Great Paragraphs

As a unit of measure, the paragraph may be the single most important quantity in literature.

The individual word, isolated from the context of the sentence, has limited applicability. The sentence, of varying lengths, may be as short as a single word, or as long as a paragraph, and may go on for pages. But a paragraph, as a unit--as a cluster of meaning, built out of multiple statements, all of which are directed to a unified theme--probably is the proportion that best demonstrates a writer's skill and imagination. 

Hemingway is often cited as a writer who had mastered the art of a certain kind of writing. Coming near the beginning of Modernism, Hemingway created a literary style made out of relatively simple language, employing rhythmic repetition and specific concrete detail to make a propulsive and accessible format for his fictional stories. 

His method by now is well-known: Short, grammatically straightforward statements, repeated phrases and words, vivid description with an impressionistic membrane of data smoothly organized, without abstraction, towards a basic, powerful effect. This piling-on of phrase upon phrase, rich in present participles (or gerunds), without commentary, has an overwhelmingly convincing quality. 

It doesn't argue, or prod, or linger, it simply moves forward, with confident determination, towards its goal. 

One of my favorites is the first paragraph of the short story "In Another Country", first published in his collection Men Without Women [1927]. It belongs to a cluster of pieces referred to as the Nick Adams stories, Adams being a fictional stand-in for Hemingway the narrator. They relate events in Hemingway's own life in the Midwest, growing up in the country, and later in Europe during and after World War I.        

In the fall the war was always there, but we did not go to it any more. It was cold in the fall in Milan and the dark came very early. Then the electric lights came on, and it was pleasant along the streets looking in the windows. There was much game hanging outside the shops, and the snow powdered in the fur of the foxes and the wind blew their tails. The deer hung stiff and heavy and empty, and small birds blew in the wind and the wind turned their feathers. It was a cold fall and the wind came down from the mountains.

This paragraph is a perfect example of how Hemingway's style works. Part of its appeal is that it could be the introduction to any one of a number of possible stories. Nothing has happened. It's merely the setting of a scene. Like a lot of Hemingway's work during this period, it refers somewhat obliquely, and cynically to the progress and presence of war. It is only "the war" as far as we know, almost a generic war in the way that it refers to no specific conflict, and no issue associated with it. All we know is that the narrator (and someone else) no longer "go to it" any more. There is a fine irony in the word "any more." A war isn't something you simply "go to" like a performance, or an errand. It puts the whole concept of war in an entirely uninspiring light, without in any way specifying what war it is or what it's about. Then we just get description. It's the Fall of the year, and beginning to turn cold. 

There are a series of synesthesic impressions--

cold / warm

dark / light

heavy / empty

stiff / windy

which are enumerated in a verbal stream of consciousness which evokes our physical memory of the qualities he uses to create a whole canvas of feeling. The dark may come early, but the lighted streets may seem prematurely glimmering as one walks along at twilight looking in lighted shop windows. There is freshly killed game hanging outside a butcher-shop. But then, in the second clause, we get an odd detail: ". . . the snow powdered in the fur of the foxes and the wind blew their tails." Clearly, the foxes aren't hanging outside the shops; they're loping around the countryside. Initially, we associate the flakes of snow, which hasn't been mentioned until this point, with the dead carcasses which are hanging from hooks (or twine) in front of the shops. But the foxes are still alive. This very vivid detail about snow in fur, and the wind which blows "their tails" is dropped into an otherwise very logical description of a twilit street scene, and yet we hardly question it. This illogical enjambment is effective precisely because it isn't explained; its logic belongs to the synesthesic association Hemingway has created in our minds. 

Then we get "the deer hung stiff and heavy and empty." Obviously a thing cannot be heavy and empty at the same time, but the "emptiness" refers to the fact of its being life-less, stiff and cold. But then, in the same sentence, there is another non sequitur, "and small birds blew in the wind and the wind turned their feathers." He doesn't say small birds flew, they blew. We don't ordinarily think of birds blowing in the wind, but we accept this subtle description without question. The detail of "the wind turn[ing] their feathers" implies a very strong wind, in which birds fluttering up have their feathers blown, involuntarily, by the force, so their feather are turned or twisted. It isn't something one often sees, but it's a telling kind of detail to describe the very brisk cold wind the narrator is only referring to tangentially. Like a lot of Hemingway description, it is a secondary condition, in which the main point is only implied by the effect. 

Then we get the ultimate "It was a cold fall and the wind came down from the mountains." A beautiful finality in the prosody here, the WIND came DOWN from the MOUNT-ains. It has a conclusive force that closes the paragraph off, like the premonitory thump thump thump of drums at the end of an overture to an opera. 

The paragraph contains only 105 words. The language is simple, no word of longer than two syllables, only the most basic objects and impressions are noted: lights, streets, windows, dead carcasses, foxes, deer, birds, feathers, mountains. Through it all is woven a poetic thread of weather and the progress of walking along an urban street (Milan). 

Has the narrator ceased to attend to the war because it is becoming colder? Or is the cold somehow a sign of the rejection of war? Clearly the dead game (deer) imply the deaths of war, but only in a symbolic way. There is a rejection of the idea of honor, or bravery, or duty, a hollowing out of the initial commitment to conflict, in favor of a non-violent life of ordinary existence. 

