i almost ran over an angel...

Added my review of Errol Morris' experiment in didacticism, The Fog of War.

You can see the trailer here.

my father says "you ain't makin' any money..."

So I'm currently working on my top-10 list. It's taking a long time because of formatting issues (it'll be a whole page unto itself). What will be #1?? What will be #10?? You'll have to be content with guessing for now. Also, I've been re-reading some of my reviews, and I've noticed that some of them are really long. I wonder if shorter reviews would do this site any good. And what about pictures? You guys like pictures? You know--those colorful square-like things. I like pictures. Maybe some pictures on the actual reviews would spice things up. Who knows. But I think some things are going to change for 2004.

don't bother coming down, I made a friend of the Western sky...

As I quipped eariler about SLS Dean Kathleen Sullivan being unable to sit idly by as HLS Dean Elena Kagan made some disparaging remarks about SLS's capacity as a law school, Dean Sullivan has actually responded today in her own email to the SLS community:

Dear Friends:

Welcome back for spring semester and I hope that your re-entry to classes goes well. I know it's been a bit rainy, but look on the bright side--Harvard Law School has had to convert part of its campus into a natural ice skating rink! And here the days are getting longer and the acacia are in bloom. I write with a few local news items and reminders..." (emphasis added)

One friend commented on the puerile nature of this back-and-forth between the two schools. At the very least, it shows that both deans lack confidence in the statures of their schools in the law school world. How unbecoming!

they see you cry, they lick their lips...

About the only movie I've seen of Christina Ricci's that I really liked is Buffalo '66. She played a girl kidnapped by a social misfit who wants to impress his parents with his supposed fiance. I saw this movie a while ago, but I remember Ricci's performance because it was so curiously indifferent, almost nihilistic. It's as if she didn't mind being kidnapped by this psycho because her own life lacked such spark. In other words, the emotional distance that characterizes most of Ricci's performances (including her role in Monster) was perfectly apt for her role in Buffalo '66. However, such a performance was uncalled-for in the emotional torrent of a movie that is Monster. Instead of counter-balancing Theron's performance, Ricci's performance seemed to jeopardize its sincerity. Blah.

tomorrow's just an excuse away...

So I've been recovering from this morning's Evidence exam, which wasn't really that bad. I'm just recovering from the fact that I had to get up so early today. Ugh. Anywho, I got this bright idea to write reviews of movies that I saw this past year, but failed (for whatever reason) to properly review. One of these movies is The Matrix Revolutions. I distinctly remember not reviewing it because I was never quite sure what was going on in The Matrix Reloaded. I was afraid that I'd be shown to be utterly incompetent. Given that most critics were shown to be incompetent in their reviews of Reloaded and Revolutions, I guess it's not such a bad thing. So I'm half-way into my review of Revolutions, and it's as much of a mess as the plot of the movie itself. However, I'm determined to finish it, even if it does indeed turn out to be my worst review to date (that is, the review I'm least proud of, not the review of the worst movie I've reviewed). Blah.

what do you plan to do with all your freedom?

I can't blog or review movies right now. I'm stuck studying for my Evidence final on Monday. (Another final?? Already??) Harvard's "winter term" is weird and useless.

On the bright side, after Monday's exam, I'll have a full week of nothing to do. I'll use that time to finally see the last two films that I need to see before posting my precious top-10 list for 2003. And which films might those be? The Triplets of Belleville, and The Fog of War. That would leave only one movie which I was unable to see, but which was highly critically acclaimed this year: The Barbarian Invasions. It was playing here in Cambridge, but it came and went rather quickly, during the Christmas break. Oh well.

i've got Big Bird on the fishing line...

I received my grades today. Interestingly, they don't resemble my Stanford Law School grades at all. These grades are much higher. I thought this was rather odd, given that I didn't notice any real difference in the level of difficulty of the course materials, or in the aptitude of the students, between the two schools. If anything, I'd say that HLS folks are a bit more serious, more academic, and more intellectual. At any rate, I'm not complaining!

This leads me to the only possible conclusion: Despite all pretension otherwise, Harvard Law School is easier than Stanford Law School. Perhaps this is just another of newly-appointed Dean Kagan's efforts to make us happier, a la the skating rink. It's working. ;-)

ohh...the damage done....

And speaking of The Passion of the Christ, here's a fascinating story on the curious withdrawal of the Pope's alleged comment regarding the film: "It is as it was."

i'm not sure who's fooling whom here...

And the controversy is indeed only just beginning. Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ has already divided Christians and Jews--months before its release. This is unsurprising, as people cannot be expected to take the killing of their God lightly. The problem lies in the portrayal of the Jews, the would-be assassins. Jewish leaders say that the film depicts them as Christ-killers, and thereby stirs up anti-Semitic feelings and thoughts in the general population. The Christians retort with a defense of truth: The four Gospels all say the Sanhedrin--the Jewish religious leadership at the time--opposed Christ and urged the Roman occupying powers to execute him. Of course, the problem with that argument is that the Jews have no reason to count anything in the Gospels as truth. However, that does not necessarily leave the Christians without recourse, since the Gospels have not been shown to be completely historically inaccurate. Sure, the Gospels are littered with fanciful parables the likes of which require a certain amount of faith in the story of Christ, but most historians agree that the general themes and some of the stories have a historical basis of truth to them quite apart from Christianity itself.

But Christians seem to be most controversial in their approach to this movie when they start explaining the emotional impact of the film vis a vis the Jews. Observe:

"This has a deep emotional resonance for Christians, it's like the emotion in 9/11," said Father Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago and a member of the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Believing Christians react to the Passion "like the way people responded to the firemen and police going in and offering their lives trying to save people... there is a lot of violence, but also the nobility and beauty of that self-sacrifice," he said.

To me, this is a most controversial analogy. Christ is likened to the 9/11 firemen and police. If that's the case, then are the Jews to take the role of the 9/11 terrorists? Very likely.

I'm not saying that the statement is incorrect, or that it should not have been made. My only point is that Christians should come to expect vigorous Jewish animosity, especially when making comments like those of Father Donald Senior. But given the two religions' histories, I'm not even sure that Christians mind it all that much. And that might not be such a bad thing. If the effect is to have a dialogue of the kind that has been latent or repressed all these years, then we're all the better for it. No one said it would be an easy dialogue to have.

from the absurd to the sublime...

Here's the text of an email sent to all of Harvard Law School from Elena Kagan, the Harvard Law School Dean:

To all members of the HLS community:

In the spirit of trying to make lemonade out of lemons, I am pleased to announce the grand opening of the new HLS ice skating rink on Wednesday, January 21. Hours on Wednesday will be from noon until 10:00 p.m., with free hot chocolate and doughnuts served (but only on this inaugural day!) until 5:00 p.m. Usual hours will be from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. No, we don't rent skates. But our facilities department will send around a notice in the next day or so telling you where you can rent or buy them. They can't do this in Palo Alto, you know. I hope you enjoy.

Best,
Elena Kagan

Not one to sit idly by, Stanford Law School's Dean Kathleen Sullivan immediately responded to Kagan's challenge by initiating plans to convert the SLS Moot Court Room into an indoor ice skating rink. A visibly distraught Sullivan repeated again and again that SLS will indeed rent skates to the students.

Dean Sullivan also mentioned that she had recently approved a proposal for a Llama Petting Zoo.

"i love you baby can i have some more?"

Added my review of Thomas McCarthy's remarkably subtle comedy, The Station Agent.

You can see the trailer here.

i caught you knockin' at my cellar door...

Added my review of Vadim Perelman's House of Sand and Fog. It's like a pumped-up made-for-TV movie. What drama!

You can see the trailer here.

it's been the ruin of many a poor boy...

Added my review of Patty Jenkins' Monster. Charlize Theron does indeed give the performance of her life. The same cannot be said of Christina Ricci.

You can see the trailer here.

can i have your sweater? cause it's cold cold cold...

Well they're finally releasing the DVD version of Spielberg's Schindler's List on March 9th. It was about time, too. This was probably one of the most egregious DVD oversights, along with current oversights Yasujiro Ozu's Tokyo Story, David Lynch's Eraserhead and Lost Highway, Gus Van Sant's My Own Private Idaho, Richard Linklater's Slacker, Errol Morris' The Gates of Heaven, Luis Buñuel's The Exterminating Angel, Ingmar Bergman's Fanny and Alexander, Federico Fellini's La Dolce Vita, and of course, the greatest oversight of them all, Matthew Robbins' The Legend of Billie Jean!

