I’m in a bit of a difficult position. I wrote my last review, of Raging Bull, at 4pm, Saturday 31st December. I’d seen it back in November, but backlogs have a habit of creeping up on you. It was my final review of 2011, having set myself the challenge to watch 100 films I’d never seen before, and write an article on each one.
However, there was a different backlog creeping up on that backlog. A sizable chunk of reviews still fester in the editor of Flickering Myth’s inbox – not because he’s negligent, far from it, but because my planning was poor. I’d been writing reviews at a leisurely pace from January to October, forgetting there were only two months left. I thought there were three. Sometimes I confuse calendar months with lunar ones. I could’ve sworn there was a Smarch last year.
So I ended up doing what anybody would do when tackling grand goals over lengthy periods of time – I did it all in the last five weeks. That’s what the backlog is, and why ‘365 Days, 100 Films’ reviews are still appearing on the site every now and again. As though they’ll. Never. End.
It means I’ve sort of missed the chance for a parade in my honour. Imagine if I had planned it so review 100 was put up on Flickering Myth on December 31st, 2011. Passers-by would insist on shaking my hand. People would have been partying in the streets. Women-folk would be offering me their bodies. I could have been the guy that won 2011.
But I didn’t, so here’s a half-hearted attempt at closure – my Alternative Top 20 of Films That Weren’t Released In 2011, But Which I Had Never Seen Before...
20. Miracle on 34th Street
-best served originally and on Christmas day.
19. Bride of Frankenstein
-an exploration of the monster’s more human aspects, with an incredibly enchanting score.
18. Harry Brown
-foreshadowed last year’s Summer riots, as sponsored by JD Sports, by two years. Also a very accomplished and mature revenge film.
17. The Unforgiven
-a dark Western, where the heroes are forever tainted by their long-dead father’s actions.
16. Bad Lieutenant
-batshit crazy Nicolas Cage having iguanas sing Release Me by Engelbert Humperdinck to him with Werner Herzog, and other, more ludicrous happenings.
15. Lethal Weapon
-the ultimate buddy-cop movie.
14. The Warriors
-a remarkably self-contained mythology, where rival teenage gangs roam across an urban sprawl.
13. Red River
-John Wayne’s second best film. A lot like uncle Ethan from The Searchers, but mean rather than racist.
12. My Neighbor Totoro
-Catbus.
11. Event Horizon
-a film with the power to induce paralysing terror. The same sci-fi/horror blend as Alien, but far more cerebral.
10. Top Gun
-Baby, baby, I’d get down on my knees for you (the best homoerotic film for men ever made).
09. The Tin Star
-Henry Fonda starring as such a classic, blue-eyed good guy that you forget he was ever in Once Upon A Time In The West.
08. Frankenstein
-a heartbreaking tragedy.
07. Rio Bravo
-Dean Martin’s best film. He plays a drunkard, ex-deputy to John Wayne’s sheriff. Manly stuff, yet also endearingly fragile.
06. The Proposition
-a poetically nightmarish Western set in the Australian outback.
05. A Night at the Opera
-the Marx brothers’ best, most anarchic and structured film. Contains some of the funniest set pieces ever committed to screen.
04. Raging Bull
-an incredibly expressive character study of the boxer Jake LaMotta, with a perfect fusion of substance and style.
03. Night of the Hunter
-a very dark fairytale in the tone of the Brothers Grimm. Robert Mitchum plays one of the most complex and frightening bad guys in cinema history.
02. Rocky
-a completely overwhelming experience of pure awesomeness.
01. Stand By Me
-because nobody has friends like they do when they’re 12.
I watched Return to Oz on New Year’s Day. It’s the first film I’ve seen since December 2010 that wasn’t accompanied by a notebook. It felt good. Hopefully now I should have considerably more free time to pursue my other interests. Predominantly, the career of the late professional wrestler, Randy “Macho Man” Savage, from the late 80s to early 90s, and obscure branches of Japanese Hentai pornography.
Oli Davis
"-a completely overwhelming experience of pure awesomeness."
ReplyDeleteThat pretty much sums up the level of most film analysis on the internet in this day and age.
I suggest you read the actual review, then:
ReplyDeletehttp://flickeringmyth.blogspot.com/2011/12/365-days-100-films-80-rocky-1976.html
I did. It's more plot synopsis than an actual review. Not much meat there. Sorry. Very lightweight. I suggest you read some James Agee or Pauline Kael; then you might begin to understand what constitutes good film analysis and criticism. And the statement ""-a completely overwhelming experience of pure awesomeness" sounds like some fanboy sitting around in his shorts. Oh, and film schools are just clip joints these days.
