|
|
Rob Edelman
March 8, 2010: Scorsese
With the Academy Awards at center stage in the media, one film which recently has been released theatrically might have been among the Oscar contenders. That film is SHUTTER ISLAND.
It is not so much that this film is Oscar-worthy. Far from it. It is because any film made by its director surely will be an attention-grabber. That filmmaker is, of course, Martin Scorsese.
Now when one thinks Martin Scorsese, one usually thinks: Timeless tales of crime and mayhem or films set in the recent or distant past, films from MEAN STREETS, TAXI DRIVER, and RAGING BULL to GOODFELLAS, GANGS OF NEW YORK, and THE DEPARTED, films that explore the actions and souls of their primary characters.
But there is one Scorsese film that stands off by itself-- up until now. That film is CAPE FEAR, released in 1991 and a remake of a film from three decades earlier. In Scorsese’s hands, what originally was a rock-solid thriller became an explicitly bloody gothic horror film that I found difficult to sit through.
Well, Scorsese explores similar terrain in SHUTTER ISLAND. What is most telling about this new film is that it originally was scheduled for release this past October. And, as any new Scorsese film, it was hyped as an Academy Award contender. But the fact that its release was postponed until now is most revealing.
SHUTTER ISLAND, based on a novel by Dennis Lehane, features Leonardo DiCaprio-- who lately has replaced Robert De Niro as Scorsese’s most favored actor. The story is set in 1954, and DiCaprio plays Teddy Daniels, a deeply troubled World War II veteran and United States marshal. He and his new partner travel to a hospital for the criminally insane, located on the title locale. Their mission is to investigate the disappearance from the hospital of a woman who murdered her three children.
At its best, SHUTTER ISLAND is a complex psychological portrait of the DiCaprio character. It is loaded with snappy visuals and camera movement, and is akin to a psychological puzzle. But it also is a deeply flawed film. The primary culprit is the screenplay, which too often meanders.
In other words, SHUTTER ISLAND is not vintage, classic Martin Scorsese. Nevertheless, in its first weekend in release, SHUTTER ISLAND earned over $40-million in domestic box office. This was the best-ever opening for a Scorsese film. After two weeks in release, its box office take topped $75-million.
Now certain conservatives will tell you that Hollywood has a strident liberal agenda. But this simply is not so. As an industry, Hollywood has one major concern. And that is to make money.
So one can imagine some honcho from Paramount Pictures gently suggesting to Scorsese that, given the big bucks earned by SHUTTER ISLAND, his next film should not be as daring or creative as TAXI DRIVER or RAGING BULL. Perhaps he might consider making something on the order of SHUTTER ISLAND II: THE RESURRECTION OF TEDDY DANIELS.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
March 1, 2010: Buyer Beware
With the 2010 Academy Awards much in the news, many movie buffs take pleasure in visiting or revisiting older films: films that, once upon a time, were Oscar contenders. In recent weeks, scores of such titles have been screening non-stop on Turner Classic Movies.
If you savor vintage cinema, TCM is, quite simply, a treasure trove, a year-round necessity. Sometimes, I think it is the only reason to spend one’s hard-earned dollars on a cable television subscription.
However, there are other ways to catch up on Oscar contenders. The most obvious is DVD. But when it comes to certain older films-- specifically, titles that are in the public domain-- viewers should be forewarned: The quality of DVDs of public domain titles often is embarrassingly shoddy.
As a case in point, a four-disc DVD set has just been marketed. It is titled ACADEMY COLLECTION: THE ENVELOPE PLEASE, and it consists of eight feature films from the late 1920s and 1930s.
This set is billed as “a rare look at Best Picture contenders” from Oscar’s first decade. But the fact is that most of the titles are not at all rare. Films like the 1930s versions of THE FRONT PAGE, A FAREWELL TO ARMS, LOVE AFFAIR, and A STAR IS BORN-- all of which are in the set-- have long been available on DVD. Because they are in the public domain, any enterprising company can market them. And across the years, endless numbers of concerns have marketed them.
What interested me about this particular set, however, was one of its titles. That would be THE RACKET, a 1928 crime drama that is historically significant, and in fact is hard-to-find. I had never seen THE RACKET, and I figured that this would be my chance to do so.
But not surprisingly, I was disappointed-- not in the film, but in its quality. An older film will be a pleasure to watch on DVD if it is a first-class transfer, and is taken from high-quality source material. But such is not the case here. The words blurry and fuzzy best describe the image quality of THE RACKET.
