The Greatest Films of All Time: 2010 Update

If, based on the title, you are expecting to see my own list set out, then I'm afraid you'll be mistaken (but probably not disappointed). I wouldn't presume to, based on my limited and idiosyncratic viewing history, make that sort of attempt. Instead I want to highlight the newest update on what has become to many (myself included) the quintessential such list. They Shoot Pictures Don't They is basically an amalgamation of many reputable such lists into a surprisingly cohesive and satisfying whole. That isn't to say that criticism of the list isn't justified, as Kevin Lee points out the list is extremely biased towards films made in the US and Europe almost ignoring films from countries with rich cinematic history like India and China as well as the films of Africa and and the rest of Asia. The beauty of such a list, though, is giving burgeoning cinephiles and critics everywhere a place to start. I personally relied really heavily on the list when I was first starting out and cannot express how many great films I have seen as a result of their inclusion on the list. As much as many critics shrug at such things, the power of such a list to give people a place to start as well as a goal can't be easily dismissed.

The Infamous Video Review of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

A 70 minute, 7-part review of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) has been making the rounds for a while now. I got it from /Film and The House Next Door but I've really seen it EVERYWHERE. Its completely worth it though, so brave its long running time for a hilarious and thoughtful review of the best example of "cinematic blueballs" in the history of film.

The Art of Criticism 3: Accessing the Artist

In a film class I took 2 or 3 years ago, I remember how, on the last day of class, the professor began to discuss the nature of art. Its something I hadn't really considered before, but at the time I remember being struck by the importance of the question. Although true in every medium, film is particularly problematic when discussing the artist of any particular film. Truffaut, Bazin, Rohmer, and the rest of the Cahiers du cinéma would have you believe that the director takes all the credit in what is known as auteur theory. The idea is still hugely influential and it is probably true that if you know any film theory, you know auteur theory. Naturally, though, it is incorrect. There are so many people involved in the making of a film, from the sets to the camerawork to the kid who gets coffee who just slips in a suggestion to one of the actors, that giving credit to one person seems, besides being wrong, just plain irresponsible. Even films made by only one person are still relying on a camera built by someone else or are filming in a location constructed by many others. No film is made in a vacuum. Yet that isn't really the level I'm interested in, even though it seems the most important. It certainly has the most written about it, yet I believe its possible, and necessary, to dig deeper. As in, is the above discussion even possible (or relevant)?

The Art of Criticism 2: Towards a Basic Understanding

My biggest frustration in discussing movies with my non-obsessed friends is their insistence on "reality"  in movies.
e.g. "that isn't how people talk."
"people are just not that beautiful in real life."
"black and white isn't vibrant" or "black and white doesn't represent reality"
This is both my call to action and examination of this, perhaps the most irritating of issues:

Some Links to "The Directors of the Decade"

My first post on the past decade on film was something of a cliche. These lists pop up all over the internet and reading them all is as pointless as it is boring. Yet they can sometimes be interesting too. I'll admit that I got a little thrill when A.O. Scott, Manohla Dargis, Roger Ebert, and Andrew O'Hehir among others posted their lists. They offer a sort of distilled opinion. A way of easily matching yourself up, comparing your taste. Yet the films and lists do not exist in a bubble and a list constrained only by time and medium also has the power to say something more. I touched briefly, in a previous post, on how interesting this last decade has been if you view it almost as an independent chunk of time from the beginning of George Bush's presidency to today, which sees major health care reform becoming a reality and escalating wars in Afghanistan and possibly Yemen. It was a remarkably self contained period of time, defined primarily by 9/11, but not solely. Looking at film in the context of movements, time, remembrance, and history is tricky at best and impossible at worst. One of the best attempts though, and the only one I really admired, about this past decade was by Matt Zoller Seitz writing for Salon. I certainly don't agree with everything but he creates a consistent set of beliefs (both aesthetic and not). Besides, there's just something really ballsy about picking two writers for best director of the decade.