The perennial girl and two guns. Scarlett Johansson in Lucy (#36).
My friend Mark Harris wrote one of the more compelling and convincing impending-death-of-cinema essays recently; it was published on Grantland. A necessary response to the never-satisfied “there aren’t really THAT many comic book movies” claque, it outlines a studio-movie future of Nothing But Franchises. As Charles Scorsese said in Goodfellas, and I’m paraphrasing here, there’s nothing nobody can do about it, at least given conditions as they stand. But who can really say? After all, nobody predicted this whole The Interview mess, which could be what they call a game-changer in all sorts of unusual ways, most of them likely very unpleasant. On the other hand, large-scale acts of bad faith on the part of multinationals could lead to a useful paradigm shift relative to the production and distribution of creative work. But don’t let me get on a tangent here. Mark’s dire forecast put me in a don’t-know-what-you’ve-got-’til-it’s-gone mood, and informed my decision to Go Big with my best films of the year list. So, yes: Forty. And a few honorable mentions too. Pretty much in order of preference, although I do not guarantee the ability to put forward too many close-reading-distinctions past the thirtieth film, honestly.
1) Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson)
Discussed here, here and here.
2) Last of the Unjust (Claude Lanzmann)
More than a coda to Shoah, a whole other movement, or maybe something like Beethoven’s Grosse Fugue, a monumental work that just didn’t/doesn’t fit comfortably into a particular scheme, Claude Lanzmann’s work on Benjamin Murmelstein is indignant, magesterial, ironic (in the high literary sense), fueled unabashedly by the force and indignation of Lanzmann’s own personality and grief. Utterly amazing.
3) Boyhood (Richard Linklater)
Discussed here and here. I don’t think this movie exists to offer a referendum on whether it’s central character is either a “monster” (no, really, someone called him that; kid makes it to age eighteen in the movie, either smokes a little pot or takes mushrooms, I’m not sure, and he’s a “monster;” they’re gonna ship him to Nuremberg because he was snippy with his former girlfriend about prom I guess) or “the best little boy in the world” (apparently because he doesn’t behave like the lead in Kissing On The Mouth) but rather to offer up glimpses of The Marvellous In The Everyday. But that’s just me I guess.
4) The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson)
Reviewed here.
5) Goodbye To Language (Jean-Luc Godard)
As much toilet non-humor as there is to be found in average Hollywood product, not to mention 3D: Godard’s clearly been accepting notes! Ha ha not really. This Late Work is as staggering as everyone has said, while also being a not atypical Late Work. Godard is among other things a master of juxtaposition and his use of 3D animates his layerings in a remarkable way.
6) Selma (Ava DuVernay)
A film that manages to be “crowd-pleasing” without being in the least bit patronizing. In treatment of its subject matter it takes lessons from both Spike Lee’s Malcolm X and Steven Soderbergh’s Che, but DuVernay retains her own compassionate voice throughout. She’s not afraid of close examination of character, or of embracing contradictions. Spectacular work.
7) Birdman (Alejandro G. Iñarritu)
Discussed here.
8) Maps To The Stars (David Cronenberg)
I was torn about putting this on the list not because I don’t love it but because it’s not likely to be widely seen at ALL this year on account of all sorts of is-it-really-getting-a-release-or-is-this-a-qualifying-run-for-Julianne-Moore’s-award-potential-benefit-or-what mishegas. But given the hostility I overheard it greeted with when I saw it at the New York Film Festival, I wanted to start standing up for it now. Dry, brittle, grisly, nasty, and all kinds of fucked up, David Cronenberg’s film of a Bruce Wagner script is very much a Cronenberg film in its confrontational particulars and a beautifully controlled and peculiarly jarring experience. The climactic scenes are as messed-up as anything Cronenberg has pulled off since Videodrome, I think, and yes, that IS saying something.
9) The Immigrant (James Gray)
Speaking of beautifully controlled, Gray’s orchestration and conducting of this unruly story of love and exploitation is just magnificently judged, and contains one of the great closing shots in this century’s cinema, maybe even all of cinema.
10) Under The Skin (Jonathan Grazer)
Discussed here.
11) Life Of Riley (Alain Resnais)
Reviewed here.
12) Only Lovers Left Alive (Jim Jarmusch)
To quote one of the film’s vampire characters, “Well, that was visual.” Aural, too. Jarmusch concocting a pair of bloodsuckers to rhapsodize over the objects and object lessons of his (and my) lost youth is a very clever ploy, but the film goes beyond cleverness into poignancy and a kind of twisted hope for the future.
13) Noah (Darren Aronofsky)
Russell Crowe hasn’t been so commanding since he portrayed Bud White. And the movie’s propulsive dynamics pay off in a number of ways, not least of which is a nifty revisitation to a central theme of Ford’s The Searchers.
14) Gone Girl (David Fincher)
Discussed here. I had intended to write more about it, specifically how it’s Fincher’s most clever and subtle use of his ever-incredible frames-within-frames composition style, but I didn’t have time and/or nobody offered me money too. See what you’re missing, outlets that pay money?
