By Aaron 6/18/2008

Two summers ago, the AFI list was a curiosity to me that soon developed into a challenge I wanted to conquer. So I printed the list and checked them off one by one until I had seen all of the movies. I really liked some of the movies – especially movies that I would not have thought I would like or probably would not have watched (Sunset Blvd, All About Eve, etc), and there were some that I thought should not be on the list. My “curiosity,” or maybe we should call it “confusion,” returned when AFI reissued their list last summer. Well I thought, maybe they just want to include movies that have been made in the last ten years. That seemed to be logical. Only later would I realize that the AFI does not run on “logic.”

While some new movies were added to the list, many more “old” movies were added to the list. And when I say old I mean old – at least three or four SILENT movies suddenly made the list. Maybe I’m bad at following trends but it seems that in the last decade NO MOVIES HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT SOUND so those movies probably not as influential. The silent movies is really just the tip of the iceberg, but I digress. AFI’s new “10 Greatest Films in 10 Greatest Genres” seems to be like another top 100 list because (check my math) that adds up to 100 movies. Also apparently the classic genres are animation, romantic comedy, western, sports, mystery, fantasy, sci-fi, gangster, courtroom drama, and epic. While some of those could be debated, it showed a continuing trend of the academy looking backward and not forward to the emergence of new genres (spoofs, teen, mockumentary, documentary, holiday, hell even ‘sequels’ could perhaps be a genre). And the AFI continues to ignore movies made in the last few years, of the 90 live action movies only ONE was made in the last decade (Saving Private Ryan in 1998).

Animation was the first category: 1. "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," 1937; 2. "Pinocchio," 1940; 3. "Bambi," 1942; 4. "The Lion King," 1994; 5. "Fantasia," 1940; 6. "Toy Story," 1995; 7. "Beauty and the Beast," 1991; 8. "Shrek," 2001; 9. "Cinderella," 1950; 10. "Finding Nemo," 2003. This is exactly what I am talking about – refusing to consider the later years and the progression of movies. Sure, I get it, Snow White was the first feature length animated flick so I’ll let that #1 slide but putting Beast at 7! The only animated film to ever be nominated for best picture! Come on. What about Finding Nemo one of the most popular animated movies of all time floundering in 10th place behind the “juggernauts” of Cinderella, Pinocchio, and Bambi. Or the AFI could have SACKED UP and chosen some adult animated movies like A Scanner Darkly.

Fantasy is the second category and one that confuses me: 1. "The Wizard of Oz," 1939; 2. "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," 2001; 3. "It's a Wonderful Life," 1946; 4. "King Kong," 1933; 5. "Miracle on 34th Street, 1947; 6. "Field of Dreams," 1989; 7. "Harvey," 1950; 8. "Groundhog Day," 1993; 9. "The Thief of Bagdad," 1924; 10. "Big," 1988. By biggest problem with most of these movies is that the AFI definition of fantasy (basically anything that happens outside ordinary life) isn’t really how most people conceive “fantasy.” The first two are clearly in the right place and define the genre. But its is followed by what I would consider “a holiday movie,” “a monster movie,” “a holiday movie,” “a sports movie” (more on this later), “a drama,” and a few comedies. Magic, creatures, action, and well, magic seem to constitute the fantasy genre to me. How about we get some Willow or something like that, on this list. The big problem is that their definition creates a tenuous difference between fantasy and sci-fi which include “fantasy” types like Star Wars and such.

Gangster is the third category and the one I am most happy with: 1. "The Godfather," 1972; 2. "Goodfellas," 1990; 3. "The Godfather Part II," 1974; 4. "White Heat," 1949; 5. "Bonnie and Clyde," 1967; 6. "Scarface: The Shame of a Nation," 1932; 7. "Pulp Fiction," 1994; 8. "The Public Enemy," 1931; 9. "Little Caesar," 1930; 10. "Scarface," 1983. These movies are good and good enough that a bunch are on the AFI 100 proper list. I am a LITTLE surprised they consider Pulp Fiction a gangster movie. My biggest disappointment is the institute’s failure to realize The Departed for what it was. Not only an intense look at modern organized crime but also a movie that breezed life back into the underworld crime genre.

Sci-Fi is the fourth category and another one I am pretty happy with: 1. "2001: A Space Odyssey," 1968; 2. "Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope," 1977; 3. "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial," 1982; 4. "A Clockwork Orange," 1971; 5. "The Day The Earth Stood Still," 1951; 6. "Blade Runner," 1982; 7. "Alien," 1979; 8. "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," 1991; 9. "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," 1956; 10. "Back to the Future," 1985. Almost perfect. Putting aside my stubborn contention that 2001 is overrated, I’m not sure (no matter how good it is) that I would call A Clockwork Orange a sci-fi movie. A few old movies clutter the genre blocking modern revolutions like The Matrix, but I already complained about that above. Not seeing The Empire Strikes Back is a little surprising too.

