Friday, July 26, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: The Voters

Thanks again to all the people who participated in this year's Hall of Fame voting:

Jason Alley
Danny Baldwin
Josh Bell
Andrew Bemis
Christianne Benedict
Donald G. Carder
Steven Carlson
Kevin Cecil
Paul Clark
Dennis Cozzalio
Philip Dyess-Nugent
Jim Emerson
James Frazier
Kenji Fujishima
Jaime Grijalba
Russell Hainline
Glenn Heath
Sam Juliano
Peter Labuza
Adam Lemke
Michael Lieberman
Craig Lindsey
Matt Lynch
Lucas McNelly
Matt Noller
Mark Pfeiffer
Cole Roulain
Philip Tatler
Hedwig van Driel
Scott Von Doviak
Bryan Whitefield
Patrick Williamson
Bryce Wilson
George Wu

Let's do this again next year, OK?

The Muriels Hall of Fame: Complete Voting Results

For those who are curious, here's the complete results list for the final round of voting. Unlike the regular Muriels, I've decided not to post the individual Hall of Fame ballots, although any voter who wishes to post his or her own may do so.

Note: because the Hall of Fame balloting process is currently the only means by which short films (i.e. under 40 minutes) may be elected to the Hall of Fame, I've decided to institute a special rule whereby the top-ranking short film that cracks the top 25 in the final round of voting gets inducted into the Hall of Fame even if it doesn't make the top 10 overall. Hopefully this will bode well in future years as we get more into sixties-era experimental films and the like.

2013 Muriels Hall of Fame voting:
(* - indicates inducted films)

* Citizen Kane (1941, Welles) [142 points / 14 votes]
* The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, Dreyer) [117/11]
* Rear Window (1954, Hitchcock) [93.5/10]
* Sunrise (1927, Murnau) [83.5/9]
* Casablanca (1942, Curtiz) [78.5/8]
* The Third Man (1949, Reed) [77.5/8]
* Sansho the Bailiff (1954, Mizoguchi) [74.5/7]
* The Man With a Movie Camera (1929, Vertov) [72/8]
* The Rules of the Game (1939, Renoir) [71.5/8]
* M (1931, Lang) [69/7]
Touch of Evil (1958, Welles) [68/7]
Sherlock Jr. (1924, Keaton) [66/6]
The Searchers (1956, Ford) [65.5/7]
Double Indemnity (1944, Wilder) [64.5/8]
* La Jetée (1962, Marker) [63.5/7] {inducted as outstanding short film}
Rio Bravo (1959, Hawks) [61/6]
The Maltese Falcon (1941, Huston) [60/6]
The Red Shoes (1948, Powell/Pressburger) [59.5/6]
Sunset Blvd. (1950, Wilder) [59.5/6]
The 400 Blows (1959, Truffaut) [54.5/5]
Singin' in the Rain (1952, Donen/Kelly) [54.5/5]
The Seven Samurai (1954, Kurosawa) [54/5]
The Night of the Hunter (1955, Laughton) [51/6]
Tokyo Story (1953, Ozu) [50/5]
City Lights (1931, Chaplin) [49.5/5]
The General (1926, Keaton/Bruckman) [46.5/5]
Bride of Frankenstein (1935, Whale) [45.5/5]
Nosferatu (1922, Murnau) [44.5/5]
Window Water Baby Moving (1959, Brakhage) [43.5/5]
The Lady Eve (1941, Sturges) [42/5]
Only Angels Have Wings (1939, Hawks) [41.5/4]
L'Avventura (1960, Antonioni) [41/4]
The Earrings of Madame De... (1953, Ophüls) [40.5/4]
Jules et Jim (1962, Truffaut) [40/4]
Un Chien Andalou (1930, Bunuel/Dali) [39.5/4]
Rashomon (1950, Kurosawa) [39.5/4]
Notorious (1946, Hitchcock) [38/5]
The Killing (1956, Kubrick) [38/4]
Last Year at Marienbad (1962, Resnais) [38/4]
Metropolis (1926, Lang) [38/4]
L'Atalante (1934, Vigo) [37.5/4]
Breathless (1960, Godard) [37.5/4]
Ikiru (1952, Kurosawa) [37.5/4]
Modern Times (1936, Chaplin) [36.5/4]
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943, Powell/Pressburger) [35/4]
His Girl Friday (1940, Hawks) [34.5/4]
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948, Huston) [33.5/4]
A Man Escaped (1956, Bresson) [32/3]
The Apartment (1960, Wilder) [29.5/3]
The Magnificent Ambersons (1942, Welles) [29.5/3]
Children of Paradise (1945, Carne) [29/3]
Beauty and the Beast (1946, Cocteau) [28.5/3]
Rififi (1955, Dassin) [27/3]
Wild Strawberries (1957, Bergman) [27/3]
Duck Amuck (1953, Jones) [25.5/3]
On the Waterfront (1954, Kazan) [25.3/3]
Les Vampires (1915, Feuillade) [23.5/3]
Duck Soup (1933, McCarey) [23.5/2]
It's a Wonderful Life (1946, Capra) [23.5/2]
Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959, Resnais) [22.5/3]
Umberto D (1952, De Sica) [22.5/3]
Orpheus (1949, Cocteau) [22/2]
Sweet Smell of Success (1957, Mackendrick) [21/3]
I Know Where I'm Going! (1945, Powell/Pressburger) [20.5/2]
Make Way For Tomorrow (1937, McCarey) [19.5/2]
Paths of Glory (1957, Kubrick) [19.5/2]
I Was Born, But... (1932, Ozu) [18.5/2]
The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (1933, Lang) [18.5/2]
One of the Past (1947, Tournehr) [17.5/2]
The Wizard of Oz (1939, Fleming) [14.5/2]
Throne of Blood (1957, Kurosawa) [14/2]
La Dolce Vita (1960, Fellini) [13/1]
Bringing Up Baby (1938, Hawks) [9.5/1]
Ménilmontant (1926, Kirsanoff) [9.5/1]
Monsieur Verdoux (1947, Chaplin) [9.5/1]
Freaks (1932, Browning) [6/1]

