Round-Up of Non-Current Films I've Seen: Admission, The World's End, 9 to 5, Amadeus, Wish I Was Here, West Side Story

Admission (2013): Tina Fey and Paul Rudd star in a rom-com about an admissions officer at Princeton who discovers that the son she gave up for adoption a long time ago is now college age and his untraditional teacher/mentor/ready-made love interest is pushing hard for him to get into Princeton for reasons that only exist to drive the plot forward. The lack of rhyme and reason behind an admissions officer throwing her integrity down the drain by giving preferential treatment to a son she never knew existed becomes a pretty distractable plot hole considering the opening voice over talks about how seriously Tina Fey takes her job. 

While we're on the subject, I'm getting tired at this point of Tina Fey playing the same character over and over: Intelligent late-30s women who are often the only sane person in the room, and filled with worries of being a childless spinster as age creeps up on them.

Additionally, the courtship between the two lead characters tips too early in the first act. 

So why did I see it? It had a killer trailer. Those will get you:

Amadeus (1984)-My favorite old film I saw in the past year. The best picture winner from 1984 was included on AFI’s initial list of 100 Greatest Films of All-Time for good reason. The film is essentially a tone poem exploring the concept of jealousy which is quite novel. Even more clever is the idea to use a lesser-known historic figure to tell the story of the movie's main subject. Tom Hulce and F. Murray Abraham were largely unknowns when they took on the respective roles of famed composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and rival Salieri. The film is based on a a myth that Salieri poisoned Mozart out of jealousy for his genius and while the version of Salieri seen here is a heavily bastardized version to fit the plot, it does help illuminate the life of Mozart and the context in which he lived. 

I wrote an article for TopTenz about classical music icons who lived like rock stars and found the similarities between the two pretty eye-opening: The reality is that Mozart could generously be described as a foul-mouthed prankster and a brat at worst. "Amadeus" treads in that territory and carefully layers Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's wardrobe and mannerisms with subtleties indicating the parallels between Mozart (the pink wig, the unchecked embracing of weird, the love of attention) and modern-day rock idolatry. 

Whatever Mozart's cause of death, there was a tragedy to his life that was universal to any artist and while the film brilliantly allots audience sympathy between both central figures, there's something endearing about Mozart and the fact that sales of Mozart spiked by 30%  in 1985 is indicative that Hulce's Amadeus did something right. 

9 to 5 (1980)-A good meditation on the #MeToo movement. I watched this mostly because I loved the song and found the movie serviceable. It was one of the highest grossing films of 1980 and deserves to be mentioned among landmark films of that time period. The film's pairing of Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin and Dolly Parton (in her acting debut) and the dream sequences in which the three fantasize about killing their bosses, are also among the most notable things about the film. The best thing about the film is the natural camaraderie between the leads and just how impressively villanous Dabny Coleman's character was.

World's End (2013)-After seeing Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim, and Baby Driver and admiring Edgar Wright's work in all three of those films, I thought the time was right to approach this ode to the apocalypse. 

The film was a dueling film with Seth Rogen's This is the End and coming into this film having watched the Seth Rogen film throws the viewer for a curve because it's not apparent until about an hour in that this is an apocalyptic zombie film of sorts. The film takes the facade of a stunted middle-aged man who recruits his more well-adjusted adult friends for one last attempt at some sort of epic monumental pub crawl. The idea of a pub crawl might not be as epic as it seems, but the film sells us that this is a substantial deal to the protagonist. It also sells us on his delusion by showing how little of a deal it is to the other guys. The adult-friends-coming-to-terms-with-their-youths genre here provides quite a bit of narrative thrust and the film nicely adds the attacking zombies when the former needs some pick-me-up. The film lacks the comic depth or the game-changing gimmickry of the other three films I saw but those films set the bar quite high, so I'm quite pleased with the film's more moderate resolution. The film also has a lot of Easter Egg symbolism (look at the royal connection in the character's last names) that I didn't pick up until I saw the IMDB section so that might have affected my opinion. 

Wish I Was Here (2014)-Confession: I didn't care for "Garden State." The plot felt by-the-numbers, uneventful, and I spent most of that film scratching my head over why Zach's character would be into a disabled girl. The story attempted to be more than a romance and embody several facets of his life, but the protagonist's relationship with his dad and friends seemed easily solvable (or, again, uneventful) and considering the big ending was him getting together with Natalie Portman, was it really that much more than a romcom masquerading as a holistic indie film?

In contrast, "Wish I Was Here" has a lot of non-romantic plotlines that aren't treatest as afterthoughts. Mandy Patinkin's father character is a genuinely tough obstacle to the protagonist's well-being and he even has some valid points underneath his crusty facade about the protagonist being financially unwise by pursuing acting full-time. The film deals with money, spirituality, maintaining a marriage, death, fatherhood, and being a good son and treats each of these plots with a good deal of weight. 

In contrast to how "Garden State" meanders slowly without significant actions, the world of this film's protagonist is one of near-constant chaos as he juggles an array of responsibilities and desires.

The remarkable thing about how much this film won me over is that I retroactively like "Garden State" a little more because I now have a sense of the guy's style.

West Side Story (1961)-I've seen this before, but it's even better on second or third viewing. For instance, like a John Hughes film, "West Side Story" really captures youth and what the world looks like through the lens of those with immature life experiences: Yes, it's not particularly rational that the Jets would embracee sloth in Officer Krupkee or exxagerate their feud with the Sharks, or that Maria and Tony would sleep with each other after their brother and foster brother were killed, but these are teenagers whether they try to deny their rebellious nature (as Tony does) or not (the rest of the Jets). 

The inherent problems of racism and othering also caught me here. I didn't catch in any previous viewing that Tony was short for Anton and isn't considered a true Caucasian by Bernardo, that "America" has such prescient foreshadowing to the 2010s (references to hurricanes, debt and many people not being aware Puerto Rico is part of America) and that Lt. Shrank is racist as a matter of practicality: He detests gang violence because it makes his job harder, but he assumes that the Sharks are a bigger problem than the Jets. And the choreography! Jerome Robbins got fired before the completion of the movie and his main contribution were the four dance numbers (Mambo, The Prologue, America, and Cool). 

What do movies have to offer these days that TV doesn't already have?

What exactly do the movies have to offer these days that TV doesn't already have? This isn't a grandiose introduction to an essay but rather a public exercise in self-reflection as I struggle with this.
I have a great amount of appreciation for the democratic nature of movies and how the medium allows supporters to directly fund the movies they like through ticket sales. The good news is that movies seem to be doing fine without me. The question is what do movies have with me.

I didn’t always have a love affair with the movies. I grew up in a household with a slightly restrictive set of rules on TV. Up until I was about 16, TV or film wasn't one of my main intellectual interests or hobbies: It was just my favorite activity in the world. Nothing gave me greater joy in my youth than finding a way to sneak in more TV than whatever loose quota my parents set for me (usually an hour or a half-hour). 

