Favorites Of 1999

[oscar jubis]

1. EYES WIDE SHUT (Stanley Kubrick)
2. AMERICAN BEAUTY (Sam Mendes)
-- BEING JOHN MALKOVICH (Spike Jonze)
-- FANTASIA 2000
-- TOPSY TURVY (Mike Leigh)
6. BOYS DON'T CRY (Kimberly Peirce)
-- THE INSIDER (Michael Mann)
-- THREE KINGS (David O. Russell)
9. GHOST DOG: THE WAY OF THE SAMURAI (Jim Jarmusch)
-- MR. DEATH: THE RISE AND FALL OF FRED A. LEUCHTER, JR. (Errol Morris)
-- THE STRAIGHT STORY (David Lynch)

Runners Up

Magnolia, Besieged, The End of the Affair, Cradle Will Rock, Election, Felicia's Journey, Titus, The Limey, eXistenZ, Limbo, Dick.

[oscar jubis]

1. THE WIND WILL CARRY US (Abbas Kiarostami/ Iran)
2. ROSETTA (Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne/ Begium)
-- TIME REGAINED (Raul Ruiz/ France)
4. ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER (Pedro Almodovar/ Spain)
-- BEAU TRAVAIL (Claire Denis/ France)
6. BUTTERFLY (Jose Luis Cuerda/ Spain)
-- HUMAN RESOURCES (Laurent Cantet/ France)
8. JUAN, I FORGOT, I DON'T REMEMBER (Juan Rulfo/ Mexico)
-- NOWHERE TO HIDE (Lee Myung-se/ S. Korea)
-- YEPETO (Eduardo Calcagno/ Argentina)

Runners Up

Himalaya (Nepal/Fra), The Letter (Portugal), The Color of Paradise (Iran), Crane World (Arg), No One Writes to the Colonel (Mex), Molokh (Russia),Humanite (Fra) Pola X (Fra), Flowers From Another World (Spa), Tell Me Something (S. Kor), Romance (Fra), Goya in Bordeaux (Spa).

[Chris Knipp]

I agree almost totally on your favorites. except I would rate Magnolia up there. I consider it a masterpiece.

[oscar jubis]

P.T. Anderson again? Just had some nice exchanges with H. Tree and Johann about him in the 1997 thread. Actually, posts dealt primarily with Boogie Nights and Hard Eight, which I like but not as much as Magnolia. It's first runner-up which means it could have easily squeezed into the main list. Magnolia is bold, sprawling, and ambitious. And a lot of it works. It has a lot to say, about the ties between fathers and sons, about what can happen to the best laid plans, etc. The performances are something to savor, some very intense but wholly believable. Mr. Cruise's character even works as a critique of aspects of his public persona. But you probably want to know why I don't rate it even higher. Well, I dislike the excessive and somewhat crude cross-cutting between subplots. I wish a number of scenes were allowed to unfold longer rather than get chopped up into shorter segments. You might call it the "MTV" or "music video" effect. It's a sign of the times. Or maybe Mr. Anderson was anxious about (young?) audiences staying alert and engaged for the 3-hour+ duration. I think it detracts from certain scenes achieving maximum dramatic impact. Moreover, I'm not convinced the apocalyptic ending is fully justified.

Aside: I remember reading that that scene in which a guy jumps off the roof to a net that would save him, only to be fatally struck by a bullet as he passed by his apartment's window is based on an actual event. Apparently the guy's mother meant to shoot his father but missed. I don't have confirmation that this actually happened though.

[Chris Knipp]

Come on, man, the rain of frogs is absolutely ridiculous! Not sure it's "justified"? You're being too serious. I am convinced that Anderson is a genious, pretty much a prodigy--and that closing sequence really avoids getting too maudlin, too linear, or too tendentious; it's also incredibly audacious, which is what a prodigy is.. He gets incredible performances out of his actors in Magnolia. Cruise's isn't just a comment on his persona, it's the most edgy and daring and selfless thing he's ever done. You could just go down the list of the cast one by one. I don't get that the scenes are too short. I never thought that. Yes, you can see it as MTV-generation attention-span pacing (why not just call it the energy and impatience of youth?), but all I know is that indeed this was a time when I watched a first run film in a packed mainstream NYC cineplex and nobody moved, and the three hours streaked by. That's all I can say. It works. This symphonic rondo ramble style has become an influence (I think manyh have copied it, possibly Gabriele Muccino in The Last Kiss is one of the more successful examples--so to say one doesn't like it becomes irrelevant, though what one can say is that it has been a bad influence. But when something becomes a bad influence (if that's even true) that doesn't fault the brilliant original.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
This symphonic rondo ramble style has become an influence (-so to say one doesn't like it becomes irrelevant, though what one can say is that it has been a bad influence. But when something becomes a bad influence (if that's even true) that doesn't fault the brilliant original.