15) A Most Violent Year (J.C. Chandor)
I’ve admired J.C. Chandor’s talent while never quite being as moved by his pictures as they clearly want me to be. But this one got me good. Oscar Isaac’s Young Pacino 2.0 performance in the lead helped bring it home.
16) The Tale of the Princess Kaguya (Isao Takahata)
Reviewed here.
17) Mr. Turner (Mike Leigh)
“So I’m to become a nonentity.” The most quietly devastating line of dialogue in a movie this year. In the sharpest film about the working life of an artist since Topsy Turvy, in fact.
18) Two Days, One Night (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne)
Yes, it’s a little on the obvious side, and so what.
19) A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night (Ana Lily Amirpour)
An art film by a young director who’s so marketably cool that her work is being featured in outlets that would normally be too fashionably bored to puke at widescreen black-and-white. But the hype is to be believed: the film is droll, angry, funny, beautiful, dreamlike. Jarmusch and Kaurismäki meet Cocteau and share an opium pipe.
20) The Story of My Death (Albert Serra)
Serra’s film proceeds from a ridiculous premise—Casanova meets Dracula—and makes it stick, with a plain, “realistic” depiction of 18th-century life and sexuality. It’s a film that a viewer may half-sleepwalk through until a particular shock—a hand going through a glass pane, a female orgasm in an age and a social hierarchy that doesn’t believe in the female orgasm—jars, galvanizes.
21) National Gallery (Frederick Wiseman)
Reviewed here.
22) Stray Dogs (Tsai Ming-Liang)
Visually ravishing in the worst way, a compassionate view of the dispossessed as they are lost in the hall of disintegrating mirrors that Tsai makes of Taipei.
23) Winter Sleep (Nuri Bilge Ceylan)
Reviewed here.
24) A Walk Among The Tombstones (Scott Frank)
Reviewed here.
25) Interstellar (Christopher Nolan)
I’m so sorry that the big bad movie with the insipid dialogue, and the “problematic” structure, and the terrible science hurt you so very very badly, children. Would it make you feel any better if I got you all a copy of Final Draft for Christmas and you could write your own scripts with good dialogue and solid structure and real science and then you’ll show that overfed egomaniac hack Christopher Nolan a thing or two? What? You say Final Draft isn’t enough, and you need a very very generous deal with Warners as well? I’m sorry but Uncle Glenn can’t help you with that. Actually I wasn’t gonna buy Final Draft for you either, to be honest.
26) The Babadook (Jennifer Kent)
Reviewed here.
27) La Jalousie (Philippe Garrel)
Ho-hum, another downbeat, fleet, elliptical, confounding, exhilarating movie about unhappy French artistes by Philippe Garrel. I hope he lives and keeps making them forever.
28) Snowpiercer (Bong-Joon Ho)
I think it was when Alison Pill showed up that I finally got that the thing that made this movie special was not its sci-fi visionary ruthlessness but just that it was what you call batshit crazy, and quite gleefully so. I have a script lying around that several industry professionals have expressed admiration for, while also saying it’s “unproduceable.” Snowpiercer is the kind of movie that makes you think that “unproduceable” is not something Bong-Joon Ho accepts as a reality.
29) Tracks (John Curran)
Reviewed here.
30) The Skeleton Twins (Craig Johnson)
People rave about Bill Hader in this, and he’s great…and so really is everyone else in the cast, particularly Luke Wilson, whose dry understatement is just remarkable. Unlike a lot of other low-budget character-study type indies (“Sundance movies,” in the parlance of some cynics), Johnson’s movie also has something resembling an actual narrative, which is helpful.
31)American Sniper (Clint Eastwood)
A strong, crisp Clint Eastwood war movie. Nothing wrong with that. Review to come.
32) Listen Up Philip (Alex Ross Perry)
Reviewed here. It’s not really a “literary” movie, and it really doesn’t have a lot to do with Philip Roth. Come on, people. It’s pretty funny and ballsy though.
33) Land Ho! (Aaron Katz and Martha Stephens)
Reviewed here.
34) My Old Lady (Israel Horowitz)
Reviewed here.
35) Thou Wast Mild And Lovely (Josephine Decker)
I don’t want to make this list into some kind of polemic (“Sure ya do, Glenn,” says a devil on my shoulder. “OTHER critics do. Just because you tend to make an intemperate ass of yourself when you try for a polemic doesn’t mean you’ll do it THIS time. You’re a different PERSON now…” etc. etc.), but one of several reasons I took a look at this movie was due to the prodding (in writings, not personally) of Richard Brody, who’s mad about both this movie and Decker’s prior Butter On The Latch. And I think, based on this one, that Decker is a real talent, with a distinctive, unique voice. Her movie, aside from putting forward the important lesson that you should never ever get drunk with farm people, is one of the more intense and frank anatomies of female desire in narrative cinema that I’ve seen in some time. It’s not without miscalculations: the cow POV shots don’t quite make it, and male lead Joe Swanberg, whom I’ve always considered a limited performer, here demonstrates he can’t even sink what ought to have been a “I guess God acts crazy” putt. So, for that and for polemical reasons, I’m compelled to say that it’s my considered opinion that naming this the second best film of the year, as Richard does, actually does the film and it’s director no favors; and to dismiss the likes of Inherent Vice and Mr. Turner as films that “occlude the view toward the year’s most accomplished and original work” is less likely to “clear the field,” as Richard hopes, than it is to potentially alienate a substantial viewers from the original work this arrogant dismissal purports to support. Although the fact that I took Richard’s advice in the first place tends to undercut my argument. Of course I arguably have/had some sort of professional obligation here.
