favorites of 2001

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
It gets very confusing so more often than not I will go with the IMdb date. I'm Going Home was shown at the New York Film Festival in 2001 but not released theatrically until the following May. The opposite is true for Yi Yi. I ususally list the films in the year that they either had their first theatrical release or DVD release here in Canada, so I could legitimately put Promises and La Cienaga on lists for 2002. So the dates really don't mean too much. You get the general idea that I really liked these films regardless of what year they show up on my list.

I've certainly spent a lot of time figuring out the details but I believe this way I avoid films that get distributed down the road: I mean two to three years which isn't uncommon. J. Hoberman does something similar and I've studied the way he makes his. But you're right in saying that as long the film is there it really doesn't matter which year it belongs to.

[Chris Knipp]

As far as I can see only two of these are the wrong year (2000) on IMDb, Yi Yi, and Chunhyang; the rest are legitimately 2001. (I love Yi Yi; I saw it at Film Forum in NYC in December 2000.) We all have this problem, that a film that opens late one year may not be available to us to see till early the next year. Still, four years later, one may as well stick to the release dates. But this year I listed de Pallières' Adieu because I thought it important to mention it, but I don't know if it'll ever got a US release. Your taste is unusual. I may be on the way to figuring it out, but I'm not there yet. As a matter of my own taste, I like five of your choices, the other five I've either not seen or don't like at all! By that time I was up to my habit of choosing ten US and ten foreign, and I've already posted my lists on this thread. I don't know which ones arsaib4 would disqualify. I would not hold to these now. For instance, I would certainly have listed Y Tu Mamá También if I'd seen it by then, but I hadn't. A splendid film: how can one omit it? I tend to keep more to mainstream US choices, because then my lists will relate more to other US lists. I'm not trying to teach or set an example, but to make distinctions of taste and quality within an established field. (Of course it's still subjective. And I have cheated, as with Adieu.) I also think it's helpful to list the director, to avoid confusion, and out of respect for the director's importance.

[arsaib4]

I'm Going Home wasn't officially distributed till 2002 so that's probably the only other one. This year I'm gonna make a separate list for the best "undistributed" films so this way I can cover the other great films I've seen.

Will comment on the list later.

[Chris Knipp]

I was thinking of I'm Going Home. I think a "best undistributed" list is the way to go, and some of the magazine and newspaper critics use it. I'll do it too, if my "undistributed" list grows for the year, as it should, partly due to tips I get from you and others on this site. I clearly see the importance of the "undistributed" Hou films, though I can really be dense: I missed Millenium Mambo even though it showed in Berkeley.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Your taste is unusual. I may be on the way to figuring it out, but I'm not there yet.

Figure it out and you will unravel the mystery of life. Seriously, there's no way to figure out someone's taste and it isn't worth the effort. Just get that some films I like and some I dunt. By the way Y Tu Mama Tambien was on my 10 best list for 2002.

[Chris Knipp]

Glad to hear about Y tu mama'. But of course it should go on the 2001 list even if we both saw it in 2002, no?

I don't agree with you that taste is a mystery. One can predict what films various people will like. Not with absolute certainty, but one can say, ah, yes, of course he would pick that one. Taste is a coherent outgrowth of personality and values, but maybe one's own taste is the one thing one can't figure out. We're too close to it.

[oscar jubis]

I took a stab at writing a personal "cinephile manifesto". If curious:
http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/show...=6731#post6731

[Chris Knipp]

That's all fine, and most of what you say is unexceptionable, but I don't think it alters the fact that it's hard for a person to define his own taste. I'm not sure this defines yours, except where you give away hints, e.g., by mentioning certain directors whom you take as authorities.

[oscar jubis]

*I'm certainly not saying that it's easy to define one's own taste. I had to do a lot of thinking to come up with those statements.

*I was trying to avoid mentioning any directors. I felt I had to mention Antonioni and Kiarostami to illustrate the term "unfinished cinema" because I don't think it's become part of the lingo.

*I posted those statements only after I tested their ability to explain why I chose the films that made my Top 10 Favorites of 2003. They go a long way towards explaining why I like what I like, but I consider them a "work in progress". For instance, I probably need to add a paragraph about "emotional impact", or a film's ability to induce strong emotions, to "hit you in the gut", to "put a knot on your throat". You like examples, let's try...Magdalene Sisters made me feel such deep feelings of empathy and compassion towards these women (including the nuns themselves). I felt that something happened to me in that theatre, I wasn't exactly the same person that had walked in. That is something I value in cinema that my post does not address. Sometimes films meant to be "moving" or "touching" make me snicker, Magdalene disarmed me.

