In the dark, I get such a thrill

Not to be a spoilsport [ah, who'm I kidding?], but what about the movies? You know, the stories we watch alone in the dark, rather than in a well-lit room while sprawled on the sofa?

Liz and I agreed early on that there should be no shame in not having seen a particular film--no one pays us to do this, after all. And I'm not much of one for top 10 lists. But in the spirit of shameless full disclosure, here are 10 of the movies I didn't see in 2004.

1. Spiderman 2
2. Shrek 2
3. Ocean's Twelve
4. Open Water
5. The Brown Bunny
6. Maria Full of Grace
7. Collateral
8. The Village
9. Fahrenheit 9/11
10. The Passion of the Christ

[crickets]

I also found it interesting how many of the Globes' acting nominees had two performances [at least] hit the big screen this year: Clive Owen, Natalie Portman, Jamie Foxx, Kate Winslet, Gael Garcia Bernal, Zhang Ziyi, Don Cheadle [v. busy!], Laura Linney, Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett, Meryl Streep, Johnny Depp, and Jim Carrey. Why, it's like the studio system, all this productivity! Better still, none of the nominations this year seem to be of the "my bad for not recognizing your earlier performance" ilk, a la Whoopi Goldberg getting the nod for Ghost rather than The Color Purple. Of course, there is that axis of "bad mother"/"bad girl" performances to mull over. What was it Parker said about running the gamut from A to B?

As for television, I only got cable, and basic at that, in October 2004. And even with it, I managed to happily squander my limited TV time watching Survivor, America's Next Top Model, Arrested Development, and Veronica Mars. But before you people give up on me completely, one of the most moving documentaries I saw this year was on PBS: Love and Diane. And one of the most entertaining was the five-night hip-hop history And You Don't Stop on VH1.

Let the pile-on begin.

Comments

[Eddy Faust]

Regarding Kill Bill, Aaron, I think the “unnecessary” parts are what give the film its distinctive color and kept it from being just a good romp. The film’s strongest character in my opinion was Michael Madsen's “Budd”…and that whole scene of him getting dumped on at the strip-club would have surly been cut by most directors…but then we’d have a character with far less depth. We wouldn’t have known that Budd was living a life of self-induced punishment. And the little eccentricities here and there, whether they’re Uma willing her toes to move or Bill‘s “Superman” dialogue, perhaps all “unnecessary” were the very things that made it classic QT. These were the very things that characterized Pulp Fiction.

And I for one, don't mind paying extra to see a lot of cool shots...if they are indeed cool shots...and there were many in both Kill Bills.

[Aaron]

Eddy: BUt I'm not disagreeing with you. The scene you're talking about wasn't unnecessary because it does flesh out his character. I just think there were more than enough cool long shots and action sequences in each movie that really wouldn't have been missed had they been cut down. I don't mind paying more than one admission if more than one movie is warranted. I wouldn't have wanted to see one four hour Lord of the Rings, for example. But to my mind, QT did nothing in either film, but especially in Vol. 1, that necessitated it being anything other than one three-hour movie.

[Wiley Wiggins]

Sorry, I preferred both the Kill Bills to "Flying and Crying" (Hero). Call them masturbation, but I thought they were pretty goddamn artful masturbation. A dancing, exploding, frankenstein's monster that boiled down elements from genre action films until they became a highly potent smokable version. I think the fact that the big show-down at the end of part two turned out to be a much feared conversation between two lovers on the outs, and not an extended swordfight, was great.

[Eddy Faust]

Aaron: The only action-sequence that was really drawn out in Kill Bill was the one in Japan at the end of vol.1. Personally, I found every shot of that sprawling fight to be eye-candy to the highest degree...so even though it didn't service the plot much, I still wouldn't have wanted it scaled down. The elongated majorly-stylized directing added that Sergio Leone grandeur to it...making it feel epic, operatic, etc.

Of course I'm mostly agreeing with Wiley's post...although, even finding "Hero" not on par with Kill Bill, I wouldn't write it off as masturbation. It was a beautifully crafted piece of cinema. I'm just not big on overly tragic endings (I see them as largely manipulative) and characters who sacrifice themselves in the name of fascism.

