http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:13:28 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/14/001328.php John Lars EricsonGrammy Winners As usual, if you're dead - the sentimental Grammy tearducts just can't help but award you. The late, great Ray Charles was this year's big winner - capturing the top two awards: Record of the Year and Album of the Year.Grammy sentiment couldn't help award the cheeze that is John Mayer's Daughters as Song of the Year, and as Best Male Pop Vocal. Personally, the song is terrible - but it pulls (or yanks violently) at the heartstrings, or something, so poof!, here comes the Grammy.Grammy favorite Alicia Keys swept the female/R&B categories, proving still that Grammy voters are old fogies, and like their music to sound that way, regardless if the musician is twentysomething. Speaking of which, Grammy favorite Norah Jones took home her share of awards as well.In the end - a predictable, adult contemporary night at the awards.Record Of The Year: Here We Go Again, Ray Charles & Norah JonesAlbum Of The Year: Genius Loves Company, Ray Charles & Various ArtistsSong Of The Year: Daughters, John Mayer, songwriter (John Mayer)Best New Artist: Maroon5Best Female Pop Vocal Performance: Sunrise, Norah JonesBest Male Pop Vocal Performance: Daughters, John MayerBest Pop Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal: Heaven, Los Lonely BoysBest Pop Collaboration With Vocals: Here We Go Again, Ray Charles & Norah JonesBest Pop Instrumental Performance: 11th Commandment, Ben HarperBest Pop Instrumental Album: Henry Mancini: Pink Guitar, Various ArtistsBest Pop Vocal Album: Genius Loves Company, Ray Charles & Various ArtistsBest Dance Recording: Toxic, Britney SpearsBest Electronic/Dance Album: Kish Kash, Basement JaxxBest Traditional Pop Vocal Album: Stardust...The Great American Songbook Volume III, Rod StewartBest Solo Rock Vocal Performance: Code Of Silence, Bruce SpringsteenBest Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal: Vertigo, U2Best Hard Rock Performance: Slither, Velvet RevolverBest Metal Performance: Whiplash, MotrheadBest Rock Instrumental Performance: Mrs. O'Leary's Cow, Brian WilsonBest Rock Song: Vertigo, Bono, Adam Clayton, The Edge & Larry Mullen, songwriters (U2)Best Rock Album: American Idiot, Green DayBest Alternative Music Album: A Ghost Is Born, WilcoBest Female R&B Vocal Performance: If I Ain't Got You, Alicia KeysBest Male R&B Vocal Performance: Call My Name, PrinceBest R&B Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocals: My Boo, Usher & Alicia KeysBest Traditional R&B Vocal Performance: Musicology, PrinceBest Urban/Alternative Performance: Cross My Mind, Jill ScottBest R&B Song: You Don't Know My Name, Alicia Keys, Harold Lilly & Kanye West, songwriters (Alicia Keys)Best R&B Album: The Diary Of Alicia Keys, Alicia KeysBest Contemporary R&B Album: Confessions, UsherBest Rap Solo Performance: 99 Problems, Jay-ZBest Rap Performance By A Duo Or Group: Let's Get It Started, The Black Eyed PeasBest Rap/Sung Collaboration: Yeah!, Usher Featuring Lil Jon & LudacrisBest Rap Song: Jesus Walks, Miri Ben Ari, C. Smith & Kanye West, songwriters (Kanye West)Best Rap Album: The College Dropout, Kanye WestBest Female Country Vocal Performance: Redneck Woman, Gretchen WilsonBest Country Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal: Top Of The World, Dixie ChicksBest Country Collaboration With Vocals: Portland Oregon, Loretta Lynn & Jack WhiteBest Country Instrumental Performance: Earl's Breakdown, Nitty Gritty Dirt Band Featuring Earl Scruggs, Randy Scruggs, Vassar Clements & Jerry DouglasBest Country Song: Live Like You Were Dying, Tim Nichols & Craig Wiseman, songwriters (Tim McGraw)Best Country Album Van Lear Rose, Loretta LynnBest Bluegrass Album: Brand New Strings, Ricky Skaggs & Kentucky ThunderBest New Age Album: Returning, Will AckermanBest Contemporary Jazz Album: Unspeakable, Bill FrisellBest Jazz Vocal Album: R.S.V.P. (Rare Songs, Very Personal), Nancy WilsonBest Jazz Instrumental Solo: Speak Like A Child, Herbie Hancock, soloistBest Jazz Instrumental Album, Individual or Group: Illuminations, McCoy Tyner With Gary Bartz, Terence Blanchard, Christian McBride & Lewis NashBest Large Jazz Ensemble Album: Concert In The Garden, Maria Schneider OrchestraBest Latin Jazz Album: Land Of The Sun, Charlie HadenBest Gospel Performance: Heaven Help Us All, Ray Charles & Gladys KnightBest Rock Gospel Album: Wire, Third DayBest Pop/Contemporary Gospel Album: All Things New, Steven Curtis ChapmanBest Southern, Country, or Bluegrass Gospel Album: Worship & Faith, Randy TravisBest Traditional Soul Gospel Album: There Will Be A Light, Ben Harper & The Blind Boys Of AlabamaBest Contemporary Soul Gospel Album: Nothing Without You, Smokie NorfulBest Gospel Choir Or Chorus Album: Live...This is Your House, Carol Cymbala, choir director; The Brooklyn Tabernacle ChoirBest Latin Pop Album: Amar Sin Mentiras, Marc AnthonyBest Latin Rock/Alternative Album: Street Signs, OzomatliBest Traditional Tropical Latin Album: ˇAhora Sí!, Israel López CachaoBest Salsa/Merengue Album: Across 110th Street, Spanish Harlem Orchestra Featuring Ruben BladesBest Mexican/Mexican-American Album: Intimamente, IntocableBest Tejano Album: Polkas, Gritos y Acordeónes, David Lee Garza, Joel Guzman & Sunny SaucedaBest Traditional Blues Album: Blues To The Bone, Etta JamesBest Contemporary Blues Album: Keep It Simple, Keb' Mo'Best Traditional Folk Album: Beautiful Dreamer - The Songs Of Stephen Foster, Various ArtistsBest Contemporary Folk Album: The Revolution Starts...Now, Steve EarleBest Native American Music Album: Cedar Dream Songs, Bill MillerBest Hawaiian Music Album: Slack Key Guitar Volume 2, Various ArtistsBest Reggae Album: True Love, Toots & The MaytalsBest Traditional World Music Album: Raise Your Spirit Higher, Ladysmith Black MambazoBest Contemporary World Music Album: Egypt, Youssou N'DourBest Polka Album: Let's Kiss: 25th Anniversary Album, Brave ComboBest Musical Album For Children: cELLAbration! A Tribute To Ella Jenkins, Various ArtistsBest Spoken Word Album For Children: The Train They Call The City Of New Orleans, Tom ChapinBest Spoken Word Album: My Life, Bill ClintonBest Comedy Album: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Presents...America: A Citizen's Guide To Democracy Inaction, Jon Stewart And The Cast Of The Daily ShowBest Musical Show Album: Wicked, Stephen Schwartz, producer; Stephen Schwartz, composer/lyricist (Original Broadway Cast Recording With Kristin Chenoweth & Idina Menzel)Best Compilation Soundtrack