Derek failed at finishing his top 100, but there are a lot of solid reviews in here!

[Sven]

In case you were getting sick of the Non-Administrative Top 50 thread refusing to conclude, the four of us (that's me, iosos, and my comrades Duncan, Melville, and Derek) have decided to churn out our respective lists, with accompanying reviews, essays, or blurbs, to satiate your need for insight and intelligence.

We will not pretend to subscribe to a regular submitting schedule. They will come as they come (obviously, though, we will try to keep our readers satisfied).

So without much more adieu, let's get the ball rolling with my first entry. Then, Duncan enters. Then, Melville enters. Then, Derek enters. Then we continue in that order until we get to #1. Hope you all stay with us!

[Sven]

iosos
100. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Jones/Gilliam, 1975)
99. Tron (Lisberger, 1982)
98. The Harder They Come (Henzell, 1972)
97. Allegro Non Troppo (Bozzetto, 1977)
96. Last Orders (Schepisi, 2001)
95. Crossroads (Hill, 1986)
94. The Wild Child (Truffaut, 1970)
93. The Full Monty (Cattaneo, 1997)
92. The Great Muppet Caper (Henson, 1981)
91. The Stunt Man (Rush, 1979)
90. The Stranger (Welles, 1946)
89. Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind (Miyazaki, 1984)
88. The Cars That Ate Paris (Weir, 1974)
87. Gremlins 2: The New Batch (Dante, 1990)
86. Bridge on the River Kwai (Lean, 1957)
85. Batman Returns (Burton, 1992)
84. The Hobbit (Rankin/Bass, 1977)

Duncan
100. Rear Window (Hitchcock, 1954)
99. The Battle of Algiers (Pontecorvo, 1966)
98. Playtime (Tati, 1967)
97. Life of Brian (Jones, 1979)
96. Double Suicide (Shinoda, 1969)
95. California Split (Altman, 1974)
94. Dog Star Man (Brakhage, 1961-1964)
93. Raising Arizona (Coen, 1984)
92. Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (Fassbinder, 1974)
91. Fallen Angels (Kar-Wai, 1995)
90. L’Eclisse (Antonioni, 1962)
89. Report (Conner, 1967)
88. The Ascent (Shepitko, 1976)
87. The Sacrifice (Tarkovsky, 1986)
86. The Royal Tenenbaums (Anderson, 2001)
85. Un Chien Andalou (Bunuel, 1929)

Melville
100. Children of Paradise (Carné, 1945)
99. There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007)
98. Pas de deux (McLaren, 1968)
97. The Forsaken Land (Jayasundara, 2005)
96. Werckmeister Harmonies (Tarr, 2000)
95. Bigger than Life (Ray, 1956)
94. They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? (Pollack, 1969)
93. Scorpio Rising (Anger, 1964)
92. Winsor McCay, the Famous Cartoonist of the N.Y. Herald and His Moving Comics (McCay & Blackton, 1911)
91. Winged Migration (Perrin, Cluzaud & Debats, 2001)
90. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Robert Wiene, 1920)
89. A Zed & Two Noughts (Greenaway, 1985)
88. The Sweet Hereafter (Egoyan, 1997)
87. Lost in Translation (Coppola, 2003)
86. The Big Sleep (Hawks, 1946)
85. The New World (Malick, 2005)

Derek
100. Miss Julie (Sjöberg, 1951)
99. Trust (Hartley, 1990)
98. Rosetta (The Dardennes, 1999)
97. The Shop on Main Street (Kadar/Klos, 1965)
96. Mother & Son (Sokurov, 1997)
95. The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939)
94. Parade (Tati, 1974)
93. Naked (Leigh, 1993)
92. Rio Bravo (Hawks, 1959)
91. The Sweet Hereafter (Egoyan, 1997)
90. A Grin Without a Cat (Marker, 1977)
89. The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner, 1980)
88. Deep Red (Agento, 1975)
87. Decasia (Morrison, 2002)
86. The Neverending Story (Peterson, 1984)
85. Double Indemnity (Wilder, 1944)

[Philosophe_rouge]

ZOMG! I'm so excited!!!!

[Russ]

Thrill me.

[Eleven]

Awesome. I fully trust this will not turn out as the Beyond Thunderdome, or Godfather III, of user top lists.

[Sven]

To preface my own list, just to make things fun, I should note that I'm re-watching every single movie on this list and (here's the fun part) making my wife watch them with me. As an addendum to every review, a few sentences from Kristen about the film will be included. We'll see just how compatible we are (as though 9 years wasn't enough to tell).

#100 - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/Top%20100%20movies/Holy-Grail.jpg

There I was, eating a generic lunch in a generic college lunchroom, reading or writing or thinking or whatever generic thing it is one does on those generic afternoons between generic college classes. My mind was a sea of blank. Out of the dull murmur of generic lunchroom noise, I hear the elevated voice of a generic nerd faking a terrible British accent: “It’s only a flesh wound! I’ll bite your legs off!” That moment, a familiar but right then unpeggable feeling of darkness issued forth from the recesses of my soul. What was that awful pang? Was it disgust or disdain at the idea that the nerds, a life form obviously lesser than myself, had claimed the Pythons for themselves? Despair or dismay that their over-quoting and misquoting of the film had dulled the humor of classic, hilarious scenes such as the Dark Knight and the Knights Who Say “Ni”?

No. I know now that what I was feeling was the saddest of all feelings: boredom. In coming upon a misapplied, overzealous, or otherwise random Holy Grail quote, a tragic sense of de-evolution washes over me—sadness at the thought of something so funny, so bright, so perceptive, so unexpected, turning into something generic for the generic nerd to bore me with on a generic afternoon. Oh, to have witnessed the wit of the Black Knight scene before its overexposure at the hands of The Nerd! To have experienced the piercing irony of The Bridgekeeper’s Questions before the shrill voices of Geekdom echoed the query “What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?” to the response “African or European swallow?” concluded in unison with “I don’t know that! AGGGHH!”! How sad it is that many people have only witnessed this film through poor and annoying reenactments.

It is both an enduring testament and a damn shame that Grail is as popular as it is. It is likely the Python’s greatest motion picture—simultaneously hysterical and cinematically evocative (its low-budget accentuates the griminess of medieval England, and the mono sound design, especially during Gallahad’s fumble through the brush around the Castle Anthrax, has always been particularly displacing to me). It’s glorious that even given the film’s overexposure at the hands of those that still somehow find it thrilling to quote the film at you, there is still so much to find funny. (“And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying ‘O Lord, Bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.’”) Thankfully, the little things slip through and still manage to pack a hearty, sidesplitting punch (amusing cutaways, Palin’s diction, Cleese’s facial expressions, the occasional fresh-feeling line). Geeks defied, the Python’s superlative timing and knack for surprise trump their attempts to wrangle it for themselves, God be praised! This is a great film that, I hate to say it, feels like it would be so much greater if so many people didn’t think it was so great.

Kristen: Because of the quote factor, it can be more difficult to enjoy the movie than it is to enjoy an episode of Flying Circus, but all the little jokes the nerds forgot about make the effort worth it. Isn't everyone glad I convinced Patrick that this movie is better than "Time Bandits?" I know I am.

[Ezee E]

Odds that you guys can beat us?

[Stay Puft]

The funniest bits in Holy Grail are structural, anyways, like when Lancelot charges the castle. Nothing slays me with laughter quite like that scene.

[Raiders]

Better than Time Bandits? Yes. Better than Life of Brian? No.

[Duncan]

100. Rear Window (Hitchcock, 1954)

http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/Rear%20Window%20pic%202.jpg

I do not want to be thrown through a window. Although, I wouldn’t mind jumping out of one. The best films, to me, are the ones that invite you to enter their space willingly. They are the singular films that, despite often being alienating or even hostile to the viewer, reward one for standing next to them confident and just as singular. It is only when this relationship is established that one can create alongside the film. Both the film and the viewer must be in full view of one another, and by the interaction of their gazes they define each other. For how could I know myself if I was not being watched?

The best sequence in Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window is the one in which Lisa (Grace Kelly) explores Thorwald’s (Raymond Burr) apartment. Hitchcock’s skill is most evident here. We are trapped in Jefferies’ (James Stewart) point of view, helpless to aid the beautiful, blond Lisa as we witness Thorwald return to his abode. It is Hitchcock’s classic technique of showing the time bomb before it goes off. The audience knows the danger before it is realized, and so the ensuing action is inevitably suspenseful since we are unable to intervene. But if Rear Window is to be read as a direct metaphor for cinema (as is commonly done) then we must consider the implications of Jefferies phone call to the police.

Jefferies, the invalid spectator, grants Lisa a pardon by directly interacting with the world he is watching. I believe we also do this for many of the characters we meet in the greatest films. Even when a film is not kind enough to grant a worthy character his/her catharsis or apotheosis, we, as the audience, are still capable of doing so for the resonant images we reflect on. Still, Jefferies does not progress much further than this. His intervention eventually leads to being tossed out a window against his wishes and further crippled. If he has grown emotionally from the experience, it is only because he has been forcibly stretched.

It is for this reason that I choose Lisa as the hero of Rear Window. She is the one willing to commit to the relationship with Jefferies. She is the one who willingly the watched space despite the personal risk. She is the one willing to be watched while Jefferies sits in the dark. She is the one longing to know herself, and the film’s most fully actualized character. Lisa may take the stairs rather than the window, but her potential fall is just as hard.

I’m opting to shun the stairs. The Window is the Way. Landing, of course, is the difficult part. Some films are so thin you fall right through them, forgetting you ever came into contact with them. Others are so desperate to have you that they rise up to your body, only to annihilate any interest you may have had in them. And then there are those films that let you explore their courtyards on your own terms, eroding the barriers that separate discovery and creation. In the meantime, I am left with the uncertainty promoted by the lack of a floor beneath my feet. Sharp inhale, no exhale. Arms out for balance. Eyes inhumanly wide. Rear Window is the drop.

[Raiders]

It is for this reason that I choose Lisa as the hero of Rear Window. She is the one willing to commit to the relationship with Jefferies. She is the one who willingly the watched space despite the personal risk. She is the one willing to be watched while Jefferies sits in the dark. She is the one longing to know herself, and the film’s most fully actualized character. Lisa may take the stairs rather than the window, but her potential fall is just as hard.

Absolutely.

[Sven]

Damn, Duncan. What a strange and interesting review. I just rewatched this film last week, and I came to the same conclusion as you defining Lisa as the true hero of the film. It is her, at the end, that makes the active movement towards Jeffries. It is an excellent film, though not among my five favorite Hitch's. Which says more about the general quality of his movies than it does about Rear Window.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Awesome. I've always wanted an iosos Top 100. And the Kristen comments make it all the better. I can't wait for this to play out.

[Sven]

Awesome. I've always wanted an iosos Top 100. And the Kristen comments make it all the better. I can't wait for this to play out.

:)

How far down the list do you think we'll get before the inevitable divorce?

[Raiders]

:)

How far down the list do you think we'll get before the inevitable divorce?

If she has much common sense, Ghosts of Mars.

[Russ]

My money's on Popeye.

[Kurosawa Fan]

:)

How far down the list do you think we'll get before the inevitable divorce?

Popeye should do it if nothing else does.

[ledfloyd]

i third the votes for popeye.

[Sven]

My money's on Popeye.


Popeye should do it if nothing else does.


i third the votes for popeye.

Luckily, Popeye won't show up for quite a while. We've still got time to make the most of things.

Trivia: I wrote Kristen a song for her birthday last year containing the sentiment "I love you more than John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars."

[Raiders]

Trivia: I wrote Kristen a song for her birthday last year containing the sentiment "I love you more than John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars."

Very similar to the song I wrote my missus: "I Love You More Than Indigestion"

[Melville]

I hate to slow the pace, but my girlfriend is visiting for the weekend, so I probably won't be able to put anything together until Monday. In the meantime I'll ponder over Duncan's movie-review-as-philosophical-autobiography, which is pretty cool.

[Sycophant]

This list is off to a great start. I'm excited.

[Derek]

Awesome. I've always wanted an iosos Top 100. And the Kristen comments make it all the better. I can't wait for this to play out.

Yeah, I felt the same way when Raiders started his list...

Sing it with me Cat, another Saturday night and I ain't got nobody... :cry:

Just kidding, of course. I'm willing to concede now that my list will not be as interesting as the 'sos because, well, how can you even begin to compete with a guy whose favorite film is Popeye?

[Boner M]

Aww man, that Rear Window review is so much better than mine. This thread's gonna be so superior to the other one. I don't wanna live anymore.

[Watashi]

Aww man, that Rear Window review is so much better than mine. This thread's gonna be so superior to the other one. I don't wanna live anymore.
It's all my fault isn't it?

[Boner M]

It's all my fault isn't it?
Our fault.

[Duncan]

Aww man, that Rear Window review is so much better than mine. This thread's gonna be so superior to the other one. I don't wanna live anymore.

Honestly, I always enjoy reading your reviews. I think you're a good writer.

[Boner M]

Honestly, I always enjoy reading your reviews. I think you're a good writer.
*blushes*

Thanks. That reminds me, I need to watch my #1 soon and devote sum words to it.

[MadMan]

I'm gonna get in on this thread while its starting. So far I've seen both movies reviewed. Cool.

[Melville]

That reminds me, I need to watch my #1 soon and devote sum words to it.
Indeed.


Anyway, I decided to just base my review around something I've already written, so here it is a day early:

100. Children of Paradise (Marcel Carne, 1945)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/ChildrenofParadise.jpg
Children of Paradise is an epic tale of 19th Century Parisian life, at once a tragic romance and a study of performance on stage and in life. But despite its epic scope and grand metaphors, it is presented with a light touch, with humour and charm. In this sense, it is traditional storytelling at its best, resembling a Victorian novel that evokes a social milieu within a finely constructed narrative and makes sweeping statements about life only via that narrative. As such, although the cinematography and performances are a delight in themselves, the film’s narrative is its principal focus and its greatest asset.

That narrative is divided in two parts, and its most notable feature is the mirroring of those two parts. The film opens with a scene of Paris streets crowded with carnival-goers, a great mass of bustling life. In a sequence of short segments, beginning with a wonderfully immersive tracking shot, we are introduced to all the central characters as elements of this mass. But as the film progresses, those characters are singled out and the mass moves to the background. What at first seems to present itself as a broad story of the life of 19th century Paris instead turns into a very personal drama about a small cast of characters; as one character says, "Paris is very small for those who love each other with such a grand passion." (In keeping with the tone of the film, this weighty remark is stated almost facetiously and is in no way emphasized—only upon reflection does it resonate with the narrative’s structure.) The film’s second part reverses this movement. Again the crowds appear, greeting the return of the carnival, but now the central characters are cloistered away in hotel rooms and bathhouses rather than being part of the general mass. Over the course of the final scene, two of the characters are drawn out into the crowd, and despite the best attempts of one of them to catch the other, the crowd overwhelms him, at one point literally swirling around him, and the last we see of him is his disappearance amidst a sea of faces. Thus, the personal drama that arose from the mass of life is again subsumed by it.

One interesting aspect of this mirror structure is the way it influences our relation to the central characters. Most of these characters are stage performers, and at first we see their performances from their audience’s perspective, as objects for our entertainment (and they are most certainly entertaining—pantomime never looked so good!). The movement from the objectivity of the group to the subjectivity of the individual is then evinced by a shift in the depiction of the central characters’ stage performances: by the conclusion of the film’s first part, we see the performances purely in terms of what they mean to the characters themselves. In the reverse movement of the second half, the performances gradually disappear from the narrative, as the characters are dissolved into the mass: by the film’s conclusion, the characters have returned to the mass, but no longer as performers; their position as elements of the mass is now viewed from their perspective rather than from that of the mass as audience.

