Ever since I was a young lad working at the library, I’ve been aware of the American Dialect Society (http://www.americandialect.org/). The most interesting thing about the ADS is that each year, it’s members vote on what they call the “Word of the Year”. It might be a new word that was coined by a politician or singer, it might be a word that adopted a new meaning, or it might be an old word that suddenly resurged in popularity. Sometimes the ‘word’ of the year is actually two words that, when put together, have a new meaning.
I love this idea. The words they select for each year are quite a reflection of the times. For example, in 1992, they selected “Not”, the over-used put-down popularized by the Saturday Night Live sketch “Wayne’s World”. In 2000, they selected “Chad” – a word so defunct that Oxford was considering dropping it from the next edition of their dictionary, until the voting fiasco in Florida gave the word new life.
So, in 1999, I began selecting my own personal “Word of the Year”. Like the ADS, my choice can be a word I never heard before, or one that suddenly surged in popularity for me personally (for whatever reason). Since 2007 is all but over, I’ve once again added to my list. Here it is, with brief explanations…
1999 – Filmlet
I was tired of calling my short films “Zimmerscope Productions”, so I flipped through the dictionary looking for a new film-related word. I found “filmlet”, which is a term used to describe any motion picture under 60 minutes long. I loved how underused it is – I swear I’ve never heard anyone else use this word besides me.
2000 – Viscosity
I’m sure I’d heard this word before, and I’d definitely heard its root word, viscous. But until I took a class on laboratory technology, I never appreciated this word for all it was worth. I loved performing viscosity tests – both in college and at my previous job. I throw this word around whenever I can. [runner-up: Flyboat]
2001 – Denouement
Another word I learned in college. Despite reading dozens of books about motion pictures, I never knew what to call that last part of the film, you know – the part after the climax. I used to just call it “the ending”. But then I was taught this word, which practically screams ‘pretentious!’, and all was right with the world.
2002 – GMP
Okay, so it’s not a word. But by ADS guidelines, I can still use it. It’s an abbreviation for Good Manufacturing Procedures, which is a nice way of saying the FDA forces food and drug manufacturers to be anal to the point of neurosis. I hate the yearly GMP classes I have to attend, and I hate laboring under its rules. Nevertheless, it’s been a big player in my vocabulary from 2002 onwards.
2003 – Environmental Monitoring
Worried about a possible lay-off at my job, I offered my services in the microbiology lab, hoping to make myself twice as useful. It worked, and I never did get laid-off. For several days out of each month in 2003 (and into 2004), I ventured with the microbiologists as we went out environmental monitoring.
2004 – Big Lake
Despite the fact that I never lived more than 2 hours from Big Lake, I’d never heard of it until our realtor began showing us property there. By mid-summer, I was living there. [runner-up: Doula]
2005 – Cephalohematoma
Nothing says smarmy health care professional like knowing the technical name for a lump on a newborn’s head. When I told people my son was born with cephalohematoma, most of them immediately adopted an air of sympathy, as if I’d just given them the gravest news ever.
2006 – Cognitive Dissonance
Thanks to the Watchtower Society’s inability to answer questions, provide supporting documentation and misquote, I knew the old farts in Brooklyn were throwing up a smokescreen for years. But it was in this year that my wife helped me appreciate what a Watchtower apologist I’d become. She explained it using this term. [runner-up: Love Bombing]
2007 – Apraxia
Another medically related term, only this time, it sounds like a planet the Star Ship Voyager would land on. It sums up my son’s speech delay (and other quirks) so nicely, my wife and I began wondering if other people we knew also had un-diagnosed apraxia.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Lovers Quarrel
From the "You never know what's gonna happen next" Department:
My wife and I walked into our spare bedroom last night and my wife asked: "Is it dead?" She was referring to one of our Love Birds. After examining the body from several angles, I responded in the affirmative.
Here's a brief history of our lovebirds: In 1997, we purchased a Love Bird on a whim, from a private breeder who, on the same day, sold us a cockatiel. Within weeks, we felt sorry for pretty Tango. She was lonely. So we returned to the bird breeder and purchased a friend for Tango, whom we named Tequila. A funny thing about Love Birds is that they are, like Killer Whales, improperly named. They are extremely territorial, and they only bond to a human if they are given oodles of contact. They don't even love each other. They are quite finicky regarding their mates, and even if they choose to bond with a mate, they will frequently bicker to the point of drawing blood.
Anyway, Tango died in 1998. Coincidentally, at this same time, my wife and I had been raising and feeding a baby female love bird by hand, whom we named Twoey. Twoey bonded to me quite nicely but, when Tequila was widowed, we placed Twoey in the cage next to hers to see if they would get along. They fell in love; it was not uncommon to walk in on some hot lesbian fornicating.
Sometimes, we'd notice blood on one of their faces, or on their feet, but it was nothing serious. Their love-hate relationship proceeded fairly stable for nearly a decade.
Yesterday, around 5 in the evening, I went into the spare room, noticed the two birds hiding under some chewed up paper (as they are wont to do) and made a mental note to clean the cage this coming weekend. That was the last time I saw them both alive.
Six hours later, we found a Love Bird corpse on the floor of the cage.
Did I mention that the #1 cause of death among Love Birds is...cannibalism? Maybe now would be a good time to mention that.
The dead bird was not lying in peaceful rest. She was mangled and bloodied, her feathers were wildly out of place, her beak was hyper-extended and her head was tucked under at a frightening angle. Her yellow feathers were pink from blood. Her mate had blood on her face and chest.
Funny thing is (not 'ha-ha' funny), we're not sure who died and who lived. Although we've had all manner of colorful birds in the past, it just so happened that these two torrid lovers had exactly the same coloring and disposition.
So now, our house is home to one, single, Love Bird. She's sitting on her perch right now - a cold-blooded fratricidal psycho. Seething...waiting...waiting...she's coming for you next.
My wife and I walked into our spare bedroom last night and my wife asked: "Is it dead?" She was referring to one of our Love Birds. After examining the body from several angles, I responded in the affirmative.
Here's a brief history of our lovebirds: In 1997, we purchased a Love Bird on a whim, from a private breeder who, on the same day, sold us a cockatiel. Within weeks, we felt sorry for pretty Tango. She was lonely. So we returned to the bird breeder and purchased a friend for Tango, whom we named Tequila. A funny thing about Love Birds is that they are, like Killer Whales, improperly named. They are extremely territorial, and they only bond to a human if they are given oodles of contact. They don't even love each other. They are quite finicky regarding their mates, and even if they choose to bond with a mate, they will frequently bicker to the point of drawing blood.
Anyway, Tango died in 1998. Coincidentally, at this same time, my wife and I had been raising and feeding a baby female love bird by hand, whom we named Twoey. Twoey bonded to me quite nicely but, when Tequila was widowed, we placed Twoey in the cage next to hers to see if they would get along. They fell in love; it was not uncommon to walk in on some hot lesbian fornicating.
Sometimes, we'd notice blood on one of their faces, or on their feet, but it was nothing serious. Their love-hate relationship proceeded fairly stable for nearly a decade.
Yesterday, around 5 in the evening, I went into the spare room, noticed the two birds hiding under some chewed up paper (as they are wont to do) and made a mental note to clean the cage this coming weekend. That was the last time I saw them both alive.
Six hours later, we found a Love Bird corpse on the floor of the cage.
Did I mention that the #1 cause of death among Love Birds is...cannibalism? Maybe now would be a good time to mention that.
The dead bird was not lying in peaceful rest. She was mangled and bloodied, her feathers were wildly out of place, her beak was hyper-extended and her head was tucked under at a frightening angle. Her yellow feathers were pink from blood. Her mate had blood on her face and chest.
Funny thing is (not 'ha-ha' funny), we're not sure who died and who lived. Although we've had all manner of colorful birds in the past, it just so happened that these two torrid lovers had exactly the same coloring and disposition.
So now, our house is home to one, single, Love Bird. She's sitting on her perch right now - a cold-blooded fratricidal psycho. Seething...waiting...waiting...she's coming for you next.
Friday, November 16, 2007
And Now For Something Completely Different...
Recently, I received a phone call from an elder in the local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He wanted to arrange a meeting with my wife and me. I inquired as to the nature of the meeting and he stated that “certain accusations” had been made against me. He said a meeting involving my wife, me, and a couple of elders should be held as soon as possible in an effort to “sort out the facts” and to make sure we hadn’t “enticed” anyone else.
Strangely, though, regardless of anything I might or might not have ever done, the Watchtower Society does not recognize me as one of its members. The Watchtower Society reported the number of Witnesses worldwide to be 6,741,444 last year. In order to be counted amongst these ranks a person must be an active publisher. That is, they must go door-to-door at least once a month. I have not performed this activity for well over a year, and my wife has not done so for over two years; neither of us, therefore, are counted as members of the congregation. Consequently, I fail to see why the elder felt he had any jurisdiction over me or my wife. It’s as if I walked out of a job a year ago and only now does my ex-boss call to inform me I may be fired for conduct unbecoming his company.
Nevertheless, I inquired as to who made these accusations. The elder initially resisted providing me with any information, but as I reasoned with him, he divulged that four people had written letters to the elders stating that they were concerned about some of my recent actions. I reminded the elder that if his primary concern is to follow Theocratic order, he should provide me with the names of my accusers so that I may contact them in person. His response was that the people did not live nearby, upon which I said I was not adverse to making long-distance calls to speak with the accusers in the hope of sorting out the matter. He then went back to his original intent, saying again that it would just be best if we met with them. I reminded him that the correct course of action would be for those people to contact me directly if they have issues with me, and that, by going directly to the elders, they violated the very teachings they claim to support. Since, according to that elder, the accusers are all members of Witness congregations, they are the ones “dirtying” the congregation by their willful refusal to follow the Watchtower’s direction.
As proof, consider these excerpts from the October 15, 1999 Watchtower, in the article titled “You May Gain Your Brother”:
“If your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother." Clearly, this is not a step based on mere suspicion. You should have evidence or specific information that you can use to help your brother to see that he committed a wrong and needs to set matters straight. It is good to act promptly, not letting the matter grow or letting his attitude become entrenched. And do not forget that brooding over it can damage you too. Since the discussion is to be between you and him alone, refrain from talking to others beforehand to win sympathy or improve your self-image.
…
Jesus showed that after the first step, you should not give up trying to gain your brother, to keep him united with you and others in worshiping God acceptably. Jesus outlined a second step: "If he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established."
He said to take 'one or two more.' He did not say that after taking the first step, you are free to discuss the problem with many others, to contact a traveling overseer, or to write to brothers about the problem."
Clearly, then, if the elder is worried about the cleanliness of the congregation, his first order of business should be either to inform me of the names of my accusers, or – in case he wishes to protect their anonymity – to contact them and remind them of their error in not following the Watchtower’s direction and to recommend that they approach me regarding any issues. I said as much to the elder, and he twice agreed that I was correct on this point.
Finally, he said he was unsure how to proceed. I exhorted him to do the right thing. He said he would confer with the other elders.
Less than an hour later, he called me again. I missed his call, but he left a voicemail stating the situation was “more than I can handle”. I returned his call. He said that the elders were unwilling to give me the names of the accusers (and, though he didn’t say, I assume the elders were unwilling to remind the accusers that they should have approached me directly). He insisted, instead, that we address ‘some’ of the accusations. These included two things: 1) Writing to the Watchtower Society and 2) Celebrating my son’s birthday.
Let’s take these one at a time:
1) I am unable to find any indication that writing to the Watchtower Society is considered an offense. I had questions, the local elders were unable to answer them, the Witnesses’ literature was unable to answer them, thus I wrote to the Watchtower Society. My letters were a sincere desire to learn the truth; something every Witness ostensible places in high regard. The Watchtower Society’s periodicals contain articles titled “Questions from Readers” and “From Our Readers”, thereby encouraging correspondence between them and their readers. Also, if writing the Society is some kind of sin, I am dumbfounded as to why no one has attempted to ‘correct’ my error during the twenty-one years that have elapsed since I first wrote the Watchtower Society.
2) It is true that I willfully celebrated my son’s second birthday, a fact easily discovered on the web. For the record, I also celebrated his first birthday. It has never bothered my conscience that each year, on my birthday, my parents and grandparents (all active Witnesses) called to wish me a happy birthday. Nor did it bother me when, in 1994, I attended a birthday party for the son of a close Witness friend. Nor did I feel there was any sin in allowing friends and family (all active Witnesses) to host birthday parties for my son shortly after he was born.
If it isn’t clear already, my issue here is not whether or not I did celebrate a birthday (clearly I did) but whether or not it was wrong in the first place.
I was an active Witness for approximately 25 years and during that time I was perpetually vexed that there was no sufficient explanation as to why Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays. Watchtower rationale on why birthdays are sinful can be boiled down to the following reasons:
a) Two birthday parties are mentioned in the bible. Neither of the birthday boys were worshippers of Jehovah. At both birthday parties, someone was killed. True, most birthday parties don’t end in murder, but since everything is in the bible for a reason, we must conclude that birthdays are not for true Christians.
b) Birthday celebrations involve giving undue attention to the individual; setting them up in a place of importance.
c) There is no indication that first century Christians celebrated their birthday.
d) Birthdays often include pagan traditions, such as cakes topped with candles and an encouragement of materialism via the giving of gifts.
Okay, let’s break these down.
First, the two biblical birthday party-related deaths: It is noteworthy that both of the deaths fulfilled prophesy, so the deaths weren’t all bad – had the deaths not occurred, God and Jesus’ words would have not come true! Also, if God really wanted us to abstain from birthdays, doesn’t it seem reasonable to conclude that he would have said so somewhere? After all, he spent pages and pages detailing sex crimes and proper disposal of human waste, so surely He didn’t leave out anything important. Why is there no law in either the Old or New Testament that simply says: “Thou shalt not celebrate birthdays”? He even saw fit to command women not to braid their hair, yet Witness women routinely flout this dictate. If we are to assume that all birthdays are evil because two birthdays (19 centuries apart) are mentioned in the bible under negative connotations, then what about dogs? Dogs are mentioned in the bible 40 times, and never once are they spoken of in a positive way. They are described as low, unclean animals that eat corpses and their own vomit. Anyone who condemns birthdays on the basis of the two bible citations, must likewise condemn dogs. And pigs. And hair-braiding.
Next, what is so wrong with giving an individual special attention on one particular day? If this truly is a reason to avoid birthday celebrations, then why are graduation parties, retirement parties, wedding receptions, wedding anniversaries and baby showers acceptable? Incidentally, a baby shower is a birthday party. What Witnesses really condemn, then, is technically not birthday celebrations, but the anniversaries of birthdays. This is especially bizarre considering they celebrate the anniversaries of weddings. I once asked an elder why wedding anniversaries were acceptable practices, while birthday anniversaries were not. He said: “Because marriage is God’s arrangement”. So then what is a birthday? Satan’s arrangement? God commanded humans to be fruitful, thus creating billions of birthdays. Never once did he command people to marry.
Next, while first-century Christians may not have celebrated their birthdays, neither is there any record that they insisted upon clean-shaven faces, or that they used birth control, or that they attended meetings three times a week, or that they produced their own literature, or that they held wedding anniversary parties or graduation parties. Yet all these things are practiced by twenty-first century Witnesses. Why the inconsistency?
Finally, the pagan tradition of candle-topped cakes surely can not be that sinful as I myself have had such a dessert placed before me on numerous wedding anniversaries. Each time I have been presented with such a cake, it has been from an active, faithful Witness. The same is true of gift-giving. While I by no means condone the rampant materialism in this country, Witnesses do not frown upon the giving of gifts on special occasions for anything besides birthdays. During my graduation party, at which every attendee was a Witness, I received 54 gifts. At our wedding and every subsequent anniversary, my wife and I receive scores of gifts, usually from faithful Witnesses. Some Witness parents even use the occasion of their wedding anniversary to give gifts to their children, as a way of making up for not celebrating their birthdays. At any rate, a birthday can be celebrated without the giving of gifts. My wife recently mentioned that, for a future birthday party for our son, she would like to invite all the kids to arrive with food or toys for animals and then all the children can go together to an animal shelter together and donate the items to the unwanted animals. To which I replied, “SINNER!”
At any rate, the elder never did provide me with the names of my accusers and, to my knowledge, he willfully chose not to inform my accusers of my desire to speak with them directly. So here, now, I give you that chance. Let’s be honest, you visit this site regularly even though you feel guilty doing so. Please address the comments above, including your justification on knowingly violating Watchtower dictates by going first to the elders instead of approaching me and what your specific scriptural reasons are for taking offense at letter writing and birthday parties. As the above Watchtower article outlined, I require specific information to help me see that I committed a wrong and to set matters straight. If you do not wish to make yourself known on a public forum such as this, please email me. If I do not hear from you within two weeks, I will assume you agree that you violated the Watchtower’s policy regarding reporting ‘wrongdoing’, that you agree letter-writing to the Watchtower Society is an acceptable avenue for finding answers, that the Witnesses’ belief regarding birthday anniversary celebrations is erroneous and that everything in this post is totally correct and reasonable.
P.S. For the record, no one was beheaded at any birthday party I ever attended.
Strangely, though, regardless of anything I might or might not have ever done, the Watchtower Society does not recognize me as one of its members. The Watchtower Society reported the number of Witnesses worldwide to be 6,741,444 last year. In order to be counted amongst these ranks a person must be an active publisher. That is, they must go door-to-door at least once a month. I have not performed this activity for well over a year, and my wife has not done so for over two years; neither of us, therefore, are counted as members of the congregation. Consequently, I fail to see why the elder felt he had any jurisdiction over me or my wife. It’s as if I walked out of a job a year ago and only now does my ex-boss call to inform me I may be fired for conduct unbecoming his company.
Nevertheless, I inquired as to who made these accusations. The elder initially resisted providing me with any information, but as I reasoned with him, he divulged that four people had written letters to the elders stating that they were concerned about some of my recent actions. I reminded the elder that if his primary concern is to follow Theocratic order, he should provide me with the names of my accusers so that I may contact them in person. His response was that the people did not live nearby, upon which I said I was not adverse to making long-distance calls to speak with the accusers in the hope of sorting out the matter. He then went back to his original intent, saying again that it would just be best if we met with them. I reminded him that the correct course of action would be for those people to contact me directly if they have issues with me, and that, by going directly to the elders, they violated the very teachings they claim to support. Since, according to that elder, the accusers are all members of Witness congregations, they are the ones “dirtying” the congregation by their willful refusal to follow the Watchtower’s direction.
