The Problem With “Justified”

No one wants to love FX’s “Justified” more than me; well, maybe that isn’t true, but I really want to love it a lot. I like Timothy Olyphant, he’s a talented guy who’s worked hard to earn the measure of exposure that he has…sort of like some kind of anti-Sam Worthington. And he’s a perfect fit for this leading role: he looks good in a cowboy hat, and he plays the straight-up lawman with convincing gusto. The basic idea behind the show is great, too: I love the notion of doing an antithesis to something like “The Shield,” where the good guys are bad, and the bad guys…are also bad. An old-school righteous cop flick is like a fresh drink of water in a long desert of hand-wringing moral relativism, and I say bring it on.

Problem is, the show’s not working. Oh it’s getting good ratings and what have you, but every time I watch it something feels wrong. And not little things like that horrible song they chose for the opening credits, something deeper. I’ve spent a good deal of time ruminating on this, and here’s what I offer as explanation:

1. Stakes. One of the first things you learn in a creative writing class is the concept of “stakes.” It’s been basic to good drama for as long as drama has existed. The idea is, you have an unconscious contract with your audience which assures them that whatever story you tell them, it must be of vital importance to the characters in it. Everything is superlatives: the obstacles must be the most terrible the protagonist has ever faced, and the goal must be their deepest desire. Even if a character just wants to be left alone, they must want that badly, and be willing to go to great lengths to have it, or you are boring your audience. At least 60% of the time, a movie will center on the most intense period of its characters’ lives; the moment which, if they were real people, they would always recall as the apex of strife and meaning. It’s just hard-wired into human nature to want these things from our entertainment.

“Justified” lacks stakes. The criminals that Raylan Givens pursues always want something badly, but he never does. The writers give him loads of back story: a remarried ex he seems conflicted about, a local girl he is forbidden to get involved with it might happen anyway, and a convict father he’s ashamed of. And yet for all of these plot points, none of them mean anything to us or go anywhere. The meat of any given episode is his cases, but he has no personal connection to any of them. They don’t test him, or reveal anything about him, he swaggers through them with detached amusement. We as the audience certainly like Raylan, but at this point he is more illustrative than dramatic: he exists as an idea, not a man on a journey.

2. Back-Up. There’s also the problem of Raylan’s solitude. His cohorts at the Kentucky Marshal’s Office are interchangeable and unremarkable, the writers have no idea how to make them flesh and blood people. In a cop procedural like this, it is incredibly hard to maintain protagonists who have something to lose, but one of the most reliable tricks of the trade is to give them a partner. “The X Files” could do pretty much whatever it wanted, because each case was a private argument of the highest possible importance between Mulder and Scully: is this science or something more? “Justified” leaves Raylan out in the cold, he has no one to relate to, and not a single character on the show (on either side of the law) comes close to interesting. His boss gives him tepid lectures and then inexplicably stays out of his way, which violates the number one rule of writing: “Don’t be boring.” How obvious is it that Raylan needs a boss who hates his guts? You’re doing a classic Western about a shoot-from-the-hip lawman here, and shoot-from-the-hip lawmen always need overwhelming antagonism on both sides. Don’t even get me started on the J. Crew catalog that is supposed to be his fellow FBI agents. Hollywood regularly shoots itself in the foot with casting decisions like these. You’re in the Kentucky field office, you need people who at least act a little more real.

3. Case Closed. The crimes Raylan investigates just…aren’t that interesting. Even he seems bored. I know it’s early yet to criticize that, but these cases form the bulk of each episode, so I’m well within my rights to demand that they hit the ground running. “House” would not freaking work if they couldn’t dream up the craziest illnesses you’ve ever heard of, no matter how much Hugh Laurie limped down the hallway. They get really good actors, and the dialog has punch, but you’re still riding a high-crested wave of “meh” right into the credits. I think the problem may be structure: most of the cases are crimes of passion, not intricate Rubicks Cubes that are fascinating to puzzle out. “Resolving” these things is never really that satisfying. “Justified” may claim some kind of authenticity here, but I could honestly use some suspension of disbelief in this department. Your number one obligation is to give me a gripping narrative, and right now you aren’t pulling that off.

4. The Song. That title song is terrible. I have to mention it again, it’s really that bad. I can’t understand a word of it, the melody is uninspired, and I have to wonder which genius just had to have a rap song headline a modern Western set in Kentucky. No, before you ask, it doesn’t make it better that he’s rapping to a slide guitar. Then some idiot comes in at the very end and sings for half a bar, but God only knows what he said; all I understood was “when you’re…” and I think even that is incorrect. Pick a different song, guys. “The Wire” brilliantly employed Tom Waits’ “Down in the Hole,” “CSI” struck gold with The Who’s “Who Are You,” you need to follow in this vein. Besides “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air,” rap songs do not normally make for good theme songs; people strain to hear the individual lyrics, get overwhelmed, and then can’t see the woods for the trees. Plus hip hop sounds really truncated in 15 seconds, you can’t introduce and develop lyrical ideas in that time frame.

“Justified” is a young show, and right now it’s popular but soulless. If things don’t change, people will stop watching, and many of them won’t even know why. It takes time for the average American to realize that the ad campaign isn’t being fulfilled, but once they notice, they’re gone. “Fringe” was in the exact same position: it got good numbers but it wasn’t going anywhere, yet somehow it got its act together and is now halfway decent. I hope “Justified” can do better and really become something special, but only time will tell. Right now, it’s only a seed, and it won’t be long before everyone has to admit the damned flower isn’t blooming.

Number 16

“Rashomon” (1950, directed by Akira Kurosawa)

Really great art often comments on its own medium. This must be done adroitly of course, because typically you don’t want to violate the fourth wall, but if an author can perceive some truth about the world that is exemplified in his/her relationship with his/her audience, he/she would be foolish not to explore it. Cinema, being a primarily visual medium designed for a primarily visual audience, is so powerful it’s almost manipulative, and so it is uniquely able to self-critique. As we will see later on this list, notions of voyeurism, free will, and perception of reality are all easily toyed with in a movie theater. Many films have encountered these topics, but perhaps Akira Kurosawa’s “Rashomon” is the only one to really drive them home. A masterful and unorthodox drama, “Rashomon” is concerned with the nature of the truth. What begins as a simple criminal investigation becomes a forced self-reflection for the viewer: when and how do I know something?

The set-up is straightforward: a young couple are traveling through the woods in feudal Japan, when a bandit happens upon them. What happens next is unclear, all that can be certain is that the man is killed while the woman and the bandit survive. The involved parties are all brought in for trial (including, in an eerie and wonderful scene, the ghost of the fallen man), and each recounts a vastly different story of what happened. The physical evidence restricts each narrative to a pretty narrow margin, and yet within that space, a wide assortment of possibilities unfold. In one version, the bandit is in the wrong place at the wrong time, and is cruelly manipulated by a Lady Macbeth-style wife; in another, the wife is used up and discarded by both men in a cold display of sexism. Meanwhile, a group of peasants debate over the proceedings, standing in for the audience as they wonder aloud which version is the truth.

The magic of “Rashomon” is its incredible perceptiveness concerning human nature. The thesis of the film should not be mistaken as relativistic, in fact it’s quite the opposite: “Rashomon” operates on the assumption that there is a truth, but the human mind won’t let you get to it. At first, the viewer attempts to suss out which of the characters is lying, but soon the line between deceit and self-delusion gets muddy, and we realize that these three self-interested parties have lost sight of the truth like a boat loses sight of the shore. We have all experienced hearing a story we cannot believe, but “Rashomon” expands that everyday situation to its worst possible form, revealing the grim truth that the human mind’s perception of reality is all too easily bent. Lies are a poison that infect not only their victims, but their authors as well.

The only debatable aspect of “Rashomon” is the peasants, who function to do two things I’m not certain I like. Firstly, they provide us a “true version,” as dictated by an eyewitness with no particular stake in the events. On the one hand, this is clearly Kurosawa coming out in favor of the existence of absolute truth, and I certainly support that. Still, there’s something indelicate about it, perhaps because such a simple resolution is so rare in these situation in real life. Secondly, and as a side effect of that, the peasants also wrap the story up on a high note, and this I definitely feel to be a misstep. While I sympathize with Kurosawa’s desire to redeem the human race with a show of selfless devotion, the silver lining placed on the events doesn’t feel earned, and symbolically it represents a freedom from subjectivity that simply does not exist. Again, a more nuanced version of the same thing would have gone a long way.

Still, neither of these flaws kept me from including “Rashomon” where I did, because a) flaws though they are, they serve to endorse a view of humanity I agree with, and b) they are all piled up at the tail end of the movie, which makes them easier to compartmentalize and deal with. Besides, it’s hard to be too angry at a happy ending, even if it rings a little false. Kurosawa’s stunning indictment of human nature remains a powerful cautionary tale against letting personal motives obscure your view of reality. The truth, Kurosawa seems to be saying, is fragile in the human mind, and all too easily discarded. We must be on our guard at all times to cling to it, lest it slip away from us and leave us out in the dark.

