Yesterday, we revealed the bottom half of the best ten films of 2014, according to me. I’ll skip the pleasantries and jump right in. Here are my top five films of 2014.
5. Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Lots of dollying, panning, and surface fade to reveal shots create the illusion that Alejandro Iñárritu’s Birdman was filmed in one, long continuous take. Which is not true. Howbeit, the film is made up of many continuous one shot scenes, sometimes lasting up to ten minutes long, and it’s all done, essentially, at one location. That’s tough to do. Not a lot of directors can do it, or do it well for that matter. But Iñárritu did. The meticulousness of this kind of filming demands perfection. Pan left when you should have panned right, queue up take 27. Michael Keaton counts out four steps when he should’ve counted three, 28. It’s a technique that compliments the Birdman script like a good cabernet does a juicy ribeye. Keaton plays Riggan Thomson, a former superhero (Birdman) movie star (wait, is this real life?) whose refusal to star in a third Birdman movie (…real life?) leaves him a washed up has been. Seeking to right his own ship, Riggan attempts to produce, direct, and star in an arena that couldn’t be further from that of a comic book movie: Broadway. The intricacy of Riggan’s task demands a perfection that his life has never produced (much like the fastidiousness of executing a film made up of long, single take shots). Never able to keep a woman, a disappearing dad, a lackluster friend, and dying career, the only thing Riggan has done well in life is screw things up. For Riggan, the future of… everything hangs in his ability to execute this play to perfection. One mistake means the end of notoriety, the end of his life. Perhaps, though, the end of that life will be his saving Grace.
4. Calvary
With Calvary, Irish writer/director John Michael McDonagh certainly avoids the sophomore slump. The film is not without flaws, though. It often struggles to shift smoothly into seriousness from comedic dialogue, but even then it remains brutally honest to its culture. A gripping commentary on the digression of the Catholic church in Ireland, Calvary astonishingly chooses not to curb stomp Catholicism. Instead, its story hones in on a good priest. A very good priest. Father James (Brendan Gleeson), who presides over a small parish in a small Irish town, is told by a mysterious church-member during confession that in seven days, he will murder him. The threat is born out of vengeance from the mysterious menace’s troubled past with the priests of his youth. The body of the film focuses on the seven day build-up to the promised killing. Each day, the anticipation builds; will Father James be murdered or not, and if so, by whom? The priest attempts going about his business as he would any other week, but as a viewer, I wondered why. With a legitimate death threat, James still tends to his flock, but, for the most part, he is met with animosity. Yet, he chooses to stay put. When the seventh day arrives, I recalled a line from the proposed murderer at confession, “There’s no point in killing a bad priest. I’m going to kill you because you’re innocent.” And then another statement that Father James had said to his daughter earlier, “I think there is too much talk about sins and not enough about virtues.” His daughter then asks, “What would be your number one (virtue)?” His answer, “I think forgiveness has been highly underrated.” Calvary is a highly religious movie that was made for both the religious and irreligious. In Father James, we see a phenomenal personification of Christ, and Gleeson gives a performance that is dripping in Gospel.
What’s a Mockingbird top five film list without Wes Anderson? One with a slightly less disciplined color palette, that’s for sure. With TGBH, Anderson received his highest critical acclamations since The Royal Tenenbaums. TGBH contains the aesthetic consistencies we have come to expect from WA, but he added some new tricks to as well. His use of three different aspect ratios to distinguish three separate historical settings in the film was a very dynamic technique that just made the film fun to watch; a technique I had never seen before. A period piece, TGBH takes place in the fictional European republic of Zubrowka, mostly during the 1920’s, some in the 60’s and 80’s (refer back to aspect ratios). It’s obvious that Wes is mimicking the real historic world war struggles of that time. His focus, however, lies more on a relationship between the prestigious hotel’s concierge M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) and an orphaned lobby boy whom Gustave chooses to mentor, Zero.
