VIDEO: What Does Oscar-Winning Cinematography Look Like?

VIDEO: What Does Oscar-Winning Cinematography Look Like?

As a bonus to the “Who Should Win” video essay series that identifies this year’s truly deserving Oscar winners, this video compiles some of the most impressive visuals from the five films nominated for the Academy Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography. Of all the Oscar categories, this one may lend itself best to a simple video compilation of clips that lets you decide for yourself which movie deserves to win.  All you have to do is watch and decide. Or is it really that simple?

Of course, one can’t evaluate all the films in their entirety in one sitting. I’ve limited the selections for each film to two standout clips not exceeding a total of 90 seconds. To do this, I enlisted the suggestions of the Twittersphere. Over a dozen people tweeted their standout shots and images from the nominated films, with several moments getting multiple mentions and thus finding their way into this compilation reel. Based on sheer number of enthusiastic tweets on their behalf, it seems that Skyfall and Lincoln are the popular favorites.

I made one additional tweak to the video by removing the audio from the clips. It may be a bit jarring to watch these scenes without a soundtrack, but it’s for the sake of placing sole emphasis on the images and camerawork. I hope you’ll agree with me that, by and large, the visual artistry on display speaks quite well for itself.

Looking at these clips, I have my own opinion on who should win, but I’ll keep mum, as I’d rather see you cast your vote in the comments section. Perhaps a subsequent discussion below might tease out my favorite.

COMMUNITY Season Four: A Shaky Start

COMMUNITY Season Four: A Shaky Start

null

It used to be hard to tell if Community was a particularly turbulent show, or if its voracious fans plus a rather public cast and crew combined to give the sense that it had a great deal of behind-the-scenes drama. That question resolved itself last summer, when the shocking firing of showrunner Dan Harmon, as well as other long-time creative forces, made it clear that, yes, Community was a mess.

While many fans and critics, adopting an auteur theory of television, were convinced that this was the end of Community, it actually made me slightly more curious about the fourth season. I enjoy seeing and analyzing a show in creative flux, and Community's always manifested a chaotic creative process. But I also noticed a notable step down from the brilliant second season, thanks largely to the third season's self-indulgence—Community had become a show about itself. A kick in the pants seemed warranted, although the steel-toed boots used for this particular kick may have been excessive. Still, many of the writers and all of the stellar cast remained, giving me some hope.

The Season Four premiere of Community, “History 101,”opened with an inspired concept: the show reimagined as a multi-camera sitcom, complete with laugh track. There were enough layers here to be worthy of the show in its prime. As a single-camera, formally daring sitcom, Community is theoretically in the vanguard of television comedy, fighting against the multi-cam, a format (probably unfairly) decried as stodgy, old-fashioned, or even outright bad. (A fake Twitter profile set up in the name of the new showrunners, David Guarascio and Moses Port, invited fans to be part of the “live studio audience”–a joke within a joke, perhaps?)

nullThis season's premiere was also very much like the third season premiere, opening with a big happy musical number in the style of Glee (a show Community had mocked mercilessly), before the characters immediately dropped back down to earth. Finally, “History 101” made sense from a character perspective: of course Abed Nadir, resident pop culture obsessive, would find solace in an old-fashioned sitcom form labeled AbedTV. In short, the deliberately confrontational/mocking style, the formal experimentation, and the connection with the characters made it seem like it was exactly what Community should be.

The problem was that it didn't work.

AbedTV was just one part of the story among many—four and half, to be precise. That's a lot of storylines for a serialized hour-long drama, let alone a 20-minute sitcom. “Overstuffed” would be an understatement.

None of those storylines really worked, either. Pierce's throwaway joke was essentially nonexistent, which was fine, but Annie and Shirley seemed to be off in a storyline that went nowhere. The biggest problem was Britta. Even at Community's worst, like Season Three's wince-inducing “Advanced Gay,” Gillian Jacobs' defiant certainty in the face of being wrong about everything could salvage an episode. Yet in “History 101” Britta wasn't defiant, because she'd become attached to Troy in a relationship. She could mess up his tradition, but it turned into a gentle-hearted romp. A soft Britta is no Britta at all, and she's long been the best part of the show.

What was perhaps most frustrating about this turn of events is that Community has always explicitly rejected turning into a show about its characters' romantic relationships. Its first season was premised on hooking Jeff and Britta up, but episodes like “Modern Warfare” and “Contemporary American Poultry” indicated that it wanted to play around with stories apart from the romantic comedy. After a disastrous first season finale that was nothing but romantic entanglements, the second season occasionally used the actors' chemistry for comedy, but turned against romance as the show's driving force. In its mock clip show, “Paradigms of Human Memory,” Community attacked character romance directly, as Jeff dismissed his supposed will they/won't they with Annie by saying “it's called chemistry, I have it with everyone.” In that same episode, his secret affair with Britta was revealed—the show's initial premise was subverted to the point where it coming to fruition is a throwaway line.

This is not to say that the Troy and Britta romance came out of the blue. It was obviously slowly developing over the course of the third season, just as Jeff and Annie's will they/won't they hardly disappeared after it was mocked. Rather, it's that the show always deliberately steered clear of entangling its characters in such a way. Seeing its best character compromised by sweetness, it was easy to see why romance was treated with such skepticism.

nullThe one storyline that came  anywhere near working was the Dean's Hunger Games bit, largely thanks to Jim Rash. His emergence—or perhaps the acknowledgment of his emergence—as one of the show's most important characters was one of the best parts of Community's third season, and that continued in “History 101.” The scene where he and Jeff dance the tango should have been good enough to find a place in Community lore, and maybe it will eventually. But that storyline was squished by all the others, preventing it from being more than an amusing diversion.

It would have been easy, after that episode, to say that without Harmon, Community had lost its soul/moorings/quality, and that it was now “Community” or "Zombie Community" or "not canon" or the like. The thought certainly crossed my mind. But as I was watching “History 101,” I had a gut feeling of discomfort that reminded me of something else I'd recently watched. An hour or two later, I realized that it was the same feeling I got when I watched the season three episode “Regional Holiday Music,” or rather, “that Glee episode of Community.”

Both episodes gave me the feeling that what I was watching was simply wrong. That feeling of wrongness derive from the show's being mean. I know Community has a sort of cultivated “too cool for school” reputation, but when I've watched it and loved it, it's been because it joyously immerses itself in the history of pop culture. From action movies to Dungeons & Dragons to “everyone goes to a bar!” sitcom plots, Community wanted to be everything. But in “Regional Holiday Music,” it spent an entire half-hour attacking its more popular cohort, Glee. In “History 101,” Community focused on making fun of multi-cam sitcoms (a set that perhaps coincidentally includes another rival, The Big Bang Theory). A mean-spirited Community is an unpleasant Community.

If there was any hope for the fourth season of Community, it was going to manifest in its second episode, not its premiere. Season premieres of any show are often hit-or-mess, especially sitcoms. On the other hand, the second episode, “Paranormal Parentage,” had a very promising premise. First, it was a Halloween episode, which always works well for a show that loves having its characters play roles—the first-season Halloween episode, “Introduction To Statistics,” was its first great episode.

Second, “Paranormal Parentage” was penned by Megan Ganz, a writer who quickly came to prominence with four superb episodes (the bottle episode, the two documentary episodes, and the Law & Order episode) in the second and third seasons. In each of these, Ganz showed the darkest, weirdest parts of the characters while making them more, not less, sympathetic, while also twisting the form in stunning and hilarious fashion (a combination that reminds me of The XFiles' great Darin Morgan). Her continuing presence in the writers' room was a ray of hope for fans—although her recent defection to Modern Family means that next season, worries will start anew.

“Paranormal Parentage” was a massive improvement over “History 101.” While not quite in the top tier of Community episodes, it was continuously funny and structurally clever.

nullThe costumes may have been the best part of “Paranormal Parentage,” possibly the best of any of Community's Halloween episodes. You can earn a lot of good will by putting Shirley in a Princess Leia outfit and Annie in a Ringu costume. Every time they appeared on-screen, I got a slight thrill of novelty. But more importantly, Britta in her canned ham costume went a huge way toward salvaging her character after the disastrous premiere. Gillian Jacobs' gifts for physical comedy were on full display: every time she had to move in costume, she made it funny; every time she spoke in costume, she managed to accent the ridiculousness. Her therapist dance, done to get Jeff to open up, was the highlight of the episode.

Yet for all the laughs I got in “Paranormal Parentage,” the episode didn't quite succeed, in part because it seemed detached from its history. When I called Community's third season self-indulgent, that was, in part, because it delved too deeply into its characters' internal turmoil. While Season Three struggled with that through its run, it did successfully tie the characters' arcs together by the end, making it appear as though they'd grown up—almost all of them had a major breakthrough in the finale.

Meanwhile, in “Paranormal Parentage,” most of the characters reverted back to their initial type. Jeff was particularly frustrating, turning into the selfish, contrarian asshole that he was at his worst early on in the show's run. Annie and Troy were right behind him in this respect, their youth and naivete a throwback both to early Community episodes as well as the Season Four premiere. This may be the legacy of the turmoil at the end of Season Three—the seeming inevitability of the show's cancellation may have forced the writers to bring the show's character arcs to a close. Alternately, the removal of Dan Harmon may have removed the show's instincts to have the characters change and then maintain those changes.

