Film Rebellion

Top 10 Dream Screen Pairings

 Any time I watch films from different eras I tend to wonder how the stars of years past would fare in today’s films, and likewise with our stars in the films of old.  It’s fun. You can do it with various interests. Sports is another one: who would win between the ’97 Bulls and the ’86 Celtics?  How would Babe Ruth do against current pitchers? They’re just fun little “What if’s” that can be speculated on and analyzed, but never fully answered of course.  While watching City Lights last week I wondered “Man, a Charlie Chaplin-Buster Keaton film would have possibly been the funniest, greatest comedy of all time”. So I got to thinking, what would some other great pairings be?  Some of my choices are purely aesthetic, and some are generational icons that never got the chance to act together in their primes.

Without further adieu, here’s my Top 10:

10. Katharine Hepburn & Meryl Streep

Why: Arguably the two greatest actresses of all time.  Most current films undervalue the role of females in films, but a movie headlined by these two would be worth every penny.

9. Max Von Sydow & Toshiro Mifune

Why: Because they were the leading men of, what I believe to be, the two greatest directors who ever lived: Ingmar Bergman and Akira Kurosawa.  Both men had a magnetism and on-screen presence that made them icons of art-houses all over the world. The intensity and emotion these two emit could literally melt the film strip if they were in the same movie together.

8. Brigitte Bardot & Marilyn Monroe

Why: Speaking of melting the film strip…..I don’t think there’s too much analysis required with this selection.  Two amazingly gorgeous sexual icons, and if they were paired together for even a second of screen time, I would sweat bullets and pass out.

7. Bill Murray & Walter Matthau

Why: Speaking of gorgeous sexual icons….Ok, not quite.  The sardonic wit and humor of these two is legendary, as they stand as two giants of the comedic genre. Both men would undoubtedly adorn the Mount Rushmore of comedic icons, and surely a film including both would involve humor dryer than The Great Salt Flats of Utah.

6. Cary Grant & George Clooney

Why: Here we have the predecessor and successor of the slick, cool leading man in Hollywood.  Woman loved Cary Grant, as woman undoubtedly love George Clooney, but not in a Zac Efron/Ricky Nelson kind of way. These men are handsome, quick-witted, and irresistibly sophisticated. They also know a thing or two about acting and putting out great movies.

5. Willem Dafoe & Klaus Kinski

Why: Pure aesthetics…or lack there of.  Two of the strangest looking faces ever to grace the screen belong to these two men, and at times they parlay that look into some very strange parts.  But again, they can both act and therefore a film featuring these two would be strange, visually unsettling, and probably a favorite of mine.  P.S. The HD/Blu-Ray era would have been a great time for this screen pairing.

4. Tom Hanks & James Stewart

Why: Wholesomeness. Like the Grant/Clooney pairing, these two are basically the same kind of characters from two different genres, which would make this duo all the more interesting.  They both share morals of a similar nature, and again, both were great actors.  Hanks has “Forrest Gump” and Stewart has “George Bailey”, two of the most iconic characters in film history.  Both honest, likable, and moral characters.  Much like the actors who portrayed them.

3. Sean Penn & Marlon Brando

Why: Serving as the very antithesis of the last two, these fellas are generally considered unlikable people in real life and have played many characters that are also very unlikable.  But what they lack in goodhearted charisma they make up for with intensity, talent, and devotion to their craft.  A film starring these two would probably shoot for 14 months, include 2 director changes, 5 writer switches, and still be my most anticipated film of the year.

2. Clint Eastwood & John Wayne

Why: Because these men own the two greatest personas of the last 100 years of film history.  Wayne was the no-nonsense, get-the-job-done gunslinger who didn’t care for politics or morals, only justice.  Eastwood was the slick, quick-fingered, quiet gunman with a mind only for self-preservation.  Throw these two onto a dusty road with a full cylinder, and dear God there would be fireworks.

1. Buster Keaton & Charles Chaplin

Why: Getting back to the inception of this list, because I firmly believe if they had ever done a film together it would, without question, be the greatest thing comedy had ever witnessed and something that would never be surpassed.  They were the masters of their craft, and the two smartest, funniest comedians the cinematic world has ever known.  This is the film people would start any discussion of comedy with, in the same way that you can’t begin a serious conversation of comedic films without mentioning these two giants of the genre. A guy can dream.

So, that’s my list. What pairing would YOU like to see??

The Power of Watching/Re-Watching Films

This is a tough thing to admit, but I’ve been a fraudulent cinephile.  I’ve seen many of the “essential” films, most of them old and foreign (not films my friends are interested in, per se) in order to have an appreciation and understanding of the history and movements in cinema, but seeing a film just for the sake of seeing it does you no justice.

I started delving seriously into film 4 years ago.  I was going through a rough patch and decided I could fill my time with a hobby that had always been simmering in my mind: becoming a film buff.  So I got a Netflix account and began adding what were supposed to be the films that had to be seen if I was going to be taking this hobby seriously.  My first film: Seven Samurai. That’s like wanting to take up mountain climbing and starting with Mount Everest.  It took me three sittings to get through it.  Not because I didn’t like it, but rather it was really long, subtitled, and structured in a way I had never really seen.  I remember enjoying the film very much, but the appreciation wasn’t quite there (I’ve since re-watched it multiple times and fell in love with it). Not to be deterred by the difficulties of unusually structured films, I kept on watching.  I started with the greats: Fellini, Bergman, Hitchcock, Renoir, Kurosawa, Hawks, Lang.  And I enjoyed them for the most part, though I found some of them difficult to digest fully. I wasn’t prepared to dig deep into the multi-layered films, I was so used to seeing a film for what it presented on the surface and getting whatever superficial enjoyment I could get out of it.  But the more I watched, the more I began to notice some things and pick-up on the deeper layers of these highly regarded films. Films, even the tougher ones to get, began to make more sense to me.  However, having watched many of the all-time greats, I was moving into more ancillary works, off-shoots of some of the films I enjoyed and genres that weren’t as renowned as some of the avant garde films I had been watching.  And I’ve liked and/or appreciated the artistic merits of the vast majority of them.  Even if the films weren’t to my liking I could still cling to something: the music, camera movement, dialogue, structure, thematic elements.  What never occurred to me was, what if I applied my more meticulous eye to the films I had began my journey with?

Cut to 4 years later and I’d say I’m a more savvy film viewer: subtitled films are easier to watch, themes easier to pick out, directors techniques are more clear.  Watching films now is a totally different experience from 4 years ago.  So now I’m watching films that I haven’t watched in ages, films I enjoyed the first time around but didn’t fully appreciate their art, and I can credit my film class for that.  The first half curriculum has been populated by several films I had seen at the beginning of my film experience, but I have to say the re-watching has been a complete revelation.  So far in class I’ve re-watched 8 1/2, The Battle of Algiers, The Third Man, Blow-Up, and Sansho the Bailiff, and I swear I watched them like a gleeful child the second time around.  I noticed more things and understood key elements better. Films that used to seem slow to me no longer appear slow, they seem purposeful.  In short, I feel like a more intelligent film viewer now.  Since then, at home, I’ve re-watched Apocalypse Now, Rashomon and Oldboy with the same results.  My appreciation has grown exponentially.

There wasn’t much of a point to this post except to get that thought out and let ya’ll know that film might seem like a difficult medium to tackle, full of various obstacles and some tough nuts to crack, but ultimately you have to condition yourself to film and film viewing. And when you do, your satisfaction will only grow with each film. So keep watching!

Review: SHAME (2011)

Film: SHAME (2011)

Director: Steve McQueen

Cast: Michael Fassbender, Carey Mulligan

For my birthday, my friend Mandy bought me tickets to see a movie I’ve been wanting to see for about a month.  I’ve heard the name Michael Fassbender, especially in talking about Best Actor Oscar nominations.  I heard the film was raw, emotionally and literally naked, and that it would be tough to see considering director Steve McQueen and the distributor decided to release the film with an NC-17 rating.  Then suddenly, the film appeared on my radar, showing in a theater about 30 minutes driving distance away.  The film was “Shame”.

