Favorite Films of the Decade
Submitted by Marquee on Thu, 12/24/2009 - 00:13
Tags:
- Werckmeister harmóniák Werckmeister Harmonies (Béla Tarr, 2000)
- Hei yan quan What Time Is It There? (Ming-liang Tsai, 2001)
- Ararat (Atom Egoyan, 2002)
- Inland Empire (David Lynch, 2006)
- Trilogia I: To Livadi pou dakryzei The Weeping Meadow (Theo Angelopoulos, 2004)
- Sang sattawat Syndromes and a Century (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2006)
- 2046 (Kar-wai Wong, 2004)
- Bu San Goodbye, Dragon Inn (Ming-liang Tsai, 2003)
- The New World (Terrence Malick, 2005)
- Hēi yǎn quān I Don't Want To Sleep Alone Ming-liang Tsai, 2006)
- Russian Ark (Alexander Sokurov, 2002)
- Kôhî jikô Cafe Lumiere (Hsiao-hsien Hou, 2003)
- Spider (David Cronenberg, 2002)
- Sånger från andra våningen Songs from the Second Floor (Roy Anderson, 2000)
- Wendy and Lucy (Kelly Reichardt, 2008)
- İklimler Climates (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 2006)
- 21 Grams (Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2003)
- Code inconnu: Récit incomplet de divers voyages Code Unknown: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys (Michael Haneke, 2000)
- Satpralat Tropical Malady (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2004)
- Elephant (Gus Van Sant, 2003)
- Ten (Abbas Kiarostami, 2002)
- Cremaster 3 (Matthew Barney, 2002)
- Twentynine Palms (Bruno Dumont, 2003)
- 35 Rhums 35 Shots of Rum (Claire Denis, 2008)
- Dogville (Lars Von Trier, 2003)
- Irréversible (Gaspar Noé, 2002)
- Mulholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001)
- Zodiac (David Fincher, 2007)
- No Country for Old Men (Coen Bros, 2007)
- Das weiße Band The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)
- Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (Kim Ki-duk, 2003
- Dayereh The Circle (Jafar Panahi, 2000)
- A Huey P. Newton Story (Spike Lee, 2001)
- Fa yeung nin wa In The Mood For Love (Kar-wai Wong, 2000)
- Dancer in the Dark (Lars Von Trier, 2000)
- La Captive (Chantal Akerman, 2000)
- Vera Drake (Mike Leigh, 2004)
- Du levande You, The Living (Roy Anderson, 2007)
- Chop Shop (Ramin Bahrani, 2007)
- Caché (Michael Haneke, 2005)
- Shijie The World (Jia Zhang-ke, 2005)
- Yi Yi: A One and a Two (Edward Yang, 2000)
- Moolaadé (Ousmane Sembène, 2004)
- As I Was Moving Ahead Occasionally I Saw Brief Glimpses of Beauty (Jonas Mekas, 2000)
- There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)
- The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007)
Author Comments:
What the fuck was I think with the rankings? The White Ribbon over No Country for Old Men? As I Was Moving... so far down?
Lists suck.
Nice, lots of stuff on here I want to see at some point. Thanks.
I'd love to talk to you about your picks, but I haven't seen most of them yet! I also can't say that I will see them very soon because I'm busy going through your other lists, which are yeilding gems generously. In any case, glad to see another list full of where-did-these-come-from films. One thing I will say is that I wasn't too impressed with Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood For Love; although granted I watched it without subtitles, so it's a little hard to say. I just found the whole thing to be quite foolishly romantic, but maybe I should revisit it.
I really have to see some Tsai Ming-liang. What film should I start with?
Awesome that you have Ararat and The New World in your top 10. Both are really subtle, understated films that I really enjoyed. May have to update my own list.
Totally agree with Zodiac too.
Well his loose trilogy is a good place to start with, which began with What Time Is It There?, his true masterpiece. Next is his short The Skywalk is Gone, which is a very charming piece. Lastly you have The Wayword Cloud, which -- while being very, very good film -- I didn't warm up to with quite as much as many other intelligent people. Definitely see this in order if you plan on watching them, even the short shouldn't be skipped.
Next you have films like Goodbye, Dragon Inn; I Don't Want To Sleep Alone and the underrated The River. All are essentially on the same level, an exceptionally high one. Basically I'd mark these ones, and What Time Is It There? as his absolute essentials. His overriding aesthetic really struck a chord with me, and there's something to be said about his remarkable consistency. Definitely post your thoughts. I don't think anyone's come close to him these last few years.
Sounds good. I will follow your advice.
