Skip to main content

Seeing 600 movies, at Wilt Chamberlain expense?

George Clooney's real performance of the year wasn't "Up in the Air." Plus: Jane Campion, "Star Trek" and madness!

A month or so ago, as critics' top-10 lists started trickling onto various Oscar-related blogs, I noticed that one list or another would be branded "idiosyncratic," and I started to wonder exactly what that meant. Is there a hypothetically perfect list, a list that follows some ideal template? Is the ideal list the one that's most in tune with the Zeitgeist? One that doesn't contain any foreign-language or otherwise "weird" films that the majority of the American populace hasn't seen? Considering that 2009 saw the theatrical release of some 600 movies — not that any critic comes close to seeing them all — isn't any list made by any individual human being going to be idiosyncratic in some way? The notion that there's an acceptable critical view, that certain movies must — or must not — appear on a list in order for any given critic to be taken seriously, flies in the face of what criticism is supposed to be. (Stephanie Zacherak, “Stephanie Zacherak’s best movies of 2009,” Salon, 27 Dec. 2009)

These are the voyages . . .

Strange this, teleporting in and out of so many worlds like you're a voyager from Quantum Leap. Don't you ever get the urge to pick one, and stay awhile? It'd be different if they were just different shades of the same fauna, but they are not that, are not they (are not not they?)?

Going zero, in 3D

On the subject of Star Trek and new decades, perhaps we'll allow ourselves a parallel universe this time around. The idea of going 2011, just defeats. Not even Rocky got past 8 or 9. So we'll go zero once again. The past will still be around, but he'll be like old Spock -- nice guy, still there, but not hanging around to be obtrusive. When we get to one, we'll decide if we'll let it roll on like we did last time, or if we'll figure out some other way to imagine life. Might it be zero all the time? Like some accumulating palimpsest? Or some ziggurat (but not the kind legions of virgins were sacrificed to)?

We could still see movies. But maybe this time they wouldn't be like the latest meal, or as near read and toss-away as a postcard (3 reviews a week, as if, in greatest truth, they really did nothing to you compared to the workaday), but experiences we live -- Avatars, even if the prose is sharp, and the acceleration muted. They already are that, but it would be exhilarating and genuinely universe-opening, if we could acknowledge it, and consider the implications.

Link: Stephanie Zacherak’s best movies of 2009


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …