Showing posts with label true artists are still just pieces of meat like you or I. Show all posts
Showing posts with label true artists are still just pieces of meat like you or I. Show all posts

Sunday, February 2, 2020

The 2010s: Well, goodbye! Have fun on the other side of this door


Okay, yes: I'm not really done with the 2010s yet.  But, you know, I basically am, and am very ready to dispense with a little (actually, characteristically overlong) top ten for that departed decade.  Now, I should still have such a list for 2019, too.  And that's fair enough, considering there aren't any making it onto the list below.  Anyway, while it might seem strange—though I think you'll agree it makes sense—I'm a lot more comfortable with my top ten of the 2010s than I am just my top ten of this past year.  They've been a fairly stable bunch, particularly the top five.  I could have made the same list four weeks ago when it was perfectly of the moment.  I think I stuck it out in the hopes that something would muscle its way to the top of the heap; and, in defense of 2019, it made its most valiant efforts in its final weeks.  Perhaps the year's single strongest gesture only arrived on American shores shortly after it died.  But even if there were some close calls, there was nothing that truly changed my mind, and the odds against any of the films still remaining on my 2019 pile turning out to actually be mind-blowing masterpieces are so low I think it's pretty safe to disregard 'em.

So I should note the honorable mentions (which do include a couple of 2019 films).  They're basically an unsorted nos. 11-30, and some of them could have been higher, and in some cases it would be better for my credibility if they had been.  (Then again, in some cases, it would be even worse.)  In any event, they are truly wonderful films, and I celebrate them each and every one.  It's possible you may be able to guess from this when over the past six years I think my reviews rose to the level of "not terrible."  (If not, well, it was in 2015.)

From 2010: Rupert Wyatt's The Rise of the Planet of the Apes
2011: Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life; Brad Bird's Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol
2012: Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained; Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom; Sam Fell & Chris Butler's ParaNorman; Scott Derrickson's Sinister
2013: Baz Luhrman's The Great Gatsby; Spike Jonze's Her; Michael Bay's Pain & Gain
2014: Eugenio Mira's (and Damien Chazelle's) Grand Piano; Chris Lord & Phil Miller's The LEGO Movie
2015: George Miller's Mad Max: Fury Road (oh, I know, I know)
2016: Martin Scorsese's Silence
2017: Denis Villeneuve's Blade Runner 2049
2018: Steven Caple Jr.'s Creed II; Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey & Rodney Rothman's Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse
2019: Terrence Malick's A Hidden Life; Makoto Shinkai's Weathering With You

Now here's where I say something that should never have to spoken aloud.  As always, "the best" only means "my personal favorite."  What the hell else could it mean?  There is no such thing as objectivity in the evaluation of art: any argument that "best" and "favorite" are distinct categories is supremely arrogant, and any expression of the notion in practical terms is almost by necessity dishonest.  If being honest means I also have to look a little stupid, that's certainly nothing new.  If it also means that my top ten list, or anybody's top ten list, is only mental masturbation—well, of course it would be.  And while everybody likes to masturbate, and some people like to watch, that doesn't mean anybody involved should pretend it's dignified.  So let's begin.

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Darren Aronofsky, part IX: Darren Aronofsky

I. π (1998) II. Requiem For a Dream (2000) III. Below* (2002) IV. The Fountain (2006) V. The Wrestler (2008) VI. Black Swan (2010) VII. Noah (2014) VIII. mother! (2017)

For a brief little while, Darren Aronofsky was something close to the predominant force in the indie scene.  Exploding out of nowhere in 1998—"nowhere" being only imperfectly synonymous, I suppose, with "Harvard University" and "the American Film Institute"—the 28 year old came to Sundance with Pi and got himself a shiny Best Director award.  Two years later, Requiem For a Dream made an even more enormous impression (almost two decades on, I can't remember which I saw first, though I would bet it was Requiem), and, with those two films under his belt, Aronofsky had found the theme that would power the larger part of his career.  Amongst his fellows, he was one of the few true-born artists, in the deep sense of the term; and, as an artist, he had an obsession.  That obsession, of course, was obsession.

In turn, he would look at different kinds of obsession and always—every time—find the same thing: the mathematician, searching for the master equation of the universe, and finding destruction; the addict, searching for happiness, and finding misery; the scientist, searching for immortality, and finding death; the wrestler, searching for a family, and finding strangers.  Aronofsky reckoned with the hunger and beauty of obsession, but only on his fifth try, did he permit his obsessive the mercy of a happy end to her struggles, with the ballerina, searching for perfection, and finding perfection—though, once again, solely in annihilation.  (I guess it's true what they say about happy endings: Black Swan remains Aronofsky's most profitable effort by an egregious margin.)

Those five films, implicitly or (more often) explicitly, were about humans striving for knowledge and grace, and, therefore, to either join God in His Heaven, or to have a taste of His power and glory.  It's possible that the only filmmaker in the English language who might be more in awe of creation's mystery, and (unless I'm mistaken) the only other English-language filmmaker able to communicate that awe with anything like the same level of artistry, is that pantheist pseudo-Christian, Terrence Malick.

The difference is that Aronofsky—raised Jewish, and now an atheist, whom I suspect wishes he were still religious—strives toward the divine with the promethean arrogance of a desperate adept (or angry apostate) rather than with Malick's own humble, sincere yearning; this is the biggest contrast between their films.  (Well, that, and the fact that Aronofsky movies do always have characters, and usually have plots.)  In a sense, Aronofsky's first five films are about the human need to pretend there's a meaning to any of this nonsense.  It's not always God-qua-God in Pi or Requiem or The Fountain or The Wrestler or Black Swan; but, you know, it might as well be.

