Probably the most important thing to evaluate when evaluating films in any serious way is the directing. I have often overstated the importance of actors, mainly because I love actors. I love what they do. I am in love with their craft. However, it's ironic because the true author of a film, the person whose voice most powerfully influences it, is usually the director (unless the script was written by Charlie Kaufman).
A really great movie will almost always have a great director. It's very difficult to have a great movie with poor direction (though I'm sure I'll come up with at least one example). The director is, as I say, the voice, the personality, the perspective that shapes the entire thing.
A good director will give you a recognizable feeling. His or her point of view will be visible, it will be felt, it will be in the details and in the wide view. But it will not be heavy-handed.
The director is more like the author than the actual screenwriter. This is usually because the director takes the script and changes everything. Or, because the script is used strictly for dialogue. Occasionally, you have someone who is both writer/director and does it well. Again, more often than not, it's better if the director is an authorial voice who picks up the script from someone else and works that script to pull the juice out of it. To add the details, the vibe, the colors and angles that bring it to life.
Examples: A heavy-handed director is Quentin Tarantino. He's as heavy-handed a presence in his films as Norman Mailer was in his books. There is simply NO WAY to miss the fact that you're watching a Tarantino film. His fingerprints are all over it. It's a bit much, unless you happen to love Tarantino (as many do). But none of my favorite movies are by Tarantino. I like his stuff, don't get me wrong. But how much of him can you take? When you're watching John Travolta in Pulp Fiction, you don't even feel like you're watching Travolta -- an actor who's more or less always the same everywhere he appears! -- that's how serious Tarantino is. You're sitting there going, who is this actor? He kind of looks like Travolta, but the words coming out of his mouth sound a lot more like ... oh yeah, Mr. Brown.
Another heavy-handed director is Joel Coen, (or more accurately I should say Joel and Ethan Coen). Could Burn After Reading be anybody else's movie? Go and watch Raising Arizona, followed by The Big Lebowski, and then tell me what the heck they were doing making Burn After Reading, when we had seen all their tricks already -- at their best! -- in those two films.
On the other hand, you've got Ang Lee, who was most astonishingly responsible for both Sense and Sensibility and The Ice Storm. I always forget that he was responsible for The Ice Storm, even though it is -- yes! -- one of my favorite movies. His directorial touch is very gentle, and his point of view is certainly present consistently (it's that feeling you have while watching his films that you could cry, but you will not cry, because probably you'll miss something if you start to cry, and you don't want to push pause just for the sake of crying, when after all you are leaning in breathlessly waiting for the next scene that will probably make you want to cry even harder, so you may as well wait for that one). But it's not heavy-handed (if it were, that would be scary!).
With a good director, you know you have a reason for wanting to enter his or her world. You are compelled to re-enter his world over and over again. There is a reason to do so. In other words you see the point of view but you don't feel like you are being hit over the head with it.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Preliminary List of Favorite Movies
OK. So this is what I've done: gone through other various lists I had of "favorite movies." Combined them. Added one or two based on some considered thought about what I'm going to do with this project. I had 24 at this point.
Then I added one more to make it 25, which feels like a nice number. Alphabetized it. And here we go. Now we have a list to work with for this project. Am I guaranteeing that this is the exact list of all my favorites and that I haven't forgotten any? No. Will I add to this over time? Definitely.
Then I added one more to make it 25, which feels like a nice number. Alphabetized it. And here we go. Now we have a list to work with for this project. Am I guaranteeing that this is the exact list of all my favorites and that I haven't forgotten any? No. Will I add to this over time? Definitely.
What makes a favorite?
I've been thinking about criteria. What qualities do I love in a "really really really good" movie, and how many of those have to be in the movie before I call it "favorite"?
Well, let's get more specific. For example, what if I said that "good acting" was very important to me? Wouldn't that be too simple? There are hundreds of movies that contain good acting. So as an example, this illustrates that for me to say a film is a favorite of mine, it would have to contain more than merely good acting. It should have good acting and good directing -- right? And is that sufficient? Doubtful.
Plus, these would be too simple if they were generalized. This is still not specific enough. What makes "good acting," and what makes "great acting"? What makes the acting SO great that the actor disappears, and the character becomes a person you know, a seemingly real flesh and blood person, a person you sympathize with or despise or dream about?
So there must be a list of criteria -- and well-defined very specific criteria -- that a movie has to meet before it rises from the level of "a movie I enjoyed," or "a good movie," to one that I will cherish, carry with me in my heart, watch again and again, plead with friends to watch, and turn to as if it were itself a friend.
