I was looking at this article today, and I’m rather surprised at some of the selections. I know that they’re arbitrary, and likely not based on any sort of quantitative measuring system, but I think they could at least have the courtesy of a paragraph explaining their choice.
Rules:
- Write a paragraph explaining why you should watch a particular movie.
- List a movie you would like somebody else to explain why it is a movie you should watch before you die. Somebody else’s #2 can be your #1.
- Multiple explanations for the same film is OK, particularly if you feel the previous answerer didn’t mention specific points.
- You must have watched the movie you want explained.
I’ll start:
Shakespeare in Love:
I’m personally shocked when I see writers today claiming that this film didn’t deserve to win all the Oscars it did. In my opinion, it had nearly perfect music and cinematography, and the acting was excellent from nearly everyone involved except Ben Affleck. The plot, being based on Romeo and Juliet, is also well-developed, and nearly half the lines are also direct quotes from a classic. But, even if you don’t like Shakespeare plays or re-imaginings of Shakespeare’s plays (it essentially is the real-life version of R&J), it’s worth watching if only for the fact that it received 12 Oscar nominations and 7 wins.
Films I didn’t get that other people recommend:
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (1966)
Shinchin No Samurai (The 7 Samurai) (1954)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
Forrest Gump (1994)
I’ll try to think of a movie that I need to be sold on. In the meantime, I’ll try one of yours.
Watch this movie to understand how to make a film. With most movies, I get very absorbed into the story and don’t really notice the technique of how the story is being told. The finale of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a brilliant exception. Clint writes a secret name on a rock and lays it on the ground. Tuco and Angel Eyes spread out, so all three are facing each other in an empty circle in the center of a huge graveyard. The camera starts with wide shots, so we can see how they are facing each other. The music starts slow. The camera shots move in closer, showing each man standing, or looking over their shoulders. The shots are always still, emphasizing how the three of them are standing still. We see their faces. We see their gun hands, and each has a different holster; we can tell whose hand is still and whose are twitching even without seeing the face. Finally, it’s just the eyes darting back and forth. (Or are they?) The music gets more intense. A hand moves, a shot rings out, then the camera cuts back to the long shot and it’s instantly quiet.
The design, the characters, the music, the cinematography, and the direction all come together. That’s how to tell a story on film.
Oh, be sure to watch it in widescreen. Squeezing it down to pan-and-scan ruins it.
So we are not allowing ourselves to be limited to 1990-2009 like the article?
Rushmore
Wes Anderson at his idiosyncratic best. Less heavy than The Royal Tenenbaums more depth than Bottle Rocket, Rushmore is perfectly paced, slightly off kilter look at one Max Fischer, a student of incredible ambition, grand vision and little common sense. Bill Murray gives the best performance of his career as the rich, eccentric Herman Blume who befriends Max. It is a wonderful movie with a kickass 60s The Who soundtrack (despite the fact that the movie is contemporary).
Someone explain The Truman Show to me.