So, obviously, it was only ever a matter of time before Aronofsky started making movies that were literally about God.  The results of his full-force dive into atheist mysticism have been mixed.  Noah, Aronofsky's biggest-budget endeavor (and somehow weird in its gestures toward making the Bible "normal," in the context of a blockbuster actioner), backs off on all the hard, impossible questions it raises, satisfying itself instead with one hell of a too-pat answer.  Those results are less-mixed, at least, in mother!, Aronofsky's most anti-populist endeavor, and which is just stuffed to bursting with big ideas that still don't entirely go together well.  Mother!, you understand, co-stars God—though primarily as a stand-in, once again, for human obsession.  But I guess that's almost always been the case whenever "God" has been involved; and Aronofsky's seven directorial efforts are, taken as a whole, one man's attempt to reconcile humanity to the fire that drives us and, if we are not careful, will burn us alive.  Maybe there isn't a God, but Aronofsky's pretty sure there's nonetheless Judgment.

But as his themes stayed at least equally grandiose, Aronofsky's own fire as an artist has perhaps dimmed somewhat.  The roaring aesthetic of his early days was driven by the best collaborators any director could ask for: by thunderously-meaningful editing, particularly when Jay Rabinowitz was doing the cutting; by musical accompaniment that could rival an opera's, courtesy Aronofsky's favorite composer, Clint Mansell; and by the experimentalist, intense, and often-drop-dead-gorgeous cinematography of Aronofsky's usual DP, Matthew Libatique.

It all came to a head with The Fountain, his third film and, by my lights, his unrivaled peak as a director.  Aronofsky's greatest work combined the multi-layered elegance of an accomplished master with the sheer urgency of the neophyte who'd thrown Pi together just eight years before.  But The Fountain, as you know, failed with both critics and audiences—the two most detestable factions in all of cinema, if you asked me.

And so the masterpiece was to be succeeded by The Wrestler (shot by Maryse Alberti), a very good film that also has the distinction of being its director's worst; and, with it, Aronofsky settled into a far more comfortable (and far less exciting) rut.  His films had always been deeply caged within the subjectivity of their heroes, but from The Wrestler onward this was accomplished much more quietly.  (Incidentally, it's really strange that those rad Snorricam moving close-ups ever became synonymous with the filmmaker, isn't it?  After all, he only used 'em in his first two flicks, and that was so long ago.)

Aronofsky tends to conserve his energy for the key sequences now—the sublime retelling of Creation and the Fall in Noah; the apotheosis of Nina Sayers in Black Swan; the stroke-inducing cinematic assault of mother!'s final twenty minutes—and it makes for movies that are simply less interesting just to look at than they used to be, even though they may be, in a technical sense, more rigorous.  Nevertheless, don't let me fool you!  Aronofsky's films still have more imagination and verve within them than most directors ever demonstrate.  And if Aronofsky never makes another Fountain, that's not exactly a tragedy; there are maybe a dozen movies in the whole world better than The Fountain anyway.  On the other hand, if twenty years from now, we're still watching Libatique follow the back of an actor's head around... well, I'm sure it'll still be worth watching, even if I am equally sure I'll be bitching about it, too.

Oh, let's not end it on a sour note.  Aronofsky is one of the youngest filmmakers we've taken a look at; only 48, surely he'll be following his own path and making weird shit for many years to come.  Needless to say, we'll be looking forward to seeing whatever it is he comes up with next.  But, for now, let's look back one more time at what he's done so far—and rank those fuckers, because nothing says "art" like "cold, merciless hierarchy."

7a. BELOW* (5/10)
7. THE WRESTLER (7/10)
6. NOAH (7/10)
5. MOTHER! (8/10)
4. π (10/10)
3. BLACK SWAN (10/10)
1. THE FOUNTAIN (10/10)

Entries marked with one asterisk (*) indicate films Aronofsky helped write, but did not direct

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Just a little housekeeping appendix

Existing to provide a home for the filmmaker's retrospectives I did before switching to my current, superior format, as well as for any less-than-complete "selected works" collections I've done.

DAVID FINCHER (ranked)
10. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (1/10)
9.  Alien 3 (5/10)
8.  Panic Room (5/10)
7.  The Game (5/10)
6.  The Social Network (9/10)
5.  Zodiac (10/10)
4.  Fight Club  (10/10)
3.  Seven (10/10)
2.  The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (10/10)
1.  Gone Girl (10/10) (spoiler review)

Bonus:
Gone Girl (non-spoiler review)

CHRISTOPHER NOLAN (ranked)
10.  Batman Begins (5/10)
9.  Following (6/10)
8.  The Dark Knight Rises (6/10)
7.  Interstellar (6/10)
6.  The Dark Knight (8/10)
5.  Memento (8/10)
4.  Inception (9/10)
3.  Insomnia (10/10)
2.  Dunkirk (10/10)
1.  The Prestige (10/10)

WILLIAM ALLAND (selected works)
It Came From Outer Space (8/10)
The Creature From the Black Lagoon (8/10)
Revenge of the Creature (3/10)
This Island Earth (5/10)
The Creature Walks Among Us (5.01/10)
Tarantula (7/10)
The Deadly Mantis (4/10)
The Land Unknown (3/10)
The Space Children (4/10)
The Colossus of New York (7/10)

JACK ARNOLD (selected works)
It Came From Outer Space (8/10)
The Glass Web (8/10)
The Creature From the Black Lagoon (8/10)
Revenge of the Creature (3/10)
This Island Earth (5/10)
Tarantula (7/10)
The Monolith Monsters (7/10)
The Incredible Shrinking Man (10/10)
The Space Children (4/10)
Monster On the Campus (7/10)
No Name on the Bullet (9/10)

DOUGLAS FAIRBANKS (selected works)
The Mark of Zorro (7/10)
The Three Musketeers (4/10)
Robin Hood (4/10)
The Thief of Bagdad (10/10)
Don Q, Son of Zorro (6/10)
The Black Pirate (9/10)
The Gaucho (5/10)

MASAKI KOBAYASHI (selected works)
"My Sons' Youth" (6/10)
Sincere Heart (7/10)
Samurai Rebellion (9/10)

GEORGE PAL (selected works)
Destination Moon (7/10)
When Worlds Collide (6/10)
The War of the Worlds (6/10)
The Naked Jungle (7/10)
Conquest of Space (4/10)
The Time Machine (8/10)

RIDLEY SCOTT (selected works)
Alien (9/10)
Blade Runner (10/10)
Legend (8/10)
Kingdom of Heaven (8/10)
Prometheus (7/10)
The Counselor (9/10)
The Martian (7/10)
Alien: Covenant (5/10)
Blade Runner 2049 (10/10)

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Joe Dante, part XVII: Joe Dante


Well, that took longer than I expected.  I can't say that I have an excuse.  But here, a solid fourteen months later, we stand at the end, and we at last have the answer to the question we asked at the beginning, "Whatever happened to old Joe Dante?"