Thursday, July 25, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: Citizen Kane (1941, Orson Welles)

And finally…

“I admit it: it’s hard to write about a movie like this without using well-worn platitudes. Forget the top 100, this is a film whose title has become synonymous with “greatest ever”, even though the voters in the 2012 Sight & Sound poll of greatest films chose the more recent Vertigo, thereby ending Citizen Kane’s 50-year reign as numero uno. Not surprisingly, much has been written, spoken, filmed and compiled about such an influential film, and much of it covers similar territory. For instance:

“What we talk about when we talk about Citizen Kane (a listicle for the lazy or uninitiated):
1. Orson Welles’ brilliance
2. The Mercury Theatre
3. The War of the Worlds radio broadcast
4. William Randolph Hearst
5. The special RKO Pictures contract
6. Orson Welles’ young age = 25
7. Greatest Film, etc. etc.
8. Rosebud (SPOILER)
9. Welles, Welles, Welles
10. References to frozen peas (maybe my house only)

“While most of these elements are worth discussing, I recently rewatched the film, and couldn’t help but notice the murderers’ row of technical talent compiled for this classic. For example, if you don’t revere cinematographer Gregg Toland’s work on the screen, consider for a moment the challenge of working with a novice director full of Big Ideas, and using that opportunity to unleash creativity. Toland’s inventive use of low angles and deep focus added volumes of subtext to Kane’s characters. He also employed radical visual techniques with altered viewpoints, including figures shot in heavy shadows or stark beams of light, through window frames and glass globes, and even in full-length mirrored reflections which managed to convey isolation among the film’s large scope and cavernous spaces of Xanadu or an opera house. Editor Robert Wise regularly employed breathtaking dissolves and montages to keep this mammoth-sized tale taut. One of the film’s great sequences captures the rise and fall of Kane’s marriage through a few scenes of bantering across a breakfast table, stitched together with quick camera pans. It’s two and a half minutes of pure joy, with no fat to trim.

This technical wizardry wouldn’t be possible without the unique puzzle that is Kane’s screenplay, credited to Herman Mankiewicz and Welles. It’s a larger than life character study of an old man who lies dead within the first few minutes of footage. It is worth noting that Kane’s primary existence is as a public figure on a huge stage, in his life and after his death. Therefore, we are only provided his legacy Rashomon-style, through newsreel footage, rumors and the contradicting memories of those who actually knew him. Overall though, the script, the visuals, the craft of the film is a trap. As much as Kane occupies most of the screen time, we’ll never truly understand his motives, as he is far too complex to be captured completely. However, we are left to ponder: Do life milestones define us or determine our fate? With Citizen Kane, at least we understand that the journey toward understanding can be very rewarding.


Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: Man With a Movie Camera (1929, Dziga Vertov)

"In 1929, Dziga Vertov conducted a little experiment. Seeking to create what he expressed as, 'a truly international language of cinema, based on its absolute separation from the language of theater and literature,' he and his brother, Mikhail Kaufman, turned a 'kino-eye' on the Ukrainian cities of Odessa, Kharkiv, and Kiev, shooting footage of just about anything that caught their eye, or sparked their imagination. Once filming was complete, Vertov and his wife Elizaveta Svilova retired to the editing room and began collating clips into small, contextually labeled canisters (e.g., 'People,' 'The Plant,' 'The Bazaar,' 'Magician,' 'Machinery,' etc.). Once the menagerie was catalogued, the scissors came out, theory was put into practice, and the rest, as they say, is history.

"Man With a Movie Camera is, first and foremost, a documentary; a snapshot of life in a Soviet city. It begins at dawn, tracking the gradual awakenings of the city and its inhabitants as they emerge from slumber and trickle into the environs and engines of everyday life. It ends, as most days do, with the gradual slowdown of the day's activities, as machines go idle and the people set aside their labors to indulge in a litle rest and relaxation. As documentaries go, pretty standard stuff.

"Where Vertov's film differs, however, is in how he presented these images to the movie-going public. The film is not just a documentary of place, but also an essay on the art of cinema itself. As mentioned above, Vertov referred to his camera as his 'kino eye;' a mechanical extension of his physical/mental self, thus capable of capturing the essence of humanity and storing it like a ghost within the machine. Just as the human brain records and recalls experience, so, too, does the camera, and, with that idea in mind, he and his wife set about assembling their film in a way that reflected the rapid-fire reportage of human thought. Their goal was to see if cinema, like memory, was capable of supplying significance sans structure, wherein creative editing could achieve that delicate alchemy where an image alone fuses with the mind of the viewer to engender empathy, acknowledgement, and understanding.

"And so, Vertov's film hits the viewer's eye like a shot gun blast, peppering the mind with wave after wave of seemingly disconnected images that imprint not only an impression of people, places, and things, but the idea of a city itself; its soul, if you will. Images wash over you like water, and their significance and meaning slowly seep into your subconscious. Your thoughts and memories begin to intertwine with the visual display, and you begin to relate to these lives as keenly as your own. And suddenly, you realize that humanity has indeed been harnessed by Vertov's machine, and that you, the viewer, have become symbiotically and psychologically linked to his subjects. Your combined experiences influence and define each other, and you become one consciousness adrift on the ocean of being. The past becomes present, and all lives interconnect.

"So was the experiment sucessful? Most definitely. (You wouldn't be reading this if it weren't). Man With a Movie Camera is a tour-de-force of technical proficiency, incorporating filming and editing techniques that are hallmarks of past, present, and what would become the future of cinematic artistry. Its innovative use of non-linear narrative is both groundbreaking and intellectually sublime. But it is in the way Dziga Vertov utilized these proficiencies that he achieves his thesis, and thus, leaves an indelible stamp upon the history of film."


Tuesday, July 23, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: The Rules of the Game (1939, Jean Renoir)

"Movies both good and bad have always sent out ripples which have caused the surface waters of cinema history to undulate and swoon and reflect their influence, however undue, benign, creative or destructive. The waves generated and felt by truly great movies, on the other hand, shift the contours of the surface, all right, but their real influence can be almost subterranean, affecting not only the way movies in their wake look and sound and feel, but also how the sensibilities at the heart of their creation can speak across oceans and generations.

