Prepare the salvos. (BabyBuddha’s definitive top-10 of 2003)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Let’s not fool around. 2003 was NOT a great year for cinema. Other years I’ve had a hard time paring the list down to 15, this year it was a challenge to find 10 great films.

I realize my number one is going to cause a lot of eye-rolling and groaning, but, hey, the film really got to me in many ways.

In reverse order:

10) There’s no one film that really fits this spot. There are a bunch of films like 21 Grams, The Triplets of Belleville, Kill Bill: Volume 1 that are all contenders, but none really stand out enough to take the position. (But, if forced, I’d probably choose Kill Bill.)

9) Good-bye, Dragon Inn, Tsai Ming-Liang, Taiwan
This beautiful near-silent meditation on the act of film watching stayed with me for weeks on end. Here is a director who finds beauty even in the murkiest hallways of a dilapidated theater. A poem to film and film lovers everywhere.

8) Angels In America, Mike Nichols, USA
Yes, technically this was a TV film, but I was fortunate enough to see it on the big screen in one uninterrupted performance. Nichols took on an incredible task, and he pulled it off brilliantly. Reminded me of when he used to be a great director. The acting, the screenplay, the visuals – breathtaking. Uncompromising, and it shows.

7) Down With Love, Peyton Reed, USA
This is the entry that surprised most who know me. I had no interest in seeing this film, but was given tickets to see it at the Tribeca film festival. It was like being a kid all over again and discovering the great Technicolor Hollywood films of the past. Here is a film that is deeply rooted in that tradition, and not in a simple PoMo referential manner. It is a wonderfully written screenplay that is quite funny, and sustains itself all the way to the end. Unlike many recent films that have looked to the 50’s or 60’s, this one is not trying to be hip. It’s telling a tale we’ve all seen before, but with a modicum of freedom that would have been impossible in 1962. Ewan McGregor is perfect in the role, as is Renee Zellweger (who I’m certainly no fan of). Nobody can deny the beauty of the film, but even without that this is one of the most enjoyable, entertaining films Hollywood has spit out in ages.

6) Elephant and Gerry, Gus van Sant, USA
Yes, I know I’m cheating a bit. But these two films are the long-awaited return of Gus van Sant. Thank goodness his flirtation with feel-good mentoring films and pointless Hitchcock remakes is over. Both films rely on an economy of dialog and devices, and both contain quite an emotional wallop. I honestly expected to hate Gerry and I have to admit that for the first third I did. I had convinced my self that the Affleck/Damon pairing would never ring true to me, but then, slowly, it did. I was mesmerized by the end. There’s not much more I can say about Elephant that hasn’t been said already. I do enjoy hearing how many people despise this film for its refusal to answer any questions. Don’t they get it? That’s the point. . .

5) Capturing the Friedmans, Andrew Jarecki, USA
Of the many documentaries I saw in 2003, this hit me the hardest. Arnold Friedman was one of my high school teachers. He taught a pioneering video course (this was 1982!) and was one of the few teachers that treated us like human beings, and actually listened to what we had to say. Some years later when I heard of his arrest, I assumed it had to be true, though I could never imagine him doing the things they said. Though the truth is still not known, the film provided a very even-handed portrait of the events that occurred, and it really captured the mentality of the type of people one finds on Long Island. That the Friedman family videotaped so much of their private life is a documentarians dream. Yet in the wrong hands the film could have been a disaster. I congratulate Jarecki for his handling of it.

4)The Secret Lives of Dentists, Alan Rudolph, USA
This is my most subjective pick of the ten for reasons I won’t get into here. (And no, I’m not a dentist.) But beyond that, I think this is Rudolph’s best film in years. A very mature film that deals with marriage, raising kids, infidelity and what it means to be a ‘man’. I’m sad that this film didn’t get greater notice. It’s truly a minor-masterpiece.

3) Irreversible, Gaspar Noé, France
The most challenging film of the year for me. Not in its structure nor story, but from the entire sensation of watching this film. From the dizzying opening to the nausea-inducing bass notes to the seizure-like ending this is a film that affects nearly all the senses. The structure, (not at all a gimmick) has the effect of making the viewer complicit in the crimes it portrays. As a non-violent person, this film, more than any other, allowed me to truly see what could turn a civilized man into a murdering beast. (Also, this is a film that MUST be experienced on the big screen as a collective experience. Trust me.)

