Criterion Top Ten

by Sonny Bunch on May 18, 2012

How about some Friday culture fun? Inspired by some chatter on Twitter, I thought I’d throw together a Criterion Top Ten. Feel free to leave your rude commentary about how uncultured I am in the comments. I will be happy to ignore you. Especially if you’re just stopping by to recommend Russian snuff films. (You know who you are.)

Note: This will not be a straight top ten, as I plan on doubling up a few spots in order to highlight multiple films by the same director. Otherwise it’d be a bit Terry Gilliam/Wes Anderson heavy. Further note: This is not a ranking (i.e., Number One is not the “best” or “my favorite”). It’s just a collection.

  1. Brazil (3 disc set)/Time Bandits — The 3 disc set of Brazil is, quite simply, a must-own for any lover of film who also has an interest in the way the industry of film works. The set includes three cuts of the movie and a documentary that reveals just what Gilliam had to go through to get this dark, dystopian, and hilarious film in front of audiences. Time Bandits (out of print) isn’t as good—and the disc is so old it isn’t even enhanced for 16×9 televisions—but it’s a personal favorite as it’s the first movie I have a memory of watching.
  2. The Royal Tenenbaums/Rushmore — The master of modern quirk, Wes Anderson isn’t for everyone, I get it. But The Royal Tenenbaums has always struck me as possessing the perfect mixture of unrequited longing, indescribable silliness, and heartfelt joy. Rushmore, meanwhile, deserves its place on this list for Bill Murray’s performance alone. Between this and Lost in Translation, Murray shifted into a weird combo role of cinematic wiseman and cinematic prankster. You never know quite where he’s going to show up or what he’s going to be doing, but you know it’ll be worth watching.
  3. The Third Man — Worth the price of admission for Orson Welles’ (limited) screen time alone, I’m including this film as much for what it looks like as the story, direction, or performances. You’ve never seen an old black and white picture look this good. Unfortunately out of print, it’s worth picking up if you can find a copy.
  4. If…. — When the whole “Willard Romneyhands was totally a bully in prep school” nontroversy broke a few weeks back, I couldn’t help but think “Hm. Clearly these people have never seen If…. because, had they, they would know that cutting some kid’s hair is a pretty light form of hazing, all things considered. Lindsay Anderson’s best known, and best, film takes a blow torch to the strictures of upper class English life and the boarding school culture that bred generations of decent chaps. Perhaps best known as the first onscreen appearance of Malcolm McDowell (later Alex in A Clockwork Orange), If…. remains a powerful portrait of a lifestyle now gone.
  5. The Killing/Paths of Glory — Speaking of Stanley Kubrick, you can pick up his early offerings in pristine blu-ray (with a bonus third movie: The Killing also features a HD transfer of Kubrick’s Killer’s Kiss, by no means a great film but still an instructive one). In the way it plays with chronology and point of view, The Killing feels almost modern, Tarantinoesque. Paths of Glory doesn’t do as much for me—I’ll take Dr. Strangelove‘s comedic absurdism over Paths of Glory‘s more dour absurdism any day of the week—but it’s a fascinating film nonetheless from a stylistic point of view: You can see all of Kubrick’s quirks (long tracking shots, close up facial shots, etc.) starting to come together in this, his first major film.
  6. Gimme Shelter — Great music, an interesting time, and the biggest rock band in the world confronted with a murder captured on film that occurred at one of their biggest performances. Criterion has a bunch of films by the Maysles brothers—Salesmen is probably their crowning achievement; Grey Gardens is also quite good—but this is the one I return to time and again.
  7. Chasing Amy — The first Criterion disc I ever owned, and an extremely important film to me growing up. Probably Kevin Smith’s finest work. I won’t argue that this is the best picture on this list, but it’s one I enjoy a heck of a lot. Joey Lauren Adams in delightful. Jason Lee proved he could act a little. Ben Affleck is probably the weak link in this picture, and even he’s pretty okay, more or less. (He’s really not a very good actor; can we admit this yet?) As a bonus, the commentary track is extremely funny. Kevin Smith is one of the few directors who really got commentary tracks; those he recorded for Clerks, Mallrats, this flick, and Dogma are all kind of hilarious.
  8. Gomorrah — “Finally, a movie with subtitles!” I hear someone snarking. Whatever, subtitles blow. Gomorrah is an oppressive film, in a way: The deep-rooted culture of corruption and crime and fear overwhelms everything else, leaving the audience punished by the time credits roll. Powerful and dark and realistic, it’s kind of the anti-Sopranos, a reminder that a life of crime isn’t glamorous or beautiful but dreadful and deadly. When the rule of law breaks down, the lawmakers will be those willing to kill for even minor infractions. It’s a scary thought.
  9. Do the Right Thing — Spike Lee is, in many ways, an overrated filmmaker who lets his prejudices cloud his pictures and his judgment. But this remains a striking, brilliant, and controversial film, a reminder of what life is like outside of our little bubbles and the resentment that festers in certain communities. Still worth watching despite the dreadful performance by Spike Lee (even worse than Ben Affleck, that one) and the only slightly better performance by Rosie Perez.
  10. The Man Who Fell to Earth — Frankly, I’m still not 100 percent sure what to make of this picture. But I enjoy the hell out of it. It’s trippy and bizarre and sexy and funny and creepy and scary all at the same time. Is there anyone more suited to play an alien pretending to be a man than David Bowie? Beside maybe Tilda Swinton? Probably my favorite Bowie performance (The Prestige and Zoolander notwithstanding). Looks absolutely beautiful in Blu-ray.

