These are my two favorite holiday films. They may not seem to have much in common at first glance (or 2nd or 3rd for that matter) but alas, this is my blog so we’ll run with it. Both of these films were directed by the same man: Porky’s director, Bob Clark.
The first film, “Black Christmas” (1974) is one of my favorite horror films of the 70’s. It takes place at a sorority house over Christmas break in which a strange caller is terrorizing the sorority sisters. I really love the voyeuristic camera work in this film as we see through the killer’s eyes as he navigates around the house to his next victim. The twist ending is great and only undercut by the fact that we have by now seen countless reincarnations of the same surprise.
The next film, “A Christmas Story” (1983) or as I like to call it: “Black Christmas Zero: A Prequel” is an undeniable classic. We follow Ralphie Parker in the weeks leading up to a mid-west American Christmas. Try as he might, Ralphie can’t seem to convince anyone, be it his parents, his teacher or even Santa himself that a Red Rider BB gun is an appropriate gift. This film might actually be more terrifying that the latter. As a child, I watched this movie constantly. I recall many nights waking in a cold sweat, my mind flooded with visions of my tongue frozen to a light pole; the result of a triple-dog-dare. Children with this type of upbringing could only mature into one type of adult. Sorority house murder was in the cards from the beginning. Just look at that face........
These two films have something in common with each other. Both films have relatively simple, although maybe unusual premises which unfold for the audience in moments of extreme tension. More specifically, with these two films I feel that the tension never needs to be forced because it is so inherent to the premise of the plot.
The first film, “The Wages of Fear” (1953) from director Georges-Clouzot is a simple story about 4 men trapped in a small South American town unable to raise enough money to purchase the plane ticket out. They are soon presented with a job opportunity when one of the mines explodes. Four men, two trucks full of highly volatile explosives and 1 narrow, bumpy and winding road provide all the tension this film could ask for. It’s no secret why Clouzot was referred to as the “French Hitchcock”. This flick is full of good old fashion, white-knuckle, edge of your seat nerve.
Our next film from Indian filmmaker Santosh Sivan is “The Terrorist” (1998). This is quite frankly an amazing film about a guerilla fighter (played by the beautiful Ayesha Dharker) who is training for the very prestigious position of suicide bomber. We watch as she prepares for her last days, meticulously counting them down, all the while learning what value life can hold. I picked this movie up completely blind about ten years ago on VHS and have loved it ever since.
For some strange reason, certain contemporaries have and continue to debate the legitimacy of film as its own art form.Many have argued that a movie is nothing more than a filmed play and that entertainment, not art is the only true value of the industry that I love so dearly. Others constantly and snobbishly compare the literature that the film was based on or inspired from. “The book was better” and “The book is always better” are dismissive phrases I’ve heard many times. I doubt any of these people have ever read Peter Benchley’s “Jaws”. Unfortunately, in spite of the many strides the medium has made, there have always been films that I feel give very good clout to these arguments. But before I get into those examples, I think that I should make an attempt at explaining what I think legitimizes film as an art form and what separates it from other mediums.
So let’s see, what are some of the aspects of filmmaking that are specific to film? A screenplay is written but that’s not all that different than writing a book. Plays have a director that orchestrates everything that being shown and they similarly have sets, costumes and less we forget actors. So there you have it, all you really do to make a movie is point a camera at a play where actors a reading some sort of cliff-notes version of a book and presto! There’s your movie….. Or is there more?
The answer of course is yes there’s more to making a film. The first part of filmmaking that dignifies it is my personal favorite thing to talk about, cinematography. In short, it is the collaborative effort of the director and the cinematographer that establishes and maintains the look of the film. The cinematographer serves not only as a technical consultant for camera equipment and lighting, but as an integral artistic voice of the film. He often will be even more capable than the director to answer things like what type and how much lighting is needed to set a certain tone, how an audience will subconsciously react to certain color palettes and why flashbacks sequences are shot in sepia tone. I was a shutterbug in junior high and through high school and it’s that love of captured images that drew me into movies in the first place.
What Vittorio Storaro does in ten seconds of footage in a film like “The Conformist” is just as poetic as anything from Frost, Poe or Shakespeare even.
