Two years ago I sat in a Halifax convention room listening to Bill Clinton give an intensely eloquent and vapid speech for a few hundred doe-eyed people. It took all of my will power not to walk out.
Then I figured, screw it, I'm wasn't working and I hadn't even paid to be there, so I walked out.
I recall this because of a highly entertaining dispute recently between Tim Bousquet, news editor of Halifax's alt weekly The Coast, and (a few vocal spokespeople for) a group of young, upwardly mobile professionals called Fusion. (Full disclosure: Tim and I are both members of a highly ineffective alcoholism support group.)
Basically, Bousquet accused Fusion of being naive Pollyanas, while they shot back that Tim is a cynic who holds back progress.
Funny thing is, they're all backwards. Tim isn't a cynic, he's a hardcore idealist. The Fusion headliners are, if not cynics, playing into inaction.
Tim takes a dim view of the world's prospects - skyrocketing oil prices, looming environmental catastrophe, crippling financial debt, Oprah, etc. He calls for basically overthrowing the system to avert disaster. (Full disclosure: Tim and I co-founded a barbershop quartet in Skokie, Illinois, but it broke up acrimoniously and that son of a bitch still has my cane.)
Meanwhile Fusion's statements come out like, for example, this: "I think one of the most important things a community can do is to engage its citizens in a visioning process to determine collective priorities."
But what happens when you try to take the cliche seriously?
Let's try this one:
Platitude: "We need to be a net importer fo grey matter."
Reaction: "OMG, so true! Repost!"
Identifiable real world consequence: Well, I suppose reducing tuition fees to attract more students to post-secondary education. But then, at a time when we're paying those tuition decreases with borrowed money, how much is affordable? Should we be lowering tuition for rich kids who can afford it, or maybe put money into needs-based grants instead.
Also, attracting bright businesses in the information economy is a no-brainer. But how? Offering economic incentives? Will they just relocate if they get a better deal elsewhere? And again, in a time of deficit, is lowering corporate taxes going to spur enough economic activity to offset the loss in revenue?
From Clinton right on down to Vince the Slap Chop guy, motivational speakers are paid to use linguistic devices to make people feel better, while glossing over ugly truths/product defects.
They are paid, often quite well, to promote a consulting form of slacktivism. From "positivity" to changing your facebook status, the more people are made to feel good about doing nothing the less likely they are to do anything.
Many would interject here and say these motivational speeches are just the first step to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. But look at what just happened in Halifax.
The decision to fund a multi-multi-multi-million dollar convention centre quickly became polarized. Tim flipped hard to the no-side and chain-wrote his way through a ton of CC-bashing pieces (Full disclosure: Tim and I went to Vegas this one time but I can't really talk about it.)
There were many of us on the fence who thought that Tim was reaching at times, but brought up valid concerns. We waited for the rebuttal.
But no counter-arguments had close to the factual heft of the pieces by Tim and other detractors. There was a lot of talk of the need for optimism, kick-starting the downtown, and other platitudes, but little in the way of data other than pointing to suspect business plans.
I'm not saying there wasn't a case to be made that rebutted the No side. In fact, for the purposes of this piece I'm not even saying the convention centre is a bad idea.
I'm saying that I didn't see anyone wade into the numbers and made that detailed defence. Even with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, so many people were willing to support a project unwaveringly because they viewed it as being on the side of progress and optimism.
That's not a progressive mindset, it's a blind spot. And there are plenty of hucksters out there willing to exploit it with their synergistic, next-gen, game-changing, paradigm-shifting, 2.0 crap of the week.
The feel good revolution isn't a means, it's an end. It is an industry that self perpetuates - more talk, more soul searching, more self-affirmation. We get stuck in a holding pattern, waiting for Godot to show up with his magic answers while real world problems flow on unabated.
I guarantee you the people who set up a fraudulent financial system to make themselves rich didn't do it by debating grand ideals, they did it by manipulating cold, hard details. How are we supposed to fight that if our heads are in the clouds?
So here's my five-part appeal to the bright-side-of-life crowd:
- I know that you have good intententions, that you care, and that you genuinely want to affect positive change. And I know that cantankerous old bastards like Tim Bousquet can be insufferable. (Full disclosure: Tim has very soft hands.)
I'm not saying be like him. It's healthy to have a mix of Debbie Downers and Umberto Uppers. Optimism has its place. But-
- At some point you've got to research and advocate for real policy positions. And they're not going to be innovative or collaborative or dynamic, they're going to be old-fashioned, divisive and slow.
I'm not talking about "It'll take hard work," I'm talking about situations like Afghanistan, where our choices are stay and people die, or leave and people die. It's incumbent on us to decide the best of terrible options.
- Changing the world shouldn't just make you feel giddy or happy. It should charge you with a sense of purpose and self-sacrafice. The last part is important because even simple concepts like "going green" will require making changes that will not be easy, cheap, or fun.
- Draw the line between pessimism and defeatism. Things do go badly. We need pessimism to prepare for those scenarios. Don't assume that looking on the bright side is more valuable, or productive, or true than expecting the worst. That way lies delusion.
- Finally, be critical. There's no going back - people will be trying to spin us in many directions for the rest of our lives. We need skepticism to see through it. Use the journalism trick of the better something sounds, the closer you look at it.
I argue with Tim all the time over his ideas. I think some of his grand ideas for social change are over-simplified and out of reach. I argue for a more moderate approach because I think revolutions are too easily hijacked. So maybe I'm a cynic.
But, to steal some lines from my friend Laura Penny: Cynicism is good. Cynicism leads to being pissed off, being pissed off leads to taking action and taking action leads to social change.
I'll leave you with an inspirational quote.
"Thought = creation. If these thoughts are attached to powerful emotions (good or bad) that speeds the creation," - The Secret.
When you look at that and immediately see bullshit, you're on your way.
(Full disclosure: I am a member of secret cabal of Freemasons that run both the financial sector and the entertainment industry, and have a significant financial investment in keeping the working man down.)
Monday, December 13, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Accidental Genius: George Lucas
You didn't see many headlines this week saying "Irvin Kershner, director of Robocop 2, died last weekend at 87."
Many of the obituaries of Kershner, who died Saturday, contain decidedly faint praise. The first one I saw called him a "journeyman director."
But the thing no one can take away from him is that he directed The Empire Strikes Back. That may make him the cinematic version of a one hit wonder, but if your one hit is the equivalent of the combined oeuvre of the Beatles, it's not so bad.
When I started this blog with my friend Mike way back when, we thought up some recurring themes. One of them was going to be called Accidental Genius, about people whose blunders inadvertently spark sublime results. I only ever got around to writing one installment, but Irvin, this one's for you.
George Lucas is an awful, terrible filmmaker. For an excellent recapping of why, check out this weird, twisted 70 minute review of Star Wars Episode 1.
(For those who haven't seen it, I realize how absurd that sounds. I, too, once thought I had far better things to do with my time. And like you, I was wrong. All I can say is give it a chance - it is insightful and well worth the commitment for anyone who appreciates movies.)
Yes, Lucas invented Star Wars. But his early scripts are embarrassingly bad. It took the collaberation of a lot of talented people to get the movie to its final form. Lucas did have a fertile mind to contribute. He also had a knack for special effects and a ton of ambition. And he had greed, and that, ultimately, is what saved Star Wars.
After the first movie became a hit Lucas, consumed by a thirst for power that is in no way ironic considering the content of his films, ceded the director's chair because he needed to dedicate more of his energy to fighting the studios for control.
In the early days his railing against the film establishment lead to greatness. After feuding with Director's Guild of America over the trilogy's famous opening title sequence, Lucas left the guild. It's rumoured he had wanted his friend Stephen Spielberg to direct Empire, but this fell apart after the guild dispute.
Pause for a minute and think about a Spielberg-helmed Empire. Picture Yoda training Luke from the basket of a flying bicycle. Picture Qui-Gon Jinn coming in and crying "This lightsaber! This lightsaber could have saved five more gungans." Picture Tom Hanks somehow being involved.
The horror.
Instead Lucas went with the unconventional choice of Kershner, who excelled at character development, to handle the nitty-gritty directing business.
Because he was busy fighting for merchandising rights, Lucas didn't have time to huff around the set saying "The line is I love you too, Harrison, not I know." Because he was busy setting up sub-companies for every aspect of the production, he was too busy to work a big explosion into the ending.
I submit to you that it was George Lucas's terrible vices that saved us from his even more debilitating faults.
Of course years later he would take back custody of the child that was conceived by him but raised by others, and turn it into an insufferable emo kid. With no studio to rail against, no one to challenge his megalomania, Lucas had the complete control he needed to systematically destroy everything people loved about Star Wars and in turn tarnish the childhoods of millions.
Goddamn you, George Lucas.
But we'll always have the original theatrical cuts of the original movies, where Han shoots first, Boba Fett doesn't have an embarrassing Australian accent, and Luke doesn't look off at Hayden Fucking Christensen at the end of Jedi goddamn you, George Lucas.
Anyway, let's hear it for Irvin, who helped make one of the greatest and most beloved movies of all time. The guy who didn't even want to direct a Star Wars movie, but stepped up to the plate and hit a pinch hit, five-run grand slam.
Irvin Kershner, director of The Empire Strikes Back, died last weekend at 87.
Many of the obituaries of Kershner, who died Saturday, contain decidedly faint praise. The first one I saw called him a "journeyman director."
But the thing no one can take away from him is that he directed The Empire Strikes Back. That may make him the cinematic version of a one hit wonder, but if your one hit is the equivalent of the combined oeuvre of the Beatles, it's not so bad.
