So what? If you’re putting together a canon of cinema – a list of films which one must view at least once to acquire true cinematic literacy – then it should be a list of the most important films, not the best films. I note Rosenbaum did give a place to Griffith’s Intolerance – which might, indeed, be a better film than Birth of a Nation, but much less important to the history of cinema and the development of the cinematic arts.
BrainGlutton writes:
> . . . then it should be a list of the most important films, not the best films . . .
You’re insisting that Rosenbaum should define “canon” the same way that you do. He doesn’t. In the introduction to the book, he says, “In the [list given in the link] I’ve made a stab at proposing a particular film canon of my own - that is to say, one that is prescriptive (and proscriptive) rather than descriptive, reflecting my own tastes and preferences - that can be regarded as either a possible (or ideal) viewing list or as a critical manifesto can be debated.”
Well, leaving “Eyes Wide Shut” aside, why should “The Shawshank Redemption” be there? It was a good movie, but it wasn’t a very original or interesting movie. If you wanted to watch a thousand movies to understand the history of popular cinema, there’s just no reason at all to have “The Shawshank Redemption” in that top thousand, or even in the top five thousand. It’s a pretty standard, dull film. Good acting and all that, but there’s nothing about it that set a new standard in cinema.
Rosenbaum is, like a lot of critics, over-obsessed with the auteur concept - hell, look at the way the list is written, as if the director alone had crafted the entire movie from hand-sculpted celluloid - and blows a lot of calls. He has a few too many Kubrick films on there, notably the mediocre and completely uninteresting “The Shining,” but Kubrick is an auteur theory darling so anything he touches must be gold. Jim Jarmusch gets at least one free pass too (“Ghost Dog”) and there’s a few other examples in there - I note Atom Egoyan was named twice, which I find hilarious.
Another example; I know “Star Wars” wasn’t a wonderfully directed film, but it really should be on the list, it being a landmark of cinema, as should be “Jaws” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Of course, that’s not really his area of expertise, so that’s fine, and I understand why he wouldn’t include those films, but he includes some big splashy films that really shouldn’t be there (Ishtar) and in some cases picks the wrong one of two films - for instance, choosing Mel Brooks’s “History of the World, Part 1” instead of “Blazing Saddles,” or picking “1941” and “A.I.,” but not “Jaws,” “Raiders” or “Schindler’s List” solely because he can only stand to pick a Spielberg film if (in the former case) it’s one everyone else hated, or if (in the latter case) Kubrick had something to do with it, which means it must be wonderful.
One I think he missed; “Roger & Me,” Michael Moore’s first famous documentary, and still his very best. I wouldn’t pick “Bowling for Columbine,” despite the Oscar, but “Roger & Me” absolutely should be on the list.
Wagner, may I ask what your occupation is?
Every thread I’ve seen you participate in you display a large degree of general knowledge on your part. Just curious.
I think you might be missing the point. Read again what he wrote (and Wendell Wagner posted): “In the[list given in the link] I’ve made a stab at proposing a particular film canon of my own - that is to say, one that is prescriptive (and proscriptive) rather than descriptive, reflecting my own tastes and preferences - that can be regarded as either a possible (or ideal) viewing list or as a critical manifesto can be debated.”
I agree, one of those three (not all) films should be on the list, most likely Jaws as the first blockbuster. One of the reasons he chose 1941 is probably in lieu of Jaws and in the same vein as Ishtar, as an example of an abortive blockbuster with an undeservedly poor reputation. Also, and this is crucial, he prefers to champion in his quest to challenge the sedentary habits of the modern film culture the lesser known works of high profile directors. Hence the inclusion of Kundun and The King Of Comedy instead of Raging Bull or Taxi Driver.
I think you sell Kubrick short. Have you watched Eraserhead and The Shining in close succession? They are remarkably similar and fulfill a similar purpose; to present a nightmare on screen. There are some interesting subtexts to The Shining; it’s one of my favorite Kubrick films. I haven’t seen any Moore documentaries, as he pisses me off too much, so I can’t comment there.
I take it you haven’t seen Intolerance? I would venture to say that it is more important than BoaN. It also represents the first failed blockbuster, as well as a far more presentation of Griffith’s talent and visions. If you watched it, you would probably note more influence on modern cinema from it that from The Birth Of A Nation.