The combination of lighting and colors on screen in the Christopher Doyle shot film “In The Mood For Love” would have taken Monet’s breath away. And I would also go a step further to point out that Conrad Hall’s camera work in “American Beauty” was the only thing that made that film watchable.
Artistic camera work is nothing new to motion pictures. The great Dutch silent film “The Passion of Joan of Arc” proved this in 1928. Cinematography, the art and science of creating and capturing moving images is not only a craft that requires the workmanship of a Quaker but an art that requires the vision of a Renaissance painter.
So now we’ve looked at just about everything it takes to shoot a film. Unfortunately, all we’re left with after that a piles and piles (or in this age files and files) of uncut footage. This will segway nicely into my next point. The other aspect of filmmaking, specific to the industry and very potentially artistic is editing. Granted, editing a film together could be a process a simple as putting all the scenes together chronologically and throwing out the stuff that seems to negatively affect the tone and pacing the director was going for. But more often than not, the editor of a film is yet one more artist who is there to help the director add more of his or her own personal touches to the finished product. The editing of a film can drastically affect its pace. For instance Darren Aronofsky’s “Requiem for a Dream”, edited by Jay Rabinowitz contained more than 2000 cuts in 102 minutes (the average film contains only 600 – 700 cuts per 100 minutes).
This brought the film to a feverish pace. Aronofsky called his style “hip-hop montage.” Contrast that with the editing of a film like David Fincher’s “Zodiac” cut by Angus Wall. This film was cut together in order to establish and maintain a much slower pace and add tension.
Again, artistic post production is nothing new. The “Odessa steps sequence” of the 1925 Russian silent film “The Battleship Potemkin” is widely regarded as the first use of artistic editing in which the scene is chopped together to build tension.
Well then, 800 words later and I actually haven’t once yet mentioned the film in the title of this article. I guess now is as good a time as any to get to the point. “The Night of the Hunter” (1955) was directed by long time stage actor and director, Charles Laughton. In fact, “The Night of the Hunter” was the only film he ever directed. This film has many of things a great film should have. It’s a great story translated into a very good screenplay and acted out wonderfully by Robert Mitchum, Shelly Winters and Lillian Gish. Some would say its Mitchum’s best performance……. Those people are correct. But wait, a great story told very well with phenomenal acting does not make a great film. It makes a great play.
Notice how, in over two minutes, the camera moves all of once.
Go ahead; look up some more clips of this film. Count the movements per scene. There isn’t much to speak of.
Contrast that with this scene from “Touch of Evil” directed by Orson Welles just three years later. As I mentioned before, artistic camera work is nothing new.
Also notice how painfully obvious it is that Laughton’s film was shot almost entirely on a sound set. I’ll admit, shooting on location was much more challenging back then but directors like Bergman and Kurosawa had been doing it successfully for years.
See this clip from Ingmar Bergman’s “The Seventh Seal” (1957)
And this one from Akira Kurosawa’s “Stray Dog” (1949)
So I guess I’ll start to wrap this up. It took a bit more than I thought to explain why I dislike this very good film and many others like it. In summary, the reason for my indifference is simple: Although “The Night of the Hunter” is (I admit) a very good film, there is nothing inherently cinematic about it. The camera and post production are used merely as stage props.
10. A History Of Violence (2005) – I wasn’t much of a Cronenberg fan until a few years ago. I have always liked Naked Lunch and The Fly and I thought Existenz was pretty interesting but I hadn’t actually given most of his films much of a chance. I would have to say that this is the film that made me want to take a closer look at him and his work. I love the way that this film explores what it means to be “a good guy”. Can we lead a life wholesome enough to erase the skeletons in our closets? Or at least make up for them? Or will we always have to account for our sins? It’s also interesting to note that until a year or so ago, I though his more recent film, Eastern Promises was much better. I think A History Of Violence stands up to multiple viewing much more than perhaps anything else he’s directed. I was amazed at how much more I loved this film after my second and third viewing.
