The longest ongoing feature on JDC is back and better than ever with colored fonts to make reading easier. Here we go with the discussion for the great year of 2004. As always feel free to add to the discussion with your two or three cents at the end...
Ed F.:
2004... This is where I abandon all pretense of selecting the "best" movie of the year. On a certain level, I feel capable of exhibiting at least some degree of objectivity. I can look at a movie and evaluate performance, technique, pacing, etc. I can examine a director's choices and try to understand his vision and intent. But on another, more personal level, artistic craft cannot entirely explain my affectations toward particular films. 2004 is a year where I find certain movies which resonate very deeply with me, while others simply make me smile with how well they are executed. This is why I will forego selecting the "best" movie of 2004 and simply talk about some of my "favorites."
The Aviator... In lieu of discussing the movie, I'd like to start a debate about Dicaprio's acting talents, even though I think his turn as Howard Hughes might be one of his best roles to date (along with Shutter Island). In my opinion, Leo basically has three settings: he's expository (ex. as he is in much of Inception... simply explaining things to people), he's howling like a banshee (ex. as he is through the entirety of Revolutionary Road... just yelling and spitting and turning red), and he’s got some sort of agitated timidity which often involves a furrowed brow and sweat (ex. as he is when introduced to Daisy in The Great Gatsby trailer. He’s the same way at the end of Inception when he’s trying to convince Saito to come back with him.) But I don’t want to be too harsh. He’s an extremely serviceably actor, and I often enjoy his movies a lot. But that’s just it… he’s serviceable to the plot. I don’t know if we’ll ever see Leo have a performance on par with great modern character pieces such as Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood and Lincoln, or Denzel in Malcolm X and Flight.
Speaking of Denzel… Man on Fire. The movie represents the height of the late director Tony Scott’s frenetic style. It’s been dubbed “MTV-style” editing, and it has often been imitated (I’m looking at you, Michael Bay), but it has never been matched. The reason the movie works so well is that Scott takes a good 45 minutes at the beginning to introduce the relationship between Denzel’s character, Creasy, and Pita, played marvelously by a 10-year old Dakota Fanning (seriously, who doesn’t love this kid?). There’s a real emotional core that makes the entire second half of the movie (when Creasy gets real mad) seem plausible. Great style, great performances… tied for my favorite movie of 2004.
Also tied for my favorite movie of ’04… Spartan. I suppose it could be dubbed as a “thriller” since it stars Val Kilmer as a sort of unofficial special ops ranger commissioned by the Secret Service to help find the President’s missing daughter. If you haven’t seen the movie, you’re probably thinking it sounds pretty lame. But with David Mamet as writer and director, the plot is secondary to the dialogue. And it’s not just what is said, it’s how it’s said. Mamet’s dialogue is highly stylized, and he has a bevy of regular players, including William H. Macy, whom he employs in addition to Kilmer in order to deliver the lines with perfect rhythm and cadence. I could go on and on about how well the themes, visual style, and musical score complement one another, but instead I’ll try to wrap things up….
There are so many other great movies from 2004… The Passion of the Christ is one of the most affecting movies I have ever seen. I would do little justice in discussing it. Additionally, Million Dollar Baby, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, House of Flying Daggers, Kill Bill Vol. 2, etc, all deserve certain mention. But alas, I turn it over to Sean and Marty. I hope I have started some arguments.
Sean:
A lot to digest here. I can't comment on Spartan as I have not seen it, and I have only seen bits and pieces of the Life Aquatic so I will abstain from that as well. As an aside, the best picture nominees were : Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Ray and Sideways. I have seen none of those movies in their entirety.
I could not agree more with your Man on Fire commentary. Creasy finds something to hold onto and something to live and fight and die for in the character of Pita. An unexpected casting of Marc Anthony actually works as a slimy Mexican businessman as well as Christopher Walken as his doughty comrade in arms. Interestingly enough, the movie was based on a book which was set in Italy with the Mob as a stand in for Mexican kidnappers. In the book, Pita dies and Creasy lives, but understandably they could not kill off Dakota Fanning. One of the better movies I saw in 2004.