Of course, the film’s focus is not on the initial rise from the mass or the final return, but rather on the aforementioned central movement: that in which we see the performances in terms of what they mean to the characters themselves. One of the two principal male characters, Baptiste, is obsessed with perfect, consuming love, with his fate—generally, with "the real". He treats life as something deadly serious, and though he adopts a very mannered, exaggerated performance in life, he treats this role as a fixed idea. This attitude is reflected in his performance on the stage: the first part of the film ends with his production of a pantomime in which he places all his despair, and in which his performance literalizes his desperate love for an idealized, unattainable woman. It is as if he cannot, or will not, escape his notion of his own life. The second of the two principals, Lemaitre, is always aware of the world as a stage, always treating life as a play (in both senses of the word). Like Baptiste, he is ceaselessly performing in life, but he is self-aware in his performance—he knows that he is putting on a show. And, again, this is reflected on the stage: the second part opens (again, we see the film’s mirror structure) with a hilariously anarchic scene in which Lemaitre performs in a play that he doesn't care for, and which he proceeds to reinvent and mock as he performs it. Just as in life, he treats the play as pure play, as something somewhat unreal and certainly unfixed. However, he still thinks of both life and stage in terms of roles that he can adopt. Another character is a writer. Unlike the performers, he does not treat life as a stage on which he acts: he treats it as a story which he must control—and which, in the end, he does, essentially rewriting the story that the other characters think themselves to be in, and remaining constantly apart from the pull of the social mass.

These broad character types, in their emergence from the social milieu surrounding them, and in their relationships with the personal melodrama that they emerge into, serve not only as well defined characters to root for or to loathe, depending on one’s personal inclination, but as distinct representations of modes of confronting life: as something to be lived in terms of fixed ideals and a striving for the Ideal; as a self-conscious dismissal and manipulation of abstract ideals in favour of pure living; or as a deliberate overthrow of those ideals, an attempt to force life’s narrative to conform to one’s own will.

[Duncan]

Haven't seen Children of Paradise, but that's a good write up.

I love all the Python I've seen. Life of Brian is my favorite, though. Then again, it's the one I've seen most recently.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Damn, these write ups put me to shame. If you guys are going to be this consistent, I think my brain will explode with the awesome. Love Holy Grail (do prefer Life of Brian) and Rear Window is among my favourites as well.

[Melville]

Damn, these write ups put me to shame. If you guys are going to be this consistent, I think my brain will explode with the awesome.
I don't know about the others, but I'm sure apathy will rapidly overtake me and reduce my reviews to copy-and-pastes from Ebert. Also, I was enjoying your reviews in your top 100.

[Derek]

To keep things moving, because I have a feeling I'll be the one slowing us down the most in the long run, I'm just revising an old review. For most of the films, I'm going to try following the iosos method of rewatching before doing each write-up. But without further ado, I give you...


#100 - Miss Julie (Alf Sjöberg, 1951)

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j94/DSmith724/missjulie.jpg

To preface this write-up, I'd first like to point out that in my review 2 1/2 years ago, I wrote that "it's availability is scarce at best and its reputation almost non-existent. A sad state of affairs, but one that will hopefully be rectified by a quality DVD company such as Criterion." So for the Criterion DVD you all now have available to you, you're welcome. :)
______________________________ ___________________

Occasionally there are filmmakers so highly regarded both within and outside of their own country that they come to represent the totality of cinema for that nation. One such example is the great Ingmar Bergman, a man certainly deserving of his illustrious status in world cinema, but whose gargantuan reputation has cast a shadow over a number of excellent directors working in Sweden. Alf Sjöberg's Miss Julie is as good as almost any film in the Bergman canon, yet only since its recent Criterion release have its many charms begun to be unearthed by the critical community.

The film opens with a long shot of a line of servants gleefully prancing around the field on the estate where they work. At first their situation seems sublime and it is understandable why Miss Julie, the count's daughter, sneaks out to attend their parties. It soon becomes apparent that the strict 19th Century morals strongly frown upon mixing of the classes and when Julie's flirtations with an attractive young servant turn into true feelings, the oppressive nature of their environment is exposed. Julie and her lover, Jean, who has lived on the estate since his childhood wish only to be together, but realize it is impossible unless they leave.

It's a simple enough story on the surface that becomes something far more emotionally gratifying through its carefully detailed characters and Sjöberg's astoundingly beautiful direction. He uses unique editing techniques to seamlessly weave flashbacks into the present, creating a vivid portrait of class barriers, overbearing social mores and the torrid, forbidden love affair that is effected by it. The result is an incredibly layered narrative where the psychology of the characters and the details of their class status are traced back to their roots. A beautiful sequence detailing an encounter the two had as children shows the demoralization and constant negative reinforcement that is bestowed upon members of the lower class, not only dehumanizing them but turning them into mindlessly subserviant slaves. The story of Julie's mother is evidence of the suffering of women at the hands of men and her brutal revenge, starting with her eery laugh when her husband learns she gave birth to a girl, is the only way to achieve her freedom. These scenes are intertwined with the present where Miss Julie and Jean struggle to escape to Switzerland and while they begin as parallels, the two periods merge into a singular, grandiose tragedy. In their final attempt to flee without being detected, they see the servants dancing in the distance and slowly approaching them in a shot reminiscent of the opening, but in a devastating turn of events, what, at one time, represented a reprieve from social oppression now shows the danger lying in both classes blind reinforcement of their archaic rules and principles.

[Watashi]

I except this thread to fill up my Netflix queue quite fast.

[Melville]

Alf Sjöberg's Miss Julie is as good as almost any film in the Bergman canon, yet only since its recent Criterion release have its many charms begun to be unearthed by the critical community.
I've never heard of Sjöberg or Miss Julie. I must be at least a month behind the times.

[Derek]

I've never heard of Sjöberg or Miss Julie. I must be at least a month behind the times.

Sjöberg's not widely known and seems to be mentioned more for directing Bergman's very first script, Torment. That's a good film, but hardly on the same level as this one. The DVD just came out in January, so it hasn't yet taken the world by storm. :)

[Rowland]

Whew. If you guys are going to keep up this level of quality, you have a lot of work ahead of you. I salute your effort.

[Duncan]

Whew. If you guys are going to keep up this level of quality, you have a lot of work ahead of you. I salute your effort.

I'm seriously considering writing 99 haiku poems instead of these many worded paragraphs.

[Rowland]

I'm seriously considering writing 99 haiku poems instead of these many worded paragraphs.Pretend your entries are Twitter posts. Problem solved. :)

[Bosco B Thug]

I, for one, think Popeye can only possibly serve to spice up the relationship.


100. Rear Window (Hitchcock, 1954)

Both the film and the viewer must be in full view of one another, and by the interaction of their gazes they define each other. For how could I know myself if I was not being watched?

And then there are those films that let you explore their courtyards on your own terms, eroding the barriers that separate discovery and creation. Very nice. The best films always seem to weave, in free and non-dictatorial ways, the playful and/or meaningful POV and audience perception.

[megladon8]

Great write-ups guys.

I wish I could comment, but I've only seen two of the films, and neither of those were recent.

Keep up the great work!

[ledfloyd]

not to single anyone out as all four reviews are fantastic. but that rear window review is one of the best i've read on here.

[Watashi]

I enjoyed Duncan's Rear Window review a lot even if the last paragraph is pretty corny.

[Sven]

Melville, rep points coming your way for a fabulous film (2 lo! 2 lo!).

Derek, have you seen Figgis's adaptation of Miss Julie with Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan? I'm not the hugest Figgis supporter in general, and the film is lacking a real thrust (though definitely not from the pelvis), but as always, Mullan is totally great in it.

[Sven]

These things always start off with the ball rolling way too fast.

#99 - Tron

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/Top%20100%20movies/Tron.jpg

Tron does not ease you into its story; its immediate dedication to its own mythology is quite disorienting. It opens inside a computer where we see programs that have been stolen by the MCP (Master Control Program) who are forced into a gladiatorial battle where they fight in elaborate, shiny games to stay alive. One discontented accounting program complains about the stringent MCP, indignantly asking “Who does he calculate he is?”. Cut to: caption reading “Meanwhile, in the real world...” Fade in on Jeff Bridges (never more rakish), performing some kind of hacking business with some kind of program. We soon see that the program he’s manipulating is a mini-Jeff Bridges-looking thing driving a tank around the motherboard and/or network of some sort of database that he’s trying to infiltrate. This hacker program is discovered and killed, and Jeff Bridges sighs. “That was my best program.”

At this point, not ten minutes into the movie, I realize that I am not going to be watching this movie for coherence. It makes pretty much no sense at all. There’s some sort of world within a world, where the programs wonder about the existence of “Users” the same way we wonder about the existence of God. Here, both the Creators and the Creations are fallible and sentient. Artificial Intelligence doesn’t exist, as we’re meant to take for granted that, somehow, intelligence just is. This world takes place between physical reality and digital abstraction. Surely we’re not meant to believe that there are little men and women running around on our motherboards and through our Ethernet cables. Or are we? -- Still, no matter how strangely it is told, Tron’s unique construction of anthropomorphic digitization is a brilliant concept. The tyranny of the MCP over the digital realm echoes our human malaise and prompts us to question the systems (and ideologies) that we serve (or adhere to).

All that stuff is okay. In a weird way, it works. But the most wonderful thing about Tron is not the narrative or thematic complexity. What really elevates it in my esteem is its beautiful, and I mean exquisite, special effects and camera work. In many ways, Tron is more akin to the early German films of Wiene and Murnau than it is to Spielberg or Lucas. The focus here is on the expression of the face and placement within an entirely fabricated, though not unrecognizable, universe—a suitable alternative title could be The Hard Drive of Dr. Caligari. The blues and the reds feel tangible (naturally, most of the film’s set is just digital color), and the landscape patterns slice and curve in dreamlike patterns. The special effects here are at once a product of the times and yet way ahead of their time. Compare the blue screen work here to that of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe or even Peter Jackson’s Tolkien trilogy to see that Tron’s composite effects are still a revelation. In essence, the film’s makers have managed, at its conception, to craft a wild and original aesthetic while truly understanding their limitations. The result is an interesting and bizarre story told with great expression within a world that still looks unique and nearly flawless.

Kristen: Two weeks later, little remains of this movie in my memory but a vague sense of enjoyment, only 25% of which is ironic. Its striking visuals point an accusing finger at films whose more “advanced” computer graphics overreach the technology of the day while neglecting style (Star Wars prequels, I’m looking at you).

[Watashi]

Awesome. Tron rules.

[Eleven]

Completely arbitrary David Warner count: 1.

This would've been higher if you'd gone with Time Bandits.

[Sven]

Completely arbitrary David Warner count: 1.

This would've been higher if you'd gone with Time Bandits.

There are actually about three or four other David Warner films that just barely missed the grade, actually. Alas, my list has but one more appearance by the dude. Which is rather unfortunate.

[Eleven]

There are actually about three or four other David Warner films that just barely missed the grade, actually. Alas, my list has but one more appearance by the dude. Which is rather unfortunate.

I will continue reading despite this. But only just.

[Watashi]

I forgot, are those actual screenshots from the movie or are they digitally filtered? If not, damn, I forgot how beautiful that film was.

[Derek]

Derek, have you seen Figgis's adaptation of Miss Julie with Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan? I'm not the hugest Figgis supporter in general, and the film is lacking a real thrust (though definitely not from the pelvis), but as always, Mullan is totally great in it.

I'm not familiar with Figgis outside of Leaving Las Vegas, which I like, so I was never too interested in giving this a look. I could imagine the film being rather ordinary in the hands of the wrong director and I love Sjoberg's version as much for the cinematography and direction than the actual story.


These things always start off with the ball rolling way too fast.

If Duncan or Melville keep things going this fast, I promise to I'll do my best to slow us down. This is a marathon, not a sprint after all. ;)

Also, I've never seen Tron and I've not until now considered that an oversight...

[Spinal]

Where can we start a side pot for Kristen rep?

[Watashi]

Where can we start a side pot for Kristen rep?
Yeah, why doesn't she post here?

[Duncan]

99. The Battle of Algiers (Pontecorvo, 1966)

http://www.pdgv.com.au/gfx/algiers_pic1.gif

A beautiful woman enters the French district of Algiers by way of a military guarded checkpoint. Given a pass for her innocuous good looks, she sets off a bomb in the middle of a crowded café. People die. Such a violent act is near impossible to justify, but in the minds of the Algerian rebels who inhabit Gillo Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers those murders were righteous. Part of the difficulty of this film is trying to understand what emotional stimuli could drive a group of people to such a destructive means of communication.

At another point in the film a French soldier stops a group of veiled Algerian women. The women throw off their veils to reveal that they are in fact AK-47 wielding men. A firefight ensues. People die. I am interested in how this portrayal of gender relates to the one mentioned above. In the first instance it is the woman’s sexuality that allows her to fulfill her mission. In the second it is the men’s distinct lack of sexuality that tips off the soldier. This dialectic illustrates how consuming a cause can be once dedicated to: it can infiltrate all parts of the human psyche, even perverting positive, productive instincts towards death. It is not merely the use of sex as a tool (like a Femme Fatale might do), but a manipulation of the primal. The inversion of sex is much stronger in this case, as its amorous or attractive qualities are gutted entirely and replaced by the fervour of martyrs.

One of the AK-47 wielding men is Ali la Pointe, who will join many other Algerian martyrs by film’s end. Near the beginning of the film there is a relatively long take of Ali’s face. A voice over gives his basic history as Ennio Morricone’s score flutters in the background. Ali never looks into the camera, nor does the camera waver from his face. This is my favourite shot from the film. There is a tension between the impulse to judge Ali based on his history as an illiterate thug, and the intimacy of the score and unacknowledged close up that assuages that impulse.

Ultimately, it is this same tension that drives the film to its conclusion. The violence escalates and the French army’s response is more and more brutal. One must side, history tells us, with the Algerians. However, what text books say and what the world does do not always reflect one another. Colonialism has adopted different forms, but it obviously still exists. What I fear has happened relatively recently is a schism in that close up of Ali. His face and Morricone’s music have been eliminated, while the list of charges remains. If this schism persists, I can only imagine it will continue to grow until both sides of this ideological war fall into it.

The Battle of Algiers ends with a series of shots absent of men – only women fill the frame. The fade to black comes as a woman, unveiled, dances while holding an Algerian flag. The creative, motherhood aspect of sexuality is restored, but the dedication to the cause remains. It is an uneasy yet hopeful ending that the last 45 years have left unconfirmed.

[Duncan]

If Duncan or Melville keep things going this fast, I promise to I'll do my best to slow us down. This is a marathon, not a sprint after all. ;) I promise I'll slow down after this. I wrote those two last week, so I had them ready.

[Sycophant]

Oh, great. I've promised myself I'm going to catch up with my deficiencies on iosos's list. Now I have to see Tron.

[DavidSeven]

point an accusing finger at films whose more “advanced” computer graphics overreach the technology of the day while neglecting style (Star Wars prequels, I’m looking at you).

Nice.

[Spinal]

Oh, great. I've promised myself I'm going to catch up with my deficiencies on iosos's list. Now I have to see Tron.

:lol:

Top 100 is a little Loony Tunes, but it's really not that bad. The universe they establish is pretty darn fun.

[Sven]

I forgot, are those actual screenshots from the movie or are they digitally filtered? If not, damn, I forgot how beautiful that film was.

Those are actual screenshots (cropped, of course) and, yes, the movie is fabulously beautiful.

[Sven]

Where can we start a side pot for Kristen rep?

You can just give them to me and I'll pass them along.


Yeah, why doesn't she post here?

I think it's the smell.

[Raiders]

:lol:

Top 100 is a little Loony Tunes, but it's really not that bad. The universe they establish is pretty darn fun.

What the hell does this mean?

