or: as promised, an explication of why I chose these pictures and sounds:
I. Titles: Chad Feldheimer gives the invocation (Brad Pitt in Joel and Ethan Coen's "Burn After Reading").
II. Prologue: Hannah Schygulla, Goddess of Fassbinder, Animating Spirit of Cinema, awakens to look us in the eye and set the movie-countdown in motion. (From "The Edge of Heaven." I tweaked it to begin in black and white and fade into color.)
10. "The Fall" (Tarsem Singh; comedy, Western/Eastern, fantasy, adventure). "The Fall" is a tall tale about storytelling and the movies -- the shadows that flicker on screens and the images that excite our imaginations. It is a tale told by an injured American stunt man, bedridden in a Los Angeles hospital circa 1915, and filtered through the consciousness of a little Romanian girl with limited English and a broken arm. She craves the story as much as he craves morphine. He becomes a too-human god, creator and destroyer of worlds; she becomes hooked.
The shot quoted above is a piece of shadowplay from the opening sequence -- the reverse-image of a bridge and a locomotive imprinted on the surface of the water. The white specks are men in the water. A figure on the shadow-bridge tosses them a rope, which becomes a thread linking the positive and negative sides of the picture in the same shot. The rope itself snakes out in shadow (in the foreground, illuminated from behind, not cast on the water) until the tangled coil appears, falling through sunlight, set off against the shadow of a pillar of smoke, and the "tail" is swallowed up by the black of the bridge. "The Fall" accomplishes astounding feats like that throughout.
9. "Shotgun Stories" (Jeff Nichols; contemporary Southern Gothic). I didn't have access to my DVD of Jeff Nichols' debut feature when I made this, so I didn't have as many choices available to me as with some of the other films. What I picked was a reverse-angle shot of the three Hayes brothers standing in a doorway -- a horizontal anamorphic composition through a vertical frame -- which I then slowed down so it would last long enough for you to look at it. This is the moment that sets the story in motion. They are being told by their mother that their father is dead. Michael Shannon, front and center, is Son, the eldest. The others are Boy (Douglas Lingon, right), who casts a glance across the background of the frame at Kid (Barlow Jacobs, left).
8. "Chop Shop" (Ramin Bahrani; neo-neorealist drama). The opening shot is shown here in its entirety. I've written about it before, and I find it subtly glorious every time I see it. First, notice the composition: Men and boys standing and waiting, forming a "V" (especially as the guy on the left moves into position) pointing to the youngest and smallest, who will become the movie's main character. Where are they? Could be just about any Latin American country. Something off-screen catches their attention. They raise their arms and call out in Spanish. As a truck pulls up to the curb on the left, the camera pans over (not telling you where to look, but following their interest) and a guy gets out, speaking in Spanish -- and unmistakeable Noo Yawk English. In a split second, and just as naturally, the camera follows the truck guy and we glimpse a sign in the distance for a self-storage facility, also in English. We know we're in the USA.
The man tells the kid he doesn't need him today. The kid tries to argue, but the man needs only two workers. As they get into the truck, the kid slips into the shot, and over the tailgate, into the bed of the truck. It pulls away and we see a steel-girder bridge/off-ramp in the early morning light, with traffic signs flashing above it. A beautiful, atmospheric, economical introduction to a gray-market, immigrant-driven story of the American Dream set in the industrial tangle of body shops known as the Iron Triangle (Willets Point, Queens), in the shadow of Shea Stadium.
7. "Still Life" (Jia Zhang-ke; romantic/industrial comedy). Jia is known for his amazing, deliberate camera movements, and you could view this shot is a more self-conscious variation on the previous one (from "Chop Shop"). "Still Life" takes place in an inside-out universe of crumbling buildings and rising water, where everything is transitory and permeable. I don't know how to describe the delights this image provides, a simple movement from right to left across a room, following the gaze of a man standing at a window in hopes of getting a better cell phone signal. Sounds from beyond the frame seep into our perception (children playing? screaming? thunder?). And we see, incongruously... frames within frames beyond frames, worlds within worlds. WTF?
6. "Let the Right One In" (Tomas Alfredson; tweener romantic comedy/horror). This is just a selection from the middle of the shot. A boy with a knife trudges through the snow toward the camera. He challenges someone at the left, out of frame, who is incorporated into the shot and turns out to be... a tree. He threatens and stabs the tree, a stand-in for the kids who who have been bullying him. And then reality makes a pivot. The camera curves (tenderly?) around the tree and brings into view a girl standing on a platform where, earlier in the same shot, there had been no girl: the beginning of a deathless friendship.
... to be continued...
Great stuff, Jim. I look forward to the second part. I especially love the following excerpt from your appreciation of Still Life:
I don't know how to describe the delights this image provides, a simple movement from right to left across a room, following the gaze of a man standing at a window in hopes of getting a better cell phone signal. Sounds from beyond the frame seep into our perception (children playing? screaming? thunder?). And we see, incongruously... frames within frames beyond frames, worlds within worlds. WTF?