Regardless, the crucial distinction between Season Three and Season Four of Community is that now the characters are treated as types, whose various histories are less important than what can be mined from them. In the season premiere, Jeff's actions were those of someone desperate to demonstrate that working for himself could also work toward his group's benefit. But he was back to selfish here. Troy's “becoming a man” process, demonstrated in some of the show's best episodes, was ignored so that he could be treated like a child in order to make (poor) jokes about his relationship with Britta—a relationship's being treated as a marker on a storyboard rather than a necessary character development.

In short, Community seems to be mining its history for plot developments, but it's failing at understanding its character developments, even when it's of a much higher quality. This is probably a necessary stage for most comedies, to be honest. But coming after the ambitious, largely character-based Harmon era, this could lead to a major, likely negative change for the show. Still, this is only the second episode of the season. If Community stabilizes at the level of “Paranormal Parentage,” it can still be a good, occasionally great, show. Or this could be the last gasp of the old guard, struggling to do their best with a show that's spun out of control.

Rowan Kaiser is a freelance pop culture critic currently living in the Bay Area. He is a staff writer at The A.V. Club, covering television and literature. He also writes about video games for several different publications, including Joystiq and Paste Magazine. Follow him on Twitter @rowankaiser for unimportant musings on media and extremely important kitten photographs.

The Best Romantic Comedies of the Last Twenty Years

The Best Romantic Comedies of the Last Twenty Years

In making this list of the best, or maybe just my favorite, romantic comedies of the last twenty years, editors Matt Zoller Seitz and Max Winter and I set out to make clear goalposts. The list would be as inclusive as our memories and subjective tastes would allow. It would span the last 20 years. The best film of each year, from 1993-2012, would be elevated above the rest, but other worthwhile films would be frequently mentioned so as to better contextualize my choices. Also, in the case of foreign films, I’ve chosen films based on the year of their production, not the year of their US release.

Ranking any kind of comedy is challenging because I often have to compare drastically different kinds of movies. It’s harder still to quantify what a “romantic” gesture is. Because your mileage may vary, I wanted to start with two preferred definitions of “romantic.” The first is taken from a Google search: “Inclined toward or suggestive of the feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love.” A good romantic comedy does not always end with a promise of commitment. Several of the films on this list conclude with a heartbreak or a break-up, but I still find them to be both very funny and moving because they nicely approximate the confusion and, yes, mystery of romance. Because love isn’t just a gesture or visible connection: it’s also a lot of guesswork and well-intended misinterpretation. Some of the movies mentioned below are romantic not just because they’re about love, or sex, or both, but because they maintain a certain romantic mystique.

That being said, the other definition of “romantic” I used for this list is less opaque and was taken from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “consisting of or resembling a romance.” This obvious definition gave me a little wiggle room: as long as the film was a comedy that was also about love, romance, amorous complications, etc., it was fair game.  Which isn’t to say that I went mad with power or anything. In fact, some superior films were passed over in any given year because I didn’t want to equivocate about whether or not they really are romantic comedies. In discussing my picks with Matt, he gave me a great litmus test for this piece: how much breath do I need to waste before I realize I’m just arguing for the sake of argument? If the answer was a lot, then I wouldn't pick that film.

With these guidelines in mind, let’s get started.

1993: The Wedding Banquet

nullFor this year, it’s tempting to stump for Groundhog Day, but while I love that film’s Capra-inspired understanding of what makes humanity great (the ability of humans to universally empathize and care for each other), the romance between Andie McDowell and Bill Murray isn’t as central to that film as Murray’s transformation is. I tend to think 1993 was dominated by two films: Sleepless in Seattle and The Wedding Banquet. I’ve chosen the latter film because while I love Sleepless in Seattle’s episodic, observational sense of humor, I don’t think the film is as generally thoughtful or as touching as The Wedding Banquet. While both films are essentially progressive, the latter title doesn’t romanticize courtship to the point where gestures are more important than the feelings they connote.

Sleepless in Seattle is about the seductive power of wish fulfillment. Annie (Meg Ryan) wants to believe that a relationship with Sam (Tom Hanks) could work because she wants her life experiences to be just like the romantic comedies she loves to endlessly rewatch, especially An Affair to Remember. It’s a sweet thought, but compare that to The Wedding Banquet’s notion of romance as a feeling that may or may not survive a seemingly endless series of rituals. Ang Lee’s film has a touchingly finite and matter-of-fact understanding of how romance works that makes the mysterious three-way attraction between Wei-Wei (May Chin), her landlord Wei Tong (Winston Chao), and his boyfriend Simon (Mitchell Lichtenstein) that much more compelling. To hide the fact that he’s gay, Wei Tong has to convince his conservative parents that he’s straight. So he marries Wei-Wei, who already has a crush on him, and uses the sham wedding to get her green card.

What’s most touching about The Wedding Banquet is the refreshingly open-ended resolution that Wei Tong reaches with his parents, particularly his proud father (Sihung Lung). Lung’s character confesses to Simon that while he doesn’t understand how his son could love another man, that’s the reality he’s facing. He doesn’t make a big show of re-assuring his son, or even suggest that he approves of Wei Tong. But, along with a handful of scenes where it’s unclear whether or not Wei Tong still loves Simon, this quiet moment of acceptance underscores the film’s biggest virtue: a willingness to see love as a series of decisions that maintain one’s feelings based on how much those feelings are worth, not how much face they save.

1994: The Hudsucker Proxy

null1994’s top two contenders are Barcelona and The Hudsucker Proxy, neither of which neatly qualifies as a romantic comedy. I was initially tempted to pick Barcelona since writer/director Whit Stillman does a fantastic job of re-contextualizing romance as one of a series of theoretical conflicts for Ted Boynton (Taylor Nichols), an American yuppie living in Barcelona. Ted only realizes the extent to which his own neuroses make him ideologically opposed to everyone around him after his gauche cousin Fred (Stillman regular Chris Eigeman) comes to stay with him indefinitely. Ted’s not the empty-headed fascist many Spaniards assume he is because of his nationality, nor is he as stubbornly contrarian as Fred thinks he is when confronted with that reality. Fred’s romance with local Spaniard Montserrat (Tushka Bergen) is doomed because he’s looking for a level of commitment that doesn’t come naturally to her. Ted’s not even sure whether it’s inherently foolish to act on his instincts and pursue women that he’s physically attracted to.

Still, Stillman’s not primarily concerned with romance in Barcelona. By contrast, while The Hudsucker Proxy is a screwball comedy first, and then a romantic comedy, the film’s main catalyst is podunk savant Norville Barnes’s (Tim Robbins) romance with Pulitzer-winning busybody reporter Amy Archer (Jennifer Jason Leigh). Norville even realizes this later in the film, murmuring to himself that everything after his appointment as the head of Hudsucker Industries happened because of Amy. Apart from being a masterful tribute to New York City, The Hudsucker Proxy is fantastic because Amy and Norville’s romance is just one iteration of the Coen brothers’ Herculean pastiche, a comedy that combines elements from Frank Capra movies, Preston Sturges screwball comedies, and even German expressionist classics like Metropolis. I love Norville and Amy because they comprise a hearty composite of the Coens’ interests, and the most charming and vital part of one of their best comedies. Go, Eagles!

1995: Kicking and Screaming

nullHaving watched and rewatched French Kiss so many times with my sister, I was tempted to give that corny but infrequently cute film a shout-out (Hi, Daphne!). Because, what the hell, I do like Kevin Kline’s goofy French accent. But while I like both French Kiss and Sydney Pollack’s disposable, but perfectly adequate Sabrina remake, I ditched both options as soon as I remembered that Kicking and Screaming was also made in 1995. The way that writer/director Noah Baumbach’s characters talk to each other, totally absorbed in their own anally specific theories on the world at large, is similar to Whit Stillman’s style of banter. But unlike the two films that Stillman made prior to Kicking and Screaming’s release, Baumbach’s movie is directly concerned with a trio of young egocentric post-grads who eventually realize that just knowing they’re shallow and self-centered is not the same thing as actively trying to change that sad fact. Grover (Josh Hamilton) can’t get over the fact that his girlfriend Jane (Olivia d’Abo) elected to study abroad in Prague instead of living with him in Brooklyn. At the same time, Max (Chris Eigeman, again) is shaken out of his own adolescent complaisance by Kate (Cara Buono), who, unlike Max, is not well-read, well-spoken, or particularly self-satisfied—basically, she’s nothing like Max or his friends.

Grover’s story is particularly well-resolved because it’s the exception that proves Baumbach’s rule. While best friends like Max are able to eventually move on from their collegiate-centric glory days, and move farther off-campus, Grover can’t. Eventually, Jane has to come back to him, which leads to one of my favorite scenes in any of the films on this list. Grover and Jane look like they’re about to make up, but she can’t further over-extend herself, and he’s too paralyzed with fear and expectation to do what he knows he needs to. That non-resolution is incisive and well-tempered by Baumbach’s Lubitsch-like banter, as when Kate chirps, “I’m going to be 17 tomorrow,” and Max cruelly replies, “Wow, now you can read Seventeen Magazine and get all the references!”

1996: Shall We Dance?

nullWhile Walking and Talking is tempting, and Iris Blond is staid but perfectly enjoyable, Shall We Dance? is a must. I especially love that writer/director Masayuki Suo (I Just Didn’t Do It) doesn’t shame his married protagonist for falling in love with someone other than his wife. After all, Shohei (Koji Yakusho), a nebbish accountant, only takes up dancing after seeing Mai (Tamiyo Kusakari), a beautiful competitive dancer, standing at her dance studio’s window. Shohei’s interest in dancing starts with romantic attraction, thus creating a power dynamic that doesn’t really go away once wife Masako (Hideko Hara) and daughter Chikage (Ayano Nakamura) have entered the picture.

In fact, Shall We Dance?’s most endearing moment is the scene where, after Shohei realizes that he’s grown more interested in dancing than in Mai, she invites him to dance with her one last time before she moves away to pursue dancing professionally. The private detective that Masako hires to snoop on Shohei is right to say that Mai and Shohei never had an affair. But had circumstances been different, they could have. That ending matters because it proves that, as the film’s opening intertitle declares, ballroom dancing is treated as a taboo social ritual in Japan. The fact that the ember of a potential extra-marital romance persists by the film’s end makes Suo’s blockbuster hit that much more endearing.

1997: Chasing Amy

nullChasing Amy may not hold up as the progressive alternative to formulaic romcoms that many of its contemporary defenders thought it was. But it remains a moving unrequited romance, and a juvenilely funny comedy. Here, Smith’s greater ambitions pay off in his actors’ superior performances, and in his relatively polished dialogue. Smith inspires his regular cast of actors to try harder by giving them better roles, and while his direction was never exactly rigorous, his confidence is evident from the film’s pace. Comic book penciller Holden’s (Ben Affleck) vain attempts at understanding why he can’t be with Alyssa (Joey Lauren Adams) are fittingly clumsy, and uninsightful, but his behavior is true to the way a character of a certain mind-set and a certain upbringing might behave. Smith has never stopped writing about what he knows, but in Chasing Amy, he also applies his self-knowledge to a broader canvas, and it pays off. There are big emotional stakes in play, though the three-way gambit that Holden uses to try to win Alyssa back is painfully dopey. Still, Holden’s apparent earnestness comes across thanks in no small part to Affleck and Adams’s palpable chemistry. In the scene where Holden breathlessly confesses his love to Alyssa, you actually believe that such a guilelessly confused character would do anything to win over the girl he knows he can’t have. While it may not sound like much, Chasing Amy remains Smith’s career best, by a sizable margin.

1998: Buffalo ‘66

nullOnly a list like this could make me want to compare apples and oranges like There’s Something About Mary? and Buffalo ’66. Realistically, most films come up short when compared to the latter film, a blisteringly weird black comedy that suggests that finding someone with a compatible sexual hang-ups is a great foundation for a relationship. Newly-released ex-con Billy Brown (writer/director Vincent Gallo) kidnaps and persistently berates Layla (Christina Ricci), a slavishly submissive kook who grows to like being abused by Brown’s impotent lover. Everyone in Billy’s hometown is sexually screwed-up, from his best friend Goon (Kevin Corrigan), a guy who's obsessed with strip clubs but can’t think how to describe them (“that place where women take their clothes off…") to his equally deviant parents. While Ben’s mom goes into an orgiastic fit at the sight of a college football player on TV, his dad (Ben Gazzara) tries to seduce Layla with his golden voice, proving that the psychotic apple really doesn’t fall far from the tree. And amidst all the decibel-piercing screaming, Gallo’s film establishes itself as a singular, hilariously strange comedy of inter-related anxieties. If you can watch this movie with a date, and remain on speaking terms with her/him by the end credits, you’ve got yourself a keeper! 

1999: Sweet and Lowdown

nullOf the handful of memorable 1999 romantic comedies, a couple stand out. Shakespeare in Love’s tedious, winking style of humor has none of screenwriter Tom Stoppard’s characteristic genius for romantic banter. Runaway Bride has two great leads trapped by a trite story. And while I really like the infectious energy that Ten Things I Hate About You’s cast brings to the film’s already likable update of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, I much prefer the two top choices for the year: Notting Hill and Sweet and Lowdown. I ultimately chose Sweet and Lowdown because it’s not only a fantastic star vehicle for Sean Penn, who plays the second-best guitar player in the world after Django Reinhardt, it’s also another terrific riff on writer/director Woody Allen’s pet themes. As a tongue-in-cheek docudrama, Penn’s Emmet Ray is treated like a historical footnote, one who’s remembered for his music but was a bigger failure in love because he always saw himself as an also-ran.

Sweet and Lowdown defines Emmet’s failure as a musician as his over-arching inability to see beyond his reputation. He performs beautifully, as in the handful of scenes where Penn throws himself into Emmet’s music (he was coached by jazz composer Dick Hyman). But when he stops playing, Emmet can’t stop fussing. He’s an egotist and therefore can’t see his accomplishments for what they are. This is certainly true of his romance with Samantha Morton’s Hattie, a mute laundress who he falls in love with and inevitably leaves to pursue Uma Thurman’s Blanche, a smarmy socialite. Blanche looks down on Emmet the same way he looks down on Hattie. And while that kind of doomed love triangle is par for the course for Allen, he develops that relationship and the world it’s situated in to an uncommonly sophisticated way. Which stands to reason given that his script for Sweet and Lowdown was rewritten from an earlier script he wrote decades before (it was originally titled The Jazz Baby, and was shelved because it was considered too ambitious). Like The Hudsucker Proxy before it, Sweet and Lowdown is an exceptional comedy not just because it’s a repository for its auteur creator’s best ideas. Because even if you ignored the film’s speculative historical narrative and its lovingly tenderly filmed musical performances, Sweet and Lowdown would still be a terrific Woody Allen movie because its doomed threeway romance applies Allen’s usual “the heart wants what it wants” dictum to a devastating effect.

2000: The Tao of Steve

nullThere’s not a lot of really good choices for 2000, so it’s a very good thing that Matt Zoller Seitz cautioned me against putting Dr. T and the Women on this list, just to see if anyone was still reading by this point. Still, The Tao of Steve stands out in the year in which What Women Want is the year’s top-grossing romantic comedy. While the latter film insists that a man can learn how to get in touch with his feminine side, the former maintains that Donal Logue’s schlubby lothario, can’t just assume he understands women because he knows how to manipulate them. Dex (Logue) is over-educated, over-weight, and under-stimulated. So he makes a game out of casually and effortlessly seducing women, tricking himself into thinking he’s irresistible because he knows how to play hard-to-get. The “Steve” of the film’s title are mythic badasses like Steve McQueen and Steve Austin, men of action that let women come to them. Mel Gibson’s character in What Women Want essentially does that, too, letting a pseudo-mystical meteorological event push him to transform his character rather than naturally realizing why he needs to stop being such a know-it-all prick.

In that sense, The Tao of Steve is like a couple other films on this list, films where self-centered men grow a little wiser after realizing their own limitations. But what distinguishes Dex from those other characters is that he’s a guy whose tendency to live for short-term enjoyment comes back to bite him in the ass. (SPOILER-OILER-OILER) The fact that Syd (Greer Goodman), Dex’s new love interest, is also a former love interest who he doesn’t happen to remember is a perfect way to demystify Logue’s Don Juan as a unconsciously forgetful lover. This doesn’t mean he has a tortured past or is trying to get over any one girl in particular. Instead, Dex has just forgotten what it’s like to shut up and really enjoy himself. As corny as it sounds, the scene where Logue is beaming like a little kid while night-swimming with Goodman is effectively disarming.

2001: My Sassy Girl

nullOne of the reasons why the 2008 American remake of this records-busting Korean romcom failed so miserably is because the original My Sassy Girl is so painfully earnest. The creators of the original 2001 film try very hard and mostly succeed at impressing viewers with their characters’ spontaneity. This is partly because My Sassy Girl is based on a series of hyper-popular, fictitious blog posts that were later collected in a novel. Though a slapdash pattern emerges later in the film, My Sassy Girl hastily reduces its womanizing protagonist Gyeun-woo (Tae-hyun Cha) to a puling schoolboy through the use of a playful, shit-stirring heroine, simply called “the Girl” (Ji-hyun Jun).

One of the best things about My Sassy Girl, a romantic comedy which spawned several lesser subsequent Korean romantic comedies (the best of which is probably Please Teach Me English), is its creators’ lapel-shaking zeal. They want you to know that the Girl is unusual, that she’s not passive, and that while she is flighty, she’s not really a manic pixie dream girl. That last point is what the film’s tone-shifting second half establishes most forcefully: the Girl has a past, and she is behaving a certain way because she wants to avoid further heartbreak. My Sassy Girl feels lived-in, and slapdash, and alive, in a way that most romantic comedies aren’t because its creators are always seemingly negotiating their characters’ next moves. So while I could have gone with Amelie, Bandits, Love on a Diet, Monsoon Wedding, or even Va Savoir, I chose My Sassy Girl because it’s messy, and boisterous, and totally charming.

2002: Punch Drunk Love

nullThere’s no real competition for this year: not the drecky My Big Fat Greek Wedding, not the poignant About a Boy, not even the half on-target Kate and Leopold. 2002 belongs to Punch Drunk Love, a movie that is best whenever falling in love makes already emotionally-stunted Adam Sandler and Emily Watson regress even more. Take, for example, the scene where Barry Egan (Sandler) helplessly runs around Lena Leonard’s (Watson) building, trying to get back to her apartment–after she has called him at her building’s front desk, just to say that she wanted to kiss him. This is one of many perfect, anxiety-producing moments where you can’t help but wonder how screwed up these characters really are until they magically come together.

