Boy A is a British film that came out in 2007, but one I just saw the other night. Its title refers to a court practice of hiding the identity of a child defendant – Boy/Girl A, Boy B, and so on. After all, there is always the chance that they will be released as an older teen or young adult – out back into the world after being deemed “rehabilitated,” and no longer a harm to society. (It should also be noted that, while it completely stands on its own, the movie’s plot seems to share some similarities with the horrific James Patrick Bulger case in Liverpool of ’93.)

Andrew Garfield plays our Boy A, and he is amazing. I mean, indescribably so, although this did not come as a surprise. It’s intriguing to me that an actor who has excelled at so many smaller, dramatic, and emotionally heavy roles will be the new Spiderman in the reboot series. (I’m sure he’ll do a great job, but it’s just a whole other world of showbiz.) I hope that no one forgets how heartbreaking and impressive he was in Never Let Me Go (his performance being the best part of the film) and The Social Network (for which he was robbed a Best Supporting Actor nod at the Oscars), and Boy A, which he received a BAFTA for.

Garfield’s characters real name, as a child, is Eric Wilson. We first meet him during the opening scene of the film where he is about to be released from prison. His rehabilitation worker, Terry, asks him what his new name will be to embark on his new life. Already, we know one thing: Eric’s past life cannot be known; it’s a huge, dangerous secret. And then we come to know another thing, as Eric responds with grateful smiles and nervous laughter, “I can’t make up me mind!”: Boy A is innocent. Or, at the very least, no longer a harm to society, fully rehabilitated.

He chooses to be called Jack Burridge, and off he goes into the world of 9 to 5, new friendships, and a brand new romance (with much help from Terry all the way).

As Jack starts his new life and tries to neglect his old one, the audience does not. We are instead in a position where we see Jack’s new, stable life paralleled by his childhood and the crime he was imprisoned for. The reveal comes steadily but surely, the flashbacks eloquent and paced very carefully. We see Eric failing at school, his mother dying of cancer, his father wretched and verbally abusive, being bullied and beaten up by older kids, and then finally befriending Philip – a clear troublemaker with an unusually rough demeanor for a kid. Nonetheless, he likes Eric and he stands up for him. The crime that is committed is perceived to be carried out by the both of them, equally, but the flashback scene to the actual tragic incident doesn’t fill in all the blanks for us. We find out what happened, realize that Philip (as predicted) was the leader in the crime, but we do not find out which crime Eric is guilty of – assisting in the murder of a schoolgirl, or never stepping in to stop it.

The way the film unravels, it seems as though Garfield’s portrayal of the adult Eric (now, of course, Jack) is supposed to speak to his involvement in the crime. Jack is quiet, easily flattered, surprised by other people’s kindness and yet very kind himself, nervous but gentle, naive and literally sheltered, desperate to love and even more desperate to be loved. There is nothing about him that yells “murderer,” but there is definitely something that whispers “follower.” For an actor to go off of a child’s uncomplicated performance and come up with all of this, continuing the journey of this human being in such a complex way, is truly remarkable to watch.

Garfield may have us rooting for him, but the film is not as sympathetic. Though Jack starts out leading a very positive second life (in which he even saves a little girl from a car crash and becomes the town hero), the media gets word of his new identity and the whole country seems to be ravenous to snatch it away from him. The story shoots off from one about a rehabilitated child criminal to one of a young adult running from his past and from the public that wants him to pay. It’s a story about one’s privacy, and if one deserves it after being tried for a very serious crime before he could be considered a teen. It’s a story that makes us question if second chances in extreme cases like these are really possible, and if so, for how long?

No matter what the answers are, or if there even are any, this film – beautiful and delicate when it could have easily been exploitative and harsh – is worth the watch.

“I have never drawn, even as a child, either puppets or silhouettes but rather facades of houses and gates. One of my favourite games consisted of organising towns. Ignorant in architecture, I constructed buildings and streets crammed with little figures. I invented stories for them. These childhood happenings – I was eleven years old – were like little films.” – Michelangelo Antonioni

The 4th anniversary of Italian filmmaker Michelangelo Antonioni’s death was a few days ago on July 30th. If you have followed my posts, it may be clear by now that I am in love with Antonioni’s work, especially the “trilogy” of the early 60s (L’avventura, La Notte, L’eclisse). These black and white films were incredibly dark, isolated, rich and yet lost, just like the characters inhabiting them. There is a haunting kind of romanticism about all three.