When I started this blog with my friend Mike way back when, we thought up some recurring themes. One of them was going to be called Accidental Genius, about people whose blunders inadvertently spark sublime results. I only ever got around to writing one installment, but Irvin, this one's for you.
George Lucas is an awful, terrible filmmaker. For an excellent recapping of why, check out this weird, twisted 70 minute review of Star Wars Episode 1.
(For those who haven't seen it, I realize how absurd that sounds. I, too, once thought I had far better things to do with my time. And like you, I was wrong. All I can say is give it a chance - it is insightful and well worth the commitment for anyone who appreciates movies.)
Yes, Lucas invented Star Wars. But his early scripts are embarrassingly bad. It took the collaberation of a lot of talented people to get the movie to its final form. Lucas did have a fertile mind to contribute. He also had a knack for special effects and a ton of ambition. And he had greed, and that, ultimately, is what saved Star Wars.
After the first movie became a hit Lucas, consumed by a thirst for power that is in no way ironic considering the content of his films, ceded the director's chair because he needed to dedicate more of his energy to fighting the studios for control.
In the early days his railing against the film establishment lead to greatness. After feuding with Director's Guild of America over the trilogy's famous opening title sequence, Lucas left the guild. It's rumoured he had wanted his friend Stephen Spielberg to direct Empire, but this fell apart after the guild dispute.
Pause for a minute and think about a Spielberg-helmed Empire. Picture Yoda training Luke from the basket of a flying bicycle. Picture Qui-Gon Jinn coming in and crying "This lightsaber! This lightsaber could have saved five more gungans." Picture Tom Hanks somehow being involved.
The horror.
Instead Lucas went with the unconventional choice of Kershner, who excelled at character development, to handle the nitty-gritty directing business.
Because he was busy fighting for merchandising rights, Lucas didn't have time to huff around the set saying "The line is I love you too, Harrison, not I know." Because he was busy setting up sub-companies for every aspect of the production, he was too busy to work a big explosion into the ending.
I submit to you that it was George Lucas's terrible vices that saved us from his even more debilitating faults.
Of course years later he would take back custody of the child that was conceived by him but raised by others, and turn it into an insufferable emo kid. With no studio to rail against, no one to challenge his megalomania, Lucas had the complete control he needed to systematically destroy everything people loved about Star Wars and in turn tarnish the childhoods of millions.
Goddamn you, George Lucas.
But we'll always have the original theatrical cuts of the original movies, where Han shoots first, Boba Fett doesn't have an embarrassing Australian accent, and Luke doesn't look off at Hayden Fucking Christensen at the end of Jedi goddamn you, George Lucas.
Anyway, let's hear it for Irvin, who helped make one of the greatest and most beloved movies of all time. The guy who didn't even want to direct a Star Wars movie, but stepped up to the plate and hit a pinch hit, five-run grand slam.
Irvin Kershner, director of The Empire Strikes Back, died last weekend at 87.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Well, I'm off to America
My fellow Canadians,
I like you guys, but lately you've been driving me nuts.
Everything's been far too Canadian recently and I need a break.
Our country loses a bid to join a group of U.N. hall monitors futily screaming at our peers to stop running and we react by retreating to our rooms to write emo poetry and cry about how the other kids don't like us.
Our government was so distraught it actually tried to claim some offhand negative nellying by opposition leader Michael Ignatieff caused literally dozens of countries to snub us.
Quick, how many opposition leaders of foreign nations can you name off the top of your head?
Yeah.
Meanwhile, though our Prime Minister still won't speak to reporters and access to information laws are being systematically underminded, people decide to freak out because MacLean's Magazine was mean to Quebec. A sensational MacLeans front page? This is not news.
Not content with being content about being kept in the dark, it seems we're now getting openly hostile with people who would inform us.
Some Canadians - even people in the media I respected such as MacLean's Scott Feschuk - freaked out at journalists reporting edited-but-still-disturbing details from the Colonol Russell Williams trial.
"It's never pretty when the media gets to cloak their lurid instincts in the guise of doing a duty," Feschuk wrote on Twitter, presumably after lecturing a hobo on getting a job.
Only in Canada - well, maybe Belarus too - would people argue the public shouldn't have the right to know what's going on in a public courtroom because it's gross.
Come on, Canada, grow some balls. In a land where twitter accounts are assigned at birth and hardwired into our skulls, mabe we could whine about this stuff. But in our world, where buttons like 'unsubscribe,' 'unfollow,' and 'unfriend' exist, we've been given the freedom of choice.
I guess you could argue choosing to fight for not having a choice could be seen as a valid choice... ah, but there I go being all Canadian again.
Closer to home sweet home in Halifax, the debate about whether to put oodles of public money towards a new convention centre was shrouded by secrecy for a long time as government declined to say how much it would cost.
To give government some credit - Christ, there I go again - they did finally unveil the cost of the centre about a week before announcing they would support it. Rather than encourage this openness, Marilla Stephenson, the premier columnist at the province's paper of record, lambasted our elected officials for bothering to level with us.
Rather than analyze the information, Stephenson was exhasperated that the government was still doing their wishy-washy thinking thing instead of taking action. "Why on earth did they undertake the briefing, then?" she chirped.
To amplify this... Marilla Stephenson has scolded the government for not rushing to throw money at a hugely controversial project and only telling the public the cost afterwards.
I've reached my breaking point. I need to be around some assholes. I need to look at someone and think ' I wonder if that guy is carrying a gun.' I need to hate something with as much passion as the synopses in my brain can muster, and not even know or care why.
So I'm off to America, where centrists are fictional, liberals are conservatives, and conservatives are closeted homosexuals.
Where beer is cheap, football has four downs and a man's moral compass is pointed right at the heart of his enemies and instead of a compass it's a handgun.
I need to feel that strange sensation that comes over me whenever I visit the U.S. where anyone who tries to stop me from doing whatever I want is committing a grave affront; where absolute freedom is paramount and I end up screaming "But this is America!" at some 7-eleven clerk in Boston who won't sell me booze at midnight.
So I'm going for a taste. I leave tomorrow but, like a deep-sea diver, I'll first acclimatize myself with a couple days in America Lite - Toronto, with it's new Americany mayor - then I drive down to Washington for the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert-sponsored Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on October 30. One can only hope I'll witness a big brawl between tea partiers and Huffington Post bloggers.
I expect one of two things to happen.
1) Immersed in liberty and cheap beer I will emerge like a Chilean miner into a state of enlightenment. I will then return to Canada, start up a grass-roots libertarian party and lead the charge against our nation's paternalistic system.
2) It will become painfully obvious that the US is a crazed, bipolar country veering towards the edge of a cultural and financial cliff that will make the collapse of the Roman empire look like a lesser episode of Seinfeld.
After viewing our country through the other side of this tragic mirror I'll rush back to embrace all that is Canadian and forgive our occassionally infuraiting complacency.
Seeing as Lady Gaga has become America's voice of reason, my money's on the latter.
Either way I figure I come out on top. So I'll see you all in a week. Come on America, don't let me down now when I need you the most.
I like you guys, but lately you've been driving me nuts.
Everything's been far too Canadian recently and I need a break.
Our country loses a bid to join a group of U.N. hall monitors futily screaming at our peers to stop running and we react by retreating to our rooms to write emo poetry and cry about how the other kids don't like us.
Our government was so distraught it actually tried to claim some offhand negative nellying by opposition leader Michael Ignatieff caused literally dozens of countries to snub us.
Quick, how many opposition leaders of foreign nations can you name off the top of your head?
Yeah.
Meanwhile, though our Prime Minister still won't speak to reporters and access to information laws are being systematically underminded, people decide to freak out because MacLean's Magazine was mean to Quebec. A sensational MacLeans front page? This is not news.
Not content with being content about being kept in the dark, it seems we're now getting openly hostile with people who would inform us.
Some Canadians - even people in the media I respected such as MacLean's Scott Feschuk - freaked out at journalists reporting edited-but-still-disturbing details from the Colonol Russell Williams trial.
"It's never pretty when the media gets to cloak their lurid instincts in the guise of doing a duty," Feschuk wrote on Twitter, presumably after lecturing a hobo on getting a job.
Only in Canada - well, maybe Belarus too - would people argue the public shouldn't have the right to know what's going on in a public courtroom because it's gross.
Come on, Canada, grow some balls. In a land where twitter accounts are assigned at birth and hardwired into our skulls, mabe we could whine about this stuff. But in our world, where buttons like 'unsubscribe,' 'unfollow,' and 'unfriend' exist, we've been given the freedom of choice.
I guess you could argue choosing to fight for not having a choice could be seen as a valid choice... ah, but there I go being all Canadian again.
Closer to home sweet home in Halifax, the debate about whether to put oodles of public money towards a new convention centre was shrouded by secrecy for a long time as government declined to say how much it would cost.
To give government some credit - Christ, there I go again - they did finally unveil the cost of the centre about a week before announcing they would support it. Rather than encourage this openness, Marilla Stephenson, the premier columnist at the province's paper of record, lambasted our elected officials for bothering to level with us.
Rather than analyze the information, Stephenson was exhasperated that the government was still doing their wishy-washy thinking thing instead of taking action. "Why on earth did they undertake the briefing, then?" she chirped.
To amplify this... Marilla Stephenson has scolded the government for not rushing to throw money at a hugely controversial project and only telling the public the cost afterwards.
I've reached my breaking point. I need to be around some assholes. I need to look at someone and think ' I wonder if that guy is carrying a gun.' I need to hate something with as much passion as the synopses in my brain can muster, and not even know or care why.
So I'm off to America, where centrists are fictional, liberals are conservatives, and conservatives are closeted homosexuals.
Where beer is cheap, football has four downs and a man's moral compass is pointed right at the heart of his enemies and instead of a compass it's a handgun.