Album For A Motion Picture, Television Or Other Visual Media: Garden State, Various Artists - Zach Braff, compilation producerBest Score Soundtrack Album For A Motion Picture, Television Or Other Visual Media: The Lord Of The Rings - The Return Of The King, Howard Shore, composer (Howard Shore)Best Song Written For A Motion Picture, Television Or Other Visual Media: Into The West (From The Lord Of The Rings - The Return Of The King), Annie Lennox, Howard Shore & Fran Walsh, songwriters (Annie Lennox)Best Instrumental Composition: Merengue, Paquito D'Rivera, composer (Yo-Yo Ma)Best Instrumental Arrangement: Past Present & Future, Slide Hampton, arranger (The Vanguard Jazz Orchestra)Best Instrumental Arrangement Accompanying Vocalist(s): Over The Rainbow, Victor Vanacore, arranger (Ray Charles & Johnny Mathis)Best Recording Package: A Ghost Is Born, Peter Buchanan-Smith & Dan Nadel, art directors (Wilco)Best Boxed Or Special Limited Edition Package: Once In A Lifetime, Stefan Sagmeister, art director (Talking Heads)Best Album Notes: The Complete Columbia Recordings Of Woody Herman And His Orchestra & Woodchoppers (1945-1947), Loren Schoenberg, album notes writer (Woody Herman & His Orchestra)Best Historical Album: Night Train To Nashville: Music City Rhythm & Blues, 1945-1970, Daniel Cooper & Michael Gray, compilation producers; Joseph M. Palmaccio & Alan Stoker, mastering engineers (Various Artists)Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical: Genius Loves Company, Robert Fernandez, John Harris, Terry Howard, Pete Karam, Joel Moss, Seth Presant, Al Schmitt & Ed Thacker, engineers (Ray Charles & Various Artists)Producer Of The Year, Non-Classical: John ShanksBest Remixed Recording, Non-Classical: It's My Life (Jacques Lu Cont's Thin White Duke Mix), Jacques Lu Cont, remixer (No Doubt)Best Surround Sound Album: Genius Loves Company, Al Schmitt, surround mix engineer; Robert Hadley & Doug Sax, surround mastering engineers; John Burk, Phil Ramone & Herbert Waltl, surround producers (Ray Charles & Various Artists)Best Engineered Album, Classical: Higdon: City Scape; Concerto For Orchestra, Jack Renner, engineer (Robert Spano)Producer Of The Year, Classical: David FrostBest Classical Album: Adams: On The Transmigration Of Souls, Lorin Maazel, conductor; John Adams & Lawrence Rock, producers (Brooklyn Youth Chorus & New York Choral Artists; New York Philharmonic)Best Orchestral Performance: Adams: On The Transmigration Of Souls, Lorin Maazel, conductor (Brooklyn Youth Chorus & New York Choral Artists; New York Philharmonic)Best Opera Recording: Mozart: Le Nozze Di Figaro, René Jacobs, conductor; Patrizia Ciofi, Véronique Gens, Simon Keenlyside, Angelika Kirchschlager & Lorenzo Regazzo; Martin Sauer, producer (Various Artists; Concerto Kln)Best Choral Performance: Berlioz: Requiem, Robert Spano, conductor; Norman Mackenzie, choir director (Frank Lopardo, tenor; Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus; Atlanta Symphony Orchestra)Best Instrumental Soloist(s) Performance (with Orchestra): Previn: Violin Concerto ``Anne-Sophie''/Bernstein: Serenade, André Previn, conductor; Anne-Sophie Mutter, violin (Boston Symphony Orchestra & London Symphony Orchestra)Best Instrumental Soloist Performance: Aire Latino (Morel, Villa-Lobos, Ponce, Etc.)Best Chamber Music Performance: Prokofiev (Arr. Pletnev): Cinderella - Suite For Two Pianos/Ravel: Ma Mre L'OyeBest Small Ensemble Performance: Carlos Chávez - Complete Chamber Music, Vol. 2Best Classical Vocal Performance: Ives: Songs (The Things Our Fathers Loved; The Housatonic At Stockbridge, Etc.), Susan Graham, mezzo sopranoBest Classical Contemporary Composition: Adams: On The Transmigration Of Souls, John AdamsBest Classical Crossover Album: LAGQ's Guitar Heroes, Los Angeles Guitar QuartetBest Short Form Music Video: Vertigo, U2Best Long Form Music Video: Concert For George, Various Artists Music25481@blogcritics.org Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:13:28 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/18/154434.php John Lars Ericson Wong Kar-wai's masterpiece: 2046.I've been been ignoring doing this year-end thing in hopes that somehow I'll get to the likes of Moolaadé, Notre Musique, Goodbye, Dragon Inn, Vera Drake and Bad Education - but alas, it looks like that won't happen until next month, or until some of them are released on DVD. So, whether or not any of those will make my final, final, final list is yet to be determined (some of them have to: we have heavyweights like Godard and Tsai in that lineup), but one thing is for sure: I've seen the best film of 2004, that isn't even technically a 2004 release. In fact, who knows when the great Wong Kar-Wai's sci-fi/romance, 2046, will get a theatrical release - but one can only assume that it will make its way to North American theaters in 2005. Considering the film takes the concept of time liberally (it's set both in the 1960s, and briefly in the year 2046, in mesmorizing fantasy sequences) - who really cares what year I put it on? All I know is that the more exposure it gets (although it already has quite a bit), the better. So, onto the list it goes - right at the top spot, where is belongs.Two other films on my list are both technically 2003 releases - Jia's epic Platform and Hou's sadly beautiful Millenium Mambo - but their theatrical release was pretty damn scarce, so therefore onto the '04 list they go, as well. Mambo is on DVD and is definitely worth checking out - Platform isn't quite as easy to find; the best bet might be a purchase of the UK PAL disc, if you have a region-free DVD player. Otherwise, we can only sit around and hope that the film finally gets a North American DVD, because it's well worth viewing.And, so - here it is, The ten best films of 2004 (from what I've seen, of course):1. 2046 (Wong Kar-Wai) It's beautiful, daring, hauntingly romantic, meloncholy and more reason why Wong is this era's Antonioni.2. Platform (Jia Zhang-ke) An epic in the greatest sense; Jia fills every frame with something worthy of our time, and never blares its boldness at us. Time passes by without the viewer realizing it, much like real life - and for a film that passes through decades, that's quite a feat.3. Crimson Gold (Jafar Panahi) An Iranian take on the theme that made Terrence Malick's Badlands the masterpiece that it is: the corrupting power of class. It may be a bit more obvious - although never glaringly so - Crimson Gold is both a surprise from Panahi, and scriptwriter, the legendary Abbas Kiarostami.4. The Saddest Music in the World (Guy Maddin) Something oddball, even for Canadian silent-era fanatic, Guy Maddin. I'm sure you'll hear how wonderfully bizzare Michel Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is (and it is) - but in the 'wonderfully bizarre' category, it can't quite match the zaniness of Saddest Music. A must-see for silent-era (and early talkie) fans, or anyone that can stomach the bizzare.5. Millenium Mambo (Hou Hsiao-hsien) I'm not as familiar with Hou's more modern-day, youth-oriented pieces as I'd like to be - and the techno-throbbing of Millenium Mambo certainly makes me want to investigate them. Sure, the plotline (if you can call it that) of the film won't give you any surprises - but this is a mood piece, and is all about how beautifully and sorrowfully Hou tells it to us.6. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry) A film that surprisingly didn't really surprise me both times I saw it in the theater - but it's a memory that has only grown in beauty for me. The quirkiness of the infamous screenwriter Charlie Kaufman lost some of its appeal when I discovered Jacques Rivette's 1973 stunner, Celine and Julie Go Boating - which Kaufman's work, consciously or not, owe's a bit to - but the heart that is beneath all of the quirk is what really moves this film.7. The Aviator (Martin Scorsese) It may not be as complex or daring as other Scorsese films, but The Aviator proves that Marty still can impress, even when he's after something a bit more commercial. 8. Collateral (Michael Mann) Forget New York: Los Angeles is the new playground for a new generation of film noir. I'm admittedly rather cold on Michael Mann, in general, but this film is his best work yet. Beautifully-shot on crisp digital video - I can only think of less than a handful of films that equal it in the visuals department.9. Million Dollar Baby (Clint Eastwood) So delicately-told that it took a few days to really sink in for me; Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby takes a trite premise and tells it the right way. Eastwood may have not have handled the religious themes well enough as he should have - but the film's final segment still is potently quasi-metaphysical. It snuck up on us all at the last minute, which was the perfect way to discover it.10. Before Sunset (Richard Linklater) I won't lie: Richard Linklater's sequel to Before Sunrise hasn't reasonated too well for me since I saw it in theaters; I remember liking it much more than I do now. But, it was a brilliant idea to reintroduce us to the duo nearly a decade after-the-fact, and its concise nature makes it easier for multiple viewings than its predecessor is. Video24381@blogcritics.org Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:44:34 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/20/124947.php John Lars EricsonEmmy night was a mixed-bag of the predicted, and the underdog. Mike Nichol's take on Angels in America for HBO took home a slew of awards, Sex in the City grasped at the acting awards it didn't already have under its belt, and The Sopranos beat out snoozer The West Wing for Drama Series.But the real news of the night (for me, anyways) was the Fox comedy, Arrested Development, taking home multiple big prizes. Never a huge hit with audiences, but raved by critics, one can only hope that an Emmy push will finally get the show some notice. If not, Fox always has the sensation that is American Idol later in the year to get some decent ratings.The two male leads of Frasier (always an Emmy favorite) unexpectedly took home trophies, but in hindsight I suppose that the last season of a show that Emmy voters orgasm over was bound to be thrown a few bones. One of those surprises that tend to be more boring than actually surprising.The academy did genuinely surprise in the Drama Actor category, where resident creepy-actor-for-hire James Spader grabbed the award for The Practice. I didn't even realize that anyone was watching The Practice anymore, but maybe the tape ABC sent out had Spader giving some really creepy stares or yelling a lot.But even The Practice won't be around for Emmy voters to give awards to next year, let alone giants The Sopranos, Frasier, Sex in the City or Friends. Next year is when the shit really hits the fan, so maybe for once Emmy will give us some surprising nominees and winners. Drama Series: "The Sopranos," HBO. Comedy Series: "Arrested Development," Fox. Miniseries: "Angels in America," HBO. Variety, Music or Comedy Series: "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" Comedy Central. Made-for-TV Movie: "Something the Lord Made," HBO. Reality-Competition Program: "The Amazing Race," CBS. Actor, Drama Series: James Spader, "The Practice," ABC. Actor, Comedy Series: Kelsey Grammer, "Frasier," NBC. Actor, Miniseries or Movie: Al Pacino, "Angels in America," HBO. Actress, Drama Series: Allison Janney, "The West Wing," NBC. Actress, Comedy Series: Sarah Jessica Parker, "Sex and the City," HBO. Actress, Miniseries or Movie: Meryl Streep, "Angels in America," HBO. Supporting Actor, Drama Series: Michael Imperioli, "The Sopranos," HBO. Supporting Actor, Comedy Series: David Hyde Pierce, "Frasier," NBC. Supporting Actor, Miniseries or Movie: Jeffrey Wright, "Angels in America," HBO. Supporting Actress, Drama Series: Drea de Matteo, "The Sopranos," HBO. Supporting Actress, Comedy Series: Cynthia Nixon, "Sex and the City," HBO. Supporting Actress, Miniseries or Movie: Mary-Louise Parker, "Angels in America," HBO. Individual Performance in a Variety or Music Program: Elaine Stritch, "Elaine Stritch: At Liberty," HBO. Directing for a Drama Series: "Deadwood: Pilot," HBO. Directing for a Comedy Series: "Arrested Development: Pilot," Fox. Directing for a Miniseries, Movie or Dramatic Special: "Angels in America," HBO. Directing for a Variety, Music or Comedy Program: "The 76th Annual Academy Awards," ABC. Writing for a Drama Series: "The Sopranos: Long Term Parking," HBO. Writing for a Comedy Series: "Arrested Development: Pilot," Fox. Writing for a Miniseries, Movie or Dramatic Special: "Angels in America," HBO. Writing for a Variety, Music or Comedy Program: "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," Comedy Central. Bob Hope Humanitarian Award: The late Danny Thomas. Best guest actress and actor in a drama series: William Shatner and Sharon Stone for episodes of "The Practice." Guest actor and actress in a comedy series: Laura Linney for NBC's "Frasier" and John Turturro for USA's "Monk." Video20037@blogcritics.org Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:49:47 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/13/224210.php