Great stuff Jim.
I love the scene you talk about from "Shotgun Stories", a film I thought was the best of 2008. Shannon is able to convey so much by doing so little. I love how Nichols has Son visit his mother later in the film to report a tragedy in the family. The response (or lack thereof) of Son's mother is brutal, and one of the most powerful moments of the movie (and the actors didn't even have to raise their voices to evoke that kind of emotion, take that Oscars!).
Looking forward to part 2.
Nice list. I still have to see many of thse, including Sill Life, Let the Right One In, and Chop Shop. I thank Ebert so much for clueing me in on Shotgun Stories. One of the best of the year.
I hope your list includes Transsiberian, because it had some of the best filming of the year.
"Where are they? Could be just about any Latin American country."
Yes, and it could also just as easily be (and is) the U.S. Why is this question even important or relevant?
JE: I should add a sentence or two to the description to address that. It's important because this is the first shot of the movie, and this ties into its approach to its subject, a gray-market, immigrant-driven version of the American Dream set in the industrial tangle of body shops known as the Iron Triangle, in the shadow of Shea Stadium.
Hey Jim, this is great! But how 'bout an explication of why you chose these particular films? You've spent a lot of time talking about what you don't like about Dark Knight. How about a column or two on what you like about these films and why you chose them? I've seen about 7 of them, and agree that they're among the best of this past year's.
Thanks!
I agree with the praise of SHOTGUN STORIES but for my money, the best scene in a movie full of great, subtle scenes was probably when Son takes down Kid's pup tent. Shannon is hands-down my favorite actor working right now. Revolutionary Road, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Bug, Shotgun Stories - dude is arguably the best part of any of those stellar films.
Another year, another incredibly boring end-of-year wrap-up, Jim. How you can make even exciting things - like the beautiful shot you describe in Let The Right One In - sound pedantic and pointless with writing like "And then reality makes a pivot. The camera curves (tenderly?) around the tree and brings into view a girl standing on a platform where...the beginning of a deathless friendship," is another example of you turning film analysis and appreciation - two wonderful things, mind you, when put in the words of your boss, Roger Ebert - into something remote and alienating.
A deathless friendship? Really? You're trying so hard here! And here's another one that's terrible: "And we see, incongruously... frames within frames beyond frames, worlds within worlds. WTF?" To imitate Jonathan Rosenbaum and then attempt to throw your own personality in at the end with a 'WTF' is hilarious. In a bad way.
And what is with the paragraphs with your bizarre genre explanations? How was that necessary? And not only are they pretentious and time-wasters, they're badly misinformed - especially seeing as these are apparently your "favorite movies of the year." The Fall is a comedy? That's the first genre word you use to describe it? REALLY? I've seen The Fall, and it is a great film, unlike any other I've seen. But it is not a comedy. Come on, Jim. Tweener romantic comedy/horror? Who seriously uses the word "tweener?" What in God's name is an "industrial comedy?"
I'm really looking forward to your next five movies. Can't wait to see your #1. I would hope you'd recognize Synecdoche, New York, it seems right up your alley. Knowing you, though, you'll probably pick The Reader. Just kidding. But, seriously, there is no way The Fall, or any of these movies, are better than The Dark Knight.
Just wanted to say how good The Fall is and how much I loved it - as much for the little girl's performance as for the beautiful imagery and filmmaking. Really a memorable one for me. But wasn't it from '06?
Hm I checked and it got American release in '08. You win this round, Emerson. Still, a fine choice.
JE: Yes, Tarsem financed the film himself and shot it while on location for videos and commercials he was doing all over the world. He worked on it for four years. Then it premiered in the Toronto Film Fest in '06, but didn't get a US release until '08.
Jeez Jack. If you weren't so upset you would have realized that the video already gives all of his top movies, and that the text supports the first few. Its better than what most people do, and just post a simple list.
"JE: I should add a sentence or two to the description to address that. It's important because this is the first shot of the movie, and this ties into its approach to its subject, a gray-market, immigrant-driven version of the American Dream set in the industrial tangle of body shops known as the Iron Triangle, in the shadow of Shea Stadium."
Okay, but the sentence, and the whole paragraph, comes off as a bit racist. It implies that Latinos are uncommon in the U.S., and that the director is trying to "trick" us concerning the film's locale by filling his opening shot with nothing but Latinos, neither of which are true. I know this wasn't your intention, but that's how it comes off.
JE: Thanks, but I think the intention is quite the opposite. It's not a "trick," just a quick impression -- a question that might go through your mind. The movie immerses you in its world first, then gives you your geographical bearings. I don't see it as implying there's certainly anything "uncommon" about Latinos in the US, or about groups of Latino day workers gathering regularly on a street corner for work -- just that, as I said, this could be happening in just about any city, just about anywhere in the world. If it were in China or India, the day workers probably wouldn't be Latinos, though. The universality of that initial image is what's important, I think.
Jim - I really enjoy what you are doing here. Far too few film critics actually discuss film technique, which is probably why poorly-made movies like "The Dark Knight" and "Slumdog Millionaire" get near unanimous praise.