I need to feel that strange sensation that comes over me whenever I visit the U.S. where anyone who tries to stop me from doing whatever I want is committing a grave affront; where absolute freedom is paramount and I end up screaming "But this is America!" at some 7-eleven clerk in Boston who won't sell me booze at midnight.
So I'm going for a taste. I leave tomorrow but, like a deep-sea diver, I'll first acclimatize myself with a couple days in America Lite - Toronto, with it's new Americany mayor - then I drive down to Washington for the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert-sponsored Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on October 30. One can only hope I'll witness a big brawl between tea partiers and Huffington Post bloggers.
I expect one of two things to happen.
1) Immersed in liberty and cheap beer I will emerge like a Chilean miner into a state of enlightenment. I will then return to Canada, start up a grass-roots libertarian party and lead the charge against our nation's paternalistic system.
2) It will become painfully obvious that the US is a crazed, bipolar country veering towards the edge of a cultural and financial cliff that will make the collapse of the Roman empire look like a lesser episode of Seinfeld.
After viewing our country through the other side of this tragic mirror I'll rush back to embrace all that is Canadian and forgive our occassionally infuraiting complacency.
Seeing as Lady Gaga has become America's voice of reason, my money's on the latter.
Either way I figure I come out on top. So I'll see you all in a week. Come on America, don't let me down now when I need you the most.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Don't wish they all could be Dalifornia Girls
I did not go to Dalhousie University.
Instead I went to the much smaller and seperately chartered University of King's College where I got a combined honours degree in journalism and philosophy (known in the biz as the Dying Industry Special).
Because King's is right next to Dal and they share credits, people often say to me "Oh, isn't King's just part of Dalhousie?" to which I usually reply with some combination of the words "off" and "fuck."
King's students have the stereotype of being Nietzsche-quoting-drum-circle-participating-stoned-NDP-voting snobs who rarely wash. I accept this. I accept this because it is still better than being forced to associate with Dal, and I'd like to thank the Dalhousie Student Union for once again illustrating why.
It started last year when students at l'Université du Québec à Montréal made a big lip sync video to the awful Black Eyed Peas song I Gotta Feeling (sample lyrics include listing the days of the week and repeating "tonight's gonna be a good night" 26 times.)
But it seems they were the first university to do it and they got a ton of media coverage so good on them, I guess. But then Dalhousie (real slogan: Inspiring Minds) decided to one-up their Quebecois counterparts by doing the exact same thing only a year later and with an even worse song.
The result: Dalifornia Girls. I'm sure that somewhere out there the UQAM students are bowing their heads and muttering "touché."
If you haven't figured it out by now,
they're not doing the Beach Boys one.
Fun Fact: They cleverly titled the video "Dalhousie Student Union - California Girls - Lip Dub" so that it is impossible to find it by searching "Dalifornia Girls" in either google or Youtube.
OK, so credit to the DSU for finding one of the rare plays on the word California not already taken by the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, but did picking a song celebrating the polar opposite corner of the continent not raise any red flags?
Sure all the references to sunshine and beaches and bikinis still could apply to Halifax. They just happen to apply to the only four months of the year students are not here.
Most baffling of all is that according to this Dal News piece the organizers narrowly picked the Katy Perry song over... Joel Plaskett.
So Joel Plaskett, one of Nova Scotia's most famous musicians whose songs continually references his love for his home and would stand distinct from the pop music of previous videos, was beaten out by a tune about palm trees and short shorts.
I'd like to stop here and reiterate that at no point was I registered as a Dalhousie student. I did take a few courses there but they were mandatory credits, I swear.
Except for History of Russian Film, which admittedly was awesome.
Anyway, how did this happen? That's like like Memorial University in Newfoundland passing over Great Big Sea to lipdub the Insane Clown Posse. (On further consideration, that would be awesome. MUN students: please do this one.)
It's curious that the university's official news organ chose to rev up the hype machine rather than quietly face palm. The story interprets the video's almost 9,000 hits as "quickly becoming a Facebook and Twitter sensation" and "going viral."
Farbeit from me to point out when something smacks of desperation, but as of this writing there's a little over 10,000 views, which is still less than the student population of Dal. On the Going Viral scale that barely merits a sneeze compared to the Double Rainbow guy who's on his deathbed clinging for life (On the Going Viral scale, being on the deathbed is good.)
Now it appears some commentors are complaining about the video sending the wrong message.
"Female scholars here work hard & deserve better from you," says one commentor on twitter.
"'I'm saddened that in 2010, Dalhousie is proud to be promoting it's university as a place to meet women. Wrong message. Incredibly embarassing for students, faculty, staff and the community at large," reads a comment on DalNews.
Typical politically correct nilly-nannying. Young women today just choose to express their liberation by flocking behind men wearing pimp apparel in videos made to welcome incoming students. Get over it, grandmas.
Progress.
And to be fair, most of Joel Plaskett's songs include lyrics worse than "we freak in my jeap" and "kiss her/ touch her/ squeeze her buns". I'm pretty sure all his references to "the Khyber" are just filthy metaphors.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out for Dal, but it's not something I will personally be following because - and I cannot stress this enough - I did not go there.
Instead I went to the much smaller and seperately chartered University of King's College where I got a combined honours degree in journalism and philosophy (known in the biz as the Dying Industry Special).
Because King's is right next to Dal and they share credits, people often say to me "Oh, isn't King's just part of Dalhousie?" to which I usually reply with some combination of the words "off" and "fuck."
King's students have the stereotype of being Nietzsche-quoting-drum-circle-participating-stoned-NDP-voting snobs who rarely wash. I accept this. I accept this because it is still better than being forced to associate with Dal, and I'd like to thank the Dalhousie Student Union for once again illustrating why.
It started last year when students at l'Université du Québec à Montréal made a big lip sync video to the awful Black Eyed Peas song I Gotta Feeling (sample lyrics include listing the days of the week and repeating "tonight's gonna be a good night" 26 times.)
But it seems they were the first university to do it and they got a ton of media coverage so good on them, I guess. But then Dalhousie (real slogan: Inspiring Minds) decided to one-up their Quebecois counterparts by doing the exact same thing only a year later and with an even worse song.
The result: Dalifornia Girls. I'm sure that somewhere out there the UQAM students are bowing their heads and muttering "touché."
If you haven't figured it out by now,they're not doing the Beach Boys one.
Fun Fact: They cleverly titled the video "Dalhousie Student Union - California Girls - Lip Dub" so that it is impossible to find it by searching "Dalifornia Girls" in either google or Youtube.
OK, so credit to the DSU for finding one of the rare plays on the word California not already taken by the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, but did picking a song celebrating the polar opposite corner of the continent not raise any red flags?
Sure all the references to sunshine and beaches and bikinis still could apply to Halifax. They just happen to apply to the only four months of the year students are not here.
Most baffling of all is that according to this Dal News piece the organizers narrowly picked the Katy Perry song over... Joel Plaskett.
So Joel Plaskett, one of Nova Scotia's most famous musicians whose songs continually references his love for his home and would stand distinct from the pop music of previous videos, was beaten out by a tune about palm trees and short shorts.
I'd like to stop here and reiterate that at no point was I registered as a Dalhousie student. I did take a few courses there but they were mandatory credits, I swear.
Except for History of Russian Film, which admittedly was awesome.
Anyway, how did this happen? That's like like Memorial University in Newfoundland passing over Great Big Sea to lipdub the Insane Clown Posse. (On further consideration, that would be awesome. MUN students: please do this one.)
It's curious that the university's official news organ chose to rev up the hype machine rather than quietly face palm. The story interprets the video's almost 9,000 hits as "quickly becoming a Facebook and Twitter sensation" and "going viral."
Farbeit from me to point out when something smacks of desperation, but as of this writing there's a little over 10,000 views, which is still less than the student population of Dal. On the Going Viral scale that barely merits a sneeze compared to the Double Rainbow guy who's on his deathbed clinging for life (On the Going Viral scale, being on the deathbed is good.)
Now it appears some commentors are complaining about the video sending the wrong message.
"Female scholars here work hard & deserve better from you," says one commentor on twitter.
"'I'm saddened that in 2010, Dalhousie is proud to be promoting it's university as a place to meet women. Wrong message. Incredibly embarassing for students, faculty, staff and the community at large," reads a comment on DalNews.
Typical politically correct nilly-nannying. Young women today just choose to express their liberation by flocking behind men wearing pimp apparel in videos made to welcome incoming students. Get over it, grandmas.
Progress.And to be fair, most of Joel Plaskett's songs include lyrics worse than "we freak in my jeap" and "kiss her/ touch her/ squeeze her buns". I'm pretty sure all his references to "the Khyber" are just filthy metaphors.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out for Dal, but it's not something I will personally be following because - and I cannot stress this enough - I did not go there.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Long-form census revealed!
I've long been a fan of Industry Minister Tony Clement. Back when he was an early promoter of merging the Reform and Tory parties I thought to myself "Well that just makes sense." In 2008 when he was federal health minister I cheered when he tried to shut down Vancouver's Insite safe injection site (needles creep me out).
But I wasn't sure about this long-form census stuff. A lot of people who can count really high seemed pretty mad about the government getting rid of it. I didn't know what all the fuss was about so I tried to get a hold of an actual version of the census.
After a little digging I came across a preliminary version of the 2011 long-form census that had leaked onto the internet. I've got to say, I totally agree with Tony. The questions are just way too invasive and personal to subject your everyday citizen to. For example,
42) How much money did you make last year?
43) How much money would you like to have made last year?
48) How many bedrooms are in your neighbour's house?
53) Describe, in detail, your reaction to the LOST finale.
59) Done anything illegal we should know about?
66) Totally hypothetically, if we were to sell off one of the territories, which one would you miss the least?