As proof, consider these excerpts from the October 15, 1999 Watchtower, in the article titled “You May Gain Your Brother”:
“If your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother." Clearly, this is not a step based on mere suspicion. You should have evidence or specific information that you can use to help your brother to see that he committed a wrong and needs to set matters straight. It is good to act promptly, not letting the matter grow or letting his attitude become entrenched. And do not forget that brooding over it can damage you too. Since the discussion is to be between you and him alone, refrain from talking to others beforehand to win sympathy or improve your self-image.
…
Jesus showed that after the first step, you should not give up trying to gain your brother, to keep him united with you and others in worshiping God acceptably. Jesus outlined a second step: "If he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established."
He said to take 'one or two more.' He did not say that after taking the first step, you are free to discuss the problem with many others, to contact a traveling overseer, or to write to brothers about the problem."
Clearly, then, if the elder is worried about the cleanliness of the congregation, his first order of business should be either to inform me of the names of my accusers, or – in case he wishes to protect their anonymity – to contact them and remind them of their error in not following the Watchtower’s direction and to recommend that they approach me regarding any issues. I said as much to the elder, and he twice agreed that I was correct on this point.
Finally, he said he was unsure how to proceed. I exhorted him to do the right thing. He said he would confer with the other elders.
Less than an hour later, he called me again. I missed his call, but he left a voicemail stating the situation was “more than I can handle”. I returned his call. He said that the elders were unwilling to give me the names of the accusers (and, though he didn’t say, I assume the elders were unwilling to remind the accusers that they should have approached me directly). He insisted, instead, that we address ‘some’ of the accusations. These included two things: 1) Writing to the Watchtower Society and 2) Celebrating my son’s birthday.
Let’s take these one at a time:
1) I am unable to find any indication that writing to the Watchtower Society is considered an offense. I had questions, the local elders were unable to answer them, the Witnesses’ literature was unable to answer them, thus I wrote to the Watchtower Society. My letters were a sincere desire to learn the truth; something every Witness ostensible places in high regard. The Watchtower Society’s periodicals contain articles titled “Questions from Readers” and “From Our Readers”, thereby encouraging correspondence between them and their readers. Also, if writing the Society is some kind of sin, I am dumbfounded as to why no one has attempted to ‘correct’ my error during the twenty-one years that have elapsed since I first wrote the Watchtower Society.
2) It is true that I willfully celebrated my son’s second birthday, a fact easily discovered on the web. For the record, I also celebrated his first birthday. It has never bothered my conscience that each year, on my birthday, my parents and grandparents (all active Witnesses) called to wish me a happy birthday. Nor did it bother me when, in 1994, I attended a birthday party for the son of a close Witness friend. Nor did I feel there was any sin in allowing friends and family (all active Witnesses) to host birthday parties for my son shortly after he was born.
If it isn’t clear already, my issue here is not whether or not I did celebrate a birthday (clearly I did) but whether or not it was wrong in the first place.
I was an active Witness for approximately 25 years and during that time I was perpetually vexed that there was no sufficient explanation as to why Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays. Watchtower rationale on why birthdays are sinful can be boiled down to the following reasons:
a) Two birthday parties are mentioned in the bible. Neither of the birthday boys were worshippers of Jehovah. At both birthday parties, someone was killed. True, most birthday parties don’t end in murder, but since everything is in the bible for a reason, we must conclude that birthdays are not for true Christians.
b) Birthday celebrations involve giving undue attention to the individual; setting them up in a place of importance.
c) There is no indication that first century Christians celebrated their birthday.
d) Birthdays often include pagan traditions, such as cakes topped with candles and an encouragement of materialism via the giving of gifts.
Okay, let’s break these down.
First, the two biblical birthday party-related deaths: It is noteworthy that both of the deaths fulfilled prophesy, so the deaths weren’t all bad – had the deaths not occurred, God and Jesus’ words would have not come true! Also, if God really wanted us to abstain from birthdays, doesn’t it seem reasonable to conclude that he would have said so somewhere? After all, he spent pages and pages detailing sex crimes and proper disposal of human waste, so surely He didn’t leave out anything important. Why is there no law in either the Old or New Testament that simply says: “Thou shalt not celebrate birthdays”? He even saw fit to command women not to braid their hair, yet Witness women routinely flout this dictate. If we are to assume that all birthdays are evil because two birthdays (19 centuries apart) are mentioned in the bible under negative connotations, then what about dogs? Dogs are mentioned in the bible 40 times, and never once are they spoken of in a positive way. They are described as low, unclean animals that eat corpses and their own vomit. Anyone who condemns birthdays on the basis of the two bible citations, must likewise condemn dogs. And pigs. And hair-braiding.
Next, what is so wrong with giving an individual special attention on one particular day? If this truly is a reason to avoid birthday celebrations, then why are graduation parties, retirement parties, wedding receptions, wedding anniversaries and baby showers acceptable? Incidentally, a baby shower is a birthday party. What Witnesses really condemn, then, is technically not birthday celebrations, but the anniversaries of birthdays. This is especially bizarre considering they celebrate the anniversaries of weddings. I once asked an elder why wedding anniversaries were acceptable practices, while birthday anniversaries were not. He said: “Because marriage is God’s arrangement”. So then what is a birthday? Satan’s arrangement? God commanded humans to be fruitful, thus creating billions of birthdays. Never once did he command people to marry.
Next, while first-century Christians may not have celebrated their birthdays, neither is there any record that they insisted upon clean-shaven faces, or that they used birth control, or that they attended meetings three times a week, or that they produced their own literature, or that they held wedding anniversary parties or graduation parties. Yet all these things are practiced by twenty-first century Witnesses. Why the inconsistency?
Finally, the pagan tradition of candle-topped cakes surely can not be that sinful as I myself have had such a dessert placed before me on numerous wedding anniversaries. Each time I have been presented with such a cake, it has been from an active, faithful Witness. The same is true of gift-giving. While I by no means condone the rampant materialism in this country, Witnesses do not frown upon the giving of gifts on special occasions for anything besides birthdays. During my graduation party, at which every attendee was a Witness, I received 54 gifts. At our wedding and every subsequent anniversary, my wife and I receive scores of gifts, usually from faithful Witnesses. Some Witness parents even use the occasion of their wedding anniversary to give gifts to their children, as a way of making up for not celebrating their birthdays. At any rate, a birthday can be celebrated without the giving of gifts. My wife recently mentioned that, for a future birthday party for our son, she would like to invite all the kids to arrive with food or toys for animals and then all the children can go together to an animal shelter together and donate the items to the unwanted animals. To which I replied, “SINNER!”
At any rate, the elder never did provide me with the names of my accusers and, to my knowledge, he willfully chose not to inform my accusers of my desire to speak with them directly. So here, now, I give you that chance. Let’s be honest, you visit this site regularly even though you feel guilty doing so. Please address the comments above, including your justification on knowingly violating Watchtower dictates by going first to the elders instead of approaching me and what your specific scriptural reasons are for taking offense at letter writing and birthday parties. As the above Watchtower article outlined, I require specific information to help me see that I committed a wrong and to set matters straight. If you do not wish to make yourself known on a public forum such as this, please email me. If I do not hear from you within two weeks, I will assume you agree that you violated the Watchtower’s policy regarding reporting ‘wrongdoing’, that you agree letter-writing to the Watchtower Society is an acceptable avenue for finding answers, that the Witnesses’ belief regarding birthday anniversary celebrations is erroneous and that everything in this post is totally correct and reasonable.
P.S. For the record, no one was beheaded at any birthday party I ever attended.
Friday, November 9, 2007
My Two Favorite Motion Pictures
2. Rope (1948)
The first color film directed by Alfred Hitchcock, and one of only two in which he served as producer, Rope is a flawlessly executed experiment in film-making. I’ve seen a lot of film “experiments”, and this stands out above all others in that it not only contains a narrative, but a spellbinding narrative at that.
But getting back to the experiment – the first thing I ever heard about this film was that it contained no cuts and, therefore, transpires in real time (i.e., during the 80 minutes it takes to watch the film, eighty minutes transpire in the lives of the characters). My initial reaction was: “Cool idea, but probably boring”. But I was wrong. Hitchcock experimented with long cuts (e.g., Under Capricorn) and confined sets (e.g., Lifeboat) on other occasions, but in Rope, he uses them both to perfection
For one thing, Rope does contain cuts, and part of the fun is spotting the cuts, especially before they happen (it’s fun to see how the furniture and characters have to line up for a cut to be “hidden”). For another thing, those 80 minutes take place during sunset, and the skyline out the apartment windows makes for a more interesting film in itself than some Oscar winners I’ve seen.
Then there’s the story. Only Hitchcock would have the bravado (back in ’48) to put such arrogance on film; wherein two college students kill a third just “to see what it feels like”. It’s the ultimate for-the-hell-of-it act, and these boys justify it by claiming their own superiority over the mass of humanity. That in itself isn’t very satisfying, but throughout the next 79 minutes, we are treated to all manner of rationalizations and arguments that supposedly led to that moment of homicide.
Jimmy Stewart stars in this film, and though he is only one-third of the unholy trinity here, he’s still just as great as always. Did he ever give a bad performance? I don’t think so. Even in so-so movies, he manages to shine above the mediocrity. Incidentally, he’s the only person to star in two films in my top ten. In Rope, he’s given the best roll and he gets many of the great lines, including the best one: “Did you think you were God, Brandon?” (It’s better in context.)
And what Hitchcock would be complete without dark humor? His cameo appearance, the double-entendre of snippets of conversations, the decision of where to serve dinner, even the binding used to fasten the stack of books – all keep a viewer raptly attentive.
In most motion pictures with suspense, the suspense tends to rise and fall in episodic fashion throughout the story, culminating in a grand bit of suspense called the “climax”. But Rope is, yet again, different in this regard; the suspense never falls. While this makes for an exhausting filmic experience, it is fun to feel the suspense mount higher and higher until at last a resolution (of which the viewer is never certain) occurs. With each viewing, I revel in the fun of watching the guests, like pawns, being manipulated by their hosts.
When it comes to well-made and enjoyable motion pictures, it is my opinion that Rope stands out as one of the best ever. Maybe even the best. Except for…
1. Psycho (1960)
At last I get to discuss what has been my favorite motion picture for the past 16 years. At the time I first viewed it, I realized that no film more fully enraptured, thrilled, excited and intriqued me quite like Psycho. Ever since, I have weighed all subsequent films against this one, and, though some have come close, I just can’t honestly rank any film higher. No other motion picture excels in absolutely every aspect. Psycho, in my opinion, is the most perfect film ever created, or, if you prefer: Psycho contains the least amount of stuff I did not like. Even the opening titles are brilliant!
This film stands in contrast to all others for not one, but several reasons. Allow me to delineate the outstanding features of Hitchcock’s pièce de résistance…
1. The entire story itself is totally changed from what it appears to be at the outset. I love when I can’t guess what’s gonna happen next, but this takes it to a whole new level. I’ve never seen a movie devote so much time to throwing a person off the main trail (except maybe The Sound of Music).
2. Symbolism! I love symbolism in motion pictures, and Psycho has it in full measure. From the opening credits chopping from name to name, to the hanging sickles in the hardware store, to the positioning of the hotel in relation to the house, to the changing color of Crane’s clothing, to the pictures on the wall, to the record on the record player, to the license plate number, to the avian references, to the names of the main characters…symbolism is everywhere here. Heck, Bates’ name alone carries two pieces of symbolism.
3. Dialogue. The often strange, stilted dialogue brings these characters to life. There are so many great lines that, after multiple viewings, serve as hilarious bits of foreshadowing: “We all go a little mad sometimes, haven’t you?”, “A son is a poor substitute for a lover”, “12 rooms, 12 vacancies”, “We're always quickest to doubt people who have a reputation for being honest”, “Mother’s not quite herself today”, and so on…
4. The music. There are only a handful of movies in which I even notice the music (I’m excluding musicals here, obviously). Star Wars, Jaws, Vertigo, The Godfather and The Third Man are all examples of non-musicals in which the music is first rate. Psycho, with its screeching violins sans percussion, easily makes this list.
5. The acting. No one here does a bad job, and a few actors do so well, I wonder if they were born to play the part. Anthony Perkins is primary in this regard, but, to a lesser extent, so are Vera Miles, Martin Balsam and Mort Mills.
6. The camera work. I know I’ve droned on about the camera work in other films here, so let’s just say that Psycho’s is pretty darn good, too. My favorite pieces are probably the opening shot where the camera goes through the blinds, allowing us to peek in on the lovers, and the sweeping track up the stairs to the Bates’ house.
7. The calendar. It’s weird, I know, but I tend to get preoccupied with the flow of time in movies. Just the other day, I was commenting on the appearant time inconsistency in Mary Poppins. Not only is time given it’s due in this movie, it’s scrupulously attended to; the date at the outset cues us in to the appearance of Xmas decorations in the summer, and the wall calendar at the end shows us a passage of nine days – all logically accounted for.
8. The climax. While other movies have more sweeping climaxes, Psycho’s was totally unexpected. Other movies on this list, such as Return of the Jedi, Back to the Future, Rear Window, Ingen Numsil and The Princess Bride all have very satisfying climaxes, but in those cases, I probably could have guessed how it was going finish. The fun of those movies was just watching how the climax would play out. With Psycho, I had not idea what the climax would be, much less how it would play out. This was largely due to…
9. The twist. I love a film with a secret. Again, other movies reveal great secrets: The Usual Suspects, The Empire Strikes Back, Citizen Kane, Fight Club (to name a few) but in every one of those examples, the story is not fundamentally altered by the revelation, it’s more of a clever trick, leaving the viewer saying: “Oh, that’s so cool!” …and then rolling the credits. In Psycho, the twist’s revelation forces one to go back and rethink the entire film (okay, I guess Fight Club is sort of like that, but that movie didn’t have near as great a story).
10. The Denouement. Critics often lambaste Psycho’s denouement as unnecessary at best, stupid at worst. I find the therapist’s breakdown of his conversation with Bates to be most fascinating, particularly in how he so causally dismisses the money (that we had cared about so much!) and insists that it was Bates’ mother who told him the truth. But it gets even better: the film then cuts to Bates’ mother thanking the guard for the blanket, and then we hear her disdain for her dutiful son, and her assurance that she would not even hurt a fly (and, indeed, she doesn’t). Finally, in a triple-exposure, Bates wryly grins for the camera, as if he is coming for us next, which ever-so-briefly fades to a skull and then a chain pulling out his heart. Finally, the car in the swamp, which we realize was only there to dupe us.
Allow me, too, to mention one other thing. Although this does not affect the quality of the movie at all, I find it funny that Psycho originally was not rated, then was rated Approved, then M, then PG, and currently resides at R. I grew up in a religion where people believed all movies rated R were violent, immoral, foul piles of crap…and I had lots of fun asking them about this movie. Many who saw it in the sixties and seventies felt ashamed that they saw (what became) a rated-R movie. I would usually explain this to them following a conversation wherein we extolled the virtues of this wonderful bit of celluloid.
...Whew! All that I never even mentioned the infamous shower scene.
My list is constantly changing (in fact, I’ve altered it since I began posting here). This is just a snapshot of my motion picture preferences on this day. But Psycho? Psycho has withstood the test of time in my books. Though I am always on the lookout, I would be very surprised to find a film I consider superior. Surprised, but also delighted!
The first color film directed by Alfred Hitchcock, and one of only two in which he served as producer, Rope is a flawlessly executed experiment in film-making. I’ve seen a lot of film “experiments”, and this stands out above all others in that it not only contains a narrative, but a spellbinding narrative at that.
But getting back to the experiment – the first thing I ever heard about this film was that it contained no cuts and, therefore, transpires in real time (i.e., during the 80 minutes it takes to watch the film, eighty minutes transpire in the lives of the characters). My initial reaction was: “Cool idea, but probably boring”. But I was wrong. Hitchcock experimented with long cuts (e.g., Under Capricorn) and confined sets (e.g., Lifeboat) on other occasions, but in Rope, he uses them both to perfection
For one thing, Rope does contain cuts, and part of the fun is spotting the cuts, especially before they happen (it’s fun to see how the furniture and characters have to line up for a cut to be “hidden”). For another thing, those 80 minutes take place during sunset, and the skyline out the apartment windows makes for a more interesting film in itself than some Oscar winners I’ve seen.
Then there’s the story. Only Hitchcock would have the bravado (back in ’48) to put such arrogance on film; wherein two college students kill a third just “to see what it feels like”. It’s the ultimate for-the-hell-of-it act, and these boys justify it by claiming their own superiority over the mass of humanity. That in itself isn’t very satisfying, but throughout the next 79 minutes, we are treated to all manner of rationalizations and arguments that supposedly led to that moment of homicide.
Jimmy Stewart stars in this film, and though he is only one-third of the unholy trinity here, he’s still just as great as always. Did he ever give a bad performance? I don’t think so. Even in so-so movies, he manages to shine above the mediocrity. Incidentally, he’s the only person to star in two films in my top ten. In Rope, he’s given the best roll and he gets many of the great lines, including the best one: “Did you think you were God, Brandon?” (It’s better in context.)
And what Hitchcock would be complete without dark humor? His cameo appearance, the double-entendre of snippets of conversations, the decision of where to serve dinner, even the binding used to fasten the stack of books – all keep a viewer raptly attentive.
In most motion pictures with suspense, the suspense tends to rise and fall in episodic fashion throughout the story, culminating in a grand bit of suspense called the “climax”. But Rope is, yet again, different in this regard; the suspense never falls. While this makes for an exhausting filmic experience, it is fun to feel the suspense mount higher and higher until at last a resolution (of which the viewer is never certain) occurs. With each viewing, I revel in the fun of watching the guests, like pawns, being manipulated by their hosts.
When it comes to well-made and enjoyable motion pictures, it is my opinion that Rope stands out as one of the best ever. Maybe even the best. Except for…
1. Psycho (1960)
At last I get to discuss what has been my favorite motion picture for the past 16 years. At the time I first viewed it, I realized that no film more fully enraptured, thrilled, excited and intriqued me quite like Psycho. Ever since, I have weighed all subsequent films against this one, and, though some have come close, I just can’t honestly rank any film higher. No other motion picture excels in absolutely every aspect. Psycho, in my opinion, is the most perfect film ever created, or, if you prefer: Psycho contains the least amount of stuff I did not like. Even the opening titles are brilliant!
This film stands in contrast to all others for not one, but several reasons. Allow me to delineate the outstanding features of Hitchcock’s pièce de résistance…
1. The entire story itself is totally changed from what it appears to be at the outset. I love when I can’t guess what’s gonna happen next, but this takes it to a whole new level. I’ve never seen a movie devote so much time to throwing a person off the main trail (except maybe The Sound of Music).