[Eddy Faust]

Re-reading your post, I see you didn't call Hero masturbation, Wiley...but you're dead on with the "Flying and Crying" jab.

[dvd]

I think Wiley is 100% correct regarding Kill Bill (I withhold from mentioning the volumes, as I like to think of them as one film). Going back to look at some of the source material Tarantino used -- exploitation/revenge like They Call Her On Eye or martial arts revenge like Lady Snowblood (viewed on Filmbrain's recommendation) -- only made me appreciate more the way Tarantino took these various elements and blended them into something that was so distinctly his. I wonder if sometimes people let his noxious personality (or the fact that he gleefully compares The Passion to a Miike film) overshadow what his films; sometimes I wonder if even he is aware of what he's capable of (I'm sure he is, but I also think that his work might be more the result of instinctive talent than careful thought process).

It may be masturbation, what he does, but no moreso than any auteur who indulges in presenting his or her own personal ideas and vision on film (as all of the filmmakers we all admire most do, to various extents).

[Matt]

Luke: you're gonna hate this, but I think Memento was a gimmick!

[Filmbrain]

Matt - do you feel the same way about Irreversible?

[Luke]

Matt - that's fine. But have you seen the cut of it playing in forward chronology?

My question was how could someone dismiss Memento as a gimimick and then call Russian Ark (infinitely more an obvious gimmick) a masterpiece?

I also liked Irreversible. I thought there was more going on than exploitation and a gimmick of chronology.

[dvd]

I think both Memento and Russian Ark -- and heck, Irreversible too -- are certainly based on a gimmick. The problem with Memento that the other two films avoid is that, once you get past the gimmick, there's not much there. You've got the mystery, and it's clever, certainly, but it doesn't leave you with much else once you've figured it out (aside from watching it again in chronological order, I suppose). With Russian Ark, on the other hand, once you're done marvelling at the one-take glory of its gimmick, you can go back and examine the layers of Russian history and how they intersect throughout the narrative. Or in the case of Irreversible, you can contemplate the potentially arbitrary nature of cinematic chronology and its effect on the viewer (something that could possibly be considered an understood third-party subtext in Memento but is an essential facet to Gaspar Noe's film).

I liked Memento, don't get me wrong; but I don't believe it has much to offer beyond the thrill of the initial viewing. That may be enough for it to be called great, or even a masterpiece, by some -- but in my case, I generally prefer films that get better with each viewing.

[Luke]

Memento skin deep? I found it had an awful lot to say about memory, identity, and even morality. That it said this in such an engaging and mostly unprecedented way is icing on the cake.

[Aaron]

What I find really interesting about the Kill Bill conversation above is that a lot of people seem to appreciate certain things in some films simply for the sake that they're there. What I'm talking about is appreciating the films because of how QT quotes other films and filmmakers or creates a "Sergio Leone" epic style. I remember (I think) on Filmbrain's site ages ago, the primary reason someone kept giving for loving Buffalo '66 was because of how Gallo quotes Ozu. (Filmbrain mentioned that too; it just wasn't the only thing he talked about.)

You know, I just don't get that, and it kind of goes to my dislike of Femme Fatale too, even though I am a huge De Palma fan (of just about every film up to and including Casualties of War. I feel like De Palma was simply quoting himself for the sake of doing so. To use a cliche myself, there was no there there. I don't appreciate filmmakers showing off their knowledge, even in appreciation, of other films just because it's cool. I guess that would be part of how I watch films: that's something that annoys me. Others (especially many involved with this discussion) seem to appreciate it much more, and that's fine. I didn't dislike either Kill Bill movie, but I simply disagree with many of the sentiments expressed here and believe there is plenty of useless overkill in both movies (especially the first one) no matter how cool much of it might look, especially isolated from the rest of the film. To me, at the end of the day, it was either a ploy for higher grosses by forcing two admissions, or it was lazy and self-indulgent filmmaking. I still say that if QT set his mind to it, fused the two together, and edited the shit out of the film, you'd have one movie that would be much better than either of the other two, even if it was three hours long. Maybe even a little longer. But as they are, the two run times add up to about four hours and ten minutes, and in my estimation, neither film is as tight as it could be.