70) So what are you wearing?
82) What is your child-to-Jonas Brothers poster ratio? (See calculation chart attachment J)
89) Do you trust that your answers to these census questions are totally anonymous, Larry?
103) With one (1) being 'abstinent' and five (5) being 'aficionado', rate your frequency of casual, unprotected sex.
112) Do you find this census too onerous and confusing? Phrase your answer in the form of a haiku.
116) Ah, I was totally going to ask you something but it's escaping me at the minute. It'll come to me later.
116. b) Oh Christ, this is totally going to drive me nuts.
133) Have you watched CPAC in the last two (2) weeks? How about ever?
146) Have you ever thought about raisins? I mean really thought about them.
167) Including yourself, how many persons in your household have watched the classic 1985 Tim Curry movie Clue?
169) Have you ever felt an inappropriate attraction to someone you're related to? Does it bother you that we can put you in jail if you don't answer this question?
201) Trudeau - visionary or dick?
But I wasn't sure about this long-form census stuff. A lot of people who can count really high seemed pretty mad about the government getting rid of it. I didn't know what all the fuss was about so I tried to get a hold of an actual version of the census.
After a little digging I came across a preliminary version of the 2011 long-form census that had leaked onto the internet. I've got to say, I totally agree with Tony. The questions are just way too invasive and personal to subject your everyday citizen to. For example,
42) How much money did you make last year?
43) How much money would you like to have made last year?
48) How many bedrooms are in your neighbour's house?
53) Describe, in detail, your reaction to the LOST finale.
59) Done anything illegal we should know about?
66) Totally hypothetically, if we were to sell off one of the territories, which one would you miss the least?
70) So what are you wearing?
82) What is your child-to-Jonas Brothers poster ratio? (See calculation chart attachment J)
89) Do you trust that your answers to these census questions are totally anonymous, Larry?
103) With one (1) being 'abstinent' and five (5) being 'aficionado', rate your frequency of casual, unprotected sex.
112) Do you find this census too onerous and confusing? Phrase your answer in the form of a haiku.
116) Ah, I was totally going to ask you something but it's escaping me at the minute. It'll come to me later.
116. b) Oh Christ, this is totally going to drive me nuts.
133) Have you watched CPAC in the last two (2) weeks? How about ever?
146) Have you ever thought about raisins? I mean really thought about them.
167) Including yourself, how many persons in your household have watched the classic 1985 Tim Curry movie Clue?
169) Have you ever felt an inappropriate attraction to someone you're related to? Does it bother you that we can put you in jail if you don't answer this question?
201) Trudeau - visionary or dick?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Bring back Hitler! (but not like that)
Living in an hyper-litigious society can be fun. You can get way too drunk at your office Christmas party and then sue your work when you fall down the stairs. You can threaten legal action when your waiter brings you slightly overcooked steak. Dentist shoots you a dirty look? Sue. Neighbour's dog piddles on your sneakers? Sue! And god help the octogenarian grandmother who just rear-ended you in the Sobeys parking lot. Ka. Ching.
Truly, it's a good time to be alive (Note: This is in no way a reference to the very classic and very copyrighted 1999 Edwin song Alive)
But there's one thing that's always baffled me. Surely, suing every last doubloon from some poor shmo has got to be a rush. But why do so many people launch lawsuits that only hurt themselves?
I could list many examples. Eeven my amigo Rich Aucoin has been a victim when he stole/promoted How The Grinch Stole Christmas and worked it into his act, to genius results. But this time the lawyers aren't just going after broke Canadian indy musicians. This time they're going after Hitler.
Like 1945 Berlin, the popular Hitler meme has come under attack, only this time with takedown orders. Sure, it steals a clip from the movie Downfall and technically the producers can go all Law & Order on the internet.
But why would they?
According to boxofficemojo the story of Hitler's final days did very well overseas but only scraped the lucrative North American market to the tune of $5.5 million.
I first heard about Downfall when it came out about five years ago and always wanted to see it. But I never got around to it until I saw my first Hitler video about Terrell Owens joining the Buffalo Bills. I was hooked, watched a bunch more of them and soon was intrigued enough to seek out the movie.
There's no way to know how often this cycle was repeated, but in an increasingly DVD-centric market I'd bet it's a hell of a lot. Even further, the movie is fascinating enough for a lot of people to recommend it to friends, blog about it or include it in best-of lists. That adds up. And this is coming from someone who spent a few hours writing a Best Movies of the Decade list one bored evening and had it surprisingly 'go viral' and be viewed by over 79,000 people at last count.
So what reason is there to sue? Principle? Uh, these people are making fun of Hitler. And in the process they're giving your movie loads of free advertising to a market you've yet to break into.
Why not just sue yourselves for releasing a trailer? This whole irrational, knee-jerk decision making that's ultimately self-destructive reminds me a lot of... someone. I feel like I watched a movie about this recently but for the life of me I can't remember who it was about.
So lay off the legal blitzkrieg, Downfall producers. You've found a way to profit off of World War II in a way that victimizes Hitler. Personally, I would run with that.
Also, please don't sue me.
Truly, it's a good time to be alive (Note: This is in no way a reference to the very classic and very copyrighted 1999 Edwin song Alive)
But there's one thing that's always baffled me. Surely, suing every last doubloon from some poor shmo has got to be a rush. But why do so many people launch lawsuits that only hurt themselves?
I could list many examples. Eeven my amigo Rich Aucoin has been a victim when he stole/promoted How The Grinch Stole Christmas and worked it into his act, to genius results. But this time the lawyers aren't just going after broke Canadian indy musicians. This time they're going after Hitler.
Like 1945 Berlin, the popular Hitler meme has come under attack, only this time with takedown orders. Sure, it steals a clip from the movie Downfall and technically the producers can go all Law & Order on the internet.
But why would they?
According to boxofficemojo the story of Hitler's final days did very well overseas but only scraped the lucrative North American market to the tune of $5.5 million.
I first heard about Downfall when it came out about five years ago and always wanted to see it. But I never got around to it until I saw my first Hitler video about Terrell Owens joining the Buffalo Bills. I was hooked, watched a bunch more of them and soon was intrigued enough to seek out the movie.
There's no way to know how often this cycle was repeated, but in an increasingly DVD-centric market I'd bet it's a hell of a lot. Even further, the movie is fascinating enough for a lot of people to recommend it to friends, blog about it or include it in best-of lists. That adds up. And this is coming from someone who spent a few hours writing a Best Movies of the Decade list one bored evening and had it surprisingly 'go viral' and be viewed by over 79,000 people at last count.
So what reason is there to sue? Principle? Uh, these people are making fun of Hitler. And in the process they're giving your movie loads of free advertising to a market you've yet to break into.
Why not just sue yourselves for releasing a trailer? This whole irrational, knee-jerk decision making that's ultimately self-destructive reminds me a lot of... someone. I feel like I watched a movie about this recently but for the life of me I can't remember who it was about.
So lay off the legal blitzkrieg, Downfall producers. You've found a way to profit off of World War II in a way that victimizes Hitler. Personally, I would run with that.
Also, please don't sue me.
Friday, March 26, 2010
An Open Letter to Quebec
Dear Quebec,
Bonjour!
It's been just two months since I last visited you and ever since I've been preparing to go back by taking french lessons and eating lots of your delicious gravy-covered fries.
I love your province. The rural areas are beautiful, Quebec City's historic landscape is breathtaking and Montreal feels wrong in all the right ways. I even love your adorable "french" dialect you so cherish. But while I acknowledge the looming threat of us damn anglos taking over, I think you might have gone slightly overboard with the cultural preservation thing to the point that it's left you with a wee case of virulant racism.
And that's why I'm writing you, Quebec. It's about the Muslim thing.
Specifically, the niqab and your desire to ban it. Look, mon ami, I totally see where you're coming from. I hate the idea of of the niqab. A world view where women should cover their faces in public seems inherently misogynistic to the core, especially when the only sacrifice men have to make is grow out sweet beards.
But the thing is, other people choosing to wear the niqab doesn't actually hurt me, I just don't want them to wear it because I think it's wrong. That's the same strand of logic that prevented gay couples from being allowed to marry for so long, and in some backwater countries still does.
Who am I, as a 20-something male of average height, average weight and average ethnicity, to tell other people what to wear? Like the old saying goes, "if you don't believe in freedom of speech for those you disagree with, then you're a dick."
Besides, do you really think you're that secular? Here's a test: look around and see if you can spot anyone in the zip code who's not Catholic. Last time I was there I talked to several smart, well educated people who had no idea what the protestant religion even involved. They asked me if it involved Jesus, seriously.
If the Pope came to town would you deny him his assortment of funny hats? I thought not. Then again I guess it's not like the strict requirements of the Catholic religion led to any problems for anyone, ever.
Just bite the bullet on this one, mon frere. Do you really want to be known as the one who forced muslim women to choose between their faith and seeing a doctor or going to school? Why not just solve this problem like you do every other and force them to learn french?
Problem solved.
Cordialement,
Paul
PS - Thanks for Mordecai Richler.
Bonjour!
It's been just two months since I last visited you and ever since I've been preparing to go back by taking french lessons and eating lots of your delicious gravy-covered fries.
I love your province. The rural areas are beautiful, Quebec City's historic landscape is breathtaking and Montreal feels wrong in all the right ways. I even love your adorable "french" dialect you so cherish. But while I acknowledge the looming threat of us damn anglos taking over, I think you might have gone slightly overboard with the cultural preservation thing to the point that it's left you with a wee case of virulant racism.
And that's why I'm writing you, Quebec. It's about the Muslim thing.