"When Jean Renoir’s Le regle de jeu (The Rules of the Game) was conceived, written and filmed, in a span between 1938 and 1939, France was a country torn in its political tolerance and responses to cataclysmic events on the European front that made the looming shadow of Hitler’s rise to power and influence ever harder to ignore. Renoir’s film, a comic roundelay of marital discord, class-generated disdain and general societal distraction decorated with a patina of good manners and brittle loyalties, sought to engage with its audience in a paradoxically airy manner, to diagnose and autopsy the corrosively blithe ignorance the director saw at the heart of the country’s, and indeed Europe’s, collective self-deception with a sort of romantic sleight of hand. (Renoir once famously characterized the movie as a portrait of a complex society dancing on a volcano.)

"Renoir cast himself as the would-be fool, Octave, a caustic but affable bear of a man (quite literally a bear, at one point) whose allegiances to the various players in an ostensibly breezy farce of adultery, the sophistication of which becomes ever more apparently feigned and insincere, are almost immediately tested. (His friend LeChesnaye, lord of the manor, sees him, at least initially, less a fool than a dangerous poet.) Octave’s empathy-- 'Everyone has their reasons'-- extends not only to his wealthy hosts, who have invited each other’s lovers, Genevieve, a bored society wife and Andre, a famous (and famously lovelorn) aviator, along with several other friends to a weekend of frivolity at their country estate. He also shares the hearts of various members of the mansion’s staff, and the confusion of those empathies will fuel the tragedy at the heart of Renoir’s liltingly critical vision of cultural decadence and casual brutality. The film’s famous pheasant hunting sequence may be even more difficult to watch today than it was in 1939, but some of the sympathetic conversation in The Rules of the Game is similarly cutting. When LeChesnaye’s wife Christine discovers that her husband’s own betrayal, which has gone far more effectively hidden than the one she has rather openly cultivated with the aviator, it is Octave who justifies the deception by associating it with the general behavior of the times. 'Everyone lies,' he tells her, 'pharmaceutical fliers, government, newspapers, the cinema. So why shouldn’t simple people like us lie as well?'

"Reviled upon its release, Renoir’s movie can be felt in everything from the tacky violence of Larry Peerce’s The Sporting Club (1970), based on a Thomas McGuane novel, to Alan Bridges’ The Shooting Party (1985), to intimate epics of television drama like Upstairs Downstairs and Downton Abbey and, of course, features like Gosford Park, written by Downton Abbey creator Julian Fellowes. (One could go even further and suggest that the career of Robert Altman, director of Gosford Park, might not exist in quite the same way without the encouraging influence of Renoir stretching to inspire his own.) But what’s most striking about watching The Rules of the Game in 2013, what cements its stature as a truly great movie, is the degree to which its political and interpersonal acuity seem, aside from its period specifics, simultaneously of its time and also utterly contemporary. This 1939 film, made in the darkening path of perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever seen, can connect to contemporary audiences in surprisingly painful and biting ways. The sense of global malaise, isolation and insecurity—some of it inspired by technology of which Renoir could never have dreamed— which is a hallmark of our own very modern self-deceptions and distractions is effortlessly accessed here, making Renoir’s marvelously deft and witty movie seem as pertinent, and as impertinent, as it ever was."


Monday, July 22, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: The Third Man (1949, Carol Reed)

"From the moment Anton Karas’ iconic zither score starts up, The Third Man draws the viewer in to its murky, morally compromised world, defined by the particular post-World War II makeup of its setting, Vienna. It’s no coincidence that the movie’s protagonist, Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten), is a writer of dime-store Westerns; Vienna itself is like the Wild West, full of outlaws and competing authorities, home to a thriving black market. None of the characters are white hats or black hats, though; Holly is the closest thing the movie has to a hero, and even he ends up emotionally scarred and morally compromised by the end.

"Director Carol Reed shoots the corrupt Vienna from a constantly skewed perspective, making extensive use of Dutch angles and ominous shadows. Nearly every person in the city looks suspicious; no one merely stands or leans when they can lurk. Holly himself is constantly eyed with suspicion as he tries to find out what happened to his old friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles), who has apparently died under mysterious circumstances. That Harry is in fact alive isn’t a surprise so much as an inevitability (Welles’ name is, after all, right there in the opening credits), but his first appearance, an hour into the film, is nevertheless a sort of shock, his devilish grin piercing through the gloom of the dysfunctional city.

"Welles essentially gets two scenes, one of which is Harry’s deservedly iconic speech to Holly as they look down on the city from a ferris wheel, and Harry is more of a specter than an active participant in the story. He haunts the city, he haunts Holly, he haunts the British officer determined to take down his black-market operation. Perhaps most of all he haunts his girlfriend Anna (Valli), who clothes herself in his monogrammed pajamas and refuses to stop loving him, no matter how much she learns about his awful deeds. Holly may kill Harry (for real this time) in the end, but his presence is no weaker for his physical body being gone. Like the war itself, Harry is a demon that Vienna and its inhabitants will be unable to shake for a very long time."


Sunday, July 21, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: Sunrise (1927, F.W. Murnau)

"I always think of F. W. Murnau’s Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans with a fair degree of melancholy. It’s one of the glories of the cinema, sure. But it’s also a kind elegy for silent films as they were about to be swept into the dustbin of history. Silent film had developed to a high degree of visual sophistication by the time Sunrise appeared and that sophistication is imprinted on every single frame of the film. Unfortunately, Sunrise appeared a month after The Jazz Singer. It was obsolete on arrival, arguably the last fireworks display of the era. The camera that Murnau had liberated from its moorings on the floor of the studio was remounted there as film had to learn everything over again to accommodate sound.

