The Films of 2023

[alacal2]

Typist Artist Pirate King Director Carol Morley does a great piece of cinematic archaeology in this warm and compassionate portrait of the little known artist Audrey Amiss. Morley has contrived (in the best possible meaning of the word) to pay homage to an intelligent and widely travelled woman whose later life was ambushed by long periods of heavily medicated institutional care. Having been awarded a screen scholarship by the Wellcome Foundation she uncovered aver 80 boxes of Audreys's 'belongings' including her passport's self-description which forms the title of the film.
Most of the film takes the form of a road trip she cons her psychiatric nurse into taking to exhibit her work at a "local" exhibition 200 miles away.
This film, which is by no means perfect (and why indeed should it be), is both hilarious and extremely moving due in no great part to Monica Dolans's hurricane of a performance. She is to my mind one of the finest actors working the UK and there will be no justice if BAFTA and Oscar nominations don't come calling.

[therewillbeblus]

Dupieux’s Yannick, a stripped-down, oddly “contained” movie for him, is only deceptively so - as its central conceit is essentially a heckler ranting for an hour. And since the key idea seems to be to represent all facets of what I imagine Film Twitter is like (but could really just be ‘the internet’, though the specificity on an art-consumer’s narcissistic coup feels a bit more targeted), these oblivious contradictions just follow a disorganized path of illogic until we peter out - the chamber theatre setting a mirage of sorts (in a sense, this is fittingly Dupieux’s version of a chamber theatre piece). And again, I enjoy how self-aware Dupieux is of what he does, which typically allows me to justify its conscious, sometimes deliberate shortcomings, even if I understand why others wouldn’t. In this case, I think the idea worked for maybe its first half (even if the back half had a few great moments from Blanche Gardin) and self-reflexively raising one’s artistic eyebrows has already been done successfully for Dupieux in a few very creative ways, so here, to just use it as a simple surface-level jab at Film Twitter’s inanity and superfluousness, feels superfluous too. Though maybe that’s the joke this time around - ‘why go deeper when I’m critiquing the lack of depth of my subject?’

[Mr Sausage]

Tho’ I don’t know whether this is deliberate or coincidence, Yannick has the exact same central conceit as a Jacobean comedy titled The Knight of the Burning Pestle. There, a couple of audience members become bored with the play they (we) are watching and hijack the production to make it more in line with their interests, with some sly manipulation from the cast in turn. It’s partly a satire on the notoriously disruptive Jacobean audiences, who at this time were also seated on the sides of the stage itself and would do things like trip the actors with their canes. But it also satirizes much else besides, including other literature like chivalric romances and the city comedies that had become so popular in the early 17th century. (The title is also a VD joke).

Again, I don’t know if the film took any direct inspiration from the play (I don’t think the French are all that interested in English renaissance drama for a start), but it might be fruitful to compare the two anyway.

[therewillbeblus]

But it also satirizes much else besides, including other literature like chivalric romances and the city comedies that had become so popular in the early 17th century. (The title is also a VD joke).

This certainly fits, as even if Yannick is the clear-idiot here, his impulsively juvenile commentaries on people's habits do satirize the pathetic nature of our inside jokes and private choices (like, of course a random man's computer is going to revolve around sex, even in its basic functions)

[JamesF]

I came away from seeing Maestro a couple of days ago liking it well enough, but it's lingered and haunted me quite a bit since then. I'm excited to see it again once it hits Netflix next week, but the soundtrack is proving an excellent stopgap in the meantime!