What Time is it There is fucking brilliant. I'm too tired to really say anything about it, and just don't think I could do it justice. Suffice to say, it's probably the best film of the decade.
We should be bffs.
Its metaphysical symbolism was particularly resonant with me. The urban landscape he paints is spatially and visually claustrophobic, the interiors are compact and the exteriors are taut; reflected in the Paralyzed Man, almost. But then he contrasts all this with that shot from the skyscraper, it's staggering. His emotional focus is abstract and sprawling, not to mention incredibly haunting. He has one of the best visual eyes ever, and after watching Rebels of the Neon God I can unflinchingly say he's a top ten director.
Yes, I love what you say about the visuals. For me, I just felt like I learned so much about Taiwan from watching this film. And I think it's one of the greatest films I've ever seen where a filmmaker tries to represent the current feelings of his country, the struggle between old traditions and the appeal of a more European lifestyle. Goddamn, I just cannot sum up this film at all yet. It's a good one, to say the least. I'll be watching just about everything he's ever done now.
Great list!
17, 19, and 22 came very close to making it onto my list. Very good films, all...
I really enjoyed Inland Empire, but I couldn't put it above Mulholland Dr., which I found entirely enthralling.
There are still a few on here I need to see. I really enjoyed reading this and would love to see some comments about your very favorite films...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Ming-Liang is good. Most exciting director I've encountered since Godard last summer. I agree with top 10, I would even agree to top 5. I'm a little surprised you rank Kiarostami higher than him, although Where is My Friends House? is exceptional.
Abbas Kiarostami is the greatest living filmmaker, even though unlike Tsai he hasn't been on top of his game recently. His use of narrative structure is unique not in just its order, but because it's highly elliptical. He often skips over important events, in a somewhat Rossellini-fashioned way, making demands of our imagination. The way scenes are physically put together is all very deliberate and speaks to us in a voice that can be mistaken for no one else. Then there's his use of the fore and background which is quite unique, in terms of being a spatial architect he's in the top tier. Whether it be a meditation on a landscape or a shot past a driver to the world beside him; everything is meaningful.
His work is often likened to poetry, and I wouldn't disagree, but really it's purely cinematic. Every film he makes is penetratingly insightful; there's surface value to his work but the real rewards come from active engagement.
I identify more with Tsai's view of the world, I guess is why I'd put him higher. I can't think of any reason not to rank Where is my Friend's House higher than any of Tsai's films, but I'd rather watch something by the Thai. But actually, I've seen all (or most) of his films now, so I'll move onto Kiarostami.
Excellent choice on 2046 and a fantastic list all round. Everything I've seen here is pretty much amazing, and makes me want to watch the stuff I haven't. I prefer Mulholland over Inland Empire, though.
Thanks!
Yeah, I've found that to be a common opinion, and one I can definitely understand. Inland Empire was for me David Lynch's uninhibited id on screen, backed by enormous talent and passion; I loved every minute of it. Mulholland Drive is quite the film, it just didn't hit me as hard.
Wong Kar-Wai is garb, nice try though. However, I'm glad you're finally coming around to empty aestheticism.
First off, don't speak to me. Secondly, you're wrong, as usual.
There's nothing empty about In the Mood for Love. Kar-wai avoids shooting his characters head on, it kind of gives a distorted perspective, really adding to the dreamlike nature of it all. The way music defines the emotional states of characters is pitch-perfect, and more telling than the finely-crafted dialog. It's a great film.
2046 is a more ambitious work, both aesthetically and narratively superior. He increased his emotional scope and created a real masterpiece. It unfolds remarkably, moving from a type of sensual coldness into a tender reflection on the past. The cinematography is so rich and inviting, conjuring up a pathos that's becoming increasingly rare. I'm probably underrating it on this list.
Hmm, yeah, I dunno. I kind of prefer Baz Luhrman's work.
I watched it again and I'll take back the garb comment, but I still don't think it's a great film or understand why you like it. It's certainly more meaningful than Baz Luhrman, but I find it far too empty. I really don't think it's unfair to call it shallow. I don't think narative or characters is it's strong point. If you ask me, it's mediatative eye candy.
Jesse James is awful! What is good about it?
It's quite a majestic film, I thought, the hypnotic cinematography and episodic narrative merged fluidly. And the execution is remarkably skillful, when it starts to lead up to James' death it's almost unbearably tense. Dominik really has a great sense of rhythm and makes Tarantino's use of tension in Inglourious Basterds seem almost trite. It was unexpected how the film continued past James' death, and perfectly appropriate, too. The way Robert Ford's story is brought to a conclusion was finely engineered, and the more screen time for him the better... Casey Affleck gave one hell of a performance, and the Nick Cave/Warren Ellis score was flawless.