Liv Ullmann stated during her tribute tuesday that what she values most about cinema is its ability to sharpen your sense of who you are and your place in the world. My "personal disclosure" post is an attempt to put into words my sense of who I am as a moviegoer.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Glad to hear about Y tu mama'. But of course it should go on the 2001 list even if we both saw it in 2002, no?

It was released on March 15th, 2002. This is just one of the reasons why I use official release dates.

[Chris Knipp]

My mistake about Tu Mamà...Thanks for the correction, arsaib4; however, I was going by IMDb, which lists it as 2001 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245574/.

Oscar: You certainly don't need to defend the validity of your credo, which is very interesting, shows evidence of much careful pondering, and raises many important issues, apart from working for you as an explanation of your choices of movie favorites. I've been discussing and thinking about your statements and want to comment on them in more detail shortly. But I still think that between

(1) one's rules (however personal) of what makes good cinema

and

(2) what films one chooses as favorites

lies a "je ne sais quoi" which can only be defined by details of one's specific likes and one's background and personal experience, one's age -- which are equally important to know (and for some more interesting to hear about). This is analagous to (but in a way almost a reversal of) arsaib4's comment at one point that it's not a list of movies which matters so much as how you justify or explain each movie's preseice on your list. But it's really in both cases, both; hence I would have liked more specific examples, which would not date or type-cast you but rather be instructive to everyone.

[oscar jubis]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I've been discussing and thinking about your statements and want to comment on them in more detail shortly.

So far you're the only one on-line helping me sharpen and clarify my thinking on these issues. I appreciate it.

a "je ne sais quoi" which can only be defined by details of one's specific likes and one's background and personal experience, one's age -- which are equally important to know (and for some more interesting to hear about)

I address these issues in most general terms on paragraphs titled: "subjectivity" and "values". In the past I've identified myself on separate occassions as :Internationalist, academically-inclined, bohemian, secularist, film-obsessed, anti-establishment, therapist, primitivist, middle-aged family guy. I've always assumed that's more than most would want to know. But we can get more specific about background, values, etc. that affect which films become our favorites.

I would have liked more specific examples, which would not date or type-cast you but rather be instructive to everyone.

Let's do it. Will anyone be surprised to find The Corporation and Eternal Sunshine atop my Favorite 10 English-language list for 2004?

[Chris Knipp]

In the past I've identified myself on separate occassions as :Internationalist, academically-inclined, bohemian, secularist, film-obsessed, anti-establishment, therapist, primitivist, middle-aged family guy. I've always assumed that's more than most would want to know.

How are you in bed? (Just joking: but this sounds like a Personals ad.) No, these are all rather general. But it gets silly after a while, since ultimately predicting your choices, ESSM or The Corporation, from your general coordinates is as easy as getting a barrel of monkeys to produce the works of Shakespeare.

Didn't you ever take a writing course, and have the teacher tell you to be more specific? You've set down words that have no resonance. Just one detail would help, like what kind of shoes you wear, but we've all been so codified by market researchers that this is dangerous ground; David Foster Wallace has been having fun with that in recent short stories.

[Chris Knipp]

International Outlook. In adopting this outlook, I think the great danger is OVERCOMPENSATION. This commonly takes the form of rating small foreign films highly because they're small and foreign, and failing to recognize that the ordinary Hollywood products are often very well crafted as well as good entertainment -- and thirty years later turn out to be Douglas Sirk or whatever. An example: In Good Company, with Topher Grace, Dennis Quaid, Scarlett Johansson, et al. Some of the non-European films held up for admiration of late have seemed to me rather crudely thrown together. And naturalism and a low budget aren't justifications for that.

Cinema is a lot more than storytelling. Indeed it is, and I used to champion the purely "cinematic" or (my pretentious coinage) "filmic" in my college days and revile the New Yorker movie critic who wrote about every film as if it were a novel or a play. But you rightly say you respect viewers who enjoy a good story on film. That said, you need to admit that first of all, a movie without a story is unlikely to appeal to many people, and second, there are a lot of marvellous movies being made today that are primarily storytelling. Two examples: Li's Blind Shaft and Zvyagintzev's The Return. In fact, it is hard to claim any film that's other than a pure refraction of light and shape to be NOT "storytelling." Antonioni's L'avventura, for instance, may seem to be eventless, but in its own way it too tells a story.

I think this is a rich topic (it has been me to all these years), and we could get a lot more mileage out of the distinctions between movies and novels, plays, or poems; but very often a movie is another kind of storytelling, but still storytelling, done differently. I too wish more movies were more cinematic. But just having fancy flashbacks or special effects doesn't really make them cinematic. What does? I don't know; you tell me. Examples, please. (I really don't think you can talk about any of the arts without very specific, very tactile examples.)