 

{ 3 comments }

Conservatives and Twitter

by Sonny Bunch on May 17, 2012

John Hinderaker thinks that conservatives are using Twitter to their advantage:

In the skirmishing so far, one perhaps surprising media advantage has become clear: the right is clobbering the left on Twitter.

Maybe it’s because Twitter puts a premium on brevity and cleverness. I don’t know. But for some reason, it seems to be a natural medium for conservatives. We saw it when the Hilary Rosen interview (“Ann Romney never worked a day in her life”) prompted a Twitterstorm. We saw it again when #ObamaEatsDogs exploded, and when #Julia blew up in the White House’s face like an exploding cigar. Currently, the White House is promoting #AskMichelle, where loyal Democrats can go to ask the First Lady a question. Only nearly all of the questions have come from conservatives.

Conor Friedersdorf thinks this is a “textbook example of the right’s epistemic closure”:

Doug Mataconis points out that dominating Twitter and its memes is probably meaningless, even when it happens. He’s probably right. But I still think Hinderaker’s post is worth noting because it’s such a perfect example of someone self-consciously curating an ideologically skewed information stream and then reflexively presuming that what they see there obviously reflects reality.

He also includes a graphic showing the feeds with the largest number of followers,* notably bereft of any conservative figures.

Image by Flickr user tveskov

But Conor’s kind of talking past Hinderaker. He wasn’t arguing that GOP operatives outnumber liberal operatives on Twitter, or that Mitt Romney has more followers than Barack Obama, or any such thing. What he was saying is that conservatives are using Twitter to reshape the media narrative. They are hijacking memes promoted by the White House and turning them into objects of derision. They are driving stories forward that the White House would rather have left in the dust.

As Hinderaker writes, a perfect example of this is the Hilary Rosen story, which I wrote about here. Instead of being a throw away line on a cable news show, Rosen’s gaffe turned into a weeklong ordeal for the White House that might have alienated an extremely important bloc of voters: women. Jim Treacher almost singlehandedly neutralized that absurd “Mitt Romney hates dogs” story with his “#ObamaEatsDogs” hashtag meme. The entire rightosphere highlighted the creepiness of Barack Obama’s “Attack Watch” campaign, shutting that Orwellian nonsense down before it had a chance to take root.

But don’t take my word for it! The media is picking up on this too. Writing about that absurd, creepy, proto-fascist Julia campaign, Politico took note of the spontaneous reaction from the right. The Washington Post noted the conservative attack on Attack Watch that ruined that brilliant initiative without too much effort. Eventually, the media takes the hint and even gets in on the action after conservative prompting.