To be perfectly candid, the film’s conflict plays out like one huge MacGuffin. The accusation of murder pinned against Gustave sends him, along with Zero, on the run, perpetually hopping from frying pan to fire. I’ve seen the film three times, and I’m never sure if what the characters are up to actually matters, but that’s almost beside the point in a film like this. Underneath the chilly surface of the whimsical sets, the quick witted humor, and the fast paced plot are darker, warmer waters. The bond between Gustave and Zero brought on by an adoption of sorts. There were many moments in the film where I began to emotionally attach myself to its main characters, and right on queue, with some ridiculous scene, their perplexed-ness would over power my sentiment. I found that strangely perfect. Wes Anderson’s fantastical, unrealistic world of liberties is merely skin to be peeled, revealing a friendship that gleams with an uncanny reality; one that encourages vulnerability and remorse. When an older Zero is recounting the mentorship afforded to him by Gustave, which included Gustave’s death, David’s poetic response to the death of his beloved friend Jonathan in 2 Samuel comes to mind:
Jonathan lies slain on your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women. How the mighty have fallen…
2 Samuel 1:26-27
2. Boyhood
A twelve year production that documents a real life (fictional) boyhood of a real life (fictional) boy, Boyhood is the stuff that film geek dreams are made of. I first heard about Boyhood in the fall of 2008. By that time, Richard Linklater had already been filming for seven years. And he still had five more years of work ahead of him. Needless to say, I was absolutely giddy when it came to a theater near me earlier this year, and it did not disappoint. Watching Boyhood was like digging up a freshly buried pop culture time capsule: Britney Spears and The Flaming Lips, shots of the very first X-box, the kid-frenzy surrounding the release of the first Harry Potter film, every slice of culture was perfectly preserved, recorded in real time. Boyhood is an anomaly; an original work of art that is simply the story of American boyhood. I mean even the character’s names are simple: Mom is only ever called Mom, same with Dad. The boy is Mason and his sister is Sam. The worshiping of a dad, the pains of moving, the teenage angst, the first love, it’s all there, pasted together with an unprecedented patience. The story never pushes too hard. It never forces anything too dramatic. Things just… happen, and you’re never sure what’s going to happen next, because that’s how life is. Perhaps the most interesting facet to Boyhood is the misplacement of the Boyhood family. While broken, and all trailblazing their own separate ways, they share common denominator of being a bunch of liberals encased in a conservative Texas. Remove the political overtones and what you are left with is a handful of misfits struggling to find freedom.
1. Interstellar
Matt Zoller Seitz, editor-in-chief of RogerEbert.com and mastermind behind The Wes Anderson Collection, tweeted yesterday, “Interstellar might end up being Nolan’s Life Aquatic or New York, New York, its reputation growing with time.” While I am happy to read that a critical metamorphosis is taking place, I’m not sure I ever understood the hostility assigned to Interstellar to begin with. The Playlist, a very competent and worthy film blog, took a massive critical dump on the Interstellar upon its release, but then recently included it in their top 15 films of the year. Seitz’s statement is peculiar, but true, and I’m pretty damn curious as to why that is. I’d like to think that the film is just that powerful. Similar to a man’s first sip of scotch which is undoubtedly followed by an expression of disgust, yet still leaves an impression so full, that it is too robust to not revisit. Interstellar is a visual masterpiece, and while Nolan is no rookie in the world of mind-bending, this film in particular takes the viewer into unexplored dimensions, literally. Where Boyhood succeeds with its simplicity, Interstellar propels itself with complexity. The thick layers of the film are intricately laminated telling the core story of a father’s journey to save his kids. Nolan’s most amusing space trick comes in the entanglement of a black hole, where Cooper (McConaughey) uses an extra dimension to reach back in time, communicating to, simultaneously, his daughter Murph when she was a child and when she had grown. He sends her information that was responsible for getting him in the black hole in the first place, which is the same information that could be responsible for saving mankind. In this scene we see Cooper acting as a guide, a father, and a savior, all as one person, while extending himself through space and time. Gravity and time were not being manipulated per se, they were being controlled to dictate the past, the present, and the future. This all happens while the same question our #10 film, Snowpeircer, asked looms heavily: Is mankind worth saving? This, at least for me, created a goosebump-raising depiction of the Holy Trinity. The accuracy of this picture was enough, in itself, to raise Interstellar to its top rank
Honorable Mentions: Under the Skin: confession, I saw this film yesterday, and had I seen it earlier it may have made it’s way on the list. A terrific sci-fi that explores the troubles of being a woman, constantly preyed on by men. The One I Love (on Netflix): a quite sci-fi romance that paints marriage in a similar, but lest violent way that Gone Girl did. Guardians of the Galaxy: easily Marvel’s most developed film in years, and a truly satisfying summer blockbuster. The Double (on Netflix): a high stressed take on the damaging blows of unhealthy self-worth and false identity. Blue Ruin (on Netflix): a terrific revenge flick done in the classic way of an old western. Noah: a film I is still hold as more honest picture of the Biblical patriarch than who most of us learned about Sunday school.