[D_Davis]

I need to see Tron again. I saw it as a kid, but I didn't like it at all. I should check it out soon.

Good write up.

[Melville]

I haven't seen Tron in about twenty years, so I'm no judge of its quality, but those pictures are totally sweet.

That Battle of Algiers review is great.

I wasn't prepared for this frantic pace, so don't expect my next review for a couple days.

[Melville]

Melville, rep points coming your way for a fabulous film (2 lo! 2 lo!).
The first fifteen or so spots in my list consist mostly of films I've only seen once, so there's a good chance that a second viewing would drastically shift their positions.

[Spinal]

What the hell does this mean?

What part do you not understand?

[Raiders]

What part do you not understand?

How a Top 100 is like Looney Tunes.

[Spinal]

How a Top 100 is like Looney Tunes.

3. looney tunes (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Looney+Tunes)

Used in describing someone who is clearly silly, crazy, or weird.

"Why is Doug digging around in the trash dumpster?"

"He's looney tunes; he thinks he lost his New Kids on the Block CD in there."

In this context ...

"The inclusion of Tron in a top 100 list is a bit looney tunes; however, it does have redeeming qualities."

[Raiders]

3. looney tunes (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Looney+Tunes)

Used in describing someone who is clearly silly, crazy, or werrd.

"Why is Doug digging around in the trash dumpster?"

"He's looney tunes; he thinks he lost his New Kids on the Block CD in there."

In this context ...

"The inclusion of Tron in a top 100 list is a bit looney tunes; however, it does have redeeming qualities."

Oh, you meant its inclusion in a Top 100 thread is looney tunes. I thought you were calling the Top 100 looney tunes.

[Thirdmango]

I have been wanting to watch more iosos movies, and so it looks like I'll have to give Tron a second chance.

[MadMan]

You can just give them to me and I'll pass them along.



I think it's the smell.If the mods actually payed the damn janitor the pizza boxes and old beer bottles would get cleaned up around here.

I'm actually surprised that I haven't seen Tron yet. I must do so soon.

[Qrazy]

Tron is just awful.

But good work on the thread all. Someday I'll do a top 100. Someday.

[Sven]

Tron is just awful.

I have a feeling that you'll respond in such a way to all my inclusions, but I've learned to write off your stabs at hit-and-run disses as a need for attention, which, ironically, are pretty easy to ignore. It's okay. We all go through that phase. Then we learn to respond with reasoned replies, and consideration for the other parties involved in the issue.


But good work on the thread all.

:)

[lovejuice]

100. Children of Paradise (Marcel Carne, 1945)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/ChildrenofParadise.jpg


just the 100th. :cry:

fyi, this is like among my top ten favorite films.

[Sven]

This dialectic illustrates how consuming a cause can be once dedicated to: it can infiltrate all parts of the human psyche, even perverting positive, productive instincts towards death. It is not merely the use of sex as a tool (like a Femme Fatale might do), but a manipulation of the primal. The inversion of sex is much stronger in this case, as its amorous or attractive qualities are gutted entirely and replaced by the fervour of martyrs. ...

...The fade to black comes as a woman, unveiled, dances while holding an Algerian flag. The creative, motherhood aspect of sexuality is restored, but the dedication to the cause remains. It is an uneasy yet hopeful ending that the last 45 years have left unconfirmed.

Absolutely fascinating. How many times have you seen this one? This is the kind of illustration I'm strongly attracted to, but I often catch on usually after I've seen a film at least a second time. I love it when films tie community response to individual psychology like that. Relating the person to society so aptly (maybe even poetically) is just my kind of thing. I'll have to prioritize rewatching this one now.

I am Cuba is still better. :twisted:

[Duncan]

Absolutely fascinating. How many times have you seen this one? This is the kind of illustration I'm strongly attracted to, but I often catch on usually after I've seen a film at least a second time. I love it when films tie community response to individual psychology like that. Relating the person to society so aptly (maybe even poetically) is just my kind of thing. I'll have to prioritize rewatching this one now.

I am Cuba is still better. :twisted:
I've only seen it once, but the whole thing is on YouTube so I rewatched a bunch of crucial scenes. Like Melville, many of my first 10-15 films I have seen only once.

Admittedly, as time passes my opinion of I am Cuba grows. I'm forgetting my frustrations and remembering its evocations.

[MadMan]

I have a feeling that you'll respond in such a way to all my inclusions, but I've learned to write off your stabs at hit-and-run disses as a need for attention, which, ironically, is pretty easy to ignore. It's okay. We all go through that phase. Then we learn to respond with reasoned replies, and consideration for the other parties involved in the issue.



:)Ouch. I can feel the burn sizzling from this post a mile away.

[Spinal]

That post made me think of the early days of iosos at Match Cut. What a terror he was.

:lol:

[Sven]

That post made me think of the early days of iosos at Match Cut. What a terror he was.

:lol:

I've been going through some kind of decadent phase lately, where I'm reverting back to the age of 17 or so. I don't know why. But none of my sentences are making a lot of sense, I'm getting melodramatic and touchy, anxiety pervades every impression I have, etc. If only my metabolism was following suit.

[MadMan]

That post made me think of the early days of iosos at Match Cut. What a terror he was.

:lol:I really have no memories of those days. Heh.

[Qrazy]

I have a feeling that you'll respond in such a way to all my inclusions, but I've learned to write off your stabs at hit-and-run disses as a need for attention, which, ironically, are pretty easy to ignore. It's okay. We all go through that phase. Then we learn to respond with reasoned replies, and consideration for the other parties involved in the issue.

:)

Nah, you're putting too much thought into it. I simply favor short replies, a sentence or two for time issues and I'm very blunt. If I think the film is great I'll say that, if I think the film is bad, I'll say that. If I get involved in an interesting discussion or think a film is worthy of more interesting discussion than I'll write more, but I often just throw my very general opinion on the film out there, for what it's worth and to who it's worth and then expand on my reaction later, if at all.

I could certainly be nicer about the fact I don't like a film when I don't like a film, to avoid offending anyone, but then my posts don't carry the full weight of my disdain for the film in question, which is something I am unwilling to give up. :twisted:

[monolith94]

These things always start off with the ball rolling way too fast.

#99 - Tron

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/Top%20100%20movies/Tron.jpg


Too low!

[Sven]

Nah, you're putting too much thought into it. I simply favor short replies, a sentence or two for time issues and I'm very blunt. If I think the film is great I'll say that, if I think the film is bad, I'll say that. If I get involved in an interesting discussion or think a film is worthy of more interesting discussion than I'll write more, but I often just throw my very general opinion on the film out there, for what it's worth and to who it's worth and then expand on my reaction later, if at all.

I could certainly be nicer about the fact I don't like a film when I don't like a film, to avoid offending anyone, but then my posts don't carry the full weight of my disdain for the film in question, which is something I am unwilling to give up. :twisted:

Yeah. I was just being needlessly short. Couldn't say why. Just one of those days. I dig your presence. Might I be able to press you for a reasoning of your low opinion of Tron? I understand that it's not a terribly sophisticated piece, but I thought my reasoning for its inclusion was just and reasonable.

[megladon8]

I'm sorry, but Tron is one I just couldn't ever get into.

A great review, though, iosos. I think it's partly due to the fact that I never saw it as a kid. I saw it for the first time last year, and I think I was probably too hard on it.

[Qrazy]

Yeah. I was just being needlessly short. Couldn't say why. Just one of those days. I dig your presence. Might I be able to press you for a reasoning of your low opinion of Tron? I understand that it's not a terribly sophisticated piece, but I thought my reasoning for its inclusion was just and reasonable.

Well, you have a point. I could be gentler with my phrasing but I'm not a gentle person. I have man hands that crush everything around me!

I think one general reason for my dislike is actually partly one of the reasons you praise it (it throws us right into the story). I feel it's terribly structured and the real world bits and storyline are so banal and forgettable I wish they were excised completely. They serve the purpose of providing some dramatic weight (his potential death) to everything, but they're still terribly executed.

Secondly, the relationships he forges with the Tron rebels has the theoretical potential to provide some compelling drama and interesting allegory... the ole outsider who can never really be a part of their world, doomed romance, etc... but bad scripting and a focus on poorly storyboarded chase sequences negates this possibility.

Third, I didn't find it especially beautiful. The costume/set design had real potential but then the framing and staging of the actors destroys all of that. The compositions and staging are almost incidental. I like the films basic premise. It's archetypal and has the potential to be a lot of fun. I think later on the show Reboot capitalized fairly well upon it... but the film never adds up to anything. I left the film with a strong impression of the imagery (although not the images/composition), but little else.

[Melville]

It's pretty late, so I'm not sure if this is coherent. I'll just hope for the best. Once again, it's partially based on something I already wrote in another thread.

99. There Will Be Blood (P.T. Anderson, 2007)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/therewillbeblood.jpg

Lurching drunkenly through his bowling alley in his ragged clothes and greasy hair, immediately after proclaiming himself the Third Revelation and hurling bowling balls toward the screen, seconds before bludgeoning his nemesis to death with a bowling pin, Daniel Plainview bellows “I told you I would eat you!” This is the moment that has been lurking in wait throughout There Will Be Blood; every scene has portended its coming. It is the Absurd that was immanent in the film’s persistent, nearly static tone of apocalyptic foreboding; it is the rupture of that tonal stasis via a grandiloquent fit in which both the narrative and its protagonist achieve an almost cathartic self-annihilation.

At its most basic level, the film’s plot revolves around the modern clash between capitalism and religion. In the two central characters, Eli Sunday the preacher and Daniel Plainview the oil tycoon, religion is personified as self-righteous hypocrisy and business as swollen, vicious egoism. These broad archetypes and their mutual enmity are a simplistic characterization of complex social structures. But the story is more than a simple allegory or treatise on the failings of those structures: it is a myth dredged up from the American subconscious. Its archetypal characters come from nowhere (Plainview, in climbing out of a vertical mine shaft in the film’s first scene, literally issues forth from the earth) and are never involved with a larger social context. Historical details of the film’s time period are pointedly absent, as if the story takes place in an indefinite period of America’s monolithic past. A pivotal character is introduced almost as a figure from another world, appearing from unknown wanderings as does Satan in the Book of Job; soon afterward, we are introduced to another character that we must assume is his twin brother, but their relationship is left purposely ambiguous, their identities conflated, creating a feeling of textual indeterminateness and bringing to mind the differing versions of the Gospels and of God's creation in Genesis.

Within this mood of mythic ambiguity, the cinematography and score create a palpable foreboding, a tension that awaits the film’s finale. Despite its “historical epic” lineage and the predominance of outdoor landscapes, the camera gives us few, if any, sweeping panoramas, and P.T. Anderson’s trademark visual flamboyance is entirely absent—instead we get mostly static shots or slow movements; with only a few pointed exceptions, we are sequestered in an interminable, arid stasis. Occasionally the characters are shot slightly out of focus, pointing again to their mythic instability and to the final moment of clarity awaiting them. (In one notable shot, an oil pipeline lies in the foreground, perfectly in focus, as the potentially emotional reunion of two central characters is left out of focus in the background.) The music, a triumph of atonality, with notes stretched to their breaking point or pitched with a feverish forward momentum, underscores each scene with a sense of impending doom. Only in the final scene are we given the smooth, glossy tracking shots that we expect from P.T. Anderson, and the glorious jubilance of Brahms’ Violin Concerto in D.

All of this is in service of the film’s central portrait: Daniel Plainview, the boundlessly driven, hate-filled oil man. As Plainview, Daniel Day-Lewis gives a performance that dominates the screen, creating a character of monstrous charisma with a voice of honey-coated gravel. Complementing his performance is some of the most memorable dialogue in recent memory, creating a larger-than-life vision of misanthropy. Plainview loathes people and society as a whole, purposely isolating himself from them, even as the success that he craves is inspired by common social goals of family and wealth. Because of his loathing, "the competition in him", he won't accept that these goals are part of a larger society and a tie to that society; instead, he perverts them by insisting that they must be his alone, that they must be part of a society that is solely for him. He craves personal relationships, with his son and his brother, but those relationships must be on his own terms; his family must be companions in arms against the world; as soon as they are not his, they are intolerable. He wants to build a house just like one in his home town, a symbol of success, but he wants it to bear no resemblance to the original—which, because it is another's and not his, nauseates him. Of course, once removed from their meaning in a societal context, his social goals become meaningless. He draws his desires from society, but his hatred for that society makes him loath to accept the mores that accompany those desires. And though he is aware of this dilemma, as evidenced by his guilt at being accused of abandoning his son, he refuses to accept the values of the people around him, leaving him in a perpetual state of nihilism.

But, simultaneously, another view runs counter to this within Plainview: he actually does value what society does. He agrees with society's ideals, but he is disgusted by its failure to live up to them; hence, his distaste for one character’s physical abuse of his daughter. Thus, the society that he desires for himself is no more than the idealized version of the society around him—unsullied by the failures of actual people. In this context, his abandonment of his son takes on monumental proportions for him, symbolizing his failure to live up to his own ideals, thereby casting him irrevocably into the filth of humanity around him, and epitomizing the impossibility of reconciling his misanthropy with his desire for familial companionship. His misanthropy is thus turned ineluctably inward, as even he cannot escape the fierceness of his own loathing.

In opposition to Plainview stands Eli Sunday. A false prophet and an embodiment of religious hypocrisy, he serves less to characterize the falsity of America’s religious nature (although he serves that purpose as well) than to characterize Plainview’s hatred. As a voice of pure belief, Eli represents everything that Plainview's nihilism disdains; as a hypocrite, he represents everything that fails to meet Plainview’s standards. When Plainview is baptised by Eli in a pivotal scene, he is horrified by being forced to submit to society’s empty rituals, even as he acknowledges their meaning by proclaiming his guilt over abandoning his son. In an earlier scene, Plainview was covered in oil at the very moment of that abandonment, suggesting that his public baptism only serves to draw out the guilt and hatred already formed in his personal, nihilistic baptism by oil.

In the final scene(s) of absurd flamboyance, which mark a rapid temporal shift as well as a radical tonal shift, two events occur: first, the mythic style and the foreboding tone are suddenly ruptured; second, Plainview reaches his inevitable end. These two events are inextricably linked, since the mythic style served precisely to create a mythic environment and personage for Plainview, and Plainview’s downfall is precisely what the tone foreboded. In these final scenes, Plainview has achieved his goal, having won his riches and living in a mansion isolated from humanity. As a necessary consequence, he has alienated everybody around him, particularly the son that he loved. He has everything that he wanted, and therein lies nothing that he wanted. With no more ties to other people, he has collapsed completely into his nihilistic side, even as he has achieved the superficial goals of his desiring side. The shift in tone from mythicism to absurdity immediately and brilliantly evokes this loss of meaning. In his final moment of nihilation, Plainview coerces Eli into admitting to being a false prophet, exacting a twisted revenge for his baptism, forcing Eli to admit that society doesn’t live up to its own false ideals—and thereby exonerating Plainview’s refusal to accept those ideals. When Eli has admitted that religion, and hence society as whole, is a lie, that it is a scheming manipulation of its own rules, Plainview feels free to eradicate it completely, because any moral restriction has been removed by Eli's admission of the falseness of that restriction and of its believers. But because Plainview's goals were always based upon society, Plainview finally kills those goals along with Eli. With this completed, Plainview pronounces his final words: “I’m finished”. He has annihilated all his ideals, and hence has annihilated himself. Cue Brahms’ Concerto.

[Derek]

After Melville's towering review of There Will Be Blood, I should mention that I put an arbitrary 3-year limit on the films I included, so nothing from 2005-2007 simply b/c I'd prefer to distance myself from critical concensus, etc. before I put a recent film in. Or more importantly b/c I needed random rules to help me cut this godforsaken thing down to 100, such as the 2 films per director, which I managed to break twice and neither time with my 1st or 3rd favorite director. Ok, on with the list.


