Living in Cinema 2007 Readers Top 10
(Image from Westcoastroads.com)
You voted and the crack team of Living in Cinema math monkeys have been put to work tabulating the results for the First Annual Living in Cinema Readers Top 10. Thanks to everyone who voted and a special shout out to those of you who took the time to say a few words about your personal favorites.
Without further ado, we begin with a tie in the last two spots:
#9-10 (Tied). I’m Not There. Todd Haynes
Pierre de Plume lived through the ’60s and I’m Not There was his #1 film of 2007: “Don’t buy the argument that knowledge and appreciation of Bob Dylan is relative to one’s regard for the film. Instead, this film requires a different viewer approach, one that’s OK with disregarding conventional storytelling and embracing a nonlinear process. The film is less a biography than it is a case study in existentialism presented in a visually poetic style.
“Those who overwork their brains trying to figure it out will probably miss the point, not to mention the film’s doses of humor. The film’s technical brilliance helps evoke maybe the best depiction I’ve seen of the experiential essence of the 1960s and 70s. Beyond that, by using Dylan as a focal point, Haynes employs metaphor to expose the unprecedented level of cultural disparities that surfaced during that era regarding foundational definitions of self, society, and the universe.
“I intend to see this film again to better understand it. I suppose Todd Haynes can be criticized for being effete or inaccessible, but that’s part of his point really. That was integral to Dylan’s struggle.”
#9-10 (tied). Once, John Carney
For Sam Juliano, Once was the #2 film of the year: “John Carney’s Irish film of struggling artists and aspirations is the feel-good movie of 2007. More than that, its theme is encapsulated in its defining song, the superlative Falling Slowly, which while being played out in a Dublin music shop, expresses the very essence of achieving success and consummation through the most dire of times. Hansard and Irglova are magnificent.”
Daniel picked Once as #4: ” It’s not often that a romantic comedy is either romantic or funny - Once is exceedingly both, and yet it shines with vulnerable, relatable characters. Top it off with the best musical scenes of the year and you’re left with a timeless gem.”
#8. Ratatouille, Brad Bird
Joel’s #3 movie of the year was Pixar’s latest animated marvel: “2007 was a great year for memorable movies but Ratatouille stands out for me as a film that captured something wonderfully new. At its core, it is a celebration of the act of creation, of the drive to sculpt something from the heart and soul that can be shared with the rest of the world. Remy’s enthusiasm and exuberance in the act of cooking is a joy to watch, especially when he creates his masterpiece meal to impress the food critic Anton Ego. The moment of Ego’s emotional response to the film’s simple, signature dish is a wonderfully touching scene. It brilliantly summarizes the amazing connection between the senses and the deepest emotional connections that define us, connections that can be instantly invoked by great art, music, and food. Wonderful movie.”
Jennybee had the Rat at #4: “As the quintessential romantic setting in film, Paris has always been a place full of inherent possibility. In the delightful Ratatouille, hope, romance and possibility flourish in Paris like never before. Making an artistically and commercially viable film about a rat who cooks is a pretty tall order - even Remy the culinary genius of a rodent acknowledges the improbability of a rat finding a professional niche in a five-star French kitchen - but writer/director Brad Bird makes us wonder why no one has written the story before. Bird mixes Paris’ two reputations, as a beautiful city of love and fine food and as a place full of filthy, rude and snobbish denizens to bake up the ultimate coming of age film. The animation is superb - never before has rat fur looked so touchable - and the writing and acting are equally excellent all around.
“Ratatouille combines fresh characters and lively dashes of wit and wisdom, folds in some conflict, stirs up a little mystery and inverts quite a few stereotypes. Confronted by such overwhelming sensory evidence, our reservations melt away. Beneath our crusty old exteriors, we’re simple film lovers at heart, in love with an unlikely rat movie. When you look at someone in a new way and dare to dream, anything seems possible.”
#7. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Julian Schnabel
Alison Flynn’s favorite film of the year was The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: “First and foremost, this was a beautiful, deeply touching film. The cinematography is gorgeous, and despite the fact that it’s very much from the point of view inside Bauby’s head, I was drawn in right away and felt for his plight.
“Max von Sydow deserved awards and an Oscar nomination for this film. He has two scenes in the entire movie, and they are stunning, particularly the second scene (a telephone call between father and son) which is heartbreaking.
“Mathieu Amalric was fantastic in a physically limited role. His only means of facial expressions were his one eye, plus his voice over on top of that. He was phenomenal in an extraordinarily difficult role.
“Despite the sad subject matter, this film is not depressing at all. In fact, I left the theater feeling uplifted. Many people have described it as a ‘triumph of the human spirit’. But it’s much more than that. It’s about the people in Bauby’s life as well, and how, with patience, persistence and selflessness, they learned to communicate with him and in some way drew him out, beyond the boundary of his ‘locked-in syndrome,’ and helped enable him to express himself. This is a story that shows human beings at their very best.”
