2007: The Year In Film

[oscar jubis]

The first question that comes to mind when writing a year-end piece about the movies we watched is whether it was a good or bad year. When it comes to movies from around the globe, so much depends on what gets distributed and when. It's more prudent and realistic to limit the discussion to English-language films, particularly American ones. Well I thought 2006 was somewhat weak and 2007 clearly above average. Matters of personal taste are obviously not irrelevant. But I propose that there's something healthy and vibrant about a film industry that produces uncompromising, relatively daring movies like I'm Not There, Into the Wild, Margot at the Wedding, There Will Be Blood, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

More good news. I will remember 2007 fondly as the year in which maverick African-American director Charles Burnett finally got his due. Many critics included his debut Killer of Sheep (1977) in their top 10 lists. I decided to exclude it on technical terms because the film did have commercial runs (albeit isolated) in the 1980s. It was the best American film I saw all year. His second, somewhat less impressive feature, My Brother's Wedding, was never distributed until 2007. Both were subsequently released on dvd by Milestone (bravo!) and shown recently on Turner Classic Movies along with four Burnett shorts.

*Predominant Themes

There were three brilliant films about aging and the care of infirm elders: Sarah Polley's Away from Her, Starting Out in the Evening and The Savages. There were also more likable, even heroic, nerds as movie protagonists than ever before, a trend that goes back a few years. Perhaps it's more pertinent and stimulating to discuss war and murder.

The American mainstream has finally and resolutely condemned the war in Iraq and Hollywood took notice. Rendition, Redacted, Lions for Lambs, and In the Valley of Elah came out but they barely made a blip at the box office. Come to think about it, those movies about aging didn't exactly attract much of a crowd. One can make a case that most people watch movies to escape the daily grind, to be diverted from anything problematic. Perhaps these "serious" war movies were not all that good. I thought all four were worth watching, although only In the Valley of Elah fully succeeds as a dramatic motion picture.

What about murder, and its relationship to war? Let's see... the three movies atop the 2007 Village Voice/LA Times poll happen to be: There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, and Zodiac. J. Hoberman made some interesting comments about the poll results (excerpt below):

" They're movies about natural born killers—American even if played by foreigners, and charismatic too: Daniel Day-Lewis, the star of There Will Be Blood, handily won Best Actor, with Javier Bardem, star of No Country, named Best Supporting Actor. (The never-quite-identified Zodiac killer may be all the more charismatic because, as Fincher makes amply apparent, he's as much an obsession as a person.)
Why shouldn't we be preoccupied with homicidal sociopaths? America's been at war for the past four and a half year. War makes you wonder what exactly defines murder and who is enabled to commit it. The morally ambiguous mode known as film noir was born during World War II and, as Jonathan Rosenbaum observed at the time, the national obsession with the cannibal genius Hannibal Lecter coincided with our first Iraq adventure, Operation Desert Storm. Where do these current killers come from? It's suggestive that both There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men were shot in mid-Texas Bush country. It's even more provocative that none of these killers show the slightest remorse—just plumb evil, I guess."