In Hemingway's prose, the simplest fact, the most obvious observation is never left simply to stand for itself. In the Modernist sense, things are to be represented truly (as Hemingway would say), without reading too much into them. And in that way, Hemingway doesn't say much about the objects. Rather, it's how he handles them in the stream of the narrative that creates a larger meaning. Hemingway believed that reference was a much more powerful tool than meditation. By implying something, he could achieve more than discussing it. So that if you wanted to imply a deep resentment towards a war, you didn't talk about the war, you talked about how you actually felt, physically (through your senses), while vaguely recollecting it. This is a very masculine, laconic quality, as if the danger of overstatement were somehow unmanly, or futile. Objects, images, symbols were more powerful than "talk" or "literary" elaboration, to represent a feeling. 

Hemingway's sensibility was adroit in managing, when most successful, to imply large statements out of small events. If a man and a woman are sitting at a café in a big European city square, they may say only a few words to one another, but we may come to understand their regard for each other, and the eventualities of their relationship, simply by what is suggested in the description of the scene. 

This is a difficult thing to do. One is tempted to try to tell the reader what is being obviously addressed, but Hemingway rarely allows himself to do this. Adult behavior is often a record of the subtlest kinds of exchanges--a look, a bodily position, a refusal to speak--and as we mature, we need to say less about the obvious, when to do so would probably cause impatience, or even hurt. It is the undercurrent of delicate feeling that underlies all of Hemingway's work, that of the wounded sensibility which refuses to indulge in self-pity or the easy demonstration of frustration or defeat. 

Tipo plays Scarlatti

Maria Tipo is my latest discovery. Perhaps if I had followed my early youthful interest in the keyboard into adulthood, she'd have been a familiar name to me by this time, but I've been pulled in so many different directions. I suppose in practical terms, she'd be considered a second-tier performer, but often talented performers can become experts with a closely identified specialization, like Bach for Gould, the French Impressionists for Gieseking, or Brahms for Katchen. 
  

Maria Tipo [1931- ] was born in Naples. She came to specialize in Scarlatti, Bach and Clementi. This list would suggest that Tipo is a classicist, and in one sense that would be correct. Her precision and disciplined adherence to timing and overall organization are impressive. But it's her evocation of the melodic line, and the overall lyrical structure of individual pieces that most captures my ear. 

Scarlatti is of course essentially a composer for the harpsichord. But the modern adaptation of his pieces to the piano keyboard is by now a well-established application. Horowitz, for one, was famous for his delicate and plucky pianistic Scarlatti innovations. Scarlatti can be very difficult, especially when played as fast as he seems to have expected some his pieces should be done. The fingering has a dancing quality which challenges the pianist to hold to the melodic line while not getting bogged down in too thick a harmonic mix. Tipo tends to suppress the left hand somewhat, softening it, while emphasizing the singing quality in the right hand. 

In my experience, a lot of Scarlatti performers will play too stiffly or hard. It takes both great ingenuity and a very subtle touch to bring out the lyricism of these pieces, without sounding too insistent. At his best, Scarlatti's [1685-1757] compositions aren't decorative or programmatic. They're much more profound--pure music, if you will. He's probably the greatest composer for the harpsichord, other than his nearly exact contemporary, Bach [1685-1750]. 

Here is a collection of 18 Scarlatti Sonatas played by Maria Tipo, on YouTube, probably recorded some years ago. Tipo is Italian, so it's fitting she should be such a master of her countryman's work.

(The "K" numbers refer to the chronological catalogue of the composer's work done by Ralph Kirkpatrick [1911-1984].) 

0:00:00 ➢ K. 495

0:04:16 ➢ K. 381


0:08:48 ➢ K. 20


0:12:00 ➢ K. 394


0:17:12 ➢ K. 454


0:22:02 ➢ K. 425


0:24:52 ➢ K. 491


0:30:43 ➢ K. 32


0:33:15 ➢ K. 342


0:35:21 ➢ K. 109


0:40:30 ➢ K. 39


0:43:21 ➢ K. 125


0:45:45 ➢ K. 470


0:50:38 ➢ K. 124


0:55:57 ➢ K. 79


0:58:16 ➢ K. 547


1:02:35 ➢ K. 551


1:07:42 ➢ K. 128


Every performance of the work of a well-known composer is like seeing it for the first time. My old typography teacher, Harry Duncan, used to reiterate the old chestnut about the words being the wine, and the typography being the glass. The print holds the word(s) in a certain shape, through which we "see" them (the language), and taste it, and savor it. I wouldn't want to carry this metaphor very far, but musical interpretations have a similar kind of transparency, particularly in solo performance. It's possible to "read" the character or personality of a performer, especially if you've heard different versions with which to compare them.

