand, if it was brilliant, then the surprise would be ruined but that was a risk we were willing to take.

We watched the last episode and became entranced. We loved how sweet the show was and the bonds formed between the characters. It seemed like sci-fi with a heart, something that made shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation enjoyable. The creators said that Lost was a love story and from the last episode, it was clear that it was. At the close of the episode, we were pretty (excuse the pun) lost, but we still decided to add season 1 to our netflix queue and go to town.

Some seven months later, we watched the finale this morning and though we knew how it ended, we were very pleased with our decision to wait. Like many great journeys, the end is nice but the quest getting there is the rewarding part. After all, is there anyone out there who would have not watched Empire Strikes Back if they knew that Vader was Luke's dad? Of course not. Generations have latched on to Empire and the whole of Star Wars knowing the entire story and enjoy it just as much as the those who found out about the twist live in theaters. In cases like these, it's about the journey, not the ending. Plus, disappointment is a terrible feeling.

Knowing how Lost ended, we were able to focus on all the plot twists and not worry about how it ends because we knew that...

::SPOILERS::

Jack dies, there is something called the light that keeps the island together, the island is a portal to another place, the dog survives, all the people from the show find love and end up in a Church NOT on the island and move towards the light, and there is another universe in which some of those people are on a plane and escape

::SPOILERS::

Do I still have questions about the show? Oh yeah, absolutely and while I still have some nagging curiosities (Why is Libby in the mental hospital to begin with anyway?), they aren't really that important. The journey of the characters and their development superseded any loose ends or discontinuities within the show. After all, it is just a show. I think that in order to answer all the questions, there would have needed to be a live lecture and Q&A with Ben Linus, Richard, Jacob, and the Man in Black (not the actors, the characters) and that would not have been very exciting, just informative.

Lost reminded me of "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events." The books, not the "unfortunate" movie made from the first three in the series a few years back. The books themselves involved three orphans, a secret society, and a mounting number of double and triple crossing secret agents, codes, and stubborn riddles. When the final book came out, I knew there was no way the author was going to be able to tie up all the many, countless loose ends so he took a novel approach and he tied up hardly any of them.

Instead, he made the book a meditation about paranoia and living in frightening times. Given that the series of books were begun around 9/11 and that, combined with a few choice political digs, suggested it was a statement on the importance of love, stability, and confidence in an unstable world. I feel these are all also at the heart of Lost.

All the characters find true love and gain the stability and self-confidence that they never had off the island. Jacob tells Jack that the survivors of the crash were all lonely and running away from their lives before they crashed on the island. When the show ended, they walked bravely towards the light. They weren't sure what was waiting for them but they trusted in themselves to go towards it, and with their loved ones among them.

The show was laced in Judeo-Christian symbolism. There was the obvious: Jack's father was named Christian Shephard and guided characters in times of need. There were some subtle ones: Jacob was the island's chosen protector; namely, protector from his brother which might as well have been named Esau, though the Lost character was never named. But in the last episode, during a confrontation between Jack and his father, Christian is standing in front of a Church stain glass mirror bearing the signs of the six major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism) which suggests that in the end, we all go to the same place, which is a really nice sentiment.

Lost was a great TV show and that is what it was, a TV show. Not a religion or a sacred document, but a really entertaining TV show. After all, seasons 4 and some of season 5 was pretty silly and the entire thing as a whole is completely ridiculous. Still, it must have had something as I watched 125 episodes of it from May until now. Now to quote Marge Simpson, "Let us never speak of it again."

Namaste.

Golden Globe Are on Sunday. Whoop-Dee-Do. My picks

the golden globes are a funny thing. and by funny, i mean stupid and infuriating. they are such obvious starfuckers and with their almost nonsensical nominations and contradictory winners make them a curiousity rather than the Oscar precursor it originally was.

Since it's a foregone conclusion comedies don't win Oscars, I submit to you the last five winners of the Globe for Best Drama: Avatar, Slumdog Millionaire, Atonement, Babel, and Brokeback Mountain. One of a five right is a pretty terrible predictor. Also, every year, their choices in the comedy category continue their quest from quirky and controversial to silly. I think the collective "WTF" moment moviegoers had when they saw that Alice in Wonderland, Burlesque, and The Tourist had been nominated proves this. Not only had all three films garnered attrocious reviews (well deserved in the case of Alice) but The Tourist is not even close to being considered a comedy (IMDB says its genres are action/drama). The Satellite Awards, the awards given by the International Press Academy also have a comedy category and they nailed it, nominating critically and publicly acclaimed films like Please Give, Cyrus, and the eventual winner and perpetual snub, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World.

So why am I writing about such a shitty awards show? Probably the same reason I know who all the Jersey Shore people are. It's a trainwreck and I can morally accept devoting a bit of text to picking winners and criticisizing the nominess. So, here we go, my picks for the movie ones. Bolded films indicate my choices for winners.

Best Motion Picture - Drama

Black Swan

The Fighter

Inception

The King's Speech

The Social Network

The Social Network is going to win the Oscar for best picture unless Black Swan picks up some major momentum, which I don't think is going to happen. So why Inception? The globes love big movies that make a lot of money (Avatar). Inception is this movie. It's a pretty spectacular movie too so a win wouldn't be a major defeat for anything. I would like to see Black Swan or the King's Speech though, the latter of which was the best out of the lot in terms of story structure.

Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Alice in Wonderland

Burlesque

The Kids Are All Right

Red

The Tourist

While I didn't see The Tourist, I can say that none of these movies were all that great. Red was entertaining but as I mentioned above, Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World was the best comedy this year by far. Why the Kids Are All Right? Why not? It was liked by a lot of people though I genuinely despised it and can you honestly envision anything else winning?