You have got to be kidding.
A cursory glance reveals 100-150 comedies that I am familiar with, and around 50 musicals, 50-75 Westerns and 100+ action movies in the classical sense. Rosenbaum is very much a champion of the overlooked qualities of the popular genres. For a good idea of where he is coming from read this:Rosenabum’s Alternate 100 Greatest American Movies.
Thank you, Ilsa. I was going suggest that Scrivener hadn’t even read the list to say such a thing.
And Shawshank Redemption is, IMHO, pretentious middlebrow crap with a cynically polished surface and a hollow center. Just to show you how subjective these things are. Come to think of it, that’s a pretty good description of Star Wars, too.
And I would certainly agree that *Intolerance *would find a place in my own canon long before *BoaN *ever did.
Bottom line is, no such list is going to seem 100% perfectly right 1000-for-1000 to anyone but its original author. So just because some of you can find a film or two here or there that you disagree with (I certainly do), you shouldn’t dismiss the whole list as irrelevant.
It’s a treasure trove of experiences you might not otherwise have had; I’ve seen many movies I’d never heard of until they were mentioned by R’baum, and been incredibly grateful to have seen them.
Which is why I specifically conceded: “I understand why he wouldn’t include those films.” Geez, don’t expect much of a discussion if your comeback is always going to be “You don’t understand.”
Anyway, I understand the basic function of his list, but - and I thought this was the point of the OP - I feel Rosebaum misses his own boat in a few places, not had to do if you’re listing a THOUSAND movies. I hate to harp on this point, but the “Ishtar” thing is silly. It was a big budget movie that was bad but not as bad as it’s remembered as being. Um, so what? I don’t find that to be an interesting or important point; it’s just an insignificant film in every way. The difference between “Ishtar” and most of the rest of the list is that “Ishtar” just isn’t worth watching for any particular reason, and so in my opinion doesn’t merit inclusion in a canonical list, even one of the sort Rosenbaum is presenting; it’s not important, it’s not the work of a director with anything else with talking about, etc. etc. At least a dozen other movies carry the same background, and some even more spectacularly so, like “Heaven’s Gate.” (As opposed to “Gates of Heaven,” which you wanted included for presumably VERY different reasons indeed.) It was a silly inclusion.
I would hope that we aren’t going to include every movie of a particular commercial archetype, like “Biggest bomb movie involving a talking duck that was produced by a guy whose previous films made more money than God could count and was expected to make a fortune but died in a week.” Okay, so that one would be a short nomination list. But you see my point. “Ishtar” is an interesting Hollywood story, but an insignificant film.
Hmm… maybe we should add to the list an example of truly awful filmmaking, to serve as an inoculation, as it were, for the viewer, so that they know the standard for bad cinema. I nominate “Battlefield Earth.” I know it’s a cliched choice, but I’ve never seen worse.
I mean, it’s easy to argue for the inclusion of other films. The cool part is deciding that if we’re going to limit ourselves to X films, which ones you want to take out. That’s the challenge. You want to include “Gates of Heaven.” But we already have 1000 films, so let us assume you can only take 1000. Which gets knocked off?
I agree. It helps that it’s the best of the three.
An interesting ambition, but the tradeoff is that you might get a less important film. Hmm… I guess I don’t precisely see what someone would get out of watching “1941,” but I think you would be amazed at how many people have never seen “Jaws.” No, really, I’m serious. Remember, it’s… what, 29 years old? You’d be shocked at how many people have never seen it.
Not at all. Kubrick was a giant of cinema, but unlike some, I don’t assume every film he made was great. (Since you’re on record as feeling “Barry Lyndon” didn’t exactly work, I realize you’re willing to criticize Kubrick.) Quite frankly, my standard is one in ten; if you make twenty films and two are great, you’re one of the great ones. Kubrick’s way past ten percent.
I loved “Paths of Glory,” “2001” and “Dr. Strangelove” (yeah, I’m using short titles) and thought “A Clockwork Orange” was wothwhile. “The Shining”? No, I just wasn’t blown away, nor was I thrilled with “Full Metal Jacket,” which I found uneven - sometimes great, sometimes not. Funny movie, hard to judge. Even in most of the films I thought weren’t his best stuff, though, there’s something remarkable about them. But not “The Shining.” I just think it was below his usual standards.