Punch Drunk Love is a neo-noir screwball comedy, a film where long shadows and the threat of imminent emotional violence is not only nerve-wracking but also very funny. There are, in other words, lots of weirdly related and apparently momentous events in the film, from the car crash that leaves a harmonium on Barry’s doorstep to Barry and Lena’s seemingly random garage park meet-cute. But few of them are really random. That haze of anticipation and excitement is, as the film’s title implies, is what makes romance so simultaneously funny, and scary in Punch Drunk Love. Sandler’s volcanic performance is often heralded as his only worthwhile role because here, he’s actually pushing himself far enough that you’re both scared for and of him. Watson’s equally great, hiding so many conflicting feelings behind her nervous smile. Punch Drunk Love’s operatic scope makes Barry and Lena’s mad love affair so unassailably great.

2003: Running On Karma

nullPitting Running On Karma against any other romantic comedy is unfair because Running On Karma is like the Ever-Lasting Gobstopper of movies. It’s not just a great romantic comedy, it’s a great cosmic plea for guidance, a great, bizarro CSI-style fantasy, a crazy Buddhist kung fu film, and so much more. While working with screenwriter Ka-Fai Wai often brings out the crazy in Hong Kong director Johnnie To (Sparrow, Mad Detective), Running On Karma is by far their most exciting, and yes, batshit collaboration yet. Big (superstar Andy Lau, wearing a bulky prosthetic muscle suit) is a body-builder that can see people’s past lives. A former Buddhist monk, Big flees his monastery and becomes a stripper after realizing that he can effectively see people’s karma. When he’s busted by Lee (Cecilia Cheung), a kind-hearted undercover cop, he sees her karma: in a past life, she was a Japanese soldier that murdered innocent civilians during World War 2.

Apart from having an especially memorable meet-cute (she tries to bust him, but only after he starts to liberally apply canola oil on his rippling, Montalban-sized pecs), Lee and Big’s romance is fantastic because their romance is mostly implicit. He heroically tries to keep her alive, solving crimes with her and selflessly pushing her out of harm’s way. He even fights a killer Indian contortionist that somehow manages to cram his entire body into an eensy aluminum can. And if that’s not romantic enough, there’s also the scenes where Big literally sees the good in Lee, as when she gleefully cheers him on at his muscleman competition. Running On Karma would be in a class all its own even if it weren’t so utterly unclassifiable, but it’s also incredibly moving because it’s one man’s uphill struggle to literally banish the sins of his lover’s past. Lee and Big’s story encompasses pretty much every genre that you can think of. Running On Karma is not just the best romantic comedy of 2003, it’s pretty much the best anything of 2003.

2004: When the Sea Rises

nullThe year 2004 was an especially difficult one to call since it’s the year of Sideways, Shaun of the Dead, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Love is Eternal While it Lasts. Both Eternal films are excellent, but I chose French comedienne Yolande Moreau’s When the Sea Rises instead because it’s somehow melancholic without being overwhelmingly sad. Of the films on this list, Moreau’s film best shows how euphoric romance can make even seasoned lovers feel. In When the Sea Rises, love is a momentary respite from the crushing weight of living alone. Moreau, who co-wrote and co-directed the film, plays Irene, a version of Moreau. Irene is a traveling performer who makes a living from her one-woman show, A Dirty Business of Sex and Crime, the same play Moreau made her reputation with in the ‘80s. Having performed so often on the stage, and then later in so many prominent films, like Amelie and Seraphine, Moreau clearly understands the emotional distance that performing for a live audience has on an actor. She shows that every time Irene mounts the stage, and makes her own morose uncertainty her schtick.

While in character, Irene jokes that the fact that her husband is dead is paradoxically both all-consuming and totally inconsequential to her. Irene’s obviously not a happy person, but she is when she’s with Dries (Wim Willaert), a foreign migrant worker. Love isn’t a panacea-like tonic, and it doesn’t make Irene feel a million years younger, sexier, or more invincible. But it does make her unmoored life a little more grounded. Neither Dries nor Irene is comfortable thinking about their relationship in the long-term because neither person knows where they’re going to be in the next five months, let alone the next five years. They just drift together, and eventually part ways. But when they meet again, it’s a very moving reversal of their typical roles as performer and accomplice.

2005: The 40 Year-Old Virgin

nullThe 40 Year-Old Virgin is the best Judd Apatow-brand film because it’s the one where he most tenderly shows us why it sucks to be an arrested adolescent. While Apatow-directed films like Knocked Up and Funny People show how much harder it is to be juvenile as one gets older, The 40 Year-Old Virgin follows an immature character after he takes steps to grow up and try to overcome his insecurities. It’s accordingly tempting to view Apatow’s more recent films as being more accomplished and/or ambitious, but Virgin is as good as it is because it doesn’t just assume that being gawky and sensitive makes you a diamond in the rough. Andy (Steve Carrell) is an old geek: he carries emotional baggage with him, stuff that makes his awkward-ness more than just goofy. He’s well-meaning, but ill-equipped to talk to single mom Trish (Catherine Keener) or her daughter Marla (Kat Dennings). And while Trish wants to be with Andy, she needs someone who can adapt to her social situation just as well as she can adapt to his.

The reciprocally dysfunctional nature of Trish and Andy’s relationship is that much more winning because The 40 Year-Old Virgin also features some of Apatow’s best sex jokes. They’re more casually gross than the dick-joke-centric films he’s produced since, partly because this film makes greater hay of how intimidating sex can seem to someone that’s never actually done it. The mechanics of the act are mystifying to Andy, but they’re just as beguiling to his moron friends. Andy’s friends want to get him laid because they want to regress to a time when they had fewer responsibilities and more opportunities to screw up. But Andy knows better, and in this case, waiting so long to make a move just makes everything after that preliminary decision all the more exhausting.

2006: I’m a Cyborg, But That’s OK

nullSouth Korean director Chan-wook Park (Oldboy, Joint Security Area) makes movies about characters who realize the loaded ideas and defense mechanisms that they use to define themselves are wrong. His protagonists often force themselves into revelatory confrontations that irrevocably change the way they protect themselves from dealing with the world. They’re never totally cured of their delusions, not for long, anyway. I’m a Cyborg, But That’s OK is a fantasy of projection, a romantic comedy where two emotionally unstable people try to bond in spite of their respective problems. Young-goon (Soo-jung Im) is admitted to a mental institution after she tries to kill herself. She thinks she’s a robot that can talk to other machines but can’t process human food. She bonds with Il-soon (K-pop idol Rain), a kleptomaniac who steals people’s personalities when he takes their most prized possessions.

Park’s lovers’ respective character-defining tics are also the way they process the world. But while Il-Soon is well enough to recognize that there’s something wrong with Young-goon, he doesn’t really succeed in curing her. To Park, there’s no way to cure someone who doesn’t know that they want to get better. While many detractors might assume that Park is condescending to his characters, he never treats them like pitiable freaks. The scene that best establishes that is the film’s ending. Young-goon wants to kill herself, and everyone around her, so Il-soon promises to help her. They wait in pelting rain to be hit by lightning. She’s waiting for a transformative act of divine destruction, but he knows it’s not going to happen. The image of them sitting together, neither one expecting to see the world the same way as the other, is one of Park’s most tender.

2007: Music and Lyrics

null2007 wasn’t a great year for romantic comedies. There was a mediocre remake of The Heartbreak Kid, the mostly sweet Waitress, and the puppy dog-cute Enchanted, and that’s about it. That having been said, Music and Lyrics isn’t anything more than a breezy, formula-based romantic comedy, but the jokes are consistently funny, and the stars have chemistry, two traits sadly rare for a studio-produced romantic comedy. Writer/director Marc Lawrence (Miss Congeniality, Two Weeks Notice) clearly knows what he likes about star Hugh Grant and takes great pleasure in giving him a comfortable but fitting role. Grant plays Alex Fletcher, a has-been pop music composer that gets inspired by Sophie Fisher (Drew Barrymore), the woman he hires to water his plants. She helps him while he predictably has his eye on ex-girlfriend Cora Corman (Haley Bennett), the pop star that Alex rode the coattails of some years ago. The scenario is a familiar one, and is distinguished primarily by how consistently effective the film’s superficial gags are, from music video parodies to frustrated lyrics-writing sessions (“Why would you put a clown in your bed?” “It would not be the first time…”). In that sense, the film is a fitting homage to bubble gum pop songs: it doesn’t go anywhere you don’t expect it to, but it doesn’t need to, because its charms are immediate and plentiful.

2008: Ghost Town

nullScreenwriter David Koepp (Stir of Echoes, Premium Rush) has only directed a handful of films, but Ghost Town is the best example of why his distinctive light touch makes him an invaluable modern B-moviemaker. It’s also a good star vehicle for Ricky Gervais, which is a major relief given how lousy Gervais’s American roles usually are (The Invention of Lying and both Night at the Museum movies are both especially lousy, though for fairly different reasons). Koepp is precise and knows exactly what kind of actors he needs to achieve the kind of effect he’s going for (ex: it’s particularly nice to see Greg Kinnear get a decent role). Gervais is perfectly cast as Bertram, a misanthropic dentist who starts to see ghosts after a routine colonoscopy goes awry. Koepp revels in the absurdity of this dilemma by making Bertram’s laughable inability to talk to people, dead or alive, the biggest hurdle in his quest to romance the recently bereaved Gwen (Tea Leoni).