What's New? "I place a great deal of value on originality." Yes, who doesn't? But originality is in the eye of the beholder. This is a hard quality to prove or identify. I think maybe what you mean is that you don't look for conventional crap. But something quite fine can be made within the confines of a strict tradition, and often in the arts this is the case, even though modernism favors the appearance of innovation above conventionality.

Query: In making this (excellent) list of principles, how sure can you be that these are qualities you find in film, and not simply qualities that you attribute to movies that you like, because in principle you admire such qualities?

Viewer as active participant Fine, but this is rather general. Any great art rewards study, invites interpretation, and does not reveal all its secrets at first view. However, I reject the notion that "difficulty" makes a movie more admirable.

Subjectivity vs. Values. I see some contradiction in these two. Don't you? But I translated this to my French teacher, and she said 'Yes, but contradition is necessary.' 'You mean because that's life?' I asked, and she said 'Yes, of course.'

I strongly agree that "most movies fall between 'mediocre' and 'good.'" Moderation is a good point, and critics are too generous with their praise and also conversely fail to recognize that a movie they don't think lives up to their standards may be good entertainment. But the hipper critics have usually recognized that there's lots of guilty pleasure to be had, and it can be had without guilt, actually. My friend JD is always recommending "good junk" to me, and sometimes I manage to let down my critical strictures and have fun at the movies, which I think Pauline Kael always thought was what should be happening.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
International Outlook. In adopting this outlook, I think the great danger is OVERCOMPENSATION. This commonly takes the form of rating small foreign films highly because they're small and foreign, and failing to recognize that the ordinary Hollywood products are often very well crafted as well as good entertainment.

I'll be vigilant to avoid overcompensation. I'm a huge fan of the LOTR films for instance, and having a Top 10 exclusively for Eng. Language films ensures these get the deserved attention.

Some of the non-European films held up for admiration of late have seemed to me rather crudely thrown together.

I'm wondering what your reaction would be the more free-form, on-the-sly Jean Rouch films I watched at the MIFF. It's possible you may think of them as "crudely put together". The film that term calls forth from my memory bank is the Amerindie Charlotte Sometimes, a film you liked. Go figure.

Cinema is a lot more than storytelling. you need to admit that first of all, a movie without a story is unlikely to appeal to many people

The essay is only about figuring out what I like.

there are a lot of marvellous movies being made today that are primarily storytelling.

Yes, which doesn't contradict the statement: "Cinema is a lot more than storytelling".

In fact, it is hard to claim any film that's other than a pure refraction of light and shape to be NOT "storytelling." Antonioni's L'avventura, for instance, may seem to be eventless, but in its own way it too tells a story.

Agreed, and L'Avventura most definitely tells a story. The films that are not "storytelling", I propose, are the ones that truly deserve the label "art cinema". I'm thinking of Morrison's Decasia, most films by Stan Brakhage, etc.

fancy flashbacks or special effects doesn't really make them cinematic. What does? I don't know; you tell me.

Tough topic to discuss. A point of departure for a discussion would be the statement that the more a film communicates via images the more cinematic it is, the less dependent on the spoken word, the more cinematic.

originality is in the eye of the beholder. This is a hard quality to prove or identify.

Right, it's entirely dependent on each person's level and variety of experience with cinema. The concept "avant garde" is of limited use because what is "avant" varies from viewer to viewer. To most audiences, a relic like Bunuel's 75 year-old L'Age d'Or is still avant garde.

Query: how sure can you be that these are qualities you find in film, and not simply qualities that you attribute to movies that you like

It didn't occur to me to attempt to codify my esthetics until 2004, until I had spent 4 decades at the movies. The starting point was a look at the 215 films (and growing) or so I listed under a personal canon and to try to find patterns and commonalities.

Viewer as active participant. Fine, but this is rather general. Any great art rewards study, invites interpretation, and does not reveal all its secrets at first view. However, I reject the notion that "difficulty" makes a movie more admirable.

Right on both counts. I don't find anything admirable about films that are obtuse and impenetrable. Then again, a few that appear that way after one viewing, end up being films that "reward study", allow for multiple, valid interpretations, reveal their richness gradually. If "difficulty" made a movie admirable, then Godard would be better represented in my personal canon. His most recent films appear to be getting more accessible.

Subjectivity vs. Values. I see some contradiction in these two.

I never wrote "vs.". I mentioned values in the subjectivity paragraph, and decided to expand the discussion of values in the next paragraph. It's more like 4) and 4a).

I manage to let down my critical strictures and have fun at the movies

Me too. But there's all kinds of fun, no?