The Last List

In these times of general euphoria over the arrival of any non-disappointing hype, people tend to mainly give their opinions when they feel the urge to rave. "If you've got nothing good to say, say nothing," must be what your mothers have taught all of you (like Marge Simpson). That is why for my last list I chose to go a-trashing and list all the so-called 'classic' movies that did not make it into my DVD library, nor ever will. We're living in times of abundance and thus we have the luxury of being very particular about what we will and will not allow into our homes. For this list I will limit myself to movies released before 1990, since trashing overrated post-1990 movies is like shooting fish in a barrel (If I knew where to start, I probably wouldn't know where to stop). Who's to say, what's a classic anyway? Time will tell in most cases, but still some obstinate reputations remain. Let's list those. Okay, here we go! I mean, here I go!

Gone with the wind (1939)

The DVD I gave to my grandmother for her 95^th birthday. Right off, that's saying all, isn't it. Because it's not a sign of disrespect towards my granny that I don't like this flick, it's just a symptom of the movie's generational susceptibilities, as well as it's deterioration under the strains of time. Within the context of film history this movie could be determined as the downfall of the producer as main creative force behind the cameras, from thereon in relieved by the director (and the writer). This was failure, not success, which attributed to a rotation of chairs.

But to return to the feature at hand, during production two directors were fired by producer David O. Selznick. His protégé Vivien Leigh delivered a next-to-hysterical performance, very understandable considering the strains from all this ambition and instability this very young inexperienced actress was under. Furthermore this has become the archetype of the movie production where stakes run so high, that losing becomes next-to-unthinkable. 1939 was the year when Oscar got his first real scar and was permanently corrupted. For me, the film is the epiphany of dull and all of the attributes which appealed to the audiences of its day (colour images, grand scale production) have been rendered out of date for a long time now. All who recommend this one to any layman in old movies, are not doing film history any favours.

High noon (1952)

Once again, it was not the fault of the director. Like Jerry Bruckheimer, whose touch turns everything into shit, the problem here is the reek of producer Stanley Kramer. All Kramer's films suffer from an embarrassing self-awareness, like somebody exclaiming: "Look everybody, we're making a classic!" Only the biggest of biggest issues qualify to be subject for mr. Kramer's stories. Then the biggest actors have to play them out. Next we got all the conventional artistry of photography and musical scoring to sustain that. And finally we need a whole lot of Oscar nobs. No small stories here. Not to get too personal. To dislike mr. Kramer is warped from the onset, since the viewer will never get to know him on a personal level through watching his movies.

But to return to the feature at hand, in this film the drama is forced through the one good guy surrounded by nothing but cowardice and corruption. No matter the realism, it's that particular contrast which strains for the effect. Stanley Kramer certainly was here. And I can fully understand the disdain traditional western makers like John Ford felt for this film: it's not just naïve patriotism that says that there's still some good in most people, whether American or not. It's a general aversion against cynicism that says so also. But when Howard Hawks makes his statement about that, I also do not swallow. Some say Rio Bravo(1959), where the marshal does not make an appeal on the citizenry for assistance against the villains, was mr. Hawks's last masterpiece. I say it was his last good film, tragic for setting in the final fade-out on mr. Hawks's career.

Lawrence of Arabia (1961)

Even Steven Spielberg is no oracle of infallible stance. Personally I much rather prefer David Lean's early films. As astounding as it may seem, I think mr. Lean performed best under circumstances which were not completely his own. Where Hitchcock did not like working for David O. Selznick and Fred Zinnemann would never again work with Stanley Kramer, David Lean was the kind of director who was best as a hired-on director. Bringing the works of Charles Dickens and Noel Coward to the screen. His underrated classic Madeleine (1950) was far from his pet-project, more a favour to his wife. The bridge on the river Kwai (1957) brought to him the challenge of landing himself in Hollywood. But after he was settled so quickly, he could pick his own projects, and he started to waver. His films became increasingly self-indulgent, where self-indulgence at the same time can still mean 'everybody's gotta like', due to the sheer size of his productions. Mr. Lean managed to maintain his position over 10 years with three films which grew increasingly dull. The last one, Ryan's daughter (1970) is actually my favourite of those, because if you're going to be a drag, do it well.