Emotionally raw is exactly how I would put it.  It’s a sad tale of tortured souls, of souls with an instantaneously combustible nature.  Well, at least one of them is.  We’ve seen this theme before: the single, good-looking, successful 30-something male who can’t emotionally connect with a woman or with anyone really.  The idea of the shallow, superficial man is the defining characteristic of the 2000′s cinema in my opinion.  Romantic comedies and dramas both commonly feature male leads who appear incapable of emotional attachment, including films such as the older “Wedding Crashers”, the recent “Crazy Stupid Love”, and this one.  I know these films are different, but they all offer variations of the superficial male who is unable to establish a link with other human beings, especially romantic.  Where this one differs is the lack of conscious choice, centering more on the protagonists compulsory needs as a replacement for his lacking emotional state.  He’s pure instincts, in the way that you would imagine a caveman to be with his prey.  He doesn’t choose to hunt out of recreation, he does it simply because he must.  And that’s how we find our lead, the fiery, combustible male with a dangerous addiction (to sex) that tears away at his interpersonal connections.

There is a very telling sequence of actions about 2/3 of the way through the film that demonstrates the very thing I’m talking about.  After going out on a date with a female co-worker, our lead awkwardly walks away from a potential connection, only to rethink and break that barrier the next day at work with a pretty steamy make-out session that leads to a very interesting encounter.  I hate to spoil it since the film is not in wide release yet, but the following scenes speak volumes about the character in question.  He does what he does because he is incapable of normal connection, and despite what appears to be a pretty sweet addiction, he derives no satisfaction from it the way normal humans feel satisfaction from sexual encounters.  It’s not manliness and machismo that drive his addiction, it’s a soul crippling ailment that causes him pain and suffering at his own and others’ expense.

Both Steve McQueen and Michael Fassbender are to be commended, watching this makes me want to see McQueen’s first effort, “Hunger”, and to see anything Fassbender has put out, in the same way “Bronson” fuels my fire for anything Tom hardy related.   McQueen’s directorial style can be soft and intimate at one moment, then brutal and unforgiving the very next.  I feel like he uses long takes to convey the awkwardness the protagonist feels during the most mundane sequences, and then upping the kinetic energy during his fiery outbursts that more accurately reflect his actual nature.  He hates himself, but he can’t help himself.

And a ton of the credit for the success of this film leans on the performance of Michael Fassbender, as well as Carey Mulligan, who plays his troubled yet seemingly well-intentioned sibling.  Fassbender frequently plays the silent character, the smoldering pile of leaves just waiting to erupt into a 4-alarm blaze of rage and unbridled instincts and repressed rawness.  He’s barely able to contain the burning embers in his soul during most of his day where he exists as a successful business man, then purges his innermost needs during his personal time at home.  Fassbender really is a revelation here, in the same way Christian Bale blew me away in “American Psycho”, and they do play characters that appear to be related in nature.

I can’t wait for this film to get a wider release so hopefully the drive behind Michael Fassbender’s Oscar campaign gets a boost.  Really, McQueen and Fassbender should get nominated, but Fassbender has a better chance. I just hope the adult rating doesn’t deter Academy voters from giving it a better chance.  The film needs to exist in its current form.  It’s important that it remain intact, and I hope the Academy agrees with me.

Review: The Music Room (1958)

“To have not seen the films of Ray is to have lived in the world without ever having seen the moon and the sun” – Akira Kurosawa

I believe the man who uttered that line is the greatest filmmaker to have ever stood behind a camera, so the first time I saw that quote I knew I was missing out on something.  Director Satyajit Ray made a lasting impression on the likes of Kurosawa and John Huston, two colossal names in film history.  Even if I didn’t like the films, they were almost assuredly going to be something I had never seen before.  After having watched The Music Room I’d have to say it was a story told in a different way from most.

The story begins with Huzur Biswambhar Roy (Chhabi Biswas), the governor of a once-great territory in India who has become reclusive, confining himself to his palace and refusing all invitations to leave the premises, seeing as his receding social status is taking its toll on him.  The majority of his time is spent listening to a musician play live music for him while he smokes and listens, or playing music himself and training his teenage son to hone his musical talents.  In fact, of anything in the film, it’s his son and music that he loves most, with smoking and horseback riding being second loves, or vices as his wife calls them.  Unfortunately for the Roy family, his other vice is his foolish pride and it’s what drives his fate, for better or for worse.