9. The Fall (2006) – Although this film was released theatrically in ’06, it was so limited that most people didn’t see it until its DVD came out in ’08. I recall seeing a trailer for this flick and thinking that it looked beautiful but probably wouldn’t amount to much more than eye candy. I was very pleased to be proven wrong when I finally viewed it. I found it very similar to Pan’s Labyrinth. It is basically a fairy tale seen through a child’s eyes with a very adult theme providing the background for the storytelling. What I think sets this film above Pan’s Labyrinth is its visual style. Director Tarshem (Singh) reportedly spent seven years scouting locations for this film and he found some unbelievable places to shoot. Also, there are almost no special effects in this film. The images are constructed almost entirely by an ingenious use of the camera, lighting and set design.
8. Primer (2004) – This is probably my most personally inspiration film on this list. Director/writer/producer/star, Shane Caruth is a mathematician with no previous experience in filmmaking. For all intents and purposes he reverse engineered the movie making process on a $7,000 budget. What he ended up with is my all time favorite time travel flick. It is unapologetically complex in both its physics and its philosophy. Be forewarned; this is not the type of movie you would want to pop in with a group of friends intending of some background noise and flashy lights. It took me three viewings before I felt like I had completely grasped this film’s timeline and every subsequent viewing brings something new to light.
7. 3-Iron (2005) – This is so far my favorite film from South Korean auteur, Kim Ki-duk. I’ve seen several of his films and have noticed a recurring theme with all of them. He uses very little dialogue while still managing to say a great deal. In this particular film, the lack of dialogue is probably the most drastic and is even used as a plot point. This is really effective because, unlike most foreign language films, you can actually pay more attention to the performances, instead of constantly having to read subtitles. There are two main characters that take the vast majority of the screen time. Their performances are perfect. They are neither too bombastic nor too reserved. They allow the brilliance of the story to unfold leaving no question to the viewer as to what is driving their hearts and minds to the action they take.
6. The Lives Of Others (2006) – This is one of those films that you would show in a class on writing characters.Ulrich Muhe plays a Stasi surveillance officer listening in on an East German playwright he suspects as an enemy of the state. The great thing about his character is not only his personal arc but how it applies to the world he lives in. I think that when writing about this type of subject matter, it’s all too often we simply see the struggle of good and evil told through very archetypical characters. The problem with that type of writing is quite frankly that people are not archetypes.
5. Talk To Her (2002) – The plot synopsis of this film (and a lot of Almodovar’s other work) reads pretty much like a slightly askew soap opera. I really had a hard time believing I would even be remotely interested in this story. Well, it made the list didn’t it? This has to be one of the best examples of why the storyteller is more important than the story. This Spanish drama unfolds before you with some of the most flamboyantly beautiful color palettes ever committed to celluloid. One thing I always consider when I watch a new film, is how well I remember it a few days later. Just because a movie was able to wow me while I was watching it, doesn’t always translate into it becoming one of my favorite flicks. My favorites always leave deep visual impressions on me. When I think of them, a flood of images (ranging from beautiful to disturbing) is always branded into my skull. Think of Captain Willard emerging from the water in Apocalypse Now or Gaear Grimsrud feeding Carl Showalter to the wood chipper in Fargo. These aren’t just scenes of a film, they are immortal images captured by artists while they were at the top of their profession. Watch this film and I think you will see what I am talking about.
4. (Sympathy for) Lady Vengeance (2005) – This film is the third installment of South Korean director, Park Chan-wook’s “Vengeance Trilogy.” The first two include Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and the more popular Oldboy. Although this film is my favorite of the three, I would absolutely suggest that you watch all three in order. It is a “loose trilogy” (no recurring characters or story lines, just a recurring theme) but I really feel like you will get the most out of each film by watching them in the order they were released. That being said, there is a distinct reason I prefer Lady Vengeance over the previous two. All three have a very defined and beautiful aesthetic. All three have brilliant plot twists and reveals that will most defiantly shock and in some cases disgust the viewer. But alas, it is the third act of this film that closes the deal for me. I won’t give anything away, but it was the end of this film that I felt contained the heart and soul that the previous two lacked.
3. A Serious Man (2009) – I think this is my favorite Coen Brothers film since Fargo. And I may actually love this one a bit more as time goes by.The Brothers have a long time been my own personal favorite filmmakers and it’s been a long time since we’ve seen a mood piece by them. This film harkens back to Barton Fink in that the story (although great) seems to take a back seat to tone and atmosphere. I saw this film opening day. I really enjoyed it at first but what struck me was how long the film stayed with me. This movie can be read so many different ways that I won’t get into at right now. I could see some people being unsatisfied with its story but I would say that it’s the journey, not the destination that you will get the most out of. “Accept the mystery.”