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama

Jesse Eisenberg for The Social Network

Colin Firth for The King's Speech

James Franco for 127 Hours

Ryan Gosling for Blue Valentine

Mark Wahlberg for The Fighter

The five nominees are the likely Oscar nominees but the acting awards are usually completely different from the Oscars. While I think that Colin Firth is the likely Oscar winner, I am saying Jesse Eisenberg, the "Michael Cera of Drama" will win here. My personal vote would be Ryan Gosling. That man could do no wrong.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama

Halle Berry for Frankie and Alice

Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole

Jennifer Lawrence for Winter's Bone

Natalie Portman for Black Swan

Michelle Williams for Blue Valentine

Never before has an acting race been so predictable. Either Jennifer Lawrence or Natalie Portman has won virtually every actress award. While Ms. Lawrence's performance was outstanding, Portman lost 20 pounds, learned ballet, and was pitch perfect as a tortured, ballerina slowly losing her mind.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture

Johnny Depp for The Tourist

Johnny Depp for Alice in Wonderland

Paul Giamatti for Barney's Version

Jake Gyllenhaal for Love and Other Drugs

Kevin Spacey for Casino Jack

::bands head against wall:: Here is what I am saying will happen. The Depp nominations will split. No one saw Barney's Version or Casino Jack and Gyllenhaal will end up winning. That or Depp will win for Alice in Wonderland in his umpteenth role as a guy with a funny voice in a big hat.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture

Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right

Anne Hathaway for Love and Other Drugs

Angelina Jolie for The Tourist

Julianne Moore for The Kids Are All Right

Emma Stone for Easy A

This one is a little easier to predict. Bening is a shoe-in. She has nailed down awards acting awards early on before Winter's Bone and Black Swan. I would like see Emma Stone win but she is young and talented and will get hers. Easy A was a fun movie though.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Christian Bale for The Fighter

Michael Douglas for Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Andrew Garfield for The Social Network

Jeremy Renner for The Town

Geoffrey Rush for The King's Speech

Christian Bale. Nuf Said. He is this year's Christophe Waltz or Javier Bardem. What's with supporting actor being so tied up?

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Amy Adams for The Fighter

Helena Bonham Carter for The King's Speech

Mila Kunis for Black Swan

Melissa Leo for The Fighter

Jacki Weaver for Animal Kingdom

Though Jackie Weaver will most likely win the Oscar, Amy Adams is the likely winner here. In a film filled with great performances, Adams and Leo both stood out. Why not Melissa Leo? The Globes have a soft spot for It girls and not veteran extraordinarily competent actresses.

Best Director - Motion Picture

Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan

David Fincher for The Social Network

Tom Hooper for The King's Speech

Christopher Nolan for Inception

David O. Russell for The Fighter

The likely Oscar winner, Fincher is an accomplished director and his undeniable style and ability to get panicked drama out of his actors helped Social Network achieve much of its glory. I would be surprised if anyone else won though Christopher Nolan is not to be counted out. Though with an effects heavy movie like Inception, the look and style was achieved through a cadre of computer designers with Nolan at the helm. Social Network is all Fincher. Though my vote would have went with Nolan...or Aronofsky.

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture

127 Hours (2010)

Inception (2010)

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

The King's Speech (2010)

The Social Network (2010)

I don't like that the Globes do not split screenplay into original and adapted. If so, then Social Network would be my pick for adapted and for original, Inception. The former is my pick. Again, I think there is an equal chance that Nolan could win but I remind you all that TSN was written by Aaron Sorkin, an Emmy winner and 3-time Globe nominee. The HFPA might decide it's time for Sorkin.

Best Original Song - Motion Picture

Nominees:

Burlesque (2010/I): Samuel Dixon, Christina Aguilera, Sia Furler("Bound to You")

Burlesque (2010/I): Diane Warren("You Haven't Seen The Last of Me")

Country Strong (2010): Bob DiPiero, Tom Douglas, Hillary Lindsey, Troy Verges("Coming Home")

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010): Carrie Underwood, David Hodges, Hillary Lindsey("There's A Place For Us")

Tangled (2010): Alan Menken, Glenn Slater("I See the Light")

oh who the fuck cares. I didn't know Sia wrote a song for Burlesque. I didn't know she needed the money. Her new album We are Born is outstanding. Buy it. Give the globe to the Disney song and let's all jump off a cliff.

Best Original Score - Motion Picture

Nominees:

127 Hours (2010): A.R. Rahman

Alice in Wonderland (2010): Danny Elfman

Inception (2010): Hans Zimmer

The King's Speech (2010): Alexandre Desplat

The Social Network (2010): Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross

While I would love to see "Golden Globe Winner" preface Trent Reznor's name, Inception's South Park parodied score will most likely to win. Here is the parody:

Insheeption
Tags: SOUTH
PARKStan Marsh,Mr. Mackey,more...

Best Animated Film

Nominees:

Despicable Me (2010)

How to Train Your Dragon (2010)

The Illusionist (2010)

Tangled (2010)

Toy Story 3 (2010)

Do I even need an explanation here?

Best Foreign Language Film

Biutiful (2010)(Mexico/Spain)

The Concert (2009)(France)

The Edge (2010)(Russia)

I Am Love (2009)(Italy)

In a Better World (2010)(Denmark)

This is another interesting year for the Foreign Language film category. Yes, last year was interesting as well with the race between Mikael Haneke's Die Weisse Band and the Argentinian film, El Secreto De Sus Ojos. What? You never heard of them? Oh. Um...both were very good. Ok. Let's move on. I Am Love was an Italian film starring Tilda Swintom and Biutiful is Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu's (21 grams, Babel) latest film and stars Javier Bardem. Though I Am Love is a likely Oscar winner, the HFPA has shown some major love to Innaritu and even though the film has received mixed reviews, that didn't stop Babel from winning best Drama.

so there ya go. stay tuned for an analysis of the ceremony when i rant about how none of my picks were right and why the globes are shit because of this.

755. Just Like Dr. Strangelove, But Not in the Least

Or…How I Learned to Keep Being Afraid of the Bomb

In the mid 60’s, the US and Russia were at the brink of nuclear warfare and at any given time, a button could be pressed and missles would be launched resulting in a near annilhation of the Earth and its population. Whether by mistake or by a rogue aircraft, the world in a war in which one bomb destroys a nation is serious business and a major concern and source of fear in America. Surely, a movie that deals with it and its consequences is serious business and a movie starring Walther Matthau and Henry Fonda, two established stars, would result in a hit film and win lots of awards. That is, unless a movie is released within the past year that hilariously lampoons this concept and includes a landmark comedic performance by Peter Sellers.

That movie is of course, Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece Dr. Strangelove (Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb), which will is much much higher on this list. The movie I am writing of in this entry is Fail Safe, an unfairly overlooked Sidney Lumet film that mirrors the plot of Dr. Strangelove, but deals with the topic of nuclear warfare in a serious fashion. When Fail Safe debuted, despite its superior direction and an excellent turn by Matthau, the movie wasn’t met with the gravity it deserved since Kubrick already made everyone laugh quite hilariously about nuclear war.

