This set stands out as great movies any director would kill to make, but unfortunately, they made movies that transcend these movies. In other words, these movies are movies lesser actors/directors/producers wish they could even sniff, yet these movies do not match the best of work of these directors.
49. Saving Private Ryan. One of the best war movies you'll ever see; and the saddest. Spielberg begins the movie with an intense 30+ minute recreation of the intense moments of WWII when marines stormed the beaches at Utah and Omaha. Faced with entrenched machine gun turrets, the vast majority of soldiers were marched to their death before reaching land. The strategy, as was evident also in the first World War, was to simply outlast the opponents man power and ammunition. In a mechanized style of warfare, this may be the only real strategy aside from the use of very powerful weapons. Spielberg uses this intro as his only real nod to the standard Platoon/Full Metal Jacket war genres; balls out, intense, and violent. Spielberg, however, transcends these genres with his cinematography, the hallmark that will define his career. But, what he is really setting us up is that war, no matter how justified, is really just a waste of time, money, resources, and lives. And, the wanton expenditure of the most precious resources a society has seems to be senselessly tossed about.
The real story, of course, takes place after the beachhead is established. Tom Hanks, a school teacher at home, yet a captain in battle, is instructed to go find one Pvt. Ryan. All of Ryan's brothers have been killed in the war, and the army decides that it would be a disservice to not send one of the brothers home to his mother. Hanks chooses his best men, and they set out across the Rhine land in search of a needle in a haystack. The movie revolves around the humanness of Hanks, who is thrust into a position of authority because of his education back home, yet is ambivalent about leading these troops...taking their lives into his hands. He is a good commander; quick on his feet; but, he is a very sad person. The rest of the movie is classic Spielberg. In some ways, I would compare his work to a Chinese landscape artist: broad, powerful brushstrokes; the placement of objects like mountains and waterfalls disproportionately large in relation to people. He takes serious subjects, recognizes the most powerful forces that people find their biographies embedded within, and weaves a story of how these people become aware of the forces, try to circumvent the forces, and how the success they find is always balanced very carefully with the loss, the horror, and the sometimes meaninglessness of it all.
48.Star Wars IV-VI. How do you rank something as epic as this trilogy? I couldn't decide. It is certainly not the best set of movies in the world, but has there ever been a set of movies that defined a whole generation? Moreover, it launched Harrison Ford's career that led to some unbelievable performances. I suggest watching them all in order again, in one sitting (with some breaks for pizza).
47. The Will Be Blood. This movie lands here for Daniel Day-Lewis and a performance of a lifetime. Or not. I feel he was better in another movie, which will be revealed below. But, wow...can you not feel the power of his character. Can you not feel the greed oozing out of his pores. The darkness of this movie does the book justice, as well as the themes Upton Sinclair stood for. The oil industry in contemporary America is one of the most dangerous, most powerful, most careless, and most reprehensible. Power and energy go hand in hand, and Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) embodies the lust for power, wealth and prestige that drove the growth, expansion, and entrenchment of the oil industry. This is Day-Lewis' Cast Away. To be sure, there are other actors who all do a marvelous job, but this movie is a one-man show. A tour de force, if you will. Plainview consumes each scene as if he is this poor prospector who struck black gold by sheer luck, and whose cunning and clever mind fit perfectly with his lack of scruples.
46. No Country for Old Men. Dark. Empty. Vacuous. Eroded. Simple. These adjectives fit this movie's landscape, its main antagonist, and its message. The movie, an adaptation by phenomenally underrated author Cormac McCarthy, is not the masterpiece of the Coen's catalg, but it certainly deserves high praise. As in all of their movies, the matter-of-factness of violence and the very real problems of suffering as well as meaning are painted vividly on a uniquely American canvas. Undergirding each character's actions is the question, why? Why are we motivated to act good or bad? There are rarely any clear protagonists in the Coen brothers films, but rather a cast of flawed individuals whose flaws cannot be weighed against each other. Javier Bardem's character who would seem to be the most sinister of all of the characters because his violent acts seem random and have no real reasoning behind them gradually becomes portrayed as having principles that guide his actions; a point the Coen brothers suggest is all any person can have. That is, meaning is constructed by people; actions are judged by the meanings we construct; and while the audience may want to believe there are universal rights and wrongs, each character understands their position in the universe and acts based on a set of principles of their own making, which are inherently flawed. At the end, which was considerably long and unnecessary to some extent, Tommy Lee Jones who plays a sheriff who seems to be more of an unwilling witness to the bizarre twists and turns of the human heart than a player in the game summarizes what we have learned: nothing. Are the Coen's suggesting we do not learn from past experiences and actions, that senseless violence is simply an extreme reflection of senseless everyday behavior, or that we are really alone in our own subjective worlds with only illusions of objectivity?
45. Monty Python's Life of Brian. Underrated? Absolutely. The problem with this movie, in relation to their masterpiece the Holy Grail!, is that it requires some serious historical and biblical knowledge to make it as funny as it really is. Not to blow my horn, but this is a time period I do study and the jokes are even funnier because of this (kind of like the difference between having worked in an office or never working in an office and then watching Office Space. Clearly it is funny for both sets of people; but, the context becomes even more funny for those who have worked in offices).
The movie takes place around the beginning of the Common Era (or the point where the Christian calendar flips and goes from BC to AD) in ancient Israel under Roman rule. False prophets are everywhere; the iron hand of Roman rule is a running theme (the People's Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front!?!); and, the absurdly disgusting conditions of urban life are put on display for comedic purposes. Brian, a half-Jew, half-Roman, experiences a series of events that lead to some people thinking he is the messiah, despite his desire to not be. It is a spoof on the story of Christ not meant to offend, but meant to present a different story of religious beginnings. I think it is very funny, but it might not make much sense to most people given the "dated" humor.
44. The Deer Hunter. Watch this movie if only because Meryl Streep is unreal. Christopher Walken and Robert De Niro round out an all-star cast that netted this movie the 1977 Best Film Oscar. Classic 70's film: long, elaborate, and highly detailed settings draw the viewer into an intensely sad and dramatic plot, that is intensified by the acting. Unfortunately, Hollywood refuses to produce movies like this nowadays (The Pianist represents one exception), but man, the 70's were filled with them. If you have patience and an attention span, and admire the art of filmmaking, then watch this movie.
43. Spaceballs. Mel Brooks!!! Does it pass the name test? President Skroob/Yogurt (Mel Brooks); Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis); Lone Starr (Bill Pullman); Barf (John Candy); Princess Vespa; Colonel Sandurz; Prince Valium; Major Asshole; Snotty; Pizza the Hut. The only thing stopping this movie from being Brooks' best is the fact that he made Blazing Saddles and Young Frankestein...both of which were enhanced by the genius of Gene Wilder (the most underrated comedian...perhaps because he retired so early and is never in the public light?). I love this movie. It is rewartachable...filled with great one-liners...and some memorable performances by the cast.
42. Talledega Nights. I hated this movie in the cinema. I watched it again...and couldn't stop watching it. It is so damn good. It would be higher if Will Farrell hadn't made Anchorman which might be the best comedy since National Lampoon's Vacation or Fletch. Name test: Ricky Bobby; Carl Naughton Jr.; Lucious Washington; Terry Cheveaux; Walker and Texas Ranger (the names Ricky gives his kids); Jean Girard; Larry Denitt Jr. What, not funny...Farrell thought real hard about these names to give a sense of realism, and it worked. Comedies don't always need hilarious names, but they need names that took some thought; names with surnames.
The real winner here is the pairing of Farrell with John C. O'Reilly, which would be reprised awesomely in Step Brothers. O'Reilly, like Farrell, just looks funny. His mustache; his height; his goofy body shape; and then the delivery of his lines. These two were meant to be a tag team. Then, there is the performance by Sacha Baron Cohen, who plays the Frenchmen who seeks the best competition. The scene in the bar when we first meet Girard is classic. It leads to the unraveling of Ricky Bobby's life, which culminates in Carl Naughton moving into his house one day to be with Bobby's wife and not seeing anything wrong with it.
41. Swingers. The single greatest breakup movie (for a guy) ever. Nothing like watching someone more pathetic than yourself (Jon Favreau) as well as seeing how important good friends are to your recovery. Jon Favreau wrote and directed this movie, managing to capture two very antithetical elements: the seemingly timeless nature of the L.A. night scene and Hollywood world, with the very dated mid-90s "swing" resurgance that is long since passed (the Derby, which is the nightclub Mikey meets Heather Graham in and swing dances with just closed down a few months ago). The swanky and classy LA-ness mixed with the sleazy, pretention. Favreau really captures it nicely...LA really is a strange mixture of new smashing into, integrating with, recombining, and struggling to understand the old.
Vince Vaughn's was the real winner as his career was launched as the kind of sleazy, but ultimately warmhearted likable guy. His comedy depends on his vocal delivery and his sense of irony. He places the best friend of Mikey who's own lifestyle is filled with hookups, a carefree attitude towards most things, and a generally positive disposition. Of these three, he only imposes the latter one on Mikey, who wants real relationships, is serious about his craft, and is generally pessimistic. Ron Livingston (of Office Space acclaim) has a sneaky good performance as Mikey's good, but naive, friend from NYC. This movie is great in so many ways. It will make you laugh; make you want to hit Vegas; and give you a really good sense of what LA is like for good and for bad...
12/24/09
Update on Health Care
Here is a link to a reasonably written article on health care that warns against seeing this bill from any angle other than its historical importance. Here.
Question of the Day: What Happened to John McCain?
Fast forward to now. McCain was for cutting medicare in the past, then the health bill appeared and was going to trim medicare and he was suddenly against touching it. He acted near at the end of the election as if he was ready to embrace a position of power: Obama clearly saw him as a worthy ally and opponent, someone who Obama could reach out to from the other side, while cementing McCain's bipartisan legacy. Instead, we have Mitch McConnell (Sen from Kentucky-R) defending McCain on the floor of the Senate, despite some serious past animosities. I feel bad, sort of. McCain could not be Bob Dole and fade away from political life and briefly revive his career by doing some Super Bowl Viagra ads; nor could be be Al Gore and go to Harvard for a year to teach, grow a beard, and then make an award winning documentary; nor could he be Ross Perot and just return to his Texas mansion. He stayed like Kerry. Kerry was weak to begin with, so he is just as much a non-entity as he was before he won the democratic nod four years ago.
Where did the 2000 McCain go? In some ways, he reminds me of a baseball player. We talk about players' individual seasons like fine wines. Guys may have peaks over multiple seasons, or be consistent throughout their careers, or even have multiple peaks over a career. But, the greatest players have individually great seasons (the super-duper stars have more than one of these). Barry Bonds' 2001-4 seasons (yes, everyone) were transcendent. Or, Pedro Martinez 1999 season. You get the point. Now, those two players had so many great seasons, and their careers will eventually be etched in bronze at Cooperstown, they do not provide good analogy. Because McCain was a middling infielder who showed bursts of occasional power at the plate, but was always a bust. Then, it all came together...all five tools were on display in 2000, until Bush beat him out for the MVP trophy. The following eight years were filled with random highlights reminding us of the brilliance his 1999-2000 season produced, but never again approached greatness; as if he injured himself and never regained confidence. Now, he relies of steroids to even play at a replacement-player MLB level...McCain, what happened?
Yea for Health Care?
The Senate passed their version of health care this morning...5 AM my time, which meant I woke up to a pleasant surprise. You know it must be helping Americans out to some extent when the GOP attorney generals plan on suing to analyze the constitutionality of telling Americans they must have health care and then providing them with potentially cheap alternatives!!! Really!?! I should sue them because it is mandatory to have a driver's license which costs me money every five years to renew; the constitution says nothing about the government's right to regulate my operation of a motor vehicle. Or, more germane (and so much more ironic): why does every child, until the age of 16, have to go to school. Public school (or the alternatives) is compulsory. I should contact my GOP representatives and ask them to review the constitutionality of that one. Oh yeah, and the state provides (in the "public option") a cheaper alternative to the more expensive private and prep schools. Which, by the way, are not hurting due to the competition with the more robust and affordable public option.
What do I not like? I do not like the weakness of the Senate and the lack of a public option. What is strange to me is this: the democrats won a majority across the board. This was the public voting for some change. Instead of embracing the larger vision Obama presented that won him so much support, they hedged, allowed the GOP to reshape the narrative over the summer, which painted them into a corner (especially those in precarious seats). The public either (a) recoiled in fear of a socialist takeover, (b) recoiled in disgust at the lameness, lack of vision, and lack of balls exhibited by the vast majority of democratic senators, or (c) recoiled in fear over (b) and over the crazy teabaggers whose inane arguments were dominating the airwaves and making (b) even worse! I am going with (c) on this one.
My second thought is this (and it will be a run-on sentence). If the economy keeps stabilizing, and health care is passed through congress and not by Obama personally ramming it through, and, Obama passes the next stimulus meant to reward job creation and benefit normal people, and the Wall Street legislation does indeed regulate them more efficaciously...could we not call that a successful first year? Also, the surge in Afghanistan may end up being a very good decision as it was in Iraq, and may help prepare for a real withdrawal in both war zones. We live in a strange time, my friends. A time where judgments are passed so quickly and rescinded almost as quickly. Obama is not going to be Roosevelt; he was not as prepared as Roosevelt. Obama is going to do something that impacts the American people, and I think it will be either benign or positive, because he does not seem committed to destroying the universe much like Bush and Cheney were.
What do I not like? I do not like the weakness of the Senate and the lack of a public option. What is strange to me is this: the democrats won a majority across the board. This was the public voting for some change. Instead of embracing the larger vision Obama presented that won him so much support, they hedged, allowed the GOP to reshape the narrative over the summer, which painted them into a corner (especially those in precarious seats). The public either (a) recoiled in fear of a socialist takeover, (b) recoiled in disgust at the lameness, lack of vision, and lack of balls exhibited by the vast majority of democratic senators, or (c) recoiled in fear over (b) and over the crazy teabaggers whose inane arguments were dominating the airwaves and making (b) even worse! I am going with (c) on this one.
My second thought is this (and it will be a run-on sentence). If the economy keeps stabilizing, and health care is passed through congress and not by Obama personally ramming it through, and, Obama passes the next stimulus meant to reward job creation and benefit normal people, and the Wall Street legislation does indeed regulate them more efficaciously...could we not call that a successful first year? Also, the surge in Afghanistan may end up being a very good decision as it was in Iraq, and may help prepare for a real withdrawal in both war zones. We live in a strange time, my friends. A time where judgments are passed so quickly and rescinded almost as quickly. Obama is not going to be Roosevelt; he was not as prepared as Roosevelt. Obama is going to do something that impacts the American people, and I think it will be either benign or positive, because he does not seem committed to destroying the universe much like Bush and Cheney were.
12/23/09
Debunking Free Market Myth #3
Government run things are bad. Somewhere along the line, we got into the mode of thinking that the government cannot run anything efficiently. Well, this is true; anyone who works for (or has worked for) a corporation that is larger than 200 employees knows bureaucracy inevitably becomes irrational as it gets larger and more complex. So, yes...the government cannot run things efficiently and will likely be wasteful in many respects.
Does this mean government run things are bad? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. The post office, for example, is a government run service. It is neither a good or bad service. My mail tends to make it out and arrive nearly every time; the mailman never misses a pickup since I can remember; the cost is relatively low considering the alternatives; and most importantly, this large cheap service has not put the kibosh on capitalist competition: FedEx and UPS are quite strong, and there are a million little companies like DHL that specialize in delivery. So, it is really difficult to use this line of argument.
Here is why government run operations become bad. Reason 1: they hire out. The Republicans, trying to implement a market model for war, decided to hire contractors at the beginning of the Iraq war for driving, security, etc. Of course, not following the market model, they avoided a true bidding system and essentially gave sweetheart deals to their close friends (Halliburton anyone?). The result was (a) corruption and a serious loss of government money, (b) no oversight in a foreign country, and (c) the same inefficiencies with even less accountability.
Reason 2: lobbyists. Its one thing to decide to lower costs for senior citizens on their prescription drugs; its a whole other thing to pass legislation meant to provide this lower cost by having a government agency buy the drugs at a high price, with no bidding, from select pharmaceutical companies. You cannot have a government run program that lacks autonomy from economic influences at that level and expect it to do what it is supposed to do.
Reason 3: lack of vision. The health care bill, albeit an important bill that can be amended in the future, is going to watered down so much that it might not even do what it was originally meant to do: lower costs. A true public option is the key, says the CBO (the non-partisan accounting agency that analyzes bills), to promoting competition, ensuring low prices, and keeping insurance companies in check. We will likely get a kicker in the final bill that triggers a public option in five years if the nothing changes, but why wait? No one, except those getting money from the insurance or health industry, likes insurance companies...ask yourself, do you like the way you have been paying absurd prices for car, health, or any other insurance? Or, if you've made a claim, the company treats you terribly as they attempt to not pay you a sliver of what you have paid them? Of course not! So, why don't we just get the punishment over with and move on?