Specifically, the niqab and your desire to ban it. Look, mon ami, I totally see where you're coming from. I hate the idea of of the niqab. A world view where women should cover their faces in public seems inherently misogynistic to the core, especially when the only sacrifice men have to make is grow out sweet beards.
But the thing is, other people choosing to wear the niqab doesn't actually hurt me, I just don't want them to wear it because I think it's wrong. That's the same strand of logic that prevented gay couples from being allowed to marry for so long, and in some backwater countries still does.
Who am I, as a 20-something male of average height, average weight and average ethnicity, to tell other people what to wear? Like the old saying goes, "if you don't believe in freedom of speech for those you disagree with, then you're a dick."
Besides, do you really think you're that secular? Here's a test: look around and see if you can spot anyone in the zip code who's not Catholic. Last time I was there I talked to several smart, well educated people who had no idea what the protestant religion even involved. They asked me if it involved Jesus, seriously.
If the Pope came to town would you deny him his assortment of funny hats? I thought not. Then again I guess it's not like the strict requirements of the Catholic religion led to any problems for anyone, ever.
Just bite the bullet on this one, mon frere. Do you really want to be known as the one who forced muslim women to choose between their faith and seeing a doctor or going to school? Why not just solve this problem like you do every other and force them to learn french?
Problem solved.
Cordialement,
Paul
PS - Thanks for Mordecai Richler.
Monday, February 22, 2010
How to throw a successful naked sushi party
When my friend Lizzy Hill invited me to a naked sushi party, I mistakenly envisioned a bunch of butt naked people standing around eating.
"I'm in," I told her.
It turns out you go fully clothed and eat sushi off of naked people who lie as still as possible trying to closely emulate a plate. The tradition started in some crazy country - Japan, I assume; the whole thing reeks of Japan - and made its way over here because we love to follow down their crazy paths. Mark my words, our streets will one day be lined with vending machines despensing the underwear of virgins.
Anyway, I arrived at Lizzy's early to help set up. My first piece of advice for throwing a naked sushi party is to have your guests show up good and hungry. After starving for a few hours your body will be ready to eat off any surface, regardless of what feeble protests of "strangeness" and "hygiene" your brain can muster.
Another good strategy is to get everyone drunk. Lizzy had her friends bring a healthy dose of wine to get loosened up. Drugs would also work but nothing too heavy, eating food off a naked person is weird enough without thinking their nipples are talking to you.
Lizzy was able to use her north end scene connections to find two volunteers(!) for the evening. Setup is key. Two tables were prepared and lined with candles in such a way that things wouldn't seem "too gynocological." Guests were corralled into the kitchen of Lizzy's apartment to get buzzed while the models went to a seperate room to psych up and strip down.
Eventually a bell was rung and the dozen or so guests headed to the living room. The covered in sushi part was weird, but the most striking thing was that both models were physically perfect and totally hairless below the eyebrows. They lay face up and totally still, as if in a trance. Guests were instructed not to touch the models - except with chopsticks - or to talk to them.
And yes, you could see prettymuch everything. The girl - an attractive woman named Natalie who is apparently a burlesque dancer - had sea shells over her nipples but that's about it. Both her and Redman, Lizzy's hairdresser, had floral arrangements over their crotches but they did more to more garnish their genitals than conceal them.
It was surprisingly unawkward. People hung out as they normally would and there was no jackass making too-obvious jokes ("Is that a spicy tempura salmon roll or are you just happy to see me?").
Despite the no-talking rule, one girl sweetly clutched Redman's hand, squeezed it, and repeated "you look beautiful." I, meanwhile, was busy greedily plucking sushi from his shoulder and focusing on not dropping any soya sauce in his eyeball.
For music, Lizzy's roommate Lee searched 'background japanese restaurant music' into youtube, which worked kind of well. Eventually people got on the laptop and started playing whatever came to mind. Hip hop didn't quite seem to match the vibe of eating fish off a seemingly-comatose naked stranger but by that point everyone had drank enough wine that it didn't matter.
So what was the point of it all? Honestly, I have no idea. According to the weabsite SushiOrDeath.com (uh, I choose sushi?), the practice is called Nyotaimori and is a sub-fetish of food play. Others say there's nothing sexual about it. Also Nyotaimori, like freedom, is banned in China.
Whatever it is, it isn't sexual. It's too awkward an environment to be arousing, and yet too interesting to really be awkward. All I know for sure is it's a fun story and Lizzy knows how to throw a hell of a unique party. Also, she makes good sushi.
"I'm in," I told her.
It turns out you go fully clothed and eat sushi off of naked people who lie as still as possible trying to closely emulate a plate. The tradition started in some crazy country - Japan, I assume; the whole thing reeks of Japan - and made its way over here because we love to follow down their crazy paths. Mark my words, our streets will one day be lined with vending machines despensing the underwear of virgins.
Anyway, I arrived at Lizzy's early to help set up. My first piece of advice for throwing a naked sushi party is to have your guests show up good and hungry. After starving for a few hours your body will be ready to eat off any surface, regardless of what feeble protests of "strangeness" and "hygiene" your brain can muster.
Another good strategy is to get everyone drunk. Lizzy had her friends bring a healthy dose of wine to get loosened up. Drugs would also work but nothing too heavy, eating food off a naked person is weird enough without thinking their nipples are talking to you.
Lizzy was able to use her north end scene connections to find two volunteers(!) for the evening. Setup is key. Two tables were prepared and lined with candles in such a way that things wouldn't seem "too gynocological." Guests were corralled into the kitchen of Lizzy's apartment to get buzzed while the models went to a seperate room to psych up and strip down.
Eventually a bell was rung and the dozen or so guests headed to the living room. The covered in sushi part was weird, but the most striking thing was that both models were physically perfect and totally hairless below the eyebrows. They lay face up and totally still, as if in a trance. Guests were instructed not to touch the models - except with chopsticks - or to talk to them.
And yes, you could see prettymuch everything. The girl - an attractive woman named Natalie who is apparently a burlesque dancer - had sea shells over her nipples but that's about it. Both her and Redman, Lizzy's hairdresser, had floral arrangements over their crotches but they did more to more garnish their genitals than conceal them.
It was surprisingly unawkward. People hung out as they normally would and there was no jackass making too-obvious jokes ("Is that a spicy tempura salmon roll or are you just happy to see me?").
Despite the no-talking rule, one girl sweetly clutched Redman's hand, squeezed it, and repeated "you look beautiful." I, meanwhile, was busy greedily plucking sushi from his shoulder and focusing on not dropping any soya sauce in his eyeball.
For music, Lizzy's roommate Lee searched 'background japanese restaurant music' into youtube, which worked kind of well. Eventually people got on the laptop and started playing whatever came to mind. Hip hop didn't quite seem to match the vibe of eating fish off a seemingly-comatose naked stranger but by that point everyone had drank enough wine that it didn't matter.
So what was the point of it all? Honestly, I have no idea. According to the weabsite SushiOrDeath.com (uh, I choose sushi?), the practice is called Nyotaimori and is a sub-fetish of food play. Others say there's nothing sexual about it. Also Nyotaimori, like freedom, is banned in China.
Whatever it is, it isn't sexual. It's too awkward an environment to be arousing, and yet too interesting to really be awkward. All I know for sure is it's a fun story and Lizzy knows how to throw a hell of a unique party. Also, she makes good sushi.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Mike Danton joke roundup
Nova Scotians are tickled at the news this week that former NHLer Mike Danton plans to suit up for the local Saint Mary's Huskies. Of course Danton just spent a few years in jail after admitting to a judge that he kind of, sort of, tried to have his father killed.
Like all the best controversies, the Danton matter is pretty hilarious. Here are some of the jokes I heard about it today:
"He called up the Calgary Hitmen, but they weren't looking for any centres." - G. MacDonald (identity obscured by request due to fear of retribution)
"SMU saw something in him, though. The coach said he liked Danton's killer instinct. So he's basically a lock." - also G. MacDonald
“Stieny isn’t going to bother coaching him much because he’s already shown he can’t execute the game plan.” - Adam Richardson
"I hope SMU goes after Gilbert Arenas next." - Ruari Murphy. (I've also heard or said variations of this one involving Michael Vick, Chris Benoit, O.J Simpson and - I don't really get this one - Magic Johnson.)
My personal favourite is from a sports reporter talking about needing backup the first time he interviews Danton:
“You don’t know what it’s like. You just go to a courtroom where there’s all kinds of protection. I have to go to a hockey rink where I’m going to get murdered.”
There are a lot of people bashing SMU for the move. One commenter on the Chronicle Herald website went so far as to say she would boycot Saint Mary's and ban her children from going there, which is too bad because she sounds cool.
But let's be reasonable, Danton is a great pickup for the Huskies. First, he'll be great for team chemistry. The guy's used to spending lots of time with other dudes in a close, personal environment so he'll be a natural team player. After a strenuous hockey game who wouldn't want to hit the showers with a convicted criminal? Plus, on the ice the guy is a sniper (or at least he knows one). And he's a natural enforcer because really, who's going to want to fight him?
That said he isn't a very good physical player and is known for not finishing his hits. But anything that makes AUS hockey remotely interesting is a great move in my books. I may start going to games just to hear what names the hecklers come up with. My vote is for Patty Patricide.
Like all the best controversies, the Danton matter is pretty hilarious. Here are some of the jokes I heard about it today:
"He called up the Calgary Hitmen, but they weren't looking for any centres." - G. MacDonald (identity obscured by request due to fear of retribution)
"SMU saw something in him, though. The coach said he liked Danton's killer instinct. So he's basically a lock." - also G. MacDonald
“Stieny isn’t going to bother coaching him much because he’s already shown he can’t execute the game plan.” - Adam Richardson
"I hope SMU goes after Gilbert Arenas next." - Ruari Murphy. (I've also heard or said variations of this one involving Michael Vick, Chris Benoit, O.J Simpson and - I don't really get this one - Magic Johnson.)