Matthew Lucas ranked Diving Bell #3: “What makes Julian Schnabel’s The Diving Bell and the Butterfly so unique and special is that this isn’t your typical ‘person overcomes adversity’ Lifetime movie - Bauby is cynical and often downright disdainful of people and his situation, but he learns to cope and make the most of what he has, and Schnabel never rubs our faces in any kind of schmaltz. His direction is beautiful and painterly (Schnabel was an artist before turning to film), almost like a dream on film. Films like this are rare - movies that celebrate what is best in humanity in a powerful and moving way, that deserve to be seen and remembered. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is one of the handful of films this century that deserves to be called a masterpiece.
#6. Into the Wild, Sean Penn
Nicholas Plowman picked Into the Wild as his 2nd favorite film of the year: “I only managed to see Into The Wild in January for the first time, and it immediately landed at number two on my Top Ten List. The film about Christopher McCandless’s journey to Alaska and his abandonment of his family, allowed me to get a glimpse of a great man and essentially an equally flawed man, who was able to break away from a life he despised and venture out into the great unknown in the quest for what he was missing, and by all means necessary, attaining it. It is a challenging film that doesn’t fail to inspire, and the effect stuck with me long after the final credits rolled.”
Matthew Lucas also picked Into the Wild at #2: “One thing films can never have enough of is passion, and Sean Penn’s breathtaking Into the Wild emanates passion from every pore. It struck me as I watched the film that Penn has created what so many filmmakers strive for but few ever achieve - a sense of awe: awe at nature, awe at life, awe at the vast, unfathomable mysteries of human existence. His majestic and transcendent channeling of the glories of nature and its sense of absolute freedom makes for the most deeply profound, emotionally overwhelming cinematic experience I have had since Children of Men. No other film in 2007 moved me so deeply; it is a rapturous, quintessential American odyssey, and a poetic ode to the human spirit that resonates into the wild and beyond.”
This was Daniel’s #3 film: “Can’t stand Christopher McCandless? Fine, I agree he could have used a few more splashes of cold water to the face. Your opinion of him aside, try denying the beauty and grace of Into the Wild. Top to bottom - acting, music, cinematography, direction. That Sean Penn was able to make me revisit decisions in my own life is a testament to the relational power of this film.”
#5. Atonement, Joe Wright
Serena’s favorite movie of 2007: “Atonement is a magnificent modern masterpiece. It’s intensely difficult to categorize. It’s gorgeous, unlimited subversiveness - which is precisely why I adore it.
“Two young lovers are torn apart by a lie which will change the course of their lives forever, but there’s much more to it than that. There is a deep current of unconventionality running just below the surface.
“Despite its core of lush romanticism, there is a compelling darkness to this film. It’s multilayered and complex in its themes, a brilliant blend of the cerebral and the sensual. There is also a deep poignancy as the film clearly illustrates the gulf between the things that you wish for and the things that you possess.
“The performances by Keira Knightley, James McAvoy, Saoirse Ronan & Vanessa Redgrave are stunning and superb. There is immense beauty to be found here, but nothing prepares you for the ending. You are left devastated, haunted…and eager to see it all over again.”
Sam Juliano agrees. Atonement is also his #1 pick: “a piercingly beautiful and haunting film of visceral power; technical craftsmanship of the highest order; an unforgettably subtle performance by James McAvoy and the girls who play Briony; and a master-class of acting by the incomparable Vanessa Redgrave. All of this accented by Seamus McGarvey’s breathtaking cinematography and one of the loveliest scores in years by composer Dario Marianelli. The Stedicam sequence on the beaches of Dunkirk is perhaps the most extraordinary single sequence of any film this year. I have seen Atonement seven times in the theatre, and I dare say I have a few more visits left in me.”
#4. Zodiac, David Fincher
No one had Zodiac as their best film of the year, but enough people voted for it overall to elevate it to the fourth spot.
For Chuck, Zodiac rings in at #4: “In a year where half a dozen of America’s best filmmakers made their best film, David Fincher rose above the dated Gen X chic of his prior work to make a timeless masterpiece about the universal urge to explain the boogeyman away. Robert Downey, Jr., Mark Ruffalo and Jake Gyllenhaal lead a top to bottom terrific cast. The ending is a stunner. Pair it with The Host director Joon-Ho Bong’s Memories of Murder for an ideal double bill.”
Alexander pegged it at #3: “When this 158-minute exploration of the unsolved case of the Zodiac serial killer, who terrorized the San Francisco Bay Area three and a half decades ago, came out, L.A. Weekly critic Scott Foundas described it as ‘a study in the passage of time and the accumulation of massive amounts of information–a movie that seems to be unfolding inside of a cramped storage locker. And it is, though it may not sound like it, thrilling to behold.’