2. Symbolism! I love symbolism in motion pictures, and Psycho has it in full measure. From the opening credits chopping from name to name, to the hanging sickles in the hardware store, to the positioning of the hotel in relation to the house, to the changing color of Crane’s clothing, to the pictures on the wall, to the record on the record player, to the license plate number, to the avian references, to the names of the main characters…symbolism is everywhere here. Heck, Bates’ name alone carries two pieces of symbolism.
3. Dialogue. The often strange, stilted dialogue brings these characters to life. There are so many great lines that, after multiple viewings, serve as hilarious bits of foreshadowing: “We all go a little mad sometimes, haven’t you?”, “A son is a poor substitute for a lover”, “12 rooms, 12 vacancies”, “We're always quickest to doubt people who have a reputation for being honest”, “Mother’s not quite herself today”, and so on…
4. The music. There are only a handful of movies in which I even notice the music (I’m excluding musicals here, obviously). Star Wars, Jaws, Vertigo, The Godfather and The Third Man are all examples of non-musicals in which the music is first rate. Psycho, with its screeching violins sans percussion, easily makes this list.
5. The acting. No one here does a bad job, and a few actors do so well, I wonder if they were born to play the part. Anthony Perkins is primary in this regard, but, to a lesser extent, so are Vera Miles, Martin Balsam and Mort Mills.
6. The camera work. I know I’ve droned on about the camera work in other films here, so let’s just say that Psycho’s is pretty darn good, too. My favorite pieces are probably the opening shot where the camera goes through the blinds, allowing us to peek in on the lovers, and the sweeping track up the stairs to the Bates’ house.
7. The calendar. It’s weird, I know, but I tend to get preoccupied with the flow of time in movies. Just the other day, I was commenting on the appearant time inconsistency in Mary Poppins. Not only is time given it’s due in this movie, it’s scrupulously attended to; the date at the outset cues us in to the appearance of Xmas decorations in the summer, and the wall calendar at the end shows us a passage of nine days – all logically accounted for.
8. The climax. While other movies have more sweeping climaxes, Psycho’s was totally unexpected. Other movies on this list, such as Return of the Jedi, Back to the Future, Rear Window, Ingen Numsil and The Princess Bride all have very satisfying climaxes, but in those cases, I probably could have guessed how it was going finish. The fun of those movies was just watching how the climax would play out. With Psycho, I had not idea what the climax would be, much less how it would play out. This was largely due to…
9. The twist. I love a film with a secret. Again, other movies reveal great secrets: The Usual Suspects, The Empire Strikes Back, Citizen Kane, Fight Club (to name a few) but in every one of those examples, the story is not fundamentally altered by the revelation, it’s more of a clever trick, leaving the viewer saying: “Oh, that’s so cool!” …and then rolling the credits. In Psycho, the twist’s revelation forces one to go back and rethink the entire film (okay, I guess Fight Club is sort of like that, but that movie didn’t have near as great a story).
10. The Denouement. Critics often lambaste Psycho’s denouement as unnecessary at best, stupid at worst. I find the therapist’s breakdown of his conversation with Bates to be most fascinating, particularly in how he so causally dismisses the money (that we had cared about so much!) and insists that it was Bates’ mother who told him the truth. But it gets even better: the film then cuts to Bates’ mother thanking the guard for the blanket, and then we hear her disdain for her dutiful son, and her assurance that she would not even hurt a fly (and, indeed, she doesn’t). Finally, in a triple-exposure, Bates wryly grins for the camera, as if he is coming for us next, which ever-so-briefly fades to a skull and then a chain pulling out his heart. Finally, the car in the swamp, which we realize was only there to dupe us.
Allow me, too, to mention one other thing. Although this does not affect the quality of the movie at all, I find it funny that Psycho originally was not rated, then was rated Approved, then M, then PG, and currently resides at R. I grew up in a religion where people believed all movies rated R were violent, immoral, foul piles of crap…and I had lots of fun asking them about this movie. Many who saw it in the sixties and seventies felt ashamed that they saw (what became) a rated-R movie. I would usually explain this to them following a conversation wherein we extolled the virtues of this wonderful bit of celluloid.
...Whew! All that I never even mentioned the infamous shower scene.
My list is constantly changing (in fact, I’ve altered it since I began posting here). This is just a snapshot of my motion picture preferences on this day. But Psycho? Psycho has withstood the test of time in my books. Though I am always on the lookout, I would be very surprised to find a film I consider superior. Surprised, but also delighted!
Friday, November 2, 2007
My 3rd to 5th Favorite Motion Pictures
5. The Sting (1973)
Don't blink! You just might miss something! George Roy Hill's story of two small time con artists trying to hit the big time is thoroughly entertaining. Several shifts in the plot keep you guessing until the climax, and even that has a surprise ending.
Winner of 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture, The Sting, is an intricate comedy caper deals with an ambitious small-time crook (Robert Redford) and veteran con-man (Paul Newman) who seek revenge on the vicious crime lord who murdered one of their gang. How this of charlatans puts "the sting" on their enemy makes for the greatest double-cross in movie history.
The first time I viewed this film, I enjoyed it, but I was thoroughly confused. I even said to my friend, “The bad guys won?” And he said: “No, don’t you get it?” And I said: “I guess not.” So we watched it again. After that, I loved the film and enjoyed it more with each subsequent viewing.
Right from the start, the movie let’s us know we’re in for a treat. The title cards, that start out by giving us a brief glimpse of the tale, and then proceed to divide the movie up into chapters (much like Babe), which is very much in keeping with the 1920s “feel” that The Sting is going for. Then there’s Scott Joplin's ragtime accompaniment – one of my absolute most-favorite soundtracks.
4. Memento (2001)
Here we have the epitome of “original screenplay”. Most notably, this entire neo-noirish film plays out in reverse order; that is, the very first scene you see is the last one to happen chronologically. In fact, the very first scene is entirely played backwards – so the very first frame you see on the screen shows the last thing to happen to the characters in the story. Like Citizen Kane, Memento is brilliant not just for its great plot, but for the way the story is told.
This would be good enough for my top fifty, but Memento really outdoes itself in that the main character, Leonard Shelby, (sorry if I’m spoiling something here) has amnesia, and is unable to create new memories. In that way, we experience the disorientation and vulnerability Leonard feels. We are not sure who to trust, or what will come next, and with each scene we must take a few seconds to reorient ourselves as to where things are in the stream of time.
Memento also features stellar cinematography – chromatic changes during flashbacks, great camera work and a gritty feeling for the haunts Leonard finds himself in.
Isn’t it weird that I had no trouble following this film, and yet couldn’t figure out the Sting? The biggest complaint I hear about Memento is how tough it is to follow…but I had no difficulty. In fact, I even enjoyed given it the extra thought and attention it demands. Backwards seems to suit me, I guess.
3. La Vita é Bella (Life is Beautiful) (1998)
“An unforgettable fable that proves love, family and imagination conquer all.”(tagline)
When my wife and I first went to see the film at the theater, there were twenty people in the audience. Once everyone realized it was a non-English film, and that they would have to read subtitles, exactly half the people in the audience got up and left. I was glad for myself, because I like a theater as empty as possible. But I gotta think those people who left made the dumbest decision ever in their history of film watching.
This is one of those movies that have a lasting effect on you. While watching it, I found that it has less to do with the war and more to do with the human feelings and the beautiful relationship between loved ones. The holocaust provides the ultimate context, that brings and highlights the story and adds yet another deep dimension to the movie. No such piece of art has ever before combined laughter and tears of sadness in me before and that is the miracle of the movie.
In the first half of the film, we can and delight at the immense comedy talent of Benigni, who plays Guido. Unlike so many modern movies there is nothing crude or course, his is simple innocent humor, making it all the more effective. The way he ties together little strands in the film to create comedy elements shows a great writing ability, and a mastery of timing when it comes to their execution on screen. Various incidents related to the rise of anti-semitism and fascism in Italy show that there are sinister forces at work which come to the fore in the second segment. Even the two segments themselves are melded together perfectly, and I have never seen a more clever way of showing the passing of time.
During the second half, the emphasis shifts. The comic moments are still present - Guido's translation of the rules of the camp is particularly notable - but it becomes somewhat more difficult to laugh when we consider the gravity of what is going on. We see that this is a film about human spirit above all else. Guido not only appeals to the audience due to his comedy and sheer pleasantness, but also in the way that he loves his family and the measures that he will go to to protect them.
Some have decried the addition of humorous elements to something as grave as World War II and the Holocaust. Those people are idiots. Benigni is not here making fun of the plight of those who suffered in the camps, he is showing what it means to be human, and how we can find happiness(and beauty, I guess) in life no matter what may happen to us. Life is really beautiful as you watch Guido's relentless efforts to make a lovely exciting experience of the concentration camp to his son. You get exhausted just watching him going through his painful day and yet you smile as he speaks to his son and makes him laugh. One can go on forever describing the creativity of this movie, but one will not be able to capture all its beauty in writing.
From the moment the credits rolled, I proclaimed this to be the best non-English film and the best motion picture ever created during my lifetime. I laughed, I cried, I loved this film. If you only ever see one subtitled film in your life, this is the one to see.
Don't blink! You just might miss something! George Roy Hill's story of two small time con artists trying to hit the big time is thoroughly entertaining. Several shifts in the plot keep you guessing until the climax, and even that has a surprise ending.
Winner of 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture, The Sting, is an intricate comedy caper deals with an ambitious small-time crook (Robert Redford) and veteran con-man (Paul Newman) who seek revenge on the vicious crime lord who murdered one of their gang. How this of charlatans puts "the sting" on their enemy makes for the greatest double-cross in movie history.
The first time I viewed this film, I enjoyed it, but I was thoroughly confused. I even said to my friend, “The bad guys won?” And he said: “No, don’t you get it?” And I said: “I guess not.” So we watched it again. After that, I loved the film and enjoyed it more with each subsequent viewing.
Right from the start, the movie let’s us know we’re in for a treat. The title cards, that start out by giving us a brief glimpse of the tale, and then proceed to divide the movie up into chapters (much like Babe), which is very much in keeping with the 1920s “feel” that The Sting is going for. Then there’s Scott Joplin's ragtime accompaniment – one of my absolute most-favorite soundtracks.
4. Memento (2001)
Here we have the epitome of “original screenplay”. Most notably, this entire neo-noirish film plays out in reverse order; that is, the very first scene you see is the last one to happen chronologically. In fact, the very first scene is entirely played backwards – so the very first frame you see on the screen shows the last thing to happen to the characters in the story. Like Citizen Kane, Memento is brilliant not just for its great plot, but for the way the story is told.
This would be good enough for my top fifty, but Memento really outdoes itself in that the main character, Leonard Shelby, (sorry if I’m spoiling something here) has amnesia, and is unable to create new memories. In that way, we experience the disorientation and vulnerability Leonard feels. We are not sure who to trust, or what will come next, and with each scene we must take a few seconds to reorient ourselves as to where things are in the stream of time.
Memento also features stellar cinematography – chromatic changes during flashbacks, great camera work and a gritty feeling for the haunts Leonard finds himself in.
Isn’t it weird that I had no trouble following this film, and yet couldn’t figure out the Sting? The biggest complaint I hear about Memento is how tough it is to follow…but I had no difficulty. In fact, I even enjoyed given it the extra thought and attention it demands. Backwards seems to suit me, I guess.
3. La Vita é Bella (Life is Beautiful) (1998)
“An unforgettable fable that proves love, family and imagination conquer all.”(tagline)
When my wife and I first went to see the film at the theater, there were twenty people in the audience. Once everyone realized it was a non-English film, and that they would have to read subtitles, exactly half the people in the audience got up and left. I was glad for myself, because I like a theater as empty as possible. But I gotta think those people who left made the dumbest decision ever in their history of film watching.
This is one of those movies that have a lasting effect on you. While watching it, I found that it has less to do with the war and more to do with the human feelings and the beautiful relationship between loved ones. The holocaust provides the ultimate context, that brings and highlights the story and adds yet another deep dimension to the movie. No such piece of art has ever before combined laughter and tears of sadness in me before and that is the miracle of the movie.
In the first half of the film, we can and delight at the immense comedy talent of Benigni, who plays Guido. Unlike so many modern movies there is nothing crude or course, his is simple innocent humor, making it all the more effective. The way he ties together little strands in the film to create comedy elements shows a great writing ability, and a mastery of timing when it comes to their execution on screen. Various incidents related to the rise of anti-semitism and fascism in Italy show that there are sinister forces at work which come to the fore in the second segment. Even the two segments themselves are melded together perfectly, and I have never seen a more clever way of showing the passing of time.
During the second half, the emphasis shifts. The comic moments are still present - Guido's translation of the rules of the camp is particularly notable - but it becomes somewhat more difficult to laugh when we consider the gravity of what is going on. We see that this is a film about human spirit above all else. Guido not only appeals to the audience due to his comedy and sheer pleasantness, but also in the way that he loves his family and the measures that he will go to to protect them.
Some have decried the addition of humorous elements to something as grave as World War II and the Holocaust. Those people are idiots. Benigni is not here making fun of the plight of those who suffered in the camps, he is showing what it means to be human, and how we can find happiness(and beauty, I guess) in life no matter what may happen to us. Life is really beautiful as you watch Guido's relentless efforts to make a lovely exciting experience of the concentration camp to his son. You get exhausted just watching him going through his painful day and yet you smile as he speaks to his son and makes him laugh. One can go on forever describing the creativity of this movie, but one will not be able to capture all its beauty in writing.
From the moment the credits rolled, I proclaimed this to be the best non-English film and the best motion picture ever created during my lifetime. I laughed, I cried, I loved this film. If you only ever see one subtitled film in your life, this is the one to see.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
My 6th to 8th Favorite Motion Pictures
8. Rear Window (1954)
The best motion picture of the 1950s (argued by some as the decade to produce the greatest films), Rear Window is a deep and entertaining classic with many strengths. A fine suspense story is combined with romantic tension. There are numerous sub-plots, some funny; some moving, all with many psychological overtones. The characterizations are flawless and three-dimensional. Jimmy Stewart (though perhaps a tad too old) is completely believable and Grace Kelly does what she does best…looks and acts perfect. The simple setting of a Greenwich Village apartment complex is developed into a world filled with intriguing and sometimes unsettling possibilities. This confined world comes to life with a wealth of lavish visual detail and interesting minor characters. Unlike far too many movies these days, the director assumes his audience will pay close enough attention to appreciate the many subtleties with which he has filled the movie. It rewards both careful attention and repeated viewings, since there is much more here than merely a suspenseful plot (as good as that story is in itself).
The dialogue is filled with clever, subtle, humorous meanings. And what the main characters see in the lives of others is an interesting reflection of the tensions and possibilities in their own present and future.
But this is also a film about films. We are sucked into this story much as Jimmy Stewart (who may as well be sitting next to us as we watch the events) acts out our voyeuristic predilections. When, finally, Mr. Thorwald looks up and discovers he is being watched, it is chilling not just because our hero is now in danger, but because he actually looks at us – and we feel guilty for having peeped in on his life too.
7. Lola Rennt (Run Lola Run) (1998)
This post-modern film presents the same story three times at rapid-fire pace. From the opening titles, we are swept into the life of Lola – a young woman who has a very important task to accomplish very very quickly. There is so much happening every split-second, it’s impossible to catch it all during the first one or two viewings.
Every trick of film-making employed here: jump-cuts, fast-motion, slow-motion, animation, overlapping dialogue, oblique angles, non-linear story-telling and split-screen, among others.
The plot itself is based upon a simple concept: how do tiny actions affect eventual outcomes. As we see the story unfold repeated times, we become aware of the minute changes in the outsets that result in big finales. It is, essentially, a study in chaos theory - the Butterfly effect. But unlike so many other movies that explore this effect, Lola Rennt doesn’t just extrapolate on how tiny changes alter the course of the main plot; it continually takes us off on fast-paced tangents that show how Lola’s course changes in turn alter the entire life courses of those with whom she comes into contact.
Try not to blink if you watch this flick, especially those scenes that show three things happening at once. If you do, rewind it to catch what you missed.
6. The Wizard of Oz (1939)
“Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking” (a line from the film, and one of the truest statements ever captured on celluloid).
Here, by a small margin, is the oldest motion picture on my list. Like Mary Poppins, The Sound of Music and Babe, I realize it’s not a “guy movie”. But I hate to use gender-bias in ranking a movie. Like those other three, I have to rank The Wizard of Oz in my top fifty because, well, there’s nothing wrong with it.
For one thing, it’s the best musical ever, hands down. The story is actually enhanced by the often silly, but always clever, songs. That's a rarity in itself. But add to that a believable performance by all & you've got a very good movie. The story is compelling, and the “bookends” at the outset and conclusion of the film only serve to enhance the story, characterizations and emotions of the main story (quite the opposite of The Princess Bride, in which the “bookends” bog down and detract from the main story). And on the subject of cinematography, hardly any movie has ever made such good use of color. And that’s saying something for a movie that is so old.
The Wizard of Oz is enjoyable on many levels. As a kid, my family and I watched it during its traditional yearly televised showing. Later, I watched it after being told about its gay undertones (“Of course, some people do go both ways”). Then I read about the numerous gaffes and continuity errors (e.g., Dorothy’s ever-changing hair lengths) and watched it in an attempt to spot the flaws. Like the storm trooper that hits his head on the doorway in Star Wars, and the blind guy wearing a wristwatch in The Ten Commandments, the many tiny mistakes in Oz just make the flick that much more enduring, and fun. And then there’s the Pink Floyd connection. My wife and I went to a friend’s home one evening with the sole purpose of queuing up Dark Side of the Moon with Oz. And, for like the tenth time, I rediscovered the wonder of that movie (and the album). There are certainly movies that I’ve seen more often, but there are none that I’ve viewed from so many different perspectives.
I suppose I enjoy this fairy tale as much as I enjoy The Princess Bride. Only this movie doesn’t have Fred Savage, so I have to rank it higher.
The best motion picture of the 1950s (argued by some as the decade to produce the greatest films), Rear Window is a deep and entertaining classic with many strengths. A fine suspense story is combined with romantic tension. There are numerous sub-plots, some funny; some moving, all with many psychological overtones. The characterizations are flawless and three-dimensional. Jimmy Stewart (though perhaps a tad too old) is completely believable and Grace Kelly does what she does best…looks and acts perfect. The simple setting of a Greenwich Village apartment complex is developed into a world filled with intriguing and sometimes unsettling possibilities. This confined world comes to life with a wealth of lavish visual detail and interesting minor characters. Unlike far too many movies these days, the director assumes his audience will pay close enough attention to appreciate the many subtleties with which he has filled the movie. It rewards both careful attention and repeated viewings, since there is much more here than merely a suspenseful plot (as good as that story is in itself).
