My Personal “Top” 10 Films Of All Time

My friend Cole Abaius from Film School Rejects asked me to participate in an experiment to make an alternative to the canonical Sight & Sound Greatest Films list. The request was simple: to provide my “Top Ten Movies Of All Time, ranked.” He then compiled all the entries into this master list.

At first I thought this would be a fun diversion, but it turned out to be incredibly stressful. Who am I to not include a single Stanley Kubrick or Akira Kurosawa film on my Top 10 list? Have I betrayed my beloved FACE/OFF by not including it? Am I really so anglo-centric that I can’t find room for foreign language masterpieces? At the end of the day, I’m upset at myself for not finding a way to put at least 100 movies on my top 10 list. The entire idea of a top 10 list is a bit wonky to me, as I believe it’s impossible to rank and organize the impact and quality of different works of art, but I think a finished list can still provide a helpful guide to other film explorers and it can be an interesting insight into the mind of the list-maker. So here we go…

THE RULES
I am using a few simple self-imposed rules to narrow down the playing field:

  • Only one film per director.
  • Only films I have seen (obviously).
  • Only films I love personally.
  • Only films that I consider to be of exceptionally high quality.
  • Only films that I think have had an impact on the overall path of filmmaking.

THE LIST

1) THE GRADUATE (1967)
This is personally my favorite film of all time, and I also consider it to be one of the finest achievements in the craft of filmmaking across almost all departments. So you shouldn’t be surprised to find it at the top of my list. I could spend my entire life studying THE GRADUATE, and I still would still be awestruck by its excellence. It was a big  wake-up call to the American film industry, both creatively and commercially. THE GRADUATE sets the stage for the 1970s in its visual style, editing, casting, and through the use of non-diegetic popular music. I honestly think if this movie were released today, it would set off a creative revolution all over again. The film still plays fresh and inventive, even though it has been copied so many times over the years. It’s also easy to forget how commercially successful this film was. What was essentially a low-budget independent film grossed over $100m in 1967, which would be over $650m in 2012 dollars.

2) CASABLANCA (1942)
This movie could be number one if it were in color. Just kidding. It would also have to star Dustin Hoffman.

3) LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
ARABIA isn’t just an epic film; it is *the* epic film. The scope of this production is jaw-dropping, and it has to be seen projected in 70mm at a good theater to truly appreciate the achievement. And when you pick your jaw up off the floor, remember the most incredible thing: LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is an independent film.

4) RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981)
Just thinking about this movie makes me want to watch it right now.

5) STAR WARS (1977)
It’s hard for me to figure out how to approach STAR WARS. I grew up watching it on a crappy VHS on a crappy television, and yet it exists in my mind’s eye not as a noisy tiny image, and not as a beautifully projected film. It exists as a memory as real as anything else from my life. I feel like I’ve been there, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, and George Lucas’s film just reminded me of those days. Everything post-1977 aside, STAR WARS used the creative technology of film to build a powerful global shared myth. It managed to combine a global distribution system with a singular piece of narrative art to do something almost overnight that historically had taken generations. Our Greek gods, our Knights of the Round Table, our fairy tales are STAR WARS and the Marvel and DC heroes. STAR WARS shook the world, and I think people dismiss its huge power too easily when they use the critical tools you would apply to fiction with more traditional goals.

6) CHINATOWN (1974)
You can bring back the critical tools you apply to fiction with more traditional goals. Onions watch CHINATOWN to learn how to have layers.

7) THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965)
I love musicals, and THE SOUND OF MUSIC is my favorite film musical of all time. On top of that, I think the film is incredibly well made even beyond just the music. Some obvious standout aspects being Ernest Lehman’s screenplay adaptation and Ted McCord’s remarkable cinematography. Plus it makes me smile and want to be a better person.

8) OLDBOY (2003)
Of all the films on my list, I suspect this is the one I have ranked too low. OLDBOY is a dirty miracle. It lies waiting in the dark crevices and alleys of my mind. The parts of my mind that make me uncomfortable standing on a tall building not because I’m afraid I might fall but because I’m afraid I might push the person standing next to me. Of course, the good parts of my mind are filled with THE SOUND OF MUSIC so I just end up singing instead.