Recommendations

So I just got around to watching “Angels and Demons,” Ron Howard’s adaptation of Dan Brown’s bestselling novel. The movie could fairly be accused of not making a lick of sense, but whereas its predecessor “The Da Vinci Code” was flaccid and boring, “Angels and Demons” mixes in a little “Se7en” for good measure and manages to come out the other end with solid entertainment. There’s an actual climax this time, and a few nail-biters that actually made me bite my nails. To wit, it’s vastly less offensive than its cousin, both in basic story and execution; you could almost say it was a topical dialog about faith and reason. Almost.

I’ve also seen a film called “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” which I do not recommend to the faint of heart, but if you can stomach some pretty unpleasant violence, then definitely give it a try. I was actually quite disappointed with the extreme nature of the bloodshed in the film, because it was so random and unnecessary. The movie is at its heart an investing thriller about an unsolved murder, and its protagonists are sympathetic and ignite a fiery and compelling onscreen romance. All of these things seemed in place perfectly fine without a horrific rape scene (two actually), followed by an equally horrific retribution (which I admit was satisfying in a “Straw Dogs” way). I don’t discount the value of the plot points, but the manner in which they were executed. Fortunately, these missteps are only a small part of a very long and very good mystery, so if you can avert your eyes for a few minutes you will be amply rewarded. I wouldn’t call the mystery’s resolution the cleverest thing I ever saw, but it was satisfying enough, and like I said, the characters here are too splendid to mind.

Corelyn and I watched “This Film is Not Yet Rated” last night, a documentary aimed at discrediting and attacking the MPAA and their ratings system for American cinema. It’s something of a mixed bag: on the one hand, the MPAA is a surprisingly easy target with glaring errors in its practices and ethics. And yet, perhaps because his target is so easy, Kirby Dick slightly fumbles the ball in his indictment. A lot of the movie felt “soft” to me, lacking in journalistic rigor and high in opinion, speculation, and emotional manipulation. About 40% of the movie contained nice, firm facts that really drove home Dick’s point, but the rest was scattered between anecdotes about a pair of P.I.s who fail to register as interesting characters, and filmmakers whose criticisms about their assigned ratings don’t hold water. Kimberly Peirce, director of “Boys Don’t Cry,” earns tremendous sympathy with the ridiculous double-standards she endures, but John Waters won’t shut up and makes a bunch of creepy comments that deflate his credibility, and Matt Stone’s films, fair or not, are presented in a way that makes their NC-17 rating seem pretty reasonable.

There’s a constant sense that “This Film is Not Yet Rated” had the target in its sights but got excited and missed. By suggesting the monopolistic intermingling between the major studios and the MPAA—as well as the bizarre involvement of organized religion—”Rated” touched on a gold mine that should have comprised its entire running time; if it had, the film would have been devastating. Instead, Dick spends most of his time spotting inconsistencies in past ratings as if it was a game of “Where’s Waldo,” and while many of his points are valid, they all add up to very little. He seems not to grasp that these unfair rulings are byproducts of simple human nature, and that they would likely exist in any organization with the MPAA’s duties. Yes, they punish homosexual sex too much, and yes they let decapitations slide while fornication gets treated like the plague, but in focusing there he is going after basic inconsistencies in the American psyche (something the movie actually admits), and that’s not his target. He ends up losing control of his thesis; his movie suggests (probably against his will) that the MPAA’s biggest problem is that it’s run by Americans. He’s got a perfectly good and juicy prey waiting to be pounced on here, but instead Dick gets lost bemoaning how Europeans are so much more advanced than us. It’s a critical mistake, because the viewer can’t shake a nagging feeling that “Rated” is wandering around, grabbing at ideas without making a coherent picture. We never trust the picture, and so it does not compel us.

I would love to see a real journalist go after this topic. God only knows what he/she would dig up.

Great Scenes

(I was saving this for a later date, but since you’ve been so patient with the delays, Dear Reader, I thought you should have it now).

The difference between liking movies and loving them may well be a matter of scenes. Most people I know who “like” movies take them fairly seriously, since filmed entertainment is possibly the dominant art form in our culture. But people who love movies, and I like to think I am one of them, always want to show you scenes. We can be terrible to watch a movie with, we’ll start whispering, “Here comes a great scene, watch this scene” or “That was the best scene EVER, wasn’t it amazing?”

I think this is because an adoration of cinema develops when you begin to break down the components and see how they tick, and it’s so much easier to do this within a more isolated moment. Two hours of moving images and sound is overwhelming, it’s very difficult to get highly analytical without taking a tremendous amount of time. Scenes are the building blocks of movies, and all of their little textures comprise the depths of a film’s personality.

So with that in mind, and fully aware that many of you might clock out, allow me to go all geek on you and reveal some of my favorite scenes:

1. I love the little son of a b___!—The Shining

I have watched this scene so. Many. Times. It’s one of the most hypnotic things ever committed to 35 mm. The setup is simple: Jack Torrence, a beleaguered recovering alcoholic, wanders through a haunted hotel until he finds himself at a dry bar. In a moment of weakness, he confesses a desire to slip into his old habits, and then…well…just watch the scene. Don’t read the comments below until you do!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED3rw-21upw

Is Lloyd real? Is Jack really drinking something? We can’t know, and the more I watch the scene, the more I wonder how much it even matters. The emotional journey of this scene is real. Jack begins in a state of terrible anger, an exhaustion with the harsh reality of sober life, and this is expressed to the audience through a piercing, nearly unbearable score (0:28). This awful, shrill noise lets us know what it’s like for our protagonist to live his life without the smooth embrace of alcohol. Now notice what he says here (1:16): “I would give anything for a drink. I’d give my ___damned soul for a glass of beer.” What occurs next is not a coincidence; it would seem that Jack’s advertisement has enticed an interested party.

The way he licks his lips (1:31) makes me feel parched every time, you can almost taste the dryness in his mouth. Now here’s a piece of really superb film making accomplished by breaking rules: notice that Jack acknowledges a presence in front of him (1:38) soon after, but the camera…holds. This is unbearably jarring, anyone who has seen a movie in their life knows that a cut to whatever he’s looking at should come next, but Kubrick drags it out for 20 awful seconds, the audience getting more and more spooked all the time. What is he looking at? When we finally see it, the image drops like a sledgehammer (1:52). The bartender is looking at him with hungry eyes, like a predator’s. Notice that he never blinks once.

Now what this scene is really about, aside from all the technical genius and Nicholson’s incredible performance, is addiction. It’s about the sweetness of compulsion, of how incredibly good it feels to give in and let go. Look at the relish with which Jack describes his order (2:21), and notice how lovingly the sound design crafts the tiniest shift of the ice cubes in his glass. Meanwhile, the audience gets more and more frightened, because we know things Jack does not: that this hotel is haunted, that the spirits here are evil, that Jack is alone in this room. Therefore the scene accomplishes one thing by doing another: by making addiction seem so wonderful, it draws out how horrible it is.

There is so much I don’t have time to get into: why does Jack think he has money in his wallet, but doesn’t? Where does Lloyd come from? I don’t think, as many assume, that Lloyd was a bartender at the Overlook. The dialogue suggests that he was a personal favorite of Jack’s back home, so the hotel chooses his appea…see, there I go again. The point is, this scene is so intoxicating because it has so many levels. The acting is not natural, nor does it intend to be. Instead, we are watching something like a ballet, an exaggerated dramatic performance, and by pushing these notes to extremes we can examine even the tiniest details of the moment in focus. Absolutely classic scene.

2. Any of you boys smithees?—O Brother, Where Art Thou?

By no means a scene of the same complexity, but I think it’s notable for being so gut-bustingly hilarious that it continues to make me laugh. Really lasting cinematic humor is normally built around jokes that aren’t spoiled by knowing what will happen next.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkBArqISsJo

The comedy here is built on waiting for the pin to drop. Clooney’s Everett manages to struggle onto the train, but we know he is chained to two other inmates. Now Everett immediately begins running his mouth, and since this is more or less the opening scene of the film, the Coens are cluing us in to the silver-tongued absent-mindedness of their character. Meanwhile, the framing stays low until (0:42), which pulls back into a surprisingly high shot. This is significant because it’s very far from the point of view of his audience, which would seem to be the obvious coverage. Instead, the Coens opt for a wide-angle that distorts and shrinks Clooney, making him look goofier and smaller.

And the pin still hasn’t dropped. We know that Everett should be helping his companions, and even though Tim Blake Nelson’s Delmar seems to be making it, we still have one more to go. (0:45) Oh! There it goes, the pin is falling, but it hasn’t quite landed yet. For about three seconds, Everett keeps rambling off while the situation grows more and more dire behind him until WHAM (0:48).

