28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[baby doll]

Incidentally, I can think of a couple years where my top ten is dominated (fifty percent or more) by American movies. And I mean all American movies--not British or Canadian or Kiwi.

1955
1. Ordet
2. The Night of the Hunter
3. Nuit et brouillard
4. All That Heaven Allows
5. Moonfleet
6. Guys and Dolls
7. A Generation
8. Rebel Without a Cause
9. Artists and Models
10. The Trouble With Harry

1977
1. Eraserhead
2. Cet obscur objet du désir
3. Providence
4. Stroszek
5. The American Friend
6. Killer of Sheep
7. Opening Night
8. 3 Women
9. Saturday Night Fever
10. Le Diable probablement

1991
1. Les Amants du Pont Neuf
2. La Belle noiseuse
3. Life, and Nothing More...
4. The Passing
5. La Double vie de Véronique
6. Defending Your Life
7. Jungle Fever
8. Naked Lunch
9. My Own Private Idaho
10. Slacker

[soitgoes...]

Matsumoto's Symbol is a film not like any other film I've ever seen before. Sadly, because of this, most people outside of Japan will never get a chance to experience it. Two parallel stories (one follows a wrestler named Escargot Man in Mexico, the other a nameless Japanese man trapped in a solid white room with angel genitalia buttons) unfold without any perceived connection. About an hour in the two come crashing together with hilarity. I'm not entirely sure what to make of the whole thing, but suffice it to say that it's one of the most original films I've seen.

[Chac Mool]

Interesting discussion on reviewers, top tens, and countries of origin.

My two (maybe three) cents:

If it just so happens that the ten best movies in a given year come from a given country (USA, Japan, Turkmenistan or otherwise), I see absolutely no problem with them dominating a Top Ten list. The argument that the ten best movies in a given year cannot possibly come from one country is rather silly because (a) this is subjective evaluation, after all and (b) saying it's impossible is putting up arbitrary restrictions (not unlike saying, for example, that no more than two of the top ten movies can possibly be set in the same city).

The issue does become relevant when one talks of commercial/well-known/respected critics. Their responsibility is to sample a wide and varied cross-section of cinema, but crucially, one that strikes a balance between catering to the taste of their audience/readership and informing the latter about lesser-known films that may interest them. A mainstream critic (Ebert, Travers, Turan) will always populate his/her end-year list with American films because that's what the majority of their readership focuses on; they will also include a sampling of the best foreign films. A more specialized critic with a more knowledgeable readership (Rosenbaum, Ed Gonzales) will care less about country of origin.

Overall, I think it's important to remember that critics' reviews and end-year selections are, like ours, shaped by who they are and who they're writing for. There's no right or wrong -- just shades.

[Yxklyx]

Thierry Guetta is Real

Doesn't prove that much. I think Thierry Guetta/Mr. Brainwash may be real at this point in time but it's quite possible that he didn't exist until very very recently - about the time that Exit Through The Gift Shop came out.

[baby doll]

The issue does become relevant when one talks of commercial/well-known/respected critics. Their responsibility is to sample a wide and varied cross-section of cinema, but crucially, one that strikes a balance between catering to the taste of their audience/readership and informing the latter about lesser-known films that may interest them. A mainstream critic (Ebert, Travers, Turan) will always populate his/her end-year list with American films because that's what the majority of their readership focuses on; they will also include a sampling of the best foreign films. A more specialized critic with a more knowledgeable readership (Rosenbaum, Ed Gonzales) will care less about country of origin.

I wonder what would happen if Ebert came to the end of the year and found that his ten favorite movies were all (or even mostly) foreign language films--not very experimental, of course (Ebert's tastes tend towards the middlebrow; hence his love for The Secret in Their Eyes), but subtitled movies all the same.

Of course, so far that hasn't happened. In fact, since 1967, it's only happened six times that his favorite film of the year was a subtitled movie: The Battle of Algiers in 1968, Z in 1969, Cries and Whispers in 1973 and Scenes From a Marriage in 1974, L'Argent de poche in 1976, and then no more until Pan's Labyrinth in 2006. How is that even possible?

[Ezee E]

I wonder what would happen if Ebert came to the end of the year and found that his ten favorite movies were all (or even mostly) foreign language films--not very experimental, of course (Ebert's tastes tend towards the middlebrow; hence his love for The Secret in Their Eyes), but subtitled movies all the same.

Of course, so far that hasn't happened. In fact, since 1967, it's only happened six times that his favorite film of the year was a subtitled movie: The Battle of Algiers in 1968, Z in 1969, Cries and Whispers in 1973 and Scenes From a Marriage in 1974, L'Argent de poche in 1976, and then no more until Pan's Labyrinth in 2006. How is that even possible?

Fairly sure City of God was one of his favorites for the year. Guess I was wrong.

[baby doll]

Fairly sure City of God was one of his favorites for the year. Guess I was wrong.

It was number two; I'm talking just about his number ones.

[MacGuffin]

Blood was the perfect New Years' Eve morning flick.

[balmakboor]

I picked up the 2001: ASO Blu-ray for $9 the other day and watched it this morning. Still about the best damn thing ever made.