What's struck me as we've wound down our director's career (and forgive me if I repeat myself a little here) is the symmetry of his work: in broad strokes, you can say that Dante came from nothing, and went back to nothing, but in between, man, did we have a good time.

I'll admit, this is perhaps overly pessimistic: it's not over yet.  For one thing, the man's teamed up again with that erstwhile self-styled "master of horror" Mick Garris, which worked out so well previously (when the show was actually called Masters of Horror) that I wondered why I was even bothering with any of Dante's TV crap at all.  But you never know—their new anthology film, due next year and called Nightmare Cinema, may well be the Twilight Zone: The Movie of its time.  Who can say before we see it?  That might put Dante's eternal return a little out of order, but that would be okay by me.  Of course, that's not all Dante still has up his sleeves: there is, in "pre-production," his biopic of Roger Corman, The Man With Kaleidoscope Eyes, and something called Labirintus, about a bunch of guys getting lost in a maze underneath a former Soviet research facility and if it were just about anybody else attached to the project, I'd have lost consciousness already.  But Dante's made a movie about toy army men that was pretty damn good—Dante's a man who made a sequel to freaking Space Jam that was actually pretty great, and a movie about a hole, called The Hole, that was even better—so, if it ever does see the light of day, I promise, I'll be there.

And yet in the reality we live in now, we've seen our beloved filmmaker fall pretty hard.  I was talking about symmetry—Dante started his career as a near-nobody, editing together a montage of nonsense called Movie Orgy, and, at this point in his regression, I'm half-surprised Dante hasn't started putting together clip shows again.  What's that?  Trailers From Hell, you say?  Oh—right.

But that's not our concern here; our concern is with Dante's feature output.  Dante made his bones, you know, with a little picture called Gremlins, which he built on the back of his friendship with Steven Spielberg; and, from there, we can say his golden age began.  It's a lot harder to say when it ended: was it with his very next film, Explorers, Dante's fuck-you to transcendent sci-fi, a film of both surprising, subtle power and sincerity, and one of only two Dante joints I'd even consider calling a masterpiece—albeit also something of a mild box office bomb?  (Turned out the kids didn't like it when you made E.T. again, but this time shrill and weird and satirical.)  Or was the end Innerspace, whereupon Dante's dumb jokey predilections got him into trouble and saw him go to war with the sensawunda that formed the basis of the material?  Or was it The 'Burbs, one of the Reagan Era's sterling satires, with an ending altogether too-hard-to-parse?  Or was it Gremlins 2: The New Batch, Dante's fuck-you to sequels—and, honestly, Dante's fuck-you to Gremlins itself—that he apparently made just to see how gloriously Dante a movie could get, without his backers pulling his funding in light of the obvious fact that it was never, ever going to provide a return on their investment?

This has all been a rhetorical exercise: as far as our man's commercial golden age goes, that pretty much ended the very day Gremlins itself left theaters.  But Gremlins—while I don't have nearly the time for it that most folks of my generation do—was the kind of oddball megahit you can base a whole idiosyncratic career on, and between that and the occasional modest moneymaker, Dante kept his steam into the 21st century.  Dante's golden age never really ended, even after the studios finally kicked him to the curb in the wake of the too-huge-to-ignore bellyflop of Looney Tunes: Back in Action.  Indeed, unlike a whole host of other filmmakers to rise out of the cesspool of the 70s (Carpenter, De Palma, Coppola, Zemeckis—some say even Spielberg himself), this director just kept making his little classics and semi-classics, right up until almost the present day, even when his budgets diminished in the face of an audience that had diminished in turn and it started to take herculean efforts to get any movie out at all.

It was only with Dante's penultimate film, Burying the Ex, recapitulating in some ways his very first, Hollywood Boulevard—representing, then, his return to the sexist claptrap of a bygone age, but made in 2014, so it feels patently offensive and not even close to accidental—that the director truly stumbled back into the garbage pile of his origins, the blighted Cormanica of Boulevard and Piranha.  (I fear I will never understand people's fondness for Piranha.  It's crap, guys.)  Then again, perhaps this cycle repeats: Twilight Zone led to Gremlins, Gremlins led to greater things; can Nightmare Cinema lead Dante's way again?  I guess we'll see, although, as with all 70s filmmakers, we have to be realistic.  So let's admit it: Dante won't be around forever.  I've never liked memorials.  Let's give the great their proper due, while they're still here to enjoy it.  And three cheers for Dick Miller while we're at it.  That's guy's a treasure.

Dante did find his footing eventually with Corman on his last try; while the evidence of Boulevard and Ex suggests that it's been absolutely for the best that almost all of his movies have not been about women, Dante, with his then-partner Alan Arkush, did find one woman worth telling a great story about.  And Rock 'n' Roll High School is a sweet, wonderful affair, chock full of bitchin' Ramones tunes and the most completely-adorable punk attitude you'll find in any film of its era, maybe any era.  It proved what wasn't obvious from Boulevard, but would become obvious as the decades rolled over: Dante's thing was comedy.  Sometimes—often—that comedy was dark and spiky, and tinged with horror.  Sometimes it was just one pie in the face after another.  But he was good at both.  He was good at the kid's adventure, too: I'm sure it'll always be me alone saying it, but Explorers is the grandest of that lot, a perfect adventure combined with a perfect takedown of what the word "adventure" even means.  It doesn't get better than that.  Even so, nostalgia for childhood would return again and again to Dante's filmography, as would the nostalgia for the sci-fi schlock that Dante himself loved as a kid, and both would serve him well: Matinee is not Dante's most critically-beloved film for no reason.  Meanwhile, The Hole is, in its small but essential way, maybe the most approachable movie about domestic violence ever made, about and for kids, but never once condescending to them.  Well, before we get too into the weeds—too late, I know—let's just say one more thing: Gremlins 2 is funny as hell, ain't it?  Often hilarious, sometimes mean, always cynical, and never, ever grim, Joe Dante may not make anybody's list of the all-time masters.  But I don't think he'd want to be on your snobby, stupid list, anyway.  He is, and he shall always be, a filmmaker worth celebrating.  He won't be forgotten as long as the art endures.