Why are government services good? First, they are not about profit. Health and education, especially, should never be "for profit" services. I am fine with private options (e.g., personal doctors, private schools), but I am not fine with public schools having to secure funding when the state decides the money we are spending on stupid wars is more important than educating our youth. Second, despite the bogeyman conspiracy theorists and the Rush's of the world, most government services are well intentioned. Medicare, social security, and welfare all are meant to provide a safety net to people in society; a society that could not exist without all of its members contributing. Why should a person work 40 years for a shitty company who reaps profits from his blood and sweat, and then retire and have no protection from the society he just served for so long? Why should a child be born into poverty -- not choosing this life -- and not have equal opportunities to succeed as those born into affluence? These programs are meant to help people out (60% of Americans will use government money in welfare or unemployment benefits once in the lives...so, it isn't just crack whores trying to be free riders on the system). Third, the alternatives are terrible. California deregulated its energy years ago and started buying from random people (thanks Enron!). What we got out of that was this: rolling brown outs meant to threaten the population and government into higher costs, higher costs from corporations trying to squeeze us, and a basic need (heat, electricity) turned into a commodity whose cost affected people's budgets. The market is not always a free market; monopolies exist (Microsoft; insurance; airlines; gasoline; media), not in the purest sense of a single dominant company, but in the sense of oligarchies. Governments should and do force companies to play fairly. In the gilded age (the 1880's-early 1900's), the people we called the Captains of Industry were simply monopolists who made so much money off the sweat of non-union labor at a fraction of the cost of wages. They were ruthless, cruel, and have become revered because they donated a proportion of their money (Carnegie anyone) making them seem good. Let's face it: free market is code for exploitation, unregulated business ethics, and making shitloads of money and running. How many examples do people need before we realize that a pure economic theory doesn't work in the real world, much like gravity doesn't act the same in practice as it does in a vacuum (hey, throw a cannonball and a feather out of a window, they should both land at the same time). Here are some reminders: the Savings and Loan disaster in the late 80s; Bernie Madoff; Enron and Tyco; the Captains of Industry; the Great Depression; the railroads; the money it costs to put your bag on an airplane combined with the decline of service on every airline; carpetbaggers during the early 1800s; slavery.
All "isms" are what they are: ideologies which orient our attitudes and actions in ways that make sense of the world, events, behavior, etc. They are rarely true in an objective empirical sense, but they do guide us. Socialism, in its purest form, is good; when humans implement it, it has the potential to be very bad (Nazism); Capitalism in its purest form is good; when humans implement it, it often goes awry. The government, for better or for worse, is the corporation "for the people," and should try to at least speak for those of us who cannot do much against the large machinary of capitalist bureaucracy. I prefer no "isms." Take what works and integrate it; isms produce dogma, self-righteousness, and resistance to compromise. Orthodoxy is rigid, and often collapses in the face of environmental changes.
Does this mean government run things are bad? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. The post office, for example, is a government run service. It is neither a good or bad service. My mail tends to make it out and arrive nearly every time; the mailman never misses a pickup since I can remember; the cost is relatively low considering the alternatives; and most importantly, this large cheap service has not put the kibosh on capitalist competition: FedEx and UPS are quite strong, and there are a million little companies like DHL that specialize in delivery. So, it is really difficult to use this line of argument.
Here is why government run operations become bad. Reason 1: they hire out. The Republicans, trying to implement a market model for war, decided to hire contractors at the beginning of the Iraq war for driving, security, etc. Of course, not following the market model, they avoided a true bidding system and essentially gave sweetheart deals to their close friends (Halliburton anyone?). The result was (a) corruption and a serious loss of government money, (b) no oversight in a foreign country, and (c) the same inefficiencies with even less accountability.
Reason 2: lobbyists. Its one thing to decide to lower costs for senior citizens on their prescription drugs; its a whole other thing to pass legislation meant to provide this lower cost by having a government agency buy the drugs at a high price, with no bidding, from select pharmaceutical companies. You cannot have a government run program that lacks autonomy from economic influences at that level and expect it to do what it is supposed to do.
Reason 3: lack of vision. The health care bill, albeit an important bill that can be amended in the future, is going to watered down so much that it might not even do what it was originally meant to do: lower costs. A true public option is the key, says the CBO (the non-partisan accounting agency that analyzes bills), to promoting competition, ensuring low prices, and keeping insurance companies in check. We will likely get a kicker in the final bill that triggers a public option in five years if the nothing changes, but why wait? No one, except those getting money from the insurance or health industry, likes insurance companies...ask yourself, do you like the way you have been paying absurd prices for car, health, or any other insurance? Or, if you've made a claim, the company treats you terribly as they attempt to not pay you a sliver of what you have paid them? Of course not! So, why don't we just get the punishment over with and move on?
Why are government services good? First, they are not about profit. Health and education, especially, should never be "for profit" services. I am fine with private options (e.g., personal doctors, private schools), but I am not fine with public schools having to secure funding when the state decides the money we are spending on stupid wars is more important than educating our youth. Second, despite the bogeyman conspiracy theorists and the Rush's of the world, most government services are well intentioned. Medicare, social security, and welfare all are meant to provide a safety net to people in society; a society that could not exist without all of its members contributing. Why should a person work 40 years for a shitty company who reaps profits from his blood and sweat, and then retire and have no protection from the society he just served for so long? Why should a child be born into poverty -- not choosing this life -- and not have equal opportunities to succeed as those born into affluence? These programs are meant to help people out (60% of Americans will use government money in welfare or unemployment benefits once in the lives...so, it isn't just crack whores trying to be free riders on the system). Third, the alternatives are terrible. California deregulated its energy years ago and started buying from random people (thanks Enron!). What we got out of that was this: rolling brown outs meant to threaten the population and government into higher costs, higher costs from corporations trying to squeeze us, and a basic need (heat, electricity) turned into a commodity whose cost affected people's budgets. The market is not always a free market; monopolies exist (Microsoft; insurance; airlines; gasoline; media), not in the purest sense of a single dominant company, but in the sense of oligarchies. Governments should and do force companies to play fairly. In the gilded age (the 1880's-early 1900's), the people we called the Captains of Industry were simply monopolists who made so much money off the sweat of non-union labor at a fraction of the cost of wages. They were ruthless, cruel, and have become revered because they donated a proportion of their money (Carnegie anyone) making them seem good. Let's face it: free market is code for exploitation, unregulated business ethics, and making shitloads of money and running. How many examples do people need before we realize that a pure economic theory doesn't work in the real world, much like gravity doesn't act the same in practice as it does in a vacuum (hey, throw a cannonball and a feather out of a window, they should both land at the same time). Here are some reminders: the Savings and Loan disaster in the late 80s; Bernie Madoff; Enron and Tyco; the Captains of Industry; the Great Depression; the railroads; the money it costs to put your bag on an airplane combined with the decline of service on every airline; carpetbaggers during the early 1800s; slavery.
All "isms" are what they are: ideologies which orient our attitudes and actions in ways that make sense of the world, events, behavior, etc. They are rarely true in an objective empirical sense, but they do guide us. Socialism, in its purest form, is good; when humans implement it, it has the potential to be very bad (Nazism); Capitalism in its purest form is good; when humans implement it, it often goes awry. The government, for better or for worse, is the corporation "for the people," and should try to at least speak for those of us who cannot do much against the large machinary of capitalist bureaucracy. I prefer no "isms." Take what works and integrate it; isms produce dogma, self-righteousness, and resistance to compromise. Orthodoxy is rigid, and often collapses in the face of environmental changes.
12/14/09
12/12/09
12/10/09
Your Quote for the Day/Night
An employee will go home and ask his neighbor, "Hey, did you get an award?" "No man. I mean I slave all day and no one notices." Next thing you know, he smells something funny from his neighbor's house. Neighbor hanged himself due to lack of recognition. - Michael Scott (The Office)
Debunking the Free Market Myth #2
Myth #2: Free markets are imperative to innovation. My favorite line from pro-market people is that socialism prevents innovation, whereas free markets and capitalism generate innovation. Now, before we go further it should be noted that markets do have a positive effect on innovation, predominantly technological innovation. This presents two very different questions we need to address: do free markets facilitate more, less, or non-significant amounts of new innovation. Two, is technological innovation all its cracked up to be?
There are two sets of logic at work here, one implicit and the other explicit. Adam Smith proposed that the division of labor that rapidly intensifies in capitalist economies (i.e., factories divvy up tasks to increase production, efficiency, and control human error as best as possible, while also differentiating vertically -- management -- to facilitate control, coordination, and communication across employees) also drives innovation in technology. The reason: people who work at the same job, doing the same tasks are bound to simplify them, know them best, and begin to find shortcuts that lead to time-saving innovations. The explicit argument is this: market-based incentives (i.e., wealth, fame, power) motivate people to innovate, which ultimately benefits them while benefiting everyone. This logic returns to the old "rational-man" model presented in the first myth earlier, and assumes pure self-interest is the best panacea to society's ills.
I don't know about you, but I have worked in offices, restaurants, retail, and other places...I don't recall any employees I personally or impersonally knew innovating. Perhaps it is because of a lack of incentives, as any time-saving or increase in productivity will only benefit the owner of the company or means of production. Marx also pointed out that people who are separated from the entire process of production -- that is the creative side of producing, the productive side, and seeing the finished product -- experience high levels of alienation, which is just a heady word for dampened motivation. Moreover, the person does not see their work, their company, or their employees as anything other than means to their own extra-work satisfaction: job = salary; company = necessary evil; co-workers = enemies, or friends against the man.
On the other hand, market-based incentives may produce global motivation to innovate. Yes, and no. First off, turn on your TV at any hour of the day and you will find products for three easy shipments of 19.99 that were invented to simplify some aspect of life or maximize another. This is not progress in my opinion; though, there are people filling their lives and apartments with crap right now. Secondly, how do you explain the wheel? Or penicillin? Or space travel? All three of these present innovations of import that lacked capitalist motivation, even if one could argue that money and fame were secondary or tertiary motivations. The wheel: necessity is the mother of innovation; penicillin: the pursuit of science is filled with competing interests, but it was an accident borne out of the search for knowledge; and space travel: it was a political attempt at proxy warfare against the Russians, while also meant to boost nationalism and patriotism. As Marx noted, people are naturally creative animals; we will innovate regardless of the money involved because we enjoy it, because we look to solve problems, because we like to simplify life, and because it does produce benefits to us and our groups. One might point to the rapid advances in technology as indicative of the superiority of capitalism in driving innovation, but this ignores two important facets. The first, is technological innovation all its cracked up to be will be tackled below. The second: how do we define time, history, and pace. If we look at the long view, since the plows invention followed closely by the emergence of writing some 5,000 years ago, technological innovation has moved very rapidly in relation to the 3 million years plus that humans lived in hunter/gatherer societies; another way is to look 12,000 years or so ago when humans became sedentary...again, technological advance has been rapid in relation to the slow, gradual socio-cultural evolution of humans. The point is, certain forces drive innovation outside of self-interest. Population growth and density; resource scarcity; centralized and consolidated forces of control/coordination; and improved means of production/distribution. Indeed, we are focused much more intently on the last of these five forces, but the first two are just as relevant across time and space. More people mean more ideas and more people to bounce those ideas off of; density leads to new problems of production, distribution, and coordinating space; centralization/consolidation make dividing labor up, resolving conflicts that arise, and fostering a larger integrative identity beyond the family and religious possible; and you know what improvements in productive and distributive forces leads to. These are general, ubiquitous characteristics. Capitalism harnesses them as well as any economic system, save for those intent on destroying its citizens.
How we harness it varies though. Capitalism, as its proponents correctly assert, does so through economic innovation, whereas political, religious, educational, scientific, legal, or kin-based innovations are also possible and have been used. None seem better than the others; they both present unique challenges and consequences when implemented. Capitalism is really good at producing choice while intensely limiting it: rather than treat people globally as citizens, kinsmen, or part of a larger moral community, or atomizes people and objectifies them as consumers. This is bad; it is our modern malaise.
Thus, we can look at part two: is technology good. Yes and no. More food, more efficient farming and production, medicine, more leisure, etc. are all positives to a certain extent. But, no...absurdly myopic focusing on materialism is never good. Self-interest becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the mantra of the rational-man model becomes accepted by all. Then, people treat each other as if they are means to their own satisfaction; corporations see people as means to their collective goals; and, in the end, morality and ethics become buzz words that are not to get in the way of the machine. Having more stuff leads to the need and desire for more stuff...plain and simple. I dare you to dispute that. And, if you think having and desiring more material things, you should see my students, talk to them, read their papers, analyze their thoughts, and consider their futures...then get back to me.
Moreover, call me cold or call me prescient. Improving people's lives is one thing, prolonging them with little birth control regulation means growing the Earth's population to catastrophic rates. Having people live longer, but get sicker more often taxes the entire society and its infrastructure. Prolonging the life of children born terminally ill, regardless of what your religion tells you, does not shore up a society's long-term survivability. I don't think people get how close to the precipice modern society is, but you can only tempt the forces of nature for so long before she will strike (no society is invincible...look it up; its an historical fact). I am not calling for death squads, or eugenic programs: I am calling for a rational discourse that actually tries to plan out the future of this country and world in such a way that we balance, even if they are a bit skewed in our favor, our needs and the Earth's. We could plausibly do it; but, constant material innovation might not be the answer. There is, for instance, a finite number of silicone chips; a finite amount of iron; a finite amount of fresh water; a finite amount of fossil fuels. Each new person will use some of this finite number. So, in other words, imagine I have five friends over. We order two pizzas with eight slices each. We each get three slices, with two left over. For every person I invite over, the number and size of slices decreases. At some point, their is a crisis as the number and size of slices cannot meet their function: feeding and satiating us. This is a reality that population size has an effect on. We cannot simply genetically modify the pizza every time to increase slices and sizes.
There are two sets of logic at work here, one implicit and the other explicit. Adam Smith proposed that the division of labor that rapidly intensifies in capitalist economies (i.e., factories divvy up tasks to increase production, efficiency, and control human error as best as possible, while also differentiating vertically -- management -- to facilitate control, coordination, and communication across employees) also drives innovation in technology. The reason: people who work at the same job, doing the same tasks are bound to simplify them, know them best, and begin to find shortcuts that lead to time-saving innovations. The explicit argument is this: market-based incentives (i.e., wealth, fame, power) motivate people to innovate, which ultimately benefits them while benefiting everyone. This logic returns to the old "rational-man" model presented in the first myth earlier, and assumes pure self-interest is the best panacea to society's ills.
I don't know about you, but I have worked in offices, restaurants, retail, and other places...I don't recall any employees I personally or impersonally knew innovating. Perhaps it is because of a lack of incentives, as any time-saving or increase in productivity will only benefit the owner of the company or means of production. Marx also pointed out that people who are separated from the entire process of production -- that is the creative side of producing, the productive side, and seeing the finished product -- experience high levels of alienation, which is just a heady word for dampened motivation. Moreover, the person does not see their work, their company, or their employees as anything other than means to their own extra-work satisfaction: job = salary; company = necessary evil; co-workers = enemies, or friends against the man.
On the other hand, market-based incentives may produce global motivation to innovate. Yes, and no. First off, turn on your TV at any hour of the day and you will find products for three easy shipments of 19.99 that were invented to simplify some aspect of life or maximize another. This is not progress in my opinion; though, there are people filling their lives and apartments with crap right now. Secondly, how do you explain the wheel? Or penicillin? Or space travel? All three of these present innovations of import that lacked capitalist motivation, even if one could argue that money and fame were secondary or tertiary motivations. The wheel: necessity is the mother of innovation; penicillin: the pursuit of science is filled with competing interests, but it was an accident borne out of the search for knowledge; and space travel: it was a political attempt at proxy warfare against the Russians, while also meant to boost nationalism and patriotism. As Marx noted, people are naturally creative animals; we will innovate regardless of the money involved because we enjoy it, because we look to solve problems, because we like to simplify life, and because it does produce benefits to us and our groups. One might point to the rapid advances in technology as indicative of the superiority of capitalism in driving innovation, but this ignores two important facets. The first, is technological innovation all its cracked up to be will be tackled below. The second: how do we define time, history, and pace. If we look at the long view, since the plows invention followed closely by the emergence of writing some 5,000 years ago, technological innovation has moved very rapidly in relation to the 3 million years plus that humans lived in hunter/gatherer societies; another way is to look 12,000 years or so ago when humans became sedentary...again, technological advance has been rapid in relation to the slow, gradual socio-cultural evolution of humans. The point is, certain forces drive innovation outside of self-interest. Population growth and density; resource scarcity; centralized and consolidated forces of control/coordination; and improved means of production/distribution. Indeed, we are focused much more intently on the last of these five forces, but the first two are just as relevant across time and space. More people mean more ideas and more people to bounce those ideas off of; density leads to new problems of production, distribution, and coordinating space; centralization/consolidation make dividing labor up, resolving conflicts that arise, and fostering a larger integrative identity beyond the family and religious possible; and you know what improvements in productive and distributive forces leads to. These are general, ubiquitous characteristics. Capitalism harnesses them as well as any economic system, save for those intent on destroying its citizens.
