(Part 2) Best products from r/TrueFilm

Like a lot of people here, I think 2015 was the first year I really discovered film. I mean, I've been a film fan for a long time, but this year was a big change. I got a lot deeper into directors I'd only heard about before, I improved my film analysis ten fold, and I really got to understand what exactly it was I liked about film.

Instead of listing every single film I watched this year, I'll focus in on a few big focal points for me.

Discovering Godard

I'd heard a lot about Godard before but never really given him the time. This year I stumbled upon A Bout De Souffle and was pretty impressed with how new it all felt. The editing was great, and it just felt like the director had something to say. I liked it, but it wasn't until I found Le Mepris that I found myself blown away. This film shot straight into my top 5 films ever. I watched it just after a big break up, and I just thought it was spectacular. I'm now working my way through some of the deeper cuts and have loved everything I've seen of Godard's so far. I'm less enthused about his later, more politically driven films, but I'll make a judgment when I get to them.

Re-evaluating Hitchcock

I'd seen quite a few Hitchcock films but never really understood it. It all just seemed a bit dated and like everyone else had done it better since. Then I found Vertigo, and it just blew me away. His use of colour, the complex image systems, the camera work, just phenomenal. That film helped me reappraise his entire filmography, and I'm now going back through and spotting things I never realised before.

My Kaufman obsession deepens

Charlie Kaufman is hands down my favourite writer, and with the release of Anomalisa I decided to go deeper. I read this book on his philosophy and loved it, I read through all of his scripts, and most importantly, I decided to try my hand at screenwriting. I've been a writer in some form or another (blogs, journalism, prose, etc) for most of my life, but this year (and my Kaufman obsession) pushed me to give screenwriting a go. I've written a few scripts for shorts already and will be meeting my director friend about shooting one of them this weekend.

Favourite films of the year

I've written about this quite extensively on my Medium, where I wrote out my top 30 films of the year with rationales and analysis for the top 10. I feel pretty good about it, because it's a lot less blockbuster driven than previous years, and I feel like I connected with my favourite films more than I have in the past. It feels a bit less derivative of my peers and more about my own personal taste, which I take as a reflection on my growth in this subject. Note - I saw 45 Years too late but it would probably make the top 10, I just haven't decided where.

All in all it's been a good year. I haven't been cataloguing my film watching, but I watched 45ish in December alone, so I expect the number to be reasonably significant. I'd guess 250 ish. This year I'm using Letterboxd so will hopefully be able to answer that in more detail next year.

A few quick fire ones to wrap it up:

• Best film I saw: Le Mepris
  
• Most well-constructed film: Vertigo
  
• Films I didn’t like that most people really like: Carol, The Assassin, Legend, The Gift, The Hateful Eight
  
• Best Discovery: A Pigeon Sat On A Branch Reflecting On Existence
  
• Films more people should watch: The End Of The Tour, Love & Mercy
  
• Best horror film of 2015: Spring
  
• Best comedy film of 2015: The Lobster
  
• Saddest film of 2015: Me & Earl & The Dying Girl
  
• Best picture of 2015: Anomalisa
  
• Best actor of 2015: Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant
  
• Best supporting actor of 2015: Paul Dano, Love & Mercy
  
• Best actress of 2015: Brie Larson, Room
  
• Best supporting actress of 2015: Rooney Mara, Carol
  
• Most overrated film of 2015: Mad Max
  
• Most overrated actor of 2015: Michael Keaton, Spotlight
  
• Most overrated actress of 2015: Cate Blanchett, Carol
  
• Best cinematography of 2015: Emmanuel Lubezki, The Revenant
  
• Best screenplay of 2015: Anomalisa
  
• Best animation of 2015: Anomalisa
  
• Best foreign language film: A Pigeon Sat On A Branch Reflecting On Existence
  
• Best sound design: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
  
• Best costume: Brooklyn
  
• Best visual effects: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
  
• Best score: Carol
  
  Top 10 films I'm most looking forward to in 2016:
  
  
• Hail Caesar (The Coens)
  
• Knight of Cups (Malick)
  
• Midnight Special (Jeff Nichols)
  
• Everybody Wants Some (Linklater)
  
• How to Talk to Girls at Parties (John Cameron Mitchell)
  
• Silence (Scorsese)
  
• Salt & Fire (Herzog)
  
• Neon Demon (Refn)
  
• The Light Between Oceans (Derek Cianfrance, who I think is criminally underrated)
  
  That's probably enough, I should stop there. Good year.

As that asshole who posted that thing, I...

A. Narcissistically think it's awesome that you're asking this question. Mostly because I asked this question, and I honestly enjoy film more because of it. I disagree completely with the idea that when one understands art more it's thus more difficult to enjoy it.

B. Literary theory is helpful with many films, especially the more standard ones. It becomes less helpful when we get into more avant garde cinema, but either way, I think it's a great jumping off point but one should preferably support the analysis that has been framed in Literary terms via Cinematic ones, because that's where the evidence to support your theory actually lies.

C. Here are my bullet points of advice, in the interest of economizing information:

• Read some books on film theory. A really good place to start is with the work of Bordwell & Thompson, which is pretty standard practice for film students. That will give you a rudimentary and foundational vocabulary through which you can begin understanding film better, and often that's the problem is not knowing what to look for.
  
  
• If you can, try to talk about film as much as you can with people who know more than you. I meet for drinks regularly with a former professor and screenwriter who has done more in the industry than most and is one of the smartest people I know. I can keep up with him, but he's clearly way ahead of me as he should be. I've learned and figured out specific films almost as much just talking out ideas with similarly informed people, as just sitting there watching them or reading about them.
  