[dvd]

I agree with you on the point that the two could have been fused into a single, tighter unit (with maybe a special edition director's cut DVD a year or two later). But as far as the simple quotation of other films being the primary reason for loving Kill Bill -- it's not so much that he's quoting them as it is that he's using these quotes of others to build towards something that is his own, something I think he's very, very good at. In other words, it's not what he references, but how.

If it was the other way around, his movies wouldn't be much different than, oh, say, Scary Movie 3. Or something like that.

[dvd]

Postscript: I hope I haven't automatically brought the esteem of this conversation down three or four notches simply by mentioning the above monstrosity of a lousy excuse for a comedy in the context of a Tarantino film!

[Britopia]

I'd be willing to mount a long defense of Memento, but I'll settle for two words: Sammy Jankis. What makes the film worth watching more than once is its exploration of how and if we lie, to ourselves and to others. (Isn't all interesting art about how and if we lie?)

Stephen Tobolowsky's performance as Sammy is one of the great supporting riffs of the DVD era. Tobolowsky was also great in another so-called gimmick movie that more than transcends its gimmick. “Ned? Ned Ryerson?”

[Luke]

MUAHAHAHA! I feel invincible now, with Britopia on 'my side.' I might as well take a nap... :-)

Suffice it to say (it doesn't? Oh well...), I loved Memento, and it did keep giving on further viewings the more I peeled away its shell of conspicuous (but fun!) construction.

[Matt]

Oh, my God, so many things to reply to, so many...comm..ments....

I've not seen Irreversible, but I have seen Russian Ark. While agree that both it and Memento are "gimmicky" pictures, I agree with dvd: Memento is just the gimmick whereas there's far more to Russian Ark. What's more the gimmick has a point in Russian Ark; in Memento it serves no purpose beyond making the picture that much "cooler" [I wonder: if Memento had been made this year, might there have been backlash against its "cooler-and-smarter-than-thou indie-cred" -- such as that which has befallen the overly quirky, paint-by-numbers Garden State -- a film that I really enjoyed but marked down based on the fact that I knew it wasn't really as good as it made me feel]. Memento's structure in no way replicates Leonard's condition -- he doesn't experience life backwards -- meaning that the structure's that way for...what? For ought that I can tell, nothin'.

It's the same thing with Kill Bill -- in that respect, I agree completely with Aaron. What's the actual point -- beyond being clever, cool and zeitgeist-y -- of Tarantino's quoting of films like it's going out of fashion [which it is]? For me, the quote -- like the gimmick -- must have a purpose; it can't be there to exist in and of itself [not for me anyway]. I am reminded, as always, of Pedro Almodóvar who said in an interesting little book called Moviemaker's Master Class that "the first approach – the tribute – is borrowing, whereas the second is theft. But for me, only theft is justifiable." I second that wholeheartedly, and it's why Kill Bill is a far lesser film than Tarantino's earlier three, in which the quoting serves -- not always, but still -- a higher purpose. And to think that Inglorious Bastards is a WWII "re-imagining" of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Why? What will that prove to anyone, anywhere, ever, apart from the fact that Tarantino can't think for himself -- has no interest in people or the world -- only in the melancholy spectres of long-dead heroes.

I guess I'm just hungry for more than flashy colours and convoluted storylines. I honestly just find Memento and the Kill Bill films -- and that's films -- plural -- to be, ultimately, hollow.

[Matt]

"Someone should send Ehrenstein a link."

I meant Edelstein, by the way. And I'm doing it.

[dvd]

Do you think if you took all of the homage, the cleverness and referencing out of Kill Bill, and were left with a simple, sparse 90 minute film about an assassin learning to love (in essence, a film made up only of what Tarantino himself brought to the table), you might have liked it?

(I direct this towards all of the film's detractors -- and I stand by the fact that it's a film -- singular -- because while Tarantino can bend to the Weinstein's and their 'wisdom,' I don't have to)

[Matt]

Well, it depends on what Tarantino himself had to bring to the table, of course -- something that's obscured by all the referencing. If it was just about "an assassin learning to love," no, I probably wouldn't have liked it anymore than I already do [I gave both films a 2.5 out of 4 for the record]. And that's partly my point as well -- take away everything that Tarantino didn't bring to the table, and there's not much left that he did.