Why didn't you like it?
I didn't find it tense, just boring. I just wanted it to end the whole time. I don't think it really had anything to say. I would write more but that's pretty much it.
I think Jesse James actually had a good deal to say. Most modern Westerns attempt to use deeper character development to deflate our traditional notions of the Western as being a good vs. evil storyline full of larger-than-life heroes and villains, and this film is no exception, but it is unique in that the myth-deflating is experienced not just by the audience but also by the main character of Robert Ford. He starts off thinking of James as a folk hero and when his illusions are shattered, he can't handle it, so he assassinates his hero. Although James is a villainous outlaw, Ford discovers the fickleness of those who love their legends: the masses don't praise his vigilantism, but rather cling to the antihero of myth and berate Ford as a cowardly little bastard. Rarely do we see films that not only puncture folk tales but also show the madness of a man who has his much-loved folk tales punctured.
Aww jeez, I'm gonna have to rewatch this now!
Heh. Of course, I also loved it because of the stunning cinematography and the last 40 minutes depicting Ford's downfall (which IMHO was particularly well scripted and acted), so if you were bored by all that, maybe Jesse's just not your cup of tea. Still, it's not a shallow film, and though I don't think it's the 25th best film of last decade either, I do think it's great.
You might like La Captive by Chantal Akerman.
La Captive is quite a good film, but she's done better work. Hotel Monterey, Jeanne Dielman and Je, tu, il, elle are all superior in my eyes. I want to catch News from Home and Les Rendez-vous d'Anna. Talk about minimalism, she makes Ozu look like Welles.
haha! I've only seen Je, tu, il, elle and would say La Captive is on par with it. I can't really find any of her films though, doesn't seem like they've been given proper distribution. I actually really like her. She makes good films, I learn a lot about women from them and more importantly, I can identify with and understand the characters. It'd be nice to have more films like this that give you insight into women.
Jeanne Dielman is her crowning achievement and worth tracking down. It's probably the most challenging film of hers that I've encountered, she takes the tedious and elevates it by leaving it monotonous. It's quite something.
Really...I've been avoiding it since it's not listed on Ray Carney's viewing recommendations. It's one of the few films by her that is readily available. I'll give it a look. If you're right, then I wonder why he didn't list it. Ah well, he's still perfect and infaliable in my eyes.
If this were a "Favorite Moving Pictures of the Decade" list instead The Wire would fare quite well, particularly season four.
Agreed. The Wire is possibly the only good drama that's been on tv in ages.
I'm now gonna get a load of Sopranos watchers biting my head off.
I've never actually seen The Sopranos, but do you really think TV has been hurting for good dramas lately? I personally feel like television right now is more artistically interesting than it has ever been in the medium's existence. If you devalue television in general, that's a different story, but are you saying that there was a golden age of TV drama that today's idiot box isn't living up to? If so, what are those shows you speak of?
In any case, I think the Wire is brilliant, but I certainly think there are a number of other terrific TV dramas from last decade: House, Dexter, Breaking Bad, Veronica Mars, or the first few seasons of 24, to name a few. I also am just recently getting into Mad Men, and I've heard great things about Deadwood (but never seen it).
Oh I think television is basically artistically empty. It's definitely better now than it was, but it's still not saying much.
I can't speak for the other shows, but I used to be a fan of House; it was a good formula, but a ridiculously formulaic show nonetheless. Relied too much on the main character, and by Season 6 I'm just sick of it.
I like The Sopranos a lot, but The Wire is in another league. The scope of its socio-political analysis is far greater, and far more profound.
I generally don't keep up with dramas. House and Dexter, despite being formulaic to a fault, are good time passes; but overall I prefer stuff like 30 Rock, Curb Your Enthusiasm and It's Always Sunny In Philly. You know, all that generally mindless fluff -- but I laugh so whatever. Mad Men bored the life out of me, but I think I should give it another glance because I keep hearing great things about it.
And while we're on the subject of TV, I might as well put it out there that Seinfeld as a whole ranks in my top twenty favorite artworks ever. Right up there with Ozu's Late Spring and Shostakovich's 15th. It's not an equal artistically, but I just love the whole damn thing.
I've come to the conclusion that television is actually a better medium than film for one of two things: (1) epic stories that require more than two hours to tell, as in The Wire, 24, Arrested Development, Breaking Bad, Murder One, Dexter, etc.; and (2) stories about the things we actually experience in real life. Sure, there are plenty of great, realistic smaller character drama films, but even those tend to require big changes of their characters to justify their existence. In terms of what we normally experience in our daily lives, television is a more effective medium. Ever thought about why there are so few movies about the drudgery of simply going to work every day? We have The Office instead. Or so few movies about being a twentysomething or thirtysomething just hanging out with your friends, or movies simply about being a slightly dysfunctional but basically loving family who is trying to get along in their everyday lives? It's because all that is the realm of comedy shows, both good ones (How I Met Your Mother, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, Modern Family) and bad ones. But all of these things often feel far more applicable to my existence than the larger-than-life worlds that film presents.