And what is more, I want to tell you, I don't think every favorite of mine meets every one of the criteria. There may be some favorites where certain criteria are carrying so much weight that the others can go the wayside. For example, is plot important in "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle," which is a biopic of Dorothy Parker as dark and grimly comic as the great lady herself? Is not mood much more important in a film like that?
I think that the aims of the movie have to be taken into account when weighting the criteria. And I'm telling you all this now because it will save me having to justify it later. We all know that Tom Cruise is not a "great" actor by any means. But what he accomplishes in "Top Gun" could not have been done by anybody else and transformed that movie from a one-summer blockbuster into a modern classic. If you were a screenwriter and you storyboarded Casablanca and you storyboarded Top Gun and you put them right alongside each other, you would see many similarities, because plotwise and structurewise they are nearly the same. Each of these films has the elements of a classic -- built into their scripts. That is to say, each has a script formulated according to the rules of screenwriting. They don't deviate much from these rules. The very aim of the movie is a classic rise and fall, with all those little moments along the way that seem like organic cues for emotion even though they are scripted. However, there are so many movies that aim for classic status. What makes it something you can watch again and again has more to do with the success of the actors to bring the script to life, to see what is called for -- in this formula! -- and give the viewer an experience that is more than formulaic. Each of these films is highly predictable, and yet, in some way not. Because the main character in each feels like a real person. So, I will argue even when it comes to the basics, like acting, the criteria must be considered according to the aims of the movie itself.
And one other point about criteria. I have known films that I have loved very much based on one criterion or two, but I could never call them a "favorite" despite this fact. That would be a scenario where there's a negative criterion. Something that should have been good enough but wasn't -- something that was so terrible that it brought the whole thing down on its knees. God, there are so many films like that. You often see great actors wasted, or great scripts wasted. I'll give you just one sweet example of this. "Brokeback Mountain." My oh my. Talk about great acting! Those were characters that I literally, still dream about. And you have great directing, great cinematography, etcetera etcetera -- many positives. But you have one major negative. Which is mood. And folks, this is MY blog. Perhaps you can have favorite movies that you'll watch again and again where the mood of the movie doesn't factor in. Perhaps mood ain't one of your criteria. But for me it is. It is very, very important and it'll probably be one of the first things I write about for each of these precious babies.
I'm not saying the mood has to be 'upbeat' or any such hogwash. But why on earth would I ever want to watch "Brokeback Mountain" more than the 3 times I've already seen it, when I know for a fact that the central experience of watching the film is to feel absolutely devastated?
By this I am trying to point out that, whatever its other qualities, each movie is an experience, just like any other sort of thing you can experience in this life, and when it claims a couple hours of your life, it becomes your reality for a short while. If you are a true film lover, a bona fide movie buff, you know exactly what I mean when I say there are some experiences you don't want to have more than once. Or maybe -- maybe -- twice. A 'favorite' movie has to be, for me, an experience I want to repeat over and over and over again. For the rest of my life.
Well, let's get more specific. For example, what if I said that "good acting" was very important to me? Wouldn't that be too simple? There are hundreds of movies that contain good acting. So as an example, this illustrates that for me to say a film is a favorite of mine, it would have to contain more than merely good acting. It should have good acting and good directing -- right? And is that sufficient? Doubtful.
Plus, these would be too simple if they were generalized. This is still not specific enough. What makes "good acting," and what makes "great acting"? What makes the acting SO great that the actor disappears, and the character becomes a person you know, a seemingly real flesh and blood person, a person you sympathize with or despise or dream about?
So there must be a list of criteria -- and well-defined very specific criteria -- that a movie has to meet before it rises from the level of "a movie I enjoyed," or "a good movie," to one that I will cherish, carry with me in my heart, watch again and again, plead with friends to watch, and turn to as if it were itself a friend.
And what is more, I want to tell you, I don't think every favorite of mine meets every one of the criteria. There may be some favorites where certain criteria are carrying so much weight that the others can go the wayside. For example, is plot important in "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle," which is a biopic of Dorothy Parker as dark and grimly comic as the great lady herself? Is not mood much more important in a film like that?
