1000 Greatest Movies

I found this fun list while surfing the web the other night.  It was published 10 years ago, so I'm sure there are lots of movies over the past few years that would be on it.  I have seen about 1/4 of them (257, to be exact).  It makes me realize just how much I haven't seen!

https://www.nytimes.com/ref/movies/1000best.html#G

Life of Pi

I really enjoyed the book upon which this film was based, so I have looked forward a to seeing this movie since the day it was released.  I was not only intrigued by the story, but also by the presence of Ang Lee as the director intrigued me greatly.  If ever a director works like a painter, it is Ang Lee.  I have not seen all of his films, but the ones I have seen are exquisite visual works.  Not only that, they also depict human emotion and struggle very well.  Here, we are given a story that is laced with tragedy and survival, pain and hope.  Furthermore, it is an adventure, and the multifaceted spirit of the book is depicted in the film very well.

Piscine Patel is a young boy growing up in a part of India called Ponticherry, an area which was colonized by France.  He is named after a swimming pool in Paris, but because his name sounds like a crude word describing a bodily function, he shortens his name to Pi.  He grows up as a Hindu, but along the way comes to fall in love with elements both in Christianity and Islam.  While his rationalist father mocks his faith, Pi attempts to maintain his Hindu-Chrisitan-Islam-ness.  Pi's Father owns and runs a zoo, so Pi grows up with animals around him, and learns to both appreciate them and have a healthy respect for them.  When his family begins to encounter financial trouble, they decide to move to Canada.  They board an ocean liner with the animals (which they have sold), and head to North America.  Tragically, the ocean liner sinks, and Pi alone survives the wreck, along with several of the animals on the ship.  The story then becomes one of survival, as Pi is force do coexist on a life boat with 4 animals-a zebra, orangutan, hyena and a fearsome tiger named Richard Parker.  This whole story is told in flashback by a middle aged Pi, who is recounting his story to a man suffering from writer's bloc.

The story that originally comes from the book is one that is tough to visualize outside of the imagination.  That is what makes the film rendering of it so special.  Ang Lee uses brilliant colors in this movie almost as if they themselves are characters.  There is also such extraordinary imagination in his use of the camera and the shots he uses to communicate the story.  There is a stunning shot early on in the movie which surrounds adult Pi's recounting of the pool in Paris which was his namesake.  The pool is described as containing crystal clear water, but the shot that Lee uses to communicate that is so wonderful that we hardly needed the spoken description of Pi.  The visual imagination of the movie pairs well with the story it tells.  This is not merely a special effects piece.  The movie gives us living, breathing characters who have struggles, doubts and triumphs.  Their story is every bit as captivating as the visuals themselves.  It also deals in ways with faith and doubt that few films approach.  Its depiction of religion is somewhat positive, as Pi finds his own faith, even as it is criticized and mocked by his father.  Whether the viewer is a person of faith or not, the film deals with people's faith, which is a major part of the human experience which is not dealt with in film as much as I would like.  To be able to balance such extraordinary visuals with a great story and the deep pondering of the big questions is a noteworthy achievement.

There are always healthy debates about movies made from books.  I cannot think of too many movies that realize books better than this.  Perhaps "To Kill a Mockingbird", "Lord of the Rings", and the "Harry Potter" series are in this category.  This movie does what the best movies made from books do.  It honors the story told in the book, and brings a visual imagination to the words in the book that in no way diminish the book.  This movie is one person's recounting of a novel.  It shows Ang Lee's (and his collaborators) mental picture of the words found in Yann Martel's novel.  I still can have my own mental images of the novel, but being able to see a fine film maker like Lee's vision is equally captivating.  Ang Lee won the best director Oscar for this film while his film lost to "Argo" for Best Picture.  While "Argo" was an enjoyable caper, this movie is in a different category.  What a profound work of vision and imagination it is.

Mickey Rooney

We all grew up watching Mickey Rooney, in one way or another.  I have two major memories.  One is his work in "The Black Stallion", a film that came out when I was 5, and in which he figured prominently.  The other is as one of the ensemble in It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, in which he played one of the desperate treasure hunters who ends up on a plane with a drunk pilot.  He was a great talent.  He started making movies at such a young age that he really was a final link to a bygone era.  Here are the words of the LA Times' Kenneth Turan:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-mickey-rooney-appreciation-20140408,0,4196162.story#axzz2yCxWDN5a

20 Feet From Stardom

I have always been entertained and fascinated by anything about the history of Rock and Roll.  This documentary (which just won the Oscar for Best Documentary a few weeks ago) not only is about Rock and Roll, but it tells a great story as well.  It examines the lives and careers of several people (mostly women) who have served as background singers to major stars.  Some of the people we hear from are people whose voices we have heard for years, but we have not had a name and a face to match the voice.