My parents usually only used TV to watch news and believed too much TV would "rot your brain" unless you were watching educational television which was erroneously defined as Channel 26 or PBS. Of course this isn't true: Breaking Bad is a master's course in chemistry, CSI teaches you about DNA, the Americans teaches you about Cold War History, and Turn is a great way to get acquainted with the Revolutionary War. Deciding to use part of my parent-funded-college education on a film studies minor was, in fact, a form of rebellion. Before that I would often spend my time arguing with them about whether TV was a brain rotter. 

My family and I went to the movies in what I imagine was a regular capacity and I often would argue, "Hey. You watch a two-hour movie, what's the difference?" My dad would argue that a movie is different. [Editorial note: Not sure whether to pull this down two sections] More on that later.

At some point, movies became a hobby. The summer I turned 16, I came across a list by the American Film Institute of the 100 greatest movies ever and was fascinated by the fact that I had seen so few of those movies. I went to the library and spent that summer checking out films like "The African Queen," "Roman Holiday," "Palm Beach Story," "Bridge on the River Kwai," "All About Eve," "Network" and many more. A few summers later, I was out of school for a semester and kept myself busy writing user reviews on IMDB which prompted eventually morphed into a great determination to write better reviews (declaring a film studies minor when I returned to college) and watch more movies. I excitedly went to the movie theater all the time, even by myself (which for some reason was and is a taboo), and would soak up bad and good movies alike. The bad ones were great because as any film critic can tell you, there are few things more cathartic to do with the written word than rip on a bad movie.

I kept track of how many films I watched and rated them all on a four-star scale like Roger Ebert did. I usually watched about 30 films in a calendar year by the time December (or maybe January/February) rolled around. 

These days that number is significantly less. I've only watched seven films in a movie theater this calendar year (Lucy, Begin Again, X-Men Days of Future Past, A Million Ways to Die in the West, Grand Budapest Hotel, Interstellar, Gone Girl) so far this year at a theater and haven't found anything on my last stop at the Redbox to pique my interest. Granted, a lot of films from one year I catch in the following calendar year. In 2014, for example, I've watched the following 2013 films: "12 Years a Slave" I watched on the morning of the Oscars, "Nebraska" I watched in early January, "Philomena" I caught on Redbox, "Man of Steel" I saw on pay cable, "White House Down" I saw on Redbox, "Frozen" I saw on Itunes.

What's taken the place of movies these days for me is TV. Serialized dramas, the occasional escapist procedural and multi-layered comedies have so much to offer these days. I often say this is the Golden Age of TV and Oscar-winners like Halle Berry (Extant), Kevin Spacey (House of Cards), Dustin Hoffman (Luck), John Voight (Ray Donovan) Octavia Spencer (Red Band Society), and Jane Fonda (Netflix's upcoming series) are flocking to the small screen in droves. I love the idea of leaving my home to support and experience the arts (I would be a proponent of viewing parties although I've never facilitated one and have very very rarely been invited to such a thing. On another note, please invite me to more viewing parties), but these days, I'm going the path of Berry, Spacey and Voight and finding more richness in TV.

Back in the days when I would have a running argument with my dad over why movies were considered a more acceptable activity, he would argue that movies are different than TV because they are a communal activity.

Personally, I long ago decided that movies don’t function as a social activity considering talking during the movie can now get you kicked out of theaters. Of course, most of the talking and conversation happens after the film.


Now imagine if you could constantly talk during the movie as the storyline plays out without disturbing the people in the theater. That’s essentially what TV has become nowadays. As serialized dramas unfold and as procedurals and comedies tweak their formats on a week-to-week basis, people have rich and detailed conversations through twitter, on message boards, and through professionally written week-to-week reviews. The progress of ongoing TV shows is also a great social conversation topic and it’s far more engaging of a process to talk about a story as it’s unfolding. 

If the AFI 100 Greatest Films series added 18 new entries

In 1997, the American Film Institute released a landmark list of the 100 greatest English-language films in the history of cinema. This was what single-handedly turned me on to classic films. Before that point, I had no idea how any of the few older films I had seen were considered against the greats. If you had asked me to guess the top 100 before seeing the list, I might have guessed films like the Vincente Minnelli film Kismet (which is, in fact, considered one of his worst but I liked it plenty), The Pink Panther, Lion King, Back to the Future (which DOES deserve to be on the list), An American Tail, or Cool Runnings.

My own personal experiences aside, the AFI's list deserves acclaim for being balanced, comprehensive, and very much in line with popular opinion, cultural impact and critical standing. In 2007, the AFI rereleased their list with members revoting. Although ten years and a whole batch of new films had passed between lists, only four films released since 1997 made the new cut: Titanic, Saving Private Ryan, Sixth Sense, and Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. Instead of adding new entries, the AFI spent most of their energy amending the catalogue of films from the original time period, 1996-1996, to correct oversights such as the General, Do the Right Thing, Cabaret, Shawshank Redemption, 12 Angry Men, Blade Runner and 12 others.

So the scenario I'm exploring today is what if the AFI voted to add 18 new films to the original 122 that have been included in either of the lists. This way, no classic films have to be bumped out. I'm only interested in films that overlap with the most recent film to be featured so far which was Lord of the Rings, so no films after 2001 will be considered and since 18 films were added from the existing time period, I'm picking that number.

Here would be my predictions in order of likelihood.

1. The Conversation (1974) dir. Frances Ford Copolla-Starring Gene Hackman as a secretive surveillance official with a crisis of conscience, the film is timeless and especially thematically relevant. It was a Best Picture nominee (competing against Copolla's other masterpiece Godfather II) and widely considered to be on par with Copolla's other films that have landed on the AFI list.

2. Back to the Future (1985) dir. Rob Zemeckis- It's a favorite of mine, but it's very clearly a favorite of a generation and a venerable time capsule of film making in the 80's. The AV Club's Inventory named it the film that defined the 80's in their list of twelve films that defined their decades. Beyond that, it combines the best of several 80's genres (teen movie, scifi, comedy of misadventures) and hits that sweet spot between audience favorite and respectable classic. It's one of the first blockbusters to expand into a trilogy and simultaneously enjoys the status of a cult film today: Something that's endlessly rewatched, celebrated, and dissected.

3. Touch of Evil (1958) dir. Orson Welles-After making Citizen Kane at the ripe age of 26, widely considered to be the best film of all-time, Welles saw his career get severely roadblocked by Hollywood and the bitter vendetta of the Hearst empire and as such, must of his talent as a director was severely dampened by studio influence. Towards the end of his career he made one of his best works: A riff on Othello that was adapted from the short story "Badge of Courage." The film was heavily tampered with by the studio (Universal) and buried in the back half of a double feature with no promotion. In the last few years of the 20th Century as the best of the century lists rolled out Touch of Evil gained popularity just as the director's cut was released. It made lists by Entertainment Weekly, Guinness book of Films, the National Society of Film Critic's A-List and Tim Dirks' website filmsite.org. Beyond that, its a stunning film that I'd count as two or three of my favorites.