There is an early scene where Roy is standing on his terrace and hears music playing in the distance.  His servant informs him that the music is being played from the new home of Mahim Ganguly (Gangapada Basu), a local self-made business man who happens to be the son of a money-lender, not a position of respect in Roy’s eyes.  Upon hearing of the talent of the musician playing in the other home, Roy requests the same company for the party he is to throw for his son’s “initiation”, which appears to be a bar mitzvah sort of ceremony.  It’s this sense of if-he-has-it-I-must-have-it pride that is Roy’s defining characteristic.  Ganguly personally invites Roy to his home several times throughout the film, each time he is denied, almost spitefully.  The scenes between these two men are the most telling in all the film.  At the start, Ganguly visits Roy with the utmost reverence in asking his company in his new home, but the reverence erodes as time goes by.  Between visits, Roy hears of Ganguly’s new cars, electric machines, and the contemporary and fancy new furnishings populating the now threateningly palatial home of his subordinate, obviously showcasing the inverse amount of success to that of the Roy family.

In fact, Roy is running out of money.  In order to secure the proper provisions for his son’s initiation party he mortgages the last of the family’s worth, their sacred jewels, much to his wife’s chagrin.  As always in this film, instead of acknowledging weakness, his pride takes over and he puts the family at risk.  For Roy, his lineage is his source of pride and power; he is a powerful man who is to be respected because he was born that way, just as his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were.  The self-made man, Ganguly, presents the sole threat to a monarchy, seeing as he worked for his wealth and that wealth will accumulate as long as he is working for it.  In our society, this is to be respected, but in a place where your power and wealth come from your blood-line, then you are always to be looked down upon by some.

Suffice to say, without giving any spoilers, the downward spiral of Roy is gut-wrenching and actually poetic to watch as the film progresses.  For me, there’s nothing more heartbreaking than watching a person collapse as a result of their own demons.  Man vs. himself is the greatest battle there is, almost unwinnable.  And unfortunately, the battle usually takes a serious toll, as is the case of our protagonist.

I’d like to mention two quick points that stand out from this film. First is the lead performance by Chhabi Biswas, who was perfectly cast as the sullen man who knows the inevitable collapse is coming but ignores it nonetheless.  His face tells you everything you need to know, which is perfect since there are many scenes without dialogue.  He lights up like Times Square whenever music is being played, becoming almost giddy with delight.  The subject of money, however, causes him to be silent and distant, or angry and resentful.  It’s a very subtle performance though, never getting too excited or too angry unless the moment REALLY calls for it.  Aside from those spare moments, Biswas maintains a look of removed calm, like a man who knows he’s finished and just wants to enjoy whatever he has left.  It’s quiet and uneventful on the outside, but it’s obviously a different story beneath the surface.  Very impressive performance.

The other point is the overall work from Satyajit Ray, who served as producer, writer, and director.  Of anything that stood out from this film for me it was the camera work, which included  movements that felt like nothing I has seen before.  It was almost ghostlike the way the camera floats around the set.  A pan is rarely just a pan, it often is combined with a push-in or a pull-out on a dolly.  It’s such a strange thing to watch, but it works beautifully, especially during the long musical scenes that take place inside the palace.  Most of these scenes are several minutes long with no dialogue, just a musician/singer and maybe a dancer.  Even with that going on, a static camera could be too boring.  Thankfully, there’s nothing static about Ray’s camera and he keeps these scenes feeling lively and energetic, often pumping suspense and emotion into the scene just with his camera.  The work of a true filmmaker.

20 Movies Every Guy Should Own

I’m going to plan on the latter happening.  It’s settled.  But until that happens, I am going to select the top 20 movies every guy should own.

RAGING BULL

There has to be at least one

Martin Scorsese film on here, because he makes movies guys love.  It was between this, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas, and as much as I enjoy those two, I prefer Jake LaMotta’s story much more (and this is my favorite DeNiro-Pesci pairing).  It’s black and white, it’s super-gritty, and it’s a story that only a man could really appreciate: the heartbreak of seeing a man of this talent deteriorate because of his own demons. 

