The American Film Institute will unveil its next list on Tuesday: 10 Top 10. These are, according to the AFI panel, the ten greatest films in each of ten classic movie genres. Looking at the list of celebrities who will host a section for each of the categories during the CBS telecast, one can't help but wonder if the folks at the AFI have tipped their hand.
Clint Eastwood is hosting the "Western" section. Can we assume that Unforgiven will make the cut? Could The Outlaw Josey Wales sneak in? Doubt it, as I would venture to guess that the AFI will strive for plurality. Sigourney Weaver will host the "Sci-Fi" category. Hello, either one of the first two Alien flicks (I'm leaning towards the first one). Kirk "I AM SPARTACUS" Douglas will host the "Epic".
Those seem obvious, but how about some of the others? Cuba Gooding, Jr. will host the piece on "Sports." Does that mean Jerry Maguire will be considered one of the ten best sports movies in American history? God, will it be Radio instead? "Mystery" will be hosted by Gabriel Byrne. The Usual Suspects appears to be, well, the usual suspect here. But how wonderfully surprising would it be if they put the Coen Brothers' Miller's Crossing instead? Jessica Alba will host the "Romantic Comedy" section. Just in case you read that wrong, I'm going to cut and paste. Jessica Alba will host the "Romantic Comedy" section. If she appears in any movie that appears in this list, the AFI will have lost its collective rocks.
Anyone who knows me knows I love me some lists (just look at the right-hand side of this blog!). But I can't help but wonder when the AFI will run out of things to throw into a new special. This is the 11th straight year, since their inaugural 100 Years... 100 Movies special in 1998. Last year's 10 year reunion was even a redo, a mea culpa of sorts, changing the rank of some films, including new ones, dropping others. (My post about it is here.) I'm still waiting on the 25 (or even 50) greatest American directors list.
All I know is that I can't for the life of me make the connection for having Jennifer Love Hewitt host the "Animation" part of the special. I swear those things weren't hand-drawn or CGI!
--
P.S. If you can guess the #1 film in each of the ten genres on their website, you can win some sweet cash-like prizes. I'll show you mine if you show me yours!
Showing posts with label AFI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AFI. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Friday, June 22, 2007
AFI Redux... or redo?
This past Wednesday, June 22, the American Film Institute unveiled its second list of the 100 greatest American movies ever made. Entitled AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies - 10th Anniversary Edition, this list can be seen as a do-over for the earlier attempt, a chance to right some wrongs and to reassess the collective canon of great American films.
Like any list of this nature, AFI's original 100 Years... 100 Movies caused much controversy. This list will be no different. Many newspapers and film blogs have already voiced opinions defending or criticizing the inclusion and rank of many films on the list. So, guess what, I'm joining in on the parade.
I'll start off with some of the things I believe the panel got wrong. One of the more notable omissions for me was Stagecoach, John Ford's 1939 seminal western. It was the fullest maturation of the genre, lifting it from a primarily B-movie category to A-list status. That it fell off and The Searchers vaulted up the list (thankfully!) is a bit surprising.
Another--and far more fascinating--exclusion is the one of The Birth of a Nation (1915). Its omission, at least most obviously, is a reflection of its overt racism. There's a remarkable paradox here. D.W. Griffith's film is a true benchmark of cinema to that point and to not include it because of an albeit abhorrent message seems to be a kind of timid revisionism. The AFI panel did included Griffith's following film, Intolerance (1916), which wasn't on its original list and merits inclusion here. But are they simply substituting one for the other for its lack of controversy? Good or bad, the film is an important part of our cinematic heritage and, in the end, isn't that kind of the point. But having said that, what if a movie came out today that portrayed the same kind of racism (or sexism, or age-ism, or homophobia)? I think that I and most others would be appalled--and correctly so.
So what are we left with? In part, lists like AFI's are pocket history lessons. We don't ignore moments in history just because we don't like them.
On to the good... and there are a lot of them.
The biggest jump in the list was the aforementioned The Searchers, John Ford's 1956 western. In the original list 10 years ago, the film barely made it, ranking at 96. This time, the movie jumped an astonishing 84 spots to #12. Personally, I think I would rank it somewhere in the top ten, but that the panel more readily recognizes the power and greatness of the film is refreshing.