As for Leo, I understand completely what you are talking about. His main acting forays the last 10 or so years have followed those three paths. But if you look at an earlier movie like Basketball Diaries it doesn't fit into just one of those three categories. I wouldn't put Leo in the same category as Daniel Day Lewis, but I think he is a better actor than a Tom Cruise. The thing with Leo is, everything seems so effortless with him when he is acting. He has air about him that seems to project this image of nonchalance. He is just acting to fill up the dead space in between dating and discarding models, so it doesn't look like he is trying. There is no imagery or stories of him assuming the role of the character like DDL and texting in 19th century language, so there is no legend of Leo.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is probably a close runner up to Layer Cake. A great movie that shows you what Jim Carrey (along with Truman Show) was really capable of as an actor. I would speak more on this, but I think Marty will go into further detail.
Anchorman was odd, and then funny, and then it got beaten to death by anyone and everyone. I can't really watch it anymore as its mass popularity has ruined it.
My personal choice for my favorite film of 2004 would be Layer Cake. Starring Daniel Craig, Sienna Miller, Colm Meany and a host of other English actors, this movie was made right before Daniel Craig was named as the next Bond, dooming the talks of a sequel. A crime thriller about a drug dealer on the cusp of retirement given two last assignments, this movie has it all. A great soundtrack, awesome writing and the right amount of action and dark comedy; it is just a crisp, well made movie. If you haven't seen it, I recommend.
Marty:
Ed F., welcome to the dark side of just picking whatever movie if your favorite and not really caring about the "best." I'm pretty sure I've been doing this the entire time.
Life Aquatic is great and fits my eccentric tendencies well. Man on Fire is classic Denzel and is really good movie. I forgot all about Spartan, but that movie is really good too. I need to watch that again. Looks like that's going in the old Netflix que. Anchorman is great when it comes to quotability. It is pretty crazy that a sequel for Anchorman is coming out in 2013, which is so far removed from when the original came out. And I think I'm still trying to make it through Layer Cake without falling asleep (I probably have tried to watch it at least 5 times).
About Leo. Leo is always entertaining. I think Leo's best strength is his ability to pick roles that suit him well. Along those lines, he was really wise to become BFF's with one the best director's ever, Scorsese. Good films always seem to elevate the performances of even bad actors. Leo certainly isn't a bad actor, so a good film helps him even more. Although sometimes I feel that we are just watching Leo be a version of himself.
Before I get to my best movies, I need to talk about Million Dollar Baby. I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate this movie. Did I mention that I hate Million Dollar Baby? In case I didn't, I hate Million Dollar Baby. I could probably make an entire post about my hate of the movie. But I won't. If I wanted to be depressed and completely hate life, I'd go hang out in the ghetto or watch a really sad documentary. Seriously, the movie is depressing to the point that it nearly becomes farcical. It probably is my least favorite movie ever and I've seen some really bad movies including Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus (It's streaming on NetFlix, you know you want to try it out).
A very close runner-up to my best movie is Spider-man 2. Spider-man 2 might be the best super-hero movie ever and is a really well done movie (I'm going to save the discussion about super-heroes for a future JDC post).
My best movie of 2004 and one of my all-time favorites is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. If there was a machine that would allow you to erase past memories including an entire person, would you use it? At first, it seems like an easy solution to heartache. Visit a doctor and he will take away your bad memories and you will be happy. But as Joel and Clementine learn, losing part of your past isn't all that you would think it would be. Eternal Sunshine is a witty well-acted, original and charming love story with a sci-fi bent. Jim Carey gives a great and understated performance as Joel, Kate Winslet is good as always and Elijah Wood is great in a supporting role as being a huge creep. The script by Charlie Kaufman is intelligent, witty and has a great balance between the absurd and the real. I cannot say enough good things about this film. If you haven't seen it, then you really should.