#99 - Trust (Hal Hartley, 1990)

http://maximumbob.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/trust.jpg

In all the hype of the early 90s independent film movement, it's amazing that Hal Hartley's Trust, likely the best of the bunch, or at the very least my personal favorite, still remains relatively obscure. Its uncompromising comic vision turns audience expectations on its proverbial head, making for an alternatingly bizarre, moving, tender, and often downright funny filmgoing experience. The opening sequences introduce the two protagonists - Maria, the not-so-bright 17-year old troublemaker who's just been kicked out of school and Matthew, the 18-year old intelligent but anti-social outsider, played to perfect comic effect by the clearly 30-something Martin Donovan. The film opens with a close up of Marie smearing on purple lipstick and repeatedly asking her father for $5, or as she says it "fiyve dallers". There is a disjointed dialogue between her and her parents where they all seem to be talking to each other but not with each other, a trait which runs throughout the film. When she reveals she has been once again kicked out of high school and is pregnant, her father calls her a slut and tells her to get out. After slapping him and storming out of the house, he drops dead on the kitchen floor and a catchy rock song pulsates in the background leading us into the opening credit. And that pretty much sets the tone of the film, where anything and everything can happen, yet it still usually ends up being something you wouldn't imagine.

Matthew's home life is equally dysfunctional. His domineering father is a suffocating presence leaving Matthew barely able to express himself without sending him into a tirade. When Matthew and Maria meet, they are both at rock-bottom and unable to connect to anyone. It is here where Trust catapults from mere quirky indie feature territory into something dark, beautiful, and entirely original. The plot follows the typical trajectory of us vs. the world relationship films, but with a strange array of characters, witty, overlapping dialogue, and offbeat situations, Hartley is able to subvert the cliche's he takes on and craft a poignant film about alienation, angst, and obviously, trust in modern America. Some of the material, the abortion protests for example, may seem a bit stuck-in-the-90s, but the emotions and mental states of his characters are universally identifiable even in their exaggerated weirdness.

Trust is certainly not a surreal film, but the universe where it takes place often feels otherwordly even when the sets are typical suburban homes and workplaces. The unique pacing and delivery of the dialogue may be it's most important and unique asset. Characters often respond to one another at the very second the other stops or have simultaneous monologues where they seem to express their personal subconscious thoughts while somehow carrying on a conversation. Maria and Matthew exist as two distinct individuals in an environment which constantly reinforces conformity, obedience, and the sacrifice of one's principals. It is refreshing to find a film so willing to embrace the misfits and outsiders who don't fall in line without turning them into mere trophies of social rebellion. They are, by normal standards, screw-ups, but are both more human and genuinely likeable than their more traditional counterparts. Their love for one another is a small ray of hope in Hartley's unique world, where everything honest and real is eventually stamped out or carved into something recognizable. It is a bold film that defies logic and the rules of screenwriting, making it a bit difficult to articulate exactly what makes it so damn likeable.

[Qrazy]

I really didn't like The Unbelievable Truth but I'm interested in seeing Trust.

[Derek]

I really didn't like The Unbelievable Truth but I'm interested in seeing Trust.

It's quite a bit better than Unbelievable Truth, though if you didn't like that one, I can't imagine you loving Trust. Hartley's films, this one included, really improve for me the more I watch them.

[Velocipedist]

Hartley is one of those directors I never know how to rate!

Bold choice, Derek.

[Melville]

If these trends continue, I won't have seen any of iosos' films since I was ten, and I won't have seen any of Derek's films at all.


After Melville's towering review of There Will Be Blood
If that means you read the whole thing, hurrah!


I needed random rules to help me cut this godforsaken thing down to 100, such as the 2 films per director, which I managed to break twice and neither time with my 1st or 3rd favorite director.
Yikes! I count at least eight directors who have at least three films on my list. One director has five films in my top 50!

I tried to narrow down my list purely based on personal preference, but I'll admit that there are about fifteen films that could easily be swapped for any of these first few entries.

[Sven]

Excellent reviews both! Melville, you're review has enticed me into reconsidering the film from another perspective. I just need to get around to seeing it again.

As for Hartley, I've actually still only seen No Such Thing, which I (surprise!) really liked. I hear his other stuff is better. I look forward to it. Nice review.

I didn't put any restrictions on my top 100, but I will say that it's not really a typical top 100. The only "rule" of it was whether or not the film gave me an ecstatic feeling. Normally, that feeling is easily nerfed with ubiquity, which is unfortunate because that means that some of my favorites like Dr. Strangelove won't be making the list. I love that movie more than all but a handful of movies I've seen, but the ratio of its exposure and my admiration for it is negligible. Thus, I do not feel I need to include it. So I guess keep that in mind with my list.

My next entry will not be for a (real) few days, because I've got work and a paper and no time for a rewatch until Thursday.

[monolith94]

Yeah. I was just being needlessly short. Couldn't say why. Just one of those days. I dig your presence. Might I be able to press you for a reasoning of your low opinion of Tron? I understand that it's not a terribly sophisticated piece, but I thought my reasoning for its inclusion was just and reasonable.
It is, actually, a terribly sophisticated piece, with more than one subtext.

[Sven]

the real world bits and storyline are so banal and forgettable I wish they were excised completely. They serve the purpose of providing some dramatic weight (his potential death) to everything, but they're still terribly executed.

I find they're pretty essential to the parallel of the program-user:human-god model. Excising them, the association would still be there, but the narrative goal being (out of necessity) more fantastic (which is to say, not grounded in our own human understanding of rightness and morality) would weaken the film's crux of human determinedness. Like I kind of said in my review, the human layering allows it to be compared more aptly to German Expressionism (fantasies with humans) than to Jackson and Lucas (fantasies without humanity).


Secondly, the relationships he forges with the Tron rebels has the theoretical potential to provide some compelling drama and interesting allegory... the ole outsider who can never really be a part of their world, doomed romance, etc... but bad scripting and a focus on poorly storyboarded chase sequences negates this possibility.

I think this potential allegory could work under the Jackson/Lucas model, but that conflict is not what Tron is about. It's about the outsider who's trying to get back out. There's no romantic tension (within the Tron world) because there's no romantic interest to speak of. Those things may make the film more audience-friendly and relatable, but to say that it tackles them badly is to deny the idea that it's not even trying to tackle them at all.

I will agree about some of the chase sequences, though.


Third, I didn't find it especially beautiful. The costume/set design had real potential but then the framing and staging of the actors destroys all of that. The compositions and staging are almost incidental. I like the films basic premise. It's archetypal and has the potential to be a lot of fun. I think later on the show Reboot capitalized fairly well upon it... but the film never adds up to anything. I left the film with a strong impression of the imagery (although not the images/composition), but little else.

I never put too much stock in the criticism of what is memorable or not, so I'll let this one slide. It must be said that I agree, there is some pretty clunky blocking here and there (though when I pull back and think about how the entire film was probably shot in the same room, I admire its structural imagination). Interesting adjective with "incidental", because with the heavily composited nature of the film, a feeling of incident would be a compliment of the highest order.

[Sven]

It is, actually, a terribly sophisticated piece, with more than one subtext.

I agree about the subtext (I mention a few things in my review). And I think the effects, design, and projection are among the most sophisticated I've seen. In that instance, I meant "sophisticated" like "prestige"-y.

[monolith94]

Ah, I agree - it's not Gone With The Wind.

Tron would actually be in my top 25.

[ledfloyd]

if you guys keep up this pace it'll be amazing. great reviews all.

[dreamdead]

What a bad time to just get back into the forum following the academic conference. Things here rock; I'll keep this short, so great write-ups all around.

And Duncan, that Rear Window piece makes me want to rewatch the film in ways that few reviews have ever made me want to do...

[Qrazy]

I find they're pretty essential to the parallel of the program-user:human-god model. Excising them, the association would still be there, but the narrative goal being (out of necessity) more fantastic (which is to say, not grounded in our own human understanding of rightness and morality) would weaken the film's crux of human determinedness. Like I kind of said in my review, the human layering allows it to be compared more aptly to German Expressionism (fantasies with humans) than to Jackson and Lucas (fantasies without humanity).

I'm not saying there shouldn't be real world scenes. I'm saying the real world scenes that are there are fairly terribly put together and insipid and I don't see how comparing the film to German expressionism, a fairly surface comparison at best, says anything at all about the calibur of the film's craft.


I think this potential allegory could work under the Jackson/Lucas model, but that conflict is not what Tron is about. It's about the outsider who's trying to get back out. There's no romantic tension (within the Tron world) because there's no romantic interest to speak of. Those things may make the film more audience-friendly and relatable, but to say that it tackles them badly is to deny the idea that it's not even trying to tackle them at all.

I will agree about some of the chase sequences, though.

I thought I remembered some poorly developed tension with Yori, in a Lora counterpart kind of way... with Tron eventually winning her affections. Anyway, my point is that there is little to no dramatic tension throughout the film because none of the characters possess any depth (vis. romantic relationships or otherwise). If you're going to anthropomorphize programs, follow through with it. What is their survival instinct? Why do they care so much they're going to be de-rezzed? These things are important and need further extrapolation beyond what is present in the film.


I never put too much stock in the criticism of what is memorable or not, so I'll let this one slide. It must be said that I agree, there is some pretty clunky blocking here and there (though when I pull back and think about how the entire film was probably shot in the same room, I admire its structural imagination).

Rope and Tape were shot in the same room. They still manage purposeful compositions.


Interesting adjective with "incidental", because with the heavily composited nature of the film, a feeling of incident would be a compliment of the highest order.

No, it really wouldn't. That's just a blatant misreading of what I wrote. I'm using the definition of incidental in terms of 'not of primary importance'.

[Duncan]

Melville, your posts continue to confirm for me that you should really read some Hesse. I think you'd like him a lot. Have you started Narcissus and Goldmund yet? I think he was preoccupied with a lot of the same things you are. I don't know if I agree with his solutions, but, for me, he is at least a convincing signpost whose direction is worth considering.

[Marley]

You guys make me feel dumb. Keep up the great work gentlemen.

[NickGlass]

I just saw the title of this thread and thought, "Oh my--the world may never be ready for this."

Keep up the good work, guys.

[Melville]

Melville, your posts continue to confirm for me that you should really read some Hesse. I think you'd like him a lot. Have you started Narcissus and Goldmund yet? I think he was preoccupied with a lot of the same things you are. I don't know if I agree with his solutions, but, for me, he is at least a convincing signpost whose direction is worth considering.
I started reading Narcissus and Goldmund a couple days ago, but I'm only about 40 pages into it. So far it seems like it's setting itself up as a fairy tale about Kierkegaard's Either/Or... which is a good thing.

[Sven]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be real world scenes. I'm saying the real world scenes that are there are fairly terribly put together and insipid and I don't see how comparing the film to German expressionism, a fairly surface comparison at best, says anything at all about the calibur of the film's craft.

The thing about the Expressionism comparison (whereupon re-reading my review, I neglect to mention) is the way in which, given its focus on the movement of the human body, the animation of human eyes, and the possibilities of human ingenuity, Tron creates a world (like Calagari) that exists as a conception of human dreams. Just as in Wiene and Murnau's pictures, the environment becomes an ecstatic shuffle of angles and shadows that uniquely color the psyche. I don't think that's a surface comparison at all, but rather, a common mode of communicating the inexpressible.


I thought I remembered some poorly developed tension with Yori, in a Lora counterpart kind of way... with Tron eventually winning her affections. Anyway, my point is that there is little to no dramatic tension throughout the film because none of the characters possess any depth (vis. romantic relationships or otherwise). If you're going to anthropomorphize programs, follow through with it. What is their survival instinct? Why do they care so much they're going to be de-rezzed? These things are important and need further extrapolation beyond what is present in the film.

I'll agree that if there was any tension, it was poorly developed, so much so that I didn't see it. In the real world, there is a triangular romantic entanglement (though mild), but none of that is applied in the computer realm.

As per depth, I think the film finds it in its fable of corporate morality. It's an obvious parable (the little guy gets his stuff stolen by the conglomerate guy and wants to prove him guilty). The extension of evil by which Warner operates is the malevolent MCP, whose sheer force of presence works in direct opposition to Bridge's charming and rakish nobility. I don't know where you're confused about the de-rezzing process, as it is basically tantamount to death. Why wouldn't they be afraid of it? Their survival instinct is exactly like ours--this is set up in the very first sequence of the film.


Rope and Tape were shot in the same room. They still manage purposeful compositions.

I cannot provide a convincing argument aside from capturing screenshots and posting them, which I don't have the time for. I doubt it will suffice to say that I disagree: there are purposeful compositions.


No, it really wouldn't. That's just a blatant misreading of what I wrote. I'm using the definition of incidental in terms of 'not of primary importance'.

I'd probably agree that the blocking is not of primary importance. The film is strongest when one figure dominates the frame, or when it lingers on a beautifully composed tableau. Though like I said above, I think you are ignoring a lot of the sterling set-ups that it has to offer.

[Qrazy]

The thing about the Expressionism comparison (whereupon re-reading my review, I neglect to mention) is the way in which, given its focus on the movement of the human body, the animation of human eyes, and the possibilities of human ingenuity, Tron creates a world (like Calagari) that exists as a conception of human dreams. Just as in Wiene and Murnau's pictures, the environment becomes an ecstatic shuffle of angles and shadows that uniquely color the psyche. I don't think that's a surface comparison at all, but rather, a common mode of communicating the inexpressible.

It's surface in that Tron only bares a passing resemblance to expressionistic cinema. It doesn't use it's environment to comment upon the dark nature of the psyche nor to communicate anything of particular psychological interest or purpose in relation to any of it's characters. The compressed corridors and angular architecture in Caligari hint at the trapped, paranoid mind of the protagonist. The environment of Tron, although it could have and would have probably been more interesting if it did, possesses no such psychological parallels.


I'll agree that if there was any tension, it was poorly developed, so much so that I didn't see it. In the real world, there is a triangular romantic entanglement (though mild), but none of that is applied in the computer realm.

Except that the computer realm is pretty much an archetypal mirror of the real world. I'm fairly certain the romantic entanglement is set up in the real world, and carried into the digital world. Anyway, as far as I can tell, we both agree this character point is poorly developed.



As per depth, I think the film finds it in its fable of corporate morality. It's an obvious parable (the little guy gets his stuff stolen by the conglomerate guy and wants to prove him guilty). The extension of evil by which Warner operates is the malevolent MCP, whose sheer force of presence works in direct opposition to Bridge's charming and rakish nobility. I don't know where you're confused about the de-rezzing process, as it is basically tantamount to death. Why wouldn't they be afraid of it? Their survival instinct is exactly like ours--this is set up in the very first sequence of the film.

I don't see that there's any depth to that.

I'm not confused about the de-rezzing process, I just would have liked better dialogue, the side characters better developed etc. Fine it doesn't have to be about derezzing I just want a more fully fleshed out cyber world rather than constantly having to deal with insipid real world plot points. The world building is pathetic in this film. There's rarely any real sense of location and the locations we're presented with are incredibly bland... contrast this with a Miyazaki film, a film like Dark City, even the Matrix films. They build worlds with enough detail that they seem inhabitable.

[Duncan]

I started reading Narcissus and Goldmund a couple days ago, but I'm only about 40 pages into it. So far it seems like it's setting itself up as a fairy tale about Kierkegaard's Either/Or... which is a good thing.

I haven't read Either/Or, but a quick glance at Wikipedia says that seems reasonable (and that Either/Or is a book I should definitely read). Also consider it in the context of Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy and the Dionysian vs Apollonian dialectic.

[Melville]

I haven't read Either/Or, but a quick glance at Wikipedia says that seems reasonable (and that Either/Or is a book I should definitely read). Also consider it in the context of Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy and the Dionysian vs Apollonian dialectic.
Actually, after reading a few more pages, Either/Or doesn't seem so relevant (although it might still turn out to be). The novel's less about Kierkegaard's divide between ethics and aestheticized sensualism than it is about Nietzsche's divide between denying life and embracing it.

However, you should still definitely read Either/Or.

[lovejuice]

I haven't read Either/Or, but a quick glance at Wikipedia says that seems reasonable (and that Either/Or is a book I should definitely read). Also consider it in the context of Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy and the Dionysian vs Apollonian dialectic.

hey, i once wrote an essay -- unfortunately in thai -- tracing hesse's swing between dionysian and apollonian complex. it seems an obvious way to read his novels, but my friend who studies german lit says she's never heard anyone associated the writer to this dialectic before. she also mentioned mann should be read in this light, which seriously i can't see how.

if only Either/Or were a bit thinner than it actually is. :confused:

[Duncan]

hey, i once wrote an essay -- unfortunately in thai -- tracing hesse's swing between dionysian and apollonian complex. it seems an obvious way to read his novels, but my friend who studies german lit says she's never heard anyone associated the writer to this dialectic before. she also mentioned mann should be read in this light, which seriously i can't see how. That's weird. He's stated explicitly that he was highly influenced by Nietzsche. Tegularius, of The Glass Bead Game, was a stand in for Nietzsche.

[lovejuice]

That's weird. He's stated explicitly that he was highly influenced by Nietzsche. Tegularius, of The Glass Bead Game, was a stand in for Nietzsche.

indeed. even if i have yet read GBG, the D vs. A complex in his works are obvious to me.

on the other hand, how do Nietzsche fit into this?

[Duncan]

indeed. even if i have yet read GBG, the D vs. A complex in his works are obvious to me.

on the other hand, how do Nietzsche fit into this? Oh, I was referring to his The Birth of Tragedy, which is all about this stuff.

[Qrazy]

hey, i once wrote an essay -- unfortunately in thai -- tracing hesse's swing between dionysian and apollonian complex. it seems an obvious way to read his novels, but my friend who studies german lit says she's never heard anyone associated the writer to this dialectic before. she also mentioned mann should be read in this light, which seriously i can't see how.


Holderlin in the hizouuuuussssse. *raises roof*

[lovejuice]

99. There Will Be Blood (P.T. Anderson, 2007)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/therewillbeblood.jpg


not that i disagree with you, but i can't help but feel plainview's misantropy is blown out of proportion by critics. he's driven by hate as much as many other things that drive us, modern human living in a godless society, to do what we have to do. thinking that plainview's unique is, imo, downplaying PTA's message that the tragedy can happen to any of us.

[Melville]

if only Either/Or were a bit thinner than it actually is. :confused:
I read the "lightly abridged" single-volume edition published by Penguin Classics. It leaves the first volume almost completely intact but cuts almost a third of the (somewhat repetitive) second volume. The end result is a little over 600 pages, which isn't too bad.


Oh, I was referring to his The Birth of Tragedy, which is all about this stuff.
Not only did Nietzsche largely invent the Dionysian/Apollonian dialectic in that book, but its basic division in one form or another dominates his entire work (although it obviously became less of a dialectic and more of an attack on Apollonians). I can't see anybody who's familiar with Nietzsche reading Narcissus and Goldmund without thinking of him.


not that i disagree with you, but i can't help but feel plainview's misantropy is blown out of proportion by critics. he's driven by hate as much as many other things that drive us, modern human living in a godless society, to do what we have to do. thinking that plainview's unique is, imo, downplaying PTA's message that the tragedy can happen to any of us.
I think the only review I read was Ebert's, so I don't know how most critics describe Plainview. But I don't know what you mean by him being driven "to do what he has to do". Nothing in the film suggested that he had to do what he was doing, except in the sense that he was doomed to it by his own character. I agree that the film's mythic style sets up Plainview as an exemplar of the potential downfall in all of us—but that downfall is a fall into hate (in the Sartrean sense of seeking to annihilate the Other's subjectivity).

[lovejuice]

Not only did Nietzsche largely invent the Dionysian/Apollonian dialectic in that book, but its basic division in one form or another dominates his entire work (although it obviously became less of a dialectic and more of an attack on Apollonians). I can't see anybody who's familiar with Nietzsche reading Narcissus and Goldmund without thinking of him.

guess i'm not that familiar with the man after all. perhaps why he no longer invites me to dinner. :|


I think the only review I read was Ebert's, so I don't know how most critics describe Plainview. But I don't know what you mean by him being driven "to do what he has to do". Nothing in the film suggested that he had to do what he was doing, except in the sense that he was doomed to it by his own character. I agree that the film's mythic style sets up Plainview as an exemplar of the potential downfall in all of us—but that downfall is a fall into hate (in the Sartrean sense of seeking to annihilate the Other's subjectivity).

the seed of plainview's downfall exists in all of us, but, yes, you have to fall into that nihilistic state before actually becoming like the character. on the other hand, one can easily look at plainview as an agent of change and progress which he indeed is -- bringing "a better life" to those people in the small town. that is why capitalism is a two-edged sword. nothing good can come from total disregard of the system. you must live in it without falling into the state that plainview did -- if that's possible.

what i love about this movie is plainview, as larger than life as he is, is such an easily identified character. that explains a number of spoofs, and the comment on obama vs hilary. anyone living in capitali...scratch that...anyone ever "live" must to some degree understand the character.

[Melville]

guess i'm not that familiar with the man after all. perhaps why he no longer invites me to dinner. :|
:lol:

Well, is Holderlin at least in your house?


the seed of plainview's downfall exists in all of us, but, yes, you have to fall into that nihilistic state before actually becoming like the character. on the other hand, one can easily look at plainview as an agent of change and progress which he indeed is -- bringing "a better life" to those people in the small town. that is why capitalism is a two-edged sword. nothing good can come from total disregard of the system. you must live in it without falling into the state that plainview did -- if that's possible.
Good points. Although I don't know how much the film acknowledges the benefit that Plainview brings.

Edit: your last paragraph wasn't there when I typed my response, but I wholeheartedly agree with it.

[lovejuice]

:lol:

Well, is Holderlin at least in your house?


yep, he always arrives arm in arm with heidegger.

[Sven]

My review coming tonite.

I'll probably be neurotic and announce my upcoming reviews like this.

[Melville]

yep, he always arrives arm in arm with heidegger.
Lucky bastard.


My review coming tonite.

I'll probably be neurotic and announce my upcoming reviews like this.
Man, I've got nothing to say about the next film on my list. Hopefully Duncan doesn't have a review ready yet.

[Sven]

Man, I've got nothing to say about the next film on my list. Hopefully Duncan doesn't have a review ready yet.

It's in your top 100 and you have nothing to say about it?

Even if Duncan doesn't have a review, take your time. Your a smart guy and I expect big things from you. :)

[Watashi]

I wonder where Ghost of Mars will grace the list? Top 50? Top 25? Top 5? :eek:

[Sven]

I wonder where Ghost of Mars will grace the list? Top 50? Top 25? Top 5? :eek:

You will be surprised.

[Duncan]

Man, I've got nothing to say about the next film on my list. Hopefully Duncan doesn't have a review ready yet.
I got nothin'.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Faltering after only 2 entries? I fear for this thread.

[Sven]

Faltering after only 2 entries? I fear for this thread.

Remember, though... all four of us are among the best on this board at being able to pump out verbose posts on a whim.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Remember, though... all four of us are among the best on this board at being able to pump out verbose posts on a whim.

A fair point, but not enough for my fears to subside. History is not on your side.

[Derek]

A fair point, but not enough for my fears to subside. History is not on your side.

We already have a back-up plan for potential writer's block - look to your Ran (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?t=7971&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2370) entry for inspiration. ;)

[Kurosawa Fan]

We already have a back-up plan for potential writer's block - look to your Ran (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?t=7971&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2370) entry for inspiration. ;)

Damn it, I never claimed to be better! But at least I made it to the teens before I crapped out. :P

[Spinal]

We already have a back-up plan for potential writer's block - look to your Ran (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?t=7971&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2370) entry for inspiration. ;)

Oh, it is on now.

[Derek]

Damn it, I never claimed to be better! But at least I made it to the teens before I crapped out. :P

Iosos is posting tonight, so no one's crapping out. I think we're just being up front about the fact that we have no clue what the hell to write sometimes until it's forced upon us. I'm pretty sure I'll have this feeling for about 90 of the next 98 films, but we will survive.


Oh, it is on now.

http://us.ent2.yimg.com/musicfinder.yahoo.com/images/yahoo/epic/b2k/1203_you_got_served_m.jpg

[Kurosawa Fan]

We already have a back-up plan for potential writer's block - look to your Ran (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?t=7971&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2370) entry for inspiration. ;)

I've updated my review.

[Qrazy]

Iosos is posting tonight, so no one's crapping out. I think we're just being up front about the fact that we have no clue what the hell to write sometimes until it's forced upon us. I'm pretty sure I'll have this feeling for about 90 of the next 98 films, but we will survive.



http://us.ent2.yimg.com/musicfinder.yahoo.com/images/yahoo/epic/b2k/1203_you_got_served_m.jpg

My advice, don't always try to cover and encapsulate the entire film, just riff on a scene, character, shot you love or discuss a theme ad nauseaum. If you don't feel like you have to present history, plot info or what have you about a film you're much freer to write whatever you want and it's often more interesting to read.

[Sycophant]

I've updated my review.
I just discovered you all did your list in under a year. Then I saw Wats saying "And it only took almost one year." And then I laughed.

[Derek]

I've updated my review.

But...but...you were just served. Please don't make me break out the head spin. I'd hate for things to get violent so early in this thread.

[Kurosawa Fan]

But...but...you were just served. Please don't make me break out the head spin. I'd hate for things to get violent so early in this thread.

I have a friend who'd like a word with you.


http://images.google.com/url?q=http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/d/u/M/stepuppubc.jpg&usg=AFQjCNEWka0SA06bMAY_HA4DGc SD7o94qQ


I believe we're finished.

[Sven]

#98 - The Harder They Come

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/Top%20100%20movies/The-Harder-They-Come.jpg

The refrain “You can get it if you really want” echoes throughout Henzell’s The Harder They Come to an optimistic reggae beat. The film goes on to ask: what exactly is it that you can get? The lyrics are appropriately ambiguous—the film sets up a system where the audience consciously roots for the protagonist, Ivanhoe Martin (reggae superstar Jimmy Cliff), because of our cultivated sense of cinematic necessity, despite the fact that he’s a murderous psycho. And despite Cliff’s fabulous uptempo title song, when you consider the words, it’s actually a total downer. This dynamism charts the tragic essentialness of Martin’s notoriety, exciting the audience even as the characters onscreen self-destruct. But more than making any grand meta-cinematic gestures (Henzell intercuts Ivan’s climactic showdown with the police with an audience “watching” it happen in a movie theater, ten years before Fassbinder pulled out a similar trick in the intro to Veronika Voss), The Harder They Come is a great film because of its enormous social concern.

The film’s approach is more docudrama than melodrama (most of the movie, the camera is capturing non-actors and true poverty), integrating the reality of Cliff’s music and its message with a social need for movement and change. The police control the ganja trafficking and food supply, the dope pushers are family men, and their heroes are cop killers. This portrait of a population living in complete destitution seemed exotic to me when I first saw the picture years ago. Since moving to New York, I feel I have a closer sense of that reality. I see the flat, expressionless eyes of the marginalized every single day. I hear wild voices of street shouters, frequently spiced with a Caribbean accent; sometimes they have foreign inflections and tones that I have difficult times placing. I’ve seen a mother begging for change on the subway while holding her sleeping child in her arms, and I’ve seen people ignore her. Watching the movie again, its story was still as rhythmic and exciting and imaginative as the first time. But now having witnessed a fraction of the extent of community poverty for myself, its depictions of a society damned to cyclical violence and oppression that forges on despite its helplessness, it became something truly humbling.

Plus, it’s got fantastic music. If you don’t see the movie, at least get the soundtrack.

Kristen: Awesome music, intriguingly claustrophobic visual style, reasonably compelling characters. It was challenging to sync myself up with the flow of the narrative, but I think that's a good thing because my favorite kind of challenge is the kind that allows me to stay on the couch.

[Duncan]

It's weird, I've lived in New York for 4 years now but I'm stuck in such a Seinfeldian universe that I don't pick up on a lot of that poverty. Then I walk 5 blocks north and I'm like...oh yeah. Or, some dude gets shot in the head execution style for spilling a drink half a block from where I live. That'll sure bring the city a little closer. This is one of those drunken posts after a night of subways and cabs. The sun is rising. Whoa.

I'll write something tomorrow.

[D_Davis]

Interesting choice man. The Harder They Come is an often overlooked film, at least it seems that way. I haven't seen it in years, but I would like to revisit it.

My old ska band was fortunate to open for Jimmy Cliff once. It was legendary.

[balmakboor]

Interesting choice man. The Harder They Come is an often overlooked film, at least it seems that way. I haven't seen it in years, but I would like to revisit it.

My old ska band was fortunate to open for Jimmy Cliff once. It was legendary.

Yeh, I really wish I'd bought this before it went OOP. It has one of my all time favorite soundtracks. I've never seen the film.

[Sven]

Yeh, I really wish I'd bought this before it went OOP. It has one of my all time favorite soundtracks. I've never seen the film.

There's a non-Criterion DVD in print. Probably a better transfer, too.

[Melville]

I'm sure a day will come when I can comment on a film in iosos' list... but today is not that day.

[Watashi]

I'm sure a day will come where I can comment on a film in iosos' list... but today is not that day.
ROTK reference?

[Melville]

ROTK reference?
Maybe subconsciously. What's the line you're thinking of?

[origami_mustache]

I haven't even heard of The Harder They Come. In fact I was wondering if a good movie about the reggae culture had even been made. I want to see this now.

[Duncan]

98. Play Time (Tati, 1967)

http://paulasimoes.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/playtime.jpg

Go to any hood that's live and make it liver
A lot of niggaz scheamin, some real, some niggaz frontin
But I'm a big dreamer, so watch me come up with somethin

New York, New York
New York, New York

- Nas

Modern urbanity can be an awful landscape of sharp glass and meek souls. Jacques Tati’s Play Time is a great film because it is about conquering that landscape through gentleness and creativity. In the first half of the film Tati captures the absurd rigidity of contemporary Paris in brilliantly composed, non-intrusive long shots. Our lovable clown of a protagonist, M. Hulot (played by Tati), spends his time stumbling and bumping through labyrinthine hallways and impossibly confusing transparent structures, constantly maintaining his look of mild befuddlement. Hulot eventually floats his way to a snazzy new restaurant that will be the setting for most of the film’s second half. This is a truly remarkable sequence sustained by humour, compassion, and Tati’s mise-en-scene. The restaurant’s veneer gradually washes away along with social formalities. Unhindered, Tati’s characters reveal how willing they are to connect with one another. The whole scene is a lovely display of irony free idealism. It is an idealism that can only exist in art, and even then it is touched by the quiet sadness of transience.

I have introduced this entry with a quote from Nas’ “N.Y. State of Mind,” the second track off his debut album. Nas is probably not the first artist people associate with Jacques Tati, but I think the initial sense of disparateness works well in the context of Play Time. Hulot meets many characters on his travels. Some act as geometric as the buildings they inhabit, while others are freer and more willing to bend. By the end of the restaurant scene, however, Tati has created an image of humanity that is inclusively fluid and organic. I think the same can be said for “N.Y. State of Mind.” Nas’ lyrics are not nearly as gentle as Tati’s images. “N.Y. State of Mind” is populated by gangstas and crack whores, and its setting is the poor, crime-ridden areas of black New York (not many black people in Play Time). But both Play Time and “N.Y. State of Mind” come from the same frustrations with urban life – its viciousness (quiet or loud), its dehumanizing tendencies, its desperate anonymity.