Ghost Town is as breezy and charming as it is because Koepp has a great sense of proportion. With the exception of the film’s very last scene, there’s nothing in the film that feels unnecessary or inappropriate in light of the film’s characters or situational comedy.  Paced wonderfully, it has several memorable exchanges between Gwen and Bertram. And while light, exceptional banter is a virtue unto itself (“I love you!” “Don’t call me!”), Koepp’s film is also unostentatiously wise. His ghosts linger on Earth not because they have unfinished business, but because their loved ones do. Gwen gets to the heart of why Koepp’s modest, pragmatic style of comedy is so satisfying when she explains to Bertram that you are only as happy as you are able to cope with life as it unfolds: “We just get the one life, you know. Just one. You can't live someone else's or think it's more important just because it's more dramatic. What happens matters. Maybe only to us, but it matters.” Bertram loves Gwen because her presence makes being surrounded by the needy and the undead a little more bearable.

2009: Duplicity

nullRole-playing and role reversals are everything in Duplicity, writer/director Tony Gilroy’s comic follow-up to Michael Clayton. Gilroy excels at disorienting viewers by seemingly focusing on everything but what’s important: the love affair between two knowing competitors/accomplices, played by Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. His lovers’ relationship is, in that sense, a perfect foil to the film’s depiction of corporate espionage. The main difference between rival CEOs Dick (Paul Giamatti) and Howard (Tom Wilkinson relationship and Ray (Owen) and Claire (Roberts) is that the latter couple secretly loves each other while the former couple not-so-secretly hates each other’s guts. While determining the extent to which Ray and Claire will double-cross each other is more than half the fun of Duplicity, that’s only because the pair’s apparent attraction can’t really be sublimated. Owen and Roberts make for fantastic sparring partners, Roberts tartly rattling off one-liners while Owen growls rejoinders back at her. While the film’s plot eventually gets distractingly convoluted, Owen and Roberts’s dueling performances are always the film’s main attraction.

2010: Love in a Puff

nullHong Kong writer/director Edmond Pang excels at making comedies where friends, enemies, and lovers are all related by elaborate conspiracies of pleasure. They know each other because in their heads, they’re all involved in a grand scheme whose holistic importance is never the sum of its many vaguely-related parts. In Exodus, a security guard stumbles upon the real reason why women spend so much time in the bathroom while in Men Suddenly in Black, a covert bachelor party gets hunted down by its participants’ spouses. Love in a Puff, similarly, is about two lovers who fall in love through various half-understood urban legends and half-truths, stories that nobody believes but everybody gets taken in by. For example, Jimmy (Shawn Yue) hears a story about a girl who gets her lover’s freakishly-long pubic hair stuck in her bracelet, and consequently draws unwanted attention at a dinner party. The story is the kind of innocent fiction that characters tell each other for the sake of remaking the world as a series of funny, nonsensical anecdotes. It’s no wonder then that Jimmy first meets Cherie (Miriam Yeung) while smoking a cigarette outside his office building. Like the butt in their mouths, the stories Cherie and Jimmy tell each other are unimportant in and of themselves, but their associative power really makes Love in a Puff, recently followed by the decent, but inferior, Love in the Buff, stand out.

2011: Extraterrestrial

nullThis year’s comedies are primarily distinguished by their various whimsical milieux: Lost Generation-era Paris in Midnight in Paris, Seven Oaks College in Damsels in Distress, and, uh, the magical Franklin Park Zoo of Zookeeper, simultaneously the worst and the highest-grossing romantic comedy of 2011. But Extraterrestrial, assuredly the best romantic comedy of the year, could take place in any city as it’s set in the shadow of an alien visitation. City-spanning flying saucers descend on Madrid like angry black clouds, and then do nothing. Extraterrestrial is not in that sense really a science-fiction story. Julio (Julian Villagran) wakes up in Julia’s (Michelle Jenner) apartment, not knowing what happened, but assuming that they slept together. While the slept, the city was evacuated. Now, the only people left are Julia’s nosy, jealous neighbor Carlos (Raul Cimas), and her boyfriend Angel (Carlos Areces). Julia’s feelings for Angel persist but never diminish Julia and Julio’s relationship, nor vice versa. In fact, Julio and Julia have sex while Angel’s out looking for supplies.

That indecision is a good part of what’s so funny about Extraterrestrial: even a city populated by four people feels crowded when only two people are nervously enjoying themselves. As in Timecrimes, Spanish writer/director Nacho Vigalondo’s endlessly rewatchable debut film, Extraterrestial follows characters that are actively figuring out the extent of their agency. They can only do so much with the resources available to them, but for the sake of making their lives even simpler, Julio and Julia have to get rid of Carlos and talk to Angel about their affair. It’s funny because the characters are constantly clueless, and it’s romantic because Vigalondo just assumes that two adults that are attracted to each other will have sex and be together until one realizes that something greater has got to give. It’s not really a science-fiction film so much as a neo-screwball comedy with spaceships.

2012: Moonrise Kingdom

nullWhile I’d love to give a final shout-out to Amy Heckerling’s Vamps, her long-awaited follow-up to Clueless (No, sorry, Loser and I Could Never Be Your Woman never happened), Moonrise Kingdom really does tower above that film. I can’t help but love the dizzying speed with which Anderson and co-writer Roman Coppola establish Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman) and Suzy Bishop’s (Kara Hayward) affection for each other: the scene where the two exchange letters is hilariously succinct. The direct-ness with which Anderson establishes Sam and Suzy’s relationship allows him to focus on what he really likes about them. They each have inner lives that nobody else sees because nobody else knows enough to look for them. No revelation is too shocking to these kids, not science fiction novels nor survival skills. Sam and Suzy act as if whatever they haven’t seen can be handled as it comes up, even the tantalizing prospect of sex (“It feels hard.” “Do you mind?” “I like it.”). Anderson and Coppola don’t smother Suzy and Sam in cheap sentiment. In fact, these kids are more emotionally mature than the film’s adults! Seeing them pulled apart from each other on the beach after they’ve danced, and even slept together is heartbreaking. Sam and Suzy really do seem to belong together.

Simon Abrams is a New York-based freelance arts critic. His film reviews and features have been featured in the Village Voice, Time Out New York, Slant Magazine, The L Magazine, The New York Press and Time Out Chicago. He currently writes TV criticism for The Onion AV Club and is a contributing writer at the Comics Journal. His writings on film are collected at the blog, Extended Cut.

VIDEO ESSAY: From the Panel to the Frame: Style and Scott Pilgrim

VIDEO ESSAY: From the Panel to the Frame: Style and Scott Pilgrim

Why do the same concepts get recycled and reinterpreted in so many different media, and what does that do to storytelling? Filmmaker Drew Morton poses that question in his video essay “From the Panel to the Frame: Style and Scott Pilgrim.” The piece, which was originally produced as a part of a doctoral dissertation, uses the 2010 Edgar Wright film Scott Pilgrim vs. the World as a springboard to talk about how videogames, movies and comic books influence each other—and how you can often see the aesthetic roots of one medium represented in another, in a way that feels increasingly relaxed and organic. (Press Play contributor Matthias Stork has also dealt with this issue in this piece.)

Morton isn’t talking about adaptation here—turning a book into a movie, for instance, or a movie into a TV series. This is something else. As he puts it in his video essay, it’s more about reproducing or reimagining one medium’s aesthetic within the context of another medium: not just adapting Bryan Lee O’Malley’s original Scott Pilgrim comics, but making the film look and move and somehow feel like those books, to the point of quoting specific panels.

There’s a specific academic term for this phenomenon: “transmediation.” Morton explores that, too. He uses examples from Scott Pilgrim, the Matrix universe, Sin City, and other stories, or “properties,” that unfold across different media to prove that the boundaries that supposedly separate those media are more porous than we may have thought. The “bullet time” scene in the original Matrix movie, for instance, was a great cinematic moment, but it wouldn’t have existed without the aesthetic of mid-‘90s videogames that tried, in their ostentatious yet primitive way, to look three-dimensional. And when Time-Warner, the company that released The Matrix, decided it had another Star Wars on its hands, it commissioned videogames that fans found disappointing because they wanted something that felt like the movies, only game-like, and the games didn’t deliver.

These are slippery subjects to analyze, but Morton never loses his grip here, and the final section—a detailed analysis of the style of Wright’s film—is dazzling. He talks about how Wright folds representations of comics, videogames and music into a movie based on a comic book that was itself strongly inspired by videogames, and in so doing, creates a “re-remediation.” If you tried to represent that on a page, it might look like a bunch of parentheses inside one big parenthetical, or maybe a line drawing of a Russian nesting doll, animated, with each layer’s shell cracking to reveal the layer beneath, each pop commemorated by a point value materializing in space and hanging there. Fifty points! A hundred! Next level!

Click and watch.

Matt Zoller Seitz

Drew Morton is a Ph.D. student in Cinema and Media Studies at UCLA. He has written about film and television for such publications as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, UWM Post, and Flow. He is currently researching the aesthetic convergence between comics and film.

Matt Zoller Seitz is the co-founder of Press Play.

VIDEO ESSAY: Beautiful Nightmares: David Lynch’s Collective Dream

VIDEO ESSAY: Beautiful Nightmares: David Lynch’s Collective Dream

David Lynch could be a wonderful stage director.