Does this mean that Dr. Strangelove never should have been made so that Fail Safe could get take its rightful place in the echelon of film? No. Strangelove was one of the greatest satires ever made and its place in film history is exceptionally important. However, perhaps Fail Safe could’ve gotten its act together and come out a year earlier.

I look at Fail Safe with the same sort of eye I give to superior Atomic age parable films like The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Atomic Café. These are all serious film documents that detail on film the national mood on the subject of atomic war, which paralyzed the nation in fear for the better part of two decades.

Where Lumet took a script (based on a critically acclaimed book) and made it a statement on America’s “worst fear,” Kubrick expressed the sentiment that the nation’s leaders were just as clueless as the populace. Social commentary vs. social satire with the same plot, one could say. Though in Fail Safe, there was certainly fighting in the war room. This movie also proved yet again, that no one does smug like Matthau. Even as the world is being destroyed, he is as cynical and sarcastic as ever and he probably made a warhead in that giant nose of his too.

About the Top 800 Project:

Using the They Shoot Pictures Starting List of 8800 films (LINK) and my Netflix ratings, I sifted through the list and of the 4500 films I’d seen, I selected a random number of films I liked more than the others. The list was about 812 films. I kicked off 12 to get an even 800. The list chronologically goes up to 2009. Each blog entry will list ten films, one of which will be discussed in detail. The ten films will then be posted toThe Top 800 Master List, a Google docs file compiling them. When the countdown finishes in what will be probably be a really a long time, I will begin discussing random films that I didn’t get to before.

764. Hollywood Shoots Up

Or... Old Blue Eyes? More like? Old Golden Arm!

I really want to write about something NOT in the English language. So far, all I’ve written about are movies in English. However, there are quite a few foreign films on here and as the list ascends, the anglo-centricism does inevitably die down. However, given that I just wrote about Requiem for a Dream, I want to bookend that with Otto Preminger’s 1955 film, The Man with the Golden Arm. This is not a Bond movie as I thought it was for many years. Instead, it stars Frank Sinatra as a heroin addict living in the ghettos of Chicago. Between bookies and his crippled wife, he can’t escape this toxic environment or kick his habit and the film details his struggle to get clean.







What impressed me most about this movie was how unflinching it was for its time. In the late 1950’s, the only sort of drug oriented films were sensationalist propaganda (we all remember the landmark 1930's "masterpieces" reefer and cocaine madness!). However, unlike the users in those films, Sinatra is not a babbling idiot. He is a man in trouble looking for answers and trying to make his life better. He is tortured and well developed.

Also, unlike those sensationalist films, he is among the most moral characters depicted. There is a clueless cop, but there is also the sinister drug dealer and the emotionally draining wife which lock him into his heroin abuse. Sinatra is stuck in the middle trying to please everyone and continues to fall back to his old habits.


I can understand how this film, despite the omnipresent Hayes Code, whose censorship encased Hollywood for almost 30 years, had to be released. It was a wake-up call that movies were meant to deal with real life subject matter and that the clunky and outdated Hayes Code was holding back subject matter that people wanted and needed to see. Man With a Golden Arm is a great movie and Sinatra is excellent in it but the lasting effect on Hollywood is ultimately it’s most important legacy.

About the Top 800 Project:

Using the They Shoot Pictures Starting List of 8800 films (LINK) and my Netflix ratings, I sifted through the list and of the 4500 films I’d seen, I selected a random number of films I liked more than the others. The list was about 812 films. I kicked off 12 to get an even 800. The list chronologically goes up to 2009. Each blog entry will list ten films, one of which will be discussed in detail. The ten films will then be posted toThe Top 800 Master List, a Google docs file compiling them. When the countdown finishes in what will be probably be a really a long time, I will begin discussing random films that I didn’t get to before.

635. Muppet Christmas Carol

or...Never Send a Michael Caine to do a Muppet's Job

This is among my favorite holiday movies and my favorite version of Dicken's classic though horrendously overdone tale of a cranky old guy and his slow trek towards not being a douche. So, what makes this version a Christmas Carol better than the others? It's most likely the Muppets and a little Michael Caine for good measure, but mostly the Muppets.

Gonzo and Rizzo the Rat are great as the narrators. They work with a lot of the original Dickensian text and put a decidedly Muppetatic (I'll make this a word) spin on it. Also, I love Rizzo. This is especially surprising considering the latter of the Muppet's was a recent addition to the cast who aside from Bean have failed miserably at new additions into the Muppet cast (Pepe, need I say more?). Yes, this was probably the last movie the Muppets made before they became relegated to horrible TV movie-style schmaltz and obnoxious featured guests (as seen in the painful exercise of the Muppet Wizard of Oz). This movie was ALMOST ruined by the sappiness for sure. The songs are mostly an exercise in futility though Michael Caine can surprisingly, carry a tune.

This song i kinda like (though there is no Michael Caine singing)

i hate this frickin song. so sappy

Kermit and Piggy are naturals at depicted the Kratchit family and Fozzy was born, well, made to play Fezziwinks (or Fozziwinks). Sometimes, the Muppet roles are forced but in the case of Muppet Christmas Carol, the integrations are seamless. There is heart and some genuine laughs which recent Muppet movies have been devoid of.

My in-law's family watches this every Christmas eve and though I need a break every few years I continually find this a cute and enjoyable film. There aren't many contemporary Christmas movies that I can stand but this one stands out though apparently, I can't think of anything remotely inciteful or interesting to say about it. hmm...um...the ghost of christmas present is funny. he is big and eats a lot. Um...Merry Christmas?

About the Top 800 Project:

Using the They Shoot Pictures Starting List of 8800 films (LINK) and my Netflix ratings, I sifted through the list and of the 4500 films I’d seen, I selected a random number of films I liked more than the others. The list was about 812 films. I kicked off 12 to get an even 800. The list chronologically goes up to 2009. Each blog entry will list ten films, one of which will be discussed in detail. The ten films will then be posted toThe Top 800 Master List, a Google docs file compiling them. When the countdown finishes in what will be probably be a really a long time, I will begin discussing random films that I didn’t get to before.