So let's take a gander at a list we can sink our teeth into—and I really can't tell you just how happy it makes my blackened contrarian heart to have made a Joe Dante retrospective wherein Gremlins only scarcely makes it into the top ten.  You fucking nerds.

14a. THE SCREWFLY SOLUTION*** (2/10)
14. HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD* (2/10)
13. BURYING THE EX (2/10)
12a. HOMECOMING*** (4/10)
12. PIRANHA (5/10)
11a. AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON** (6/10)
11. THE HOWLING (7/10)
10. GREMLINS (7/10)
9. INNERSPACE (7/10)
8. SMALL SOLDIERS (7/10)
7. MATINEE (8/10)
6. LOONEY TUNES: BACK IN ACTION (8/10)
5a: TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE** (8/10)
5. THE HOLE (8/10)
4. THE 'BURBS (9/10)
3. ROCK 'N' ROLL HIGH SCHOOL* (9/10)
2. GREMLINS 2: THE NEW BATCH (9/10)
1. EXPLORERS (10/10)

General notes:
I am well aware that this list does not capture any of Dante's three TV movies—Runaway Daughters, The Second Civil War, and Warlord: Battle For the Galaxy—or his marginal participation as the director of the "Wraparound" segment in the Trapped Ashes anthology.  But here's the thing: they either weren't on YouTube, or I don't care, or both.  That said, I am also aware that this retrospective skipped over The Phantom, the final form of which Dante had very little to do with beyond his "executive producer" credit; however, in this case, I actually do feel bad about it, because I've never seen the legendarily silly thing, and Dante and Jeffrey Boam's script was apparently used with precious little alteration without anybody noticing it was supposed to be a comedy.  Sadly, I was not able to obtain a copy of The Phantom over the whole year-plus course of this retrospective.  Nevertheless I hold onto hope that one day, we'll be able to circle back.

Other notes:
Entries marked with one asterisk (*) indicate the movies that Dante made in his co-directorial relationship with Allan Arkush, including, especially, his uncredited co-directorial effort on Rock 'n' Roll High School.
Entries marked with two asterisks (**) indicate the anthology films which Dante directed one or more segments of.
Entries marked with three asterisks (***) indicate TV episodes Dante directed.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Steven Spielberg, part infinity: Steven Spielberg

I. Duel (1971) II. Something Evil  (1972) III. Savage (1973) IV. The Sugarland Express (1974) V. Jaws (1975) VI. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) VII. 1941 (1979) VIII. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) IX. Poltergeist** (1982) X. E.T.: The Extraterrestrial (1982) XI. Twilight Zone: The Movie* (1983) XII. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) XIII. The Goonies*** (1985) XIV. The Color Purple (1985) XV. Empire of the Sun (1987) XVI. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) XVII. Always (1989) XVIII. Arachnophobia*** (1990) XIX. Hook (1991) XX. Jurassic Park (1993) XXI. Schindler's List (1993) XXII. The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) XXIII. Amistad (1997) XXIV. Saving Private Ryan (1998) A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001) XXVI. Minority Report (2002) XXVII. Catch Me If You Can (2002) XXVIII. The Terminal (2004) XXIX. War of the Worlds (2005) XXX. Munich (2005) XXXI. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crytstal Skull (2008) XXXII. The Adventures of Tintin (2011) XXXIII. War Horse (2011) XXXIV. Lincoln (2012) XXXV. Bridge of Spies (2015) XXXVI. The BFG (2016) XXXVII. The Post (2017) XXXVIII. Ready Player One (2018)

What more could I say, that I haven't said already?  Steven Spielberg is, as far as I'm concerned, a living god—hell, at least a living demigod.  He started off with perfection (and on TV, no less!) with Duel, and only got better from there.  Forty-five years later, the man can boast of the best body of work of anyone who ever touched a camera, with fully eight straight-up masterpieces, virtually flawless in their construction, standing atop more than a dozen other merely great films.  He's the kind of director that when he releases something that's only good, you're disappointed.  Yeah, he's amazing.  And handsome.  The end.

...Okay, I suppose I could try to unify this retrospective into one easily-digestible essay.  Over the past several months, we've surveyed the evolution of a master: from the peerless purveyor of popular entertainment, who invented the blockbuster with Jaws and co-invented the timeless super-franchise with Indiana Jones, to the serious man who sought to chronicle history, beginning with The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun, and finally arriving in full force with the once-in-a-generation event that was Schindler's List, which maintains its status to this day as the only Holocaust movie that anybody has ever actually wanted to watch.

Spielberg the Entertainer came from an innocent and unfettered place, where instinct combined with rarefied technical skills, and he turned dreams into celluloid with nothing lost in the translation.  It is my contention, and I think you might agree, that the less thoughtful and less mature Spielberg was, the better he was; before he was struck with self-knowledge, his films were purer in their raw spectacle and even rawer emotionalism.  He latched like a lamprey upon his two favorite themes, supernatural wonderment and the breakdown of families, especially the breakdown of relationships between fathers and sons, and virtually every movie he ever made was just one more attempt to solve his own personal issues within a seemingly endless series of mind-blowing fantasies.  The wave crested with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which is still the most perfect distillation of Spielberg's father issues ever made—indeed, maybe the most perfect vehicle for filial emotion ever devised, so that despite the fact that Last Crusade is one of Spielberg's stupidest, most senseless narratives, it is also his most tear-jerking, which, for my purposes, is an easy enough synonym for "profound."  (On that note, could any director have been luckier than Spielberg, when he found his single most important collaborator, composer John Williams, whose ability to dominate human emotions with sound has been equaled only by Spielberg's ability to do it with sight?  I mean, not so much lately, but you know, back in the day, when he was coining iconic themes left and right, like normal folks change their socks.)