THE GODFATHER

It simply has to be the greatest, or close to the greatest, American film ever.  Do I need to mention the cast?  Marlon Brando.  Al Pacino.  Robert Duvall.  John Cazale.  James Caan.  Iconic scene after iconic scene.  For what it’s worth, this is a film even a woman could get into, because Diane Keaton and Talia Shire shine as well.

EVIL DEAD II

There has to be a horror flick on here and this is a rare one with a male protagonist.  This is a good one to gather up some buddies, get a massive amount of beer (or whatever gets you where you need to be), and have one of the best times you’ll ever have watching a movie.  Bruce Campbell is kind of a bitch in the first flick, but here he supercharges the camp and kicks some serious ass, becoming a male icon in the process.  Who wouldn’t want that chin??

SUPER TROOPERS

This movie satisfies so many male needs: stoner humor, a hot chick, five hilarious guys, and Brian Cox.  Just mention Farva to any male worth his salt and they’ll probably reply with  ”Say ‘Car Ramrod’!” or “I don’t want a large Farva…I want a goddamn liter of cola!” It’s brutally hysterical and, when you break it down, really centers on the friendship of these five guys.  The fellas are a great alternative to dick and fart humor, it’s just plain clever and witty.

BOOGIE NIGHTS

This is a no-brainer: a film about porn starring Mark Wahlberg, Burt Reynolds, John C. Reilly, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, William H. Macy, and Luis Guzman, while also featuring the stimulating attributes of Heather Graham, amongst others.  Sold.  Not to mention it’s directed by a current top-5 director in Paul Thomas Anderson, another guy who makes movies that guys love and girls never seem to understand.  It’s deductive to say it’s only about porn, but the film is based on the industry in its heyday in the 1970′s.  Any guy would at least be interested in that angle, then get stuck watching a brutal and gut-wrenching story.

FIGHT CLUB

This is truly a film about guys, specifically the disenfranchised men who are looking for a way to conform outside of the norm.   The testosterone is immeasurable, especially with the Tyler Durden character basically acting as the center or anti-hero of the flick.  It’s a guys movie about what guys feel like today.

FULL METAL JACKET

The list needs a few war movies, and a Stanley Kubrick movie.  This satisfies both.  The first half is possibly the most well-known first half of a war film ever.  Granted, the quality decreases slightly as the film proceeds, but the boot camp portion is classic. And for the reason alone it makes this list.  Vincent D’Onofrio owns the first hour, first evoking pity, then hatred.  As a man, you must be able to identify and quote R. Lee Ermey’s drill sergeant from hell.  I have no doubt his character scared several young men from enlisting in the military.

THE DOLLARS TRILOGY

Just as Kubrick and Scorsese needed to be here, so too does Clint Eastwood: the ultimate man’s man.  He’s plays the anti-hero with no name, no ties, and no reservations about killing for self-preservation.  He plays a gun-for-hire, a bounty hunter, and a manipulative schemer.  But always a quick draw who outsmart or outshoots his enemies.  Can’t say enough about these films.

ENTER THE DRAGON

The greatest martial arts film ever to grace the silver screen that stars the greatest martial artist that has ever walked the Earth.  As a man, if you’ve seen a Bruce Lee film then you admire and respect the legend for what he is: the most intense, gifted martial artist ever.  Just watch the film.  I get mad when I think about how early the world lost this man. Plus, the bad-ass, jive-talkin’ Jim Kelly is also in here.

ROCKY

Sly is another man’s man, and this satisfies both that and the sports film categories.  Every man can get down with an underdog story, and none plays better than a boxing story:  mano-a-mano, just two men and their will to win. It’s the ultimate drama.  Two gladiators, the down-on-his-luck Rocky Balboa, is given a chance to beat the world champion and golden prince, Apollo Creed.  It’s still an enthralling story to this day.

LEON: THE PROFESSIONAL

From a fatherly stand-point, this movie is perfect.  The socially awkward yet ruthless hitman, Leon, takes on the plight of an orphan whose family has been murdered at the hands of a mad man.  He teaches her to kill, to get revenge. And she teaches him how to be human.  It’s the perfect blend of action and humanity.