I haven't said Magnolia or the narrative structure of it has become a "bad influence" and I'm not about to do it. I would agree that parts of it are "brilliant". But I strongly disagree with calling it an "original". The modern-era model would be Altman's Short Cuts, or perhaps his even more masterful Nashville. Films like Two Days in the Valley ('96) and Magnolia are both products of an established narrative tradition. My favorite films which utilize it are much older: Mikio Naruse's Late Chrysanthemums and that seminal work of film art called Greed, which crosscuts furiously between thematically-linked subplots to breathtaking effect.

[Chris Knipp]

You're quite right; Altman is the starting point, and before Altman others swung back and forth among scenes and situations too. But with young directors Altman is now an influence through Anderson. Magnolia is more of a focal point than Altman. Because in Anderson the method is used with the eye of a new generation.

Gabriele Muccino's The Last Kiss/L'ultimo bacio has frequently been said to have a heavy debt to Magnolia. Indulging in some wordplay one Italian wrote, "Muccino cucina una magnolia all'amatriciana." No doubt about it, Magnolia is a big influence now, and since Anderson is arguably even more self-indulgent than Altman, the influence can't always be for the best.

[wpqx]

My apologies for my obscene absence from this site. I've been without a regular internet connection for about 6 months, and am only now slowly getting back into everything. Although I saw several replies to this topic, I only saw the two lists from Oscar. I've been slowly putting together top tens from every year from about 1927 on up, but this is a slow project that I may never finish. I did throw a quick 1999 list together. This might get altered soon, because Werner Herzog is absolutely mesmerizing in Julien Donkey-Boy. I'm relatively familiar with all the films on Oscar's main list, but as you can see from mine, we have few agreements.

For the record I picked international release dates whenever possible, otherwise other films would have made this list.

1. Magnolia (Anderson)
2. Fight Club (Fincher)
3. Toy Story 2 (Lasseter)
4. South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (Parker)
5. American Beauty (Mendes)
6. Three Kings (Russell)
7. Election (Payne)
8. The Emperor and the Assassin (Kaige)
9. The Matrix (Wachowksi)
10. Bringing Out the Dead (Scorsese)

I know some of my choices might seem odd, but they're mine. Some people have disliked Fight Club, but perhaps I've given it far more chances than the average man. Its one of the few times I've actually read the book, and on top of that I've seen the movie at least 6 times, and I think it's a near perfect realization. South Park however tops the list in terms of most times seen, and I can't even begin to count how many. As far as Magnolia, I think Chris said pretty much everything I would have.

As for what's left out, my first runner up would be Norman Jewison's The Hurricane, and then probably Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. Both Kubrick's film as well as Almodovar's All About My Mother are the two films from the year I'd most like to revisit. I'm bad with foreign films from the year, and in particular French movies, so there's nothing about this list that's permanent.

[oscar jubis]

Welcome back. I missed ya, wpqx.
I'm curious about your take on Fight Club. I'm taking about any message/ implications of the narrative/meaning/subtext, any of that.
The South Park movie got close to making my list because of the socio-political satire, but there's also a childish side to it (joys of farting and saying fuck,etc.).

[Chris Knipp]

Welcome back from me too. Yours is more of a young person's list. And since I'm very far from a young person, my list would be different, but I'm big on Magnolia and Three Kings. I used to be big on American Beauty. It doesn't seem to have the zing it had at first.. Fight Club sure is a movie you have to look at, Matrix also.

[wpqx]

Yeah but Michael McDonald singing "Up There" makes it all seem worth it. I'll admit that the childish side of South Park is what initially won me over. I never laughed harder in my life than the first time I saw this in the theater.

Fight Club to me is all about masculinity. Its a story about a generation of men raised by women who are trying to find their own male voice. They grew up without any real father figures and they're trying to "be men". The story of course progresses to how men can be led like sheep and how too much testosterone can be quite literally destructive. Watching the film again you notice how clever certain devices are. The film got almost no notice when it came out considering everyone thought the great "surprise" ending was The Sixth Sense. Fight Club's ending was a little more inventive, and I think a tougher task to pull off.

