FictionIsntReal

You guys talk about improvised movie comedies, but with no mention of the oeuvre of Christopher Guest, who has made it foundational in a number of classic films. Although the most important of those was not directed by him: Spinal Tap. Spinal Tap hasn't been nominated for the Canon yet, but it should be. I liked Caddyshack more than Amy appears to, and I was expecting to vote yes. But others already mentioned how Animal House* & Ghostbusters are in the canon already and Blues Brothers might be more deserving, and I just noted that Spinal Tap is more important when it comes to improvisation. *Which might have got in partly because the alternative was letting in Revenge of the Nerds. Country clubs (which were formed before golf became popular in America) were intended to function partly as social clubs, where people mingle with others whose children would be acceptable marriage partners for their own. So the later to arrive eastern european Jews (which I think Al Czervik is supposed to be representative of) would form their own separate clubs from the older ones formed by German Jews (which the eastern europeans weren't allowed into until the midcentury or so). In 1925 Jews were estimated to make up a disproportionate share of all golfers, which would have also been around the times Jewish clubs last hosted the U.S Open or PGA Championship. But given Ramis' stated disinterest in golf, he probably wasn't actually thinking about all those Al Czerviks and where they would play over the decades when he made the film.

I've just been going by the previews they announce at the end of each episode, so where does this info containing multiple episodes come from?

I was surprised how negative they were on this film, but then it has been years since I watched the film. I did read the book recently and discussed it here. The book does not make them out to be racist antiheroes, instead they're straight up good guys and there's no notion that the war on drugs might have any downsides. The stuff about Popeye shooting any cops (or really anyone at all) is entirely made up, although there is a bit where he gets in a fight with an FBI agent. I think the 70s was more the era of gritty crime stories, antiheroes and skepticism of the police. The events of the book took place in 1961, which is practically the 50s. Your quote of Pauline Kael's review reminded me of this from Andrew Sarris on the critical reaction to movies like Dirty Harry & The Cowboys vs Straw Dogs & A Clockwork Orange (she's singled out for preferring violence meted out by criminals than cops). I only heard about The Cowboys due to that dust-up, and later read that the book had been controversial for its homoeroticism, which was not apparent in the film.

I voted no. It's not the best adaptation of a Ripley book, and I haven't even seen Purple Noon. I found Ripley unpleasant to spend time with (usually not an issue with the less hapless antiheroes on The Americans), which might be one reason why The American Friend works better. Maybe since I was never an ex-pat bumming around some other country I can't relate to any of these people. I found Tom's overture to Meredith completely implausible, but I suppose he could be so addled in the head that he's not fully aware of how phony he's being.

Since I had never seen "The Help", I didn't have the right words to describe how sidelined the actual black characters are in a story supposedly about integration. The choice here is between a movie which tackles a real issue with a shallow and at times (like the Rachel Dolezal moment) embarrassing way, and one which is entirely superficial to its core. This would be easier if the songs from Grease were good, but for the most part they're nothing special and just well known, while the title track sounded horribly out of place to me. At the same time, it seems somewhat unfair to give Hairspray credit for just sampling from a bunch of existing songs rather than coming up with original ones for the story. There are plenty of period pieces which have done that (including for that era). Liking neither movie, I'll go with cultural impact and vote Grease. John Waters can take consolation in already having a film in the Canon. One more thing: for all Adam's talk about class, we don't actually hear anything about the socioeconomic background of the characters. The only one with any interest in a career is Frenchie, who seems to be dropping out of school more because she sees little point in it than because she actually needs a job.

