My Favorite Movies: A Reluctant List

A friend emailed me recently with a list of his favorite movies. We’re both movie fanatics, so I understand the impulse to make such a list, and I appreciate receiving it. I like to peruse other people’s favorite movie lists for films I might like to see, especially if the writer is a critic I admire or a friend with either similar or admirable taste. So I feel compelled to warn people that my own list, posted below for your perusal, is not useful in the same way.

I have to admit I would hesitate to recommend some of the movies on my own list. First of all, some of my favorite movies come from critically despised genres. Zoolander, for instance, is intentionally stupid. I like it because I like really stupid comedies, and in the stupid comedy genre it shines, at least for me. Other movies are favorites because they appeal to me for personal reasons or because of excellent cinematography. Signs is not even director M. Night Shyamalan’s best movie, and while I love the movie I don’t care so much for the ending, even though the ending is probably supposed to be the profound part. The first two Batman movies are simple action-hero stories, but I had trouble not adding even more Tim Burton movies for the same reason: I love the way his movies look.

On the other hand, I intentionally didn’t add many critically acclaimed movies to the list because, however much I admire them, they just aren’t my faves. I admire Citizen Kane, for instance - what serious film snob doesn't? - but I don’t enjoy watching it all that much, probably for the very reasons it’s such a remarkable movie. Citizen Kane is complex, even at the technical level, and that makes it difficult for me to simply sit back and enjoy it without analyzing it to death.

As for a movie like The Birds, a film most people would acknowledge as excellent, Hitchcock obviously made better movies. But I must have been about eight years old the first time I saw The Birds on TV, and not only did it scare the crap out of me as a kid, it left a lasting impact. It’s impact changes depending on my age, but every time I’ve watched it since, it seems a different and remarkable movie. It's also no coincidence that many parts of Signs can be viewed as a tribute to The Birds.

In short, my list of favorite movies is in no way equivalent to the movies I would put on a list of the most excellent movies, and I don’t necessarily claim to love each of them for rational reasons. Actually, my admiration for these movies isn’t even internally consistent. For instance, some of the movies on my list are complex, like Citizen Kane, but somehow they still grab me and engage me in a way that Citizen Kane cannot.

One last warning for anyone who might want to see some of these movies. I’m not even willing to stick by my list, or at least not for much longer than a day. Some of these movies, like The Birds and The Wizard of Oz, I’ve liked since I was a kid, and I will no doubt still love them years from now. Others I began to doubt shortly after adding them to the list. I saw Y Tu Mama Tambien for the first time quite recently, and I’m not yet sure if it’s one of my favorite movies of all time or just another excellent movie from Alfonso Cuaron. So here is my list, which simply shows my favorite movies as of March 1, 2008.

The Wizard of Oz
Wings of Desire
Eyes Wide Shut
Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
Wild at Heart
Fast, Cheap and Out of Control
Mountains of the Moon
Dersu Uzala
Dreams
Say Anything
Moulin Rouge
The Grifters
The Shining
Breakfast at Tiffany's
The Birds
Nights of Cabiria
Y Tu Mama Tambien
A Little Princess
True Romance
Dark City
Signs
Batman I and II
Edward Scissorhands
The Fisher King
American Beauty
Zoolander
Prospero's Books
Ghostdog
Night on Earth
Children of Heaven
Terminator 2
Aliens
The Quiet Earth
Shaun of the Dead
Donnie Darko

Now You Too Can Think Just Like the Mainstream Press!

"Facts are stupid things."
- Ronald Reagan, Former U.S. President

While it’s difficult for me to pick a new presidential candidate, it’s easy for the press. They are all very busy these days telling us just how easy it is. They are also busy telling us what we should think about the candidates, so that it will be easy for us too. Perhaps it’s time, then, that I help them out. So I’ve thoughtfully provided the following EZ list of stuff to think, according to the mainstream US press. So save yourself some time. Ignore mainstream news and just memorize this handy list.

My own smart-ass comments follow in parentheses.