With female performers there is a tendency, perhaps, to see their versions as "softer" than a man's. Though I see some truth in this, I don't want to carry it very far. Alicia de Larrocha's interpretations of Albeniz, for instance, I find just a bit too brittle and heavy, whereas Soriano or Echaniz do better with his impressionistic evanescence. In the case of Tipo, I think she's mastered the quintessential delicacy of Scarlatti's aesthetic, while sacrificing none of its clarity or force. 

The Supreme Court Decision in the Michigan Race-Based Preference Ban

We presently have a divided Supreme Court, with the balance tipping towards conservative. So it was not much of a surprise to hear that they had upheld the State of Michigan's voter initiative that struck down race-based college-level admissions. The court didn't consider the constitutionality of race-based admissions, but only upheld the right of states to decide for themselves if they wanted to have race-based admissions, opening the gate for future state-by-state challenges to preferential discrimination. At some point in the future, however, it seems very likely that the issue will again rise to the federal level of appeal, and race-based admissions policies will eventually have to be measured against a constitutional standard, applicable through the land. 

I have always been against the idea of race-based initiatives, having seen their effects directly when I was a college student at UC Berkeley in the 1960's, and later when I worked for 27 years in a Federal Agency. In both instances, I could see plain evidence of the corruption and immorality of using race as a factor in determining qualifications for enrollment, and criteria for advancement in promotion. Blind justice requires that we don't discriminate for or against individuals solely on the basis of the color of their skin (genetic inheritance), sex or ethnic background.  

In institutions of higher learning, the only factors that should be considered are demonstrated academic performance and potential, and associated "extra-curricular" factors such as participation in sports, music, media, etc. If we rely, however well-intentioned, upon factors such as race or ethnic background or sex to rate and measure individual applicants, we will end up diluting the quality and value of our academic standards, and of the qualifications of those who graduate. Lowering standards to measure qualification, by substituting racial preferences for academic ones, is a form of corruption which encourages and realizes inequality in a way that is clearly against the intent and principle of our democratic institutions. 

In the past, de-facto discrimination allowed institutions to discriminate against minorities. But making public, deliberately preferential policies intended to facilitate discrimination--in order to artificially create racial "balance" or "diversity"--is even more corrupt. 

Over the past half-century, academic institutions have been influenced to believe that an idealized concept of "diversity" enrollment is a desirable goal. Defenders of "diversity" will argue that a racially "mixed" student body is a healthier, more balanced expression of the "diversity" of the society as a whole, and that it behooves society to "right the wrongs" of centuries of past racial discrimination by facilitating "diversity" through preferences and quotas. 

The message, however, that such selective discrimination sends to society as a whole isn't fairness, but a debasement of standards. What is a young black man or an hispanic woman to feel about him- or herself, if it is clear that their racial and ethnic backgrounds are the basis for their achieving an advantage over an "other" (i.e., white) individual? How is one kind of paternalistic (i.e., bigoted) discrimination somehow "better" than the older version? 

Presently, the undergraduate admissions totals for UC Berkeley for the current academic year, by ethnicity, show the following:

Ethnicity Preliminary 2012-2013 Preliminary 2013-2014 American Indian 87 80 African American 392 417 Chicano/Latino 1,819 1,838 Asian American 5,427 5,566 White 3,683 3,988 Not Given 492 576 Subtotal-Citizens and Immigrants 11,900 12,465 International 1,137 1,638 TOTAL 13,037 14,103 Subtotal-American Indian, African American, Chicano, Latino 2,298 2,335

It's clear from this chart that Asians far outnumber any other single group (including caucasian whites). Since Asians art not, insofar as I know, a target group for affirmative preferences, it's clear that they have been able to overcome whatever deficits and/or deficiencies they may have experienced in their lives, to surmount the hierarchy of the bell-curve to achieve success in greater numbers than the competition. I suppose that if I were anti-Asian, I might find this development troubling. But since I understand that the Asian achievement is based on actual academic superiority, I find it a confirmation of the principles of equality our nation is supposed to stand for. In other words, if I were Asian, I would feel justifiably proud of my achievement, and of my inheritance. And if I were African American, and had managed to overcome whatever obstacles which I had had to confront, my success in qualifying for admission would be an untainted achievement, since California outlawed race-based admissions preferences in 1996.

Which is better?--to succeed through an artificial preference designed to privilege one through racial preference--or to succeed through one's native ability and effort?

Race-based admissions policies are a debased form of deliberate, discriminatory racism. They harm most those they are designed to assist, and spread corruption throughout the institutions where they are employed. They have no place in America, and should be outlawed. It will be interesting in the coming decades, to see whether we have the courage and decency to admit that, and take the necessary steps to eradicate them.    

The Cocktail Lounge - Delayed

In the world of blogging, you can't choose your readers. At least, unless you create a restricted list of "permitted" readers, you're out here naked for anyone with an internet connection and the wherewithal to dial you up via Google with a handy URL. 

I think most of the potential readers of this blog have no interest whatsoever in alcoholic beverages, beyond an occasional glass of wine with dinner, or a beer once in a while in a tavern. I've never been an habitual bar-fly, and have no notion of the social scene that entails. My interest in mixing cocktails is purely self-indulgent. My parents weren't big drinkers, and I've never gone in for binge drinking, or social drinking. I have tasted thousands of wines, and hundreds of scotch single malts over the years, so my palette is educated more than most people's to the pleasures and complexities of spirits and vintages. 