I agree that Scorsese is the best thing to ever happen to DiCaprio, but I suspect that Leo may have been forced on the director in exchange for the budget needed to make Gangs of New York. The history of the production is fairly well known, and Scorsese delayed shooting for decades before he could realize his vision for the re-creation of 19th century New York. Likewise for The Aviator, another of Scorsese's pet projects where the budget was even larger.
ReplyDeleteThis is just my speculation, however, and it certainly doesn't explain their three subsequent collaborations. One thing is certain, however... Scorsese/DeNiro >>>> Scorsese/DiCaprio.
With respect to Sean's insistence that DiCaprio is at least a better actor than Tom Cruise... I'm still waiting for Leo to turn in something remotely on par with Born on the 4th of July. It took a force of nature (i.e. Daniel Day-Lewis) to prevent Cruise from winning the Oscar that year. As for each actor's respective notable supporting roles... Cruise in Magnolia >>> DiCaprio in Django.
But I agree w/ Sean's comment about Leo in The Basketball Diaries. And his performance in What's Eating Gilbert Grape is actually pretty darn impressive.
DeleteI think what it comes down to is that I personally don't like Tom Cruise, and as irrational as that is, I look down on his acting because of it. You bring up a compelling point, mentioning Born on the 4th of July. It is probably a topic for a different post, but Oliver Stone has had quite the interesting movie career.
DeleteWait, are you saying that Leo in Titanic wasn't the totes most impressive ever? But seriously, I think Leo needed Scorsese to move past Titanic and Scorsese needed Leo for the budget. You need big stars to make big movies. Scorsese and DeNiro are at a different level.
DeleteCruise might be crazy as a person. However, Sean, you can't deny all the memorable rolls he has had. He is as legit as an actor as you can get.
Marty, I’m really taken aback by your feelings about Million Dollar Baby. If I had been selecting the “best” movie of the year, this one would have undoubtedly been on my short list. It’s depressing, I agree, but from the standpoint of pure cinematic story-telling, it’s a marvel. The amount of material that’s packed into this movie in just over 2 hours without the narrative ever feeling rushed is a testament to Clint Eastwood’s creative mastery.
ReplyDeleteBoxing and violence are two common metaphors used to explore the human condition in sports movies, and the way Million Dollar Baby uses these devices to frame its character study is spot-on. The first and second acts set us up to genuinely care about these people and to root for Maggie in the same way as we rooted for, say, Rocky Balboa. The third act, however, pulls the rug out from under us, and seems to comment on the fragile nature of “the American dream.” Hard work, determination, and perseverance can get you far, but the idea of the self-made man (or woman in this case) is shattered in the face of external circumstance (“Girlie, tough ain’t enough”, as Frankie says at the beginning of the movie). Important moral questions are examined concerning how/if one can cope amidst such life-altering tragedies.
There’s a discreet and almost imperceptible shift in the narrative where we move from viewing the film as Maggie’s success story to Frankie’s moral dilemma. As such, the relational aspects of the movie should be applauded. A formulaic approach would have relied upon a romantic love interest to manipulate the audience’s sympathies, but, as it stands, the paternal and filial relations are interrogated with great authenticity.
Personally, I consider Million Dollar Baby a classic. Would love to hear you expound a bit more upon you hatred of the movie, though.
First, I want to say that Million Dollar Baby is a really well-made movie and the relationship between Maggie and Frankie is good. However, I can still hate something that is well-made. By far my biggest problem with the movie is Maggie's family. Her family is so one-dimensional they might as well be a villain from a comic book. For example, Maggie gives her mother a house and her mother's response is essentially "Damn, why you gotta give me a house? I'll lose my benefits. And by the way you suck and everyone back home thinks you suck too." This is such an unrealistic reaction. If her family is horrible as the movie makes them, then you'd expect them to suck up to her in order to get more money out of her. Then after she is hurt, her family returns to try to get all of her stuff. So in the two major scenes involving her family, her family is made out to be one-dimensional, poor, white-trash scum. The only reason her family to exist in the movie is to make you feel more for Maggie, which by the way isn't needed because we already feel really bad for her because being paralyzed sucks enough. To me it feels like unneeded and blatant piling on to completely manipulate the audience into agreeing with the end actions of Frankie.