The above quote by Antonioni himself describes perfectly an essential running theme in all of his films: his unique emphasis on architecture, portrayed as always overpowering the people. The director made a point to frame the characters with huge, modern buildings looming over them – maybe menacingly, maybe without any intention whatsoever.

It was meant to illustrate how lost and vulnerable the characters were – man vs. manmade. At some point, each of them appears dwarfed by large structures that are often not beautiful nor remarkable, but overwhelmingly immense and stable. These composed shots reveal the dreadful truth about humans, how small and fluttering we are.

I took a class called “New German Cinema” at the end of my freshman year of college. It was designated as a “seminar” credit, and I enrolled because I knew I was interested in becoming a film major at that point. I think I saw the words “cinema” and “German” and thought I’d get a nice overview of European film, or actually, any film that was ever set in or around Germany.

Those were my naive expectations going into it. What New German Cinema turned out to be was a movement from the 1960s to the 1980s aimed at creating “quality” film, almost like a German version of the French New Wave. What constituted as quality varied, but was predominantly quieter, more challenging, more artistic-oriented, and much, much more “on the outskirts” than mainstream film.

The professor, a wickedly smart but brutally bitter and jaded man, set out to unnerve and stir us with films by Werner Herzog and Wim Wenders and Rainer Werner Fassbinder. The teacher being a a firm hater of all things Hollywood (with choice words for Spielberg), the “New German Cinema” seminar took me in as an impressionable 19-year-old who thought movies were generally cool and magical, and then spit me out as a doubtful and suspicious film school kid, scarred for life in ways good and bad, for now movies would never look the same again, would never serve the same purpose as previously believed.

Even Dwarfs Started Small (1970) was the first film I ever saw of Werner Herzog’s, shown in this class. I laughed and laughed, and felt bad and crude for laughing, but kept doing so, couldn’t help it, and then there came a distinct moment where I stopped suddenly as it hit me, sucking in air to cease the laughter: Oh, wait, it’s not funny, and it never was supposed to be. In fact, it’s disturbing, fucking frightening.

I cannot think off the top of my head of another film that got this reaction out of me. Whatever you thought it was, you were wrong, and Herzog had the last laugh, as he usually does.

When we behave, nobody cares, but when we are bad, nobody forgets.

The little people in Even Dwarfs shout this during their rebellion against their ominous superiors. Perhaps the filmmakers of the New German Cinema movement were shouting this at all of Hollywood, to all mainstream audiences, trying to violently shake us awake.

He says something. She doesn’t mind, she answers. They have no memories, no plans. Time builds itself painlessly around them. As landmarks, they have the very taste of this moment they live, and scribbling on the walls.

I rewatched one of my favorite films since school the other night – La jetée, a 28-minute French film from 1962. Director Chris Marker tells the story of time travel in post-nuclear Paris almost entirely through a series of still photos. (There’s one scene with just a few seconds of motion.) In under 30 minutes, the plot unravels a Paris in ruins, with the survivors divided up into a hierarchy. One group is experimenting in time travel to the past and present to improve their situation; the others are lab rats. The protagonist proves a successful candidate for their experiments, but his past, present, and future collide in an eerie tragedy. In my very first film class, my professor showed us this movie to teach us the power of words and images, how they can stick with you for a lifetime, how you can tell a story without flashy gimmicks or superfluous material.

Whether it’s the French version with subtitles or the English voice-over version, it is one of the most poetic things I’ve ever come across. While it most obviously inspired the Terry Gilliam movie 12 Monkeys, watching it recently made me think of how it must have inspired other recent films; Christopher Nolan’s Inception came to mind the most. The sweeping string orchestra soundtrack, the imagery, and the distant but observant narration all come together to make romance out of dystopia and sci-fi. While it’s been done since and also before the film came out, watching it always feels like watching something brand new and revolutionary. So many filmmakers and storytellers choose overkill to get their story across, but La jetée remains there in the film school archives, just waiting to be watched, just waiting to remind you how to tell a story and how to tell it well.

The late Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni really knew what he was doing by casting the uniquely captivating Italian actress in all three of his “trilogy” films (L’Avventura, La Notte, L’Eclisse).  I say “uniquely captivating” because – aside from the tousled blonde sex hair and the big, pensive eyes – you can’t exactly place your finger on what else draws you to Vitti, though you know it’s a culmination of things.

Vitti in 'L'Avventura'

In Antonioni’s films, she often plays the role of “the lost woman,” in a state of limbo in romance and in life. And she plays it well. Though the audience knows she is unsure and she admits it herself at times, she always somehow retains a sense of self-assurance, striking in its tenacity. While her roles in Antonioni’s films often require copious amounts of staring off deep in thought, Vitti accomplishes this by refusing to bore the audience. Simply put: You just can’t stop looking at her. Beauty helps, I’m sure. But I like to think it’s more of what she can produce with her eyes alone. It’s a look of profoundness masked with boredom.

Overall, she is effortless – walking or running in strappy heels, leading on a suitor, or putting on an outrageous show. There’s a scene in L’Eclisse that happens to be one of my favorite examples of Monica Vitti as an actor. Though – I must warn – this clip is drenched in racism, it’s one of the rare opportunities where we get to see Vitti break out of her more somber role. Vitti’s character, Vittoria, is over at a friend’s apartment – a white woman with a family-owned plantation in Kenya who also expresses blatant notions of racism towards Africans. In this scene, Vittoria and another friend put on a crudely offensive show and dance, mocking the Kenyan women who appear in numerous photos around the friend’s apartment.

I’ve always believed that this scene is meant to caricaturize the white Kenyan’s unabashed racism (and presumably the more suppressed racism of the other two), while also pointing to the desperately sad states of these bored, well-off Italian women cut off from the reality of the rest of the world. And here, Vitti is the obvious “star” – the ultimate vessel of upper-class boredom and yet provocative introspection.

While Monica Vitti is 78 years old now, she feels indefinitely suspended in the first few years of the 60s – placed in an Antonioni black-and-white film, playing the beautiful and charismatic “lost” woman with the intense, preoccupied eyes.

Originally posted on my Open Salon blog.

When I think of the best foreign films of 2009, the very first film to come to mind is Pedro Almodovar’s Broken Embraces (Los abrazos rotos). Starring his muse Penelope Cruz and actor Lluis Homar, this Spanish film told the story of love and the love of film in the style of neo-noir.

Though I had a personal beef with Almodovar for being one of the first to sign the “Free Polanski” petition at the end of last year (a whole ‘nother story all in itself), I’ve been a long-time fan and have a special place in my heart for this particular film of his. The story behind my first viewing of this movie is somewhat magical: I was a senior in college studying film, and I got into this studio’s 2-week Cannes Program. Ecstatic and beyond honored, I got to stay in the South of France with ten other filmmaking kids, work on the studio’s screening, and best of all – attend some of the events at the 2009 Cannes International Film Festival.

I’ll stop the bragging here, I promise. My only reason for bringing it up is that I somehow lucked out in getting into the premiere of Broken Embraces. (And by “lucked out,” I mean “clicked refresh a hundred dozen times on the ticketing webpage.”) Anyway, the experience and the film were both glorious.  It was very Almodovar-esque in terms of beautifully ridiculous plot twists and turns, but overall it was just…scrumptious. Cruz was at her best since Volver (another recent Almodovar masterpiece), and the director himself got to really express his love for cinema and writing in this movie about a blind writer and filmmaker who gets the chance to finish his last movie from 14 years ago.

But, le sigh, this all means nothing to the Academy, seeing as how the film was completely overlooked from the nominations for the 2010 awards. Alright, alright, the snub from the Best Foreign Language category is not the Academy’s fault. It’s Spain’s. No, really. For whatever reason, Spain did not include Broken Embraces in its submissions to the Oscars in September. The writers are Incontention.com covered this and explained that “Almodovar and the Spanish Academy selectors have an on-and-off relationship.”

Okay, fine. So the Academy really had no control over the lack of nomination for Broken Embraces as Best Foreign Language Film. But what about all the other categories? The ones that would make the most sense would be, maybe, Best Original Screenplay, or Best Director, even Cinematography, or Best Actress. Oh wait! Penelope is nominated for Best Actress! But…for her role in Nine? Is that some kind of consolation prize? No one really cared about Nine this year anyway! Why not just nominate her for her brilliant performance in Broken Embraces? (Not to mention that the general opinion has been that French actress Marion Cotillard deserved it, if anyone, for that film.) Why, Oscars, why did you have to overlook Almodovar’s film completely?

I’ll start taking deep breaths now and put an end to my stream of consciousness rant. But the point is this:

Pedro Almodovar’s Broken Embraces got screwed by Spain and snubbed by the Academy. And for that, I am eternally confused and disappointed.

As what’s left of 2009 runs out, I’ve been inspired by Salon.com‘s “Films of the Decade” series written by guest writers. Not to mention the numerous other movie blogs that list their personal picks for the best movies of the decade.

Being one of the most indecisive people I know, this list was very difficult to finalize. I somehow narrowed it down from 83 to 50. Don’t ask me how. It’s strange to to think back to a certain movie from, say, 2003, and realize I was sixteen when I first saw it. But I feel a sense of accomplishment and enjoyed looking through and reminiscing about all of my favorite films from the 2000s.

Though it was tough, it has to be better than coming up with a “Best of 2009″ list. (Because I feared I’d come up with too few to even make a list for this year.) You may disagree with my rankings or even have suggestions for missing films. Please feel free to comment and share your thoughts and favorites on the best films of the decade!

WARNING: All Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings fans, please don’t send me hate mail. I’m just a party pooper who couldn’t get into those series…I apologize in advance for being the idiot you’ve already assumed I am.

TOP 50 FILMS OF THE 2000s

50. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007) Dir. Seth Gordon. This documentary about a long-standing rivalry between two men with record-breaking high scores in the arcade game “Donkey Kong” surprised me. For someone who doesn’t care about video games (sorry, folks), I became absolutely enthralled in the story of this real-life hero and antagonist.

49. Brothers (2004) Dir. Susanne Bier. Now a Hollywood remake, this Dogme 95-esque Danish film was one of the grittiest, most emotionally disturbing and powerful stories I’ve seen in film within the past decade.

48. Day Night Day Night (2006) Dir. Julia Loktev. This small film explored social and political stigma in a subtle way. A nameless young woman whose race or religion we do not know is on a suicide bomber mission. The film shows the process and preparation for the mission, but mostly makes the audience question their own stereotypes and judgments of ethnicity, politics and religion.

47. Frozen River (2008) Dir. Courtney Hunt. With a predominantly female cast and crew, this quiet thriller brings two desperate women from completely different worlds together through the issue of illegal immigration across U.S. and Canadian borders.

46. Things We Lost in the Fire (2007) Dir. Susanne Bier. Though not a commercial success by any means, Halle Berry and Benecio del Toro perform their hearts out in this tearful drama about relationships, loss, and drug addiction.

45. Made (2001) Dir. Jon Favreau. Vince Vaughn and “Favs” reunite again after Swingers (1996) in this awkwardly and messily funny film about two Average Joes trying to fake it in the New York City mob world.

44. Away We Go (2009) Dir. Sam Mendes. Husband and wife pair Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida create a perfectly balanced comedic drama. John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph break through their own typecasts to play the wonderfully calm but soul-searching expectant couple looking for “home.”

43. The Visitor (2007) Dir. Thomas McCarthy. Perhaps no film has told a story of illegal immigration in the U.S. as poignantly as this one.

42. In the Bedroom (2001) Dir. Todd Field. Based on the short story “Killings” by Andre Dubus, this film about a love affair gone horribly wrong is contemplative and takes its time, but does not disappoint. One of the best movies for careful pacing and thoughtful dialogue.

41. The Yards (2000) Dir. James Gray. Though not very well-known, this film starring Mark Wahlberg, Joaquin Phoenix, and Charlize Theron (among other notables) is one of the most cleverly executed crime thrillers I’ve ever watched. The suspense is overwhelming without being explosive.

40. Jesus Camp (2006) Dirs. Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady. Alarmingly truthful and as unbiased as humanly possible, this documentary lets the audience into the world of an evangelical Christian community in the U.S.

39. Shopgirl (2005) Dir. Anand Tucker. Based on the novella by Steve Martin, this film tells the story of a Saks saleswoman (Claire Danes) who’s caught between the romantic options of a wealthy, older man (Martin) and an awkward, immature roadie (Jason Schwartzman). I continue to be impressed by this movie’s flawless combination of laugh-out-loud humor and beautiful sadness. A unique story of love and self-discovery.

38. Wall-E (2008) Dir. Andrew Stanton. Not being one to love animated movies, this one really affected me. In Wall-E, you have themes of romance, sci-fi, and politics. Children and adults alike can enjoy the film, but adults will see the bigger hidden meanings that children won’t grasp just yet.

37. Grizzly Man (2005) Dir. Werner Herzog. In a way that only Herzog could, he made a documentary about Timothy Treadwell – a man who was killed by the grizzly bears he loved and devoted his life to.  With some controversy surrounding Herzog’s film practices (such as the theory that Treadwell and his whole story were made up), this doc is definitely one of the most compelling of the 2000s.

36. Mean Girls (2004) Dir. Mark Waters. Tina Fey scored big time with this hilarious screenplay about malicious teenage girls. Back when Lindsay Lohan was normal and made better choices, this slightly-guilty pleasure  remains a favorite.

35. Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) Dir. George Clooney. With his second directorial contribution since Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Clooney chose to delve into broadcast journalism and The Red Scare of the 50s. Based on the true story of broadcast reporter Edward R. Murrow, who spoke out against the tactics of outing Communists in the U.S.

34. Saved! (2004) Dir. Brian Dannelly. Mandy Moore has never been so brilliant as the manipulative “perfect” Christian girl in this witty, funny, and sometimes insightful comedy about an extremely religious high school.

33. Best in Show (2000) Dir. Christopher Guest. What better way to start off the 2000s than with a Christopher Guest mockumentary? And one of his best to date, in my opinion. Parker Posey is probably my favorite in this hysterical film presented as a documentary on pet-obsessed people preparing for a very important dog show.

32. The Hours (2002) Dir. Stephen Daldry. Based on the novel by Michael Cunningham, this star-studded movie interweaves stories of women from different generations beautifully through one common thread – Mrs. Dalloway by Virgina Woolf. Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, and Ed Harris star in this tragic and breathtaking film.

31. Half Nelson (2006) Dir. Ryan Fleck. Ryan Gosling amazes with his performance as a charismatic inner city high school teacher with one problem: an ugly drug addiction. The way the conflict unfolds in this film is careful and profoundly engaging.

30. Monsoon Wedding (2001) Dir. Mira Nair. Just when you think this Indian drama is about the preparation of a wedding, deep family secrets come to the surface and make the film a layered masterpiece. Beautiful in cinematography and set design, and emotionally powerful in story (written by Sabrina Dhawan), this has been a constant favorite since of mine these past few years.

29. The Wrestler (2008) Dir. Darren Aronofsky. Mickey Rourke makes his triumphant acting comeback in this aesthetically and thematically rough film. Rourke impresses by playing a washed-up wrestler who’s struggling to get his personal and professional life back together.

28. The Dreamers (2003) Dir. Bernardo Bertolucci. Legendary director Bertolucci combines themes of revolt, sex, and film in this art house movie. An American exchange student (Michael Pitt) finds new friends in France with twins – a brother and sister (Louis Garrel and Eva Green.) The threesome finds a friendship through their love of old films, often reenacting scenes from classics. The friendship starts to get complicated though with sex and the French 1968 student rebellions. A very interesting, sometimes disturbing, and thought-provoking film of the 2000s.

27. 28 Days Later (2002) Dir. Danny Boyle. Though I’m not a fan of zombie movies, this film’s depiction of a society gone to hell by a virus wiping out the population is scary – as a movie and as a study of humanity. The all-too-realistic zombies and images of a completely empty downtown London help make this a unique favorite of the decade.

26. Dogville (2003) Dir. Lars von Trier Edgy Danish director Lars Von Trier’s minimalist film packs a punch with its performances and disturbing plot line. A community (which is presented as a multi-section stage) lets Nicole Kidman’s character stay there in hiding from mobsters in exchange for services. These services get worse as the story goes on. This unnerving film about slavery and abuse makes you think and is one of the most worth-seeing movies of the decade.