And the opening credits of ALIBI, another gangster film in the package-- this one dating from 1929-- were even worse. As you watch them, you might think that your eyesight has suddenly and inexplicably deserted you. Then the first images from ALIBI come onscreen. These visuals are so washed-out that they look as if they were filmed in the middle of a dense fog.
And what is just as distracting is that Hollywood Select Video, the company marketing the DVDs, has chosen to place its name in the bottom right-hand corner of the picture. For every second of their screen time, you are reminded that all these films are being brought to you by Hollywood Select Video.
This is not the way to watch a movie.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
February 22, 2010: Michael Haneke
Michael Haneke is one of the most consistently provocative of all contemporary filmmakers.
And with the kudos he has been earning for THE WHITE RIBBON, a frontrunner for the Best Foreign Film Academy Award-- the complex, unsettling account of the strange events that occur in a small German village on the eve of World War I, events that serve to reflect on the reasons why a generation of Germans were inclined to embrace the tyranny of Adolph Hitler-- it would be in order to examine Haneke’s films, and his cinematic aesthetic.
Let me begin with CACHE, which was one of the very best films of 2005. CACHE is a harrowing portrait of a Parisian family, and what happens when someone begins secretly videotaping their comings-and-goings. Here is a movie that is at once quiet, and subtle-- and terrifying. And its content is perfectly in line with Haneke’s earlier work.
In his films, Haneke is fascinated by the manner in which images are presented in contemporary media, and how those images impact on those who view them. His characters often are alienated. They live in cold, sterile worlds, and they have become desensitized to the horror of real violence.
All of this is depicted in a trilogy of films that Haneke directed between 1989 and 1994. The first is THE SEVENTH CONTINENT, and it also is Haneke’s theatrical feature debut.
THE SEVENTH CONTINENT is a jarring account of middle-class malaise. Here, Haneke charts the everyday lives of an ordinary albeit emotionally disconnected family: a husband, a wife, and their young daughter. The film is starkly directed, with Haneke initially, and revealingly, filming his actors’ hands, feet, and torsos-- but not their faces. Each sequence is short and abrupt, and ends in a blackout, which adds to the overall effect. The final, extended sequence is positively devastating-- and it all is based on a true story.
Haneke’s follow-up is BENNY’S VIDEO. The title character is addicted to shooting images with his video camera, and endlessly watching ultra-violent movies. While his parents are away, he brings a young girl into his home. And he dispassionately murders her.
The storyline in BENNY’S VIDEO may be obvious, but the film is a potent allegory of the manner in which watching violent images may desensitize young people and turn them into emotionless monsters.
The final film is 71 FRAGMENTS OF A CHRONOLOGY OF CHANCE. It is a challenging, tapestry-like portrayal of a host of individuals who are isolated and alienated, and whose lives are presented in snippets. They include a scruffy runaway boy, a sullen orphaned girl, a solitary old man, and an unhappily married couple. Mixed in are TV news reports involving violence and conflict across the globe, and Michael Jackson responding to his being accused of child molestation.
Not unexpectedly, these fragments are bookended by a tragedy-- and one might view the film as a celluloid dissertation on the manner in which the constant repetition of televised images numbs the senses.
As a whole, these films are the antithesis of mindless Hollywood brain candy. Each is provocative. Each builds to a shattering climax. Each deals with issues that affect us all.
Each is available on DVD. And each is the work of Michael Haneke, a world-class filmmaker.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
February 15, 2010: Horror Films
With the release of the new, high-profile remake of THE WOLFMAN, which stars Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, and Emily Blunt and bills itself as being inspired by the classic 1941 film of the same name, a survey of present-day horror films is in order.
The key questions here are: Are contemporary chillers genuinely chilling? Are directors employing film language to send shivers up the spines of horror film aficionados? Or, are they attempting to dazzle viewers by combining fancy special effects, buckets of fake blood, and haphazard filmmaking?
To my mind, the majority of present-day tales of terror are less than genuinely terrifying. Take, for example, HALLOWEEN II, which came to theaters at the tail end of the summer and presently is available on DVD. HALLOWEEN II’s director was born Robert Cummings. But he is not to be confused with the popular actor who, back in the 1940s, starred in THE DEVIL AND MISS JONES, KING’S ROW, and Hitchcock’s SABOTEUR. This Robert Cummings goes under the name Rob ZOMBIE. In the PR for HALLOWEEN II, Zombie is described as a “horror master.” The film is dubbed a “terrifying sequel to Rob Zombie’s visionary re-imagining of [the original] Halloween.”