How we harness it varies though. Capitalism, as its proponents correctly assert, does so through economic innovation, whereas political, religious, educational, scientific, legal, or kin-based innovations are also possible and have been used. None seem better than the others; they both present unique challenges and consequences when implemented. Capitalism is really good at producing choice while intensely limiting it: rather than treat people globally as citizens, kinsmen, or part of a larger moral community, or atomizes people and objectifies them as consumers. This is bad; it is our modern malaise.
Thus, we can look at part two: is technology good. Yes and no. More food, more efficient farming and production, medicine, more leisure, etc. are all positives to a certain extent. But, no...absurdly myopic focusing on materialism is never good. Self-interest becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the mantra of the rational-man model becomes accepted by all. Then, people treat each other as if they are means to their own satisfaction; corporations see people as means to their collective goals; and, in the end, morality and ethics become buzz words that are not to get in the way of the machine. Having more stuff leads to the need and desire for more stuff...plain and simple. I dare you to dispute that. And, if you think having and desiring more material things, you should see my students, talk to them, read their papers, analyze their thoughts, and consider their futures...then get back to me.
Moreover, call me cold or call me prescient. Improving people's lives is one thing, prolonging them with little birth control regulation means growing the Earth's population to catastrophic rates. Having people live longer, but get sicker more often taxes the entire society and its infrastructure. Prolonging the life of children born terminally ill, regardless of what your religion tells you, does not shore up a society's long-term survivability. I don't think people get how close to the precipice modern society is, but you can only tempt the forces of nature for so long before she will strike (no society is invincible...look it up; its an historical fact). I am not calling for death squads, or eugenic programs: I am calling for a rational discourse that actually tries to plan out the future of this country and world in such a way that we balance, even if they are a bit skewed in our favor, our needs and the Earth's. We could plausibly do it; but, constant material innovation might not be the answer. There is, for instance, a finite number of silicone chips; a finite amount of iron; a finite amount of fresh water; a finite amount of fossil fuels. Each new person will use some of this finite number. So, in other words, imagine I have five friends over. We order two pizzas with eight slices each. We each get three slices, with two left over. For every person I invite over, the number and size of slices decreases. At some point, their is a crisis as the number and size of slices cannot meet their function: feeding and satiating us. This is a reality that population size has an effect on. We cannot simply genetically modify the pizza every time to increase slices and sizes.
12/9/09
Debunking the Free Market Myth #1
The fight against health care and Obama's administration has been carefully defined by the right as a narrative of free market versus socialist tactics, or more implicitly, everything American versus either benign pseudo-European socialism or at worst, authoritarian socialism of the fascist ilk. But, I find it ingenuous and nonsensical to not look at Obama's efforts, the country's needs, and the economic structure through a more nuanced, socio-historical lens that avoids the empty platitudes of politicking. Moreover, when one is confronted by an agitator, or someone arguing based on historical eternals or faulty logic, you need to be equipped. Let's look at some of the myths.
Myth #1: In the past, markets were freer. Be dealing with this myth first, I am essentially destroying my entire blog below; if I can handle this one, then every other is simply a corollary and therefore debunked. Anyway, have there ever been truly free markets? If by free, we are referring to the "invisible hand" of supply and demand that underscored Adam Smith's vision of capitalism, then the answer is a resounding no. One of the things my students, and nearly all humans do -- which was at the heart of Marx's argument -- is assume the social structure that they are born into has always been and will always be. Part of this is intellectual laziness: not taking the time to learn about past societies or massive historical changes. However, the lion's share of blame likely can be found in our neuro-anatomy. Think about it in this way: you grow up with yourself, and while you know you have changed as a person over the last however many years, the changes have been imperceptible. So much so, that you likely have found yourself evaluating how you have gotten where you are today. Maybe you see a "turning-point" moment and highlight it as the day things changed, but can we really be sure? In thirty years, will that moment still be seen the same way? Well, this analogy can be applied to our conception of social structure. And, learning history does not suffice. One must gain historical consciousness: they must make the facts they are learning breath with life. As the famed Roman historian Livy once said, "The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind."
Back to our myth. Were there ever truly free markets? Not really. Before states and writing existed, it appears as if the form of economic subsistence was mostly derived from the household in hunting and gathering techniques. There were no markets. With chiefdoms came some early market-like notions: relatively long-distance trade emerged, but mostly for prestige goods from one chief to another and vice versa. With the rise of states some 5,000 years ago, state-sponsored long-distance trade occurred. Merchants were endowed with goods, they would take the entire risk born of traveling, sell their wares to other merchants, aristocracy, or nobles, and return with new goods for the king and some profit for themselves. The key, though, is the vast majority of people in these early urban states were super poor. They weren't farmers because they lived in cities; and not everyone was a good craftsman or artisan. They were laborers, beggars, or servants. They had no disposable income. The bazaars that did exist catered mostly to bartering and trading as money was not yet as standardized and diffuse as it would become later.
Again, this history lesson is a bit off of the myth, which is really about classic America: a golden age of veritable free market entrepreneurship. Is this true? Again, no. Markets were freer in a sense in the 18th and 19th centuries. Less government regulation, but also much greater risk. Snake oil, one of my favorite products, is a perfect example for an entire economic system. People were free to sell what they wanted, and they worked very hard to create a market. There was no FDA to review whether the product was safe or even effective; there was no agency that put pressure on you to be honest in your business practices and truthful in your claims. So, in a sense, the market did regulate itself, but at a disadvantage to the average person who had little time or education (or wikipedia) to discover whether snake oil was healthy, efficacious, or useless; he market then was still tilted against the working class. Thus, the arguments then were like today: corporations and the capitalist class deserve free markets. By the time capitalism and the industrial age took off, post-Civil War America, it looked nothing like the GOP wants it to be and the tea baggers think it was. Just go back and look at the Supreme Court decisions from about 1870-1930...they are unbelievably lopsided towards defending the rights of corporations; the 14th amendment, enacted to protect the protect individuals especially newly "freed" black slaves was used by corporations to protect themselves against the claims of individuals. Moreover, the so-called gilded age coincided with the rise of the "captains of industry" like Carnegie and Rockefeller, who also looked like the monopoly fellow and acted like him too. They were cruel, nefarious, cunning, and not unlike the oil barron that Daniel Day-Lewis played in There Will be Blood. They hated workers and saw them as expendable, fighting against workplace regulations that led to the death, dismemberment, illness, and malaise of uncounted numbers of people who helped build this country. Like the GOP today, they were hypocrites: from one side of the mouth they supported the working white American class in public, while hiring immigrants whenever possible because they were cheaper, harder workers, and expendable. They bought congress....look it up. The most corrupt period in legislative history in the US was during the "gilded" age. The markets were anything but free. The Horatio Alger myth of people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps distorted the objective reality: few people experienced mobility then, few experience it now. Demand could be shaped with cunning and creative advertising campaigns; this is also a fact. Think about this....why would a corporation spend 1-2 billion dollars on a thirty second Super Bowl ad if it had no impact on people's buying habits? That is irrational and everything economic models of capitalism would rally against. The early Sears and Roebuck catalogs provided strong indications that people's tastes, preferences, and desires could be shaped by advertisers. Was the market free? Yes, because the government continued to not care. That is, the practices of the capitalist class sunk the economy into the Great Depression and it was clear the old ways were unstable. What followed was the Warren court which salvaged the Bill of Rights as a document of the citizen and not the corporation; the restructuring of the American economy and government such that we didn't have to follow Germany's, Italy's, Spain's or any other European nation's strong moves towards socialism. We could have capitalism, and relatively free markets, while also protecting people...What a novel idea!!!!
One final note: go read Adam Smith. His theory was essentially this: where merchants, tradesmen, and owners of capital were unregulated, the nations wealth would grow. A sort of trickle-down economics pre-Reagan. You have to put his words into a certain socio-historical context (the late eighteenth century). First, England likely taxed and regulated inter- and intra-national trade. Second, he recognized in his book that completely free trade could and probably should never happened. Third, the question that often is ignored by modern GOPers/free-market advocates because modern economics has institutionalized its (wrong) answer is: what ensures that the market will regulate itself and people will do what it is right and not do things like monopolize, sell bad wares, etc? His answer is self-interest. If everyone follows their own self-interest than the economy will run smoothly. People won't buy things they don't need, are made terribly, or they can find cheaper; people won't sell things that will bankrupt them, that will harm people and come back to financially haunt them, etc. It is called the "rational-man" model and it is the basic assumption of human agency that underlies modern US action and interaction. Sociology, anthropology, and many other social sciences have long demonstrated empirically that people don't act this way. (1) Not every person has access to all the relevant knowledge in order to make the best decision in pursuing their self-interest; (2) socialization and social pressures go a long way in shaping our self-interest, often in ways counter-intuitive or against what would objectively be in our best interests; (3) corporations, like the car companies, do use rational calculus...but not for the benefit of the many: when a defect that kills people is discovered they weigh the cost of recall and repair vis-a-vis the number of likely lawsuits they will get; (4) irrationalities dominate market actions: gas spikes lead to people hoarding gasoline, brief fads and fashions created by TV, celebrities, and other media spark intensified purchasing, planned obsolescence precludes consumers from making good purchasing decisions, and people often think with their heart, their sexual organs, or other non-cerebral aspects of their body, which advertisers use to their advantage. So, the answer is no: markets are not free, never have been, and never will be. In theory yes, in practice absolutely not.
Myth #1: In the past, markets were freer. Be dealing with this myth first, I am essentially destroying my entire blog below; if I can handle this one, then every other is simply a corollary and therefore debunked. Anyway, have there ever been truly free markets? If by free, we are referring to the "invisible hand" of supply and demand that underscored Adam Smith's vision of capitalism, then the answer is a resounding no. One of the things my students, and nearly all humans do -- which was at the heart of Marx's argument -- is assume the social structure that they are born into has always been and will always be. Part of this is intellectual laziness: not taking the time to learn about past societies or massive historical changes. However, the lion's share of blame likely can be found in our neuro-anatomy. Think about it in this way: you grow up with yourself, and while you know you have changed as a person over the last however many years, the changes have been imperceptible. So much so, that you likely have found yourself evaluating how you have gotten where you are today. Maybe you see a "turning-point" moment and highlight it as the day things changed, but can we really be sure? In thirty years, will that moment still be seen the same way? Well, this analogy can be applied to our conception of social structure. And, learning history does not suffice. One must gain historical consciousness: they must make the facts they are learning breath with life. As the famed Roman historian Livy once said, "The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind."
Back to our myth. Were there ever truly free markets? Not really. Before states and writing existed, it appears as if the form of economic subsistence was mostly derived from the household in hunting and gathering techniques. There were no markets. With chiefdoms came some early market-like notions: relatively long-distance trade emerged, but mostly for prestige goods from one chief to another and vice versa. With the rise of states some 5,000 years ago, state-sponsored long-distance trade occurred. Merchants were endowed with goods, they would take the entire risk born of traveling, sell their wares to other merchants, aristocracy, or nobles, and return with new goods for the king and some profit for themselves. The key, though, is the vast majority of people in these early urban states were super poor. They weren't farmers because they lived in cities; and not everyone was a good craftsman or artisan. They were laborers, beggars, or servants. They had no disposable income. The bazaars that did exist catered mostly to bartering and trading as money was not yet as standardized and diffuse as it would become later.
Again, this history lesson is a bit off of the myth, which is really about classic America: a golden age of veritable free market entrepreneurship. Is this true? Again, no. Markets were freer in a sense in the 18th and 19th centuries. Less government regulation, but also much greater risk. Snake oil, one of my favorite products, is a perfect example for an entire economic system. People were free to sell what they wanted, and they worked very hard to create a market. There was no FDA to review whether the product was safe or even effective; there was no agency that put pressure on you to be honest in your business practices and truthful in your claims. So, in a sense, the market did regulate itself, but at a disadvantage to the average person who had little time or education (or wikipedia) to discover whether snake oil was healthy, efficacious, or useless; he market then was still tilted against the working class. Thus, the arguments then were like today: corporations and the capitalist class deserve free markets. By the time capitalism and the industrial age took off, post-Civil War America, it looked nothing like the GOP wants it to be and the tea baggers think it was. Just go back and look at the Supreme Court decisions from about 1870-1930...they are unbelievably lopsided towards defending the rights of corporations; the 14th amendment, enacted to protect the protect individuals especially newly "freed" black slaves was used by corporations to protect themselves against the claims of individuals. Moreover, the so-called gilded age coincided with the rise of the "captains of industry" like Carnegie and Rockefeller, who also looked like the monopoly fellow and acted like him too. They were cruel, nefarious, cunning, and not unlike the oil barron that Daniel Day-Lewis played in There Will be Blood. They hated workers and saw them as expendable, fighting against workplace regulations that led to the death, dismemberment, illness, and malaise of uncounted numbers of people who helped build this country. Like the GOP today, they were hypocrites: from one side of the mouth they supported the working white American class in public, while hiring immigrants whenever possible because they were cheaper, harder workers, and expendable. They bought congress....look it up. The most corrupt period in legislative history in the US was during the "gilded" age. The markets were anything but free. The Horatio Alger myth of people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps distorted the objective reality: few people experienced mobility then, few experience it now. Demand could be shaped with cunning and creative advertising campaigns; this is also a fact. Think about this....why would a corporation spend 1-2 billion dollars on a thirty second Super Bowl ad if it had no impact on people's buying habits? That is irrational and everything economic models of capitalism would rally against. The early Sears and Roebuck catalogs provided strong indications that people's tastes, preferences, and desires could be shaped by advertisers. Was the market free? Yes, because the government continued to not care. That is, the practices of the capitalist class sunk the economy into the Great Depression and it was clear the old ways were unstable. What followed was the Warren court which salvaged the Bill of Rights as a document of the citizen and not the corporation; the restructuring of the American economy and government such that we didn't have to follow Germany's, Italy's, Spain's or any other European nation's strong moves towards socialism. We could have capitalism, and relatively free markets, while also protecting people...What a novel idea!!!!
One final note: go read Adam Smith. His theory was essentially this: where merchants, tradesmen, and owners of capital were unregulated, the nations wealth would grow. A sort of trickle-down economics pre-Reagan. You have to put his words into a certain socio-historical context (the late eighteenth century). First, England likely taxed and regulated inter- and intra-national trade. Second, he recognized in his book that completely free trade could and probably should never happened. Third, the question that often is ignored by modern GOPers/free-market advocates because modern economics has institutionalized its (wrong) answer is: what ensures that the market will regulate itself and people will do what it is right and not do things like monopolize, sell bad wares, etc? His answer is self-interest. If everyone follows their own self-interest than the economy will run smoothly. People won't buy things they don't need, are made terribly, or they can find cheaper; people won't sell things that will bankrupt them, that will harm people and come back to financially haunt them, etc. It is called the "rational-man" model and it is the basic assumption of human agency that underlies modern US action and interaction. Sociology, anthropology, and many other social sciences have long demonstrated empirically that people don't act this way. (1) Not every person has access to all the relevant knowledge in order to make the best decision in pursuing their self-interest; (2) socialization and social pressures go a long way in shaping our self-interest, often in ways counter-intuitive or against what would objectively be in our best interests; (3) corporations, like the car companies, do use rational calculus...but not for the benefit of the many: when a defect that kills people is discovered they weigh the cost of recall and repair vis-a-vis the number of likely lawsuits they will get; (4) irrationalities dominate market actions: gas spikes lead to people hoarding gasoline, brief fads and fashions created by TV, celebrities, and other media spark intensified purchasing, planned obsolescence precludes consumers from making good purchasing decisions, and people often think with their heart, their sexual organs, or other non-cerebral aspects of their body, which advertisers use to their advantage. So, the answer is no: markets are not free, never have been, and never will be. In theory yes, in practice absolutely not.
Your Quote for the Day
As the poet said, 'Only God can make a tree' -- probably because it's so hard to figure out how to get the bark on. - Woody Allen
12/8/09
Your Quote for the Day
Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike. - Teddy Roosevelt
12/7/09
Top 120 Movies Continued, (59-50)
This next set are on the cusp of greatness, but don't quite cross the threshold. In some ways, I am simply quibbling of good, great, and superb...but, someone needs to make these distinctions.
59. Beetlejuice. Michael Keaton; Wynona Rider; Catherine O'Hara; Alec Baldwin; Geena Davis; Tim Burton. What else do I have to say? Burton, who can sometimes go awry with that much talent and his propensity towards strangeness, sticks it out in a pseudo-comedy with some fantasmagoric undertones. Not sure what to say about this movie, as it lacks subtext that makes it a "deep" movie...But, it is entertaining, and Michael Keaton (who has basically dropped off the planet) delivers a phenomenal performance.