ReplyDelete"There's a good deal to be said for finding your way to
moviemaking---as most of the early directors did---after living for
some years in the world and gaining some knowledge of life outside
show business. We are beginning to spawn teen-age filmmakers who at
twenty-five may have a brilliant technique but are as empty-headed as
a Hollywood hack, and they will become the next generation of hacks,
because they don't know anything except moviemaking."
---Pauline Kael, 1969
High School & Other Forms of Madness
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Death-of-Film-Criticism/64352/
Stand by me is a classic
ReplyDeleteTeen-age hacks who went on to make the likes of Jaws, Star Wars, The Godfather, Mean Streets... I guess Pauline Kael was wrong with that one.
ReplyDeleteKael wrote at length about Coppola---who was not a movie brat like the rest; he preceded them and was just on the cusp. That's why his work in films like The Godfather was so much more substantial. Most of the film geeks like Spielberg--and particularly George Lucas---have produced nothing as rich and textured as The Godfather or Apocalypse Now. The fact that you would include films like Jaws and Star Wars speaks volumes about your adolescent sensibilities. Scorcese did important work in his early career, but has not for decades. He certainly fed on much more substantial film fare than the likes of Spielberg or Lucas. In those days the occasional filmmaker of substance emerged from the pre-pop-culture-fed film schools. When you say that Kael "was wrong with that one" you only prove how clueless and naive you are. The advent of the movie brats proved Kael's comments to be quite true, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteBy the way--Rocky and Stand By Me are minor works at best. There is nothing great about them when it comes to major works in cinema. Star Wars is not a very good film, even Lucas thought so. It was a huge marketing phenomena, but that's another story. Mean Streets was a significant film and The Godfather was a great film.
Rio Bravo is not Dean Martin's best film - Some Came Running is, with Toys In The Attic a close second runner. But then, you would have actually had to have watched all of Dean Martin's films to make such a statement; and you haven't seen all his films, have you? See the problem here?
For instance, Henry Fonda spent most of his career playing the kind of part he did in The Tin Star. It's Once Upon A Time In The West that's the surprising performance, not the other way around.
Top Gun and Lethal Weapon? Please. Get real.
You need to know more about film (and life) before you attempt to speak with any authority. Personal, uninformed opinion does not pass for worthwhile film analysis or criticism.
Wow, you do have a superiority complex. Firstly, I should probably explain that I'm not Oli, nor am I am adolescent (frankly, if you think adolescents would pick Jaws and Star Wars as examples of great films, you must be about a hundred and fifty years old).
ReplyDeleteYou say Some Came Running is Dean Martin's best film, but who are you to say that with any authority? In your opinion it's his best film, but the fact that you say Rocky and Stand By Me - and Star Wars and Jaws - aren't good films also means that your opinions have absolutely no credibility whatsoever with me. See the problem here?
If you want to think cinema died in the 1960s that's your business, but don't assume that people are idiots just because they don't share your misguided view.
Oh, and Pauline Kael was quick enough to jump on the Spielberg bandwagon.
I never said adolescents today would pick Jaws or Star Wars as great films. I was speaking of an "adolescent mentality", not about current adolescent people. An "adolescent mentality" is applicable across the board, at any time in history, no matter what one's age is. Try to keep up. Your reading comprehension is lacking.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, I never said that Rocky and Stand By Me or Jaws are not good films. Where did I say that? Go back and actually pay attention to what you're reading. I said that Rocky and Stand By Me are minor works; they are good films but by no means great ones. Jaws is an extremely adept potboiler that admirably stays within the confines of its pulp genre.
All opinions are not of equal value. Educated opinions are more valuable than uneducated opinions. I've actually seen every film Dean Martin ever made--except for a couple of the Matt Helms'. If you want to invest millions in the building of a skyscraper, whose opinion do you trust---a trained, experienced architect and designer---or your Uncle Dudley who's good with hand tools?
I don't think for one moment that cinema died in the 1960s. In fact, to quote Spielberg, the Seventies were the last great Renaissance of American film. Even he knows it. I never said he was dumb. He's a great popular filmmaker, but that doesn't mean one should be quick to overrate his journeyman work.
There is great cinema being produced today, but not much major studio product, and the over-dependence in this list on such popular favorites as Lethal Weapon and Top Gun---or even Stand By Me--displays a great deficiency in scope.
Apparently, you want to be able to put your opinions out on the internet for all to see---but you don't want to be called on it when you display incredible immaturity or ignorance of which you speak. I can understand that. It's a common desire amongst some who don't want to have to work to hard or do their homework. And I never called anybody an idiot. There's a difference between being an idiot and being a slacker.
You obviously haven't read the title of the post from up there on your high horse, but if you had you'd see that Oli could only include films he'd seen this year which he hadn't previously, so maybe you should pay attention to what you're reading. There's a great deficiency in scope because there was only 100 films to choose from.