In my opinion, there was no better sign of America's fascination with homicidal sociopaths than the delirious fawning over Javier Bardem's performance as serial killer Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. Bardem is going to need a special room to store all the bling. He will win the Oscar too; other nominees need not bother preparing an acceptance speech. I ask: what makes his performance superior to those by Casey Affleck, Tom Wilkinson, Vincent Cassel, Hal Holbrook, and others? It's certainly not a role that demands much tonal range out of an actor. To quote Hoberman, his Chigurh is just "plumb evil".
I happen to be a fan of Bardem. I watched his debut performance when The Ages of Lulu (1990) had its American premiere at the Miami Film Festival, and I was there at the premiere of Jamon, Jamon (1993), the film that introduced Bardem and Penelope Cruz to Americans. I just don't think this performance deserves such accolades and I see its reception as symptomatic.

~~~~~~~~~~

In criticism, Jonathan Rosenbaum announced his semi-retirement from The Reader and J. Hoberman survived the unwelcome changes at The Voice (I am tentatively impressed, however, by newcomer Jim Ridley).

By far the worst piece of writing about cinema I came across appeared in Time magazine. It concerned the decreased viewership of the telecast of Oscars. Richard Corliss believes that this is a significant problem that can be quickly solved if the Academy nominates movies "that people have actually seen". He basically wants the Oscars to become the People's Choice Awards. Shrek the Third for Best Movie?!

[Chris Knipp]

The good news; the bad news; good year for film, bad year for film; well, okay.....time will tell. Your head-shaking over No Country for Old Men is the only thing I think is wrongheaded on your part. I don't think it reflects America's fascination with homocidal sociopaths really. It reflects Cormac McCarthy's concern with a new kind of homocidal sociopath (circa 1980) in a novel published in 2005. On the other hand I'll grant you that other performances are good. I guess Bardem's character is simply more unique, riveting, and memorable. Wilkinson's is more like a person one might like to meet, or know, that's for darn sure. Holbrook's performance is very moving. I can't guess why Cassel is nominated. Good luck to him. I was pleased to see Casey Affleck's breakthroughs.

I guess I don't like all these categories but the thing that strikes me is how fallacious the distinction between best actor and best supporting actor often is.

The levels of importance of various characters vary from one story/film to another. You don't have two categories, lead and supporting. It's not that simple.

Otherwise you're just mostly reiterating things you've already said here. Your views on this site are well known as is your admiration for Hoberman and Rosenbaum. It would be a surprise if you started to quote somebody else a lot.

Rendition, Redacted, Lions for Lambs, and In the Valley of Elah are none of them very strong films, though the last one is the best by a good margin; but th others are pretty lousy, really, from what I've heard (I haven't seen Rendition). I wonder if Kimbaerly Pierce's STOP LOSS will be more well attended and more effective as a critique of current American militarism? I hope so. Coming in late March.

[oscar jubis]

I did my "head-shaking over" No Country on its thread and didn't feel the need to repeat myself. I'm ok with the fact most people think it's great. My comments here deal specifically with the fascination with Spanish actor Javier Bardem's performance in the context of America's less-than-healthy obsession with violence in general and serial killers in particular. Even if we assume that these movies about psychopaths are the best of the year, one can still argue that the fact that filmmakers become inspired by and interested in this type of character in marked disproportion to their numbers among the population is a phenomenon worth bringing up.


You're right about the difficulty and inaccuracy of classifying performances into lead and supporting categories. The purpose is to celebrate excellent performances that might otherwise go unrewarded because of their comparatively short duration or importance within the narrative.

I don't think Vincent Cassel is nominated for Oscar. I think he should have been.

[Chris Knipp]

Can't imagine why you think that about Vincent Cassel. I found his performance rather embarassing. He was so good in Read My Lips/Sur mes levres. And in other French things.

With No Country for Old Men you seem to be confusing a character and plot elements with the point of view of the whole. It seems pretty simple to make this distinction. It also relates to the issue of a distinction between liking something and recognizing its artistic merit. I can't imagine liking everything from every period in the world of art and decoration, but I can imagine learning how to recognize merit in styles and periods I don't like. Approving a film containing violence doesn't constitute approval of violence. What exactly is healthy and unhealthy about this whole country is a big subject It seems that in Japan there's been a taste for entertainment with ultra-violent content but there is a relative lack of violent crime; if that is your concern here in considering American intersts in violent behavior "unhealthy." But pop sociology seems a questionable topic to dabble in. Our politicians and our administration are things I'm more willing to generalize about I suppose. I'd be more concerned about the sucking up the the NRA than what kind of movies people flock to.

[oscar jubis]