The dialogue is filled with clever, subtle, humorous meanings. And what the main characters see in the lives of others is an interesting reflection of the tensions and possibilities in their own present and future.
But this is also a film about films. We are sucked into this story much as Jimmy Stewart (who may as well be sitting next to us as we watch the events) acts out our voyeuristic predilections. When, finally, Mr. Thorwald looks up and discovers he is being watched, it is chilling not just because our hero is now in danger, but because he actually looks at us – and we feel guilty for having peeped in on his life too.
7. Lola Rennt (Run Lola Run) (1998)
This post-modern film presents the same story three times at rapid-fire pace. From the opening titles, we are swept into the life of Lola – a young woman who has a very important task to accomplish very very quickly. There is so much happening every split-second, it’s impossible to catch it all during the first one or two viewings.
Every trick of film-making employed here: jump-cuts, fast-motion, slow-motion, animation, overlapping dialogue, oblique angles, non-linear story-telling and split-screen, among others.
The plot itself is based upon a simple concept: how do tiny actions affect eventual outcomes. As we see the story unfold repeated times, we become aware of the minute changes in the outsets that result in big finales. It is, essentially, a study in chaos theory - the Butterfly effect. But unlike so many other movies that explore this effect, Lola Rennt doesn’t just extrapolate on how tiny changes alter the course of the main plot; it continually takes us off on fast-paced tangents that show how Lola’s course changes in turn alter the entire life courses of those with whom she comes into contact.
Try not to blink if you watch this flick, especially those scenes that show three things happening at once. If you do, rewind it to catch what you missed.
6. The Wizard of Oz (1939)
“Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking” (a line from the film, and one of the truest statements ever captured on celluloid).
Here, by a small margin, is the oldest motion picture on my list. Like Mary Poppins, The Sound of Music and Babe, I realize it’s not a “guy movie”. But I hate to use gender-bias in ranking a movie. Like those other three, I have to rank The Wizard of Oz in my top fifty because, well, there’s nothing wrong with it.
For one thing, it’s the best musical ever, hands down. The story is actually enhanced by the often silly, but always clever, songs. That's a rarity in itself. But add to that a believable performance by all & you've got a very good movie. The story is compelling, and the “bookends” at the outset and conclusion of the film only serve to enhance the story, characterizations and emotions of the main story (quite the opposite of The Princess Bride, in which the “bookends” bog down and detract from the main story). And on the subject of cinematography, hardly any movie has ever made such good use of color. And that’s saying something for a movie that is so old.
The Wizard of Oz is enjoyable on many levels. As a kid, my family and I watched it during its traditional yearly televised showing. Later, I watched it after being told about its gay undertones (“Of course, some people do go both ways”). Then I read about the numerous gaffes and continuity errors (e.g., Dorothy’s ever-changing hair lengths) and watched it in an attempt to spot the flaws. Like the storm trooper that hits his head on the doorway in Star Wars, and the blind guy wearing a wristwatch in The Ten Commandments, the many tiny mistakes in Oz just make the flick that much more enduring, and fun. And then there’s the Pink Floyd connection. My wife and I went to a friend’s home one evening with the sole purpose of queuing up Dark Side of the Moon with Oz. And, for like the tenth time, I rediscovered the wonder of that movie (and the album). There are certainly movies that I’ve seen more often, but there are none that I’ve viewed from so many different perspectives.
I suppose I enjoy this fairy tale as much as I enjoy The Princess Bride. Only this movie doesn’t have Fred Savage, so I have to rank it higher.
Friday, October 19, 2007
My 9th to 11th Favorite Motion Pictures
11. Balance (1989)
So here’s not only the best animated film I’ve ever seen, but also the shortest film on this list. It’s only a quarter of the length of the second-shortest film on this list (see la Riviére du Hibou, #28, below). In fact, it’s so short, you can watch it during your lunch break by visiting here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJWT3p7uM6Y
This short film immediately captures attention by virtue of its unusual setting and obscure circumstances. As we try to figure out how things will end for the “fishermen”, we are strung along with mystery, suspense and one of the best endings to any film I’ve ever seen, regardless of length.
10. Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelié Poulain (Amelié) (2001)
Le Fablah bla bla bla, otherwise known as Amelié, was an unexpected find for me. My wife and I went to the theaters to see this film at the insistence of some friends. And we were not disappointed. The many simple stories, woven together, form an intriguing look at Paris, romance, and one shy girl’s search for happiness. The cinematography is wonderful – the sets look cartoonish and perfectly enhance the mood and storylines of the film. There are unexpected twists, unique special effects and great asides that momentarily take the viewer from the story briefly and show them a larger world. This film makes us wish that our little actions could have so great an impact on the world around us, and at the same time, it reminds us to just sit back and enjoy the little things.
Oh – and it also makes a great jab at the media coverage of Princess Di’s death, which, in my opinion, was one of the most overblown, over-rated news stories of the 20th Century. Good call.
9. The Princess Bride (1987)
“Heroes. Giants. Villains. Wizards. True Love. - Not just your basic, average, everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, ho-hum fairy tale." (tag line)
This romantic tale of adventure, revenge and redemption succeeds by adding just the right amount of humor, and just the right amount of pathos. There are many characters to care about here, and the movie plays with the audience by keeping the true heroes of the film secret for as long as possible. This is one of those movies, like Mary Poppins, that has entire scenes that are memorable: Pirate vs. swordsman, Pirate vs. giant, Pirate vs. Vizzini comes to mind as the most fun series of challenges a hero has ever faced to win what he wants. My favorite subplot is Inigo Montoya’s – he gets the most memorable line of the whole film (which takes place in a very exciting and satisfying scene of revenging family honor).
The theme of The Princess Bride is that true love can conquer all. Throughout the movie, there are hardships and trials that true love must endure. The movie keeps the viewer guessing until the very end whether or not there will be the classic fairy tale ending.
It is both a classic fairy tale style and a modern comedy with well choreographed action sequences, and intense instances of suspense.
When I first saw this movie, I went right home and placed it at #3 on my all-time favorites list. But then I watched it again, and I realized just how annoying Fred Savage’s character is. I can’t stand the whole modern-day portion of the movie. I mean, the Peter Falk narration is okay, but everything else about it seems to interrupt to story rather than help it along. And what’s with the Rodents of Unusual Size? Really cheesy stuff. It’s like the Jar-jar Binks of The Princess Bride. I cringe whenever that scene comes up.
So here’s not only the best animated film I’ve ever seen, but also the shortest film on this list. It’s only a quarter of the length of the second-shortest film on this list (see la Riviére du Hibou, #28, below). In fact, it’s so short, you can watch it during your lunch break by visiting here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJWT3p7uM6Y
This short film immediately captures attention by virtue of its unusual setting and obscure circumstances. As we try to figure out how things will end for the “fishermen”, we are strung along with mystery, suspense and one of the best endings to any film I’ve ever seen, regardless of length.
10. Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelié Poulain (Amelié) (2001)
Le Fablah bla bla bla, otherwise known as Amelié, was an unexpected find for me. My wife and I went to the theaters to see this film at the insistence of some friends. And we were not disappointed. The many simple stories, woven together, form an intriguing look at Paris, romance, and one shy girl’s search for happiness. The cinematography is wonderful – the sets look cartoonish and perfectly enhance the mood and storylines of the film. There are unexpected twists, unique special effects and great asides that momentarily take the viewer from the story briefly and show them a larger world. This film makes us wish that our little actions could have so great an impact on the world around us, and at the same time, it reminds us to just sit back and enjoy the little things.
Oh – and it also makes a great jab at the media coverage of Princess Di’s death, which, in my opinion, was one of the most overblown, over-rated news stories of the 20th Century. Good call.
9. The Princess Bride (1987)
“Heroes. Giants. Villains. Wizards. True Love. - Not just your basic, average, everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, ho-hum fairy tale." (tag line)
This romantic tale of adventure, revenge and redemption succeeds by adding just the right amount of humor, and just the right amount of pathos. There are many characters to care about here, and the movie plays with the audience by keeping the true heroes of the film secret for as long as possible. This is one of those movies, like Mary Poppins, that has entire scenes that are memorable: Pirate vs. swordsman, Pirate vs. giant, Pirate vs. Vizzini comes to mind as the most fun series of challenges a hero has ever faced to win what he wants. My favorite subplot is Inigo Montoya’s – he gets the most memorable line of the whole film (which takes place in a very exciting and satisfying scene of revenging family honor).
The theme of The Princess Bride is that true love can conquer all. Throughout the movie, there are hardships and trials that true love must endure. The movie keeps the viewer guessing until the very end whether or not there will be the classic fairy tale ending.
It is both a classic fairy tale style and a modern comedy with well choreographed action sequences, and intense instances of suspense.
When I first saw this movie, I went right home and placed it at #3 on my all-time favorites list. But then I watched it again, and I realized just how annoying Fred Savage’s character is. I can’t stand the whole modern-day portion of the movie. I mean, the Peter Falk narration is okay, but everything else about it seems to interrupt to story rather than help it along. And what’s with the Rodents of Unusual Size? Really cheesy stuff. It’s like the Jar-jar Binks of The Princess Bride. I cringe whenever that scene comes up.
Friday, October 12, 2007
My 12th to 14th Favorite Motion Pictures
14. Serenity (2005)
From start to finish there are no wasted moments. The first ten minutes present such a wealth of information and excitement that, if you blink, you’ll have to rewatch what you just missed. All your emotions will be engaged. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll gasp in shock. What you won't be is bored. There's plenty here for everybody: Good writing, witty dialogue, memorable lines, excellent acting, plot, action (not just gratuitous – I’m talking about action that actually makes sense in terms of the plot) and excellent effects.
Note to future sci-fi film-makers: Hero kicking ass while rescuing a heroine from disaster = cute. Having that heroine kick ass right along side the hero = awesome.
Why not rate this one higher? Like the Star Trek series, this motion picture is no where near as exciting if you haven’t first seen the television series on which it was based (Firefly).
13. Amadeus (1984)
Here is a stunning, captivating tale of a competent, talented, first-class musician who had the misfortune of being a contemporary of the greatest musician who ever lived. Loved the story, loved the acting, loved the set decoration and costume design. It’s an emotionally charged story of jealousy with quite possibly the greatest soundtrack of any motion picture ever. And anyone who declares war on the heavens is okay in my book.
Why not rate this one higher? Okay, here’s the deal – from here on out, these movies have no serious flaws. I can’t think of one thing I disliked about Amadeus. Sure it’s a long movie, but since it’s so engaging, it’s not toooo long. I think Tim Hulce is a bit over the top at times, but that’s how Mozart was (I guess), so his acting is appropriate for the part. From here on out, the only reason why I’m not rating a movie any higher is because the movies higher on the list were ever so slightly more thrilling for me. (One exception = the Princess Bride. I can tell you in a heartbeat why I don’t rank it higher. But I’ll get to that one soon.)
12. Airplane! (1980)
If the idea of a comedy is to laugh, than surely (shirley) this is one has the right idea. In fact, it has the best idea: dead-panned dialogue delivered in humourous situations with clever antics happening rapid-fire in the back ground. So many jokes (both visual & in dialogue) are packed into Airplane! that it takes several viewing to catch them all. Unlike so many comedies since then, the actors here don’t need to act over-the-top or divulge in gross-out humor to get easy laughs. I have watched this movie at least twenty times, and everytime I find myself laughing until I am crying. This movie has consistently been on my “All time favorites” list for twenty years now. Of movies that are purely comedic, there is none finer than Airplane!
From start to finish there are no wasted moments. The first ten minutes present such a wealth of information and excitement that, if you blink, you’ll have to rewatch what you just missed. All your emotions will be engaged. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll gasp in shock. What you won't be is bored. There's plenty here for everybody: Good writing, witty dialogue, memorable lines, excellent acting, plot, action (not just gratuitous – I’m talking about action that actually makes sense in terms of the plot) and excellent effects.
Note to future sci-fi film-makers: Hero kicking ass while rescuing a heroine from disaster = cute. Having that heroine kick ass right along side the hero = awesome.
Why not rate this one higher? Like the Star Trek series, this motion picture is no where near as exciting if you haven’t first seen the television series on which it was based (Firefly).
13. Amadeus (1984)
Here is a stunning, captivating tale of a competent, talented, first-class musician who had the misfortune of being a contemporary of the greatest musician who ever lived. Loved the story, loved the acting, loved the set decoration and costume design. It’s an emotionally charged story of jealousy with quite possibly the greatest soundtrack of any motion picture ever. And anyone who declares war on the heavens is okay in my book.
Why not rate this one higher? Okay, here’s the deal – from here on out, these movies have no serious flaws. I can’t think of one thing I disliked about Amadeus. Sure it’s a long movie, but since it’s so engaging, it’s not toooo long. I think Tim Hulce is a bit over the top at times, but that’s how Mozart was (I guess), so his acting is appropriate for the part. From here on out, the only reason why I’m not rating a movie any higher is because the movies higher on the list were ever so slightly more thrilling for me. (One exception = the Princess Bride. I can tell you in a heartbeat why I don’t rank it higher. But I’ll get to that one soon.)
12. Airplane! (1980)
If the idea of a comedy is to laugh, than surely (shirley) this is one has the right idea. In fact, it has the best idea: dead-panned dialogue delivered in humourous situations with clever antics happening rapid-fire in the back ground. So many jokes (both visual & in dialogue) are packed into Airplane! that it takes several viewing to catch them all. Unlike so many comedies since then, the actors here don’t need to act over-the-top or divulge in gross-out humor to get easy laughs. I have watched this movie at least twenty times, and everytime I find myself laughing until I am crying. This movie has consistently been on my “All time favorites” list for twenty years now. Of movies that are purely comedic, there is none finer than Airplane!
Thursday, October 4, 2007
My 15th to 17th Favorite Motion Pictures
17. Star Wars (Trilogy) (1977-1983)
Okay, so these are probably the most written-about movies in the history of cinema. But they do deserve the bulk of the attention they get. They are just plain fun film-making. From start to finish, there’s always something new, some new world or species waiting to grab your attention. Absolutely everything is original – think about it: there are very few movies out there that do not take place on Earth or involve people from Earth.
Why not rate this one higher? Mark Hamill = lousy, whiny actor (at least in Episode IV). And Return of the Jedi? Too much Ewok.
16. Shine (1996)
Flashbacks were never so artistically put to celluloid. The story of pianist David Helfgott is at times touching, suspenseful, humorous; but at all times intriguing. Follow closely, the story fabulously uses mostly visuals to tell itself. The scene of Helfgott (almost) performing the Rach 3 is one of the best ever! And Mr. Rush does a top-notch job of portraying the pianist.
Why not rate this one higher? Some scenes are just plain awkward. I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to laugh or feel pity. Weird stuff.
15. Super Size Me! (2004)
Here’s the highest-ranked documentary on my list. Director Morgan Spurlock takes his cues from Michael Moore by placing himself in the action and spicing up an important topic with loads of humor. Spurlock one-ups Moore, though, by not allowing his own agenda to overshadow the big issues. This film was informative, funny, moving and relevant. I haven’t eaten at McDonald’s since then.
Why not rate this one higher? The beginning of Spurlock’s 30-day experiment gets off to a slooow start. And though the segment about public school lunches was captivating, I didn’t see how it supported the main theme.
Okay, so these are probably the most written-about movies in the history of cinema. But they do deserve the bulk of the attention they get. They are just plain fun film-making. From start to finish, there’s always something new, some new world or species waiting to grab your attention. Absolutely everything is original – think about it: there are very few movies out there that do not take place on Earth or involve people from Earth.
Why not rate this one higher? Mark Hamill = lousy, whiny actor (at least in Episode IV). And Return of the Jedi? Too much Ewok.
16. Shine (1996)
Flashbacks were never so artistically put to celluloid. The story of pianist David Helfgott is at times touching, suspenseful, humorous; but at all times intriguing. Follow closely, the story fabulously uses mostly visuals to tell itself. The scene of Helfgott (almost) performing the Rach 3 is one of the best ever! And Mr. Rush does a top-notch job of portraying the pianist.
Why not rate this one higher? Some scenes are just plain awkward. I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to laugh or feel pity. Weird stuff.
15. Super Size Me! (2004)
Here’s the highest-ranked documentary on my list. Director Morgan Spurlock takes his cues from Michael Moore by placing himself in the action and spicing up an important topic with loads of humor. Spurlock one-ups Moore, though, by not allowing his own agenda to overshadow the big issues. This film was informative, funny, moving and relevant. I haven’t eaten at McDonald’s since then.
Why not rate this one higher? The beginning of Spurlock’s 30-day experiment gets off to a slooow start. And though the segment about public school lunches was captivating, I didn’t see how it supported the main theme.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
My 18th to 20th Favorite Motion Pictures
20. Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Moore excels at placing himself in the action and orchestrating events while filming them (a rarity for documentary film-makers who do most of their manipulating covertly while editing). Bowling is the best of the bunch. While I don’t always agree with his tactics, Moore makes some very valid points here: America is a violent county, guns do need to be controlled better, and Charleton Heston makes for a lousy spokesperson for any organization. Despite the nature and heavy tone of the main issues, Moore manages to spice his film with humor (loved that animated history of the U.S.) and sets a fine example of responsible citizenship. If more people in the world had more passion to fix the ills of the world like Moore, the world would be a much better place.
Why not rate this one higher? Did I mention I don’t always agree with his tactics? While I don’t think that disagreeing with his tactics makes, in itself, for poor film-making, the whole scene of accusing Kmart for selling the bullets that were eventually used at Columbine was wholly unfair.
19. North by Northwest (1959)
Okay, I know there’s a lot of Hitchcock on this list, but let me explain. For one thing, I’ve seen three times more Hitchcock-directed movies than those directed by anyone else. The reason why I have seen so many is because I enjoy his work. Not all of his stuff is that great, though, and I could name off several very mediocre films he directed (The Trouble with Harry, Lifeboat, Vertigo, Marnie, Family Plot) and even some I absolutely despise (Under Capricorn, for example). Still, there are plenty of good ones. Like North by Northwest…
Ah, yes, the epitome of all things Hitchcock. This film brings in everything Hitchcock perfected over the prior 30 years of his career. This action-packed, suspense laden flick is chock-full of memorable scenes. A crop duster may not be the most practical way to kill a man, but it's a great visual representation of the great Hitchcockian examination of "nowhere to run, nowhere to hide". The climb down, around and back up to Mount Rushmore is also memorable. Did I mention the innuendo – possibly the best comedic ending of a film ever?
