Thursday, May 26, 2005

CRUISING AND PERUSING THE TIME ALL-TIME 100



Richard Schickel and Richard Corliss look into their hearts
**************************************************************

Movie lists are irresistible for those who love to read them and use them for anything from ideas for Netflix rentals to a jumping-off place from which to begin making connections and thinking about movies in ways both personal and universal. But they’re also irresistible to film critics and others who write about movies because, whether it’s a top ten list of movies of the year, or a list like Time magazine’s oddly titled “All-Time 100 Movies,” they’re an easy-to-read shorthand format for displaying, and dissecting, a critic’s predilections, prejudices and a general sense of the writer’s aesthetic and historical perspective. Lists like the American Film Institute’s attempt a few years ago to provide some sort of definitive statement—the 100 best American films, period—are usually doomed to fail. Such attempts to sum up the vastness and fluidity of 100 years or so of film history, even one “narrowed down” to exclude films not made in this country (and there have been a few of those that have popped up in the past 100 years), is akin to attempting to swallow the sea. And those annual critics’ top ten lists, that ritualistic gathering and ranking of the cream of 200 or so films released each year, can’t presume any sort of meaningful comprehensiveness. Even critics who get paid to see everything often can’t, so the list has less meaning for its arbitrary rankings than the occasion it offers the reader to be reminded of important films he/she may have missed, and for the critic to reconsider the year as a whole, talk about recent trends, revisit films that may look different after the passage of a few months, and even ponder the function, and future, of American film criticism.

Time’s “All-Time 100 Movies” list is, thankfully, a much more idiosyncratic enterprise, and one that doesn’t have much pretense toward an all-encompassing point of view—it is, after all, the product of two film critics, Richard Schickel and Richard Corliss, and therefore bound to have a bit of a split personality. A quick listen to the interview on the Time Web site reveals that the two critics’ methodology for coming up with contenders was little more than shuffling through their own memories, and the final list retains that informal, casually tossed off feel. Such a scrappy, incomplete endeavor is likely to come up short on scholarly value, which is fine because scholarship is hardly its intention. Its main marshaling impulse is the desire to get readers, most of whom may only be casual movie fans to begin with, talking and thinking and free-associating, about omissions, of course, but also about the films that were included.

Naturally, familiar titles like The Apu Trilogy (1955-56-59), Bonnie and Clyde (1967), Casablanca (1942), Citizen Kane (1941), Double Indemnity (1944), The 400 Blows (1959), The Godfather (part 1, 1972, and part 2, 1974), The Searchers (1956), Singin’ in the Rain (1952) and Tokyo Story (1953) are represented.

But I don’t think I can ever remember a list of 100 best/all-time/whatever movies that was limber enough to save a space for argument-starters like Barry Lyndon (1975), Chungking Express (1994), City of God (2002), Leolo (1992), Mouchette (1967), Olympia (Parts 1 and 2, 1938), The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985), Sherlock, Jr. (1924), Smiles of a Summer Night (1955) and Talk to Her (2002). Every one of those titles seems geared to start demanding rants on the order of, “How they could put Barry Lyndon/The Crime of Monsieur Lange (1936)/Sherlock, Jr./Smiles of a Summer Night/The Purple Rose of Cairo on that list and not 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)/The Rules of the Game (1939)/The General (1927)/The Seventh Seal (1957)/Bananas (1971)?” That free association that Schickel refers to as part of his process of coming up with titles is exactly where the juice from a list like this comes from. While you’re arguing, in your head or with others, about this one’s inclusion at that one’s expense, you’re likely to start finding your way toward other titles by the same director that may feature stars who make you think about other movies that are nowhere near the list from whence you started.

And the admitted scattershot representation of films across various stretches of time and geography helps to deflate a reader’s indignation when a personal favorite is omitted. For example, any list I tried to compile myself would almost certainly feature Nashville (1975), M (1931), Sunset Boulevard (1950), Project A Part 2 (1985), Jaws (1975), Never Give a Sucker an Even Break (1941), Rio Bravo (1959), Horse Feathers (1932), Dirty Harry (1972), Blow Out (1981), The Big Heat (1953) and The Long Riders (1980), and would have no place for Chungking Express, E.T. the Extra-terrestrial (1982), Farewell, My Concubine (1993), GoodFellas (1990), Pulp Fiction (1994), The Purple Rose of Cairo, Raging Bull (1980), Schindler’s List (1993) or Star Wars (1977).