ReplyDeleteNow, just because you've seen every Dean Martin film ever made doesn't make you any more educated than the next person - everything you say is still your opinion, and as I've already said it's worthless to me. If you don't like the 'adolescent mentality', then kindly fuck off elsewhere.
The fact that I've seen every Dean Martin film does make me more educated about Dean Martin films than someone who has only seen a fraction of his films. That is reality - and, considering my background in film and film criticism, it also makes my opinion more informed. (It's quite humorous that we're weighing the dramatic hierarchy of Dean Martin films---c'mon, admit it.)
ReplyDeleteI would think that if you wanted to be taken seriously on the web under the banner of "flickering myth" and cinema in general, you would embrace more informed analysis about them rather than being threatened by it. Unless this is just to be a fanboy space for geeks who've never seen The Night Of The Hunter or Touch Of Evil before. "Pure awesomeness" is not a criteria to be taken seriously from a contributor, nor does it elevate the credibility of this site; quite the opposite.
I came here from the imdb out of a genuine interest in the header. Never been here before. You might want to take these first impressions a little more seriously if you are to thrive and grow amidst the glut of film geek sites across the internet.
It does not impress when a very young person makes absolute statements like "John Wayne’s second best film" when it is obvious the writer has probably not seen a large cross-section of John Wayne films. And it leaves a flimsy impression upon those who have done so.
I just sayin'....
Well I'm sorry you stumbled upon us, but trolling sites doesn't qualify as a background in film and film criticism. If you don't like it, that's fine. Fuck off somewhere else. Just sayin'...
ReplyDeleteWell I'm sorry you stumbled upon us, but trolling sites doesn't qualify as a background in film and film criticism. I can see from your previous comments on other sites that you've a background in being an arsehole - in fact, I'd say you were an expert. If you don't like it, that's fine. Go somewhere else. I'm sure we'll do fine without you.
ReplyDeleteAnd just for the record, Rocky is 'pure awesomeness', and as I said way back at the start, before I grew immensely tired of this conversation, if you think Rocky is anything but a classic, your opinion is worthless, regardless of how many Dean Martin and John Wayne films you've seen.
Just sayin'...
- Gary
You're crazy.
ReplyDeleteSly Stallone > Dean Martin
Well, I don't know about you guys - but I've actually worked in film for years and been published in print at length. I guess in the U.K. Rocky passes for a classic. So be it.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I'm not a great fan of John Wayne or Dean Martin movies for the most part. But I have done my homework, going back into the Silent Era. I'm not trolling. I really do think that "pure awesomeness" is not a worthy descriptive for anybody claiming to have any kind of real knowledge in the medium. It's fanboy talk.
But, maybe you can help understand how all this works:
You publish an online site devoted to film with sections for replies and comments on the pieces you publish. You sponsor individuals to write these pieces devoted to film analysis. But people who reply or comment on your articles are only supposed to praise them or make benign comments? They are never supposed to take the writer to task for form or content or be critical of their methodology?
You see, when real critics or film analysts put themselves out there in print, they know what they are getting into and accept that. People like Kael or Roger Ebert published their opinions regularly and every time they did they took all kinds of heat and critique in response--on everything from their opinions to their writing style to their intellect. They took it standing up like grown ups and kept on going.
Welcome to the jungle.
You're in print? What have you done? Please, enlighten me because all I see is an anonymous fool who's already onto his third alias. And just for the record, you're not the only one in print, I have a publisher and a book deal but that still doesn't make my opinion worth any more than the next guy and I'm not so far up my own arse that I'd try to claim it did.
ReplyDelete- Gary
I notice you won't answer the question I asked you first. What is the purpose of your reply and comment section if readers are not supposed to post anything negative or disparaging about an article or its author without the webmaster wading in to take them to task for it? What kind of forum did you expect?
ReplyDeleteSo in other words, you've done nothing.
ReplyDelete- Gary
In other words, I don't intend to put my stats out on the worldwide web for professional reasons. I haven't asked for yours and I ain't gonna give you mine. None of this matters when it comes to the basic question you refuse to answer: What kind of forum did you have in mind? A little tea party where people chime in and say, "Gee, that was a swell observation, Oli. Do give us more" or "Dude, you really nailed it. You rock!"?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, Gary....what kind of a forum do you expect where no tough criticism can be aimed at one of your writer's articles without the webmaster showing up to play Daddy for him?