“David Fincher’s procedural opus is a cinematic mole, burrowing itself into the soil of the viewer’s mind both as it plays onscreen and long afterwards. It immediately casts a spell in its opening teaser, and increasingly tightens its grip on the viewer as it most intelligently pursues the bare-bones facts of its labyrinthine case. If Fincher’s first foray into the world of serial killers, Se7en, was equally scabrous and moody, his Zodiac is equally bristly and cerebral. Yet the moodiness remains, in classic ’70s style, as Fincher takes a page out of Alan J. Pakula’s book, melding a cops-hunt-a-killer yarn with a newspaper story tonally reminiscent of All the President’s Men.
“The film is singularly enlivened by dynamic but suitably restrained performances, most especially by Mark Ruffalo as the gradually burned-out Inspector David Toschi; Robert Downey, Jr. as the gregarious newspaperman Paul Avery; and a slew of others such as Brian Cox as Melvin Belli, John Carroll Lynch as Arthur Leigh Allen and Anthony Edwards as Inspector William Armstrong.
“If Jake Gyllenhaal’s Robert Graysmith (and the compendious role of Chloe Sevigny’s as Graysmith’s wife) don’t quite match up to the rest, it may be perhaps that such a single-minded obsessiveness can only be conveyed so well by a certain blankness. (Fincher and Gyllenhaal did not get along on the shoot and it’s well-known now that Fincher remained unhappy with much of Gyllenhaal’s performance in postproduction).
“Ultimately, Gyllenhaal’s Graysmith is the fellow who looks at a puzzle, sees pieces missing and cannot move away from it. Those kinds of people can be difficult and selfish yet also admirable. Graysmith staring at Arthur Leigh Allen late in the film is one of those fine moments that can mean a plethora of different things to a person watching it, and concludes Zodiac’s Graysmith with the note of finality and measured satisfaction that only he can experience.”
#3. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Andrew Dominik
Jesse James didn’t make much of a splash at the box office, but don’t blame the readers of Living in Cinema.
It is Pierre’s #4 pick: “The Jesse James film — even after several months — haunts me to this day. This is one film where ambitious, stylized cinematography manages to not just serve the film but expand upon its mood and impact of meaning. Even the type of glass used in a window — and how it’s photographed — serves to transport the viewer to the experiential reality of that point in time.”
Daniel had it at #5: “You know Casey Affleck from the American Pie and Ocean’s trilogies, or simply as ‘Ben’s little brother.’ Not anymore. His shockingly superb performance carries this fine film all the way through to its stirring end. Jesse James is a very pretty portrait of some very ugly men.”
#2. No Country for Old Men, Joel and Ethan Coen
I’m not surprised by the top 2 films (both made it by a wide margin), but I’m a little surprised by the order. Then again, I had a hard time deciding between the two myself.
No Country was #3 for Pierre: “For quite awhile after first seeing No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood, No Country placed higher on my list because it engaged me more emotionally and at the level of story. The film’s final cut to black evoked a volcanic, cathartic response.
For Chuck, No Country was #2: “Only the Coen Brothers could craft an end of the world sermon as richly meat and potatoes entertaining as No Country for Old Men, their career best. The first two thirds of the film is a Master’s gloss on the primal playfulness of Blood Simple; the ending an ambitious cry of despair unlike anything in the Coen canon (though it recalls the underrated The Man Who Wasn’t There). Set aside enough time to watch it twice: once for the pure pleasure, twice to admire the Swiss precision of the thing.
Jeffmcm also had it at #2: “This movie will live as a classic, not because it’s a taut, well-crafted suspense thriller (although it is) but because of the emotion undergirding the drama - the desperation and stubbornness of Josh Brolin, the poignant courage of Kelly Macdonald, the relentless ‘just doing my job’ nihilism of Javier Bardem, and above all, the exhausted world-weary idealism of Tommy Lee Jones as the man who laments his inability to make the world a better place.”
Meanwhile, No Country was Daniel’s favorite: “Haunting characters. Seat-gripping suspense. Sweeping cinematography. A rich, nuanced story. The best film of the year, and the first instant classic of the new millennium.”
Jennybee also picked it in her #1 slot: “Life, death and the fateful coin flip separating the two states all look harsher in the desert sunlight of No Country for Old Men. We know what to expect; suspense thrillers and procedurals go to great lengths to give the set-up, outlining precisely what happened, why and what nefarious double-crossings and suspicious alliances led to the inevitable conflict and the satisfying payoff of justice at the end. Here, the Coens give only the essentials: Desert. Shoot-out. Drugs. Death. Suitcase of money. Man who finds money. Others who want it back. We never know much more than that, and ultimately even the fate of the bloodied money that started it all is unimportant in relation to the larger themes at work.
“It’s an elemental pursuit. Anton Chigurh, a principled and enigmatic figure of darkness hunts our dubious hero, the able, resourceful and self-serving veteran Llewellyn Moss with focused, dispassionate intensity. Following the chase from an impotent distance is the wizened tumbleweed of a sheriff, Ed Tom Bell, whose self-confidence and self-relevance increasingly erode as his dry, easy wit and years of homegrown experience fail him against this unfathomable evil.
