Philly Cheesesteak

And things get especially judgemental regarding films with female protagonists that predate the 80s. Standards of gender change, yes, but for goodness sake can we not disregard or outright condemn the past because they fail to meet some arbitrary purity test? A test, by the way, we ourselves will fail when our own descendants put us to their own arbitrary criteria?

I could t help but notice that with the Breakfast at Tiffany's episode.

This is exactly my point. Well, it's one of my main two points, anyway. Too often it seems to me we wish to believe we're living in a post-gender world, that we vote for films on this forum based on merit... but how can we if we rarely give films geared specifically towards a feminine gendered perspective and experience the time of day? Scrolling through the Canon, i find its telling the few that have been accepted had to be couched in high concept genre (Pan's Labyrinth, Kiki). The other point was the lack of representation or love for non-geek films.

All of this. We're not giving her enough credit.

I find this slightly disingenuous. I think you know full well what I mean when I say dude-oriented nerdbait and it has nothing to do with whether or not the vast majority of filmmakers are male or the increasing dissolution of the original meaning of the word "nerd." There's no question most films that will make it into the Canon will be directed by men, but we recently inducted Kiki's Delivery Service, a movie made by a man and yet utterly empathetic with female sensibilities. There are filmmakers out there, from all walks of life, capable of conveying more than one viewpoint. (And I'm pretty sure if you asked the man himself, Miyazaki would say with no small amount of heat that he didn't make it for nerds and geeks) When Amy expresses concern about nerdbait movies taking over the Canon, she's referring to films that speak only to one viewpoint, films that prioritize fun and visceral thrill over loftier ambitions, films designed to entice true blue (and very often male) 80s-defined nerds over all else. Yes, all films and all media have reached demographics on the periphery (see: My Little Pony and the Brony Phenomenon), but that original intent still matters. And, yes, these days genre need no longer be constrained to gender, but that's not an applicable argument to be made about GenX nostalgia touchstones like Re-Animator, Conan the Barbarian or Indiana Jones, among others, these were clearly made for a specific audience in mind. Anyone can like them, as you said, but look at it from Amy's point of view. She clearly loves cinema. She breathes it just as passionately as Devin does. With that in mind, imagine seeing people swarm over genre faire while neglecting movies (like Pennies From Heaven) that receive nowhere near the same level of cult obsession as movies like Re-Animator receive, despite possessing just as much creativity, passion and possibly greater ambition. I sympathize with her doubling down on genre faire and I say this as someone who loves that stuff. We don't give other genres or schools of thought as much love and attention the same way we do geek-inclined pop culture gems. There should be room in the Canon for movies that aren't "outwardly" fun but offer at least everything else we value in the arts. Note: We don't have to agree with Amy, but we should strive to see from her perspective and empathize.

Personally, I feel torn. On the one hand, I don't find Pennies from Heaven is a particularly good movie. All That Jazz, Dancer in the Dark, they've both covered this with faaaar more cinematic competence. Hell, the original BBC Miniseries did this better, but that should go without saying. But... and it's a big but... On the other hand, there's something Amy said in the middle of the podcast that's stuck with me. Amy has repeatedly expressed the notion the Canon is in danger of becoming over-swamped with dude-oriented nerdbait than with any other kind of movie. A good majority of us voted in Re-Animator on little to no basis other than it's a damn fun movie, which in theory I have no issue with, but I do find myself sympathizing with Amy's position that we're giving all the attention to these kinds of movies. It does sometimes feel we're giving a pass on films that get by on the fun factor and little else... When messy yet ambitious movies like this are relegated to footnotes in cinematic history. If we can give a fun but flawed movie like Re-Animator a pass into the Canon, why not Pennies From Heaven? For all of its faults, you can't deny this was a passion project, bursting with life and ambition. It may not have equated to excellence, but we've forgiven movies (if not canonized them already in some circles) with those qualities. See: how we appreciate the work of Ed Wood today. ... That said, it falls right smack into Amy's go-to argument about standards. Ironically. Pennies From Heaven is not a perfect movie. Hell, it's kind of bad. Again, I refer to All That Jazz or Dancer in the Dark for covering similar ground and with greater panache. What's the point of a Canon meant to accept only the best, most memorable or important films of all time--paragons of genre, filmmaking schools, an entire artist's body of work, etc.--if we indulge the very idea of an indulgence pick? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the Canon if we allow certain movies a free ride based solely on personal feeling and no other criteria? See what I mean by torn, guys? I want to be sympathetic to Amy's side of the argument, but I just wish she had selected All That Jazz or Dancer in the Dark as her "dark musical go-to."

Opening this to the floor: should there be a representative from the DreamWorks Animated Library in the Canon? We've given Disney a fair few chances, so how about DreamWorks? Surely, they've made something of value or significance that should be immortalized in the Canon, but what makes the cut? Are we going to go with The Prince of Egypt (a popular fan-favourite), or pick out Shrek for single-handedly defining an entire studio's pop culture aesthetic for a whole decade (for better or for worse)? Or how about one of the more refined and polished examples of their post-2010/post-Shrek popularity library, like How to Train Your Dragon or Kung Fu Panda? What do you guys think?