We just disagree about Vincent Cassel's performance, don't we? I don't want to reprise an exchange we already had in the NCFOM thread. As I said before,. what my opening essay here broaches is not the merits of the film and only obliquely the merits of the performance. It deals with the cultural reception to Bardem's performance relative to many other performances that were, at worst, equally impressive. You don't have to reply about what you call "pop sociology" if you don't wish to dabble on it. I personally find Hoberman's theory that Americans become more "preoccupied with homicidal psychopaths" during wartime quite intriguing and fascinating. Any pop sociologists out there?

[tabuno]

I too didn't think much of 2006 as a movie year, but I was surprised by the strength of movies that came out of 2007. I didn't think the movie industry had the imagination or ability to really produce en mass quality films any more. I was wrong.

I enjoyed most of the films I saw in 2007. There were a few big disappointments for me: THE GOLDEN COMPASS, INTO THE WILD, A MIGHTY HEART, MICHAEL CLAYTON, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

On the other hand there were plenty of entertaining movies, an abundance of movies that I felt were worth the price of a first run theater ticket. I enjoyed watching these films just to be swept away and escape for a moment, including: BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD, BEOWULF, ENCHANTED, HAIRSPRAY, THE LAST MIMZY, LUCKY YOU, THE MARTIAN CHILD, NO RESERVATIONS, SHOOTER, THE SIMPSON'S MOVIE, SUNSHINE, SWEENEY TODD, WAR, ZODIAC.

Yet what made the year even more delicious were the numbers (more than half of the movies I saw) I felt were decent, quality movies, both independent and mainstream movies. Of particular note:

AUGUST RUSH - The family drama about the power of music.

EASTERN PROMISES - A solid, character-driven movie that didn't even make my top ten list so good were the movies this year.

EVENING - A good movie about death and dying.

I KNOW WHO KILLED ME - An easily overlooked and panned movie that underneath really did have a decent and meaningful storyline and authentic performance by someone who really would know.

LARS AND THE REAL GIRL - An amazingly fascinating and sensitive look at mental illness.

MARGOT AT THE WEDDING - A great movie that really reveals the family dynamics in a compelling and fascinating way.

MR. BROOKS - An overlooked quality performance by Kevin Costner as a bad guy.

MUSIC AND LYRICS - One of the best romantic, musical comedies to come out in years - again didn't make my top ten just because of the great movies this year.

YOU KILL ME - A delightful Ben Kingsley movie about a hit man with an alcohol problem - a rather complicated but funny and meaningful movie.

Finally, the best for last - this year saw some brilliant movies, some of the best I've seen in years - a number breaking through to a new level of movie-making standards. The increasing cinematographic detailing, the rich use of sound effects, editing, set design, lighting have given rise this year to a new level of movie-making. There is a richness in a number of new films that correspond to the HD movement coming next year. There is a vibrancy and visceral excitement that captures the fullness of the film experience - this is especially apparent with: ATONEMENT and THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD.

1408 brought a new level of horror design, film-making experience, densely layered cinematic experience to this genre.

Four mainstream movies brought a rich level of authenticity and relevant, meaningful movie magic to important societal issues dealing with them in emotional and compelling ways for the popular audience: NANNY DIAIRES, SPIDERMAN 3 and INVASION, and PREMONITION. I continue to believe that mainstream movies are becoming serious contenders for valid and cinematic credit and recognition.

Finally the other quality movies that could be best movies in their own right if it had been another year consisted of: GONE BABY GONE, BREACH (an overlooked movie that came out early in 2007 in February - Chris Cooper in my mind was the real evil persona person of the year not Javier Bardem), and ACROSS THE UNIVERSE.

[oscar jubis]

I think I had more "common ground" with you in 2007 than with any other fellow FilmLeafer. Perhaps it has to do with our shared professional field. Anyway, it looks like Into the Wild is our only serious taste discrepancy. I value your bringing up some movies I enjoyed which didn't get into my list. I regret not finding room for Breach or Zodiac for instance, or for Chris Cooper among favorite performances.

I'm curious if you've ever come across someone like the Lars character. I've worked in mental health for 24 years, 10 of those in community mental health. I met many folks diagnosed with Delusional Disorder but none who had a single, persistent delusion of such bizarre content. The extremely benign community reaction to it was more like a wish-fulfillment fantasy than an attempt to expose, confront, and find humor in anything that resembles reality, I thought.

[tabuno]

oscar jubis

I think I had more "common ground" with you in 2007 than with any other fellow FilmLeafer. Perhaps it has to do with our shared professional field. Anyway, it looks like Into the Wild is our only serious taste discrepancy.

I don't want to create any disturbance in the force, but I looked back on my review of INTO THE WILD. I spent a good deal of contemplation over this movie apparently and I believe it's worth sharing regardless of the impact it might have on the positive energy fields that exist in the movie critics corner:

"Until the overly emotionally wrought-movie's ending, INTO THE WILD held little in the way of redeeming value. Though gorgeous and almost visually stunning, Sean Penn is pretentious and overly excessive in his use of photographic and cinematic techniques. He unnecessarily tries to impress the audience with his apparent ability and knowledge of all the variety of camera work available to him, unfortunately, the diversity and various uses of his art become a distraction in itself, particularly when Christoper McCandless visits a love tourist stop in which Penn uses almost a documentary-style visual approach to the scene that is completely different from other styles he used in the other portions of the movie. The frequent scattering and non-linear, flashbacks, flashforwards isn't always pleasant trip, making the audience having to twist and turn in ways that really detract from the main themes of the movie. Instead of allowing the audience just to immerse themselves into the story, they are forced into a roller-coaster ride of almost dream-like snatches of experience that never truly gel into a satisfying experience. Never is the audience allowed to truly grasp the depth of the McCandless' parent's transformation, from their beginning to their ending. Vince Vaughn, probably, has the most authentic, and delightful role in the movie, where his acting is on full display that eschews any of Vaughn's typical character stereotype. The fascinating threads that Sean does present are interesting with the continual focus on relationships throughout the movie that McCandless is exposed to but never truly succeeds in being able to experience himself. There are lukewarm inferences of emotional tragedy or regard that are far better demonstrated in Dr. Zhivago (a book that McCandless actually reads in the movie) where that movie has a lingering, haunting scene of Dr. Zhivago's love leaving his life forever in a sleigh and becomes smaller and smaller until it's just a dot on the horizon before fading completely away as Dr. Zhivago desperately tries to climb up into the house's top window and looks out at the last glimmer of his love life. The jet airplumes in the movie, are much more suggestive in 24 Days After, a movie where a biological contaminated Britain is wiped out and it is only the airplumes overhead that suggest not as in INTO THE WILD of civilization to runaway from but civilization that saves. There is the moose killing that is so disrespectful of nature and the land. There is the reckless disregard for taking responsibility of freedom, taking advantage to not conforming to the rules of society. Most of the movie appears to be an over-glorification of the wild, rugged, individual man seeking his own identity and freedom, yet, it avoids the more harsh realities that McCandless also likely experienced along the way."



oscar jubis

I'm curious if you've ever come across someone like the Lars character. I've worked in mental health for 24 years, 10 of those in community mental health. I met many folks diagnosed with Delusional Disorder but none who had a single, persistent delusion of such bizarre content. The extremely benign community reaction to it was more like a wish-fulfillment fantasy than an attempt to expose, confront, and find humor in anything that resembles reality, I thought.

Unfortunately, I am just settling into my "new" career as a social worker and I haven't had as many years to see many really seriously mentally ill individuals. Perhaps, as with any movie, the composite dramatization of a character such as Lars could be the ideal type of mental disorder that is being presented as if such a person walked out of the DSM-IV (mental health diagnosis manual). However, this is not to say that this characterization is unbelievable or distorted by any means. In fact, Lars is presented with respect and sensitivity with the mental illness attributes that therapist have come to experience over the years.

[Chris Knipp]

LARS--NOt to be taken literally. Hence quesitons of whether or not one has encoutnered such patients (which anyway would neet to be balanced against collective experience) aren't altogether essential, though they may explain why your background gets in the way of enjoying the flick. And to you, my statement that this is more of a fable may be unacceptable.

INTO THE WILD--
There is the moose killing that is so disrespectful of nature and the land. There is the reckless disregard for taking responsibility of freedom, taking advantage to not conforming to the rules of society. However sensible this is as an evaluation of the behavior of Chris McAndless in his wilderness experience, it's a judgment of him, not the movie. Always beariing in mind that the movie is based on Jon Krakauer's book, which attempts to be a factual account.

I like Vince Vaughan too. That is a fine moment. But I love Hal Holbrook, and Catherine Keener, and almost everything.

[tabuno]

I don't mind judging a movie based on its message. Oftentimes, movies do have some dramatic theme that a producer or writer deliberately intends to incorporate into a movie. CRASH and TRAFFIC come to mind, SCHINDIER'S LIST is another. Even movies such as BRAZIL and BLADERUNNER have some message as regards human existence. Yet when it comes to INTO THE WILD, just as Sean Penn's seeming preoccupation with showing off his cinematic abilities, so too the character of Emile Hirsh seems to reflect those idealistic male attributes creating this so-called male, macho movie from Ivy League, closeted, intellectual to independent, liberated, strong, and bull-headed man - so much so that he succumbs to the force of nature. In one respect, this movie ends in a similar way as ATONEMENT, but in ATONEMENT there is even a greater ironic emotional catharsis - a lasting haunting of a living healing process and an attempt at redemption. INTO THE WILD is blunt like a man whereas ATONEMENT is indirect and subtle - a lingering emotional wound that doesn't die quickly like a woman. It's been said that women would prefer the physical pain (INTO THE WILD's physical death) to the emotional pain (ATONEMENT's emotional guilt). Preferably I feel it much more difficult cinematically to present the indirect emotional infliction of hurt and humiliation and guilt than the more direct physical confrontation with the natural elements, thus my preference for a movie such as ATONEMENT over INTO THE WILD.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't mind judging a movie based on its message. Biu as I said, you are judging Chris McCandless, not the message of the movie. I can't follow your response.