Don’t you just love spin!
Well, my take on HALLOWEEN II is that it is anything but visionary. It is, in fact, a lumbering sequel, with pitifully few genuine scares. HALLOWEEN II is only for those who relish watching people bleed and suffer, and hearing the “f-word” endlessly repeated.
If you ever wonder what happens to actors like Malcolm McDowell, Brad Dourif, Howard Hesseman, and Margot Kidder-- once-popular players who now are desperate for paydays-- well, they show up in movies like HALLOWEEN II.
While too many current horror films are as devoid of cleverness or wit as HALLOWEEN II, there are exceptions. One example is THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL, a low-budget chiller that has just arrived on DVD. THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL charts the plight of a college student, in desperate need of cash, who answers an ad for a babysitter-- much to her regret.
This film is a refreshingly old-fashioned chiller. It slowly, carefully builds up suspense. And it is a throwback to shockers of an earlier era in that it metes out its scares without depending on in-your-face gore and computer-generated effects.
Now I wonder how many moviegoers who are waiting in line to catch the new WOLFMAN are even aware of the original version. This film features a stellar 1940s cast: Claude Rains, Warren William, Ralph Bellamy, Maria Ouspenskaya, Bela Lugosi, and Lon Chaney, Jr. in the title role.
My colleague Leonard Maltin is right on target when he describes the original as “one of the finest horror films ever made.” Yet somehow, I do not think that the same ever will be said for the new WOLFMAN
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
February 8, 2010: The Effect of Violence
Watching the unfolding story of the recent earthquake in Haiti serves as a sobering reminder of the impact of bloodshed on individuals. Whether that bloodshed is the result of a force of nature, cruel fate, or the selfishness and stupidity of humankind, those who are victims of it end up with deep psychological wounds that may never completely heal.
Translating all this to the movies, contemporary audiences regularly sit through so many films that feature oodles of violent imagery. Yet these films rarely if ever acknowledge the effect of that violence, the emotional toll it takes on survivors.
This explains my fascination with two current films. The first is A SINGLE MAN, an eloquent drama about an English professor who must deal with his deep sense of loss upon the death of his beloved in a car crash.
Then there is THE MESSENGER. This film spotlights the U.S. Army personnel who are entrusted to inform the relations of servicemen and women that their loved ones have been killed in combat. While these GIs are the main characters in THE MESSENGER, the film does dwell on the range of reactions on the part of the next-of-kin. And it offers a chilling reminder that the victims of war are not just those who lose their lives in combat.
For this reason, THE MESSENGER is not your typical war film. Neither is it a mainstream celluloid entertainment that stresses the visceral thrill of watching violent imagery: imagery in which countless individuals are blown to bits or mowed down in hails of bullets but, at the end, in such films, all is shown to be well with the world because the hero and heroine get to stroll off together into the sunset.
A case in point: In the recent remake of THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3, a New York City subway motorman is brutally murdered by one of the hijackers of his train. The point of this, cinematically speaking, is to show the audience that the hijackers are fully capable of following through on their threat to kill their hostages.
Yet while watching THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3, I wondered: Does the motorman have a wife? Does he have children? A sequence, in which his loved ones are shown grieving for him, would have added a certain resonance to the film. But he is, within the framework of the story, a supporting player-- so his humanity hardly matters, just so long as the bad guys are taken out before the finale and the hero gets to return home to his family.
What makes A SINGLE MAN and THE MESSENGER so unusual is that they are jarring reminders that, in the real world, with action comes reaction. Whether a loved one dies in a war or a car crash, or as the result of a violent crime, those who survive feel real pain.
In this regard, A SINGLE MAN and THE MESSENGER are reminiscent of DEAD MAN WALKING, released back in 1995, the fact-based account of a nun who ministers to a convicted murderer on death row. It is to this film’s credit that there is no preaching regarding the pros and cons of capital punishment. The murderer is just that: a brutal killer. But he still is a human being. Will justice truly be served by his being put to death? Yet at the same time, what of his victims and their loved ones? The very real grief endured by his victims’ families is as much a facet of DEAD MAN WALKING as the complex, evolving relationship between the nun and the killer.