It isn't the criticism that has annoyed me, you're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is - opinion. The fact that you're trying to pass your opinion off as gospel is the reason why I've responded. You say you've wrote this and that, so come on, what have you written, print or online? Nothing... so going by your reasoning, my opinion must be more worthwhile than yours, seeing as I have. And so must Oli's, seeing as he has. So unless you can back it up, I suggest you stop making a fool out of yourself and go find a website that meets your high standards of being a pretentious, condescending idiot.
ReplyDelete- Gary
By the way, I love how the term "trolling" has morphed in recent years. Originally, on the internet a troll was someone who posted things they didn't necessarily mean or believe just to inflame and start flame wars.
ReplyDeleteNow, apparently it applies to anybody you disagree with.
All I did was post one short comment in response to a passage from the article. Then, the author came back and told me to read his full review. I did and gave my honest response to it. Next thing I know the webmaster is calling me a troll for stating my honest opinion. Apparently you think your writer is entitled to his honest opinion about the work of others - but I'm not entitled to my honest opinion about his work.
As I've already said, you're entitled to your opinion, but you need to realise that's all it is, an opinion. You posted a number of comments claiming that your opinion was more worthwhile than ours, then you claim you've written this and that, but you hide behind three user names and refuse to say what you've written. Are you too afraid for me to critique your work, or is it just the fact that you've done nothing? I think it's the latter...
ReplyDelete- Gary
Think what you will, Gary. I'll go toe-to-toe with either of you on film history. No cheating, no internet searches, only what's in our brains. I suspect I will win hands down. Seriously. I'm not boasting here, it's just a fact: I've been told that I've forgotten more about film history than most people will ever know. My knowledge of cinema is vast. To quote Walter Brennan: No brag, just fact.
ReplyDeleteSo, Gary...I will move on and let you lord it over your flickering little fiefdom.
But I want to point out a thing or two:
I never said my opinion was gospel. Once again, you're putting words in my mouth that I would never say.
I said that all opinions do not have equal credibility. I said that a more educated opinion on a given topic carries more weight than a less educated opinion on that topic. In my heart of hearts I have to believe that you actually agree with that and just don't want to admit it. A person making absolute statements that this or that film is an actors best or second best--when the person has only seen a fraction of the actor's work--lacks credibility. Such an author communicates more about himself than he realizes.
Secondly, I did not stoop to childishly calling people names such as "idiot".
You need to learn to let your writers stand or fall on their own merits. Just because you disagree with someone's criticism of their work doesn't mean you as webmaster should be squashing dissent. Especially when you have to continue creating straw men based on things I never said in order to make your arguments.
Have fun with your tea party.
Forget film knowledge, I want to know what you've written and what films you've been involved in. You were happy to boast about your years of experience earlier, until I called you out. The fact is you've done nothing and you've made a fool out of yourself. You want to keep it private, drop me an email... I won't 'out' you professionally, because there's nothing to 'out'. Now unless you've got a bibliography / filmography to share with me so I can give my honest - and informed - opinion on it, I suggest you give it a rest and stop digging a bigger hole.
ReplyDeleteI thought you handled yourself quite well against the diatribe of the dueling screen names Mr. Flickering Myth. I neither studied film nor know half as much as either of you, but I can still find the comments by screen name ad infinitum hilarious and pretentious. Btw, to Mr. Film God: Spielberg was making/writing/producing/acting in films before Scorsese even thought about directing. And to call Scorseses contributions of the last few "decades" as you put it (need the quotes, do to you having a problem with YOUR comments being taken out of context) is just plain ignorant. Even if you discount "The Last Temptation" "Casino" "Gangs of New York" or "The Departed," he has still made some pretty good documentary fare. "No Direction Home" and "Shine a Light" just to name a couple. And No, I did not have to look it up, as I am sure that ran through your head. Instead of sullying a mans attempt at entertaining me (which he did) make the constructive criticism a little more constructive. Carry on Mr. Myth, I, for one, enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words! And yeah, some of the comments were bizarre, especially about the likes of Spielberg and Scorsese. Recent films mightn't have lived up to their earlier successes, but as you say there's still some top quality stuff, including the music documentaries. I'm yet to see Living in the Material World, but heard great things about that one too.
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding. And as far as recent movie sucesses, I believe it has more to do with the world we live in today, having so many choices, and different vehicles for media, that just makes success far less attainable than it used to be. Like I heard in the documentary "Special When Lit" (a documentary about pinball machines, that, if you havent seen, you MUST) the gentleman states that people used to eat their meals at home and go out for entertainment, which would include the bowling alley or movies. Today, we eat out, and every concievable thing we want entertainment wise is in the house, be it Netflix, video gaming systems, Hulu, etc etc. Anyway, love the blog, carry on.
ReplyDeleteThat's a great point and I agree, so much media to consume these days. I haven't seen Special When Lit but I'll definitely give it a look, thanks for pointing it out!
ReplyDelete