9) THE FLY (1986)
That’s right. I think that a remake is one of the ten best films of all time. For me, THE FLY is the ultimate horror film. It does what only true horror can do, and makes you realize there truly are fates worse than death. And it does it through the framework of a heartbreakingly real tragic love story.

10) TOY STORY (1995)
This is the movie that set the bar for feature-length CG-animation, and it’s the film that launched Pixar. Those two things alone warrant giving the film major consideration just for historical impact, but beyond that TOY STORY is a damn good movie. A filmmaking friend of mine says that the best movies are ones where it feels like the medium of film was invented just to make this movie. Well in the case of TOY STORY it’s actually true.

So that’s my list. At least, that’s my list today. I’m sure if you asked me tomorrow most of the films would be different. And I’m sure if you asked me the next day, they’d change all over again. But for now here’s a snapshot of what I consider to be celluloid greatness. If you disagree, and I’m sure you do, feel free to create your own list or drop me a line on Twitter @keithcalder.

Blood Types in Korea

In South Korea, ideas linking blood type and personality flow through the veins of much of society. Most Seoul libraries have a shelf housing a collection of popular non-fiction books with titles such as The Truth about Blood Type, Blood Type and Character, The Science of Blood Type and Success, Type O Child, Type A Child: Discover Blood Type and Prepare for Success, and dozens more besides. Need to lose weight? You might consider checking out Just the Right Diet for My Blood Type. Is your entrepreneurial capacity less than 100%? Maybe you need to dip into Blood Type Business. If it’s just your interpersonal skills that want brushing up, why not spend a rainy weekend reading You Can Understand People If You Know Their Blood Type?

This popular phenomenon goes beyond books, it has been transfused into the worlds of film, dating, and even employment. The 2004 Korean movie My Boyfriend Is Type-B indulged in the stereotype of type-B men being selfish, irresponsible, and unfaithful lovers.

[…]

One Korean agricultural cooperative triggered a powerful online backlash in 2004 when it posted a job advertisement reading, “Only type O or B need apply. Those with other blood types should not apply, as they lack initiative.”

The newsletter of the Seoul Film Commission has this great article about the history of blood-type in Korea. Having spent some time in Korea earlier this year, it was one of the most surprising things to me. Some people will ask you your blood-type in a casual way, similar to how in the west someone might ask where you’re from or where you work. At first I was confused by this, but I eventually found out that in parts of Asia the blood-type is believed to determine personality in the same way some people believe astrological signs do.

The world is a many-splendored thing.

(On a side note, the Seoul Film Commission is one of the best local film-commissions I’ve ever worked with.)

2012 Movie #64 - The Exorcist (1973) I watched THE EXORCIST last night. Even on a second viewing, it’s one of the most unsettling films I’ve ever seen. This time I was really struck by the complete mastery of tone that the film exhibits. I wish studios were still capable of taking horror this seriously today. It’s also always fascinating watching a proto-genre films. I don’t really know what else to call them, but I’m talking about the films that create their own new sub-genre. THE EXORCIST has had a lot of imitators, but none of them come close to the original. The imitators use a lot of the same ideas, but even the best still feels like a partial photocopy. You can see the same thing with imitators of DIE HARD or STAR WARS.

2012 Movie #64 - The Exorcist (1973)

I watched THE EXORCIST last night. Even on a second viewing, it’s one of the most unsettling films I’ve ever seen. This time I was really struck by the complete mastery of tone that the film exhibits. I wish studios were still capable of taking horror this seriously today.

It’s also always fascinating watching a proto-genre films. I don’t really know what else to call them, but I’m talking about the films that create their own new sub-genre. THE EXORCIST has had a lot of imitators, but none of them come close to the original. The imitators use a lot of the same ideas, but even the best still feels like a partial photocopy. You can see the same thing with imitators of DIE HARD or STAR WARS.

2012 Movies #45 - 62 - Catch Up Post

Fell way behind in my 2012 movie blogging, and it’s been weighing on me. At this point it’s a waste to do a post about each film, so here’s a quick catchup.

Hopefully now I can get back to blogging after each film I see!

Cell-Phone Sections

My dream is that movie theaters sell special tickets for people to sit in the “cell-phone section” where they are allowed to text and tweet and talk as much as they want. Ushers will see these tickets and direct people to the special door that leads to the exclusive cell-phone section. Through that door is a small room with a trapdoor that leads to the garbage compactor from Star Wars.

Mr. Beaks Takes Issue With The Coverage Of JOHN CARTER

The autopsy began before the corpse was even on the slab.

Mr. Beaks takes the film-journalism world to task for how they covered JOHN CARTER leading up to its release.

I’ll add an insight of Jean Cocteau’s from 1948, those quaint times when tentpole movies only cost a couple million dollars:

The main danger confronting [film], not only in France but in all the countries of the world, is the amount that it costs and the fear of taking risks imposed on us by the money that producers invest. This deprives [film] of those contrasts, experiments, flights of daring and marvelous failures that allow art to overcome inertia and to break with habit.

I’m holding off on writing my thoughts about JOHN CARTER, as it’s the first film of 2012 that made me want to immediately watch it a second time.

But I will say this… None of us see a financial loss or gain if JOHN CARTER does well or poorly at the box-office. The financial success of the film has no impact on the quality of the film, as the film was made and finished long before any revenue was generated. Let the people who are actually invested in the success or failure of a film worry about its financial prospects. Why can’t we just celebrate the contrasts, experiments, flights of daring and, yes, even the marvelous failures?

Surely we have much more to gain from encouraging a conversation about film that ignores financial success and failure. No one comes out of a film saying “I really love the part where the studio made a lot of money releasing it” or “I really liked the film until I realized the studio lost money on it.”

“I like words. I like fat buttery words, such as ooze, turpitude, glutinous, toady. I like solemn, angular, creaky words, such as straitlaced, cantankerous, pecunious, valedictory. I like spurious, black-is-white words, such as mortician, liquidate, tonsorial, demi-monde. I like suave “V” words, such as Svengali, svelte, bravura, verve. I like crunchy, brittle, crackly words, such as splinter, grapple, jostle, crusty. I like sullen, crabbed, scowling words, such as skulk, glower, scabby, churl. I like Oh-Heavens, my-gracious, land’s-sake words, such as tricksy, tucker, genteel, horrid. I like elegant, flowery words, such as estivate, peregrinate, elysium, halcyon. I like wormy, squirmy, mealy words, such as crawl, blubber, squeal, drip. I like sniggly, chuckling words, such as cowlick, gurgle, bubble and burp.”

The opening of a letter that former copywriter Robert Pirosh sent to directors, producers, and studio executives when looking for work as a screenwriter. He was hired by MGM and went on to write for the Marx Brothers and later won an Oscar for writing Battleground.

What are you doing to stand out from the pack? I get emails from aspiring screenwriters every day, and none have been as good as this.

Go to Letters of Note (one of my favorite websites) for the full letter.