2)Dogville, Lars von Trier, Denmark
Let me make one confession. I love Lars. I’ve loved all his films. Yet 2/3 of the way through this three hour film I found myself questioning him – was he simply doing the same thing again? But the last half hour or so corrects that, and includes one of the most brilliant scenes of the year. Sadly, though, many people didn’t quite “get it” and that made the horror of the ending even that more disturbing. But then again, Lars probably knew people would think that way, the clever fuck. Is it anti-American? Perhaps. But is there a truth to it? Just watch the audience. (I’m really disappointed with Nicole Kidman for refusing to do the other two parts of the trilogy. It will not be the same without her.)

1) Lost in Translation, Sophia Coppola, USA
Yeah, yeah. It’s now become the film that everybody loves to hate. But screw everybody. The film is brilliant for it’s restraint – both from the characters and the director. I’ve lived in Japan (at several different stages of my life) and I’ve met Americans who had no real interest in being there. Sophia captured it, perfectly. The charges of racism are beyond ludicrous. Tokyo is a schizophrenic city, full of people who have indeed lost touch with tradition and culture. This is a topic that has been addressed in Japanese literature and film for ages. Don’t blame Sophia for picking up on that. Enough of a defenece – on the positive side, I think that Scarlet Johansson is the most interesting young actress working today, and for a 19 year old to be able to go toe to toe with Bill Murray is quite an achievement. No, there are no great epiphanies here – just a simple story and a relationship that would otherwise have not occurred had it been anywhere else.

There you go. Fire away.

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Monday, 23 February 2004 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Nice list!

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 23 February 2004 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

You've persuaded me to check out Down with Love (well, you and Rosenbaum) and Secret Lives of Dentists.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 23 February 2004 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

i am so happy we agree about down with love.

― ryan (ryan), Monday, 23 February 2004 23:04 (twenty-two years ago)

This is a nice list! Though of course I vehemently disagree with your #1... ;)

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Monday, 23 February 2004 23:52 (twenty-two years ago)

i really enjoyed down with love as well, prolly around 8 or 9 on my ten

― todd swiss (eliti), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 01:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I saw Lost in Translation early on, before the critics put it on a pedestal. I went in only with my memories of The Virgin Suicides (which I am not an admirer of), and the desire to see where Coppola had gone since there. When I emerged from the darkness of the theater, I hardly knew what to think. When the critical community got their hands on it and began trumpeting it as a new American masterpiece, I wondered if they were just bandwagoning, or if the film had really made them feel the way it made me: inspired, uplifted, happy to be alive. Of course, there was the obligatory backlash that follows any film that becomes popular, and I admit, I began to doubt my own opinion. Most of the negative reviews, however, came after the initial excellent reviews, and it became apparent that most of these critics were only bashing the film because their superiority over the rest of the general filmgoing crowd forces them to ritualistically take apart anything that begins to show signs of success. I'm glad you're able to see past that and appreciate the film for what it is. I can't exactly call it a masterpiece, but it's a wonderful film nonetheless.

The only areas I could disagree with you on are Kill Bill, which I thought was pretentious as hell in all the best ways and was the second best movie of the year, and Gerry, which I thought was pretentious as hell in all the worst ways. Haven't seen Elephant yet. Good list overall, though.

― Anthony (Anthony F), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 02:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Here is a film that is deeply rooted in that tradition, and not in a simple PoMo referential manner.

Really? I thought it was the PoMo referentialism that almost ruined a very good film. Especially the end "twist" - if that wasn't postmodern irony, what is?

Tokyo is a schizophrenic city, full of people who have indeed lost touch with tradition and culture. This is a topic that has been addressed in Japanese literature and film for ages. Don?t blame Sophia for picking up on that.

I thought the main problem with the film was that it depicted the Japanese like idiots. People like the doctor who took care of the girl's toe kept talking and talking to the main characters, even though they clearly saw that they were foreigners and didn't understand Japanese. I don't think in real life you'd keep talking to someone who doesn't have a clue of what you're saying. Also, I think the sense of alienation relevant to the plot could've been achieved in a subtler way. Some scenes felt like they were fishing for cheap laughs, like the shower scene or the elevator scene. This kind of comedy felt weird in an otherwise restricted movie. The main story in itself was nice, but not particularly original. There are dozens of similar, artsy romance films, the only difference is that they aren't directed by Francis Ford Coppola's daughter and don't star Bill Murray.