58. The Naked Gun. What happened to comedies with older men and women? The days of Rodney Dangerfield and Leslie Nielsen are gone. The creation of demographic targeting has led to younger comedians dominating, and teens becoming less and less able to get adult humor and therefore American Pie like movies proliferating. The Naked Gun was classic. The "name" test? Frank Drebin (Nielsen); Vincent Ludwig (the late Ricardo Mantalban); Nordberg (the criminal O.J.); Pahpsmir (the evil bad guy hiring Ludwig). The plot? Awesome! Drebin is a gun-happy idiot cop who once shot a bunch of actors re-enacting Caesar in the park because he thought they were stabbing a guy. His job: to protect the queen of England, while also busting the drug dealers who put Nordberg in the hospital. Memorable scenes? How about when he breaks into Ludwig's office and destroys everything? Or the baseball scene when he is the umpire? Or any scene with Mantalban? Re-watchability? You bet. The one-liners are classic, the plot doesn't take over the humor, and the actors all embrace their roles nicely.
57. Full Metal Jacket. Two movies in one. The first is the best drill sergeant crushes army recruits movies ever. Kubrick was known for perfection and realism, and he does not fail to deliver. Using real life former drill sergeant R. Lee Emery (who is a super crazy gun nut on the History channel), Kubrick gives as close to a real presentation of what basic training is like (or as far as I can tell). We see everything, to a certain extent, through the eyes of Matthew Modine (Pvt. Joker) who is never fully committed to the army and it is not certain whether he wants to really be there or not. In the second half of the movie, or the second movie as it may be, Joker becomes a journalist in Vietnam but is thrust into action. The second half is as violent as intense as any war movie, but the first movie is the fascinating one.
An overweight soldier Pvt. Pyle (played excellently by Vincent D'Onofrio) wants so badly to fit in, but he becomes Emery's target of derision because he is overweight, sneaking chocolate bars, and is everything the army is not about. At first the others soldiers care, but his transgression begin to affect the other soldiers in negative ways, and the sanction him themselves. This can only end terribly, but it is so powerful. The human mind is fragile.
56. Darjeeling Limited. Wes Anderson's movies are either brilliant or terribly dry. I cannot decide. Like the Coen brothers and Scorsese, Anderson has certain repeat actors who seem to understand his goals and, aside from Life Aquatic, tend to work well towards meeting them. I was tempted to put the Royal Tennebaums here, because that movie is really a good movie (especcially after the second viewing), and I know Rushmore has cult status, but I liked this most recent movie because he used some older actors and some newer ones (specifically Adrian Brody). The movie revolves around three rich brothers who all have serious daddy issues -- as in they could never get out from under his shadow, as demonstrated by their carrying around his matched luggage -- and considerable neuroses and their "journey" to make sense of their anomie and their intra-familial issues. Anderson does not like to reconcile the tensions in Hollywood ways, which I like; nor does he like to give heavy handed messages like Kubrick. Instead, like the Coen brothers, he delights in character studies that are a bit unconventional, but not quite as unconventional as the Coen brothers.
Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Brody are all great; as are Anjelica Huston and Bill Murray as bit players. The plot is fascinating. But, I think what sells me is the cinematography. Every shot is carefully constructed; beautiful when necessary, claustrophobic in other shots.
55. Bananas. Yes, yes...another Woody Allen movie. This one features a very young Allen, neurotic as always, trying to woo a young activist whose primary concern is with a Latin nation which is on the verge of revolution. Allen fails, of course, and decides to go to the island to win her over. In the process, he accidentally joins the revolution and when its leader is deemed insane, he becomes the de facto leader. The movie is purely absurd and while we have all become desensitized to his humor, you must keep in mind this was one of his first comedies ever. If you view it through that lens, the movie retains its pricelessness.
54. Groundhog's Day. Harold Ramis' last great movie (though some may argue Analyze That was great....). Everyone likes this movie. It was near the end of the first iteration of Bill Murray before he recreated himself. Funny, clever, and intriguing to the point where you could re-watch it; especially on a cold, wintery day.
53. High Fidelity. The second greatest breakup movie for men. Not only is the music awesome, but it was a breath of fresh air for Cusack, his career, and his return to relevance. A decade (the 90's) of crap and nonsense culminated in a great movie about a guy with a perfect girl who dumps him because he doesn't know how good he has it. He yells out the window she is not even in the top five of breakups in his life. The device for the movie, of course, is top 5 lists as Cusack is the owner of a vinyl shop with Jack Black and Ted Louiso (Dick) and they engage in music snobbery whenever possible. Cusack goes through the list as the movie goes forward, recognizing that Laura (his ex) indeed makes this list and he was an idiot for letting this one go. I am not sure what is better, the terrible girlfriends he dated in the past (Catherine Zeta-Jones takes the cake for hilarity, audacity, and conceit) or Tim Robbins character Ian!
52. Raising Arizona. The only Nicholas Cage movie worth watching...ever. An early Coen brothers flick with all of their usual flair, but with the early attempts at honing their comedic styles. Jon Goodman, as always, is great as is Holly Hunter. The "name" test? H.I. McDonnough; Edwina McDonnough; Nathan Arizona; Gale and Evelle Snoats (Goodman and William Forsythe respectively). The plot is great, but in standard Coen fashion, the whole movie pushes the meaninglessness of life without escaping to nihilism or existentialism. We see a window into the typical idiocy, benign nonsensical nature of normal people -- whose normalcy pushes their comedic value through the roof.
51. Pink Floyd's The Wall. Yeah, I put a music movie on the list...and, yeah, it's this high. Conceptually, there will never be a band like Pink Floyd. Their uncanny ability to tap into the human psyche and lay bare the malignancy of existence is unmatched. The Wall delivers an amazing amalgamation of music, film (with a great performance by former Rat Scabies lead man and current Live 8 head man Bob Geldof as Pink Floyd), and animation (thanks to Gerald Scarfe's ahead of their time drawings). The film is part autobiographical catharsis by front man and lyric writer Roger Waters, part critique of the music industry and arena rock, part critique of the banal evil that befalls every rock band over time, part critique of the fans of rock bands, and finally, a general statement about the way the world devours the human soul.
In the beginning, we find a burned out Geldof sitting in a hotel room with a lit but unashed cigarette. The story quickly takes us back to the beginning. As a child, Roger Waters lost his father in World War II before he even knew him...the way war and government destroy the lives of women and children is explored and considered the first "brick" in the wall. The second brick comes from the modern public school system which pushes all shaped blocks into square pegs. The use of cattle cars with children wearing uniform masks being led to a meat grinder reveals Waters' understanding of the education system and its lack of interest in individualism, creativity, or autonomy. The movie shifts point of view to the rock band and the alienated artist. Having achieved fame at the cost of his marriage, the metaphorical Pink Floyd descends into his own hell. The final bricks are put in place as he grows further and further from his fans, his wife who is cheating on him, his past, and his own band. The second half begins with Pink behind a wall...he has a serious breakdown, but is still pushed to go on stage. The machine has deemed his personal feelings unimportant when considered in terms of concert revenues, album sales, and merchandise. He is pushed so far and so hard, he becomes a tyrant of sorts, demanding more from his fans than is reasonable. At the end, he puts himself on trial; finding he is guilty of alienating others, he is forced to tear down the wall. But, in the end, we see children fishing through the rubble, presumably to begin building their own personal walls.
50. Sweet and Lowdown. Sean Penn + a mute Samantha Morton + Woody Allen = Genius. An underrated and perhaps ignored movie in Allen's catalog, Sweet and Lowdown is a fictional biography told in documentary style of a 20s/30s jazz guitarist named Emmit Ray who was only surpassed by the very real Spanish gypsy Django Reinhardt (whose music is, incidentally, used throughout). Penn plays the classic artist whose real life is an utter failure, whose only real love is his art, and whose plans are grander than his ability to implement them. He is a drinker, a gambler, a lowlife, yet we cannot help but feel sorry for him. Allen invites real jazz critics and radio personalities to help tell the story, which like any great mythological legend has holes, inconsistencies, and often competing versions (the ending has three different versions). Uma Thurman's character is excellent, but Morton's mute laundress is the best, earning her an Oscar nod (Penn was nominated as well). I think this, and I am being honest, is one of his top 10 movies and deserving of more attention. It was lost in the strange late 90s period for Allen and buried because of the weaker movies at the turn of the millennium (see Curse of the Jade Scorpion).
59. Beetlejuice. Michael Keaton; Wynona Rider; Catherine O'Hara; Alec Baldwin; Geena Davis; Tim Burton. What else do I have to say? Burton, who can sometimes go awry with that much talent and his propensity towards strangeness, sticks it out in a pseudo-comedy with some fantasmagoric undertones. Not sure what to say about this movie, as it lacks subtext that makes it a "deep" movie...But, it is entertaining, and Michael Keaton (who has basically dropped off the planet) delivers a phenomenal performance.
58. The Naked Gun. What happened to comedies with older men and women? The days of Rodney Dangerfield and Leslie Nielsen are gone. The creation of demographic targeting has led to younger comedians dominating, and teens becoming less and less able to get adult humor and therefore American Pie like movies proliferating. The Naked Gun was classic. The "name" test? Frank Drebin (Nielsen); Vincent Ludwig (the late Ricardo Mantalban); Nordberg (the criminal O.J.); Pahpsmir (the evil bad guy hiring Ludwig). The plot? Awesome! Drebin is a gun-happy idiot cop who once shot a bunch of actors re-enacting Caesar in the park because he thought they were stabbing a guy. His job: to protect the queen of England, while also busting the drug dealers who put Nordberg in the hospital. Memorable scenes? How about when he breaks into Ludwig's office and destroys everything? Or the baseball scene when he is the umpire? Or any scene with Mantalban? Re-watchability? You bet. The one-liners are classic, the plot doesn't take over the humor, and the actors all embrace their roles nicely.
57. Full Metal Jacket. Two movies in one. The first is the best drill sergeant crushes army recruits movies ever. Kubrick was known for perfection and realism, and he does not fail to deliver. Using real life former drill sergeant R. Lee Emery (who is a super crazy gun nut on the History channel), Kubrick gives as close to a real presentation of what basic training is like (or as far as I can tell). We see everything, to a certain extent, through the eyes of Matthew Modine (Pvt. Joker) who is never fully committed to the army and it is not certain whether he wants to really be there or not. In the second half of the movie, or the second movie as it may be, Joker becomes a journalist in Vietnam but is thrust into action. The second half is as violent as intense as any war movie, but the first movie is the fascinating one.
An overweight soldier Pvt. Pyle (played excellently by Vincent D'Onofrio) wants so badly to fit in, but he becomes Emery's target of derision because he is overweight, sneaking chocolate bars, and is everything the army is not about. At first the others soldiers care, but his transgression begin to affect the other soldiers in negative ways, and the sanction him themselves. This can only end terribly, but it is so powerful. The human mind is fragile.
56. Darjeeling Limited. Wes Anderson's movies are either brilliant or terribly dry. I cannot decide. Like the Coen brothers and Scorsese, Anderson has certain repeat actors who seem to understand his goals and, aside from Life Aquatic, tend to work well towards meeting them. I was tempted to put the Royal Tennebaums here, because that movie is really a good movie (especcially after the second viewing), and I know Rushmore has cult status, but I liked this most recent movie because he used some older actors and some newer ones (specifically Adrian Brody). The movie revolves around three rich brothers who all have serious daddy issues -- as in they could never get out from under his shadow, as demonstrated by their carrying around his matched luggage -- and considerable neuroses and their "journey" to make sense of their anomie and their intra-familial issues. Anderson does not like to reconcile the tensions in Hollywood ways, which I like; nor does he like to give heavy handed messages like Kubrick. Instead, like the Coen brothers, he delights in character studies that are a bit unconventional, but not quite as unconventional as the Coen brothers.
Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Brody are all great; as are Anjelica Huston and Bill Murray as bit players. The plot is fascinating. But, I think what sells me is the cinematography. Every shot is carefully constructed; beautiful when necessary, claustrophobic in other shots.
55. Bananas. Yes, yes...another Woody Allen movie. This one features a very young Allen, neurotic as always, trying to woo a young activist whose primary concern is with a Latin nation which is on the verge of revolution. Allen fails, of course, and decides to go to the island to win her over. In the process, he accidentally joins the revolution and when its leader is deemed insane, he becomes the de facto leader. The movie is purely absurd and while we have all become desensitized to his humor, you must keep in mind this was one of his first comedies ever. If you view it through that lens, the movie retains its pricelessness.
54. Groundhog's Day. Harold Ramis' last great movie (though some may argue Analyze That was great....). Everyone likes this movie. It was near the end of the first iteration of Bill Murray before he recreated himself. Funny, clever, and intriguing to the point where you could re-watch it; especially on a cold, wintery day.
53. High Fidelity. The second greatest breakup movie for men. Not only is the music awesome, but it was a breath of fresh air for Cusack, his career, and his return to relevance. A decade (the 90's) of crap and nonsense culminated in a great movie about a guy with a perfect girl who dumps him because he doesn't know how good he has it. He yells out the window she is not even in the top five of breakups in his life. The device for the movie, of course, is top 5 lists as Cusack is the owner of a vinyl shop with Jack Black and Ted Louiso (Dick) and they engage in music snobbery whenever possible. Cusack goes through the list as the movie goes forward, recognizing that Laura (his ex) indeed makes this list and he was an idiot for letting this one go. I am not sure what is better, the terrible girlfriends he dated in the past (Catherine Zeta-Jones takes the cake for hilarity, audacity, and conceit) or Tim Robbins character Ian!
52. Raising Arizona. The only Nicholas Cage movie worth watching...ever. An early Coen brothers flick with all of their usual flair, but with the early attempts at honing their comedic styles. Jon Goodman, as always, is great as is Holly Hunter. The "name" test? H.I. McDonnough; Edwina McDonnough; Nathan Arizona; Gale and Evelle Snoats (Goodman and William Forsythe respectively). The plot is great, but in standard Coen fashion, the whole movie pushes the meaninglessness of life without escaping to nihilism or existentialism. We see a window into the typical idiocy, benign nonsensical nature of normal people -- whose normalcy pushes their comedic value through the roof.
51. Pink Floyd's The Wall. Yeah, I put a music movie on the list...and, yeah, it's this high. Conceptually, there will never be a band like Pink Floyd. Their uncanny ability to tap into the human psyche and lay bare the malignancy of existence is unmatched. The Wall delivers an amazing amalgamation of music, film (with a great performance by former Rat Scabies lead man and current Live 8 head man Bob Geldof as Pink Floyd), and animation (thanks to Gerald Scarfe's ahead of their time drawings). The film is part autobiographical catharsis by front man and lyric writer Roger Waters, part critique of the music industry and arena rock, part critique of the banal evil that befalls every rock band over time, part critique of the fans of rock bands, and finally, a general statement about the way the world devours the human soul.
In the beginning, we find a burned out Geldof sitting in a hotel room with a lit but unashed cigarette. The story quickly takes us back to the beginning. As a child, Roger Waters lost his father in World War II before he even knew him...the way war and government destroy the lives of women and children is explored and considered the first "brick" in the wall. The second brick comes from the modern public school system which pushes all shaped blocks into square pegs. The use of cattle cars with children wearing uniform masks being led to a meat grinder reveals Waters' understanding of the education system and its lack of interest in individualism, creativity, or autonomy. The movie shifts point of view to the rock band and the alienated artist. Having achieved fame at the cost of his marriage, the metaphorical Pink Floyd descends into his own hell. The final bricks are put in place as he grows further and further from his fans, his wife who is cheating on him, his past, and his own band. The second half begins with Pink behind a wall...he has a serious breakdown, but is still pushed to go on stage. The machine has deemed his personal feelings unimportant when considered in terms of concert revenues, album sales, and merchandise. He is pushed so far and so hard, he becomes a tyrant of sorts, demanding more from his fans than is reasonable. At the end, he puts himself on trial; finding he is guilty of alienating others, he is forced to tear down the wall. But, in the end, we see children fishing through the rubble, presumably to begin building their own personal walls.
50. Sweet and Lowdown. Sean Penn + a mute Samantha Morton + Woody Allen = Genius. An underrated and perhaps ignored movie in Allen's catalog, Sweet and Lowdown is a fictional biography told in documentary style of a 20s/30s jazz guitarist named Emmit Ray who was only surpassed by the very real Spanish gypsy Django Reinhardt (whose music is, incidentally, used throughout). Penn plays the classic artist whose real life is an utter failure, whose only real love is his art, and whose plans are grander than his ability to implement them. He is a drinker, a gambler, a lowlife, yet we cannot help but feel sorry for him. Allen invites real jazz critics and radio personalities to help tell the story, which like any great mythological legend has holes, inconsistencies, and often competing versions (the ending has three different versions). Uma Thurman's character is excellent, but Morton's mute laundress is the best, earning her an Oscar nod (Penn was nominated as well). I think this, and I am being honest, is one of his top 10 movies and deserving of more attention. It was lost in the strange late 90s period for Allen and buried because of the weaker movies at the turn of the millennium (see Curse of the Jade Scorpion).