778. Requiem for a Dream: An Exercise in Morbidity

...Or How a “Favorite” Film Can Also Be a Painful, Enjoyable Trial

I don’t know anyone out there who would admit to have “enjoyed” watching Daron Aronofsky’s bleak addiction drama. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find someone who can watch this a second time. However, anyone that has seen it can probably vividly recall it. A film like Requiem teaches us a lesson that sometimes, movies aren’t fun to watch and that is not necessarily a bad thing. If movies are meant to move and make us feel, then we must take the painful with the inspiring.

What impressed me about Requiem was that it unflinchingly covered different types of addiction with the same passive voice. There was Jared Leto and an unrecognizable Marlon Wayans (of White Chicks fame) as heroin addicts, Ellen Burstyn as Leto’s mother, who becomes addicted to pills, and Jennifer Connelly, another drug addict/future prostitute and Leto’s girlfriend. The film covers their downward spiral into their addiction and doesn’t end well for any character.

::SPOILERS::

Leto ends up in a prison hospital with his arm amputated, Wayans ends up in a racist prison for drug possession, Burstyn winds up in a mental hospital getting electroshock therapy, and Connelly is the featured star of an anal sex show.

::SPOILERS::

It is safe to say that none of the characters end up in a terribly good place. All of them begin the film with hopes, dreams, and aspirations, and becoming slaves to their addiction which inevitably leads to their major major downfalls. They attempt to use drugs to achieve their dreams, to sell drugs or sex to open a store, or weight loss and sleeping pills to achieve game show success, and it overpowers them and enslaves the characters.

Requiem is really as dark it comes. The last scene is a fantasy vision of what could be had drugs not entered into their lives and somehow it makes the film even more depressing. That vision conflicted with the harsh and painful reality of their lives makes the tragedy of the character’s downfall even more powerful. In short, the movie ends without even the faintest glimmer of hope or redemption for ANY of the characters. A bum out ending is one thing, though usually there is slight hint that the worst is over for the characters. In Requiem, there is a distinct feeling that things will probably get WORSE for them. Aronofsky basically ends the film at what could be the characters rock bottom but with painful YEARS of ordeals in front of them.

Note: Puppy video included to perk readers up.

I can’t watch this movie again. This is really no way I can ever sit through it. I wanted to turn off the damned thing at a bunch of points throughout but I didn’t. Somehow, I kept watched and while I didn’t enjoy the film in the least, I appreciated it a great deal for its honesty and darkness. I have seen a few films that were more depressing (which will be discussed later on in the list) which also fall into this category and they all deserve special mention. Though by the time Requiem for a Dream ended, all I wanted to do is watch cartoons, cuddle my cats, and ponder if I would want to see Jennifer Connelly in an anal sex show (answer was yes).

About the Top 800 Project:

Using the They Shoot Pictures Starting List of 8800 films (LINK) and my Netflix ratings, I sifted through the list and of the 4500 films I’d seen, I selected a random number of films I liked more than the others. The list was about 812 films. I kicked off 12 to get an even 800. The list chronologically goes up to 2009. Each blog entry will list ten films, one of which will be discussed in detail. The ten films will then be posted to The Top 800 Master List, a Google docs file compiling them. When the countdown finishes in what will be probably be a really a long time, I will begin discussing random films that I didn’t get to before.

788. Two Lovers and the Strange Journey of Joaquin Phoenix

...Or How to Sabotage Your Own Film

This is a tough ten in which to choose one to discuss. There are two excellent documentaries (Dieter and Control Room), some great golden age screwball comedies (Ruggles and Major), a twisted classic (Freaks), and a VERY nerdy-emphasis –on-science-science fiction flick (Cube) to name just a couple. Though for today, I am going to focus on Two Lovers, a forgotten and unfairly overlooked film from last year.

Perhaps things would have gone better for this understated drama if the star hadn’t sabotaged the opening. Starring Joaquin Phoenix, it was during the press tour for Two Lovers that he began his “career transition” to aspiring rapper. Showing up on Letterman incoherent and with a giant beard, the film took a backseat to the filming of what would become key plot points in I’m Still Here, Casey Affleck’s worthy directorial effort in the genre of gonzo filmmaking. Though without a doubt, I approve of the satirical nature of I’m Still Here, I wished he instead would have done this during press for the bland Departed knock-off “We Own the Night.”

The plot of Two Lovers is pretty simple. Phoenix plays a man recovering from a major mental breakdown and is slowly beginning to date and become a functioning member of society. He is in the midst of falling for a plain, though stable girl, when he meets Gwyneth Paltrow, a mysterious ingénue with a similarly dark past. She is a whole basket of crazy and poor Phoenix doesn’t know happened as he falls in love with her. Their story progresses, things happen, and resolve somberly though faint rays hope, as all good indies do. It’s a pretty simple story but one of the best character studies over the past couple years.

I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan. I consider her Sylvia Plath biopic (creatively called Sylvia— ::begin rant:: enough with the biopics that only use the characters first name as a title! I am waiting for a Hitler biopic simply called Adolf. I get the simplicity but at this point, it’s horribly clichéd. Enough! ::end rant::) to be a cinematic crime, and I’m not even a Plath fan. Though in Two Lovers, she brings her Royal Tanenbaums-best. She even received an Independent Spirit Award nom for her efforts and the film itself garnered a few nominations for film and direction. Phoenix also delivers out an amazingly understated yet emotionally powerful performance. It begs the question of why, if he was so good, would he chose to completely wreck the integrity of the picture by having an emotional breakdown (albeit, a fake one) during the press tour?

He became the story and press focus rather than the film itself which it too bad. The indie film loving audience was scared away from seeing the film in theatres and it disappeared without a trace and only finally received some positive word of mouth when the ISA nominations came out. Still, Two Lovers is back to being an underappreciated, obscure film and given that I’m Still Here underwhelmed, I wonder what the fate of the film would be had I’m Still Here not been a factor.

