My "Best" Of The Decade

[oscar jubis]

This list, and the forthcoming list of foreign-language films is what, based on my own experience and thought, constitutes the best films released in the decade that is about to end. These are the films (the kind of cinema) that have inspired me to pursue a career in the field of film studies, to embark on a brand new adventure as a approach a half century of living. It goes without saying that I think films are important. I think cinema is the modern manifestation of a very old human need to tell stories and to create representations of our existence, of our being.

The titles below represent the films that have given me the most pleasure, edification; the films that have nurtured me and inspired me the most over the past ten years. The films are listed in rough chronological order of world premiere. The three titles followed by an * are documentaries. I intended to list 20. Then I decided to leave one slot available for a film yet to be discovered or a film I have seen yet to reveal all its glory.

THE HOUSE OF MIRTH (Terence Davies) 2000
MULHOLLAND DR. (David Lynch) 2001
A.I. (Spielberg-Kubrick) 2001
APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX (Francis Ford Coppola) 2001
ARARAT (Atom Egoyan) 2002
BLOODY SUNDAY (Paul Greengrass) 2002
THE CENTURY OF THE SELF* (Adam Curtis) 2002
SPIDER (David Cronenberg) 2002
25TH HOUR (Spike Lee) 2002
THE PIANIST (Roman Polanski) 2002
THE CORPORATION* (Abbott/Achbar) 2003
BEFORE SUNSET (Richard Linklater) 2004
SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL: THE JOURNEY OF ROMEO DALLAIRE* (Peter Raymont) 2004
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (Michel Gondry) 2004
YES (Sally Potter) 2004
AWAY FROM HER (Sarah Polley) 2006
HALF NELSON (Ryan Fleck-Anna Boden) 2006
CHOP SHOP (Ramin Bahrani) 2007
GOODBYE SOLO (Ramin Bahrani) 2008

[cinemabon]

In a decade that introduced us to Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, AI is the last movie of the decade I believe needs recognition. I hated that film and I can't stand your justification for it. To me, its child abuse... and we endlessly debated this both privately and in public, Oscar.

However, that said:

The first Harry Potter film was good.

The whole Lord of the Rings trilogy was outstanding.

Erin Brokovich (2000)

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

Lord of the Rings: the fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Spirited Away (2002)

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Lost in Translation (2003)

More later.... I gotta go... wife is calling

[tabuno]

2008 - Top Ten List

The Reader
Mama Mia!!!
Body of Lies

Honorable Mention List

The Women
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Changeling

2007 - Top Ten List

Atonement
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
He Was a Quiet Man

Honorable Mention List

Nanny Diaries
1408
Gone Baby Gone

2005 - Top Ten List

North Country
Crash

Honorable Mention List

Memoirs of a Geisha

2004 - Top Ten List

Dogville

Honorable Mention List

Touching the Void
Kill Bill Vol. 2
The Aviator


2003

Honorable Mention List

Fear and Trembling
Lost in Translation

2002 - Top Ten List

Mulholland Drive

Honorable Mention List

Punch-Drunk Love

2001

Honorable Mention List

Moulin Rouge
Spirited Away


2000

Honorable Mention List

House of Mirth

[cinemabon]

Let's see... I left off in 2003. I don't believe you said "top ten" so I will just mention a few or so from each year I deemed significant to me...

Hotel Riwanda (2004)
The Aviator (2004)
Sideways (2004)
The Incredibles (2004)

Capote (2005)
Good night and good luck (2005)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Howl's Moving Castle (2005)
Memoirs of a geisha (2005)

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
(I was not impressed with this year)

No film from 2007 is worth mentioning at all except "Sicko"

Milk (2008)
Wall-e (2008)
The Dark Knight (2008)
Slumdog millionaire (2008)
The Reader (2008)
Encounters at the end of the world (2008)
Waltz with Bashir (2008)

2008 made up for the previous two years.

I mentioned a film on my list for different reasons: first, I like the movie, the story, the acting, etc. Secondly, its impact on film history; and third, is it socially relevent to its time and true to its subject matter.

I thought sequels drove away box office in some cases, while franchises such as Spiderman, Harry Potter, James Bond, and even Superman did well based on previous releases. Even Shrek brought in major box office receipts. Despite his anti-semiticism, Mel Gibson laughed all the way to the money changers in the temple with his "Passion of the Christ." Lucas continued to milk Star Wars on television. IMAX theaters popped up everywhere this decade (more than doubled their numbers). Animation improved to the point of realism ("Christmas Carol") and documentary film moved to the darkside of the Iraqi War ("Taxi to the dark side"). When filmmakers tried to "cash" in on a 911 disaster movie, theater-goers stayed away in droves. Historical epic movies such as "Troy" and "Alexander" bombed. While fantasy epics such as "Lord of the Rings" brought in monumental profits for New Line Cinema. Small independent films made new inroads to the Oscars, such as Juno, Sideways, and Little Miss Sunshine - all premiered at Sundance, not at Cannes. Previously taboo film subjects such as homosexuality took center stage with Brokeback Mountain and Milk. These films stirred national debate to right some long overdue wrongs when it comes to gay rights.

Although we had a dunce leader for most of the decade and the stock market crashed for the second time, we did see some improvements in film's depth and social impact. 2000-2009 may not be the best decade in film, but it certainly helped film advance forward in many ways.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
AI is the last movie of the decade I believe needs recognition. I hated that film and I can't stand your justification for it. To me, its child abuse...

Well, technically it is mecha abuse.
Maybe I am a masochist or a glutton for punishment. Here I am again quoting you and consequently giving you another opportunity to tell me how much you hate something I love. You realize (I'm sure) that the abuser in A.I. is a child, the human child of Monica and Martin who returns to his parental home years after a cure for his fatal disease is found. His name is Martin. He realizes that his parents, as a way to fill the void he left, have bought a "mecha" named David who is capable of loving. Child proceeds to abuse mecha and to manipulate his parents into thinking they need to get rid of "it" (David).

The film is a posthumous statement from Stanley Kubrick brought into being by a sympathetic interpreter (Spielberg). One of the inherent questions in 2001 is whether HAL 9000 is human or partly human since he can experience feelings such as jealousy and contempt. And consequently, if HAL 9000 is human or partly human, whether that puts the human beings who created it in the same realm as gods? A.I. elaborates on those notions to ponder the nature of love, being human, and the concept of god.