4. Alien (1979) dir. Ridley Scott- Like Back to the Future, Alien hits the sweet spot between audience favorite and critical darling and transcends the genre trap of sci-fi. That Sigourney Weaver earned an Oscar nomination for a genre part is a testament of how iconic that character became. It's also fair to say Alien was boundary-pushing. It also ranks #36 on the greatest films of all-time by Time Out Magazine.

5. His Girl Friday (1940) dir. Howard Hawks- Cited by both Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper as one of the ten most glaring omissions of the 1997 list, His Girl Friday is the quintessential screwball comedy that many other romcoms consciously or unconsciously borrowed from. Although another of Hawk's screwball comedies, "Bringing Up Baby", made the list, "His Girl Friday" is a sharper work that showcases Cary Grant as a strong character who can match wits with the best of them which is how he deserves to be remembered. The film might owe its effectiveness to the fact that it was adapted from a film ("The Front Page") in which both leads were men. How's that for gender equality.

6. Big Sleep (1946) dir. Howard Hawks- If I'm not mistaken, Hawks only has one film in the AFI top 122 and if that's the case, that's downright baffling when one considers the sheer contribution of landmark films he made in nearly every genre. Big Sleep, for example, is one of the earliest trailblazers of film noir in its American form which is even more impressive when considered that few other films pushed the form's boundaries as far in terms of a labryrinthine story, an unapolagetically raw hero and risque dialogue.

7. Badlands (1973) dir. Terrence Malick- Malick made two films in the 1970's that grew his legend as he went into reclusion for 20 years before he made another pair of films that were both hailed as masterpieces. Malick is a director who has a unique style with incomparable cinematography that would make any comprehensive list of American films incomplete without his name on it. Badlands was the film which introduced his style to the world and its antiheroes- a pair of lovebirds on a killing spree- helped define the counterculture of the 70's.

8. The Awful Truth (1937) dir. Leo McCarey- A screwball comedy and melodrama that that won Best Director for Leo McCarey, The Awful Truth is an unconventional love story in that its about divorce. Time Magazine said it was "possibly the greatest love story ever made."

9. LA Confidential (1997) dir. Curtis Hanson -The star-studded modern-day noir stands the test of time as a relatively pure recreation of a genre that's near-dead. It was ranked among the top-rated films of the 90's when I conducted a poll of over 100 people and it seems to be reserved with classic status.

10. How the West was Won (1963) dir. John Ford-The film was the last of John Ford's Best Picture nominees and it could be argued that, in terms of scope, it was his ultimate masterpiece. The film was a grandiose spectacle on the level of David Lean and Cecille B. DeMille, and it borrowed a page from D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" in the way it intertwined stories from different time periods.  It had the appeal of Best Picture winners "Around the World in 80 Days" or "Greatest Show on Earth" but unlike those two, it could actually be considered a work of art.

8 more
11. Being There  (1979), directed by Hal Ashby, starring Peter Sellers, starring Peter Sellers, Shirley MacLaine, Melyn Douglas, Jack Warden
12. The Exorcist (1973), directed by William Friedkin, starring Ellen Burstyn, Max von Sydow, Lee J Cobb, Linda Blair, Jason Miller
13. Almost Famous (2000), directed by Cameron Crowe, starring Patrick Fugit, Frances McDormand, Jason Lee, Kate Hudson, Zooey Deschanel, Philip Seymour Hoffman
14. Night of the Hunter (1955), directed by Charles Laughton, starring Robert Mitchum, Shelley Winters, Peter Graves, Lillian Gish, James Gleason
15. The Matrix (1999), directed by Andrew and Lana Wachowski, starring Keanu Reeves, Hugo Weaving, Laurence Fishburne, Carrie-Anne Moss, Gloria Foster
16. Terms of Endearment (1983) directed by James L Brooks, starring Shirley MacLaine, Debra Winger, Jack Nicholson, John Lithgow, Danny DeVito
17. East of Eden (1955), directed by Elia Kazan, starring James Dean, Raymond Massey, Julie Harris, Burl Ives, Jo Van Fleet
18. Blue Velvet (1986)-directed by David Lynch, starring Isabella Rossellini, Dean Stockwell, Dennis Hopper, Kyle MacLachlan, Laura Dern, Hope Lange

The Increasingly Vague Distinction between Hollywood and Foreign films

It's funny that no one is even noticing that if the Oscars follow the Golden Globes, Slumdog Millionaire will be the closest we've come to a foreign film winning the best picture Oscar.

Slumdog Millionaire was filmed entirely in India, directed by a British director (and co-directed by an Indian director), and is half-English, half-Urdu. It also utilized an entirely foreign crew and its subjects are foreign. The only non-foreign element at play is that it was produced by an American company, Fox Searchlight.

We've traditionally had easier defined boundaries between a foreign film and a non-foreign film, but in this globalized era, ownership of a movie by a single country is a little harder to define. The best directors in the world such as Brazilian Fernando Meirelles (City of God), Chinese director Ang Lee, and Mexicans Alfonso Cuaron (Y tu Mama Tambien), Rob Rodriguez (El Mariachi), and Alejandro Inarritu Gonzalu (Amores Perros) have eventually used their money to come to Hollywood and made English-language films with American actors. When Alejandro Inarritu Gonzalu won the Golden Globe for best picture with Babel, he suggested in his acceptance speech that his film was a true global picture that belonged to the people and crews among three different continents.

Experimentation works both ways however. In 2006 (2007 was technically when the ceremony was held), two of the five directors nominated for best foreign-language film, Mel Gibson for Apocolypto and Clint Eastwood for Letters of Iwo Jima, were American. Woody Allen who has had a decades-long love affair with New York, packed up shop and moved to London recently for the filming of Match Point.

The spread of filmmakers and film making ideas across borders, however, has been going on forever. And the American film industry would never have eclipsed the emerging film industries in France, Italy, and Russia if it weren't for the contributions of foreigners. In other words, this has been going on forever. Most of the great American directors from our Hollywood Golden age have come from other countries, Billy Wilder came from Austria, Otto Preminger and Ernst Lubitsch came from Germany, and Frank Capra came from Italy. This was all the more ironic considering that Frank Capra's film exemplified the ideals of Americana better than any other filmmaker to this day. He made the quintessential film about how good triumphs over evil if our constitution is enforced in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." With the exception of Frank Capra, however, these directors were Jews who were persecuted in Nazi Europe so were exiled to America. Directors who weren't forced out of their homeland tended to stay in their own countries and made films in their own languages. Even our two biggest directors of the Golden Age of Hollywood, Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchkock were influenced by the German film industry. Alfred Hitchkock interned (yeah, like college internship) with the German film industry before working in the British film industry, and Orson Welles used a German cinematographer, Greg Tolland (Tolland worked with another of other American directors as well).