"At first glance, Sunrise is a simple, almost a simplistic movie. Femme fatale from the city convinces farmer to murder his wife and run off with her. Farmer can’t go through with it, but wife runs off. He pursues her. A long night of the soul follows. This is an artifact that clings to America’s self-image--already profoundly obsolete in 1927--as an agrarian nation. The country is wholesome in this film’s worldview. The city, a carnival of temptation. Frankly, it’s kind of corny. It’s an awful story. But then, it’s not really interested in story. It’s interested in images. The image is king here, and this is a tour de force in putting images on screen. The cascade of images, sometimes multiple images on the same screen, is intoxicating. The subtitle, 'A Song of Two Humans,' betrays the film’s intent not as narrative, but as poetry. The movie frame is a line, scenes are stanzas. As such, each frame is loaded with meaning. For all that, it’s such a living, breathing film that it takes time out for comedy here and there, and for suspense. It never leaves the frame without something to watch. Or someone.

"The technical bona fides in Sunrise are daunting. Everything in the movie was built to order. Both the city and the country were stages. The camera was suspended by cables a la those cameras that record sporting events these days. It could move anywhere. This was Murnau’s ultimate free camera, the resulting movie, the apotheosis of his “unchained cinema.” This became the house style at Fox in the brief moment before sound made all of this impossible, and you can see echoes of it reverberate through cinema in films as diverse as The Wizard of Oz (which strikes me as being very similar to Sunrise) and Citizen Kane (which is very different).

"Sunrise is one of the films for which Janet Gaynor won the first Academy Award for Best Actress. The first Oscar was given for a body of work rather than a single performance, but Gaynor’s performance here is of a piece with the two other films for which she won. Sunrise pairs with both Seventh Heaven and Street Angel for a formidable double or even triple feature. All of them are suffused with a delirious romanticism of a kind that vanishes from talking films, even once they relearned most of what they forgot from the silents. And all of them are devoted to the poetry of the image over the ruthlessness of narrative. The movies lost more than they gained from sound, at least in terms of the poetics of cinema. There’s not another film like Sunrise anywhere afterward. It’s one of the most beautiful things on this green Earth."


Saturday, July 20, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: Sansho the Bailiff (1954, Kenji Mizoguchi)

"More than any other Mizoguchi film, Sansho the Bailiff is entitled to be described as 'Shakespearean.' Its themes are universal, it’s characters embrace all walks of life and morality. The film’s central theme may well be how civilization and morality can emerge out of barbarism. Hence this noble story of redemption, and of good arising from evil, is tuned into cinematic art, abetted by the highest level of black and white cinematography, acting and writing. The mother is played by the legendary Kinuyo Tanaka, one of the greatest of Japanese actresses. As Mizoguchi was a passionate advocate of feminism, evidenced in many of his films, he surely had Tanaka evoke the strongest feminine vulnerability through literally every pore. The adult Zushio is played by Yoshiaki Hanayagi and his sister Anju by Kyoko Kagawa, who appeared in the other Japanese masterpiece of the same period, Ozu’s Tokyo Story.

"The cinematographer is Kazuo Miyagawa, who also shot Kurosawa’s Rashomon, among others. The scenes of nature, and especially the ones of trees and water evoke the texture of classic paintings, and Mizoguchi’s famous use of the long-shot and extended take insures that the camera keeps a respectful distance from the action, a distancing effect which mutes acute emotion. Hence, the viewer is inclined to be more contemplative. The use of close-ups, limited in this film, would force an emotional reaction. The fact that Mizoguchi still negotiated such a response is testament to the power of the story. Contemporary Far East directors like Edward Yang and Hsaio-Hsien have effected the same cinematic style, and similarly it’s been successful.

"Unlike his great contemporary Ozu, however, Mizoguchi’s camera frequently moves to accommodate the action, as in that electrifying final sequence. In Gilbert Adair’s book Flickers, the author makes claim that Sansho Dayu 'is one of those films for whose sake the cinema exists – just as it perhaps exists for the sake of it’s own last scene.' The camera tracks Zushio, in exceeding long shot, as he walks along the beach from the elder sea-weed gatherer, to the place he now believes his mother to be living in destitution. After the tearful reunion the camera retreats, without Zushio, to rest upon the seaweed-gatherer again. Thus, it can be assumed that while a few experience life-altering events, business as usual is transpiring around the rest of the world."


Friday, July 19, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: La Jetée (1962, Chris Marker)

Note: In an attempt to recognize great short films (since they can't win the 50th Anniversary Award at this point in time), I decided to institute a special rule whereby the highest-polling short film (meaning under 40 minutes) would be inducted alongside the top-ranked features, provided it cracked the top 25 overall. Here was this year's selection.

"La Jetée visualizes the original looper, an unnamed tragic emissary of time moving through forgotten memories to help save the world. What he discovers is potential life reborn and certain death, frozen images 'oozing like confessionals' representing versions of the past, present, and future intertwined by fate. His visual scars produce the opportunity for hope, but in rebelling against trauma one simply creates more of the same. The subconscious state teases individuality and freedom, even if there are personal moments of joy to be found within the deception."

"Visually, Chris Marker's film is an astoundingly frank depiction of how trauma defines itself by imagery, and how it can transcend the laws of science and logic. Each image carries a specific weight and resonance, and when one begins moving it's something akin to a revolution. In the end, La Jetée is one of the great cinematic tragedies in that it captures all the world's cries and whispers through one man's ultimate sacrifice."


Thursday, July 18, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: M (1931, Fritz Lang)

"Whenever a non-cinephile friend declares that they don’t like 'old movies'— which usually means those made before 1960, in black-and-white, although the year continually seems to be moving forward as American culture increasingly fetishizes the 'new'— I tell them to watch Fritz Lang’s M, and they inevitably return to me with a rave. I suspect that this is because, over 80 years since its initial German release in 1931, the film still feels stylistically and socially relevant.

"Analyses of M usually position it one of the key German Expressionist films, which is certainly true, although doing so has the unfortunate effect of minimizing the film’s individual contributions to cinema down the line, all the way up to today. I choose to more generally view it as a foundational film in both the horror and crime genres—yet still superior to most all its successors—and the foundational film in the ever-popular sub-genre that intertwines the two, the serial killer procedural.