Palahniuk's book says a hell of a lot about the modern man. I really think his writing has captured a side of the male gender never better represented. But on the other hand his book isn't all about fucking and getting drunk which people generally assume is all men think about or do. Not a single person watches a sports game, and aside from Marla there are no females, the only other one given a name is Chloe ("Who looks like Joni Mitchell's skeleton"). I'll admit the message of the movie has gotten a little misinterpreted by groups of guys beating the shit out of each other in basements. The book and film is just as much about searching for your masculine voice as it is a tale of thinking for yourself and avoiding blind consumerism. The mindless "space monkeys" are simply cogs in the wheel. Palahniuk's book ends a lot more interestingly. We're left to believe that "Tyler" has woken up, realized who he is himself, and will put a stop to Project Mayhem and all its misguided mischief. In the book however his creation becomes something much greater and bigger than himself, and there is no way of stopping it. I don't know if I'm shedding light onto anything new regarding the film, but the way it's executed, the dialogue, the wonderful interior monologues make the film a joy to watch over and over again. The book too can easily be finished in a day as well.

[Chris Knipp]

I agree it can be rewatched -- on a plane anyway. But when I first saw it I thought the ending was a cheat, too tricky.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by wpqx
Fight Club to me is all about masculinity. Its a story about a generation of men raised by women who are trying to find their own male voice.
Palahniuk's book says a hell of a lot about the modern man. I really think his writing has captured a side of the male gender never better represented. I'll admit the message of the movie has gotten a little misinterpreted by groups of guys beating the shit out of each other in basements. The book and film is just as much about searching for your masculine voice as it is a tale of thinking for yourself and avoiding blind consumerism. The mindless "space monkeys" are simply cogs in the wheel. Palahniuk's book ends a lot more interestingly. We're left to believe that "Tyler" has woken up, realized who he is himself, and will put a stop to Project Mayhem and all its misguided mischief. In the book however his creation becomes something much greater and bigger than himself, and there is no way of stopping it.

Disdainful of films directed by music-video veterans like Fincher, I approached Se7en with low expectations and was instantly smitten. It's been a series of disappointments ever since. Fight Club perhaps the most frustrating because of high production values and obvious technical skills. I do like the bits about "blind consumerism" and "cogs in the wheel", but since I believe strongly that what males need is MORE female influence and less alpha-male crap (war heroism, Darwinism, etc), I find the testoterone-fueled content on the verge of being offensive (misogynism, etc). I don't think that the message of the film has gotten "misinterpreted by groups of guys", I think this is a direct consequence of choices made by the filmmakers. Perhaps the book is indeed partly about "how too much testosterone can be destructive", but the film seems worried that the target demographic won't be interested in that message. Ebert called it "macho porn".

[Chris Knipp]

"Macho porn"? Well.... There's lots of macho porn, but this is intelligent macho porn, with ideas. I should thinjk the exploration of two sides of a personality would interest you, as a psychologist. I'm surprised at your sayiing you were "smitten" with "Se7ven," as if that were a love affair. I found it repulsive in the estreme, though its kind of psychological ultra-violence has become an influence. Michel Gondry and others came out of video, I don't think it's useful to condemn people for such beginnings, any more than it would be worthwhile to condemn filmmakers or actors for coming out of TV..

Just a couple of comments to show I'm listening.

[HorseradishTree]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
But when I first saw it I thought the ending was a cheat, too tricky.


Trust me, the ending in the book was much worse, although it ultimately does a better job of conveying ideas than the film.

While I love Fight Club, I hate its fan base for the most part, because they think it's about getting out of one's societal shell and doing what they want. But it's ultimately about the failure of this system and the need for some small sort of established order in order to progress. Ebert said it was trying to be one thing, but ended up being fascist. I think it's about the dangers of anarchy vs. fascism.