But given those variances, it would be impossibly churlish to complain too seriously about a list of All-Time 100 Movies that actually includes City Lights (1931), Detour (1945), Drunken Master II (1994), The Fly (1986), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) and Once Upon a Time in the West (1968), In A Lonely Place (1950), Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949), The Lady Eve (1941) and His Girl Friday (1940), The Man with the Movie Camera (1929), Miller’s Crossing (!!! 1990), Out of the Past (1947), Ugetsu (1953) and A Touch of Zen (1971). And this list in particular provides a great place for those with scant familiarity with the towering cinema of India to start catching up— Satyajit Ray’s classic Apu Trilogy leads to two films with which I’m unfamiliar-- Pyassa (1957), another from India’s golden age of movies, and Nayakan (1987), from the more recent Bollywood explosion. Any time a list like this can provide a lifelong film buff with new and explored places to go, it has to do nothing else to justify its existence and earn my gratitude.

Time’s site is fun to navigate too. Though you have to be a subscriber to the print edition in order to access the reviews of each film as they appeared in the magazine upon their release, nonsubscribers can still click on each title to get a capsule review or comment written this year, which in some ways might be the more valuable piece of writing, given how much has already been said about some of these works. There are also links to a list of Richard Schickel’s Guilty Pleasures, the same critic on Great Movie Performances, Richard Corliss on Great Short Films, both writers checking in on The Best Movies Scores of All Time and those interviews with Schickel and Corliss regarding how they put the list together. Any way you click it, the new Time list trumps more recent list-making enterprises by well-meaning institutions like the American Film Institute through its sheer unpretentious zeal and love for the movies, whenever and from wherever they may have come.

(Other lists more serious cinephiles might want to take a look at are the Sight and Sound International Critics Poll and another one recently unleasehed by the British Film Institute, The BFI 100, a selection of favorite British films of the 20th century. And Filmcritic.com has a tasty list of its own: The All-Time Top 100 Voices in the Movies.)

One for the Comments column
Take a look at the Time 100 again and let us all know:

1) What ONE movie on the Time 100 would you get rid of, and why?
2) What ONE movie would you insert in its place, and why?

And, of course, and as always, as much ranting and raving to go along with those choices as you please. This is why Schickel and Corliss put the list together, after all. Let’s hear it.

UPDATE 6/6/05: LISTOMANIA
Richard Corliss talks extensively about the All-Time 100 and the movies that he and Schickel left off the list.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

IS THAT ANOTHER DAREDEVIL I SMELL?

Okay, while the dust hasn't yet settled vis-a-vis the merits, or lack thereof, of the new Star Wars picture (I've checked in with my thoughts in an update to "Your Big Sci-Fi Movie Weekend" a couple of posts below), let me just add that attached to Episode III is a trailer for another movie hotly anticipated by nerds and fanboys the world over, and here I would have to count myself among their number. The original Marvel comic book The Fantastic Four was always one of my favorites as a young kid, and it has always been my hope that it might get a movie treatment along the lines of, say, a Spider-Man 2, a movie based on the other major text of my adolescence.




But after having seen the new trailer Sunday, I'm afraid I smell the distinct aroma not of Sam Raimi's respectful yet vibrant takes on the Peter Parker saga, but that of Ben Affleck and Daredevil. Maybe it's just the way the trailer is cut and pitched, but if there's as much clunky line delivery and "extreme" action smothered in a KROQ-friendly pop metal soundtrack in the actual movie (who knew Johnny Storm would be such a bitchin' motocross fiend?), then I may just have to stay home and break out the musty old comic books instead. My fingers remain crossed that the Daredevil vibe gives way to something more like Raimi's movies, or the X-Men, which took me completely by surprise. Only time will tell. Or perhaps we're in for another unique comparison in cultural influences: how will the big-budget live-action Fantastic Four hold up next to that other super family spectacular, the one at the center of Brad Bird's The Incredibles?

Saturday, May 21, 2005

VIN SCULLY, THE BEST ANNOUNCER IN BASEBALL HISTORY




Vin Scully was recently named the best announcer in baseball history by author Curt Smith in his new book Voices of Summer. My good friend Andy Torres, contributor to a new baseball blog on the KPCC-FM web site entitled Extra Innings, has the story and some sharp commentary about Scully and the state of Dodger broadcasting. This promises to be a site that will routinely feature excellent writing and well-reasoned baseball analysis-- Andy's one of the smartest people I know, period, but particular wise when it comes to the major leagues-- so a bookmark for Extra Innings is highly recommended. Congratulations to Andy on the new forum, and to Vin for making even the most agonizing game listenable and memorable.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

UPDATE: YOUR BIG SCI-FI MOVIE WEEKEND IS MY BIG SCI-FI WEEKEND TOO

UPDATE 5/23/05:

Well, since this page seems to have become the Revenge of the Sith confessional booth, I guess I’ll check in with my toosense. The Mrs. and I screened Attack of the Clones Saturday night as a sort of warm-up—she’d looked at The Phantom Menace a couple of weeks earlier, but at that movie’s first mind-fogging mention of viceroys and suspension of trade routes I ran from the room and into the arms of Jimmy Stewart in The Far Country. Where I’ve never had much of anything but disdain for Menace, I remembered enjoying Clones quite a bit way back when I first saw it in 2002, so I looked forward to seeing it again, and I genuinely wondered why most of the talk I’d heard about Revenge of the Sith was prefaced by how rotten both Menace and Clones were-- I recalled at least three smashing action sequences that seemed to make up, in my memory, for the limp, terribly acted romance at the movie’s heart, and for George Lucas’ timidity as a storyteller when it came to retreating from showing Anakin’s slaughter of the Tusken Raiders in the aftermath of his mother’s death. This refusal to own up narratively to Anakin’s murderous rampage—he merely tells Amidala (and us) of his deeds— is a crucial mistake, as it might at least have made us believe in the character’s ferocious, pent-up anger in a way that Hayden Christensen’s high school thespian glowering could not.

The DVD began to spin, and I wasn’t 15 minutes in before I began to realize that Clones was indeed pretty bad. None of the sequences I liked before—Obi-Wan and Anakin’s pursuit of Amidala’s would-be assassin high above the streets of Coruscant, the duel between Jango Fett and Obi-Wan on the ocean planet where the clones were created, the big arena monster smackdown at Count Dooku’s place—seemed any better than routine, and more often just distended and lifeless, this time around. And the Anakin/Amidala courtship was even worse than I remembered. Add to the agony Lucas’ metronomically unimaginative swinging back and forth between Obi-Wan’s pursuits and the Tiger Beat in Space section—one scene with Obi-Wan, then cut to smoochies, then cut back to Obi-Wan, then cut back to Anakin and his dead-eyed, Cyrano de Bummerac proclamations of love, then back to Obi-Wan, then back to Amidala and Anakin giggling as they frolic through the Nabooian fields, ad infinitum (or at least it seemed). I sat through Clones in awe that such flatfooted nonsense could have ever seen the light of day, and amazed that I originally thought it was in any way good. The entirety of Clones would have taken up about one-quarter of the screen time of any well-constructed movie, which would have given Lucas more time to make Anakin’s transformation into Darth Vader at least slightly believable. Yet I kept thinking, well, I know of several folks, writers and friends, who really seem to love the new movie, and even those who aren’t too enthusiastic about Revenge of the Sith have all been pretty uniform (with the exception of Anthony Lane in The New Yorker) in their assessment that Episode III was better and more satisfying than the previous two.

Well, I agree with that assessment. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is better than either Menace or Clones. In fact, it’s probably better than the slim virtues of both combined. Yet, all things being relative, for me the trade-up from the colossal failure of imagination of the first two episodes has been not to a sense of satisfaction but one of indifference and, finally, exhaustion. The cumulative effect of all the technology that has been poured into the prequels is to make the original movies (at least Star Wars and The Empire Strike Back) look somewhat quaint and appealingly uncluttered. But during Sith, even though I was aware that Lucas had marshaled his resources into a tighter package this time around, I found myself shutting down on a psychological level to the overly busy design and the incessant, and insistent, artificiality of the CGI landscapes. Certainly, if you’ve followed Lucas’ story through its peaks and convolutions and tacked-on mythology (is there anyone who believes the company line that Sir George had the story line of the six movies all mapped out back in 1976, but he just never thought he’d get to make them?), you’ve got a certain amount of emotion at stake in seeing just how this third episode gets all the puzzle pieces in line and attempts to butt them up against what we know of the events of the 1977 film and its conspicuously unbusy, comparatively Luddite technological trappings. But just because you get a chill at the sight of Luke Skywalker and his sister Leia being born, or goose bumps running down your back at the sight of a horrendously disfigured Hayden Christensen snapping on the Darth Vader mask and morphing into James Earl Jones, doesn’t necessarily mean that Lucas has got his shit together here.

