Thursday, March 02, 2006

Real to Reel

As the Oscars approach, it occurs to me that I have rarely blogged about movies.
There's a good reason for that. I don't see many movies.
I have a friend who is a real connoiseuse (I just made that word up) of the cinema. Sometimes it seems like she has spent more time watching movies than I've spent alive. And every time I see her, she manages to bring up a movie in casual conversation that I have never seen--often never even heard of. At such moments, in the theater of my mind, I see her face crinkling up in a moue of disgust, and her voice thunders out in Dolby 6.1: "Whhhhaaaaaat! You haven't seen Pissholes in the Snow? But that's a classic! The next time you come here, I'm gonna chain you to this chair and make you watch it."
*sigh*
There was a period between 1990-1993 or so when I saw practically every movie that Hollywood released. For a good chunk of that time, I was engaged to somebody who really liked to go to the movies, and so I went along. It wasn't all bad--a few of my favourite movies of all time came out in those years (list to follow, for all you folks who wonder what a best-of looks like from somebody who hasn't seen the majority of everybody else's best-ofs.) But a lot of the time I was bored, and twice I actually got up and walked out (Home Alone and Beethoven). For a long time after that relationship imploded, I went to the multiplex very seldom.
Since I met Eva in 1998, I've made a point of going out to Galaxy or SilverCity (it's gotta be one or the other; stadium seating has me spoiled) three or maybe four times a year, usually catching a twinbill each time. Our first date was The Matrix: we favour big, sprawling epics and action movies if there's a modicum of plot to them.
You have to understand something about my childhood. I grew up in a family that made the Cleavers look degenerate. I can still remember my stepfather dragging me out of the first Naked Gun flick when I was--get this--sixteen years old. We made it through "nice beaver!...Thanks, I just had it stuffed" without incident, but "sexual assault with a concrete dildo" activated a spring in John's seat, and out we went. I would rank that as one of the most humiliating experiences of my life, if anyone had seen us...as it was, people were laughing too hard to notice. Of course, I saw that movie on my own as soon as I could, and found it side-splittingly funny. It's amazing how hilarious things are when you're allowed to laugh.
Funny story: my mother once rented Pulp Fiction, I guess because that nice boy from Grease was in it. I think it lasted about three minutes in the VCR. (In that house, "VCR" is an alternate spelling of "vicar".)
Another thing that has limited my filmgoing experience is my distaste for violence. That used to be an extreme thing when I was a kid--I'd burst into tears if somebody onscreen was punched, just as if I had been myself. I've stifled most of that now, but I still wonder what the appeal is when bodies get ventilated or heads explode. Scratch most so-called "horror" movies today--nearly every one is a bloody mess.
And as far as stuff that came out before I was born, or even before I was old enough to appreciate movies--there's so much new stuff coming out! I don't even have time to keep up with the new releases! My education in old flicks begins with A Christmas Carol, proceeds through The Wizard of Oz, and ends at The Sound of Music. Even I recognize how pathetic that is...but I'm not in much of a hurry to change it.
No...here's how deprived I am: I have, in fact, seen the original Star Wars, but I fell asleep in The Empire Strikes Back and never bothered with the rest of the series. Now, of course, the story's grown so bloated that I'd need a full weekend just to see it all--and sorry to all you folks out there who find this blasphemous, but I have better things to do of a weekend. Like pick belly-button lint.
Shall I go on? The Godfather...never seen it. Anything with James Bond in it..nope. I have seen one of the Rambo flicks, and found it so ludicrous I couldn't be bothered to watch any others. It goes without saying I've never seen a John Wayne flick, or a Dirty Harry. Name something pre-1990s that I simply have to have watched at some point, and the odds are at least 50-50 I haven't.
So what have I seen? Every Stephen King movie ever made (The Shawshank Redemption was the best of them). A goodish helping of 80s cheese, some of which I really like. A few arty films that most of you have never seen, and I'd lay money on it. And most (not all) of Oscar's Best Picture winners for the last fifteen years. I outright hated a few of those, by the way.

When you get right down to it, I'd rather read the book. It's almost always considerably better than the filmed version. You can spend longer with the characters--longer in the world the author has created. Even Rosemary's Baby--the only movie, to my knowledge, that was shot line-for-line and scene-for-scene from its book source--still, somehow, pales.


Without further ado, my annotated list of best-ofs. These are in no particular order.