Crazy to say, perhaps, but perhaps not. Despite his relentless visual craftsmanship and tests of the limits of that craftsmanship, parading images in front of us that are luscious even when you can barely tell what’s being filmed, there is always an aspect of the staged to every film he makes. Part of it is his privileging of the naked, screaming utterance, from Lula’s “Sailor Ripley, you get me some music on that radio this instant, I mean it!” in Wild at Heart to Frank’s “I’ll fuck anything that MOOOOOOOOOOVES!” in Blue Velvet. These statements always have an ersatz quality to them, as if they were plucked out of another conversation and dropped into the movie at hand. It’s hard to link them, directly, to their contexts—and that incongruity is what makes them memorable. But, ultimately, they come to express truths about the people saying them, as if he, she, or it simply couldn’t wait any longer, just had to burst out with a plume of vulgar, unrestrained self-expression. We laugh, a little, when Sailor Ripley asks, “Did I ever tell ya this here jacket represents a symbol of my individuality, and my belief in personal freedoms?”—but we also don’t. Though Lynch is, in a sense, a truly joyous filmmaker–in that he’s able to transcend scenes of tremendous violence and energy that would pretty much eat up any other filmmaker’s intentions from the inside out, instead making them part of a grand and coldly perfect scheme–he is also, to state the wholly obvious, someone who thrills in catching us off guard, a crucial trick of theater. Why does Robert Blake’s white-faced, ghoulish menace laugh like that in Lost Highway? What’s he laughing at? What could possibly be that funny? Where’s the laugh coming from? No one knows. What’s important, though, is that he’s laughing. The laugh itself has significance beyond what precedes or follows it, and it doesn’t leave you.

And then there’s the matter of the act of performance in his films. In how many of his movies does someone perform, in some sense, so that we watch them doing something they would not normally do, often in a virtuosic fashion? Well, let’s see. There’s Isabella Rossellini's Dorothy Vallens, singing the title song in Blue Velvet (not to mention Dean Stockwell’s brilliant Roy Orbison lip-synching, by now a milestone in the cinematic education of anyone my age, though the scene itself has no purpose within the film’s storyline), there’s Agent Cooper’s talk-show-esque conference, in a room lined with red curtains, with Laura Palmer and the Man from Another Place in Twin Peaks; there’s Betty Elms' (Naomi Watts) orgasmic and career-making audition in Mulholland Drive, and, later in the same film, Rebekah Del Rio’s performance of “Llorando” in an old theater, to name but a few examples. These scenes occupy an inherently elevated position, as if Lynch were saying: This is what the film can really do for you—all the rest of this stuff is just work. This film will never be any better, or these characters any more exalted, than at this moment. And the scenes always have a hypnotic effect; as we watch, we suspend whatever we might be feeling—horror, revulsion, elbow-deep irony—and simply observe, excited at the thought of what Lynch might be about to offer us. Once the moment has passed, we don’t analyze it or question it. We know the scene is indispensable, but we have no idea why.

And what about Lynch’s characters themselves? There are very few of his major figures that can be said to be simply “getting through the story” in a utilitarian fashion—almost all of them have exaggerated traits that make the arcs they move through larger than life. Think of Willem Dafoe’s hit man Bobby Peru in Wild at Heart, whose rotting, dilapidated teeth alone describe an entire life story; or Kyle MacLachlan's Jeffrey Beaumont, his untouched face ravaged by the end of Blue Velvet. Nicolas Cage’s Sailor Ripley is, himself, a walking metaphor for the redeeming power of performance. On the point of being beaten up by a group of thugs at the end of Wild at Heart, Sailor’s last recourse is, like a good performer, to put a good face on things, maintain his Elvis-esque persona, and take his beating. And the moment when Jeffrey Beaumont does the duck walk while courting Sandy Williams in Blue Velvet has the vaguely rhapsodic, pastoral quality of a scene from Eugene O’Neill, something from Ah, Wilderness, say. It’s not a real moment, since the gesture is neither a declaration of love or a shoving away of reality—and yet we have the sense it’s as real as these characters ever get.

A writing teacher, a poet and sometime playwright, once told me and the other students in his poetry class, after he’d asked us to write plays and we responded that we signed up to write poems: Close your eyes, imagine an empty stage, and then think of something you’d like to happen there. That’s your play. Oversimple as this advice might have been, as Lynch’s career has progressed, one might easily imagine he’s making a similar leap into creative desire to fashion films, as his seemingly random, aggressively disorienting and confusing work increasingly resembles the happenings staged by Allan Kaprow or the Fluxus artists who followed him, more than the more traditional "art films" his earlier works resembled. Even in his life outside his work, Lynch has a flair for the theatrical, as when, prior to the release of Inland Empire, he sat with a billboard at the corner of Hollywood and LaBrea Boulevards, his only companion at the time a large cow. Whether this was a publicity stunt, a satire of Hollywood film marketing, or both, its performative aspect was practically its entire content. The events that take place in Inland Empire, Mulholland Drive, or Lost Highway are not necessarily parse-able—who could explain the figures with rabbits’ heads wandering through Inland Empire? Who would want to try? You could, though, depending on your degree of sympathy with Lynch, say they made visual sense within the director’s larger body of work. And they are, beyond that, figures that hold your attention on screen while also encouraging a prilferation of interpretations. Can we say that of a majority of big-budget films? When was the last time you felt mystified at a multiplex?

It is, as suggested earlier, silly to say, of a filmmaker or an artist in another medium, He could have been X, as if X were the ultimate destination, the artist’s current accomplishment only a way station. However, in Lynch’s case, what I want to suggest is that the source of his power is less the ability to shock than the ability to shout. It is through this ability that Lynch’s characters gain their great gravitas, his movies their substance. It seems entirely conceivable that, thousands of years ago, when actors were screaming into the depths of Greek amphitheaters, their statements, far from being the golden-tongued outcries of rage we’ve come to expect, might have been, in the context of their time, closer to this:

“Heineken? Fuck that shit! Paaaaaabst Bluuuuuuue Riiiiiiibbon!”

–Max Winter

Nelson Carvajal is an independent digital filmmaker, writer and content creator based out of Chicago, Illinois. His digital short films usually contain appropriated content and have screened at such venues as the London Underground Film Festival. Carvajal runs a blog called FREE CINEMA NOW which boasts the tagline: "Liberating Independent Film And Video From A Prehistoric Value System."
You can follow Nelson on Twitter here.

Max Winter is the Managing Editor of Press Play.

VIDEO ESSAY: Why SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK Should Win Best Picture

VIDEO ESSAY: Why SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK Should Win Best Picture

Part of "Who Should Win," a series of video essays co-presented by Indiewire Press Play and Fandor.

There are nine nominees for best picture, with no hands-down favorite to win. Five of them (Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Lincoln, Life of Pi, and Silver Linings Playbook) are also nominated for best director, usually a sign of being a top contender. Argo wasn’t nominated for its director, but it still has the momentum from other awards, with Lincoln right behind. Both Argo and Lincoln are commandeering prestige pictures about America’s winners (though in both cases, winning involves dirty tricks and deception). But my favorite movie is a comedy about a flat out, honest-to-god loser.

Silver Linings Playbook is a more revealing reflection of the world we live in than any of the other nominees. Oscar movies are typically issues movies, and the surface issue in Silver Linings Playbook is psychological illness. Pat, played by Bradley Cooper, struggles with bipolar disorder and tries to put his life together after spending time in an institution. But watching this movie, what becomes apparent is that American society is a psych ward in itself.

It’s a world of people who are perpetually self-medicating through any number of socially acceptable escapes: materialism, sports, sex and even the climactic dance competition, which reflects TV game show culture. These are the empty vessels in which these characters invest so much time and energy, if only to keep them from dwelling on their own lack of fulfillment. Pat isn’t the only crazy person in the movie, just the only one that’s clinically diagnosed. The rest of the ensemble is the rest of us, caught up in a society that breeds a condition of compulsive distraction.

But somehow director David O. Russell makes us laugh at the madness. Part of his success is in that he’s able to channel the energies of classic screwball comedy, and with this film, he proves himself to be a rightful heir of the genre. In a career that’s dealt with all kinds of insanity both on and off screen, this is perhaps his most personal film. It’s certainly the most personal of the nine nominated, and fully deserves the Best Director oscar. Each character is on a different neurotic wavelength, and he orchestrates them with a jazz-like sense of harmony and tempo, conducting moods that twist and turn like one big dance party of manias. His screenwriting also finds poetry in people’s pathetic attempts to articulate their failings.

There’s a significance to the title, Silver Linings Playbook, because it reflects our collective yearning for happy endings, a theme that the movie itself embodies as much as it explores. It puts all its chips on the table for an incredible, improbable double-happy-ending climax, where the ensemble’s obsession with winning goes into overdrive. But the way it plays out on screen reveals something much more sublime than winning—a genuine sense of camaraderie among its characters, who seem inextricably tied together even battling each other’s craziness.

You see it in the climactic scene. Pat and Tiffany’s schizo dance routine, a thing of grotesque beauty that makes sense only to themselves, is something they fully embrace as an expression of themselves, and draws them closer than ever. And it’s this authentic feeling of a community brought to life on screen, people fighting against an insane world by speaking in their own idiom and following their own demented logic, that no other nominated film can claim.

Who cares if this film doesn’t win an Oscar for best picture? It’s already achieved the ultimate victory on screen.

Kevin B. Lee is Editor in Chief of IndieWire’s PressPlay Video Blog, Video Essayist for Fandor’s Keyframe, and a contributor to Roger Ebert.com. Follow him on Twitter.

Pablo Larraín’s NO: A Movie That Says Yes To Itself

Pablo Larraín’s NO: A Movie That Says Yes To Itself

 
null
 

The Chilean film No, written and directed by Pablo Larraín, is up for a foreign film Oscar this year. I hope it wins, if only to bring attention to an extraordinary film by an increasingly sophisticated director. We’ve seen a lot of films about the interplay of politics and advertising (starting with 1972’s The Candidate) and maybe more films that interweave drama and documentary elements, so that it’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. No is both of these kinds of films rolled into one, but with a very specific political focus, a unique energy, and an inscrutable core that makes it linger in the mind.  