Melodrama may deserve to be in the Canon, but that doesn't mean this specific one qualifies. Go with Stella Dallas, something from Douglas Sirk (or John M. Stahl before him), or even something more recent from Todd Haynes. This movie was mediocre at best, and while kids may have been named Tristan at the time it seems more like one of Nathan Rabin's "Forgotbusters" which has little detectable impact today. Anthony Hopkins' character is more than simply a "wise Vietnam vet" type character. He's a thoroughgoing cynic about the government. He dismisses the claim that "this war" is different by saying they said the same thing about the Civil War & Indian wars, so they are all the same to him. He doesn't care about what crimes Decker is wanted for, hates when his son is planning to run for Congress (without actually knowing what his son will do, it's still government), and in the end kills a police officer who comes to his property (in response to the criminal he's harboring murdering a different police officer). Edward Banfield in "The Moral Basis of a Backward Society" described southern Italy as being beset by "amoral familism" over any loyalty to the broader society, and here Colonel Ludow's held up as an example for that ideal. This movie may appeal to girls, but I agree that this is really a movie about men (which ends with its lead knife-fighting a bear!). I just don't think it's an especially good example of one. I didn't find Julia Ormond's character that interesting, it was just "Which one of these three brothers is she going to be with". Maybe I wasn't watching right, but I found her suicide undermotivated. You say that you don't care when the characters are all doomed to die, and that was my take on Samuel. It was so obvious that she was going to pair up with Tristan, that you're just ticking off the minutes until Samuel is removed. As it happened, I watched a WW1 movie last week as part of a King Vidor triple-feature ("The Big Parade"). It's definitely a less popular war since it didn't "make the world safe for democracy", but instead was miserable at the time and made things worse. The most famous Geneva convention was the fourth (after WW2), but there were three prior to that. There have been some movies railing about the stupidity of the war (I think "J'accuse!" did this in a very muddled way), but I'd be interested in seeing someone adapt Ernst Junger's insane embrace of it in "Storm of Steel".

I vote no, because the film is merely a curiosity. The book is famous (for better or worse), but the film is a footnote to it which few remember today. I have some complaints with how coherent the message of the film is and how well it fits with other parts of Rand's avowed beliefs, but I suppose those would really be complaints about the book rather than the film specifically. Some other notes I thought of in response to your discussion: HUAC was founded in 1938, over a decade before this film was released. But nobody remembers them going after Trostkyites, Bundists and other opponents of our alliance with Stalin during those years (people also tend to misremember Joseph McCarthy as being part of it, though he was never a member of the House of Representatives). Also, I find it strange Amy compares the Hays code (or at least Joseph Breen's administration of it) with Roark. Aside from Rand's atheism being contrary to Breen's Catholicism, Roark is actually creating something himself (setting aside sycasey's argument below) whereas Breen was just placing constraints on the work of others. Even stranger is when they said there aren't many movies about creators. There are LOTS of them, even if we restricted the subject to just moviemakers! I wouldn't say that Roark is portrayed as being able to build things by himself. He requires a client (analogous to a producer) willing to go along with his vision, and when he goes for too long without one he goes to work in a quarry. And while his excavation of building materials there isn't directly tied to the buildings he makes as an architect, we get the picture that a lot of grunt-work from guys like him, the "Danny Devito" guy and even that guard Dominique distracts went into it. In order to create that housing project, Keating had to act as his front and the clients had to agree to those conditions (which they later reneged on). I think Roark goes too far in assigning the idea as the fundamental ingredient whose originator deserves total control (and a rather destructive/wasteful form of veto power), but I don't think the film is trying to say he accomplished everything by himself without anybody else's cooperation (maybe a movie about a hermit mathematician could take that stance). As for whether one could take that stance in Hollywood, Rand herself did that for this movie. I don't think she could afford to in her earlier career in Hollywood, and Larry remarked that it's atypical if you're not Neil Simon, but it's not impossible. Rand is aiming at an ideal rather than everyday realism, so I'll allow the path of Roark's career. Despite having just read about how much more common "jury nullification" was for sympathetic defendants from the Gilded Era to mid 20th century in "The Collapse of American Criminal Justice", I won't grant the same leniency to her depiction of the trial, because the negative view she & Roark have held for the masses throughout the film is inconsistent with its outcome.