Your Quote for the Day
I see a red door and I want it painted black
No colors anymore I want them to turn black
I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes
I have to turn my head until my darkness goes
I see a line of cars and they're all painted black
With flowers and my love both never to come back
I see people turn their heads and quickly look away
Like a new born baby it just happens every day
I look inside myself and see my heart is black
I see my red door and must have it painted black
Maybe then I'll fade away and not have to face the facts
It's not easy facin' up when your whole world is black
No more will my green sea go turn a deeper blue
I could not foresee this thing happening to you
If I look hard enough into the settin' sun
My love will laugh with me before the mornin' comes
Mick Jaggar
No colors anymore I want them to turn black
I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes
I have to turn my head until my darkness goes
I see a line of cars and they're all painted black
With flowers and my love both never to come back
I see people turn their heads and quickly look away
Like a new born baby it just happens every day
I look inside myself and see my heart is black
I see my red door and must have it painted black
Maybe then I'll fade away and not have to face the facts
It's not easy facin' up when your whole world is black
No more will my green sea go turn a deeper blue
I could not foresee this thing happening to you
If I look hard enough into the settin' sun
My love will laugh with me before the mornin' comes
Mick Jaggar
12/5/09
Go Monkeys!!
It has become increasingly obvious that people have an innate, biological ability to recognize peoples they know vis-a-vis those they don't. Monkeys, for example, recognize other monkeys they know in pictures presented to them. This is important because it tells us more about why humans are so tribal and defensive over their social group's boundaries.
12/3/09
MIA
So, the holidays and work and school have drained my batteries. The countdown from movie number 120 to movie number 1 has also preoccupied my time on the blog. But, this morning is as good a morning to give you some ramblings and tangential meanderings.
I rarely talk about sports here, in fact never. But, I am a big sports nut; for my teams, anyway. Nevertheless, you would have to have been living under a rock to not hear about Tiger Woods plowing into a fire hydrant and a tree, passing out at the wheel, having his wife break the back window of his car out to rescue him, and then Tiger canceling four straight police interviews only to be charged with some petty misdemeanor. What happened here? Was he cheating on his wife? Obviously. Was there a domestic dispute? Clearly. Was he drunk? Not likely. What can we glean from this incident. A couple of things. First of all, being a golfer certainly gives you a cushion for erratic behavior, especially the first time. If this was a basketball player with an equally clean record, the news would be on him like flies on a rib roast. Second, it raises strange questions about the PGA, advertisers, and the way capitalism works. None of the endorsements said anything negative, but expressed their support of Tiger; the PGA, sensing a "no news is bad news" approach has remained quiet because the charges were minor and the fact that one of their players has a personality beyond being a piece of cardboard is always marketable. Again, in the NBA or NFL, this would be blown way out of proportion. I'm just saying.
In other news, Palin's book has officially hit the number 1 spot on the NY Times bestseller list. Further evidence that one should not put much weight into opinion polls because the general American populace would sooner buy snake oil from a talking panda than anything thoughtful, intelligent, or critical.
Perhaps the biggest news, though, has been the troop increase in Afghanistan. My reaction: its about time. We essentially fought a quasi-legitimate war based on being attacked, and within three years, rerouted the war efforts to a place that didn't attack us. The result has been a quagmire that nobody has even paid attention to. In the meantime, the people we were fighting have gradually fortified their position around the Pakistan border because of nearly seven years of neglect. If you have a Republican friend who gets off on Dick Cheney's attacks, you should tell him/her to blow it out of their arse because it was those schmucks that got us here. In my opinion, neither war should be happening, but the Afghanistan war appears more relevant in terms of our immediate security goals. I don't believe the timetable Obama laid out will matter much, because in three years it will be reassessed anyway. But, we should pull out a large number of forces from Iraq at this point to offset the burden this is going to place on our military.
On a related note, I cannot remember a sitting president being attacked this vehemently and with this much vitriol in my life. Clinton was not liked, and the Republican forces united to uncover scandal after scandal. He was a morally flawed human, like most of us, so his skeletons were unfortunately too many to the point where even the specter of a bone was enough to get people salivating. But, I don't remember Dan Quayle, or James Baker, or Ford, or anyone who had a high ranking pummeling him. Nor do I recall Gore, Carter, or anyone attacking Dubya. Why is this not discussed? Have we really reached a point where it is ok to just question everything the president does before his mid-way point is even reached. He is elected for 4 years. He has the right to try to do everything he feels he was elected to do. Attacking him on policy is legitimate, and dissent is fine, but the level and intensity is strangely incongruous with precedent. Last month I wrote about my concerns with Obama: he was moving too slowly, too deliberately, and lacking any sense of emotion which the people do like. I also noted this might work out in the end and we should be patient. It is really the 24-hour news cycle coupled with the disinformation rampant on the internet, and the fact that every opinion seems to count today that has led to this strange situation. The best we can hope for is job creation and GDP expansion in the next three or four quarters such that the 2010 nails the coffin on the GOP for another four years.
I rarely talk about sports here, in fact never. But, I am a big sports nut; for my teams, anyway. Nevertheless, you would have to have been living under a rock to not hear about Tiger Woods plowing into a fire hydrant and a tree, passing out at the wheel, having his wife break the back window of his car out to rescue him, and then Tiger canceling four straight police interviews only to be charged with some petty misdemeanor. What happened here? Was he cheating on his wife? Obviously. Was there a domestic dispute? Clearly. Was he drunk? Not likely. What can we glean from this incident. A couple of things. First of all, being a golfer certainly gives you a cushion for erratic behavior, especially the first time. If this was a basketball player with an equally clean record, the news would be on him like flies on a rib roast. Second, it raises strange questions about the PGA, advertisers, and the way capitalism works. None of the endorsements said anything negative, but expressed their support of Tiger; the PGA, sensing a "no news is bad news" approach has remained quiet because the charges were minor and the fact that one of their players has a personality beyond being a piece of cardboard is always marketable. Again, in the NBA or NFL, this would be blown way out of proportion. I'm just saying.
In other news, Palin's book has officially hit the number 1 spot on the NY Times bestseller list. Further evidence that one should not put much weight into opinion polls because the general American populace would sooner buy snake oil from a talking panda than anything thoughtful, intelligent, or critical.
Perhaps the biggest news, though, has been the troop increase in Afghanistan. My reaction: its about time. We essentially fought a quasi-legitimate war based on being attacked, and within three years, rerouted the war efforts to a place that didn't attack us. The result has been a quagmire that nobody has even paid attention to. In the meantime, the people we were fighting have gradually fortified their position around the Pakistan border because of nearly seven years of neglect. If you have a Republican friend who gets off on Dick Cheney's attacks, you should tell him/her to blow it out of their arse because it was those schmucks that got us here. In my opinion, neither war should be happening, but the Afghanistan war appears more relevant in terms of our immediate security goals. I don't believe the timetable Obama laid out will matter much, because in three years it will be reassessed anyway. But, we should pull out a large number of forces from Iraq at this point to offset the burden this is going to place on our military.
On a related note, I cannot remember a sitting president being attacked this vehemently and with this much vitriol in my life. Clinton was not liked, and the Republican forces united to uncover scandal after scandal. He was a morally flawed human, like most of us, so his skeletons were unfortunately too many to the point where even the specter of a bone was enough to get people salivating. But, I don't remember Dan Quayle, or James Baker, or Ford, or anyone who had a high ranking pummeling him. Nor do I recall Gore, Carter, or anyone attacking Dubya. Why is this not discussed? Have we really reached a point where it is ok to just question everything the president does before his mid-way point is even reached. He is elected for 4 years. He has the right to try to do everything he feels he was elected to do. Attacking him on policy is legitimate, and dissent is fine, but the level and intensity is strangely incongruous with precedent. Last month I wrote about my concerns with Obama: he was moving too slowly, too deliberately, and lacking any sense of emotion which the people do like. I also noted this might work out in the end and we should be patient. It is really the 24-hour news cycle coupled with the disinformation rampant on the internet, and the fact that every opinion seems to count today that has led to this strange situation. The best we can hope for is job creation and GDP expansion in the next three or four quarters such that the 2010 nails the coffin on the GOP for another four years.
11/29/09
Top 120 Movies, Continued (69-60)
This next installment consists of great dramas, primarily with absurdly phenomenal singular performances either by one actor (e.g., Cool Hand Luke) or by two or more actors (A Few Good Men) that overshadowed the fact that the movies would suck in the hands of mere mortals (except for Clerks...will explain below). There is no question these movies have other intangibles beyond the individual actors amazing skill, but seriously...put Nicholas Cage in any one of these movies and it blows.
69. Cool Hand Luke. Raise your hand if (a) you've never heard of this movie or (b) you've heard of it, but never watched it. "What we've got here is, failure to communicate." Paul Newman's best. You can have the Hustler and The Color of Money, I will take this movie. It epitomizes the cool, unflappable tough guy before the metrosexual revolution destroyed masculinity. Newman plays a vet who is deep in the throes of anomie. He ends up in prison; his choice. And, among the men in prison he feels whole again. From one total institution to the next. He becomes a symbol of hope, determination, and freedom to a bunch of people who have lost all three. He is Christ-like...the movie is so good, you will kick yourself for waiting this long.
68. A Few Good Men. Should be higher up, right? Absolute career-defining job by Tom Cruise; a Barry Bonds-like 2001 season by Jack Nicholson who returns from the dreaded late 80's/early 90's swinging for the fences; a nearly standable job by Demi Moore; underrated perforamances by Kevin Bacon and Kevin Pollack (one of my all-time favorite Robert Horry/Derek Fisher like actors); and a surprising good job by Keifer Sutherland (so good, but overshadowed by everyone else, you forgot he was there!). Most of you have seen it, so all I will say is watch it again...if only for the courtroom scenes. This movie may be a 10 out of 10 in the re-watchable category. TNT puts it on like 100 times a year, and I will watch it from start to finish, or any other time...it gets this rating, perhaps, only because Tom Cruise is in it.
66. The Truman Show. Another career defining/altering movie. A better version of Ed TV which also was prescient in anticipating the reality TV craze of the 2000s, The Truman Show is a almost believeable 'what if' that finds Jim Carrey being adopted by a television corporation, a studio set large enough to be seen from space being constructed to film Carrey's birth, first steps, acne years, marriage, etc., and a whole cast of extras hired to fill the spaces in this make believe world. An entire life created for TV; ironically, people feel attached to him because they know him better than he may know himself. Everything, though, is carefully crafted from the girl who was chosen to 'bump' into him and eventually marry him, to the beer his best friend drinks while sitting on the dock. Maniacal, yet fantastic; cynical, yet so much of a mirror reflecting our real lives and our inordinate obsession with gossip and now reality TV. A serious role for a funny guy, but not like the death of Robin Williams.
65. What's Eating Gilbert Grape? Johnny Depp and Juliette Lewis (so absurdly underrated) dominate a movie that could not exist without them (much like Depp's performance in Bennie and Joon). Lucky for us, DiCraprio couldn't ruin the movie because he plays a retarded younger brother; a role perfect for him. This movie is touching, soft, and a beautiful moment in film.
64. Clerks. The only other Kevin Smith movie to make the list, but not entirely fitting of the others in this grouping. Smith shot this film on the cheap in a convenience store he worked at. His friends are the actors. And while the dialogue is really the selling point of this movie as well as his unique Seinfeld-ian ability to see the irony in the ordinary aspects of everyday life, the acting doesn't detract from the movie. If anything, the New Jersey-ness of the main character Dante adds to the realism of the whole thing. For example, Dante makes mundane, inane questions such as "are the contractors the Empire hires to build the death star in Star Wars to blame for their own decisions or innocent parties simply making a buck" matter to the viewer. As a person who has worked as a clerk at a liquor store, the laughs take on double meanings. But, at the end of the day, the dialogue is witty and intelligent, and will stand up on its own.
63. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Don't expect the Holy Grail Indiana Jones to make this list. I personally wasn't fooled by the addition of Sean Connery to beef up the sagging series. I am also not fooled by the detractors of the second installment, The Temple of Doom, who prefer the first and the third over the second. Nonsense I say. Let's think about the movie from a cinematographical perspective first: the opening scene...Indy is poisoned, shot at, attacked, chases the antidote across the floor of a club with patrons running for their lives, cuts a huge gong off the ceiling and runs with it to avoid getting shot, jumps out of a window into a car. Ten minutes later, he is on a crashing plane where he jumps out onto an inflatable raft and shoots down the Himalayas only to find himself in an India village. Awesome. The scene where they are eating bugs and eels is great; the scene where Bradshaw has to put her hands in the hole full of bugs is as intensely tactile as any scene in the others. And while the Nazis are good as evil doers, the slave driving evil Indians are just as good for the moral effect. Topping them is the pulling out of the heart and the temporary evil Indy. This movie has it all. Imagine Nicholas Cage as Indiana Jones...we basically have that in National Treasure (a shitty movie!)
62. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Except it does not beat the first one. The opening scene made every kid want to be an archaeologist. The Egyptian bazaar; the tomb of the ark with the snakes; the bar in the crazy Nepalese mountains where we meet Karen Allen (Animal House; and who may be the single cutest-in-a-70s-sense actress who never went anywhere) and watch her beat a bunch of eskimos at a drinking game; the weird Nazi guy with the portable coathanger; the French rival archaeologist; the scene where the Ark is opened and their faces melt off; and fight scene with the bald German and the airplane out of control. Any action movie would kill for that much action without losing the talent that Harrison Ford delivers. This movie was so awesome, people forget how good it really was. But, no one...and I mean no one...could do it but Harrison Ford coming off of Hans Solo. Don't believe me? Go rent Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull...it blew.
61. The Pianist. Adrian Brody, the holocaust, and music. Three things that should tell you to have a box of tissues right next to you. I don't want to even ruin the plot or the movie, because if it wasn't for a series of unreal movies ahead of it, this movie would warrant a higher number. It isn't even the best holocaust movie on the list! But, Brody stands on an island in this movie, putting in a performance equal to or better than Hanks in Castaway. Both men are on an island; one literal, the other figurative. With Brody's performance ranking higher in my opinion.
60. American Beauty. Kevin Spacey; Annette Benning. Superstar performances. Throw in a compelling story with pretty good support acting and you have a good recipe. A dark drama about the meaning of American life, or more precisely, the loss of the meaning of life behind the trivalities we fill it with to hide the fact that we are alienated from the parts that make us human. If any movie captures Guatama Buddha's realization that all life is suffering, it would be American Beauty. Moreover, this movie captures the sociological significance of triads. Every plot twist, subplot, or character arc is immersed in a relationship, a third person brought in to either relieve the tension, to mediate, or to divide and conquer. The movie is fueled by the complexities born out of one-on-one relationships altered by the dynamics of third-parties. Spacey-Benning, and the King; Spacey's kid, her friend, and Spacy; his kid, the neighbor boy, and Spacey; the neighbor, his dad, and Spacy; hell both families are triads! Look for that when you watch it again, as it is a primer on social dynamics and organization.
Back to the premise of suffering. Every character is sad, looking for release from the cycle of rebirths. Spacey finds it in a buddhist sense: the world is illusory, so why continue to abide by the illusion. His daughter thinks she finds it in love, and perhaps if we could watch on, she would; he boyfriend finds it in love too...or so he thinks. The others are doomed. Mira Sorvino finds it in the attention that Spacey gives her, but it is narcissim and emptiness that fills her; Benning in her career aspirations, which turn out to lack all human qualities (which, incidentally, she lacks to); Chris Cooley, the neighbor, finds it in military discipline, conservative ideology, and patriarchal authority. All of which turn out to be fronts for his real identity. Thus, we have two options: world rejection (as exemplified by Spacey) or love...the movie seems to make a clear choice, or does it?
69. Cool Hand Luke. Raise your hand if (a) you've never heard of this movie or (b) you've heard of it, but never watched it. "What we've got here is, failure to communicate." Paul Newman's best. You can have the Hustler and The Color of Money, I will take this movie. It epitomizes the cool, unflappable tough guy before the metrosexual revolution destroyed masculinity. Newman plays a vet who is deep in the throes of anomie. He ends up in prison; his choice. And, among the men in prison he feels whole again. From one total institution to the next. He becomes a symbol of hope, determination, and freedom to a bunch of people who have lost all three. He is Christ-like...the movie is so good, you will kick yourself for waiting this long.
68. A Few Good Men. Should be higher up, right? Absolute career-defining job by Tom Cruise; a Barry Bonds-like 2001 season by Jack Nicholson who returns from the dreaded late 80's/early 90's swinging for the fences; a nearly standable job by Demi Moore; underrated perforamances by Kevin Bacon and Kevin Pollack (one of my all-time favorite Robert Horry/Derek Fisher like actors); and a surprising good job by Keifer Sutherland (so good, but overshadowed by everyone else, you forgot he was there!). Most of you have seen it, so all I will say is watch it again...if only for the courtroom scenes. This movie may be a 10 out of 10 in the re-watchable category. TNT puts it on like 100 times a year, and I will watch it from start to finish, or any other time...it gets this rating, perhaps, only because Tom Cruise is in it.
66. The Truman Show. Another career defining/altering movie. A better version of Ed TV which also was prescient in anticipating the reality TV craze of the 2000s, The Truman Show is a almost believeable 'what if' that finds Jim Carrey being adopted by a television corporation, a studio set large enough to be seen from space being constructed to film Carrey's birth, first steps, acne years, marriage, etc., and a whole cast of extras hired to fill the spaces in this make believe world. An entire life created for TV; ironically, people feel attached to him because they know him better than he may know himself. Everything, though, is carefully crafted from the girl who was chosen to 'bump' into him and eventually marry him, to the beer his best friend drinks while sitting on the dock. Maniacal, yet fantastic; cynical, yet so much of a mirror reflecting our real lives and our inordinate obsession with gossip and now reality TV. A serious role for a funny guy, but not like the death of Robin Williams.
65. What's Eating Gilbert Grape? Johnny Depp and Juliette Lewis (so absurdly underrated) dominate a movie that could not exist without them (much like Depp's performance in Bennie and Joon). Lucky for us, DiCraprio couldn't ruin the movie because he plays a retarded younger brother; a role perfect for him. This movie is touching, soft, and a beautiful moment in film.
64. Clerks. The only other Kevin Smith movie to make the list, but not entirely fitting of the others in this grouping. Smith shot this film on the cheap in a convenience store he worked at. His friends are the actors. And while the dialogue is really the selling point of this movie as well as his unique Seinfeld-ian ability to see the irony in the ordinary aspects of everyday life, the acting doesn't detract from the movie. If anything, the New Jersey-ness of the main character Dante adds to the realism of the whole thing. For example, Dante makes mundane, inane questions such as "are the contractors the Empire hires to build the death star in Star Wars to blame for their own decisions or innocent parties simply making a buck" matter to the viewer. As a person who has worked as a clerk at a liquor store, the laughs take on double meanings. But, at the end of the day, the dialogue is witty and intelligent, and will stand up on its own.
63. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Don't expect the Holy Grail Indiana Jones to make this list. I personally wasn't fooled by the addition of Sean Connery to beef up the sagging series. I am also not fooled by the detractors of the second installment, The Temple of Doom, who prefer the first and the third over the second. Nonsense I say. Let's think about the movie from a cinematographical perspective first: the opening scene...Indy is poisoned, shot at, attacked, chases the antidote across the floor of a club with patrons running for their lives, cuts a huge gong off the ceiling and runs with it to avoid getting shot, jumps out of a window into a car. Ten minutes later, he is on a crashing plane where he jumps out onto an inflatable raft and shoots down the Himalayas only to find himself in an India village. Awesome. The scene where they are eating bugs and eels is great; the scene where Bradshaw has to put her hands in the hole full of bugs is as intensely tactile as any scene in the others. And while the Nazis are good as evil doers, the slave driving evil Indians are just as good for the moral effect. Topping them is the pulling out of the heart and the temporary evil Indy. This movie has it all. Imagine Nicholas Cage as Indiana Jones...we basically have that in National Treasure (a shitty movie!)
62. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Except it does not beat the first one. The opening scene made every kid want to be an archaeologist. The Egyptian bazaar; the tomb of the ark with the snakes; the bar in the crazy Nepalese mountains where we meet Karen Allen (Animal House; and who may be the single cutest-in-a-70s-sense actress who never went anywhere) and watch her beat a bunch of eskimos at a drinking game; the weird Nazi guy with the portable coathanger; the French rival archaeologist; the scene where the Ark is opened and their faces melt off; and fight scene with the bald German and the airplane out of control. Any action movie would kill for that much action without losing the talent that Harrison Ford delivers. This movie was so awesome, people forget how good it really was. But, no one...and I mean no one...could do it but Harrison Ford coming off of Hans Solo. Don't believe me? Go rent Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull...it blew.
61. The Pianist. Adrian Brody, the holocaust, and music. Three things that should tell you to have a box of tissues right next to you. I don't want to even ruin the plot or the movie, because if it wasn't for a series of unreal movies ahead of it, this movie would warrant a higher number. It isn't even the best holocaust movie on the list! But, Brody stands on an island in this movie, putting in a performance equal to or better than Hanks in Castaway. Both men are on an island; one literal, the other figurative. With Brody's performance ranking higher in my opinion.
60. American Beauty. Kevin Spacey; Annette Benning. Superstar performances. Throw in a compelling story with pretty good support acting and you have a good recipe. A dark drama about the meaning of American life, or more precisely, the loss of the meaning of life behind the trivalities we fill it with to hide the fact that we are alienated from the parts that make us human. If any movie captures Guatama Buddha's realization that all life is suffering, it would be American Beauty. Moreover, this movie captures the sociological significance of triads. Every plot twist, subplot, or character arc is immersed in a relationship, a third person brought in to either relieve the tension, to mediate, or to divide and conquer. The movie is fueled by the complexities born out of one-on-one relationships altered by the dynamics of third-parties. Spacey-Benning, and the King; Spacey's kid, her friend, and Spacy; his kid, the neighbor boy, and Spacey; the neighbor, his dad, and Spacy; hell both families are triads! Look for that when you watch it again, as it is a primer on social dynamics and organization.
Back to the premise of suffering. Every character is sad, looking for release from the cycle of rebirths. Spacey finds it in a buddhist sense: the world is illusory, so why continue to abide by the illusion. His daughter thinks she finds it in love, and perhaps if we could watch on, she would; he boyfriend finds it in love too...or so he thinks. The others are doomed. Mira Sorvino finds it in the attention that Spacey gives her, but it is narcissim and emptiness that fills her; Benning in her career aspirations, which turn out to lack all human qualities (which, incidentally, she lacks to); Chris Cooley, the neighbor, finds it in military discipline, conservative ideology, and patriarchal authority. All of which turn out to be fronts for his real identity. Thus, we have two options: world rejection (as exemplified by Spacey) or love...the movie seems to make a clear choice, or does it?
11/28/09
Your Quote for the Day
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. - Aristotle
11/25/09
Your Quote for the Day
I'm tired of hearing about money, money, money, money, money. I just want to play the game, drink Pepsi, wear Reebok. - Shaq
11/24/09
Top 120 Movies, Continued
All of these movies are all comedies that are great, worthy movies. But, they are lacking that very last oomph that the most brilliant comedies have. Some of these might make you say, "What!?! How could Casino be lower than these?" Well, let's face it...this is my list, and I think comedies have long been devalued, so I am ready to give them their due.
79. Trainspotting. A great book by Scottish author Irving Welsh (whose books, by the way are really good, but dark and in Scottish slang). The movie was Ewan McGregor's first real role, and he was brilliant in it. Essentially a movie about heroin, getting off of heroin, and getting back on to it. It is dark, but funny in an English movie sense. If you've never seen it, hit it up.
78. Hot Fuzz. If you don't know Simon Pegg's movies yet, you are severely out of the loop. Pegg is British, I think, and has done two excellent movies: Hot Fuzz and a great zombie parody, Shaun of the Dead. Hot Fuzz is superior for a number of reasons. First, Pegg gives a great British perspective on the American cop genre, mixing and matching every cliche to a point of absurdity. Pegg (Nicholas Angel) is a big city London cop who's arrest record is amazing; so good, the rest of the London force hates him because they make them look bad and are gradually taking work away from them. His punishment: transfer to some small village which has won the best village of the year award annually. Something strange is going on, but everyone assures him it is simply a big city cop bored and trying to make more out of nothing. As all of Pegg's movies do, it devolves rapidly into insanity and brilliant funniness.
77. 40-Year Old Virgin. A great movie that does not get ruined by a shitty love story or a strong first half, weak second half disease (see Wedding Crashers). Not a good name movie, as we never learn anyone's last name beyond Carell's character (Andy Stitzer). However, the supporting cast is awesome. Seth Rogen (who should stick to supporting roles), Paul Rudd (brilliant as a sidekick), Romany Malco, Jane Lynch (from Best in Show), and every other small bit part is so key to this movie's success. The love story is good, but really the memorable scenes are incidental: the speed dating skit, the poker game where Andy talks about sandbag boobs, nearly every electronic stores scene, the bar and using your peripherals, and my favoriate, the ride home with Leslie Mann where she sideswipes a car, has him blow into the breathelizer to start her car, and then throws up on him...always makes me laugh so hard.
76. The Jerk. I will just say this now: I think Steve Martin is good, but overrated in the pantheon of great 70s-80s comedians. Some swear by his movies, and I think The Jerk is good, but I am not prepared to put him in the Chevy Chase early 80s/Bill Murray pantheon. As Navin R. Johnson, Martin inexplicably grows up in a big, southern, poor black family and thinks he is black...except he is so white. He travels to the city where he happens to invent something absurd, makes it rich, but is still a poor person, and then loses all his money. Some great laughs along the way. A solid performance, but nothing that transcends the genre. In my opinion, he is much better in ensembles like Parenthood or Three Amigos.
75. Slap Shot. Mr. Paul Newman...in a hockey movie...a sport no one watches unfortunately. Reeking of the 70s, machoness, and mysogyny it is really a last of its kind. The end of an era. Newman plays Reggie 'Reg' Dunlop an aging coach-player who has lost his chances in the NHL and plays on the Chiefs in a minor league. Full of mostly has-beens and never-weres, Ned Braden is a youngster on the road to the NHL. Except, Braden doesn't seem to want to be there. The team is on the brink of being folded, and Dunlop senses this could be it for him and a whole bunch of other guys. He decides to start emphasize toughness and fighting over skill and scoring -- and, they do start winning, but that is never the point. Mid-season, the Chiefs acquire three brothers each one year apart and wearing super thick black glasses. They use tinfoil on their knuckles, travel with toy trucks and race cars, and have no respect for the game itself. But, they are mean and tough and love Dunlop's plan. If you are easily offended by non-P.C. stuff, this is not your movie...but it is good.
Check out some of the names: Dave 'Killer' Carlson; the Hansen brothers (more on this in a second); Denis Lemieux; Tim 'Dr. Hook' McCracken; Ogie Ogilthorpe; Tommy Hanrahan; Dickie Dunn.
74. Mallrats. Every decade needs a movie or two to capture the ugliness yet nostalgia of a decade. The 80s had John Hughes and his running commentary, but likely peaked with The Breakfast Club. Well, Mallrats is this movie -- though, Clerks in some ways is even more dated. The thing that makes this movie great is that it emphasizes the shift in teenage patterns. In the 80s, every great movie revolved around high school and the problems kids faced in school, with dating, with dances, with drugs...etc. By the 90's the US economy had facilitated the shift from teens as students to teens as consumers. Not that they weren't buying things before, but the massive expansion in the 80s and then 90s brought wealth in unprecedented amounts to a larger chunk of America; coupled with the mushrooming of malls, the advent of the CD and MTV's incessant pushing of music, and Tim Burton's Batman revolutionizing the connection between movies and consumer goods, teenagers became a targeted demographic as never before. Mallrats captures this, as the setting for teenage comedy shifted from the school to the mall (though #70 was a precursor of this). Aside from the sociological implications, some witty dialogue (as always from Smith); good acting by Jason Lee, Shannon Daugherty, Ben Affleck (who is only good as the complete asshole supporting actor guy), and Joey Lauren Adams; and a bright, light, and clean story. Maybe being a teen of the early 90's makes me like this more than it deserves, but it really does connect to the hours I spent wandering the mall aimlessly, buying over priced CDs at Camelot and Sam Goody, and just people watching all day.
73. Blazing Saddles. Mel Brooks' classic cowboy tale. Gene Wilder in full form (has any other actor's strange, early retirement had more of an effect than Wilder's? I miss that guy). A basic story attacking racial discrimination in the workforce, but a farce of epic proportions. Great names: Lili Von Shtupp (the amazing, underrated Madeline Kahn); Hedley Lamarr; Taggart; and Mongo. Phenomenal acting. And, classic Brooks' punchlines delivered in ways only capable of Brooks himself (who plays the altercocker mayor).
72. Dazed and Confused. Another pick because it is my blog. I crave this movie. It is so awesome, so much fun, so nostalgic that I cannot even begin to speak to its merits. Let's see. It has an absurd soundtrack for the greatest rock era ever; so good, it required two cds to cover the entire soundtrack. Second, it has the great coming of age that we all know about: junior high to high school; but, before the PC police, hazing was much more intense and socially acceptable with little involvement by the police. Third, it has some great characters who demonstrate the rare moments (but real in my experience) where drugs, music, and the particular points in time bring together all walks of high school life. You have Ron (who knew that was his name) Slater, the resident pot head, hanging with Randall 'Pink' Floyd the star quarterback; you have Floyd and Pickford, who is the pot dealer/cool guy -- and his awesome stoner girlfriend played by Milla Jovovich; Floyd and his close friend also on the football team, Don Dawson who is sort of into the pot heads, but much closer to Pink and the football team. You have the girl cliques that kind of run together, with Parker Posey stealing the show as the uber-bitch (Darla). You have the football guys who are a little uneasy with the stoners, but really just love getting drunk and having a good time (Benny O'Donnell and Melvin Spivey, afro and all). You have the asshole football player who has failed and is repeating and ultimately gets his comeupance (O'Bannon played by Affleck). You have the graduated dirtbag/cool guy who preys on high school chicks, David Wooderson (Matthew McConaughey). You got the nerds who are friends with Pink and get invited to the big bash (Adam Goldberg steals the show). And, you got the super uncomfortable on screen, which is fitting for his role, soon-to-be ninth grader who Pink befriends, Mitch Kramer. You got all that?
The movie revolves around the last day of school with the primary players becoming seniors and some bit players becoming freshman. The beauty of this movie is that we all remember that last day of school so well; summer is here, no more teachers...no more homework. From there, Pickford's parents find out he was going to throw a big party because they were leaving town; they stay and the rest of the movie is the search for a place to party. So good. So classic. So simple.
71. Brazil. Perhaps the least recognizable of the movies on this list, and one of the most difficult to watch because it is dark, deep, and humerous in a twisted way. Running with the Orwellian 1984 theme, Brazil imagines a futuristic world in which bureaucracy highlights the irrationality of rationality to a tee. The selling points? Terry Gilliam (Monty Python; 12 Monkeys; Time Bandits; Fear and Loathing) directs this movie. If that is not enough, then I am not sure what will suffice. Robert DeNiro appears in perhaps his strangest role; but Jonathan Pryce (Kiera Knightley's father in Pirates of the Carribean) gives a strong performance as the classic 1984/Brave New World character: discontent with modernity, seemingly the only or one of the few aware of the darkness surrounding him, and powerless to do much about it. A beautiful woman, who is cleverly tied into the running plot of bureaucratic mismanagement, is his salvation. Or so he thinks. The movie is long and plodding at times, and you may not believe me when I say it is comedic. But, I think it is a masterpiece; a sociological innovation.
70. Fast Times at Ridgemont High."Aloha, my name is Mr. Hand." This movie cannot do anything but make you laugh. The cast is absurd: a young Sean Penn (as Jeff Spicoli); Forest Whitaker (Charles Johnson); Jennifer Jason Leigh (Stacy Hamilton); Judge Reinhold (Brad Hamilton). The other names of interest: Mark 'Rat' Rattner; Mike Damone; Mr. Hand. And, who can forget Phoebe Cates whose diving in and coming out of the pool scene that ends with Reinhold in the bathroom getting caught in perhaps the most embarrassing way any teen male could ever be caught.
Let's see...where do we begin? How about the job Brad has where he has to where the pirate suit? Or, the VW bus that Spicoli et al. roll up in, open the door with smoke billowing out, and fall out of? Or every scene with Spicoli and Mr. Hand? Or the mall scenes, where Damone (who scalps concert tickets to some seriously dated bands) hangs out at the movie theater where Rattner is a ticket stub tearer? Or, the crappy faux diner that Phoebe and Jason Leigh work at? Or the funny naivete in sex that Phoebe (who pretends to be experienced) feeds to Stacy? Or the older guy taking out the younger girl and trying to get in her pants scene? Or the guy fumbling with the bra? Every single coming of age cliche is here, but the movie puts it all together! And, its re-watchability is definitely above a 5 out of 10, closing in on a 7. I love this movie!
79. Trainspotting. A great book by Scottish author Irving Welsh (whose books, by the way are really good, but dark and in Scottish slang). The movie was Ewan McGregor's first real role, and he was brilliant in it. Essentially a movie about heroin, getting off of heroin, and getting back on to it. It is dark, but funny in an English movie sense. If you've never seen it, hit it up.