* McCain stands for HONESTY. Clinton stands for COMPETENCY. Obama stands for HOPE. (I wish they would just get t-shirts with the words on them. That would save us from most of the “political analysis” we have to otherwise endure.)

* Clinton and McCain stand for the OLD. Obama stands for the NEW. (That is, Hillary and JM have reached their pull dates. When will you reach yours, or have you already? Or do you imagine yourself exempt from such judgments? But it’s good to know that we’re all just products – it gives me a nice, democratic feeling of unity with the rich and famous.)

* The candidates are all pretty much identical. (Yep. The press also convinced us there was little difference between Al Gore and GW Bush. Thanks US press.)

* There was sexism in the campaign, but the press stopped it. Now they avoid discussing what Hillary wears and they rat out anyone else who mentions it. (Yep, now we've finally defeated sexism in the world, since that's all that was left of it. We women want to be paid less and given fewer opportunities by choice, apparently, but when somebody comments on our clothes, by gosh, those are fighting words!)

* If anyone says someone is racist, they are racist. (This is very different from a witch hunt. If it were a witch hunt, we would say “they are witches”! It is very different from a witch hunt.)

* We should pick the next President based on the impression created by their public performances. Does Hillary seem trustworthy when she says something? Does Barack seem sincere when he says something? Does McCain seem friendly when he says something? (What candidates say is actually quite unimportant. Let’s see, who have we elected lately based on the same theory?)

Who Moved My Candidate?

HANOVER, NH - SEPTEMBER 26: Democratic Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appear with unidentifed bystanders.

My candidate was John Edwards, so the answer to my question is obvious. The press, and network news in particular, ignored Edwards right out of the race. As I look back on their performance, I’ll always cherish, in particular, two memories of Edwards’ press coverage. The first occurred after the Iowa caucus where Edwards placed second. The news commentators mentioned briefly that he was second and then moved quickly on to the real story: an analysis of the contest between Obama and Clinton. The second magic moment was just after the debate preceding the critical New Hampshire primary. Commentators mentioned briefly that Edwards seemed to have the best and most moving performance in the debate, and then moved quickly on to the real story: an analysis of the contest between Obama and Clinton. I’m not talking about FOX news here either. The major networks consistently ignored Edwards, and even most PBS programs seemed to fall into lockstep with this agenda. And I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb when I say that it’s harder to get votes when the television news organizations don’t seem to notice you’re in the race.

However, since I still believe that this election is of major importance to the future of our country, I need to pick some other candidate to back for president now that Edwards has dropped out. I realize this announcement will send many campaign organizations scurrying to hustle my support, but just to let them know: I won’t send off my $25 contributions or cast my pointless vote in the Oregon primary or the general election for just anyone. It will be a tough call to make, since I like all the remaining major candidates.

So how to decide? Since I’m a Democrat, I’ll need to pick between Obama and Clinton before the primary, but for the final election I’ll consider the Republican candidates too. That leaves a lot of candidates to choose from. Does anyone have any recommendations?

Time permitting, I would like to eventually write some more about the Missing Candidates on both sides. I want to discuss Edwards’ candidacy some more, and also people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (if Edwards was ignored by the press, Kucinich was brutalized and buried by them). The race won’t be the same without the Missing, although the TV news, predictably, barely noticed they’re gone. Since you won’t hear it from a network news show, I’ll state the obvious. What’s missing along with them is our right as voters to pick the candidates who go on to the final primaries. Does anyone really think the press is qualified to decide for us?

October Reading List

I've been busy, so even though I wrote this a while ago, I'm just now getting the opportunity to post it.

And by the way, since it's that time of year already, I hope all of you will have a wonderful and relaxing Thanksgiving.