On Twitter, you don’t need 15M pairs of eyeballs to change the debate. You need to grab the attention of the Jake Tappers or the Wolf Blitzers (or, perhaps even more importantly, their producers). You need to convince the Politicos of the world to change the topic or focus on something else. You need to disrupt the conversation or strangle it in its crib so it can’t take a foothold. This is what conservatives are doing on Twitter. Trust me, we’d be happy to focus on the economy and the debt and unemployment, but we’re not going to get to focus on those issues if the media thinks that idiocy like the #Julia campaign or the fact that Mitt Romney put his dog on the roof of his car that one time are making an impact on voters.

*What’s kind of hilarious about this is that, indirectly, Conor’s demonstrating Obama’s one true asset: His celebrity. In what world would the president of the United States want to be in the lower ranks of Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Rihanna, Britney Spears, Shakira, Kim Kardashian, and Taylor Swift? One who is seriously in love with himself, that’s who. But I digress.

{ 6 comments }

Redefining Positivity

by Sonny Bunch on May 16, 2012

“Samuel L. Jackson generated controversy when he responded angrily to what was, on balance, a positive review from AO Scott in the New York Times.” –Freddie DeBoer, Parabsis (Emphasis mine.)

“While ‘The Avengers’ is hardly worth raging about, its failures are significant and dispiriting. The light, amusing bits cannot overcome the grinding, hectic emptiness, the bloated cynicism that is less a shortcoming of this particular film than a feature of the genre. Mr. Whedon’s playful, democratic pop sensibility is no match for the glowering authoritarianism that now defines Hollywood’s comic-book universe.”–AO Scott’s negative review of The Avengers in the New York Times.

I mean, I’m with Freddie that nerds should probably get over playing the role of the aggrieved minority. This post on Nikola Tesla was great! Samuel L. Jackson should not have released the hounds on Scott! But there’s no reason to just kinda misrepresent what AO Scott wrote. His Metacritic score was a 40 (of 100) and he rated it rotten on Rotten Tomatoes. This was not, on balance, a positive review.

Just sayin’, is all.

{ 0 comments }

President Obama, Political Lies, and Gay Marriage

by Sonny Bunch on May 16, 2012

Photo by Flickr user San Diego Shooter

My latest at Doublethink is on the mysterious absence of handwringing over money in politics after President Obama’s (latest) flip-flop on gay marriage. I thought the influence of money on political decisionmaking was the worstest thing in the whole wide world. I was obviously mistaken.

Anyway, I wanted to ask a tangential question. We all basically thought Obama was lying about being opposed to gay marriage and that he hadn’t come out in favor of it for political reasons, right? Every single liberal I talked to prior to the move said as much; most conservatives I know said the same, but more cynically. We were all basically on the same page.

That’s not the question. This is the question: Does anyone think he’s not still lying?

Because his position now is basically, “Hey, federalism! I personally support gay marriage, but this is totes a state and local issue, guys.” Since when has Barack Obama been a big proponent of federalism? Did I miss something? Is this another latent mutant power he has developed in his evolution? Does he really think it’s fine that every time gay marriage has come up for a vote among the average people, it has lost?

Of course, we might have a better insight into this if ABC had bothered sending in an interviewer who isn’t renowned for her softball interviews. We might even know if he was flip-flopping because one in six of his bundlers is gay and they were withholding funds for his Super PAC (another issue he flip-flopped on, bee-tee-dubs) due to his waffling?

Just saying is all.

{ 0 comments }

Hipster Racism, Fojol Brothers Edition

by Sonny Bunch on May 15, 2012

The dread hipster racism has reared its ugly head once again, this time in the world of food trucks. Writes the Huffington Post:

On Friday, disgruntled D.C. area resident Drew Franklin, posted an “Open Letter to the ‘Fojol’ Bro-dawgs” on Facebook.

The letter concerns the Fojol Brothers food truck, whose proprietors sell decently-reviewed Indian, Thai and Ethiopian food while wearing fake mustaches and brightly-colored turbans, and whose fictional “traveling culinary carnival” origin storyhas the Fojols coming from the country of “Merlindia” to “share their family traditions with the world.”