If frustration is the seed then it is also the enemy. Play Time’s central thesis is that frustration can be overcome by those tenuous connections people make in cities, and by acts of creation. As critical as it is of Paris, it is also celebratory of its setting. What are the images of the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe reflected in windows but a refrain: “Paris, Paris”? So make life liver. Dream big. Come up with something. Play Time is the perfect inspiration.

[Melville]

Great choice. That restaurant scene is a brilliantly organic breakdown of the cold geometric environment preceding it.

[Qrazy]

I've really wanted to see The Harder they Come for a long time now, and Playtime is one of my all time favorites.

I'm not really feeling an overly strong Nas/Tati connection Duncan, even with your elucidation.

[D_Davis]

Nicely written review Duncan. I've never even heard of this film, but you make it sound interesting.

[Sycophant]

Great take on the film, Duncan. This is one I really need to return to and watch very closely. I was in too much ecstasy during my initial viewing to have much intelligent to say about it now.


Nicely written review Duncan. I've never even heard of this film, but you make it sound interesting.
From what I know of your tastes, D, I can't really tell what you'd make of Tati, but I think you owe it to yourself to try his work. He's something special. This film is glorious.

[D_Davis]

From what I know of your tastes, D, I can't really tell what you'd make of Tati, but I think you owe it to yourself to try his work. He's something special. This film is glorious.

This sounds like something I could totally dig.

On my next Scarecrow trip I'll pick it up. I've been meaning to get into some new stuff.

[origami_mustache]

Playtime is an amazing accomplishment. I can't imagine how complex the choreography for that film must have been. Great choice.

[Duncan]

Nicely written review Duncan. I've never even heard of this film, but you make it sound interesting.

Thanks. Like Sycophant, I don't really know whether or not this would be your thing. Do you find this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeQgu7xX0t4&feature=related)funny and/or clever? Cuz the whole movie is filled with visual gags like that.

[D_Davis]

Thanks. Like Sycophant, I don't really know whether or not this would be your thing. Do you find this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeQgu7xX0t4&feature=related)funny and/or clever? Cuz the whole movie is filled with visual gags like that.


That's fantastic! I love the composition, and the way he plays with the medium. Good stuff, I definitely want to check this out. Thanks!

[Sven]

I don't like the trend of my fellow contributors selecting films that will eventually be on my list writing reviews that I have no chance of being as interesting as.

Like Qrazy, I think the connection to Nas is kind of a huge stretch, but your comments about an irony free ideology speak to me. Excellent.

Syco, have you got around to seeing Mon Oncle yet? I cannot recall.

[Melville]

I decided to shuffle things around a bit so that I could come up with something to say.

98. Pas de Deux (McLaren, 1968)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/mclaren_pas_de_deux.jpg

Imagine two dancers moving through space. Now divide that motion into an uncountably infinite number of instants. An instant has no duration, and so the dancers are motionless at each instant. But how, then, can these perpetually stationary figures move along in their dance; where in all these instants can one find their motion? This is one of Zeno’s famous paradoxes, formulated two and a half millennia ago. It has received many resolutions since its construction, mostly of a metaphysical or logico-mathematical nature, but I am more interested in what it points toward: the phenomenon of motion precisely as we experience it.

For if we examine our own experience, we see that one cannot divide time into a sequence of independent instants, except as a limiting process in which the limit is never attained. Each of our actions requires a finite duration and thereby presumes a contextualization in the past and a continuation in the future; when my finger moves to strike a key, for me that motion contains within it the context that preceded it, the reason and "cause" of its motion, and I do not presume that it will suddenly cease just short of striking its intended key. The present is a movement, a rising-up of the past toward the future. Our experience at each moment is as a continuation of something already arisen, something that necessarily existed beforehand, and as something that will continue toward something soon to be. Thus, when we see two dancing figures, at each “instant” we perceive their past position retained within their present position, and we already look toward their future position immanent within their present.

And therein abides the essence of the transfixing beauty of Pas de Deux. Using multiple exposures of backlit dancers moving in a void of blackness, it presents those dancers to us as reflections of themselves, as shadows of themselves, and finally as continuous pluralities. As the dancers’ glistening white outlines pile atop one another, the film abstracts away from our notions of a body’s physicality and self-identity; the dancers cease to be things and are dissolved into their pure motion. And that motion is a multitude. The past and the future that were inherent in the dancers’ movements are drawn forth and displayed side-by-side. But the images oscillate rhythmically between this pure motion and fixed bodies that remind us of what is moving. The motion is constituted by the dancers and the dancers are constituted in their motion. All is flux, and our perception is its synthetic union.


Full movie on youtube (thanks to Philosophe_rouge for originally linking to these clips):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DAZFvQ1Uv9k
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MHQIfPbeoBw

[monolith94]

Cool! That movie would make my own top 100 if I were to construct one today.

Man, Tron, Pas De Deux, this thread kicks butt!

[Duncan]

That is a ridiculously beautiful film. Neat integration of limits into your review, Melville. I especially like the last few sentences.

[Boner M]

Pas de Deux didn't do much for me when I saw it last year with a bunch of other McLaren shorts. Neighbors was my favorite of the bunch, but I didn't find it any more than 'neat'. Maybe I was in the wrong frame of mind; your review is very perceptive, Melville.

[balmakboor]

Pas de Deux didn't do much for me when I saw it last year with a bunch of other McLaren shorts. Neighbors was my favorite of the bunch, but I didn't find it any more than 'neat'. Maybe I was in the wrong frame of mind; your review is very perceptive, Melville.

Yeh, I queued up all the volumes in the new McLaren set and watched the one with Neighbors. I thought I'd love the films, but, other than Neighbors, I didn't. I never got around to the other volumes.

It must be a frame of mind thing. Plus I have very little interest in dance.

[lovejuice]

I decided to shuffle things around a bit so that I could come up with something to say.

98. Pas de Deux (McLaren, 1968)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/mclaren_pas_de_deux.jpg


love your review. very deleuzian/bergsonian. the clip is fantastic as well. i just adore how the film-makers wed the two different arts of dancing and cinema.

[Derek]

Great picks and reviews, guys. I really liked Pas de Deux Melville, but I like your review even more Melville. I'll get my next review up, which I'm still not happy with, but I'll keep things moving.

[Rowland]

I'll get my next review up, which I'm still not happy with, but I'll keep things moving.Don't worry, we'll make up for it by mercilessly berating you over the lapse in quality.

[Derek]

#98 - Rosetta (Luc & Jean-Pierre Dardenne, 1999)

http://www.claudiocolombo.net/FotoDVD/rosetta1.jpg

From the opening moments of Rosetta, as we follow the titular character through slammed doors into the back room of the factory where she attacks her boss for firing her when her trial period is over, the camera is kept, almost exclusively, within close proximity of her. Aside from enhancing the immediacy of her experiences, this forces us into her physical plane, intensifying her determination and suffering. It is a technique typical of the Dardenne Brothers, but for me, it achieves the greatest results here, in what is perhaps their most stripped-down and focused narrative to date. There are no great plot twists or complex storylines, just a teenage girl in search of a job and what she calls "a normal life". Left alone in the world, except for her promiscuous alcoholic mother who must be taken care of like an infant, she is desperate to rise above her situation, to conquer poverty and live like everyone else.

Rosetta, both the character and the film, remains less concerned with emotion than meeting the demands of the current moment. She is driven only by her intense desire to work leaving little room or time for her to behave like a regular teenager. Her machinelike endurance wears thin only once she becomes overcome by mysterious stomach pains - a minor inconvenience that only temporarily prevents her from moving forward. The people she meets along the way interest her only so far as they can help her, until she meets Riquet, a young man working at a waffle stand that helps her get a job with the man who owns several similar stands. He takes an interest in her and the two have a meal together setting up a brilliant sequence in which Riquet desperately seeks her approval, but receives no response from her until he drags her unwillingly out of her chair to dance with him. The awkwardness of the moment is unsettling as his intense desire to connect with her is met only with Rosetta's complete inability to interact. It is a simple sequence that powerfully highlights how her journey to transcend her environment and become like others has led her to shut down emotionally, remaining both unwilling and unable to connect with other human beings.

The films detractor's have complained that Rosetta is too bleak in its world view and presents us with nothing but suffering. While it's true that it's not easy to watch, I can think of few other films that present the experience of the lower class so exhaustively, realistically, and powerfully. It's an unflinching portrait of the human suffering that comes from living in poverty and the dehumanizing effects of being forced to live hand-to-mouth with no real hope of escaping. The similarities to Robert Bresson's Mouchette are undeniable, but despite the similarities in their plot, setting, and tone, Rosetta is far from a simple reworking of that film. The Dardenne Brothers are concerned with nothing other than Rosetta's experience and detailing her physical engagement with her environment. Their film feels far more grounded than Bresson's masterpiece and their familiarity with the landscape, along with their abundant use of hand-held camera shots, creates a documentary-like feel that makes Rosetta's journey believable and frighteningly real. It can become tiresome or repetitive to some viewers, but if you can stay with Rosetta for 90 minutes, you're in for an emotionally devastating and brilliant little gem.

[Derek]

Don't worry, we'll make up for it by mercilessly berating you over the lapse in quality.

Heh, it's not a bad review per se, but I didn't get a chance to rewatch this one which made editing my old review a bit frustrating.

[dreamdead]

When NIU hosted a semi-French film festival last year, the speaker showed a clip of this to parallel similarities between La Promesse and L'enfant. I really hate that Netflix doesn't have this one available, but the placement here will send me to the library systems for an older dvd copy...

[Derek]

When NIU hosted a semi-French film festival last year, the speaker showed a clip of this to parallel similarities between La Promesse and L'enfant. I really hate that Netflix doesn't have this one available, but the placement here will send me to the library systems for an older dvd copy...

Cool, I got lucky and taped this off IFC a few years back. I have no clue why this doesn't have an R1 DVD considering their other films do.

[Melville]

Yet another film I haven't seen. But based on my response to the rest of the Dardennes' filmography, I'm sure I would love it.


love your review. very deleuzian/bergsonian.
I guess I should look into them. I don't know anything about Bergson, and the only thing I've read by Deleuze is the first chapter of Anti-Oedipus.

Anyway, thanks for all the positive feedback, guys.

[Qrazy]

Yet another film I haven't seen. But based on my response to the rest of the Dardennes' filmography, I'm sure I would love it.


I guess I should look into them. I don't know anything about Bergson, and the only thing I've read by Deleuze is the first chapter of Anti-Oedipus.

Anyway, thanks for all the positive feedback, guys.

Yeah I was gonna guess more Zeno/Hume-ian.

Thoughts on L'enfant? I was fairly underwhelmed, though still positive I suppose.

[Melville]

Yeah I was gonna guess more Zeno/Hume-ian.

Thoughts on L'enfant? I was fairly underwhelmed, though still positive I suppose.
Actually, the only things I've read by Hume are a few selections on ethics. I really need to get around to reading his Treatise of Human Nature, but I want to get back to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit first.

I don't think I have anything intelligent to say about L'Enfant. I was very compelled by the protagonist's reactions to his poor environment and by the self-induced purgatory that results from his poor reactions. But it's been over a year since I saw it, and I never devoted much thought to it, so I can't really elaborate on those ideas.

[Marley]

I despise Rosetta. Great review though.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Wow, brilliant review of Pas de Deux. I don't even think I could begin articulating why I love it, and there you go... so wonderful!! UGH. I love Norman McLaren.

[Raiders]

I despise Rosetta. Great review though.

Despise? Really??? Why?

[Boner M]

Rosetta is glorious. What an astonishing non-pro performance by Ms. Dequenne (sp?). I must've watched the final scene at least 5 times in row when I first saw it; devastating, transcendant, etc!

[Marley]

Despise? Really??? Why?

I found it completely nauseating and torturous to sit through. This kind of natural documentary approach to filmmaking doesn't gel with me at all. I mean, did we really need to see her crossing the highway into the forest 17 times to get retrieve her boots? Once or twice is enough, yeesh. Anways, I just thought the whole film was utterly pointless. Derek makes some strong arguements as to it's redeemable qualities but I wasn't able to get anything from it.

[Melville]

Wow, brilliant review of Pas de Deux.
So many compliments, so little rep. No wonder I wake up screaming in the night.

[Derek]

So many compliments, so little rep. No wonder I wake up screaming in the night.

We'll have to rep each other to keep morale up since these other bastards are only here to read and run.

[Melville]

We'll have to rep each other to keep morale up since these other bastards are only here to read and run.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised that people are reading and responding to each review, since lengthy reviews can be somewhat daunting on a message board, so I can't complain. But then again, it doesn't take much to get me screaming in the night.

[Philosophe_rouge]

So many compliments, so little rep. No wonder I wake up screaming in the night.
I'd rep you more, but I already gave you some today. There are quotas :frustrated:

[Melville]

I'd rep you more, but I already gave you some today. There are quotas :frustrated:
Don't mind me. It's past my bedtime.

[Ezee E]

I need to see Playtime again. It's definitely one of the best-crafted films around

[Sven]

Most of my reviews will probably be about as long as this next one, I think. Just so I don't drive myself crazy.

#97 - Allegro Non Troppo

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/Top%20100%20movies/Allegro-Non-Troppo.jpg

Ostensibly a “remake” of Disney’s (or is it Grisney’s?) Fantasia, Bruno Bozzetto’s Allegro Non Troppo is much more accurately labeled the “dirty old man” version. It is replete with nudity, sex, and innuendo. However, with Bozzetto’s hyper libido comes a very careful consideration of the human condition—something sneakily left out of Fantasia. Rather than being content with synchronized mushroom dances, hippopotamus ballets, and multiplying broomsticks (all fine realizations of music in shape and action, polished to a beautiful sheen by Thisney’s animation team, but lacking in any special human interest), we are given a series of political cartoons and expressions of the profoundest sorts of physical and emotional human angst. Bozzetto’s lack of millions may generate a clumsy looking composite from time to time, but his hearty spirit thrives in his lusty and capricious cartoons. And do not think that his maturer thematic content precludes a hefty dose of silliness or childlike wonder. Even with all the breasts on display, I wouldn’t dream of telling a child not to watch it. The best sequence is his visual mapping of evolution, from abandoned Coke bottle to oppressive humanity (apathy breeds contempt), set to the marching tune of Ravel’s Bolero. It’s a feat of astonishing imagination, color, and energy. It is a testament to Bruno’s creativity that the rest of the film comes real darn close to matching it.

Kristen: An immersion course in 1970s animation (with all the good and bad that implies) with live-action interstitials whose disjointedness is almost entirely charming. It's way more mischievous and thoughtful than ol' Prisney would ever attempt, and that makes up for the occasional ham-handed bit of social commentary. Includes a cameo by the greatest jacket of all time.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/Top%20100%20movies/jacket.jpg

[Sycophant]

I could never thank you enough for telling me to watch that movie.

[dreamdead]

That... looks fantastic. It's now in the queue and my interest is piqued.

[D_Davis]

That's a good movie. Cool pick.

Are you a fan of Rene Laloux (I'm sure you are)? I saw that Lightyears was recently released on DVD, supposedly completely uncut. I need to see this. I really like his stuff, and I've always liked Lightyears - I didn't know it was edited though.

[Duncan]

97. Life of Brian (Jones, 1979)

http://angelingo.usc.edu/vol03issue01/culture/graphics/g_joke1.jpg

The past 2000 years have proved that the story of Jesus Christ is a compelling one. He has inspired a devoted following greater than the population of any country, and far more widespread than any form of nationalism could hope to achieve. Wars have been fought in his name. Great loves and works of art have been inspired by him. But this film isn’t about Jesus Christ. It is about a guy named Brian who has one message for his followers: “Fuck off.”