[hearthesilence]

I should've posted something about James Benning's Allensworth earlier when my memory was fresher. (I thought I had but I can't find any such post.) Since most polls I end up reading are based in the U.S., I've gotten into the habit of dating things by their U.S. theatrical release, but that's obviously not going to work with non-commercial work. I caught Benning's film at the NYFF in October and it's one of the major highlights of the year for me. It probably helps to do a little research ahead of time, and I was fortunate that the first news I read about it had an accompanying interview with Benning that went into some helpful details. Knowing the context of what you're seeing can make a huge difference, and it is the type of film where a lot of its power comes from the experience of seeing it in a dark, silent room and letting one's thoughts run like a river while processing what you're seeing in each of these twelve extended shots. In many cases, the experience was like watching something frozen in time, possibly unchanged to what it had been over a century ago, and still carrying the impression of everything that had occurred or every person that had been present from that time. The lingering feeling, at least for me, is that of a town full of marginalized and possibly terrorized individuals making a real life for themselves despite the terrible fortune of being confined to a time and country that was hostile to them, something that wasn't going to change within their lifetime.

[ianthemovie]

I'm looking for a good website that aggregates end-of-the-year ten best lists and critics' awards. Metacritic used to track these (and broke down the awards by category) but apparently they're no longer interested in doing that since overhauling their site. Rotten Tomatoes has an "awards leaderboard" but it's not very helpfully laid out and I avoid using them whenever possible. If anyone has a good go-to source for this I'd welcome the recommendation.

[hearthesilence]

Yearendlists just posts all of them. If anyone wants a tabulation of some kind, I don't think you can aggregate a lot of these lists into one big scorecard as most of the lists aren't done in a way to make that possible.

[ianthemovie]

Thanks for the link-- it's a start! Metacritic had a system for awarding point values for each film based on its position on each list, which allowed them to be ranked in a table. Not an exact science but it allowed for a convenient overview of the lists. I guess they aren't really interested in tracking stuff like this on their site anymore which is a shame.

[therewillbeblus]

I'm looking for a good website that aggregates end-of-the-year ten best lists and critics' awards. Metacritic used to track these (and broke down the awards by category) but apparently they're no longer interested in doing that since overhauling their site.

Was just seeking the same last night, when I saw someone posted on Reddit claimed to’ve reached out to Metacritic and received assurance that some version of this would still be posted by them eventually

[therewillbeblus]

American Fiction

I went into this knowing basically nothing (recommended, stop reading), and I wound up immensely impressed. Any movie that leads you into a new scene completely blind to what it could be each time, and yet conscientiously invited into its world, is a winner. This is a film that fuses Desplechin’s eccentric, sticky family dynamics (and respectfully elided history yielding earnest humanity) with Preston Sturges’ gentle satirical wit, and the application of Old Hollywood’s general economy and comfort in swiftly shifting between comic and dramatic tones will work for some more than others. I found it a delight.

I totally get why the jarring-on-paper transitions between biting satire and restrained family drama are dividing critics, but I absolutely loved the choice to consciously make a mess of a movie about the mess of life. The pronounced self-reflexivity in the end may feel unnecessary after the film has successfully woven this meta-relationship throughout with more subtlety - it’s essentially a slapdash concoction of all three Johnny Walker bottles' quality, from John Ortiz’ (who has never been used better - seriously, bravo) metaphor: low, mid, and high brow art. It’s about the process of writing, engaging with family relationships in older age, coping with inner change and in your surroundings... getting honest with yourself and others about yourself and others. The text is expressed so bluntly (yet elegantly, is this a first?) across the many moods in this picture, that it shields the vast scope of its diversified ambitions. But there’s also carefully-placed and restrained subtext present - perhaps a mirrored allegory to the oscillation of burying emotions and getting vulnerable with others and oneself that Wright (in a career-best, quietly versatile performance; same goes for Sterling K. Brown in a very unique part) struggles with - and that we can relate to outside of the strictly black experience. But that’s there too, in new and old ways, with something to say and the maturity not to say what it doesn't know. The narrative ambiguity used as a punchline in the finale similarly hides the wonderful ambiguity the film holds towards its central conceit about the value and harm of art that reinforces derogatory stereotypes. The filmmakers remain neutral and curious, like a good writer - as said directly at the start of this tale - but also refuse to pull punches or resist asking challenging questions with persistence. The comedy never betrays the drama or vice versa.