CADDYSHACK

There simply has to be a 70′s comedy in the mix, and between this and Animal House I’m going with Caddyshack every time.  Maybe that’s due to my golf background, or how great Bill Murray’s assistant groundskeeper ”Carl Speckler” is, or how I wish Chevy Chase was always this funny, or the myriad of supporting characters that are infinitely quotable and memorable.  Of course, it could have even more to do with “Lacey Underall”.  Regardless, this is a man’s kind of comedy.

THE BIG LEBOWSKI

Every guy at least partially wants to be The Dude: hang out in your pajamas, drink often and leisurely, bowl every night, have a nickname like “The Dude” and the sundry variations on that name.  But the best part is he does it all with a calm stroll and a relaxed “I don’t give a fuck” attitude.  It’s just a cool flick with one of the most iconic protagonists in recent memory, plus it’s a Coen Brothers production and it features an awesome supporting cast of Coen regulars: Steve Buscemi, John Goodman, and John Turturro. This is as guy-friendly as they come.

BLACK HAWK DOWN

Another war film, a Ridley Scott picture this time, and it’s one of the most blatantly frantic, kinetic films I’ve ever seen. Once the action begins, the viewer is dumped into a hellish war zone and Scott never gives you a moment to breathe. There are more bullets fired per second than in any other film in history (note: fact not based on any statistical evidence).  Of course, the testosterone level is fairly high as with most war movies, but this takes the cake.  I’ve had buddies over just to drink beer, crank up the surround sound, and blast the walls off with this flick.

COOL HAND LUKE

Paul Newman was the coolest guy in the world in the 60′s, so there has to be a Newman picture on here.  Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid would also suffice in that spot, but ”Luke” is so enigmatic and likeable, not to mention one of the most iconic male characters in cinematic history.  The name of the flick alone puts it over the top.  This is the kind of flick you could watch with your guy friends and also impress your dad and his friends with.  It’s a tale about guys getting along and surviving with the plight of servitude on the chain gang under the watchful eye of a tyrannical cop, and of course the asshole with the mirrored sunglasses. Sounds like a marriage analogy.

SWINGERS

Want to teach a guy how to be a guy?  Show him Swingers.  It’s the perfect post-break-up story about becoming a man again after having your masculinity stripped away by a disloyal bitch with a barb-wire heart.  The rules are laid out and Favreau’s script constantly pokes fun at the guys for thinking they’re the epitome of cool, when it’s constantly shown how uncool they are.  This is Vince Vaughn at his best, before he became a fat goofball in romantic comedies.  Another insanely quotable flick, I might add.

PULP FICTION

Tarantino is another man-friendly director, and this remains his best work.  He crafts no less than four unforgettable male leads, not to mention cool scene after cool scene. You must be able to reference this film in conversation with other guys, complete with quotes and working knowledge of what BMF means and the outcome of the gimp scene.

APOCALYPSE NOW

A second helping of Coppola and another stellar cast of awesome male actors: Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Larry Fishburn, and Robert Duvall and his oft-imitated line “I love the smell of napalm in the morning!”  It’s one of those films about the horrors of war and what it can do to a man, which is a feeling that many men in the 1970′s could identify with. 

RIO BRAVO

If you thought this list wasn’t going to include The Duke, then clearly you don’t know me well enough.  I love True Grit and The Searchers, but ultimately this Howard Hawks film is my favorite of The Duke’s.  It could have something to do with the super-cool Dean Martin playing the alcoholic gunman holding on by a thread trying to help John Wayne’s town sheriff protect a town from a convict’s band of crazies bent on freeing him.  There’s something paternal about John Wayne that most men can empathize with.  Then-pop-star Ricky Nelson acquits himself pretty nicely as well.

THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION

This is the contemporary man’s buddy flick.  The 80′s had Lethal Weapon and 48 Hours.  The 60′s and 70′s had Paul Newman and Robert Redford in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Sting.  But Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman ditched the fun, playful banter of those other films and went straight for the heartfelt friendship of two men who bond in a place where this kind of bonding rarely happens.  In today’s male society, you simply have to have seen this.