My Antonia
Willa Cather
In Ways of Seeing John Berger asserts that it is difficult for an artist to successfully portray the object of his desire as anything other than an object. Antonia, the title character of this book, is the object of the narrator’s desire, and also, purportedly, of the author’s. Cather triumphs as a writer however, and gives us a dynamic portrait of Antonia, a sometimes desirable, sometimes offensive woman. Antonia is as far from caricature as a real person, although I’m sure that hasn’t stopped students in college courses across the country from trying. How so? Well, here’s a faux-shocking summary for you: Cather was probably a lesbian, and Antonia has many traditionally masculine characteristics. There, now you don’t need to read any of those papers.

Ways of Seeing
John Berger
Berger’s exploration of the relationship between art and capital doubles as a short and easily understood explanation of Marxist philosophy. He’s also perceptive and entertaining on the subject of art.

Riddley Walker
Russell Hoban
Powell’s Bookstore stocks this novel, written about post-apocalyptic England, in the science fiction and fantasy section. However, it would be equally at home in the literature section. In other words, Riddley Walker is both brilliant and entertaining, and the reader will be rewarded according to what he brings to the reading.

Seven Against Thebes
Translated by Anthony Hecht and Helen H. Bacon
Aeschylus
I decided to learn more about Greek drama when I was reading Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy. Nietzsche compared Aeschylus to Euripides, to the detriment of the latter. I like both writers, but this excellent version of Seven Against Thebes, a play often discounted by critics, actually shows Aeschylus at his best and also proves how much translation counts. The writing is stark and dramatic, like some of the best Modernist poetry.

The Eclipse of Art
Tackling the Crisis in Art Today
Julian Spalding
In spite of a long and misplaced diatribe against John Berger, the author succeeds in making his point. Spalding clearly loves modern art but he’s sick of watching so many talented artists struggle while more gimmicky artists get all the acclaim and money. He seems to miss a central irony, however. He and Berger are not so different. Both want to free art, as far as possible, from the judgment of the corporate-minded marketplace.

Cheese from Outer Space

Lately I’ve been in the mood to watch pseudo-horror films, the type of movies which sound vaguely spooky in a plot summary, but which only rarely actually scare anyone. If you watch without expectations, such movies can be pretty entertaining, although not always for the reasons the filmmakers envisioned. So here are the psuedo-horror movies I’ve seen and enjoyed recently on DVD, and I recommend them to you as well, assuming that you too sometimes like your horror with a nice thick slice of cheese.

Invasion of the Body-Snatchers
Since this film was remade in the late seventies Pod-people have become such a cultural commonplace that it is difficult to understand what the characters are so upset about. Girlfriend or pod-girlfriend – who call tell the difference?

A Nightmare on Elm Street
Even here, Johnny Depp was attractive, in spite of his big 80's hair and disturbing resemblance to the 12-year old Annette Funicello. The rest of the cast’s mickey-mouse club-style acting (mental note to self: must stop obsessing about Annette before husband finds out) is deliciously bad.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse
A city relies on Commando SuperModels in various states of undress to rescue them from zombies. Unfortunately everyone else in the city gets turned into a zombie anyway, forcing the Commando Supermodels, in an excess of type-casting, to act selfishly and save themselves.

The Blob
Since the 1950's lacked Commando SuperModels, a small town must rely on a pack of teenagers, led by 28-year old teenager Steve McQueen, to rescue them from mobile grape jelly from outer-space. Although substantially less well-armed, the teens prove themselves much more community-spirited than the Commando SuperModels. These were innocent times.

Underworld
Sexy stylish vampires fight sexy thuggish werewolves for world domination. Which side looks better in skin-tight faux-Goth wear? The answer shall determine The Future (and two sequels, which I haven’t seen yet).

Guiliani on Film

I just watched the video Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters, which has been up on UTube for over a month. For such a short video, it’s quite powerful, and I got emotional watching it. But let’s be honest here, I would never vote for Rudy Giuliani anyway. No, he doesn’t strike terror into my heart like some of the other candidates, and I do approve of some of his more edgy fashion choices (see above). But I’m a left-leaning centrist, and while once or twice in the past I’ve voted for moderate Republicans I can’t imagine doing it again unless the current political climate drastically changes. Polls indicate that I’m with the majority in that attitude. Turns out that most of us have somehow failed to appreciate the last seven years of corruption and bungling, or at least not as much as Fox News has hoped we would.