It is regrettable that, these days, films like A SINGLE MAN, THE MESSENGER, and DEAD MAN WALKING are all too rare.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
January 25, 2010: Accuracy in the Media
These days, you really cannot believe everything you read in a newspaper-- even if it is a mainstream newspaper.
Several weeks ago, an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times. The headline was, “Sandra Bullock may buck Oscar history with role in ‘Blind Side’.” Its subhead began, “Popular, mainstream actors like her often miss out when the Academy Awards are handed out...”
Here are the first two paragraphs of the piece, written by Susan King:
“If Sandra Bullock is going to win a best actress Oscar for her role in THE BLIND SIDE she may have one major obstacle to overcome: She’s too popular.
“In the 82-year history of the Academy Awards, it’s been difficult for mainstream actresses (and yes, actors) to win acting Oscars. Included in that list are some of Hollywood’s greatest female stars: Barbara Stanwyck, Mae West, Greta Garbo, Marilyn Monroe, Rosalind Russell, Marlene Dietrich to name just a few.”
Now granted, none of the above won competitive Oscars. Neither, for that matter, did Cary Grant, Edward G. Robinson, John Barrymore, and other male stars. But the fact is that plenty of popular actors-- actors who were beloved by the masses of moviegoers-- are Oscar winners.
This list only begins with Clark Gable, Joan Crawford, James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, James Stewart, Paul Newman, Gregory Peck, Henry Fonda, Audrey Hepburn, Bing Crosby, and John Wayne. Such mainstream performers as Gary Cooper, Bette Davis, Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Jack Nicholson, Elizabeth Taylor, Jack Lemmon, Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, and Tom Hanks even have earned two or more Academy Awards.
In her article, King notes that popular stars had to deglamorize themselves to win Oscars. She cites Ginger Rogers. After “tripping the light fantastic” in musicals with Fred Astaire during the 1930s, Rogers “darkened her blond locks to play an unwed mother in [the] 1940’s melodrama ‘Kitty Foyle’ and won the best actress Oscar.” King observes that Grace Kelly “frumped it up in 1954’s ‘The Country Girl’ and picked up the golden statuette. And more recently, Charlize Theron packed on the pounds to play murderess Aileen Wuornos in 2003’s ‘Monster,’ winning a richly deserved best actress Academy Award for her effort.”
Well, way back in 1947, Rosalind Russell-- a popular performer in comedies from HIS GIRL FRIDAY to AUNTIE MAME-- earned a Best Actress nomination for her dramatic performance in Eugene O’Neill’s MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA. This is a serious film, an adaptation of the Greek tragedy ORESTEIA. Suffice to say that MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA is not mainstream fare. But prior to Oscar night, Russell was the Best Actress frontrunner. However, the eventual winner was Loretta Young, for playing the title character in THE FARMER’S DAUGHTER: a film that one might accurately label as totally mainstream.
But this or similar tidbits are not cited in the article.
In another example of media shortsightedness, CNN’s Reliable Sources recently aired a piece on a biography of Warren Beatty, written by Peter Biskind. Howard Kurtz, the show’s host, not only mispronounced Biskind’s name but described him as an “obscure biographer.” Well, Peter Biskind happens to be the former executive editor of Premiere magazine. He is a contributing editor of Vanity Fair, and has authored a number of highly regarded books on film history.
“Reliable sources” indeed...
Now granted, show business stories are trivial when compared to, say, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, health care reform, or global warming. But one should not change history, ignore facts, or mislabel individuals, whether one is reporting on war, health care, global warming-- or show business.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
January 18, 2010: From Page or Stage to Screen
Some high-profile films released near the end of the year are based on material that had been previously published or dramatized.
And with this in mind, questions arise: How accurately, for example, does NINE reflect the Broadway musical on which it is based? How true is THE ROAD to Cormac McCarthy’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel? Is SHERLOCK HOLMES an honest reflection of Arthur Conan Doyle’s original stories?
But, just perhaps, the real questions should be: Does any of this matter? Should a film that is based on previously published or dramatized material stand on its own, and be judged-- and enjoyed-- solely on its own merits?
My answer to the last question is a resounding yes. All that really counts is if the film works, or does not work. Is it entertaining and/or provocative? Or, is it a misfire?
Now for me, one of these new films is deeply moving. That would be THE ROAD: a grim but compelling story, provocatively told, of love and survival in a post-apocalyptic world. The film’s impact, as you sit in a movie theatre and watch it, has nothing to do with the quality of its source material.