36) Lucy (Luc Besson)
Wacky!
37) Venus In Fur (Roman Polanski)
I saw the theater version by David Ives and was impressed by its technical construction even as I was less impressed by its predictable reversals of gender roles and so on. I also considered Nina Arianda irreplaceable. Polanski’s movie, even as it retains much of the original text (albeit translated into French and stuff) is more a transformation than an adaptation, and the sight of Mathieu Amalric as the spitting image of Simone Choule is…unusual. Also Emmanuelle Seigner’s finest performance.
38) Locke (Edward Knight)
Reviewed here. Talky! With good acting!
39) The Trip To Italy (Michael Winterbottom)
Reviewed here. Funny!
40) The Last Sentence (Jan Troell)
Reviewed here. Anti-Nazi activities in Sweden is admittedly a special topic for contemporary international film audiences, but Jan Troell makes it work, as he will.
Honorable mentions: Calvary (McDonagh), The Guardians Of The Galaxy (Gunn), The Pleasures of Being Out Of Step (Lewis), Obvious Child (Robespierre), Wetlands (Wnendt), Goodbye To All That (Maclachlan), Don Hemingway (Shepard), Ernest and Celestine (Aubier, Patar, Renner).
Glad to see Under the Skin made your Top 10. Been nonplussed by how many critics have been leaving it off.
But, years later, you’re STILL snubbing Melancholia from your list? For shame, Glenn, for shame.
(Also, any chance of reanimating Casey Kasem to read the list?)
Good list, Glenn. Nothing I really disagree with. Having not yet seen INHERENT VICE, my top movie would be BOYHOOD, followed by BIRDMAN.
I assume you didn’t see THE INTERVIEW before Sony yanked it? I intend to boycott all Sony/Columbia movies, and all theaters owned by Carmike (which preemptively announced it would not show the movie in any of its theaters), until THE INTERVIEW is released. I wasn’t even planning to see it, but now that I’ve been told I can’t see it, I definitely do want to see it.
Kudos to Obama for criticizing Sony’s “mistake” in deciding not to release the film.
Imagine if Warner Bros. had shelved CONFESSIONS OF A NAZI SPY in 1939, or if Chaplin had decided not to release THE GREAT DICTATOR, out of fear of how Hitler might respond. What if Marvel had decided not to publish Captain America (with its first-issue cover of Cap punching out Hitler) in early 1941. Marvel did receive threats, apparently from Bund members, but it didn’t back down.
I’m afraid this might have a chilling effect on further attempts at satire in movies.
Re the Mark Harris article: As I’ve learned, the fanboys who crave franchise movies regard themselves as the “real” movie lovers. They see people who like BOYHOOD or BIRDMAN or GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL as phonies who only pretend to like those movies, to make people think they’re smarter than “real people.” They can’t imagine anyone actually liking an “art-house” movie. So it must be a pose.
I’ve also found that fanboys, like conservative Republicans, see themselves as a persecuted minority, constantly under attack – no matter how much power they have. And God knows that have near-total power over the direction of pop culture today.
Glenn, I’m just curious about this…
Regardless of how I felt about Interstellar (it’s probably my least-favourite of Nolan’s films, but I’m gonna give it another look on DVD to see if I respond differently), do you find that people are criticizing it in a way drastically different from how they approach other films (by other filmmakers)? Or is it the intensity of the scrutiny you take greater issue with? There aren’t too many current filmmakers that (typically) do so well with the critics, and make a lot of money for the studios, so it certainly seems like the guy has a bigger target on his back than some.
Though, as I stated, I wasn’t all that keen on the film (on first viewing, at least), I do find it a little bothersome how folks get so hung up on plot contrivances in films of such a fantastical nature. (FTR, I just didn’t find the characters all that interesting.) Yeah, Nolan tries to ground it in some level of reality, but I suspect that’s just a basic attempt to make it more emotionally palatable to a wider swath of viewers.
