EmmaDayton

I feel like within the canon of great films there are sort of a few pillars of inclusion: undeniably great films, historically/culturally important films, and representative work of great filmmakers or stars. While I don't think Kiki is a great film (I'm with Devin on the frictionless aspect, even as I understand how relatable the content is as Amy argued), and I don't really feel it's all the historically or culturally important as a film, I can't ignore that this is a representative work by a major director. If Miyazaki were removed from this film it wouldn't be in, but with the titans of film there is a need to have a wider breadth than just there best few films. I wouldn't argue for every last Miyazaki film, nor every Spielberg or Wilder or whoever, but I feel like even the "lesser" films of these directors deserves consideration in ways that the work of a random director doesn't. In order to understand film you do need to understand the work of the greats, especially when considering the lasting influence they have on later creators. His work shouldn't be boiled down to which 1 or 2 films will represent him, because Miyazaki is of a standing that film lovers should be familiar with the variety of his work. This is especially true for him when you consider his relative standing worldwide as a filmmaker. Not only is he popular in the US, with American animators singing his praise constantly, but there's a freaking Ghibli museum as a testament to his importance within Japan. He is on the short list of towering figures in the history of animation, in influence trailing only pioneers like Disney and McCay. So I vote yes.

Yeah. I think the trans reading is something so far off the radar at the time that I don't assign it intent. Like, the low level homophobia inherent in "haha this guy likes a guy" is clearly intentful, but it also pales to me in comparison with kinda the wider cultural norms it's pushing against. And I don't see it as like an actively hateful thing, like the Osgood stuff makes it seem like gays are kinda silly, not actively harmful to the society. Which for the time is really good! And ultimately I see this farce in a far different nature than I would something like the later 80s/90s/00s crossdressing comedies, which to me more readily are aiming at that stuff. Like, I'd still say this is a net negative as far as trans stuff goes, but I don't think it's like pushing forward any bad ideas that aren't already floating out there in the world at the time. And, in context, is probably kinder than most even if not good. I was more pushing back at the idea that it is any sort of positive trans portrayal, or that the degree to which Jack Lemmon's character is to be read as like a proto trans lady it is a good thing, the movie is clearly on the side of "haha it's ridiculous he likes this stuff and takes it seriously" i.e. the scene in the bedroom after her gets proposed to. Regardless, it's still a wonderful film and amazing. And even progressive in certain ways w/r/t sexism. I just have this qualm with the film and the idea of claiming this is positive representation for trans women. I still think it's 100% canon material. I mean, fuck, I think Psycho and Silence of the Lambs are no doubt canon films, and they are a million times worse when it comes to the portrayal of trans women (and yes, the films are portraying tropes that are read by audiences as trans women. They get weaponized against us commonly, so clearly the mass audiences read them as trans women, even if that wasn't the specific intent or stated as not the case like in Silence of the Lambs).

I voted Some Like It Hot, which to me is better and has more classic lines that are iconic. Gentleman has great scenes, and the Marilyn song, and if it's about the better/more canon-worthy Marilyn performance, it'd be Gentleman. But whole film, it's Some Like It Hot. I did want to push back against the idea that the movie is progressive, at least along the trans front. Basically all the jokes are really reliant on the hilarity of someone being assigned male and how terrible/emasculating it is to a man to wear a dress. It makes all these jokes that really rely on that grossness the audience sees in them, especially at the expense of the Osgood and other men being "tricked" into being gay. I don't hold it against the film, it's of the era, but being a trans woman, I can't pretend that these aren't harmful images and stereotypes that are part of why the wider culture thinks of trans women as men invading women's spaces (not nearly as bad as later films, like Sorority Boys). It's also always framed as a joke at Jack Lemmon's expense that he isn't disgusted with being a woman. Within the context of the time, I think it is progressive against the wider culture's background, but along the trans front it's definitely not so. Things like the final line, "Nobody's perfect", cut against the cultural norms, but it still comes in the context of a ripping the wig off reveal "really a man!" trope that is definitely transphobic. But, for all that, I still love the film. And I certainly don't want the standards of today to define the expectations of yesterday. We can critically examine, determine that some stuff is beyond the pale, but still recognize the cultural context of the day.

Yes for a lot of reasons. Top of the list, it's one of the most intensely believable love stories in modern movies. There is actual fire between the leads and Gyllenhaal and Ledger are both amazing. I'm a trans woman, and at the time I was in my first year of college and closeted, and the yearning and holding back of Ledger, the repression, in itself makes this canon worthy for me. He perfectly captures something that had only fleetingly been captured, and never before on such a big mainstream film. Also, to Amy's point about Jack Twist's sexuality, he's clearly gay. We see him go to Mexico and pick up a male prostitute and basically tells Ennis that he can't "make it on a few high altitude fucks" (paraphrased). He could just fuck girls on the regular if he had any inclination for that. I think Ennis is too, but due to the horrific nature of the early memory of the gay men (which he recounts) his repression is far deeper than Jack's. That's why it's Jack who imagines living a life together while Ennis is stuck dealing with that trauma and fearing what he sees as the inevitable. And to anyone who says "they have wives and children" please know that doesn't mean crap. In reverse, I don't care how straight you are if most men started fooling around with another guy they'd get hard and have sex. In fact, give it a try. You'll probably have fun Another thing this movie gets absolutely perfect is what it's like performing masculinity when you are considered a failure at masculinity. Unlike me though, these guys are actually the real deal. So there's this dissonance between like the prototype of American masculinity, cowboys, and the perception of homosexuality as being inherently feminizing. Obviously this is bullshit. The most masculine dudes you will ever meet are gay leather types, but in pop culture there is the sense that to be gay means to fail at masculinity. And scenes like Jack putting his father-in-law in place just really show how false that notion is. The story punctures a hole in the perception of gay men and allows for a wider range of popular representations of gay men that weren't very present before. There are some things that stick out as a bit off, just in the largely straight people making a film about gay people inevitable way (like the only thing we get is Jack with the Mexican prostitute, no way he doesn't go cruising. I want that scene!), but they're really minor and pale compared to how much is done perfectly. As for the end, it seems pretty unambiguous to me what happens. Anne Hathaway gives a very rote answer, while the camera shows the truth. And the injuries she describes are basically all blows to the face. But this is how you describe the death of a gay man in that era. Much like many early AIDS victims diagnosis and cause of death was hidden by family members after the fact out of shame/homophobia. I've never once doubted that Jack was beaten to death, and maybe this is down to having a queer lens while watching, whereas straight viewers (much like the straight family members telling the story) will more often give equal weight to the lie. Wonderful story, beautiful film, amazing performances, and culturally significant. Total canon movie. (sorry for the long entry)

Superman because the first hour/Smallville portion just is absolutely the most beautiful and moving segment in any superhero movie ever to me. I could just watch that portion on its own as a film and be satisfied. I think the second half is mostly okay, but has too much that brings it down. It's like half bad (Lex and team) and half good (everything Lois & Clark). It's really tonally all over the place. I like Batman front to back more, but it never reaches the highs of the Smallville section. I continually think about Superman: The Movie, whereas Batman is mostly something that I find has faded in the background of how I view the character. In spite of Batman's influence, I feel like it isn't the definitive portrayal of the character. But Superman is absolutely defined by that film/performance. (My Dumb Fan Theory) I think the time travel in Superman could work if his action implied the opening of a rift that allowed Zod out of the phantom zone. Obviously not in the text of the film, but it could point to the mistake of his actions without it fully being the wrong choice, and it would make sense for the warning Jor El gives him.