In order for the film to truly work, one has to feel, as you seem to feel, that David's pains and joys are those of a "real boy".

[cinemabon]

Patooie on such rationalization and all those who support this fine yet supremely misguided intellectual.

I'm laughing, of course, because we covered this ground before. I love this post. It will give everyone a chance to voice their opinion of the decade. Good choice, Oscar.

[oscar jubis]

In previous posts, I had detailed the collaborative process between Kubrick and Spielberg but I hadn't made the connection between 2001 and A.I.. I also came across a comment by a former poster who liked the film except for the too-sweet, too-optimistic ending in which David outlives the entire human race and gets to spend a day with a briefly resurrected Monica. I am aware we need to avoid regurgitating the same arguments but I felt I had something to say I hadn't said before.

I am glad you think this thread is a good idea. Except for one film you listed and one film Tab listed, the titles in both of your lists have refreshed memories of films I have enjoyed this decade. My foreign-language list of 19 "bests" is forthcoming.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't know how all this discussion took place without my noticing when I thought the site was down!

Just a note to say, Oscar, that the choice of AI seems to me quite justified. I have always been enormously impressed by it both emotionally and technically (yes, and intellectually too) and disagreed with its many detractors.

I've been thinking about THE CORPORATION and it's a good choice, an important, seminal even, doc. Would disagree with some of your choices, but yours is a very personal list, as indicated by including both CHOP SHOP AND GOODBYE, SOLO!

I think David Lynch is one of the great ones.

Isn't APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX cheating a bit?

Disagree with HALF NELSON as you know. That is, it's a good movie, I'll grant that much, but not extraordinary enough to single out for the whole decade.

More later.

Thanks for opening this discussion.

[Chris Knipp]

The list again:

THE HOUSE OF MIRTH (Terence Davies) 2000
MULHOLLAND DR. (David Lynch) 2001
A.I. (Spielberg-Kubrick) 2001
APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX (Francis Ford Coppola) 2001
ARARAT (Atom Egoyan) 2002
BLOODY SUNDAY (Paul Greengrass) 2002
THE CENTURY OF THE SELF* (Adam Curtis) 2002
SPIDER (David Cronenberg) 2002
25TH HOUR (Spike Lee) 2002
THE PIANIST (Roman Polanski) 2002
THE CORPORATION* (Abbott/Achbar) 2003
BEFORE SUNSET (Richard Linklater) 2004
SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL: THE JOURNEY OF ROMEO DALLAIRE* (Peter Raymont) 2004
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (Michel Gondry) 2004
YES (Sally Potter) 2004
AWAY FROM HER (Sarah Polley) 2006
HALF NELSON (Ryan Fleck-Anna Boden) 2006
CHOP SHOP (Ramin Bahrani) 2007
GOODBYE SOLO (Ramin Bahrani) 2008

I haven't begun to think about this. I don't even yet know if I can make a decade list. It seems a monumental tassk. But it seems worthwhile, both to evaluate the period and to refine one's own values and preferences.

Obviously the choices would in large part be films that have deeply moved one. That is why I consider IKIRU my all-time favorite film: because first of all it so profoundly moves me; then because it is by who I think is one of the world's greatest directors; and finally because it shows remarkable craft. But emotion is the clincher. I am sure this is true for this list.

A fourth element in the choice might (but needn't) be timeliness for the period, the decade. The inclusion of documentaries might signify that those became more important than ever during this time. Then one needs to focus on key directors of the decade, Bahrani and Ryann Fleck and Anna Boden being Oscar's most important to emerge, evidently, as maybe Wong Kar-wai was for the 90's. Cronenberg, Linkleter and Gondry also might be directors who became major during this moment. SPIDER is tight and beautifully crafted and ETERNAL SUNSHINE seems Gondry's masterpiece. AE might be seen a bridge between decades, artists, and genres.

Other directors were already notable -- Spielberg/Kubrick, Lynch, Coppola, Lee, Polanski; nothing new there; I still think APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX is irrelevant unless you think the reissue/reedit is an important form/genre, which maybe it indeed is.

I might alternately just make a list of all the movies I listed among the year's ten best that now seem forgettable. Because along with the emergence of films that stand the test of time is the equally notable way that others fade.

[oscar jubis]

The movies on my list are basically the ones that have continued to give me pleasure and edification during repeat viewings. These movies have resisted/survived my attempts to be open-minded while reading reviews which point out alleged flaws or limitations. Apocalypse Now, in either version, is probably the film I listed which has the most detractors (or at least the most notorious detractors). Both Kehr and Rosenbaum find it incoherent or confusing. Kehr wrote that the film suggests that Coppola would be happier as a painter or photographer than as a director. Kael, speaking for all of "us" (by using "we" and "our" as she favored) wrote that Coppola couldn't supply the "visionary, climactic, summing-up movie" we were ready for.Kael: "Coppola got tied up in a big knot of American self-hatred and guilt, and what the picture boiled down was: White man-he devil." The film itself, as you can see, is open to debate. I find that none of these negative statements are baseless. And yet I can make the case that for me Apocalypse Now is a great if not perfect movie.

Now finally I address the issue you bring up, Chris. I find that the 50 minutes of footage added to the original theatrical version are substantial enough. They enrich the original footage and expand its vision of both America and Vietnam. Two long scenes in particular come to mind. One involves Playboy "bunnies" flown to Vietnam to improve "morale" and another involves a family of French landowners which brings into play Vietnam's recent past as a French colony. On the other hand, the Redux version of 90s fave Ashes of Time was not substantially different or better than the original hence you won't find it in the upcoming foreign list.

Wouldn't you say that your 5,035 posts qualify you to be crowned "Mr. Filmleaf"?

[Chris Knipp]

I was defending a lot of your choices and pointing out their logic; the discussion of your decade list began with people jumping furiously on your choice of "AE," which I jumped in to support. You could respond also to that rather than speak only for my minor doubt about the choice of a redited film originally from the 1970's. Maybe the best arguments for that choice as I suggested are: that reedits are a significant category, when they're of important works; and that it's a greater film than anything that's come out in the noughties.