[tabuno]

As I've mentioned before, I feel that Chris McCandless character's behavior in the movie was more directly physical acting in a male fashion that is personally more easily transferred to the screen as opposed the more difficult performance of emotional hurt and guilt based on the amazing perceptual shifts used in ATONEMENT that tapped into the medium of film. McCandless character is in some way stereotypical and an idealistic male fantasy gone awry. Most men likely would be delighted to be able to shuck adult responsibility and go into the wilderness believing they can survive nature, a sort of right of passage...to somehow discover oneself. Unlike Kevin Costner's character in DANCES WITH WOLVES, Chris McCandless character's behavior is transformed, but is transformed into one with an ambiguous ending...Do we the audience feel sorry for this character? Have we learned anything? Was he stupid and immature and should have stayed at home learning about adult life? Or do we pity him, feel sorry about what happened to him? Are we jealous wishing we could have done what he did but of course we would learn from his mistakes? This Sean Penn's attempt to impress us with this character is as suspect as the character in the movie.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Rendition, Redacted, Lions for Lambs, and In the Valley of Elah are none of them very strong films, though the last one is the best by a good margin; but th others are pretty lousy, really, from what I've heard (I haven't seen Rendition)

I watched it at home with wife and son the other night. Two most applicable quotes from reviews I read:

Chicago Reader J.R. Jones:
"Occasionally a movie's subject outweighs any aesthetic flaws, as it does in this unsettling thriller about the extraordinary rendition of terror suspects."

and

New York Magazine David Edelstein:
"The jumping around is as deft as a hippo in a tutu, and the director, Gavin Hood, never finds a rhythm. "

[Chris Knipp]

Should I see it?

[oscar jubis]

There are too many better films to watch. And Taxi to the dark side is a better, perhaps much better, film dealing with "extraordinary rendition". And Rendition, although quite different, is not a better film than Lions for Lambs, which you think is "pretty lousy". So instead give some consideration to this fresh, audacious, coming-of-age from Argentina which I listed at #5 on my undistributed list, not realizing the film was actually released on dvd before the end of 2007 (I'll have to move it from "undistributed" to "favorite foreign-language"):

GLUE: ADOLESCENT STORY IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2244)

[tabuno]

He Was a Quiet Man (2007). A compelling and visually fascinating look at a deranged corporate man played by Christian Slater in one of the best performances in years who befriends a female employee who is serious injured in a tragic accident at work. This reveals some of the best inner workings of the terrible experiences and emotions that compel people to inhuman actions. Reviewed 2/21/08.

[oscar jubis]

First time I hear about it. Slater can definitely "do" deranged. Reviewed by you? Where?

[Chris Knipp]

US release (limited, NY and LA only) 23 November 2007, to DVD 28 January 2008. US opening weekend box office (3 screens) $2,431. Stephen Holden of the NYTimes did give it a full-length review (http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/movies/23quie.html) which I missed because I was out of the country at that time. James Bernardinelli gives (http://www.reelviews.net/movies/h/he_was.html) further information and a comment on its quality:
He Was a Quiet Man played a lot of film festivals in early 2007 but never gained enough traction to attract a major distributor. Eventually, Starz Entertainment bought the rights and gave it a short, limited theatrical run in November 2007 to avoid the "straight to DVD" tag. For the most part, the movie flew under the radar, collecting only 14 external reviews at IMDB

[tabuno]

One of the best performances of the year (2007), Christian Slater's acting is superb and in fact spectacular. Completely disposing of his own personal character, Mr. Slater has been able to transform himself entirely in this very performance labored production as a deranged employee. Heavy elements of BRAZIL (1985) come to mind in this updated version of contemporary fantasy-reality of the harsh facts of corporate existence and the alienation from the human compassion in today's civilization. This production incorporates startling relevant human relation issues that pertain to today's violent world. With the apparent increasing media attention to shootings in malls and schools by individuals whose behavior has bewildered America, this movie begins to shed some light on this tragic existence of some individuals in our Country. This innovative production value with a new fresh look together with an intense drama script come together to make this one of the best movies of the year. Except perhaps for an ending that could have gone in a number of different directions, this movie is the complete package for emotional engagement, dazzling visual images, this movie is a must see for anybody who is concerned about humanity in today's modern world. Nine out of Ten Stars.