78. Hot Fuzz. If you don't know Simon Pegg's movies yet, you are severely out of the loop. Pegg is British, I think, and has done two excellent movies: Hot Fuzz and a great zombie parody, Shaun of the Dead. Hot Fuzz is superior for a number of reasons. First, Pegg gives a great British perspective on the American cop genre, mixing and matching every cliche to a point of absurdity. Pegg (Nicholas Angel) is a big city London cop who's arrest record is amazing; so good, the rest of the London force hates him because they make them look bad and are gradually taking work away from them. His punishment: transfer to some small village which has won the best village of the year award annually. Something strange is going on, but everyone assures him it is simply a big city cop bored and trying to make more out of nothing. As all of Pegg's movies do, it devolves rapidly into insanity and brilliant funniness.
77. 40-Year Old Virgin. A great movie that does not get ruined by a shitty love story or a strong first half, weak second half disease (see Wedding Crashers). Not a good name movie, as we never learn anyone's last name beyond Carell's character (Andy Stitzer). However, the supporting cast is awesome. Seth Rogen (who should stick to supporting roles), Paul Rudd (brilliant as a sidekick), Romany Malco, Jane Lynch (from Best in Show), and every other small bit part is so key to this movie's success. The love story is good, but really the memorable scenes are incidental: the speed dating skit, the poker game where Andy talks about sandbag boobs, nearly every electronic stores scene, the bar and using your peripherals, and my favoriate, the ride home with Leslie Mann where she sideswipes a car, has him blow into the breathelizer to start her car, and then throws up on him...always makes me laugh so hard.
76. The Jerk. I will just say this now: I think Steve Martin is good, but overrated in the pantheon of great 70s-80s comedians. Some swear by his movies, and I think The Jerk is good, but I am not prepared to put him in the Chevy Chase early 80s/Bill Murray pantheon. As Navin R. Johnson, Martin inexplicably grows up in a big, southern, poor black family and thinks he is black...except he is so white. He travels to the city where he happens to invent something absurd, makes it rich, but is still a poor person, and then loses all his money. Some great laughs along the way. A solid performance, but nothing that transcends the genre. In my opinion, he is much better in ensembles like Parenthood or Three Amigos.
75. Slap Shot. Mr. Paul Newman...in a hockey movie...a sport no one watches unfortunately. Reeking of the 70s, machoness, and mysogyny it is really a last of its kind. The end of an era. Newman plays Reggie 'Reg' Dunlop an aging coach-player who has lost his chances in the NHL and plays on the Chiefs in a minor league. Full of mostly has-beens and never-weres, Ned Braden is a youngster on the road to the NHL. Except, Braden doesn't seem to want to be there. The team is on the brink of being folded, and Dunlop senses this could be it for him and a whole bunch of other guys. He decides to start emphasize toughness and fighting over skill and scoring -- and, they do start winning, but that is never the point. Mid-season, the Chiefs acquire three brothers each one year apart and wearing super thick black glasses. They use tinfoil on their knuckles, travel with toy trucks and race cars, and have no respect for the game itself. But, they are mean and tough and love Dunlop's plan. If you are easily offended by non-P.C. stuff, this is not your movie...but it is good.
Check out some of the names: Dave 'Killer' Carlson; the Hansen brothers (more on this in a second); Denis Lemieux; Tim 'Dr. Hook' McCracken; Ogie Ogilthorpe; Tommy Hanrahan; Dickie Dunn.
74. Mallrats. Every decade needs a movie or two to capture the ugliness yet nostalgia of a decade. The 80s had John Hughes and his running commentary, but likely peaked with The Breakfast Club. Well, Mallrats is this movie -- though, Clerks in some ways is even more dated. The thing that makes this movie great is that it emphasizes the shift in teenage patterns. In the 80s, every great movie revolved around high school and the problems kids faced in school, with dating, with dances, with drugs...etc. By the 90's the US economy had facilitated the shift from teens as students to teens as consumers. Not that they weren't buying things before, but the massive expansion in the 80s and then 90s brought wealth in unprecedented amounts to a larger chunk of America; coupled with the mushrooming of malls, the advent of the CD and MTV's incessant pushing of music, and Tim Burton's Batman revolutionizing the connection between movies and consumer goods, teenagers became a targeted demographic as never before. Mallrats captures this, as the setting for teenage comedy shifted from the school to the mall (though #70 was a precursor of this). Aside from the sociological implications, some witty dialogue (as always from Smith); good acting by Jason Lee, Shannon Daugherty, Ben Affleck (who is only good as the complete asshole supporting actor guy), and Joey Lauren Adams; and a bright, light, and clean story. Maybe being a teen of the early 90's makes me like this more than it deserves, but it really does connect to the hours I spent wandering the mall aimlessly, buying over priced CDs at Camelot and Sam Goody, and just people watching all day.
73. Blazing Saddles. Mel Brooks' classic cowboy tale. Gene Wilder in full form (has any other actor's strange, early retirement had more of an effect than Wilder's? I miss that guy). A basic story attacking racial discrimination in the workforce, but a farce of epic proportions. Great names: Lili Von Shtupp (the amazing, underrated Madeline Kahn); Hedley Lamarr; Taggart; and Mongo. Phenomenal acting. And, classic Brooks' punchlines delivered in ways only capable of Brooks himself (who plays the altercocker mayor).
72. Dazed and Confused. Another pick because it is my blog. I crave this movie. It is so awesome, so much fun, so nostalgic that I cannot even begin to speak to its merits. Let's see. It has an absurd soundtrack for the greatest rock era ever; so good, it required two cds to cover the entire soundtrack. Second, it has the great coming of age that we all know about: junior high to high school; but, before the PC police, hazing was much more intense and socially acceptable with little involvement by the police. Third, it has some great characters who demonstrate the rare moments (but real in my experience) where drugs, music, and the particular points in time bring together all walks of high school life. You have Ron (who knew that was his name) Slater, the resident pot head, hanging with Randall 'Pink' Floyd the star quarterback; you have Floyd and Pickford, who is the pot dealer/cool guy -- and his awesome stoner girlfriend played by Milla Jovovich; Floyd and his close friend also on the football team, Don Dawson who is sort of into the pot heads, but much closer to Pink and the football team. You have the girl cliques that kind of run together, with Parker Posey stealing the show as the uber-bitch (Darla). You have the football guys who are a little uneasy with the stoners, but really just love getting drunk and having a good time (Benny O'Donnell and Melvin Spivey, afro and all). You have the asshole football player who has failed and is repeating and ultimately gets his comeupance (O'Bannon played by Affleck). You have the graduated dirtbag/cool guy who preys on high school chicks, David Wooderson (Matthew McConaughey). You got the nerds who are friends with Pink and get invited to the big bash (Adam Goldberg steals the show). And, you got the super uncomfortable on screen, which is fitting for his role, soon-to-be ninth grader who Pink befriends, Mitch Kramer. You got all that?
The movie revolves around the last day of school with the primary players becoming seniors and some bit players becoming freshman. The beauty of this movie is that we all remember that last day of school so well; summer is here, no more teachers...no more homework. From there, Pickford's parents find out he was going to throw a big party because they were leaving town; they stay and the rest of the movie is the search for a place to party. So good. So classic. So simple.
71. Brazil. Perhaps the least recognizable of the movies on this list, and one of the most difficult to watch because it is dark, deep, and humerous in a twisted way. Running with the Orwellian 1984 theme, Brazil imagines a futuristic world in which bureaucracy highlights the irrationality of rationality to a tee. The selling points? Terry Gilliam (Monty Python; 12 Monkeys; Time Bandits; Fear and Loathing) directs this movie. If that is not enough, then I am not sure what will suffice. Robert DeNiro appears in perhaps his strangest role; but Jonathan Pryce (Kiera Knightley's father in Pirates of the Carribean) gives a strong performance as the classic 1984/Brave New World character: discontent with modernity, seemingly the only or one of the few aware of the darkness surrounding him, and powerless to do much about it. A beautiful woman, who is cleverly tied into the running plot of bureaucratic mismanagement, is his salvation. Or so he thinks. The movie is long and plodding at times, and you may not believe me when I say it is comedic. But, I think it is a masterpiece; a sociological innovation.
70. Fast Times at Ridgemont High."Aloha, my name is Mr. Hand." This movie cannot do anything but make you laugh. The cast is absurd: a young Sean Penn (as Jeff Spicoli); Forest Whitaker (Charles Johnson); Jennifer Jason Leigh (Stacy Hamilton); Judge Reinhold (Brad Hamilton). The other names of interest: Mark 'Rat' Rattner; Mike Damone; Mr. Hand. And, who can forget Phoebe Cates whose diving in and coming out of the pool scene that ends with Reinhold in the bathroom getting caught in perhaps the most embarrassing way any teen male could ever be caught.
Let's see...where do we begin? How about the job Brad has where he has to where the pirate suit? Or, the VW bus that Spicoli et al. roll up in, open the door with smoke billowing out, and fall out of? Or every scene with Spicoli and Mr. Hand? Or the mall scenes, where Damone (who scalps concert tickets to some seriously dated bands) hangs out at the movie theater where Rattner is a ticket stub tearer? Or, the crappy faux diner that Phoebe and Jason Leigh work at? Or the funny naivete in sex that Phoebe (who pretends to be experienced) feeds to Stacy? Or the older guy taking out the younger girl and trying to get in her pants scene? Or the guy fumbling with the bra? Every single coming of age cliche is here, but the movie puts it all together! And, its re-watchability is definitely above a 5 out of 10, closing in on a 7. I love this movie!
Morning Cup 'O' Joe
Strangely, I have been silent the last few days on matters of importance beside my countdown from the 120th greatest movie you should watch to the first...why? There have certainly been stories to address: the Senate health care vote for debate; the stretching of the truth in Palin's new book; the impending decision on Afghanistan; the fact that Allen Iverson's 3,000 useless Grizzlies jerseys are being sent to Tanzania to be distributed amongst the people (instantly making AI the biggest basketball star in Tanzania); and the recent stink made by the Catholic bishops about preventing Catholic politicians from taking communion if they are pro-choice.
But today, I would like to consider Global Warming, because I just finished reading a nonsensical article about how scientists have been 'cooking the books' (no pun intended) to make it seem as if there will be a rapid increase in temperature near the end of the 20th century. I am not sure whether he is right or wrong, or whether the hacked emails expressing doubt or discussing ways to fudge the data are genuine or not, but this is besides the point. It does not take a scientist to recognize things are out of whack and that humans leave massive ecological footprints, some of which can be slowed down to prevent massive harm.
Case in point: hunters and gatherers, some 13,000+ years ago, routinely exhausted the food supply in their area to the point where the foods lowest on their list of preferences (and yes, they could list what they liked and yes the best foods were typically the sweetest and fattiest available...like, savanna McDonald's) were all that remained. At that point they would pick up and move to the next spot on their seasonal/migrational rotation. Now, humans then were probably in the order of 1 to 4 million total spread out of the entire Earth. Fast forward 13,000 years and there are almost 7 billion. I had McDonald's the other day, and it always strikes me when I eat fast food just how bad things really are: for every egg mcmuffin sold, and how many do you think are sold daily, one egg must be consumed. If there are ten people eating, two or three chickens can suffice; if there are ten people ordering a mcmuffin every ten minutes at one McDonalds aggregated over 4 to 5,000 nationwide, you get my drift. We are living beyond the Earth's means, and while genetic engineering of food to increase its output seems plausible, I am not sure if I am ready to be the guinea pig for a science experiment (e.g., think about how the use of fluorocarbons, Styrofoam, and thalidomide worked out!).
Ok, this was just about the absurd need to eat food. How about waste? If 10 people eat an animal and throw its carcass out, scavengers finish off some of it and then it decomposes. If 350 million people are eating McDonalds which likely slaughters 100s of cattle every day, where do they go? And, when you concentrate thousands of cows, pigs, or chickens in a small, dense environment, the shit is condensed, so is the methane, and the water tables below are screwed. Just look at any early urban environment in Egypt, China, or Mesopotamia before sanitation was invented...Every item you buy comes with an inordinate amount of packaging that you toss away, right? That shit does not decompose. Every time you start your car and drive it, fossil fuels are gone and carbon monoxide is let out into the air.
How can anyone begin to assume, just with this anecdotal evidence, that humans are not impacting their environment in adverse ways? The evidence is overwhelming. In Los Angeles, and its neighboring counties Riverside and San Bernardino where three or four of the top ten most smoggy cities are, asthma rates are through the roof for children; this data is correlated to other polluted cities like Houston and their children's asthma rates. When I look up and cannot see the stars, buildings from 1000 feet, or the moon my common sense kicks in a says, wow this must have some effect on our ecological system because everything is connected. But, I suppose some don't use common sense. How about the fact that the polar ice caps will be completely melted within 30 years, only being frozen during certain months of the year? Well, it could be a natural warming cycle you might argue...but, we do now, with no fancy statistical techniques needed, that since fossil fuels first started being used for railroads, temperatures have gone up in relation to the amount of fossil fuels being burned. Not iron clad by any means, but certainly enough to tell me we should do something.
The age old historical question my students always ask is: why do people only respond during crises to their environment when foresight could have saved them? I tell them the famous Easter Island story to try and analogize to the US. There were competing chiefdoms on the Easter Islands who had decided that their prestige battle could no longer be fought by throwing bigger and bigger feasts -- (in the Pacific Northwest, Native American chiefs, like Polynesian chiefs, would collect food from their subjects all year just so they could give more stuff away at pot-latches than their rivals could...this brought them prestige, even if it brougt them 'poverty'). A drought set in that was puzzling to the chiefs, and the duel solution meant to please the gods and bring them prestige was to build those famous statues that still sit on the beaches and edges of the island. A veritable 'arms race' ensued to build the biggest statues and accrue the most prestige. Unfortunately, this simple decision sealed their fate. The stone to build the statues existed in the center of the island. Having no cranes or trucks, they faced the dilemma of moving them from the middle to the periphery. The solution came from cutting trees and rolling these massive stones to the edges. Unintentionally, they cut down the entire forest, killed their food source whose resource niche was lost in the deforestation of the island, and extinguished their own existence after a brief bout of cannibalism. No, I like to think we have learned from societies like theirs mistakes. But, my students are correct in assuming we haven't. Because ideological notions of what is and isn't happening, and beliefs in evidence vary, and interests are vested to oppose something like environmental engineering (most notably by those destroying the Earth), people only act when they are truly forced to. Unfortunately, those opposed to action are never around when things reach their worst.
But today, I would like to consider Global Warming, because I just finished reading a nonsensical article about how scientists have been 'cooking the books' (no pun intended) to make it seem as if there will be a rapid increase in temperature near the end of the 20th century. I am not sure whether he is right or wrong, or whether the hacked emails expressing doubt or discussing ways to fudge the data are genuine or not, but this is besides the point. It does not take a scientist to recognize things are out of whack and that humans leave massive ecological footprints, some of which can be slowed down to prevent massive harm.
Case in point: hunters and gatherers, some 13,000+ years ago, routinely exhausted the food supply in their area to the point where the foods lowest on their list of preferences (and yes, they could list what they liked and yes the best foods were typically the sweetest and fattiest available...like, savanna McDonald's) were all that remained. At that point they would pick up and move to the next spot on their seasonal/migrational rotation. Now, humans then were probably in the order of 1 to 4 million total spread out of the entire Earth. Fast forward 13,000 years and there are almost 7 billion. I had McDonald's the other day, and it always strikes me when I eat fast food just how bad things really are: for every egg mcmuffin sold, and how many do you think are sold daily, one egg must be consumed. If there are ten people eating, two or three chickens can suffice; if there are ten people ordering a mcmuffin every ten minutes at one McDonalds aggregated over 4 to 5,000 nationwide, you get my drift. We are living beyond the Earth's means, and while genetic engineering of food to increase its output seems plausible, I am not sure if I am ready to be the guinea pig for a science experiment (e.g., think about how the use of fluorocarbons, Styrofoam, and thalidomide worked out!).
Ok, this was just about the absurd need to eat food. How about waste? If 10 people eat an animal and throw its carcass out, scavengers finish off some of it and then it decomposes. If 350 million people are eating McDonalds which likely slaughters 100s of cattle every day, where do they go? And, when you concentrate thousands of cows, pigs, or chickens in a small, dense environment, the shit is condensed, so is the methane, and the water tables below are screwed. Just look at any early urban environment in Egypt, China, or Mesopotamia before sanitation was invented...Every item you buy comes with an inordinate amount of packaging that you toss away, right? That shit does not decompose. Every time you start your car and drive it, fossil fuels are gone and carbon monoxide is let out into the air.