Why not rate this higher? I just can not get over how old Cary Grant is for this role. And, there’s a few minor logistical holes to get the story going in the beginning; I wish the writer’s would have polished it up a little bit.
And now for five movies in a row that start with the letter ‘S’:
18. Strangers on a Train (1951)
Suspense! Suspense! Suspense! Hitchcock creates another gem in this 1951 classic. The hero seems partially to blame for all his woes, so you are continually debating whether to side with him or not. A murder scene filmed like none you've ever seen before (through the reflection of the victim's eyeglasses) & a climax that's equally unique (on a merry-go-round), make for one of the best dramas ever.
Why not rate this one higher? I used to rank this as one of my ten favorite films of all time, but subsequent viewings increasingly weaken the ending for me. The carousel sequence is great, but otherwise the final few minutes stretches believability a little bit.
Moore excels at placing himself in the action and orchestrating events while filming them (a rarity for documentary film-makers who do most of their manipulating covertly while editing). Bowling is the best of the bunch. While I don’t always agree with his tactics, Moore makes some very valid points here: America is a violent county, guns do need to be controlled better, and Charleton Heston makes for a lousy spokesperson for any organization. Despite the nature and heavy tone of the main issues, Moore manages to spice his film with humor (loved that animated history of the U.S.) and sets a fine example of responsible citizenship. If more people in the world had more passion to fix the ills of the world like Moore, the world would be a much better place.
Why not rate this one higher? Did I mention I don’t always agree with his tactics? While I don’t think that disagreeing with his tactics makes, in itself, for poor film-making, the whole scene of accusing Kmart for selling the bullets that were eventually used at Columbine was wholly unfair.
19. North by Northwest (1959)
Okay, I know there’s a lot of Hitchcock on this list, but let me explain. For one thing, I’ve seen three times more Hitchcock-directed movies than those directed by anyone else. The reason why I have seen so many is because I enjoy his work. Not all of his stuff is that great, though, and I could name off several very mediocre films he directed (The Trouble with Harry, Lifeboat, Vertigo, Marnie, Family Plot) and even some I absolutely despise (Under Capricorn, for example). Still, there are plenty of good ones. Like North by Northwest…
Ah, yes, the epitome of all things Hitchcock. This film brings in everything Hitchcock perfected over the prior 30 years of his career. This action-packed, suspense laden flick is chock-full of memorable scenes. A crop duster may not be the most practical way to kill a man, but it's a great visual representation of the great Hitchcockian examination of "nowhere to run, nowhere to hide". The climb down, around and back up to Mount Rushmore is also memorable. Did I mention the innuendo – possibly the best comedic ending of a film ever?
Why not rate this higher? I just can not get over how old Cary Grant is for this role. And, there’s a few minor logistical holes to get the story going in the beginning; I wish the writer’s would have polished it up a little bit.
And now for five movies in a row that start with the letter ‘S’:
18. Strangers on a Train (1951)
Suspense! Suspense! Suspense! Hitchcock creates another gem in this 1951 classic. The hero seems partially to blame for all his woes, so you are continually debating whether to side with him or not. A murder scene filmed like none you've ever seen before (through the reflection of the victim's eyeglasses) & a climax that's equally unique (on a merry-go-round), make for one of the best dramas ever.
Why not rate this one higher? I used to rank this as one of my ten favorite films of all time, but subsequent viewings increasingly weaken the ending for me. The carousel sequence is great, but otherwise the final few minutes stretches believability a little bit.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
My 21st to 23rd Favorite Motion Pictures
23. Best in Show (2000)
I wasn’t too keen on seeing this picture. After viewing Christopher Guest’s earlier mockumentary – the overly-hyped This is Spiňal Tap – I was afraid this would not be that great either. Well, I was wrong. Guest and his troupe have all the elements of both halves of the contraction “mockumentary” down pat: the film looks and feels as if it’s a documentary, but the people are not real – they are actors. And those actors flawlessly capture all the little eccentricities of dog owners. This is probably one of the biggest crowd-pleasers on this list; when I’ve shown this list to friends, this is one of two films that they all agree should be on their lists, too.
Why not rank it higher? Sometimes the laughs are a bit awkward – I’m not sure if I’m supposed to laugh or feel sorry for the characters. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing (it shows the actors are convincing), but it does detract from the comedic element.
22. Star Trek (series) (1979 – 2002)
Okay, I’m throwing this whole series together as one entry – all ten motion pictures. It’s a mixed bag, really, but they do flow together quite well from one to the next. When this series is good, it is awesome. The action, dialogue and story-lines are exciting, witty and clever, respectively. Humor and pathos – all whilst saving the universe. If you love the television series (and I do love the television series), you’ll love these movies as they further the stories of the characters, and wrap up the loosed ends left by the TV episodes.
Why not rank it higher? Did I mention it’s a mixed bag? Part one is dreadfully slow, part five is simply an exercise in Shatner’s ego, and while the first seven enhance the TV series from which they are gleaned, the more recent three only detract from what was a perfect story arc in The Next Generation. Also, it’s tough to rate this series of movies without referencing the TV shows. As such, it seems unfair to rank this any higher, as the movies themselves are not as great without first having watched the TV shows from whence they were gleaned.
21. Back to the Future (1985)
Here we have the perfect plot. So many loose ends are left hanging, you wonder how they will all fit together. But in this sci-fi/comedy they do, well, perfectly. Watch closely; everything that happens in the first 20 minutes comes back around at the end. But even on a simpler level, this fast-paced picture is pure cinematic enjoyment. Yes, there are two other movies in the Back to the Future Trilogy, but we’re gonna pretend they don’t exist. I would easily put this motion picture in my top ten, except…
Why not rank it higher? There’s a whole ten minute segment – from the time Marty McFly is freed from the trunk of a car, until he arrives back downtown with Dr. Brown – that is just plain poor story-telling. It’s gratuitous and ignores temporal causality (an area at which this movie normally excels) for the sake of a few laughs. Worse, this portion of the movie throws in unnecessary mini-stories wherein George McFly inexplicably decides not to stand up for the girl he just stood up for while we watch Marty quickly ‘fading’ from life in nonconformance to his sibling’s prior, slower fades. And why does Lorraine suddenly ask if she’ll ever see Marty again? Why would she think that she wouldn’t? Nevermind, it’s just thrown in there for a (failed) attempt at a laugh.
I wasn’t too keen on seeing this picture. After viewing Christopher Guest’s earlier mockumentary – the overly-hyped This is Spiňal Tap – I was afraid this would not be that great either. Well, I was wrong. Guest and his troupe have all the elements of both halves of the contraction “mockumentary” down pat: the film looks and feels as if it’s a documentary, but the people are not real – they are actors. And those actors flawlessly capture all the little eccentricities of dog owners. This is probably one of the biggest crowd-pleasers on this list; when I’ve shown this list to friends, this is one of two films that they all agree should be on their lists, too.
Why not rank it higher? Sometimes the laughs are a bit awkward – I’m not sure if I’m supposed to laugh or feel sorry for the characters. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing (it shows the actors are convincing), but it does detract from the comedic element.
22. Star Trek (series) (1979 – 2002)
Okay, I’m throwing this whole series together as one entry – all ten motion pictures. It’s a mixed bag, really, but they do flow together quite well from one to the next. When this series is good, it is awesome. The action, dialogue and story-lines are exciting, witty and clever, respectively. Humor and pathos – all whilst saving the universe. If you love the television series (and I do love the television series), you’ll love these movies as they further the stories of the characters, and wrap up the loosed ends left by the TV episodes.
Why not rank it higher? Did I mention it’s a mixed bag? Part one is dreadfully slow, part five is simply an exercise in Shatner’s ego, and while the first seven enhance the TV series from which they are gleaned, the more recent three only detract from what was a perfect story arc in The Next Generation. Also, it’s tough to rate this series of movies without referencing the TV shows. As such, it seems unfair to rank this any higher, as the movies themselves are not as great without first having watched the TV shows from whence they were gleaned.
21. Back to the Future (1985)
Here we have the perfect plot. So many loose ends are left hanging, you wonder how they will all fit together. But in this sci-fi/comedy they do, well, perfectly. Watch closely; everything that happens in the first 20 minutes comes back around at the end. But even on a simpler level, this fast-paced picture is pure cinematic enjoyment. Yes, there are two other movies in the Back to the Future Trilogy, but we’re gonna pretend they don’t exist. I would easily put this motion picture in my top ten, except…
Why not rank it higher? There’s a whole ten minute segment – from the time Marty McFly is freed from the trunk of a car, until he arrives back downtown with Dr. Brown – that is just plain poor story-telling. It’s gratuitous and ignores temporal causality (an area at which this movie normally excels) for the sake of a few laughs. Worse, this portion of the movie throws in unnecessary mini-stories wherein George McFly inexplicably decides not to stand up for the girl he just stood up for while we watch Marty quickly ‘fading’ from life in nonconformance to his sibling’s prior, slower fades. And why does Lorraine suddenly ask if she’ll ever see Marty again? Why would she think that she wouldn’t? Nevermind, it’s just thrown in there for a (failed) attempt at a laugh.
Friday, September 7, 2007
My 24th to 26th Favorite Motion Pictures
26. The Iron Giant (1999)
Here's one of only two animated films on my list. This film (directed by Brad Bird, who later went on to direct The Incredibles) shows that cartoons need not be relegated to the dustbin of history, as Disney noew seems to think. But besides the cool, colorful animation, this animated tale goes one step futher than all those princess-falls-in-love pieces of crap by actually telling an intriguing, relevant story. There was suspense, excitement, romance, action and mystery - and this is a kid's movie! The big mystery, actually, kept me guessing right up until the climax. And the denouement is just about the most perfect ending I've ever seen in any film, animated or not. If I only ever buy my son one animated movie ever, this will be it.
Why not rate it higher? Some of the dialogue was unfortunately trite, and the film seems to wander a bit during the first quarter.
25. Trekkies (1999)
The final year of the 20th century was a good one for motion pictures (see #26, above and #42, below). The best documentary of that year, and one of the best documentries of all-time is Trekkies. What I loved most about this documentary was how unexpected it was. I assumed this would be just a light-hearted romp through the lives of people who were way more interested in Star Trek than is healthy. But instead, it was a poingiant, insightful, meaningful look at how Star Trek has shaped the lives' of its fans and how they deal with an often non-understanding society. Especially touching was the story of the handicapped man who wrote to Gene Roddenberry thanking him for helping him forget he was confined to a wheelchair and, conversely, the man who purposely confines himself to a wheelchair (similar to Captain Pike's) just so he can identify more fully with that character. Oh, and it's good fun too - if my dentist office actually looked like the Enterprise (like the one detailed in this documentary), I would actually make an appointment.
Why not rate it higher? Because a couple of the stories are uninteresting and/or too much time is spent on them.
24. The Birds (1963)
This episodic neo-noir thriller is, at the same time, both a continuation of what Hitchcock was creating at the time and something completely original. The action/suspense/stroyline continue to rise and fall every twenty minutes or so as if it is a series of short films rather than one long one. The characters are bizarre, the birds' attacks are horrific and the soundtrack...well, it's not there. Coming from the same person who directed Vertigo, Psycho and Rebecca, it's hard to believe there no music here, but there isn't. And that makes the film that much more frightening - the birds themselves furnish the 'music'. Another quirk I really like: the story doesn't really end, we just see our heroes driving off for what they think will be a safe spot, but which the radio voice-over tells us is not. The words "The End" do not appear on screen.
Why not rate it higher? That's easy. The first half hour or so is spent setting up the characters, but it's annoyingly slow. And Tippi Hedren isn't exactly the best actress I've ever seen.
Here's one of only two animated films on my list. This film (directed by Brad Bird, who later went on to direct The Incredibles) shows that cartoons need not be relegated to the dustbin of history, as Disney noew seems to think. But besides the cool, colorful animation, this animated tale goes one step futher than all those princess-falls-in-love pieces of crap by actually telling an intriguing, relevant story. There was suspense, excitement, romance, action and mystery - and this is a kid's movie! The big mystery, actually, kept me guessing right up until the climax. And the denouement is just about the most perfect ending I've ever seen in any film, animated or not. If I only ever buy my son one animated movie ever, this will be it.
Why not rate it higher? Some of the dialogue was unfortunately trite, and the film seems to wander a bit during the first quarter.
25. Trekkies (1999)
The final year of the 20th century was a good one for motion pictures (see #26, above and #42, below). The best documentary of that year, and one of the best documentries of all-time is Trekkies. What I loved most about this documentary was how unexpected it was. I assumed this would be just a light-hearted romp through the lives of people who were way more interested in Star Trek than is healthy. But instead, it was a poingiant, insightful, meaningful look at how Star Trek has shaped the lives' of its fans and how they deal with an often non-understanding society. Especially touching was the story of the handicapped man who wrote to Gene Roddenberry thanking him for helping him forget he was confined to a wheelchair and, conversely, the man who purposely confines himself to a wheelchair (similar to Captain Pike's) just so he can identify more fully with that character. Oh, and it's good fun too - if my dentist office actually looked like the Enterprise (like the one detailed in this documentary), I would actually make an appointment.
Why not rate it higher? Because a couple of the stories are uninteresting and/or too much time is spent on them.
24. The Birds (1963)
This episodic neo-noir thriller is, at the same time, both a continuation of what Hitchcock was creating at the time and something completely original. The action/suspense/stroyline continue to rise and fall every twenty minutes or so as if it is a series of short films rather than one long one. The characters are bizarre, the birds' attacks are horrific and the soundtrack...well, it's not there. Coming from the same person who directed Vertigo, Psycho and Rebecca, it's hard to believe there no music here, but there isn't. And that makes the film that much more frightening - the birds themselves furnish the 'music'. Another quirk I really like: the story doesn't really end, we just see our heroes driving off for what they think will be a safe spot, but which the radio voice-over tells us is not. The words "The End" do not appear on screen.
Why not rate it higher? That's easy. The first half hour or so is spent setting up the characters, but it's annoyingly slow. And Tippi Hedren isn't exactly the best actress I've ever seen.
Friday, August 31, 2007
My 27th - 29th Favorite Motion Pictures
29. Riviére du Hibou, La (An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge) (1962)
This short film has about as near-perfect camera work as any film I’ve ever viewed. Well-timed close-ups and long shots, dolly-shots, French angles, and other camera trickery are all employed within the mere 28 it takes to tell this story.
But…this is more than just a study in how to use a camera; it also tells a captivating story. From the moment we see the first troops approaching the bridge, we are scarcely given a moment to breathe. The story is gut-wrenching, edge-of-your-seat Hitchcockian fare that made me gasp more than once, all leading up to an amazing denouement. I used to exclude this film from my list of all-time bests due to it not being a feature-lenght film. But I think that was a bit of an arbitrary exclusion, so I have placed it here, amongst all the 'big' films.
Why not rank it higher? There's this really corny part where we hear wat the lead character is thinking ("I'm free! I'm free!") and then a really losuy song begins playing. It makes me cringe. In a film that's not even a half-hour long, that three minutes really wrecks things.
28. Dial 'M' for Murder (1954)
Here's another Hitchcock faithfully adapted from a play. And you can tell, too - almost the entire movie takes place in a single room in a single house. Still, in true Hitchcock fashion, the camera is used to the fullest extent, taking an active role in the story. The excitement of what is, initially, a perfect crime and how it goes awry kept me engaged throughout. This was the first of three films Grace Kelly starred in for Hitchcock, and she plays the best role in this one. Her defense against her attacker is original and unexpected (I fully expected her to be killed the first time I saw this film, even though I knew she was the main character).
Why not rank it higher? The film was shot with the belief that it would be distributed in 3-D. It wasn't, and as a consequence, it suffers somewhat seeing it in basic 2-D. Also, Ray Milland, the lead actor in the film? He's a bit stodgy.
27. The Ten Commandments (1956)
This mega-mother-of-all-epics holds my attention like no other 4-hour movie I've seen. The narration ties it all together until the climax of the penning of the commandments. The special-effects are awesome & the basic theme of a people being rescued from a horrible life are spectacularly displayed. There are so many characters and so much going on over so many years, it's amazing they were able to keep it down to four hours. Also, great acting from Yul Brenner, Cedric Hardwicke and Anne Baxter.
Why not rank it higher? Some of the dialogue is (unintentionally) laughable. And Charleton Heston appears to have gone to the William Shatner school of acting. It's also odd that, during the last three hours of this film, which take place over the course of 80 years, Moses is the only one who ages.
This short film has about as near-perfect camera work as any film I’ve ever viewed. Well-timed close-ups and long shots, dolly-shots, French angles, and other camera trickery are all employed within the mere 28 it takes to tell this story.
But…this is more than just a study in how to use a camera; it also tells a captivating story. From the moment we see the first troops approaching the bridge, we are scarcely given a moment to breathe. The story is gut-wrenching, edge-of-your-seat Hitchcockian fare that made me gasp more than once, all leading up to an amazing denouement. I used to exclude this film from my list of all-time bests due to it not being a feature-lenght film. But I think that was a bit of an arbitrary exclusion, so I have placed it here, amongst all the 'big' films.
Why not rank it higher? There's this really corny part where we hear wat the lead character is thinking ("I'm free! I'm free!") and then a really losuy song begins playing. It makes me cringe. In a film that's not even a half-hour long, that three minutes really wrecks things.
28. Dial 'M' for Murder (1954)
Here's another Hitchcock faithfully adapted from a play. And you can tell, too - almost the entire movie takes place in a single room in a single house. Still, in true Hitchcock fashion, the camera is used to the fullest extent, taking an active role in the story. The excitement of what is, initially, a perfect crime and how it goes awry kept me engaged throughout. This was the first of three films Grace Kelly starred in for Hitchcock, and she plays the best role in this one. Her defense against her attacker is original and unexpected (I fully expected her to be killed the first time I saw this film, even though I knew she was the main character).
Why not rank it higher? The film was shot with the belief that it would be distributed in 3-D. It wasn't, and as a consequence, it suffers somewhat seeing it in basic 2-D. Also, Ray Milland, the lead actor in the film? He's a bit stodgy.
27. The Ten Commandments (1956)
This mega-mother-of-all-epics holds my attention like no other 4-hour movie I've seen. The narration ties it all together until the climax of the penning of the commandments. The special-effects are awesome & the basic theme of a people being rescued from a horrible life are spectacularly displayed. There are so many characters and so much going on over so many years, it's amazing they were able to keep it down to four hours. Also, great acting from Yul Brenner, Cedric Hardwicke and Anne Baxter.