  
• Read up on a wide variety of topics, specifically philosophy, art theory and psychology as well as perhaps some science, anthropology and history. Find fields with which you are really fascinated by. Those who are interested in physics, determinism or analytic philosophy will look at and interpret film in a different way than others, I'd imagine they may be heavily structuralist and influenced by the Soviet Montage school in their own work, for instance. Someone else more interested in history and science may approach film from a sociological perspective as well as subscribe to some interesting ideas such as Jean Epstein's theory that film breaks the space time continuum. Me, myself, I'm really fascinated with psychoanalysis and abstractly cosmic concepts, things that cut to the core of human experience, and couldn't care less about free will or analytics because I don't see how they change anything phenomenologically. So it would make sense that I'm drawn to surrealism, and analyze film is a post-structural, Lacanian way, as well as drawing much of my support for interpretations from the semiotic aesthetics when I can.
  
  
• Write stuff. Often I don't figure out a movie until I start writing, and then it just sort of comes out fully formed much of the time. If you have a blog send me a link too, I'd like to see it. Anyway.
  
  
• Once you've determined your points of interest it will be easier to decide who to read/watch next but I find these ones were the most enlightening for me. So if you like what I said about my own viewpoint above, they will help, and I'll include some things that are standard that I don't prefer but am glad I read as well.
  
  Christian Metz will teach you about how film communicates information through non-verbal aesthetics. If you want to understand how to analyze film via a non-literary perspective, this is where to start.
  
  Hugo Munsterberg is the father of most film theory. Oddly, he doesn't seem to like movies very much, but the book has some very relevant information on the interaction between film and spectator, that is essential (assuming a relatively modern approach at least. I suppose a formalist wouldn't care too much about the meaning of the film itself and thus the relationship wouldn't matter).
  
  Slavoj Zizek has a lot of books on cinema, but also his documentary "The Perverts Guide to Cinema" is one of the most entertaining, as well as informative looks at film I've seen. It doesn't really address aesthetic elements as well as take a Lacanian look at why certain scenes provoke the reactions they do or what they mean, but I think that if one combines this psychological perspective with the understanding of how juxtaposition of elements conditions the viewer as evidenced by a lot of Soviet Film Theory, one can figure out the mechanism of how these meanings are being communicated. Also here's an interesting more structural take on Zizek that I've read.
  
  I don't find it necessarily essential to my own views, but Sergei Eisenstein has a lot of really interesting work, and his books use a lot of synonymous examples in other art to illustrate how film works differently from theater and other narrative form. It also breaks down the Soviet Montage theory better than almost any other work.
  
  Another essential book for many that I'm not a huge fan of yet I'd still say is pretty important to read is What Is Cinema by Andre Bazin
  Dude loves movies and is pretty enlightening for many people I just disagree with a lot of his ideas of how film should best be made.
  
  Andrew Sarris is a relatively important guy for understanding American film criticism. He and Pauline Kael warred for a while, and I think Pauline Kael is a blowhard ignoramous who never actually said anything relevant or informed about movies. People love her though, probably because she was an entertaining writer, and she was influential. But anyway, Sarris was the one who brought auteur theory, the dominant theory of understanding filmmaking today, to America from France.
  
  An interesting look at directorial style and authorship is Martin Scorese's "A Personal Journey Through American Movies". It's not comprehensive or detailed, but it will not only show you some great classical era films to look up, but he has a unique idea of the director as filling one of four roles, storyteller, illusionist, smuggler and iconoclast. As a side note, I think Scorsese sees himself as a Smuggler, and attempts to be much more so in the wake of his reaching iconic status. For a much more challenging work of film criticism from a director that is still alive, check out Histoire(s) du Cinema by Jean-Luc Godard.
  
  Finally I'd say Tom Gunning, who I actually met once and was fascinating to listen to, is pretty important. He's mostly focused on early film, and the development of how a film communicates narrative. He will illustrate some interesting things on spacial reasoning and editing and how logical information is communicated. For instance now in film you know which character is on the left by giving him some negative talk space in close up on the right, and when a character leaves frame on the right they enter the next from on the left if one wishes to maintain continuity of space, time and setting. Also his cinema of attractions theory is pretty interesting and explains exactly why people go watch Michael Bay movies, as well as elucidating the mentality of film-goers in the pre-Griffith era.
  
  Also, look around the web. Some places like Slant.com, RogerEbert.com's essays and blogs sections, or Mubi.com occasionally have some really interesting stuff. Also there are random blogs around that do really enlightening work (like mine! shameless self promotion aside, if you want it I'll send it to you but I'm not gonna be that douche) that I sometimes stumble across.
  
  Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification, and good luck!