This movie slogs through an awful lot of the same kind of inert scenes that smothered the first two episodes like a lot of rampant interstellar overgrowth: the Jedi council sitting around making ominous pronouncements and obvious statements (“I sense Count Dooku” says one Jedi, upon entering the spaceship of Count Dooku); Chancellor Palpatine attempting to lure Anakin into his clutches with lies about the Jedi Council’s treasonous intentions like a salacious old queen with his eyes on a very juicy prize (Anakin’s dull-eyed receptivity to these fabrications go further even than Christensen’s monotonous performance toward making the character seem none-too-bright very early on); and the conspicuously ignorant Amidala, who has little to do here but sit around waiting for her hubby’s fatal premonitions regarding her fate to be fulfilled, and taking wa-a-a-a-ay too long to come to the realization that her brooding dreamboat is a petulant mass murderer who hasn’t even yet risen to the full potential of his calling.

Admittedly, Sith is more fleet of foot in the action department than its predecessors—the opening rescue of Palpatine from a staged abduction by Count Dooku, and Obi-Wan’s pursuit of and final battle with the deadly mantis General Greivous (has anyone in the history of fantasy film come up with clunkier, more obvious names for his creations than Lucas?), are very entertaining, especially compared to any from the first two episodes, and despite the familiarity of that space rescue to any number of battles from any of the previous films. But Lucas has spent an awful lot of time trying to convince us (and himself) that his movies have a deeper foundation than the rickety old movie serials that were their inspiration. It’s not unreasonable for audiences who hold these movies (or at least some of them) dear to expect that by this episode we ought to be experiencing some kind of emotional crescendo created by the movie itself, and not just by our nostalgia for feelings that Lucas’ first installment generated for us back in 1977, or our hopes and expectations for the fulfilling of a cycle started when most of us were far more impressionable.

In reality, by the time Obi-Wan and Anakin get to their big number on the volcano planet, the indifference I spoke of earlier had already settled in. I knew the film had not cast the spell on me that I was expecting/hoping for when my first thought upon seeing the magma-covered surface of this world, with its curious industrial structures intended for the gathering of molten lava (to what purpose I remain unclear), was, Gee, what an unstable world on which to try to run a company or build a civilization. And during the mano-a-mano between Obi-Wan, the master who hasn’t a clue where his training went wrong, and Anakin, his traitorous padawan who still believes Palpatine’s blathering about the Jedi trying to take over the Republic, all the CGI-enhanced acrobatics as the two bounce along and balance on chunks of apparently heat-resistant rock on the surface of the lava flow became distracting and unconvincing. Again, rather than being enthralled by this scene, which I had imagined myself for years (it was described briefly by Alec Guinness’s Obi-Wan in the original Star Wars), all I could think about was, Why are these two acting like it’s only 85 degrees? Why aren’t they sweating? (Frodo and Sam sure did.) Why, given the fact that they’ve spent the better part of their scuffle mere inches from thousand-degree heat, didn’t they both simply erupt into flames before the first cries of betrayal or swings of light saber? Oh, Lucas saves that bit for Anakin’s crispy defeat, but when it happens, it just highlights again the fact that, by the elemental laws we know to be true and that Lucas himself has just acknowledged, both these guys should have been reduced to rapidly vibrating particles in the lava landscape long before.

And in the aftermath of Anakin’s apparent destruction and Amidala’s death during childbirth, Yoda decides that the newborn twins, who will fulfill the empire-destroying prophecy that Anakin did not, should be separated for their own protection and raised where no Sith would think to look for them. So where does he ship them off to? He gives Leia to a high-ranking Republic senator who has openly aligned himself with the remaining Jedi, and the other to be raised on the very planet of Anakin Skywalker’s origin, apparently mere footsteps away from where Anakin was raised! Talk about keeping a low profile. If the movie, and Lucas’ highly publicized abilities as a master storyteller (a bigger load than this in cinema lore exists not, in the parlance of our little green friend), had really been firing on all cylinders, I wouldn’t have been thinking about stuff like this.

But so it goes. Lucas has said all along that all six movies have been pitched to 12-year-olds, but despite some clunky comedy, usually involving those damned droids, the best parts of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back never felt like that. They may have appealed to me in ways that only an adolescent can be appealed to in great, or even merely good movies, but I never felt I was being pandered or condescended to. That all changed with the downright ugly design, frenetic action and blatant over-Muppetization that was the hallmark of Return of the Jedi, and that’s, to answer a question recently posed on the Salon magazine Web site, where I parted ways with the Force. The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones ramped up the cutesy characters, made even more overbearing and unbearable through the alchemy (or should that be malchemy?) of Industrial Light and Magic’s fetishizing of computer-generated imagery, but also ladeled on a barge-load of bogus political posturing that, for all its “complexity” and machinations, ended up exposing Lucas as a true simpleton incapable of composing the grays in between the blacks and whites of a truly compelling and turbulent universe. (Just what 12-year-old was supposed to be enthralled by all this malarkey, anyway?)