More recently, Czech director Milos Forman (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Amadeus, The People vs Larry Flint, Man on the Moon) one two Oscars and because he had made some films in Czech, he technically was the first non-English language director to win an Oscar. At the same time, most of his filmography (or at least the films he's famous for are American) is American. In 1987, "The Last Emperor" won best picture and might be considered the first foreign film. The film, about the exiled Emperor of China, utilized Japanese and Mandarin in its dialogue in addition to English and was filmed in China. It was was directed by Bernardo Bertolucci, an Italian director who had made his name in Italian-language films and earned him a best director nomination. The film was bankrolled by a British studio.

It's important to clarify here that British films aren't really considered foreign films. It's not just because of the similar language but because the flow of actors between both countries are pretty interchangeable. British directors David Lean and Oliver Reed have won Oscars for their entirely British films and many found it somewhat curious that the American film institute listed Lawrence of Arabia as the 5th best American film ever made when virtually no part of the production had anything to do with America. David Lean is, after all, is a British institution. Even more curious, the British film institute's list of 100 Greatest British films of all-time has entries which are decidedly Un-British. There is a such thing as a British film industry and certain films like the Bond series, the works of David Lean, Oliver Reed, and Richard Lester, The Red Shoes, Room with a View, etc. are considered quintessentially British films. The British Film Institute's list, however, included films such as Shakespeare in Love or Braveheart, whose only qualifications are that the films are set in Britain and revolve around British history. If we take this definition of where films are set and to what degree they revolve around the country's history and culture, then surely Slumdog Millionaire is foreign because it is a landmark film in presenting images of Indian modern-day life to audiences in the UK and US who knew very little about it.

My vote is that Last Emperor is foreign, Bernardo Bertolucci was the first foreign director to win an Oscar, and that Slumdog Millionaire will be #2. What's yours?

Critical Temperature of films and The Dark Knight....

It's amusing to watch how the response and enthusiasm Dark Knight has shaped since the film's release. Part of these proclamations that this film suddenly deserves a place next to the best films of all time and can even rival Citizen Kane might have to do with where we are in terms of Web 2.0 and the state of film criticism.

Many moviegoers have long been aware of the massive expanse of film history. Ten years ago, the thought that for approximately 100 years, masterpieces have been coming out and the average moviegoer hasn't even seen or heard of a great number of them, prevented the moviegoer from thinking that that amazing picture he just saw must have been the greatest film of all time or close to it. When a film comes out that people think is great, they are generally aware that as great as this film was, the odds are that a number of films they haven't seen were better, simply because there are so many.

The increase of film retrospectives (the AFI 100, for example) and distinguished film historians, successfully solidified that amorphous category of "great films from the old days that i haven't seen" into a concrete, slightly flexible block of films with names and faces like Rebel Without a Cause, On the Waterfront, Graduate, Citizen Kane, All About Eve, etc. which continue to be solidified by subsequent "Greatest Films Ever" lists produced by every major publication (Entertainment Weekly, Time Out, Guinness, Premiere, Rolling Stone) that deals remotely with films that echoes the original choices.

At the same time, this community of people doing the film retrospectives and putting in the thought about what the great films are has become far more interactive. In the past five years there has been a major growth of people with film blogs, registrations on websites like imdb.com and flicker. This might be why there is some sort of shift and enthusiasm to challenging the notion that a recent film is better than all the classics, because as one of the people proclaiming its praises, you are taking some small degree of ownership over that film. I think the Dark Knight's brief appearance on top of the imdb.com's 250 and it's potential chances to knock off Titanic (the last time this sort of phenomenon happened) at the box office, alerted the film community that they could seize this film and proclaim their own "Citizen Kane."

The truth, however, aside from whether the film is Citizen Kane is not (it is not because it doesn't really revolutionize the way filming is done unless you count shooting it in IMAX or the marketing, which is coincidentally what all the people who are proclaiming it so great are slightly influenced by) is it's, by definition, impossible to tell if a film is worthy of being a classic until years down the road. That's why The Searchers, Hitchkock's best work, Citizen Kane, Nashville, and 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Raging Bull all failed at the Oscars: because their historical value wasn't apparent at the time, and why would it have been?

To people watching Citizen Kane at the time, the way it's cinematography and story telling methods would be used later by so many other film makers would not have been known in 1941.

My 2 favorite films: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade & Touch of Evil

This is what I wrote for the AFI's 100 Years fan opinion survey:

I’d say that it’s a tie between two movies that are sequels to greater films.

I think that Indiana Jones is the classic American hero: he’s intelligent, reluctant to take responsibility but will do it if he has to, and because luck isn’t always on his side, he’s more vulnerable and more likeable than James Bond. I also think that the adventure/action epic is one of the best types of movie-making.

As for why I chose Last Crusade? While Raiders of the Lost Ark was more of a milestone in the genre, Last Crusade I liked more. I liked that the villaness’s allegiance was more ambigous, I found the Sean Connery/Harrison Ford chemistry touching and hillarious and I loved the opening scene which introduced us to Indiana’s childhood. I also found the historical context is richer and the beam of light that Indiana Jones walks on in the end is such a great twist: The scientist making a leap of faith when he absolutely has to.

Touch of Evil isn’t so much a sequel as a sort of swan song to what started as the most promising career of any Hollywood director and Orson Welles. People don’t give enough credit to Orson Welles the actor who is really brilliant here. I think the Henry Mancini score and the setting of the Mexican-American border really makes the story that much more invigorating and every frame of the film is so beautifully shot. The story, which delves into everything from drugs, police corruption, and racist politics, is so well-constructed and some of Marlene Dietrich’s lines are so profound (i.e. “Aren’t you gonna read my future?” “You haven’t got one.”)