“With the exception of Anton Chigurh, who arrives in their dusty world like a black hole sucking away all life around him, the film is populated with simple people we understand, people we have known. But none of us has encountered a force like Chigurh in life or cinema. As outsize as Chigurh’s presence is, Bell’s reclusive old friend reminds us that evil is as old as the hills, an unstoppable force of nature that from time to time wreaks havoc on anyone in its path.
“No Country for Old Men is a movie of opposites, parallels, inversions, perversions. Fate is as fickle as a coin toss and perhaps as inconsequential. In the end, that suitcase of money has changed everything, and yet really, nothing at all.”
#1. There Will Be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson
By a nose, There Will Be Blood was the best film of 2007 according to the readers of Living in Cinema.
For Pierre it edged No Country for the #2 spot: “I was drawn not only to what seemed like Blood’s superior technical achievement but also its epic nature, with each film moment expanding its meaning and impact to me so that upon Daniel Day-Lewis’ “I’m finished,” the catharsis cut a swath not just emotionally but across all layers of consciousness.”
Serena also had it at #2: “There Will Be Blood hits you like a ton of bricks. It’s like going through a war zone and coming out alive. It’s a film that will have a savage impact on generations down the line. Watching it now in its initial release must be similar to moviegoers experiencing 2001: A Space Odyssey in the 1960s or A Clockwork Orange in the 70s. There are echoes of Kubrick, Malick and Welles. But it blazes its own tempestuous path.
“Paul Thomas Anderson has created a triumphant, resonant work of art that will be talked about a hundred years from now. It is poetic in its utter perfection. At the centre of this towering cinematic landmark stands Daniel Day Lewis. To say that he is brilliant as Daniel Plainview is the understatement of this newly minted century. He is a tremendously gifted actor who gives an utterly compelling performance.
“Daniel Plainview is an antihero’s antihero. He is acquisitive, ruthless, greedy and power obsessed. Yet he cares deeply for his adopted son H.W. His competitive streak forces him into a clash of wills with his nemesis Eli Sunday. How these two different relationships play themselves out gives you the key to Daniel Plainview and his ultimate fate at the conclusion.
But I’d still hesitate to bet against him…”
Jeffmcm liked There Will Be Blood above all others in 2007: “I’ll be honest: I probably related more strongly to Daniel Plainview than I did to any other movie character this year. It’s a movie with a lot of California deserts that nonetheless is really about a single man’s interior landscape, and how getting exactly what you want might be the worst thing that can happen to you. Also, Jonny Greenwood wuz robbed.”
Sartre was fascinated by the character of Daniel Plainview in picking the film #1: “I think a couple of questions useful to understanding someone are: what does he or she find rewarding and what does he or she find aversive? What contributes to our complexity is the fact that the answers are not necessarily mutually exclusive and nothing better illustrates this than our reactions to intimacy. It is the most deeply rewarding human experience, but it requires the highest levels of trust because we leave ourselves so intensely vulnerable. When we’re hurt by someone we let in more deeply it stings like all hell and our self-protective reactions often don’t see us at our best. Intimacy needs to be actively nurtured and our most destructive self protective tendencies deliberately defused.
“There Will Be Blood is about many things, but at its heart is a man who longed for intimacy despite his self-containment, the satisfaction derived from single minded pursuit of goals, and the ability to see the worst in people. The tragedy of Daniel Plainview is that the thing he most desired - loving connection with his son - was impossible to sustain given the self-protective reactions that were as emphatic as a steel bear trap slamming shut. Those who failed to read this character arc only saw a hateful and manipulative man, but he was more than that, and to have missed the fact was a viewer’s great loss.”
Blood is also Chuck’s favorite: “In an unbelievably wonderful year of film, There Will Be Blood was the least compromising and most nightmarish, the confirmation of our darkest fears of consumption and betrayal. The film marked a staggering leap forward for filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson, and it showcased Daniel Day Lewis in unforgettable vaudeville of cunning, animal cluelessness; of hunger and pitiful loneliness. The film has been compared to Malick and Kubrick, but Anderson has made something rawer and more obvious. He’s imbued those legends’ craftmanship with an unshakable broken heart.”
And finally, Matthew Lucas with his #1 selection: “The supreme masterpiece of 2007, Paul Thomas Anderson’s bold artistic vision is one whose ambition is matched only by its main character (Daniel Day-Lewis, in a force-of-nature performance), whose lust for power and oil creates a sickness of the soul. There Will Be Blood is an uncompromising and ferocious epic about the corrupting power of money, oil, religion and the self-destructive nature of greed. But this is not a movie about the death of a man but the death of his soul, eaten away by years of bitter, festering avarice. It is an intimate epic, sprawling in its themes but visceral in its focus. This is unrelenting, take-no-prisoners filmmaking from an auteur at the height of his powers - a visionary masterwork for the ages.”
Filed under: Lists
Related Posts: - London Critics Drop Crumpets, Grab Cattle Guns
- Jonny Greenwood Talks ‘Blood’
- Ohio is Coen ‘Country’ Too
- National Society of Film Critics Honors ‘Blood’
- “I see the worst in people.” - Daniel Plainview
What. A. Year.