But then, something happened: Spielberg realized what he was doing, and self-consciousness seeped into his work.  More often, he toned himself down; or, when he did intend to manipulate your feelings, you could now tell that he was doing it completely and 100% on purpose.  The last time, I think, that Spielberg hit our screens, without a filter, must have been the ending of Schindler's List.  And, yes, Schindler's melodramatic breakdown is what turned a great movie into a perfect one; and don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

Maudlin sentimentality still marks his work.  Only now, it tends to be cut with a whole lot of grown-up cynicism.  A.I. is rightly considered the turning point, and that one is a bleak and unforgiving movie—indeed, its ending is made moderately dysfunctional by Spielberg's apparent unwillingness to own up to just how bleak and unforgiving his story was.  Later, he'd arrive with weepies like The Terminal and War Horse, and they would work—Spielberg's too good for them not to work—but you could see his hand, right there, earnestly trying to poke you right in the fucking eye.

Sometimes, the added thoughtfulness backfired; he's never been a thoughtful filmmaker by nature, and overthinking things (alongside a compulsion to put some kind of emotional satisfaction into everything he made) perhaps led to that idiosyncratic condition, known as the "Spielberg Ending," where things either fall apart as a logical construct, or just keep freaking going, despite the fact that a conclusion was reached forty minutes ago.  For examples of the former, see The Lost World: Jurassic Park, A.I., The Terminal, War of the Worlds, and, according to most commentators, though not yours truly, Saving Private Ryan.  For the latter, see Catch Me If You Can, Lincoln, and even, to some degree, the otherwise bodacious Adventures of Tintin.  (And The BFG is a special case: the ending certainly makes sense, but you'd almost prefer it if it were just plain broken, if only it were also satisfying.)  It all began, however, with The Color Purple—notably the first "Serious Spielberg" film there was, and which marches on long past the point where it needed to have stopped.

But note well that this isn't to dismiss the even more numerous Spielberg movies that end like glittering flawless diamonds: Duel; The Sugarland Express; Jaws; every Indy movie, even the one no one likes, but especially the first three; Close Encounters; E.T.; Empire of the Sun; the aforementioned List; Amistad; SPR; War Horse; Munich.  (In fact, if you want to get technical, Munich has a Spielberg Ending that goes on for like a whole damned hour, and has a potentially-filmbreaking attempt to shoehorn in the director's usual melodramatic fixations, albeit in a very unusual way—sex!—but Munich actually uses its longeurs to say something for once, rather than just indifferently wind down a narrative that the director didn't know how to finish.  And that's one reason why Munich is so damned great.)  Oh, but lest we forget: if you wanted, you could add 1941 to both lists of terrible Spielberg endings; hell, you might even have to.  If you asked me, however, that movie collapses in upon itself like a black hole due to the Zemeckian factor, not the Spielbergian one.

(And that's a good a segue as any for a minor point: over the years, Spielberg also produced 150 or so motion pictures, via both Amblin Entertainment and DreamWorks SKG.  Hey, you don't become a triple billionaire by just directing things, you know.  We have taken a look at some of his most important productions—or, at least, his best—notably in our Robert Zemeckis retrospective, for it was Spielberg who united the Back to the Future Trilogy with money, and the rest is history.  We likewise took a glance at a few of his other productions during this retrospective, taking aim at Poltergeist, The Goonies, and Arachnophobia.  Should we have reviewed An American Tail, too?  Almost certainly!  But, honestly, An American Tail kind of sucks, and I really, really didn't want to watch it twice in a single calendar year.  So please accept DreamWorks' attempt to step on Disney's feet, The Prince of Egypt, as a consolation prize; since at least that piece of Greater Spielberg is actually awesome.)

Anyway: Spielberg's growing cynicism, fueled by the new political climate after September 11th, hit its peak with Munich—his last masterpiece for a long while, and by far his most adult motion picture of all.  But even as the old, child-sized tools went unused, new frontiers beckoned to Spielberg, and at least since 1993, an experimental bent, and a renewed love for formalism, has increasingly defined a director who was once (and to a huge degree remains) a committed populist: and so we have, in order, List, a black-and-white movie with radically different shooting styles, depending upon which character is in focus; Jurassic Park, one of the first examples of a CGI-driven cinema of attractions; Saving Private Ryan, a war-is-hell exercise that does its level best to make you puke on your living room floor; Minority Report, a bleach-bypass antiseptic dystopia; Munich, a paranoid thriller that could have been made right alongside the terrible events it depicts; Tintin, proof that Spielberg could make one hell of a bitchin' cartoon, and also that mo-cap animation could work (take that, Zemeckis!); and War Horse, which is so classicist in its influences that, in the context of 2011, it honestly feels experimental.

That leaves us with his Late Period work, where the new thoughtfulness of the Serious Filmmaker has threatened to overwhelm the instinctive Entertainer; indeed, it's only here that the Two Spielbergs actually seem to diverge, since even Spielberg's very dourest films (List, Amistad, SPR) were all still intended to be compelling.  But, in 2012 and 2015, Spielberg set himself to the creation of a pair of edifying historical bores, Lincoln and especially Bridge of Spies, adequate films that still have the power to moderately entertain—but could thrill no one.  Meanwhile, The BFG simply feels fatigued; though at least it's fun (not to mention actually attractive, for the first time in a while in a Spielberg joint).