But I wish that most Americans would grasp the real lessons we should be learning from our current problems as a nation, and the lesson is surely not that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good. One of those lessons is front-row center in the Giuliani video. Once I dried my eyes over Rudy’s vicious, uncaring attitude towards fire fighters and his stereotypical Republican big-business centric corruption, I was left with the uncomfortable feeling that I had seen this somewhere before. Actually, we have all seen it before. Remember swift-boat veterans against John Kerry, John McCain’s illegitimate black child, the Clinton’s murder of Vince Foster? As I look fondly back at those stories and smile in anticipation of more as we approach the 2008 election, I can’t help but ruin my own good time by wondering if maybe I should start to reject all smear campaigns, even when they’re directed at someone like Rudy Giuliani.

But first I needed to ask, is this video informative or is it just part of a smear campaign? Well, here’s some information missing from the video. What is Giuliani’s own explanation for the defective radios provided for the fire-fighters? As mayor, would he actually have been aware of such a detail? Who was the decision-maker responsible for accepting the no-bid contract for the radios? Why did the city prohibit further excavation of the ruins of the twin towers – was it really because gold had already been recovered or did they have new information about the risks? I don’t have the answer to any of those questions either, and for all I know, Giuliani may well be an evil wealth-and-power driven maggot who prioritizes special deals for the makers of defective equipment over the lives of fire-fighters. I’m just saying I didn’t learn anything from this video that proves it. So gosh, unless someone offers me the facts, I guess I’ll just have to vote for some other candidate for the pathetically old-fashioned reason that I don’t like Giuliani’s platform.

Sure, it would be dull, but isn’t it just possible that the U.S. could be a better place if everyone voted for candidates based on their platforms and their proven records instead of reacting to unsubstantiated rumors? After all, when we need entertainment, we’ll still have Fox News.

Partying with Materialists

The August 25th issue of The Economist reports that two scientists have found a way to induce out-of-body experiences in the lab. Both Dr. Olaf Blanke of Geneva University Hospital and Dr. Henrik Ehrsson of the Karolinka Institute in Stockholm use a combination of virtual reality and real sensation to create the effect. These techniques trick subjects into mistakenly locating their body or self elsewhere, although as The Economist sensibly adds, “Astral projection it is not”.

But these findings have exciting implications for consciousness research, and I’m eager to hear the results of more experiments using similar techniques in the future. What I’m not eager to hear is the monotonous drone of a certain noisy subset of materialists claiming that these results prove that existence ends with the physical universe. Such materialists have a remarkable track record of conflating their philosophy with science. So expect to be cornered soon at a party-near-you by one of them announcing that science has now proved that astral projection, life-after-death, and the soul do not exist.

But as Robert Thurman points out, such arguments are always carefully selected. For instance, it’s easy enough to stimulate the brain electronically to produce visual hallucinations. But we don’t need anything so fancy to produce visual hallucinations on demand. We could instead take a long drive through a desert on a hot day and see non-existent water ahead or we could look at any number of common optical illusions. Yet you’re unlikely to be cornered at a party by a materialist claiming that visual hallucinations prove that everything we see and sight itself are illusions.

Of course, we can try to figure out what’s real by using all of our senses on an object and getting confirmation from other people. That works fine as long as you’re looking for confirmation of something physical, and as long as you believe that other people exist and can be trusted. But the keyword there is “belief”. In other words, expect the materialist to attempt to prove his materialist beliefs with materialist arguments. To escape his circular reasoning you could attempt to achieve an out-of-the-body experience on the spot. Or, more simply, you could outwit him with his own materialist strategies by standing in some other area of the party.

Flo Finklestein hastens to add that she does not think of all materialists in this way, and that she has attempted to avoid generalization in her wording. True believers, whether materialistic or non-materialistic, tend to think that any belief system is for the naïve. They have no need for beliefs, because they KNOW. In my opinion, that is...