sycasey 2.0

No Simpsons references to this specific movie, but some great Eastwood parodies: "It means he gets results, you STUPID CHIEF!!"

Hmm, interesting. Exactly the opposite for me. It keeps improving.

It does bother me, in that moving actual Lead performances to Supporting categories means that spots are taken away from actors doing great work in less-visible roles, and those are often actors who can't command top money or get their pick of scripts -- i.e. exactly the kinds of actors the Supporting categories were created to honor in the first place. It's especially egregious when there's a big star like Emma Stone appearing in nearly every scene of The Favourite and somehow being categorized as "Supporting Actress." Nonsense.

I didn't think Malek was bad, but otherwise yeah pretty much. I think that (very good) Live Aid bit coming right at the end leaves people thinking they actually saw a great movie. No, you just saw a great final scene.

Well, the Golden Globes have spoken. Best movies are Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody, shut it down.

I've had scenarios where I didn't quite "get" a movie on first glance, but after doing a bit of reading on it and then going back it totally clicked. Mulholland Dr. was one like that for me. It also wasn't that I really had to "work" to get the movie to click the next time; I just went into it looking for different things and it became a different emotional experience. Sometimes it helps to find that key.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Top 20, alphabetical: Annihilation The Ballad of Buster Scruggs Black Panther Burning The Death of Stalin Eighth Grade The Favourite First Man First Reformed Game Night If Beale Street Could Talk Minding the Gap Mission: Impossible - Fallout Paddington 2 Roma Sorry to Bother You Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse A Star Is Born Tully Won't You Be My Neighbor?

I tossed a "yes" vote this film's way, just to acknowledge how much influence it had on future generations of filmmakers. But personally, when I watch this movie I can't seem to fully get into it. I like the actual "searchers" part of the story (where they're looking for the kidnapped girl) and the complexity of Wayne's character. Meanwhile, all of the comedy bits back at the homestead seem like they belong in another movie entirely and always hurt the pacing. Yet, this film always rates very highly in critics' polls, which means it must hold entertainment value for a lot of people. Maybe one day it'll fully click for me. I like it, I don't love it.

No list is static! That's the point of taking a new poll. Tastes change over time.

Right, that's what I think dates the commentary in this movie. I realize that at the time releasing a movie written and directed by people of color was virtually impossible in the American studio system, so this was the best you could get in 1967. But as I noted before: compare this to something like Do the Right Thing and the difference in approach is stark. In In the Heat of the Night, there is one black character who must stand in for all black people, surrounded by white characters who run the gamut; the movie's heart is in the right place, but it's definitely centralizing the white experience. In DTRT, there are multiple black characters coming from multiple perspectives to go along with a few white characters; to me there is a lot more to get out of this more decentralized perspective. And then given the racial commentary we saw just this past year out of filmmakers of color: Black Panter, BlacKKKlansman, Blindspotting, Sorry To Bother You, If Beale Street Could Talk . . . well, In the Heat of the Night feels quaint by comparison. Again, not bad, but quaint.

Hah, yeah forgot about this part. They are definitely merging To Sir, With Love and Morgan Freeman in Lean on Me for this made-up movie about Sidney Poitier playing a teacher with a baseball bat. This is like the Sinbad Genie Movie Mandela Effect again.

One natural continuation would be to cover the films from the 1998 AFI list that weren't on the 2007 list. But yes, I'd love for them to do the BFI list if the podcast is to continue.

Oh yes, most certainly. I am glad that DTRT was able to overcome the lack of Academy recognition to make the 2007 list anyway (and I suspect it would climb to a higher spot if they voted again).

I'll say this: if we're looking for movies that explore the African-American experience in America and how white racism and police violence figures into it . . . then Do the Right Thing should be WAY higher on the list than In the Heat of the Night.

That was the original list, done in 1998. There was an updated version in 2007, which is what Paul and Amy are using. https://www.afi.com/100years/movies10.aspx Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was dropped from the new list, and In the Heat of the Night added. So in each case there are three films from 1967. For film years, I think 1976 is the winner. Four Best Picture nominees made the list: Taxi Driver, Rocky (the winner), Network, and All the President's Men.

Yes, this kind of movie does tend to get awards attention just for its subject matter. And when it's clumsily handled within the movie those selections tend to age poorly. I got some of that sense with In the Heat of the Night (though to be clear, I think it's better than the above cited examples).

Yeah, I wouldn't put Zootopia on the list either. This is a tricky argument, because my "of its time" argument shouldn't be confused with a "racism and/or police abuse no longer exist" argument. Of course they do. In that sense, the subject matter of the film is certainly still relevant. What seems dated to me is more in how it's presented, like "Guys, can you believe this? Look at the racism!" Most of the non-Steiger cops play almost as cartoons to me. And there's also the Tibbs character, who is forced to stand in as the perfect black guy who is good at everything, just to get the white characters to move even a little bit in his direction (though I did appreciate the detail of him originally focusing on the wrong guy). As Amy noted, that movie today is Green Book -- well-praised enough for the performances and might get some nominations, but not very likely to win Best Picture.

I guess I'm the only "no" vote here (not my usual position!), so I'll just say that I agree with Amy -- it's a movie with some great lead performances and is an easy enough watch, but the movie doesn't feel "timeless" to me. It feels like something that is absolutely a product of its time and is mostly only interesting as a snapshot of that time. Some of the issues they discussed about Jewison's direction are (IMO) things that tend to show up throughout his career, especially in "social problem" movies like this: being generally over-emphatic with the emotional beats and concentrating so much on the message of the movie that he loses the function of the plot a little bit. The structure of the movie is a police procedural and murder mystery, but they clearly want the film to be "about" racism . . . yet the resolution of the mystery has nothing to do with racism. These little things bugged me, though Poitier and Steiger were so good together that the movie kind of works anyway. If I just look at the other Best Picture nominees from 1967, I'd say both Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate have held more relevance throughout the years than In the Heat of the Night. I'd be okay taking it off the list. I guess I could be convinced to keep it on because there's nothing else to showcase Poitier, who is a major figure in American film history.

I think there's no question this is a reference to Mr. Tibbs. Couldn't find any Simpsons references either. Disappointing!

I think they cover that too, yeah.

I just listened to the Marc Maron podcast with Topher Grace, and in it Grace talks about how sometimes you do scenes with actors who have their lines fed to them through an earpiece, because they can't be bothered with memorizing. Mario may be busted here!

Technically true . . . but the diner had Indian decor all over the place. Big statues of Ganesh and stuff. It's a strange choice if you aren't serving any Indian food. Why confuse your customers?

This little detail inadvertently comments upon the racism inherent in American home ownership during the post-war period. Long story short, while the US government subsidized housing for a lot of veterans after WWII, other policies (both formal and informal) refused home loans to African-American buyers. So perhaps it's not surprising that in Potter's version of the town there are more black residents. Everyone rents there; Potter owns everything. That's not to suggest that George Bailey or his company are deliberately trying to keep black people out of town (given the Baileys' fondness for Annie it seems unlikely they would be), but they specialize in home ownership, and those scales were heavily tilted against blacks during that time.