The principle character in this film ends up being Darlene Love, who ended up becoming a star in her own right, after years of being not only a background singer, but also being used by Phil Spector for her voice, all the while pushing other a "artists" who lip synced using her vocals.  Darlene Love has gone on to be a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and has become a legend as a solo artist.  The other singers about whom this film focuses all have had varying levels of success with solo artistry, and the movie does a good job of showing their different stories.

Merry Clayton rose to fame being the female vocalist on the Rolling Stones "Gimme Shelter".  She tells a funny story about how she sang the vocal with curlers in her hair.  Anyone who has heard the song and the words of her vocal can get a chuckle out of the notion that she sang the words with curlers in her hair.  Merry dreamed of having a solo career, but despite several efforts to make her dream come true, her solo work never sold albums.  She seems to be fairly comfortable in her own skin, but one cannot help but see some of the disappointment she still feels about not having more success with her solo career.

The most interesting person that I learned about in this movie was Lisa Fischer.  As is the case with everyone in this film, her vocals are familiar to me (she has worked with Sting, and now, she tours permanently with the Rolling Stones, and has for years), but I did not know her story.  Fischer was able to make it as a solo artist.  She won a Grammy in the early 90's for her solo work, but she opted instead to work in relative obscurity as a background vocalist.  She explains at one point in the movie that one of the reasons she does what she does is that she wants to be able to go to restaurants and not be recognized.  Fischer comes across as someone who is quite comfortable in her own skin.  She has tasted fame and glory, and is comfortable using her amazing voice in a way that takes the spot light off of her.

Judith Hill (a fellow Biola Eagle) rose to fame by working side by side with Michael Jackson on "This Is It."  She was working closely with him when he died, and the movie uses her in a way that is different from the other artists.  Since she is still young (the age when the other singers were doing their most famous work), she is at the stage where she is figuring out where she wants to go with her career. She wants a solo career, because that has been her dream.  Since she presently is pursuing that, the viewers don't know the end of her story.  Her story ends up reminding us that this dynamic is current as well.  As long as the need for background singers remains, there will be highly skilled people who can fill that role.  Furthermore, as long as the role of background singer remains, there will be singers who dream of being in the lime light.

I have written before on this blog about the fact that the best documentaries are not so different from other kinds of movies.  They tell a story that is every bit as engaging as fiction, and they use real life to tell their story.  The artistry that is brought to this film is effective because it gives us real people whose life has real drama.  Though we might not view these singer's plight as the tragedy that they do, their humanity shines through and we do feel sympathy for them.  The movie allows us to walk a mile in their shoes, and anytime we can do that, it is a credit to the film maker.  I walked away from this film feeling genuine sympathy for the singer's who have been ignored.  There is a great scene wherein Darlene Love talks about hearing one of her most famous songs on the radio while she was cleaning a house.  She had begun cleaning houses to make ends meet, and when she heard "Christmas (Please Come Home)", she realized she wasn't doing what she was supposed to be doing.  To me, it wasn't that cleaning was beneath her dignity.  It was more that she had been given a voice and an opportunity to use it that others would die for.  To see her go back to her craft and pursue it was great, and her story makes up a major part of the heart of this wonderful story.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

As a fan of Wes Anderson's movies, it is always possible that I will become too repetitive in my fawning of his work.  There are certain artists that, for whatever reason, feel special to us.  It may be, in part, that even though he has amassed quite a following over the past 18 years (has it really been that long?), his appeal is still somewhat selective.  His movies do not hit the ground in thousands of theaters, and they never make a whole lot of money.  It could be that therein lies some his appeal.  To those of us who love his work, we feel that we have found something special that has not gained universal popularity.