25. I ♥ Huckabees (2004) Dir. David O. Russell. Though notorious for its uncomfortable fights and fits of rage on set, the result was glorious. A hilarious, goofy, but brilliant movie about existentialism starring Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin, Jason Schwartzman, Mark Wahlberg, Jude Law, and Naomi Watts. And all of these actors play characters you’d never expect from them.

24. Bad Education (2004) Dir. Pedro Almodovar. Gael Garcia Bernal is amazing in this very Almodovar-esque plot-twisting story of sexual abuse within the Catholic faith, drugs, and transsexuality. There’s never a dull moment, to say the least.

23. Lost in Translation (2003) Dir. Sofia Coppola. At first, I wasn’t crazy about this film, which tells the story of two lonely Americans stuck in Tokyo who go on to have an interesting and complex platonic relationship. But then it grew on me. Bill Murray is damn funny in this subtle film about travel, culture shock, and relationships.

22. Brokeback Mountain (2005) Dir. Ang Lee. This was one of the first mainstream movies to depict gay lovers. It especially shocked by using big-name hunky actors – Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. I thought it was beautifully done and made for good discussions prior to and after viewing the film. I could not overlook it for the best of the decade.

21. Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001) Dir. Alfonso Cuaron. This Mexican film turned the “road trip” movie on its head by exploring issues of sexuality between two teenage boys and a married woman in her twenties. Cuaron also has a genius way of underlining the socioeconomic conditions of rural Mexico by using the country’s landscape as a background for the main story.

20. Love Actually (2003) Dir. Richard Curtis. I’ve watched this British film pretty much every Christmas season since 2004 when I first caught it on a hotel TV. It’s not just any romantic comedy – it’s one of the best “feel-good” of them all, with some not-so-happy storylines tied in. As far as romantic comedies go, this multi-story one is the perfect balance for me.

19. Catch Me If You Can (2002) Dir. Steven Spielberg. Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks are the best pair, with DiCaprio playing a charming young con man and Hanks playing the FBI agent who’s after him. Based on a true story, the things that DiCaprio’s character gets away with are incredible. Overall, it’s the kind of movie you can watch over and over again.

18. The Science of Sleep (2006) Dir. Michel Gondry. Since Gondry is already a dream-like director, Science of Sleep surpasses expectations with its inventive story about dreams and love. With parts claymation and fantastical, this movie achieved what most others can’t – an impeccable combination of reality and imagination (for adults).

17. Milk (2008) Dir. Gus Van Sant. This film about gay rights activist and San Francisco politician Harvey Milk wowed me. Plain and simple, it’s a very powerful and well-told story. I was not absent of tears by the end of it, and when Dustin Lance Black won Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars in 2009, I cried even harder. Okay, dammit…Just cried again watching that incredible speech.

16. This is England (2006) Dir. Shane Meadows. This film about a group of young skinheads in 1980s England is harrowing, shocking, and altogether compelling. Its jaw-dropping scenes make for a very enlightening and must-see movie, which is unlike any you’ve ever seen.

15. Slumdog Millionaire (2008) Dir. Danny Boyle. Audiences everywhere were amazed by this movie, and some have probably already put it at No. 1 on their best-of-the-decade lists. I enjoyed the film, but I more so appreciate it because it made Hollywood and the rest of America actually pay attention to India and Bollywood.

14. Gladiator (2000) Dir. Ridley Scott. Surprised? Don’t be. This was one of the best epics of the decade, and it was released in the very beginning of it. It has definitely had an impact on film since then. (See: 300).

13. Marie Antoinette (2006) Dir. Sofia Coppola. Go ahead. Do it. Call me “crazy.” But I still stand by my stance that Marie Antoinette is Sofia Coppola’s finest film, and one of the best and most underrated films of the decade. To save space, you can check out my earlier post defending the film here.

12. Michael Clayton (2007) Dir. Tony Gilroy. Never before have I seen a crime drama/thriller portrayed so poetically on the big screen. George Clooney gives one of the strongest performances of his career in this thought-provoking and well-paced, yet edge-of-your-seat film.