"Perhaps the film’s most significant contribution to Horror is the way Lang manipulates sound to ride the nerves of the audience. M was Lang’s first talkie, but dialogue is not the most important part of it until the very end, during Peter Lorre’s infamous monologue. Instead, the most striking sonic elements throughout are the recurrent whistle of Lorre’s focal child killer, Hans Beckert—a spine-chilling rendition of Grieg’s 'In the Hall of the Mountain King' that smartly factors into the plot later on—and sudden stretches of silence, the absence of sound proving to be as vital an effect as the presence of sound.

"But M is only a horror film to the extent that it seeks to instill in the viewer the same sense of dread that the city of Berlin feels with a loose killer roaming in its midst. Once instilled, M becomes more of a crime film, with Lang pioneering the now-standard method of cross-cutting between cops and criminals. I say criminals, plural, because Beckert isn’t the only one the film focuses on; underworld bosses also play a significant role in the story, as they organize their own hunt for Beckert, tired of the police raiding their establishments looking for the fugitive.

"Through Beckert’s stranglehold over every part of the city—the cops, the criminal underground, and the public at large—Lang develops much of M’s rich social commentary. The film is in part a mediation on how a society can project all its problems onto a single individual (or, as would happen just a few years later in the Germany that Lang fled, an ethnic group). Unlike the film’s stylistic achievements, it’s unfortunate that this facet of the film is still relevant today—when the media, which only plays a small role in M, fosters such a societal tendency to no end—though this relevance is what allows the film to retain all its power for modern audiences.

"Then there’s Lorre’s epic final speech — a triumph of acting and a harrowingly intimate exploration of another important social issue, that of how a civilized society should handle people who do evil things. Individual viewers will answer this question differently, based on their unique ideological perspective. The film takes a position of its own, but Lang doesn’t lay it on thick. Instead, the brilliance of M’s concluding moments rests in the fact that, in order to earn our position, we must confront the reality that despite his horrible crimes, Beckert is still a human being — perhaps the most terrifying and complex element of a masterpiece that’s full of them."


Wednesday, July 17, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: Rear Window (1954, Alfred Hitchcock)

Yes, I know. Another Hitchcock movie. But think of it this way - these would all have gotten in sooner rather than later, so consider this a clearing of the decks so we can get all the most popular Hitch titles out of the way and concentrate on other directors next year. Unless there are other Notorious fans out there, then never mind.

"Alfred Hitchcock's pre-beatnik era West Village, seen through the eyes of the temporarily incapacitated, apartment-bound Jeffries (Jimmy Stewart), is reduced to little more than a few converted tenement apartment buildings, a narrow, busy street (Bleecker?) in the distance, with a sumptuous ambient soundtrack, a mixture of the most distant and near city sounds. Community as tableau has rarely been so crystalized as in Rear Window, accomplished largely by, as many have written about, how the film functions as a metaphor for the role of the less passive moviegoer or media consumer: how we observe, process and conclude.

"Jonathan Rosenbaum's point in his review of Rear Window, that Jeffries channel surfs between his various courtyard neighbors, is an apt one, especially if one follows the trajectory of media since the film's release in 1954. The internet is perhaps the most apt medium to compare the viewing habits of Jeffries' to: the outside world as an aquarium, sometimes interactive, but always open to one's obsessive, investigative tendencies. Most remarkable, however, is that Hitchcock presents all of Jeffries' conclusions as objective facts, allowing the film to function as a supremely disturbing thriller, nearly removing psychology altogether. It that device especially that defines how, suggested as much in the film, interactivity between medias and 'real life' allows one their own truths. One's microcosmic world, a courtyard neighborhood here, is a dollhouse kept at a (mostly) safe distance."


Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, Carl Theodor Dreyer)

"One key to understanding the depths of Carl Theodor Dreyer’s achievement in The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) is the realization that Dreyer doesn’t really have a set idea as to whether Joan, the peasant girl who led the French army to important victories in the Hundred Years’ War only to be burned at the stake by church officials for being a heretic, actually communed with God as she claims. That’s perhaps why Dreyer, at the beginning of his film, takes pains to emphasize that everything that he’s about to present to us is taken from the trial transcripts; on the dramatic level, he’s basically presenting us the facts of the case, in his belief that, by doing so, this will strip away the layers of sanctimonious religiosity and reveal the human beings underneath. 

"But Dreyer isn’t just interested in the procedural elements (certainly not in the way Robert Bresson was when he tackled the same material in his 1962 film The Trial of Joan of Arc). Joan may or may not have been touched by God— the whole trial basically hinges on that question, after all— but how else to describe the cumulative transcendent effect of Dreyer’s luminous close-ups, his starry-eyed low-angle shots, his images of flying birds, and so on, as anything other than divinely inspired? Throughout, Dreyer uncannily manages that tricky feat of diving right inside Joan’s internal anguish while also standing outside of it; at times, that 1.33:1 frame feels like a prison in and of itself. 

"Dreyer’s poetic images, however, might not have made quite the same impact without a great Joan leading the way—and in Renée Maria Falconetti, Dreyer found a performer of astonishing transparency who brings us right inside Joan’s thoughts and feelings moment-by-moment: her rapture at speaking about her relationship with God, her initial fear at the prospect of being burned at the stake, her weariness as the trial drags on. The end result of Falconetti’s burning conviction and Dreyer’s expressionistic visual style is a film that, more than any other film I can recall, illustrates not only the power of this one woman’s religious conviction, but the transcendental power of cinema to illuminate human experience." 


Monday, July 15, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: Casablanca (1942, Michael Curtiz)

Today we begin announcing the winners of the recent Hall of Fame balloting, which will be inducted alongside the "grandfathered" honorees we inducted this past week. The eleven films that were inducted in the voting process will be announced in alphabetical order.

“Tell people you love movies, and they'll often immediately ask you that impossible question: ‘so what's your favorite movie?’ You can stammer and equivocate all you like, but in the end, they just want to hear one title. That title, for me, is almost always Casablanca.

“I know that it can be dismissed as an obvious choice, or worse: a dull one. Casablanca doesn't play any major role in the history of cinema. It didn't introduce any new techniques or signify a breakthrough of some kind. It's not by some fancy auteur – though I would argue that Curtiz is generally underrated as a director.