I also didn't care for Citizen Kane when I saw it as a child (because it was on the AFI list). I didn't care for Gone With the Wind or Lawrence of Arabia either. I was surprised neither Amy nor Paul had seen How Green Was My Valley or even knew it was in black & white (there were separate cinematography awards when color became more common but b&w hadn't died out). I couldn't find that quote on Hearst's wikipedia/wikiquotes page, and none of the searching I've done has come up with a primary source. I did find Stephen Gottlieb's "Unfit for Democracy" citing Jonathan Alter's "The Defining Moment" (which notes that Hearst lumped his opponents in with Mussolini & Hitler after turning against FDR). Hearst did seem to endorse dictatorship in "Gabriel Over the White House" (prior to his shift* against FDR), but I'm skeptical he ever avowed himself to be a fascist. Part of my skepticism is due to Hearst already being known for apocryphally saying "You supply the pictures and I'll supply the war", which makes no sense in the actual context of the Spanish-American war (I suppose the Kane-derived idea that his mistress was an untalented actress is another bit). *Rodney Carlisle denied that there was any significant change in Hearst's fundamental views, while acknowledging that like a number of turn-of-the-century Progressives he became something of a crank in old age.

I found The Departed enjoyable enough, but it's by no means top-tier Scorsese. It's Best Picture win was clearly intended to make up for all the more deserving films from Scorsese which lost out. I would never vote it into the Canon... except that the choice is between it and Infernal Affairs. I watched the latter after The Departed and was greatly disappointed. We're supposed to believe that Lau Kin-Ming is conflicted because his girlfriend talks about a character in her story who is. Having a third party say all this is the WORST form of storytelling. I don't recall him actually acting in a way that indicated he was reluctant to act as a mole, so he came across just as dislikeable & self-serving as Sullivan in The Departed, except I'm not supposed to feel bad for Sullivan but instead be happy Dignan kills him (followed by the admittedly excessively hamhanded visual metaphor). I'll watch Crimes and Misdemeanors when I want to see a director actually tackling guilt over unforgivable actions. To me the Whitey Bulger analogy helped The Departed, because stories of moles can often seem rather implausible but that was an example of how the nature of law enforcement can lead to corruption. Having the crowd of ten or so guys all formally embarking on infiltrating the police at the beginning of the film did not ring as true, and also removed the later surprise about other moles in the police. Also, I have to bring up the cheesy slow motion & music every time a major character died. Perhaps that's common in Hong Kong, but it just seemed lame to me as an American. And however big a hit that was over there, I don't feel the need to put it in the Canon here. If you want to include a Hong Kong cop movie, go with something from John Woo.

I don't want to turns this into a pro vs anti Rand thing, but the book seems to be far more notable than the film (which is mostly forgotten). I haven't actually actually watched it yet (or read any of Rand's books) and perhaps Larry will have some persuasive reasoning, but right now it's as baffling a nomination as Cry Uncle! or Exorcist 3 (the latter of which I enjoyed, but not enough to pick it over the original).

This film struck me as silly & stupid in an unremarkable way. It's largely an excuse to put a lot of nudity onscreen, but now that we can easily access nudity on the internet there's less need for such films. If we were to include a "genuine X-rated film" in the Canon I would assume it should be something with a bigger impact than this (which I hadn't heard of until it was nominated). If you were going to nominate a Troma film, the obvious one to go with is Toxic Avenger, even if it only belonged in a "cult canon" alongside Cannibal Holocaust (Zulawski's Possession would the film I'd personally stump for in such a canon, though it's good enough to be seen more widely). If you weren't satisfied with John Avildsen already having Rocky and insisted on also including one of his earlier works for some reason, the obvious one to go with would be Joe. It's hard to see why Kaufman nominated this one, and after watching a Troma triple-feature culminating in the awful "Terror Firmer" (in which he has the chutzpah to deride Spielberg's filmmaking, while associating himself with Sam Fuller* and other artists more popular with the sophisticated French critics), I'd be inclined to vote against his nomination purely out of spite. Fortunately, I was already set on voting against it on the merits before watching either of the next two Troma films, so I can feel confident my vote isn't tainted. I can agree with Kaufman that Toxic Avenger works, but so do many pulp detective stories, and I think I could have enjoyed a straight take on that from Avildsen than I did this. *Though using a film Fuller himself disowned. Shakespeare was very commercially successful, enough so that we've got a lot of documentation of his financial work. And as hard as people may try to twist his work for modern sensibilities, he was writing to entertain the aristocratic powers that be and flatter their sensibilities. I don't think he'd be into Troma.