The magical if arrhythmic balance between disorder and clarity is the film's greatest strength. So it of course dances with inspiration from Alexander Payne, David O. Russell, Arnaud Desplechin, and Preston Sturges, and dares to make them complementary (I'm not familiar with the source, but if it's as tonally varied as the film, you couldn't pick better influences). The chaos is welcomed, but contained, and reflective of the disorganization and skills and protectors we all have in our lives. It’s a terrific film about Boston - and, for a film so respectfully deliberate in its accessibility, I was shocked at how many references were used in ways that weren’t explained and often contained the esoteric knowledge to explain the whole interaction being shown! Bold, but this really only occurs in the first act, so it's also reflexive of Wright’s rigid superiority before he began to be humbled and the film turned into different versions of digestible crowdpleaser! It’s a brilliantly eclectic, smart, funny movie that’s able to be enjoyed on either a complex, layered level or on one of detached pleasure or touching relatability (much like how the film itself could work without any of the satirical book subplot, as just a family/romantic dramedy, or reversed). It’s got it all, and it knows it, and it knows that we know it without showing off. And with all that’s transparent, there’s so much left behind, unknown, not ‘fixed’, and I loved that honesty. It’s a very honest movie for fiction.

[Matt]

Film Comment’s annual top twenty list is always the year-end list I most look forward to because their tastes seem most aligned with mine, and I usually see the films I most liked or am most eager to see on their list.

And yet no Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning which is one of the most thrilling, enjoyable, and well-made movies I’ve seen in the last several years.

[nicolas]

Silent Night by John Woo. Some quick thoughts.

I should have been rejoicing right now in ecstasy and euphoria of having just seen a new action film by the legendary John Woo - a fantastic, wonderful filmmaker. The world was very likely ready to celebrate as well. Finally a return to a kind of great, exceptionally made action cinema with integrity and respect for the audience. The classic Woo films I’m familiar with are like that - impeccably staged (action) operas which are high art when looked at through the lens of today’s awfully low genre standards.
Woo came back at the right time - maybe one last time to remind us of what (blockbuster) cinema should be again if we only had more competent directors and producers.

I wish I had an answer for what went wrong with “Silent Night”. To put things into perspective first - the film looks impeccable as shot by the way-too-underrated Sharone Meir, who turned the drab “Whiplash” into a visual marvel. It’s been some time when a villain’s lair looked this good.
Woo films his action with the same clarity as during his prime and stages regular scenes with a kinetic camera we also get to see less and less of today. When was the last time someone used a dolly? And Marco Beltrami is given the very rare opportunity to compose actual symphonies for Violin and Orchestra. Yes, in a Lionsgate / Made by the Producers of John Wick kind-of film. Bliss for the ears whenever they come on.

But then there‘s that screenplay and gimmick. Horrendous is selling it short. Robert Archer Lynn is no writer. Nothing in this insult of a script is remotely original or with artistic merit - ever page of it is “Death Wish” times ten and America portrayed as so “in your face” that way that I actually feel a hunch of sympathy for real gang members in the US when looking at how they’re portrayed here. This is unquestionably not denying the actual tragedy at the center of the film, which could happen like that at a place like this any time any day but a 2023 screenplay that so adamantly refuses to even attempt at getting to the bottom of the gang criminality problem and paints its picture with such based primary colors is an insult to me as an audience member. Archer Lynn should have applied the IF THE POLICE CAN’T DO IT mentality to himself as well - if no one else takes care of the criminality nearly 50 years after “Death Wish”, why didn’t he start with himself? Even if he made a mediocre “Sicario” remake, I would have given him credit for trying. This is such a blatant informal “Death Wish” sequel that might have made (a little more) sense in the 80s and 90s, the sole eras for this kind of film.

