The problem with a 10 ten list of the decade is that this is the first whole decade where I was adult, or concious enough to enjoy films although still growing. It’s been a wild ride, “the naughts” - we had the war on terror, the election of the first black president, and a boom and bust economy that I think in retrospect was more of a problem of perception than anything else, but I’m no student of economy, I’ve been a film student. I still am - when does one stop? Certainly the images aren’t going stop.
As for a top 10 I also face enough problem, I have a short list of 200 films, saw roughly about 1500 or so over 10 years (150 a year, light, sure but remember I got a driver’s license towards the end of 2000 and hadn’t gone to my first film festival until 2003). It’s been a wild ride, some films get better with age, others get tainted by reviews I’ve read. Perhaps the gut reaction is the best, but it’s possible to get caught up with a good audience in a movie that might be crap because your in the mood for that sort of thing. There’s nothing wrong with that.
If I were to define the films of the zeitgeist, three easy ones that summarize the aforementioned themes of the naughts would be: Paul Greengrass’ United 93, Chris Rock’s Head of State, and Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story. It’s more complicated than that (It’s Complicated won’t be one, I assure you).
We saw films that were escapist, played on our fears, or provided escape in the form of social commentary. Nothing is new, films have always reflected directly or indirectly the spirit of the times, should a top ten list? I suppose no film is divorced for the environment it’s produced in, smarter scholars than I have been providing readings since Cahiers Du Cinema examined John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln.
My reading of a whole century is subjective, how can it not be. I didn’t see everything, there’s a good deal I can’t see. More movies come out now because there are more screens: just look at New York City. IFC Center even added to add two pathetic new theaters (one is a classroom projector sandwiched on a beam above the first row of seats in a theater that sits 35). Now we’re on the subject of IFC we should talk about “day and date” releasing, a strategy I don’t disagree with on principal - show indie films to everyone at the same time national reviewers are buzzing. This worked this summer for Summer Hours, but countless other films are lost at the IFC Center, they come and go, even with 5 screens, and worse when they do play they’re shown on a cheap-o digital projector (I saw noticeable artificating in Ricky, Francis Ozon’s latest family drama which is like the kindler, gentler version of his first feature - Sitcom, don’t worry, it didn’t make the top 10 of year let alone decade, other Ozon film(s) will be there). For $12.50 audiences should demand a pristine, sparkling print (unless the film originated on digital).
It’s been 4 years since digital proved its worth with 3-D. I’m still not a digital convert and I’m young. I like the flexibility but I don’t think multiplexes are harnessing the digital flexibility that is to show a more diverse slate of films. IFC Center does, but a cynic could look at what the theater is doing as Cablevision trying to compete with Film Forum. The newest multiplex to open in New Jersey, Kerasotes Showplace Secacus is 100% digital, while projection is sharp, in focus, some spots looked a little hot to me when we saw Sherlock Holmes on Christmas day. (Fun but a flick that didn’t make the either top ten). Now why can’t IFC team up with Kerasotes and show an indie film a week, one show, say Tuesday nights, 7PM, you show up, pay full price, and you’ll see a new indie film. If it works, great, maybe it can get a booking there or at another art theater, if not, oh well, only one show wasted. They do this with some classics (why anybody would want to see a Classic deserved to be seen on 35MM, projected digitally is beyond me - do they think we’re idiots, that we droll when the letters “HD” are mentioned).
Another flaw of the a top ten list is that I can’t re-watch everything. Were there some movies I wasn’t ready for? You betcha. Were there others that I remember fondly because I saw them on a date, had a great time, was caught up in the energy of the moment, sure. Were there others that age worse? Sure. There were films I remember seeing when younger that I wished would end, some foreign, I admit. These are films that are acquired tastes, tastes acquired through scholarship, repeating viewing and maturity.
I don’t feel bad - Roger Ebert is an idol of mine, the finest critic in the nation but his early reviews reflect the experience of a younger Mr. Ebert and we’re all in flux. This is to say his quality has improved over the years. Same for filmmakers. Atom Egoyan’s earlier work is risky, too ambitious, somewhat lacking focus - then he made two masterpieces back to back: Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter.
Alanis Morissette is right: You Live, You Learn. Film has opened my eyes to the world, permitted me to live 1500+ lives in 10 years. You will have to forgive me when I get defensive of film and critical of theaters that are entrusted to carry on the fine tradition of projecting film. Yes, they are businesses, they sell snacks, ect - but for top dollar ($12.50 in New York) we should demand the best, what the filmmakers intended. Some chains and theaters are better than others: some markets just lost the finest chain in America - National Amusements, half the theaters in its network were acquired by Rave Motion Pictures. In Buffalo, Dipson Theaters is the finest and most reliable theaters for presentation (despite the uncomfortable seats at the North Park - Market Arcade and McKinnely Mall are great mainstream multiplexes). The one AMC in town is also fine, and Regal isn’t bad as well (Dipson has the best popcorn, a deciding factor of coarse). In New Jersey: Clearview is a mixed bag some sites are told notch (SOPAC), others were constructed cheap and major problems never addressed (Kinneleon, Tenafly). AMC is decent, no perfect, neither is Regal. The new Kerasotes and Edgewater Multiplex (one National Amusements sites staying with the company) are both top notch in terms of customer service, seating comfort, projection (although Edgewater has the better snack bar, in fact a full food court, as well as 35MM projection, so they win out).
As for New York City: Film Forum should be declared a national landmark, the premiere art theater in the country (despite small screens and no leg room), IFC Center was pretty good but one senses the standards are slipping with the expansion (avoid theater 5, I think I’ve seen better digital projection with one of those annoying NCM pre-shows), Angelika has its flaws (sound, leg room, high prices), and Landmark Theaters is usually very good.
I fear IFC and Magnolia’s day and date strategy may lead to the end of a traditional theatrical release, further stressing art theaters that are starving for content. I don’t like this idea, an art house in middle america has enough of a hard time surviving, and shouldn’t film be seen in a theater? I know it’s a gamble.
Hopefully the movies will learn from TV: make a better product, people will come. Pixar is a prime example, they tell great stories that create strong emotional connections in viewers. The best commercial films do that, isn’t that “branding 101”. That’s the secret, you make films that good and you’ll have lines around the block - like a soul saving rock concert, good films can change lives. It was film, still images flickering past at 24 frames per second that brought me to this point in my life, had I not gone to Toronto in 2008 and “gotten saved” by Slumdog Millionaire, Adoration, Me and Orson Wells, The Terrance Davies Trilogy (and 20 other films I saw there that week) I might still be in banking instead in an MFA program. Crazy to think about that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment