Films of 2011 Part 5: 60-51

Okay, so due to work commitments (yes, on a public holiday) and grocery shopping commitments, and then social commitments (damn you, good friends!), I didn’t get around to posting a blog block yesterday at all. Furthermore, I didn’t – as expected – get around to posting a second block on Monday which means I now have to do two days of double postings. Which is fine; I come to you today from my laptop in the lounge room via a thumb drive (we don’t have Wi-Fi) with the fifth block of ten to get us halfway there.

Just a forewarning: I am expecting much wrath and indignation as a response to some of the films in this block.

#60. Cars (2006, John Lasseter, Joe Ranft)

*Braces for first hot wave of seething resentment*

So I’ve put Cars higher than Ratatouille (and many, many other things; Bec is still indignant that Mansfield Park was so low). The trouble is, there’s this thing called expectation. When they’re high – such as ‘Brad Bird directs a film about a rat cooking in a French kitchen’ – they’re vulnerable to disappointment. When they’re very low – such as a unanimous agreement that something is by far the worst Pixar film and why did they even bother blah blah blah John Lasseter is worse than Hitler etc. – but something is a well-told story, with plenty of comedy and pathos, enjoyable characters, a great voice cast including, of course, the love of my life Paul Newman... Well, the fact is you just start to like something a whole lot more, and are prepared to defend it. I hope I have done that.

#59. Fanny & Alexander (1982, Ingmar Bergman)

If Bec ever reads these posts, I will face more anger from her about this film’s positioning after I stupidly decided to sit her down in front of this to watch it with me. However, although neither of us really enjoyed it, the ensuing debate where I found myself taking the position of apologist, oddly opened my eyes to dimensions I hadn’t appreciate while watching. Marketed as Bergman’s most accessible film (why is completely beyond me, to be honest), this very loosely-autobiographical film tells the story of a family of performers separated by the death of the patriarch, and the children (the titular duo) being forced to live with their mother’s new husband, a strict clergyman. The dimension I discovered in defending it was simply the ambiguity which runs through the central theme, which is ‘what sort of life is worth living’? While the film appears on the surface to present the point of view that an epicurean lifestyle of fun and bacchanalia is more worthwhile than the simple and pure life of devotion, if you take a step back and look at the evidence itself – rather than the way it’s presented – the shadow of doubt lingers. For the reason alone that it presents opportunity for debate, I promote this film.

#58. Hugo (2011, Martin Scorsese)

Recently given a nod by the Golden Globes for best picture, this is another film with the potential for debate. Billed largely as a children’s film but far more accessible as Scorsese’s love note (well, one of many he has made) to early cinema. The obvious comparison for this film is Giuseppe Tornatore’s Nuovo Cinema Paradiso due to the similar themes of childhood fascination and enchantment with the moving picture, and I think the comparison does justice to both films. What’s most glorious about Scorsese’s piece is the glamour and magic of the aesthetic. I think it’s one of his most stylised films to date, but also one of his most rewarding (full disclosure: I’m not a big fan). The two leads are enjoyable while admirable support is given by Ben Kingsley and Sacha Baron Cohen. I think it would be hard for most people not to be a little charmed by this film.

#57. Modern Times (1936, Charles Chaplin)

Part of my top 250 catch-up and also part of my Chaplin binge I experienced when I discovered you don’t need to fork out $36 for a Chaplin DVD. I mean, $36, really? This film is remembered largely for one scene where Chaplin’s tramp gets trapped inside the cogs of a giant factory machine, but is enjoyable for a bunch of other reasons. Paulette Goddard, who plays his romantic interest is quite beautiful and because of her waifish look (ie. No ridiculous Vaudeville makeup) appears strikingly modern in this, and the love story between the two of them as they struggle to cope with the pace the world is growing is sweet, and funny.