I thought of another two I wanted included:
“Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs”
“Hoop Dreams”
Have you seen either of these movies?
Um, you’re saying it’s an insignificant film in R’baum’s personal canon? Not sure you can do that; not sure it’s up to you.
Personally, I think of *Ishtar *as a very significant film, partly for where it comes in its director’s “oeuvre,” and partly as an object lesson in bandwagon criticism. It also has some very biting things to say about American imperialism in the Middle East. Plus it makes me pee my pants.
Personally, I think SWatSV is another example of bandwagon criticism. Like GwtW and TWoO, it’s simply critic proof. BUt it’s also lame, with the least compelling heroine in a long line of pretty uncompelling Disney heroines. And it’s not even the first feature length animated film, which misconception is responsible, in large part, for its icon status.
I just got off work and am feeling to lazy to chop up your reply. I apologize if I came off as hostile. I didn’t mean to; this isn’t the Pit.
I would replace The Scenic Route with Gates Of Heaven. I haven’t seen the former, but I hate Mark Rappaport with a passion. I also agree that a few incredibly awful films should make the list, notably Manos: The Hands Of Fate and Glen Or Glenda. You can’t have a film canon without Manos.
As per Kubrick, I have somewhat revised my stance on Barry Lyndon. It’s among my top five Kubricks. I don’t however, care for A Clockwork Orange (neither does Rosenbaum) or Paths Of Glory. I do feel that The Shining has a place in a film canon of this size. (Come play with us forevernevernever)
If you read the article I linked, Rosenbaum says he prefers Dumbo, Cinderella, Pinoccio, etc. to Snow White for the same “lesser known counterparts to high profile films” reasons. I will admit, I haven’t actually seen Ishtar.
Silocke writes:
> Wagner, may I ask what your occupation is?
>
> Every thread I’ve seen you participate in you display a large degree of general
> knowledge on your part. Just curious.
I’m a mathematician. Click on my name and you can see that in my public profile.
I just went through my last several dozen posts to see if I have been doing too much talking about subjects that I don’t know anything about. I hope not. I try to stick to subjects I have some reasonable amount of knowledge about. I have master’s degrees in both math and linguistics. (I got a bachelor’s degree in math and then got interested in linguistics and started on a Ph.D. in linguistics. I gave up after the master’s and went back into math. Again, I gave up after the master’s.) Because I spent so much time in college and grad school, I sometimes post to threads about education. I grew up on a farm and now live in the Washington, D.C. area, so I sometimes post to threads about rural life and about moving to D.C. I grew up reading a lot of science fiction and a lot of my social life (well, such as it is) consists of hanging around other s.f. fans and talking about s.f. In particular, I got into the Inklings (Tolkien, Lewis, Williams, etc.) and know a lot about them. I don’t know much about all the picky details of Tolkien’s history of Middle Earth though, so I’m wary about contributing to certain Tolkien threads. I got heavily into film watching and have even done some film reviewing, so I contribute a lot to film threads (and there are a lot of film threads). I live in an apartment filled with books, so I contribute to general book threads. And, of course, sometimes all it takes to reply to a question is to do a search on Google (and sometimes I get testy with OP’s that are a question that could have been easily answered with Google).
Both.
So why are we even having a discussion? We have to be able to disagree with him and each other if this is going to be an interesting thread. Otherwise it’s kind of a boring topic:
LISSENER
So what movies should be in Rosenbaum’s canon?
RICKJAY
Well, look, he made a list. Here it is.
LISSENER
I guess that settles that.
RICKJAY
How 'bout them Bears?
Directors like Elaine May don’t have an “oeuvre.”
Ilsa_Lund, I’ve always excluded “Manos” from my lists of awful films because it’s an amateur film, really; nobody involved in it, IIRC, had any experience in cinema. I know it’s supposed to be truly hideous (I haven’t seen it) but it’s not really fair to include it with movies from people who should have known better. It’s comparable to those horrible student films that come out of college film courses, not actual professional movies like “Wild Wild West” or “Howard the Duck.” “Glen or Glenda,” now, that would be a fair candidate.
Why do you hate Mark Rappaport?
RickJay writes:
> “Glen or Glenda,” now, that would be a fair candidate.