These traditions are “over-the-top racist,” Franklin wrote in his letter. The “brothers” themselves are “worthy ambassadors of poor taste” and “well-meaning (if woefully misguided) white boys with a contemptible sense of humor.”

As one of the operators of the truck put it, accusations of racism occur “very infrequently. And so it doesn’t seem very legitimate. It’s generally people who are offended on behalf of another group.”

If I didn’t have lunch plans already today, I’d eat at Fojol Bros. just to spite Franklin. I don’t even like the food they sell; idiocy must be countered, however.

{ 2 comments }

What’s Right Is Right

by Sonny Bunch on May 15, 2012

A blogger wrote an article about an item of local news and published it. Several days later, a local newspaper—a mom and pop-style organization, from the look of things—reprinted his article in full. As the blog’s author, Duane Lester, puts it: “The only differences I see is the removal of “MO” from the headline and someone added a paragraph to the end of the article, blaming the sheriff for the downgrading of the county’s rating. Other than that, the scraping of the article was so complete, it included my sub-heading and my typos.”

In response, he went to the newspaper, showed them where the original story came from, and demanded payment ($500) from the proprietors who basically just kind of looked surprised that what they were doing is wrong. A video of the encounter is below:

Well done, sir! I salute you for your efforts. His intellectual property was stolen without renumeration and he demanded, and received, satisfaction.

I’d like to shift away from Lester, however, and ask a few questions of the pro-piracy* crowd.

  • Given that the marginal cost of reproducing Lester’s piece was essentially zero, he shouldn’t really expect any payment higher than that, right?
  • If the clueless proprietors of this newspaper had known that he’d want payment for the piece they probably wouldn’t have run it, so Lester wasn’t actually losing out on any money when they ran it anyway, right?
  • Really, Lester’s biggest crime is expecting too much money in payment; if he charged a more reasonable fee (say, $25), then local newspapers would be flocking to him in droves, would they not?
  • They changed the subhed and added their own paragraph to Lester’s piece; is this not fair use and a “remix” of the original article?
  • Lester suffered no loss—he still had the original blog post!—so this isn’t “stealing” or “theft,” right?**
It’s easy to justify bad behavior when we’re talking about HBO and Game of thrones or the music industry. It’s much harder when we’re talking about one of our own, isn’t it?

 
*”We’re not ‘pro-piracy,’ we just understand the economic rationale behind piracy, excuse the behavior of pirates, bolster their misdeeds with our intellectual efforts, fight to keep open the peer-to-peer sites used predominantly for piracy, blame the victim for suffering piracy by charging unreasonable prices, don’t want to ‘break‘ the Internet to stop piracy, etc.” Spare me.

**Tip of the homburg to Victor Morton for that one.

{ 9 comments }

Peter Berg on Nuclear Iran

May 14, 2012

“It’s the most serious issue facing our planet today. Moreso than the movie Battleship which I’m very excited to have directed, and I love Rihanna she’s a great actress who did a wonderful job in the film…” I just…words fail. Best 1.5 minutes you’ll spend today, trust me.  

Read the full article →

Newsweek’s Getting Lazy, or The Evolution of Obama’s Halo

May 14, 2012

The beatification of Barack Obama was, once, something only to be hinted at: He’s a force for good, bathed in the light of God. It’s like a sunbeam broke through the clouds to highlight his path as the chosen one. But this wasn’t quite driving the point across, so news magazines had to up the [...]

Read the full article →

The Bitch Is Back (mild spoilers for last night’s Mad Men)

May 14, 2012

Has there ever been a character as irredeemably bitchy as Betty Draper? Outside of pure soap operas, I mean. When she isn’t stomping out her daughter’s friendships with Creepy Glen or firing the family’s longtime maid in a fit of pique or complaining about her new arrangement, saying of her new, faithful, loving, husband “I [...]

Read the full article →

Taxes and the Left

May 12, 2012

I always find the left’s take on taxation to be vaguely unsettling. For instance, in this piece on Eduardo Saverin’s decision to renounce his citizenship in order to (potentially) avoid hundreds of millions in taxation, Farhad Manjoo writes: The question is, what’s fair for him to keep? Really? Is that the question? The question isn’t [...]

Read the full article →