Meanwhile, NINE is a dismal failure, a choppy concoction whose storyline and musical numbers awkwardly fit together. Its director, Rob Marshall, seems more interested in impressing the viewer by the mere presence of his stellar cast. NINE is more like a fashion shoot than a film. It is not so much about storytelling and characterization as it is about beautiful people being beautiful. Having an opinion about the 1982 Broadway musical that is the basis for the film is irrelevant to the content or quality of the film.
And SHERLOCK HOLMES is nothing more than a standard contemporary Hollywood product: a cookie-cutter special effects extravaganza that will appeal to audiences with short attention spans. Robert Downey, Jr. plays a title character who is, in essence, an action hero, a Superman or Spider-Man clone who employs his fists as much as his brains to battle criminals.
Now in the case of SHERLOCK HOLMES, it would be valid to compare Downey’s interpretation to that of Basil Rathbone, who famously played the detective in fourteen feature films released between the late 1930s and mid-1940s. An even more interesting contrast is Jude Law’s characterization of Doctor Watson to that of Nigel Bruce, who co-starred with Rathbone. Law’s Watson is fine-looking, and engaged to be married, while Bruce’s Watson is no romantic hero but rather a comically fumbling, bumbling Brit.
A viewer who is familiar with the earlier Holmes films, or with the popular 1980s and ‘90s British television series featuring Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes, may-- or may not-- prefer either to the new film.
But the manner in which their characterizations of Holmes reflect on Doyle’s original has nothing to do with one’s gut reaction to any screen adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
January 11, 2010: Ten Worst Films of 2009
In recent weeks, I have been discussing current films that are good films. They may be the best films of the year, or the best films of the decade.I also have been citing the top performances of the just-concluded year. So it seems that some commentary on the year's worst films is in order.
In general, bad movies, 2009-style, feature paper-thin characters and paper-thin plots that have as many holes as Swiss cheese. Now granted, the same may be said for the awful movies of 1989, or 1959, or 1929. But what distinguishes the bad films of today is that many of them are gratuitously violent, or pointlessly noisy. They may feature oodles of images that look pretty, but mean nothing.
Another distinguishing characteristic of a contemporary bad movie is that its soundtrack may be padded with popular songs: songs of the Golden Oldie variety. This way, if you find yourself suffering through the film, you just may think that you are enjoying it even though it has no storyline or character development.
But you are hearing songs that are familiar and pleasant-sounding, so you must be having a grand time. But to cut to the chase, what are the worst movies of 2009?It would be a challenge to come up with a ten-worst list, because there were so many films that either were disappointing or downright dreadful.But one at least can cite examples of typically bad films.
Take, for instance, something titled NINJA ASSASSIN. This film tells the story of a young man who has been trained since childhood by a villainous clan to be a killer ninja, but he breaks away after the murder of his sweetheart and plots bloody revenge. This mindlessly gory martial arts mishmash is about what you would expect from a film with this title.
Then there is WHITEOUT, which like so many current films is based on a graphic novel. WHITEOUT is a paper-thin thriller starring Kate Beckinsale as a U.S. marshal, stationed in Antarctica, who struggles to exorcise her demons while investigating some gruesome killings. Even though her character is constantly in danger, Beckinsale always is perfectly coiffed. Early on, she even has time to peel off her clothes and take a steamy shower. Only in the movies...
But if I had to cite an absolute worst movie, that would be SURVEILLANCE, which is directed and co-scripted by Jennifer Lynch, the daughter of David Lynch. Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond play federal agents who are investigating a grisly crime in a rural stretch of America. This film is an odious, one-note, RASHOMON-influenced hodgepodge that is atrociously directed and scripted. It is Jennifer Lynch's first film since BOXING HELENA, which came out in 1993-- and which is as equally repellent. BOXING HELENA is the story of a surgeon who is so obsessed with a beautiful woman that he holds her captive and amputates her limbs. Upon its release, I wrote that BOXING HELENA tries to be provocative and shocking, but the result is unintentional laughter-- when it is not downright monotonous.
Such might be a description for dozens upon dozens of truly awful contemporary movies.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
January 4, 2010: New to the Spotlight
In the new year, with the awards season fast-approaching, the lists of performers up for acting prizes surely will be comprised of the usual suspects. Such worthy but familiar names as George Clooney and Morgan Freeman, Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep, are not just earning critical kudos for their performances. They are winning Golden Globe nominations and Screen Actors Guild Award nominations, and they likely will earn Academy Award nominations.