Why not rank it higher? Some of the dialogue is (unintentionally) laughable. And Charleton Heston appears to have gone to the William Shatner school of acting. It's also odd that, during the last three hours of this film, which take place over the course of 80 years, Moses is the only one who ages.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
My 30th to 32nd Favorite Motion Pictures
32. Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
Okay, if it seems kind of blasphemous to rank this movie higher than Citizen Kane that’s because 1) it is blasphemous and, 2) this is a list base on how much I enjoyed viewing a particular movie. If this list was based on how much respect I have for a movie, or how influential it is, then the rankings would be decidedly different. But, nope, this list is just based on how much I enjoyed spending my time in front of a screen watching a piece of celluloid And to that, I say, Napoleon is flippin’ sweet.
A small movie such as this is fun for its details; I loved watching each character go about their own little bizarre – and yet, somehow familiar – worlds. The quirky humor started right off after the clever opening credits. I instantly liked this movie and often had to wipe the tears off my face from laughing so hard.
Why not rank it higher? ‘Cause, I’ll rank it however I want. God.
31. The Godfather, parts I and II (1972 – 1974)
This pair of movies – essentially one movie cut up into two parts – has everything going for it. Every actor is of the highest quality, and yet they all look so different from one another that I did not spend the bulk of the film trying to keep track of who was who. The movies have so many great, iconic scenes, it’s tough to narrow the list down. These are absolutely flawless, refined pieces of entertainment. And, in a very rare move, part two not only enhances and enriches the story begun in part one, but it actually surpasses the first part.
Why not rank it higher? All its brilliance aside, I’m just not into gangster movies. Like westerns, I don’t eschew them simply on account of their genre, but it takes a lot more for me to “get into” them. Also, they’re a little on the long side; I think both movies could be made better by chopping out about twenty minutes.
30. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
This is one wild head trip. The story is surreal and non-linear. I’m such a sucker for non-linear story-telling. The plot is unique; I have never seen anything similar to it either before or since. 'Eternal Sunshine' manages to dazzle you with it's originality and it's poignancy. The fact that this movie was able to wrap such profound loss, emotional tenderness, and hope in such a self-consciously stylized package of science fiction is absolutely amazing. The use of vibrant coloring and quick camera movement give the film a very involving first hand feeling. On a personal note, by the time I saw this movie I was sick of Jim Carey and his Ace Ventura routine. This, coupled with The Truman Show showed that he can put that crap behind him and make some good flicks.
Why not rank it higher? Way too much hand-held camera! I think I was nauseous when I saw this on the big screen. And too many people in their underwear.
Okay, if it seems kind of blasphemous to rank this movie higher than Citizen Kane that’s because 1) it is blasphemous and, 2) this is a list base on how much I enjoyed viewing a particular movie. If this list was based on how much respect I have for a movie, or how influential it is, then the rankings would be decidedly different. But, nope, this list is just based on how much I enjoyed spending my time in front of a screen watching a piece of celluloid And to that, I say, Napoleon is flippin’ sweet.
A small movie such as this is fun for its details; I loved watching each character go about their own little bizarre – and yet, somehow familiar – worlds. The quirky humor started right off after the clever opening credits. I instantly liked this movie and often had to wipe the tears off my face from laughing so hard.
Why not rank it higher? ‘Cause, I’ll rank it however I want. God.
31. The Godfather, parts I and II (1972 – 1974)
This pair of movies – essentially one movie cut up into two parts – has everything going for it. Every actor is of the highest quality, and yet they all look so different from one another that I did not spend the bulk of the film trying to keep track of who was who. The movies have so many great, iconic scenes, it’s tough to narrow the list down. These are absolutely flawless, refined pieces of entertainment. And, in a very rare move, part two not only enhances and enriches the story begun in part one, but it actually surpasses the first part.
Why not rank it higher? All its brilliance aside, I’m just not into gangster movies. Like westerns, I don’t eschew them simply on account of their genre, but it takes a lot more for me to “get into” them. Also, they’re a little on the long side; I think both movies could be made better by chopping out about twenty minutes.
30. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
This is one wild head trip. The story is surreal and non-linear. I’m such a sucker for non-linear story-telling. The plot is unique; I have never seen anything similar to it either before or since. 'Eternal Sunshine' manages to dazzle you with it's originality and it's poignancy. The fact that this movie was able to wrap such profound loss, emotional tenderness, and hope in such a self-consciously stylized package of science fiction is absolutely amazing. The use of vibrant coloring and quick camera movement give the film a very involving first hand feeling. On a personal note, by the time I saw this movie I was sick of Jim Carey and his Ace Ventura routine. This, coupled with The Truman Show showed that he can put that crap behind him and make some good flicks.
Why not rank it higher? Way too much hand-held camera! I think I was nauseous when I saw this on the big screen. And too many people in their underwear.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
My 33rd to 35th Favorite Motion Pictures
35 - Babe (1995)
Talking animals generally don't equal a great time at the theater, but Babe somehow manages to rise above the genre and become a memorable, one-of-a-kind film that runs a lot deeper than one would first suspect. It's poiniant, positive, beautiful and original. And it's spliced up into bite-sized chapters with mice coming along to narrate. James Cromwell is the lead (human) actor and, as his first name implies he is very good as what he does. One more great reason to see this film: It was banned in Malaysia.
Why not rank this higher? That's a tough one. I'd have to go with the fact that it's a bit slow in places and the story, while certainly very well-crafted and likable, is a simple one. Man, maybe I should rank this higher.
34 - Mary Poppins (1964)
The best-selling film of 1964 was the final film Walt Disney himself produced (and it shows - before 1964: Disney = good; after 1964: Disney = lousy). So many elements combine to make this a success that it's impossible to single out one reason why I love it, but I think I can name three: Great songs, great human-animation segment and a very anti-capitalism message.
Why not rank this higher? Because it's just a fun movie. Well-made, and fun, but nothing more.
33 - Citizen Kane (1941)
Citizen Kane is a masterpiece. Nearly every critic loves this film, and many place it on the top of their lists of all-time best films. And it is awesome. It's brilliant. Thre's so much to love about the cinematography: the opening gothic scenes of Kane's fog-enshrouded mansion, the bizarre filming of Kane's death, the news-report reel that explains his life and death, the scene that takes us through a neon sign, the deep-focuses, the over-lapping dialogue, the oblique angles (in one scene, we witness the action from below the floor), the montage of Kane's failing marriage depicted by an ever-growing distance at the breakfast table. And the story itself is gripping, too: the title character dies in the first five minutes, the mystery of his final words, and on and on and on.
Why not rank this higher? Like other films from that era (such as Gone With the Wind), Citizen Kane suffers on the small screen. I've viewed it twice on TV and once in the theater and the difference was stunning. Also, much of the love given to Citizen Kane is due to its not being sentimental (a rarity at the time) and its innovative filming techniques. These are noteworthy things, to be sure, but here, in 2007, they don't make a film stand out as much as they did back then.
Talking animals generally don't equal a great time at the theater, but Babe somehow manages to rise above the genre and become a memorable, one-of-a-kind film that runs a lot deeper than one would first suspect. It's poiniant, positive, beautiful and original. And it's spliced up into bite-sized chapters with mice coming along to narrate. James Cromwell is the lead (human) actor and, as his first name implies he is very good as what he does. One more great reason to see this film: It was banned in Malaysia.
Why not rank this higher? That's a tough one. I'd have to go with the fact that it's a bit slow in places and the story, while certainly very well-crafted and likable, is a simple one. Man, maybe I should rank this higher.
34 - Mary Poppins (1964)
The best-selling film of 1964 was the final film Walt Disney himself produced (and it shows - before 1964: Disney = good; after 1964: Disney = lousy). So many elements combine to make this a success that it's impossible to single out one reason why I love it, but I think I can name three: Great songs, great human-animation segment and a very anti-capitalism message.
Why not rank this higher? Because it's just a fun movie. Well-made, and fun, but nothing more.
33 - Citizen Kane (1941)
Citizen Kane is a masterpiece. Nearly every critic loves this film, and many place it on the top of their lists of all-time best films. And it is awesome. It's brilliant. Thre's so much to love about the cinematography: the opening gothic scenes of Kane's fog-enshrouded mansion, the bizarre filming of Kane's death, the news-report reel that explains his life and death, the scene that takes us through a neon sign, the deep-focuses, the over-lapping dialogue, the oblique angles (in one scene, we witness the action from below the floor), the montage of Kane's failing marriage depicted by an ever-growing distance at the breakfast table. And the story itself is gripping, too: the title character dies in the first five minutes, the mystery of his final words, and on and on and on.
Why not rank this higher? Like other films from that era (such as Gone With the Wind), Citizen Kane suffers on the small screen. I've viewed it twice on TV and once in the theater and the difference was stunning. Also, much of the love given to Citizen Kane is due to its not being sentimental (a rarity at the time) and its innovative filming techniques. These are noteworthy things, to be sure, but here, in 2007, they don't make a film stand out as much as they did back then.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
My 36th - 38st Favorite Motion Pictures
38. Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
Stanley Kubrick gets a lot of attention for films such as "2001", "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut". While I'm not saying those are bad films, I am saying they all pale compared to the over-the-top insane juggernaut of a motion picture that is Dr. Strangelove. The absurdity of superpower posturing is never more focrefully - and hilariously - brought home. The inestimable Peter Sellers plays not one, not two, but three roles, to which I say: More! As the films escalates in suspense and parody through its 93 minutes, it only gets more and more and more nutty, culminating in what is quite likely the ultimate trigger-happy male's fantasy...which I won't give away for those who haven't seen this flick.
Why not rate this higher? It's a one-trick pony, to put it gently. The film suceeds because it know when to end, but it still could use a little more depth.
37. Schindler's List (1993)
Steven Spielberg gets a lot of attention for, well, everything he ever touches. But for "Schindler's List", he really deserves the accolades this time. The layered picture immediately drops the viewer in the panic of the moment in history that was Nazi Germany. The black-and-white graniness and the hand-held shots lend an immediacy and chaos that instantly compliments and enhances the storyline. I found myself gasping in horror at the senseless murders, the lack of human rights and the fight for every life that so many good people had to go through on a daily basis.
Why not rate this higher? Okay, it's a little long. In comparison to the book of the same title, it just doesn't hold up as well. Worst of all, Spielberg seems to be beating us over the head with an over-glorification of Schindler himself during the final 15 minutes of the film. Chill out, Stevie, I get the picture: Schindler did a great thing.
36. The Abyss (1989)
James Cameron gets a lot of attention for Titanic and the Terminator movies. But in between the chick-flick and the testosterone-driven action movies, there's one that stands above the others: The Abyss. I didn't expect much when I first sat down to watch this picture, and it more than made up for my low expectations. Great suspense, great story, great special effects. There are so many great scenes in this film, especially the scene depicting the ship's accidnetal fall into the (what else?) abyss and the drowning of Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's character. Oops, have I said too much? Guess I'' stop there.
Why not rate this higher? The dialogue in The Abyss? Like every Cameron picture it's very very very corny. It's about an 8 on the cringe-worthy scale, with 1 being "not cringe-worthy at all" and 10 being "The Phantom Menace".
Stanley Kubrick gets a lot of attention for films such as "2001", "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut". While I'm not saying those are bad films, I am saying they all pale compared to the over-the-top insane juggernaut of a motion picture that is Dr. Strangelove. The absurdity of superpower posturing is never more focrefully - and hilariously - brought home. The inestimable Peter Sellers plays not one, not two, but three roles, to which I say: More! As the films escalates in suspense and parody through its 93 minutes, it only gets more and more and more nutty, culminating in what is quite likely the ultimate trigger-happy male's fantasy...which I won't give away for those who haven't seen this flick.
Why not rate this higher? It's a one-trick pony, to put it gently. The film suceeds because it know when to end, but it still could use a little more depth.
37. Schindler's List (1993)
Steven Spielberg gets a lot of attention for, well, everything he ever touches. But for "Schindler's List", he really deserves the accolades this time. The layered picture immediately drops the viewer in the panic of the moment in history that was Nazi Germany. The black-and-white graniness and the hand-held shots lend an immediacy and chaos that instantly compliments and enhances the storyline. I found myself gasping in horror at the senseless murders, the lack of human rights and the fight for every life that so many good people had to go through on a daily basis.
Why not rate this higher? Okay, it's a little long. In comparison to the book of the same title, it just doesn't hold up as well. Worst of all, Spielberg seems to be beating us over the head with an over-glorification of Schindler himself during the final 15 minutes of the film. Chill out, Stevie, I get the picture: Schindler did a great thing.
36. The Abyss (1989)
James Cameron gets a lot of attention for Titanic and the Terminator movies. But in between the chick-flick and the testosterone-driven action movies, there's one that stands above the others: The Abyss. I didn't expect much when I first sat down to watch this picture, and it more than made up for my low expectations. Great suspense, great story, great special effects. There are so many great scenes in this film, especially the scene depicting the ship's accidnetal fall into the (what else?) abyss and the drowning of Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's character. Oops, have I said too much? Guess I'' stop there.
Why not rate this higher? The dialogue in The Abyss? Like every Cameron picture it's very very very corny. It's about an 8 on the cringe-worthy scale, with 1 being "not cringe-worthy at all" and 10 being "The Phantom Menace".
Monday, July 16, 2007
My 39th - 41st Favorite Motion Pictures
41. Roots (1977)
Clocking in at 540 minutes puts an immediate strike against any motion picture, but this engaging story here kept me entralled from beginning to end. And here's the amazing thing: this is a made-for-TV movie. Almost as a law of the universe, made-for-TV is synonymous with crappy, but yet again Roots rises above. The camera work is unprecedented for television, and there's nary a second-rate actor in the whole (enormous) cast. I also appreciated the graphic depiction of the events, again a rarity for television.
Why not rate this higher? Well, maybe 540 minutes is a bit long. The series loses a little momentum once Kunta and Kizzy have left the scene. Oh - and Kizzy? Annoying.
40. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
I viewed this film becuase it had been the second film in history to win the 'top five' Oscars (Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Director and Screenplay). Normally, when I watch a film with such high expectations, it doesn't hold up - but this one did. Great acting, a great story, and just about the best ending of any motion picture. Ever.
Why not rate this higher? Oh, look, it's Jack Nicholson playing himself again. Man, I get so sick of that guy. Also, what happened in the 70s that caused cinematographers to forget what natural color was?
39. Notorious (1946)
Another classic Hitchcock, this one is filled with memorable scenes: The long kissing scene that skillfully subverts the production code of the time, the camera pan to the key in Bergman's hand, the wine bottles, and especially the suspenseful, slow walk down the stairs of the mansion as Raines' character looks on powerless. Even the very end, as Grant locks the car door - I smile in sheer delight at these skillfully crafted scenes. Laila Valente once said: "Notorious is one of the most romantic and sensual movies ever made. The continuous and rising tension between the two antagonists is almost tangible. Their desperate need of each other explodes in the ever-lasting kiss and the revelation of his love on Alicia's death bed. Cary Grant has never been so dark and vulnerable." Good call.
Clocking in at 540 minutes puts an immediate strike against any motion picture, but this engaging story here kept me entralled from beginning to end. And here's the amazing thing: this is a made-for-TV movie. Almost as a law of the universe, made-for-TV is synonymous with crappy, but yet again Roots rises above. The camera work is unprecedented for television, and there's nary a second-rate actor in the whole (enormous) cast. I also appreciated the graphic depiction of the events, again a rarity for television.
Why not rate this higher? Well, maybe 540 minutes is a bit long. The series loses a little momentum once Kunta and Kizzy have left the scene. Oh - and Kizzy? Annoying.
40. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
I viewed this film becuase it had been the second film in history to win the 'top five' Oscars (Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Director and Screenplay). Normally, when I watch a film with such high expectations, it doesn't hold up - but this one did. Great acting, a great story, and just about the best ending of any motion picture. Ever.
Why not rate this higher? Oh, look, it's Jack Nicholson playing himself again. Man, I get so sick of that guy. Also, what happened in the 70s that caused cinematographers to forget what natural color was?
39. Notorious (1946)
Another classic Hitchcock, this one is filled with memorable scenes: The long kissing scene that skillfully subverts the production code of the time, the camera pan to the key in Bergman's hand, the wine bottles, and especially the suspenseful, slow walk down the stairs of the mansion as Raines' character looks on powerless. Even the very end, as Grant locks the car door - I smile in sheer delight at these skillfully crafted scenes. Laila Valente once said: "Notorious is one of the most romantic and sensual movies ever made. The continuous and rising tension between the two antagonists is almost tangible. Their desperate need of each other explodes in the ever-lasting kiss and the revelation of his love on Alicia's death bed. Cary Grant has never been so dark and vulnerable." Good call.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
My 42nd - 44th Favorite Motion Pictures
44. The Sound of Music (1965)
Yeah, that's right - The Sound of Freakin' Music. Go ahead, laugh at me.
The truth is, this is one great motion picture. As a whole, I don't like musicals. But I do have three musicals on my list, and this is one of them. Unlike most musicals, the songs in this picture do not seem to awkwardly retard the progression of the story; rather, they enhance it. The Sound of Music clocks in at a whopping 174 minutes. The first 100 minutes are just plain fun - the characters, the situations, and the music (of course). Suddenly, the film switches gears to a high suspense noirish drama. The songs vanish with the sunset, appearantly. I've heard people joke that it's like two movies in one, and I see their point. Still: both 'movies' fit together into one great tale.
43. The Indiana Jones Trilogy (1981-1989)
Ah, yes, another trilogy. When I first viewed "Raiders of the Lost Ark", I thought to myself: that was so much fun - that's how every movie should be! Okay, so I don't think every movie should be like that anymore, but if a studio is going to go through the trouble of financing a special-effects laden summer blockbuster with a big name star, they do well to emulate the tales of Dr. Jones. In fact, let me think of a better summer blockbuster trilogy...oh, that's right, there isn't one. Oh, wait there is one...but I'll get to that later. Anyways, these three movies are made of non-stop seat-of-your-pants excitement wrapped around the most amazing treasure hunt in cinema history. Indiana gets into scrapes approximately every five seconds, and yet still, unbelievably, manages to escape alive. Pure fun. Pure adrenaline. And a little bit of history thrown in.
42. Office Space (1999)
The first time I watched this movie, I wrote it off as good, but not great. Then I got a job where I spent much of my time in a cubical. Then I watched the movie again, and decided it was just about the funniest thing I had ever seen. So, I admit it may not have the mass appeal that other films on this list may possess; but remember: this is my list of favorites. That being said, it's worth a look for anyone who's ever had a job. The first five minutes are priceless comedic celluloid, and there's plenty more laughs during the next hour and a half. I, for one, even laughed at the lawyer's name (Rob Newhouse - ha!) This is probably the most quotable movie on my list:
Bob: Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.
Peter: I wouldn't say I've been *missing* it, Bob.