“What it is, however, is a movie full of pure pleasure, not necessarily my absolute favorite at any time but a film I can watch over and over and enjoy every single time. It may not have been revolutionary, but it was expertly crafted in one of the most successful movie factories that ever existed. And then, due to some unmeasurable, impossible to replicate movie magic, every single element came together perfectly. The actors are all perfect for their parts. Every line (except maybe for the one about cannon fire) lands. And the ending is one of the most memorable ones ever put on film.

“Yes, Casablanca is corny. But as one of its screen writers, Julius Epstein, remarked: ‘When corn works, there's nothing better.’ Corn has never worked better than it did in Casablanca.”

Sunday, July 14, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: Lawrence of Arabia (1962, David Lean)

"The timing of my being asked to write about Lawrence of Arabia for the Muriels Hall of Fame is perfect, as I had the opportunity to see it on the big screen for the first time recently. It is the essential theatrical experience that I'd heard and assumed it is, its images overwhelming and immersive. Our introduction to Sherif Ali, a barely perceptible black speck on the horizon that gradually reveals itself to be a man on a camel, is astonishing when viewed in a dark theater. It's an image that director David Lean repeats throughout the film - characters appearing and disappearing into the distance, dwarfed by the vast expense of desert and sky - and for good reason, as it never loses any of its power. Though Lawrence of Arabia features explosions and violent battle scenes, some of its most powerful moments rely on silence and image of a small figure making his way across vast expanses of desert, struggling not only to survive but to write his own destiny.

"What makes Lawrence of Arabia particularly unusual for a prestigious, award-winning epic is that the spectacle is entirely at the service of, and even an illustration of, its protagonist's inner life. At once a hero, a leader, an exhibitionist and a masochist, Lawrence sees the desert as the manifestation of his own romantic, self-made identity. But the understated tragedy of the movie is the way that reality repeatedly undercuts his dream of truly becoming a leader in his adopted culture; Lawrence imagines himself as the Arabs' liberator, ignoring his actual part in strengthening the role of the British empire in the region. By the film's end, he's outlived his usefulness for both his hereditary and adopted cultures; for all that he's experienced, he remains incomplete. It's as if he, and the audience with him, are waking from a dream that had to end. Still, what an amazing dream it is."


Saturday, July 13, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: Yojimbo (1961, Akira Kurosawa)

"When you spend your life chasing after cinematic thrills, there are certain inevitable regrets. Invariably, one of the biggest is that you are a prisoner of the particular era you inhabit. It automatically relegates certain experiences to the realm of scholarship, rather than just going to the movies. There are certain things I am only ever going to be able to see as filtered through the mists of time. Much like many other contributors and readers here, I would give my eye teeth to be able to have certain experiences first-hand -- the seismic shifts from silents to talkies and from academy ratio to widescreen; regular Saturday afternoon matinees complete with cartoons, newsreels and serials; ten cent movie tickets; being knocked from complacency by the French and Czech new waves, and on and on. My list, probably much like yours, is endless.

"This is not to say that there aren’t rewards for making discoveries the way I have. I think I belong to the very last generation that had to really dig, do the work, read/make ‘zines and haunt libraries and repertory houses to find these things. We were the last generation that came of age before the Internet made everything instantly available, taking away some of the thrill of the hunt. It fostered in me a true appreciation for the entire experience -- the reading about, the tracking down, the viewing of milestone films. To borrow from Warren Oates, those satisfactions are permanent. Still, it doesn’t quell all of the envy I feel for the people that got to stand in line and buy that ticket in September of 1961 when Yojimbo came to town.

Yojimbo was the first film by Akira Kurosawa that I ever saw and it was revelatory for me, even on television. My old man, the first movie enthusiast I knew, loves the Leone/Eastwood films and by the time I was nearing adolescence we had already watched those together numerous times. Little did I know that was paving the way for Kurosawa to come along and kick my ass. The Leone films were already pretty exciting stuff, what with their gunfights, gold and alien landscapes (alien to a kid in small town Oklahoma, anyway). Discovering Kurosawa, and specifically Yojimbo, though, was something altogether different and it taught me many a valuable lesson. It was a coming of age. Just about every kid, for a little while at least, is possessed of the silly and romantic notion that their thing (whatever that thing is) is the first thing, the best thing. Yojimbo may have been the first time I was made aware that there is nothing new under the sun -- not in a discouraging way, mind you, but more in the sense that there is a much larger continuum out there of which all art is a part. If it wasn’t already, my chase was now most definitely on.

“The film itself, you’re probably all acquainted with. Toshiro Mifune’s samurai-with-no-name plays both ends against the middle in a deft jidaigeki mixture of high noon sagebrush, film noir rough stuff, feudal Japanese class issues and swordplay. The result is a thrilling and cohesive whole that people are still ripping off/paying homage to today. The one thing that none of the predecessors or imitators have, though, is Mifune.

“I had never seen anything like him. I still haven’t. The human face has fifty-odd muscles in it. That’s approximately 3 X 10^64 possible facial expressions. Mifune is the only person on Earth whom I believe was capable of making them all. The story is riveting, but it's his fierceness and vitality that make this still fresh and exciting fifty years down the road. For all the windswept streets, mulberry fields and lonely roads, the most important topography is that face. That’s where the whole story plays out. It's what I couldn’t take my eyes off of as a youngster and it's the thing that is going to keep it a powerhouse fifty years from now. All that political shrewdness, earthy humor, cynicism and almost surreal violence bound up in one man, still so raw and intense, so entertainin.

“I thank the heavens every day for what technology affords us now as cinephiles. I marvel at the fact that (if it were my only option) I can watch Yojimbo on my telephone. We are alive in such an incredible time that we have access to film and the ramblings of other film lovers in ways never imagined half a century ago. But oh, what I would have given to be in the audience in 1961. It must have been like a bomb going off."

Friday, July 12, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: Psycho (1960, Alfred Hitchcock)

"We all know Psycho. As with many of the cinema's most revered movies, I knew the storyline of Psycho years before I actually saw it. I don't remember who told me about it or what book I read that described the film down to the last detail, but when I saw it for the first time I was surprised how well I was able to anticipate, beat by beat, the storyline. A similar thing sometimes happens to me- and I would imagine to others- with other classic stories or movies, in particular early horror movies like Dracula or Frankenstein, after years of parodies, homages, remakes and other references, or even the theory of how stories can become so archetypal that they work themselves into our DNA.

"It's because Psycho is such an inescapable fact of the horror genre that something like Bates Motel has a place in today's television landscape (and has been successful enough to be granted a second season) even though it's based, or "inspired," by a movie more than half a century old. It's not just nostalgia- after all, a beloved series like The Munsters wasn't able to make it out of the pilot of its remake. I could conjure an explanation for this, but I think it's just as important to consider Psycho in relation to television, considering that the film owes nearly as much to the medium of television as it does to the silver screen.

"Along with being a master of cinema, Alfred Hitchcock also mastered the art of creating his own image. Of all the great filmmakers, perhaps none is more recognizable than Hitchcock (OK, I'll grant you Chaplin, but he was also a movie star) even to those who haven't seen his movies. I speak from experience here- I didn't know what Steven Spielberg looked like until I was 17 years old, but I could point out Hitchcock when I was a kid even though I didn't see my first Hitchcock film until years later. He put his name not only on his movies, but also on magazines and of course his signature television series, Alfred Hitchcock Presents. In addition to hosting the show every week with his typical macabre humor, he also directed 15 of its 268 episodes over seven seasons. When the time came to direct Psycho, Hitchcock decided to give his usual big-screen collaborators a break in favor of the crew from the TV series, and it's clear that many of the techniques he learned through making television influenced the film.

"For an example of this, we need look no further than the first episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, "Revenge" (S1.E01). The episode's protagonist is played by Vera Miles (who later appeared in Psycho), and the way he shot and used the scenes involving cars would inform similar scenes in the film. Additionally, "Back For Christmas" (S1.E23), the cellar is a key location for the story's action, much like the climax of the film. And in "Mr. Blanchard's Secret" (S2.E13) the protagonist constantly sees a house with a light on, signaling the presence of someone she believes to be dead, an idea Hitchcock turns on its head in shots of the Bates Manor.

"But I would say that the two episodes that most directly influenced the making of Psycho are "One More Mile to Go" (S2.E28) and "Lamb to the Slaughter" (S3.E28). In the former, there is a scene, shot in a single unbroken take, in which a criminal fastidiously cleans up a crime scene. Later in this episode, the perspective shifts to the point of view of the criminal being followed by a cop, and the composition of the shots is reminiscent of the early scenes in Psycho when Marion is attempting to escape with the stolen cash. "Lamb to the Slaughter" is probably the most famous Hitch-directed episode of the series, if only for the final scene: a woman has killed her husband, and the police unknowingly proceed to eat the murder weapon, a frozen leg of lamb. The final shot mirrors the end of Psycho almost perfectly, with a voiceover of the woman explaining what she has done as the camera slowly pushes in on her face, punctuated by a smile as we hear the last line. OK, so a skull isn't superimposed on her face, but you can't have everything, can you?

"I don't make these comparisons to bury the achievement of Psycho, but to praise it. While it's undeniable that some of the techniques that Hitchcock used to make Psycho had already been road-tested on his television series, it's also clear that the ability to do so gave him the confidence of knowing how to elicit the maximum amount of suspense from any given moment, to "play the audience like a piano," to quote the Master himself. Besides, it helps to remember that no great work of art exists in a vacuum, and just because Hitchcock incorporated some elements from the show into the film, that takes a back seat to the fact that, even today, the movie just plain works."

Thursday, July 11, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: North by Northwest (1959, Alfred Hitchcock)

Jaws is generally credited with the birth of the blockbuster, but the groundwork for the modern action movie was laid a half-century ago by none other than Alfred Hitchcock. Coming off of 1958’s Vertigo, easily his darkest, most difficult work (and not coincidentally, a middling performer at the box office), it’s as if Hitchcock decided to give the people what they wanted by crafting the most entertaining follow-up possible, using one of his favored plot devices – mistaken identity – as a springboard for a sprawling cross-country adventure. With an assist from Oscar-nominated screenwriter Ernest Lehman, the master of suspense leapfrogs from one spellbinding set piece to the next, including a chase across Mount Rushmore and the crop-duster sequence that ranks among the most celebrated action sequences of all time. This is not to suggest that North by Northwest is merely mindless escapism, as its plotting, humor and execution is far more sophisticated than you’ll find in the countless imitators that followed. (And let’s take a moment to be thankful that the film was made long before sequelitis ran rampant in Hollywood – South by Southwest, anyone?) Still, the movie remains one of Hitchcock’s fizziest concoctions, and Cary Grant’s urbane, witty performance is the straw that stirs the drink."


Wednesday, July 10, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: Vertigo (1958, Alfred Hitchcock)

“The canonization of Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo as the greatest film by all time by Sight & Sound, might seem obvious at first, but there are many reasons it stands out as an odd choice in the Master of Suspense’s filmography. Vertigo plays like many of Hitchcock’s countless great works, but it also might be said to lack the perfective harmony of something like Rear Window, Shadow of a Doubt, or Psycho. How did Scottie get down from the ledge? What happened to Madeline in the hotel? Where did that nun come from? Not only that, while most of his films are playful, Vertigo is mournful, hypnotic, and often uncomfortable in a way different from the violence that percolates other Hitchcock’s.It is perhaps the most open of his films, inviting theory and interpretation to fill in the gaps raised. As any search of a scholarly film resource would show, almost every single theoretical model of film analysis (auteur, genre, psychoanalysis, feminist, semiotics, and so on) has been applied to the monster.

“I use ‘monster’ because Vertigo is a monstrous film for so many reasons. Scottie, the loveable protagonist played by the usually lovable Jimmy Stewart, slowly turns into a monster, his eyes shooting fire across the screen with burning desire. There is, of course, the “monster creature” of the film, the ghost of Carlotta Valdes that haunts Madeline (another viewing reveals how Hitchcock treats the ghost story with serious and genuine reverence). Finally, the film itself is monstrous; one that cannot be explained, simplified, or discussed without feeling reductive. For as much one can explain how the shots, the score, the acting, the camera movement, and colors, and the dialogue all contribute to making Vertigo the film I see on screen, there is something missing from any description that strikes me deep when I watch the film, an unsettling quality of both desire, longing, and even mourning.