I also got the Dazed and Confused Criterion for Christmas and it has one of the best bonus discs ever created. I swear. I've been watching it for an hour and a half and haven't even watched the making of doc yet.

[Stay Puft]

Matsumoto's Symbol is a film not like any other film I've ever seen before. Sadly, because of this, most people outside of Japan will never get a chance to experience it. Two parallel stories (one follows a wrestler named Escargot Man in Mexico, the other a nameless Japanese man trapped in a solid white room with angel genitalia buttons) unfold without any perceived connection. About an hour in the two come crashing together with hilarity. I'm not entirely sure what to make of the whole thing, but suffice it to say that it's one of the most original films I've seen.

Yay! ritch:

So that makes four of us now, I think. Brightside, you watch it yet? (I'll finally watch a Ruiz film when you do!)

I'm trying to convert my friends into Matsumoto fans. I've had pretty good success so far with Big Man Japan, though of course it's availability here helps. I've been pimping Symbol but none of them have seen it yet (one of my friends bailed on me at the Toronto screening last year, the bastard).

[Spinal]

I wonder what would happen if Ebert came to the end of the year and found that his ten favorite movies were all (or even mostly) foreign language films--not very experimental, of course (Ebert's tastes tend towards the middlebrow; hence his love for The Secret in Their Eyes), but subtitled movies all the same.

Of course, so far that hasn't happened. In fact, since 1967, it's only happened six times that his favorite film of the year was a subtitled movie: The Battle of Algiers in 1968, Z in 1969, Cries and Whispers in 1973 and Scenes From a Marriage in 1974, L'Argent de poche in 1976, and then no more until Pan's Labyrinth in 2006. How is that even possible?

I looked to see how long it would take me to get up to six subtitled #1's.

Starting at 1967, it took me until 1974.

[megladon8]

English language =/= inferior.

[soitgoes...]

Yay! ritch:

So that makes four of us now, I think. Brightside, you watch it yet? (I'll finally watch a Ruiz film when you do!)

I'm trying to convert my friends into Matsumoto fans. I've had pretty good success so far with Big Man Japan, though of course it's availability here helps. I've been pimping Symbol but none of them have seen it yet (one of my friends bailed on me at the Toronto screening last year, the bastard).

Big Man Japan is next up. I hope he doesn't let me down.

[soitgoes...]

Holy fuck, the end of Big Man Japan is sooooo hilarious. I mean, straight up genius. The film as a whole isn't as good as Symbol, but that ending trumps everything in Matsumoto's second film.

[baby doll]

I looked to see how long it would take me to get up to six subtitled #1's.

Starting at 1967, it took me until 1974.

What's really odd, I think, is the total drop-off between 1977 and 2005. Did foreign-language movies (or at least those that opened in Chicago) just get a lot suckier in those years, or did Ebert feel less comfortable praising them enthusiastically, either due to external considerations (pressure from his editors and the studios themselves), or because, in the current US climate, talking about foreign movies is violating a cultural taboo.

[megladon8]

...or maybe his favorite movies of these years were English-language movies?

[Spinal]

I don't think it has anything to do with a 'cultural taboo', but I think it's fair to wonder whether there was pressure on Ebert as his visibility increased to select films that were not too far off the beaten path. He's repeatedly said he doesn't like making lists and giving star ratings. It's quite possible that there is some sort of concession to reader's comfort being made there, consciously or not. Not to say that he doesn't actually like those films ... I'm sure he does. But with a process like this that he doesn't enjoy anyway, he might just be making things a little easier on himself.

Let's remember that for the Sight and Sound poll, his list looked like this ...

1.Aguirre, Wrath of God (Herzog)
2.Apocalypse Now (Coppola)
3.Citizen Kane (Welles)
4.Dekalog (Kieslowski)
5.La dolce vita (Fellini)
6.The General (Keaton)
7.Raging Bull (Scorsese)
8.2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
9.Tokyo Story (Ozu)
10.Vertigo (Hitchcock)

[balmakboor]

I think of all people Roger Ebert had the clout to be totally honest with his choices during that period. He was also aware that whatever he chose as his favorites would be given something of a boost. So I agree with meg that he probably simply had an English language film as a favorite in those years.

[Derek]

Not everyone torrents, Derek. I hate watching movies on my laptop and I'd prefer to wait until it hits DVD or Netflix stream. If you aren't a critic who lives in Toronto, LA, NY, or Chicago, you are kinda screwed. It's not your duty as a film critic to see every single film produced for a 2010 list. Everyone is obviously going to have some blindspots.

But everyone has access to an $8 chord that goes from your computer to your tv, so you don´t have to watch on your laptop. The only time I ever watch a movie on my laptop is when I´m travelling. It´s called technology, Wats. Catch the fever!

Don't reviewers get screeners sent to them?

Yes, and most critics (or their editors) will get 100s if not 1000s of requests for reviews every year from obscure indie-foreign films to the mainstream. It doesn´t matter where a film screens, the studios will almost always send DVD screeners, usuallya few weeks in advance of the release. unless it´s one they want to keep under wraps for some reason. Availability or location is not a legitimate excuse for a critics these days. Ask number8 if his e-mail inbox is ever short of any screeners available for non-wide releases.