Return of the Sith finds Lucas butted up against his own legacy and scrambling, in that none-too-urgent way of his, to link up the dangling ends of his tale in a way that would make rational storytelling sense and honor the investment so many viewers, casual ones as well as the fanatical hordes whom Lucas seems to loathe and love in equal measure (just listen to his audio commentaries on those DVDs if you don’t believe me), have made in his epic, self-serious fable. But to say that in some measure he succeeds is not to admit that that success is much more than a Pyhrric one. The genuine emotion I felt as the slaughter of the Jedi commenced was unexpected and, given my reaction to the rest of the movie, overwhelming, but its origins, I think, came from two separate places. There was sadness, and exhaustion, in seeing the first raging of the Empire that was born of my foreknowledge, as a viewer familiar with the remaining three chronological episodes, of the trials that would have to be endured before any real triumph, personal or political, could be achieved. But that dramatically-inspired exhaustion eventually got all entangled with the other kind of exhaustion I felt, a weariness with Lucas’ excessively detailed, yet tinny galactic universe, and the overwhelming relief that it was all finally over, that there was now some closure, some escape from a cycle that ensnared me when I was a young film fan, ready to be amazed, astonished and inspired.

For 30 years George Lucas has dangled the possibilities of Star Wars in front of his audience like the promise of a most delectable meal, and there are those who will continue to insist, now that it’s all done (until he starts futzing around and re-releasing everything in 3D in a few years, that is), that Lucas has served up a great piece of filet mignon, or at least a darned good, honest steak. For me, as good as was The Empire Strikes Back, the taste left in my mouth in the wake of Sith is that of an average flame-broiled burger served to accompany the cool toys at the drive-thru that seem, far more than the riches of a great narrative, to be the series’ raison d’etre. That burger patty only looks like our tragic antihero Anakin Skywalker as he comes up well done and left for dead by Obi-Wan. Bite into it, and it tastes like any other sandwich at any other joint. In much the same way, Star Wars has ended up, with Revenge of the Sith, only slightly more resonant and powerful than any of the average, and seemingly endless, diluted copies of the Lucas formula that have clogged our imaginations, and those of an endless rank of storm-trooper/clone filmmakers, ever since that first title crawl, and the sight of that first overwhelming Imperial cruiser, made us shrink in our seats in amazement 28 years ago. Yeah, Sith is better than the first two episodes, but it turns out that's not really saying much.

***********************************************************************************


Well, this is the big weekend, when audiences will finally see the latest (but will it really be the last?) chapter in a popular saga that had its dawning back in the “golden age” of 1970s American cinema. It’s a saga that has been embraced by many, but derided by just as many others who have laid the diminishing returns of its genre at its feet and blamed it for helping to shift the economics of American film into the blockbuster mode from which it has never recovered. It’s the story of the classic battle of good versus evil. Its iconography is as old as the origins of mythmaking.

I’m speaking, of course, of Paul Schrader’s Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist, one of the most highly anticipated, and unprecedented, releases in cinema history. Never have audiences been able to see the auteur theory so clearly at work as they will by comparing this movie to Renny Harlin’s ghastly 2004 release Exorcist: The Beginning, a full reshoot of the same material Schrader submitted to his producers. Schrader’s version, rejected for not being scary enough, was worked over by Harlin and refashioned with action-hungry horror fans in mind, and with some of the same cast (Stellan Skarsgaard played the young Father Lancaster Merrin in both versions.) Now audiences will be able to judge for themselves whether Schrader’s vision was the scarier and more worthy, or whether perhaps both versions should have been abandoned.

But if your tastes run a little more toward the center than a brooding, arty rumination on religion and psychology, perhaps there might be something else on which to spend your hard-earned dollar (or perhaps ten of them, plus snack fees) this weekend.




For those who just can’t wait for the curtain to ring down on the third (sixth) chapter of George Lucas’ space opera, and for those who are eagerly anticipating it, there’s a very funny discussion between filmmakers Kevin Smith (Clerks, Dogma), Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright (writer-star and director, respectively, of last year’s brilliant Shaun of the Dead) about the whole Star Wars thing and how it has informed, affected, and possibly ruined their lives. You can read it here, or print it out and read it while you wait on one of this weekend’s endless lines at your local googleplex.

One fella who likely won’t find himself in line is friend and fellow blogger Loxjet, who posted a spirited (or should that be dispirited) anti-Lucas rant on his Wailing and Gnashing site a few days ago. Those of you who remain unimpressed by Lucas’ deft handling of actors and his nimble way with words may want to check out Loxjet’s thoughts entitled ”I Am Your Father, Luke – BFD!” Who knows, even the Lucas faithful may get a grin or two out of Loxjet’s rage against the machine.