Then there are the procedural shows, which certainly haven't put an end to movies about cops, lawyers, and doctors, but are probably more structurally applicable: you take things one case at a time. Like McLuhan said, the medium is the message.
Office Space was around before the The Office!
And I agree with you in some ways. I do love The Simpsons, but admittedly only the first seven or eight series or so, they got worse later. Frisky Dingo is awesome. I love comedy, but its all obscure stuff, mostly by Armando Ianucci and Chris Morris; my point was more about dramas, but I see what you mean.
I think television drama's possibility to be truly epic (in plot development, characterisation, philisophical/social points made) has only been realised once or twice, The Wire being a good example. Television (certainly mainstream television) is too centred around what the masses will like, easy-to-consume shows.
I heard David Lynch was doing a TV somewhere, but I dunno what happened to it. I think if there were channels which made indie tv dramas (maybe I'm just ignorant, would love to see some if there are) the same way there are independent and artistically based film production companies.
It's true, Office Space is one of the few exceptions. Ron Howard's Parenthood is also an underrated film that's an exception to the family comedy rule. And you're right, it's tougher for indie pet projects to exist on television because it's all based on ratings. I don't know if that's less true in the UK.
There are a number of other epically developed stories told through TV that spring to mind, in my opinion, although all of these feature more understated social commentary than The Wire: Weeds, Breaking Bad, Arrested Development, the new Battlestar Galactica, the first season of Murder One, the second season of Veronica Mars, the first or second season of 24, etc. Yeah, these might not be quite as epic in scope as The Wire, but when you consider the zillions of characters on that show, it's kind of War-and-Piece-esque. Little else compares, in any medium.
David Lynch did Twin Peaks. I've never actually seen that show, but I have a feeling you might enjoy it if you've never seen it.
Really? Television is more realistic than film? I don't think that's right. In fact, I don't think I've seen a realistic TV show, ever. As for the long-range episodic story-telling, yeah that's where television shines.
I meant structurally, not necessarily in the details of the behavior of the plot or characters. I'm a guy in my twenties living in New York who spends my time hanging out with my friends, cracking jokes, and doing the best that I can with work and relationships. I take things one day at a time. As unrealistic as, say, the plot developments in the show Friends are, it's structured more similarly to my life than any film I can think of. Films are usually structured around big, important events that alter the mindsets of their characters forever - events that come along once in a blue moon.
That's kind of a good point. I'm trying to think of a film that offers that and I'm drawing a blank. Even though Cassavetes is extremely realistic (take Faces for example) his films are always structured around significant dramatic events.
The Seventh Continent and Jeanne Dielman.
Well, not really, but give them a look.
Then there's Pather Panchali, Lost in Translation, An Autumn Afternoon, Taste of Cherry, etc. There's no drama occurring, just life.
And I have to say, although I like a good portion of it, Friends is not realistic in my eyes. It completely ignores the banalities of real life (as it should), it doesn't strike me as a realistic. A good show, but hardly a sampling of how life really is. A Cassavetes film is far more realistic not because of the drama but because of the people and how they react to life.
True, there certainly are some films that capture that. Often, though, these films are about truly unique people, at least from my perspective: a poor Indian child living in an undeveloped area, a has-been actor trapped in a country he doesn't understand, a working-class mother who moonlights as a prostitute, etc. And isn't it odd that you have to look to art-house cinema and even truly off-putting works like Jeanne Dielman, whereas the similarly-structured TV shows I'm talking about represent the popular mainstream?
Yeah, I guess it's not our realities that those films are invoking.
But am I surprised that Hollywood doesn't interpret reality in a realistic manner? Not in the least bit.
You found Jeanne Dielman to be off-putting!?! It doesn't view the events that compose life like most films, instead it penetratingly looks at life as a whole. It alters the way we see, making us sensitive to small details that are ultimately meaningless... What a film!
But you're right, the serial nature of television does give the opportunity to explore life as it organically unfolds. Unfortunately not many shows are willing to do that.
I don't mean it in a negative context per se, but how can you not find Jeanne Dielman off-putting? It's off-putting to watch a woman cook dinner silently for 20 minutes, directed plainly and without finesse. Watching it is not like watching any other film that I know of, and I think Akerman's goal was to make us a little uneasy. How can it not be off-putting to watch a motion picture that inundates you to its meaninglessness?