[HorseradishTree]

double post :(

[Chris Knipp]

Clearly Fight Club touches nerves for men of the younger generation especially, more than I guess I realized. It can be read several different ways.... I thought it was about a Walter Mitty character , an office-nerd fantasy of a man who wanted to bring out his inner cool macho risk-taker. The pairing of the rakish, sexy, muscular Pitt with the relatively bland Edward Norton is brilliant, and archetypal. Howevder much he can b uilk up and wear fake tattoos and do American History X's., Norton exudes suburban whiteness, whereas Pitt is able to seem wild and potentially violent and quite often funny in his best roles. Isn't the book about overcoming a sense of being emasculated -- isn't that what you meant by talking about a generation of men "raised by women"? This is a cultural issue, and varies from society to society. The men in any oppressed society feel emasculated, but white Americans are cock of the walk but they feel, maybe, emasculated. Straight white American guys seem to be afraid of seeming gay, but there are societies where the men are not at all afraid of being thought gay. What is that about? Fight Club seems to deal with issues like that.

The easy trick exaplanation at the end of the movie makes it seem hokey to me, but the movie is interesting for what it represents as a phenomenon.

[wpqx]

Anarchy is an appealing concept to a lot of people, at least young ones. This film takes that concept and works with it, and ultimately betrays it. Anarchy doesn't work, but I wouldn't call it plain anarchy here because there is a rigid structure to their organization. The goal of the book was more about erasing history (the target was a museum not credit card companies). At its base level however I do think the film says a lot about finding ourselves, and the film is a clear illustration of this, and we're left to feel that Tyler/Cornellius/whoever has emerged from this knowing more about his real self and finding some sort of voice. I honestly didn't catch any references in the book or movie towards homosexuality or homophobia, but I realize Chris looks at things from a different point of view than I do. Perhaps the best representation of the film's "positive" message is the scene where they take the convenience store clerk out back and put a gun to his head. He takes his driver's license and explains that he'll be dead if he isn't en route to living his dream. When Tyler says that tomorrow's cup of coffee will taste better than anything you and I will ever have, you realize he does have a point, and I think that this film is trying in some way to encourage some sense of direction and purpose in a generation that's well fed, over stimulated, and desensitized.

[Chris Knipp]

I wan't alluding to homosexuality or homophobia per se, but to straight males' concern about issues of masculinity, which my theory is maybe white American males may have more than some other cultures and countries.
The Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_Club) on Fight Club is an indication of all the interest in the ideas and there it says
Several individuals in various locations of the United States (and possibly in other countries), ranging from teenagers to people in technical careers, have set up their own fight clubs based on the one mentioned in the novelbut is it in other countries? I'm curious if it is restricted to Anglo-Saxon countries, or whatever. This is my theory, that it's a cultural thing, not universal. But I'm just curious.

Anarcny is always betrayed, isn't it, and has to be as long as the social contract survives? How can you be true to anarchy for long and still exist in the world and in society? Yet playing with anarchy is a way of getting in touch with the primitive parts of you and the frontier experience, gettting closer to the edge.

[HorseradishTree]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp


Anarcny is always betrayed, isn't it, and has to be as long as the social contract survives? How can you be true to anarchy for long and still exist in the world and in society? Yet playing with anarchy is a way of getting in touch with the primitive parts of you and the frontier experience, gettting closer to the edge.

Essentially, what you always end up with is a conservative government. Anarchy simply isn't in the veins of humanity's current direction. The only way anarchy can be achieved is by a complete lack of care for anyone else in anyone. If one person starts compromising his goals in order to fit someone else into the picture, there's an established society right there.

[Chris Knipp]

Indeed. But sometimes you end up with a liberal government.

[HorseradishTree]

See, this is the type of stuff that becomes circular.

An ideal liberal goverment has no rules whatsoever because everyone feels inclined to help one another anyway.

[Chris Knipp]

The way you're using "liberal government," then, it's an oxymoron.

"A government is a body that has the authority to make and the power to enforce laws."

[HorseradishTree]

I'm sorry. I'm confusing even myself now.

[Chris Knipp]

It happens. These abstract ideas are confusing. But interesting topics.

[Johann]

I highly recommend Chion's BFI classics book on Eyes Wide Shut.

That guy has insights that I never even considered in that book.

He goes in depth about things like Doppelgangers (how many sentences and words are said twice), about how this is one of the most perfectly acted films in the history of cinema (the right, perfect nuance at any given moment), about how Kubrick is driving home the idea that our eyes are WIDE and SHUT- not just the characters: remember Nicole's line at the beginning of the film? You're not even looking at it.

When you watch Eyes Wide Shut are you LOOKING at it?

Kubrick has full frontal nudity- are you looking at it? or are you diverting your eyes? Are your eyes shut?