I respect Brody. I read Brody reliably. He’s in his own league. So there’s that. But his ongoing contempt for narrative (unless it’s narrative as practiced by one of his pets) and his predictable embraceing of seemingly any image-primary non-narrative doodle (particularly as practiced by one of his OTHER types of pets), gets on my god damn nerves. Some days, I feel like he’s practicing an admittedly far more elegant version of Armond White-ism. That “clear the field” stuff was a particularly obvious example of something that feeds this suspicion of mine.
george -
The funny thing is, Grand Budapest and Birdman, while being a bit arthouse, I suppose, are just damned entertaining films, and Boyhood, while having an ambitious conceit, is hardly that experimental in visual or (scene-to-scene) narrative terms. I would think they’d be very palatable to a wide audience, if given the chance.
Something, like Under The Skin, however, I can absolutely see alienating (no pun intended) those looking for more surface-level thrills.
Great list, Glenn, and a prompt for me to get out and see more of these movies.
It feels churlish to argue with Boyhood’s detractors, given how much year-end love it’s getting, but something about the naysaying irks me. Often people and critics have resorted to the charge of it being “cliché,” which seems nuts to me. It’s more likely, I suspect, that they are missing the trees for the conceptual forest; for me, Boyhood is like a symphony of incredibly small, resonant moments.
Re. Brody – I’ve grown to enjoy and respect his writing much more over the years, and to take both the overcooked encomia and brusque dismissal with grains of salt. If you read through some of the older criticism in Cahiers, his tone and his preferences begin to make a lot more sense.
Clayton: I think a lot of people would find BOYHOOD, BIRDMAN and BUDAPEST entertaining … if they would go see them. But they’d rather see THE HOBBIT for its five CGI armies.
And, yes, UNDER THE SKIN would be way over a lot of people’s heads.
Zach -
The only thing that bothered me about Boyhood is that they went with the drunken, (vaguely, in the second case) abusive step-father angle twice. I didn’t feel like either of those characters had much dimension, and seemed more like plot devices.
“I’ve also found that fanboys, like conservative Republicans, see themselves as a persecuted minority, constantly under attack – no matter how much power they have.”
They don’t want mere power: they’re after total and permanent domination.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/12/18/the_interview_movie_was_replaced_by_team_america_world_police_but_now_paramount.html
Now Paramount has told theaters they can’t show TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE, which some theaters wanted to show as a replacement for THE INTERVIEW. Better go rent or buy the DVD before it’s withdrawn.
Looks like the studios are competing for the most abject groveling before North Korea and the Kim family.
@ Clayton Sutherland: Thanks for your questions. I was actually at a holiday gathering with some friends I hadn’t seen in a while last night, and one of them sat next to me at one point and said, “Soooo, you liked ‘Interstellar’…” Like I think you are, he’s a fan of Nolan’s work in general and was frustrated by a lot of its giving with one hand and taking away with the other with respect to the science, and a few other things. All of which I DO consider a legitimate criticism if that’s what watching the film was like for you. For myself, I was more involved with the actual spectacle, which worked fine for me. What hits my sarcasm bone are all of the Internet observations concerning “script” “problems,” and so on, as if a movie is nothing more than a filmed script, and whatever issues the movie has can be solved with better writing, and the implication that some of these commenters themselves are capable of delivering said better writing. It always strikes me as kind of silly, not to say presumptuous.
“Imagine if Warner Bros. had shelved CONFESSIONS OF A NAZI SPY in 1939, or if Chaplin had decided not to release THE GREAT DICTATOR, out of fear of how Hitler might respond.”
george,
You might want to read just a *little* about how the studios dealt (or, rather, didn’t deal at all) with the Nazis between 1933 and 1939, (and to a much lesser degree all the way until 1942), due to a combination of the immense power of the pro-Nazi Joseph Breen, the desire of the studios to sell their films in Germany, and the fear of anti-semitism on the part of the studios. That might help rectify your core ignorance on the topic here. For example, did you know a member of the German embassy was given advance copies of all scripts dealing in any way with the Nazis / Germany by the Breen office to offer cuts and corrections which were almost universally adopted?
(Also, FYI, Confessions Of A Nazi Spy did no business, and is interesting only as an initial and isolated attempt to break through the ice. And The Great Dictator came out AFTER the shooting war began, which made it far less controversial. But even then, you might want to review the state of American politics between Sept ’39 and Dec ’41, when Congress held very hostile HUAC hearings about the Jewish-run film industry trying to pull the nation into the war for their own sectarian interests.)
“…the implication that some of these commenters themselves are capable of delivering said better writing. It always strikes me as kind of silly, not to say presumptuous.”
Possibly true. But we’ll never know for SURE until you deliver those promised copies of Final Draft. C’mon, Glenn. You can use those fat royalty checks from the thriving Première reprint business to finance the giveaway.
Good, useful, expansive list. For everyone hanging out in the comments, I just want to throw in a vote for Kelly Reichardt’s “Night Moves,” which I have yet to see anywhere on anyone’s lists, and is the latest entry in her bid to eventually be known retroactively as the greatest American director of the first half of the 21st century. (Sorry, I’m not very good at the whole “tempered, even-handed criticism” thing.)
Actually surprised, given Brody’s focus on “real independents,” Reichardt wasn’t more on his radar. He even invokes the rise of the “novelist” model for filmmakers, securing jobs as teachers to supplement their income, which Reichardt is already doing at Bard College.