The tehwific iwahny (no no – terrific irony) Brian is confronted with is that his devotees have no idea how to fuck off. Despite his blunt pleadings otherwise they follow him around convinced that he is the Messiah. They see miracles in coincidence. They see proof in denial. Part of what makes Life of Brian so funny is that its satire is instantly recognizable in a modern context. No one really remembers what the difference between the Judean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea is, assuming there is one at all. Similarly, I have difficulty distinguishing between the Anglican churches in Canada that are splintering off because of differences over gay marriage and the ones that are staying within the fold. But that issue is one that people attach a particularly strong sense of meaning to and so must define themselves by aligning with a particular institution.

The danger this introduces, as is so often the case, is that the individual will be subverted in favour of the institution. This is exactly what happens to Brian as Reg regretfully informs him that the People’s Front of Judea truly appreciates his martyrdom. Well, Christ, that hardly helps. By Life of Brian’s hilariously absurd ending one associates its protagonist more with The Trial’s K than the Jesus Christ of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Yes, even John. Of course, the Pythons strike a lighter note than Kafka. Eric Idle’s sing along forgoes the existential dread of Kafka’s meaninglessness, and instead celebrates that lack of meaning. “Life's a piece of shit when you look at it. Life's a laugh and death's a joke; it's true.” Considering the preposterousness of our quests for meaning and our bizarre illusions of security in institutionalization, I sometimes find it tempting to think that Life of Brian’s status as a comedic masterpiece was inevitable. But when I remember the brilliant timing of its actors, its playful absurdity, and its inspired script it is obvious to me that this is a rare film produced by individuals of rare talent.

[Duncan]

Haven't seen Rosetta or Allegro Non Troppo, but they both look pretty great.

[Eleven]

Great, great pick. Probably a Top 10er for me.

[Spinal]

By Life of Brian’s hilariously absurd ending one associates its protagonist more with The Trial’s K than the Jesus Christ of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Yes, even John. Of course, the Pythons strike a lighter note than Kafka. Eric Idle’s sing along forgoes the existential dread of Kafka’s meaninglessness, and instead celebrates that lack of meaning.

Excellent connection you make here. Well done. This, I think, speaks to why the film is so miraculous. It is outrageously silly and effortlessly philosophical at the same time.

[Eleven]

Eric Idle’s sing along forgoes the existential dread of Kafka’s meaninglessness, and instead celebrates that lack of meaning.

What about to "try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"? :)

[lovejuice]

#97 - Allegro Non Troppo

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/Top%20100%20movies/Allegro-Non-Troppo.jpg


sorry, iosos, but i have a hard time supporting ANT. the ravel section is wonderful, but that's the only positive thing i can think about. i guess i'm too much in love with fantasia, and ANT is more like its pale comparison, or even a wannabe. its cynicism is at a time overplayed and occasionally inconsistent. besides cynicism has never been the point of fantasia to begin with, so i don't think the movie succeeds as a commentary on disney's achievement either.

[Qrazy]

"By Life of Brian’s hilariously absurd ending one associates its protagonist more with The Trial’s K than the Jesus Christ of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Yes, even John. Of course, the Pythons strike a lighter note than Kafka. Eric Idle’s sing along forgoes the existential dread of Kafka’s meaninglessness, and instead celebrates that lack of meaning."

I don't really agree with this at all. It doesn't celebrate meaninglessness it simply finds the humor in human stupidity. That doesn't make the stupidity any less stupid or human cruelty any less cruel (i.e. the followers of Brian or the crucifixion). Irony to me is it's own form of dread (vis. Strangelove).

[Duncan]

"By Life of Brian’s hilariously absurd ending one associates its protagonist more with The Trial’s K than the Jesus Christ of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Yes, even John. Of course, the Pythons strike a lighter note than Kafka. Eric Idle’s sing along forgoes the existential dread of Kafka’s meaninglessness, and instead celebrates that lack of meaning."

I don't really agree with this at all. It doesn't celebrate meaninglessness it simply finds the humor in human stupidity. That doesn't make the stupidity any less stupid or human cruelty any less cruel (i.e. the followers of Brian or the crucifixion).

Well, I don't think a meaningless universe negates humanism or anything like that. "Existentialism is a Humanism," you know?


Irony to me is it's own form of dread (vis. Strangelove).I'm not sure I understand this line.

[Raiders]

"Existentialism is a Humanism," you know?

:eek:

...

I like Life of Brian. It funny.

[Qrazy]

Well, I don't think a meaningless universe negates humanism or anything like that. "Existentialism is a Humanism," you know?

I'm not sure I understand this line.

Yeah I was going to post more but I had to leave before I had a chance, but what I was going to add was just that we were probably on the same page mentally/theoretically but I had some problems with the way you expressed it, because I felt it a) Made Kafka's work seem more bleak than I feel it to be (I think he uses humor quite frequently as well) and/or b) Makes the Python's version of absurdity seem to embrace a lack of meaning. I agree that the Python's films have a great deal of depth as well as incredible humor, but I don't like it to be phrased as celebrating a lack of meaning, rather finding the bright spot (namely humor but also just a positive outlook in general) in that meaningless universe. So not a celebration of meaninglessness per se but a celebration in spite of meaninglessness perhaps with meaninglessness but in response to it as well. In some ways that could boil down to a seeming celebration of the lack of meaning but I think the differentiation is a crucial one.

Also I tend to agree with Heidegger (begrudgingly) in regards to 'existentialism is a humanism'. I feel it ought to be rephrased as 'existentialism could be (perhaps ought to be) a humanism' but not is... is carries too much baggage... not to say that ought doesn't as well. Anyway this is all a tangent so back to your last point.

I meant that irony and humor serve to point out the problems and horror in the world more often than not. The Pythons use it for sure but I cited Strangelove as an example as well, a film which finds the comedic side of the potential end of human existence as a result of human creation, error and stupidity.

[Duncan]

Yeah I was going to post more but I had to leave before I had a chance, but what I was going to add was just that we were probably on the same page mentally/theoretically but I had some problems with the way you expressed it, because I felt it a) Made Kafka's work seem more bleak than I feel it to be (I think he uses humor quite frequently as well) and/or b) Makes the Python's version of absurdity seem to embrace a lack of meaning. I agree that the Python's films have a great deal of depth as well as incredible humor, but I don't like it to be phrased as celebrating a lack of meaning, rather finding the bright spot (namely humor but also just a positive outlook in general) in that meaningless universe. So not a celebration of meaninglessness per se but a celebration in spite of meaninglessness perhaps with meaninglessness but in response to it as well. In some ways that could boil down to a seeming celebration of the lack of meaning but I think the differentiation is a crucial one.

Also I tend to agree with Heidegger (begrudgingly) in regards to 'existentialism is a humanism'. I feel it ought to be rephrased as 'existentialism could be (perhaps ought to be) a humanism' but not is... is carries too much baggage... not to say that ought doesn't as well. Anyway this is all a tangent so back to your last point.

I meant that irony and humor serve to point out the problems and horror in the world more often than not. The Pythons use it for sure but I cited Strangelove as an example as well, a film which finds the comedic side of the potential end of human existence as a result of human creation, error and stupidity.
Gotta go catch a plane, but suffice to say I think we're both on the same page (or maybe a page or two off, but somewhere near the bookmark) and were maybe both initially guilty of expressing complex things too succinctly.

[Sven]

Are you a fan of Rene Laloux (I'm sure you are)?

Certainly!


I saw that Lightyears was recently released on DVD, supposedly completely uncut. I need to see this. I really like his stuff, and I've always liked Lightyears - I didn't know it was edited though.

I have not seen this either. Will look into it. Thanks for the shout out!

[Qrazy]

Certainly!



I have not seen this either. Will look into it. Thanks for the shout out!

Allegro looks fascination thanks for the rec.

[Melville]

97. The Forsaken Land (Jayasundara, 2005)

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/forsakenland.jpg

I saw Vimukthi Jayasundara’s The Forsaken Land over two years ago, at the 2005 Toronto Film Festival. I’m not sure if it ever received a theatrical release outside of New York City, and it’s not on any DVD with English subtitles. I attempted to refresh my memory of it by perusing the user comments at imdb, but I found only four reviews, one of which summarizes the film with an “Ouch!” and another of which informs me that “there are certain films which are praised by critics for reasons unknown to the general public. This is precisely the case with this film.” So you’ll forgive me if my description is hazy or my ranking misguided. But forward I go…

Set in the midst of Sri Lanka’s endless civil war, the film construes this endless state of war as an existential malaise par excellence. The protagonist is awakened in the middle of the night and instructed to bludgeon to death a man whose face is never shown. The one character that seems to maintain a quiet Sisyphean struggle against the absurd for most of the film ends her own life somewhere just over the upper edge of the frame. With almost no dialogue, long, distancing shots, and a recurring motif of a tank moving through a mist-shrouded field, its gun swivelling about to aim at nothing, the narrative’s disjointed absurdities are presented in a mood of static despair. If human experience is a movement—and it is—Jayasundara presents us with a state of living in which that movement is from nowhere and toward nothing. The past and future are dissolved; the war and the characters’ lives within it are a single monotony forever returning to itself, with no origin, history, or goals. Bereft of any historicity, the characters drift in a state of emptiness; without the meaningful context of past and future, they are alienated from their present, only marginally engaged with their own lives, continuing forward simply out of habit.

[Melville]

Regarding the last two picks, Allegro Non Troppo looks cool, and while I'm not a big Monty Python fan, I love the ending of Life of Brian.

[Bosco B Thug]

Man, who knew there were so many Top 100-worthy films I've never even heard of. And a pattern's starting up no less, an every-other-entry deal with films I didn't know existed. It's half-cool, half-frustrating.

[Melville]

Man, who knew there were so many Top 100-worthy films I've never even heard of. And a pattern's starting up no less, an every-other-entry deal with films I didn't know existed. It's half-cool, half-frustrating.
Yeah, iosos' and Derek's lists are seriously threatening my status as a wannabe film buff.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, iosos' and Derek's lists are seriously threatening my status as a wannabe film buff.

Shouldn't it be cementing the wannabe status? ;)

[Melville]

Shouldn't it be cementing the wannabe status? ;)
Nah, I'm pretty sure I need to have seen at least one film off each of their lists to make it even to the wannabe level.

[Derek]

#97 - The Shop on Main Street (Jan Kadar & Elmar Klos, 1965)

http://images.greencine.com/images/article/cz-shop.jpg

The Shop on Main Street is one of the rare films that examines its historical subject without 20/20 vision, accepting history as something always in flux and that even forces as defiantly evil as the Nazis were not always recognized as the threat that we now know they are. Jan Kadar and Elmar Klos tell the simply story of a poor man and an elderly woman, living through the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia. Tono is making only enough money to feed him and his wife when he is appointed the Aryan comptroller of the elderly, near-deaf Mrs. Lautmann’s button shop. Due to her almost constant state of confusion, several Jews in the community have provided for her without her knowledge. They convince Tono to pretend to be her assistant while actually running the store. From that point on, Kadar and Klos develop their sweet, often comical relationship as the Nazis grip on the town slowly tightens.

Much of the focus remains on Tono’s struggle to balance his protection of Mrs. Lautmann with pleasing his money-hungry wife. Situations that are at first amusing take on a deeper meaning and importance once the danger of Tono’s situation is made apparent. The film becomes increasingly insular and the shop itself becomes something of a reprieve from the suffocating presence of Nazis – a place where Tono slowly witnesses the monument being built in the town square and eventually many of his friends being sent away. This transition is realized beautifully, allowing the horrors that we’ve seen in so many films to take a back seat to the tragic relationship of their central characters and their inability to come to terms with the inhumanity that seeks to destroy them. Where you would expect the scope to broaden to explore the effects on the entire town, it hones in almost uncomfortably close on Tono’s moral struggle and attempts to make sense of madness surrounding him. The final act becomes almost surreal in its clear division between the shop and everything surrounding it, reaching the breaking point when the two can no longer ignore or escape the impending doom. But Kadar and Klos do not leave us with an image of despair, rather one of almost naïve humanity and hopefulness – a final plea for peace in the face of horrifying evil.

[Derek]

Nah, I'm pretty sure I need to have seen at least one film off each of their lists to make it even to the wannabe level.

Trust me, there are plenty of films on my list that you and many other MatchCutters will have seen.

[Sven]

The Forsaken Land sounds enticing.

I should get my act together and see The Shop on Main Street. I've had the opportunity to see it countless times, but have never taken it. Today, I regret it.

[Melville]

Trust me, there are plenty of films on my list that you and many other MatchCutters will have seen.
Well, I'll believe it when I see it. ;)


The Forsaken Land sounds enticing.
I highly recommend it to anybody who can track it down. Maybe it's on those fancy file-sharing websites I've heard so much about.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'm also waiting for something I've seen. Those screencaps are ace though guys, keep up the good work.

[Sven]

Impromptu trip to Delaware tomorrow. Will not update until (hopefully) Friday.

[Sycophant]

Impromptu trip to Delaware tomorrow. You have my deepest sympathies.

[Sven]

You have my deepest sympathies.

Something up with Delaware?

[Derek]

Something up with Delaware?

No sales tax. W00t!! If you hit Maryland, you've gone too far.

[Sven]

#96 - Last Orders

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/Top%20100%20movies/Last-Orders.jpg

It strikes me as nearly unnecessary to write a defense of Last Orders—it’s quality seems so obvious. Show me another film with Bob Hoskins, Michael Caine, Helen Mirren, Tom Courtenay, David Hemmings, and Ray Winstone, and I’ll show you another film that would almost surely land a spot in my top 100. Brian Tufano’s cinematography is at once earthy and austere, perfectly encapsulating its theme of a glorious life less perfect. Fred Schepisi’s knack for moving actors meaningfully through a frame never fails to shake me up, and his intensely literary screenplay is rife with wit and drama. On the basis of pure actorly, photographical, directorial, and writerly craft alone, this picture is tops.

But also to admire is the film’s humanist structure. Schepisi scrambles together the chronologies of four friends’ lives, focusing the narrative on one of the friends who recently passed away. An illustrated timeline would suggest, not unintentionally I presume, a heart rate map. This cutting sometimes feels smooth and natural, connecting events in simple ways, but sometimes it’s as visceral as Peckinpah, hitting you in the gut with arrhythmic contrasts. This cutting brings to life, from the cold of reverential distance, the concept of memorial: there’s a moving scene at a WWII Navy cenotaph, where editor Kate Williams cuts between Courtenay’s contemplation and the soldier’s at war, showing us their life, showing us what remains. All events are happening at once, all characters are simultaneously young and old, all life is jokes and sadness, everyone is alive and everyone is dead. And yet, despite the possibilities of existential dread, the film revels in a transfiguring ethos, celebrating the life of the deceased, but choosing to respond with growth and unity. Last Orders, like man’s impossible ruminations on dying, lies in that ambiguous somewhere between spiritual and mundane, and its final shot, where the film’s frictional paradigm transubstantiates through a graceful track, is so beautiful.

Kristen: One of the nicest examinations I've seen of the fact that life turns out nothing like either our best or worst expectations. But then, I'm a sucker for a low-key British character piece.

[Melville]

Wow... very interesting choice. I admit that it left almost no impact on me, but I think I'm biased against movies centered around male camaraderie, which I almost never find interesting. (And I had a hell of a time trying to understand what the characters were saying. I suck at understanding accents.)

[lovejuice]

#96 - Last Orders

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/Top%20100%20movies/Last-Orders.jpg


haven't watched it, but i like the book, not as much as swift's waterland which i believe is made into a mediocre film.

[dreamdead]

I feel more alienated reading this list than I did when the mods made their list. Even those films I've heard of, such as Derek's last one, are still sight unseen.