Does that mean what you think it does?  Of course: we couldn't close a Spielberg retrospective without once again mentioning the muse who led him into the second half of his career, good old Janusz Kaminski, Spielberg's cinematographer on virtually everything he's done since Schindler (the only exception was the cartoon).  So: Christ, Janusz Kaminski, what is your deal?  You can be amazing one movie, and wretched the next.  Schindler remains the DP's greatest achievement, and that's certainly not nothing; indeed, any man who could shoot such disparate films as A.I., Minority Report, The Terminal, and Munich can only be called "genius."  But as Spielberg visibly disengaged from aesthetics in 2012, in his zeal to deliver history without special adornment, at least beyond the essential "movieness" of all of Spielberg's films, what he and Kaminski actually did was simply default to their basic aesthetic—and their basic aesthetic is obnoxious and awful.  (See also, Catch Me If You Can, a near-waste of its time period.)  The BFG, whatever its flaws, at least represents a recognition that if you have a cinematographer like Kaminski, he must be given concrete tasks.  Do that, and he is amazing; do nothing, and what you get is merely a shaft of light, stamping on a human face forever.

So let us celebrate the man, despite his late-career slip!  (I guess that's why he's only a demigod, right?)  If we're lucky, he'll be with us for years to come, and his next films are already announced: The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara (another chronicle, which at least promises to be less narratively and emotionally dry than Bridge of Spies) and Ready Player One (which I assume will be kind of like Pixels, except not psychotically terrible).  (ETA: And that is not exactly what Ready Player One was--it's more like A.I.: But Fun--but I guess Pixels Except Not Psychotically Terrible does capture a lot of it.  Meanwhile, there's The Post, which just kind of snuck up on us, but proved that Spielberg's ability to chronicle history has not permanently atrophied.)

In the spirit of celebration, then, you will find below a ranked list of all of Spielberg's movies, from Duel to The BFG The Post Ready Player One and damned near everything in between (regrettably, Spielberg's third TV movie, Savage, is not available in any form I'm aware of; it is the sole omission).  What I want to direct your attention to is not just how many are great, but also how few of them are actually bad.  How many filmmakers can say that, in forty-seven years and thirty-one theatrically-released films, they only made three crappy ones, plus one lousy TV movie?  The answer, of course, is "nobody."

33. SOMETHING EVIL  (3/10)
31. ALWAYS (5/10)
30. 1941 (5.01/10)
29. BRIDGE OF SPIES  (6/10)
28. CATCH ME IF YOU CAN  (6/10)
27. HOOK  (6/10)
26. THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS  (6/10)
25. LINCOLN  (6/10)
24. THE COLOR PURPLE  (7/10)
23. THE BFG (7/10)
22. WAR OF THE WORLDS  (7/10)
20. WAR HORSE  (8/10)
19. THE POST (8/10)
18. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND  (8/10)
17a. TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE*  (8/10)
17. EMPIRE OF THE SUN (9/10)
16. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN  (9/10)
13. AMISTAD  (9/10)
12. THE TERMINAL  (9/10)
11. A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE  (9/10)
10. JURASSIC PARK  (9/10)
9b. POLTERGEIST**  (9/10)
9a. THE GOONIES***  (9/10)
9. MINORITY REPORT (9/10)
8a. ARACHNOPHOBIA*** (10/10)
8. MUNICH  (10/10)
7. DUEL  (10/10)
6.  SCHINDLER'S LIST  (10/10)
5. READY PLAYER ONE (10/10)
4.  JAWS  (10/10)

Films marked with one asterisk (*) indicate anthology films which Spielberg directed one segment of, but since the specific anthology film I'm referring to is Twilight Zone: The Movie, and Spielberg's segment kinda blows, I don't feel comfortable treating it like a Spielberg flick.  Maybe if this were a Joe Dante or George Miller retrospective, I'd be willing to attribute the ownership—but not so much here.
Films marked with two asterisks (**) indicate films "directed" by Tobe Hooper, but actually directed by Steven Spielberg.  Maybe.
Films marked with three asterisks (***) indicate films which Spielberg produced, and had a real hand in, but did not direct.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Robert Zemeckis, part infinity: Robert Zemeckis

I. I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978) II. 1941** (1979) III. Used Cars (1980) IV. Romancing the Stone (1984) V. Back to the Future (1985) VI. Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) VII. Back to the Future Part II (1989) VIII. Back to the Future Part III (1990) IX. Death Becomes Her (1992) X. Forrest Gump (1994) XI. Contact (1997) XII. What Lies Beneath (2000) XIII. Cast Away (2000) XIV. The Polar Express (2004) XV. Beowulf (2007) XVI. A Christmas Carol (2009) XVII. Mars Needs Moms* (2011) XVIII. Flight (2012) XIX. The Walk (2015) XX. Allied (2016) XXI. Welcome to Marwen (2018)

Well, unlike in our last filmmaker's retrospective, Robert Zemeckis is still very much an active director: he's got a movie coming out later this year, in fact, and I'm sure as hell excited about it, because the man's been on an upswing lately.  Of course, most people would be on an upswing after A Christmas Carol and Mars Needs Moms, but, hey—let's not take Flight and The Walk away from the man, okay?

The point is, there is no final word on Zemeckis as of yet: he's still making pictures, and hopefully will continue to do so for many years to come.  We can therefore only sum up what he's done so far—and it's a career that any director (or writer, or producer) would envy.  Even his one-time mentor and all-time friend, Steven Spielberg, must have had to take a step back every five or six years and say, "Well, Bob, you did it better."  Okay, he probably didn't—Spielberg is Spielberg, after all, and keeps his own counsel.  But Forrest Gump does syrupy sentimentality better than any Spielberg film ever has (and even manages to spike it with a bit of real American venom in the process).  Contact is Close Encounters, perhaps not writ larger—but certainly writ one hell of a lot more legibly.  And if the Back to the Future films aren't about to stand up to Indy... well, it's still one fantastic adventure, and the world would be far poorer without it.

Ah, but why must this be the lens through which we view Zemeckis—always a pupil, never the master?  It's a long shadow for a man to live in.  And it hasn't been the right way to look at Zemeckis since at least 1994.  Heck, maybe 1984.

