Movie Lists: A Critical Analysis of Critic's Analysis'

At the end of every year I wait anxiously for the Oscar broadcast. Every year I am bombarded by critic's "end of the year predictions" and "best of the year lists," something that I too am guilty of doing (though perhaps more privately). Around this time every year there is an almost overwhelming sense of excitement in the film world as we (or at least I) wait to have our suspicions either confirmed, or else denied (which we then proceed to argue with and refute among friends). After watching one of this year's truly great (here I go again) films, Ratatouille (pictured left), the closing narration resonated strongly with me, "in many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read." This one simple, seemingly innocuous line is full of such truth; and I contend that the opposite is true too. Every year critics, bloggers, and just every-day people come up with their best movie (or movies) of the year and, while there is nothing inherently wrong with this act, it occurs to me that it is an unnecessary act which only serves to perpetuate this narcissistic system. Having only recently entered the blogosphere, this week I became overwhelmed at how many blogs have "10 Best" lists as their topics, and so I decided to explore our culture's prerogative of ranking the best films of the year or making Oscar predictions. The first post I found is by Peter Sciretta it is titled "The Definitive Top 25 Movies of 2007." This post covers not only the author's opinion, but also includes lists from other popular websites. The second blog I found was "Oscar Predictions: Filipino Cruise Ship Bartenders" by Peter Martin. This post is taken from his time spent on a cruise interviewing various bartenders (who have no special film experience) as to what they think will (or should) win at the Oscars. My responses to these blogs are offered below, as well as on the author's respective blogs.

"The Definitive Top 25 Movies of 2007"
Comment:
First I would like to very much thank you for your contributions in the blogosphere, though I am quite new at this I have found your posts both enlightening and engaging, and what more could anybody hope for? I would also like to commend your choice of There Will Be Blood as the best film of the year, I think that it is an excellent film. This, however, brings me to my question. Is there a necessity for popular culture criticism? And if there is a necessity for it, what is that necessity? One aspect of people's day to day life seems to be indulging in other people's opinions instead of those same people forming their own; even people who hold their own opinions (I make these same lists) seem to thrive off of examining, critiquing and disagreeing with others. To me what is even more bothersome is that more often than not these lists (at least many of the most prominent ones) tend to agree with each other; Richard Roeper and his partner Roger Ebert both have No Country for Old Men and Juno on their lists, and New York Times film critic A.O. Scott and Village Voice film critic J. Hoberman agreed that I'm Not There, Terror's Advocate and There Will Be Blood are among the best films of the year. Have we become a society that we now need some kind of vindication to hold the opinions that we do? Or is a movie only good if the mass majority thinks that it is? I read in an article in The Village Voice S.T. VanAirsdale, in his article titled "5 Steps to a Better View," proposed that we "eradicate the top 10 list" as it is "perhaps the ultimate cancer on contemporary film, a backslapping orgy of hype that prizes propriety and capsule-sized cleverness over any sort of art, revelation, or insight." Like I said before I admire your choice very much, and I too am guilty of doing these lists. I am, however, unable to understand what necessitates their existence. I truly hope I get to hear your opinion on this.

"Oscar Predictions: Filipino Cruise Ship Bartenders"
Comment:
I think that the approach that you used in your blog post is both interesting and innovative. As a film student I am often surrounded by people who are more than happy to offer their opinions, and as a result the opinion of other people (those not in film school) often goes unnoticed. As I read your post I noticed that most of the predictions defied the popular belief as to what will/should win. When the list that you formed is put to comparison with the list voted on imdb.com (as of the time of this post) almost all of the bartenders' predictions seem pretty unlikely. The only one that the two lists agree on is best director for Joel and Ethan Coen (pictured right). I think that it is enlightening that many of the people that you interviewed, many of whom have not seen the films, are in almost complete disagreement with the majority of the imdb.com using world. You close your post by saying "I'll be watching to see if random friendly bartenders know more than seasoned Oscar pundits." My question then is, do you think that the Oscars do not accurately represent the masses? Do you think that they have a responsibility to? Many of the people that I know that are not "into" film do not even go so far as to see the films that are nominated (many of these same people feel that they are much more strongly represented by the MTV Movie Awards). Your post seems to make the point that the bartenders are being under represented (or not represented at all), but do you feel that they should be? It is stated on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences website that "the Oscar represents the best achievements of the year in the opinion of those who themselves reside at the top of their craft," do you feel that should factor in at all? I think that your post shed light on the arguable shortcomings of the Oscars, while at the same time being a unique list of Oscar predictions.

Non-Simulated Sex in Mainstream Cinema: Blurring the Lines Between Art and Pornography

There is an issue that is becoming more and more prevalent in cinema today. In addition to being one of the most recent trends in film, it has also become one of the most controversial. This issue, like any controversial issue, has caused a tremendous divide among those people that are aware of it; there are supporters and opponents, both steadfast in their resolve. The issue is that of non-simulated sexual acts in mainstream (or "legitimate") cinema.

This issue has become so controversial that many of the films that contain "real sex" are never theatrically exhibited (at least in North American theaters) and some of the films have been completely banned from entire continents. The films that involve acts of non-simulated sex are both the most groundbreaking and the most controversial of today. For the sake of clarity, non-simulated sex acts will be taken to mean fully exhibited and genuine penile or vaginal contact by any person. Generally it will refer to these acts being performed on one person and by another; however it is also meant to include any cases of non-simulated masturbation scenes.

The topic most often brought up surrounding this issue is the question of whether these films are art or pornography; essentially whether or not these films are excusable in their portrayal of sexual encounters. For this blog pornography will be defined as: films that use real portrayals of sexual acts for the sole purpose of arousing the viewer. This is different from a "legitimate" film (is any film more or less legitimate than any other?) which uses non-simulated sex acts for a purpose that is more redeemable than merely sexual arousal; therefore a "legitimate" film (as opposed to pornography) is a film that has intellectual emotionally or spiritually attempts to connect with a viewer.

The next point to address then becomes, who's to say whether a work is "legitimate" or not? Surely if it were left to the filmmaker to say whether a film is "legitimate" than all films would be. Whether or not these films are "legitimate" or pornographic may never be clearly defined, in actuality art (and porn, or at least what should/does qualify as porn) is a purely subjective creation; and as such these films "legitimacy" or lack thereof is contingent not only on the filmmaker's intentions, but also on the viewer's interpretation.

Another issue posed by opponents of this form of expression is that of necessity. Is there a need for these films to present non-simulated sexual acts, or is it something that could just as easily be done without. Many of the films (if not all of the films) that contain non-simulated sex acts could have portrayed sexual encounters in less explicit ways. The problem with this concern is that necessity is not (or rather should not be) the important issue. The filmmakers made a choice to incorporate this device into their work and the choices that the filmmakers made are, essentially, moderate, this device is neither inherently good or bad.

In 2000 a French film was made, this film is considered by many to be one of (if not the) most explicit films ever made, it is Baise-moi (pictured above, translated the title means "Rape Me"). This film is a story of revenge enacted by two women who were brutally attacked. This film contains extensive scenes of non-simulated, penetrative sex and fellatio; and all this is in addition to the extremely brutal and realistic violence. However this is a film about a brutal crime and by including a more realistic form of expression the message of the film becomes more relevant and heart wrenching. In Baise-moi the filmmakers use non-simulated sex as a device that, essentially, extends realism's mode of representation. This decision, naturally, requires a very dedicated actor who is willing to be at their most physically (and arguably emotionally) vulnerable in an attempt to portray sex as it really is; effectually the actors taking part in these films are practicing a very extreme form of method acting.

Many people feel that these films are not art, because they are exploitation; that the films are controversial for the sake of controversy, and not for the sake of expression. Evidence in support of this argument is an example like Vincent Gallo's The Brown Bunny (2003). The Brown Bunny is a film (one of the very few American films) that contains a non-simulated sex act, specifically it contains an act of fellatio. The film is controversial in its own way, however the marketing campaign for the film was even more controversial. In July of 2004 a billboard was erected over Sunset Blvd. which depicted a still frame from the fellatio scene, albeit blurred out and partially edited (pictured right). The use of this image for marketing is certainly daring, and arguably unnecessary or excessive; however the film itself should not be held responsible.

Whether or not these films are good is a subjective decision to be made by people who view the films. However, quality aside, the fact is that these films have a right to be seen by people. Also the filmmakers that make these movies should not be labeled in a negative way, rather they should be commended for their creativity in the face of adversity. Just because some people may object to this type of expression, that does not make the expression any less valid; in fact, if somebody has become inspired to become vocal enough to object to these films, than the films must be doing something right by being powerful enough to start a dialogue. Other questions posed about these films (like whether they are art or pornography) is just as subjective as to ask whether they are good or bad; the fact is that for the people that want them to be art, they are art and vice-versa. What is unquestionable is that it is unreasonable to prevent, or even attempt to discredit, this form of expression on the grounds or whether or not it is objectionable.