But to return to the feature at hand, Lawrence turned out a tragedy for being another beginning of the end, this time for mr. Lean. Still, I can't deny many of the productional qualities to Lawrence. The imagery is still impressive, but the climactic spectacle disappoints after a long wait and the film as a whole is worn out in time. The thing that makes it really go pear shaped for me is the complete miscasting of Peter O'Toole. We're supposed to see this manly hero, instead we see this schmercking actor. With the emphasis on actor. How to ruin a movie all on one's own. This guy obviously does not belong in the harsh conditions of a desert. Put him in the safe corridors of a theatre, or the manageable spaces of a studio. This miscast is acknowledged by the fact that O'Toole was only the third choice for the part, after it was turned down by Albert Finney and Marlon Brando. That's saying a lot, at least compromise.

The godfather, part II (1974)

When Francis Ford Coppola walked up to the stage to pick up his Best director Oscar for this one, he must have known it to be the ultimate irony. Not getting when he deserved it, but getting it when he not deserved it. Especially since it was Bob Fosse who snatched the Oscar away from the original Godfather, while mr. Fosse deserved winning more in 1974. Hollywood rewards a sell-out. And mr. Coppola only sold out so he attained the creative freedom to make The conversation. In his heart he must've been thoroughly hoping to win for that one, as much as he was hoping not to win for his selling out. But the powers that be told mr. Coppola: "You see? It's not that bad if you do what we want you to."

But to return to the feature at hand, this film is all frills next to the first movie. With the exception of the DeNiro sequences, which were the only scenes to recapture some of the original atmosphere. Take those scenes and put them in front of the first movie and throw the rest away. The first movie is a school example of a tight scenario, conventional in its structure (Introduction, First plot point, Second plot point, Climax), but rounded off to near-perfection. No further additions needed. Just some more commercial success, obviously. The compromises in the second instalment were there from the get-go. Most of Michael Corleone's character development was in the first movie. Brando refused to return. The character of Clemenza was replaced by another, because of problems with the actor from the first film. It's invisible to the unknowing eye, but the cohesion of the whole franchise suffered from these compromises. And since Coppola really put his heart into something else, these are probably just a few examples of the carelessly improvised solutions to the setbacks that did occur during the production of this crowd-pleaser.

The deer hunter (1978)

Sometimes, when you have a one-hit wonder, it might very well be that the one hit wasn't so great after all. In that sense, time becomes the ultimate discriminating factor in determining quality and the people who deliver (and them that don't). This is one film that does not hold up. It just took the wind from the sails of mr. Coppola's extended production of Apocalypse now (1979) and by now it was confirmed to us that in fact it's better to not win that damned Oscar. When the redeeming quality would be that this was the first Vietnam picture, then history should be merciless and just opt for the best Vietnam picture.

But to return to the feature at hand, this movie is a three hour sit through, which revolves around just one real plot point. Here's this bunch of regular guys. And here's this bunch of regular guys in the Vietnam war. What a shock! War is terrible, isn't it. And love is all and give Chance a piece. You telling me? Anyway, once the effect wears off, the movie loses its powers, and surprise surprise it does not work for repeated viewings. Oh and there's something with Russian roulette in there too, which is also terrible, but it says nothing to me about war, except for like this crude metaphor for how war kills off people randomly. Another lesson taken from this one: how to make a war movie without ever actually showing the theatre of war.

E.T.- the extra-terrestrial (1982)

There's a fascinating discrepancy which can be derived from the works of Steven Spielberg. The contradiction between fantasy and reality, between commercial escapism and acclaimed confrontational realism. In this way mr. Spielberg personifies the ongoing tension between the entertainment and the art of cinema. First mr. Spielberg tried to integrate realism into the most fantastic subjects, then he abandoned realism altogether. But when he tried to return to realism he found realism had now abandoned him. It was personal historic trauma which led him to take enough of a chance to regain it. Mr. Spielberg is the one of his generation who did not shrivel away following his past achievements because he managed to renew himself half-way through his career.

But to return to the feature at hand, in this populair highlight of mr. Spielberg's career the signs of trouble are already there. It's easy to imagine mr. Spielberg as a young boy fantasising about finding an alien in his own backyard. "Wouldn't that be neat?" That's where this movie originated. So it became his personal pet project. But he was too over confident. He had come to rely on his (audio-)visual trickery too much and showed his audiences no respect for their competences. Well all right, this is a children's movie, but that's no excuse. This movie is the Champion of Fakery (closely followed by The Shawshank redemption). All the way through, it seems like the artificial lighting is trying to work itself to within the frame. Eventually it actually succeeds. Everything's on there two layers thick. And that's not to mention the unexplained resurrection of the creature. Someone suggested that it was a metaphor for Christ, but my guess is that it was like everything else in this picture, to get the effect. And that's all that meant.

Scarface (1983)

Concerning disrespect for one's audience, Brian DePalma really takes the cake. Antonio Banderas told this anecdote about the production of Femme Fatale, when he has to pull a photo camera up from his chest to within the frame. But in previous wider shots he had not been wearing a camera at all. Mr. DePalma's reply on further inquiry: "You are a photographer. People won't notice." Call that a goof, when it actually is wilful indolence. That's no accident, that's a symptom, and just one example.

But to return to the feature at hand, this must be one of the most harmful movies ever made. As a film it's not that bad. The problem is exploitation. Was the original movie a (hypocrite's) PC call against real life syndicated crime violence, this remake is a shameless glorification of violence. Make no mistake about that. Tony Montana did become a roll model for the deranged, lacking any kind of sense. The character makes every mistake in the book ("don't get high on your own supply"), is inevitably going to crash and burn, and it is suggested he has incestuous feelings towards his sister. A loser example for losers. Too many of those imitating mr. Pacino's performance think they can act. In fact it only confirms how much the performance was completely over the top. ("Look mom! I'm over the top of the world!")

Some more 'classic' DVDs on wholesale, but I don't buy
Jaws (1975)
Doctor Zhivago (1965)
The defiant ones (1958)
Rio Bravo (1959)
The big sleep (1945)
The greatest show on earth (1952)
The ten commandments (1956)
Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)
The longest day (1962)
The great escape (1963)
Midnight cowboy (1968)
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
The sting (1973)
Rocky (1976)

To conclude and to distract some kind of common denominator from this list I would say that some people really excel when they've reached some level of creative freedom, while others start to flounder. I reckon some people maintain long term ambitions and some set more short term goals. Maybe when one reaches one's goals, one needs to realize that when life is the journey, there are no short term goals.

Fade-out listomania

This is why I should quit this kind of 'list' pieces. Maybe you find my opinions boring; maybe you find them entertaining, slightly. But I'm confined to giving my opinions, and there's no accounting for taste. Probably my last list is just as incomprehensible for you who like before mentioned films, as it is incomprehensible for me that you favourite these films. In this sense I almost feel like apologizing to you for thrusting my opinions upon you the way I do. Instead I would just like to thank you, those who've reached this point. And to resolve to not bother anyone with lists any longer and to find a better and more constructive way to write about film.

Next up: my list of silliest movie lists on AC. First I'll delve into the silliest approaches, then I will take on all of your misconceptions!

[P.S. At this time The Shawshank redemption (Habeas Corpus 2) has taken over the number 1 spot of Imdb's Top 250 for a couple of weeks now. Oh no! The battle for Imdb has been lost! I have failed. I must go now into exile and not return to that place ever again.]