How can anyone begin to assume, just with this anecdotal evidence, that humans are not impacting their environment in adverse ways? The evidence is overwhelming. In Los Angeles, and its neighboring counties Riverside and San Bernardino where three or four of the top ten most smoggy cities are, asthma rates are through the roof for children; this data is correlated to other polluted cities like Houston and their children's asthma rates. When I look up and cannot see the stars, buildings from 1000 feet, or the moon my common sense kicks in a says, wow this must have some effect on our ecological system because everything is connected. But, I suppose some don't use common sense. How about the fact that the polar ice caps will be completely melted within 30 years, only being frozen during certain months of the year? Well, it could be a natural warming cycle you might argue...but, we do now, with no fancy statistical techniques needed, that since fossil fuels first started being used for railroads, temperatures have gone up in relation to the amount of fossil fuels being burned. Not iron clad by any means, but certainly enough to tell me we should do something.
The age old historical question my students always ask is: why do people only respond during crises to their environment when foresight could have saved them? I tell them the famous Easter Island story to try and analogize to the US. There were competing chiefdoms on the Easter Islands who had decided that their prestige battle could no longer be fought by throwing bigger and bigger feasts -- (in the Pacific Northwest, Native American chiefs, like Polynesian chiefs, would collect food from their subjects all year just so they could give more stuff away at pot-latches than their rivals could...this brought them prestige, even if it brougt them 'poverty'). A drought set in that was puzzling to the chiefs, and the duel solution meant to please the gods and bring them prestige was to build those famous statues that still sit on the beaches and edges of the island. A veritable 'arms race' ensued to build the biggest statues and accrue the most prestige. Unfortunately, this simple decision sealed their fate. The stone to build the statues existed in the center of the island. Having no cranes or trucks, they faced the dilemma of moving them from the middle to the periphery. The solution came from cutting trees and rolling these massive stones to the edges. Unintentionally, they cut down the entire forest, killed their food source whose resource niche was lost in the deforestation of the island, and extinguished their own existence after a brief bout of cannibalism. No, I like to think we have learned from societies like theirs mistakes. But, my students are correct in assuming we haven't. Because ideological notions of what is and isn't happening, and beliefs in evidence vary, and interests are vested to oppose something like environmental engineering (most notably by those destroying the Earth), people only act when they are truly forced to. Unfortunately, those opposed to action are never around when things reach their worst.
Your Quote for the Day
What ordinary men are directly aware of and what they try to do are bounded by the private orbits in which they live; their visions and their powers are limited. - C. Wright Mills
11/23/09
Your Quote for the Day
What else can human nature be than a trait of the primary group? Surely not an attribute of the separate individual--supposing there were any such thing--since its characteristics, such as affection, ambition, vanity, and resentment, are inconceivable apart from society. If it belongs, then, to man in association, what kind or degree of association is required to develop it? Evidently nothing elaborate, because elaborate phases of society are transient and diverse, while human nature is comparatively stable and universal. In short the family and neighborhood life is essential to its genesis and nothing more is - Charles Cooley
11/22/09
Top 120 Movies Continued
89. Immortal Beloved. A movie about Beethoven. Delicate, powerful, and a rare specimen as "biopics" tend to play poorly in my opinion. The biggest problem is the overestimation of individual people's worth. But, this movie was done well. Gary Oldman does a great job as Beethoven, and the most powerful scene occurs when he walks out to "hear" his Ninth Symphony being performed...amazing the man was so talented but could never hear his own masterpiece.
88. Raging Bull. Enter Robert DeNiro. A phenomenal actor who has done better for himself than Al Pacino, the closest actor in talent. Unfortunately, they have both headed the same direction: towards playing themselves over and over again. Anyway, this is a great Scorsese flick done in black and white about Jake La Motta a former boxer and his life. Little known aside, the real La Motta co-wrote the screenplay. Which is pretty cool. Anyway, this movie continues a great relationship between Scorsese and DeNiro, in which it netted DeNiro a much deserved Oscar for his performance. Unfortunately, it rates this low on the list because it is a tough movie to re-watch over and over, because it is slow at times and lacks a ton of action.
87. Natural Born Killers. If Tarantino had directed this movie, as he regrets now, it would have been even better in my opinion. But, hey, we can have everything we want, right? Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis are superb in a movie that was prescient about the decadence US society gradually descending towards. Good music, good cinematography, and good direction add to the Tarantino script. The movie embraces madness and violence in comedic, yet dark ways. Unlike the Coen brothers who have built a career demonstrating the senselessness and comedic or ironic nature of real violence, this movie shows the happier side of violence, from the killers' perspective. It also asks the Coen brother's question about the meaning of life where violence and suffering are normal, but has very different methods of answering it. Take, as a perfect example, the scene with Rodney Dangerfield as Juliette Lewis' dad. The blurring of lines between television and life are never approached any better than there.
86. The Rope. The only Hitchcock movie on here, and perhaps an unknown and surprising movie for many of you. I like Birds and, especially, Rear Window, but the Rope as a film is awesome. First off, the whole movie takes place in a single apartment.intensifying the already claustrophobic feel Hitchcock tends to bring. In fact, the movie is nearly all shot in the living room. Second, like a rope, the film starts and does not stop until the very end. In other words, aside from changing the reel in the camera, Hitchcock uses one camera and the action does not stop once. When characters move rooms, the camera moves with them...but, not like a handheld camera because the goal is not to feel like you are there, but that you are a voyeur. The film starts with a couple of upper class college guys who are suffer from ennui due to their money and lack of unique thrills. Killing somebody seems to be the answer: a thrill money cannot buy, that is beyond anything they have seen or felt, and a challenge in world where everything has already been handed to them. To enhance the challenge, they hide the body in a chest in the living room that they cover with a linen and put the food on. The "leader' is supremely confident they will succeed and even engages is discussion with some of the guests regarding the morality of killing. The other guys are not too sure. Anyway, the movie goes on, guests arrive -- including the dead guys fiancee and her parents...you can see why there is amazing tension and why this movie deserves to be on this list and watched by all. I won't ruin it, but you gotta watch it.
85. Misery. Keeping with thrillers and tense movies, how about Kathy Bates and James Caan in a great Steven King novel? Caan, an author, gets into an accident in the snowy woods of New England when Bates finds him and takes care of him. She, of course, is his number 1 fan. The new book he is writing is not up to her standards as a character is killed off that she doesn't want to be killed off. She wants him to rewrite. The scene where she mangles his legs to keep him from running or leaving is unreal. So normal it feels like it could happen to anyone. Bates won an Oscar for her role and Caan may have deserved one too.
84. Zelig. Woody Allen strikes again. This is a black and white flick and again a creative way of telling a story. It is documentary style, with Zelig being a guy who does not appear to have any personality of his own. Allen doctored old footage (before computers) so that Zelig seems to appear all over the place (i.e., in Germany at a Nazi rally next to Hitler), and he seems to change his persona wherever he goes and whoever he is with. Mia Farrow places a psychiatrist committed to digging into his psyche to find out who Zelig really is and relieve him of the overwhelming need to be liked by everyone and to fit in. This movie is great on so many levels, especially if you like Woody Allen. But, even if he is not your favorite, it is not standard Allen fare, so it may cross over to something more your style.
83. Ray. I hate Jaime Foxx. He cannot sing that well; his music is junk; and he normally appears in terrible movies with other terrible actors. But, I must hand it to him. The only other biopic you'll see on this list, but deservedly so. Ray chronicles the rise of Ray Charles and his life. Foxx spent 6 months before Ray died in real life, learning to play piano and sing from Charles himself. He would glue his eyes shut for days at a time to learn what it felt like to be blind. Needless to say, Foxx is supremely convincing and as with any movie well acted, you are convinced that he is Ray by the end. Sad at times, the movie never goes overboard with telling the story. And, I forgot how good Charles music was and how revolutionary it was at the time.
82. Blades of Glory. Will Ferrell. Jon Heder. Will Arnett. Amy Poehler. And, does it pass the names test? You bet. Ferrell as Chazz Michaels Michaels; Heder as Jimmy MacElroy; Arnett and Poehler as Stranz and Fairchild Van Waldenberg; Craig T Nelson as Coach. All classic names, especially Ferrell. Not his best, and probably bordering on the point where his shtick is getting old, Ferrell's farce about ice skating is awesome. The scene after he is fired and doing shows on ice as a wizard, but he is completely hammered are awesome. And, the Van Waldenberg's steal the show with their quasi-incestuous innuendo. I love this movie because it makes me laugh.
81. Zoolander. I debated about this movie, because it is good, almost great...but I have always had my reservations. Does it pass the "name" test? Derek Zoolander; Hansel (Owen Wilson); Mugatu (Ferrell); Matilda Jeffries; Maury Ballstein; Olga the Masseuse (Andy Dick is always a good addition). Not the top names, but clear thought. What are the secondary criteria? Memorable scenes? Absolutely. When Derek, Matilda, and Hansel hang out at his house and take a bunch of hallucinogens; or, the Dance Off; or the Break Dance fight; or the four models having a gasoline fight. A few others also stand out, but you get the point. Memorable lines? Where Will Ferrell is, this criterion is always filled. Cameos? David Bowie; Christian Slater; Natalie Portman; Gary Shandling; etc. So, in the face of overwhelming evidence, this movie does stand stronger than I would have first expected. Personally, I rarely re-watch it, but I am willing to concede it is indeed re-watchable and it is well liked beyond just being a comedy.
80. Casino. You will not see the Departed on this list because the ending sucked. And, I can promise you Goodfellas is here, but much higher up. Casino is like The Godfather meets Goodfellas, but too long. Great performances all around: Sharon Stone; DeNiro; and Joe Pesci to name three, but don't ignore James Wood or Kevin Pollack. Here is why I place it so high, despite it being a classically great movie: it is a standard Scorsese flick that does everything really well, but nothing stands out aside from the acting...but, most of his movies manage to squeeze the best out of his actors, especially with alum like Pesci and DeNiro. So why is it any better than his other ones? It isn't. Like Woody Allen who produces so many movies, we are spoiled and his average flicks would be many other directors masterpieces, Scorsese produces a ton of really good movies, but I am not comfortable just putting them all in the top 50 or 20. There are too many other really good flicks to see. So, watch Casino. Enjoy. Relish Stone in a non-over-sexed role...and remember how good DeNiro was.
88. Raging Bull. Enter Robert DeNiro. A phenomenal actor who has done better for himself than Al Pacino, the closest actor in talent. Unfortunately, they have both headed the same direction: towards playing themselves over and over again. Anyway, this is a great Scorsese flick done in black and white about Jake La Motta a former boxer and his life. Little known aside, the real La Motta co-wrote the screenplay. Which is pretty cool. Anyway, this movie continues a great relationship between Scorsese and DeNiro, in which it netted DeNiro a much deserved Oscar for his performance. Unfortunately, it rates this low on the list because it is a tough movie to re-watch over and over, because it is slow at times and lacks a ton of action.
87. Natural Born Killers. If Tarantino had directed this movie, as he regrets now, it would have been even better in my opinion. But, hey, we can have everything we want, right? Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis are superb in a movie that was prescient about the decadence US society gradually descending towards. Good music, good cinematography, and good direction add to the Tarantino script. The movie embraces madness and violence in comedic, yet dark ways. Unlike the Coen brothers who have built a career demonstrating the senselessness and comedic or ironic nature of real violence, this movie shows the happier side of violence, from the killers' perspective. It also asks the Coen brother's question about the meaning of life where violence and suffering are normal, but has very different methods of answering it. Take, as a perfect example, the scene with Rodney Dangerfield as Juliette Lewis' dad. The blurring of lines between television and life are never approached any better than there.
86. The Rope. The only Hitchcock movie on here, and perhaps an unknown and surprising movie for many of you. I like Birds and, especially, Rear Window, but the Rope as a film is awesome. First off, the whole movie takes place in a single apartment.intensifying the already claustrophobic feel Hitchcock tends to bring. In fact, the movie is nearly all shot in the living room. Second, like a rope, the film starts and does not stop until the very end. In other words, aside from changing the reel in the camera, Hitchcock uses one camera and the action does not stop once. When characters move rooms, the camera moves with them...but, not like a handheld camera because the goal is not to feel like you are there, but that you are a voyeur. The film starts with a couple of upper class college guys who are suffer from ennui due to their money and lack of unique thrills. Killing somebody seems to be the answer: a thrill money cannot buy, that is beyond anything they have seen or felt, and a challenge in world where everything has already been handed to them. To enhance the challenge, they hide the body in a chest in the living room that they cover with a linen and put the food on. The "leader' is supremely confident they will succeed and even engages is discussion with some of the guests regarding the morality of killing. The other guys are not too sure. Anyway, the movie goes on, guests arrive -- including the dead guys fiancee and her parents...you can see why there is amazing tension and why this movie deserves to be on this list and watched by all. I won't ruin it, but you gotta watch it.
85. Misery. Keeping with thrillers and tense movies, how about Kathy Bates and James Caan in a great Steven King novel? Caan, an author, gets into an accident in the snowy woods of New England when Bates finds him and takes care of him. She, of course, is his number 1 fan. The new book he is writing is not up to her standards as a character is killed off that she doesn't want to be killed off. She wants him to rewrite. The scene where she mangles his legs to keep him from running or leaving is unreal. So normal it feels like it could happen to anyone. Bates won an Oscar for her role and Caan may have deserved one too.
84. Zelig. Woody Allen strikes again. This is a black and white flick and again a creative way of telling a story. It is documentary style, with Zelig being a guy who does not appear to have any personality of his own. Allen doctored old footage (before computers) so that Zelig seems to appear all over the place (i.e., in Germany at a Nazi rally next to Hitler), and he seems to change his persona wherever he goes and whoever he is with. Mia Farrow places a psychiatrist committed to digging into his psyche to find out who Zelig really is and relieve him of the overwhelming need to be liked by everyone and to fit in. This movie is great on so many levels, especially if you like Woody Allen. But, even if he is not your favorite, it is not standard Allen fare, so it may cross over to something more your style.
83. Ray. I hate Jaime Foxx. He cannot sing that well; his music is junk; and he normally appears in terrible movies with other terrible actors. But, I must hand it to him. The only other biopic you'll see on this list, but deservedly so. Ray chronicles the rise of Ray Charles and his life. Foxx spent 6 months before Ray died in real life, learning to play piano and sing from Charles himself. He would glue his eyes shut for days at a time to learn what it felt like to be blind. Needless to say, Foxx is supremely convincing and as with any movie well acted, you are convinced that he is Ray by the end. Sad at times, the movie never goes overboard with telling the story. And, I forgot how good Charles music was and how revolutionary it was at the time.
82. Blades of Glory. Will Ferrell. Jon Heder. Will Arnett. Amy Poehler. And, does it pass the names test? You bet. Ferrell as Chazz Michaels Michaels; Heder as Jimmy MacElroy; Arnett and Poehler as Stranz and Fairchild Van Waldenberg; Craig T Nelson as Coach. All classic names, especially Ferrell. Not his best, and probably bordering on the point where his shtick is getting old, Ferrell's farce about ice skating is awesome. The scene after he is fired and doing shows on ice as a wizard, but he is completely hammered are awesome. And, the Van Waldenberg's steal the show with their quasi-incestuous innuendo. I love this movie because it makes me laugh.
81. Zoolander. I debated about this movie, because it is good, almost great...but I have always had my reservations. Does it pass the "name" test? Derek Zoolander; Hansel (Owen Wilson); Mugatu (Ferrell); Matilda Jeffries; Maury Ballstein; Olga the Masseuse (Andy Dick is always a good addition). Not the top names, but clear thought. What are the secondary criteria? Memorable scenes? Absolutely. When Derek, Matilda, and Hansel hang out at his house and take a bunch of hallucinogens; or, the Dance Off; or the Break Dance fight; or the four models having a gasoline fight. A few others also stand out, but you get the point. Memorable lines? Where Will Ferrell is, this criterion is always filled. Cameos? David Bowie; Christian Slater; Natalie Portman; Gary Shandling; etc. So, in the face of overwhelming evidence, this movie does stand stronger than I would have first expected. Personally, I rarely re-watch it, but I am willing to concede it is indeed re-watchable and it is well liked beyond just being a comedy.
80. Casino. You will not see the Departed on this list because the ending sucked. And, I can promise you Goodfellas is here, but much higher up. Casino is like The Godfather meets Goodfellas, but too long. Great performances all around: Sharon Stone; DeNiro; and Joe Pesci to name three, but don't ignore James Wood or Kevin Pollack. Here is why I place it so high, despite it being a classically great movie: it is a standard Scorsese flick that does everything really well, but nothing stands out aside from the acting...but, most of his movies manage to squeeze the best out of his actors, especially with alum like Pesci and DeNiro. So why is it any better than his other ones? It isn't. Like Woody Allen who produces so many movies, we are spoiled and his average flicks would be many other directors masterpieces, Scorsese produces a ton of really good movies, but I am not comfortable just putting them all in the top 50 or 20. There are too many other really good flicks to see. So, watch Casino. Enjoy. Relish Stone in a non-over-sexed role...and remember how good DeNiro was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)