11. Inglourious Basterds (2009) Dir. Quentin Tarantino. Can I even describe what I feel for this film in a short blurb? Probably not. But here’s the gist: a true Tarantino modern epic, with all the violence and gore you’d expect, but so refined you might be surprised. The opening scene in particular consists of some of the best 20 minutes I’ve ever seen. Though it’s not in the top 10 of this list, this “killin’ Naaaazis” movie was my favorite film of the year. (Side bragging note: I was disgustingly lucky to see this for the first time in May during the Cannes International Film Festival.)

10. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007) Dir. Julian Schnabel. Faithful to the equally wonderful memoir, this film captures the humbling experience of a former French Elle editor (Jean-Dominique Bauby) who writes his book even though he can only blink one eye after a massive stroke. Bauby’s memoir is tragically beautiful and inspirational to all artists because of his determination, and the film translated all of these emotions exquisitely.

9. Closer (2004) Dir. Mike Nichols. Now here’s a movie I watched several times over throughout the 2000s and persuaded many friends to watch. Closer makes melodrama look good with this story of two couples and their lies, cheating, and overall complicated relationships. The characters really make this film one of the most captivating and complex of the Aughts. Clive Owen and Natalie Portman are standouts with their performances, but Julia Roberts and Jude Law fair pretty well also.

8. Rachel Getting Married (2008) Dir. Jonathan Demme. You know a movie and a script are good when you completely forget that, for instance, Anne Hathaway is Anne Hathaway for two hours. Demme beautifully portrays Jenny Lumet’s honest script about a family preparing for a wedding but still reeling from a past tragedy. There’s no fancy tricks here – just raw emotion and realistic characters. Read more about my praise for this film here.

7. Kill Bill, Vol. 1 & 2 (2003/4) Dir. Quentin Tarantino. I think I might be more in love with the Kill Bill series than most people. But for me, watching Uma Thurman play this vengeful and violent character was highly enjoyable and never got old. I might be alone in thinking that the first one is better. But since they were really one long movie to begin with, they have to be considered as a series. And let’s not forget that other thing that Tarantino always comes through with – the soundtrack.

6. No Country for Old Men (2007) Dir. Joel Coen, Ethan Coen. The Coen Brothers won over pretty much everyone with this adaptation of the Cormac McCarthy book of the same name. This was both one of the best dramas and thrillers I had seen in a long time. A thoughtful, contemplative film that keeps you – literally – on the edge of your seat with your heart beating.

5. The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) Dir. Wes Anderson. This may be the staple Wes Anderson film that best shows his off-beat humor and style. Played out as scenes from a book, this movie feels like a classic already. And it was only released eight years ago. The members of the Tenenbaum family are noteworthy and memorable.

4. Volver (2006) Dir. Pedro Almodovar. Almodovar strikes again with this movie about generations of women in Madrid, Spain. Penelope Cruz is at the center of this almost entirely female cast, and she is absolutely stunning – physically and performance-wise. A beautiful and colorful film about mothers and daughters, but enjoyable to all.

3. Gangs of New York (2002) Dir. Martin Scorsese. For me, this movie was monumental from the moment I saw it in theaters. (And I actually saw it three times in theaters.) This long movie is engrossing with its well-executed story of the rivalry between the Irish and New York gangs in the 1860s. Leonardo DiCaprio stars, and of course Daniel Day-Lewis was the most notable as Bill the Butcher. Scorsese mentions in the beginning of the DVD director’s commentary that this film was about twenty years in the making before it went into production. And it shows. It definitely shows.

2. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) Dir. Michel Gondry. Charlie Kaufman + Michel Gondry = heaven. Heaven in a film. Eternal Sunshine – in 2004 – was so different from any other film you’d ever seen. It probably still is. In my opinion, no one has ever pulled off such erratic jumps through time and space as elegantly and successfully as this movie. In addition, the truths about love’s ups and downs are presented in an entertaining but relatable way. This was also the first time I realized that Kate Winslet is an extraordinary actor, and that Jim Carrey can actually do dramatic roles very well.