But, again, I've wondered about whether to create an entirely separate blog page for these entries, in order not to scare away teetotalers, or those who simply have no interest in the subject. I'm thinking about it. In the meantime, here are five concoctions which I've not gotten around to posting until now--a backlog of sorts. All mixed by proportion, naturally. 

French West Indies

2 parts white rum

2 parts coq d'Or calvados

1 part drambuie

1 part biscotti liqueur

1 part lemon

Shaken and served up.  

Viva Cuba 

3 parts white rum

1 part tequila silver

1 part key lime liqueur

1 part coconut syrup

1 part lemon

3/4 part lime

Shaken and served up. 

The Augmented Sazerac

4 parts Jack Daniels bourbon

1 part Sloe Gin

1 part fresh lemon juice

1/3 part Pernod

3 shakes Angustura bitters

1/2 part sweet syrup

This one can be made in the manner of the classic Sazerac, or swirled in ice and served up. It wants to be fairly smooth on the palate. The brand of bourbon can alter the effect of the Sazerac, obviously, but I've not felt obliged to get into the range of limiteds that line the liquor store shelves.    

Pure Funk

4 parts Buffalo Trace bourbon

1 part cherry liqueur

1 part parfait d'amour

1 part fresh lemon juice

Garnish with cherry if desired

This could be another Sazerac variation, but it's sweeter (because of the parfait d'amour). A drink with a "serious" quality that suggests female elegance. 

Key West Wind

4 parts white anejo tequila

1 part blood orange liqueur

1 part key lime liqueuer

1 part mezcal

1/2 part lemon juice

1/2 part lime juice

The Favorite Movies Post

The ranking of movies is like the ranking of any media form. We live in a competitive society, in which the drive to succeed, to exceed, plays a crucial role in the democratic playground of the pursuit of happiness--wealth, notoriety and esteem.

Movies are first a form of entertainment, but they are also a vehicle for social criticism, propaganda, or public information. Cinema is a new medium, invented at the end of the 19th Century, with the added domain of sound in the late 1920's. The technological advancements in visual, sound and special effects have occurred with some regularity over the decades, leading to the sophistication of a medium which had begun as little more than a kind of static theatre-like, two-dimensional projection process. While the mature craft of acting has changed little over the last century, movies have developed a host of processes and techniques, making them the dominant art form of the present age. Movies have been, and continue to be, the art of the future.

While the technical side of moving pictures has progressed dramatically, it's become clear that narrative construction, and the development and portrayal of character, are still at the heart of meaningful, effective action, and that successful cinematic entertainment can't be built exclusively upon special visual or aural effects. "Action" movies may have little or no inherent, intrinsic dramatic content, if they rely on nothing but ingenious technical tricks or audacious visual surprises. A good story is still a good story, with or without cinematic sleights of hand.

I'm not sure just why, but none of the following productions was released before 1931. So-called "silent movies" (movies without coordinated sound) which could only represent dialogue by interspersing printed screens of quotation, had many things to recommend them, within the limitations of the new medium. The slapstick comics built their tradition on clownish antics and cliff-hanging dare-devil stunts, talents which have not been improved-upon in the decades since, simply because there has not been a need to do so. "They had faces," says Gloria Swanson in the nostalgic Sunset Boulevard [1950]--one of the titles on my list--but they didn't have voices (in the silent era). When talkies came in, some players who had built their careers on visuals, suddenly became obsolete, unable to project the same dramatic quality with their voices, that they'd been able to do with their faces and bodies. For me, the Silent era exists in a kind of pre-cinematic precinct, neither theatre nor pure cinema, perhaps more of a curiosity than a fully-developed form. I can appreciate Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton or Lillian Gish, but their silent era work seems somehow stifled, and limited, being neither as rich as legitimate theatre, nor as streamlined as cinema with sound. Silents were a transitional curiosity; sound movies were the complete package.

Like theatre, the first successful (sound) movies were celebrations of the emancipation of the human voice. For me, the first legitimate (sound) movie is The Front Page, released in 1931, based on the successful stage play of the same name, co-authored by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur. It's basically a film of a play, with almost no purely cinematic effects at all, but with plenty of crackling, witty dialogue, and dramatic tension. It's pure American energy and humor and chutzpah, and captures the brash, percolating spirit of the 1920's.

Movies made great strides, both technically and financially, throughout the 1930's, as major production companies consolidated their organizations, becoming efficient factories turning out as many releases as they could, to meet the rapidly growing demand. Musicals, dance movies, and stagy extravaganzas blossomed quickly. Movies got longer, and with the arrival of color, more visually realistic. As a child of the 1950's, when television came into wide use, I grew up seeing countless pre-war movies from the 1930's. I can remember little of them, though they are of course very familiar when I see them now. One would think that the movies one had seen as a child would leave a lasting impression, as indeed they may have, unconsciously. But thinking about them today, I can find little to recommend them. They were mostly a kind of escapist medium from the economic hardships of the time, designed not to remind people of the truths of their lives, but to transport them to an alternative universe where reality didn't intervene.