Petey, you’re the one whose “core ignorance” is showing. I’d guess you’re a fan of that book about “Nazi Hollywood” that Farran Nehme(among others) have totally debunked. That seems to be where your “facts” come from.
THE GREAT DICTATOR came out a year before the U.S. entered the war, so it was still controversial. And are you aware of Fritz Lang’s MAN HUNT, which was about a plot to assassinate Hitler? It came out six months before we entered the war.
I’m not saying there weren’t examples of cowardice in Old Hollywood. But the utterly spineless conduct of Sony (and the major theater chains, and the other studios that urged Sony not to release THE INTERVIEW) was disgusting.
http://flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budget-cinema-left-a-generation-of-iconic-filmmakers-mia/view-all?src=longreads&utm_content=bufferad656&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
“How the Death of Mid-Budget Cinema Left a Generation of Iconic Filmmakers MIA”
In case you’re wondering why David Lynch hasn’t directed a movie in 8 years, or John Waters in 10 years. Or why Soderbergh abandoned features. Or why Spike Lee financed his latest through Kickstarter because no studio will hire him.
http://selfstyledsiren.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-collaboration-hollywoods-pact-with.html
As the Siren wrote over a year ago: “In fact there is no smoking gun of a studio head writing to (German consul Georg) Gyssling with “Anything you say, old sport.””
Joseph Breen may have been anti-Semitic, Petey, but that doesn’t make him pro-Nazi. Anti-Semitism was VERY common in the U.S. of the ’30s and ’40s. But not all anti-Semites supported Hitler. There were anti-Semites in the U.S. military who fought AGAINST Hitler.
Interestingly, Ben Urwand dismisses CONFESSIONS OF A NAZI SPY much the way you do, Petey.
Glenn -
Thanks for the response. As I said, I don’t really much care if the hard science in Interstellar was undermined or subverted by its more fantastical elements (I honestly haven’t given it enough thought to know either way). That said, I probably have a bit of a resistance to any film piling on that much plot exposition; I just don’t find it that emotionally involving, is all.
Actually, aside from most of the characters not having a great deal of personality (they’re all pretty gray), I was actually kind of let down by the overall visual content of the film. I mean, they traveled to a few planets, and all we got was Big Wave and Hoth. While I certainly wasn’t expecting some sort of lush, Avatar-like world (not a big fan of that movie either, FTR), there just wasn’t a lot of visual variety to grab my attention.
I did like the use of models/miniatures, though, and the twist at the end, though a bit ridiculous if taken at face value, was reasonably striking. And some of the video link scenes involving time lapse/aging were very effective.
I just wish I had more of a vested interest in the characters, wasn’t so bombarded by Zimmer’s overbearing score, and was given more moments to reflect on what I’d seen, rather than having it explained to me. I certainly wouldn’t suggest that I could do any better with such material; all I can do it try to articulate why I responded the way I did. I might need a second viewing to nail that down.
This is one ferocious list, good sir. In recent weeks an impression had been gathering that perhaps this year didn’t stack up so well against 2013, but this is a welcome argument to the contrary. (And you only had 30 listed last year, right?)
Besides backing up Jason M.‘s vote for “Night Moves,” my only possible issue would be the lack of even an honorable mention for “Love Is Strange.” I can see how it might be faulted as too genteel in some respects, but the precision of the acting by Lithgow and Molina, along with the wallop packed by the last 15 minutes or so (an ending as graceful as that of “Boyhood”), will remain with me for quite some time.
And BTW, I’d also love to read an expansion of your Twitter assessment of “Ida” as “reactionary.” Though I admired it greatly on first viewing, and more or less approve of its award success, you might have put a finger on something just below the surface that others have not quite identified. Cheers, then, and a joyous holiday to you and yours!
Did you see ‘Leviathan’ yet Glenn? Curious what you think/thought of it.
I haven’t seen “Night Moves,” or “Love Is Strange.” As I said, you can’t see everything. I’ll got further and risk some disapprobation here. I can’t say I was crazy about Kelly Reichardt’s cavalier attitude about lifting the title of the Arthur Penn film, and I also chafed at the way Ira Sachs slagged Christian Marclay on Facebook. These things aren’t supposed to matter, I know, or I am told, but if I’m going to be 100 percent frank, I have to admit that they made me less eager to see their work, and once the urgency is sapped, the desire to follow up is not particularly ardent either. You can just imagine, I assume, exactly how excited I am about the upcoming “The End of the Tour.”
As for “Leviathan,” it just didn’t hook me. I’d rather see a U.S. release of the Russian sci-fi movie “Target,” frankly.
“As the Siren wrote over a year ago: “In fact there is no smoking gun of a studio head writing to (German consul Georg) Gyssling with “Anything you say, old sport.”
First argument of yours with a strawman. My claim was collaboration between Gyssling and BREEN.