My personal favourite is from a sports reporter talking about needing backup the first time he interviews Danton:
“You don’t know what it’s like. You just go to a courtroom where there’s all kinds of protection. I have to go to a hockey rink where I’m going to get murdered.”
There are a lot of people bashing SMU for the move. One commenter on the Chronicle Herald website went so far as to say she would boycot Saint Mary's and ban her children from going there, which is too bad because she sounds cool.
But let's be reasonable, Danton is a great pickup for the Huskies. First, he'll be great for team chemistry. The guy's used to spending lots of time with other dudes in a close, personal environment so he'll be a natural team player. After a strenuous hockey game who wouldn't want to hit the showers with a convicted criminal? Plus, on the ice the guy is a sniper (or at least he knows one). And he's a natural enforcer because really, who's going to want to fight him?
That said he isn't a very good physical player and is known for not finishing his hits. But anything that makes AUS hockey remotely interesting is a great move in my books. I may start going to games just to hear what names the hecklers come up with. My vote is for Patty Patricide.
Friday, January 1, 2010
The 20 Best Films of the Decade
I love movies and I love lists, so I hereby present my list of the 20 best movies of the decade. This turned out to be much harder than I originally thought. In defining 'best' I considered three factors: artistic merit; audience impact; and longevity.
I was originally going to just list the top 20 alphabetically but that seemed too easy so in the end
I ranked them by number. Admittedly, these rankings are mostly arbitrary so don't read too much into them (how the hell do you really distinguish between the 15th and 16th greatest movies in a decade?) Also, documentaries are not included since it's too hard to compare them to fiction.
Feedback and alternate lists are welcome. Let's get to it.
What is it?
Daniel Day-Lewis drinks other people’s milkshakes.
Why is it great?
To be honest, I’ve never found the character study of Daniel Plainview fully satisfying. We learn so much about how he is but virtually nothing about why. From his initial hatred of humanity to his final descent into loner hell, we’re never given an understanding as to what’s behind it all, which I think limits the character’s impact. Still, when the movie works it really works. When you’ve got one of the best directors alive working with one of the best actors alive in an early American oil epic it’s almost hard for it not to be great. Anderson’s beautiful, patient shots and the brilliant Plainview vs. Eli Sunday scenes are going to be just as riveting 50 years from now as they are today.
What is it?
A group of highway patrol officers get up to some shenanigans.
Why is it great?
A lot of people seem to have Anchorman as one of their top movies, and for a while I was thinking of including it. Then my friend Alex shaved his beard into a moustache and I made a crack about moustache rides. Suddenly it hit me – Super Troopers is one of the best films of the decade. It has moments like its brilliant opening that can go toe-to-toe with Anchorman’s best scenes and it did a better job of not slipping into lazy, sit-comy writing. It’s smarter than Harold and Kumar, more consistent than Pineapple Express and more distinct than the pack of Judd Apatow flicks that filled the OOs. Quite simply, it’s the best stoner comedy of the decade.
What is it?
A little girl stumbles into a ghost world after her parents are transformed into pigs. A modern-day Alice in Wonderland follows.
Why is it great?
This was an enviable decade to be a kid, as many children’s movies stopped relying on clichés and Phil Collins soundtracks and started treating their audiences with respect. But the one that impressed me the most wasn’t made by Pixar. Containing more visual ideas than 10 Disney movies combined along with a universal story about childhood, Spirited Away is the best animated film of the decade.
What is it?
Nana nana nana nana nana nana nana nana… Batman.
Why is it great?
I almost went with Christopher Nolan’s excellent rival magicians movie The Prestige instead, but ultimately I’ve got to hand it to The Dark Knight. Sure the whole x-ray vision stuff was goofy and there were some problems with the plot, but it deserves a spot for a few reasons. 1) It marked the growing up of super hero movies. In his flick, Spiderman had to choose between saving Mary Jane or a trolley full of people. He pulled some web bullshit and voila, everyone’s fine. Batman was given the same choice and a main character died. 2) Hack movies like Babel get fawned over for insipid themes like “not communicating is bad.” The Dark Knight deals with dark thematic issues most movies never touch, like the West’s responsibility for terrorism, deceiving the masses for their own good, love not saving anyone and the impossibility of living up to heroic expectations. 3) Incredibly memorable moments, like the bank heist opening. 4) Heath Ledger's The Joker. Not just one of the two greatest villains of the decade, he's one of the best all-time movie bad guys.
What is it?
A love story told backwards as it’s forgotten.
Why is it great?
Blah blah blah, Charlie Kaufman, blah blah, Michel Gondry, blah blah. By now everyone knows the praise for the script, visuals, and performances of this movie so I won’t rehash it here. Instead I’ll just say one thing I really respect about Eternal Sunshine is it resisted the urge to romanticize. Instead of waiting for the couple to figure out they’re obviously meant to be together, Eternal Sunshine gives us characters that probably aren’t right for each other and may well be doomed to repeat their mistakes. It’s this heavy dose of reality as much as the script and visuals that made this such a fresh viewing experience. And damn it, we’re all still rooting for Joel and Clementine.
What is it?
A brilliantly stylized reinvention of the zombie genre from one of film's most versatile directors.
Why is great?
This is the second most important zombie movie of all time (after Night of the Living Dead, obviously). Where Romero invented the genre as we know it, Boyle reinvented it for the 21st century. But there’s so much more than just the “fast zombies” that makes this movie great. Just watch the beginning and by the haunting scene of Cilian Murphy wandering around an abandoned London you know you’ve got a classic. And yes, 28 Days Later does count as a zombie movie.
What is it?
Clive Own wanders the streets of a ragged, dying Britain. Children inexplicably stopped being born years ago, the youngest man in the world was just killed in a bar fight, xenophobia has manifested into a militaristic dictatorship and – oh shit, is that chick pregnant?
Why s it on the list?
Man, these ten years were pretty thin on great sci fi movies. The 90s finished off on a high with Dark City and The Matrix then this decade tries to carry the torch with god-awful Matrix sequels and Star Wars prequels. The much championed Minority Report and Stark Trek were too shiny and pretty to be considered classics in my mind. Great sci fi should have some grit. Luckily we got quality mind-benders (Primer), space westerns (Serenity) and of course Children of Men, a story that encapsulates despair as well as any I’ve seen. Intriguing plot and strong acting aside, it’s the incredible cinematography that elevates this film to greatness. The stunning, single-shot car heist and city under siege scenes rank among the best of this generation.
(Note: I’d probably have included Serenity on this list of not for that in my mind it’s inherently linked into the TV show Firefly.)
What is it?
Good question.
Why is it great?
I debated about whether to include this or the longer, stranger Lynch film Inland Empire. Neither are films you can shake out of your mind but ultimately the nod goes to Mulholland Drive. It’s hard to say how the original plan for a TV show would have gone. Instead Lynch salvaged the stillborn pilot to create an enduring work of art. A lot of movies are weird for the sake of being weird while having nothing of substance underneath (take the paper-thin Donnie Darko, maybe the most overrated movie of the decade) but here Lynch delivers something worth digging into and exploring. In the end it’s really quite a simple story, but half the fun is piecing it all together. The other half is watching it - the scene of the opera singer dropping dead during Roy Orbison’s song Crying, thus revealing everything as an illusion, is a contender for greatest scene of the decade.
What is it?
Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson star in a surprisingly non-creepy sort of romance story about two tourists in Japan trying to figure it all out.
Why is it great?
The oughts had a bit of an obsession with movies about people ‘finding’ themselves. Lost in Translation was the best of the bunch and set the bar for the Junos, Little Miss Sunshines and Garden States that followed. People tend to gush over, say, holocaust movies because of their heavy subject regardless of whether they’re well made. Yet here is a movie about two upper-class people fighting ennui and through some truly graceful filmmaking we genuinely relate to and care for them. In this case less is more: Long stretches of no dialogue? Instead take in the excellent soundtrack by Air. Having no plot to speak of? Yeah, well neither does real life. Coppola mixes just the right blend of wistfulness and humour so that by the ending fade out you feel truly satisfied.
What is it?
In a futuristic dystopian Japan, a class of grade nine students is kidnapped, taken to an island, given weapons and told they must fight to the death until only one is left alive.
Why is it on the list?
Uh, did you see the premise? Usually something that sounds that batshit awesome turns out to be a heap of disappointment. Not this time. This is one movie that knows how to follow through. I sill rank the first time I saw Battle Royale in high school as one of the most mind-blowing cinema experiences of my life.
What is it?
Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke reunite 10 years after a one-night romantic tryst.
Why is it great?
1995’s Before Sunrise was a charming film about two young people meeting randomly for one passionate night in Europe. Making a follow-up to its excellent ending – will they or won’t they fulfill their promise to meet one year later? – seemed like a terrible idea. Instead, this sequel bests its predecessor in every way. Delpy and Hawke still have some of the best on-screen chemistry ever seen, but 10 years later life has gotten complicated and their discussions have more weight. Instead of a young fairytale romance, here are two adults trying to recreate a fairytale romance. The beauty is in watching them pull it off. Linklater’s direction couldn’t be better – for a film that is basically one long string of dialogue it’s the sparse use of silence that has the most impact.
What is it?
The story of a man with no short-term memory hunting his wife’s killer. Oh, and the movie runs backwards.
Why is it on the list?
I feel a pretty deep connection to this movie. At the time of its release it was my favourite film and in many ways it sparked my love of movies. It’s not the only film to do the backwards chronology thing (2002’s Irreversible, which I painfully couldn’t fit on this list, is a notable example) but it uses it brilliantly. What could have been a gimmick becomes an incredibly fresh way to tell a dark, unforgettable story that is still captivating today. This is raw movie-making gold.