I can’t think of a better one in the last 10…
I cannot either Dan. And the year is still catching up with me, lucky me.
I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m really happy with how the list came out. There isn’t a single film on the list I wouldn’t want to see again.
God, I LOVED reading this. You have outdone yourself, Mr. Kennedy. BRAVO…
*bows*
With a couple of notable exceptions, this is a truly fabulous list. Lots of exceptional & stunning prose from our group of kids.
Y’all are so very, very cool. I’m very proud of all of you….
The credit goes to all of you. I’m just the record keeper and the messenger.
I have ot say, it was a lot of fun for me to read the list in your guys’ words and you pulled it off on very short notice.
The sheer enthusiasm for movies that comes through is very exciting for me and I hope you’ll all be around to do it again next year.
Great list, not a single film I can disagree with. I’m surprised that “Juno” was nowhere in sight, but I’m pleased of course. ;-)
2007 was indeed a fantastic year.
Juno got plenty of love, just not quite enough. Here’s 11 through 20:
11. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
12. The Bourne Ultimatum
13. Juno
14. Eastern Promises
15. Grindhouse (Death Proof and/or Planet Terror)
16. Lust, Caution
17. The Host
18. Lars and the Real Girl
19. Sweeney Todd
20. Syndromes and a Century
Aw, that sucks. So BTDKYD just missed it?
That was my #4. Shame it didn’t make it.
I’m proud to be among the other LiC regulars. What a fantastic list and set of accompanying quotes. Thanks for the terrific concept Craig, and giving voice to our shared favorites of 2007.
Sweet justice - no mention of Michael Clayton anywhere, as it should be. Ugh. Bland and bloated with unnecessary story elements. It was like Tony Gilroy brainstormed a bunch of lines that Clooney would sound really cool saying (forcefully! yeah!) and then tried to frame a cliched story around it. I don’t know, I don’t think I’m alone here, but with the critical and commercial success I guess I must have missed something.
You’re not alone Daniel, I couldn’t agree with you more. I too must have missed something because I see very little about it I like. Many of the astute regulars here rated it a fine film. But I’m tone deaf to it.
Well, I’m sad that with the film fest I didn’t find any time to vote, but I can’t say I argue with any of the movies in the top 10 I’ve seen, nor with the order they’re in (well, I would’ve had I’m Not There a bit higher, but that’s quibbling). Your readers and their flawless taste are a credit to you, Craig!
What a great list and what a terrific group of film lovers! The comments by all were fascinating. Sartre’s summary assessment of THERE WILL BE BLOOD was truly magnificent!
Again, I must agree that MICHAEL CLAYTON is most definitely overated.
Had a rough weekend dealing with taxes and other stuff at home, so I completely dropped the ball on this. But it’s a great list and some interesting commentaries.
I had noticed the similarities between Memories of Murder and Zodiac. Both are very much of a certain time and place. Great performances in both and (spoiler) villains remain just outside the grasp of their pursuers. The final scene where the one detective goes back to the first crime scene was excruciating - a similar payoff as Graysmith’s confrontation with Allen. In my humble opinion, Memories of Murder was infinitely better than The Host.
Thanks for singling me out for special praise Sam. But I must say that every other commentary including your own warrants the praise. What an amazing group of people. Hedwig, I’m sorry the timing for you and some other regulars was out with regards Craig’s initiative. I would also have enjoyed some of the Blogmaster’s own comments interspersed throughout. Perhaps next year.
Very nice, and I’m glad enough people saw The Host to make the second ten. My favorite movie not in the top 20: Black Book.
Also, interesting thoughts on I’m Not There, which left me more or less bewildered, which I ascribed to my relative lack of knowledge about Dylan. Now I can ascribe to to my relative lack of having been alive in the ’60s too.
Nice list and great insights from all. Craig’s own top 10 list was also wonderful, but there’s something special and different about capturing readers’ opinions and ideas so beautifully.
Great list. I can’t complain about any of these films. :-)
Thanks for compiling this, Craig.
If I just stumbled upon this site, list and these comments for the first time, it would have been like finding the veritable needle in the haystack.
great list, great year. glad to see so much love for Jesse James.
You did out-do yourself Craig, and we all appreciate it a lot.
“With a couple of notable exceptions, this is a truly fabulous list.”
Okay, Serena, enquiring people want to know. . . .
Jeff McM, although my appreciation of I’m Not There no doubt is heightened by my having experienced firsthand the film’s time period, that’s an ancillary pleasure for me. My brother, who’s just 2 years younger than I, thought little of it. A stronger reason why the film is at the top of my list has to do with Haynes’ basic idea of the film and his approach.
I would never say to anyone that he or she should like a particular film. By the same token, maybe down the road if you see it again you might react differently. That’s happened to me on a number of films. If it doesn’t, well, that’s the way it goes sometimes.
I’ll be the first to admit I missed many of the film’s references simply because I don’t know much about Dylan. But there’s no reason for me to push my brain or to be concerned about those details in their particular sense.