John Lars EricsonLists by their nature reflect upon their creator. What my list more starkly reveals about me is that even though I consider myself to be an agnostic, I am nevertheless drawn to themes of religion and spirituality. Cinema, for me, is at its most potent when it reveals humanity's ability to love, experience and inflict pain, compassion, longing, and sorrow. Humanity in film is usually shown in exaggerated states of idealism or demoralization, and rarely says much about the human existence. Genuine humanity, with its brilliance and its horror, shown in the midst of a mysterious life is what I personally long for, and treasure the films where I find it.Even though I personally don't believe the Christian notion of being strangers on this Earth, I suppose I respond to a sense of mysticism and spirituality because of the transcendant nature of them - the concept that we are strangers of our current state of existence, always longing for higher ground. That in itself provides the mystery in life, the constant pursuit of the unknown. The search shown on film doesn't arrive to an answer, but the quest itself is the purpose. The paradox is that we learn through searching for the answer, not by discovering it. I've had the pleasure of learning a great deal from these films, and many others: empathy, compassion, life's brilliance and mystery, and quite simply the pleasure and beauty that can come from the medium of the moving image. 1. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) There simply has never and will never be a film like it; mystifying and haunting, Kubrick's sci-fi transcends the logical and explores how sound, image and tone can expose the future.2. The Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick, 1998) Not simply a war film, The Thin Red Line is a film about life, and its paradoxes: sanity and insanity, sorrowful necessity, single and collective experience, beauty and horror.3. The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums (Kenji Mizogichi, 1939) Kenji Mizoguchi was a humanist and a feminist in his work, and he never capture his familiar themes in such a mystifying, tragic and compelling way.4. L'Avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960) Antonioni's film deservedly won a prize at the Cannes Film Festival for creating a new cinematic language, one that has been imitated since its release, but never equaled.5. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) Almost uniformly to be considered the greatest film ever made, and not without reason; Citizen Kane simply elevated the artform of cinema to a level that has yet to be topped.6. Days of Heaven (Terrence Malick, 1978) One of the most beautiful and poetic films ever made, Terrence Malick's undeniably unique second feature provocatively enforces an Old Testament notion of the beauty of creation, and the divine's ability to take it away.7. The Rules of the Game (Jean Renoir, 1939) Jean Renoir's 'rules' of light and dark, closeups and distant shots, and pairings of twos beautifully and tragically show us what film can reveal about humans in constraint.8. Pickpocket (Robert Bresson, 1959) Created at a time when his work grasped at salvation and redemption, Robert Bresson's masterpiece is his artform at its most thrilling, most revealing about the human soul and what it longs for, and most brilliant.9. Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979) The most compelling film about the mystery of faith, with a final surprising scene that highlights the nature of life and spirituality as unexpected, complex and mystifying.10. Dead Man (Jim Jarmusch, 1995) The haunting land of America, the setting for Jim Jarmusch's anti-Western, a land of violence, mystery, and spirituality.11. Playtime (Jacques Tati, 1967) The greatest comedy ever made, for none other can quite match the scope of Tati's gags, as he quite literally constructed his own city to orchestrate his massive mise en scene.12. Chimes at Midnight (Orson Welles, 1965) The Shakespeare of cinema managed to adapt a few of the bard's plays (namely Henry V and Henry VI) to the cinema, by taking the minor Falstaff character and making him the lead; the result is something surprising, tragic and completely Welles.13. Contempt (Jean-Luc Godard, 1963) My favorite film of the French New Wave, Contempt may not lack Godard's ego, but it certainly has a lot to say about what cinema should and should not be.14. Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1969) One of Andrei Tarkovsky's most optimistic films about faith, but one that honestly reveals its painful nature and the potency of its proponents: science (shown in the fantastic opening sequence), paganism, hypocrisy and humanity.15. Faust (F.W. Murnau, 1926) One of F.W. Murnau's least-famous films, yet probably his best; I've never considered the Christian notion of a spiritual war between good and evil to be very compelling, but Murnau manages to derive an absorbing portrait of divine love from this very Gothic work.16. Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982) Like 2001, there isn't another sci-fi like it, no matter how many have imitated it since 1982, because quite simply none of its copies have the same haunting, textured tone, the same emotional ambiguity or are as gritty.17. Decalogue (Krzysztof Kieslowski, 1987) One of the greatest cinematic accomplishments, Krzysztof Kieslowski's ten-part epic on the breaking of the ten commandments underscores the complexity of faith, and life itself, ten times over.18. Rosetta (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 1999) The perfect example of where politics should lie in cinema: not as a ranting and raving thesis, but as a display of genuine humanity in its purest form of desperation as a result of "the system".19. Celine and Julie Go Boating (Jacques Rivette, 1974) Imagine a comedy that is more bizarre than any of the Charlie Kaufman scripts that are currently in vogue, more epic in length than your average Best Picture winner and more brilliant that the vast majority of every film in existence, and you have Jacques Rivette's 1974 stunner.20. L'Atalante (Jean Vigo, 1934) One of the most romantic films ever made, Jean Vigo's masterpiece manages finds a place of pure euphoric fantasy, desire and longing.21. A Man Escaped (Robert Bresson, 1956) The most intricate and detailed example of a Bressonian display of salvation, which continues to linger and grow more potent with time.22. Sunrise (F.W. Murnau, 1927) A very close-second as F.W. Murnau's greatest accomplishment, this tale of romance lost and regained, often cited as the greatest silent, is my choice as the most romantic film ever made.23. Devi (Satayajit Ray, 1960) I am an unflinching admirerer of Satayajit Ray, and this look at Hinduism gone astray is the greatest example of his beautiful and mysterious humanist artform.24. Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999) One of Stanley Kubrick's very best films, this dream of male sexuality, paranoia, desire, wealth and infedility may at times be disturbing and off-putting, but it's a nothing short of a jaw-dropping conclusion to one of the best oueveres in cinematic history.25. Cleo from 5 to 7 (Agnes Varda, 1962) One of my very favorite films of the French New Wave; Agnes Varda's 1962 film shows us not only what the free-floating movement added to cinema, but also what it could reveal about a woman growing into maturity in a matter of two hours. Video19797@blogcritics.org Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:42:10 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/31/202336.php John Lars EricsonNote: this review contains spoilers.The Village** - mediocreWelcome to the fourth installation of what has become M. Night Shyamalan's cinematic formula: twists, twists and more twists. Evidently still riding the wave of his huge success with The Sixth Sense and its twistage, Shyamalan is case example of a young director trying to cement his voice. Think about the fact that Bergman never really fully shut up about religion, or Hitchcock's full oeuvre of horrors, thrillers and mysteries; a director can continue going a similar pace without becoming a 'one-trick pony'. Shyamalan is certainly no Hitchcock, but I'll give credit where credit is due: the man is obviously trying to maintain a level of consistency in his work. And it's time to stop.My main problem isn't with the concept of twists in his film - although it certainly has becoming boring - but that Shyamalan has becoming increasingly ambitious in concept of becoming more than a popcorn director by interjecting something into his films: subtext. Subtext and horror may not go hand-in-hand for the many that write off the genre, and while I generally am not the biggest fan of horror (probably because I don't scare easily, and don't have the fetish for gore that sometimes seems necessary to get into them), I certainly concede that horror films can come from artists and be pieces of art. Hitchcock has given us numerous examples, but take Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby as one example. On its surface the film is a very entertaining but generally unscary thriller, but what makes the film more compelling is when it is read as Catholic guilt over sex and abortion. Horror directors - or at least the good ones - tend to scare us on the surface with "boo!" moments, creepy imagery and gore - but also attack our subconscious with the subtext of their films. I love Hitchcock's Rear Window not only because it's absolutely thrilling, but also because it's study of the secret desires of human detachment, be it with eroticism or viewing other human lives.The problem is that Shyamalan's formula doesn't complement his strives for artistry in the slightest, giving off the sense that The Village contains two films that are attacking one another. His previous film, Signs, suffers from this even more than The Village does; this new film may have gotten ripped apart by critics, but I hold fast to the notion that the hokiness of Signs is much more unbearable. Even if The Village is less (although not by much) glaring in Shyamalan's inability to successfully merge artistry and a good horror story, his increased ambition in what he's trying to say with it outweighs the minor improvements he's made in tying his two contradicting films together. Signs was a hokey and dumb human story of regaining one's faith set in the backdrop of an initially interesting, but increasingly moronic, alien invasion; The Village is Shyamalan trying to make a more general statement on humanity, and perhaps even a political one.The Village has been advertised as a horror story of a village whose inhabitants have made a pact with creatures in the woods, and what will send most audience members home groaning is that that isn't, in the end, what Shyamalan gives us. Unfortunate advertising isn't the film itself's curse - Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut isn't any less of a masterpiece because it was unfairly promoted as a sex romp between Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman - but the fact that Shyamalan has crafted a film that goes along with its advertising, only to twist us to death. What follows are two twists: there are no monsters, and, even though the villagers dress, talk and live like those in the 19th Century, the film itself actually takes place in present day. The monsters have been created by the village's elders to keep its inhabitants in the dark and away from the modern world; to live in the supposed "innocence" of the past.The basic premise of a village of secluded people reminded me of Todd Haynes' 1995 masterpiece Safe, about a suburbian housewife that becomes allergic to her environment and ends up residing in an isolated New Age community. Haynes' film has often been described as a horror - it more directly relates itself to humanity, and is more eerie, and definitely more compelling, than anything in The Village as a result. It's possible to create very specific interpretations of Safe and its statements on fear; I'm not entirely sure what Shyamalan thinks of the village his characters have created. The murders of family members, experiences of robbery and whatever else that has caused these people to camp out in the woods has led to other forms of fear, and violence. In the wake of September 11th and all the terror alerts amounting to nothing since that sad day, it's easy to see why Shyamalan had the idea for a film about people living in fear. But even though we're living in a world of unnecessary fear, and the characters in the film essentially run away from one form of fear and replace it with another - I'm not sure how critical Shyamalan is of these characters, and the situation they've created for themselves. The film end's on a positive note - and consider a scene with Shyamalan himself holding a newspaper filled with stories of crimes, which almost makes it seem that creating the village was a worthy cause. Or perhaps it was a critique of our violence-obsessed media? Besides a character who is deranged anyways, anything to fear really doesn't exist - so