Indeed, what would any year be without an award-caliber performance from Meryl Streep-- who, next to Bette Davis, surely is the all-time-greatest American screen actress? But what interests me each year are the performers who are unfamiliar to me, and who are lucky enough to win eye-catching roles-- and talented enough to take full advantage of that good fortune.When I see such an actor on-screen, I ask myself: Who is this performer? Have I seen this performer in other films? If so, what are they?
And, most tellingly, I wonder: Will this performance be the performance of a career? Will this actor be a one-shot, a flavor of the month? Or, will this performance be the first of many memorable performances? For after all, 30 years ago, the same might have been asked about Meryl Streep when she appeared in KRAMER VS. KRAMER. Almost 40 years ago, the same might have been said for Jeff Bridges when he appeared in THE LAST PICTURE SHOW.
This year, three actors-- each one a different age, and each from a different part of the world-- deservedly have merited attention for their screen work.
The first is Carey Mulligan. The British-born, 24-year-old Mulligan has made a splash in AN EDUCATION, playing a teenager who becomes romantically involved with a much-older man. Since 2005, Mulligan has appeared in a several British television series. In the just-concluded year, she also had supporting roles in BROTHERS and PUBLIC ENEMIES.
Next is Jeremy Renner, a native Californian, who offers a riveting performance in THE HURT LOCKER as a professional soldier, a bomb disposal expert serving in Iraq. The 39-year-old Renner has approximately three dozen movie and television credits, dating back to 1995.
Then there is Christoph Waltz, who is chillingly memorable as a slickly evil Nazi in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. Waltz is no youngster. The Austrian-born actor is 53, and has appeared in dozens of mostly German-made films since the late 1970s.
But now, Waltz, Renner, and Mulligan find themselves in the international spotlight, earning acclaim for their breakout performances in high-profile films. How long they remain there is anybody's guess.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
December 28, 2009: Ten Best Films of The Decade
It seems incredible that we now are completing the first decade of the 21st century. This also means that it is time to cite the very best films of the decade. This is no easy task, because there are so many exceptional films from which to choose. But here is one person’s ten-best list-- for the past ten years.
This chronological list begins with:
- NO MAN’S LAND, released in 2001 and directed by Danis Tanovic, one of the all-time great anti-war films.
- FAR FROM HEAVEN, from 2002, directed by Todd Haynes, which is craftily designed to look and sound like a 1950s Douglas Sirk film-- and, which forcefully deals with issues of feminism, racism, and homosexuality in ways that never could have been explored during the Eisenhower era.
- MYSTIC RIVER, from 2003, directed by Clint Eastwood, a complex, suspenseful, and haunting story of friendship, murder, and community ties in Boston.
- PARADISE NOW, from 2005, directed by Hany Abu-Assad, a chilling drama about two young Palestinians who have volunteered to be suicide bombers. This film asks some pertinent questions about the nature of terrorism, and the true impact of terrorist acts.
- SARABAND, from 2005, Ingmar Bergman’s final feature, is a sequel to his 1973 classic, SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE. And, it is every bit as intimate and devastating as its predecessor.
- THE LIVES OF OTHERS, from 2006, directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, a quietly powerful drama about the East German secret police in the 1980s.
- In THE DEPARTED, from 2006, Martin Scorsese exudes an intensity and immediacy while exploring themes and milieus that date back to such classics as MEAN STREETS and GOODFELLAS.
- PAN’S LABYRINTH, from 2006, directed by Guillermo del Toro, is the story of a little girl who clings to her innocence in time of war.And, it is a definitive statement about the nature of innocence and evil, and what happens when these two powerful forces collide.
- Two more Clint Eastwood films make the list. And, because they are related, they count as one entry.They are FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA. These 2006 films chronicle the deadly American attack on the Japanese at Iwo Jima from the point-of-view of both sides. Both are staggering achievements. Now in his late seventies, Clint Eastwood is aging like the finest of wines. He has evolved into a truly great American filmmaker. And-- he is the filmmaker of the decade.
- And finally, PERSEPOLIS, from 2007, directed by Vincent Paronnaud and Marjane Satrapi, is the stirring, politically loaded account of a spunky female who comes of age in Iran, starting in the late 1970s. It also is animated. And despite all the superlative animated features coming out of Hollywood, PERSEPOLIS is the decade’s top animated film.
A short list of films that come close to making the top-ten starts with last year’s SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. It ALSO includes:
- From 2000, TRAFFIC, directed by Steven Soderbergh
- From 2001, CODE UNKNOWN, by Michael Haneke; THE GLEANERS AND I, by Agnes Varda; MEMENTO, by Christopher Nolan; and MULHOLLAND DRIVE, by David Lynch.
- From 2002, TALK TO HER, by Pedro Almodovar
- From 2003, 21 GRAMS, by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu; LOST IN TRANSLATION, by Sofia Coppola; and CITY OF GOD, by Fernando Meirelles.
- From 2004, FINDING NEVERLAND, by Marc Forster; THE SEA INSIDE, by Alejandro Amenabar; and SIDEWAYS, by Alexander Payne.
- From 2005, CAPOTE, by Bennett Miller; GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK, by George Clooney; and CACHE, by Michael Haneke.
- From 2006, VOLVER, by Pedro Almodovar.
- From 2007, AWAY FROM HER, by Sarah Polley; JUNO, by Jason Reitman; and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, by the Coen brothers.
- From 2008, THE EDGE OF HEAVEN, by Fatih Akin.
- And, from 2009, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, by Quentin Tarantino; THE HURT LOCKER, by Kathryn Bigelow; and UP IN THE AIR, by Jason Reitman.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
December 21, 2009: Ten Best Films of 2009
Each year, most of the best films-- the award-caliber films-- are released in the fall.However, 2009 was different. Now granted, there are quite a few fine films presently in theaters.But quite a few of the year’s top films came out earlier in the year.
In no particular order, they are:
- PUBLIC ENEMIES, which offers an illuminating portrait of John Dillinger, the notorious Public Enemy Number 1 of the 1930s. This film deftly depicts Dillinger as a populist public enemy-- as well as a celebrity, whose notoriety mirrors the era.
- These days, Hollywood consistently excels in the production of animated features. And UP easily is the year’s best animated film. It is wonderfully inventive and entertaining, and is a shoo-in for the Best Animated Feature Academy Award.
- Not all the films on this list played in theaters. One of them, GREY GARDENS, is an HBO production that premiered on television. It is the story of Big Edie and Little Edie Beale, who, back in the 1970s, were featured in the documentary of the same name. This GREY GARDENS is a story of two women who are stifled by both the conventions of their class and life in a pre-feminist America.
- JULIE AND JULIA, which also centers on two real-life women, is a witty, enormously appealing film about the title characters, who come of age professionally in different eras but are linked in that they both are aspiring professional chefs.
- THE HURT LOCKER is a shattering study of men in combat, men under stress, and the insanity and stupidity of war-- any war, not just the one in Iraq, which is the film’s setting.
- Speaking of war films, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is a deliciously entertaining, unashamedly escapist concoction. Those who appreciate the unique sensibility of its creator, Quentin Tarantino, and his pop culture-inspired world view, will find this film a sheer delight.
- UP IN THE AIR pungently explores a contemporary corporate culture that coldly dispenses with dedicated employees as if they are yesterday’s leftovers. It makes its points in swift, devastating strokes, while at the same time telling a story that is tremendously entertaining.
- A SERIOUS MAN, an autobiographical film by Joel and Ethan Coen, examines a dysfunctional 1960s American family, and religion.This is a challenging film, a knowing black comedy about a world that is superficially orderly but is, in fact, crumbling to the ground.
- KATYN, directed by Andrzej Wajda, the eightysomething dean of post-World War II Polish cinema, is a heartbreaking, fact-based account of Poland during and immediately after the war, when the country was swallowed up first by Germany, and then by Russia.
- These days, many films spotlight characters who must struggle for survival in a foreign land, an alien culture. One of the best is SUGAR, the well-told tale of a Dominican baseball player and his experiences upon signing a professional contract and coming to the United States.
In 2009, I’ve also seen one film that is a sure bet to earn a spot on my 2010 ten best list. It is titled A PROPHET. It is the story of a young Arab man who finds himself incarcerated in a French prison, and it is set for theatrical release in February.
And finally, I would like to heap praise on the Spectrum movie theater in Albany, and other, similar venues.
These movie houses bring audiences foreign-language films, independent films, documentaries-- in other words, the non-mainstream fare that will be overlooked by the mall theater chains. Venues like the Spectrum should be vigorously supported by one-and-all movie lovers.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top |
|
Support for WAMC comes from
|
|