When an actor prepares for a role, a great deal of mental activity and analysis go into the work, but it’s all about eventually placing oneself into the experience of the character. By the time of performance, the actor’s brain shouldn’t even be turned on, really, because the moment of acting isn’t about the mind. If the preparation has been good, the character will be there and any required mental activity will occur on its own without the actor’s needing to focus on that.
In a way I think the same holds true for the audience. We go into a theater with our knowledge of life, of film in general, and whatever we know about the particular film. Once the credits, roll, however, the film becomes an experience of all the senses rather than an idea or some kind of task. I think it’s true especially for intelligent people to approach art with the image of oneself as sort of a blank canvas that absorbs the brush strokes of the artist.
Although some types of films (eg, whodunits) demand a certain level of mental activity to follow plot, others — such as I’m Not There — benefit from an approach that employs less linear thought processes. In the case of Todd Haynes, I trust him to take that part of me to where he wants me to go with it, which I guess ultimately is where I want to go with it.
At the risk of sounding cryptic, I’m not there — or at least who you think I am isn’t.
My experience with I’m Not There, and I think this touches a little upon what Pierre has said, is that it required a large degree of simply letting go. You have to just let it be without trying to over-analyze it or categorize it or intellectualize it.
I really loved it, but I totally chickened out in writing a review of it.
Appropriate that on a site so devoted to the readership, the readership in turn gets to comment on their fave films. Thanks Craig, nicely done.
What have we learned? A) LiC readers have impeccable taste and B) those of you who don’t have a blog, probably should.
Oh, Christ…*sigh*
Pierre, that’s PRECISELY why I worded it the way I did. I WAS trying to be respectful & not hurt anyone’s feelings. Particularly since the level of writing & the particular passion that everyone evinced was pretty damn spectacular.
I’m not big on animation. I think the only two animated films that I’ve seen as an adult are Beauty & The Beast & The Incredibles. So I didn’t see Ratatouille.
IMO there is one film that wouldn’t be anywhere near my Top 10 (& it wasn’t either. LOL). But since it’s very possibly going to win the BP Oscar & it is a solid, well crafted film, well…
Four of these movies are in my Top 10 & two came dangerously close (Once & Jesse James). Actually, in any other year I’m sure they would’ve made it.
But there are two pictures that I really didn’t care for at all - & one of them is a movie that you spoke about with great passion just above. I really don’t want to offend anyone.
Does anybody really care what I think? LOL
This is so beautiful, I’m almost tearing up and I’m not even Hillary Clinton a day before an election.
I’m kind of glad I didn’t send thoughts on No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood, as well as The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, since many folks backed them up eloquently. Time forbade me from posting anything else but my Zodiac thoughts this past weekend (real life can be such an intruder on fun) but I’m glad I could help out Fincher’s fine film.
Everyone who participated in this should be proud (and those who couldn’t, don’t feel bad at all, we all know the folks who come by here are all quite sagacious).
“Does anyone really care what I think?” –Serena
Serena, I *always* care!
Yes, we care. I thrive on differing viewpoints as long as they’re backed up with decent rationale. Subjectivity is impossible to avoid.
Serena, I know you like Juno, as did I. But in a way it’s the polar opposite to I’m Not There. It comes as no surprise that INT wasn’t well received. And complain as people do about Juno’s so-called lack of quality, I cannot find fault with it just because the people behind it took it in a particular direction. When you get right down to it, it’s a fresh, entertaining and moving film, and there’s nothing fake about the main character’s emotional transition.
I can also understand one’s not being much excited by animated films. My own aversion is comic books and comic strips. I just don’t appreciate them. That said, I’m really happy to be surprised by films like Any Given Sunday, for example, whose subject matter (football) is something I care nothing about. And not that long ago I realized that there are a lot of country music songs that I actually like, despite a generalized aversion to the genre.
Sometimes, all it takes is the passage of time for our receptors to realign themselves in terms of position or priority. Whether or our opinions change isn’t so much the point. But hearing others’ differing views is one of the best ways to benefit from new perspectives and learn new things. So to me, the word “diversity” — a dirty word to some — carries infinite meaning and value.
One big reason I enjoy LiC so much is that Craig has a particular talent for objective analysis.
“Craig has a particular talent for objective analysis.”
Very true, Pierre. And I feel that he also tries to find something positive and worthwhile about the films that he writes about, even the ones that he doesn’t particularly like. Rather than outright bashing a movie, as many critics often do because they believe it makes their review funny and witty, Craig offers both sides for consideration and leaves the rest for the reader to see the film and form their own judgments.
You eloquent sonsabitches are embarrassing me. (heh heh…but don’t stop)
There is so much in these commentaries I enjoy. I want to highlight some of the things that really stood out for me.
Pierre, I love the way you so clearly articulate difficult concepts with regards a helpful way of viewing I’m Not There in order to mine its meaning. “Those who overwork their brains trying to figure it out will probably miss the point, not to mention the film’s doses of humor. The film’s technical brilliance helps evoke maybe the best depiction I’ve seen of the experiential essence of the 1960s and 70s. Beyond that, by using Dylan as a focal point, Haynes employs metaphor to expose the unprecedented level of cultural disparities that surfaced during that era regarding foundational definitions of self, society, and the universe.”
Sam, what a wonderful observation – how the central theme of Once is encapsulated in its defining song, Falling Slowly. You so precisely articulate the film’s essence!
Joel, love how you took us back to the moment in Ratatouille that elevated it to something very special and how you nailed what made it so “…brilliantly summarizes the amazing connection between the senses and the deepest emotional connections that define us, connections that can be instantly invoked by great art, music, and food…”
Jennybee, your writing makes me want to drop to my knees and declare I’m not worthy. Here is but one of your amazing kick ass great sentences -> “Following the chase from an impotent distance is the wizened tumbleweed of a sheriff, Ed Tom Bell, whose self-confidence and self-relevance increasingly erode as his dry, easy wit and years of homegrown experience fail him against this unfathomable evil.”
Daniel, with the minimum of words you cut to the chase regarding the aspect of Into the Wild that its detractors struggle to see beyond. And then you alert them to the richness they deny themselves.
Alison, you really helped me to consider Diving Bell from a different angle, in a way that immediately rang true and enriches its effect by pointing out that “Many people have described it as a ‘triumph of the human spirit’. But it’s much more than that. It’s about the people in Bauby’s life as well, and how, with patience, persistence and selflessness, they learned to communicate with him and in some way drew him out, beyond the boundary of his ‘locked-in syndrome,’ and helped enable him to express himself. This is a story that shows human beings at their very best.”
Matthew, I admire your ability to so fully articulate the sense of wonder Into the Wild instills “…awe at nature, awe at life, awe at the vast, unfathomable mysteries of human existence. His majestic and transcendent channeling of the glories of nature and its sense of absolute freedom makes for the most deeply profound, emotionally overwhelming cinematic experience I have had since Children of Men.”
Nicholas, you expertly capture the complexity of one’s relationship to McCandless’ internal and external journey – “his abandonment of his family, allowed me to get a glimpse of a great man and essentially an equally flawed man, who was able to break away from a life he despised and venture out into the great unknown in the quest for what he was missing, and by all means necessary, attaining it.”
Serena, your complete affinity with and deep understanding of Atonement’s artistic achievement is perfectly expressed - “Two young lovers are torn apart by a lie which will change the course of their lives forever, but there’s much more to it than that. There is a deep current of unconventionality running just below the surface. Despite its core of lush romanticism, there is a compelling darkness to this film. It’s multilayered and complex in its themes, a brilliant blend of the cerebral and the sensual.”
Alexander, your (and the much younger Nicholas’) preternatural ability to analyze film and articulate it so eloquently constantly takes me aback. Your discussion of Zodiac is dense with meaning yet easy to read. You precisely formulate Graysmith’s attraction to the unsolved case - “Ultimately, Gyllenhaal’s Graysmith is the fellow who looks at a puzzle, sees pieces missing and cannot move away from it. Those kinds of people can be difficult and selfish yet also admirable.” It had me thinking about another movie character, Daniel Plainview, who gets so obsessively involved in a process that it becomes a thing in and of itself that ultimately damages his closest relationships and as a result, himself.
Chuck, this paragraph is dazzling and says it all “There Will Be Blood was the least compromising and most nightmarish, the confirmation of our darkest fears of consumption and betrayal. The film marked a staggering leap forward for filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson, and it showcased Daniel Day Lewis in unforgettable vaudeville of cunning, animal cluelessness; of hunger and pitiful loneliness. The film has been compared to Malick and Kubrick, but Anderson has made something rawer and more obvious. He’s imbued those legends’ craftmanship with an unshakable broken heart.”
Jeffmcm, I love the insight of the line “It’s a movie with a lot of California deserts that nonetheless is really about a single man’s interior landscape, and how getting exactly what you want might be the worst thing that can happen to you.”
I’ll re-work your own words Joel and say that everyone’s enthusiasm and exuberance for the art of filmmaking was a joy to read.
Here here, sartre. I thank you for the wonderful compliments (ALWAYS) & I state for the record that this awesome group of humanity assembled here possesses brilliant insight, a deep love of film & gorgeous & perceptive writing. Pretty damn overwhelming but it was beautiful to behold.
I also thank my esteemed & lovely future tour guide Alexander (LMAO) & my darling Pierre. Yeah, I was being completely sincere. I dig diversity as well. But I know that a lot of posters do not. Some people are decidedly unhappy when you don’t like their favourite things or you’re not on the same side of the fence. They take it as a personal insult. I, of course, do not. But people have stopped speaking to each other for much less.
So, as I was saying…
I have no opinion on Ratatouille as I haven’t seen it. Though it likely is terrific as it seems to be very popular.
The two films that I avidly disliked were INT & TDB&TB.