Are you a spectator? a voyeur? Conscious?

[oscar jubis]

Coming from the Stanley Kubrick expert on site, it's a major recommendation. I know Eyes Wide Shut has yet to reveal all its glories to me after two viewings (enough to realize it's the best movie of 1999 though). My library doesn't carry Chion's book so I bought a used copy today at Amazon. I thank you very much for sharing.

[Johann]

You're very very welcome.

We can't ever forget the Master.

Your eyes will be widened with Chion's book.
He's thinks Eyes Wide Shut & Barry Lyndon are Kubrick's best films. Can't argue with that...

It's a small book, but it's jammed from cover to cover with intellectual (illuminating) & relevant info.

It's the best book I've read on the movie.

He also tells us why Tom Cruise's performance is remarkable.
That role goes against his whole "persona".
He's homogenic, he speaks and acts slowly, etc..
I can see why Tom got an ulcer making the film.


There's a line in Barry Lyndon that corresponds with Nicole's in EWS:

Nora Brady to Redmond:
You haven't looked properly

[Chris Knipp]

It's a small book. . . I'm starting to get interested too. And I agree on Cruise.

[wpqx]

I plan on eventually revisiting Eyes Wide Shut, as well as all of Kubrick's films, but it might take awhile. If I find that book I'll most likely check it out.

[Sano]

Boy, this is a very difficult year. Lots of great films, so this list has to be taken with a grain of salt.


1. Pola X (Les Carax / France, Switzerland, Germany, Japan)
2. Being John Malkovich (Spike Jonze / USA)
3. Sweet and Lowdown (Woody Allen / USA)
4. Human Resources (Laurent Cantet / France, UK)
5. Jesus' Son (Alison Maclean / Canada, USA)
6. The Wind will carry us (Abbas Kiarostami / Iran, France)
7. Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson / USA)
8. Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick / USA, UK)
9. Bringing out the Dead (Martin Scorsese / USA)
10. Balkan baroque (Pierre Coulibeuf / France)

[oscar jubis]

Eyes Wide Shut and The Wind Will Carry Us are masterful and I'm glad to find them on your list. You do like Woody Allen, don't you? Did you watch Rosetta by the Dardennes?

[Sano]

I like Woody Allen, but not as much as it might apeear. I'm one of the very few people (Ih ope there ARE OTHERS) who thinks that Sweet and Lowdown and Celebrity are the two best films from the 15 films of his I've seen so far. But I'd like to rewatch Celebrity. Last time I saw it, I liked it even more than its inspiration, La dolce vita by Fellini. The cinematography is just masterful. I think it was the last film Sven Nyqvist shot...

I saw Rosetta, and though i liked it a lot, I didn't find it as masterful as the majority of people. I enjoyed their subsequent "Le fils" (2002) much more. Haven't seen L'enfant yet, and La Promesse is sitting on my shelf for a long time now. So many films, so little time ;-)

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Sano
But I'd like to rewatch Celebrity. Last time I saw it, I liked it even more than its inspiration, La dolce vita by Fellini.

You've certainly managed to raise my bushy eyebrows as high as they can go.

The cinematography is just masterful. I think it was the last film Sven Nyqvist shot...

Nykvist's last lensing job was Peter Yates' Curtain Call.

[Chris Knipp]

I would second Oscar on Celebrity--pretty forgettable.

[oscar jubis]

Your eyes will be widened with Chion's book.
He's thinks Eyes Wide Shut & Barry Lyndon are Kubrick's best films. Can't argue with that...

It's a small book, but it's jammed from cover to cover with intellectual (illuminating) & relevant info.

It's the best book I've read on the movie.

He also tells us why Tom Cruise's performance is remarkable.
That role goes against his whole "persona".
He's homogenic, he speaks and acts slowly, etc..
I can see why Tom got an ulcer making the film.

Well you were right. Chion's book on EYES WIDE SHUT is everything you say it is. Thanks.

On another note, that refers to my original topic of Best Films of 1999: I have changed my opinion about a film I listed as #5 in the foreign-language list: HUMANITE (Bruno Dumont/ France). I watched the film again tonight. I still think Dumont is a very interesting filmmaker and I hope to catch up with his last two films soon. I still appreciate the absurdist touches in the film and I find reasons to justify the close-ups of vaginas some may find gratuitous. My issue is that I don't believe in the protagonist. Rosenbaum's admiring review states: "I'll concede that he's not entirely believable...", which is for me is a serious flaw given his constant presence, centrality to the narrative, etc. The '99 foreign list has been edited to mark this change of opinion.
I still think EYES WIDE SHUT and THE WIND WILL CARRY US were the best in cinema that year.