TITANIC (1997) Everybody else has seen this one, right? I saw it four times in the theatre, and have since watched it twice on video. I didn't bawl like a girl when Jack died--fer Chrissake, Jack, find your own piece of flotsam and get up on top of it for a few hours, you'd still be alive!--but I did tear up for the real passengers. I couldn't help it. This movie, which is an example of special effects lending to the story rather than being the story, birthed an obsession in me that has since, thankfully, abated.
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991) Oscar and I agree: this was fantastic. Have you noticed that every villain since tries mightily to live up to Hopkins' portrayal of Hannibal Lecter...and fails? (Incidentally, both the sequel, Hannibal, and the prequel, Red Dragon, were very good, though neither was up to the original.)
MR. HOLLAND'S OPUS (1995) chronicles a life I think I could have lived, and does a damn good job of it. Richard Dreyfuss in the title role gives a nuanced performance: a flawed husband and father who eventually redeems himself.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY: Again, everybody's seen this: if you haven't, you really should. Peter Jackson has done the impossible, not just successfully porting Tolkien's vision to the screen, but actually improving on it. I've never been able to get through the books, and I've tried several times. Any time the movies start to get boring--and they do; at ten hours plus they're bound to--all you have to do is look at that New Zealand cinematography and you're captivated all over again.
THE RED VIOLIN (1998) Absolutely brilliant and undeservedly obscure. Samuel L. Jackson is the only big name here. The story weaves through centuries and countries...there are four languages spoken, so subtitles figure prominently, but please don't let that deter you from seeing it: it's timeless.
THE CUTTING EDGE (1992) Look, I know it's cheesy. And predictable. And trite. But it's still the best romantic comedy I've ever seen. "Toe-pick!"
THE HARRY POTTER SERIES: These movies just keep getting better and better. My only nitpick is that they aren't bloody long enough.
ATANARJUAT: THE FAST RUNNER (2001) My wife, who faithfully sat through the entire running time, dismissed this as three hours of snow. I thought it was much more than that. Yes, the pace is, ahem, glacial, but the longer this movie went on, the more drawn into its narrative I was. This is in Inuktitut, and it provides a window on a culture most of us have never even considered. I was enthralled.
XXX (2002): What the hell's this doing on here? True, you'd have to search long and hard to find something more different from the previous entry. And I know Vin Diesel can't act. Luckily, in this movie, he doesn't have to. The stunts in this have to be seen to be believed. In a Hollyworld where every single action movie has to be better than the one before, the action scenes in this have yet to be topped. Leave your brain at the door.
CONTACT (1997) Jodie Foster again, in a movie that asks questions. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, an avowed atheist, this is one of the most profound, spiritual movies I've ever seen. You can't help but come away from this with a new perspective on life, the universe, and everything.
THE PRINCE OF TIDES (1991) I'm including this as a special bonus. It wasn't the best movie I ever saw, but I got dragged into it expecting it to be the worst I'd ever see, and it shocked me. It's very good, if you can get past the sex scenes with Barbra Streisand. (After I saw this, I immediately got a hold of the book, and thus discovered one of my favourite authors, Pat Conroy.)


6 comments:

jeopardygirl said...

If you do not see any other Star Wars movies, I will forgive you, but you MUST see The Empire Strikes Back. OH, and I still can't believe you haven't seen Citizen Kane!

Peter Dodson said...

Hey Ken. I used to be a huge movie guy as well. I worked at a movie theatre and went as much as I could. But movies are too expensive now and for the most part, suck. My gal and I rent them sometimes, but not too often. The last few years I have become a doc. film buff. Real life is just more entertaining I guess.

If you want a good laugh rent Office Space. Probably the best take on modern society that I have ever seen. Great stuff.

Ken Breadner said...

Now why would I want to see a movie with the biggest plot hole of all time?
Right at the start of the movie, Charles Foster Kane dies alone, right? SO HOW IN THE WORLD DOES ANYBODY KNOW HIS LAST WORD IS 'ROSEBUD'?
*giggle* Jes 'cause I haven't seen it, doesn't mean I don't know a bit about it.

jeopardygirl said...

A guy like Charles Foster Kane is never alone, exactly. There are servants and stuff. Jeesh. Anyway, that's not why I love that movie. It is beautifully shot, beautifully acted and wonderfully designed. Every shot is like artwork, in my opinion.

Let's face it, Ken, you're the first to say that you don't really notice visual details, and maybe that's why you're content to simply know about cultural touchstones in older movies and not watch them. BUT, I am telling you, for the umpteenth time, you're missing out. They become touchstones because they stir something up in people, and then get corrupted from too many out-of-context references. When in doubt, always go to the original source, that's what I say.

Ken Breadner said...

Jen,
Really, I'm not quite THAT cynical. I know these things are classics for a reason. (That said, I read about that Citizen Kane goof and just about split a gut: widely considered to be the best movie ever made, and its entire premise falls apart in the first minute...and nobody notices?
I will make a point of seeing some carefully selected old gems, some time in my life. Just not Gone With The Wind, please...I tried to watch that once and couldn't get through the opening credits. They scared me. They went on and on and on and on and on and on and on and I thought, 'how the hell am I going to remember all these characters?'
*sigh*

jeopardygirl said...

I hated Gone With the Wind, too, but then, I did watch the whole thing. The book was much better.

A few recommendations (seriously):

Citizen Kane
The Maltese Falcon
Blade Runner
The Deer Hunter
The Searchers
The Shop Around the Corner
Singin' In The Rain
Psycho (the original)
Breakfast at Tiffany's