 Hollywood's star system produced countless familiar faces, but the films they made were, by today's standards, stilted and timid efforts. The medium would have to wait until after World War II, in my view, to begin to produce films that were fully integrated cinematic works, incorporating action, acting, writing, editing, sound and cinematography together to make a whole experience. I have only six movies from the 1930's, not because there weren't countless interesting efforts in that decade, but because they didn't leave a lasting impression on me.

The Front Page 1931
A Day at the Races 1937
Dead End 1937

Ninotchka 1939

Wizard of Oz 1939

Gone With the Wind 1939

Wuthering Heights 1939

It's no surprise that Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind end up on the list, since they expanded the medium to epic proportions, and established new benchmarks for technical realism on the one hand, and magical fantasy on the other. Both were breakthroughs in creating a complete visual world. Wuthering Heights followed the romantic plot-line of the novel, going against the grain of the happy ending boy-gets-girl formula. It's also cinematically effective, using black and white to create emotional sturm und drang--a quality that would soon become preeminent during the Noir era. Ninotchka is a sentimental favorite, Garbo's last important effort, and a very entertaining comedy with political overtones that would never again be viewed in such an innocent way. Dead End combines a number of aspects--gangsterism, juvenile delinquency, economic disparity among potential mates--played out in a gritty urban setting. It was, typically, a stage play first, adapted by Lillian Hellman, but the material was already familiar to movie audiences. Plus, we get Bogart and Joel McCrea and Claire Trevor. Bogart was already a star, and this movie would propel his persona further along the "disreputable"tough-guy track. After Wizard and Gone, movies would seldom again just be filmed plays, but the war would intervene, delaying some of the fulfillment that awaited it. 

Philadelphia Story 1940

Rebecca 1940

Citizen Caine 1941

Casablanca 1942

Double Indemnity 1944

Gaslight 1944

Arsenic and Old Lace 1944

Spellbound 1945

Notorious 1946

Great Expectations 1946

Beauty and the Beast 1946

Red River 1948

Oliver Twist 1948

Key Largo 1948

The Red Shoes 1948

Treasure of the Sierra Madre 1948

Adam's Rib 1949

On the Town 1949

Twelve O'Clock High 1949

Kind Hearts and Coronets 1949

The Forties was a quirky decade, and the films reflected the eclectic expansion of themes and opportunities afforded by the increasing sophistication of the medium, while looking back towards classic narratives. It begins with Citizen Caine, which had begun production long before its release, and which is widely considered the first true finished cinematic experience, and the last of the important black and white epics. Two historical recreations--Great Expectations, Oliver Twist--are the work of David Lean, whose career would flower into the great epic adaptations of Lawrence, Zhivago, River Kwai, etc. Philadelphia Story and Adam's Rib are Hepburn at her height. Hitchcock's first great triumphs in America--Rebecca, Spellbound, and Notorious--belong here. The reaction to the terrors of world war would begin to find vehicles, in Twelve O'Clock High. Casablanca may seem more sentimental now than it did at the time, as does Gaslight, but they had Ingrid Bergman in her prime, as well as Bogart and Charles Boyer.  Treasure of the Sierra Madre is my favorite movie of all time, a tight, perfectly constructed action involving three characters, facing hardship and temptation in the Mexican outback, with unforgettable character portrayals in a realistic setting. Red River is John Wayne in his best cowboy role; was there ever a better Western? On the Town and The Red Shoes are song and dance movies with irresistible contexts, and both are so much better than the musical and dance movies of the Thirties, there's just no comparison. I'm not much for foreign flicks, but Cocteau's slightly surreal imagination made a masterpiece in Beauty and the Beast. Double Indemnity is better to my mind than The Maltese Falcon or any of the Edward G. Robinson or James Cagney hardboiled efforts, and we get gorgeous Barbara Stanwyck to boot. I've never been much into comedy, but Arsenic and Old Lace is so completely weird in its combination of spookiness, silliness, romance and madcap hijinks it belongs on everyone's list, and we get Cary Grant besides. 