The no dialogue gimmick is a disaster in reality when it might have made sense on the page (another strong indicator that today is way too much about “high-stakes” concepts instead of actual sturdy scriptwriting). The entire film feels like one of these “Isolated Score” tracks on home video releases, where all dialogue is deleted and only the music audible. The concept gave Woo the challenge to approach the film all from a visual angle, which he accomplishes quite well, although sustaining any sense of urgency over 104 minutes (!) is impossible. Woo can’t handle it, as can’t Joel Kinnaman, who gives his best under the circumstances. Repeated scenes of his character preparing and displaying his anger turn into unintentional comedy and events like his wife leaving him come out of nowhere with no strong preceding visual indicators that this is where everything we’ve just seen led up to. Archer Lynn and the script wanted to fly to the moon with this “ingenious” “why hasn’t this been done?” idea and failed in the most disappointing and disgusting way.

What about the action? A part of me feels that “Silent Night” shouldn’t have been about the action at all. As mentioned, Woo stages the scenes with clarity (editing by Zach Staenberg is solid) but no energy and little creativity. This kind of action is all consequence and “necessity” with nothing glamorous or operatic. Woo’s touch was the operatic though - all heightened spectacle that took action to another dimension because of its refusal to be just consequence and necessity. Woo’s action was all expressive of more than just gunfire, like dances and music. The action in “Silent Night” has nothing of that and in truth, most other directors could have done it as seen in the final film and other masters like Chad Stahelski likely even better as this is “their kind” of action. The car chases, despite the slow-motion, the staircase “oner”, the gun- and knifefights - none have the Woo touch. They have the YouTube touch - Kinnaman’s Brian literally uses these videos as tutorials. This is another unintentional consequence of the screenplay - what sounds nice on paper “Yeah, a guy using YouTube to train himself, so no generic mentor / trainer figure necessary, check” absolutely removes a singular director like Woo of his ability to shape and impact his character’s personality through action and movement. When it’s all pre-configured by a tutorial, what do we then *see* beyond? (This goes firmly against the grain of what cinema is, which shows us other worlds or recontextualizes our own).

I obviously don’t know the business deals and what led Woo to the project but the script itself couldn’t have been it. Rarely did a ready-made script mismatch with a director’s unique sensibilities as much as in this case. The writer and producers must have known what Woo was (and is) about and what not. They wanted another “John Wick” by a director with a legendary name. Although Woo’s a director who only takes bullets to shape his films when he can’t make the ones of his dreams - musicals and westerns. Guess which genres don’t match with “Silent Night”.

[beamish14]

And yet no Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning which is one of the most thrilling, enjoyable, and well-made movies I’ve seen in the last several years.

I was so frustrated and underwhelmed with that. I thought it was a massive step back from the previous installments, and the dialogue was atrocious

[colinr0380]

Who would have thought that the best Indiana Jones film of 2023 would turn out to have been the Nicolas Winding Refn produced adaptation of The Famous Five: The Curse of Kirrin Island? That features arcane occult ceremonies (a Refn trait as much as an Indy one) and even ends with narrow tunnels, deathtraps, a treasure room (where the Frenchman sidekick to the baddie gets to escape with all the treasure) and a literal 'font of all knowledge' that drives the main villain mad with visions of the Second World War and the atomic bomb (plus the 'cat playing the piano' internet video) before he ominously talks about seeing how the kids are going to be the bane of his existence and what they are destined for in this future world and need to be pre-emptively destroyed.

But it all still ends with a big feast scene, of course!

(I'm less sure about how appropriate the electronic synthesiser score is for a story set in the 1920s, but I have to also admit I loved the moments when it seemed as if it was quoting the melancholic-romantic sections of the Vangelis Blade Runner score!)

[Finch]

Directors (Joe Dante among them) list their favorite films from 2023.

[Mr Sausage]

Directors (Joe Dante among them) list their favorite films from 2023.

At least David Lowry listed my favourite film this year, Birth/Rebirth. I’m guessing almost no one has seen it, but it’s uncompromising in its narrative and emotional logic, very moving in an austere way, and Marin Ireland is a revelation. Who knew that two of the very best this year were Frankenstein riffs.

[therewillbeblus]

I sought it out after you posted your top ten last week and it didn't do much for me. I'd like to hear a more thorough defense at some point - anything profound either went over my head or just didn't make an impact. The performances were good, but it's definitely not a wavelength that felt original or interesting to me.