Yeah, that's right - The Sound of Freakin' Music. Go ahead, laugh at me.
The truth is, this is one great motion picture. As a whole, I don't like musicals. But I do have three musicals on my list, and this is one of them. Unlike most musicals, the songs in this picture do not seem to awkwardly retard the progression of the story; rather, they enhance it. The Sound of Music clocks in at a whopping 174 minutes. The first 100 minutes are just plain fun - the characters, the situations, and the music (of course). Suddenly, the film switches gears to a high suspense noirish drama. The songs vanish with the sunset, appearantly. I've heard people joke that it's like two movies in one, and I see their point. Still: both 'movies' fit together into one great tale.
43. The Indiana Jones Trilogy (1981-1989)
Ah, yes, another trilogy. When I first viewed "Raiders of the Lost Ark", I thought to myself: that was so much fun - that's how every movie should be! Okay, so I don't think every movie should be like that anymore, but if a studio is going to go through the trouble of financing a special-effects laden summer blockbuster with a big name star, they do well to emulate the tales of Dr. Jones. In fact, let me think of a better summer blockbuster trilogy...oh, that's right, there isn't one. Oh, wait there is one...but I'll get to that later. Anyways, these three movies are made of non-stop seat-of-your-pants excitement wrapped around the most amazing treasure hunt in cinema history. Indiana gets into scrapes approximately every five seconds, and yet still, unbelievably, manages to escape alive. Pure fun. Pure adrenaline. And a little bit of history thrown in.
42. Office Space (1999)
The first time I watched this movie, I wrote it off as good, but not great. Then I got a job where I spent much of my time in a cubical. Then I watched the movie again, and decided it was just about the funniest thing I had ever seen. So, I admit it may not have the mass appeal that other films on this list may possess; but remember: this is my list of favorites. That being said, it's worth a look for anyone who's ever had a job. The first five minutes are priceless comedic celluloid, and there's plenty more laughs during the next hour and a half. I, for one, even laughed at the lawyer's name (Rob Newhouse - ha!) This is probably the most quotable movie on my list:
Bob: Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.
Peter: I wouldn't say I've been *missing* it, Bob.
Friday, March 2, 2007
My 45th - 47th Favorite Motion Pictures
47. 13 Conversations About One Thing (2001)
Hey, look! A film directed by a woman!
"Faith is the antithesis of proof" is just one of dozens of great lines in this motion picture featuring many (13?) diverse storylines that eventually overlap and merge. The movie is very unstylized: there are no special effects in the usual sense. Still, the different storylines are very well played out. Each and every storyline could have been a full movie in and of itself, but it's the interweaving of all the story lines that make it one of my favorites. The symbolism of red ink/blood in each storyline is a classic example of symbolism used to enhance the characters' feelings.
Why not rate this film higher? Did I mention it's not stylized? While that's not necessarily a bad thing, this film has a daytime-TV drama feel about it.
46. Suspicion (1941)
Hey, look! Another Hitchcock film!
Is Johnnie trying to murder his wife, or isn't he? No one could make answering this question as fun as Hitchcock. Cary Grant plays "Johnnie" so well, I couldn't decide if he was innocent or guilty up until the very end. So many things keep the viewer from figuring out the answer. For example, Johnnie seems like a nice enough gu, but why would he be purchasing poisonous powder? And what's with his late father - did Johnnie kill him? Hmm...
There are some great camera shots in this film, notably the tracking shot when Johnnie brings a glass of milk up a long, spiral staircase to his wife. His wife, by the way, is played by Joan Fontaine - who also starred in "Rebecca" - and was the only person to ever win an Oscar for acting in a Hitchcock film.
Why not rate this film higher? It took a while to grow on me. I didn't think it was that special the first time I watched it, notably because the first half of the film is s o s l o w.
45. Festen (The Celebration) (1998)
Hey, look! A foreign language film!
I don't speak Dutch, but I still loved this film. I was first introduced to this film in a film studies class, in which we watched a portion of it as a Dogme 95 film. What's a Dogme 95 film? ...you may ask. Essentially, it's a film that subscribes to certain rules about film making; rules that attempt to create a very realistic film. For example, no fake lighting can be used: the film can only contain sunlight or lights that are actually in the film itself. The same thing goes for music: only diegetic music - music that can be heard by the characters - may be used. Thus, it is okay to show a character playing a CD, but it would be wrong to dub in music while editing. Also, the camera must be handheld at all time.
Not only does this film succeed in it's attempt to be a Dogme '95, it does it very well. While watching the entire film, I couldn't help but think that the Dogme rules made the film even better. The raw, realistic style of shooting the film fit in perfectly with the raw, realistic sotry featuring a family reunion.
Oh yeah, the story itself totally rocks, too. It's the patriarch's 60th birthday party, but his children have not grown up in the way he had hoped. And one of his kids has some very dirty secrets to reveal during dinner.
Why not rate this film higher? Like "Suspicion", this film is in no hurry to get moving. It takes a while to draw you in, and the first half of the film shows us unnecessarily long scenes of the different family members getting ready for the party. Some of thes scenes are interesting, as they pertain to the main story that develops later, but some of these little forays into storytelling seem totally irrelevant.
Hey, look! A film directed by a woman!
"Faith is the antithesis of proof" is just one of dozens of great lines in this motion picture featuring many (13?) diverse storylines that eventually overlap and merge. The movie is very unstylized: there are no special effects in the usual sense. Still, the different storylines are very well played out. Each and every storyline could have been a full movie in and of itself, but it's the interweaving of all the story lines that make it one of my favorites. The symbolism of red ink/blood in each storyline is a classic example of symbolism used to enhance the characters' feelings.
Why not rate this film higher? Did I mention it's not stylized? While that's not necessarily a bad thing, this film has a daytime-TV drama feel about it.
46. Suspicion (1941)
Hey, look! Another Hitchcock film!
Is Johnnie trying to murder his wife, or isn't he? No one could make answering this question as fun as Hitchcock. Cary Grant plays "Johnnie" so well, I couldn't decide if he was innocent or guilty up until the very end. So many things keep the viewer from figuring out the answer. For example, Johnnie seems like a nice enough gu, but why would he be purchasing poisonous powder? And what's with his late father - did Johnnie kill him? Hmm...
There are some great camera shots in this film, notably the tracking shot when Johnnie brings a glass of milk up a long, spiral staircase to his wife. His wife, by the way, is played by Joan Fontaine - who also starred in "Rebecca" - and was the only person to ever win an Oscar for acting in a Hitchcock film.
Why not rate this film higher? It took a while to grow on me. I didn't think it was that special the first time I watched it, notably because the first half of the film is s o s l o w.
45. Festen (The Celebration) (1998)
Hey, look! A foreign language film!
I don't speak Dutch, but I still loved this film. I was first introduced to this film in a film studies class, in which we watched a portion of it as a Dogme 95 film. What's a Dogme 95 film? ...you may ask. Essentially, it's a film that subscribes to certain rules about film making; rules that attempt to create a very realistic film. For example, no fake lighting can be used: the film can only contain sunlight or lights that are actually in the film itself. The same thing goes for music: only diegetic music - music that can be heard by the characters - may be used. Thus, it is okay to show a character playing a CD, but it would be wrong to dub in music while editing. Also, the camera must be handheld at all time.
Not only does this film succeed in it's attempt to be a Dogme '95, it does it very well. While watching the entire film, I couldn't help but think that the Dogme rules made the film even better. The raw, realistic style of shooting the film fit in perfectly with the raw, realistic sotry featuring a family reunion.
Oh yeah, the story itself totally rocks, too. It's the patriarch's 60th birthday party, but his children have not grown up in the way he had hoped. And one of his kids has some very dirty secrets to reveal during dinner.
Why not rate this film higher? Like "Suspicion", this film is in no hurry to get moving. It takes a while to draw you in, and the first half of the film shows us unnecessarily long scenes of the different family members getting ready for the party. Some of thes scenes are interesting, as they pertain to the main story that develops later, but some of these little forays into storytelling seem totally irrelevant.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
My 48th - 50th Favorite Motion Pictures
50. The X-Men Trilogy (2000-2006)
In between all the Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Hulk and Fantastic Four crap, there stands this trilogy of very very entertaining sci-fi flicks. Unlike Lord of the Rings, you don't have to be an expert on the source material to understand what's going on. And, unlike Spider-Man, Hulk and Fantastic Four, this series seemed to realize that, while special effects are lots of fun, they are nothing without an intelligently written story. As absurd as this may sound when talking about a trilogy involving mutants, the characters are believable and the multiple stroy arcs all fit together and ensure that there's never a dull moment. The characters are not defined by their abilities, like in so many other sci-fi pictures, but by their personalities, and, indeed, many characters seem to embody such qualities as intelligence, coolness, insecutiry, sexiness and wisdom. Conversely, unlike much sci-fi drivel, no character is defined in terms of 'good' or 'evil'. There are differing ideologies, to be sure, but no one is totally pure and wholesome of motives, and no one is there simply to be 'the bad guy'.
I saw all three of these movies at the theater and, each time, I found myself wishing for more. I wish I could say that about more movies.
Why not rate this film higher? One reason why I wanted each movie to last longer was because a few of the storylines are frustratingly underdeveloped. There are so many loose ends that the third film seems to have trouble tying them all together. Oh - and that third film, while certainly a respectably entry in the series, is notably the weakest of the three. The great charcterizations of the first two take a back seat to explosions and quick-fixes.
49. Rebecca (1940)
My list is very Hitchcock-heavy (pun intended). So let's start off with one right here at #49: Rebecca. Often cited as a "chick flick" in the Hitchcock canon, this black-and-white picture is the only Hitchcock film to win the Oscar for Best Picture.
The film begins in a humorous tone, and gets steadily more serious as details of the characters' lives are revealed. It is, basically, the sotry of a young wife finding herself living very much in the shadow of her husband's former (and now deceased) first wife. While the husband, Max, seems to love his new bride, it is the housekeeper that seems to have trouble accepting the new lady of the house. In between this triable of characters are plot twists, symbolism, and slases of humor typical of a Hitchock offering.
Fun game:Try to figure out the name of Joan Fontaine's character.
Why not rate this film higher? Like I said, it's a "chick flick" or, as much of a "chick flick" as Hitchcock ever made, and I am no chick. Also, time has been unkind to certain aspects of the dialogue and story; it's a little bit dated. Oh, and it's also a little too long, in my haughty opinion.
48. Ingen Numsil (2003)
During the first few minutes this film shows us just how vital the camel is to the well being of the family. So, it’s somewhat of a problem when one of the newborn camels is rejected by its mother. The remainder of the film is spent showing us the different ways in which the family tries to get the mother to accept its calf. The different approaches progressively get more extreme and time consuming. Some of the family’s efforts are comical, but most were quite frustrating.
The final fifteen minutes or so is the best portion of the film. And, if you’re gonna have a “best portion of the film”, it’s a good idea to put it at the end. I don’t want to give away the denouement, but suffice it to say the infant camel is only marginally hanging on to its new life by this point and the situation has become desperate. The fact that camels can cry was a revelation to me. Coupled with the somber music (the only soundtrack in the whole film!), the conclusion was quite emotional.
This film has to be one of the best examples I’ve seen of the style of cinematography perfectly matching the story being told. The slow, plodding intro gives us a glipmpse into the family’s pace of life. The bleak, minimal soundtrack and sparse editing match up nicely with the barren landscape upon which the story is told. The shots are often hand-held, giving it a more documentary feel, again befitting the life of the characters’. Indeed, the documentary feel is best exemplified by the fact that on a couple of occasions, non-actors in the background actually look right at the camera (typically a no-no). To give the viewer more of a “this is our family” feel, like so many home-made videos, the camera is, a couple of times, struggling to get the best shot of the action. A good example is during the camel’s birth: while shooting the scene, family members run right in front of the camera and the cinematographer is forced to dodge and weave around them in an effort to get the footage.
If you do see it, know that the film fades back in. Twice. And you’ll be glad you stayed for those two “footnotes”.
Why not rate the film higher? Well, as I've said, it's a little on the slow side. A little too slow for my liking. And while it is a moving, passionate, story, it is just a smiple story. Not that that's a bad thing, but it does lessen the impact on further viewings.
In between all the Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Hulk and Fantastic Four crap, there stands this trilogy of very very entertaining sci-fi flicks. Unlike Lord of the Rings, you don't have to be an expert on the source material to understand what's going on. And, unlike Spider-Man, Hulk and Fantastic Four, this series seemed to realize that, while special effects are lots of fun, they are nothing without an intelligently written story. As absurd as this may sound when talking about a trilogy involving mutants, the characters are believable and the multiple stroy arcs all fit together and ensure that there's never a dull moment. The characters are not defined by their abilities, like in so many other sci-fi pictures, but by their personalities, and, indeed, many characters seem to embody such qualities as intelligence, coolness, insecutiry, sexiness and wisdom. Conversely, unlike much sci-fi drivel, no character is defined in terms of 'good' or 'evil'. There are differing ideologies, to be sure, but no one is totally pure and wholesome of motives, and no one is there simply to be 'the bad guy'.
I saw all three of these movies at the theater and, each time, I found myself wishing for more. I wish I could say that about more movies.
Why not rate this film higher? One reason why I wanted each movie to last longer was because a few of the storylines are frustratingly underdeveloped. There are so many loose ends that the third film seems to have trouble tying them all together. Oh - and that third film, while certainly a respectably entry in the series, is notably the weakest of the three. The great charcterizations of the first two take a back seat to explosions and quick-fixes.
49. Rebecca (1940)
My list is very Hitchcock-heavy (pun intended). So let's start off with one right here at #49: Rebecca. Often cited as a "chick flick" in the Hitchcock canon, this black-and-white picture is the only Hitchcock film to win the Oscar for Best Picture.
The film begins in a humorous tone, and gets steadily more serious as details of the characters' lives are revealed. It is, basically, the sotry of a young wife finding herself living very much in the shadow of her husband's former (and now deceased) first wife. While the husband, Max, seems to love his new bride, it is the housekeeper that seems to have trouble accepting the new lady of the house. In between this triable of characters are plot twists, symbolism, and slases of humor typical of a Hitchock offering.
Fun game:Try to figure out the name of Joan Fontaine's character.
Why not rate this film higher? Like I said, it's a "chick flick" or, as much of a "chick flick" as Hitchcock ever made, and I am no chick. Also, time has been unkind to certain aspects of the dialogue and story; it's a little bit dated. Oh, and it's also a little too long, in my haughty opinion.
48. Ingen Numsil (2003)
During the first few minutes this film shows us just how vital the camel is to the well being of the family. So, it’s somewhat of a problem when one of the newborn camels is rejected by its mother. The remainder of the film is spent showing us the different ways in which the family tries to get the mother to accept its calf. The different approaches progressively get more extreme and time consuming. Some of the family’s efforts are comical, but most were quite frustrating.
The final fifteen minutes or so is the best portion of the film. And, if you’re gonna have a “best portion of the film”, it’s a good idea to put it at the end. I don’t want to give away the denouement, but suffice it to say the infant camel is only marginally hanging on to its new life by this point and the situation has become desperate. The fact that camels can cry was a revelation to me. Coupled with the somber music (the only soundtrack in the whole film!), the conclusion was quite emotional.
This film has to be one of the best examples I’ve seen of the style of cinematography perfectly matching the story being told. The slow, plodding intro gives us a glipmpse into the family’s pace of life. The bleak, minimal soundtrack and sparse editing match up nicely with the barren landscape upon which the story is told. The shots are often hand-held, giving it a more documentary feel, again befitting the life of the characters’. Indeed, the documentary feel is best exemplified by the fact that on a couple of occasions, non-actors in the background actually look right at the camera (typically a no-no). To give the viewer more of a “this is our family” feel, like so many home-made videos, the camera is, a couple of times, struggling to get the best shot of the action. A good example is during the camel’s birth: while shooting the scene, family members run right in front of the camera and the cinematographer is forced to dodge and weave around them in an effort to get the footage.
If you do see it, know that the film fades back in. Twice. And you’ll be glad you stayed for those two “footnotes”.
Why not rate the film higher? Well, as I've said, it's a little on the slow side. A little too slow for my liking. And while it is a moving, passionate, story, it is just a smiple story. Not that that's a bad thing, but it does lessen the impact on further viewings.
Monday, February 19, 2007
My Fifty All-Time Favorite Motion Pictures
I love making lists, and one list I always wanted to make was a list of my all-time favorite films. I actually made such a list about 8 years ago, but for some stupid reason I divided the list by short films, animated films, comedies, dramas and silent films. This, plus the fact that my wife and I have watched about 500 motion pictures in the eight years since, has made me realize that I should make a new list.
So I did.
I didn’t show many people the list, because I was afraid of offending some people who may have a stricter conscience. But then I remembered, “the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones” (Ecclesiastes 7:9). What strikes me as funny, anyways, is why someone who is – of feels they will be – offended would continue reading. So here’s the deal, if you are the kind of person who gets offended, then you are, by default, stupid. So stop reading this right now and go do whatever it is stupid people do.
I’m rather happy with my list. I have seen similar lists from other people and many of them seem skewed in a certain way; some lists have only major studio blockbusters, while other lists were are made by people who purposely exclude any popular motion picture. Some are heavily weighted towards drama, as if sci-fi and comedy are not worthy of being highly esteemed. Still other lists contain only movies from the last ten or twenty years.
In creating my list, I made sure not exclude anything simply because of its genre, age or length. Unfortunately, the list is still weighted towards films made during my lifetime, but I attribute that, not to a disdain for older films, but merely to the fact that I’ve seen newer films. I have every reason believe that if I were to see as many films from, say, the 1940s as I’ve seen from the 1990s, then there would be many more films from that decade on the list. As it is, there are multiple films from each decade since the 1940s.
To create the list, I sorted my list of feature length motion pictures I have seen by rank. I rank every motion picture I see on a scale of 0 – 10. On my list of over 1,100 motion pictures, there were only 22 that I assigned a perfect “10”. Those, of course, made the list. I then looked at the pictures I had assigned a “9”, and selected my favorites from those. I then looked at my list of short films I have seen, and selected my favorites from that list. This gave me a list of 63 pictures. I then had the difficult task of paring the list down to 50. The thirteen motion pictures that got chopped are (alphabetically): The Day the Earth Stood Still, Dumbo, Ed Wood, East of Eden, Falling Down, Gandhi, Monsters, Inc., The Ox-box Incident, Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, Roger and Me, The Shawshank Redemption, Superman (parts I and II), and Top Secret. Sorry, guys, you’re all excellent films in my opinion, but you just didn’t hold up against 50 others…
Oh – and one other thing, I took some liberties in lumping together series films. If my list contained multiple motion pictures from the same series, I listed them as one single entry. If I thought the series didn’t hold up well enough, then I just listed the film(s) from the series that were worthy. Thus, my list contains the X-Men trilogy as a single entry, but it contains only the original Back to the Future picture.
Over the next month or so, I’ll periodically make posts here discussing my fifty all-time favorite motion pictures. I’m gonna go in reverse order, starting at number fifty. I would love any comments regarding why you would or would not put these films on a similar (albeit hypothetical) list of your own.
So I did.
I didn’t show many people the list, because I was afraid of offending some people who may have a stricter conscience. But then I remembered, “the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones” (Ecclesiastes 7:9). What strikes me as funny, anyways, is why someone who is – of feels they will be – offended would continue reading. So here’s the deal, if you are the kind of person who gets offended, then you are, by default, stupid. So stop reading this right now and go do whatever it is stupid people do.
I’m rather happy with my list. I have seen similar lists from other people and many of them seem skewed in a certain way; some lists have only major studio blockbusters, while other lists were are made by people who purposely exclude any popular motion picture. Some are heavily weighted towards drama, as if sci-fi and comedy are not worthy of being highly esteemed. Still other lists contain only movies from the last ten or twenty years.
In creating my list, I made sure not exclude anything simply because of its genre, age or length. Unfortunately, the list is still weighted towards films made during my lifetime, but I attribute that, not to a disdain for older films, but merely to the fact that I’ve seen newer films. I have every reason believe that if I were to see as many films from, say, the 1940s as I’ve seen from the 1990s, then there would be many more films from that decade on the list. As it is, there are multiple films from each decade since the 1940s.
To create the list, I sorted my list of feature length motion pictures I have seen by rank. I rank every motion picture I see on a scale of 0 – 10. On my list of over 1,100 motion pictures, there were only 22 that I assigned a perfect “10”. Those, of course, made the list. I then looked at the pictures I had assigned a “9”, and selected my favorites from those. I then looked at my list of short films I have seen, and selected my favorites from that list. This gave me a list of 63 pictures. I then had the difficult task of paring the list down to 50. The thirteen motion pictures that got chopped are (alphabetically): The Day the Earth Stood Still, Dumbo, Ed Wood, East of Eden, Falling Down, Gandhi, Monsters, Inc., The Ox-box Incident, Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, Roger and Me, The Shawshank Redemption, Superman (parts I and II), and Top Secret. Sorry, guys, you’re all excellent films in my opinion, but you just didn’t hold up against 50 others…
Oh – and one other thing, I took some liberties in lumping together series films. If my list contained multiple motion pictures from the same series, I listed them as one single entry. If I thought the series didn’t hold up well enough, then I just listed the film(s) from the series that were worthy. Thus, my list contains the X-Men trilogy as a single entry, but it contains only the original Back to the Future picture.
Over the next month or so, I’ll periodically make posts here discussing my fifty all-time favorite motion pictures. I’m gonna go in reverse order, starting at number fifty. I would love any comments regarding why you would or would not put these films on a similar (albeit hypothetical) list of your own.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Science Fair
Don’t let the title mislead you, it doesn’t mean that I’m am fair judge of science; it means that I was a judge at science fair. I was such a judge on Thursday, January 18th at the Hopkins High School.
Three people judged each science project: two adults “in the industry” and one senior in an advanced science class. It appeared as though every single freshman had to participate, so the quality of each project varied greatly. I signed up to judge the students’ projects in the astronomy/physics division. The coordinator gave each judge around a dozen sheets of paper. Each sheet had a project number on it, telling us who to go judge, and a ‘checklist’ of about twenty items that we would judge the project on. Some of the items on the checklist were creativity, originality, appearance, clarity and accuracy.
After grabbing some of the free food available, I set off to go judge the projects. Each project was displayed on a cardboard triptych and students waited by their project until a judge came by. When I located the first project I needed to judge, there was a girl waiting for me, sitting on the table. When she saw me coming, she jumped up and shook my hand and introduced herself. Get this: she made a hoverboard. I had absolutely no idea how to make a hoverboard, or even what exactly a hoverboard is, but she was more than willing to explain it to me in a prepared spiel. Turns out, she was trying to find out what surface gave the hoverboard the best lift: grass or concrete. I was very impressed. While reading the info on her board, at one point she said to me: “You’re making me nervous.” When I asked he why, she said it was because I wasn’t saying anything. “I’m busy reading your stuff”, I told her. It’s funny to think that I was intimidating to someone.
I also got to judge a project involving the testing of fishing lines (most lines don’t hold up as well as they say they do), the best room for good guitar acoustics, how fast pop-corn dissolves, the best angle to launch an arrow, and what flooring provides the best basketball bounce.
The only other project that impressed me as much as the hoverboard was one involving paint balls. Although not as original as the hoverboard idea, the kid made up for it in thoroughness. He had attached a paintball gun to a table, and then received permission from the city to fire the gun in a local park. He ran a line straight out from the gun some 200 yards, then fired eight different name brands of paint ball ten times each and measured how far they deviated from the line. The goal was to see which brand strayed the least from the line, and, by dividing the distance skewed by the price per ball; he calculated which brands were the best for one’s money. His charts, graphs and diagrams were very thorough and eye-catching. It was very cool.
Next month I get to judge a regional science fair. It will feature the winners of all the school-level contests from all over the metro area.
Three people judged each science project: two adults “in the industry” and one senior in an advanced science class. It appeared as though every single freshman had to participate, so the quality of each project varied greatly. I signed up to judge the students’ projects in the astronomy/physics division. The coordinator gave each judge around a dozen sheets of paper. Each sheet had a project number on it, telling us who to go judge, and a ‘checklist’ of about twenty items that we would judge the project on. Some of the items on the checklist were creativity, originality, appearance, clarity and accuracy.
After grabbing some of the free food available, I set off to go judge the projects. Each project was displayed on a cardboard triptych and students waited by their project until a judge came by. When I located the first project I needed to judge, there was a girl waiting for me, sitting on the table. When she saw me coming, she jumped up and shook my hand and introduced herself. Get this: she made a hoverboard. I had absolutely no idea how to make a hoverboard, or even what exactly a hoverboard is, but she was more than willing to explain it to me in a prepared spiel. Turns out, she was trying to find out what surface gave the hoverboard the best lift: grass or concrete. I was very impressed. While reading the info on her board, at one point she said to me: “You’re making me nervous.” When I asked he why, she said it was because I wasn’t saying anything. “I’m busy reading your stuff”, I told her. It’s funny to think that I was intimidating to someone.
I also got to judge a project involving the testing of fishing lines (most lines don’t hold up as well as they say they do), the best room for good guitar acoustics, how fast pop-corn dissolves, the best angle to launch an arrow, and what flooring provides the best basketball bounce.
The only other project that impressed me as much as the hoverboard was one involving paint balls. Although not as original as the hoverboard idea, the kid made up for it in thoroughness. He had attached a paintball gun to a table, and then received permission from the city to fire the gun in a local park. He ran a line straight out from the gun some 200 yards, then fired eight different name brands of paint ball ten times each and measured how far they deviated from the line. The goal was to see which brand strayed the least from the line, and, by dividing the distance skewed by the price per ball; he calculated which brands were the best for one’s money. His charts, graphs and diagrams were very thorough and eye-catching. It was very cool.
Next month I get to judge a regional science fair. It will feature the winners of all the school-level contests from all over the metro area.
Housekeeping
So, I'm just gonna take this opportunity to talk about a few odds and ends.
First off, the wife and I are once again participating in the Humane Society for Companion Animal's annual "Fur Bowl" to help raise money for unwanted animals. So, if you'd like to contribute to the cause, send us some money. Make checks payable to HSCA. And don't forget to write it off on your taxes next month.
Second, I stated about a year ago that I was going to keep track of two things this year: the number of times I ate at fast food and the number of perfect-weather days that there were here in Minnesota. Click here to see my initial statement on this issue and my criteria for each item. I know it's not the end of the year yet, but I don't think either list will be amended in the last 8 days of the year.
On the topic of fast food: I am sorry to report that I gave up keeping track of this around mid-may, so I lack a complete list. But I believe the answer to the question "how much fast food do I eat" is this: TOO MUCH. In my defense, I only once ate at one of the really crappy dives (Taco Bell) and I never ate at Burger King, McDonald's, Hardee's, Dairy Queen or those kinds of places. Nevertheless, by May 8th of this year, I had eaten at 24 fast food restaurants, including Pizza Hut (once), LeAnn Chin (3x), Subway (2x) and Panera (4x). So a goal for next year is...not so much with the fast food, James.
On the topic of prefect weather days: Of the 365 days in this year, I spent 348 in the Twin Cities. Of those 348, my opinion is that there were THREE days of perfect weather (again, click above to read the criteria). Those three days were April 28, August 30 and October 1. Since the temperature had to be high enough to not require any coat, this ruled out about 6 months of the year. June, July and August are much too hot, and the other days either had wind or precipitation or were completely overcast. I know it sounds weird to say that October 1 was a perfect weather day, but it was true! I spent that day at an amusement park and wore shorts! I even went on a you-will-get-wet ride and didn't freeze! The sun was out, there was very little wind and all in all I have nothing to complain about. Goal for 2007: FOUR perfect weather days. Come on Minnesota, you can do it!
First off, the wife and I are once again participating in the Humane Society for Companion Animal's annual "Fur Bowl" to help raise money for unwanted animals. So, if you'd like to contribute to the cause, send us some money. Make checks payable to HSCA. And don't forget to write it off on your taxes next month.
Second, I stated about a year ago that I was going to keep track of two things this year: the number of times I ate at fast food and the number of perfect-weather days that there were here in Minnesota. Click here to see my initial statement on this issue and my criteria for each item. I know it's not the end of the year yet, but I don't think either list will be amended in the last 8 days of the year.
On the topic of fast food: I am sorry to report that I gave up keeping track of this around mid-may, so I lack a complete list. But I believe the answer to the question "how much fast food do I eat" is this: TOO MUCH. In my defense, I only once ate at one of the really crappy dives (Taco Bell) and I never ate at Burger King, McDonald's, Hardee's, Dairy Queen or those kinds of places. Nevertheless, by May 8th of this year, I had eaten at 24 fast food restaurants, including Pizza Hut (once), LeAnn Chin (3x), Subway (2x) and Panera (4x). So a goal for next year is...not so much with the fast food, James.
On the topic of prefect weather days: Of the 365 days in this year, I spent 348 in the Twin Cities. Of those 348, my opinion is that there were THREE days of perfect weather (again, click above to read the criteria). Those three days were April 28, August 30 and October 1. Since the temperature had to be high enough to not require any coat, this ruled out about 6 months of the year. June, July and August are much too hot, and the other days either had wind or precipitation or were completely overcast. I know it sounds weird to say that October 1 was a perfect weather day, but it was true! I spent that day at an amusement park and wore shorts! I even went on a you-will-get-wet ride and didn't freeze! The sun was out, there was very little wind and all in all I have nothing to complain about. Goal for 2007: FOUR perfect weather days. Come on Minnesota, you can do it!
The Charts
One of the many things I keep track of is the current number one song. I started tracking this in 1991, way back when I had to look up the information in an actual paper version of Billboard magazine. Now, of course, I just check it out on line.
Some of my friends have commented that the songs that reach number one are generally lousy songs and the whole idea of tracking art based on popularity is a terrible thing to do. To an extent, I agree. But it is fun to see how songs that I like are doing on the charts, and, every once in a while, a song that I like actually ascends to the top spot. I think it also gives a nice snapshot of the music industry and pop culture at that particular time.
And that’s why I wanted to mention an interesting development in the Billboard charts and what it says about radio stations.
In the beginning, Billboard tracked songs based on their sales: both to individual customers and to juke box designers. Soon, the juke box portion was dropped and Billboard stuck exclusively with record store sales. For the most part, this was a good idea. But two problems developed. First, some songs became very popular but were never released as singles. Starting in the late 1960s, music acts would sometimes not release songs as singles, in an effort to keep the album “together”. Thus, songs like the Beatles’ “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”, Derek and the Dominoes “Layla” and Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” – which are among the most popular songs of that era – never appeared anywhere on Billboard’s 100 because they were never released as singles. The second problem was that, as CDs became more popular, the price of singles was no longer that much lower than a whole album. That is, people who liked only one or two songs of an album just figured they might as well buy the whole album since it was only a couple dollars more than the individual songs. Essentially, the idea of a single – which used to dominate record store – began to die.
In an effort to keep the charts relevant, Billboard decided to begin tracking radio airplay of songs. As singles became less and less popular, more weight was given to airplay than to actual purchases.
You probably know where this is heading. Radio stations, regardless of what they tell us, have no variety. They play a song over and over and over and over again. When they find an ‘artist’ they like, they play that ‘artist's’ songs over and over again. Nowhere is this more evident than on the Billboard charts. First, take a look at how many songs went to #1 each year from 1984 and 1991:
Year...Number of #1 Hits
1984...19
1985...26
1986...30
1987...29
1988...32
1989...32
1990...25
1991...27
Look at that! Every year, there were at least 19 songs that became #1 hits, and in a few years there were more than thirty. Not one of these songs maintained the top spot for more than seven weeks. Some of these songs were hip-hop, others were rock, others were country. Once airplay began to be the deciding factor instead of the more democratic sales, look what happened:
Year...Number of #1 Hits
1992...12
1993...10
1994...9
1995...11
1996...8
1997...9
1998...15
1999...14
Starting in 1992 (the year airplay began to be factored in), there were only a handful of songs that went to number one each year; with some years having less than 10 new number one songs. Every year there were songs that stayed at #1 for more than 8 weeks, with some songs staying at #1 for 12, 14 and even 16 weeks (that’s four months without turnover)! Worse still, almost all of these songs were hip-hop/rap – often with an ‘artist’ replacing themselves in the top spot. For example, 4 of the 11 songs that went to #1 in 2004 were by Usher. And after an Outkast song spent 9 weeks at #1 in 2003, they were finally replaced by...Outkast . The variety had ceased to exist.
Needless to say, I was bummed. Checking out the charts each year was getting boring. Week after week, I would check the chart and rarely see a change. Would it ever get better?
Indeed, it did. Thanks to iTunes, the idea of a ‘single’ once again became popular. Suddenly, people were once again buying only single songs. By 2005, Billboard took notice and decided it was time to factor digital sales into the equation. Finally, the popularity of a song would once again be dominated – not by a handful of radio execs – but by the masses.
Was there a change? Yep. In 2006 there have been 18 songs that have gone to #1. That’s more #1s than any year since 1991 (and there are still two weeks left of the year - so there could still be more #1s). No song this year has spent more than seven weeks in the top spot. For the first time in years, I have actually heard of some of these songs and their performers.
So, here’s a tip of the cap to Billboard for redefining popularity to coincide with the times. Also, check out this page. I wrote a brief email to Fred Bronson (a column writer for Billboard’s charts) and he posted it, along with his response, on this page.
Some of my friends have commented that the songs that reach number one are generally lousy songs and the whole idea of tracking art based on popularity is a terrible thing to do. To an extent, I agree. But it is fun to see how songs that I like are doing on the charts, and, every once in a while, a song that I like actually ascends to the top spot. I think it also gives a nice snapshot of the music industry and pop culture at that particular time.
And that’s why I wanted to mention an interesting development in the Billboard charts and what it says about radio stations.
In the beginning, Billboard tracked songs based on their sales: both to individual customers and to juke box designers. Soon, the juke box portion was dropped and Billboard stuck exclusively with record store sales. For the most part, this was a good idea. But two problems developed. First, some songs became very popular but were never released as singles. Starting in the late 1960s, music acts would sometimes not release songs as singles, in an effort to keep the album “together”. Thus, songs like the Beatles’ “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”, Derek and the Dominoes “Layla” and Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” – which are among the most popular songs of that era – never appeared anywhere on Billboard’s 100 because they were never released as singles. The second problem was that, as CDs became more popular, the price of singles was no longer that much lower than a whole album. That is, people who liked only one or two songs of an album just figured they might as well buy the whole album since it was only a couple dollars more than the individual songs. Essentially, the idea of a single – which used to dominate record store – began to die.
In an effort to keep the charts relevant, Billboard decided to begin tracking radio airplay of songs. As singles became less and less popular, more weight was given to airplay than to actual purchases.
You probably know where this is heading. Radio stations, regardless of what they tell us, have no variety. They play a song over and over and over and over again. When they find an ‘artist’ they like, they play that ‘artist's’ songs over and over again. Nowhere is this more evident than on the Billboard charts. First, take a look at how many songs went to #1 each year from 1984 and 1991:
Year...Number of #1 Hits
1984...19
1985...26
1986...30
1987...29
1988...32
1989...32
1990...25
1991...27
Look at that! Every year, there were at least 19 songs that became #1 hits, and in a few years there were more than thirty. Not one of these songs maintained the top spot for more than seven weeks. Some of these songs were hip-hop, others were rock, others were country. Once airplay began to be the deciding factor instead of the more democratic sales, look what happened:
Year...Number of #1 Hits
1992...12
1993...10
1994...9
1995...11
1996...8
1997...9
1998...15
1999...14
Starting in 1992 (the year airplay began to be factored in), there were only a handful of songs that went to number one each year; with some years having less than 10 new number one songs. Every year there were songs that stayed at #1 for more than 8 weeks, with some songs staying at #1 for 12, 14 and even 16 weeks (that’s four months without turnover)! Worse still, almost all of these songs were hip-hop/rap – often with an ‘artist’ replacing themselves in the top spot. For example, 4 of the 11 songs that went to #1 in 2004 were by Usher. And after an Outkast song spent 9 weeks at #1 in 2003, they were finally replaced by...Outkast . The variety had ceased to exist.
Needless to say, I was bummed. Checking out the charts each year was getting boring. Week after week, I would check the chart and rarely see a change. Would it ever get better?
Indeed, it did. Thanks to iTunes, the idea of a ‘single’ once again became popular. Suddenly, people were once again buying only single songs. By 2005, Billboard took notice and decided it was time to factor digital sales into the equation. Finally, the popularity of a song would once again be dominated – not by a handful of radio execs – but by the masses.
Was there a change? Yep. In 2006 there have been 18 songs that have gone to #1. That’s more #1s than any year since 1991 (and there are still two weeks left of the year - so there could still be more #1s). No song this year has spent more than seven weeks in the top spot. For the first time in years, I have actually heard of some of these songs and their performers.
So, here’s a tip of the cap to Billboard for redefining popularity to coincide with the times. Also, check out this page. I wrote a brief email to Fred Bronson (a column writer for Billboard’s charts) and he posted it, along with his response, on this page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)