The reason this scene is funny is the echo. Everett talks so fast, and with such flippancy, that when circumstances put an unexpected period on his speech, his dialogue bounces around in our minds a few extra times, and its absurdity increases dramatically. I’m not sure why the human mind does this, but when something is cut off suddenly like that, we tend to review what we just heard automatically, trying to see if there was a causal relationship between the words and their sudden termination. There’s also a vague sense that Everett is on the business end of divine intervention: he’s being struck upside the head by fate for being a moron, in perfect timing with his stupid behavior. The construction of the words he says right before getting yanked is as important as the timing of when it occurs: “Or, if not smithees per se, were you otherwise trained in the metalurgic arts before straightened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wandering—” WHAM and then he’s off.

It just gets funnier each time.

3. All shapes and sizes, Vincent—Pulp Fiction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7u832uSmvk

This one is strictly for the dialogue, and it’s very self-explanatory, so I’ll just let you watch it. The real meat of the scene doesn’t kick in until (1:30), the banter about pigs is pretty throwaway, but once the real discussion gets going, it’s some of sharpest dialogue ever constructed. Pretty much everything Jules says about what miracles are and how they affect you is dead-on. And, since it’s Tarantino, you have to love that his version of spirituality is equatable to the show “Kung Fu.”

4. Why didn’t you shoot her?—Ronin

The greatest car chase EVER. It’s not up for debate in my opinion. Most people cite “The French Connection” and “Bullitt,” both of which are masterpieces to be sure, but when you put aside sentimentality, “Ronin” has them beat. You just can’t touch this thing. There are two main chases in the flick, but this one, occurring near the end of the film, is a little better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITS5GkkqgEQ

The trick to a great car chase is to pour a tremendous amount of money and time into actually doing it. Even with modern special effects, you cannot replicate the sensation of speed created by taking real cars up to and past 100 MPH, which they absolutely did here. Studio bosses, of course, would just as soon do everything green-screen and CGI, which is why a pure-blood beast like this one is such a treasure. Director John Frankenheimer needed a car chase, so he went out and drove some cars really fast. It’s that simple. Even more special, the stunt drivers often had the actors in the cars with them, in order to get convincing “look at Robert DeNiro drive” photography. It absolutely works, not only because you see scenery whizzing by behind him, but because he genuinely appears on the edge of his seat. The sound is also key: for most of the chase, there is no music, and the roaring engines in the mix are the actual motors of the cars you’re looking at. Everything screams authenticity, as well it should, since Frankenheimer is a former race car driver.

There are too many golden moments to mention. (2:56) is the single most incredible piece of driving mastery I’ve ever seen on film. The insane darting between traffic at (3:21). The unbelievable hand-brake turn at (4:01). The headlong dive into oncoming traffic at (4:57), and then again but twice as difficult at (6:00). Check out the aerial shot at (6:22) which is basically intended to inform you: “Yes, we really did it.” Apparently, there were over 300 stunt drivers involved in that single shot. The weaving ballet of cars at (6:27). The hits just keep coming, until the spectacular finale, where Bod DeNiro and Jean Renot end up feeling strangely like the bad guys (7:58). As they loiter above the wreckage, firing rounds at their hapless victims while heroic construction workers come to save them, a funny moment of self-awareness occurs. It’s not a particularly heroic conclusion.

But it IS one heroic chase. Man oh man, it does not get better than that. The sad thing is that I’m limiting myself to one scene per movie, because there are so many others from this unheralded masterpiece: the agonizing surgery scene, the discussion of the 47 Ronin, the hits just keep coming. If you have not seen “Ronin,” SHAME on you!

5. A Rather Interesting Coincidence—Harvey

In the whole history of cinema, there has rarely been a film as magical as “Harvey.” Its charming yet sophisticated tale of a grown man with a six-foot tall invisible rabbit for a best friend, “Harvey” is filled to the brim with big laughs, big heart, and just the right tinge of mystery. This particular scene occurs when a young psychiatrist and his assistant track Jimmy Stewart’s Elwood Dowd down, convinced he is loopy and in need of internment at their asylum. Dowd, completely unaware of any foul intentions because of his warm disposition towards all of humanity, entertains them as close friends, and soon they are engaged in a discussion of his tremendous, two-eared friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfCZ6Q2iq1I&feature=related

Now on very simple level, this scene is just mesmerizing. Stewart’s voice is so soothing it almost rocks you to sleep, and the muffled sound of music playing in the bar next to them creates a wonderful night time ambiance. On those levels alone, the piece would work, but a careful observer may notice some extra dimensions. Consider the disparity, for example, between what Elwood tells you and what is most likely true: Dowd explains that he introduces random people at the bar to Harvey, and that few of these same folks ever come back (1:20). He is certain that this is because of “envy,” but we know in the back of our minds that Elwood’s new friends probably come to the conclusion that he is insane, and thus stay away. And of course, this sweet but oblivious gentleman seems to be under the impression that the rabbit’s name “just happens to be Harvey,” when the listener quickly decides that the pooka (that’s what the rabbit apparently is) named himself on the spot (3:34). So now we see that as we watch this magical scene, our minds are processing things on two levels: firstly, the way Elwood perceives them, and secondly the way that we do.

Now here’s the real genius of the scene: you may think that Dr. Sanderson and Ms. Kelly are just window dressing, people for our hero to ruminate to, but in fact they are just as important to the scene’s success. We have already established that everything Elwood says works on two levels, so it must not be considered a coincidence that he has two listeners. Sanderson, the more analytical and dispassionate one, represents our understanding of Elwood’s delusion, of the cold facts sitting behind the myth. Kelly, a much more emotional human being, signifies how profoundly wise this man is in spite of his misconceptions, and how illuminating his way of living is. If you look at their performances, you can see that they are both involved in what’s going on, but in different ways: Sanderson is studying, thinking, considering, while Kelly is submerging into the moment, being changed by it. The script does this because it knows that the audience is experiencing both of these emotions, and giving us a vehicle for them on-screen makes the scene more effective.

Also consider the subtext of this scene: what kind of man spends literally all of his days in a bar (0:13)? Dowd is almost inevitably an alcoholic, which would keep with the film’s later assertion that the titular spirit is fond of drunkards. Because “Harvey” is such a class act, the flick resists the temptation to spell this out too loudly, but it adds a layer of grit and reality that makes the character more real. Elwood is such a wonderful, compassionate human being that he needs a real shortcoming, something that keeps his character human.

I also must point out one of the most wonderful little gems of humor I’ve ever witnessed in a film. Go to (2:38), and watch Elwood’s description of his meeting Harvey for the first time. He says “I heard a voice behind me saying, ‘Good evening Mr. Dowd.’ Well I turned around and here was this big six-foot rabbit leaning up against the lamp post. Well I thought nothing of that because when you’ve lived in a town as long as I’ve lived in this one, you get used to the fact that everyone knows your name.” The audience is sure that Dowd is going to finally confess how odd the company he keeps his, but instead he ruminates on the fact that Harvey knew who he was. It’s such a slight joke that most people (myself included) totally miss it, but what an incredibly deft little moment. Also, Elwood notes that he had just put Ed Hickey in a cab because he had been “mixing his rye with his gin.” I find it supremely unlikely that Dowd had not also been doing the same thing.

The key to this scene is perception: Elwood sees the world one way, everyone else another. But in this back alley for one hushed moment, the doctor and the nurse (and by proxy us) are forced to see the wonder and magic of Dowd’s world, and to consider that while his stories may or may not have the air of fact, they are still incredibly true. The movie seems to quietly suggest that Harvey is actually real, and that’s all well and good, but even if he is, the real illusion in Elwood’s life is his inability to see his drinking problem. Elwood Dowd should be little more than an average drunkard, but his kindness and compassion towards all people makes him the most mysterious and profound of human beings. This whispered piece of movie magic is about the power of selfless love for your neighbor, and how it transforms the world around you.

6. Even to a guy like me that’s cold—The Dark Knight

You knew it had to be here, Dear Reader. We both knew. The verbal showdown to end all verbal showdowns. The Dark Knight, only a year or two into his campaign, comes up against a foe who equals his determination, his drive, and his ability. This is probably the most frightening moment in Batman’s life, sitting in an interrogation room across from a man who wants to dissect him like a frog in biology class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C0_jDBxJ8w

Much has been said about this scene, but what it really amounts to is an argument over human nature. On the one hand, of course, is Batman, who hides his desperate optimism towards the human race with an angry facade. Bruce can growl and sneer all he likes, but fundamentally his crusade is built on the belief that his example will inspire people. He also believes in order, rules, you might say he’s a dogmatic man. And then we have the Clown Prince of Crime in this corner, who advocates chaos. It’s not a mindless decision, either, the Joker quite accurately observes that the rules of society are promptly abandoned when inconvenient (1:23). Therefore, in his eyes, the more you order peoples’ lives, the more you build unfairness and hypocrisy into the foundations.

So two freaks sit in a room and dish it out, arguing over the true nature of the people cowering in the next room (0:19). The difference between them, and the reason that the Joker comes out ahead of Batman in this particular encounter, is that the former is more self-aware. The Dark Knight deludes himself, trying to keep one foot in the door of normalcy, but his enemy wisely reminds him: “Don’t talk like one of them, you’re not…even if you’d like to be (1:04).” For the Joker, Batman is the only other person living anywhere near his world, he can actually relate to him, and you can sense his frustration with the Caped Crusader’s stubborn insistence on justifying himself by “their” standards.