Sunset Boulevard 1950

Asphalt Jungle 1950

Orpheus 1950

The Lavender Hill Mob 1951

The Man in the White Suit 1951

Strangers on a Train 1951

Singin' in the Rain 1952

Viva Zapata 1952

High Noon 1952

The Quiet Man 1952

Julius Caesar 1953

Roman Holiday 1953

From Here to Eternity 1953

Stalag 17 1953

Captain's Paradise 1953

The Wild One 1953

Beat the Devil 1953

Shane 1953

Hobson's Choice 1954

Rear Window 1954

Sabrina 1954

On the Waterfront 1954

The Caine Mutiny 1954

Dial M For Murder 1954

La Strada 1954

Night of the Hunter 1955

Mister Roberts 1955

East of Eden 1955

Summertime 1955

To Catch a Thief 1955

The Lady Killers 1955

Guys and Dolls 1955

The Friendly Persuasion 1956

The Man Who Knew Too Much 1956

High Society 1956

Giant 1956

The Bridge on the River Kwai 1957

Auntie Mame 1958

Vertigo 1958

Our Man in Havana 1959

The Nun's Story 1959

Some Like it Hot 1959

The 1950's list is the longest list here. I may be dating myself, if you believe that what people like tends to mark their taste chronologically. The media environment of the 1950's was rich. There was still radio, and newspapers and magazines were thriving. When I was a boy in the Fifties, you could see two double features on a weekend afternoon for just a quarter, and the snack-bar didn't cost much either. These were Hitchcock's glory days, and I have no less than six of his efforts on my list--Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, Dial M for Murder, To Catch a Thief, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Vertigo. Hitchock's movies aren't mysteries, or thrillers, or straight dramas; they're about suspicion, foreboding that verges on dread, the unexpected, betrayal, manipulation, and class conflict. The Fifties may have seemed quiet, but rumblings of social change were in the air. The Wild One, with Marlon Brando, about a motorcycle gang terrorizing a small town, actually scared people. The war was still very much on people's minds, with From Here to Eternity, Stalag 17, The Caine Mutiny, Mister Roberts, The Bridge on the River Kwai, and dozens of others too forgettable to name. The best ones, like these, were more about human character than shooting and battle. But war movies would continue to hold their audiences for many more years. Sunset Boulevard, Asphalt Jungle, and Night of the Hunter may technically belong to the "Noir" period, but each is so uniquely conceived and executed that the moniker hardly seems to matter. We mightn't have known it, but the Western (High Noon, Shane) was on its last legs. The small, witty comedies turned out by Britain's Ealing Studios (Kind Hearts and Coronets, The Lavender Hill Mob, The Man in the White Suit, and The Ladykillers, Our Man in Havana [with the magnificent Alec Guinness]) seemed like throwbacks, again, to an earlier, stagier, era. Small, isolated masterpieces were popping up, like John Wayne's only real "straight" movie, The Quiet Man, set in an idyllic Ireland. La Strada, one of my few foreign films, almost seemed not to need dialogue. The Nun's Story, for my money the best movie Audrey Hepburn ever made, or Summertime (a Katherine Hepburn vehicle), seemed designed for their respective stars. A new young actor named James Dean--harbinger of the new teen idol craze--would flash across the sky (in East of Eden and Giant) and then suddenly burn out. The musical was also on its last legs, but High Society, Guys and Dolls, and Singin' in the Rain each is a classic of its kind. The cross-dressing comedy Some Like it Hot is a fitting end to the staid, conservative Fifties, which would give way to the promiscuous, liberated Sixties.   

The Apartment 1960  

Two Women 1960

The Sundowners 1960

The Misfits 1961

The Hustler 1961

One-Eyed Jacks 1961

The Guns of Navarone 1961

The Music Man 1962

Lawrence of Arabia 1962

Jules et Jim 1962

Lolita 1962

The Days of Wine and Roses 1962

The Knife in the Water 1962

Lonely Are the Brave 1962

Tom Jones 1963

The Servant 1963

The List of Adrian Messenger 1963

Hud 1963

The Ugly American 1963

Becket 1964

Zorba the Greek 1964

Topkapi 1964
Darling 1965

Doctor Zhivago 1965

The Loved One 1965

Blow-Up 1966

The Group 1966

The Graduate 1967

The Thomas Crown Affair 1968

Rosemary's Baby 1968

2001 A Space Odyssey 1968

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie 1969

The Sixties was a time of change in America, when the assumptions and traditions by which Americans had lived and dreamed during the Depression years, the war years, and the immediate post-war years, came into question. The anti-hero finally came into his own. In The Sundowners, The Misfits, The Hustler, One-Eyed Jacks, Lawrence of Arabia, Lolita, Lonely Are the Brave, Tom Jones, The Servant, Hud, Becket, The Graduate, The Thomas Crown Affair, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, offbeat protagonists pursue strange destinies that lead us far astray of the straight-and-narrow-path of typical middle class existence. These are complex characters, often repellent in their nature, who nevertheless draw us in, seduce us into their world. The Western morphed into weird new versions (One-Eyed Jacks, Lonely Are the Brave, Hud). These films explored America's corrupt foreign policy (The Ugly American), the exploitation of women (The Apartment), alcoholism (The Days of Wind and Roses), pedophilia (Lolita), vicarious curiosity (Blow-Up), serial murder (The List of Adrian Messenger), and psychotic co-dependency (The Servant); and there were other films, not on this list, that explored drug addiction, mental illness, and counterculture rebellion. Very few of these movies are feel-good experiences, and they often left you with a sense that the world was neither a very nice place, nor likely to get better soon. 2001 A Space Odyssey proposed a science fiction future that was not ideal at all. 