Ok, there’s my picks. Did I forget any??

5 Directors I Need To See

The history of cinema is populated with highly celebrated and regarded filmmakers.  Most people have seen at least a film or two from the likes of Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, Kubrick, Allen and Hitchcock.  They’re accessible directors with accessible films, available in any Best Buy and in most remaining rental stores.  But what about the less accessible or the less publicly touted?   There’s so many director’s whose names get whispered by a small faction of cinema fans instead of shouted by the masses, and some of those whispered names deserve a thundering herald for the work they’ve done.  Of course, I understand the lesser known filmmakers generally made movies a long time ago, and in other languages, and have since exited the public consciousness.  But in a Netflix/Google/IMDB world, these individuals deserve to finally get all the praise heaped on their more contemporary peers.

As soon as I got my Netflix subscription I began banging through the likes of Kurosawa, Bergman, Bunuel, Fellini,Murnau, Renoir, Lang, Godard, Eisenstein, etc.  But, sadly, there’s still many filmmakers I haven’t even been introduced to yet that deserve my attention.  Last night I finally dove into the cinema of Krzysztof Kieslowski (The Double Life of Veronique) and I was upset that it took me so long give him my attention.  The film was stunning and haunting at the same time.  So I got to thinking, what other major filmmakers am I neglecting?

Here’s my Top 5:

Jean Vigo

Very limited career with only four films on the resume, but one of them is L’Atalante, widely considered one of the greatest films of all time.  I can forgive myself for this one since the film hasn’t been available from Netflix in quite some time.  But now that Criterion has put out a box-set of his works, I can dive in.

Satyajit Ray

“To have not seen the films of Ray is to have lived in the world without ever having seen the moon and the sun.”- Akira Kurosawa.  That’s enough for me.

David Lean

The man made some of the most sprawling epics ever put on film, and I haven’t seen one of them.  Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai, Doctor Zhivago. None of them.  They are time consuming films, for sure, but I’ve watched longer films and not minded them a bit.

Jacques Tati

He might be the top man on this list.  I love French films, and from what I hear his films were generally comedic, whimsical tales with an eccentric, goofy protagonist.  It sounds like a fun ride that I need to barrel into very soon.

Ernst Lubitsch

Truthfully, I don’t know much about the man, but I’ve read about and heard of enough of his films to pique my interest, specifically Trouble in Paradise, Ninotchka, To Be or Not To Be, Heaven Can Wait,  and The Shop Around the Corner.

Of course there are others (Wim Wenders, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, King Vidor, and Douglas Sirk to name a few), but those five represent my biggest regrets thus far.

My Favorite Horror Flicks

As a special Halloween treat, we’re going to chat about horror flicks.  Horror movies are like comfort food for me, they poke something in my soul that feels instinctual rather than intellectual.  Instead of poking at the mind, they go straight for the heart, preferring to raise your blood pressure than to stimulate your cerebral cortex.  With a few exceptions, they aren’t the smartest films you’ll ever watch.  Their purpose is to entertain viscerally, not provide eye-opening insight into life and/or love.  Considering the volume of mind-bending, cerebral films I’ve been watching the last few years, the month of October provides a welcome break.

Horror preferences tend to depend on your era or age: my dad’s generation loves the Universal monsters (Dracula, The Wolf Man, The Mummy, The Creature from the Black Lagoon), my generation prefers the slasher franchises (Freddy, Jason, Michael Myers), and the new generation loves the torture porn, Asian imports, and/or general remakes (Saw, Hostel, The Ring, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)).  I think the horror heyday resides somewhere in between my dad’s and my group, those 70′s horror flicks that really terrified and tested waters most cinemagoers weren’t prepared for (The Exorcist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Jaws, Suspiria, Don’t Look Now, The Omen, Carrie).

Here’s my list of favorites:

#1 The Exorcist

The king of all.  First and foremost, it’s an amazingly scary horror film.  But aside from the scares and creepy make-up, it has an incredible script and perfectly casted actors in each part.  As a whole, a film doesn’t get much better than this.  Having an antagonist completely restrained for the duration of the film and still managing to scare the living hell out of the audience is sheer genius. 