Films Not Recognized That I Still Need to See: Nightcrawler, Inherent Vice, Locke, A Most Violent Year, The Rover, Selma, Ida (on Netflix), Foxcatcher.
And finally, here is your playlist for the top five films of 2014, according to me:
COMMENTS
7 responses to “Top Ten Films of 2014, Pt. 2: Nos. 5-1”
Leave a Reply
Birdman was definitely a work rich with the theme of seeking identity and self redemption through literally creating “your own personal narrative” and carrying it out on the stage and in the theater of life. The film ironically begins with Buddhist undertones in the opening shots, but in my opinion ended with very Christian imagery (referring to that ambiguous final shot). In the end, he does find freedom from the weight of “I have to make my life count” through a form of death (again depending on how you choose to interpret that last shot). I thought the use of the “talking bird mascot-thingy” was an excellent depiction of the Romans 7 struggle and the antagonistic voice of the law constantly condemning us that we are not enough, that we have failed, that we could’ve been better, done better, and can still become better. Dark, inventive, surreal at times, but ultimately a creative work of art.
Interstellar was definitely a visual treat. I must admit that after about 30 minutes into the film, I could no longer follow the narrative. When we exited the theater, I turned to my wife and said, “That was great! I’m not sure what I just watched… but whatever the ultimate meaning of the film, I’m sure it was profound”. The non-linear narrative was confusing, but what transcended were the relational dynamics and the way in which the film appeared to use the technical aspects to comment on the reality that our relationships as 3-D beings tend to remain locked in 2-D and remain strained behind the barriers we erect to protect, guard, and hide ourselves (video screen messages and space helmets hinder organic intimacy at certain points). At the same time, though, we see 2-D as the initial means of communication for example b/t a father and daughter (antiquated NASA books, childhood bookshelf)… later though it is 4-D (or 5D?) transcendence that save their relationship and the fate of humanity. In fact, in what I thought was the pivotal scene of the movie, I saw what was certainly unintended: a picture of the incarnation. The protagonist appears omnipresent yet embryonic inside what could symbolize a womb…all the while transmitting code and data that ultimately provides salvation for a multi-ethnic group of humans… and that in a new “earth”. (John 1:14)
I appreciated the way the film wove in and out of the objective and the subjective realm – the real and the surreal. I wasn’t sure how to take the wormhole, the blackhole, and the tesseract. There was a real blending and blurring of scientific phenomena and spiritual/relational implications. It was as though the science of the film (which I totally did not get at all) served to make a statement about distance in relationships, the gravity that draws us to one another, the timelessness of love, etc. Ultimately, though I saw what I am sure was unintended: Love transcends time/space. God is Love. God transcended time/space in Bethlehem 2K years ago… and again in the resurrection (see John 20, Luke 24). All of our inquiries and interest in interdimensional reality are resolved and satisfied in the mystery of Christ… revealed in the gospel. Finally, the visuals were stunning, epic, and overwhelming. I enjoyed being glided along through space across the black canvass watching geometrical and symmetrical shapes spin past as motifs of circularity (reflecting the circularity of time as being non-linear, but eternal?). Zimmer’s organ literally made me feel like I was sitting in some kind of a cosmic church service. The use of silence where there “should” have been sound was effective as well. Definitely a film I need to see at least twice more before I can fully digest it.
Great Job Joe, wow, I have a lot of movies to watch! I’ve only seen DOTPOTA and Gone Girl – loved them both! I fully expect to see all of the others, except maybe The Babadook – B.I.C. doesn’t have me convinced yet that horror is worth my time, but I’m softening.
One frustration lately with “good” films – they are showing less and less at big multiplexes. Here in Atlanta If I want to see at least 5 of these films first-run, I’d have to drive a ways to one of the old dusty theaters that care less about how many butts are in the seats and more about showing some quality. It has always been this way to some degree, but I think the frequency is increasing.
Question about Interstellar – if I hated (and I did) Gravity, should I bother? Can the story carry it without the cinematography? I’m skeptical, mostly because I’m not a huge Nolan fan.
…and was Chef considered for honorable mention?
Thanks Howie! Next time you, BIC, and I are in the same room, we will convince you to see The Babadook ;). And great point, a handful of these films were limited release. I am truly blessed, though, that Jacksonville, FL has four theaters all relatively close to me. So when one theater didn’t carry a film, one of the other three generally did. I was lucky enough to see all of these films, except The Babadook, in the multiplex.
I’m a Nolan fan, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I would say a disinterest in Gravity shouldn’t hold you back from seeing Interstellar. Gravity was all about surviving space, where Interstellar was about do we deserve to survive at all. They just had to go through space to find the answer. I would say that the story definitely carries the film.
Chef would definitely make the list of films I have not seen, that I need to see! I completely forgot about that one!
I am a Nolan fan as well, sooo… there’s that. But I too didn’t love Gravity. The visual effects were not enough for me and while I’m generally not a Bullock hater, I really didn’t care for her in Gravity. With that said, Interstellar is just on a whole other level in my opinion. I mean, Gravity won the “best picture” oscar mostly because Cauron succeeded in doing some really innovative work. But it wasn’t that great of a movie. Interstellar really is a wonderful movie. I don’t have it as my #1 of the year (Boyhood), but I too read the critics wondering why they just seemed to be rather… meh on the film. I definitely think it’s more than worth your time. You should bother. In theater would of course be better because of the visuals, but because it’s a solid story, if you miss it in theaters, it wouldn’t be a travesty.
And, i too am not a horror lover, but the Babadook is worth it. It’s a bit psychological in nature. Dealing with more than just cheap scares.
Joe, do get on to seeing Nightcrawler, one of my top 5. Gyllenhaal’s finest, and he’s done some great work in the past. I saw some critic say that it’s finally his break through and I’m sitting here thinking, “Ummmm…. he’s well past breakthrough.” But then, I watch movies as if I’m a critic. I have a thing for great acting though. The film overall is more than good, but it’s more about Gyllenhaal’s performance for me.
Ida was really nice. Definitely good. Worth your time.
Locke I had been looking forward to and I was left wanting. Didn’t love it. Though of course still better than most of the … drivel is such a strong word … stuff put out these days.
Really didn’t care for The Rover.
Foxcatcher, Selma, A Most Violent Year and Inherent Vice are definitely on my list to be seen, but I haven’t made it to them yet. Phoenix has been on an absolute tear for the last few years with really solid to great performance after another, so Inherent Vice is my most anticipated. But that eye catching trailer of Foxcatcher says it’s a career defining moment for Carell. So I’m certainly interested in that as well. I still haven’t seen Birdman, but I’ll probably see it in the next week.
I really loved Calvary as well. Great to see Gleeson as a star of a film.
TGBH was just so much fun. As Wes always is. It’s time for him to get a Best Director win.
I’m so glad Mcconaughey did so well in this. I don’t hate that he won last year’s Best Actor Oscar as much now. I mean, I sort of didn’t hate it anyways because of everything else he did last year and the year before, and then this year (Mud and True Detective being my standouts) but while Dallas Buyers Club was good, I just thought there were better performances and you don’t have to give someone an Oscar for dropping 50 pounds. But of course, he had AIDS and we know how the Academy loves giving awards to the Holocaust and anything LGBT related.
Whiplash – again, love great acting. Miles Teller showing us what he can do. He was really good in The Spectacular Now and this was just awesome. JK Simmons was spot on and rather hilarious.
Snowpiercer was one of those that was good but not astonishing for and left me sort of wanting.
Loved The Planet of the Apes as a blockbuster. A great second installment which of course seems impossible for most franchises. Maybe in my top 10. Probably not.
I get that Gone Girl is a commentary on our media culture and on marriage as well (though I do think less so), but I just really didn’t care for it. Pike was solid. As was Afflec. But just sort of hated it.
Yes I put too much stock into the Oscars. I’ll give up on it one day. When I’m sufficiently convinced that they’ve become worthless. Like the Grammy’s.
Thanks for the comments and thoughts Luke! I too put a lot of stock in the Oscars. Even though they seem to perpetually disappoint me!