An adaptation of the play El Plebiscito, written by Antonio Skármeta, No is set in 1988. The country is less than a month away from national plebiscite (referendum) to determine whether military dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet will continue to rule Chile, as he has since displacing Allende in a 1973 coup, or if the country will transition to democracy. The vote is a simple “Yes” or “No.” The opposing sides are each given 15 minutes of national TV time each night to make their cases, spread out over 27 days. Ad man René Saavedra (Gael Garcia Bernal) is the head of a team creating content to sell the “No” option. He has the bright idea to ignore or downplay the country’s recent history of murder, torture, disappearances, and other political skullduggery, instead fashioning a campaign that sells an abstract notion of democracy synonymous with happiness or faith in the future; his version of this campaign is indistinguishable from an ad we see him creating at the start of the film for a brand of cola. The guy knows how to sell, and this time he’s selling democracy. Democracy as promise. Democracy as product. 

Because Saavedra is the son of a reviled Pinochet foe and has spent many years outside of Chile, he doesn’t have the direct experience of trauma that many of his colleagues have; he’s also a bit of a man-boy dreamer character, quiet and opaque and emotionally arrested. This turns out to be a huge benefit, though, because it enables him to talk down others who insist that the “No” contingent’s airtime should be filled with direct engagement—with political and history lessons, for instance, or a segment in which the mothers of the “disappeared” talk about their experiences, or an interview with an official who’s an expert on the regime’s thug tactics, and so forth. Anything smacking of reality, or reminding people too keenly of the pain the country has suffered, might have backfired. This aspect of the movie reminds me, oddly, of Spielberg’s Lincoln, which is partly about the necessity of downplaying or even compromising one’s own moral fervor in order to make progress for one’s cause—to win a battle rather than lose a war. This movie shows the effect of advertising on the viewer very pragmatically, touching emotions and creating needs that weren’t there before, and appealing to dreams and fantasies. Mad Men fans will appreciate the aesthetic strategy sessions (Don Draper’s line about how romance was invented so guys like him could sell nylons popped into my head more than once), and the very direct, often painful scenes in which people recounted personal experience with political terror reminded me of scenes from certain Ken Loach films, where the film puts the brakes on the plot and lets characters work through philosophical and moral positions in all their messiness. 

I really love this movie. I recommend it to students of advertising, social revolution and film form. Larraín—who has directed two other films about 70s-80s Chilean political history, and was just 12 when the plebiscite took place—has Oliver Stone’s facility for mixing documentary footage with docudrama re-creations (the entire movie was shot with 1980s TV news equipment) and Steven Spielberg’s somewhat mysterious, at times unnerving sunniness. It’s a warm film with a rather cool question mark of a man at its center. Saavedra doesn’t seem terribly happy, or even particularly satisfied, unless he’s working or playing with his 12-year old son, one of two people who seem to really matter to him. The other such person is his estranged wife Verónica (Antonia Zegers), a political activist first seen getting the crap kicked out of her by riot cops. There’s a hint that Saavedra is dedicated to the “No” campaign partly because he wants to win back his wife’s love—at times his affection for her resembles that of a little boy toward his mother, a notion furthered in a wonderful moment where she goes to embrace her son, who’s sleeping on his father’s shoulder, and the shot is framed so that her terms of endearment seem to be directed toward Saavedra. But the movie never boldfaces any of this; it’s just a tantalizing hint of a character explanation, like the repeated shots of the hero blissfully riding a skateboard through the city, and the shots of him working on commercial campaigns (including a James Bond-like ad for a soap opera) that seem to be of nearly equal importance to him. Maybe he just loves a challenge? Maybe he’s just obsessed with whatever’s next? We don’t know, and it’s better that we don’t know.

Certain moments and shots seemed very Spielbergian to me, particularly the backlit, often blown-out shots of the hero wreathed in a nimbus of sunlight (like some sort of holy fool) and the repeated images of the hero playing with his son’s electric train set (Close Encounters). One of the latter scenes leads to a wonderful, knowing joke: Saavedra lies down on the floor of the playroom with the back of his head held just above a length of track, and the approaching toy train seems to go into one of his ears and out the other! It’s as if the movie is saying, “Only such an arrested adult could have come up with exactly the solution that was needed during this incredibly difficult historical moment.” Or to quote an “old Vulcan proverb” from one of the Star Trek films, “Only Nixon could go to China.” 

Is the movie saying that had the “No” campaign had been any more mature, Pinochet might have ruled for much longer? I think so. The movie doesn’t adopt a morally superior position toward this, however, or endorse it; it just raises as more of a hint of a theory than a critique and then lets it hang there, nagging at you and prompting reflection. The notion that advertising is an essentially sub-rational, in some ways sinister industry isn’t new, nor is the idea that certain political outcomes can be achieved by appealing to fantasies that might or might not have anything to do with the pressing matters at hand. But somehow No puts them together, along with some very subtle and sophisticated integrations of documentary reality and drama, in a way that both entertains and provokes. This is the movie I kept hoping Argo would turn into, honestly. Not that Argo isn’t a good movie — it is! — but it lacks the nerve or intelligence to really delve into the fantasy/reality matrix that its story quite naturally creates. No says yes to doing that, and is the richer for it.

Matt Zoller Seitz is the co-founder of Press Play.

VIDEO ESSAY: Who Should Win the Oscar for Best Lead Actress

VIDEO ESSAY: Who Should Win the Oscar for Best Lead Actress

Part of "Who Should Win," a series of video essays co-presented by Indiewire Press Play and Fandor.

This year’s Oscar for Best Actress in a Leading Role will be the first for whoever wins it. Each nominee plays a character who faces extraordinary circumstances, and in some cases I wonder if it’s the role that people are praising more than the performance.

Naomi Watts is nominated as a tsunami victim in The Impossible, but basically all she does is look traumatized for the entirety of the film. Her face plastered with disaster movie make-up, Watts essentially gets credit for playing a victim, and we project pathos and profundity onto her wounded appearance.

There’s a similar issue with Emmanuelle Riva’s role as a dying woman in Amour. I  don’t understand why Riva has been getting most of the acclaim, when it’s her co-star Jean-Louis Trintignant who has the more difficult job as her husband, trying to make sense of her decline and manage their tragedy. Once again, the pathos of a character catches our attention more than the actual performance.

Compared to Watts and Riva, I actually prefer eight-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis in Beasts of the Southern Wild. As a young girl fending for herself amidst unspeakable poverty, she is a compelling presence. However, presence is not quite the same as performance. For the most part, Wallis’s standout work is made in the editing room, as short glimpses of her are interspersed among the film’s extravagant imagery. But there is one remarkable scene where her character has to stand up to her abusive, unpredictable father, and Wallis gives as good as she gets. Wallis is a diamond in the rough, and she has a ways to go to truly deserve an Oscar.

There might be some pathos to Jessica Chastain’s character, a female CIA agent caught in the dangerous world of Zero Dark Thirty. But Chastain doesn’t rely on our sympathy, and in fact she works against it when her character takes part in the movie’s notorious torture scenes. Chastain brings a no-nonsense professionalism to the role, and what’s really impressive about it is the force of her restraint. As she listens to interrogations and sifts through endless leads in her search for Osama bin Laden, you can see her mind processing all this information. And it’s that thoughtfulness that brings extra power to the moments when she does take bold action.

But ultimately it’s Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook who deserves to win, though part of it is due to the role, which is probably the most complex of the five roles to play. Tiffany is an emotionally disturbed widow fighting a sex addiction, looking to have a real relationship with a guy who has plenty of his own problems. That’s a lot of character issues for an actress to handle, but Lawrence grounds it all with an intelligence that’s disarmingly frank. In this early scene, she sets the terms. There’s so much hyper-awareness in her look and her voice, as if her character is too smart for her own wreck of a life. She thoroughly knows her problems but she doesn’t know what to do about them, and that makes her vulnerable.

But through all of Tiffany’s mood swings, Lawrence never plays them for pity. Even her destructive rages are informed by a piercing perceptiveness. And in this monologue which feels practically written to win an Oscar, Tiffany shares the tragedy of her husband’s death, but Lawrence doesn’t play up the melodrama. She simply treats it as a series of facts. All the emotion she needs to convey are in split-second blinks and eye twitches that betray her deadpan delivery.

Now that’s a pathos that doesn’t come easy, one that emerges through a performance that’s as smart as it is expressive, and is truly exceptional.

Kevin B. Lee is Editor in Chief of IndieWire’s PressPlay Video Blog, Video Essayist for Fandor’s Keyframe, and a contributor to Roger Ebert.com. Follow him on Twitter.

Trailer Talk: In a World Where Characters Narrate Trailers, Who Needs Announcers Any More?

Trailer Talk: The Dawn of the Deceptively Modest Voice-Over

You may not know the name Don LaFontaine, but if you watched trailers anytime from the '80s to the aughts, you know The Voice ("In a world where…"). Before LaFontaine began doing voiceovers for trailers in the 1960s, they were largely held together by title cards promising thrills, chills, stars, and so on. LaFontaine's deep voice gave automatic gravitas and held audience attention for prominent movies, as in his work for The Terminator's original trailer—working on literally thousands of trailer-bred audiences’ familiarity and, eventually, the inability to take such narration seriously. Towards the end of his career, LaFontaine's voice became a tiresomely automatic indicator that you were about to watch a trailer for a comedy—often a spoof—rather than a truly "dramatic" blockbuster. Since his death in 2008, it's been rare to encounter a trailer that embraces the deep-voiced voiceover with a straight face. I nearly fell out of my seat when I encountered an un-ironic contemporary version in this Regal Cinemas trailer imploring folks to see A Good Day To Die Hard in the theater:

"HEART-POUNDING ACTION," the screen says in all caps, redundantly read aloud for the illiterate. "HEART-STOPPING MOMENTS," text and narrator inform us in unison, and we get a shot of a motorcycle babe stripping down to lingerie in a parking garage while Bruce Willis smirks approvingly. The clip is designed to get Regal's patrons to "GO BIG OR GO HOME"—i.e., check in with a 25-year-old franchise "only in theaters." The use of voiceover seems self-consciously ironic, as if acknowledging how anachronistic the plea is.