I think that the aims of the movie have to be taken into account when weighting the criteria. And I'm telling you all this now because it will save me having to justify it later. We all know that Tom Cruise is not a "great" actor by any means. But what he accomplishes in "Top Gun" could not have been done by anybody else and transformed that movie from a one-summer blockbuster into a modern classic. If you were a screenwriter and you storyboarded Casablanca and you storyboarded Top Gun and you put them right alongside each other, you would see many similarities, because plotwise and structurewise they are nearly the same. Each of these films has the elements of a classic -- built into their scripts. That is to say, each has a script formulated according to the rules of screenwriting. They don't deviate much from these rules. The very aim of the movie is a classic rise and fall, with all those little moments along the way that seem like organic cues for emotion even though they are scripted. However, there are so many movies that aim for classic status. What makes it something you can watch again and again has more to do with the success of the actors to bring the script to life, to see what is called for -- in this formula! -- and give the viewer an experience that is more than formulaic. Each of these films is highly predictable, and yet, in some way not. Because the main character in each feels like a real person. So, I will argue even when it comes to the basics, like acting, the criteria must be considered according to the aims of the movie itself.
And one other point about criteria. I have known films that I have loved very much based on one criterion or two, but I could never call them a "favorite" despite this fact. That would be a scenario where there's a negative criterion. Something that should have been good enough but wasn't -- something that was so terrible that it brought the whole thing down on its knees. God, there are so many films like that. You often see great actors wasted, or great scripts wasted. I'll give you just one sweet example of this. "Brokeback Mountain." My oh my. Talk about great acting! Those were characters that I literally, still dream about. And you have great directing, great cinematography, etcetera etcetera -- many positives. But you have one major negative. Which is mood. And folks, this is MY blog. Perhaps you can have favorite movies that you'll watch again and again where the mood of the movie doesn't factor in. Perhaps mood ain't one of your criteria. But for me it is. It is very, very important and it'll probably be one of the first things I write about for each of these precious babies.
I'm not saying the mood has to be 'upbeat' or any such hogwash. But why on earth would I ever want to watch "Brokeback Mountain" more than the 3 times I've already seen it, when I know for a fact that the central experience of watching the film is to feel absolutely devastated?
By this I am trying to point out that, whatever its other qualities, each movie is an experience, just like any other sort of thing you can experience in this life, and when it claims a couple hours of your life, it becomes your reality for a short while. If you are a true film lover, a bona fide movie buff, you know exactly what I mean when I say there are some experiences you don't want to have more than once. Or maybe -- maybe -- twice. A 'favorite' movie has to be, for me, an experience I want to repeat over and over and over again. For the rest of my life.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Coming Soon: The Favorites Project
Hello to my few faithful readers!
I am very excited to announce that I am going to embark on a new project in this blog, which will be very much a departure from what I've done previously. I have decided to undertake a serious critical examination of my "favorite" films, and ask myself why they are my favorites, and attempt to list and describe detailed criteria.
Aren't you excited?!?
Scroll down to the bottom of the screen to get an idea of SOME of the movies I consider favorites. Of course, one asks, how many are there? Out of thousands of films I have viewed, there are probably only 20 or so that I consider favorites. So far.
I am very excited to announce that I am going to embark on a new project in this blog, which will be very much a departure from what I've done previously. I have decided to undertake a serious critical examination of my "favorite" films, and ask myself why they are my favorites, and attempt to list and describe detailed criteria.
Aren't you excited?!?
Scroll down to the bottom of the screen to get an idea of SOME of the movies I consider favorites. Of course, one asks, how many are there? Out of thousands of films I have viewed, there are probably only 20 or so that I consider favorites. So far.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
SALT: A Must-See!
Wowee! Salt gives new meaning to being "on the edge of your seat." Let me tell you, I was walking to the theater today, thinking I wonder why this show is still in theaters. Usually when I want to see a movie, it disappears before I have a chance. "Salt" has been out since, what, June? I seem to recall mentioning this to someone at least two months ago. It's September now. Most of the summer has passed. Guess why it is still showing?
Although I haven't heard that it's gotten tremendous critical reviews, someone must be talking about it and people must be going to see it. I can understand. This is not for film snobs, but it's the most fun I've had at the theater since I Am Legend. What a ride. Picks you up from the beginning and you don't ever really sit down again. And yes, the whole time you are wondering "Who is Salt?"
Is she a CIA agent, or a Russian spy? That is only the first question you're asked and asking yourself. Is she a good guy or a bad guy? It is very difficult to decide, but you're rooting for her anyway. Something's up with her for sure. Is she a victim of brainwashing? Was she traumatized as a child? Or does she have her own agenda -- and if so, what the heck is it?
You don't really have time to think about it, because you're biting your nails watching Angelina Jolie leap from the top of one semi to another across multiple freeway overpasses, scale the interior walls of an elevator shaft or knock down ten FBI agents without dropping her one small handgun. Yes, she flies through midair and kicks like a ninja warrior! Although she is not technically playing a superhero in this movie, she may as well be.
