Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#4
Days of Heaven

1978

Written and Directed by: Terrence Malick
Cinematography by: Nestor Almendros
Edited by: Billy Weber
Music by: Ennio Morricone
Starring: Richard Gere, Brooke Adams, Linda Manz, Sam Shepard

To start with this Days of Heaven, the opening credits are very memorable. It's the best way to start talking about this movie I believe too, so I will show them first:



It's so beautiful and brilliant. As you can tell too, the music is one of this movie's strongest assets. Ennion Morricone's score as well as the additional music is perfect. By showing defining photos of the era you immediately learn the mood and setting. It's set in the early 20th century, at the time right before the United States entered World War 1 around 1916 or so. Industrialization is really starting to hit the US and the cities are growing at a rapid place as people migrate to look for jobs. At this stage it's really strengthening the divisions between classes. That's precisely what the introduction shows too. It flashes images of poor undernourished (probably unemployed) workers followed by well dressed industrialists. Some people are living better, luxurious lives and some people are barely managing to get by.

The last image it shows is the movie's narrator, the little girl named Linda (Linda Manz). As she describes, her, her brother Bill (Richard Gere) and his girlfriend Abby (Brooke Adams) are "looking for things, searching for things." They are migrant workers, travelling the country looking for work wherever they can. Bill has recently lost his job for fighting with his boss at a steel mill where he worked and is on the run. They find work at a ranch working on the harvest. While there the farm owner (Sam Shepard), who is dying from some sort of disease, falls in love with Abby. Bill knows is informed of both of these facts and convinces Abby to marry the farmer in order to gain his inheritance. This scene shows it all go down:



So Abby agrees and gets married to the Rancher, but she falls in love with him and conventional drama ensues from there as he catches on to the fact that Abby and Bill were an item. Now, of course, Bill is not a good guy. He is not in an amicable position though so you have to feel sorry for him. There is a great scene from the movie where he talks about how when he was young he was always looking forward to the future. He thought that he was smarter than everyone else and that therefore he had a bright future. Eventually he had to come to the realization though that he was no smarter than anyone else. Like so many others from a poor upbringing like his in that era, he had few prospects and had to accept the life he was dealt. Only through this lie could he taste the life of the upper class for a short time.

That's what really gets me about this story. It's as if he was forced into this position whereby the only solution he could see to get out of the gutter was to lie and basically pimp his girlfriend out to this richer man. It's a lack of opportunity which compels people to do terrible things such as this. Nobody in their right state of mind would ever do such a thing. Yet conventional wisdom tells us that Bill is meant to be the bad guy. Most people wouldn't even call to question the fact that it was the rancher who was paying the poor wages and exploiting all those workers who were in an inferior position. Isn't he then partly responsible for Bill committing this act? He was after all creating the circumstances. As the movie shows though, the authorities don't quite view it this way and Bill's life isn't worth nearly as much as the rancher's.

This movie shows the true nature of unbridled capitalism. Everybody learns from their history books about the Great Depression which began in 1929. Unfortunately, too many people understand this as 'the moment' when a crisis led to a collapse in the otherwise stable capitalist business cycle. If one reads further back in the history of capitalism, they learn that it was characterized by boom and bust periods of recessions and depressions since it's inception. One could even say that periodic downturns are a characteristic of capitalism. Along with this of course comes periodic workers revolts as they become fed up with being unable to feed themselves or their family. Full employment was not even imaginable prior to World War 2 though. A world with a pure capitalist economy would most likely resemble the world of this era where families migrated to wherever the work was. After all it's important to remember that one person's fortune is another's misfortune and at the same time one region's fortune is another's misfortune.