Glen or Glenda is only a step above a student film. The director (and star) was an incompetent actor and director with delusions about his ability. The rest of the actors are just a group of friends he rounded up. The only thing making the film interesting is that it’s him discussing his own transvestitism.
Manos received a general release and an international distribution. It counts.
I hate Mark Rappaport because my local film film society duped me into complicity in my own torture by using my dues money to finance screenings of the uber-garbage From The Journals Of Jean Seberg (on the list, actually) and Rock Hudson’s Home Movies.
Hey thanks for the reply Wendell, you’ve lead an interesting and (if I may say so) varied life.
Unfortunately us non-members can’t do that (just yet)
Everyone has their opinion and all that…still, IMO you are frighteningly wrong about Kubrick in general and “The Shining” in particular.
And I can’t see him picking “A.I.” because Kubrick had a connection to the film–Kubrick would have puked and snatched any trace of his name far, far, away from that piece of crap.
Spielberg is a bit of a sentimental, predictable hack-- yet the three films you mentioned-- “Jaws”, “Raiders”, and “Schindler’s List” are 3 very good films. Really the only three decent ones (aside from maybe “Saving Private Ryan”) that he has made.
I’m sorry but this just pisses me off. What the hell does that mean? Have you ever even seen an Elaine May film? Mikey and Nicky is a masterpiece, and would actually give you a lot of insight into Ishtar, which address a lot of the same things of friendship and sacrifice.* The Heartbreak Kid* is another wonderful movie, made by an extremely original and insightful director.
The critical bandwagon that made an event out of trashing *Ishtar *without seeing it killed a brilliant career. If R’baum’s list inspires your curiosity to the extent that you’d actually re-screen *Ishtar *and consider it on its own merits, ignoring the critical background noise, and as a result you discovered with your own brain that it’s actually a pretty decent, and outrageously hilarious, film, then he’s done you a great service. It holds a worthy place on his canon–and mine–if only for the lesson it can teach about how NOT to watch a movie, which is just as important as know how TO watch a movie.
I was going to explain that I’m trying to tell you my opinion of “Ishtar,” with some specific commentary on what I felt was weak about it, and that yes, I did form my opinions using my own brain and didn’t just assume the critics were right, and so on and so forth, but what, really, is the point? I’ll be deluged with your usual arrogant, condescending nonsense.
Ilsa, I’m really sorry I seem to have hosed your thread. You know what would make a really good thread? “The SDMB Film Canon.” Everyone gets to nominate any number of films, and at least one other person has to second a nomination to have it added. You should start it.
There was nothing at all arrogant or condescending about my responses; not nearly as arrogant and condescending as “Directors like Elaine May don’t have an oeuvre’”, so give it a rest. Hiding behind such accusations is just that: hiding. YOu want to focus on what I’m saying, or sing a sad little song about how I’m saying? Spare me. (Excuse the anger, but I’m just dumbfounded that you would initiate this tone with your inexcusable crack about May’s “oeuvre” and then pretend like I’m the one who turned that corner.)
In any case, it’s a nearly inarguable truth that *Ishtar *wasn’t anywhere NEAR as bad–by ANYONE’s standards–as the critical bandwagon led the moviegoing public to believe it was. I don’t care how much you disliked it, I certainly can’t believe you’d suggest it was bad enough to destroy the career of the director of Mikey and Nicky. As such–as an object lesson about the relationship between filmmakers, critics, and the audience–*Ishtar *is essential to the canon of anyone who’s interested in the history of cinema as a public art.
(Artistically, it’s an interesting lesson how a big budget can negatively affect the work of an indie minimalist/neo-realist/Cassavettian (to coin a phrase) like Elaine May. It’s also an interesting essay on “applied camp”; that is, the attempt to create camp consciously and ironically, which is always an iffy proposition.)
On rereading, Rick, I apologize if you read me as arrogant when I asked if you’d ever even seen an Elaine May film, but your crack suggested to me that might not have. It might have been arrogant and condescending for me just to assume that ANYONE, until proven otherwise, hadn’t seen her films, but that’s not the case. I was responding specifically to what you had said, which led me to ask that question quite seriously.
Nah. It’d be filled with Casablanca and Sophie’s Choice. My stomach isn’t strong enough.