The movie follows a story in flashback told by Zero (F. Murray Abraham).  He tells the story of how he came to be the owner of the Grand Budapest Hotel, since he came to the country as a poor immigrant refugee.  In the years before "the war", Zero comes under the tutelage of Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), the concierge at the hotel.  Gustave is the master of the house, knowing every inch of the hotel, and providing exemplary service to all his customers (for some customers, even a little too exemplary).  One of his elderly customers (an almost unrecognizable Tilda Swinton) dies and leaves a valuable painting to Gustave in her will.  The customer's greedy son Dmitiri (Adrian Brody) wants the painting, and when Gustave takes the painting and replaces it with a painting with a sexually graphic image, a caper of sorts ensues.

The plot actually sounds rather standard, but this is a Wes Anderson film, and the journey and the scenery are every but as much a character in the movie as the people themselves.  The settings in all of Wes Anderson's movies are evocative of a certain geographical place, but they are never specifically set anywhere.  For instance, "The Royal Tennenbaums" is clearly set in New York, but there is almost no familiar New York imagery in the movie.  This gives Anderson's work the advantage of being otherworldly and familiar at the same time.  The story in "Hotel" is set in the 1930s just before World War 2, or at least, the setting and situations in the movie call that period of our history to mind.  The countries' names are changed to fictional names, and a harsh looking image which is not a swastika is hung all over the hotel once the brutal occupying force has arrived.  The name of the hotel gives us a certain permission to think about Eastern Europe, but some of the Alpine imagery makes us think of Austria and Switzerland as well.

If one watches all of Anderson's movies, each one seems to become more elaborate.  The set designs and characters become increasingly complicated and intricate.  What astounds me as I watch his movies is how much is still emotionally invested in his characters as well.  Whether its the lonely high schooler Max Fischer living with his widowed father in "Rushmore", the estranged father Royal in "Royal Tennenbaums, or the lonely lobby boy Zero here in this film, Anderson injects genuine emotion into his characters, and that is what elevates these movies from being merely quirky to being genuinely moving experiences. 

The intricate sets and world in which this film is set live side by side with characters who are equally obsessed with details.  Gustave is highly interested with the details of his hotel.  He walks through its lobby much as a king, and this level of control is important to him, as he seeks to maintain the high reputation of the Grand Budapest.  In the end, Zero has held onto the hotel for very different reasons, and Zero's reasons for that (plus his relationship with Gustave) is the place where this movie truly finds its heart. 

The ability of Anderson to balance wacky and dry comedy, human drama and a mystery caper is what I find special about him.  It is also what seems so true to me about his work.  Even though his films are almost surreal at times, the truth of his work always rises to the top.  The characters in this movie are obsessive and funny, to be sure.  But they are also people with deep pain, regrets, and their own share of faults.  The combination of the fanciful elements of the plot with the humanity of the characters are a huge strength of this movie.  Anderson has also managed to assemble casts in his movies that are second to none.  Bill Murray and Owen Wilson are only on the screen for minutes in this movie, but they contribute so much to the texture of the work.  This holds true for all of the fine actors who have parts in this movie, both big and small.  Add to all that the beautiful and complex composition of each frame of the movie, and I find myself genuinely invigorated about what I am watching. 

The Lego Movie

Going to the movies with one's children is almost always a good idea.  Saturday, my wife and daughter had an outing with some friends, so I took my two sons to see this movie.  My boys (like so many others) love Legos, and this movie not only offered the draw of seeing moving Legos on screen, but also a fun gimmick.  There were times in the movie where I felt it was trying to be a little too smug and culturally relevant for its own good (sort of how I feel about some of Pixar's work), but it still was a smart, funny piece of work.  Further, the resolution of the movie showed that it had more going on than I originally thought, as a plot twist of sorts which broke down the fourth wall provided a fresh idea that more than made up for some of what I felt were dull pyrotechnics earlier in the movie.

Emmett is a normal Lego construction worker.  However, a Lego wizard (Morgan Freeman) has declared him to be special, and he will bring Lord Business (Will Ferrell) and his "Kragle" weapon down with a special "piece of resistance".  Lord Business ends up blinding the prophet/wizard, but his prophecy lives.  Years later, Emmett lives a dull but tranquil life as a construction worker.  As the time of Lord Business' use of the Kragle to destroy the world draws near, the wizard brings together a group of "master builders" together in an attempt to stop Lord Business.  Emmett's talent pales in comparison to the rest of the builders, and it becomes clear to him that he isn't that special.  From there, the story kicks into gear as Emmett discovers what he can bring to the team along side Batman, Wild Style, and a host of other familiar Lego characters.