Instead, let's reflect upon Zemeckis' career as Zemeckis' career.  It began with Spielberg, sure.  And it also began with a lot of crap: it took Zemeckis a long time to learn that full-tilt insanity was no way to make movies that people liked, and that's how his Shrillness Trilogy—for Zemeckis' career is extraordinarily amenable to being subdivided into trilogies, and not just the obvious, official one—must be seen as something of a stain upon his early filmography.  Yes, Used Cars has its charms, and Spielberg's 1941 (which Zemeckis helped script) is worthwhile in a very, very attenuated sense, but I Wanna Hold Your Hand would be a pretty lousy debut for anybody, and especially a director who'd bounce back with some of the greatest movies of all time.

After that, there was Romancing the Stone, which finally gave him his own traction in the industry, and the valuable experience of working on someone else's screenplay—an exercise which apparently finally taught him that "characterization" and "tone" were important parts of a motion picture.

He brought that experience back to his friend and old writing partner, Bob Gale, and they finished Back to the Future.  And we needn't belabor BttF any more than we already have, though we clearly can't get away with failing to note what he did in between BttF and Part II, which was one of the most technologically-audacious films ever made, that amazing hybrid of live-action and animation, Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Following those twin triumphs, he transitioned into more prestigious fare (with a stopover in super-goofy body horror, in the half-forgotten gem Death Becomes Her).  Thus began what I like to call Zemeckis' Philosophical Pessimist Trilogy—Forrest Gump, Contact, and Cast Away—which all dealt meaningfully with the apparent lack of meaning in our existence.  Yet, as befitting Zemeckis' resolute commitment to telling stories for a mass audience, they do so in an unflaggingly populist manner.  (Well, maybe not Contact.  But, damn it, I love it anyway.)

Well, we can disregard What Lies Beneath as make-work, I suppose—even if it's nowhere even close to a "bad" movie.  And that leaves us with the Mo-Cap Trilogy... and what to say about that, that I haven't said already?  The Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol (not to mention Zemeckis' production of Simon Wells' studio-leveling Mars Needs Moms) represent more-or-less the nadir of his career.  Certainly, it is the nadir of his mature career.  (Should I mention that I'm the only one who calls his first three flicks a "Shrillness Trilogy"?  Perhaps it'll catch on.  Those movies have some pretty serious issues.)

Anyway, Zemeckis had a dream—and, honestly, if nothing else, you have to admire the passion with which Zemeckis took up arms to try to make motion capture animation the future of filmmaking, even if you stridently disagree with him.  And yet, whether the technology wasn't there, or the technique, or perhaps even the talent, I'm afraid we must write off those twelve years he spent on his mad quest as a failure.  Leave it to James Cameron, Bob; he has the formula.

But now we're back to the future, so to speak, and here we find our new Zemeckian classics, Flight and The Walk.  What will Allied bring to the table?  Can we put those three movies together into some new trilogy?  Well, that would be pretty arbitrary, but we'll see.  (Update: we did, and it brought very little to this particular table, sad to say; it was up to 2018's Welcome to Marwen to complete that trilogy, instead.)

So let us simply close on a brief defense of Zemeckis, as if he needs it—but perhaps he does, because I can't think of a single filmmaker as absolutely and routinely successful as Robert Zemeckis who is not given his due as an artist and as an auteur (whatever that word really means).  His is a singular style; his is a singular vision.  Indeed, it's a vision that I'd like to see more of in Hollywood—he has the demeanor of a natural entertainer, but he's never been afraid to go places where lesser filmmakers have feared to tread.  So: three cheers for one of the greats, and here's a ranked list, since people seem to enjoy that kind of thing.  (Updated 11/30/2016, to bring Allied into the fold, and 1/12/2019, for Welcome to Marwen)

19a. MARS NEEDS MOMS (3/10)*
19. I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND  (3/10)
18. A CHRISTMAS CAROL  (4/10)
17a. 1941 (5.01/10)**
17. THE POLAR EXPRESS (5.01/10)
16. USED CARS (6/10)
15. BEOWULF (6/10)
14. ALLIED (6/10)
13. ROMANCING THE STONE (7/10)
12. WHAT LIES BENEATH (7/10)
11. DEATH BECOMES HER (7/10)
10. THE WALK (8/10)
9. FLIGHT (8/10)
8. BACK TO THE FUTURE PART III (8/10)
7. WELCOME TO MARWEN (9/10)
6. CONTACT (9/10)
5. WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT (9/10)
4. BACK TO THE FUTURE (10/10)
3. BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II (10/10)
2. FORREST GUMP (10/10)
1. CAST AWAY (10/10)***

Films marked with one asterisk (*) indicate films that Zemeckis only produced, but did not write or direct.  Films marked with two asterisks (**) indicate films that Zemeckis helped write, but did not direct.
Films marked with three asterisks (***) indicate Cast Away, and man, do I fucking love Cast Away.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

John Carpenter, part XXIX: John Carpenter


A few closing remarks before we get to the numbers:

Over the past four months, we've had the pleasure (and, sometimes, the pain) of taking the journey through my third favorite living director's entire filmography—along with some essential detours here and there, into his career as a writer and producer, too.  If we're missing some of the more ephemeral things that have his name on them, I think the world will keep turning.  (Or has it stopped spinning 'round, just waiting for my reviews of Zuma Beach, Better Late Than Never, Blood River, El Diablo, and Silent Predators?  The last one's about snakes that bite people!)  No: I think we've done what we set out to do.  Carpenter, we've noted previously, will in all likelihood never make another film.  And you know what?  That's okay too—the man has earned his golden years.

Of course, Jason Blum deserves to be hissed for passing on the horror project Carpenter brought to him in 2014.  And who knows?  Maybe one day we'll even get to see Dead Space: The Motion Picture, a gossamer non-production to which Carpenter has been "attached" mainly in the sense that he helped out with some of F.E.A.R. 3's cutscenes, so we know he has some vague connections in the gaming industry, and that he gave an interview once where he said doing it would be cool.  But hell: stranger things than that have happened in Hollywood, and God knows that the adaptation of the Alien-inspired shooter would be just about the perfect ending to a career that began forty years ago with Dark Star, the Alien before there even was Alien.

Meanwhile, Carpenter is still making music, even if he has quit making pictures.  Check out Lost Themes, if you haven't already.  It's fucking fantastic.  (And Lost Themes II is right around the corner.)