This is also an interesting moment in that it could not have happened on “Batman: The Animated Series” or in a lot of the comics, because we’re dealing with such a young Dark Knight, maybe the youngest ever (excepting “Begins” of course). He’s been Batman for a little while, but his enemies have thus far been flabbergasted at his very existence. Now comes a man who stands eye to eye with him, and our hero is just not mature enough to handle it. A particularly chilling moment happens at (2:33), when Batman blocks the door with a chair as Gordon tries desperately to stop the interrogation. This is such a brave thing to put into a summer blockbuster, and it’s so spooky because it makes sense for the character. The Dark Knight is exactly that, he’s dark, and the fact that he exorcises it through righteous means cannot always save him from himself. How far is he willing to go?

No one can deny that Batman loses this fight, and so does Gordon. In that sense, this scene is intensely pessimistic, because we watch our bravest and strongest heroes torn down. By the end of the film, however, Bruce will have come to understand how true the Joker’s statement was: “You have nothing to threaten me with. Nothing to do with all your strength (3:03).” He will accept that men like this cannot be handled with violence, that the only way to defeat the Joker is psychologically. At the climax of the film, it is the citizens of Gotham who stand up to this madman, who decide they will not turn on one another even in the face of death. I think that’s an incredibly relevant, important message in today’s world.

7. Some day, and that day may never come, I’ll call on you to perform a service for me—The Godfather

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_RcT9qCCFo

God help you if you haven’t seen this one. I’ve definitely noticed in myself a fondness for seductive, hushed dialogue scenes, where characters say more to each other than just their lines (see 1, 5 and 6). Although there is a deep reservoir of emotional and psychological insight in this scene, I think I’ll focus a little more on the composition and technical elements.

The lighting on display here is the stuff of legend, because it’s so daring. Even for the 1970s, a period when fresh and exciting new ideas were overflowing at the theater, the smokey atmosphere that cinematographer Gordon Willis established is breathtaking. Notice how they’re unafraid to let the key players have shadows on their faces, even when they’re speaking. There is very little textbook method to this scene, it’s all gut and intuition, and the payoff for such a daring attitude is how real the moment seems. It’s one of the very few sequences that creates profound ambiance, even with the sound turned off. It’s an incredibly dark scene, I think a lot of DPs would have told you it was too dark if they had been on set. And since these were the days before non-linear editing or quick turnaround prints, Coppola took quite a risk with so little light.

The framing is wonderfully effective, mostly because it stays out of the way. There are no glamorous shots, the whole thing is meant to be silky smooth and invisible. We are watching the titular Godfather ensnare this bereaved man, and it would be a costly mistake to yank us out by composing in a loud, obnoxious way. I think that’s why this movie has so many iconic moments: Coppola simply allowed them to happen.

I’m also a big fan of that cat in Brando’s hands. It wasn’t a scripted thing, Marlon discovered it hanging around the set and incorporated it into the scene, but it’s hard for me to imagine this moment without it. The little furball is utterly seduced by Corleone, writhing happily in his massive hands, and there’s a vague feeling that this man controls everyone in the room much the same way. He could enforce ruthlessly, and maybe he does sometimes, but giving people exactly what they want is a far more dangerous weapon.

8. All those who are blood type AB, raise your hand—Oldboy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CKxDMOF4EI

By no means a film for everyone, “Oldboy” is violent, grotesque and harrowing. The difference is, its monstrosity is more akin to classical tragedies like “Oedipus Rex” than the splatter flicks that came and went in popularity a few years ago. There are plenty of people reading this blog who should never even get within a mile of this movie, and having only seen it once I’m not sure I’ve made up my mind on its ethics, but the craft involved in its construction is undeniable.

This sequence has fast become one of the most legendary fight scenes in film history, and with good reason. In an age where most hand-to-hand combat is shot in extreme close-ups then edited to the point of utter confusion, “Oldboy” covers the whole fight with a single wide angle shot, which runs unbroken for three minutes. On top of this, our vengeful protagonist dispatches at least a baker’s dozen cronies by himself. Using only a hammer.

Sure, scenes where one guy takes out an army are common, but not like this. Usually, the good guy stands in the middle, and his opponents take turns stepping into a politely timed roundhouse kick. All the while, we know it isn’t real, but we sort of play along for the hell of it. This fight is a mob scene, the entire group descends on their prey at once. As the conflict unfolds, we realize that the unbroken take is far from a gimmick: the director knows we would be content to suspend disbelief, but he is not content with that. He wants us to believe it could actually be done, maybe even by you and I. It would be clumsy, sweaty and unpleasant, but certainly possible…so long as you wanted it bad enough. I think this is an overarching theme in “Oldboy:” people are capable of almost anything, it’s simply a matter of how motivated they are.

I also love the humorous note that ends the scene. Priceless.

9. Chow Yun Fat versus everyone in the world…Chow wins—Hard Boiled

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RIkgDS-7z8&feature=PlayList&p=1FAF600AFB6DE512&index=4

It shouldn’t be legal to make a gunfight this awesome.

10. Oh Danny Boy—Miller’s Crossing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IEet3GLWzs

Watch it first, without me telling you anything.

Did you watch it? Admit it, you didn’t think that was how it was going to play out. You’d have been even more surprised if you’d seen it in the context of the whole film. Hoo boy.

It starts off like so many hit scenes in so many gangster flicks: the ailing veteran, relaxing at home, unaware that the young turks are coming to put him down. They draw nearer. We have flashbacks of the fruit stand scene in “The Godfather.” They burst into the room, ready to draw blood.

And then we remember that this is a Coen Brothers film, and these boys don’t play by the rules. Using quick tactical thinking and years of resolve-building experience, the old mafia kingpin (as played by the great Albert Finney) sort of…how do I put this…”pwns.” That may be the only word that can describe it. He even blows up the getaway car as its fleeing the scene. In his place, I’d be grateful if I didn’t pee my pants. The thing I appreciate about this scene is the element of slapstick that is incorporated into it. The Coens’ films are incredibly idiosyncratic in their willingness to let a serious scene play a little funny. Consider the Looney Tunes death of the second mobster, and how few directors would deliberately do that.

11. You Make My Dreams Come True—500 Days of Summer

A pretty recent release, this one seemed to divide audiences more than it deserved to, probably because Diablo Cody-phobes mistook it for a crass cash in on “Juno.” In reality, “500 Days” is sensational: a light, breezy romantic comedy with sharply drawn characters and pleasing artistic flair. People like me who complain that rom-coms are not bad inherently but as a result of their execution should be forced to watch this gem. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, continuing his much-deserved meteoric comeback, carries the movie effortlessly on his shoulders, while the bewitching Zooey Deschanel artfully matches him. It’s quirky, inspired, and genuine, a completely worthwhile investment of your time and money.

This scene represents one of the movie’s high points. The set-up is that our lead character has just spent the evening with the titular Summer, a girl he has pined for endlessly. He finally got her, and now it’s the next day. Watch, and then we’ll discuss:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2seAJsrtIbQ&feature=related

How magical was that? Tell me you didn’t have a big grin on your face and I’ll call you a liar. The careful escalation of the moment is what makes it work: we immediately become suspicious as every single pedestrian smiles at Tom, but before we even have time to process it, he seems to be best friends with complete strangers, shaking hands with every passerby. And then he starts dancing. And then they start dancing. And in under a minute, “500 Days” has blasted off into a fantasy world. It’s a big gamble, but an even bigger payoff, as no one can deny the absolutely transcendent energy the sequence achieves. What makes this scene a masterpiece is that it finds a way to communicate joy visually.

A dance number in an otherwise traditional narrative is a tricky proposition, and can only work when it provides something that could not be achieved any other way. In this case, “500 Days” needs to get you involved with Tom, needs you to feel as happy as he does, and it only has precious minutes to make it happen. The quickest and most effective way to do this is to make Tom’s walk to work as fun to watch as it was for him to do, and that requires something extraordinary. The movie needed something profoundly visual, a gag so dramatic that it would make this moment stand out for the audience, because it stands out for him. It’s scenes like this that remind us of something important about cinema: it is not a literal medium. Movies are not about facts, they are about dreams and emotions. The quest should be to make something real, but never mind if it’s accurate.

12. The Chicago Way—The Untouchables

The standard choice for a scene from this movie would normally be the train station shoot-out (which, of course, is lifted from Battleship Potemkin), and while that’s certainly a great sequence, I’m more attracted to this one. I like personal scenes like this, quiet moments where decisions that shape entire lives are made in whispered tones. You’ve probably already noticed that by the selections we’ve been through so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g0RLyxP13o

With all respect to Kevin Costner, who is fantastic throughout the entire movie, this scene is so great because of Sean Connery. The man has become something of an ironic figure in popular culture, and it’s not difficult to see why: modern stars like Christian Bale and Jamie Foxx go to methodical extremes for their roles, often destroying their bodies in the name of art, whereas Sean refuses to even alter his accent. He comes from an older breed of movie star, one that is less fashionable today, and while that’s all well and good, it should never be forgotten that the man is famous for a reason. Just because he won’t alter his cadence doesn’t mean his sheer believability can’t carry scenes like this one.