therefore the life is superior. Or is the focus on the emptiness of the threats?Even though the film seems a bit confused - or perhaps it's just indifferent - as to what exactly it's saying about the politicals of fear, the drastic plot twists don't allow what Shyamalan is potentially trying to say and do here come through and reasonate; the narrative becomes a series of contradictions as to what it wants to be. We have a film that is so initially interested in horror, that the plot twists are too jolting and require an amount of faith in its audience that for many will be unreasonable. It's a loud, blatant and obnoxious form of filmmaking - superior films are subtle and allow the experience of the film intoxicate us while we watch them, and let us ponder their subtext after we've viewed them. That's the main difference between Safe and The Village - Haynes' film has an otherworldly surface, and a wealth of complexities beneath it; Shyamalan's film just screams a lot of confusion and generalities at us. Video18122@blogcritics.org Sat, 31 Jul 2004 20:23:36 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/20/201949.php John Lars EricsonSafe***** - a masterpieceIs Safe a horror flick? An extended AIDS metaphor? A disguised gay film? A satire of 80s suburbia and New Age healing? A tale of spiritual loss? I'd say elements of all of the above - but most notably, a horrifying tale of spiritual loss.What makes Safe so horrifying, outside of its eerie tone, is the fact that it underscores humanity's psychological ability to go to extreme lengths for a sense of normalcy, and spiritual wholeness. The human mind is the world's most fantastic, complex and mysterious element - and in that sense, is also capable of terror, delusion and destruction (in this case, self-destruction). There is a character (shown in the photograph above) that is the film's most extreme and eerie example of delusion - cut off from all reality, living a life of extreme fear. What's horrifying about this film is that the villain comes from a matter of differing outside sources, but mainly is the "heroine" herself (played brilliantly by Julianne Moore - who I'd argue the greatest living film actress). Writer/director Todd Haynes (Far From Heaven) commented that he felt it was a "gay film", and I'd argue in support of that, but not because of any parallels that can be found with AIDS (which is not a homosexual-exclusive disease, by any means). The early scenes of social isolation point to parallels with the "gay experience" (or really the experience of any minority - but the difference here is that the separate comes as a result of something that is internal, rather than external) - but the main gay relevance I found was in relation to the extent in which the characters go in the film for a sense of normalcy. Because homosexuality is an internal expression (there is essentially no way of telling whether or not someone is gay) - there are specific delusions that come as a result (shame, guilty, self-denial - to name a few). Those delusions come in many forms - from "gay-to-straight" counseling, living a "heterosexual" life - to the opposite extreme of blind conformity to social expectations placed on gays (including promiscuity - where the AIDS parallel is at its most strong). All of those expressions are comparable (although tend to not have physical manifestations - unlike the sickness caused in the film - outside of AIDS and promiscuity) to what is shown in the film, as all are quests for normalcy that result in negative - and sometimes extreme - consequences.Take that comparison in a religious or spiritual context - which homosexuality is often placed - where self-defeating thoughts and actions only create more spiritual loss, not gain. The characters in the film are taught to hate themselves - which also has potent real-world relevance for homosexuals.That's not to imply the film has no relevance for non-gay viewers - the quest for normalcy and safety has always been a part of human experience, let alone the quality of filmmaking and acting that is worth the rental or purchase. Video15835@blogcritics.org Thu, 20 May 2004 20:19:49 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/23/193414.php John Lars EricsonDead Man***** - a masterpieceWhat the close of Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man - arguably its most important sequence (and my favorite in the film) - reminds me most of is a cross between the endings of both Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey. The easy comparison to be made is the hallucinatory nature of the three - Jarmusch's pondering camera coupled with Neil Young's brooding score is certainly comparable to the insanity of Coppola's film, and somewhat to the otherworldliness of Kubrick's. The main comparison here remains detached from the stylisms of either, however.Apocalypse Now, the most insane war film, shares an insanity with Jarmusch's picture in the dramatic intensity in the closing sequences of both films. The violence and purposeless of the environment the characters inhabit in Coppola's film lead to an otherworldly sense of insanity, and moral corruption. That same insanity and corruption as a result violence, racism and purposelessness is just as highlighted in the close of Dead Man as it is in Apocalypse Now; the surface-level reasoning given for the hallucinatory tone is that the film's lead (played by Johnny Depp) has a severe loss of blood, as a result of a bullet wound. Just as Coppola's film is a parody of the Vietnam war itself, Jarmusch's can easily be called a parody of America's obsession with violence - as Chicago Reader critic Jonathan Rosenbaum points out, our lead gains in fame as he murders more and more.While the look on violence is an essential part of the film, it isn't the highlight of the film for me, which leads to the 2001 comparison. The end segment of Kubrick's film involves its lead, Dave, traveling into a different plane of existence, and the style of the film takes a distinct turn in a different, mysterious and ambiguous direction to underscore this. Depp's William Blake is similarly taken into a different plane of existence - although the difference here is that it is spiritual, unlike the physical plane that Dave travels through. What we see here, and what makes Dead Man so haunting and mysterious, is a complexity of spirituality that existed in America before Christianity and European thought covered the land.What probably makes Dead Man so easy to dislike for some people is the fact that it's the exact opposite of what America cinema is "supposed" to be, and what a western should be. Years and years of a particular perspective on the American "legend" of the west fed through Hollywood cinema is essentially reversed - and not only the outlook on violence, which is distinctly different in Jarmusch's film than the "bullets make heroes" outlook in the conventional Western. Spirituality here is from a Native American perspective, rather than a Christian one - and even though William Blake is Caucasian - the film itself is told more from a Native American perspective than a European one.Jarmusch demonizes white America the same way that Native Americans have been demonized in Hollywood cinema for decades. That may not be the most effective way to make a moral statement - but the key here is that Dead Man in many ways is just as much of a parody of conventional westerns as it as a serious, and haunting film (and much of Jarmusch's work as a filmmaker admittedly lies in comedy). Consider the supposed vast research Jarmusch did on Native American culture to make it as accurate as possible - compared to the cardboard cutouts of the majority of Caucasian characters. While this cheapens the film as a moral statement, it also does something to aide in leveling the playing field.As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. acknowledged, "Every man lives in two realms: the internal and the external. The internal is that realm of spirituality, expressed in art, literature, morality and religion." Dead Man is a film that grasps onto the complexities internal realm of America - it's mysterious and dark past, present and future. There is a scene in which two characters ride their horses through a woods, where eyes are attached to the trees - and remain unacknowledged. I do not know enough about Native American culture to point to that as a source of inspiration for Jarmusch in including this brief element to the film - but if anything, it gives a glimpse at how mysterious this land is, and life is in itself. Video15046@blogcritics.org Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:34:14 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/17/123515.php John Lars EricsonKill Bill: Volume 2**** - excellentThe success or demise of a Quentin Tarantino film depends on how well the viewer responds to his dialogue. The first volume of Tarantino's Kill Bill duo was a different case, it was all action and hardly any words - what Tarantino offered was his natural knack for direction. Kill Bill: Volume 2 strays away from Volume 1 - the latest film is nearly as talky as Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. His camerawork slows, too - lingering at a similar pace to his previous films.The problem is, the addition of the Tarantino-stamped dialogue and slow pace is why it isn't as good as Volume 1. I do admire the attempt at adding complexity to all the characters involved, but in doing so, Tarantino falls in trying to transcend the film's Z-movie inspirations too much. The great thing about the first installment is that it upgraded the inspired films - camerawork, cinematography, acting, and the whole spectacle of the thing - but stayed true to them, and acknowledged how cheezy and cheap they are. The problem with humanizing the characters that originally came out of a Z-movie context is that it stops becoming intentionally cheezy, and starts becoming genuinely maudlin.If Volume 1 was a departure, as a showcase of raw direction over wordplay - then Volume 2 is a departure for Tarantino, as an attempt to become a humanist. That's not to imply that his previous films lacked humanity - Jackie Brown's aging lead, in particular, is a great example. But, whatever previous attempts at humanity go only so far - the characters still feel like cut-outs from the movies he loves so much, which is the appeal. Volume 2 taught me that Tarantino - at least not in an updated Z-movie context - is not an effective humanist. I didn't feel for anyone any more than I did in Volume 1, it just created a sense of longing for the cut-outs, that feel true to the original works that inspire all of his films. For once, Tarantino gives off a sense that he feels "above" them - that they aren't human enough for him, and that he can transcend them. The problem being is that we remember fights in which The Bride takes down 88 killers and a Japanese schoolgirl with a steel ball - and scenes in which blood comes spouting out of someone's head like a geyser. The ridiculousness of the context quite frankly contradicts with the humanizing - at least for me, it did - which is why Volume 2's more ridiculous scenes, a fight with the one-eyed Elle and training with a white-beared martial arts master, are the standouts in the film. Those scenes don't forget the ridiculousness of it all, they don't work extra-hard to transcend that of which is terrible (but fun), by definition.I could buy the argument that Tarantino's humanizing only adds to the cheeziness, not detracts from it, but there are too many scenes that, from my standpoint, felt like they were meant to be taken directly, not as camp. What I see, when the film throws a cheezy quote like "The lioness has reuinted with her cub, all is well in the jungle", isn't something that freely complements the material - but a heads-and-tails attempt to fuse the Z-movie roots with a crying scene. For me, it was too little, too late.Even with a gaping flaw such as this, I can't help love the film - or at least certain aspects about it. Tarantino created a strange anticlimax narrative scheme with the two pictures - the most fantastic and dramatically effective scenes were thrown in Volume 1, and Volume 2 essentially feels like a 2+ hour denouement. I won't say that this is entirely effective - at least not in this context - but it's compelling, at very least. Volume 1, in a lot of ways, almost feels the the "real" film - characters in Volume 2 hark back on incidents that happened in the first installment almost as if they had happened in a different film. If anything, that denouement feel justifies the awkward shift in tone between the two features - it makes it easier to appreciate Volume 2 for what it is.There are scenes that feel that they are straight out of Volume 1, and those scenes are just as exciting and brilliant as anything in the original (apart from "The Showdown at the House of the Blue Leaves", which is clearly the duo's highlight sequence). They prove Tarantino's strengths as an escapist filmmaker when he stays true to his roots. Volume 2 also proves his knack for the camera (although not as much as Volume 1 does), the