An Interview with a rep from the AFI

An interview with the Allison Dekmatel, PR for the AFI’s Film Institute on the afternoon that the American Film Institute changed their list:
Q: Why, exactly, is the AFI changing the list?
A: It essentially comes down to the fact that there are 10 more years of film history to be accounted for.
Q: So why not just add ten more rather than reorder the list?
A: AFI has decided to undertake this program because in film and in other art forms, our perception of films can change through the cultural temperature of the times. We have a criteria [in selecting these films] that it’s about the test of time and the times change.
Q: The first AFI list is inclusive of all genres, decades, and figures. It looks like it might have been selected rather than done by a vote. If there was just a strict vote and the jurors tended to gravitate toward the Golden Age, than the list would be flooded with films from the 30s and 40s?
A: The list was done through a straight vote. The reason it’s so diverse is that the film historians from within the AFI selected from a panel of 400 films which came from a variety of decades and genres.
Q: So who votes for the actual AFI list?
A: The vote comes from a jury of 1500 people. All people who sign up for a membership with the AFI collectively get one vote.
Q: Are they the same people as the ones who voted on the original list?
A: There are some different people but of the same backgrounds as the original voters.
Q: Does having one of your films selected to the list feel like an Oscar for some directors? Does a guy like Sidney Pollack (whose film Tootsie made the list) ever voice their enthusiasm to you?
A: We’ve gotten responses from both sides. [From] filmmakers who’ve made the list and filmmakers who haven’t.
Q: Any specific examples?
A: I don’t know of the specifics, but there has been enormous feedback to the process.
Q: At this point, who knows what the new AFI list is?
A: It has not been announced to the press. It will be broadcast tonight and that’s when everyone will know. Then we will post the list at 11 pm when the program ends. Very few members of the press know what’s on the new list at this point.
Q: Are you worried that some cult film that’s popular in the here and now like “Napoleon Dynamite” might make the list and ruin its credibility. You did do a pretty good job with the first one, why tamper with that?
A: The beauty of the system is that we have a lot of confidence in our jury and we think that the jury takes this very seriously. If 10,000 out of the 15,000 members of our jury should decide that “Napoleon Dynamite” deserves merit as one of the top 100 films, than we’re confident that they have a good reason to vote that way.
Q: Why doesn’t the AFI release the broadcasts?
A: As a non-profit organization we’re aloud one free TV broadcast and the studios that produce the films are all kind enough to let us use clips for that broadcast. Past that, it would be excessively expensive with all the clips we use.
Q: How recent are the films? Do you have films from 2006 and 2007 in contention?
A: Films released as late as 2006 are eligible but no film later than 2005 was selected onto the 400 films. Films from 2006 can be added through write-in votes, however. They felt that more time needs to pass before [we can analyze those films with proper perspective].
Q: Why did the AFI undertake the original AFI program?
A: The original AFI list was created as part of a year-long celebration to mark the centennial [of film] and the AFI list was the flagship of that program”
Q: What will happen to the old films that will be left off the list?
A: New films will definitely be added and the list is going to change.
Q: Are there any films on the original list in particular that were flying under the radar and got a big boost of recognition when the list came out?
A: The AFI helped bring about recognition to many films and greatly improved their visibility.

The AFI 100 is finally rereleased: preliminary thoughts on the new films

First of all, here's the list in case you missed it last night. It's actually relatively annoying that the AFI isn't publicly displaying it:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-06-20-AFI-movie-list_N.htm



Now this is basically the only time in 10 years that knowledge of classic film and current events ever mix together, so I better take advantage of that and start writing away. This was such an exciting event for me, because I didn't even recognize the names of most of those movies the last time around. So here are some notes:

-I talked to a spokesman for the AFI in an interview and she said the AFI is redoing the top 100 list to account for the last 10 years of film, but she also said that no films from the 400-ballot date later than 2004 because the films do need time to breathe to be properly evaluated and I agree with that. The end result is a little bit low, though. Only 4 films were included: Saving Private Ryan, Titanic, Lord of the Rings and The Sixth Sense. The most frustrating thing about this is the incongruity of this is that since only one of these films was in the 2000's, this could almost, almost pass for a 20th century list right up to the very last year.

-It also has me worried that perhaps since film critics are exposed to so many more Oscar contenders and there is so much Internet criticism out there, that maybe we can't agree on greatness anymore. During the Great Depression, films like It Happened One Night and 42nd Street pulled people together. I don't know if that's the case. We can still all get excited over Spiderman, Pirates of the Caribbean and X-Men, and Brokeback Mountain, Dreamgirls and Departed do dominate water cooler buzz, but maybe it's a fracture between the critics and the public. Spiderman, Shrek and Pirates were all on the ballot as were many of the Oscar nominees. At the very least it's nice to see a few films added:

• Lord of the Rings is an undeniable safe choice because it has been both part of the Blockbuster culture and the Oscar culture which divides film viewing now more than ever.
• I've already seen a lot of complaining about the Sixth Sense on message boards, but I say, let's just try to agree on something, rather than have this decade not represented. Sixth Sense is an interesting offbeat pick from a director who has a gift for originality. Even if he's currently struggling a little with where to go with it at the moment (Lady in the Water hit a nerve with audiences and it ended the director's streak of commercial success), let's honor how he once showed us something new and original.
• Saving Private Ryan was a film that came along when there was nothing left to say about World War II. It's another war classic and it shows that the tradition of making great war movies has not been forgotten. Flags of Our Fathers/Letters from Iwo Jima is the recent continuation of this.
• Titanic is such an interesting pick. When the last list came out in 1998, Titanic seemed like the biggest cinematic event to hit the face of the Earth. It broke all box office records and it had the biggest production budget ever and it won a record number of Oscars. Nowadays, box office draw and critical acclaim are two different things entirely. The box office champions of the last few years Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Star Wars III, Shrek II, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Spiderman, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Mission Impossible II, have virtually no chance at a best picture nomination and seldom appear on critic's top 10 lists. But back then, Titanic was unstoppable. Even if you wanted to hate it because it was a Goliath of a film and you tend to root for the Davids, the story was so damn moving and emotional, that you couldn't deny it's greatness. If Titanic was eligible for that ballot, who knows how high it would have gotten on the list. Some might have voted it #1 due to the fact that box office draw and greatness might have been more correlated. Nearly 10 years later, Titanic is almost forgotten and its entry onto this list is a fairly heavy reminder of the pervasiveness Titanic once held in our culture that one year. I still think it's relevant because Titanic was the last box office champ to even be nominated for an Oscar and for that might have been the last true blockbuster before our blockbuster culture got saturated. (Sixth Sense cracked the top 10 all time and it was nominated, however)

-The two preeminent directors of this decade, Eastwood and Scorsese, who collectively have earned 6 of the 25 best director nominations given out by the Academy since 2002, both enjoyed massive upgrades. Scorsese's Raging Bull catapulted to #4 ahead of "Gone with the Wind" and Eastwood's Western Unforgiven, previously in the 90s on the list, catapulted to the 68. In my opinion, Eastwood had one film that would be considered a classic before Mystic River and that was Unforgiven. In between, he had unextroadinary output with films ranging in quality from Space Cowboys to Bridges of Madison County. In recent books that have come out where film scholars dissect Eastwood's filmography movie-by-movie, it's kind of funny to see these guys try to dissect Space Cowboys with the same attention to detail reserved for Mystic River.



-I noticed 3 directors who moved up from being one-hit wonders to two-timers and that's because they had a good decade: Mike Nicholls who had recent critical successes with Closer and Angels in America got his 2nd best film, Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff added to the list in addition to "The Graduate." Rob Altman had a modest success in Prairie Home Companion and a big one in Godsford Park, but more importantly he strategically passed away right before they were balloting. No, I'm just kidding. Rob Altman's 2nd entry to the list "Nashville" was one of the glaring errors of the first list and with McCabe and Mrs. Miller or Godsford Park he could have easily had three or four. The same is true for the ever-so-prolific Sidney Lumet, recent recipient of the Honorary Oscar whose film 12 Angry Men made the list. 12 Angry Men is very deserving.

-The "Third Man" is a great film. One of my favorites. The photography is beautiful, Orson Welles' sudden appearance is so unexpected. It works on so many levels. I personally read it in so many ways: a pulp fiction novelist trying to give himself his own storybook ending with the girl at the end, the American literature form trying to return to its European influences. Maybe it didn't make the list this time, because it just wasn't an American production?

-I think it is upsetting that films like "A Place in the Sun," "Stagecoach," and especially "From Here to Eternity" (my favorite war film) were omitted from the list but i don't think that necessarily renders them historically irrelevant. The fact that they were on the first top 100 list cements them as classics, and it's simply that they wanted to mix it up a little. Mostly what the list did was introduce the public to some films that should have made the list last time (and probably almost did):

• Do the Right Thing: Spike Lee has combined his filmic ambitions with his desire to infuse the country with racial awareness
• Blade Runner (Ridley Scott): The film didn't have enough sci-fi the first time, and Blade Runner was aside from being a great and highly praised film, a great influence in the genre. It also introduced Ridley Scott to the list
• Cabaret (Bob Fosse): I saw this film in my film genres class when we studied musicals and in terms of reinventing the conventions of a genre, it's hard to top this film. In musicals, the songs are used to celebrate life, courtship, community and vitality. In Cabaret, the musical numbers are used to illustrate decadence and foreshadow death.
• All The President's Men (Alan Paluka): This film was basically the 1970's version of "Good Night and Good Luck," only it was actually relevant to the times. A strict docudrama that featured Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford running around and looking busy like the casts of Aaron Sorkin shows traditionally like to do, All the President's Men was as great of a suspense thriller as it was a history lesson. All the recent buzz about the story with Mark Felt's identity revealed as deep throat might have contributed to the film making the list this time around
• Sullivan's Travels (Preston Sturges): I've seen two of the three really famous Preston Sturges films: Palm Beach Story and The Lady Eve and wasn't much of a fun of either of them. The third, Sullivan's Travels, looks quite appealing now that I've seen clips of it and I'm thinking I might watch it. Perhaps, three times a charm. Many film historians consider him to be a historically significant film director because he was ingeneous at getting racy dialogue past the censorsing board.
• The General (Buster Keaton): The great silent film star who has been considered 2nd best next to Chaplain for the last 40 or 50 years or so. The General was his most epic film and I believe his most expensive to produce. I did see it and personally did not think it was as great as Chaplain or even Harold Lloyd's films, but it is certainly a different brand of comedy.
• 12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet): Along with Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (also on the list), there is no film that captures the spirit of American Democracy better than this film. It's also such an impressive film because its setting is pretty much confined to one single room and there's nothing but the dramatic tension to keep things moving
• Swing Time (George Stephens): If you thought that with A Place in the Sun and Giant that George Stephens got eliminated from the list, that's not true, because he got represented with "Swing Time." This is a far better and more convincing film than the other film that's cited as the best Astaire-Rogers pairing "Top Hat." Swing Time has a more endearing love story, a lightning-fast opening that grabs your attention right away, the brilliantly conceived dance number in which Astaire saves Rogers job by showing how quick of a study she is, a more convincing pairing of romantic doubles in Viktor Moore/Helen Broderick; a very nice change of piece in "Just the Way You Look Tonight" where Astaire just sings without dancing, and a more menacing foil in Ricky Romero.
• Sophie's Choice: This is the only film on the list that I know absolutely nothing about (there were other films that I knew close to nothing about). All I knew about this film was that it won Meryl Streep an Oscar and I wasn't even sure of that. Once again, the AFI list made me feel stupid, but that's ok.

-I think the biggest waste of a choice was Night at the Opera because one Marx Brothers film is enough. Honestly, I can't even remember if I've seen a Night at the Opera. I've seen about 4 or 5 Marx Brothers Films and i can't remember them by name. I think they all just blend into each other. Some have Zeppo and some don't, that's the only difference.

AFI's list of films from the last decade

These are the films on AFI's 400 film list that came from the last decade. These, in other words, are the films that have come around since the last release of the list. 1997 films LA Confidential and Titanic were released in 1997 and the list came out in 1998, but were probably not on the original 400. It's an interesting set of choices, except I'm not sure why they picked Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkhaban. I think they're missing The Pianist, Master and Commander, the Truman Show, Last Samurai, Munich, Lost in Translation, Seabiscuit, and Mystic River and just like the Oscars, they went overboard by giving every installment of Lord of the Rings a nomination. Chicago vs Moulan Rouge should be interesting, I predict one of those two entries will make it on and it will be Chicago, most likely. Chicago placed 11th or 12th on AFI's recently released list of top 25 musicals, while Moulan Rouge placed 25th.

Also of note:
-Of these 29 films, 15 are best picture Oscar nominees
-8 of these films broke into the Box Office top 10 when they came out
-8 are either a sequel or a film that launched sequels

1 American Beauty
2 Austin Powers
3 Being John Malkovitch
4 Chicago
5 Finding Nemo
6 Gladiator
7 Harry Potter and the Prisoners of Azkhaban
8 Hotel Rwanda
9 The Hours
10 The Insider
11 LA Confidential
12 Lord of the Rings I
13 Lord of the Rings II
14 Lord of the Rings III
15 Matrix
16 Momento
17 Moulin Rouge!
18 Pirates of the Carribean: Curse of the Black Pearl
19 Ray
20 Rushmore
21 Saving Private Ryan
22 Shakespeare in Love
23 Shrek
24 Sixth Sense
25 Sideways
26 Spiderman 2
27 There’s Something About Mary
28 Three Kings
29 Titanic

If the AFI chose to expand their top 100 list, rather than redo it.

This Wednesday, the AFI is updating their Top 100 list in a CBS series which is a somewhat monumental event for me because it was the release of the original AFI 100 Years.…100 Movies list in 1998, that led to me wanting to become a film critic.

Back in 1998, when I heard a list was being released of the top 100 films of all time, I tried to guess what might be on the list based on what films I had seen and liked. I thought of films like Cool Runnings, The Mighty Ducks and an obscure Vincente Minnelli musical called Kismet. When I actually looked it up, I was completely taken aback to learn that pretty much all of the films on the list were not only movies I hadn’t seen but movies I hadn’t even heard of. I suddenly wanted to know what exactly these films could possibly have that the Mighty Ducks didn’t have. When I didn’t find a job the following summer, I spent a lot of my free time going to the library and checking out films on the actual list like Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, The African Queen, The Graduate and Network.

It most likely was not just myself who might have a gained a new appreciation of film history around this time. The AFI list came in the middle of a craze occurring around the turn of the century in which every major media outlet came up with some definitive list to mark the year 2000. Between 1995 and 2002, the Time Out Film Guide, The San Fransisco Chronicle, The LA Daily News, the British Film Institute, Video Detective, and the National Society of Film Critics, in addition to Premiere, Empire, Movie Line and Rolling Stone magazines published either top 50 or top 100 film lists recapping choices for the top films of the century.