Of course, any time you let David Mamet write dialogue for two men, you’re gonna end up with something sharp. The man is a maestro of testosterone, he expertly crafts alpha males with broken noses and piercing eyes. I submit that this is one of the finest conversations ever composed on a sheet of paper. It’s believable yet poetic, the hardest of balances to strike. There’s an anticipation to the scene: we know these characters are about to embark on a dangerous, exciting mission. We want to see Costner’s Elliot Ness succeed, we want to bring Capone down, and here at last is the grizzled old timer who’s going to show him how. But first, Connery’s Jim Malone has to convince him to take the fight “all the way.”

You may notice, although I hope you don’t, that the cinematography and editing on this scene are only so-so. The angles are maybe just a bit too extreme, the cuts are a bit loud, and if you watch Connery closely it’s pretty obvious that his body is jumping to different positions on every take. But who cares, really? De Palma lets the scene play out in two basic masters, an incredibly wise move, because audiences respond to great acting when it unfolds in front of them undisturbed. By the time we’d even have an opportunity to notice problems, we’re so sucked into the inertia of the characters that we don’t want to.

Like I said, Sean is the reason the scene works. The nuances he builds into his performance are endlessly seductive, and a lesson in compelling acting. Notice his body language on the line: “Do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?” The way he cranes his head to the side, like he’s condescending a small child. And of course, the fire and brimstone in his eyes when he tells Ness, “That’s the Chicago way.” Everything in his performance is seasoned by decades of experience; no lines are wasted, everything has a shade of a different tactic Malone is using against Elliot. And of course, deep down, both men already know how this conversation is going to end. Notice how nervous Costner plays Ness: even though he never says it, we know he is accepting Malone’s terms. We know this man is going to go outside the law. That’s why this scene is so exciting: the audience senses that the moment it’s over, the real action will begin.

Number 17

Aliens (1986, Written and Directed by James Cameron)

It’s not a totally comfortable experience when a sequel surpasses its original; some laugh, some cry, some practice denial. It happens so much in the video game world that it’s almost expected, but in movies it’s a rare breed. I understand why people want to cling to Ridley Scott’s “Alien:” it’s a groundbreaking film, especially from a visual standpoint, and a truly horrifying one. But like it or not, James Cameron’s sequel is better. “Aliens” is a sweat drenched masterpiece, the kind of breathless science fiction action piece that leaves its audience wrung out on the floor in front of the TV. It’s corny in places and no one would mistake the dialogue for Shakespeare, but the actors give the material fire, the enemy is truly terrifying, and James directs with uncanny precision. You simply don’t make an action/horror flick any better than this.

There are several ways to make a great sequel, but Cameron picked perhaps the riskiest one: genre switch. Deciding that no one can or should re-do what the original accomplished, the young director decided to up the ante and move the series into new waters. The studio loved it, but there was understandable hesitation from the fans: the original was so unusual in its fondness for slow tension, and now the sequel was going to be some mindless “Rambo II” knock off?

The truth is, when you think of the “Alien” franchise, most of what occurs to you comes at least equally from “Aliens” and “Alien,” and in some cases predominantly the former. Never is this more true than with lead character Ripley, as essayed by Sigourney Weaver. In “Alien,” Ripley is just another crew member, and she survives the movie because she is cautious and lucky; nothing made her the distinctly feminist legend she would become (in fact, she was switched from a male character at the 11th hour). Ripley in “Aliens,” however, is a three dimensional human being, a woman isolated in time who must face her destiny and reclaim her soul from the nightmares of the past. This is a stronger, more involving story arc than anything Ridley Scott provided, and on those grounds alone “Aliens” leaps ahead of its progenitor. “Alien” is a classic, I have no intention of trampling on that, but “Aliens” is the film that gave us Ripley as we know her.

Let’s just bug out and call it even, OK? What are we talkin about this for?

Like almost all the films on this list, “Aliens” finds a way to be meaningful on a deeper level. Much has been made about the parallels with Vietnam, but Cameron very lightly approaches the comparison, letting it sink in without hammering it. Rather than try to preach (a mistake he comes closer to in “Avatar”), James evokes every conflict with an indigenous society in world history, from the Romans against the Germanic tribes to the British against the Indians. What is constant in so many of these battles is the human capacity to overwhelm superior technological force simply by knowing the land, or adopting more primal tactics, even wanting the victory more. The marines in “Aliens” find themselves on the business end of all three: they don’t know their territory, they aren’t prepared for the suicidal M.O. of their opponents, and they can’t match the aliens’ conviction. These creatures kill because it is their deepest, most primal desire to do so; the humans, by contrast, are weak and unsure of themselves, and all the fancy gear in the world cannot protect them.

The theme is broader than war, too, it’s about technology versus nature. It’s the classic irony that the human species encounters everywhere from the Titanic to Katrina: no matter how advanced we get, the beasts can still beat us. “Aliens,” at its core, is about realizing that no amount of clever gadgetry can protect you; if you want to survive, you have to fight for it with your own two hands. It’s a story that anyone can relate to, it works on a variety of levels, and yet it still allows for a breezy, focused, high-octane action/thriller.

Just tell me one thing, Burke: you’re going out there to destroy them, right? Not to study. Not to bring back.

The script is like the Sistene Chapel of 80s action films: yes it has the corny and over-defined characters, but damned if they don’t all experience a unique and interesting arc that makes them work. At the center of the film are three key performances that make it happen: the first is Bill Paxton in the somewhat minor role as Hudson. One of the most rewarding arcs in the film, Hudson begins as a trash-talking macho man, but ten seconds in a foxhole against his new opponents reveals him as a coward. Paxton, an almost obnoxiously reliable performer, somehow keeps us fond of Hudson at every stage, and we’re rooting for him as he manages to pulls himself together and find some courage in the third act.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHYGgOXww48&feature=related

(Note the contrast!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsx2vdn7gpY

The second is Michael Biehn as Corporal Dwayne Hicks, a quiet soldier we don’t really notice at the beginning of the film, who becomes invaluable once everything goes to hell. A common theme in “Aliens” is combat’s ability to shave away the outward appearance of a person and show you who they really are. Hicks is quiet and almost creepy while orbiting the planet, and we don’t particularly care for him. When the aliens show up, however, he is a rock, a cool-headed team leader with a strong sense of right and wrong. It’s no surprise that he and Ripley begin to feel some romantic attraction, not that they have much time to do anything about it.

And of course, the third is Ripley, as essayed in an Academy Award nominated performance by Sigourney Weaver. I have little to add in terms of commentary about her work because it’s note-perfect. Ripley is a complete character, we know everything about her from her mannerisms to her deepest fears. One transition in particular strikes me as powerful: Ripley has a tender moment with Newt (the young orphaned girl they find in the colony), reassuring her that everything is going to be all right. Slam cut to the very next scene, and Ripley is smoking a cigarette and sarcastically berating one of the members of the team. The contrast between the two has a jarring effect of the viewer, but of course, it is this very duality that we adore about Ripley. She possesses all the tenderness and warmth we associate with a stereotypical mother, and yet her blue-collar background makes her tough as a coffin nail. I’ve often said that Ripley is something of a feminist Holy Grail, because she is strong and self-assured without sacrificing her femininity. Cameron and Weaver deserve a great deal of credit for making this happen.

I wanna introduce you to a personal friend of mine. This is an M41A pulse rifle.

I’ve noticed something during the writing of this list: suspense movies are hard to quantify in words. When I want to explain why “Aliens” is so great, I can say that it’s “suspenseful” and “exciting” and “scary,” but these are adjectives. How do I prove that a movie like this leaves you exhausted at the closing credits? Perhaps I can’t. No matter, my word will have to be good enough. This movie left me curled in the fetal position on my couch; not from pop-outs or scares, but from sheer psychological exhaustion. “Aliens” is a long, desperate struggle against an unstoppable foe, and so compelling is its construction that the audience is yanked right into the heart of the experience. I wasn’t sitting in my living room anymore, I was dug into the trenches with the Marines, narrowly escaping the maw of death with only a sliver of my sanity. The term “suspension of disbelief” was coined to describe exactly this, a grown man screaming at imaginary characters on a screen.

Like so many films on this list, “Aliens” has it all: the suspense, the excitement, and the deeper resonance. It’s living proof that Hollywood entertainment doesn’t need to be dumb, that you can load your running time full of spectacle and still create developed characters and a credible narrative. James Cameron put the world on notice with this film, announcing that it was no longer okay for sequels to sulk in the corner and lower expectations.

We’re Back!

Thanks for your patience, everyone, we are—like it or not—back on the air. A new post will soon follow.