“THE GREAT DICTATOR came out a year before the U.S. entered the war, so it was still controversial. And are you aware of Fritz Lang’s MAN HUNT, which was about a plot to assassinate Hitler? It came out six months before we entered the war.”
Second argument of yours with a strawman. I clearly noted that there was a serious change in degree between ’33 – ’39, where anti-Nazi movies were verboten, and Sept ’39 – Dec ’41, where they were merely controversial. And I noted the post-Sept ’39 hostile HUAC hearings.
Clayton -
I get where you’re comin’ from. While conceding that Boyhood isn’t perfect, I will say that the mother’s decision, despite being in many respects a woman with her shit together, to choose two jerks in a row (the second does indeed seem to have a drinking issue, where the first is a going-down-in-flames drunk) struck me as sadly plausible. Added to which that despite the possible common denominator of booze, they were quite different, at least superficially, which is a pretty common human mistake to make.
“(And finally, apologizes to Glenn for me getting suckered into george’s off-topic rant and amplifying it.)”
And, Glenn, I apologize for getting baited by the childish tantrum that Petey threw at me.
Zach -
Yeah, it’s not that the situation wasn’t sadly plausible – it most certainly was – it’s just that the film so steadfastly avoided melodrama for the most part, that it bothered me a bit that it popped up there (especially in the first case). Melodrama does occasionally happen in real life (two of my immediate family members have bi-polar disorder, so…yeah), but I was just responding more to the subtle beats of the film. Anyways, it’s not a dealbreaker, and though Boyhood is not my favourite film of the year, it’s certainly an impressive achievement.
The Wes Anderson film is my personal favourite, if only because it was the only movie released in 2014 that completely delighted me from beginning to end (that doesn’t happen often).
“These things aren’t supposed to matter, I know, or I am told…”
I’m entirely out of the loop on, and quite surprised to learn about, Ira Sachs insulting another artist. (Google is no help here, but whatever he wrote would have to be pretty atrocious to dim my affection for his movie.)
However, this comment instantly brought back the priceless image of Mr. Eastwood and his reluctant debating partner, the Chair-in-Chief. I’ve loved more of his films than not, and the best of them seemed to cast a different light on his supposed leanings, making him tougher to pin down. Now, though, comes “American Sniper,” with early reviews indicating a whitewash of the main character’s more unsavory attitudes, and his sadly ironic fate not dealt with at all save in closing titles, and the film’s theme boiled down to, “It’s a helluva thing, killin’ a man…”, and where have I heard that before…?
I’m sure I’ll see it anyway, and I expect your review will leave me with a markedly different image of what it contains and/or implies. Looking forward to reading it.
Have you seen “Ida”?
Not flawless but bold, very beautiful and strong performances.
Two surprises here for me:
No Ruben Östlund’s “Force Majeure”?
And what’s with “A Walk Among the Tombstones?” Am I just touchy for finding it repulsive? You know, there’s a lot to choose from: the manipulative eye-for-an-eye plot that could stand for an NRA propaganda piece? The-evil-without-a-soul bad guys introduced basically as a gay couple? Also, I like sadism in a film as much as the next guy, but when it’s for sheer entertainment value it’s kind of hard to enjoy it…
As I said before, I haven’t seen “Force Majeure,” although I am certainly interested. Hard to say just why it flew under my own radar so totally.
As for “Tombstones,” while the villains of the piece WERE laid on a little thick (David Harbour’s agent should get him some nice guy roles, lest his career succumb to Early Hollywood Jeroen Krabbé Syndrome), I am partial to Lawrence Block, Matthew Scudder, and Brooklyn’s Greenwood Cemetery, all of which I feel were well-represented by this motion picture.
The book “American Sniper” made for disconcerting reading because Chris Kyle was such an unreflective person. At least that’s how he comes across in his book. He seems to have felt no guilt, no hesitation, no second thoughts about killing an estimated 160 enemy combatants. He was doing what he was trained to do, and loving it.
It gets monotonous after a while, to read a book with a protagonist who mechanically goes through his paces and never thinks deeply (or at all) about it. Kyle felt he was saving his guys’ lives by killing the enemy, which is pretty much what Alvin York said (at least in the Hawks-Cooper movie).
Took in 2 on your list today. I enjoyed Birdman even if it seemed contrived and self-absdorbed. Yes, actors are people too, and they experience the same things that we average folk do, but the difficulty of identifying with people who have a home in Malibu to refinance can’t be overstated. Still, the execution was nearly flawless, and I’ll admit that I consider it a treat to see Michael Keaton in a starring role.
The Immigrant impressed me far more, if only because of how incredibly well Gray maintains the tone. These days it’s few and far between when a movie depicting a serious and emotional subject manages to avoid the seemingly inevitable cringe-inducing scene or three. The Immigrant succeeds in that regard, which is no small feat. That closing shot literally had me gasping for the sheer beauty but also for how long it was held.
Looking forward to checking out others on their list, not least being Inherent Vice. Also, hoping Grand Budapest Hotel doesn’t suffer at awards time for its early-2014 release date. As controlled a film as The Immigrant, and with levity that belies its quite effecting (at least for me) bottom line.