Soylent Green Directed by Richard Fleischer (1973)- Soylent Green presents us with a broken down, destructive, yet plausible future, and as the film progresses, you discover the horrifying secrets that are hidden behind questions that society need not ask, because they can live happy with what they need, and what they need is Soylent Green. Soylent Green is a film that not only gives us a polluted world that the story takes place in, but also a very interesting take on society and what they will do to keep the status quo. Of course, while the environment and themes are important parts of the film, the story focuses on Charlton Heston who, while on a murder case, gets intertwined with government secrets about an incredibly popular food source known as Soylent Green. Personally, while I think both stories, the story involving Charlton Heston, and the story involving Soylent Green’s effect on the population are very interesting and well put together, the way they intertwine feels forced and shoved near the last third. Now, I’m not saying I didn’t like the CONCEPT of the two stories gradually connecting, I just wish it was more, well, gradual. But since Charlton Heston was such a big part of the film, how was he? Prior to this, I only seen two of his movies, one which he was great in (Planet of the Apes), and one in which he was terrible in (Ben-Hur). So, I had no idea if he would be good or bad here. Luckily though, he seems to get better with age, as he does a fantastic job in this role, and while the script doesn’t allow Heston to completely show his range, he does play his character extremely well, and I can’t imagine many actors doing better. As for the supporting actors, they were mostly okay, though the only one that really impressed me was Edward G. Robinson, who also plays his role fantastically. As a whole, Soylent Green accomplishes it’s imaginative story very well, and aside from a few missteps, both huge and small, the film keeps you invested, and definitely shocks, both by its satire of society, and the story’s twists and turns. Definitely watch if you’re a Sci-Fi fan. 8/10

Robin Hood Directed by Ridley Scott (2010)- Robin Hood is a very intense and enthralling action adventure film, with fantastic action, a great cast, gorgeous cinematography, and very clever writing. Now, I heard a lot of people say the main problem with this film is it doesn’t capture the fun and wit of past Robin Hood adaptations, such as the Errol Flynn version or the Disney version. Now, I haven’t seen either, so I only have this film to go off of, but even if this film is a terrible adaptation of the source material, I still think as a standalone film, it works very well. Of course, I’m not saying the film is flawless, as I don’t think many people would consider this film so, and many of these flaws are dealbreakers on whether or not you’ll like the film. First of all, the editing and pacing is awful. It’s way too quick, and leaves little time to think or even to get emotional connected. This was a huge problem, and took the film down a lot for me. Another problem I felt, which doesn’t seem all that annoying at first, but slowly irritates you more and more, is Cate Blanchett. She’s okay as her character, but her character feels almost unnecessary in the story, and is rather dull. Finally, while I did say the cinematography was amazing, there were a few shots that seemed really clichéd and/or odd, such as the view of an arrow getting shot, which feels really gimmicky and fake. So these are flaws that you can either ignore, or make you hate the movie, so try to judge by this review if the film is for you or not. For me, personally, I think the film is still worth checking out. Many of the actors do a fine job, even the most minor of characters are memorable in their own right, the entire film is beautiful to look at, and the action is brutal, realistic, and intense. Definitely consider watching this film. 7/10

Gravity Directed by Alfonso Cuaron (2013)- Gravity is quite possibly one of the most stunning visual experiences I’ve had with a film yet. The amount of detail is outstanding, and it captures an amazing scope that rivals Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur. Luckily, the film isn’t just about visuals either, the characters are likable, the pacing and editing are tremendous, the acting is decent, and of course, the atmosphere is top-notch. It really is taking the Sci-Fi genre in a more realistic route, and hopefully for the better. However, I wouldn’t say Gravity is a perfect movie, and I definitely wouldn’t say it deserves to be in the Top 50 on IMDB’s Top 250. For one, it got very irritating that Sandra Bullock’s character seemed very inexperienced with space. I understand her character freaks out from disaster, but there were countless moments where she put people’s lives in danger for no reason. Secondly, the acting could have been a lot better. I’m not really a big fan of George Clooney or Sandra Bullock, and while they both do a decent job, I felt there could have been better actors for the role. Another problem, which isn’t that big of a deal, but personally annoyed me, was the scene where Bullock is trying to do something on another Space Station, so she pushes random buttons. Wouldn’t the act of pushing a button either make the action go ahead immediately, or not be reversible? She hears something happen after she presses the first button, and thinks that’s bad, so she cancels it and presses another button… I just don’t think that’s plausible. I could go on forever about little flaws like this, but in the end, I could just classify them all as one big problem. So, with all these problems, you’d expect me to call the movie bad, but I honestly still think the movie is excellent. Is it problematic? Definitely. But the film still works because of how engrossing, inventive, and revolutionary it is. You’re not thinking “Ugh, this is so unrealistic” during an intense scene, you’re just on the edge of your seat the entire time, hoping it turns out alright in the end for the characters. So I definitely recommend giving this one a chance, though watch it in the best possible format. It’s not one of the best movies of all time, but it’s still pretty damn good. 8/10

Solaris Directed by Steve Soderbergh (2002)- I'm not too familiar on remakes, and usually the ones I see are ones I'm not a fan of. So, a remake of a Tarkovsky film was an idea I had trouble wrapping my head around. So what did I think? Well, I thought Soderbergh did a fantastic job of both respecting Tarkovsky's film, and adding enough new ideas to make the remake worth existing. It's not just a carbon copy of the original, but it doesn't stray too far away either. So, as remakes go, it holds up extremely well. Also, it holds up very well as its own idea. I thought they did the story very well, the acting was great for the most part, it, like the Tarkovsky film, uses the Sci-Fi genre not for looks alone, but as a main component to a very intricate story, and it does amazingly what Tarkovsky's film lacked: The atmosphere. While I love the Tarkovsky version, I never did feel like I was in space, which was bad because that was a main part of the story. However, in this version, there's many scenes where every now and then, you see a window with Solaris right outside. As well, the only noise you hear aside from the characters talking is the spaceship working. So in comparing the two films, it sounds like the new version beats the old, right? It accomplishes all that the old did, but also adds its own ideas and improves the flaws of the old. Sadly, with the new one being extremely ambitious as far as remakes go, it causes some problems. For one, lets look at the original again. In that film, every actor is amazing except for the male lead, who's good, but nothing fantastic. In this version, it's the FEMALE lead that's nothing fantastic. She isn't bad, but her delivery feels off, and she seems to switch emotions too quickly. Everybody else does a great job, and this is probably my favorite George Clooney performance so far. Another problem is the editing in the flashback sequences. It seems like right in the middle of a scene, they just cut to the next scene. It becomes increasingly irritating as the scenes themselves are pretty good, but they always end too quickly. Thirdly, while I think Viola Davis is great in her role, her character was really weak. It'd odd, because every other character is very well written, but Davis's character seemed dull to me. There were other problems as well, but like Gravity, they were just sort of minor. So, in comparing the two, I do believe Tarkovsky's film is better, and not many people are going to disagree with me on that, but the remake does an incredibly good job at expanding on the original ideas from the movie (And novel, though I haven't read it), but still remains faithful to it as well. And in the end, that's all I can really ask for. 8/10