Ohh, I completely misunderstood your original statement, my mistake. I agree. I did like the cinematography, though.
Even if a film is from India or Taiwan, it's showing people doing real things - like eating a plate of noodles or waiting for someone. TV never has these moments in it (not properly anyway), even though they have 10+ hours. I imagine we could find loads of films that are very close to your actualy lifestyle and very few TV shows. Take Dazed and Confused for example, or any film similar to it. TV just doesn't do that, even though it appears to be better equipped at doing so.
Oh I disagree completely. Yes, the format does allow for longer storylines, but as far as I can tell that's hardly been taken advantage of. Twin Peaks, The Wire, The Sopranos... what else? Yeah shows like Veronica Mars (which I liked) do use season long plots but it's hardly comparable to what film has to offer, it really cannot be defended on an artistic basis.
I can think of only a handful of realistic shows, TV seems to make caricatures out of everyone, no one is natural. I don't think sitcoms are applicable to my existence, for me they're nothing more than a form of escapism. Something like Offret on the otherhand is applicable, because I experience it, and integrate it into my life.
I have yet to come across a television show that has an interpretation of life or point of view comparable in any way to the greatest films. Much of it is comparably adolescent to the greatest works of any art form, the stylists come across as downright amateur. It's dumbed down, mostly made for passive enjoyment. Television as a medium has cultivated this kind of vapid ideal, there are very few exceptions.
I think in part I responded to this in my above comment... but just to be clear, I'm just trying to say that (1) television has the capacity to be more realistically applicable to our daily existence than film and that (2) some, not most shows take full advantage of this.
Still, I think I like certain TV shows more than you. I think to say that TV makes caricatures out of everyone is to make a caricature out of the medium of TV.
True, like I'm watching The Wire right now (first time I've seen it) and it's very real. The scenes in the streets are particularly brilliant. But even then, the way people talk, the dialogue is all kind of forced. It's not the way people talk in a Scorsese film for example (early Scorsese). By the way, the mayor candidate in the first episode is a great actor.
This list really is great, and makes me want to see everything I haven't yet seen on here. I'm watching What Time is it There tonight, so I'm hoping it's as good as you say!
...thoughts!?
Nice. I especially like your thoughts on the whale, which I never gave much thought. Though, I felt the scene with the old man suggests these constraints are actually entirely necessary. Or maybe that, even though the structure is false we are largely stuck with it so to avoid everything falling apart.
Thought I'd see The Hurt Locker a few hours before the awards, not good. Well-directed but otherwise vapid, a massive disappointment.
Well I can't say I'm surprised.
Yes, you of all people, being an unconscionable snob, should have known the Oscars routinely award mediocre films. Why did you even go? Was it just to remind yourself how superior you are to everyone (I wouldn't put this past you). Or did you just want to get out of the house?
The superior thing, definitely. I read your lists for the same reason.
You are a cunt. When will you stop punishing me for my past transgressions. We used to be so good for each other. And now...
It's out of <33. I feel like I'm being pushed to the side by Zacharyyy so I tend to lash out.
lol. good answer. You know, I'm not sure why but, I kinda like it when guys fight over me *embarrassed face*
I'm sorry. :c
I would talk to you more and cuddles and stuff IF YOU WERE ONLINE MORE ;O;
Have you seen Un Prophète? If so, thoughts?
I was mostly unimpressed. It showed very little camera consciousness, the constant movements hewed on the side of empty flourishes opposed to an effective use of form. I'm all for stylization, but here it rang superficial. The story itself is somewhat gripping, I was never bored with it, but it didn't resonate with me at all, and at times it was definitely reaching beyond its grasp. I found the films politics to be somewhat muddled, where Malik's descent into being a brutal criminal is deemed inevitable and thus normalized, simply because of his social status. However, by failing to explore the depths of Malik's personality his actions aren't given the needed context. A Man Escaped it is not. What'd you think?
I know this is an old comment and I don't mean to drag old junk out of the pond, but I thought I'd chime in after actually seeing A Prophet.
I agree, the camera work is nothing special. However, the hallucinogenic flourishes show Malik's tortured conscience.
That is all I agree on, the rest of your response is poorly thought out.
The story itself is somewhat gripping, I was never bored with it, but it didn't resonate with me at all, and at times it was definitely reaching beyond its grasp.
How exactly was the story reaching beyond its grasp? Is this a grab at the film's length or the supernatural elements introduced near the end? Vague statement.