I would have included Pasolini's Salò, but it was released as a DVD by The Criterion Collection some time ago, although they have discontinued it. I believe one can still get it through eBay for a reasonable price.

the world is a vampire...

It is for these moments of delicate, naked sincerity that one lives. I now quote in full a voicemail message left by a Stanford Law School friend of mine at 9am Eastern Standard Time, after a night of bar-hopping in Hawaii. Only the names of the persons mentioned have been altered in order to preserve their dignity:

Apparently I’ve reached the wrong number. I was thinking maybe this was the, uh, voicemail of Unfashionable Observations, which I have decided in recent times has become rather fashionable.

Ok so maybe not. This is Quentin, if you haven’t realized. Um, Harold and I are walking down the street in Honolulu right now. And we would love if you’re gonna….because there’s nothing that says “Hawaii” like a black umbrella blotting out the bright Pacific sun, if you know what I mean. And the one thing I have to—I have to—remark, and I know you’re going to listen to this and be like, "Well they’re drunk, and they’re walking and they’re drunk." And really Harold is. Not myself but Harold really is. They didn’t appreciate—and by “they” I mean Harold and Maude—Bad Santa, which I feel like you really nailed down to a “T.” Because it’s not about fuck this, fuck that. They’re like, “What was this whole blood-soaked pickle carved in wood?” And really, that was the epitome of the movie. This was just like the freshest observation of a young nubile innocent young kid. And which just like, “Ho! This is my present,” and it was all about carving his hand—he’s just making a point. And you’re going to disagree with me, you’ll be like “I don’t know what you’re talking about. Enjoy. I don’t know.” But if we talked about it, I would, I would totally work out what I’m trying to say right now. But in the meantime give us a call back.

And, uh, Xavier, I still hate you for the fact you went to Harvard. You’re really this bitch. Really, you’re really this bitch. Because how can you just leave us hanging at Stanford? Paradise, possibly; but has the crappiest classes that you could ever imagine. You know what, the next semester I’m taking classes that I’m completely embarrassed about. I don’t want to take any of those classes, cause they just all suck. Like I’m taking Environmental Law of Pollution, I’m taking like Capital Markets, I’m taking blah blah blah blah blah—things that I could really care less about. And what I really care about are Doc Martens and people who have original style. So call me back and let’s discuss, and maybe trade I don’t know like queen, uhhh, uhhh, uhhhh, uhh….bishop to king seven, or whatever that means.

All right kid, love ya, bye.

How funny. I wonder if drinking makes one more sincere, or less so. One could argue either way: More sincere because it relaxes you to a point where social mores and expectations are given substantially less weight, and hence one's behavior is less encumbered by such artificial constructions; less sincere because the resultant behavior is more spontaneous, random, and unthinking, which leads to a kind of chaos that might be particularly unfit for describing a "self" insofar as one's "self" is a consistent, particular, identifiable entity. Indeed, Nietzsche saw Dionysus--the god of wine--as representing the death of individuation, for the essence of the Dionysian spirit was a kind of drunken merging with the whole (as in becoming part of a larger, orgiastic revel).

all the kids have left their tears and gone home...

I was pleased to learn today that Fox Searchlight plans to release Bertolucci's The Dreamers as an NC-17 film. The NC-17 rating is considered certain commercial death, as most theatres will not screen such films, and no persons under the age of 17 are allowed to view. The corollary, of course, is that the integrity of the film is preserved.

I was fortunate enough to see the trailer for The Dreamers on the big screen this weekend as I sat patiently for Patty Jenkins' Monster to begin. I was immediately struck by the freshness of the story, its utterly intriguing, pivotal (and highly controversial) twist, and the fact that it was directed by Bertolucci (of Last Tango in Paris fame). The Dreamers is probably one of the most anticipated movies of the first quarter of 2004, along with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, Michel Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Lars von Trier's Dogville, and the Coen Brothers' The Ladykillers.

the sky turns gray where i end and you begin...

After vociferously claiming that Big Fish was this weekend's top film at the box office, Columbia Pictures must now hang its head in shame. Estimating that Tim Burton's film had earned $14.5M for the three days beginning Friday, the actual numbers released today paint a very different picture: $13.8M. After all, what's $700,000, right?