But that's not the reason you're rooting for her. What I loved most about this movie -- and it's the exact reason some critics panned it -- was that Salt has a heart. While you're questioning her motives and admiring her skills, there's not much you know about her except one thing. She loves her husband. You might spend time wondering what role he plays in all this, but it's not nearly as important as the fascination with a woman who can kick ass and take names and still be -- well, a woman. In one key scene especially, she has to hide her emotions even when she's dying inside. By this time, yes, I could feel every beat of her heart as if it were my own.
Although I haven't heard that it's gotten tremendous critical reviews, someone must be talking about it and people must be going to see it. I can understand. This is not for film snobs, but it's the most fun I've had at the theater since I Am Legend. What a ride. Picks you up from the beginning and you don't ever really sit down again. And yes, the whole time you are wondering "Who is Salt?"
Is she a CIA agent, or a Russian spy? That is only the first question you're asked and asking yourself. Is she a good guy or a bad guy? It is very difficult to decide, but you're rooting for her anyway. Something's up with her for sure. Is she a victim of brainwashing? Was she traumatized as a child? Or does she have her own agenda -- and if so, what the heck is it?
You don't really have time to think about it, because you're biting your nails watching Angelina Jolie leap from the top of one semi to another across multiple freeway overpasses, scale the interior walls of an elevator shaft or knock down ten FBI agents without dropping her one small handgun. Yes, she flies through midair and kicks like a ninja warrior! Although she is not technically playing a superhero in this movie, she may as well be.
But that's not the reason you're rooting for her. What I loved most about this movie -- and it's the exact reason some critics panned it -- was that Salt has a heart. While you're questioning her motives and admiring her skills, there's not much you know about her except one thing. She loves her husband. You might spend time wondering what role he plays in all this, but it's not nearly as important as the fascination with a woman who can kick ass and take names and still be -- well, a woman. In one key scene especially, she has to hide her emotions even when she's dying inside. By this time, yes, I could feel every beat of her heart as if it were my own.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
So Leo Can Fail, After All! (not really)
I'm just kidding. Leo didn't fail. But after thinking for many years "anything with this actor's gonna be good..." Well, I finally saw the first Leonardo DiCaprio film that I didn't like. Shutter Island, what a let-down. Actually, Leo did the best he could. The problems with the film had nothing to do with him, really. His acting was its usual clever/didn't-see-this-coming mixed with suave. The film however! Yikes! First of all, haven't we seen this one before? A movie about a mental institution with a "missing" patient? Unless this is your Very First Movie, (and how old would you have to be? 5? in which case it would probably scare you), you know how this is going to end.
But I was willing to accept that, as a matter of fact, and go with the flow. I had already heard that the movie was dull and predictable and squishy. I was ready to know the ending from the beginning. I figured there would still be drama to enjoy along the way. There wasn't! An hour into it, I'm sitting there wondering, So when are we going to get to the point? It was the equivalent of a chase scene where the main character is not chasing anyone. You will never know how painful it was for me to watch Leo running around, acting it up, making squinty eyes and hot demands from everyone around him, essentially purposeless. I mean by that: What drove this character? If the story were to be believed, he was a U.S. Marshal trying to solve a missing persons case. Yet he knew from the very start that this person was not really missing. So then, his puzzle to solve became.....? His interest in the place was.....? Right. You kinda had to know the ending, in order to understand what was going on.
Essentially, the reason this film was so terrible was: knowing the ending became a requirement for following the basic plot, and yet, the ending was supposed to be a surprise twist. Hmmmmmmm.....
But I was willing to accept that, as a matter of fact, and go with the flow. I had already heard that the movie was dull and predictable and squishy. I was ready to know the ending from the beginning. I figured there would still be drama to enjoy along the way. There wasn't! An hour into it, I'm sitting there wondering, So when are we going to get to the point? It was the equivalent of a chase scene where the main character is not chasing anyone. You will never know how painful it was for me to watch Leo running around, acting it up, making squinty eyes and hot demands from everyone around him, essentially purposeless. I mean by that: What drove this character? If the story were to be believed, he was a U.S. Marshal trying to solve a missing persons case. Yet he knew from the very start that this person was not really missing. So then, his puzzle to solve became.....? His interest in the place was.....? Right. You kinda had to know the ending, in order to understand what was going on.
Essentially, the reason this film was so terrible was: knowing the ending became a requirement for following the basic plot, and yet, the ending was supposed to be a surprise twist. Hmmmmmmm.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