Despite cynics who might say that these lists are just an arbitrary gimmick, the fact is that they have performed a very useful function in the promotion of classic film: They act as a reference for sorting between the quality films and the generic drivel for those who dare to venture beyond the new release sections of the video store. Before 1995, the Library of Congress’ National Film Registry, the Oscars (along with countless other film critics’ awards) and Sight and Sound Magazine’s decennial film poll were the only guides to the history of films and they were all insufficient. The Library of Congress list isn’t particularly well-publicized and the Sight and Sound polls which only polls for ten films, doesn’t nearly go far enough in promoting the great diversity of choices within each decade and each genre. The Oscars and all other awards that single out great films by the year can often fall into the trap of thinking about what’s big at the moment and selections like Around the World in 80 Days, Gentleman’s Agreement, and The Ziegfeld Follies can become dated very quickly.

Of these lists, the AFI remains the most well-known and I've come to consider it as a sort of definitive authority on film history which is way I hate to think of the concept of it being tampered with. I can't say the list is perfect but I would say that all but 2 or 3 (My Fair Lady, Wuthering Heights, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) are pretty safely in the realm of classics and 97 out of 100 is a pretty good mark. The list is also pretty inclusive of all time periods, major actors, significant directors, and runs 8 or 9 films deep in every major American genre. It has everything from recent Oscar winners (i.e. Forrest Gump, Dances with Wolves), popular crowdpleasers (i.e. Rocky, Raiders of the Lost Ark), film milestones (i.e. Birth of a Nation, Jazz Singer), cult monster movies (Frankenstein), literary adaptations (i.e. To Kill a Mockingbird, Grapes of Wrath), and the most anti-war (i.e. Mash and Apocalypse Now) and pro-war (i.e. From Here to Eternity) films ever made. A few major directors such as Spike Lee, Blake Edwards and Douglas Sirk are left off the list but special consideration is made to make sure that Sidney Pollack, Oliver Stone, Sidney Lumet, Woody Allen, Rob Altman and Clint Eastwood each get a film in the 100.

The tragic thing of redoing the AFI 100 list is that some great films will inevitably be left off to make room for the new which makes us want to consider the question, why should we delete any films from the list at all or tamper with the original order? A case could be made for the rare film like Orson Welles' Touch of Evil whose original cut was finally released in 1998 or the political 1960's thriller "The Manchurian Candidate" that was only introduced to audiences around 1990 after being withheld from circulation for controversial content. Other than these rare exceptions, it seems to be catering to popular trends to reorder the films. Citizen Kane hasn't gotten any worse over the last 10 years, after all.

Why don’t they just add 10 films, and call it 110 films, 110 movies. Even if the sound of 100 Years…100 ____ has a catchy marketing ring to it, it’s no longer 100 years. The lists should have been 102 Years, 102 Comedies or 103 Years, 103 Movie Songs. That brings the interesting question of what to add for the 10 films for the past 10 years. Here might be a good example of a workable list. There aren't my personal favorites but 10 films that have established themselves as future classics over the past 10 years. I deliberately veered away from films in the last year or two because I think there needs to be a little more breathing room to determine the merits of the film:
1. Saving Private Ryan, Stephen Spielberg, 1998-This stirring war film has established itself as a classic by this time. It came along at a time when no one thought there was anything left to say over World War II, and it's loss at the Oscars to Shakespeare in Love was almost universally decried as a mistake.
2. The Matrix, Larry and Andy Wachowski, 1999-Iffy only because the AFI has snubbed such innovative sci-fi films in the past as Blade Runner, Alien, and Brazil, the Matrix was a film like no one had ever seen before and it reset the bar for special effects and cinematic action.
3. Gladiator, Ridley Scott, 2000-Critics might have denounced the throwback to the sword and sandals epic as not being innovative enough to merit an Oscar, but it's hard to forget when watching it how well-crafted the film is and how phenomenal Russell Crowe and Joaquin Pheonix are in.
4. Traffic, Stephen Sodebergh, 2000-The bold ensemble piece on the drug trade was both entertaining and topical and let's not forget how much of an effect Sodebergh's inventive visual styles have had on the current landscape of movies.
5. The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson 2001-This decade has been dominated by big-budget blockbusters, CGI effects, and stories that take us into other worlds. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, popular with hardcore fans, casual audiences and critics alike, was seen as the best example of this.
6. Pianist, Roman Polanski, 2002-Roman Polanski's personal and deeply moving epic about a pianist and his struggle throughout the war was virtually critic-proof and nabbed a long overdue Oscar for its director.
7. Lost in Translation, Sofia Coppolla, 2003-The fact that the film was made by Francis Ford's daughter might have a little to do with the inclusion, but the bare-budget film was a very imaginative look at modern alienation, mid-life woes, and the romances that are never meant to be, resonated with audiences and critics alike.
8. Mystic River, Clint Eastwood, 2003-With three oscar-nominated films in the last four years, Eastwood will be remembered alongside Scorsese as the preeminent director of the decade and he's just too hot right now not to be included on the list. Mystic River was a film with great emotional impact that
9. Sideways, Alexander Payne, 2004-Payne who has honed his hybrid of character-based comedy and realism since Election and About Schmidt created a critical darling out of a dark comedy featuring an unlikely quartet of character actors. Like Lost in Translation, it's a film of small-scale but of great resonance.
10. Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee, 2005-It's success in turning a controversial topic into the must-see critical hit of the year should bode well for Brokeback's chances at making the AFI's new list. Aside from breaking new ground in featuring two gay cowboys in a love story, it also was the first time a non-Caucasian director won the Oscar.

Runners-Up:
1. Thin Red Line, Terrence Malick, 1998-The extremely unproductive director was one of the few great innovators of the New Wave to be left off the original list and the reintroduction of this mood director to the big screen in Thin Red Line was quite a grand event.
2. Chicago, Rob Marshall, 2002-By being nominated for an Oscar, Moulan Rouge! was a great first step in bringing the previously outdated musical genre to modernity. By winning the Oscar, Chicago is said to have actually accomplished it. In retrospect, critics point to both films as being great turning points for the reinvention of the modern musical. Since I personally found "Moulan Rouge!"'s glitz, glamour and 2 second ASL obnoxious, I'm inclined to go with Chicago, which featured its share of showstopping numbers along with great performances from Rene Zellweger, John C. Riley and Richard Gere.
3. Sixth Sense, M. Night Shamylan, 1999-The reason that this Oscar-nominated film, wouldn't make the cut is because the public has become increasingly more and more disappointed with each movie he's released, but that shouldn't be cause to forget how captivated we were by his debut.
4. Kill Bill Volume 1, Quentin Tarantino, 2003-Another homage to the movies that inspired him as a kid, Tarantino's piece was no doubt violent but in a stylized way.
5. Gangs of New York, Martin Scorsese, 2002-If we were to add another Scorsese film to the list to complement Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas, our choice could go one of three ways: The period piece and personal dream project, film historian Scorsesee's tribute to the Golden Age, or the classic cops-and-robbers film that won him the Oscar. For pure boldness in vision, I will go with Gangs of New York.
6. Master and Commander, Peter Weir, 2003-Considering that Dead Poets' Society and Witness were undeservedly left off the original list, it would be a crime if either Truman Show or Master and Commander were not added to this list. Master and Commander, if nothing else, was the single most historically realistic film I've ever experienced.
7. Babel, Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, 2006-Another film by a foreign language director, Babel was a sweeping epic of truly global porportions.