#2 Halloween (1978)

The first film that scared the daylights out of me, and I enjoyed it.  I saw the movie, bought the mask, and hung it in my closet facing my bed.  Any night I slept with that closet door open I could wake up and see that damn thing staring at me in the darkness.  No idea why I did that to myself.

#3 The Thing (1982)

The paranoia and suspense are unparalleled, and the creature images are the stuff of nightmares.  Carpenter did more with basic animatronics and old school effects than any computer could ever do.

#4 Evil Dead 1 & 2

Over-the-top, in-your-face, gory, bloody, craziness.  Once these films get going they refuse to let up.  I have no idea how Raimi came up with some of this stuff, and to be honest I’m a little concerned about his sanity every time I watch these.

#5 A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Ultimately, Mr. Krueger scared me more than any other flick on this list.  It’s unfair, Krueger was a villain who didn’t have to play by our rules, we were forced to play by his rules in his games.  For years I refused to re-watch it.  The way Craven bent reality in the dream sequences left me completely unsettled and unprepared for what he was capable of.

#6 An American Werewolf in London

Aside from the scattered scenes of werewolf mutilation and transformation, the playful nature of this film makes it so different to watch.  Most horror films are soaked with dread, but Landis keeps you grinning most of the time. Just before he unleashes the beast.  Love the soundtrack too.

#7 Suspiria

Pure joy for the eyes.  The colors are practically a character in the film, forming the tone and mood in so many scenes.  Italian horror is quite a beautiful sight.  The soundtrack on this one is one of the best horror soundtracks as well, thanks to Goblin.

#8 Black Christmas (1974)

A rare horror film set at Christmas time, a tough gig to pull off without appearing as exploitation.  Instead this is one of those slow building, tense thrillers with a rarely seen but frequently heard villain.  The phone calls are pretty freaky.

#9 Dawn of the Dead (1978)

As zombie movies go, this one is tough to top.  Romero’s black and white original is almost on the same plane, but this flick is a little more of an adventure and it’s a pretty fun ride.  Another film that holds back on the dread and despair until just the right moments.

#10 The Shining

The ultimate slow-build, pot-boil, epic horror film.  The film is so masterfully shot and acted, it’s almost an artsy horror film.  Having Kubrick behind the camera is a step up for any movie, but have him direct a Stephen King story and put Jack Nicholson in the lead role and you have the ingredients for a horror masterpiece.

#11  Peeping Tom

The original first-person POV killer in cinema.  This film made me appreciate Michael Powell even more, which is saying something considering his body of work.  The film was well ahead of its time, and to be honest, I’m utterly surprised we haven’t seen a remake of it yet.  I pray it never happens, but in the YouTube/Skype world we live in, the theme of this film would fit right in.

I had to push it to 11 films, I couldn’t bear the thought of leaving any of these off the list.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN EVERYONE!!

What’s Your Favorite John Carpenter flick?

With horror movie season in full bloom (at least in my home), it’s hard not to stumble across the work of John Carpenter, the director of such genre staples as Halloween (my favorite horror film), The Thing, and Christine.  Since his rise to the level of horror demigod, starting with Halloween, Carpenter’s name has been as synonymous with scary movies as Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper, George Romero and Dario Argento.  The unrivaled influence of those five directors is almost unanimously responsible for what we see in horror films today, with all due respect to Alfred Hitchcock, William Friedkin, F.W. Murnau, and Michael Powell.  But, for me, Carpenter has the most range of the five listed.  I recently watched 1994′s In the Mouth of Madness, a little-known, supernatural horror flick starring Sam Neill about a creepy novelist blatantly modeled after Stephen King, and under Carpenter’s direction a relatively mundane horror tale ascends to a higher level and manages to be entertaining throughout.  It’s a nice little mix of supernatural, psychological, and gory horror (Charlton Heston, too).  I dug it.

Considering the time of year and my level of admiration for Mr. Carpenter, I’ve decided to conduct a poll:  What is your favorite John Carpenter flick?  Hopefully you’ve seen at least a couple, but if not then I am even more hopeful that you’ll check out some of his other work.  Get voting!