From Mike Leto, Bethpage, NY:
I agree with you about how opening shots are one of the most important parts in a film. If the opening shot is good then the movie takes hold of me right from the beginning and that can lead to a great movie. I'm glad I saw "Boogie Nights" and "Barry Lyndon" on your list and you made me look back on "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" to make me see how important that opening shot really is. But if I were you, I would need these three great opening shots on my list:
"Aguirre, The Wrath of God" -- The first shot sets up the mood for this film perfectly. First, the opening titles tell us that this is a doomed mission but we didn't even need message. We cut to a mountain covered in fog but as the fog starts to drift away we see a long line of men walking down the side of the mountain. This image, along with the music, sets a tone of failure and desparation before things actually start to go wrong.
"Dazed and Confused" -- I know what you're thinking but I happen to think that this film is a masterpiece and the first shot (just like "Aguirre") sets the perfect mood. When you hear Aerosmith's "Sweet Emotion" and you see the car making the turn in slow motion it brings us back in time. Not to 1976. But to our teenage years. We don't have to worry because it brings us back to a time in our lives where the worst thing that happens is that the party got cancelled.
"Star Wars -- Episode IV: A New Hope" -- My favorite opening shot of all time, but the problem is that it's really only effective on the big screen. The TV screen takes away all the power out of the shot. Of course we all remember the "Star Wars" logo flying backwrds into space and the "Flash Gordon" summary rolling up the screen. But what effects me is what happens next. We tilt down to see the planet Tatooine and we see the rebel space cruser fly overhead. It's obviosly being chased and we see lasers going back and forth. Then, we see the imperial ship fly overhead and it takes up the entire space of the screen. It almost seems to big to fit on the screen and thats how I viewed the rest of the film. I saw the story take place in a world too big and wonderful for us to imagine. That makes for not just an entertaining film, but a great one.
JE: Thanks, Mike. I'm glad to see someone else writing in about "Aguirre." And I completely agree with you about "Dazed and Confused": It's a masterpiece, and will eventually be remembered as one of the great films of the 1990s. (Not to slag "Pulp Fiction," but I think its reputation will decline -- it already seems dated to me -- while the subtler organic achievements of "Dazed and Confused" will look ever more impressive.) And I've never been much of a "Star Wars" fan (always prefered "CE3K" from the summer they both came out), but that opening is a stunner and accomplishes just what you describe. I'll never forget the sheer kinetic exhilaration of seeing that for the first time. "Star Wars" is what it is, no deeper (artistically or thematically) than the old science-fiction serials on which it's based, and it delivers a whiz-bang thrill ride through space (and mythological archetypes). It may be little more than zippy, superficial filmmaking (George Lucas is no Steven Spielberg when it comes to orchestrating awesome imagery), but it's a glorious spectacle.
I guess it's hip to slag Star Wars now. You slag Pulp Fiction, too. For some people, it's better to hate what's popular and champion something less well-regarded or less known and so seem special. Close Encounters is a good movie, but it's no Star Wars. Dazed and Confused is a good movie, but it's no Pulp Fiction. Also, if your comment about Star Wars not being any deeper "artistically or thematically" than old serials applies to The Empire Strikes Back, it's simply not true. I would agree with that assessment regarding the first film alone, however. But Empire was certainly more than an old serial blown up and put on the big screen.
Anyway, this just continues the tradition of people beginning sentences "Not to be rude" and then being rude. "Not to slag Pulp Fiction..." and then you go on to do just that.
Just trying to put things in perspective: I think both "Star Wars" and "Pulp Fiction" are good movies -- just not great or profound movies. (And I agree that "Empire Strikes Back," directed by Irvin Kershner, is the best of all the "Star Wars" films. I also think "Reservoir Dogs" and "Jackie Brown" are better, deeper, less gimmicky than "Pulp Fiction.")
I've never been much of a fan of Tarantino's dialogue -- I think all the characters sound pretty much the same, and that's not very interesting to me. I was simply using "Pulp Fiction" as an example of a film that will decline in reputation (mainly because it has nowhere to go but down, since it's been praised to the skies), in contrast with Linklater's seemingly more modest achievement in "Dazed and Confused." (And, by the way, Tarantino agrees that "Dazed and Confused" is one of the great films of the 1990s.)
I just wanted to tell you I agree with you about the place Pulp Fiction will have in the cinematic canon of the future. It certainly does feel dated, though I wonder if that doesn't have more to do with the impact the film had on popular culture at the time of its release. I think that if the film were shown to someone living under a rock for the last ten plus years, it would evoke the seventies more than the nineties, if only for its sense of style. The film's impact was so large, however, that it will be linked to a period of two or three years in the mid-nineties for as long as anyone remembers that time.
Also, it will always be remembered as one of the more influential films of its time -- think of how many films either would not have been made or would have come out vastly different if not for Pulp Fiction. More than a few directors working right now have made their careers to trying to emulate Tarantino. Dazed and Confused, unfortunately, has not yet been as influential (at least as far as I can tell).
On their own merits, I'd certainly say Dazed and Confused trumps Pulp Fiction (which to me appears to be everything you described in Star Wars -- I feel it is no deeper artistically or thematically than the cheap exploitation films on which it is based), but in terms of impact on cinema, Pulp Fiction clearly leads. Of course, Michael Bay's films havebeen hugely influential as well, so you can't necessarily call it a good thing.
Sorry to read your de-valuation of Pulp Fiction, which I regard as one of the greatest films ever. Perhaps the tawdry subject matter and crude street language is off-putting to some after a time. Never in my life has the dialogue of a film been so memorable or even quotable. Roger Ebert describes the impact of the dialogue on the film's story line much better than I could in the review on his list of "Great Movies".
JE: Don't get me wrong, Mark. I value "Pulp Fiction" quite a bit -- I just have a few specific criticisms. I think it's brilliantly directed; I think QT is a much better director than a writer -- and a much better writer than an actor! (At least I'm not using what I see as flaws in the movie to mount a broad-brush attack people who love it -- like Stephen Metcalf with "The Searchers"!) I know many people -- and actors -- who love Tarantino's dialogue because it really gives them something to chew on.
All I'm saying is that, after being hailed as the greatest thing since the Royale with Cheese, I think the pop culture references and relative uniformity of character voices have caused it to lose a little luster in recent years. But a lot of movies go through a period where they seen dated before they come out the other side. The fashions (and the New York) of "Annie Hall," for example, made that movie look dated for a while in the 1980s. No more. Perhaps "Pulp Fiction" will be one of them...