And the panel made the right decision in finally recognizing that Vertigo (1958), and not Psycho (1960), is Alfred Hitchcock's greatest film. Despite the jagged bravura and modernism of Psycho, Vertigo is his most confident and personal, his most complete achievement as a filmmaker.
But to me the most delightful surprise of watching the TV special and perusing the list is seeing Charlie Chaplin's City Lights (1931) vault 65 spots from #76 in the '98 list to #11 this year. City Lights is absolutely my favorite movie of all time and they were right (as in the similar case with Hitchcock) that it is Chaplin's highest accomplishment, better than The Gold Rush (1925), which many hold out to be his greatest.
There are so many other highs and lows that I could point out, from the thankful inclusion of The General and Do the Right Thing to the exclusion of The Third Man (if it can be considered an "American" film at all is to be debated) and the ridiculous inclusion at #50 of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. But really, that's one of the reasons lists like that do and should exist. It engages people in a dialogue about what films are great and what makes them great. And in the end, like the '98 list did for me, it provides for the would-be cinephile who wants to know what great movies are out there and doesn't know where to start.
--------
For additional commentary on this topic see Roger Ebert's (along with a complete list of the 100) and Jim Emerson's websites.
Like any list of this nature, AFI's original 100 Years... 100 Movies caused much controversy. This list will be no different. Many newspapers and film blogs have already voiced opinions defending or criticizing the inclusion and rank of many films on the list. So, guess what, I'm joining in on the parade.
I'll start off with some of the things I believe the panel got wrong. One of the more notable omissions for me was Stagecoach, John Ford's 1939 seminal western. It was the fullest maturation of the genre, lifting it from a primarily B-movie category to A-list status. That it fell off and The Searchers vaulted up the list (thankfully!) is a bit surprising.
Another--and far more fascinating--exclusion is the one of The Birth of a Nation (1915). Its omission, at least most obviously, is a reflection of its overt racism. There's a remarkable paradox here. D.W. Griffith's film is a true benchmark of cinema to that point and to not include it because of an albeit abhorrent message seems to be a kind of timid revisionism. The AFI panel did included Griffith's following film, Intolerance (1916), which wasn't on its original list and merits inclusion here. But are they simply substituting one for the other for its lack of controversy? Good or bad, the film is an important part of our cinematic heritage and, in the end, isn't that kind of the point. But having said that, what if a movie came out today that portrayed the same kind of racism (or sexism, or age-ism, or homophobia)? I think that I and most others would be appalled--and correctly so.
So what are we left with? In part, lists like AFI's are pocket history lessons. We don't ignore moments in history just because we don't like them.
On to the good... and there are a lot of them.
The biggest jump in the list was the aforementioned The Searchers, John Ford's 1956 western. In the original list 10 years ago, the film barely made it, ranking at 96. This time, the movie jumped an astonishing 84 spots to #12. Personally, I think I would rank it somewhere in the top ten, but that the panel more readily recognizes the power and greatness of the film is refreshing.
And the panel made the right decision in finally recognizing that Vertigo (1958), and not Psycho (1960), is Alfred Hitchcock's greatest film. Despite the jagged bravura and modernism of Psycho, Vertigo is his most confident and personal, his most complete achievement as a filmmaker.
But to me the most delightful surprise of watching the TV special and perusing the list is seeing Charlie Chaplin's City Lights (1931) vault 65 spots from #76 in the '98 list to #11 this year. City Lights is absolutely my favorite movie of all time and they were right (as in the similar case with Hitchcock) that it is Chaplin's highest accomplishment, better than The Gold Rush (1925), which many hold out to be his greatest.
There are so many other highs and lows that I could point out, from the thankful inclusion of The General and Do the Right Thing to the exclusion of The Third Man (if it can be considered an "American" film at all is to be debated) and the ridiculous inclusion at #50 of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. But really, that's one of the reasons lists like that do and should exist. It engages people in a dialogue about what films are great and what makes them great. And in the end, like the '98 list did for me, it provides for the would-be cinephile who wants to know what great movies are out there and doesn't know where to start.
--------
For additional commentary on this topic see Roger Ebert's (along with a complete list of the 100) and Jim Emerson's websites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)