1. Children of Men (2006) Dir. Alfonso Cuaron. My No. 1 film pick of the decade was not just a film, but also a frightening glimpse into what could very well be our future. Cuaron’s depiction of 2027 does not seem futuristic, surreal, or avant-garde. It feels real. It feels like today, only worse. Based on the book of the same title, this movie shows a lifeless world on the brink of extinction due to the mysterious inability to produce babies. Clive Owen’s character is an accidental hero who goes through hell to help a pregnant African refugee – an unbelievable and miraculous occurrence. This movie succeeds in every single area of film – cinematography (for which Emmanuel Lubezki was completely overlooked at the 2008 Oscars), direction, storytelling, editing, characters, and themes. With all-too-familiar similarities to our current-day world politics, Children of Men did not just speak to us as moviegoers. It spoke to us as world citizens. And really, I cannot think of any other film that has cared to address such profound conflicts and ideas as this one did.

AP Photo/Luca Bruno

I would like to make it very clear that this post is in no way my saying that I believe Amanda Knox is guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher. I want to make that known because, basically, I don’t know whether she’s guilty or not. The more I read up on it, the more conflicted I feel.

Rather, I’d like to bring up some questions that have been concerning me:

1. What if Amanda Knox was not white? (Meaning: Black, Hispanic, etc.)
2. What if Amanda Knox was unattractive? (Meaning: not pretty.)

Yes, of all the questions to ask about this case, these are the ones I’m asking. Because frankly, the media is not addicted to this story only because they seek out justice. Sure, that’s part of it – Americans think she’s innocent and should not spend 25 years in Italian prison, and Italians are convinced she’s guilty based on evidence that really isn’t evidence at all and think she should rot in prison.

Americans, in the meantime, are adamant that this is a patriotic issue. “Italians hate Americans” is one of the reasons you hear constantly about why Amanda Knox has been such bait for the Perugia government.

So Americans can’t stop talking about how much they love her and want her innocence proven, and Italians can’t stop talking about how much they hate her and know she’s guilty. If Amanda Knox wasn’t a seemingly-wholesome and pretty white college student, would our media still be so hung up on her case? And likewise, would the Italian media still be so obsessed if they couldn’t say things like, for instance, she has “the face of an angel, but the eyes of a killer”?

Again, not saying she’s guilty or not guilty. I’m also not saying that I don’t feel sorry for her, because honestly it is eerie to see a girl my age (also in love with Italian culture) going through all of this, sentenced to 26 years in a foreign country, with the possibility that she may not be guilty at all. I don’t know how to feel about the crime, but I know how I feel about the media’s obsession with it.

Our media has been called out on spending too much air time on white females who are murdered or go missing. (See: “missing white woman syndrome”.) So if Amanda Knox wasn’t white, young, and beautiful, would the intrigue and passion for the case all but disappear? Or is it really an issue of patriotism and justice?

Poster (in German) reading: "Stop/Yes to the minaret ban"

I don’t want to spend this whole post outlining the history and politics of the minaret ban in Switzerland, but this article from the BBC in 2007 provides some good background on the controversy. (Please note especially the quotes from Oskar Freysinger.)

Aside from my view that this compromises the promotion of dialogue between religions and cultures in Europe, there are several things about this situation that make it controversial, offensive, and troublesome. One of those things being the feminist argument of this ban.

The Times Online wrote an article that provided details as to why feminists were boosting the Swiss efforts to ban minarets.

Pictured is a widespread Swiss poster aimed towards feminists to promote the ban. Take a closer look at it. What does it say to you? What does it represent? Can one ad speak volumes of a whole continent’s feelings towards minority groups?

Photo by Rita Molnár; Wikipedia Commons

For the past week it’s been reported that Roman Polanski will most likely be released on bail. The latest report from Variety says:

Roman Polanski will remain in jail until Friday as the filmmaker raises the $4.5 million bail, Swiss authorities said Tuesday.

Polanski will basically be under house arrest – mind you, in his “chalet” in the Swiss Alps – until the government decides whether or not to extradite him to the U.S. to be charged for the crime he fled in 1978.

But what if Polanski tries to escape yet again?

I, for one, don’t see why Polanski wouldn’t try to escape this yet again. The fact that he has a family and is almost eighty years old seems to give him more reason to flee.

I guess we’ll have to see what happens. Until then, I am not doubting that he will be released on bail (Variety also reported that in Switzerland, the bail has to be paid in full). After all, if things are still the way they were in early October, Polanski has all of Hollywood behind him.

You can read more about the Polanski case and my initial thoughts on it in this post from October.