[Filmbrain]

While I have no easy answer as to the was-it-or-wasn't-it a gimmick in Memento, I can confidently say that in Irreversible it was not.

By reversing the story, Noe makes us feel almost complicit with the horrible acts of violence that occur. You leave the theater feeling helpless and broken -- at least I did.

[Aaron]

dvd, I don't know if your missing my point or not, but I'm not suggesting that it's not OK to be clever or show homage or reference, but as Matt perfectly stated as well, it has to work towards something. I am not panning the movies nor am I suggesting that it would be better as a "a simple, sparse 90 minute film about an assassin learning to love." I never said I didn't like the two movies. I did. But I didn't love either, and part of the reason is because I don't believe the project fulfilled its potential. You say "simple, sparse 90 minute film," and I'm arguing for a great kick-ass three hour film. Just not TWO roughly two hour films.

And I think it's funny that you think Tarantino had to bend to the Weinsteins. In reality, releasing the films as two movies was not necessarily a prudent business decision. If anything, I would bet money that the Weinsteins bent to QT's wishes. They may have told him they didn't want a three hour-plus movie, but when you consider the costs involved in prints & advertising on top of the budget, and the seperate roll-outs of two different films ... sure they'll make plenty of money with two seperate films, but it also costs almost twice as much. And QT may in some respects be a popular director, but his movies don't bring in tons of money. Pulp Fiction is the only movie to crack $100-Million domestic theatrical gross. "Vol 1" barely passed $70-Million and "Vol 2" came in around $66-Million. Yes, at the end of the day, throw in international and video and they make money, but it was not necessarily to the Weinsteins financial advantage to release two films. Besides, they consider Miramax "The House That Quentin and Gwyneth Built." They'll let him do almost anything he wants. QT wanted two movies. He didn't bend over to anyone.

AND SEPARATELY, I just wanted to comment briefly on Irreversible about which I have consistently remained right on top of the fence. Filmbrain said, "You leave the theater feeling helpless and broken," and I'm not sure that I did. Then again, I'm not sure that I didn't, either. I know ... confusing. I thought Irreversible was an interesting but not completely successful experiment. I give Noe tons of credit for the attempt. But the truth is that for me, because the extreme violence was front-loaded, the end of the movie gave me time to recover. Sure the final (first?) revelations throw in that final punch, and I'm not saying I think the story would have worked more effectively had it been conventionally told. But the very fact that I've never been able to decide that it worked or didn't work for me ultimately turns it into a very ambitious and audatious failure.

[dvd]

My query regarding the sparser 90 minute movie was not in response to your wish for a shorter single volume (which I already agreed with you on) but to Matt's (and yours, too) claim that there's nothing more to it, that it exists unto itself, resulting in an essentially hollow film. On the contrary, I think there's an effective story there, and I think if you would remove all the homage, all the flashbacks, most of the fights, you'd find (mostly in Vol.2) a fair amount of original (and strong) material contained within an elementally simple (and strong) story. Which raises the question, why did he bury it amids so much referential detritus? Well, because he's Quentin Tarantino and that's his style. In Pulp Fiction, it was dance numbers and discussions about hamburgers, in this one it's visual cues culled from cult classics.

QT did decide he wanted two movies, but Harvey brought it up (or so he says) in the first place. And by all accounts from Cannes this past year, the whole thing works much better as a whole. But you're right, I doubt there was any real 'bending' going on.

[Matt]

Oh, tho$e crazy Wein$tein brother$!

[Luke]

How is the 'gimmick' of Russian Ark integral to its tale?

How is the 'gimmick' of Memento not integral to its tale of a life made in 5-minute pieces that are completely seperate from the rest? I think it is best that Nolan messed with the chronology, here - to underscore the disjoined nature of Leonard's life - and I'm glad he still made time move in a discernable direction, rather than using a completely random sequence.

Aaron - I think your reaction and Filmbrain's reaction and my own reaction show that films (I would argue, good films) affect people in very different ways, meaning that some people are disgusted, some aren't quite sure what to think, and some are moved to tears.