[Johann]

I agree.

And I'm glad you read Chion's BFI book- it sits on a shelf in my house with pride.
BTW, can I buy your book from you directly? Signed? :)

[oscar jubis]

So nice of you to show interest in it. I'd send you a signed book but all that's left is my own copy. Martel's trilogy is definitely a must-watch and well worth studying. The book is a revised version of a thesis I wrote in 2009 which I insisted on making available for free because of the institutional pricing adopted by the publisher.
Free download here:
http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_theses/234/

My most recent publication consists of a couple of essays included in this book, released 2 mos. ago on Intellect Press:
http://www.amazon.com/Directory-World-Cinema-France-IB/dp/1841505633
If you like French cinema, or are curious about it, I highly and prejudicially recommend it.

I am in the tortuous process of writing a second book, with the very provisional title:
Freedom and Closure in Modernist Cinema: Antonioni/Resnais/Duras/Haneke/Martel
I expect to finish it next spring and then submit to editors and peers for review.
If all goes well, that is.

[Johann]

Fair enough.
I don't think I'd have enough to say to fill out a whole book, on one film one director or many.
So Bravo to you for being able to do it!

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for this info, Oscar. I'll look into the open access 2009 download. Have you written about Antonioni, or is that coming?

[oscar jubis]

Thanks Chris and Johann. I've written an introduction and I'm about 20 pages into the Antonioni chapter. I've read a lot of Antonioni material lately and perhaps the key Antonioni debate in film studies is how one should read the images he uses to narrate. There is a group who advocates reading the images as simple metonyms, which goes hand in hand with thinking of him as a realist/documentarist director vs. others who advocate a more symbolic and metaphorical approach to interpretation that think of M.A. predominantly as a visual poet. There are many nuances to this issue, but I explain it in a dialectic, either/or fashion for the sake of clarity.

[Chris Knipp]

I'd be interested in seeing what you have to say about Antonioni. Is your topic still ambiguous endings? He was the sort of artist who must have been conscious of metaphorical implications, I should think, though the problem is, who decides what they are? Sometimes I guess Wittgenstein's famous "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" has to apply.

[oscar jubis]

Very conscious indeed about metaphorical implications. The idea was not to have to impose voice-over narration or dialogue on characters who in reality would not be fully conscious of their feelings/conditions or able to put them into words. So Antonioni's impetus is not to use classic conventions of drama to put words into characters' mouths but to find visual correlatives for these emotions, hence the desire to utilize visual symbolism and other techniques to make images signify in and of themselves. You would not want to ignore this type of material in his movies.
My position is that metonymic versus symbolic reading is an either/or fallacy or a false dilemma. Thus it is a matter of moderation.
If you want to look at the Antonioni chapter, I can send you a first draft next month.

[Chris Knipp]

Okay, I'll be glad to look at it and comment.

[oscar jubis]

Thanks. It's the first draft "dissertation version", before four critiques and revisions. I could also wait and send it when it has gone through the fire...

[Chris Knipp]

No you can send it early.

[oscar jubis]

Thanks Chris.
Here's a post about the book on French Cinema published this year that includes a couple of my essays:
http://subtitleliterate.blogspot.com/2013/03/book-plug-directory-of-world-cinema.html

[Chris Knipp]

Directory of World Cinema: France (IB - Directory of World Cinema) Paperback
by Tim Palmer (Editor) , Charlie Michael (Editor)

The writer of the blog Marc St.-Cyr gives titles of a couple essays he contributed. But Neither the blog entry nor the Amazon listing gives names of other essays or of their authors.

[oscar jubis]

You can find the contents on the third page down, and the list of films reviewed by clicking here and scrolling down almost to the end:
http://books.google.com/books?id=D12koXm378AC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Chris Knipp]

It seems to find your name I have to go to page 192!

[oscar jubis]

My name is also in another essay that appears earlier in the book but not included in this sample, and in the list of contributors which is included, I thing it's page 321. Currently I have only one assignment (because of the dissertation): a review of Sacha Guitry's Le poison for Film International journal (Pub. date is April 2014).