One of my complaints about Philadelphia story was how it seemed designed to dump on Hepburn's character to bring her low. I voted against that getting into the Canon, but it was also up against bonafide classic His Girl Friday. I watched Breakfast Club when I was young because I heard it was this famous movie that everyone knew about, but I can't say I would recommend anyone watch it now. There have got to be plenty of other teen movies which could serve the same purpose, even if I've never watched Rebel Without a Cause or Grease to say if Breakfast Club has any merits they lack. So I guess I'll have to remain agnostic on this one. You were asking about Ally Sheedy, and she was recently in Zach Clark's "Little Sister", wherein her daughter is a weird girl (but not quite weird in the way her counter-cultural mother would like). I was planning on commenting here about that even before others wondered about a clash between Gen-X parents & their millennial kids (although Addison Timlin's Colleen is very unrepresentative of her generation, being a nun about to take her vows). I attended Saturday detention.once but I don't remember why or how long it went for.

As much as I enjoy Exorcist 3, it's such a no-brainer it seems like Lennon only nominated it to get it some more attention. It would be one thing if the original is actually not any good, but its status as a classic is deserved. It's possibly the most influential horror movie since the Universal monsters. As others have noted, this makes it obviously canonical (while unfortunately #3 had little influence). The original in a series isn't always the best (Umbrellas of Cherbourg ranks above Lola, though the two are hard to compare), or even the most canonical (I'm unusual in my low regard for the Road Warrior, but it's definitely more successful & influential than the original Mad Max), but in this case the first Exorcist can rest quite comfortably while #3 belongs in a sort of "cult canon" or list of underrated movies to check out for people who liked the original (or later serial killer movies like Seven or Silence of the Lambs). If someone hasn't seen either, they should watch the original first, and if they like it skip #2 to get to 3. If Lennon hasn't seen The Ninth Configuration, then at least he's got an essential movie recommendation (for him) out of this.

Sounds a bit like High Noon, which John Wayne denounced as the most un-American film he'd ever seen. Howard Hawks agreed with him enough to make Rio Bravo in response, where a group of people come together to help the sheriff against a gang of baddies (and then they remade the film two times). Personally, I think Wayne exaggerated the difference, since it's not a lone effort in either film. Similarly, I think you overestimate the degree to which such dynamics in film today are different from those of the past (although Robin Hanson thinks there is a shift in stories of group conflict).

I agree with Amy so much on this film, but the problem is that all her complaints about the size of the impact of the film actually weigh in favor of its inclusion in the Canon! I've only seen two MCU films, this & Guardians. Both were fine, but nothing special. I did find it annoying that it seemed like you had to see a whole bunch of films before Avengers, and if I wanted long-form storytelling I could watch tv. It seems to be the most successful superhero film of that time period was The Dark Knight, whose stature holds up in part because the series ended with the next film rather than having so many sequels (the quantity & limited range of which makes it harder to pick out a single entry for the Canon). Someone above criticized TDK as following an out-of-date model of superhero movies, but Logan pulled off "dark & gritty" recently to good effect. If the DCEU's recent failure to replicate Nolan's approach successfully doesn't speak to their canonicity, then I'd say their imitation of the supergroup aspect of The Avengers does as well. Maybe when crossovers become a viable model for other films The Avengers will seem canonical. But it didn't introduce most of these characters, and from what I've heard it follows much of the model of Iron Man, which was in turn made viable by the success of Spider Man, X-Men & Blade before it.

As a die-hard "rockist", Barker's mere mention of "poptimism" made me want to vote against this. But since I don't actually have strong feelings about this film or how canonical it is, I restrained myself and will not vote one way or the other. When Amy complains about chaotic camerawork she brings up "The Bourne Identity", but it should be noted that Doug Liman's film by that name was actually relatively visually coherent. It's Paul Greengrass who made the sequels with enough shaky cam to give the audience motion sickness.