3) Irreversible, Gaspar Noé, France

You can find my views on Irreversible here and here. But wasn't it a 2002 flick? At least I saw it that year.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

"I don't think in real life you'd keep talking to someone who doesn't have a clue of what you're saying."

That's not true--

Film Rockism-friend or foe?

― jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 16:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it's very funny (sad?) that we've become so cynical to think that a classic Hollywood happy ending can only be viewed as postmodern irony. The ending was consistent with the rest of the film, in my opinion. Didn't all the Rock Hudson/Dorris Day pictures end this way -- more or less?

Maybe there was a different ending in Finland? ;-)

As for Lost in Translation I can tell you from experience that people in professional roles will continue to speak in Japanese, even if you don't understand them. Fair enough, the shower scene was a cheap laugh, but the elevator shot I enjoyed. I've seen that scene many times in real life, don't think I ever saw it in a film.

Your last sentence is exactly my wife's argument: (who really did not like the film -- grounds for divorce?) nobody would give a damn about this film if she wasn't a Coppola. I disagree with that. People ignored (thankfully so) CQ by Sofia's brother.

Irreversible was released here (NYC) in 2003. I could not disagree with you more about the reverse storytelling. However, I don't really know if it's time to re-open a thread on that film.

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I wasn't talking about the happy ending, which I indeed liked. I was talking about the explanation Renee Zelweger's character gave to why she'd publish the book and do everything she did - that overlong monologue, remember? That was clearly a postmodern parody of similar twists in previous films. And what about the final helicopter scene? Also, formally the film was referential as hell: the continuous fashion show, the split screen, the intentional over-acting. I thought the script was very strong and funny, they should've focused more on that instead of the cinefile in-jokes. Postmodern irony and romance don't mix well.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I’ve lived in Japan (at several different stages of my life) and I’ve met Americans who had no real interest in being there. Sophia captured it, perfectly. The charges of racism are beyond ludicrous. Tokyo is a schizophrenic city, full of people who have indeed lost touch with tradition and culture. This is a topic that has been addressed in Japanese literature and film for ages.

the film is about two losers with no redeeming qualities, regardless of setting. there is no character arc, barely a plot, nothing lost/gained in the 90 minutes. the cheap comic treatment of the japanese in 30-40 years time will appear as backward as Mickey Rooney's Mr. Yunioshi's does today.

http://www.destinationhollywood.com/movies/breakfastattiffanys/images/breakfastattiffanys_10.jpg http://nikkeiview.com/images/rooney.jpg

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 20:53 (twenty-two years ago)

We know, gygax!, we know.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 21:10 (twenty-two years ago)

First off, I HATE when people use the word 'losers' when describing film characters. Usually, what they mean is "not like me". So, please explain, in detail, why they are losers.

There is indeed a plot, but even if there wasn't, that's NOT a legitimate criticism.

And there was an arc, but you were too busy feeling self-satisfied in your hatred of it to see it. It's there. It's evident. Perhaps it requires a little bit of intelligence.

And finally -- how well do you know the Japanese, have you ever lived there, do you speak the language?

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 21:49 (twenty-two years ago)

And by the way, part of the film's charm is what does not happen.

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 21:51 (twenty-two years ago)

there is no character arc, barely a plot, nothing lost/gained in the 90 minutes

Uh-oh...just realized somebody's been reading McKee (or one of his many disciples) again.

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 22:36 (twenty-two years ago)

BB: I don't agree with gygax!, but thought you should see the full thrust of his argument.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 22:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh...dear.

Um....argument? I see lots of conjecture and ranting, but no argument. . .

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 23:14 (twenty-two years ago)

So, please explain, in detail, why they are losers.

Murray's character is so quick to poke fun at Sausalito, the lounge band. Yet he, a married man with 2 children, sleeps with the singer... after deriding her.

Johansen's character is possibly slightly more excusable, but she too derides the ditzy actress while she herself is not above lethargic malaise and equally shallow.