For Loxjet, and those who bemoan the drift of science fiction from the order of actual science-based fiction to an almost exclusively space fantasy-oriented realm, I heartily recommend Shane Carruth’s dazzling, confusing and exhilarating Primer, in which two fledging inventor/entrepreneurs inadvertantly construct a time machine. There are no wacky Back to the Future exploits here—it’s a movie primarily about the boundaries of trust and the fuzzy spot on the horizon where innovation gives way to too much knowledge, and the prickly question of what to do with it. It’s also a movie that demands your attention. The movie’s science seems plausible enough, but you’d need a degree in, or at least a proclivity for engineering to know just how plausible. Primer’s strength, and the source of its maddening philosophical quandary, is its deft structure, its criss-crossing and back-tracking on itself until it threatens to swallow its own tail. You may feel completely caught up in it and satisfied by it, as I was, without fully understanding more than about a third of its complicated narrative. But not to worry—at 74 minutes, it is brief enough that a second, cerebral cortex-clearing viewing is not out of the question, and Primer is good enough that you may very well want to press “play” again right away.

IT'S READY FOR ITS CLOSE-UP, MR. ANDERSEN: Los Angeles Plays Itself Reviewed



Thom Andersen on the Great Literalist Tour of the South Bay: "I
can watch Gone in 60 Seconds over and over again..."


It's a rare-enough occasion to happen upon a great movie when you lay down your cash at the box office. But it's even more rare to see a great movie that's also a great piece of film criticism. Godard's Histoire(s) du Cinema and Notre Musique would, by most accounts, qualify, but I can't say personally because I've not yet had occasion to see them (Notre Musique is in my Netflix queue). One that I have seen, however, is Thom Andersen's Los Angeles Plays Itself, which ends its extended American Cinematheque run at the Egyptian in Hollywood this weekend. It is, as I've said before, well worth the effort it takes to get to Hollywood for one of these screenings.

Los Angeles Plays Itself is no dry Film History 101 lecture, but instead a poetic consideration, a personal remembrance, a love letter, a politically progressive deconstruction of prevalent myths about not only Los Angeles but the films most often singled out as the best representations of the city, and a reconstruction of some forgotten chapters in the city's ongoing cinematic iconography. Andersen begins with a faux-ominous "This is the city," in first-person narration read by independent filmmaker Encke King, invoking the spectre of Dragnet, about which Andersen will offer surprising observations later. "They make movies here. I live here. Sometimes I think that gives me a right to criticize." Andersen frames his criticism with the use of extensive clips (nearly 200 of them) and that crisp, deadpan, often very funny narration to take on the gargantuan task of detailing how the movies have observed, and essentially created, a Los Angeles of the mind that often has little to do with the reality of the city. This Los Angeles is also the city within which resides Hollywood, and if you didn't already know, Andersen wants you to understand that there's a distinct difference between the two.

The film states that Los Angeles is the most photographed city in the world, yet it's the hardest to capture, to get right. In its first chapter, "The City as Background," Andersen details some of the reasons why that may be. Movies such as Public Enemy, White Cliffs of Dover and China Girl have used distinct Los Angeles locations (Wilshire Blvd., the Bradbury Building) to represent, respectively, downtown Chicago, Burma and an overseas military hospital, and Andersen suggests that the very quality that allows the city to be molded in imagery homogenous enough to make such leaps acceptable (at least to the casual viewer, which, after Los Angeles Plays Itself, I guarantee you will no longer be) is what has rendered its true spirit so elusive to most filmmakers.

The film's second section, "The City as Character," considers films such as Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity, films that, for better or worse, contributed to the character of Los Angeles and how it was perceived throughout the world. It was Wilder's film, Andersen asserts, that convinced the general population that Los Angeles was the world capital of murder and adultery, a perception that provided the film industry with the white-hot nucleus of a campaign of exploitation that continues to this day. Wilder, throughout his career, Andersen suggests, was not himself interested in what made Los Angeles a city, but rather in what made it not like the other cities he knew, and therefore he may have had a keener eye for geographical detail as a result. It is this perspective that ended up giving license to a series of films and directors that Andersen labels "literalist," a label he intends as a compliment. Literalist films hold prime value for the director, despite their variances of success as narratives. Films like Robert Siodmak's Criss Cross (1949), Anthony Mann's The Glenn Miller Story (1954) and Robert Aldrich's Kiss Me Deadly (1955), a definitive portrait of Los Angeles in the 1950s, would serve as a detailed chronology of disappearance of the beloved Bunker Hill neighborhood; and the obscure Kent MacKenzie film The Exiles (1961) stands as a solitary representation of Native Americans in Los Angeles, a group of people getting to know the city on its own harsh terms, and on foot. One of Andersen's most stinging barbs is reserved for Joan Didion and her observation that "No one walks in L.A." The footage from The Exiles, coupled with Andersen's narration-- "That is, no rich, white person like us walks"-- expose some of the prevalent mythology of the city as being firmly race and class-based, as well as utter bullshit.