Number 18

“Les diaboliques” (1955, Directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot)

(There are spoilers, marked clearly, in this review. Seeing as this gem of a thriller is available to you on Netflix instant, I BESEECH you not to ruin the experience: skip over the marked parts, and avail yourself of this landmark movie).

Alfred Hitchcock was the internationally recognized master of suspense, but the one man who ever made him sweat for that title was Henri-Georges Clouzot. A tragedy-prone, constantly ill Frenchman, Clouzot’s career was a bumpy ride with extreme highs and terrible lows, finally bottoming out in the 1960s as the New Wave roared through France and left him feeling obsolete. The saddest thing about the New Wave’s unjust derision of Clouzot’s films is that he took them to heart, swearing off his best work as unimportant. Time has shown that nothing could be farther from the truth, especially concerning his masterpiece, “Les diaboliques.”

I’m a little ruin.

A cunning piece of spine-tingling manipulation, “Les diaboliques” is the story of a bedridden school mistress named Christina Delassalle, who is stuck in a tyrannical marriage to the gold-digging Michel (she inherited the school they run). Constantly enduring abuse and humiliation, Christina is so desperate for human connection that she ends up in an uneasy alliance with Nicole, Michel’s mistress and a teacher at the school. Nicole herself is not unfamiliar with Mr. Delassalle’s true nature, and it isn’t long before the two of them are beginning to think about how they can remove him from the picture permanently. Christina is meek and deeply moralistic, but her righteous indignation and the cynical Nicole’s influence eventually gets the better of her. From there, the story really starts to get interesting.

HUGE SPOILER: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-jeKweu8eg

True to its title (which literally translates to “The Devils”), “Diabolique” (its American name) is an incredibly dark film. While not particularly violent and lacking a shred of gore, it’s still about as oppressive an experience as you can have. Clouzot distinguishes himself from Hitchcock by doing nothing whatsoever to relieve the tension of the story. His relentlessness made such an impression on the master of suspense that, according to some, “Psycho” was produced as a deliberate answer, and it is no coincidence that it was the darkest film he ever did. “Diabolique” also lacks any bawdy sensationalism, or tantalizing Freudian subtexts, or anything that might water down the subject matter. There is hardly any score, no romance, and the ending is a far cry from Hollywood standard. This is a sober, disciplined monster. If Hitchcock’s “The Man Who Knew Too Much” (made around the same time…the second version, that is) is a sip of brandy, “Les diaboliques” is a shot of moonshine. Both are profound experiences, but one is obviously designed to smack you in your face.

Let us reflect on this movie’s relationship to “Psycho” for a moment. Certainly Hitchcock’s deranged thriller is one of the most important films of all time, tonally and from a business perspective. It established the modern horror genre as it would henceforth be known, its daring plot—especially the murder of the apparent protagonist in the second act—was a watershed moment in Western fiction, and its deranged twist ending was a revelation. It even has the distinction of being the movie that instituted staggered showings, forcing people to sit through the whole thing instead of wandering in and out. In short, “Psycho” is recognized as a more important film than “Les diabolique,” and I will not contest this. Still, allow me to suggest that Hitchcock owed quite a debt to Clouzot. This film was produced five years before Norman Bates came into existence, and it was already developing the tonal language of the modern horror film. Yes, “Psycho” pushed harder to escape from the grasp of conventional suspense, to create a new and horrific breed of thriller, but “Les diabolique” was the hybrid that first broke that ground. And anyway, Alfred had five years to look at what Clouzot had done and think about where to go with it.

I may be reactionary, but this is absolutely astounding – the legal wife consoling the mistress! No, no, and no!

Vera Clouzot (the director’s wife) steals the show in the lead role, giving us a woman who is too gracious and well-meaning to exist in our world. Poor Christina is a sensitive soul trying to play tough in order to survive, and she knows she stands no chance. That she could never hurt a fly makes her involvement in a murder plot the stuff of great fiction. Meanwhile the sultry Simone Signoret oozes world-weary sexuality as Nicole; this is a woman competent and steady enough to actually make the crime happen. Their friendship is an intriguing one, because both of them sense their deficiencies in the other. Nicole is healthy and tough, but hollowed out; Christina is sweet, yet broken and exhausted. Neither has found happiness in life, and perhaps it is with some sadness that they regard one another and wonder if happiness is even possible. Their war against Michel, the common enemy, could be seen as the struggle of all women against a society that is constantly putting them down. This subtext seems all the more likely when considering how decidedly un-sexualized the protagonists are, even though they are both stunningly beautiful.

I have commented many times that this list does not exclude a flawed film that dares to be great, and so there are many flawed giants on this list. “Les diabolique” is not one of them. From plotting to pacing, this thing is as tight as a drum. Each scene is a masterpiece of classical construction, and the coverage is so good that I have to wonder if this was the most pleasant shoot in cinema history. Every shot the movie needs is here, not a single one more or less. The first time I watched “Les diabolique,” the camera never occurred to me, which is especially incredible since the movie is in black and white. I never saw actors, or set design, or even heard a score, because I was too busy having an experience. It takes a lot of talent and even more hard work to fashion two hours of visual entertainment this sturdily.

The keys in the pool, the husband in the morgue! You dream too much about water in this house!

Of course, none of what I’ve mentioned here is actually why the movie is remembered. “Diabolique’s” legacy is as a thriller, a movie that methodically engineers an edge-of-your-seat experience. Each new revelation digs into the deepest reservoirs of basic human experience: fear of the dead, the haunting nature of sin, and the insatiable appetite of the truth. The black and white photography is used for maximum effect, drowning the gorgeous French countryside in oppressive blacks and grays. The boys’ school is a lovely place, but it is framed and shot like a prison: the rooms feel cold, the outdoor courtyards lead nowhere, the sunlight never seems to escape from the trees. It is the kind of place a haunting could occur in, so when our characters are presented with it, it is easy to believe.

The story is not impossible to anticipate, especially among today’s cynical moviegoers, but the precision engineering of every frame makes for an exceptional roller coaster anyway. The surprise doesn’t really come from the plot anyway, it comes from how strongly the audience identifies with the protagonists, believes in the world they inhabit, and understands the problems they are facing. It’s amazing that at this time, even tawdry thrillers (which is what this would have been considered) examined their characters with tremendous care. “Diabolique” has nothing to trade on, after all, except the sheer volume of the experience it provides.

To commit suicide in the Seine, one doesn’t need to undress.

In retrospect, a classical French film produced right before the New Wave tore up the rule book could be considered a doomed creature, and in some ways it is, but “Les diabolique” has survived its unfortunate birth—it has even endured its creators indifference. Time now lists it among their 25 best horror films, and it is well regarded as one of the classics in the horror/suspense genre. Its austere, largely scoreless tone ages beautifully, allowing new generations to experience a surprisingly hip, modern thriller. And because it is a functional hybrid of modern horror and classical suspense, it is a truly unique cinematic voyage. “Les diabolique” is a treasure, a movie years ahead of its time. It was so good it changed everything after it, even if it did so in secret.

Oscar Commentary

They’ve come and gone, and now it’s time for me to complain about them. Or maybe not, you won’t know until you read! As a sidebar, let me advise you that Number 18 on our list is…good. The review is in draft form right now, but it’s quality. You guys should be excited. Onwards!

First thing’s first, watch this. You WILL thank me. http://www.cracked.com/video_18156_a-trailer-every-academy-award-winning-movie-ever.html

Best Cinematography to Mauro Fiore, “Avatar”–I’m sure people scratched their heads a little at that win. I’m conflicted about it: on the one hand, the camera techniques they used were pretty cutting edge, and certainly cinematography played a major role. On the other, Cameron was most likely his own operator for a majority of the shoot, and you can’t deny that a lot of the “lighting” that happened was…in a computer. We have a separate Oscar for that. Was the key light on Sam Worthington in front of a blue screen really so impressive that it needed an Oscar?

Best Score to Michael Giacchino, “Up”–Sadly, I don’t agree with this one. If there was some way to give this guy an Oscar for his work on “Lost,” I would do it in a second…in fact, maybe that’s what the Academy’s really doing here. But the truth is, there were some really excellent scores this year, and “Up” wasn’t one of them. Clear winner should have been “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” the music for which was as integral an element as any other, licensed or composed. Really magical stuff. Believe it or not, an acceptable runner up would have been Hans Zimmer for “Sherlock Holmes.” Now the flick wasn’t much to remember, but the music was breathtaking. I am content that he was nominated though, it shows that people noticed his accomplishment. Indeed, Zimmer seems to do his best work with bad movies: his “Da Vinci Code” is elegant and mysterious, so is “Angels and Demons.” Go figure.

Best Visual Effects for “Avatar.” Like there’s any debate. It won and it deserved it, end of story. The sad thing is, both of the other nominees (”Star Trek” and “District 9″) would have been my shoe-ins if they had been released in any other year. “D9″ especially is pioneering in its ability to get top-notch VFX done on a relatively insignificant budget; their methods should be studied as the wave of the future. And “Star Trek” was just a masterpiece visually, there’s no other way to put it. It really is a shame they both had to come out in 2009.