Five Easy Pieces 1970

The Go-Between 1970

Little Big Man 1970
Patton 1970

The Last Picture Show 1971

Deliverance 1972

The Godfather I & II 1972-4

Klute 1973

The Long Goodbye 1973

Paper Moon 1973

The Sting 1973

Papillon 1973

Steelyard Blues 1973

The Way We Were 1973

Chinatown 1974

Barry Lyndon 1975

The Missouri Breaks 1976

All the President's Men 1976

Network 1976

Carrie 1976

Alien 1979

Kramer versus Kramer 1979
The Great Santini 1979

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy 1979 [BBC Miniseries]

The Seventies was also a time of general cultural confusion. The movies continued to question our values and assumptions about religion (Carrie), our political life (All the President's Men, Chinatown), our frontier myths (Little Big Man, Deliverance, The Missouri Breaks), the purpose and dangers of media (Network), even the ultimate meaning of life in the universe. The Noir paradigm continued to intrigue us (The Long Goodbye, Klute, Chinatown). But the big story of the 1970's was undoubtedly the Godfather saga, which eventually would fill out three complete installments, though the third panel of the tryptic would be pretty disappointing. In its big tapestry documenting the progress of an Italian mafia clan across two generations, American cinema returned to the ambitious dream that had not really been realized on this scale since Citizen Caine (1941). McMurtry's The Last Picture Show seemed to turn the nostalgia of the Old West into an involuted decadence. Again, it was the anti-hero who seemed to fascinate us (Little Big Man, Five Easy Pieces, The Long Goodbye, The Sting, Papillon, Barry Lyndon). Audiences can't summon movies into being, but there must be some kind of collective unconscious force that brings certain kinds of art into focus. Our identification with unlikely protagonists must have inspired the creation of stories that showed us the flip-side of the myth of success, of the frontier hero who rides into the sunset with the pretty girl and the new fortune in a land of plenty. Prostitutes and gamblers and con men; rustlers, hoodlums, seedy private eyes and investigative reporters, spies and monsters and convicts. What a ragtag group of people this bunch is.     

     

Raging Bull 1980

Ordinary People 1980

Body Heat 1981

My Dinner with Andre 1981

The French Lieutenant's Woman 1981

Brideshead Revisited 1981 [BBC Miniseries]

The Grey Fox 1982
Victor Victoria 1982
Under the Volcano 1984

Prizzi's Honor 1985

Top Gun 1986

Down by Law 1986

Jean de Florette/Manon of the Springs 1986 

Wall Street 1987

The Untouchables 1987

Moonstruck 1987

The Last Emperor 1987
Empire of the Sun 1987

Dangerous Liaisons 1988

Dead Poets Society 1989

In choosing which movies to put on the list, I tried to avoid putting in choices that I might have a personal obsession with, but which I can't defend as art or cinematic innovation. The 'Eighties continued to demonstrate that individual movies no longer belonged to generic traditional continuities, but tended (especially the best ones) to be isolated conceptual visions that implied no set of predictable components, like a western, or a mystery or love story. Though the Noir style persevered (Body Heat, The Untouchables), the clichés had become so self-conscious they'd been re-absorbed into the integral plots. The old studio system had its faults, but it provided a continuity of expectation which its audience was comfortable with. Small production companies come and go, some exist only to facilitate a single project. The risks are probably ten times greater for a small production, independently funded with private investment capital, than they were for the big studios. Which is why star power is still a factor, whereas the other parts of the recipe may seem less so. Small miracles like Ordinary People, or My Dinner With Andre, or The Grey Fox, or Down by Law seem very much more entertaining to me, than big over-produced blockbusters. Could a one-shot movie ever do justice to a story like Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, which British television did in 11 installments?  

Goodfellas 1990
Henry & June 1990
Mr. and Mrs. Bridge 1990

Silence of the Lambs 1991

Dracula 1992

Glengarry Glen Ross 1992
A River Runs Through It 1992
Forrest Gump 1994
The Shawshank Redemption 1994

Sling Blade 1996

L.A. Confidential 1997

Wings of the Dove 1997

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil 1997

Saving Private Ryan 1998
The Talented Mr. Ripley 1999
The Ninth Gate 1999

   

Ranking films decade by decade may seem an artificial segmentation of time. It's a convenient way to segregate a batch of efforts in any medium. We typically refer to periods of time as signifying a kind of spirit or preoccupation which is characteristic. Large events may assume an even steeper altitude on the horizon of our perspective. 2001 will always define our sense of the first few years of the new century, the 21st. The movie 2001 A Space Odyssey (in 1968) imagined the advance of science to have occurred at a much more rapid pace. Our technology hasn't kept pace with our dreams, at least in this instance. Orwell's predictions about the insidious penetration of the public and private space by technological surveillance, however, look to be coming true. Who could have imagined that it would be private industry, and the recreational interconnectivity of the Web, which would facilitate this invasiveness? 

The death of the studio system probably led to the creation of more unique movies than would otherwise have been possible. Rather than being straight-jacketed by studios looking to repeat proven formulas, individual producers and directors were free to conceive of particular projects that interested them, and of pursuing these visions with unconventional methods. Of course, it also meant that, without the backing of a large studio, the odds were greater, and failure could sink your reputation and your opportunities for future work, though success at the box office has always been an issue for everyone in the business, especially for those in a position of authority. Despite this, excellent movies within specific genres--such as crime dramas (Goodfellas), historical costume pieces (Wings of the Dove), war movies (Saving Private Ryan), horror flicks (Dracula, Silence of the Lambs)--continued to be made. It's difficult, though, to imagine a film like Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil ever having been contemplated by a major studio. 