New Line Cinema's The Return of the King remains the top-grossing film for the fourth consecutive week, earning a healthy $14.2M. The film has earned $312.3M to date.

all the lonely people...where do they all come from?

Added my review of Anthony Minghella's Civil War drama, Cold Mountain. Make no mistake about it: this is Renee Zellweger's movie.

You can see the trailer here.

you are the clever one aren't you...

Added my review of Tim Burton's new dreamscape, Big Fish. You can watch the trailer here.

feelings are intense, words are trivial...

In his characteristic fashion, Jim Dedman has "replied" to my post. More precisely, he has taken this opportunity to once again refuse to address any substantive issues raised by my previous post, and instead shows us all what a good little contrarian he is. Because if Jim Dedman is anything, he is a contrarian. A true contrarian. He is such a cool dude. Because he's so contrarian. Let's observe just how contrarian he is:

Quoth the Self-Described Contrarian: "Xavier's attacks are usually of the ad hominem variety - a logical faux pas upon which his Harvard law professors would likely frown." Here, we can see Jim's unnatural fixation with all things Harvard. I don't think that even Harvard people talk about Harvard as much as he does. (See his post about Bush and Harvard, his post about Protestors at Harvard, and his post about Caterpillar Eggs at Harvard.) For someone who has no discernible connection to Harvard, I must say this is rather odd. A glimpse into Jim's insecurities, no doubt. At any rate, any fan of Nietzsche will recognize the validity of the ad hominem. When testing a particular view, we should always ask ourselves, "What kind of person would believe this?" Opinions are often fronts for the motives that prompt them. A sour view held by a sick person may serve as a symptom of the sickness, and a reason to discount it. Indeed, most of Jim Dedman's views can be discounted on precisely this rationale.

Quoth the Self-Described Contrarian: "Throwing quite the temper tantrum, he postures and quibbles and laments about the most minor turns of phrases about something as silly as the decision to post (or not) a Best of 2003 list -- illustrating that perhaps he just wanted some attention (which, of course, with this response I begrudgingly bestow)." And of course, our great Contrarian has never wanted attention.

Quoth the Self-Described Contrarian: "Best of all, there's this utterly meaningless gem: 'This could not be a more misinformed attempt at a conclusion.' Eh?" In this awe-inspiring bit, Jim amazes us all through his uncanny ability to take a sentence out of context.

Quoth the Self-Described Contrarian: "Best take on Morales, though, comes from the unsinkable Molly Bresnen who, in an instant message, observes, 'Have you ever noticed none of his 'unfashionable observations' are really particularly unfashionable?' Indeed." Is that the girl from Sixteen Candles and Pretty in Pink? I hope so, because otherwise I'd find it sad that the only thing Jim and Molly have to talk about in a private IM conversation is me.

there's no room for anger, we're all very small...

Apparently, Jim Dedman has enlisted the help of a 9-year-old to guest blog today. I quote: "I'll say only that the republishing of my high school newspaper Best of 1992 list is hardly pretentious, particularly when I was forced to admit that I voted for Izzy Stradlin's solo group as Best New Artist. If that's pretension . . . ." For the record, I didn't even read his list. What do I care about 1992? My reference to his pretension was not to the substantive list itself, but rather to his suggestion that creating a Best of 2003 list is conformist. This was clear from my statement, which he quotes: "I will end by saying that the real impetus for my initial post was Jim Dedman's pretentious post suggesting that creating a Best of 2003 list is somehow conformist." I suppose I should have drawn Jim a picture as well.

In any event, this has all been blown way out of proportion. Dedman goes on to conclude that I have a "great disdain for bloggers who refuse to post Best of 2003 lists." This could not be a more misinformed attempt at a conclusion. Most bloggers should probably not have a Best of 2003 list, as most have no clue about what happened in 2003. I just find it odd that anyone would somehow think it "cool" to "go against the grain" by not posting one. This mentality merely bespeaks the desperation of trying to distinguish oneself from the masses. One thing is for sure: you need a lot more than a Best of 1992 list to do that.

things are gonna change so fast...

American Splendor was named the best movie of the year by the National Society of Film Critics. Mystic River came in second place, and Lost in Translation was third. It's always nice to see the underdog win.

this is not really happening...