The downfall of humor II: Mel Brooks

What I find interesting is that in the 1970's the two major comic autuers (if i'm wrong about this and missing someone, feel free to correct me) were Mel Brooks and Woody Allen. People who put "Spaceballs" on a list of best stupid comedies would be surprised to know that Mel Brooks was actually considered a very respectable filmmaker by the critical community. Of his first 4 films, 3 (The Producers, Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles) are on the AFI's list of top 100 comedies of all time, and all of them ranking in the top 13.
His first film "The Producers" (1968) which was a humongous critical and commercial success on Broadway this past decade, put him on the scene and his next big hits were both made in the same year, 1974: "Young Frankenstein" and "Blazing Saddles."

I researched Young Frankenstein's critical reception for a project in a film class a couple of years ago and that got great reviews from the New York Times, LA Times, and Long Island's Newsday. Frankenstein and Producers were comically intelligent films but didn't really push the envelope of the border between high-brow and low-brow entertainment that much. Young Frankenstein established Brooks as a master of parody: the genre of choice for pretty much the rest of his career. But Young Frankenstein was not really very low-brow at all. It had no bathroom humor and had sexual situations but used those in a way that evokes the innocent mix-ups of a screwball comedy. It also didn't go for cheap one-liners. Its subtlety was in its attention to detail in mimicking the original movies and perversing it ever so slightly.

Blazing Saddles was a different story. It was still relatively intelligent with its humor and a film academic could appreciate its clever metacinematic ending in which a brawl in a Western town spills over onto a studio lot and a movie villain tries to escape his own fate by going into a movie theater. It was also just plain hillarious and jam-packed with laughs that left audiences and critics defenseless. At the same time, the movie repeatedly dipped into crude humor and had the potential to be offensive in the way that his later films would soon follow the pattern of. It's possible for a movie to both deliver intelligent humor and be really stupid at the same time and I would give a good review to Blazing Saddles for its intelligent humor but I would be doing so because its pros outweigh the cons.

I didn't neccessarily like the dumb humor and that's where his movies have increasingly followed to. I have a theory that because of the decline of critical respect for Brook's films and because he was one of the leading comic filmmakers of his day, he played a large role in what makes comedy less respectable today.

How the AFI 100 Movies list changed my life

I don't know, yet, if this is a good or bad thing that AFI is redoing it's top 100 list but I thought i'd put it out there. I think it's possibly a bad thing because I just have always set the first one as the gold standard of what's a film classic, so I'm sorry to see it go, but alas film is a changing art.

I do want to say that the release of the first list pretty much changed my life as it was that list that made me want to learn about classic film. I remember when I heard there was a list out, and I tried to guess what might be on the list. I made a list of what I thought were the best movies of all time. It was a really pathetic list based on the pictures I had seen: There was Cool Runnings and the Mighty Ducks and an obscure Vincente Mineli musical I liked called Kismet, among other things. It was to my amazement, that the list itself was made up of movies I had never even heard of, let alone seen. I was completely taken aback, and furious. I wanted to know what could all these movies have that the Mighty Ducks didn't have, and the next summer, I didn't have a job and with my free time, I went to the library and started checking out some of these classic movies: The African Queen, Bringing Up Baby, The Graduate, Network, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, All About Eve, All Quiet on the Western Front, and that's where my interest was born that I have kept up to the present day.


I kind of did like how the old list was set in stone and I think it's a very good list as is, and i don't want trends of the minute tampering with it. It's very rare that a group of people attempting to nominate the best films of all time ever gets anything remotely right, so why mess with success.

One thing the AFI did was not let short-term memory get to them. Their list was released in 1998, I believe, and their most recent film was 1996's Fargo. They didn't let the Titanic box-office juggernaut cloud their judgement, nor were they impressed enough by those hotshots from Boston, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, to include Good Will Hunting on the list. The list lists 7 films from the 90's: Goodfellas, Dances with Wolves, Silence of the Lambs, Schindler's List, Unforgiven, Pulp Fiction, and Forrest Gump, which I think is a reasonable call for panelists to judge a film by in 1998. Those films had safely passed the test of time by then. I might have been iffy about Silence of the Lambs as anything more than a horror film, even though it did win the academy award, but I think its also remembered as Anthony Hopkins' high career point, and it has a psychological depth to it. Sure, they could have included more cult classics like The Piano, Braveheart or the Shawshneck Redemption but I think they were right to be cautious about letting in too many films from the present day. A classic does need time to age. Also, Shawshnack Redemption's reputation has grown over time, wierdly enough. An indication of this is Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbin's oscars for films in 2004 and 2003, respectively. Now that people have seen a certain cultural prejudice in Mel Gibson, it might have been wise not to include Braveheart on the list back then to a degree that no one would have ever realized. Braveheart did make the voter's top 10, interestingly enough.

I'd expect if the list were to be redone that Clint Eastwood with his recent hot streak, would have a retroactively enhanced reputation (even though he's done some really bizarre and awful films in his early career) and you might see a Sergio Leone film make an appearance as well as a higher rating for Unforgiven. Mystic River might make the cut. I think Shawshneck Redemption would probably make the list, and lately there seems to be a love and a higher appreciation for Warren Beatty, even though I don't believe he's done anything since the last list came out. They might include Reds or Bugsy. I think this had to do with the Reds DVD.

I also would expect Touch of Evil to make the list. It's truly a masterpiece that belongs on the top 25 or 50 films ever made, and now that it's reedited version has been released (it was released in 1996 according to director Orson Welles' original wishes) and everyone has seen it, I think it would make it. I also have heard that there's been a critical reevaluation for Robert Mitchum so he might do better this time around. Since Stanley Kubrick died, there's been a very positive reevaluation of him, and he might have another film like Full Metal Jacket or the Shining make the list. I think Buster Keaton's The General will make the list since people were a little peeved about that. I might also expect Mean Streets to make the list since there's more of a Scorsesee appreciation.

I felt Grand Hotel and Back to the Future got raw deals the first time around, so I'll pull for them. In fact, I might very well be voting on the list myself, since I can join the AFI for 50 dollars (anyone can, actually).