781-790

781 Ruggles of Red Gap LeoMcCarey

782 I Was a Male War Bride Howard Hawks

783 Cube

784 Angel Face Otto Preminger

785 Little Dieter Needs to Fly Werner Herzog

786 Freaks Todd Browning

787 Traffic [2000] Steven Soderbergh

788 Two Lovers James Gray

789 The Major and the Minor Billy Wilder

790 Control Room

About the Top 800 Project:

Using the They Shoot Pictures Starting List of 7700 films (LINK) and my Netflix ratings, I sifted through the list and of the 4500 films I’d seen, I selected a random number of films I liked more than the others. The list was about 812 films. I kicked off 12 to get an even 800. The list chronologically goes up to 2009. Each blog entry will list ten films, one of which will be discussed in detail. The ten films will then be posted to HERE, a Google docs file compiling them. When the countdown finishes in what will be probably be a really a long time, I will begin discussing random films that I didn’t get to before.

Tremors and the Subtle Art of the Horror Comedy

...or How a Movie About Giant Slugs Erupting form the Ground and Eating People Can Ever Be Considered Subtle

Tremors is a silly silly film. No one is going to argue that the premise is silly, the dialogue is silly, and the acting is even sillier. You can practically see the tongue in Kevin Bacon’s cheek throughout the course of the movie. In fact, Tremors is knowingly terrible. So why is this one of my favorite movies of all time if it’s so bad? Simple. It’s a benchmark in one of the most difficult film genres to pull off in existence, the horror comedy.

This oft underappreciated and under-grossing style is pretty rare given the number of both horror and comedy films that are released into theatres into every year. The ones that do get released often underperform and either find a cult following on video, like Tremors, or get lost to the ages, like Eight Legged Freaks. There is something inherently difficult about making death, gore, and mutilation funny and even harder to connect with an audience wanting to see it. The keys are to up the fantastical elements of the story, downplay the abject terror of the situation in itself, and to be careful of who to kill off. In all of these aspects, Tremors succeeds.

In a nutshell, the plot concerns a small town in the South in which giant underground snake/slug-like monsters invade the town and begin eating random citizens. The survivors who don’t get eaten take to the roofs to escape them and 90 minutes of slug shooting and perilious journeys to the ground ensue.

Tremors is basically Snakes on a Plane years prior to the blogosphere and when distilled down, both movies have a similar premise – giant slithery things trapping a motley group of colorful characters in a centralized location. The narrative order on these two films are practically! I rewatched Tremors recently and could practically hear Kevin Bacon yelling about he was getting pretty fucking tired about of all these motherfucking slugs in motherfucking small Southern town (note: If I continued my list farther, Snakes on a Plane would undoubtedly make an appearance).

Both films play on broad stereotypes. In Tremors, it was in the form of Michael Gross (the dad on Family Ties) and Reba McIntire (Reba on Reba) who play a couple of gun loving Southern people who just want to shoot the damned things. Between their trigger happy antics and Kevin Bacon pole vaulting from one house to another, the premise settles in nicely between sillier than silly dialogue, generally likeable characters that are fun to watch, and often humourous / horrific deaths of people getting eaten by giant Earthworms.

We can ignore the countless sequels that can be viewed on SyFy on any random weekend—when the “writers” of the movies kept trying to top the efforts of the previous film. Tremors on its own is a masterpiece of comic horror glory; a completely ridiculous effort that is a continual joy to behold. It also contains a lot of useful information to survive when the giant worms take back the Earth.

Here is the google docs link to the first ten films: #791-800

Welcome Back Blogger - Have some Chaplin

I've been trying to think of an adequate topic in which to resurrect my blog. I tired myself out in the process of writing my 'Favorite Films of the Aught's' series and wanted to get back to just writing about misc movies. With the release of Criterion's 'Modern Times' on blu-ray, I feel like I've a found a suitable topic to do this.

Released in 1936, Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times was a “silent” film in a time where sound films had completely taken over theaters. The film is a powerful socialism fueled comedy with healthy doses of pathos, slapstick, politicizing, and romance. In what Chaplin envisioned to be his final adventure with his “Tramp” character, we find that indelible man working in a factory at the film's onset. In this blog entry, I will discuss the factory scenes only.

In a set that echoes the great dystopian factories of Lang's Metropolis and Clair's A Nous a Liberte (more on this film and the controversy with Modern Times later), we see large grizzled workers pulling knobs and turning levers. Instructions are broadcasted from an angry be suited man in an office via a large video screen. During this part of the film is most of the dialogue is spoken and given the futurist setting, this is apt.

We see the Tramp, one or two feet shorter than the other workers, mindlessly using a couple wrenches to turn two screws on a random piece of machinery on a neverending assembly line. He often gets distracted, misses a few pieces, and then has to scramble to catch up. As always, Chaplin's amazing ability to perform natural slapstick is clever and humorous. The man next to him on the assembly line clearly isn't happy with the tramps performance and takes his job very seriously whereas the Tramp realizes the ridiculousness of the scenario.

Chaplin invented the tramp in the mid 1910's and described him as a free thinker and sophisticated gentlemen, despite his clownish appearance. His cane is his only piece of his normal wardrobe that suggests his “nobility” and in the factory, there is no cane or usual bowler hat. His factory attire is black pants a white shirt, similar to the other workers though his costume is markedly baggier than that of his more burly coworkers. In all of the factory exploits, the point is driven home that Chaplin does not belong in this world and serves as a nuisance to those who do.

In a particularly amusing sequence of factory dystopia, a man arrives with a machine to feed employees while they work. The machine drives up to the worker and via a series of bulky levers and inaccurate movements shoves food into the faces of the workers thus allowing them to remain on the station. Yeah, it doesn't work. In fact, it malfunctions and Chaplin ends up with food all his face and clothing. Again, the “suits” get angry with Chaplin himself rather the ridiculous machine.

Though anyone who sees any pictures from or the cover art to Modern Times DVD cover notices Chaplin in the gears of the machine spinning around. While helping an engineer fix machines he gets caught in the gears and embarks on a daft journey spinning around a seemingly never ending series of gears and circuits. Surely this sort of machine would have crushed a normal man and even the normally unflappable Tramp looks panicked. Through his multiple experiences in the gears compounded with the other various machines, he cracks, grabs his wrenches and begins a whimsical dance around the factory turning any two things that look like screws; nipples, mustaches, it's all fair game. The factory becomes a dance and the workers an elaborate set, making this place a bastion of art.