The Eagle and the Hawk Directed by Stuart Walker (1933)- A while back, I picked up the 10 Movie War Collection by Universal. I bought it for four films: The Eagle and the Hawk (Which has a good rating on IMDb, though low number of votes, as well as Fredric March and Cary Grant), Wake Island (Nominated for Best Picture), To Hell and Back (Good rating on IMDb), and Ulzana's Raid (Good rating on IMDb). Now, I only seen 2 movies from the set so far, Ulzana's Raid and The Eagle and the Hawk, and I can safely say the set is worth the $13. Ulzana's Raid is currently one of my favorite westerns on all time, and The Eagle and the Hawk is a very powerful, well acted, and subtle anti-war film. It stars Fredric March, a pilot who begins to struggle when all of his partners begin to die. His next partner becomes a cocky co-pilot played by Cary Grant, who is annoying at first, but as time goes on, he shows true caring for March. Both of them have different opinions on what they think is "Honor". For example, shown early in the film, Grant shoots down two parachuting enemies because he doesn't want them getting away, but March feels since the soldiers are vulnerable, it isn't right, even if they are the enemy. Both arguments seem logical, but as Grant is more arrogant, everyone sides with March. Slowly, March becomes more and more unstable, especially since he receives medals and has celebrations thrown for him for killing soldiers. I won't spoil the last third, but it's one of my favorite endings of any war film. The film is incredibly powerful because the characters are so likable, and March puts on a fantastic performance to match his character. It's not a completely perfect film, Carole Lombard feels completely pointless in the film, the film could go on a bit longer than it did, and Cary Grant's a little cheesy at first, both his character and his performance. So in the end, it doesn't completely succeed, but it's still a very subtle, but very haunting anti-war film. It definitely deserves a wider audience. 8/10

The Exorcist Directed by William Friedkin (1973)- The Exorcist is a very surreal, slow, and effective movie about a young girl being possessed by the devil. It takes its time to develop all the subplots, and has amazing reincorporation. The acting is extremely well done, the special effects are realistic, the idea itself is very interesting, the pacing is slow but perfect for the tone of the film, and the scares legitimately scare you (Well, for the most part). It very rarely feels dated, aside from occasional bad editing. However, like every other film this week, it has a few problems holding it back from a 10/10 rating. For one, occasionally the scares are cheap, like at one point they used Regan's face for the transition TWICE. Secondly, while the transition of Regan from normal girl to devil was okay, I felt it should have been much more gradual. It went from her complaining about her bed shaking to sending death threats and urinating on the carpet. The second half of the transformation felt much more gradual, but the first half seemed like they were just rushing into Regan's "Devil phase". Finally, two minor nitpicks, how does the devil work in this film? How much power does it get? It seems like it has complete control over the room, why couldn't it just strangle the two priests when they came in? My other little nitpick, but the speaking backwards thing the devil does; It's not scary, it's just gimmicky and pointless. The other languages are okay, but why would the devil speak backwards? It just seems like a way to make the devil sound more incoherent to make it more frightening, but it didn't work whatsoever. So in the end, how does the film hold up when bogged down with these flaws? Surprisingly well, in fact. The flaws I talked about do effect the film, but not enough that I wasn't scared or engrossed by the film. I still thought the film had an incredible amount to offer, and the problems were just minor things that came with such a great film. So while horror movies, both the good and the bad, will always have an audience, many of them will become forgotten for one reason or another. However, The Exorcist is one of the few that will stand the test of time, and 40 years later, it's still going strong. Hopefully, it keeps growing in popularity from here. 9/10

Top 3 Movies of the Week (I know I stole this idea from another user, but hey, if it wasn't a good idea, I wouldn't be stealing it right now)

1. The Exorcist (1973)
   
   
2. The Eagle and the Hawk (1933)
   
   
3. Solaris (2002)
   
   Movies I Will Watch Next
   
   Les Diaboliques (1955)
   
   Cure (1997)
   
   Dawn of the Dead (1978)
   
   Seconds (1966)

[Post 1/2]
I think that the historical context of imagining the future is a decently important component in the explanation of why the film is great, but by no means the most important or even the most interesting. I also think the tangent into Disney's Epcot could take up ~10s, but the amount of time spent presenting it doesn't really help your argument at all. As presented, literally any movie made with a decently imaginative presentation of the future would be great, and even if 2001 is the best of the bunch, that doesn't explain why it is considered a great piece of cinema both historically and cinematically. No offense intended, but if you want to make an effective video explaining why the film is great you should do your homework.