[Duncan]

I feel more alienated reading this list than I did when the mods made their list. Even those films I've heard of, such as Derek's last one, are still sight unseen.

I know what you mean. And I'm one of the people writing this list. I guess my contribution is very classical or canonical. The only eccentricity is that the avant garde is pretty well represented later on.

[ledfloyd]

heh, i feel good about having seen 6 of these films and having heard of 9. derek's list is completely foreign to me.

[Spinal]

I've seen 9 of the 17 mentioned so far, but yes. Some good recs a'brewin'.

[Duncan]

96. Double Suicide (Shinoda, 1969)

http://www.gotterdammerung.org/film/shinoda-masahiro/double-suicide/double-suicide-005.jpg

Masahiro Shinoda was a member of the Japanese New Wave, a national film movement often overlooked because of the embarrassment of cinematic riches Japan produced in the previous decades. It took some of its influence from its French counterpart, but the Japanese New Wave also drew heavily on its own national history. Double Suicide, directed by Shinoda, is an adaptation of a story by Chikamatsu, a prolific Japanese writer in the 18th century. The film focuses on the relationship between a merchant, Jihei, and a concubine, Koharu, whom Jihei has promised to redeem. This is complicated by two inconvenient facts: 1) he has no money, and 2) he’s married. Double Suicide, as you may have guessed, is a tragedy that culminates in its titular act. From a 21st century, Western perspective the film’s finale is somewhat difficult to understand. It seems an archaic ritual, too mired in a foreign history to comprehend.

Meanwhile, Shinoda’s aesthetic approach to his subject matter is decidedly modern. He opens the film with a phone conversation between himself and his screenwriter over a montage of bunraku puppets being prepared for a performance. There is a certain cut over which the puppets become live actors, but to the film’s credit I am unsure of the exact moment. The sets Shinoda uses are audaciously stylized. Some walls can be seen through, while others are covered in high contrast graphic art. The wall prints depict traditional Japanese scenes, but they look more like graffiti than Ukiyo-e. Shinoda also makes use of kurago, the “unseen” puppeteers. These black clad men carry props and alter scenery, but they never force a character into doing anything they do not choose. They are Brechtian devices not supernatural intermediaries.

Another device Shinoda uses is the doubling of his lead actress. Shima Iwashita plays both Osan (Jihei’s wife) and Koharu. You would expect two women wanting for the affection of the same man to be enemies, but here they are portrayed as endlessly considerate of each other. In the film’s ultimate scene Koharu refuses to die next to Jihei for the sake of Osan’s honour. Osan displays a similar loyalty to her competing self earlier in the film. This communion between the two women is strong in life but broken in death. For the living there is no escape from those who would reflect them, and no boundary between the person and the reflection. This paradox is both a source of meaning and a burden for me. In it I see the closeness of humanity, and the inhibitory obligations inherent to that closeness. From time to time life presents us with interpersonal restrictions we are happy to submit to, but that happiness is never pure. It is always counterbalanced. For Koharu and Jihei, evidently, the social mirror’s reflection was too heavy a weight.

http://www.gotterdammerung.org/film/shinoda-masahiro/double-suicide/double-suicide-006.jpg

[Melville]

That looks and sounds great. Have you read (or seen) any of the Japanese love-suicide puppet plays from the 1700s? I've only read one, but it was awesome.

[Melville]

I'm not sure when this picture got so grainy. Oh, well.

96. Werckmeister Harmonies (Tarr, 2000)

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/werckmeister.jpg

"And of all these things the Albino whale was the symbol."—Melville, Moby Dick

At the center of Bela Tarr’s Werckmeister Harmonies lies a great whale, a symbol of mystery, the ineffable, and the sublime; as one character says, "omnipotence is reflected in that animal." But unlike Melville's White Whale, this one is long-dead, carted about in a carnival trailer; and by the film’s end, it is laid bare, a meaningless mass of flesh in an empty cobblestone street. This ignominy is the subject of the film’s somber lament. The lengthy, meditative shots, the soundscape of silence and ambient noise, even the critique of social decay in post-Soviet Hungary—all are an elegy to the whale.

The film offers an analogy in a character's lamentation of the invention of the even-tempered musical scale, a scale that forces music to conform to human convention, destroying the natural harmonies. This forcing of convention upon nature’s mysteries—this is the death of the whale. Or, more accurately, it is the mere encasing of the whale: the power of the whale's mystery remains even when hidden, just as one suspects the missing natural harmonies just outside of one's hearing. And the mysteries hidden by conventionalism swell up over the course of the film. The town in which the film takes place is swept by a fear of "mysterious unknown plagues," the townspeople look at a solar eclipse as a thing of wonder and terror, the coming of the carnival brings dread and uncertainty, and a woman is heard wondering, "How can you explain this in normal terms?" There is a sense of social breakdown, an atrophy of convention in the face of the mysterious.

But this swelling is evoked by more than the film's narrative: it is embedded in the very form of the film, as the stunning black and white cinematography with its pensive shots lasting for minutes, together with the haunting music and its melding with ambient sounds, immerse the audience in rich textures that perpetually point us toward the transcendent within our perceptions. And beyond this encompassing technique lie specific moments of thematic resonance. When the carnival truck bearing the whale arrives in the town, it slowly approaches the camera until the frame is filled with the movement of vertical strips of corrugated iron. The image is thus reduced to abstraction; but this pure abstraction is broken by the figure of the protagonist in the corner of the frame. At several points in the film, a shot slowly transitions from a moving image to a still photo; but in each case, slight movement in the distance or the ringing of a bell remind us that the stasis is illusory. When a mob marches through the streets, the scene begins with a high-angle shot of the mob as a single mass, reminiscent of the great serpentine marches in Triumph of the Will; but the camera then slowly moves between this view and close-ups of individual faces, reminding us that the mass consists of individuals. In each of these shots, we see an attempt to reduce life to abstractions, to fixity or to universalizing concepts, but in each case the reduction is destabilized by a lingering humanity, flux or particularizing heterogeneity.

Within this mood of uncertainty, the film gives us a new vision of Ahab, a dwarf called the Prince, one who does "not fall down and worship the whale like others," but "pits himself, all mutilated, against it" (to paraphrase Melville (the other one)). But unlike Ahab, the Prince is not railing against the unknown and its vagaries; instead, perhaps realizing the futility of Ahab's quest, he rails against humanity and its failed notions. His is the voice of nihilism, decrying both the mysteries of the whale and humanity’s attempt to circumscribe it. He preaches violent destruction of society and its mores. He declares a reign of absolute uncertainty in which "the hills will march off" like Sartre's forest unburdened by the dictates of induction. In the wake of the riot that the Prince incites, the whale is left lying in open sight, its mysteries abolished by its nakedness; the opportunistic and the greedy seize control in the resulting vacuum of power; and the hero of the film is left in an asylum, blankly staring at the loss of wonder before his eyes. None of which is to say that the movie is impenetrably gloomy… but it does make one join Ishmael in craving the sea.

[Duncan]

That looks and sounds great. Have you read (or seen) any of the Japanese love-suicide puppet plays from the 1700s? I've only read one, but it was awesome.
I have not. But I changed 17th century to 18th century in my writeup.

I just went back and looked at final terms list from the Japan Civ class I took sophmore year. It's sad how little I remember. It's also sad that I misplaced all my books from that semester. I had these great collections of Japanese lit that I would have liked to go through at some point.

[Sven]

These reviews are totally sprawling!

After just finishing Moby Dick and reading your frankly unique review, I must see this Tarr film right quick.

Anybody know the best version to see, picture quality wise?

[Duncan]

I thought the ending of Werckmeister showed that the whale was fake, thus saying something different than you are arguing.

[Derek]

Anybody know the best version to see, picture quality wise?

The UK DVD is gorgeous.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41K8HXQDJ1L._SX220_.jpg

The Region 1 DVD is supposedly a horrendous transfer, so I would avoid that even if it means you can't see it.

[Derek]

I thought the ending of Werckmeister showed that the whale was fake, thus saying something different than you are arguing.

I don't remember that. I thought it was simply dead the entire time. I'll pay attention to that when I rewatch it.

[Duncan]

At several points in the film, a shot slowly transitions from a moving image to a still photo; but in each case, slight movement in the distance or the ringing of a bell remind us that the stasis is illusory. I really like this observation.

[Duncan]

I don't remember that. I thought it was simply dead the entire time. I'll pay attention to that when I rewatch it.

It may be both. That is, they couldn't actually use a dead whale so they used a fake one even if it is intended to look real. But I'm pretty sure it's fake. Could be wrong. It actually doesn't change Melville's conclusions much.

[Melville]

It may be both. That is, they couldn't actually use a dead whale so they used a fake one even if it is intended to look real. But I'm pretty sure it's fake. Could be wrong. It actually doesn't change Melville's conclusions much.
I've actually wondered if the whale was a fake both times I've seen the film. It does look pretty fake, and it doesn't even really look like a fake whale, but like some creature that people might imagine a whale looking like. Either way, I agree that it doesn't change my conclusions much.

[Melville]

I have not.
The one I read was called The Love Suicides at Amijima. I highly recommend it.


Anybody know the best version to see, picture quality wise?
I thought that the picture quality in the Region 1 DVD was good, but the sound is consistently about half a second out of sync with the characters' lips.

[Spinal]

I thought that the picture quality in the Region 1 DVD was good, but the sound is consistently about half a second out of sync with the characters' lips.

Yikes. That would drive me nuts.

[Qrazy]

I thought the ending of Werckmeister showed that the whale was fake, thus saying something different than you are arguing.

I thought it was real but stuffed. So yeah it has been patched over time.

[Duncan]

I thought the Facets DVD was pretty terrible, as are most of their transfers.

[Melville]

Yikes. That would drive me nuts.
Yeah, it was irritating all right. I imagine it would be much worse if the film was in English, though.

[Spinal]

Yeah, it was irritating all right. I imagine it would be much worse if the film was in English, though.

I missed the Tarr films a while back at a retrospective in town. I'm kind of regretting it now. I have Damnation checked out from the library. Guess I might try it for a bit and see how tolerable it is.

[Qrazy]

I missed the Tarr films a while back at a retrospective in town. I'm kind of regretting it now. I have Damnation checked out from the library. Guess I might try it for a bit and see how tolerable it is.

Word of mouth suggests Werckmeister and Satan's Tango are quite a bit better. I've only seen those and Man from London though so I can't comment on his earlier work.

[Melville]

Double Suicide, directed by Shinoda, is an adaptation of a story by Chikamatsu, a prolific Japanese writer in the 18th century.


The one I read was called The Love Suicides at Amijima. I highly recommend it.
I just discovered that Double Suicide is adapted from that very play. Crazy.

[ledfloyd]

Werckmeister is too low.

[SirNewt]

[QUOTE=Melville;45656]I decided to shuffle things around a bit so that I could come up with something to say.

98. Pas de Deux (McLaren, 1968)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/mclaren_pas_de_deux.jpg


/QUOTE]

Now I must see this film, thanks.

I'm really enjoying these lists. Looking over the mods' lists on the old site was making me feel cinematically inadequate. I'm feeling much better now. I've seen most and heard of all of these so far.

[lovejuice]

I'm not sure when this picture got so grainy. Oh, well.

96. Werckmeister Harmonies (Tarr, 2000)

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/werckmeister.jpg


ahh...and i just happened to watch satantango on saturday. while both tackle almost the same subject, WH is a better film and definitely more audience-friendly.

[Derek]

I promise my #95 pick is something everyone is seen.

#96 - Mother & Son (Aleksandr Sokurov, 1997)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1196/1359425000_f474c2eafb.jpg

Aleksandr Sokurov’s meditative Mother & Son takes place in a quiet Russian cottage, set apart from the rest of the world. Only two characters, the nameless mother and son, ever grace the screen and the only sign of life outside of their own is in the train which occasionally passes by. Placing itself squarely between the natural and spiritual worlds, the film is balanced carefully in limbo in that mysterious zone between life and death, dreams and reality. Through stunning photography, which often looks like a moving painting, Sokurov has created a poetic elegy to a deep, inexplicable bond confronting its inevitable finale – a mother passing on and her son confronting life without a vital connection he has relied on for all his life. They share the same bond and the same memories, yet death draws a metaphysical rift between them; a widening gap that not even their intense, pure love for one another can hope to stop.

Images are stretched, skewed and distorted through Sokurov’s anamorphic lens, perfectly conveying their tortured souls and mirroring the transition from conscious being to nothingness as an intimate connection moves inevitably towards the sudden crash of death. The imagery is achingly beautiful and otherworldly, creating an environment that is at once insular and self-contained in reflecting the characters internal strife yet open to movements of nature. Simple images such as wind blowing through a field or a cloud-covered sky contain a spiritual depth pointing beyond the reality they reflect, taking the viewer into the spiritual realm that few directors have ever inhabited. Like his mentor Tarkovsky, Sokurov finds the poetry within nature and celebrates it in the most unique way.

As the film comes to a close, the son leaves his mother to mourn and confront the world without her. Behind him, a train passes through once again - the only sign of linear movement throughout the film, suggesting that through all their suffering and struggles to come to terms with their separation, time does indeed march on. And while that notion at first seems oppressive and cruel to the son, weighing upon his soul almost to the degree of crushing it, Sokurov’s careful pacing gives the audience room to contemplate and accept that our own temporary existence is necessary for us to enjoy and appreciate the beauty of the world and our own short time within it. In a film that, by all means, should be depressing, Mother & Son never is. Sokurov’s penetrative gaze into the human soul is too beautiful and moving to be considered anything short of inspiring and oddly enough, all three times I’ve seen it, I’ve left with a renewed appreciation of life and the world around me.

[Duncan]

Sokurov's Alexandra just opened around here. Planning on seeing it this weekend. Seems like an interesting director.

[Derek]

Sokurov's Alexandra just opened around here. Planning on seeing it this weekend. Seems like an interesting director.

He's amazing from what little I've seen. He studied under Tarkovsky, so I imagine he's a director you'd connect with. I highly recommend all three I've seen - this one, Russian Ark and Father & Son.

[Qrazy]

Neither Mother and Son nor Father and Son do much for me, although I really like the architecture/town the characters inhabit in the second film. Personally I just didn't find Mother and Son's aesthetic all that impressive or purposeful. I really like Russian Ark though and The Second Circle is probably the best film I've seen from Sokurov so far. He has a great understanding of the medium, and a lyricism and integrity all his own... but his films are often too meandering for my taste, brushing against their purpose without always penetrating it fully. The fifth one I saw from him was Empire, probably the most disappointing of all five. I really want to see Days of Eclipse though.

[Qrazy]

ahh...and i just happened to watch satantango on saturday. while both tackle almost the same subject, WH is a better film and definitely more audience-friendly.

Yeah, I'd agree, still I think Satantango is amazing and has some absolutely unforgettable imagery (the blind bell ringer, the cat, the walk through the windy city).

[SirNewt]

First film I haven't heard of, come on guys, don't go down this road.

[Melville]

That shot from Mother & Son looks incredible. The only films of Sokurov's that I've seen are Russian Ark and The Sun. Both were very good. The Sun, especially, had a remarkable atmosphere.


Now I must see this film, thanks.
Was the YouTube link insufficient?


ahh...and i just happened to watch satantango on saturday. while both tackle almost the same subject, WH is a better film and definitely more audience-friendly.
Werckmeister is the only movie I've seen from Tarr. How is the DVD transfer for Satantango?

[Qrazy]

First film I haven't heard of, come on guys, don't go down this road.

Why? Best way to get good recs.

[lovejuice]

Werckmeister is the only movie I've seen from Tarr. How is the DVD transfer for Satantango?

i watched it on a big screen. ;) there's a showing at la museum of art.