The whole self-pitying and loneliness these characters exhibit (the central bonding force of this film) has no appeal to me. There are innumerable solutions to the challenges presented to them in the film. I fear it will become the posterfilm of Bush-era America.

But yes, to your point, not like me.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 01:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Since when is it a bad thing for characters to be flawed?

― Anthony (Anthony F), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 02:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I like lovable losers. I didn't love these ones.

I'm done, I promise.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 02:15 (twenty-two years ago)

That's exactly how I felt about it, gygax!.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 02:32 (twenty-two years ago)

honest question: what was the "comic" treatment of the japanese?

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 03:58 (twenty-two years ago)

i didn't find the characters to be "losers" by any stretch of the word. good, intelligent people placed into an unfortunate situation under their own will, maybe, but genuine people nonetheless. bill murray and scarlett johannsen's characters are passionate, questioning people among a group of people who are completely satisfied (if not enthralled) to lead a life unquestioned. There is nothing special about their characters other than the fact that they are two people in a certain place and time where they would not like to be, and they found a refuge in each other in the face of that. And I think that's what this film recognizes that no other film I've seen shares in common--the incredible bond shared between individuals, no matter how different they are, when they realize they have been placed (or have placed themselves) totally outside of their element, and have realized, if not who they are, but who they definitely are not.

this film has its flaws, but it's deeper than i think some are giving it credit for.

― jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 04:43 (twenty-two years ago)

but to address bb's personal questions:

And finally -- how well do you know the Japanese, have you ever lived there, do you speak the language?

my partner in art/music (dare i use the defensively unattractive "b*st fr**nd" tag?) is a tokyo native of 30 years. but no, i've never lived in japan for longer than 3 weeks but my grasp of the language is enough to get by.

i'd rather not turn this into a pissmatch but i feel i'm perectly qualified to make the criticisms i have.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 04:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Which Dogville did you see? Von Trier's three-hour cut or the two-hour cut that he says he had nothing to do with?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 05:27 (twenty-two years ago)

The three hour cut. (New York Film Festival)

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 14:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Now on to gygax:

Murray's character is so quick to poke fun at Sausalito, the lounge band. Yet he, a married man with 2 children, sleeps with the singer... after deriding her.

A character with flaws and weaknesses? Thank god there aren't any people like that in real life!

she too derides the ditzy actress while she herself is not above lethargic malaise and equally shallow

Ditto.

But I will give in on one thing -- Scarlett's "I don't know what I want to do with my life" at 23 is a bit laughable. But I don't think Sofia meant for us to really think she was "suffering".

What I liked about the story was the fact that had it been set anywhere else, these two never would have met, and even if they had, would not have such a relationship together. Japan is something like 99.4% Japanese. When I worked over there, I met many an American who had a REAL crisis upon arrival. For the first time in their lives they weren't the dominate race/culture/what have you. As stupid as that sounds (especially to me) it happened frequently. They went to work, and afterwards sped back to the hotel, never leaving. The comfort of "American" food, a Scottish-themed bar (with Sausalito-like cover band) and English speakers gave them a sense of calm and familiarity. Ludicrous.

Scarlett, however, does go and explore. There are several scenes of her wanderings, and I think what Sofia chose to show is interesting -- a shrine in Tokyo (yeah, kind of hard to get the feeling, as she didn't), a video game arcade (of which there are about a billion in Tokyo) and then her trip to Kyoto, where she experiences something more traditional. Yet she lacks any connection to both the kimono-clad bride and the game-playing youth.

I actually think Sofia showed incredible restraint in her depiction of Tokyo characters. There were barely glimpses of the over- but highly-styled young people, the endless sea of loose sock girls, the various trends/fads that are huge over there, the salarymen, etc. Most of the people from Tokyo that are shown in their nights out are part of the alternative scene.

i'd rather not turn this into a pissmatch but i feel i'm perectly qualified to make the criticisms i have.

You're right -- I'm not interested in that either. However, it's just not right to say the characters are losers.

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 15:29 (twenty-two years ago)

i loved goodbye dragon inn, and hope i get the chance to see it again someday.. i saw it a week or so before kill bill v1, and they still have this weird interplay thing going on in my head.

― andrew s (andrew s), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I was so obsessed with Goodbye, Dragon Inn that I hunted all over Chinatown to find the film that is being shown in the film. I did. (Yay!)

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 19:38 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.