Kurzleg: “…the difficulty of identifying with people who have a home in Malibu to refinance can’t be overstated.”
Is this more than mere classism?
Also, while self-absorption is certainly a part of the film’s DNA, I’d argue it’s less just-the-water-it-swims-in and more a‑subject-intended-for-reflection. (Maybe SELF-reflection, however, so perhaps you still have a point.)
Weirdly, it’s “The Immigrant” that feels contrived to me. Never anything less than total admiration for what Gray has to show us, of course, but I always find myself chafing against the dialogue and over-simplified structure. There’s something so casual or not-quite-sloppy-but-close (maybe improvisatory?) about his last two films, and it tends to push me out of them. It has the added effect, in this instance, of making the film feel anachronistic, and I don’t know that I can entirely put my finger on why. The period detail is magnificently observed via design, but something about the writing and performances feels unduly jerked towards scenario and theme, rather than rooted in the film’s period reality. Maybe it’s just another case of “Hey, dummy, it’s a movie!” and therefore expressive, not realistic, but I was so consistently distracted by it that there must be some reason it stands out here and not elsewhere.
Come to think of it, maybe it’s another case of “self-absorption”. Perhaps Gray (and his co-writer) is(/was) better at orchestrating a scenario, and highlighting its themes through imagery, rather than convincingly imagining their way into the language and behaviour of other people/eras. That seems an over-critical way of putting it, perhaps, but I always felt I was watching people play (absolutely stunning) dress-up, rather than convincingly acting out a dramatic narrative.
But maybe it all boils down to being “in sync” with the filmmakers’ attitudes and perspectives: looking at the things they want you to look at, interested in the things they’re interested in, and not getting distracted by the things in which they’re not interested … which are therefore absent. Anyway, that still doesn’t explain my foundness for “Birdman” because, up to this point (much like Glenn), I’ve taken a powerful dislike to just about everything González Iñárritu has ever touched. Maybe he’s finally developing a sense of humour towards all the self-importance.…
Finally, yes, the final shot of “The Immigrant” is a complete stunner. Talk about cojones: Gray takes on a figure of no less eminence than Ford, and a final shot of no less eminence than “one of the all-time greats”, and not only tries to outdo them, he tries to outdo them two- and three-times over. Hell, I’ll probably go back for seconds just for that shot alone, and maybe that second viewing will help to settle (or at least clarify) some of my hang-ups.
“something about the writing and performances feels unduly jerked towards scenario and theme, rather than rooted in the film’s period reality”
I’m so glad I wasn’t the only one super put off by the constant this-the-the-theme dialogue in The Immigrant. I kept trying to just watch it as opera, but I constantly felt like the thudding writing undermined the period recreation, and the former was just so much less interesting than the latter.
Grand Budapest wowed me, though. I’ve been anti-Anderson since Rushmore (good christ I hated that movie so, so, so much), but Moonrise Kingdom was charming and Budapest seemed like the work of a vastly more mature and thoughtful writer.
“I’ve been anti-Anderson since Rushmore (good christ I hated that movie so, so, so much)”
I believe you have definitively failed the Voight-Kampff test, TFB.
I never thought I would miss Owen Gleiberman, but the few times I’ve checked in with Chris Nashawaty’s stuff over at EW I’ve mostly cringed. In his GBH review he writes what must be the one billionth version of a sentence in an Anderson review: “They’re like hermetic, handcrafted dioramas in which every last detail, no matter how tiny, has been exquisitely attended to – often at the sake of real emotional engagement.” By now this is beyond laziness, like maintaining that there’s nothing but “coldness” and “misanthropy” in Kubrick. My feelings on the matter are that Anderson’s style, maturity and level of emotional openness have barely changed since film one, and that’s a great, great thing. Like all the best, he follows his own instincts. Though it’s a close, crowded race, Tenenbaums remains my favorite, and it gets me choked up in a couple of places, with that same complex feeling the final scenes of Budapest do.
My lord! Richard Brody championing the abstract idea of “the personal” as the be all end all, with shockingly inconsistent applications of his very own ideas and beliefs . Well, I’ll be.
I will say this, the man rides a hobbyhorse like few others ever have and ever will.
@Petey: About two-thirds of the way through Rushmore, I turned to my friend on the couch and muttered “If this movie ends with the townspeople placing Max between two boards and leaping on the upper board until his eyeballs burst, then I really like this movie. If it ends any other way, then fuck this movie.”
I’ve got a lot of time for Anderson, even ‘The Life Aquatic’, but the character of Max almost leaves me wishing the Production Code remained in force.
@TFB: “If this movie ends with the townspeople placing Max between two boards and leaping on the upper board until his eyeballs burst, then I really like this movie.”
Said like a true replicant. (And I know you’ve watched C‑beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. But arguments from authority tend to be weak.)