In my opinion, these points are the best way to explain to a non-cinema oriented person why 2001 is great:
The density and ambiguity of possible interpretations, and the sparsity with which though enormous themes and ideas are presented
The incredible technical and artistic achievements of the film's production
How Kubrick as a director shows through in the film, and how it is an example of truly great directing.

Thematic development:
Kubrick argued repeatedly after the film's release that there was not a single explicit meaning to the film, nor any of its components - despite the literal interpretation given in the contemporaneous novel. From the opening scenes with the apes, we are provoked endlessly to ask what each scene means and how each fits into a larger narrative, but are never given a satisfying answer. The movie feels 'weird' and unnerving because nothing is made clear, but that's precisely why a non-cinematic person should be interested in 2001: they are given agency as a viewer to engage and interpret the movie on their own terms, rather than having the plot spelled out for them as is typical of blockbuster movies. The extended, often near-silent shots give the viewer time to think about what is happening and why it is happening (while also being insanely beautiful, more on that below). 2001 is not, however, contentless: the themes are presented as enormous conceptual archetypes in themselves, rather than being presented within the context of the movie and then extrapolating those to the larger concepts. These themes will always resonate with us: a sharp transition in the course of human history brought about by an unexpected discovery or shift in culture, the relationship between humans and what they create, a sort of bottomless searching that impels us to invent and explore space, etc. People should be interested in this movie because they are interested in the ideas that are both a necessary product of human civilization while simultaneously having a profound influence on its progression.

Production:
Kubrick is notorious for being extremely demanding and precise with his technical vision of his films, and this is, in my opinion, shown most clearly in 2001. Every single shot is exquisitely designed to the finest detail - the set, the position and movement of the camera, the sound, etc. Giving a potential viewer a sense of the incredible depth of the story of the production would let them appreciate those 'quit, slow, boring' scenes so foreign to them as the examples of technical mastery that they are. There are so many good stories of the people involved in the production that you could have told here: Kubrick's consultation with Carl Sagan on the presentation of the alien lifeforms that made the obelisks, the collaboration with Arthur C. Clarke (one of the most prominent science fiction authors at the time and a far better example of the importance of imagining the future than Disney) on the screenplay, the consultation with IBM about HAL, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the input from NASA and other high-tech companies that made 2001 far more realistic than the other glittery science fiction movies at the time, and the list goes on. There is an entire book on the film's production filled with fascinating photos and stories from behind the scenes that would have worked well here. As a few examples: Kubrick and his collaborator John Alcott studied lighting more deeply than anyone ever had before - studying the way the light worked with the set and the actors such that it looked more convincingly and consistently like natural lighting than most films that had been made to that point. The set of the interior of the Discovery was actually unprecedented: "A 30-ton rotating "ferris wheel" set was built by Vickers-Armstrong Engineering Group, a British aircraft company at a cost of $750,000. The set was 38 feet in diameter and 10 feet wide. It could rotate at a maximum speed of three miles per hour, and was dressed with the necessary chairs, desks, and control panels, all firmly bolted to the inside surface. The actors could stand at the bottom and walk in place, while the set rotated around them. Kubrick used an early video feed to direct the action from a control room, while the camera operator sat in a gimbaled seat." I can't stress enough that that simply wasn't done - Kubrick would invent new ways of directing just so that the shot was closer to his vision. 2001 was one of the first films to effectively use front-projection, or projecting images onto the set from the point of view of the camera, to both animate the set as well as make a more convincing set than the clumsy manual tape-editing techniques that were used to fake a set in a sound stage. The visuals in the final scenes were made with a machine that was invented for the movie - the "Slit Scan" machine being the first adaptation of slit-scan photography to film - allowing the animations in that scene that would otherwise have been impossible. A good demonstration of how that works is here. Kubrick was a genius at solving technical and mechanical problems himself, for example the 'iconic' pen floating scene was done by mounting the pen inside a spinning glass disk rather than suspending it from a thin wire - the dominant technique at the time - and to make the astronauts 'float' he and the crew rigged up an ingenious array of wires and harnesses that allowed the actors to perform naturally while being essentially invisible. Even non-cinematically oriented viewers would be interested by the fact that many of the creative team went on to do the production for later heavily influential and more approachable movies like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Blade Runner, etc. The scenes are only 'boring,' and you only need to sell them as "it's weird but just watch it because it's historic" if you don't understand the massive amount of creativity and work that went into every shot. If you were to have planted in potential-viewers mind the idea that they should be watching every shot to figure out how it was done, or to wonder at the fact that it was* done, rather than telling them to snooze through it, you would have allowed them easier and deeper access to the movie.

>is it psychology within the characters like you mentioned in your comment? or is it about humans beings collectively? or Russians individually?

All of the above and more, I suppose. Dostoevsky writes about the human condition. His works contain penetrating commentary on human interaction and the way people view themselves, as well as commentary on politics and art at the time and society as a whole. He's considered a proto-existentialist because he dealt with the inherent meaninglessness of life and attempted to counter the nihilism that was becoming popular among the youth of his time (this is a lazy overview, but this comment is going to be long enough without me reviewing the guy's whole career). It's worth reading a little about Dostoevsky's life and times to understand some of what he's talking about, but all the interpersonal interaction is still completely relevant and understandable today. Times change, people really don't.