Above all, JC's left us with his legacy: the 21 films he directed, and a few more worth looking at that he scripted.  Without Carpenter, we don't have the slasher genre.  Without Carpenter, metafictional horror would be defined solely by Wes Craven, and while I know there's folks out there who'd be okay with that, I sure as heck ain't one of them.  Without Carpenter, we don't have quite as many old-fashioned ghost stories, punched up with new-fashioned gore and hints of social commentary.  Without Carpenter, we wouldn't know just how awesome the end of the world could really be.  Without Carpenter, we're missing some of cinema's signal triumphs.  Without Carpenter, the 80s just wouldn't be as cool.  And without Carpenter, the medium would be noticeably poorer.  We salute his merger of the classic and the modern: his inimitable style, forever unpretentious, almost always easy on the eyes (and, of course, the ears!).  God bless you, John.

So, without further ado, this is the list:

THE FILMS OF JOHN CARPENTER, RANKED FROM WORST TO BEST

21. ELVIS (2/10)
20. VAMPIRES  (4/10)
19. GHOSTS OF MARS (4/10)
18b. CIGARETTE BURNS** (4/10) 
18. ESCAPE FROM L.A. (5/10)
17a. EYES OF LAURA MARS*  (5/10)
17. DARK STAR  (5.01/10)
16. BODY BAGS  (6/10)
15a. PRO-LIFE**  (6/10)
15. SOMEONE'S WATCHING ME!  (6/10)
14. HALLOWEEN  (7/10)
13. STARMAN (7/10) 
10a. BLACK MOON RISING*  (7/10)
9. THE WARD (8/10)
7. THEY LIVE (8/10)
6. THE FOG  (8/10)
5a. HALLOWEEN II*  (9/10)
4. CHRISTINE  (10/10)
3. PRINCE OF DARKNESS  (10/10)
2. THE THING  (10/10)

Films marked with one asterisk (*) indicate projects which Carpenter helped write, but did not direct; films marked with two asterisks (**) indicate TV episodes.  And yes, in case you didn't figure it out before, I'm obviously not the biggest fan of the original Halloween.  Indeed, I might well be the smallest fan, given the outsized enthusiasm with which its other fans tend to embrace it.

But, like it or lump it, that's my list.  However, if you've got the time, you can find a few more goodies, after the jump.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Putting the "list" in "miserablist!" (or, the films of David Fincher ranked, no. 1)


For going on twenty years nowmy how time fliesDavid Fincher has been our preeminent auteur of gross, depressing tales of murder and mayhem.  Almost uniquely, Fincher has mastered a high-wire balancing act in the thriller genre, crafting films that are formally pristine, morally bracing, thematically insidious, emotionally devastating, andmost important of allhighly entertaining.  Though chiefly noted for this selfsame prediliction toward the pleasantly unpleasant, Fincher has tried his hand at other things, too—one time it was good, one time it was the worst thing ever.  On this episode: marriage.

Spoiler alert: severe (previously discussed in a spoiler-free review here)

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Putting the "list" in "miserablist"! (or, the films of David Fincher ranked, no. 2)


For going on twenty years nowmy how time fliesDavid Fincher has been our preeminent auteur of gross, depressing tales of murder and mayhem.  Almost uniquely, Fincher has mastered a high-wire balancing act in the thriller genre, crafting films that are formally pristine, morally bracing, thematically insidious, emotionally devastating, andmost important of allhighly entertaining.  Though chiefly noted for this selfsame prediliction toward the pleasantly unpleasant, Fincher has tried his hand at other things, too—one time it was good, one time it was the worst thing ever.  On this episode: murder and mayhem!

Spoiler alert: moderate

Monday, March 23, 2015

Putting the "list" in "miserablist"! (or, the films of David Fincher ranked, no. 3)


For going on twenty years nowmy how time fliesDavid Fincher has been our preeminent auteur of gross, depressing tales of murder and mayhem.  Almost uniquely, Fincher has mastered a high-wire balancing act in the thriller genre, crafting films that are formally pristine, morally bracing, thematically insidious, emotionally devastating, andmost important of allhighly entertaining.  Though chiefly noted for this selfsame prediliction toward the pleasantly unpleasant, Fincher has tried his hand at other things, too—one time it was good, one time it was the worst thing ever.  On this episode: murder, murder, murder, murder, murder, murder, and murder (with about five, ten minutes of what I would feel comfortable calling mayhem).

Spoiler alert: I think we all know what's in the box

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Putting the "list" in "miserablist"! (or, the films of David Fincher ranked, no. 4)

For going on twenty years nowmy how time fliesDavid Fincher has been our preeminent auteur of gross, depressing tales of murder and mayhem.  Almost uniquely, Fincher has mastered a high-wire balancing act in the thriller genre, crafting films that are formally pristine, morally bracing, thematically insidious, emotionally devastating, andmost important of allhighly entertaining.  Though chiefly noted for this selfsame prediliction toward the pleasantly unpleasant, Fincher has tried his hand at other things, too—one time it was good, one time it was the worst thing ever.  On this episode: a lot less murder in this than our last entry, but—as if in compensation—it brings the most mayhem of them all.

Spoiler alert: I am Jack's review of a widely-seen zeitgeist hit now approaching sixteen years old

Monday, March 16, 2015

Putting the "list" in "miserablist"! (or, the films of David Fincher ranked, no. 5)


For going on twenty years nowmy how time fliesDavid Fincher has been our preeminent auteur of gross, depressing tales of murder and mayhem.  Almost uniquely, Fincher has mastered a high-wire balancing act in the thriller genre, crafting films that are formally pristine, morally bracing, thematically insidious, emotionally devastating, andmost important of allhighly entertaining.  Though chiefly noted for this selfsame prediliction toward the pleasantly unpleasant, Fincher has tried his hand at other things, too—one time it was good, one time it was the worst thing ever.  On this episode: there's enough murder, but it's a little light on the mayhem.

Spoiler alert: turns out the Zodiac wasn't the surgeon general after all