It is here that Andersen introduces the concept of tourist directors. In his view, there are high tourists-- directors like Wilder, Antonioni (Zabriskie Point), Jacques Demy (Model Shop) and Jacques Deray (The Outside Man) who bring a restless, inquisitive, more fully documentary sensibility to the recording of the city within their films-- and there are low tourists, like Alfred Hitchcock and Woody Allen, directors interested in Los Angeles only for its familiar landmarks and scenery. The Outside Man is a routine thriller but for the fact that its protagonist is a French assassin who spends an inordinate portion of the film observing and interacting with his Los Angeles surroundings. Andersen calls it "the most precise portrait of the city there is." And Demy's Model Shop is derided as being practically unwatchable, but it does get the theoretician's love nonetheless for being an early (1968) attempt to define Los Angeles as a city-- "incoherent, but if you love Los Angeles, it is moving."

Andersen is at his funniest when debunking a couple of cinematic sacred cows. I'm not sure how I, and many others, who love John Boorman's Point Blank are meant to react to his statement that "People who hate Los Angeles love Point Blank," but I can say that I've never been aware of my feeling for the city being a major factor in my appreciation of the movie. That said, Andersen uses a witty selection of clips to highlight the film's ghastly interior decor (which may in fact be a form of literalism in itself, given the film's 1967 release date) and offers the backhanded compliment that director John Boorman does manage to make Los Angeles look "bland and insidious" at the same time. And he hilariously dubs Woody Allen's Annie Hall, a film famous for observing that the only cultural advantage in Los Angeles is the ability to make a right turn on a red light, "A Tale of Two Marquees." One of Allen's bits of visual shorthand to indicate the essential seriousness of his characters in Annie Hall is the shots of them congregating outside of the Thalia movie theater in Greenwich Village for screenings of Marcel Ophuls' The Sorrow and the Pity. But when Alvy, Annie and Max arrive in Los Angeles, we get the usual montage assortment of imagery meant to signify the crassness of L.A. culture-- incongruous architecture, eateries shaped like giant hot dogs and doughnuts, and a theater marquee boasting the double feature House of Exorcism and Messiah of Evil (one of the films, coincidentally enough, highlighted elsewhere in Los Angeles Plays Itself.) Then comes the narration (paraphrased here) that deftly skewers Allen's condescending provincialism: "I know I saw The Sorrow and the Pity in Los Angeles. And I'd bet that a lot of New Yorkers had the opportunity to see House of Exorcism." Andersen then goes one unexpected step further: "But if New Yorkers have Woody Allen to live down, we have Henry Jaglom." Cut to a clip from the logorrheic, visually dormant director's Venice/Venice, inaudible beneath the roaring laughter of an American Cinematheque audience that knew all too well the agony of being stuck enduring a Jaglom film for two hours.

But the section of Los Angeles Plays Itself that is perhaps most challenging to the conventional wisdom of audiences and film critics is the third chapter, entitled "The City as Subject," in which films where Los Angeles became conscious of itself are highlighted. Andersen rejects the cynical hopelessness of Chinatown as well as the film's alternate history of Los Angeles, which he fears may well have subsumed the city's actual history for critics and audiences inclined to accept movie shorthand in place of readily available research. Similarly, the corruption of the L.A.P.D. as depicted in L.A. Confidential was, according to Andersen, insufficiently portrayed in the film, while at the same time the deals that ushered in cheap urban development, as they are laid out in the film, were the result not of graft but of public decree-- they were legally voted in by a general public swayed by fast-talking politicians. Andersen sees these films, and others in this section, as valuable largely in that they illustrate that much of what passes for nostalgia in films about Los Angeles is rooted not in a longing for a past social utopia, but for what might have been if not for one profound event (say, illegal water diversion, or swift urban sprawl) that may have, in fact, been a series of less dramatic events ushered in by far less dramatic means.

Here Andersen also underlines that the one prevailing subtext in epic visions of Los Angeles is, in fact, transportation, or the lack of it. In Chinatown Jake Gittes loses his car early on and spends the rest of the film borrowing cars or heading out on foot. Andersen sees this a symbolic castration-- Gittes is always two steps behind the machinations of the movie's mystery sans his wheels, and he never catches up-- and boils the film's philosophy down to a corrosively funny, "Without a car, you will die." As if to prove this point, he immediately moves on to poor Joe Gillis, trying to outrun repo men who want to take back his ride, who fatefully pulls into that driveway off Sunset Boulevard with a flat tire and ends up narrating the movie with two bullets in his back, face down in a swimming pool. Even Who Framed Roger Rabbit, with its alternate history of the development of the Los Angeles freeway system, comes under consideration in Andersen's exhaustive, entertaining thesis. Andersen finds room for an insightful consideration of Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye, which he terms the director's best film, and how its turning of the Philip Marlowe mythology inside-out and using it as a discoverer's map to 1973 Los Angeles made for a fully realized portrait of the city. Marlowe cruises the streets in a vintage Cadillac, which reinforces Altman’s conceit that he really is the Marlowe of the ‘40s who woke up one day, Rip Van Winkle-like, to find himself in the free-floating ‘70s, but, like Gittes, he’s still two steps behind everyone else. However, one of the director's most acclaimed films, Short Cuts, his transplanting of various Raymond Carver short stories from the Northwest to Los Angeles, is witheringly exposed as a condescending travesty. Curiously, the film depicts an L.A. where vehicles seem de-emphasized, unless they are objects of derision (Anne Archer’s clownmobile) or deliverers of death (Lily Tomlin’s waitress accidentally hits a child, setting one of the intertwined stories in motion). For Andersen, Altman, with his claim that the movie pays attention to parts of L.A. usually ignored in films, like Downey, Glendale, El Segundo, suggests the difficulty of privileged directors making films about Los Angeles-- they only really know a very small section of the city. And nothing in Short Cuts feels like the Los Angeles, not to mention the Glendale, that I know.

Los Angeles Plays Itself ends by highlighting the films of three black filmmakers-- Haile Gerima (Bush Mama, 1975), Charles Burnett (Killer of Sheep, 1977) and Billy Woodberry (Bless Their Little Hearts, 1983)-- that suggest an entire alternate vision of Los Angeles that reverberates beneath the pop culture radar. It's in raising the audience's awareness of titles like these, and Kent MacKenzie's The Exiles, that Andersen proves the ultimate worthiness, in a broad sense, of his entire enterprise. These are the films we may not know about that could, if we choose to seek them out, reform the way we see this city, and for people who live in it every day that comes to feel more like a social imperative than a way to kill some time on the Internet Movie Database and Netflix. The studio dream factories and the neorealism, the "literalism" of these other directors, both have visions of value to impart, but Andersen suggests these African-American neorealists may hold the key to ushering in an era that explores the worth of a man as it relates to the worth of a city in a meaningful way that cuts across racial and social lines. He ends this sprawling, 169-minute masterpiece of superbly entertaining film criticism with a clip from Woodberry's Bless Their Little Hearts. A man drives past the ruins of a tire factory that once provided him, and hundreds of others, with a reliable, good-paying job, while the narration remembers, for the character and for us, that one used to be able to tour this Goodyear tire plant and see how tires are made, just like one can buy a ticket today to take a tour of a studio and see how movies are made. That's the ambivalent cherry on top of perhaps the most provocative, prickly, allusive and challenging movie I've seen in years. I'd openly hoped, as one fairly disillusioned with everyday life in this city, to see the city through the eyes of someone who could still find room for amazement and inspiration in the sprawl of cars and culture clashes and endless summer of the city of angels. Sometimes hopes, and prayers, are answered with silence, or with the opposite of what one wishes. Los Angeles Plays Itself is a film I hope to be able to return to many more times, an answer in the positive to the hope and prayer of a lifelong film buff for whom reconciling the dreams with the city of the dream factories is becoming more difficult each day. I have been inspired to look anew, to keep looking, and to ask new questions. How can there be another movie this year that could possibly top that?

Postscript: In various Q&As after screenings of Los Angeles Plays Itself, Thom Andersen was repeatedly asked about movies and filmmakers he did not specifically address within his film, whether because of time constraints or, in the case of Michael Mann's Collateral, the movie(s) in question came out after the film had been completed. Steve Erickson published a fascinating interview with the filmmaker at Indiewire.com last year that examines some of the questions raised about Andersen's methods, questions about clearances for the film clips that may prevent the film's DVD release, and other fascinating bits. You can read that here. Even better, Andersen himself wrote an article for Cinema Scope magazine in which he talks