I'm in a situation as Black Orpheus: I personally don't like the film all that much, but can concede it's canonical. The Canon is not simply a list of films enjoyed by me, a person with no exes who does not relate to supposedly universal experiences (I just had to compare its end to that of La La Land). The sung-through style is very unusual, and while I'm not a French speaker, it seems to pull it off. I actually prefer the use of color in earlier films from Powell & Pressburger, but I don't think their opera adaptation, Tales of Hoffmann, works as well as Demy's work created specifically to be a film. I watched Demy's trilogy in order this weekend, and the unbearable fluffiness* of Rochefort (a more conventional musical) certainly made this look better in comparison, even if it doesn't have nearly as much dancing (admittedly, not something I'm interested in). I also like that it's a sequel where you don't really need to see Lola first, although you would then have gotten to see how Roland went through love & loss whereas the object of his affection had her willingness to wait for her first love rewarded. I didn't see Roland as a fool making the same mistake twice (though I did regard him as insufferably French in his lack of pragmatism in Lola): he's failed once but he's willing to try again both with & without the knowledge that Genevieve is pregnant by another man. He's already at the stage the other characters reach later where they settle for someone other than their first love. I also saw Genevieve's mother as interested in him herself. It seemed a somewhat toned down parallel to Mrs. Desnoyers in Lola, another widow raising a daughter on her own (although in that case a daughter too young for Roland to pursue). *Despite the inexplicable inclusion of a subplot about a woman being butchered I found Amy's complaint about the actors not being the singers odd. For one thing, isn't every animated film voiced by people other than those onscreen (unless rotoscoping is used)? Cherbourg is hardly unusual in this even as a live-action musical: Tales of Hoffmann did it for most of its parts (even letting both people appear in the credits at the end), and Amy's own favorite Pennies From Heaven just has the actors open their mouths while old-timey music comes out! Of course, I didn't enjoy anything about Pennies From Heaven and voted against it. Even aside from musicals, most Italian movies used to have dubbed international casts, and I certainly think Leone & Argento belong in the Canon. It's funny how Amy & I agree on Punch Drunk Love and liking Madeleine more than Guy & Genevieve but differ on such basics. One thing I think is missing from the film: we don't actually see any of Guy's service to know what he's thinking or if there's any reason few of his letters reach her. This is in keeping with Demy's rule throughout the trilogy to only show scenes in the one city the film is set in (Nantes, Cherbourg or Rochefort), but since this film violates the Classical Unities by taking place over a longer period of time, he could have made an exception. I suppose it parallels how we don't see much of Genevieve's life after she marries Roland, with the brief exception of her stop at the gas station.

Very easy if the director is Charles Laughton! I don't see how the film can have its cake and eat it too (as you indicate later on when discussing its sincerity). But I'm also a person who thinks Starship Troopers really is a bad movie (yes, I know Verhoeven had his tongue in his cheek) and intentionally casting bad actors to play thin characters just means intentionally making a bad film. Getting back to PDL, Emily Watson isn't a bad actress, but she is playing a thin character who only briefly gets interesting when she talks about chewing Barry's face.

I agreed with basically all of Amy's criticisms: Lena is a very thinly written character and we're given no reason why this person who's worldly enough to have any relationship experience would put up with this guy who repeatedly flips out and then implausibly lies about it. The film really seems to assume we're going to be rooting for Barry Egan, and without that the film just fell flat for me, regardless of the coloration or music. I watched Punch-Drunk Love in the morning then caught a screening of Phantom Thread that night, and the way the latter worked just threw into relief how the former didn't. We don't need to find Reynolds Woodcock sympathetic, we can laugh at the importance he places on things that seem trivial to others. Alma is also a real character, and the interaction between the two of them is complicated. I don't even entirely understand it, but it was a lot more interesting than Barry & Lena.