gorgeous Robert Richardson cinematography, his ability to make the most of his settings - including a fight in a trailer, even some moments that feel taken out of a poetic Western.If anything, Kill Bill would probably have been better as one long film. Even if the second volume has its flaws, I loved its highlights. I can hate it when a filmmaker goes astray, but even flaws can be compelling. If Volume 2 is anything: compelling is it. Video14839@blogcritics.org Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:35:15 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/05/014308.php John Lars EricsonThe Company ***** - a masterpieceRobert Altman's most recent feature, The Company, is not a film for everyone. It doesn't require that you know anything about dance (I know very little, and don't much care to learn more) - it's polarizing nature is in its plotlessness. Many films can be considered to be "plotless" - the most recent perfect example would be Gus Van Sant's Gerry - but The Company lacks a plot in a different way. The film is more about observation than it is telling (Gerry may be light in the area of plot, but it still tells us things - emotions, ambigious themes), and in that right I would compare it more to something along the lines of Dziga Vertov's The Man With the Movie Camera than Gus Van Sant's film.To say The Company is without any thematic worth is underanalyzing it - but much of its appeal, like the ballet displayed, is as an experience. Characters explain some of the motivations behind certain aspects of the differing ballet in terms of vague and pretentious metaphors that can never be developed ("Zebras enter the stage, the black and white signifying the duality of nature and man"), and they subtract from the experience. The ballet - at least from what I get out of it - serves purely on an aesthetic plane, much like most of Altman's film. The difference between the two is that Altman is so brilliantly subtle with his themes, that they never overbear the beauty of his observation. By doing so, he allows his film (an artistic medium that can be thematically rich, unlike dance) to compliment what it is observing.What themes Altman's film penetrates through its observation is the complimentary nature of both life and art. Film critic Ed Gonzalez (Slant Magazine) notes that Altman manages to "find dance in everything... When Josh makes an omelette for Ry, Altman lingers as much on Franco's obliques as he does on the tomatoes he seductively slices into. Just as dance is her performance, food is his." I don't agree with the notion that art is in everything, and everything is art - whatever "dance" Altman finds serves more for his particular film and its subject, rather than a general statement - but there is some truth in the relationship formed. There is no segregation between art and non-art (and the artist and non-artist) in the film, both strive to compliment one another than to exist on differing planes. Ballet needs an audience, and an audience needs ballet.The compliment between the artist and non-artist spills over to life itself - the romance between Neve Campbell's Ry and James Franco's Josh serve as the working example. It is implied earlier that Ry has ended a relationship on poor terms with another dancer in the company - two artists without a non-artist to collaborate with. In the final dance sequence, Ry injures herself and discovers that Josh has burnt his arm at work - a reminder of the relationship between art and life, all to the tune to the beauty of dance.Now that I have seen The Company, my 2003 top ten list has been altered to include it. The list and all previous reviews and essays can be viewed at Filmateur. Video14397@blogcritics.org Mon, 5 Apr 2004 01:43:08 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/22/204024.php John Lars EricsonEternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind**** - excellentToo many films tackle the subject of love, and too few of them are really honest about it. It's easy to romanticize the romantic, and most films that feature the darker side of love poison it with blind cynicism. All relationships, not just romantic ones, feature their ups and downs - and whether the relationship succeeds depends on if both parties decide the ups outweight the downs, and are willing to take the flawed aspects of humanity and deal with them. Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman and director Michel Gondry's second collaboration, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, holds onto the optimism. It desires to see the beauty of love, while acknowledging its pain. Call me a dreamer, but that moves me. David Gordon Green's beautiful All the Real Girls comes to mind - and while the film ended with more cynicism, it found the same delicate balance of hardship and glory.Eternal Sunshine has struck some viewers in a way that other Kaufman films haven't: emotionally. "All brains and no heart," could be a way of describing previous Kaufman films, but I personally disagree. The "headiness" of both Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. (both films Kaufman collaborated with director Spike Jonze) is their strong suit, while Eternal Sunshine is more obviously "emotional" - despite it being just as complex as Kaufman's previous scripts. That complexity may have caused some viewers to just simply overlook the humanity in the Jonze/Kaufman collaborations; the study of failure in Adaptation., and the agony of lust and complexity of sexuality in Being John Malkovich.Eternal Sunshine's obvious themes on love may have caused many to overlook its status as something else: a science-fiction film. The sci-fi plotline of memories being erased through a scientific procedure has been mainly noted as just that: a "premise", or "backdrop". But the film is no less "sci-fi" than Tarkovsky's two science-fiction features, Solaris and Stalker. Both films generally ignore their science-fiction "backdrops" in favor of more universal themes, the mysteries of spirituality in Stalker, and the numerious themes of humanity in Solaris. Perhaps the kicker for most is that Eternal Sunshine is set in the present-day, but Tarkovsky's long take of a character riding through a modern-day city in Solaris should remind most that the future is now.Its dual role as a piece on love, and as science-fiction, is why Eternal Sunshine works - just as Tarkovsky's films do, and Kaufman's collaborations with Jonze do: they make you think, and they move you. Video13986@blogcritics.org Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:40:24 EST