I found the films politics to be somewhat muddled, where Malik's descent into being a brutal criminal is deemed inevitable and thus normalized, simply because of his social status.
First off, what does Malik's descent into criminality have to do with politics? In fact there is nothing expressly political in the film, unless one takes it as a parable about French/Algerian relations. I'm surprised that you, a person with leftist sensibilities, fails to address the widely known fact that most prisoners come from poor backgrounds. A man living in poverty is far more likely to resort to violence and crime, simply as a means to an end. This is not politics however, it's a reflection of socio-economic status.
One cannot ignore that Malik is already a criminal from the start, having spent his youth in juvenile detention centers. He is not an innocent man, no matter how soft spoken and shy he appears. But it's a life he was born into nonetheless. Does the film need a Goodfellas style intro in order to be coherent? How does anyone become a criminal, or a killer? I'm sure you know better than me.
However, by failing to explore the depths of Malik's personality his actions aren't given the needed context. A Man Escaped it is not. What'd you think?
Let's get this straight. You criticize A Prophet for lack of character development, then praise A Man Escaped for that very same quality? Are you kidding? Bresson's film gives superficial facts regarding its character, no insight or depth is attempted. The film eschews the very idea of personality depth. Nothing can be said about Fontaine, aside from the obvious, "he must hate prison". Comparatively much is learned about Malik: he is poor and illiterate. He is soft-spoken, in that he quietly performs his duties without complaint; and he is intelligent, in that he doesn't cause needless trouble. The Man Escaped comparison comes from what? The astute observation that both take place in a prison?
A Man Escaped it is not, not for the background story of the leads, but because of the formal distance between the works. Bresson's is a exercise in formal discipline, Audiard is a more typical narrative film having more in common with Shawshank Redemption. Your criticism consists of a lazy comparison to an ill-defined standard. Grand Illusion it is not.
Of course your total failure to comprehend what an idiom is indicative of much larger issues regarding your critical ability, so I'll let that one slide.
Politics is a broad term, not merely restricted to the mechanics of a government. My issue was with how straightforward it all was. Because Malik comes from poverty doesn't mean the path to becoming a brutal criminal is cut and dry. Certainly the film shows the sway of the Corsican mafia; but there is very little indication that Malik grapples with the matters himself. I do think social context is tremendously important in shaping an individual; but the film doesn't have much time for a individuals. Instead it just looks at Malik simply as a manifestation of context. That's what I mean by saying that his personality isn't given a proper examination; your description of him may all be true, but in the end they're just vague abstractions, which is all the film offers. People aren't so reductive, there's a complexity to the human element that the film completely fails to address. On a side note: a good number of films I like have the same issue, but they happen to work in other ways.
I agree somewhat that my A Man Escaped reference was fatuous, but it remains far more relevant than the Goodfellas invocation.
Well, before addressing my post you start with a personal attack. Are you interested in responding to my ideas or merely reacting? What we're dealing with is the perceived notion of determinism within the film. One can support or reject this philosophical notion, one can also argue it's presence.
there is very little indication that Malik grapples with the matters himself
This is simply not true to anyone who watched the film. Malik's murder is built up slowly and he's clearly tortured by what he must do. Even afterwords the act haunts him. The question is: was the murder realistic? Was Malik's actions believable within the context of the film? Why did he do it again? Well, the answer is simple - protection. Without the safety of the Mafia he might have never made it out alive. They offered entrance to a brotherhood of sorts, where food and company are shared. This is less about character psychology and more about physiology. What would you do in a kill or be killed situation. What did Fontaine do? Why do kids join gangs in a dangerous neighborhood. As soon as the Corsicans become weak Malik changes sides.
You say yourself that People aren't so reductive, there's a complexity to the human element that the film completely fails to address. On a side note: a good number of films I like have the same issue, but they happen to work in other ways. So what is your main criticism of A Prophet? If you tolerate this quality in other films (like Balthazar for instance) why would it irk you here? And when does it get excused?
I do think social context is tremendously important in shaping an individual; but the film doesn't have much time for a individuals. Instead it just looks at Malik simply as a manifestation of context. That's what I mean by saying that his personality isn't given a proper examination; your description of him may all be true, but in the end they're just vague abstractions, which is all the film offers.
This criticism is beside the point and you're attacking the film for something outside its purpose. Consider the film Cast Away with Tom Hanks. Is the audience put at a disservice by not having insight into the depths of his psyche? Do we need to know why Tom Hanks does what he does? Malik reacts to a hostile environment with the opportunities presented. The film makes no pretensions to provide contemplative commentary on it's characters. A film like Juno is much more deserving of that critique, because it is a character story, but plays it safe by not delving too deep.
I agree somewhat that my A Man Escaped reference was fatuous, but it remains far more relevant than the Goodfellas invocation.
Really? Have you even seen Goodfellas? In the intro the film outlines how Henry Hill became an ice cold gangster. They offer him a better life than what he's been dealt and he takes it. What is your definition of relevance?
I've seen how discussions with you tend to degenerate so no, I'm not terribly interested in discussing with you a movie that I saw months ago and never really cared for.
Malik's psychology is tremendously important, and regrettably ignored. His mind dictates his actions, and I think the viewer should have been granted a bigger window into it. I don't think it was a bad movie (never said it was), I just think it handling was somewhat half-assed. You say I'm criticizing "outside of its purpose", I say it has a void that should have been filled.
I don't have a rigid evaluation system, if that's what you're getting at. I'm not judging something stupid, but entertaining such as The Hangover with the same criteria I would approach The Conformist with. Also, I haven't seen Cast Away.
Goodfellas is a completely different film, it may have narrative similarities but the treatment is wildly different. It's full of its own flaws (Scorsese is completely bewildered) but it doesn't share the same problems.
Well, I have acted immature in past discussions, no denying that. Using that as an alibi to run from analysis is not much better though.
Anyways, we're going in circles. Less is gleamed from Fontaine in A Man Escaped, but you don't fault Bresson. I think you're right that is has a void, but if anything the style could be improved. The story is actually the strong point.
What I'm saying about your evaluation system is that it's highly inconsistent, that you mask your emotions with lofty rhetoric, and that you're not fooling me. I'm pretty sure you could give an accurate evaluation of a movie, but you're either too lazy in this case or too proud to say "i don't know."
And for what is hopefully the last time, I'm not comparing Goodfellas to A Prophet. I wrote, Does the film need a Goodfellas style intro in order to be coherent? Which is another way of saying, should the film spell out why Milak is a criminal in order for us to except it. Would you like a schlocky explanation a la Touch of Evil's Hank Quinlan? I'd say the lack of information is even a plus to the film and more accurate to reality.
Speaking of objective posturing...
A Man Escaped is a radically different film that is less about Fontaine's inner life than it is about heightened, fluid forms of awareness. To hold A Prophet and A Man Escaped to the same critical standards (in case you didn't realize, I already called my initial reference fatuous) would be missing the point. No work is the same, meaning that one's approach must be malleable.
I don't have a problem with elliptical story telling, as can be gleaned from my lists. But that doesn't mean I think that particular narrative structure is always effective. Here it simply isn't. I think the film is considerably weakened by failing to intelligently and efficiently flesh out Malik's character. It emphasises his physical actions but gives little room for subtlties which would express his own feelings (gestures, tones, facial expressions, etc).
As for giving an "accurate evaluation", I'm not sure what more I can do, barring watching it again, which I'm unwilling to do. I'd rather see something I've enjoyed, like Opening Night or Spirit of the Beehive. Also, your typical snark isn't quite the motivator you seem to think it is.
A Man Escaped is different - already mentioned that 3 posts up. In fact, holding them to the same standard was precisely what I criticized you for. Reading comprehension.
Little room for subtleties - 1) go back and watch the film. you're wrong. 2) he's in prison trying to hide his feelings. it would be unrealistic to do so. 3) the lack of schlocky outward emotion a la Orson Welles IS a subtly.
If snark is engaging in a dialectic discussion on things you said, then I'm a snarky mother. Calling me names and belittling me does little to address my points.
and btw, yr missing the point re: the elliptical nature of the story. A Prophet is all about realism, first and foremost, with dream sequences thrown in to spruce it up.
So me approaching two different movies in different ways and talking about the required fluidity of criticism adds up to a rigid handling of art? You're not worth talking to. I've clarified and expanded on my thoughts a few times, apparently for nothing. If you ever want to respond to what I'm actually saying, opposed to setting up straw men, let me know. Until then I'm not interested.
You go your own way, singing your praises for the mediocracy, and I'll go mine. As an aside, refrain from stalking me.
I'm not stalking. i called you out on a bizarrely shallow assessment of a film. if you want me to leave you alone because of that - i can.
you talk about the required fluidity in criticism, yet you don't practice what you preach. who pointed out the difference in the movies and the absurdity of approaching them in the same way? not only that, i explained why movies should be approached in different ways using examples. go back and read my 1st 2 posts. the fact that you changed your tune and adopted this stance afterward doesn't allow you to pull a Stalinst revision. go back and read this thread in a year. you'll be embarrassed by your initial comments to neptune and how completely idiotic they were.