What is it?
Tarantino, master of the literal title, delivers a loving homage to samurai movies.
Why is it great?
First of all, it's one big story so I'm throwing the two movies together. What's striking about Kill Bill is that so much of it is made up of recycled parts. By assembling a mountain of shots and moments and molding them into one Power Rangersesque super movie, Tarantino has surpassed his source material. Only in Pulp Fiction has Tarantino brought style and substance together in such a dynamite package. Plus it rejuvanated David Carradine's career, so huge bonus points.
What is it?
During a night of heavy drinking a man is mysteriously abducted, kept captive in a hotel-style room for 15 years without explanation and then released. He immediately goes on a quest for answers - and revenge.
Why is it great?
Thank god rumours of an American remake seem to have fizzled out. There is just no way to improve upon this breathtaking film. Like Battle Royale, Oldboy takes a wicked premise and doesn't just live up to it but exceeds it. Chan-wook Park challenges you to keep up to his winding story that ventures miles beyond what mainstream western movies would dare to touch. This is revenge cinema at its finest. It's so good that its also having one of the best fight scenes of the decade doesn't even seem fair.
What is it?
A comedy? A horror movie? A zom-com? Who knows?
Why is it great?
Sure, it’s quick and funny enough to be on the list for yuks alone. But beyond that, Shaun is actually quite groundbreaking. How many movies, if any, have managed to so finely walk a line between two disparate genres? A hilarious toss up of zombie films while at the same time being a zombie film, Shaun of the Dead is the ultimate case of having your brains and eating them too.
What is it?
The best thriller of the decade.
Why is it great?
Suck it, Stephen Spielberg. Joel and Ethan Coen show that they are the masters of cat-and-mouse thrill ride filmmaking. Everyone brings their A game to this one. You can't ask for better technical camerawork and editing. Its pacing is unconventional but works to a tee. The cast is excellent but the show is stolen by Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh. With the Joker, Chigurh is one two characters that elevated villainhood to new hights. And of course the star behind the screen is Cormac McCArthy, whose faithfully adapted novel this all stems from.
What is it?
A genre-breaking film about the real life hunt to track down the Zodiac Killer.
Why is it on the list?
Could this be the best serial killer movie ever? I guess it’s not a fair question. While most focus on the mind of the killer (take Fincher’s own Se7en), this movie is about the people hunting him. More truly, it’s about obsession. Fincher puts on an absolute clinic of filmmaking. He juggles an incredible cast of characters (especially Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr.) and a complex, weaving plot that spans decades of dead ends and false starts, yet the movie never stops being gripping. It’s a story that shouldn’t work but Fincher inverts the focus and makes this all about that wing of human nature that refuses – or isn’t able – to let things go. People who derided this film as 'slow' need to go back and see all that's going as they're missing exquisite filmmaking.
What is it?
A Quebecois professor is diagnosed with cancer and admitted to hospital. As the end of his life nears, his family and friends gather together to see him off.
Why is it great?
Admittedly, the premise makes this movie sound entirely depressing. It’s not. It’s filled with dark humour, off-colour jokes, womanizing and drug use. This makes the moments of poignancy and insight that much more powerful. Clever, debauched and somehow comforting, this is a personal fable about something we all try to do eventually - come to terms with death. This is also my favourite Canadian film, period.
What is it?
The wily Royal (Gene Hackman) returns to his family of over-the-hill geniuses to try to trick them into loving him again. Paul Simon montages ensue.
Why is it great?
Don’t even get me started. There are so many classic scenes and quotes in this movie that there’s really just too much to take in in one sitting. Repeated viewings begin to peel away a script, cast and direction that fit together so well the end result is, arguably, perfect. Some people dismiss Wes Anderson by throwing him into the “quirky indy filmmaker” camp, but they’re not watching closely enough. Yes, Anderson’s filmmaking is clever, but he doesn’t sacrifice character or story to be so. And as shown by his recent excellent films The Darjeeling Limited and The Fantastic Mr. Fox, he hasn’t slowed down. But Tenenbaums is Anderson’s best film of the decade (as well as my personal favourite film of the decade) and in the end will likely go down as his masterpiece.
What is it?
Star Wars with elves.
Why is it on the list?
In the end, this is inescapable. The Lord of the Rings movies were the defining cinematic accomplishment of the decade.Whether or not LOTR is your style you've got to be impressed by how it cultivated so many millions of die-hard fans. Yearly 11-hour director's cut marathons are now a commonplace tradition.
But it's not just popularity that earns LOTR the top spot. This is old-fashioned adventure filmmaking - a fun, epic, wild ride. In other words, it truly is the Star Wars trilogy for the next generation. People who thought Avatar was a 'game changer' were way off. More CGI is not the answer. It's about making your special effects enhance reality, not become reality. Jackson had groundbreaking technology too but he anchors the films in real flesh and blood so they never become CGI snooze-fests.
This trilogy could have gone so wrong in so many ways. Instead we got that rare movie magic where a beloved series of books now have equally beloved film companions. More than any other movie, the OOs will be remembered for Lord of the Rings.
I was originally going to just list the top 20 alphabetically but that seemed too easy so in the end
I ranked them by number. Admittedly, these rankings are mostly arbitrary so don't read too much into them (how the hell do you really distinguish between the 15th and 16th greatest movies in a decade?) Also, documentaries are not included since it's too hard to compare them to fiction.
Feedback and alternate lists are welcome. Let's get to it.
20) There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)
What is it?Daniel Day-Lewis drinks other people’s milkshakes.
Why is it great?
To be honest, I’ve never found the character study of Daniel Plainview fully satisfying. We learn so much about how he is but virtually nothing about why. From his initial hatred of humanity to his final descent into loner hell, we’re never given an understanding as to what’s behind it all, which I think limits the character’s impact. Still, when the movie works it really works. When you’ve got one of the best directors alive working with one of the best actors alive in an early American oil epic it’s almost hard for it not to be great. Anderson’s beautiful, patient shots and the brilliant Plainview vs. Eli Sunday scenes are going to be just as riveting 50 years from now as they are today.
19) Super Troopers (Jay Chandrasekhar, 2001)
What is it?A group of highway patrol officers get up to some shenanigans.
Why is it great?
A lot of people seem to have Anchorman as one of their top movies, and for a while I was thinking of including it. Then my friend Alex shaved his beard into a moustache and I made a crack about moustache rides. Suddenly it hit me – Super Troopers is one of the best films of the decade. It has moments like its brilliant opening that can go toe-to-toe with Anchorman’s best scenes and it did a better job of not slipping into lazy, sit-comy writing. It’s smarter than Harold and Kumar, more consistent than Pineapple Express and more distinct than the pack of Judd Apatow flicks that filled the OOs. Quite simply, it’s the best stoner comedy of the decade.
18) Spirited Away (Hayao Miyazaki, 2001)
What is it?A little girl stumbles into a ghost world after her parents are transformed into pigs. A modern-day Alice in Wonderland follows.
Why is it great?
This was an enviable decade to be a kid, as many children’s movies stopped relying on clichés and Phil Collins soundtracks and started treating their audiences with respect. But the one that impressed me the most wasn’t made by Pixar. Containing more visual ideas than 10 Disney movies combined along with a universal story about childhood, Spirited Away is the best animated film of the decade.
17) The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)
What is it?Nana nana nana nana nana nana nana nana… Batman.
Why is it great?
I almost went with Christopher Nolan’s excellent rival magicians movie The Prestige instead, but ultimately I’ve got to hand it to The Dark Knight. Sure the whole x-ray vision stuff was goofy and there were some problems with the plot, but it deserves a spot for a few reasons. 1) It marked the growing up of super hero movies. In his flick, Spiderman had to choose between saving Mary Jane or a trolley full of people. He pulled some web bullshit and voila, everyone’s fine. Batman was given the same choice and a main character died. 2) Hack movies like Babel get fawned over for insipid themes like “not communicating is bad.” The Dark Knight deals with dark thematic issues most movies never touch, like the West’s responsibility for terrorism, deceiving the masses for their own good, love not saving anyone and the impossibility of living up to heroic expectations. 3) Incredibly memorable moments, like the bank heist opening. 4) Heath Ledger's The Joker. Not just one of the two greatest villains of the decade, he's one of the best all-time movie bad guys.
16) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)
What is it?A love story told backwards as it’s forgotten.
Why is it great?
Blah blah blah, Charlie Kaufman, blah blah, Michel Gondry, blah blah. By now everyone knows the praise for the script, visuals, and performances of this movie so I won’t rehash it here. Instead I’ll just say one thing I really respect about Eternal Sunshine is it resisted the urge to romanticize. Instead of waiting for the couple to figure out they’re obviously meant to be together, Eternal Sunshine gives us characters that probably aren’t right for each other and may well be doomed to repeat their mistakes. It’s this heavy dose of reality as much as the script and visuals that made this such a fresh viewing experience. And damn it, we’re all still rooting for Joel and Clementine.
15) 28 Days Later (Danny Boyle, 2002)
What is it?A brilliantly stylized reinvention of the zombie genre from one of film's most versatile directors.
Why is great?
This is the second most important zombie movie of all time (after Night of the Living Dead, obviously). Where Romero invented the genre as we know it, Boyle reinvented it for the 21st century. But there’s so much more than just the “fast zombies” that makes this movie great. Just watch the beginning and by the haunting scene of Cilian Murphy wandering around an abandoned London you know you’ve got a classic. And yes, 28 Days Later does count as a zombie movie.