I think a lot of people get turned off by Dostoevsky because they try to start with one of his longer, later novels, usually "C & P" or "The Brothers Karamazov". I honestly don't think those are good places to start. They're a lot denser and his writing follows a natural progression that I think is undermined if one start at the end.

I always recommend starting with "Notes From Underground", which is much shorter and more concentrated. It's a great example of the way Dostoevsky thinks and writes, so you'll know off the bat if you'd like to dig into his other stories or "great novels". In response to what you should expect from Dostoevsky.. I'm not really sure how to answer that, but one way would be to point to "Notes" and say "That general sort of thing". Mirra Ginsberg does a great translation of Notes From Underground that can be picked up super cheap. It's my favorite translation (possibly because it was the first version I read and what made me fall in love with his writing). It also provides helpful notes that put some of what he mentions into historical context.

After that I'd suggest a collection of his best short stories. If you still love him after that (I certainly do) then you're probably ready to move on to the complex psychological mind fucks that are his great novels. Some other good short story collections by him are "The Eternal Husband" and "The Double/The Gambler" both translated by Pevear/Volokhonsky.

As far as his novels go, I always recommend starting with "The Idiot", which I like the most out of his "great novels" (followed by "The Devils/Demons", "Crime and Punishment" then Brothers K). The novels are completely different animals. They can take a long time to set up and some aspects can seem boring to people who aren't used to his style, but the pay off is well worth it in my mind. If you have questions about a specific work I'll be happy to talk about it, but I don't want to bore you with descriptions of all his novels.

These are, of course, just my suggestions, but after turning on a few friends to Fyodor D., I think it's a good recipe for getting into him, and getting what he's all about without being intimidated/bored/discouraged.

I really think that the most important factor with Dostoevsky is the translation you read. The quality/style of a translation can make all the difference. I highly recommend Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky or David Magarshack. It's a good idea to be kind of wary when buying old copies because they might have poor or outdated translations.

Constance Garnett is the most common translator because her translations are in the public domain. Though she deserves credit for being an awesome individual and making Russian literature more available in the west... she is well known for leaving things out, making mistakes, and changing things to better suit Victorian sensibilities. I started reading her stuff, and was shocked when I found those other translators and read about a lot of the problems with her versions. Some of his stories that I thought were dry or boring ended up being my favorites when I read a better translation.

The book Pictures at a Revolution by Mark Harris explores the best picture nominations of 1967. It doesn't translate exactly to what happened in 2000, but the deep exploration of these films and what it means to be an Oscar nominee for best picture makes for a good read. Recommended.

Just for reference, the nominations in 1967:

IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT (winner)/
Bonnie and Clyde/
Doctor Dolittle/
The Graduate/
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

And in 2000:
GLADIATOR (winner)/
Chocolat/
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon/
Erin Brockovich/
Traffic

To relate this back to the thread, I think the fact that In the Heat of the Night won is the equivalent of giving the win to a movie like Traffic. They are both "message movies" about a social issue (as is Guess Who's Coming to Dinner). As great as both films are, I don't think either deserves best picture. While I enjoy films with overt political/social agendas, they generally tie the film to a specific historical moment. I think a "Best Picture" has to transcend the time it was created and still be accessible to future audiences. This is probably impossible to achieve in practice, and might not be the most important criteria for a best picture winner, but I think as a general guideline it works. The Graduate or Bonnie & Clyde are better films than In the Heat of the Night, and while they are products of their historical moment, there is a more "timeless" quality there too.

So should Gladiator have won? Well, if you're using my guidelines, you can rule out both Traffic and Erin Brockovich. I say this despite the fact that Soderbergh is probably one of my favorite contemporary directors and he did both films. I haven't seen Chocolat, but I don't think it has any cultural currency today. I realize Oscar voters can't predict how important a film will be in the future, but I think the entire point of even having these nominations is to make movies part of the established "Great Film Canon." Does Chocolat deserve that kind of recognition? I don't know, but my hunch is no. Then we're left with two epics, one a throwback to the glory days of the Hollywood studio system and the other a wuxia film with Chinese actors. I think I would go with the latter film, but I'm not surprised that the majority went with Gladiator.

My train of thought doesn't even address whether or not this group of nominees were the right choices. I don't think they were. I'm just saying that if you are given a list with those five films and have to pick, it is between Gladiator and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

This was way too long. I'm sorry.

TL;DR - Epic movies are probably a more appropriate choice for best picture than social issue movies.

No shame at all. Honestly, a lot of people I know (including myself) started watching Godard films by just jumping around each decade to get a feel for what all he has to offer. I'd honestly recommend people start watching a mix of his work from different eras — even if a lot of the post-68 films can be alienating at first — because it's likely to cut down the risk of a person just becoming another one of the thousands who only watch and discuss his work from 1960-68. (That horse hasn't just been beaten to death, it's long been vaporized.)

And tbh, Brody's book is actually a good read if you want to get a rundown of facts about Godard's life through his career. If you can look past the near-total absence of criticism in the book (and the really lazy, shallow attempts at it), it's a concise collection of info that's ysually scattered across many sources and a very easy read. Just don't put too much faith in his "interpretations" of Godard's work and philosophical beliefs, or else you'll get trapped into reiterating the same sensational position. It's great for reading in the same way you would a Wikipedia article though, just a much longer and more detailed one, haha.

So for alternative Godard reading, I'd recommend checking out some of these:

• Colin MacCabe has several books covering Godard — including general overviews, specific eras, and philosophies of his work. MacCabe is like the first step-up from Brody: he doesn't turn film criticism into One Fish, Two Fish, but doesn't have an intimidating depth to his commentary. IMO, he's the "lesser of two evils" as an entry point to Godard that will give you great background info as well as stimulate your critical thinking skills a little more than Brody. But please note that the other options following this are likely to be much more satisfying.