Re-watching is certainly the ultimate test of whether a movie holds up, but I also value how deep a groove it leaves on one's brain; whether it proves inherently memorable, or the emotional and sensory and intellectual impression it made proves more lasting than other movies'.

Coppola may seem to have failed and flailed in recent decades, yet I like his 2009 TETRO so much I'm listing it among my Best of's for this current year. And this is an underappreciated and underseen film. But it's not likely to have grooved my brain like Robert Duval relishing the beauty of napalm in the morning -- or that previously lost dinner of French colonialists.

Evaluations by critics at the time often prove "wrong" later. Not always, but often. Thus even Hoberman and Rosenbaum err. Pauline's "we" bothers you; but you probably don't admire her criticsm, and aren't old enough to appreciate the role she played as I am. (I've said this before.) Her first-person-plural usage may point to an aspiration to shared critical standards -- an idealism; a hope. It's a also reflection of her sheer audacity, and her desire to draw all of us in. But of course it's a kind of pontificating: the "editorial we" slides into the "royal we."

[oscar jubis]

Yes, I am well aware of your supportive stance on my choices here (which does not mean you love them but it means that you can find a rationale for my listing them). I started the post by explaining how I arrive at my choices, with a general audience of readers in mind (not as a defense of anything anyone has posted here). Then I brought up my belief that the choice of Coppola's film would be debatable (or dubious?) when referring to any version of the film. Finally I addressed your specific and valid concern about listing a film that, let's face it, was shot during the 70s. By the way, my choice does not imply any generalization about the value of director's cuts or expanded versions or re-edits. I just think that this version, which I consider an improvement over the original, is one of the best (in my opinion) 19 English-language movies I managed to watch in the past decade.

[Chris Knipp]

But I do love A.I, and half of the others on your list, MULHOLLAND DRIVE (or David Lynch anyway), APOCALYPSE NOW (whether or not now, or in whatever form), BLOODY SUNDAY, SPIDER, THE PIANIST, THE CORPORATION, BEFORE SUNSET, ETERNAL SUNCHINE, and GOODBYE, SOLO.

Oh yeah, they are English language, aren't they.

So that means you're not done. Probably far from it.

I'm finally about to watch MAN PUSH CART. It's come up on my queue.

If I do make a noughties Best List I won't put it in this thread -- this is yours.

CINEMABON (he's got a boner for cinema?) says nothing is worth mentioning from 2007 but SICKO. This is the year of THERE WILL BE BLOOD and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, ZODIAC! SICKO probably was the most important documentary, though, at least for Americans.

[cinemabon]

Chris, I really hated those films from 2007 and won't go into it now, but you know me and gratuitous violence. I don't like filmmakers who sell tickets to audiences interested in the chop-shop.

Mr. Filmleaf... where would you put it, Oscar? Like a fig leaf?

I haven't seen "Apocalypse Now" since I saw the first and original cut in 70mm at the Bruin when Coppola premiered the work. It had no titles and did not end with the famous Jim Morrison song, "This is the end." Some people found this disturbing, which may be why Francis cut and cut and cut new versions (Aren't there three out there?) I thought the film strange then and still do. Certainly other films have explored Vietnam better than that confused work. The movie rambles on from place to place like the mind of its central character, Captain Willard (Martin Sheen), whose voice drones on with some sort of internal dialogue. I found it boring and the end silly. I hate Brando's appearance and wondered why it seemed so incomplete when Coppola stated why... he refused to pay Brando's asking price for the reshoots. So he had to use the material on hand, the same stunt Brando pulled on "The Godfather." Why he hired him after they did not get along on that set is beyond me?

Happy New Year... see you in the next decade.

[Chris Knipp]

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is certainly violent, but I've explained elsewhere how faithful to the excellent novelistic source the film is, and you can't call it gratuitous, given the sources and the motivation; that was a misreading. And THERE WILL BE BLOOD isn't really violent at all: it's about clashes of ideology and value, not of arms. As for APOCALYPSE NOW, evidently it is a masterpiece that does not appeal to everyone, but the question of why anyone would hire Brando isn't too complicated. Maybe because he's one of the greatest film actors of all time, perhaps?

[cinemabon]

Brando's ability was not in question, only his willingness to cooperate with the director. If the actor and director clash, the rest is a film that could have been.

[oscar jubis]

Brando's role in Apocalypse Now is a minor one. The film did not depend on his performance to succeed. Brando's look and "persona" are enough for this role. No directorial intervention was required.

Chris, it would seem to me that the statement "There Will Be Blood isn't really violent at all" was written in haste or that the film is not fresh in your mind. The film might be "about clashes of ideology and value" but that does of mean it is not violent. Two scenes that come to mind is the shooting of a man on the side of his head shown in mid-shot with subsequent gushing of blood and a close-up of the corpse with eyes wide open and a most graphic beating of a man to death with bowling balls and pins.

I would like to call attention to Spike Lee's magnificent 25th Hour. A Spike Lee Joint with no major African-American characters; a crime film with almost no violence; an extremely thoughtful, moving film about a drug dealer's last day before he starts serving a jail sentence; a film that has grown in critical reputation over the years. Hard to think of anyone not finding it quite engaging and worth watching. 25th Hour was under-appreciated and under-rated when it was released (on the same day as Scorsese's inferior Gangs of New York). Critical shorthand: Metacritic 67. Eight years later, the film is tied for second place with In the Mood for Love as Best Film of the Decade in a poll conducted by the Village Voice (won by Mulholland Dr. by a wide margin).

[Chris Knipp]

APOCALYPSE NOW was a notoriously difficult production, Brando showed up overweight, Martin Sheen had a heart attack, storms destroyed expensive sets, Coppola couldn't come up with an ending, and so on. All of which makes the documentary about the process HEARTS OF DARKNESS such an interesting one. But what makes a work of art ultimately great is not how easy or hard the process to make it has been. Because there were issues between Cojppola and Brando in THE GODFATHER, does that mean that Brando isn't memorable? Wasn't Brando always a temperamental and difficult actor to work with, and wasn't it worth the trouble? I'd say yes to both questions.