2012 Movie #44 - Oliver! (1968) I was lucky enough to see a brand-new 35mm print of OLIVER! projected at the BFI with a Q&A featuring Ron Moody (Fagin), Kenneth Cranham (Noah Claypole), and Mark Lester (Oliver Twist himself!). This was definitely one of the high-lights of my filmgoing life, as OLIVER! is one of my all-time favorite films and Ron Moody’s performance as Fagin is one of my favorite film-performances. I have a long history with Lionel Bart’s musical version of Oliver. It was one of my favorite films growing up, and I was actually cast as Oliver when I was 12 at our high-school’s production of the musical. Obviously I know all the songs by heart. However I’ve only ever seen the film on VHS, and haven’t seen it at all for well over a decade. Seeing the film on a new 35mm print was a revelation for me. The production design and cinematography are jaw-droppingly amazing. The fascinating thing about the film is how Carol Reed is able to combine the best part of a heightened classic musical aesthetic with elements more at home in a serious modern drama of the late 60s. The production design fits the scope of a glossy studio musical, but with dirt and grit giving a real honesty to the sets. You can see further proof of this perfect marriage of grand theatrical scope and intimate drama in the scenes between Fagin (Ron Moody) and Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). In his Fagin, Ron Moody constructed a compelling dangerous clown out of what is traditionally a despicably evil one-note villain. He uses every trick of the stage performer including pulling bits form magic, clowning, mime, and vaudeville. It’s a remarkable performance, and shows what is capable when an incredible theatrical actor is given a canvas that fits his style. But what’s most remarkable is that Carol Reed has figured out a way to let the vaudevillian theatrical Fagin live in the same frame as the more naturalistic method approach of Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes. Reed is one of the few characters to never sing a note in this musical. He broods his way through scenes with intense masculinity and real menace. It’s hard to explain just how hard it is to maintain suspension of belief in a film when you are mixing multiple tones. It’s a miracle that Carol Reed was able to pull this off. OLIVER always feels cohesive and complete and real. He manages to pull the best from both the grand performance tricks of theater and the grounded intimate drama of film. And he does it so effortlessly. I think this is what has stopped people from fully recognizing OLIVER as the masterpiece it is. Reed made it look too easy. High-res

2012 Movie #44 - Oliver! (1968)

I was lucky enough to see a brand-new 35mm print of OLIVER! projected at the BFI with a Q&A featuring Ron Moody (Fagin), Kenneth Cranham (Noah Claypole), and Mark Lester (Oliver Twist himself!). This was definitely one of the high-lights of my filmgoing life, as OLIVER! is one of my all-time favorite films and Ron Moody’s performance as Fagin is one of my favorite film-performances.

I have a long history with Lionel Bart’s musical version of Oliver. It was one of my favorite films growing up, and I was actually cast as Oliver when I was 12 at our high-school’s production of the musical. Obviously I know all the songs by heart. However I’ve only ever seen the film on VHS, and haven’t seen it at all for well over a decade.

Seeing the film on a new 35mm print was a revelation for me. The production design and cinematography are jaw-droppingly amazing. The fascinating thing about the film is how Carol Reed is able to combine the best part of a heightened classic musical aesthetic with elements more at home in a serious modern drama of the late 60s. The production design fits the scope of a glossy studio musical, but with dirt and grit giving a real honesty to the sets.

You can see further proof of this perfect marriage of grand theatrical scope and intimate drama in the scenes between Fagin (Ron Moody) and Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). In his Fagin, Ron Moody constructed a compelling dangerous clown out of what is traditionally a despicably evil one-note villain. He uses every trick of the stage performer including pulling bits form magic, clowning, mime, and vaudeville. It’s a remarkable performance, and shows what is capable when an incredible theatrical actor is given a canvas that fits his style.

But what’s most remarkable is that Carol Reed has figured out a way to let the vaudevillian theatrical Fagin live in the same frame as the more naturalistic method approach of Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes. Reed is one of the few characters to never sing a note in this musical. He broods his way through scenes with intense masculinity and real menace.

It’s hard to explain just how hard it is to maintain suspension of belief in a film when you are mixing multiple tones. It’s a miracle that Carol Reed was able to pull this off. OLIVER always feels cohesive and complete and real. He manages to pull the best from both the grand performance tricks of theater and the grounded intimate drama of film. And he does it so effortlessly. I think this is what has stopped people from fully recognizing OLIVER as the masterpiece it is. Reed made it look too easy.

Presented without comment. (Other than “Presented without comment.”) ((And then adding ‘(Other than “Presented without comment.”)’)) (((And then… err… well, you catch my recursive disclosure drift.))) High-res

Presented without comment.

(Other than “Presented without comment.”)

((And then adding ‘(Other than “Presented without comment.”)’))

(((And then… err… well, you catch my recursive disclosure drift.)))