FWIW, I think it’s pretty obvious that Max is not MEANT to be a sympathetic character for the first two acts. When he gets beat up, you certainly aren’t rooting for him. His bildungsroman evokes notably more sympathy in act 3, as his character starts to grow up.
Solid list, Glenn. The only glaring disagreement from me is LUCY which, while yes, “wacky” was also extremely idiotic. It was kind fun though. What I like best about your list is it’s got things I haven’t seen but also makes me want to revisit films I was lukewarm on. Sign of a good list for sure, in my opinion.
I’m bummed I can’t do any kind of list because my suburban Northern California town doesn’t get INHERENT VICE or SELMA until freeking January 9! It’s a hell hole, I tell you! A HELL HOLE!!
Happy New Year everyone!
Kevin H – Sorry for the late reply. Is an inability to identify with a character who made more in one film than I will in 5 lifetimes? I dunno. My point, though, is that it’s a barrier for the viewer to overcome. I guess it’s analogous to what have come to be known as first-world problems. You’re rich but don’t have critical acclaim? Golly, that’s tough! Now, as you say, your mileage may vary depending upon your background, interests, etc. I can see how someone with connections to theater and film worlds would have a much different relationship to the subject matter and a much different reaction. All that said, I did enjoy Birdman as entertainment and will definitely see it again.
I think I know what you mean about The Immigrant. For one, the girl has the miraculous luck to get hooked up with the one pimp in NYC that didn’t physically abuse his girls. For some reason, I was able to get past that. Viewing that film, it was far easier for me to imagine what it must have been like to come to America and confront all of the obstacles placed in one’s way. The seeming location shoots (looked like Ellis Island to me) and period details and technical execution really helped in that regard.
“The period detail is magnificently observed via design, but something about the writing and performances feels unduly jerked towards scenario and theme, rather than rooted in the film’s period reality.”
I feel similarly to a film like Ford’s The Searchers. That doesn’t detract from my enjoyment of the film, but I have a hard time taking the characters seriously.
Anyway, thanks for the response. Looking forward to viewing both Birdman and Immigrant again to see what I missed on the first pass.
Kurzleg: no worries. Many thanks to you, in turn.
Regarding “Birdman”, I suppose the question is whether the film intends to hold Riggan up for our identification, endorsing or validating his experience and perspective, or for our examination, questioning and interrogating the same. Like Glenn (I think), I’m inclined towards the latter view, but I suppose I must acknowledge a history of some connection with the theatre, so, like you say, that doubtless makes the whole thing a lot more accessible, initially.
As for “The Immigrant”, my discomfort has less to do with the events, as such (though you raise a good point about her luck), than with a feeling of disjunction between the film’s world and its players. Roughly speaking, the tenor of the performances just doesn’t line up with the film’s tone; or, the visual sophistication (and sumptuousness) stands in some contrast to the strangely unsophisticated actions and behaviour of the people. But I can see this is going to defeat my powers of expression.
One example: Joaquin Phoenix plays his pimp MC with a tinge of sheepish reserve, as if to suggest (if only to the audience) the degenerative effects of his work, as well as the embarrassment (conscious or unconscious, social or spiritual) that comes with it. It’s a fine bit of performance. The problem is that his presence reads so subdued, on stage, that it becomes impossible to reconcile with his success as this carnival barker of earthly, feminine delights: he simply doesn’t exude the necessary charisma to achieve and maintain his position as such, despite all nudity and other pleasures. His show sucks. Similarly, he’s such a sniveling, self-hating little shit (for obvious thematic reasons) that it’s also impossible to buy him as this high-roller person-of-influence among the early New York City underworld, as well as its government/immigration staff. He just doesn’t have the necessary confidence. And that’s merely one example.
Still, I suspect a repeat viewing can only help to diminish these first-impression demands for greater realism, and I look forward to giving myself permission to take such objections more for granted next time.
Amen for repeat viewings.
Kevin, though it’s not an exact match, that reminds me a lot of my feelings watching Phoenix in “Gladiator,” too.
Kevin -
I never got the impression that Phoenix was a high roller. Nor did I think that it’s necessary for him to have particular skill to “sell” his “wares”. Yes, his show sucks, but then none of his clientele seem to be of conspicuous wealth, influence or sophistication. (The bribes he makes aren’t with people at the top of the food chain.) Nor are any of his charges especially beautiful, though of course beauty is a secondary characteristic given the profession. My impression is that he is merely surviving, flying under the radar. This explains his need to skulk around Ellis Island and “liberate” Cotillard’s character. Cotillard’s Ewa may have originally represented his aspirations for a better life given her relative beauty, but even he recognize’s that her willingness to participate in his game is limited by her ultimate goal of freeing her sister and establishing a “normal” life in America. In fact, it’s the conviction he sees in her that motivates his sacrifice, I think.
Thanks for the dialog. As someone who engages film on a decidedly amateur basis, it’s made me think harder about how I engage and perceive what I see.
Kurzleg
The movie “Frank” is an absolute masterpiece. Art rock anthem par excellence.