The day after Christmas, I was sitting in a different Regal Cinema, and suddenly I found myself watching 5 trailers in a row that were, in one way, all the same. Instead of The Voice, they had the voices of their characters narrating the images—a post-LaFontaine attempt to retain the guiding authority of a narrator without turning to schlock. Such as this trailer for April's Tom Cruise vehicle Oblivion:

The first 30 seconds are expository without voiceover, then Cruise takes over the soundtrack, explaining exactly what's going on with this particular post-apocalypse. ("We're here for drone repair with a mop-up crew"). Halfway through, Cruise lands in the clutches of some feisty Matrix resistance types. There's a shot of Morgan Freeman smoking a cigar without talking, sitting in for Laurence Fishburne. "I've been watching you, Jack," he says, laying out a red-pill-or-blue-pill pitch. "You're curious. If you're looking for the truth, that's where you'll find it." The point's clear: Cruise will be fighting his former corporate masters and combating some form of skullduggery. Freeman's pitch to Cruise gives a synopsis of what to expect without making use of an  explicit narrator or giving away too many plot points.

Another apocalypse occurs in After Earth, M. Night Shyamalan's Will-and-Jaden-Smith vehicle, a trailer which was hilariously shown right after the one for Oblivion, as if some underpaid, disgruntled theater employee were trying to underline how redundantly similar this summer's crop of visions of a destroyed Earth are:

The first 40 seconds give the set-up purely with visuals: a spaceship crashes on a strange planet. Then comes Will's voiceover. "Crash landed," he says redundantly. "Son, this is not training," he continues, making it clear that this portentous voiceover is part of the movie (unlike Cruise's voiceover, which almost certainly seems recorded just for the trailer). "Everything on this planet has evolved to kill humans," he continues. His monologue pervades the entire trailer but doesn't really match the random grab-bag of F/X chaos, running and jumping. Finally, there's the payoff: "Do you know where we are?" At this point, Smith's speaking, for the first time, directly to the camera and his son, just to underscore the seriousness of the moment. "This is Earth." Cuing Dr. Zaius.

In the trailer for Pacific Rim, there’s another apocalypse, which means more voiceovers:

First there's an audio collage of news reports confirming that some big bad aliens have shown up and are causing major infrastructural problems for bridges ("Nobody can tell us where they came from"). Then, character voiceover number one, from an unidentified, gravelly-voiced man: "We always thought alien life would come from the stars, but it came from beneath the sea," he says, setting up the premise in one neat sentence. That's enough justification to cut to a lot of nasty looking beasts fighting men in gigantic robot suit gear. There's some downhearted talk about fighting back, and then Idris Elba takes over at the 1:30 mark, raising the rhetorical temperature significantly. "Today, at the edge of our hope, at the end of our time, we have chosen to believe in each other," he says. His voice rises into a very St. Crispin's day register, shouting: "Today we are canceling the apocalypse!" There's one shot of him actually speaking for clarity's sake, oddly leaving our first narrator unidentified. Overall, it's a much stronger trailer than After Earth: clearly organized, full of money shots, and rousing rather than ponderous.

Of course, if it's somber, blustery voiceover you want, the trailer for Zack Snyder's forthcoming Superman reboot Man of Steel out-Shyamalans Shyamalan:

We hear voices just before we see the speakers."The world's too big, mom," young Clark Kent moans. "You can make it small," mother replies. There's a wordless middle section in which Clark goes from boy to man, and then a monologue direct from Superman for the finale. "My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, it would reject me," our newest Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) says, clearly addressing those coming to arrest him, which is shown after he's started talking. "He was convinced that the world wasn't ready. What do you think?" I think the world's gonna embrace you, Clark, probably within the last 10 minutes of the running time, but what do I know?

Finally there's Star Trek: Into Darkness. The camera hurtles through the familiar ship in the opening shots; unlike the Man of Steel trailer, which takes its time confirming that you're watching a new Superman (presumably to restore mystery to potentially over-familiar material), anyone who's seen the show (or even just the last Star Trek film) instantly knows what they're watching. "There's greatness in you," an unidentified voice says as we stare into the blue eyes of Chris Pine's Captain Kirk, "but there's not an ounce of humility." The images correspond to the voiceover: when talking about making mistakes, Kirk runs so fast that he jumps off a cliff before realizing what's happened and so on. "You think you're safe," the man says. "You are not." Cue an Inception-aping "BRAHM" on the soundtrack and a wordless near-minute before the ponderous voiceover comes back to ask Kirk whether he'll do anything it takes to keep his family and loved one safe. The monologue is stock and tonally unnecessary; it's doubtful that this sequel will ditch the original's fleetness for mopey heroics.

Saying all five trailers are the same may be a bit of a stretch: some make use of multiple narrators, the level of expositional information and correspondence to the image varies, and so on. Don LaFontaine's death prompted an industry that could no longer use his voice seriously to try to find new ways to make a heavy dramatic pitch. The pulled-from-the-movie voiceover promises urgency plucked from the drama itself, cutting out the hard-sell middleman. But all five fight giggle-inducing cliche by minting a new one: the overly somber protagonist, promising either the end of the world or its aversion. In time, this familiarity will breed its own new form of contempt.

Vadim Rizov is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer. His work has been published in Sight & Sound, Filmmaker Magazine, Little White Lies, and LA Weekly, as well as other places.

VIDEO ESSAY: Who Should Win the Oscar for Best Lead Actor

VIDEO ESSAY: Who Should Win the Oscar for Best Lead Actor

Part of "Who Should Win," a series of video essays co-presented by Indiewire Press Play and Fandor.

Two-time Oscar winner Denzel Washington earns his sixth career nomination as drunk airline pilot Whip Whitaker in Flight. Washington’s best moment is the film’s best moment: a riveting sequence where his plane is in free fall. Washington pilots the scene, cutting through the hysterics with a commanding cool. The rest of the film shows his character’s slow descent into alcoholic self-destruction, a chance for Washington to play ugly anti-hero. But there are few surprises to his portrayal of a self-hating drunk.

Daniel Day Lewis is also a two-time winner, and he’s the favorite to win another as the title role in Lincoln. It’s a complete performance, fully studied in physical manner, every gesture carefully considered and invested with charismatic warmth. But there’s something kind of self-contained about it, to a lesser degree than Denzel Washington’s. All the same, the kind of performance that you feel obligated to revere, like staring at an animatronic version of the Lincoln memorial.

The contender most likely upset Day Lewis is Hugh Jackman. His appearance in Les Miz is one of the best things about the film—he does the best job of selling the movie’s live performance concept. Even when his singing is off, it seems work, as a way of expressing his character’s conflicted moral state. And while the film is aimed to squeeze every teardrop out of its material, Jackman doesn’t dwell on the melodrama. He portrays a man’s journey to salvation with a survivalist urgency and vigor.

But I’m most impressed by two performances that aren’t favorites to win, even though both actors are in nearly every scene of their films, and convey a risk-taking vulnerability that deserves recognition.

Bradley Cooper surprised a lot of people with a breakthrough performance as Pat, a man fighting bipolar disorder inSilver Linings Playbook. Cooper runs his character through a gauntlet of manias and rages. With a simple shift of his voice, or a darting eye movement, he flips the switch to show his character’s mind jumping off the tracks. but he never overplays these emotions, giving room to reveal the comic absurdity of his condition. And for all his antic outward energy, he also does a lot of taking in. Over the course of this movie, he has to interact and respond to a dozen different characters with their own issues and button-pushing tendencies. There are moments where Pat’s reactions show an ability to see outside himself, which takes his character and Cooper’s performance to another dimension.

Finally there’s Joaquin Phoenix, who lays it on the line as Freddy Quell in The Master. This is a film whose success or failure mostly hinges on the credibility of its lead, whose self-destructive impulses lead to displays of outrageous, alienating behavior. The key question is whether Phoenix is just chewing scenery, or is really tapping into a genuine sense of torment.

Some of his acting choices tread close to gimmickry, his body bent in anguish, his mouth twisted like Popeye the Sailor. But over time, Phoenix reveals what’s behind his grotesque appearance. The crucial scene is his initial psychological processing. Here he his challenged to confront his inner demons and the result is one of the most riveting scenes of the year.

This truly is acting that feels alive like nothing else. It’s here that Phoenix’s character reveals his conscience. And from this point on, Phoenix takes us through a turbulent journey of a soul awaking to recognize itself. The Master is a wild, unresolved movie that at times loses control in its probing of a group movement. But what stays true throughout is Joaquin Phoenix, a performance totally committed to its character in all its ugliness and wonder.

Kevin B. Lee is Editor in Chief of IndieWire’s PressPlay Video Blog, Chief Video Essayist for Fandor’s Keyframe, and a contributor to Roger Ebert.com. Follow him on Twitter.