Best Writing (Original) for Mark Boal, “The Hurt Locker.” Look, I love “The Hurt Locker,” but I don’t think the script was its strongest asset. Truth be told, the story kind of peters out in the late second act. “Locker” is a masterpiece on the strength of the gritty visual experience it provides, not necessarily because it could be mistaken for Arthur Miller.

Best Lead Actress to Sandra Bullock, “The Blind Side.” I haven’t seen the movie, but the woman earned that statue from a business perspective alone. “The Blind Side” would have been lost forever in the back room of a Blockbuster Video if it wasn’t for Sandra hefting it up on her pale little shoulders. From an acting perspective, I won’t comment authoritatively since I haven’t partaken yet, but I should note that a really great lead performance often sends shock waves. People talk about it, you hear about it, etc. I felt shock waves about Sandra, so I’m willing to bet she had this award coming.

Best Animated Feature to “Up.” Bite me Pixar, “Fantastic Mr. Fox” was twice the film “Up” was. I love you guys, but I’m sick of you grandfathering into the awards every time you make a movie featuring cute animals and a protagonist who learns the meaning of love. “Up” was one of your weaker efforts, only “A Bug’s Life” ranks lower, and I don’t think you needed this. Meanwhile, “Fox” was a daring throwback to stop motion with a complex, three dimensional story about a man (or a fox, as the case may be) learning to put his past behind him. It was an intelligent, mirthful, spirited ride through a genuine fantasy world, and it was snubbed.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role to Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds.” Absolutely.

Best Adapted Screenplay to Geoffery Fletcher, “Precious.” I have not seen “Precious,” so I can’t officially make a call here. Oh the hell with it, it’s not like I don’t get a pretty good sense of the damned thing from the trailer. It’s an inner city drama, right? Okay, then I get the drift enough to make an outside call. I mean does a Tyrannosaurus Rex appear in the third act and bite someone’s head off? No? Then there’s probably nothing in there I couldn’t reasonably see coming (although to be fair, that is most likely the fault of a blabber mouth trailer). “Up in the Air” should have taken it for crafting a story that is a mordant reflection on the economic crisis, and how it’s affected Americans psychologically. A funny, powerful, relevant script and it was also snubbed.

Best Director to Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker.” A thousand times yes. This is the award they tend to get right more often than the others, and they couldn’t have nailed it more perfectly. James Cameron could have won and it would have been deserved, but I knew basic human nature on the part of the voters would keep him from being allowed to have that much success. No matter, Kathryn was just as deserving, and her win is a triumphant call to women around the world who want to get behind a camera. For too long white men have ruled the director’s chair, and it needs to change.

But even ignoring that, “The Hurt Locker” is a feat of directing. The script, as I said, is not perfect, and the actors are all good but they don’t carry the thing. This movie became what it was because a director had a vision and made it happen. Each palm-sweat-inducing suspense sequence was a masterpiece of Hitchcock-ian audience manipulation. Truly great work.

Best Lead Actor to Jeff Bridges, “Crazy Heart.” I mean, I think he had it coming for “The Big Lebowski,” so good on ya.

Best Picture to “The Hurt Locker.” Yeah, okay. For the record, Dear Reader, you may recall that I called this win, and was right. I’m just saying, bow before me. Anyway, “Locker” was a great movie, it was relevant for our times, and it wasn’t some stiff-necked drama, so I’m happy for it. A deserving winner, to be sure. My personal choice is still “Up in the Air,” because it has a tighter script, the direction is just as good, and the subject matter is even more relevant. But hey, that’s how these things go, you can’t always get what you want.

I’m realizing as I think about it that I’m saddened by “Inglourious Basterds” not winning in the script, directing, or picture department. That was a really bold, original film, and I’d become quite endeared to the notion that the Academy would embrace it for that. Oh well, I suspect it will earn a place next to Tarantino’s best remembered movies anyway.

A Brief Explanation

Before moving onto Number 18 on our list, I thought it was important to stop briefly and make a few points that have occurred to me as I’ve been writing. It’s one thing to list your favorite movies, it’s another thing entirely to spend time with them and really reflect on them. This process has been as new to me as it has been to you, Dear Reader, and I hope you’ll bear with my growing pains. Anyway, a couple of tidbits for your information before we proceed…

-Some movies have been omitted on purpose. It’s sad but true that there are a lot of films that deserve a place here and don’t get it due to external considerations, the most frequent being market saturation. Put more bluntly: obvious choices get left off. I wish that wasn’t true, Dear Reader, but at the end of the day, it’s simply not in my nature to afford the same love and admiration towards a piece of art that requires no defending. I am a lover of the under-appreciated (or what I perceive to be under-appreciated), and this colors my selection. There are several movies which were considered for this list; all of them had made lasting impressions on me, all of them were masterpieces, and yet I couldn’t justify reaffirming them while some poor misunderstood gem goes ignored. This in no way diminishes the validity of each movie’s position here, it’s not some kind of handicap that invalidates the ranking, it just means that I am usually biased towards movies that don’t get their due. Some examples of the victims of this system are:

-The Godfather (Parts I and II). I adore these movies passionately, but who in the hell doesn’t? Their craft and mastery left me speechless when I first witnessed them, and they are films of the highest order, but their unilateral popularity gets in the way of me embracing them in my heart. Sad but true.

-Jaws. As a lover of sharks, I have some inner turmoil about loving the movie that damned the great white shark to near-extinction, but I can’t resist its three dimensional characters and old-school thrills. It’s a legendary movie, deserving of the highest regard, and it made a huge impact on me as a person. But it never really feels like mine.

-Anything Tarantino. I am a vigorous lover of “Kill Bill” and “Pulp Fiction,” and I’ve at least admired every other movie the man has made, but something about his reputation makes me distant from his work. With time, as they get less popular, you may see me change my tune. I’m just weird like that.

-Taxi Driver. Few movies have ever sent me so far over the edge, and few have ever left me with so many images and thoughts later on. Few endings have caught me more by surprise while still making sense. I think “Taxi Driver” is the most compelling portrait of urban paranoia ever conceived.

-Newcomers. There are also a lot of films that got left off because they simply haven’t done their time yet. I made an exception for the relatively new “Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance,” but by and large I don’t let a movie enter this list until it draws me back to the well over the course of years. There are many movies I suspect will find their way onto this list in the future, but are simply not there yet as a matter of procedure. Here are a few of them:

-The Great Escape. I am sad to say I saw this only recently, but my reaction was immediate and profound. The film’s melding of carefree joy (note its famous main theme) and heartbreaking tragedy strikes me as a profound comment on the essential dichotomies of life. And Steve McQueen riding a motorcycle is just awesome. Expect this movie to become a member of the club in a year’s time. For the moment, though, I don’t know it quite well enough yet.

-36th Chamber of Shaolin. This one breaks my heart. I bought this on a recommendation and adored it, and I really wanted kung-fu represented on my list, but I simply haven’t given the movie enough time yet. It’s one of the greatest adventure flicks I’ve ever had the pleasure of watching, and nothing will sway me from its inclusion in the future, but for now the relationship is still growing.

-Nosferatu. This movie rocks my world—and frankly is still creepier than any other vampire movie—but again, I haven’t watched it enough.

-Miller’s Crossing. There is not a whole hell of a lot of Coen Brothers on my Top 25, which I admit confuses me, because they are among my favorite directors. It must be that their entire body of work is more important to me than any one film, but I’m still a little unnerved. I recently helped myself to a second viewing of “Miller’s Crossing” and discovered it was one of those movies that is actually better the second time you watch it, so I’m pretty sure this is going to be a thing in the future. For now, I’m in no hurry.

-Barton Fink. Same film makers as “Crossing,” same story. Give it time.

-High Fidelity. A movie that hits upon my personality almost exactly, so I’ve never understood why my relationship with it isn’t stronger. I think I’m going to buy it and see what multiple viewings does for me.

-The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. I need more documentaries on this list. I actually love documentaries, I don’t know why they have so little presence here, but I do admit that I spend relatively little time investigating them. “The King of Kong,” a remarkable character piece about a gaming sub-culture, is as good a piece of entertainment as has ever been constructed. It’s a masterpiece. My hesitation is on two fronts: for one thing, I suspect I’m using it as a placeholder until someone (maybe me) makes the movie about gaming culture. Secondly, I’ve only seen it twice, and that just does not cut it.

It feels good to get that off of my chest. Expect number 18 to follow shortly.