Oh God... I'm throwing this out there, but... what if they somehow got Dan Harm as a guest star for this episode?

Ah. S'all good, then. Anyway, love your work! Huge fan of the Canon and Birth.Movies.Death!

Oooph. Egg on my face, there. I just got snarkily dissed by one of my favourite film critics.

Here's a thought. Shrek vs. Prince of Egypt. In one corner, the movie that defined DreamWorks' pop cultural identity and aesthetic. In the other, the underrated cult classic that was controversial at the time, aped Disney's 90's formulas and was banned in multiple countries for its religious overtones. Some might say one is more emotionally earnest than the other. One might say the other is responsible for propagating some of the worst stereotypes in children's animated movies throughout the Noughties and the New Tens. But doesn't that notoriety warrant Canon candidacy? Think about it, fellas. This Vs. episode would be a real underdog story. It's the pop culture juggernaut vs. the little (and semi-serious) movie that could.

What about Prince of Egypt? It's the most critically beloved of their pre-3D canon, with a soundtrack composed by the same team that would later compose Wicked, and it's certainly become something of a cult classic for fans of 90's animation.

I second this.

A thought occurred to me just now: is there room in the Canon for short films or is the Canon the exclusive property of fully feature length affairs only? It's a valid expression in the cinematic arts, isn't it? Certain short films have a reputation for experimenting with form or conveying heady subject matter using concise cinematic language even many regular ol' films still fail to get across with a thousand monologues. Isn't that worth something? Think of some of the most famous short films in history: La Jetée, Doodlebug, Trip to the Moon, The Cathedral, Geometria, Paperman... Do any of these deserve a spot in our beloved Canon? I'd love to hear your two cents on this, fellas. If the Canon is open to all cinema, shouldn't the short film be acknowledged as a legitimate expression of it? Shouldn't it have at least one representative? And if so, what would it be?

Magic Mike, as a film series, is sort of a strange... "dudebro" feminist story. It has all the trappings of a dudebro comedy, but with an upbeat and surprisingly insightful commentary on sex positivity. It's a film that understands, like few comedies of its ilk do, that women have sex drives too. There's a scene in the second movie where one of the dancers sneers at this guy with a "sexy vampire" act and all the women digging it, asking (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here), "Why do they like that shit?" This prompts another to respond, "Because they just do." One of the major "gotcha" criticisms of stuff like Twilight or True Blood has always been this iffy undercurrent of "Ha! Look at these women, young, middle-aged or old oggling this pandered male beefcake bullshit! Ha!" Magic Mike retorts with, "So? What's the problem with that? Everyone needs a sexual outlet." So, yeah, I absolutely endorse the idea of a vs. episode between these two. One's more sombre, the other upbeat. One deals with working class struggles, the other is sort of fairly apolitical in that area. Both are about male and female sexuality and gender roles, but in their own unique ways. I remember someone once telling me The Full Monty was a chick flick for guys. Honestly, it's perfectly true.

Fair point.

After listening to The General episode (again), something had occurred to me. You know what Chinese actor who exploded into popularity during the 80's and 90's, whose entire schtick is partly inspired by the physical comedy of silent film masters like Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplain, should make at least one appearance in our beloved Canon? Jackie Chan. Anyone remember Jackie Chan mania back in the 90's? Spawned a popular celebrity cartoon, gimmicky ads, TV show cameos and a deluge of middling Hollywood flicks? Damn, that was something, wasn't it? I remember being ten and walking out of my local video store carrying armfuls of Jackie Chan movies (some from the 80's, some during his Hollywood era) for endless nightly marathons. I was a huge fan. So, bearing that in mind, here's what I'd like to ask everyone here: should there be a Jackie Chan movie in the Canon? If so, then what? Personally, I'd like to nominate either The Legend of the Drunken Master or Police Story. How about you guys?

True, true, it's a fair point. But what about short films that weren't remade into full lengthed features? Like Paperman, Trip to the Moon, and Doodlebug?

There were... so many movies in the mid to late 90's with the same theme: of subversive, malleable and deceptive false realities, usually coated with a little middle class satire, a dash of gnostic subtexts, and a sprinkling of consumerist commentary. Every time.

Thank you.

Damn straight. All in favour of Legend of the Drunken Master, say aye.

Nah. What would be more interesting? Russian Ark. Essentially covers similar thematic material, but with greater panache and cohesion. Besides, I'd like some Russian cinema to make it into the Canon.

An odd angle, given it's fairly clear how and why something like The Matrix was so popular. It's the culmination of several geek and non-geek interests coming together (cyberpunk, anime, kung fu movies, John Woo flicks, the BDSM fetish scene, superhero comics, religion, the goth scene, etc) in a then current culture of urban middle class malaise and ennui. It's the inheritor of the likes of Blade Runner, Dune and Star Wars, a perfect blend of every geeky and nerdy love, with all the right conditions set to make it into as big as a phenomenon as its genre predecessors.

How can this "not" be an episode of the Canon? This needs to discussed.

Oh, right, my bad. Got them mixed up.