• Wheeler W. Dixon's The Films of Jean-Luc Godard should probably be one of the books near the top of your list of great crash courses in Godard's work. He speeds through the parts that Brody/MacCabe sink themselves into like quicksand, and covers a broader scope of ideas.

• David Sterritt's The Films of Jean-Luc Godard: Seeing the Invisible is another great pick if you want a reading-equivalent of the "taste-testing films from each era" approach I mentioned at the start of thise reply. He covers only a small handful of important works from 1960-1990 — including several of Godard's all time bests, like Numero Deux, Nouvelle Vague, and Hail Mary — while giving great supplemental insight on Godard's experiments with the medium (e.g., film vs video).

• Godard himself is another great (or even necessary) option for getting excellent insight. Godard on Godard (whatever the newest edition available is) would be the essential first pick. Also, there are a decent amount of books out there that are just collections of his various interviews — aside from the ones written/published by Godard himself, I mean — and those contain invaluable information. This one covers a wealth of exchanges between him and various people from the 1960s to late 1990s, for example.

There's also a brand new book written by Godard that I've been waiting to get my hands on, but it can be quite expensive... Intro to the True History of Cinema and Television — Currently out of stock on Amazon. Reading Godard's critical writings of other work is also a GREAT way to get insight into how he thinks about things, so those pretty valuable when it comes to your perspective on his work as well.

Make sure not to mistake the Godard books that share his films titles for criticism btw. I'm talking about stuff like this. These are incredible books in their own right, but they're "written cinema", not criticism. (They're not really even screenplays.) But for sure add these kinds of books to your cart AFTER you've gotten a better grip on his work down the road.

• Depending on how academically/theoretically inclined you are, then you should check out some of the "specialized" critical works on Godard. These are easy to spot because the title/descriptions will tell you that they focus on how a select group of his films (or a specific period) relates to or utilizes a particular subject. For instance, again, there's a brand new book that came out this year that's been on my list to buy because it looks very intriguing: Godard and Sound: Acoustic Innovation in the Late Films of Jean-Luc Godard

• LAST BUT NOT LEAST! If you want some very worthwhile, critical, and FREE writing on Godard's philosophy and work, look no further than Jonathan Rosenbaum's website. You can just type in "Jean-Luc Godard" at top in the searchbar, and browse through different articles. Skip the short Chicago Reader, 1-2 paragraph blurb reviews — look for his longform essays. Rosenbaum can get a bit esoteric times, but it's never overbearing (IMO), and serves as excellent time-wasting reads when you're not at home or don't feel like starting a book chapter.

Rosenbaum also has many books on cinema (not free) in general, which are all pretty damn great options — not just for reading about film, but familiarizing yourself with criticism itself and various ways to approach it. Several of his books discuss various Godard-centric topics at length. So see about picking one of those up if you're interested.

Bicycle Thieves (1948) Dir. Vittorio De Sica

I've been reading some English translations of collected writings from the Cahiers du Cinema and realized that I have a huge gap in my knowledge of Italian neorealism, which makes it a little tough to fully appreciate where Rivette, Truffaut, Chabrol, et al. are coming from, as the nouvelle vague owes so much to neorealism. Having seen and enjoyed a little De Sica, it was only natural to start with the most well-known work from that movement. It's a beautiful little film, tragic and lovely, and although you can guess pretty much what's ultimately going to happen, De Sica teases the audience with this knowledge. Several times the main character leaves his bike alone, leading the viewer to assume this is when his prized possession will be stolen, only for the bike to remain safe for another few hours. It's a simple ploy yet provides a good amount of suspense. Once it's finally taken (spoiler alert), the subsequent suspense of whether he'll get it back – and to what lengths he'll go – carries us through the rest of the film as we're treated to an anxious tour of post-war Rome. Great film and likely a solid introduction to classic/foreign film for anyone looking to get into it.

The Children Are Watching (1944) Dir. Vittorio de Sica

I veered a bit from neorealism to check out an earlier De Sica work (arguably a proto-neorealist work). It's centered around an adorably innocent little boy named Pricò, his adulterous and negligent – yet loving – mother, his cold-mannered but endearing father, and a collection of self-centered adults that Pricò finds himself passed along through. This is certainly De Sica at his most melodramatic, though you can see a lot of the roots of his later forays into neorealism: the selfish irresponsibility of the bourgeoisie, the kind-heartedness of the working class maid, the sympathy for the helpless, and the many shots throughout the film that serve less to develop the plot than to provide atmosphere and character detail.

The film reminds me a lot of Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar, as we helplessly view the passing of an innocent through hands that range from loving to indifferent to cruel.