From an online piece about Brando: "Coppola was electrified by Brando's characterization as the head of a crime family, but had to fight the studio in order to cast the temperamental Brando whose reputation for difficult behavior and demands was the stuff of backlot legend."

http://oldclassicera.blogspot.com/2009/05/marlon-brando.html

Oscar, I wrote the above before seeing your comment. That Brando's role is "minor" is true, superficially; on the other hand, Kurtz is the Grail of the whole film, so interpretively it seems an odd argument to suggest the sequence with Brando in it isn't an important one. He is a haunting presence, and not a flaw to be explained away as minor. But its valid to argue that his presence is enough, and directorial rapport not essential for its success..

Though THERE WILL BE BLOOD contains several quite violent moments, it is still not a violent film, in the way that NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN certainly is; but whether or not it's violent has nothing to do with its merit. I was merely pointing out that 2007 had fine offerings other than SICKO, and that and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN are examples. If you refuse to list as good any films that contain violence that will skew your list oddly in some cases, years, or decades.

I have no doubt it's a well made film, but I don't share the enthusiasm for 25the HOUR, I'm afraid, (and wouldn't think its lack of major black characters or violence would alter its merit one way or the other). Its superiority to GANGS OF NEW YORK I would readily grant, but I couldn't put it on a par with anything by Wong. By the way: I've never understood why Lee calls his movies "joints". Can you explain?

[oscar jubis]

This usage of "joint" refers vaguely to a "coming together". It was popularized by the legendary rap group from Brooklyn called Funky 4+1 (the "1" being female "emcee" Sha Rock) in their ebullient, effervescent, good-natured hit "That's the Joint" (originally recorded in 1980). This usage of the term did not survive the 80s anywhere else but in the opening credits of Spike Lee's movies.

No relation implied between the minimal violence and the lack of black characters in 25th Hour and its merits. The first one makes it stand out among crime films, the second makes it unique among Lee films, but neither makes it a better or worse film. Just a queer one.

Notice that cinemabon objects to "gratuitous violence" not violence in general. I think his position is more sophisticated than you make it appear in your reply. Gratuitous, of course, being defined differently by each person. Then there is the issue of the explicitness of the violence versus the stylization of it (which can sometimes make it ideologically more problematic).

[Chris Knipp]

Doesn't "gratuitous violence" mean "violence I don't approve of"? If one approves of it and it seems integral to the film it's not called "gratuitous." You judge the film first, and then if it contains violence you call it "gratuitous." Therefore the word "gratuitous" becomes superfluous. Gratuitous.

[cinemabon]

Thank you, Oscar for helping me to take this moral stand against overt use of violence. Let's take Sherlock Holmes, for example. The film is full of violence. I don't object to it on those grounds (although we've discussed how this makes Holmes seem out of place for his time). What I would object to is if Ritchie included a scene where someone chopped off a man's head and we saw it in slow motion with blood spurting everywhere and the body jerking back and forth as the man screamed for mercy. I would not mind a decapitation during the French Revolution as it is expected, unless it went beyond that into the realm of the absurd. Gratuitous (without cause or justification) can be found in the films of someone whom both of you admire and I do not: Quentin Tarantino. You see his work as art. I see it as exploitive. Here is the second part of Oscar's remark...when he refers to gratuitous as a personal point of view and difficult to objectify. I can identify with that statement.

As to this post's original intent, I would like to add finally that my objection to violence in a film is often based on heresay and not actually seeing the film... I don't want those memories.

Now, having said that, I'd like to return to the theme of "Best of the Decade!" Here is what my research pulled up...

No one mentioned "High Fidelity" (2000) found on many lists. Also the following: "Flight of the Red Balloon" (2008), "Grizzly Man" (2005), "Whale Rider" (2002), "In America" (2004), "L'Enfant" (2006), "Donnie Darko" (2001), "Millions" (2004), "Junebug" (2005), "O Brother, where art thou?" (2000), "In the loop" (2009), "Elephant (2003), "Syndromes and a century" (2006), "Memento" (2000), "The Son" (2002), "Amelie" (2001), and "The Royal Tenenbaums" (2001) "City of God" (2003) has topped several lists as the number one film of the decade.

[Chris Knipp]

A moral stand against the "overt use of violence" is certainly valid. I take that stand myself. But I don't see that it's so relevant to this discussion, because I do not believe any of the films we'd be likely to list as the decade's best are guilty of violence porn. I don't like the new ultra violence of horror movies like SAW and HOSTEL. That's a porno of violence. If you have kids, you may not want them to watch violent movies. I don't see how a beheading isn't "overt" because it's part of the French revolution, though. These terms don't make sense. American movies have reveled in violence: Sam Peckinpah. Murders, gang wars, THE GODFATHER, war movies, Tarantino -- all as American and as full of violence as apple pie. Kung Fu movies, Chinese war epics with sword battles. A horribly bloody and dismembered body can be a part of a serious and powerful antiwar movie, like the German DIE BRUCKE.

"Here is the second part of Oscar's remark...when he refers to gratuitous as a personal point of view and difficult to objectify. I can identify with that statement." This is what I just said earlier myself: that "gratuitous" is where you find it. I'm not exactly sure why you think Oscar is on your side and I'm against you. I just think THERE WILL BE BLOOD (the title is more violent than the movie) and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN are fine films of 2007. I don't particularly revel in violence. I, too, think it must be justified and used appropriately. But it is a major aspect of human behavior and I don't think it should be censored or edited out of one's lists of preferred films.

This new list contains excellent films but they are not free of violence. GRIZZLY MAN is about a man who was torn apart and eaten by a bear. ELEPHANT leads up to a disturbing massacre in a high school. CITY OF GOD is a film about teenage gangs in Rio which Oscra has argued, with some reason, revels in constant violence. I still liked it; Oscar didn't. But its violence and ELEPHANT's are certainly overt. As if violence could be covert. Well, violence can be off-stage. Polonius is stabbed behind an arras. But the act of Hamlet is still violent. Greek tragedy is full of bloody scenes, on and off-stage. Oedipus kills his father offstage; Medea kills her children offstage. They are still violent plays that capture human tragedy. Some tragedies are muted, like THE DEATH OF A SALESMAN. Some are violent. It's all valid. But these generalizations seem pointless. To lump Tarantino with B-horror is a mistake. A Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_film) on "horror film" points out that THE CABINET OF DR CALIGARI is one, and distinguished directors have made them, such as "Alfred Hitchcock, Roman Polanski, Stanley Kubrick, John Carpenter, William Friedkin, Sam Raimi." Raimi just made a classic one, DRAG ME TO HELL, in the old style, avoiding the ultra-gore of SAW III.