The story rises above the norm by its ending, which I will not give away here.  One of the things that a lot of modern animated stories struggle with is how much they try to appeal to both adults and kids.  Simply good storytelling should appeal to any adult, but many of these movies tack on bells and whistles that, while definitely entertaining, make the movies less universal.  A good example is a hilarious Star Wars joke.  It certainly got the biggest laugh from the adults during the movie (and my boys also loved it), but how will that joke play in 30 years?  Only time will tell, since Star Wars has also become such a well known story that many people will get the joke.  In any case, this style of inside and allusion laden jokes is a point of difficulty for me.  The jokes are very funny and work (and I suppose that's all that should matter), but I find the story to be less engaging.  The best of the Pixar and Dreamworks movies are able to walk the line between gimmick and storytelling very well.  This movie doesn't walk it as well, but still does a great job of giving the crowd a great story in the end.  The story is not what we think it is, and only in the end do we see how good this story is.  It is a story that both children and adults can appreciate, because it speaks to both.

In the end, my critical thoughts can be overlooked.  This may not be prove to be the classic that some movies are, but does it need to be?  It has wonderful animation, lots of familiar voices, and a lot of great gags.  My boys loved it, and I loved going to see it with them.

Inside Llewyn Davis

Each movie that we watch is a little world unto itself.  Having said that, some movie makers do a particularly good job at creating worlds with every movie they make.  I can think of no other filmmakers who do this better than Joel and Ethan Coen.  They always choose distinct settings for their stories, and that lends itself to the creation of worlds.  However, they seem to inhabit each little world that they make so well that I always feel that I am being transported to that world.

The world in which "Inside Llewyn Davis" is set is Greenwich village in the early 1960's.  Specifically, the folk world of that era is depicted, and Greenwich village was so important to that scene that it is the most obvious place for this story's setting.  Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac) is a struggling folk singer who has lost is partner to suicide and is having trouble selling his solo album.  He spends every night on the couch of friends, family or fans as he attempts to piece a life together.  His close friends and colleagues Jim and Jean Berkey (Justin Timberlake and Carey Mulligan) are beginning to meet with some success.  However, Jean is pregnant, and is not sure who the father is, since she had been involved with Llewyn.  This sets off a chain of events that lead to an almost Ecclesiastes type story.  For Llewyn, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The film is stylized but also quite real.  Having spent time in Greenwich village, some of the street were familiar to me.  I felt that I was a fly on the wall actually experiencing life as it was in the early 60's.  The film is shot with almost a slight sepia tone, so it ends up having a vintage-type look, even though it is a totally modern picture.  Since I am a casual fan of the Greenwich scene (I am a big Bob Dylan fan-a man who emerged from the scene in the Village), I was probably able to view the details of the movie with a less critical eye than others.  However, as I mentioned above, the distinctness of the setting is important to the movie, and the Coens realize the world very well.  The fact that the place wherein the movie is set is a real place with a real history only makes the world more engaging.  New York emerges as a major character in the film, and the camera loves the city.  The bleak winter is also a major character, and it acts as a catalyst to much of the action.

As Llewyn continues to encounter heartbreak and lack of success, there are some deeper lessons that he learns.  However, there is a restlessness to the character that seems to be part of the point.  He is an uncompromising artist, and that ends up costing him money and success.  And while some movies might glory in that, this movie simply shows an artist who has no success, but dwells almost in the shadow of people like Dylan and Peter Paul and Mary.  The movie gives us enough glimpses into Llewyn's life that we ache for some of the losses that he endures, but we also know that his loneliness is self imposed.  He is a sort of Vincent Van Gogh of Bleeker Street...the uncompromising, struggling artist who ends up with barely a livelihood.

The Coens have been creating worlds like this for so long that it can be easy to take it for granted.  This is a film whose world and details are every bit as real and poignant as those in the Twin Cities ("Fargo" and "Serious Man"), Arizona ("Raising Arizona"), Texas ("Blood Simple"), Mississippi ("O Brother, Where Art Thou?") or any other place the Coens happen to make a film about.  They are impressionists with a movie camera and a screenplay, and they capture hints of truth in every world that they depict.  They accomplish this through accuracy, humor, exaggeration, and a marvelous investment in the characters they create.  Some day they will stop building these little worlds in their sandbox, and we will all be the poorer for it.