Number 19

“What About Bob?” (1991, Directed by Frank Oz)

Although my aim in this list is always to represent the films that have most impacted me thus far in my life, I can’t deny that there’s a certain added bonus when I get to stand behind a movie I feel is underrated. “What About Bob?” is a comedy so blisteringly funny, and so adroitly composed, that its rapid fade into obscurity remains a mystery to me to this day. It deserves to be remembered as one of Bill Murray’s crowning achievements, and it also proves once and for all that Richard Dreyfuss is in possession of considerable comedic talents which are criminally underused. The director, Frank Oz, is not a man whose work impresses me very much; his strongest talent may be the ability to get the hell out of the way and let his performers work. But for this picture, his invisible technique is exactly right, and his admittedly solid understanding of composition and timing buttress the zanier elements of the film, keeping everything level. The movie goes off like a Swiss watch, clicking into place flawlessly without a forced beat or a stretched plot point. And it’s funny. Oh brother, is it funny.

You think he’s gone? He’s not gone. That’s the whole point: he’s never gone!

The story centers around Bob Wiley (Bill Murray), a lovable puppy dog of a man who is crippled by neuroses which make him extremely agoraphobic and paranoid. He is the textbook definition of “harmless,” but seems incapable of functioning normally in his life as a single man living in the city. Desperate for help, he turns to a psychiatrist named Leo Marvin (Richard Dreyfuss), whose career is taking off thanks to his new bestseller “Baby Steps.” Marvin meets with Wiley and diagnoses him (quite accurately) as needing family connections, but he’s distracted by his career and an impending vacation with his wife and two children, and doesn’t give Bob much thought. This proves to be a mistake, because Bob soon appears at the family’s lake house, earnestly seeking more guidance for his life and quietly ingratiating himself into Leo’s world.

The first thing to marvel at about this movie is the script. Even though Bill Murray allegedly improvised so much of his dialogue that an accurate screenplay could never really be written, the structure of the movie is still the product of obvious care and consideration. There is a delicate tight rope being walked between all three major characters: Bob, Leo, and Leo’s family. All three of them want different things, all of them must contend with one another to get them, and yet they must all remain intensely sympathetic to the audience. Bob in particular is a tricky subject: after all, he is in no small way stalking his psychiatrist, and yet he must never read as creepy or potentially dangerous. He must be persistent enough to warrant an interesting story, but innocent enough for the audience to like him. Leo Marvin is harder still: his hatred of Bob escalates to almost Biblical proportions, he is obviously a seriously flawed family man, and nothing about his psychiatry is particularly impressive. This is a man with almost no cards in his favor for sympathy, and yet if we cannot understand and appreciate why Bob is driving him so insane, the movie doesn’t mean anything. The script wins a victory here by sidestepping plays for sympathy and relying on fleshing Leo out as fully as possible: he is a three dimensional person with hopes, fears, and values that are clearly related to us. He’s ambitious, yes, and sometimes it gets the better of him, but he does not intend to neglect or marginalize his family. We see that he spends a great deal of time with them, and we see that they matter to him more than anything, but he is (quite ironically) not gifted at communicating with them. These are subtle character beats revealed in the tiniest wrinkles of plot and dialogue, and “What About Bob?” nails them. Leo is the hardest kind of character to sell, because he is the most realistic: he’s not a saint, but he’s not a bad man either—he’s just a person with flaws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBjfLE5uX0A&feature=related

Already you can begin to understand the complexity of the story that is evolving. For the movie to work, the audience must watch every scene from multiple distinct perspectives and sympathize immediately with both. There are three discrete narratives packed into each scene of the script: Bob’s wonderful vacation, Leo’s “Cape Fear” style nightmare, and the Marvin family’s amused encounters with an eccentric new friend. As each conflict happens, all three movies play out in real time, and we the audience constantly jump from one to the next. The reason “What About Bob?” is so incredibly funny is that we can never settle on which interpretation is actually “right.” They are all right. This may be the fundamental truth about life that the movie is dedicated to: everything is interpretation.

Dooooccttooorrr Leeeeooooooo Maaarrrvvviinnnn

All of this would be nothing without great acting, but “Bob” has that in spades. Murray gives, to me, his best comedic performance bar none. I know choices like “Caddyshack” and “Ghostbusters” are more popular, but my heart will always belong to Bob Wiley. Dreyfuss is an astonishing physical and verbal comedian; he begins the movie getting laughs from the tiniest gestures, and by the end he is raving madman on par with any I’ve seen. Very, very few actors could have handled such a wide breadth of comedic performance, but Dreyfuss is on fire from start to finish. It’s sad that his job is a little thankless, but everyone who really loves this movie can quote Leo’s lines just as fast as Bob’s. Need proof? Watch the clip below, and wait for the 00:23 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBNNKoX8GoA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ZSyAuNMCM&feature=related (At 00:45, watch Bob quietly cycle through names for Leo, trying to find the one that doesn’t anger him)

The nice thing about a comedy is that its success is more easily measurable: if you laughed, it probably did its job. The trade-off is, however, that once the punch line has been revealed, return trips to the well often deliver diminishing returns. Not so here. The film hits some bizarre magic mark of immediately funny and yet even funnier on repeat viewings. The jokes seem pretty standard on the first spin, but somehow they just hit with more impact every time you see them again. I don’t know exactly how that’s accomplished; maybe it only happens when the comedy comes from deeply felt characters, whom we can relate to over and over. Or maybe some jokes are just so well-built that they last. Whatever the case, “What About Bob” is a comedic titan, avoiding all the pratfalls of lesser entries in the genre: gross out gags, sagging second acts, bizarrely serious climaxes, zany supporting characters that mess up the tone, etc. This is a precision engineered piece of entertainment, written and directed by people who know how to make comedy work. The craftsmanship of this film is designed to highlight the story and downplay the egos of the people making it. I find that kind of film rarer and rarer these days.

There’s a deeply buried psychosis to the film, and I must admit I find it fascinating. At its core, it’s a deeply tragic story about a man who is punished excessively by the Fates for his sins. Leo does not want for love of his family, he does not abuse or neglect them in any way, but he struggles with selfishness and seems limited in his capacity to accept them for who they are. Along comes Bob, who literally thrives on being part of a family, and soon poor Dr. Marvin is on the outside looking in, as if he doesn’t even belong in his own home. The movie never explicitly says so, but the real reason Leo grows to hate Bob so much isn’t just the annoyance: it’s the fact that Bob’s unselfish, giving nature is a painful reminder of everything he is not. The sting of seeing his family revitalized by this man is certainly disproportionate punishment for Leo’s crimes, but life is unfair. On some level, we could expect Leo to try and learn from Bob, but who among us would really do any better?

We can’t be expected to understand him, he is so far above us. We’re like ropes on the Goodyear blimp.

Human beings are deeply territorial by nature, we are naturally designed for monogamy and we jealously defend the people we lay claim to. Dr. Marvin has made a career from intellectualizing human emotions, breaking them down into little pieces and controlling them logically, but those skills are useless here. What Bob presents him with is an obstacle he is not trained for: a primal attack on his territory. It doesn’t matter whether or not Bob intends to take Leo’s family (most likely not, but we get hints that he is not blind to what’s going on), because if events are not altered that is simply what will happen. Countering this requires Leo to call upon his deeper, more primal passions, but this is a man not comfortable enough with himself to do so. Indeed, that disconnection from his baser instincts may be what holds back a more passionate relationship with his wife and family, or what restrains him from giving more freely of himself to others. Bob, meanwhile, is a lustful man by nature; he avoids logic almost entirely, using emotion as the rudder of his ship. He does not categorize who he is to this family, or give a name to what he wants from anyone, he is simply compelled forward by the force of his desires. He wants love, he wants companionship, and he seeks it honestly and openly. Leo’s attempts to prevent this intruder from taking his family are all pitiful, calling on the borders of society to hold his opponent back. When those fail, as they always eventually will, Leo reaches within himself and realizes how broken and crooked the mechanisms of communication with his deeper self are. The discovery rocks him to his core, and sends him over the edge.

I know it’s bizarre to say this, but “Bob” is a spiritual sibling with another film of a very different genre: Scorsese’s “Cape Fear.” Although I would argue this is the superior film of the two, both are masterful examinations of how modern society has made men docile, uncomfortable with our own selves, and crippled from calling on our primal resources to respond to threats on what is precious to us. Our relative safety becomes a curse, a handicap that mutes the passions we need to contend with the uncertainty of life. “What About Bob” milks this for comedy, “Cape Fear” uses it for suspense, and both work completely naturally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chDVWOvkWDU&feature=related

If there’s a lesson that I take away from “What About Bob,” it’s that you must hold onto what matters to you, and hold it yourself. Society has laws and rules of conduct which are fine, but there will always be a mild element of arbitrariness to them, and they will never really be able to protect you from the most basic parts of human nature. Leo is not in regular contact with the deepest wells of his emotions, so he cannot manage them, and they produce childish violence and rage. Bob, a wreck on the outside, is nonetheless a master of primal urges, and his comfort with them makes him Leo’s ultimate nemesis. At the end of the day, for all our sophistication and culture, we cannot leave behind our instinct, and instinct is never more important than in relationships. People want to feel a connection with one another that transcends societal boundaries. If we are to do this, we must make peace with the deeper and more mysterious parts of who we are, and we must reveal those dark corners to one another. Leo Marvin was a man who tried to hide from himself. Bob Wiley was God’s reply.