[oscar jubis]

[QUOTE=cinemabon;23582] What I would object to is if Ritchie included a scene where someone chopped off a man's head and we saw it in slow motion with blood spurting everywhere and the body jerking back and forth as the man screamed for mercy. I would not mind a decapitation during the French Revolution as it is expected, unless it went beyond that into the realm of the absurd. Gratuitous (without cause or justification) can be found in the films of someone whom both of you admire and I do not: Quentin Tarantino. You see his work as art.
Tarantino is a very talented and skillful filmmaker (Ritchie too, to a lesser extent). Clearly his idea of what constitutes a great movie is very different than mine (his favorite movie of the past 20 years is Battle Royale, 'nuff said). His technical skills are largely wasted on cheap thrills. His worldview, for lack of a better word, is narrow and often nihilistic.I often marvel at his skills from a technical standpoint while simultaneously bemoaning the uses to which those skills are put. There is a side of me that is entertained while watching his films but the intellectual/reflexive side of me is bored silly.

As to this post's original intent, I would like to add finally that my objection to violence in a film is often based on heresay and not actually seeing the film... I don't want those memories.
I understand. And it's your right to avoid films you find objectionable.I tend to sit through them, trying to have an open mind. I watched Trier's excretal Antichrist twice, trying to see the point of close-ups of unspeakable acts that don't reflect anyone's visual perspective but the director's intention to shock and his lack of imagination. I'd be more forgiving if the film as a whole had something worth saying. Thanks for the memories Mr. Lars von Trier.

[cinemabon]

While I admire the side of you that remains objective, Oscar, I find the way you said "I had to sit through it twice" (paraphrased) puzzling.

The art of storytelling for a filmmaker is a unique one. The director does not need words to describe what he can place within the frame that needs no words to decribe: red is red, distance is distance, a tree is a tree, a woman is a woman, and so on. However, within the contex of telling a story, the moral authority of the author comes into play. One can be a wordsmith and convey meaning easily with few words and be succinct. That is an art form (in my mind). When a filmmaker does something overt, it is obvious. A knife plunges into the breast of man: murder, violence, revenge, and so many other meanings conveyed with just such action. I would not restrict a filmmaker from using practically any means to tell a story within the principles of morality. Hacking a person to death violates those terms. This is a cheap horror thrill that goes back to primitive man. It wasn't enough to kill a man... they dug pits, put vicious dogs and people in the same place and watched them tear one another apart for entertainment. This limbic side to our nature is what keeps us from becoming civilized. It drives us to war. It drives us to violence. To see it glorified as art and blown up on a large screen to entice ticket sales violates that sacred trust which binds us to be civil with beings that tend to be violent.

[Chris Knipp]

I find it puzzling too, for other reasons. But I'm sue Oscar views things twice out of a sense of responsibility to the filmmakers.

[oscar jubis]

Chris is right in that I am a fan of DP Chris Doyle and I have greatly enjoyed a few of the films authored by Trier such as Breaking the Waves and Dogville. The use of color, slow motion, and operatic arias in the film is quite nice too. I am sure you'll find my behavior less puzzling when you learn that I was getting paid for watching the film (it played for two weeks at the one-screener where I work).

Gentlemen, I would like to note the recent passing of one of the critics/film scholars that have had a formative influence on me and one of the most important figures in film studies since the 1960s. Robin Wood (1931- December 19,2009) is primarily known for his books on Hitchcock, Hawks and Bergman. I appreciate him most for his writings on the limited uses of theory within the field, on authorship and auteurism, and on the importance of self-knowledge and self-revelation for the film critic. Two essays in particular are special to me: "Responsibilities of a Gay Film Critic" (Film Comment, 1978) and "Confessions of an Unreconstructed Humanist" (1976). I spent the last day of the decade re-watching Wood's favorite film:Rio Bravo, and reading the book about this Hawks classic he wrote for the B.F.I.

[Chris Knipp]

I was thinking maybe you were getting paid to watch it so to speak, too, but didn't mention that. My history with Lars von Trier has been the opposite, in a way, because instead of liking his films less as he's gone along, I've liked them better more recently. I would like to add that ANTICHRIST is intentionally an offbeat approach to the horror genre, but it doesn't have anybody hacking people up for anybody's entertainment, it's nothing like that at all, and one ought to see it, once at least, before making generalizations. I was also influenced by a writer who covered Cannes for Onion AV Club, who wrote a stirring essay about how he thought ANTICHRIST was absolutely terrible, but he considered it wonderful that he could make it: that he's being an idiot (von Trier is) but he's also being very brave and we need more people who experiment that way.

I'm talking about Mike d'Angelo's "AN OPEN LETTER TO LARS VON TRIER" (http://www.avclub.com/articles/cannes-09-day-five,28137/), and I recommend that everybody read it. It's brilliant in its rhetorical strategy of using a letter format and it begins like this;
Dear Lars,

I love you, man. Not in a lame, hokey Rudd-and-Segal bromance way, but deeply and profoundly. If our paths cross over the next couple of days while you’re in town, don’t be surprised if I walk up unannounced and give you a giant bear hug. I’m pretty sure I kind of despised your new movie, Antichrist, but that doesn’t remotely matter. Thank you.

[oscar jubis]

That's an interesting read. I particularly appreciate the implication that Trier doesn't understand Tarkovsky (dedicating Antichrist to him makes Trier look... not very smart). I never "loved" Trier, certainly not "deeply and profoundly" the way this writer does but I share his admiration for Trier's penchant for experimentation. I often find Trier's films a tad too cynical and ideologically incoherent but there are always compensating factors. Until now. The last Trier I liked was Manderlay which I interpret as an allegory of nation-building with Bryce Dallas Howard playing a well-intentioned but naive and misguided Bush to Willem Dafoe's Cheney.