Following World War 2 of course, a much more regulatory state began to offset these boom and bust cycles. There are many reasons for this. Workers solidarity and power were at a height. War increased these bonds, people had the feeling that they were fighting for a better life which they expected the state to deliver. But also, with the rise of the USSR and other 'communist' states they had to ensure that people remained loyal to the capitalist model. Either way, this management of the economy manipulated the capitalist business cycle. It was done through redistributatory taxes which had the effect of creating a larger, wealthier middle class thereby increasing the demand of consumer goods. These taxes also gave the state the funds to intervene directly in the economy, propping up some sectors of industry which may have needed restructuring or assistance. Whatever form it took, the main thing is that it provided a safety net to those in jobs which previously may have been unstable. It was considered a right in the post-war era to have a job for life. It worked too for a time with consistent positive growth in the industrialized world up until the recession of 1973. This was when the economic orthodoxy did a complete turn around. Since then, the movement towards state retrenchment has dominated. As this has happened, surprise, periods of boom and bust are becoming common place once again. Only this time they are taking a becoming far more global. Jobs for life are considered a thing of the past. In short, our world is beginning to resemble the world that Bill, Abby, and Linda lived in.

What I find so amazing about Days of Heaven is that it communicates so much, but with such little dialogue. Indeed, the movie has been called a 'visual poem', relying instead on images to push the plot and subplot. We may not hear the characters talk about their hard times, but we see the looks on their faces, their dress, and their plight for ourselves. It's quite refreshing watching this movie and not being told the story by the characters, it's up to our imagination to fill in the holes. Just listen to this narration provided by Linda's character and notice how sparse and uninformative it is:



The dialogue fades to the background and it's the pictures which drive the movie forward. It's a terrible cliche, but this movie shows that a picture says a thousand words. Which is good too because every image in Days of Heaven is so beautifully shot. If for no other reason, watch Days of Heaven to see some of the best cinematography you will ever see, accompanied by one of the greatest scores.

For beautifully showing an ugly life, Days of Heaven is in my opinion the 4th greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#5
Solaris

1972

Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky
Written by: Andrei Tarkovsky and Fridrikh Gorenshtein
Based on the novel by: Stanislaw Lem
Cinematography by: Vadim Yusov
Music by: Eduard Artemyev
Starring: Donatas Banionis, Natalya Bondarchuk, Jüri Järvet, and Anatoly Solonitsyn

I would not advise you to watch Solaris if you expect a fast paced sci-fi thriller in the style of Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay. That's just not Tarkovsky's style. Solaris instead can be described as a slow moving psychological drama. Unlike modern sci-fi action movies which seek to distract you with special effects or keep your interest with its fast paced sequences and shortage of meaningful dialogue, this movie draws you in to the story and devastatingly existential subplot.

The first half of the movie centers on Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) who is a psychologist sent on a mission to a space station which in orbit over a recently discovered oceanic planet called Solaris. Those who on board are in the grip of emotional crises and Kris is sent there to survey the scene. As he finds out from the two remaining scientists aboard the space station, the planet is some sort of conscious being and creates psychological constructs to drive those in the station insane. These take the form of people from the people's past. Once they are created they believe they are the real thing and convince those for who they were created the same.

So for Kelvin, in the movie's second half, his ex wife Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk) who had committed suicide appears in the space station. She is completely unaware of having died in the past and, while Kris is at first reluctant to accept it, he falls in love with her again and refuses to accept that it is not a real person he is connecting with. This is the main tragedy of the movie. It's painful watching both of these characters deal with their dilemma. Kris is caught in the past and looses interest in what he was sent to the station to do in the first place. Hari's plight is even worse as she slowly learns that she is nothing more than a psychological construct, not a real human. She tries unsuccessfully many times to kill herself.

Science fiction usually focuses on the great possibilities that space exploration can lead to. The search for intelligent life is expected by many to one day yield results. However, Solaris paints a very different picture. The movie takes the opposite point of view refusing to praise the life of a space explorer and instead suggesting that human contact is first and foremost important. After all, the space station is a wreck, there is no indication that the cosmonauts are living the sweet life. Kris clings onto the bond he rebuilds with Hari and refuses to let go. All of this is outlined in this great scene. It's a little long, and maybe hard to watch without the context of the whole film, but I urge you to give it a chance:



All four of those at the meeting in this clip have a different idea of what human nature is and what humankind should strive to. Dr. Snaut (Jüri Järvet) sums up the basic idea of the movie perfectly though as he describes that humans have no innate desire to conquer the cosmos, but to extend the Earth to the border of the cosmos. In the end he is suggesting that we all crave the comfort of our home and are lost without it. Even if we leave for a certain time, we need it as a comfort to fall back on in times of trouble. “We don’t need other worlds. We need a mirror,” Snaut claims. Dr. Sartorious (Anatoly Solonitsyn), playing the role of the stereotypical scientist, claims that this both false and cowardly. For him all that matters is the endless search for truth. The relationship between Kris and Hari goes against everything he is saying though. He knows that she is nothing but a construct but cannot let go as shown in this scene which takes place immediately after the previous scene:



On a side note, that's probably my favourite scene in the whole movie. It's just so beautiful. It may be paying homage to that painting by Pieter Bruegel with a score by Bach, but it shows ultimately how film is a mature medium of art. Able to take past works and make something completely new out of all of them simultaneously.