Wouldn’t have said a word. But everybody wanted to know…
Thank you very much for the kind words, sartre. You covered everyone and I second everything you wrote about everybody. Haha.
Serena, I like that title for myself. Ahaha… I’ll be waxing your limo. I’m always glad you’re unafraid of keeping many of us on our toes with different opinions, Serena. (I’ll be seeing Alice in a day or two so I’ll get back to on that one.) :-)
I’m happy to hear that, Alexander.
I’m VERY interested in your opinion on Alice. Good or bad.
Don’t hold back regardless…LOL
I’m curious to hear what the argument is in favor of avidly disliking Diving Bell.
You won’t get that from me, Jeff McM, though there were a couple moments during Diving Bell (which I otherwise thought was very nicely done) when I thought to myself, “Enough already!”
Or, as one critic put it, Pierre, “I wish he would have blinked faster”.
Jeff, I personally have no avid dislike of Diving Bell and in a different year it would have ranked higher for me, but I just had too many other films I liked more. Diving Bell suffered in that I saw it the day after TWBB and the projection system went out in the opening credits, requiring a lengthy delay before the movie started.
I felt the movie was actually very well-done, but I wanted to know more about the supporting cast members and I didn’t get the affair he was having or where his being a bad father came in.
But it was a very interesting movie with a lot to like in it. I have no problem with all the praise it has received.
Well, this is how I feel about it, Jeff…LOL
I do see foreign films a fair amount. But mostly ENGLISH SPEAKING foreign fare. Tons of films from the UK & Australia. I’ve always been big on those. Other than that, I do see quite a few French films year after year. I have a French background (on one side of my family), I can speak the language (though my fluency goes up & down depending on how often I use it) & I just find the general attitude of the French completely fascinating. I have seen the odd Italian film here & there as well.
I will watch all types of foreign fare on the tube. It doesn’t matter where it’s from as long as I’m drawn in & it’s an interesting story. But, when it comes to actually going out & experiencing something in a theatre, it’s almost exclusively French for me.
So…I had heard a great deal about TDB&TB. It was getting rave reviews & various people on the net (whose opinions I respect greatly) said that it was an exceptionally good film. I knew the true story behind the movie & I really felt that that would be compelling - if not riveting - material. It was not exactly a must see for me but I had some time Christmas week. So I went.
I couldn’t have been more disappointed. I was completely & utterly bored. I had to fight to stay awake & my ex felt exactly the same way. I was annoyed as hell cuz it was such an engaging dramatic story & Schnabel didn’t do any justice to it IMO.
Let me explain. In terms of European movies (excluding the UK, of course) there is a definite sensiblity to them & it is usually far different than the POVs expressed by American filmmakers. If I like a European film, it seems sharp & intriguing to me. If I don’t enjoy them, then the European sensibility gets in the way. Those movies seem to go around & around endlessly, ramble on, say nothing relevant & then just end. They’re entirely pointless & I would put TDB&TB in that particular category.
If you’re curious, these are some French films that I thought were awesome: Camille Claudel, Queen Margot & Indochine. I also loved La Vie En Rose & Paris Je T’aime last year.
There was nothing I liked about DB. It was long, incredibly tedious & had horrible watered down cinematography that looked like it was shot with Vaseline all over the lense. I loved Emanuelle Seigner & Max von Sydow. That was it.
My ex called it “pretentious BS” & I wholeheartedly agreed with him.
So that’s my two cents on that particular manner….
Hmm. I thought this cinematography was actually the second best (after Deakins/Jesse James) of the year. I’d like to hear more about ‘pretentious BS’ but I was thoroughly riveted to the character’s plight and where he went with it.
I can agree that perhaps his character arc isn’t that complicated (possibly that ‘ramble’ thing that you mentioned) but otherwise I can’t say that I’m convinced.
Well…
IMO (& that’s all it is) there were many, many masterful cinematography jobs last year that would knock DB clear off the map. Just off the top of my head: Eric Gautier in Into The Wild, Seamus McGarvey in Atonement, Harry Savides in Zodiac & Phedon Papamichael in 3:10 To Yuma. Hell, even Robert Elswit’s work in TWBB is far superior. I would put Janusz Kaminski’s work in DB on my worst list. If I had one.
As for the pretentious BS, let’s just say my ex (God love him) is very sharp & not easily impressed. He meant that there is a very self important way to tell a story that is completely unnecessary - & that’s precisely the approach that DB took.
Thanks very much for those words sartre, if I had read them yesterday, I am sure it would have been a lot brighter :)
It is an honour to be able to in the presence of such amazing people talking about of loves and loathes of the world of film, something many people my age never really get to do or appreciate. I do not think there are any better readers than those at LiC, and this spectacular list is proof of all your awesomeness. I should actually bow at all of your feet.
I am floored by Sartre’s astute and appreciative analyis of all the contributions tendered in the service of most fascinating Ten Best lists by quite a group of scholarly film lovers. Sarte, buddy, my hat’s off to you. I hope Craig opts to do this all over again next year.