I like what I like and I never attacked your taste. only your opinion. To each his own. Taste in art is obviously subjective and I watch a lot of everything. good and bad. i certainly don't rely on Rosenbaum or Carney or any professional critic/institution to tell me what to like. i can think for myself.
Point me to where Carney and Rosenbaum reviewed Un Prophet, thanks! Perhaps my criticism would be improved if I simply lifted their texts (as you seem to do with whatever you read).
The only thing I can guarantee being embarrassed about is for even thinking to engage you as a normal, rational, literate human being.
And for someone who claims to believe in subjectivity you sure have no issues bluntly saying "you're wrong", and apparently I don't practice what I preach.
If I'm not worth talking to why did you reply? If I'm stalking you, why would you engage with me? It's these spineless remarks you keep making, which are demonstrably false, that show how clueless you are. this is going on 5-6 posts, so yes, I'd say you don't practice what you preach. you had a chance to end everything, yet you kept the door open.
My writings on film (not including everything I deleted) dwarf yours in size, originality, and specificity (not to mention wit). You're referring to 1 article I wrote where the intention was to compile knowledge. Sources were sighted in author comments, & nothing was lifted word for word from the text (do a little research and prove me wrong). I read the books in the library, came home and typed what I remembered along with my own thoughts. What did you think of the Robert Bresson entry? It was written almost entirely from my own thoughts, had little to do with David Cook. In fact, roughly 1/3-1/2 of the article is my own insight.
If someone is wrong, it's important to point that out. Letting it slide for the sake of subjectivity is condoning it. You said Malik doesn't show emotion. This is wrong, because simply, he does. He cries, quivers, shakes, trembles. Ergo, you're wrong. Notice if I had said, "you're wrong for not liking Une Prophete." That would hypocritical. But instead I pointed out why you were wrong on a specific point. Nothing wrong with that.
So if I am a pathetic human being, quite simply don't respond. You've said more than once what a waste of time it is. Let's see you stick to your guns for once.
As for Rosenbaum, I've read Rosenbaum. You talk just like him. It's funny. His favorite directors is identical to yours. My taste in music, in the past, has been admittedly Scaruffian. However, I admitted it and moved on. I'm not trying to fool people like a classic sciolist.
Shit looking at this reminded me that I keep erroneously forgetting to add Werckmeister Harmonies to my 00s list...geez the nerve of that AfterHours...
Also, how the hell do you endorse people on this site these days? I've been meaning to endorse you, among others, for months...
haha, just click on their username and go to the "View" tab.
Glad to hear you enjoyed Werckmeister.
Thanks
Yes thought it was stunning, virtually on par with Satantango. The long takes were impossible.
What are your 3 favourite films of 2010/2011? I notice the end of the decade has been weaker for you than the beginning with The White Ribbon being the only 2009 pick. Incidently, I'm about to watch that so I have high hopes as I enjoyed Caché.
Yeah, judging by the list the latter years do seem weak, but it should be taken with a grain of salt. I haven't seen too many recent releases (recent being 09--onwards) so I'm not the best judge. Which makes choosing favorite 10/11 films a double edged sword -- it's easier to pick because the pool is small, but I'm sure I'm missing great stuff. Anyways: Blue Valentine, Never Let Me Go, Winter's Bone and Robinson in Ruins. Maybe. None of them masterpieces, but I liked them all a lot.
On a side note, I need to add in 2008's wonderful Two Lovers somewhere. Maybe 09's White Material deserves a place, too.
Haneke is great, The Seventh Continent is probably my favorite from him. You got any recommendations as far as recent films goes?
You should see Scott Pilgrim vs the World, probably the greatest film ever. And it IS an arguable masterpiece. Just look at how tightly structured/edited it is. Will make you wet.
Will be sure to check those out at some point. Hmm, as I'm sure you've seen the bigger films of 2010 anyway I'll recommend Enter The Void if you haven't seen it yet as you rate Irréversible highly. I've also heard Of Gods & Men is supposed to be good but I haven't checked that out yet.
To be honest at the moment I'm mostly playing catch up with filling in some fairly major holes in my viewing history so I haven't seen a lot of recent films other than the obvious ones (Toy Story 3, Inception, The Social Network, Black Swan, The King's Speech, True Grit blah blah).
I thought The White Ribbon was excellent though extremely unnerving viewing.
Here's what I wrote about Enter the Void elsewhere: "I think the photography was solid (despite suffering from a case of dry repetitiveness), but it had little else going for it. The camera was given too much emphasis to the detriment of everything else. That said, the hotel part was somewhat memorable." It's not devoid of merit, but it's not really my thing.
For some reason I haven't seen TS3 yet but I like The Social Network the bestest of all you mentioned.