The problem is when reviewers, out of intellectual laziness, act as if Oscar-eligible commercial features are the only films that exist (much less matter). One obvious example is Roger Ebert, because even when he goes to film festivals like Cannes or Toronto, he tends only to report on films that will almost certainly be getting a US release (Another Year, Slumdog Millionaire, Juno), as if he's afraid to recommend something that won't be turning up at the local multiplex in a few months. And when he does encounter something relatively uncommercial, like an Angelopoulos or a Godard or a Kiarostami, his reaction is predictably dismissive: The emperor has no clothes, no "regular" moviegoer will be able to understand it, it's a film for festivals and specialists, etc. It's like a form of self-censorship.

Aside from using Ebert as a scapegoat, when the guy has at least done more than anyone to help Herzog´s career, over the many bottomfeeders that your first sentence describes, I´m in agreement. I´d say more, but i´d rather not turn this into an Ebert-debate when the guys a saint compared to a lot of other critics, sad as that may be to admit.

Blood was the perfect New Years' Eve morning flick.

Teh Costa? Best film I saw in 2010.

English language =/= inferior.

No one is saying they are. I´m not even sure how that is relevant to the discussion. What we are saying, or at least I´m saying, is that English language =/= superior and I´m making a fairly obvious assertion that many paid, professional critics disagree with that equation through very obvious and highly biased perspectives. Is it their right? Yes, of course. Just as it´s my right to say that critics who have such blatant biases are less useful than those who are more open to all of world cinema. To me, it´s a bias that is as equally frustrating as Armond´s anti-hipster, etc. agenda, though it´s hardly mocked at all compared to A-dub´s antics.

[Derek]

Dogtooth (Lanthimos, 2010) ***½

Niiice.

[megladon8]

No one is saying they are. I´m not even sure how that is relevant to the discussion. What we are saying, or at least I´m saying, is that English language =/= superior and I´m making a fairly obvious assertion that many paid, professional critics disagree with that equation through very obvious and highly biased perspectives. Is it their right? Yes, of course. Just as it´s my right to say that critics who have such blatant biases are less useful than those who are more open to all of world cinema. To me, it´s a bias that is as equally frustrating as Armond´s anti-hipster, etc. agenda, though it´s hardly mocked at all compared to A-dub´s antics.

But what Spinal and baby doll seem to be hinting at is that there's no way that Ebert could have just, you know, had an American (or at least English-language) film as his number 1 in all these years.

Why does it have to be some borderline conspiracy theory, where it's "taboo" to have anything other than an American film as his number 1 of the year? That he was/is pressured to put the spotlight on more films from America?

That's ridiculous to me.

Again, why can't it just be that he happened/s to love American film?

It's the culture he grew up in, still lives in, and is surrounded by. It doesn't seem like a far stretch to me that the filmed artistic expressions of other Americans are what he most closely identifies with, the same way that a French journalist would probably have lists saturated with French films.

[MacGuffin]

Teh Costa? Best film I saw in 2010.

Yes, and I just finished In Vanda's Room and it was even better.

[StanleyK]

Okay, I'm sold. O Sangue will be the first movie I see in 2011.

[baby doll]

But what Spinal and baby doll seem to be hinting at is that there's no way that Ebert could have just, you know, had an American (or at least English-language) film as his number 1 in all these years.

Why does it have to be some borderline conspiracy theory, where it's "taboo" to have anything other than an American film as his number 1 of the year? That he was/is pressured to put the spotlight on more films from America?

That's ridiculous to me.

It's the culture he grew up in, still lives in, and is surrounded by. It doesn't seem like a far stretch to me that the filmed artistic expressions of other Americans are what he most closely identifies with, the same way that a French journalist would probably have lists saturated with French films.

Speaking of the French, here's Cahiers du cinéma's top ten for 2010:

1. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
2. The Bad Lieutenant—Port of Call: New Orleans
3. Film socialisme
4. Toy Story 3
5. Fantastic Mr. Fox
6. A Serious Man
7. To Die Like a Man
8. The Social Network
9. Chouga (Ainour)
10. Mother

Half are American, and the other five are Thai, Swiss, Portuguese, Kazakh, and South Korean respectively. No French movies at all, although French is the primary language spoken in Godard's film (along with bits of English, German, and Russian).

Personally, I don't really buy this argument that because Ebert is American that it's natural for him to have some special affinity for US cinema. I suspect that the dominance of US filmmaking in the Cahiers poll has as much to do with the dominance of American cinema globally (they show Hollywood movies everywhere in the world, except in places like North Korea) as it does with the quality of the respective films. But even granting that Ebert mainly sees films from the United States, it seems strange that there hasn't been one year since 1967 in which, according to Ebert, the rest of the world collectively was at parity with US cinema in terms of strength--that is, where half or more of the films on his list weren't English-language movies. It's not like foreign films are fundamentally different from American ones in terms of narrative structure and style.

Again, why can't it just be that he happened/s to love American film?

Privilege-denying dude says what?

[megladon8]

"Privilege-denying dude"? What?