DeleteSpeaking of the idea of "the American Dream," Million Dollar Baby simply reinforces the myth that with hard work you can achieve anything. She was well on her way to achieve her dream. The only thing that brings Maggie's dream crashing down is a sucker punch. Basically, the lesson is work as hard and you will achieve your goals but just be careful because you never know what could happen.
I’ve thought about this a bit, and, in certain respects, I believe you are absolutely correct. Maggie’s family is a one-dimensional caricature of ungrateful hillbilly scum, and their presence in the story definitely serves to manipulate the audience’s sympathies. The more I think about it, the character of Maggie herself is also pretty one-dimensional… But this is only true (and relevant) on the literal level of the narrative. I still think there is genuine substance to this movie beyond it being a female version of Rocky with a twist-ending. (Although it plays pretty well as straight melodrama, in my opinion.)
ReplyDeleteI mentioned in my previous post that there’s a discreet shift in the third act where the film goes from being about Maggie’s success story to being about Frankie’s moral dilemma. If we back up though, the whole movie can be seen as an exploration of Frankie’s tortured conscience and his own pursuit (knowingly or subconsciously) of a more subversive version of the American Dream (i.e. money... hence the title “Million Dollar Baby”?). Frankie’s multifaceted psyche is represented by several proxies throughout the movie – as the Morgan Freeman character, Scrap (Frankie’s primary conscience); as the Catholic priest; and as the rotten hillbilly family.
Take a look at Frankie’s conflicted motivations in the first two acts of the movie…
At first, he refuses to train Maggie. She’s too old, she has no skill, and he’s too busy trying to obtain larger paydays for his one true contending fighter. After this contender leaves him for another manager, Frankie agrees to train Maggie, but he refuses to accept responsibility if she gets hurt, and only until she can find someone else to manage her. (He insists that he is a “trainer”, someone actually concerned about fighters and their well-being. A “manager”, however, is only after money. This point comes up at least three times that I can remember.) Finally, he accepts the fact that he is also her manager, and she proceeds to win fight after fight with one-punch knockouts. If I recall the key fight montage correctly, you can see Frankie rolling his eyes and shaking his head with each victory. He knows she is getting lucky, and that she is hardly displaying adept skill in the ring. But, as her manager, he agrees to move her up in class despite Scrap’s (his conscience’s) warning against it. They take a trip to visit her family after she buys a house (ah… home ownership and the American Dream), and upon seeing how horribly these people treat Maggie, how they are simply riding her gravy train, he once again remarks that she needs to find another manager. He sees something wicked in these people that he doesn’t trust in himself.
Frankie’s internal battles continue in the third act, where he has significant confrontations with all three of his psychic stand-ins that I mentioned above.
There’s definitely more to this story than initially meets the eye. I also think its treatment of the American Dream is a bit more nuanced (and a lot more cynical) than you ascribed above.
I meant to respond a lot earlier. I think I'm a bit too biased and you are probably right, but anyways here's my last thoughts on the movie. Frankie's relationship with Maggie is complex and nuanced. But I can't go along with the idea that the American Dream part it is a lot more cynical than my straight forward take. Like you said, Maggie wins fight after fight with one-punch knockout. Despite a lack of skill, she becomes so successful that she has a million dollar bout for the title and in that bout she is actually doing well until she is sucker punched. So over the course of the movie she goes from having no skill to nearly being champion. Of course she has her family hanging onto her success and maybe Frankie is using her (But really how much is he using her? She needs him as a trainer and to get fights. And it's not like his conscience is even right. Maggie wins the fights, which shows Frankie was making the right decisions in moving her up in class), but at the core 2/3rd's of the movie is the classic American underdog success story. Then at the end it wildly switches to a moral debate about euthanasia, which is largely disconnected from the rest of the movie. And wouldn't a more cynical and nuanced take on the American Dream involve Maggie training with Frankie but ultimately losing her American Dream because she isn't good enough and not because of a largely deus ex machina moment that destroys her American Dream.
Delete