What I love about the factory of Modern Times is the scathing indictment of the this culture. This is a time in society after the robber barons where workers were beginning to develop rights and unions were transforming the work spectrum. Still, many workers were forced to thrive in these mundane and repetitive jobs. Lunch machines probably weren't so far off from ideal, as many bosses did want their workers to be robots. Even the workers themselves seem to have no repoire with each other suggesting more robotic sentiments.

Throughout the film, there are sly signs of worker unrest, the most notable being when the tramp inadvertently becomes the leader of a workers rights protest. Worker unrest is a timeless theme and there will always be conflict between worker-boss. Especially in this economic climate the idea of scaring a worker into dutifully remaining placid on the job is especially relevant.

Earlier in the post, I mentioned 'A Nous A Liberte,' a 1931 film by french director Rene Clair. Modern Times at points is remarkably similar to this film, especially during Chaplin's gear adventures. During the time, Chaplin swore up and down he had never seen the film though later in life, he back-peddled a bit and reportedly even said that Claire's film was better. I've seen both and while the Clair film is a classic in its own right, Modern Times is far superior and a lot funnier. Chaplin probably did steal ideas from Clair, but he improved on them immensely. I personally find Liberte a bit boring, mostly unfunny, and while that film is factory-centric, Modern Times really becomes a masterpiece in the second half with the integration of an incredibly sweet and inspiring love story. Conveniently, on the DVD, there is a nice little featureless on this.

Modern Times is unquestionably a masterpiece and a fitting retirement for the Tramp. At the close of the film, during his usual walk down the road into the sunset away from society, he finds a mate and presumably, will go and continue to make his way. What I love most about the Tramp is his spirit and his indelible optimism despite living a world not designed for him. Despite his poverty and continual rejection from society, he remains cheerful and hopeful as he literally walks down the road of life.

Modern Times is currently out on DVD via the Criterion Collection on standard and blu-ray. BUY

Quick Sidetrip into Songwriting...

ok, this is not in usual MO on this here bloggey blog but i feel like posting it anyway. back story: about 5 years ago, i watched francois truffaut's landmark film, Jules et Jim and was BLOWN AWAY by the story and particularly the pacing. the film went from breakneck speed-->slow crawl-->breakneck speed all in the course of two hours. i love the idealism and the emotion in the film and its continued to amaze upon repeat viewings.

when i first saw the movie, i felt the need to write a song about it. over the course of 4 or 5 years, ive been gradually adding to this song and i finally completed it. i include the lyrics here with the disclaimer that this isnt based on a true story perse. its based on the feeling of an uncontrollable love spiraling out of control but doing so in a emotionally gratifying way. the movie and the song is about a love that was not meant to exist but somehow survived, perservered, evolved, and died in the most unlikely means necessary.

in case youre wondering what the sounds like, picture ben folds five. oh yeah, i do have a band. we are called Pleasant Sweaters (click here for our website) You can download our debut EP for FREE by going HERE

jules et jim


intro
this is the story of jules and jim
and a tale of a love that was yet to begin
skipped on the church and went straight to the sin
just like me and you and him

verse
they fell in love with a mystery girl
whose name was catherine
she wasnt that pretty or even sincere
in fact she was always severe
but that didnt stop them from falling in love
and forming a band of three
after the war jules had catherines baby
and so the three men then lived
as commune of four and then three
when jim felt he had to leave
catherine loved one and then loved the other
switching seamlessly

chorus
but as sure as the trains run from london to paris
theres was a love beautiful and tragic
moving through life at a breakneck speed
so when jules and jim

bridge
now im not henri senne
and youre not jeanne moreau
were not being directed
by francois truffaut
but i see us in a car
heading towards a cliff
and down
down
down
we
go

but as sure as the trains run from london to paris* [*or cardiff]
ours is a love beautiful and tragic
moving through life at a breakneck speed
so go you and me

MURDER! CRIME! MYSTERY! an entire day of american film noir!

american film noir of the 40s and 50s is one of my favorite genres of film. everyone wears suits, derbys, and there is always a murder most foul or a heist to full off. these are great movies to flip on and get lost in an america that is long gone. TCM and FXM recently show six classic film noirs i have never seen and were all included on they shoot pictures list of top 250 film noirs ever made. i am going to watch all of them and blog it.

the first thing on the bill for today is 'the street with no name,' a 1948 fox production starring noir stalwarts mark stevens and richard widmark. the sheer appearance of richard widmark in anything is going to make for an interesting film. he is apparently a bad guy in this one and sees like he is in kiss me deadly mode. this is one of those, 'ripped from the pages' films with a lot of vocal narration over the first part of the film and a note indicating its real nature. much like phenix city story and kansas city confidential, these films pride themselves on a set up of lots of names and intercut scenes of police work. the feel is to make it like a newsreel eventually leading into the action of the plot. in terms of film noir, im really not a fan of these types of real life noir. the editing is a bit too jumpy and the dizzying amount of names, faces, details, makes the plot profoundly difficult for long periods of time. with this in particular, i have faith in william kneighly as a director (his film pandora and the flying dutchman is a masterpiece) and his directorial style is valliant but in the end, this is a sub-par noir. finally, widmark comes into the scene. he could have been bogart if he had the right agent. he commanded the screen like few did. he makes a medicore film worth watching. as i watch this, he slapped a woman a couple times. widmark did clearly girl slapping well though the best use of physical abuse towards in a film noir still belongs to pick-up on south street. ***** ****** sure did know how to take a slap right to the kisser. actually, i changed my mind, this is a pretty decent film. gotta love widmark

next up; richard thorpe's the unknown man with walter pidgeon and ann harding. the movie begins with a first person narration introducing you to the plot. its about a attorney that may have acquited a murderer. gettin' excited. i like the feel of this one. this one clearly has a low budget and the direction is decidedly lazy. while thorpe was a capable director, he clearly is "less than meets the eye." when it comes to noir, siodmak, fuller, and ulmer all had their distinct styles but a lot of noir directors had a very similar mise en scene. at least the lighting and shadows in the unknown man is quite well done. there was just a great OH SNAP moment...where the killer reveals himself by including a detail where only the killer and the lawyer would have known. and now he ended up dead. oooooh!