Vertigo’s monstrous nature and canonization has much to do with the film’s relationship to filmmaking and cinephilia. As Andre Bazin describes in his iconic essay, The Ontology of the Photographic Image, film is only a continuation of the process of preserving and resurrecting the dead, which dates all the way back to the ancient Egyptians. And as Hitchcock told Francois Truffaut, “I was intrigued by the hero's attempts to re-create the image of a dead woman through another one who's alive.” Taken together, Vertigo is about our ability to save the past from extinction, to view what was as of what is. It’s a film that speaks to why and how we watch the moving image, taken all the way to the director who must create his own image of perfection. Scottie demands everything from Judy, just for that chance to see Madeline again. An exact visual representation, tinted with a ghostly presence,finally appears. It’s sealed with a kiss that brings him round and round and into the moment of his past he desires to resurrect. Then the necklace appears, and the dream, just like the film, comes crashing down, leaving the man to stare at his destructive act. Is this Hitchcock’s warning to not only himself but the cinephiles like this? If there was an answer, it wouldn’t be considered one of the greats.”


Tuesday, July 9, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: The Seventh Seal (1957, Ingmar Bergman)

"Just in terms of modern cultural history, the whole concept of moviemaking as a personal form of creative expression--a means of working as an artist--would be very different if it hadn't been for Ingmar Bergman. And Ingmar Bergman's career, reputation, and public identity would not be quite the same if he had never made The Seventh Seal. Thanks to this movie, which I didn't actually see until I was in my late twenties, I have known for as long as I can remember that Death is a serious-faced man with an ashen complexion who wears a hooded long robe and plays chess.

"What isn't as easy to make clear to the uninitiated is how excitingly fresh this movie still feels, after many viewings and more than fifty years on the shelf, and how much more there is to it than its central image. Someone who hasn't seen it might not guess how emotionally varied it is--and how funny. Bergman's ability to see reasons for despair in anything made it possible for him, in his previous film, Smiles of a Summer Night, to make a great sex comedy tinged with bone-shattering melancholy. Here, his seriousness of purpose and his showman's gifts are in such uncanny balance that he doesn't undercut the power of his vision of life squandered even when he throws in an image that might have come from one of his parodists--the man looking down from the top of the tree he's climbed to escape danger to see Death, smiling, sawing away at its trunk.

"In his lesser work, Bergman could see cause for despair in situations that others might think better called for a stiff drink, but in this film, with its doomed protagonist (Max Von Sydow) and set amid devastation sewn by warfare, ignorance, and plague, he used the tools for a vision of hopelessness to forge an affirmation of the underappreciated value of life."


Monday, July 8, 2013

The Muriels Hall of Fame: An Introduction

Ever since Steve and I founded the Muriel Awards in 2006, we’ve always tried to focus on classic movies along with the new releases. With annual awards given to the greatest films of ten, twenty-five, and fifty years ago, our voters have been enthusiastic about honoring the great achievements in movie history, an enthusiasm that has also displayed itself in our annual special decade awards. Sadly, this compulsion to look back isn’t as common as one would hope among movie lovers. In a recent piece written for the A.V. Club, Muriel Award winner Mike D’Angelo (http://www.avclub.com/articles/old-cinema-can-still-feel-new-as-a-key-scene-from,99557/) bemoaned a certain tendency among moviegoers. In D’Angelo’s words:

“By far the most galling aspect… is seeing people condescend to movies made before they were born. Often, they’ll allow that some canonical masterpiece was hugely influential, or “good for its time,” but in the next breath confess that they just can’t take it seriously given the enormous advances that have been made in the decades since.”

Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon. In the past, I’ve despaired of the way most people view silent movies in particular, as quaint curiosities that for all their charms are somehow lesser than what’s out there now simply because they don’t contain spoken dialogue (this is one of my numerous reservations about 2011’s admittedly charming The Artist). Likewise, there’s an idea floating around that black and white movies are somehow missing something essential now that the majority of movies are filmed in color. What these ideas overlook is that the great artists, regardless of their medium, have always been able to use the limitations imposed upon them to their ultimate advantage. A great silent film or a great black and white film isn’t a masterpiece in spite of the fact that there’s no sound or color; these films are great because their makers were able to use black-and-white film and dialogue-free storytelling in ways that accentuated their respective strengths. In other words, when a great classic film is working, you don’t miss what isn’t there. Truly great films never feel old; they feel timeless.

It’s in this spirit that we’ve decided to introduce the Muriels Hall of Fame. Being the sort of person who can never quite leave well enough alone, I’m always looking for ways to keep the Muriels fresh for both our voters and the people who follow us, and following last year’s Muriels win by the hopelessly movie-drunk Holy Motors, the time felt right to me to get this thing started. I wasn’t sure how well it would go over, but although some people weren’t able to participate this year, the idea was nonetheless met with enthusiasm from most of the voters.

In a nutshell, here’s how it worked. I invited everyone who participated in the 2012 Muriels to nominate ten films of any length made in 1962 or before (setting aside movies that have already won the 50th Anniversary Muriel Award, which will be grandfathered into the Hall of Fame automatically). From this pool, I then took every movie that received at least two nominations, from which the voters would then choose their top ten. The ten movies that received the highest number of points are this year’s inductees.

Over the next 2 ½ weeks, I will be announcing this year’s inaugural Hall of Fame inductees right here on this blog, unveiling one each day beginning with the previous Anniversary Award winners. While some of this year’s winners will be the ones you would expect, but there will be a handful of surprises in the mix as well. And as always, I’ve invited some of the voters to write a few paragraphs about the winners. After all, the Muriel Awards are about more than choosing our favorites; we’re also about expressing our love for the best that cinema has to offer.

Thanks once again for your continued support of the Muriel Awards. We hope you’ll continue following us over the following weeks and years.