#56. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977, Steven Spielberg)

Just one of those films I felt I should watch. I enjoy a good no-frills narration, and I feel that this film achieves it admirably. There are some highly stylised sequences, particularly featuring Melinda Dillon and her son, but ultimately the storyline follows the premise of Earth’s first encounter with extraterrestrial life in as straightforward a manner as possible. I know I’m making this sound more boring than watching continents move, but what I’m trying to say is that the end result, with a subdued and hypnotic pace, and where the mystery lingers at the film’s conclusion, is far more effective than throwing shitloads of modern CGI and explosions and expecting the story to follow. Are you listening, Roland Emmerich?

#55. Moneyball (2011, Bennett Miller)

Another of the potential Oscar winners this year, this look at the Oakland A’s manager Billy Beane trying to reverse the fortunes of the unsuccessful baseball franchise using an untested statistical method is far more enjoyable than it would appear on paper. Baseball and statistics? Thanks, but I’ve got some continental drift to watch. Talky as it is, Moneyball is held together largely by more crackling scriptwork from Aaron Sorkin who just has a gift for making the unwatchable captivating. Jonah Hill puts in a very nice turn as Brad Pitt’s assistant, and while I think some appreciation of baseball is essential, it’s a very good sports film. One of the best, in fact.

#54. White Heat (1949, Raoul Walsh)

OK, so firstly let me say, when I ran Jez’s sorting program to order this list, I got given the direct choice between White Heat and Heat. I chose this as the superior film, but I did think the two would make an interesting double feature. Both gangster films with scintillating showdown sequences, I do pick this as the deeper and more complex film. This is largely due to Heat’s clear self-awareness as part of a genre, while White Heat is still treading the waters. As a result it’s very much a good guy-bad guy aesthetic, but the twists and turns of the plot are fast-paced, and James Cagney as the mother-obsessed Cody Jarrett is just... well, creepy. Top of the world, ma? Well, #54. Not bad, White Heat.

#53. 50 First Dates (2004, Peter Segal)

*Braces for a firewall of murderous indignation with the power of seven Hells*

Remember what I said about expectations? Now just picture my expectations when confronted with Adam Sandler, in any form. Firstly, the main enjoyment of this film centres around the chemistry between Sandler and Drew Barrymore, which we’ve already seen work well in The Wedding Singer. Secondly, while the plot is... hmmm... is ridiculous too strong a word? It astonishingly manages to elevate itself from low-brow rom-com territory to become at times a touching drama (with a highly contrived premise). The unfortunate thing is that this film is a product of studio marketing committees, and so they had to ruin it by letting Rob Schneider within 300 light years of it (that’s about the minimal distance from him for me to feel comfortable) and throw in a stupid musclebound Sean Astin. Why? Oh, because apparently the sweet and charming parts of this film don’t sell tickets. Needs more stupidity. I might jump into FinalCut Pro or something and see if I can edit Rob Schneider out to make this a pretty great film. The truth is, I really enjoyed this.

#52. Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011, Sean Durkin)

One of my more anticipated films of this year in spite of the fact that it doesn’t seem to be getting much academy love, this movie almost managed to pull an anti-50-First-Dates in being a crushing disappointment to my high expectations. However, I realised how powerful it was when I woke in the middle of the night a few nights later just completely unnerved by the possibility that John Hawkes’ character from this film might be around. It’s a haunting and challenging watch, with a beautifully subtle lead performance from... hang on, is that an Olsen sister? And I just love any film that stays with you, and while I expected it to anyway, this film definitely does.

#51. Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989, Stephen Herek)

I’m not expecting vitriol for this one, but if I do, well haters gonna hate right? Oddly enough, we caught this as a double feature on Go or 7 mate or something, following 50 First Dates. The strange thing is, I grew up watching this film’s sequel Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey, it used to be one of my favourite films, and I’m not sure I ever fully got it. What’s more, I had never watched the original until earlier this year. And, wow, I hate to praise a film for this and this alone, but damn it’s funny. Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter are instantly likeable as the hapless slackers Bill & Ted and the farcical clash of cultures as they travel through history gathering ‘material’ for their history paper just makes me smile. Socrates, anyone?

So that’s all for now. More will come later today, hopefully with a little less pre-emptive defence against the flaming of me, and more nodding and stroking beards and saying ‘Hmmm, what an interesting point being raised’.