Pete replies again:

My point, and the one to which I adhere, is that nobody's really going to care much one way or the other if I add my voice to the infinite chorus of those who already feel the need to rank the previous year's movie offerings. People can get that anywhere, so I don't agree that it's "sadistic" to deny my visitors another one.

If it were the case that all top-10 lists were identical, then this argument would work just fine. The reason everyone from Roger Ebert to the guy down the hall has a top-10 list is because top-10 lists are never identical. They express the particular values of the one who composes them. Insofar as that is the case, people cannot get Pete's top-10 list "anywhere." They have to ask Pete. And the fact that a lot of top-10 lists have the same 5 movies in them makes the other 5 movies on the list that much more interesting, and surely reveals a lot about the author.

Pete continues: "I don't like to do year-end top 10 lists, and I don't think a lot of the people who read APCB are too broken up about it." And that's fine. I'm not suggesting that Pete should do a top-10 list. My only point was that Pete's reason for not doing one was particularly unpersuasive. His everyone-does-it-so-I-won't rationale was, in my opinion, misplaced in the context of top-10 lists in general, and top-10 lists by bloggers in particular. Blogging, by its very nature, is but a tool for the blogger to espouse his personal opinion on the events of the day. That others have opinions on the same subject cannot be a justification for not blogging, for otherwise all but a handful of blogs would disappear.

I would never have brought this up had Pete simply stated that he did not want to do a top-10 list. Surely, all bloggers can choose to write what they want on their blogs. But when he states that "[t]he movie lists are the worst," I just have to respond, for it is an instance of Pete categorically passing judgment on others' posting of such lists. I personally think top-10 lists can be very valuable tools, as they provide a door into a critic's overall taste in film. Reading a particular critic's reviews throughout the year surely provides much insight into his or her tastes, but there is a danger of not being able to see the forest for the trees. The top-10 list at the end of the year, at the very least, helps a reader to avoid that.

I will end by saying that the real impetus for my initial post was Jim Dedman's pretentious post suggesting that creating a Best of 2003 list is somehow conformist.

the shades are drawn, don't ask me why...

Pete of A Perfectly Cromulent Blog responds to my previous post regarding top-10 lists. He elaborates on his reason for choosing not to post a top-10 list for 2003:

Whether or not I've been "exposed" to all of 2003's offerings doesn't change the reality that the media world annually chokes on its own vomit of top 10 lists without any help from me. Every possible category, from news stories to CDs to annoying blogs, is flogged mercilessly for the last few weeks of the year. The movie lists are the worst, because (with few exceptions) at least 5 or 6 of the top 10 will be identical for every author. I'm not being "contrarian" when I say that most people can probably survive just fine without my own bloviations on the subject.

While this is a valid point, it's completely misplaced in the world of blogging. For what is blogging if not the most narcissistic form of "bloviation"? If people consistently come to read your blog to find out your thoughts on pop culture, movies, music, etc., it would seem borderline sadistic to deny them the yearly recap with which Americans are so enamored. It is irrelevant whether everyone else on the blogosphere has a top-10 list, just like it's irrelevant whether everyone else has a 2004 Movie Preview, or a blog entry about the sexual assault allegations against Kansas State quarterback Ell Roberson. The fact that opinions on a subject are abundant does not in and of itself degrade any particular opinion, especially not those opinions which are actively sought out by our faithful blog readers. That Pete's blog has faithful readers should dispel any fears that he may have of his list disappearing into the blogosphere ether "like so much Skoal juice in a can of Bud Ice."

And what if I gave you the key to the doors of your design...

I've seen many a pop culture blog whose author consciously, explicitly refuses to post a top-10 list for 2003. Instead, they either post top-10 lists for years past, or look forward to what 2004 will bring. Ha. That's like refusing to celebrate Christmas in December. It's not nonconformist or contrarian; it's just confused. I would wager that the real reason underlying their reticence is their lack of exposure to this year's offerings. Which is precisely why I have yet to post my top-10 list of movies for the year. I get back to Cambridge on Friday night. Only then can I resume my movie-watching. I'll have to do some serious catching up. But once that happens, I can assure you that I will indeed post my list without so much as a pause.

Incidentally, if you want to check out my top-10 lists of years past (1980-2002), then click here.

I'm also working on creating a new page for this site indexing all the reviews. There are too many listed on the main page. We'll see what I come up with.