Western is the fifth category and can only be described as “curious:” 1. "The Searchers," 1956; 2. "High Noon," 1952; 3. "Shane," 1953; 4. "Unforgiven," 1992; 5. "Red River," 1948; 6. "The Wild Bunch," 1969; 7. "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," 1969; 8. "McCabe & Mrs. Miller," 1971; 9. "Stagecoach," 1939; 10. "Cat Ballou," 1965. If I was writing a letter to the institute it would probably begin with, “Dear AFI, have you heard of Clint Eastwood?” Maybe I would end it there and just sign my name. Sure they have Unforgiven down but they ignore the whole Eastwood era (admittedly the classics are Italian classics like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but COME ON). And after Unforgiven there haven’t really been that much more to add although I did really like the remake of 3:10 to Yuma.

Sports is the sixth category and clearly describes an activity no AFI member ever participated in: 1. "Raging Bull," 1980; 2. "Rocky," 1976; 3. "The Pride of the Yankees," 1942; 4. "Hoosiers," 1986; 5. "Bull Durham," 1988; 6. "The Hustler," 1961; 7. "Caddyshack," 1980; 8. "Breaking Away," 1979; 9. "National Velvet," 1944; 10. "Jerry Maguire," 1996. Besides that I think Raging Bull is overrated, this category frustrates me, the AFI defines “sports” as a genre where the protagonist is engaged in an athletic competition. Jerry Maguire – not playing sports, Caddyshack – not really about sports, or really even golf, and well, The Hustler is about POOL. Field of Dreams is about the love of the game and how as an American pastime it defined a generation and continues to define the relationship between father and son. Costner knew so much about the love of the game after this flick that he made another shittier flick with that same title. What were they thinking? Instead they put Bull Durham as the modern baseball flick. Thanks. How about a movie about a sport continuing to gain in popularity like football with a movie like Any Given Sunday? No? Okay, fine.

Mystery is the seventh category and not one I usually think of (I usually call it suspense): 1. "Vertigo," 1958; 2. "Chinatown," 1974; 3. "Rear Window," 1954; 4. "Laura," 1944; 5. "The Third Man," 1949; 6. "The Maltese Falcon," 1941; 7. "North By Northwest," 1959; 8. "Blue Velvet," 1986; 9. "Dial M for Murder," 1954; 10. "The Usual Suspects," 1995. I like the first three so that’s a really good start. AFI 100 holdovers like The Third Man and The Maltese Falcon didn’t do a whole lot for me but the list here shows a small turn toward the future with a movie made only thirteen years ago! I would have liked to see a gutsy pick like Memento here but, as usual the AFI plays it safe.

Romantic Comedy is the eighth category and the list is mildly interesting: 1. "City Lights," 1931; 2. "Annie Hall," 1977; 3. "It Happened One Night," 1934; 4. "Roman Holiday," 1953; 5. "The Philadelphia Story," 1940; 6. "When Harry Met Sally ...," 1989; 7. "Adam's Rib," 1949; 8. "Moonstruck," 1987; 9. "Harold and Maude," 1971; 10. "Sleepless in Seattle," 1993. Rom-Coms fascinate me – to the extent that I’ll probably write a whole analysis of them one day when I find the time but it is very interesting to me that the AFI did not think any of the rom-coms of the past twenty years were worthy here. Very interesting considering the almost rigid three genre production of the last years between action, drama, rom-com. Annie Hall would be my number one but since I like the high placement of AFI 100 vets It Happened One Night and The Philadelphia Story, I won’t complain too loudly.

Courtroom Drama is the ninth category and seems the most artificially created: 1. "To Kill a Mockingbird," 1962; 2. "12 Angry Men," 1957; 3. "Kramer Vs. Kramer," 1979; 4. "The Verdict," 1982; 5. "A Few Good Men," 1992; 6. "Witness for the Prosecution," 1957; 7. "Anatomy of a Murder," 1959; 8. "In Cold Blood," 1967; 9. "A Cry in the Dark," 1988; 10. "Judgment at Nuremberg," 1961. I love TKM but besides a famous scene it doesn’t really seem as much of a courtroom movie as 12 Angry Men. Since the definition is just “the justice system” I would have liked The Fugitive to be on here, or at the very least, they could have been nice and used Ford’s Witness. At the end of the day though how many people are like, “lets go rent a courtroom drama!”

Epic is the last category and has some solid movies: 1. "Lawrence of Arabia," 1962; 2. "Ben-Hur," 1959; 3. "Schindler's List," 1993; 4. "Gone With the Wind," 1939; 5. "Spartacus," 1960; 6. "Titanic," 1997; 7. "All Quiet on the Western Front," 1930; 8. "Saving Private Ryan," 1998; 9. "Reds," 1981; 10. "The Ten Commandments," 1956. The AFI definition basically translates to “long movie about history,” which doesn’t give a whole lot of guidance. But it is tough to argue with the first two although again, I think Schlindler’s is very overrated. What about Gladiator? A best picture movie that inspired many pretenders and revitalized the epic (albeit for a short time). Then think of all the movies in other categories that you would likely describe as epics, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings…did they not want to double dip, or were those imaginings of ‘history’ too different?

In the end this list left me very unsatisfied and quite frustrated (although that isn’t hard to do). I would have thought the utilitarian fact that the AFI committee had to be getting younger would have put newer movies into these lists but I guess we’ll have to wait another ten years – and then the movies will have to compete with all the silent films! Yikes!

If you want to read my rant last year about the new top 100 list, click here. Or if you have other questions or comments for me, don't hesitate to shoot me an email at aaron.saltystix@gmail.com.

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.