So I was at a social event yesterday, and the question came up, as it will, "Anything I should see?"
When that question comes up, you pretty much know that the questioner isn't necessarily soliciting your recommendation of, say, The Duchess of Langeais or Paranoid Park or Chop Shop, to name three noteworthy films that have already opened this year. Never mind the vexed and vexing question as to whether any of these films could find its way out of the highly circumscribed arthouse circuit in the U.S., the fact of the matter is that cinephilia in this time and place is also highly circumscribed, and the cinephile is plugged in enough that a) he or she is already well aware of the existence of these pictures and b) he or she is not so much likely to ask for my recommendations at a social event as he or she is to confront me about being completely in the tank for Rivette, or some such.
And I know that asking me for a movie recommendation is a form of default small talk in any case, but I was a little taken aback with myself to find myself absolutely stumped by the question. When Time's Richard Corliss asked on February 15, "Will there be a good movie this year?" I thought he was being a little premature, and he also answered his own question by citing The Band's Visit and 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. Now, a month later, looking at this weekend's box office top ten, I give a little shiver. Hell, by this time last year we had at least had a Zodiac to champion. I mean, The Bank Job is pretty diverting, but I've gotta think twice about recommending that to, say, a guy with a new addition to his family who's just been telling me how blown away he was by No Country For Old Men, a movie he's only now gotten around to because, among other things, he's got a new addition to his family. I figure I've gotta give this fellow something that's going to be THAT MUCH WORTH his ever-dwindling time. Doncha think?
And then, what about me? Do I have to wait until Cannes before I see anything I'll get really excited about—Cannes, where last year I saw, well whaddya know, No Country, Paranoid Park, The Band's Visit (which, come to think of it, would have made a not-too-left-field recommendation), etc., for the first time? Meaning I, we, whoever, have another two months of drillbitting, road-tripping, Brown-meeting, Who-hearing, not-backing-down crap to account for?
Yeesh. Am I missing something here?
Then again, I could just tell everyone to go see Funny Games, thus insuring that I'm never invited to another social event ever again...
Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet want you to know that movies are still your best entertainment value...
I've seen two good movies in the last week alone. Priceless, the new Audrey Tautou romcom, is not bad. And the second...okay, it was There Will Be Blood, for the fifth time.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM
I was actually going to tell you to recommend FUNNY GAMES to people then I got to the bottom and thar she blew. I like recommending messed up movies to strangers, don't you, come onnn??
I once recommended GERRY and IRREVERSIBLE to 2 annoying valley girls at a video store in L.A. "Well, this one has Matt Damon and Ben Afflecks BROTHER and this other one has that chick from THE MATRIX!!"
Posted by: don lewis | March 17, 2008 at 01:08 PM
Yer bad, Don. But I used to be worse —back in college, when friends and I were 'plexing, we'd walk out of one theater and pass by the line waiting to get in to the next show, and one of us would say to another, in a clear, ringing voice, "So what did the guy do, shoot himself?" (This was something that we ourselves had heard someone asking in earnest, after "Marathon Man," I think.)
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | March 17, 2008 at 01:22 PM
I tried recommending _Paranoid Park_ to a non-movie-goer on Friday and all I could offer was, "It's about this skater in rainy Portland and his participation in a crime but it's all jumbled in time and stuff. But I think it's more about movies as a memory, and memory as a flame. It's really something." The response: "Hmn, okay. But do you think I'd like it? You think it's worth ten bucks?" I said, "Yeah, there's plenty worse things you could spend your money on, like whippits." Then I remembered _Funny Games_ was out and I started ranting about how much I disliked (okay, loathed) _Cache_ but I'll probably wind up seeing the new (damned) thing anyways cuz I, ahem, adore (?) Naomi Watts. Which, of course, is what Haneke is banking on, right? My desire for blondes and for blood? Fuck that: I'm changing plans. I'll go see _Paranoid Park_ again tonight instead. Maybe I can say more than, "Oh, I wrote a half-assed review of it for The Daily Cal -- just read that. And thanks for the pizza."
Posted by: Ryland Walker Knight | March 17, 2008 at 01:25 PM
I have no problem stating that The Bank Job is the first great movie of the year.
Yes, this has been an off start to the year. Clarlie Bartlett is the only new release of the year that I can remotely say had something to offer.
When there isn't anything available on the theaters, you might consider suggesting something on DVD. Three of the Best Picture nominees (Atonement, Michael Clayton, No Country For Old Men) are now available. The new 25th Anniversary Edition of Tootsie is pretty good. Into the Wild might work better on TV.
Or, you could suggest the original version of Funny Games. We all know the remake is never as good as the original.
Posted by: Aaron Aradillas | March 17, 2008 at 03:10 PM
No one ever asks me what movies to see, but if I'm reading a book in a public place, as I often am, strangers like to ask me what I'm reading. This bugs me because not only am I trying to read here, but this person doesn't really care what I'm reading. It's obvious. So why do they ask? I don't know. But worse is when they follow it up with "What's it about?" This requires me to either be rude or stop my reading long enough to summarize the book for someone I've never met. And what if I'm reading, say, "Crash" by J. G. Ballard? How the hell do I answer that one? Or "His Monkey Wife"?
I guess what I'm saying, I just wish people would leave me alone.
Posted by: bill | March 17, 2008 at 03:13 PM
Here, here Bill. Anytime I tell someone I have a screenwriting degree or that I make documentary films inevitably I end up in a 20 minute discussion about how I should make a movie out of their life....or their dad/uncle/sisters life.
Yet ironically people I see these days walking around with the hoods on their hoodies up and headphones on bug the hell out of me as well. I guess it's no country for cranky men after all.
Posted by: don lewis | March 17, 2008 at 05:06 PM
So far, I've deeply enjoyed "In Bruges", "Be Kind Rewind", "Cloverfield", and "U23D". And I plan to see "Doomsday", as a fan of both Neil Marshall and apocalyptic movies.
Posted by: Mike De Luca | March 17, 2008 at 05:21 PM
"Bruges," "Rewind," and "Cloverfield" are all pictures I enjoyed, with not entirely insubstantial reservations. Have yet to catch the 3D rockism or G. Miller homage but look forward to them. I am also looking forward to seeing "21" but have yet to get a screening invite. What is up with that?
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | March 17, 2008 at 06:54 PM
Really enjoyed "4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days," which is technically from last year, but also liked "Paranoid Park," "In Bruges" and "Diary of the Dead."
Did anyone on this board see "l'Interieur (Inside)" at the Walter Reade earlier this year? I'd like to think it was strategically shown a few weeks before "Funny Games" was released.
Posted by: Nathan | March 18, 2008 at 05:40 PM