14) Children of Men (Alfonso Cuaron, 2006)
What is it?Clive Own wanders the streets of a ragged, dying Britain. Children inexplicably stopped being born years ago, the youngest man in the world was just killed in a bar fight, xenophobia has manifested into a militaristic dictatorship and – oh shit, is that chick pregnant?
Why s it on the list?
Man, these ten years were pretty thin on great sci fi movies. The 90s finished off on a high with Dark City and The Matrix then this decade tries to carry the torch with god-awful Matrix sequels and Star Wars prequels. The much championed Minority Report and Stark Trek were too shiny and pretty to be considered classics in my mind. Great sci fi should have some grit. Luckily we got quality mind-benders (Primer), space westerns (Serenity) and of course Children of Men, a story that encapsulates despair as well as any I’ve seen. Intriguing plot and strong acting aside, it’s the incredible cinematography that elevates this film to greatness. The stunning, single-shot car heist and city under siege scenes rank among the best of this generation.
(Note: I’d probably have included Serenity on this list of not for that in my mind it’s inherently linked into the TV show Firefly.)
13) Mulholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001)
What is it?Good question.
Why is it great?
I debated about whether to include this or the longer, stranger Lynch film Inland Empire. Neither are films you can shake out of your mind but ultimately the nod goes to Mulholland Drive. It’s hard to say how the original plan for a TV show would have gone. Instead Lynch salvaged the stillborn pilot to create an enduring work of art. A lot of movies are weird for the sake of being weird while having nothing of substance underneath (take the paper-thin Donnie Darko, maybe the most overrated movie of the decade) but here Lynch delivers something worth digging into and exploring. In the end it’s really quite a simple story, but half the fun is piecing it all together. The other half is watching it - the scene of the opera singer dropping dead during Roy Orbison’s song Crying, thus revealing everything as an illusion, is a contender for greatest scene of the decade.
12) Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola, 2003)
What is it?Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson star in a surprisingly non-creepy sort of romance story about two tourists in Japan trying to figure it all out.
Why is it great?
The oughts had a bit of an obsession with movies about people ‘finding’ themselves. Lost in Translation was the best of the bunch and set the bar for the Junos, Little Miss Sunshines and Garden States that followed. People tend to gush over, say, holocaust movies because of their heavy subject regardless of whether they’re well made. Yet here is a movie about two upper-class people fighting ennui and through some truly graceful filmmaking we genuinely relate to and care for them. In this case less is more: Long stretches of no dialogue? Instead take in the excellent soundtrack by Air. Having no plot to speak of? Yeah, well neither does real life. Coppola mixes just the right blend of wistfulness and humour so that by the ending fade out you feel truly satisfied.
11) Battle Royale (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000)
What is it?In a futuristic dystopian Japan, a class of grade nine students is kidnapped, taken to an island, given weapons and told they must fight to the death until only one is left alive.
Why is it on the list?
Uh, did you see the premise? Usually something that sounds that batshit awesome turns out to be a heap of disappointment. Not this time. This is one movie that knows how to follow through. I sill rank the first time I saw Battle Royale in high school as one of the most mind-blowing cinema experiences of my life.
10) Before Sunset (Richard Linklater, 2004)
What is it?Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke reunite 10 years after a one-night romantic tryst.
Why is it great?
1995’s Before Sunrise was a charming film about two young people meeting randomly for one passionate night in Europe. Making a follow-up to its excellent ending – will they or won’t they fulfill their promise to meet one year later? – seemed like a terrible idea. Instead, this sequel bests its predecessor in every way. Delpy and Hawke still have some of the best on-screen chemistry ever seen, but 10 years later life has gotten complicated and their discussions have more weight. Instead of a young fairytale romance, here are two adults trying to recreate a fairytale romance. The beauty is in watching them pull it off. Linklater’s direction couldn’t be better – for a film that is basically one long string of dialogue it’s the sparse use of silence that has the most impact.
9) Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000)
What is it?The story of a man with no short-term memory hunting his wife’s killer. Oh, and the movie runs backwards.
Why is it on the list?
I feel a pretty deep connection to this movie. At the time of its release it was my favourite film and in many ways it sparked my love of movies. It’s not the only film to do the backwards chronology thing (2002’s Irreversible, which I painfully couldn’t fit on this list, is a notable example) but it uses it brilliantly. What could have been a gimmick becomes an incredibly fresh way to tell a dark, unforgettable story that is still captivating today. This is raw movie-making gold.
8) Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2 (Quentin Tarantino, 2003/2004)
What is it?Tarantino, master of the literal title, delivers a loving homage to samurai movies.
Why is it great?
First of all, it's one big story so I'm throwing the two movies together. What's striking about Kill Bill is that so much of it is made up of recycled parts. By assembling a mountain of shots and moments and molding them into one Power Rangersesque super movie, Tarantino has surpassed his source material. Only in Pulp Fiction has Tarantino brought style and substance together in such a dynamite package. Plus it rejuvanated David Carradine's career, so huge bonus points.
7) Oldboy (Chan-wook Park, 2003)
What is it?During a night of heavy drinking a man is mysteriously abducted, kept captive in a hotel-style room for 15 years without explanation and then released. He immediately goes on a quest for answers - and revenge.
Why is it great?
Thank god rumours of an American remake seem to have fizzled out. There is just no way to improve upon this breathtaking film. Like Battle Royale, Oldboy takes a wicked premise and doesn't just live up to it but exceeds it. Chan-wook Park challenges you to keep up to his winding story that ventures miles beyond what mainstream western movies would dare to touch. This is revenge cinema at its finest. It's so good that its also having one of the best fight scenes of the decade doesn't even seem fair.
6) Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright, 2004)
What is it?A comedy? A horror movie? A zom-com? Who knows?
Why is it great?
Sure, it’s quick and funny enough to be on the list for yuks alone. But beyond that, Shaun is actually quite groundbreaking. How many movies, if any, have managed to so finely walk a line between two disparate genres? A hilarious toss up of zombie films while at the same time being a zombie film, Shaun of the Dead is the ultimate case of having your brains and eating them too.
5) No Country for Old Men (The Coen brothers, 2007)
What is it?The best thriller of the decade.
Why is it great?
Suck it, Stephen Spielberg. Joel and Ethan Coen show that they are the masters of cat-and-mouse thrill ride filmmaking. Everyone brings their A game to this one. You can't ask for better technical camerawork and editing. Its pacing is unconventional but works to a tee. The cast is excellent but the show is stolen by Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh. With the Joker, Chigurh is one two characters that elevated villainhood to new hights. And of course the star behind the screen is Cormac McCArthy, whose faithfully adapted novel this all stems from.
4) Zodiac (David Fincher, 2007)
What is it?A genre-breaking film about the real life hunt to track down the Zodiac Killer.
Why is it on the list?
Could this be the best serial killer movie ever? I guess it’s not a fair question. While most focus on the mind of the killer (take Fincher’s own Se7en), this movie is about the people hunting him. More truly, it’s about obsession. Fincher puts on an absolute clinic of filmmaking. He juggles an incredible cast of characters (especially Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr.) and a complex, weaving plot that spans decades of dead ends and false starts, yet the movie never stops being gripping. It’s a story that shouldn’t work but Fincher inverts the focus and makes this all about that wing of human nature that refuses – or isn’t able – to let things go. People who derided this film as 'slow' need to go back and see all that's going as they're missing exquisite filmmaking.
3) The Barbarian Invasions (Denys Arcand, 2003)
What is it?A Quebecois professor is diagnosed with cancer and admitted to hospital. As the end of his life nears, his family and friends gather together to see him off.
Why is it great?
Admittedly, the premise makes this movie sound entirely depressing. It’s not. It’s filled with dark humour, off-colour jokes, womanizing and drug use. This makes the moments of poignancy and insight that much more powerful. Clever, debauched and somehow comforting, this is a personal fable about something we all try to do eventually - come to terms with death. This is also my favourite Canadian film, period.
2) The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson, 2001)
What is it?The wily Royal (Gene Hackman) returns to his family of over-the-hill geniuses to try to trick them into loving him again. Paul Simon montages ensue.
Why is it great?
Don’t even get me started. There are so many classic scenes and quotes in this movie that there’s really just too much to take in in one sitting. Repeated viewings begin to peel away a script, cast and direction that fit together so well the end result is, arguably, perfect. Some people dismiss Wes Anderson by throwing him into the “quirky indy filmmaker” camp, but they’re not watching closely enough. Yes, Anderson’s filmmaking is clever, but he doesn’t sacrifice character or story to be so. And as shown by his recent excellent films The Darjeeling Limited and The Fantastic Mr. Fox, he hasn’t slowed down. But Tenenbaums is Anderson’s best film of the decade (as well as my personal favourite film of the decade) and in the end will likely go down as his masterpiece.
1) The Lord of the Rings trilogy (Peter Jackson, 2001-2003)
What is it?Star Wars with elves.
Why is it on the list?
In the end, this is inescapable. The Lord of the Rings movies were the defining cinematic accomplishment of the decade.Whether or not LOTR is your style you've got to be impressed by how it cultivated so many millions of die-hard fans. Yearly 11-hour director's cut marathons are now a commonplace tradition.
But it's not just popularity that earns LOTR the top spot. This is old-fashioned adventure filmmaking - a fun, epic, wild ride. In other words, it truly is the Star Wars trilogy for the next generation. People who thought Avatar was a 'game changer' were way off. More CGI is not the answer. It's about making your special effects enhance reality, not become reality. Jackson had groundbreaking technology too but he anchors the films in real flesh and blood so they never become CGI snooze-fests.
This trilogy could have gone so wrong in so many ways. Instead we got that rare movie magic where a beloved series of books now have equally beloved film companions. More than any other movie, the OOs will be remembered for Lord of the Rings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)