This is the easiest no I can recall in a long time. I did not enjoy watching the film and I was left irritated with Dallas for nominating it. At least Molly Lambert had reasons for nominating Carnal Knowledge. There's basically nothing to this film that Near Dark didn't do earlier & better. I don't think Near Dark qualifies for the Canon, but it's a hell of a lot more deserving than this. I felt bad for Dianne Wiest having any association with this film. All of the aesthetics Dallas has such nostalgia just seemed like utter dreck, definitely not the "timeless 80s" of something like Blade Runner*. They probably should have gone with their original idea of having the older brother be 13, because then the childishness of the film would have fit its characters. Even then it would be a sub-par version of the Goonies with vampires, and the Goonies doesn't deserve inclusion either. As it is, the tones of the Sam & Michael storylines don't fit together, not that either of them are particularly good on their own. *I could also mention Manhunter, but as much as I like that film, I realize it's too much of a cult film superseded by Silence of the Lambs to belong in the Canon.

This film is notorious enough that I'd already had the out-of-nowhere ending spoiled years ago, but it still had quite an impact. I know people are complaining that Solondz' "Welcome to the Dollhouse" isn't in yet, but it's not the fault of this film that the episode hasn't been released (I hope some day it is). Personally, I preferred this. Solondz mostly just seems to like tormenting his characters because he finds it amusing, and while he's good at it, I think the Coens have done a better job of creating universes comically aligned against characters. Breillat seems more like Lars von Trier, putting a very distinctive & uncomfortable viewpoint on screen. I know we've got one of his in the Canon, but this is hardly a clone of Antichrist. I think nobody but Breillat could make this, and there's no other film you could see to substitute for it. I'm willing to say anyone with the fortitude to see challenging films should see this one.

Ang Lee's superhero film is just titled "Hulk", not "The Hulk". It doesn't even have to be a noun! Dan Akroyd is a native English speaker, even if he doesn't naturally speak with a southern accent. Regardless of what the Chinese Communist Party claims, Mandarin & Cantonese are different languages. I was let down by Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon when I first saw it (it might have been the first martial arts movie I'd seen actually from east asia), particularly the ending where a character jumps to their death in a way young me didn't understand. But it sticks in the mind much more than Gladiator.

I don't think either of these films is Canonical. Field of Dreams probably had the bigger cultural impact, but it's empty schmaltz that's mostly forgotten and even displaced as THE boomer movie by Forrest Gump (which is in the Canon). Driving Miss Daisy, in contrast, is admirably restrained and doesn't try to make you like the titular Daisy, but merely avoiding potential missteps isn't enough to make it especially good. Perhaps it functions better as part of Alfred Uhry's "Atlanta trilogy" of plays. Sometimes "none of the above" is the correct answer, and this is one of those times.

Midnight Cowboy might have been really edgy for its time, but it lacks the capacity to shock now. What remains is the story of a very stupid person continually failing, which is somewhat unusual but doesn't make for that great a film (even with all the fancy cutting). Butch Cassidy is an all-timer though. Someone who hasn't seen it has an incomplete film knowledge, but I'd heartily recommend it to anyone simply because it's so enjoyable.

I didn't see this until just now when it was nominated, and while one might object that I'm the wrong person to judge a movie intended for children, a Canon for films "to live on for all time" should be capable of withstanding the judgement of an adult. There was some cool creature design that one doesn't get to see as much in today's era of CGI, and some nice moments were singled out, but I don't think it was enough to merit inclusion in the Canon. As a "metaphor for reading", I think a book would do a better job, and after hearing how the latter half of the book is so contrary to the conclusion to the film, I can understand why the author hated this. I found Bastian a completely uninteresting character, even if I myself was extremely bookish at that age, and handing him that wish-fulfillment fantasy at the end isn't very satisfying in storytelling terms. I watched this for the first time over the weekend along with Return to Oz and Jan Svankmajer's Alice, and while it also doesn't reach the level of Canonical, it's the last I'd be most willing to rewatch. In conclusion: Dimensions of Dialogue for the Canon!