I have only seen a few of the films on this list but I am looking forward to seeing the rest. I had never heard of "Still Life" but that clip looks amazing.
Keep up the good work!
Jack Frink's comments read like a movie-with-a-twist. You trudge along, scratching your head, wondering what the heck's going on, and then...BAM...the final three words, and a realisation dawns. Ahh, you say, so that's what this was really about.
"Far too few film critics actually discuss film technique"
I'd say most halfway decent film critics are more liable to engage in discussions about a film's technique in follow-up articles about a film they're either enthusiastic about, or determined to tear apart (or at least take down a notch). That said, many folks consider film theory to be a form of wankery that should only be indulged in small doses. Everyone has their own personal threshold with regards to the dissection of any piece of art (I use that word in the broadest sense).
As a point of comparison, I'd say Roger Ebert is somewhat more interested in narrative than technique, while the opposite is true for Mr. Emerson. Yes, technique certainly holds influence over narrative, but for many folks, it's about the story (that doesn't necessarily mean the "plot", for the record)...Ebert calls movies "Empathy Machines" for a reason. Good characterization, dialogue, and narrative development are often able to overcome any shortcomings in terms of visual technique. Assuming most people took genuine issue with the technique in the first place, which often isn't the case. But it won't stop certain folks from trying to diminish, or condescend towards, popular opinion by overstating in the negative. And the cycle continues, as it always will.
JE: I like these movies a lot.
Let me add, though, that Roger Ebert also often says (and I paraphrase) that movies are not about what they are about, but how they are about it. A story does not exist independently of the images and words and performances used to tell it. Even a bare synopsis involves choosing some words and putting them in some order. Call it "technique" or call it "style" -- it's what movies are made of.
"JE: I like these movies a lot."
Now I'm beginning to wonder if there's a guy named Mij Nosreme somewhere out there who's tearing the above films to shreds on the basis of technique and/or narrative. Nah, I don't think any of them got enough attention from the mainstream media for it to be worth the effort. Mij Nosreme will suffer in silence! ;)
JE: Mij is the one shredding (and loving) movies because of their plots.
"Let me add, though, that Roger Ebert also often says (and I paraphrase) that movies are not about what they are about, but how they are about it. A story does not exist independently of the images and words and performances used to tell it. Even a bare synopsis involves choosing some words and putting them in some order. Call it "technique" or call it "style" -- it's what movies are made of."
Oh, absolutely. But IMO, he's speaking more to the outline of a film's plot, and how it doesn't determine the quality of the end product. Visual technique, or "style", as it were, should certainly not be underestimated, but neither should the quality of the acting, dialogue, and the progression of the story, in whatever form it takes. Some people feel that the style of a film IS it's substance, but in a number of cases, where the style is flashy or provocative, or even "artfully restrained", but doesn't inform any deeper emotional connection with the viewer, it draws too much attention to itself, existing on an isolated plane that can only be accessed at an emotional distance.
From my point of view the story being told by a film (assuming it is a narrative film) is not as interesting as how the story is told through composition, camera movement, lighting, performance, editing, and music. The majority of film writing chooses to ignore these elements (except acting, which I find over-emphasized) in favour of an analysis of the narrative. I find this approach very dull.
I come to this site partially to get a different perspective on film criticism. If you find discussion of film form to be "wankery" then there are plenty of other like-minded publications out there for you.
I agree that an emphasis on formalism is not the only way to watch/criticize a film. It just happens to be my preferred method.
For the record, I, personally, don't consider film theory, in general, to be "wankery", but do feel there comes a point where you can analyze something into virtual oblivion, where you're (figuratively-speaking) dissecting the notes of a musical composition to such a degree that it no longer resembles music at all. The trick is determining when you're about to reach that point, and moving onto another subject (piece of art) before you do.
And it's silly to suggest that film critics don't respond to technique (most everyone does, at least on a sub-conscious level) whether they address it specifically, or in detail, in their review or not. In many cases, print space is that which keeps them from going into greater detail with regards to technique, in that they wouldn't be able to do it justice with the limited amount of words they're permitted. So narrative assessment and some plot synopsis take precedence. It doesn't necessarily mean their overall opinion of the work is any less valid.
I never really thought of it until now but... it's odd how much love "Slumdog" is getting across America yet "Chop Shop" (poverty at home) drives under the radar. And Danny Boyle sweeps every awards ceremony for it but Ramin Bahrani has been invited to zip... They are very different films but they share the commonality of being inspiring stories set in places with third world economies. And, taking nothing away from Boyle (whose film I love and whom I'm a fan of), Bahrani didn't even need a pop soundtrack, 'fate' or riches to make his rags uplifting...
(But the praise-crime of the year is Stephen Daldry's third Oscar nom in three films. Man, Scorsese couldn't pull that off. So Daldry must be a revelation!)
Looks like you've got some nice candidates for your opening shots projects. The Chop Shop entry is pretty much already done. Just crop from it from this montage and re-publish the blurb.