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, Mike d'Angelo's comment is as misguided but admirable as von Trier's effort. MANDERLAY is the last one you liked? Well, that isn't very long ago. I liked THE BOSS OF IT ALL, which harmonized so well with the revelations of character found in THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS, which strictly speaking is by Jørgen Leth, but is also "about" Lars.

[oscar jubis]

"From my view of the usefulness of art, as affecting, influencing, developing, enriching, refining the human sensibility, I draw three conclusions about criticism. One: though criticism must necessarily express itself as intellectual formulation, and must strive towards objectivity, valid criticism must never lose touch with the critic's whole response. Two: a personal element will always have a determining effect on critical discourse; the suppression of such an element is neither possible nor desirable, and its apparent absence should always be regarded with distrust. Three: the true end of criticism is the evaluation of the total experience the work is felt by the critic to offer. Such evaluation, because of the personal (hence ideological) bias involved, must always be tentative, relative and provisional."
Robin Wood (1931-2009) in "Confessions of an Unreconstructed Humanist".

YI YI (Edward Yang/Taiwan) 2000
SUZHOU RIVER (Lou Ye/China) 2000
IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE (Wong Kar Wai/China) 2000
PLATFORM (Jia Zhang-ke/China) 2000
SPIRITED AWAY (Hiyao Miyazaki/Japan) 2001
TIME OUT (Laurent Cantet/France) 2001
LIFELINE (Victor Erice/Spain) 2002
THE SON (Dardenne Bros./Belgium) 2002
RUSSIAN ARK (Aleksandr Sokurov/Russia) 2002
A TALKING PICTURE (Manoel de Oliveira/Portugal) 2003
2046 (Wong Kar Wai/China) 2004
THE HOLY GIRL (Lucrecia Martel/Argentina) 2004
THREE TIMES (Hou Hsiao-Hsien/Taiwan) 2005
FICTION (Cesc Gay/Spain)2006
OFFSIDE (Jafar Panahi/Iran)2006
STILL LIFE (Jia Zhang-ke/ China) 2006
4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, AND 2 DAYS (Mungiu/Romania) 2007
THE HEADLESS WOMAN (Lucrecia Martel/Argentina) 2008
LIVERPOOL (Lisandro Alonso/Argentina) 2008

[Chris Knipp]

Brief comments.

!=I agree it's great, might include it in a similar list of my own
+=Interesting film, I like it
--=I'm not so excited about
x=have not seen

! YI YI (Edward Yang/Taiwan) 2000
+ SUZHOU RIVER (Lou Ye/China) 2000
! IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE (Wong Kar Wai/China) 2000
! PLATFORM (Jia Zhang-ke/China) 2000
- SPIRITED AWAY (Hiyao Miyazaki/Japan) 2001
+ TIME OUT (Laurent Cantet/France) 2001
x(+) LIFELINE (Victor Erice/Spain) 2002
! THE SON (Dardenne Bros./Belgium) 2002
- RUSSIAN ARK (Aleksandr Sokurov/Russia) 2002
x A TALKING PICTURE (Manoel de Oliveira/Portugal) 2003
! 2046 (Wong Kar Wai/China) 2004
- THE HOLY GIRL (Lucrecia Martel/Argentina) 2004
+ THREE TIMES (Hou Hsiao-Hsien/Taiwan) 2005
x FICTION (Cesc Gay/Spain)2006
+ OFFSIDE (Jafar Panahi/Iran)2006
! STILL LIFE (Jia Zhang-ke/ China) 2006
- 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, AND 2 DAYS (Mungiu/Romania) 2007
- THE HEADLESS WOMAN (Lucrecia Martel/Argentina) 2008
x LIVERPOOL (Lisandro Alonso/Argentina) 2008

YI YI is definitely one of the great ones. it's certainly right to pick something by Wong Kar-wai and Jia Zhang-ke, and I guess Hou Hsiau-hsien, and the Dardennes, and Sokurov, but as we discussed before I super-value Sokurov's THE SUN. I'm not sure, but THE SON by the Dardennes could be the standout. A.O. Scott called it "miraculous." I love Wong but I don't think I would pick 2046 but probably Wong's best work was in the Nineties, however, I can see the logic of picking those two by him. I'm a bit confused about SUZHOU RIVER, don't remember it very well, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. STILL LIFE seemed partly magical, so I might pick it in a 00's list too. Not sure what Jia I prefer but PLATFORM is a good choice. I wanted to see LIVERPOOL but have not been able to yet. I have been underwhelmed by Oliveira but have not seen this one. I prefer HUMAN RESOURCES (technically 1999) to TIME OUT (2001) by Cantet, and maybe if I thought I wanted to pick something by him from this decade I'd go for THE CLASS. The decade designation is somewhat artificial when it comes to a particular artist. I do think your choice of directors is excellent, of the ones I am familiar with, on the whole. And I guess you were honoring past favorites as well as thinking of which ones emerged as important during the decade.

This is just to give you some specific feedback. Many viewers may not have seen all these, but armed with this list, they can go to Netflix or other sources and rent them. Are they all available on US DVDs? LIVERPOOL is not yet available on Netflix.

[oscar jubis]

[QUOTE=Chris Knipp;23644]
I do think your choice of directors is excellent, of the ones I am familiar with, on the whole. And I guess you were honoring past favorites as well as thinking of which ones emerged as important during the decade.
I included the names of the directors for purposes of identification. I wasn't trying to honor any favorite directors past or present. The things I wrote as an introduction to the English-language list apply. These are the films that have given me pleasure and edification over repeat viewings,films that have inspired me and taught me things about myself, the world and about living in it, films that compel me to watch them again, films that help me explain why I spend so much time and energy on cinema. Your comment gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to directors I admire whose films just missed making the cut: Resnais, Weerasethakul (3 or 4 of his would probably make it into a Top 50 but none made it into this list of 19 today),Eastwood, Varda, Tsai Ming-Liang, Kiarostami (list is based on date of world premiere so the absolutely spellbinding The Wind Will Carry Us belongs to the 90s), etc.

Many viewers may not have seen all these, but armed with this list, they can go to Netflix or other sources and rent them. Are they all available on US DVDs? LIVERPOOL is not yet available on Netflix.
Liverpool might eventually come out on Region 1 DVD. The two not likely to become available here are the Catalan drama Fiction and Victor Erice's b&w short Lifeline (his contribution to the excellent portmanteau film Ten Minutes Older). In the Englsih-language list, the BBC documentary/essay by Adam Curtis is still not available on DVD (none of his thought-provoking films are, for reasons having to do with rights to the music and the footage used). I think everything else I listed is available on Region 1 DVD.

I will write something about Suzhou River later as I suddenly have to go out.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't think there's any argument that you are picking films and not directors; that there are other directors you like; that however you like the directors, if you like the films. Yes, we have to go by world premiere date for consistency. When I said Alonso's LIVERPOOL was not yet available on Netflix I meant it's in the save category implying it's on the way, but some save listings often don't turn up later after all. It looks like from what you say here, it's precisely the ones I have not seen on your list that aren't available here in the US. Whether they'e available on DVD' from other regions you don't say, or how you saw them, which is something I always like to know, if it's not already obvious.

[oscar jubis]

*I am happy to report that Adam Curtis' 3-part docu-essay THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES is available for rental on Netflix. This is his highly provocative, highly debatable, extremely controversial film about political fearmongering. Extremely engaging and yet my least favorite of the three projects he completed during the 2000s. My favorite and the one listed among the best films of the decade is THE CENTURY OF THE SELF (2002). Apparently due to numerous requests, Amazon.com has decided to put it on sale as an on-demand, dvd-r product.This is a more rigorous but still opinionated documentary/essay on the origins and consequences of public relations and consumerism. Here's the link:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002KECK1Q/ref=asc_df_B002KECK1Q994674?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=googlecom09c9-20&linkCode=asn&creative=380341&creativeASIN=B002KECK1Q
By all accounts, this is much better quality than the very inexpensive vhs-quality discs I bought from a British activist several years ago.Well worth the $25.

*I watched FICTION at the Miami fest and then purchased the Region 2 DVD online. Cesc Gay's Nico and Dani is his best known film in the US.

*TEN MINUTES OLDER is available only on import dvd. I bought mine online based on reviews back in 2003. I simply cannot believe there is no region 1 DVD, but it's true. Variety's Todd McCarthy saw it at Cannes "02 and had this to say about the segment by Erice (The Spirit of the Beehive):
"The most impressive eleven minutes of film unveiled at Cannes this year".

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for fleshing out your lists further with these details. I'm going to watch THE POWER FO NIGHTMARES on Netflix right away to see. I do remember Nico and Dani, and it was sweet, though far from a masterpiece (but I know that's not the one you chose). When you bought FICTION region 2 online, what online source did you use, if I may ask? I see from one summary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/09/29/ten_minutes_older_the_trumpet_2003_review.shtml) that TEN MINUTES OLDER might have much interesting material on it. I'd like to see that one by Erice to see why Todd McCarthy admires it so much and you consider it good enough to put a whole film on your best of the decade list just for one eleven-minute segment -- but I can't!

[oscar jubis]

[QUOTE=Chris Knipp;23659] When you bought FICTION region 2 online, what online source did you use, if I may ask?
www.dvdgo.com

I see that TEN MINUTES OLDER might have much interesting material on it. I'd like to see that one by Erice to see why Todd McCarthy admires it so much and you consider it good enough to put a whole film on your best of the decade list just for one eleven-minute segment -- but I can't!
Well, this is not the right way to watch the film but turn off the lights, turn up the volume and click on this...Lifeline (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI0DLj3Acac&feature=related)

This is a good piece on "Lifeline":
http://filmjourney.weblogger.com/2004/10/25/lifeline-ten-minutes-older/#more-504

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for the three links. Definitely a little classic. The period feel is flawless, the editing impressive, the stillness memorable. What's wrong with the baby? Or are we not supposed to know or care and only perceive the symbolic meaning Doug Cummings cleverly reads into it in the blog entry you refer to?

Anyway this is a brilliant use of the short film format.

[oscar jubis]

The partera did not tie the baby's umbilical cord properly.
What is remarkable is that Lifeline works as narrative but it is really a film poem which withstands a multiplicity of possible readings. I find like Doug Cummings in his piece, that the film "unveils new meaning" viewing after viewing. The most indelible one for me has to do with the particular historical moment: June 1940. There is a newspaper (most likely a Falangist paper since the Facists had won the Spanish Civil War) dated June 28, 1940 with a picture taken the day before in Hendaye, where Hitler and Franco met to discuss Spain taking a more active role in the war. The picture shows the hoisting of the Nazi flag at border points between France and Spain. Hitler had toured Paris on June 23rd and Spain had occupied Tangier, Morocco on June 14th. Franco wanted most of French colonial Africa in exchange for his participation. The paper announces "a new Spain" at the time that this baby is born. Victor Erice was born on June 30th, 1940, by the way, and the images are based on his parents reminisces of the time of his birth. The scene that has the most impact on me is when the boy erases the watch he had drawn on his wrist. It is said that "time stopped" (meaning the progress that only freedom makes possible) for Spain during the decades in which Franco ruled. There are a number of images in Lifeline which are pregnant with allegorical meaning: the snake that slithers around the fruit as soon as it falls from the tree, the grave facial expression of a young man who lost a leg in the war, the photo of Cuba and the Cuban auto tag signifying the tragic possibility of exile, the Nazi-like helmet on the scarecrow, etc. The blood stain on the baby's clothing has a parallel in the stain that engulfs the photo in the newspaper at the end of the film. The birth of a baby is coupled with the death of an ideal, or dream of a certain notion of society that fascist totalitarianism destroyed.

[Chris Knipp]

"What is remarkable is that Lifeline works as narrative but it is really a film poem which withstands a multiplicity of possible readings. " Definitely I see this is true and Erice exploits the short film's potential to focus our attention with a greater intensity. Cummings writes in that discussion
Erice’s citation of Chronos suggests the real philosophical conflict at the heart of his film: chronos identifies Spain at a moment in the early-’40s on the brink of war while an infectious danger spreads beneath its ritualized home life, and kairos interrupts that flow and ushers in a defining moment of hope. Such an interplay could describe that specific historical moment of the people of Spain as well as its larger historical experience. Like Erice’s previous work, Lifeline poetically asserts the relationship between personal meaning and history through its intoxicatingly potent sights and sounds that ultimately convey a love of human resilience. and I felt that symbolically when the nurse ties the umbilical cord, symbolically it feels like a crude covering up of the "infectious danger," a birth that seems ambiguous in its hopefulness, if the "birth" is a fascist regime that is to last for forty years. But the chubby, healthy baby that will survive is also "human resilience."

[oscar jubis]

The process of writing and revising my thesis on Lucrecia Martel was my most fruitful, stimulating endeavor of the year but playing Lifeline to audiences at the Cosford and seeing their reaction gave me the most pleasure. I'm glad you enjoyed it too.

[Chris Knipp]

Definitely.

Did you show only it to them or the whole film collection?

[oscar jubis]

I showed Spike Lee's "We Wuz Robbed" before the screening of Sicko and "Lifeline" before the screenings of Antichrist (I thought of it as a antidote, metaphorically speaking).

[Chris Knipp]

I see, so you could show it separately.

[cinemabon]

When this thread started, Oscar, you said you would add films from 2009. But I have yet to see your list from 2009 (Did I miss it listed on another thread?)

[Chris Knipp]

He always waits until he has seen all he needs to see from the year, maybe into Feb. He's still busy with his work in graduate school.

[oscar jubis]

When this thread started, Oscar, you said you would add films from 2009. But I have yet to see your list from 2009 (Did I miss it listed on another thread?)
When I started this thread with a list of English-language films of the 2000s, I said I would also post a list of Foreign-language films. And I did that. I also said I would list 19 per list so that there would be a spot on each list for a movie I have yet to discover or yet to fully appreciate. Like Chris said, I wait until February to post a 2009 list so that films I have yet to watch (The Last Station, Crazy Heart, etc.) get their chance. Critics, especially those not from LA and NYC, often have to submit lists without seeing a number of films that qualify to be listed based on their date of USA premiere. The delayed posting also gives me a chance to rewatch many films (This week I re-watched Up, Up in the Air, and Broken Embraces) to solidify my judgments of the films and rank them accordingly. To be honest, I feel a little coy about posting my lists. They often include films on limited release that many have not heard of or titles that other readers find odd or unworthy. My desire to pay tribute to the films that gave me pleasure or taught me something or made me feel intensely or intrigued me or a combination of those is always stronger than my shyness. Like J. Hoberman stated two years ago, these lists are a kind of autobiography so posting them amounts to public self-revelation (something an honest and self-aware critic needs to do no matter how difficult it is).

[Chris Knipp]

It's true we both see a lot of generally unavailable new films because we go to special screenings and festivals, and those often matter more to us than the widely seen US releases, so why not talk about them? Even in my primary English language list I couldn't help including Somers Town, The Limiits of Control, and Disgrace, which hardly anybody has seen, and I have to say that some of the non-US-released made a big impression on me and keep coming back to me, such as Honoré's La belle personne, Costa's Ne change rien, and Audiard's A Prophet. I'd never gotten around to watching a movie by Todd Solondz till I saw the (unreleased) Life During Wartime at the NYFF, and it really impressed me, I loved it, and as a result I went back and watched all his other movies on DVD and found he is really good. So these are events in my personal viewing year, and when I do my roundup for Cinescene I ought to talk about them. Unfortunately, most of the best stuff doesn't get seen in theaters, but people can catch up on it eventually on DVD. I still think the way The Limites of Control vanished without a trace is a Disgrace! I don't think my opinions about Avatar are very important....That's a topic that has been worked to death, even though the money's still rolling in.

[Chris Knipp]

I haven't seen The Last Station, but I think I've seen a lot of new movies, over two hundred for 2009. If I missed some key ones, tough luck. I did see more than I could ever list, that were worth watching. The Last Station has a 75 on Metacriitc; high, but not a rave. My impression is that it has excellent performances (like Crazy Heart) but is not a major film; but of course there's no accounting for tastes. If I were a big fan of hammy Brits playing famous Russians I'd have to put it up there in my top lists. That's not the cast, I don't think. I am looking forward to seeing it though. I could put Crazy Heart into my shortlist now that I've seen it; but I think the performances are more memorable than the film. I'd say Crazy Heart is overrated (Metacritic 84), for the reason I said.

[Chris Knipp]

By the way I have now watched the three discs of THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES (2004) and liked it very much. I don't know exactly how I missed even hearing about it. Or maybe I did but forgot. I guess it was not shown generally in US theaters, but went to DVD, being a TV series. It is unsubtle in its presentation, and perhaps weakens its argument by sounding so dogmatic, but it underlines my own essential concept about the "war on terrot," and is an angle to follow through on, a guide to how to watch government pronouncements today, as much as during the Bush administration. As for THE CENTURY OF THE SELF by the same filmmaker which you say you prefer, that as I said I'm not going to buy, but hope will become available on Netfix, despite the fact that "SAVE" items there often are indefinitely delayed.

[Johann]

My top ten favorite films of the last decade are as follows (not necessarily the "BEST").

8 Women
Kill Bill vol. 1
Gangs of New York
The Dark Knight
Alexander
The Limits of Control
Watchmen
Sin City
A.I.
Inland Empire


If I were to pick the ten best it might look like this:

Ararat
The Pianist
The Royal Tenenbaums
The Departed
When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in 4 acts
Fahrenheit 9/11
World Trade Center
Mulholland Dr.
Rescue Dawn
Dogville

[oscar jubis]

Chris, I am glad you liked THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES "very much". I think all three documentary series by Adam Curtis are tremendously important. I hope THE CENTURY OF THE SELF and THE TRAP: WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR DREAM OF FREEDOM? become available for rental soon. Few Americans have watched them even though American culture and politics are central to all three. "Save" is meaningless at Netflix.

Johann, thanks for sharing your lists. I am glad you appreciate ARARAT as much as I do.

I promised to post something about SUZHOU RIVER and cannot find a way to say anything worth saying in less than 3650 words. If anyone wants to read my essay on it (it assumes you have seen the movie and do not mind a discussion of its resolution), say so (it's a Word document so some work is required to post it here, but a single attentive reader would make it worth the time for me). I assume most readers either have not seen it or don't care to read such a detailed analysis.