Scandal Sheet, directed by phil karlson and written by sam fuller. yup, right off the bat, this off has the gritty dialogue of fuller. there is a newspaper editor who has been implicated in a murder and the paper's star reporter investigates. this one also stars donna reed (who was a huge star even before her eponymous show) and broderick crawford fresh off his brilliant performance in all the king's men. there is a really great pivotal scene that takes place in a lonely hearts club, which were places where single people went to find spouses. for some reason, this seemed like a good idea...to force lonely people to meet other lonely people and one couple is given a free wedding at the end of the dance. yes, i firmly believe true love can form at a forced social event over the course of a few hours. -- fast forward an hour. i realize ive seen this movie before. sometimes when one watches a dizzying amount of the same kind of movie, the names escape me. however, it was the looming and panicked performance of broderick crawford that jogged my memory. i cant help but remember now how different this performance was from all the kings men. also, i remember john derek's great nice acting.

ok, halftime. quick bikeride out to go to whole foods, pick up some yogurt and kombucha. head over to the north andover sheep sheering festival, get locked out of my house, kick in third kitchen window dangling from drainpipe and climb into the house.

RIGHT.

the fourth film of the day is eyes in the night, a film about a blind detective. so far there is ann harding (again), donna reed (again!), and a dog (named friday). its directed by fred zinnamin who would late achieve huge success with from here to eternity and a man for all seasons (and some would say a nuns story as well). this is exceptionally low budget and the camera work is excessively shocking and lazy. this guy would win an oscar? these pans are attrocious and even for a noir, the acting is pretty bad. lets see how it progresses. until im going to go back to drinking kombucha. i just did some quick research and this was only his second or third full length film. before this, he was mainly doing hokey shorts in the "crime does not pay" series. he made a decent noir some years later with act of violence but eyes in the night is clearly a director who hadnt hit his stride. also, the dog is the best actor in this by far. he opened a door handle with his mouth. WIN

penutlimate film in this marathon! its armored car robbery and clocking in at a tight 65 minutes, one of the shortest full length features ill ever watch. so far, this movie RULES. four guys rob an armored car (DUH) and a chase ensues. this has everything so far, a car non starting and tension ensuing. a perfect plan slowly unravelling and a host of a bush league actors from the 40s and 50s (charles macgraw!). directed oddly enough by richard fleischer, who went onto direct such shlocky and largely medicore big budgeters fantastic voyage and doctor doolittle, the filmmaking is very capable. maybe he should have stuck with noir, as his follow up to this, the narrow margin, is a great movie. yeah, cool flick.

LAST ONE! DESTINATION MURDER! ok, this was a crazy idea in retrospect. every actor is starting to look the same. so far today, ive seen a million white dude in hats and suits, a few choice dames, one black person, and one dog (who had a bigger role than said black person). im a big fan of this genre but it definitely does remind you how far cinema has come in terms of integration of not just white people. alright, nevermind that. we got the usual stuff. murder, off to a cop to find the killer on barely any clues. meh. im going to post this and try to live with the fact that i watched six film noirs today.

The Lyrical and Meditative Films of two 21st Century Masters

Looking over significant films of the 21 century on They Shoot Pictures, East Asia makes a prominent showing. While Japanese cinema has been internationally admired since the 1950's, the works of other East Asian nations have not caught on until recently.

Looking over significant works of recent history, names like Wong Kar Wei, Zhang Yimou, Jia Zhangke, Ming Liang Tsai and Apichatpong Weerasethakul are common. The last two of these directors will be the focus on this blog. For ease and my own sanity, I will refer to Apichatpong Weerasethakul as Fred (I'm not the first to call him this).

The films of Fred and Tsai have a great deal of common elements and represent a movement of hyper realism in terms of characters and mise en scene. however, both of their films contain supernatural or fantastical elements that gives their films an ethereal film.

In the film "What Time is it There?" a brief encounter between a woman and a man selling watches in Taiwan spurns a mysterious connection. The two of them have parallel experiences while he is in Taiwan and she is in Paris.

What is most fascinating about film is the juxtaposition of the two films. First, the woman goes to Paris in the winter and for a large portion of the film, is tucked into tight, claustrophobic, and bleak places not indicative of the city of lights. At the end of the film are scenes finally shot in Luxembourg and the Paris of lore comes alive. Though the garden is cold and the crowd is sparse.

While in Taiwan, the man continues to sell watches, deals with a mother who cannot her husband's death, and takes an interest in french culture. In fact, through most of the film, the man is seen doing more Parisian things than the woman. Also, the colors of the Taiwan scenes feature more vibrant reds and colors than those shot in Paris.

In one of my favorite juxtapositions of the film, the man watches Francois Truffaut's seminal film The 400 Blows starring Jean Pierre Leaud. Meanwhile in Paris, the woman encounters the real Jean Pierre in an inspired cameo.

The film is purposely disjointed and almost entirely free of dialogue which is a common theme in many of Tsai's films.

Apichatpong Weerasethakul (pronounced ah-pah-chee-ta-pong weere-ah set-ah-cuhl) aka Fred's films are similar to Tsai. Looking at his film, Tropical Malady, one sees symbolism of love, frustration, happiness, and a confusing disjointed vision of man's struggle against himself.

The first hour of the film is a love story between two men in Thailand. It is sweet and the story is fairly linnear. With not enough of words, the love develops and then, one of the men disappear into the forest and the other one goes in to find him.

What follows in the next hour is a man's battle with a mysterious naked man which I take to represent love and the carnal duality of emotions buried within men. The theme of men as beasts was clearly delinneated in the early portions of the film in dialogue. The beast literally comes to life in the final frames in the form of a glowing tiger speaking in a strange tongue.

The battles in the forest could also be taken as allegorical referring to Jacob wrestling with the angel. The fight of Jacob symbolizes wrestling with his feelings about the lord and his own personal faith. Given that love is a leap of faith, I think this could be a logical point.

These are just two films by these great auteurs and are absolutely necessary watching for those who want to delve into the great of the 21st century. Yes, they are slow and many will consider them boring but like many of the movies I discuss on this blog should not be watched to escape or to enjoy but to experience in the same way that one views modern abstract art.

