First, I'd like to respond to the charge levelled in comments that I am pretentious. Yep! Been practicing since I was eleven. Second, while I agree with the idea that this list isn't for people like me but for the masses, I don't see why the masses can't take a little bit of smart cinema now and then. Even though I know that the idea of a populace well-educated in art is against the founding intent of America.
Enough of that, though: on to the list itself. (This, by the way, is invaluable)
I'd reiterate being shocked - shocked! - that Spartacus made the list. There's an obvious reason for just about every other entry, but that film? Who actually loves that film?
I haven't seen Sophie's Choice, but my understanding has been that, absent its central performance, nobody particularly likes it.
Generally, the additions made up for what was dropped, although Fargo, Stagecoach and especially The Third Man are particularly missed (especially The Third Man: if you're going to have the balls to call it "American," it damn well ought to be on your damn list).
On reflection, I should not have said last night that It's a Wonderful Life was "the classic example of of a movie that I liked a lot more before I know much about the movies." What that meant is that, like Woody Allen's Deconstructing Harry, I though much more of its story structure before I learned how very far from unique that structure really was. It's a good movie with some strikingly bleak imagery and one of Jimmy Stewart's five best performances. There's no justification for ranking it in the top 20.
It is good that Preston Sturges has been ranked, although I'm not entirely sure why Sullivan's Travels got more votes than e.g. The Lady Eve. I think it has to with ST's presumed "importance." Which is ironic, given the film's theme.
It is very good that Buster Keaton is ranked. It is bad, but not very surprising that Harold Lloyd is not ranked. FWIW, I still feel sort of guilty for only including one Lloyd film on my list.
I ask this periodically: why do people love The Shawshank Redemption? I mean that in the spirit of sincere inquiry. I have never encountered an explanation that isn't tautological (I love it becuase it is something I love). The AFI brought out M. Night Shyamalan to defend it, and I was too busy screaming inside my brain to listen to what he had to say.
Given how surprising and interesting so much of the list was, all the way up to City Lights at 11 and The Searchers at 12, the top 10 - minus Vertigo - felt horribly pre-ordained.
21 June 2007
6 comments:
Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.
Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.
Great series, Tim, I half-assed it on my own post on the list (I didn't watch the program, seeing M. Night would have caused me to throw a shoe at the TV). But I made sure to redirect everyone here if they want a more thoughtful breakdown.
ReplyDeleteShort version: I downloaded the list of 400 nominees, and there's some pretty egregious shit on there. But no Miller's Crossing or Raising Arizona.
I had the exact thought about Harold Lloyd. I don't get the 'genius' of Keaton, but Harold Lloyd amazes me effortlessly. As does Fatty Arbuckle, although I would be hard pressed to name a feature length Arbuckle film.
ReplyDeleteI also find myself in the minority in my great preference for Modern Times over City Lights.
The Shawshank Redemption is just a tremendously well told yarn. It may not be "cinema" or even high on style, considering it was Darabont's first time in a director's chair, but it's rare to find a movie about the friendship between two men that's this good. Off the top of my head, Brian's Song comes to mind, but that was a TV movie from 40 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThe casting is perfect, from Robbins and Freeman, Clancy Brown, all the way down to James Whitmore and the rat bastard exposed as the real killer. Genre wise it's got everything - drama, humor, mystery, prison break, pulp fiction - and it manages to convey the harsh reality of prison without going into gory detail.
It would be sad if anyone holds anything against the film just because Shyamalan was trying to defend it.
I think you actually said it yourself with Shawshank Redemption. It's decent. And it's lastingly decent. I think the same of Forrest Gump. They come on TV ALL THE TIME, and I can still watch them and not think of it as a guilty pleasure or make excuses that I'm killing time. I like them. Which isn't something I can say about every movie TV programmers think I want to watch ALL THE TIME.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rebecca about Shawshank. I violently disagree on Forest Gump. Maybe you had to see it as a young person, but where I saw Back to the Future at age 24 and fell in love in childlike glee, I saw Forest Gump at age 23 and found myself profoundly irritated and displeased. I have not returned for seconds.
ReplyDeleteGood thing I live very far away from Pat. What would happen if I was back in the midwest during this violent disagreement? :-)
ReplyDelete