Readers may remark the dearth of foreign titles on this list. It seems to me that cinema is so quintessentially an American medium, that it completely overshadows foreign film efforts. No doubt the language barrier is a serious issue, here, which I will readily admit. But even great foreign directors such as Fellini, tend to see film as a non-cinematic vehicle. I can see many things to admire in French and Italian cinema, but they rarely speak to me at the level of my deepest sensibilities.  
  
Given the opportunity, how many of the films I never saw over the years, would I have found to like? Usually, I can tell from a brief two-sentence résumé whether or not I'm likely to enjoy a film. Only occasionally, are my expectations thwarted, and then I end up either being completely bored, or, as with the case of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, pleasantly surprised (the only movie by Clint Eastwood that I've ever admired!). 


Castaway 2000
Gladiator 2000
Frida 2002
The Pianist 2002
The Door in the Floor 2004
Life of Pi 2012
American Hustle 2013


What is it that makes American movies great? Maybe it's ambition, the desire to make something so large that it's undeniable. Cinerama was an attempt to make such a wide picture that it would literally surround the viewer. Surround-sound was an attempt to surround the audience in sound, coming from all directions at once. 3-D movies, which made a small comeback in the 'oughts, were an attempt to put the viewing audience inside the moving picture. But the point all along has been to make an action compelling enough to hold our attention, consistently, and powerfully. Telling stories has always been the first priority. A movie like Titanic [1997] needed desperately to make a story out of a big tragic calamity, and probably barely succeeded. Events need to have a personal dimension to make them interesting to audiences, we need to feel something specific about an experience. Just showing cars crashing, or buildings crumbling, or planets colliding isn't enough. All the new technical manipulations which have come to us via the computer revolution, are as nothing compared to the effect a powerful story can have. I loved watching with pity and terror, the sinking of the Titanic in the movie version, but special effects must be properly integrated into a believable, or diverting, story-line. The modern cartoon movies are not half as effective as the early Disney cartoon movies. I have been surprised to see how pitifully the recent sci-fi movie attempts have been, despite the new technical wizardry, proving how extraneous such factors are. I'm clearly susceptible, given the listed choices, to the big blockbusting feature, but it must say something about history, or the human dilemma. 

I'm also partial to stories which seem in some sense to be about my own personal story, which is why I respond to specific movies like Great Expectations, East of Eden, The Sundowners, Blow-Up, The Graduate, The Last Picture Show, The Way We Were, My Dinner With Andre, Dead Poets Society, Glengarry Glen Ross, A River Runs Through It, The Ninth Gate--each of which addresses some personal event in my life, or speaks through an intimate relationship of something that has formed my character. 

In order to be thorough with this survey, I tasked myself to go through the whole list of movies on Wikipedia, decade by decade, from 1920 all the way through 2014. Try it sometime, it's an exhausting procedure! There are so many more movies than you might expect. Today, I can barely expect to see more than a handful of new releases in any given year. Usually, I end up seeing them a year or two later on Netflix, a subscription service that allows one to have three movies in your possession at one time, in a round-robbin of circulating discs. This is much the most efficient way to see movies on a regular basis, and has permitted me to see a lot of older movies that I'd not have had the chance to view.  Movies are rarely shown on commercial television anymore, and since I don't subscribe to Cable, I don't have access to the movie channels. 

Media is changing rapidly now. What will happen when people simply stop going to see movies at movie theaters--or will they continue to do so? Movie projection halls are under pressure in the same way that physical books ("material texts") are these days. But the representation of an action, on a live stage, in a movie or a book, will continue to divert people's attention. The shared experience of viewing a movie, in public, in a dark projection room, may give way to a universal privacy. Will that alter the way we feel about, or respond to, movies? Millions of books are produced each year. Far fewer movies are made, and even fewer plays are premiered, or revived. Has technology made making movies easier, or less expensive? 

Movies are the expression of a nation's culture. As such, the history of American cinema is a record of our likes and dislikes, our prejudices and honorable sentiments, our pride and shame, our curiosity and morbid fascination. It is our way of telling ourselves who we are, and what we think, or should think and feel, about the world. Movies have been important touchstones for my sense of the world, rehearsals of how I like to cycle and recycle my persistent interests. I have probably watched Patton, and Hobson's Choice, and Kind Hearts and Coronets, a dozen times. There are some movies, like Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or Vertigo, which I have literally memorized. People before the 20th Century had no experience of movies. I'm sure Charles Dickens would have produced wonderful screenplays, had he lived in our time. Would Samuel Richardson have been a purveyor of porn? I'm sure the Medieval scholars would have been shocked, shocked to see such mischief. 

My top ten list (the films in boldface print in the columns) could easily be extended to 20, but beyond that, I think it would become too watered down. On the other hand, a top hundred list would be very possible. 

As we bid adieu to the public world of movie attendance, let's say a little prayer to the gods of culture, that movies will continue to be made, and to be made ambitiously, with big dreams, and big budgets. We would be much poorer without them.