2. Amelie (2001) – Jean-Piere Juenet is my favorite European director. He has a very specific style of storytelling that I seem to fall for every time and this film is his most accessible to an American audience. I like to refer to this film as a gateway drug to foreign cinema. On the surface, it’s nothing more than a cute love story told with a healthy dose of French quirk and charm. That’s all well and good but it doesn’t really give you the full picture. Oddities and quirk do not a great film make (you can get that in Garden State.) Like all great art, the devil is in the details. This film gives you an unusually high amount of information and it does it with grace and poise, never loosing track of that which is driving the story forward. I re-watch this flick at least once or twice a year, always concerned that it will lose its allure. Nine years later and I still love it.
1. Inglourious Basterds (2009) – Make no mistake, this film is by no means perfect. There are actually quite a few flaws with it. I thought Eli Roth was particularly bad and I could have done without Brad Pitt’s weird accent. That being said, I absolutely, one-hundred percent loved this film. This is a period piece of revisionist history (revisionist being the operative word). It plays out in a series of five chapters, each one containing its own beginning, middle and end…… But it’s not really that straight-forward. Some critics have claimed that Spielberg’s Jaws was the first film that didn’t use the theater’s proscenium arch. Well, this film not only sees the arch, it spins it around 360 degrees and flips it inside out. It doesn’t just break the fourth wall, at points it replaces it with one of those crazy carnival mirrors that distorts your reflection. I could write quite a bit about this movie but I would like to end with this: This film is about a lot of things and works on and in between many layers. You may like it as a film about war and specifically WWII (which it is). You may like it as a piece of re-imagined historic wish fulfillment (it’s that too). Or a host of other reasons I won’t get into. I love this film because it’s about film………. And I love film.
Cinematic Country Of The Decade – South Korea. I just felt I should mention this. Two films from this country made my top 10 but there is probably 5 more that would make my top 25 (if I were to do so).With filmmakers like the aforementioned Kim Ki-duk and Park Chan-wook you will more than likely always find something of interest. Other films from Kim Ki-duk to check out are Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter………….. & Spring and Samaritan Girl. Park Chan-wook’s first film was JSA – Joint Security Area, a military police procedural that takes place in the DMZ and his latest vampire flick, Thirst are a couple you should throw into your queue right away. Another director that has really taken off is Bong Joon-ho. He gained international notoriety with his first-class monster movie, Host a few years ago. But I actually prefer his earlier film, Memories of Murder, a police drama/murder mystery set in a small rural village. His newest flick, Mother is getting great reviews and I’m anxiously awaiting its DVD release. I couple other notable flicks from South Korea are A Dirty Carnival and Save The Green Planet. A Dirty Carnival is pretty interesting gangster flick that’s about an aspiring filmmaker that’s following around one of his old high-school chums for research on a film he’s writing. Save The Green Planet is completely insane and indescribable in any way shape or form. If you don’t believe me, just watch it and then you try to explain it.
Screenwriter Of The Decade – Charlie Kaufman. It seems to me that the rule of thumb is, the harder it is to describe what the film is about, the more I will love it. This writer made himself known in ’99 with Being John Malkovich. His later films include Adaptation – a film about a screenwriter (Charlie Kaufman) writing an adaptation of the bestselling book, “The Orchid Thief”. He writes instead a screenplay about himself writing the screenplay. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind – a film that largely takes place in the mind of its main character, desperately grasping at the memories he has recently hired a doctor to erase. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind – an adaptation of former Newlyweds game show host, Chuck Barris’ very strange autobiography in which Barris had apparently had a secret double life as a CIA assassin.Synecdoche, New York – This is his latest film and directorial debut about a playwright who seems to have an enormous problem differentiating between his life and the stage.
Director Of The Decade – Park Chan-wook. I think I’ve mentioned this guy enough but I will say that he is definitely not my favorite director of all time. That being said, if you look at his body of work over the past decade, I don’t think any other filmmaker has come close to putting out as consistently good and interesting films. They are both visually striking with beautiful aesthetics and philosophically thought provoking to say the least.