Oscar Picks

Best Documentary, Features

Burma VJ: Reporter i et lukket land (2008): Anders Østergaard, Lise Lense-Møller

The Cove (2009): Louie Psihoyos, Fisher Stevens

Food, Inc. (2008): Robert Kenner, Elise Pearlstein

The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2009): Judith Ehrlich, Rick Goldsmith

Which Way Home (2009): Rebecca Cammisa

some good choices here and The Cove is the front-runner but momentum has been building for Food Inc. I think Oscar may indeed give Food a thought! (har har har har). seriously i think the cove is going to win

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year

Ajami (2009)(Israel)

Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (2009)(Germany)

El secreto de sus ojos (2009)(Argentina)

Un prophète (2009)(France)

La teta asustada (2009)(Peru)

White Band (Das Weisse Band). Hands down. Un Prophete has a shot but Haneke is a pretty respected name in International Cinema.

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year

Coraline (2009): Henry Selick

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009): Wes Anderson

The Princess and the Frog (2009): John Musker, Ron Clements

The Secret of Kells (2009): Tomm Moore

Up (2009): Pete Docter

Up is a lock. It sort of has to win, right? it was nominated for best picture and there were no other animated films in there so it has to win, right?

Best Achievement in Visual Effects

Best Achievement in Sound Editing

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing

Best Achievement in Art Direction

Best Achievement in Cinematography

not going to list all the nominees, Avatar is going to win all of these.

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song

Crazy Heart (2009): T-Bone Burnett, Ryan Bingham("The Weary Kind")

Faubourg 36 (2008): Reinhardt Wagner, Frank Thomas("Loin de Paname")

Nine (2009): Maury Yeston("Take It All")

The Princess and the Frog (2009): Randy Newman("Almost There")

The Princess and the Frog (2009): Randy Newman("Down in New Orleans")

what a disappointing list. karen o should be in here for 'all is love' meh. give it to the crazy heart song.

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score

Avatar (2009): James Horner

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009): Alexandre Desplat

The Hurt Locker (2008): Marco Beltrami, Buck Sanders

Sherlock Holmes (2009): Hans Zimmer

Up (2009): Michael Giacchino

this is actually an interesting race. this could go to either Up or Avatar. the latter would have been amazing without any music at all so i'm going to say Up on this one.

Best Achievement in Makeup

Il divo (2008): Aldo Signoretti, Vittorio Sodano

Star Trek (2009): Barney Burman, Mindy Hall, Joel Harlow

The Young Victoria (2009): John Henry Gordon, Jenny Shircore

give this one to the green women of star trek.

Best Achievement in Costume Design

Bright Star (2009): Janet Patterson

Coco avant Chanel (2009): Catherine Leterrier

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009): Monique Prudhomme

Nine (2009): Colleen Atwood

The Young Victoria (2009): Sandy Powel

normally this category defaults to the period piece but we have TWO of them! AND a movie about coco chanel. ok, here is what i think will happen, young victoria and bright star will split the corset vote and coco before chanel will win. personally, i would like to see imaginarium take it. those costumes were all amazing. that or the young victoria will just win outright.

Best Achievement in Editing

Avatar (2009): Stephen E. Rivkin, John Refoua, James Cameron

District 9 (2009): Julian Clarke

The Hurt Locker (2008): Bob Murawski, Chris Innis

Inglourious Basterds (2009): Sally Menke

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Joe Klotz

i want to default to avatar here but im not so sure. you see, best editing has been predictative of best picture now for the better of ten years. since i really dont think avatar is going to win best picture, i am going to say hurt locker. that film relied very heavily on editing to get its message across

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published

District 9 (2009): Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell

An Education (2009): Nick Hornby

In the Loop (2009): Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Geoffrey Fletcher

Up in the Air (2009/I): Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner

Up in the Air is a lock...despite the persistent commercials for american airlines, hertz, and hilton hotels throughout. seriously, it just got ridiculous after a certain point. my personal vote would have been In the Loop or An Education.

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

The Hurt Locker (2008): Mark Boal

Inglourious Basterds (2009): Quentin Tarantino

The Messenger (2009/I): Alessandro Camon, Oren Moverman

A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

Up (2009): Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Thomas McCarthy

this is tough to call. its between hurt locker and basterds. given tarantino's universal love in the academy, i am going to lean towards the basterds but a hurt locker win would not surprise me

Best Achievement in Directing

Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker (2008)

James Cameron for Avatar (2009)

Lee Daniels for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)

Jason Reitman for Up in the Air (2009/I)

Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds (2009)

This is another really really interesting race. there hasnt been a race between ex-husband and ex-wife before and its libel to be very close. i am going to predict biglow but would not be suprised if cameron won.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role

Mo'Nique for the boys and Waltz for the boys. no contest.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role

Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side (2009)

Helen Mirren for The Last Station (2009)

Carey Mulligan for An Education (2009)

Gabourey Sidibe for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)

Meryl Streep for Julie & Julia (2009)

this is the only interesting race in the acting category because the only one who doesnt have a shot in helen mirren. i dont think sandra bullock is going to win and sadly, i dont think mulligan is either. sidibe has a chance as a dark horse spoiler but when its all said and done, i think meryl streep will be taking home her first oscar since 1983! yeah, she has been nominated 11 times without a win! and the one she may get it for is a glorified dan ackroyd as julia child impression from SNL

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role

Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart (2009)

George Clooney for Up in the Air (2009/I)

Colin Firth for A Single Man (2009)

Morgan Freeman for Invictus (2009)

Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker (2008)

Personally, i would love to see colin firth win but bridges is the likely winner and sentimental favorite. everyone knows he shouldve been nominated and won the oscar for big lebowski but he most likely will get it here. sorry george clooney.

Best Motion Picture of the Year

Avatar (2009): James Cameron, Jon Landau

The Blind Side (2009): Gil Netter, Andrew A. Kosove, Broderick Johnson

District 9 (2009): Peter Jackson, Carolynne Cunningham

An Education (2009): Finola Dwyer, Amanda Posey

The Hurt Locker (2008): Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier, Greg Shapiro

Inglourious Basterds (2009): Lawrence Bender

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness, Gary Magness

A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

Up (2009): Jonas Rivera

Up in the Air (2009/I): Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman, Jason Reitman

ten nominees! WOW! basically, this is a 3 movie race. there is avatar, which i really really dont think will win. there is the hurt locker, which i think will win. and then there is inglorious basterds who people seem to think will win. but yeah, everything else are also rans and im kinda surprised that the hangover and star trek didnt make it in and the blind side did. hmm. oh well, last year i was 73%. lets see if i do better this year

like my IFC post, this blog was not proofread and likely contains a lot of missing words