Matt Johnson's list is great, but any year-end list championing The Sweet East is one to spotlight

[brundlefly]

I am glad the world lasted long enough for Don Hertzfeldt to see It's a Wonderful Life and for Lowery to see Titanic. And that Paul Schrader still likes his own movies best.

[Matt]

I haven’t seen more than a brief mention of Alain Gomis’s documentary/essay film/remix of a French TV interview on Thelonious Monk, Rewind & Play. It’s streaming now on Mubi (in the US at least).

Taking footage and outtakes from the program, Gomis reassembles them to comment on the enormous effort made by the crew to fit Monk into a comfortable stereotype, which of course he defies through silence, seeming incomprehension, reticence, and simply ignoring his interlocutor. Monk’s unwillingness or inability to provide more than the most basic responses to questions (or, in one great scene, a response that is acceptably deferential to the host) is contrasted with his total absorption in his musical performance. As he sweats profusely under the studio lights, he weaves his beautiful spell on the piano, performing several tunes. These are probably given much more space and respect here than in the original cut of the program and they are wonderful (and I’m not even a big Monk listener).

A scene in the last third features the host (jazz pianist and TV presenter Henri Renaud) trying to make an episode of TV out of the minimal material he has been given by the now absent Monk, repeating questions to get better takes and staring mutely at where Monk had been sitting to provide coverage for editing. At one point, his empty phrases are looped over each other, exposing them for the inane babble they are.

There’s no narration or contextualization of any kind except for a title card at the end explaining where the footage comes from. The film, a cool 66 minutes, is a lot of fun for both jazz fans and students of documentary form.

[colinr0380]

I am glad the world lasted long enough for Don Hertzfeldt to see It's a Wonderful Life and for Lowery to see Titanic. And that Paul Schrader still likes his own movies best.

And that Ira Sachs apparently doesn't know about Criterion or Blu-ray since he classes Bigger Than Life as "notoriously difficult to see". Also since James Ponsoldt liked Skinamarink, hopefully he knows about the Bitesized Nightmares channel, which has much more spooky ambience from Kyle Edward Ball.

I have not kept up with many new films this year, but very little excited me as much about the future of filmmaking as Part 3 of "The Oldest View" did. That really showed a great grasp of environment, tension and especially sound design and ambient scoring that made it an endless joy to keep going back to re-watch.

[brundlefly]

Ira Sachs apparently doesn't know about Criterion or Blu-ray since he classes Bigger Than Life as "notoriously difficult to see".

[colinr0380]

Maybe he was just looking... in the... wrong... direction?

[nicolas]

A heartfelt recommendation for “To Catch a Killer”. I knew next to nothing about it before going in and left exhausted and devastated.

I think this is the best crime drama / thriller since “Sicario”. It’s frequently astounding how well Damián Szifron lays bare a significant part of the American soul of today. This is a gloomy, nihilistic film but not for the sake of doing that (á la David Ayer) - but one because it’s full of humanity and actually a sense of hope about a possible change in the future if we’re aware of what’s really at stake here beyond the usual Hollywood shortsightedness.

Shailene Woodley and Ben Mendelsohn are brilliant in their performances. Exceptional, lived-in work of fully realized characters. Besides that, Szifron and his crew display excellent cinematic craftsmanship to make this an even more special experience, from great cinematography to outstanding editing. Had this been made with Hollywood support, the cast & crew would now appear on the awards trail. But this is anti-Hollywood material made, like “Sicario” by a non-American who both seem to understand this country better by looking at it from the outside. The only other director I could think of who’d have nailed this film is William Friedkin.

[Mr Sausage]

I was more mixed on the film. There was some terrific scenes (eg. the amazing opener) and fine acting, but the screenplay was hampered by cliches and some forced, unconvincing themes. The stuff about Woodley's inner darkness and how it helps her understand the killer or something just did not work and felt like leftover Thomas Harris. But, again, some of the filmmaking was impressive. I guess I felt it showed more promise than it ultimately delivered on.