Bonnie and Clyde (1967) Dir. Arthur Penn

My girlfriend and I were trying to find an "American" film to watch on the 4th and we settled on this classic. I've long wanted to check it out, as it's often regarded as the beginning of the New Hollywood movement that continued through the 70s. I was also very interested to learn that Warren Beatty's (as producer) first choices to direct the film were Truffaut and Godard. Many have written about the influence of the French New Wave on Bonnie and Clyde – and perhaps its influence is overstated – but it's still fascinating to watch with that in mind. It's also a bit difficult to watch the film without comparing it with later 'couple killing spree' films, such as Badlands and Natural Born Killers. Badlands is one of my favorite films of all time, so I had to consciously tell myself to stop comparing it as I watched. As opposed to Badlands (and here I go), B&C is much more rooted in Hollywood traditions. It's really just a western set in the depression era, and works a little harder to set the actions of its characters into a moral framework (ie. fighting against the evil banks) than a film like Badlands (or indeed Breathless) which lack any recognizable moral center. I'm naturally drawn to films which have alien or unusual senses of morality so I thought – because of the controversy surrounding the violence of the film – that B&C might fall into this realm, but it's really just a depiction of your standard outlaw-style morality, which is interesting in and of itself, if not groundbreaking (aside from setting it in a more modern context).

Morality aside, it's a gorgeous looking film and I was not at all surprised at it winning the Oscar for Best Cinematography (a little surprised at Estelle Parsons's win for Best Supporting Actress though..). It's also a whole lot of fun and features a fascinating couple of leads; Faye Dunaway is wonderful to watch in this.

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover (1989) Dir. Peter Greenaway [REWATCH]

Greenaway was one of the first 'art film directors' I ever really got into, and revisiting this film after about 8 years was a treat. What I love about Greenaway films is that they are so into being 'high art' with their extravagant and baroque visuals and arty dialogue that I can fully understand why folks might consider them pretentious, yet I just don't care since they're so much fun (and so over the top). A few new things I noticed on this (third) viewing: As they carry through The Thief's new sign into the restaurant, the letters for "SPICA" (his name) are momentarily set down and spell out "ASPIC", which is the clear gelatinous mold that dishes used to be set into (like this, ick..); how The Cook pronounces The Thief's name "Mr. Spica" sounds a lot like "Mister Speaker" and all Spica does is chatter crudely and mindlessly; and I paid more attention to the camerawork this time around, which is masterfully done, many many long tracking shots throughout the films elaborate set. Perhaps my favorite Greenaway film.

Admission (2013) Dir. Paul Weitz

I had to promise my lady a chick flick in return for her watching several of the films I wanted to watch. Admission is a quirky little film. It's certainly not your average Catherine Hegel paint-by-the-numbers chick flick, it's much more about Tina Fey's character and life than about her romance with Paul Rudd. And it's a sad life and a pretty sad film, with a bittersweet ending. I'm a fan of the two of them and, while I can't say they have a ton of chemistry together, they're certainly fun to spend time with when they're on the screen. I just found the whole thing about getting her "son" into Princeton to be a pretty big stretch and actually pretty immoral. She made a ton of choices during the scene at the accepted/deny table that fucked with other kids lives just to try and get her "son" into the school, for example making all of the kids in her files before him sound like shit so the others would deny them? Pretty fucked up, and they never really address how that was wrong. And I suppose her "son" got into Princeton on that technicality? Not very believable. Decent movie, but has some issues.

Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) Dir. Michael Bay

I found myself in a big debate here last Sunday defending this film for what it is. It's not a great work of art, it's a big crazy action blockbuster. I took my friend's 10 year old to see it and had a great time. He loved it, and that's what these movies are for. They're technically well-made, stunning visuals and action sequences, and a lot of fun (Optimus Prime riding a fucking mechanical T-Rex? The little boy in me loved it).

Here's a few books that I found very helpful in my film education:
[Film Theory and Criticism] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195365623/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_mmt-tb0ZCNAH3) - fairly self-explanatory in terms of what it is. A great collection of academic film criticism and film theory writings.

Film Theory - An Introduction - a great book that looks at some of the most widely regarded writings on film theory and breaks them down into more easy to understand explanations (film theorists often like to demonstrate the size of their vocabulary a bit too much, to the point where it can be distracting to some). Best consumed alongside the writings and theories being referenced, many of which can be found in the first book I linked.

Both of the above are going to be the most useful to you if you can try and read them shortly before or after (or both) viewing some or all of the films they're discussing.

If you just want to go over film theory, I think the standard text for an Intro to Film course is Braudy & Cohen's Film Theory & Criticism.

If you want a compelling history of film, I recommend the 11-episode The Story of Film, directed and narrated by Mark Cousins. It's a great starting point for getting into top tier cinema, and Cousins' passion for film becomes contagious as he narrates key moments in its history, and how these movies connect and respond to each other. It should give you many samples of some important touchstones, and you can pull out a lot of movie recommendations from it. It's currently streaming on Hulu, and is available for rent or purchase on most the usual services (though oddly enough, not on itunes).

This one is an excellent anthology:

http://www.amazon.com/Film-Theory-Criticism-Leo-Braudy/dp/0195365623/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427745065&sr=8-1&keywords=film+theory

These are some of my favorites:

André Bazin, What is Cinema?

Andrej Tarkovsky, Sculpting in Time

Gilberto Perez, The Material Ghost

Gilles Deleuze, The Movement Image & The Time Image (sophisticated, but very insightful)

I highly recommend Film Theory & Criticism edited by Braudy & Cohen. It compiles a lot of fundamental texts on film theory and is broken up in a way that makes it easier for someone just jumping in.

Wait, is "I spit on your grave" critically maligned? I feel like it's always being cited as groundbreaking classic.

This probably says more about the film critics I read than about your analysis though :-) Thanks for the post.

I highly recommend Carol Clover's book Men Women and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film [(amazon link)
](https://www.amazon.com/Men-Women-Chain-Saws-
Gender/dp/0691006202)

It's out of print so the only options are used, but any unversity library that has a film department should have a copy or be able to get one for you.