Kris has to make a choice between his uncomfortable reality back on Earth, or descending to the islands of Solaris to live in an artificial reality with everything he has loved in the past existing once again and coming together. Faced with that prospect who knows what any one of us would do. We trick ourselves all the time. We tell ourselves that things are the way they are for a certain reason despite definitive evidence of the contrary. Religion and spiritual beliefs make it easier for people to come to terms with a troubled existence and their own immortality. The question of truth or comfort is central to this movie and the insight it provides is what makes it such an amazing movie. The final scene is one of the greatest too and can be said to define the whole movie. I highly recommend watching it, don't consider it being a spoiler. Deep down you know that Kris, like most of you who are reading this, choose comfort over truth. He descends to Solaris and lives happily:

For insight fully discussing the dilemma between living an uneasy life in reality versus living comfortably in a false one, Solaris is in my opinion the 5th greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

# 6
Annie Hall

1977

Directed by: Woody Allen
Written by: Woody Allen and Marshall Brickman
Edited by: Ralph Rosenblum
Starring: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Tony Roberts, Paul Simon, and Christopher Walken

Woody Allen considers Annie Hall to be the movie where he went from making simple comedies to deeper, more intimate comedies. The reason that Annie Hall might be my favourite Woody Allen movie (I say might because I had trouble picking it over Manhattan) is because it was made during this period of transition it has the best of both worlds. It's the same reason why favourite Beatles albums are Revolver and Rubber Soul. The movie has got both the laughs and the heart. It's one of the greatest movies ever made about relationships without a doubt.

The story is simple enough as the movie follows the ups and downs of a relationship between Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) and Annie Hall (Diane Keaton). The way it's shot though makes it seem like a compilation of short films on relationships. There are flashbacks of Alvy's childhood and early family events to explain the psychological effect that his upbringing had on his current neuroses. There are also elements of French New Cinema, for example one scene where as the two are conversing their thoughts appear as subtitles on the screen. One scene is even animated. The fourth wall is also constantly broken in the film with Alvy addressing the audience directly. In this great scene Alvy and a character with a minor role clash as they both attempt to appeal to the audience:



As you can tell from this clip too, Woody's quite the intellectual. Sure it can be annoying at times as it seems like he name drops a little too much. But a lot of the time it serves to add extra emphasis to whatever argument he is making. Also, because he pays homage to Ingmar Bergman (or Fellini as in this scene) in most of his movies and always drops his name, I consider it all perfectly acceptable.

If it had to rely on its technical achievements alone, the film would still be amazing. It's obvious from watching it that Woody Allen is well spoken and that he is highly knowledgeable of film theory. The presentation is extraordinary. The film also succeeds and really hitting the emotions though. It's genuinely funny for one. Is laughter or humour and emotion? Maybe not. Either way there are some really memorable scenes. Their not cheap laughs either. The character Alvy is a comedian and is always deriding the manufactured laughs of the television industry, as one great scene about the artificiality of laugh tracks shows. The movie instead builds up to great gags and gets laughs through unbearably uncomfortable situations. This next scene is one of the best and features and young Christopher Walken. It was this scene in which he first showed the creepy dead pan that would define his whole career:



So it's funny as that scene undoubtedly shows. It's a great love story too. One that's far more real and genuine (key word for this movie) than any other in the decade. The chemistry between Allen and Keaton is great, and why not they actually did date for a while in the 70s. The former denies that the movie is semi-autobiographical though. The relationship is charted from it's beginning through to its end. Although, not in that order. Scenes are a little mixed up. For instance, immediately after the characters meet is a scene in which they move in together. They are breaking up in one scene, and without any mention of anything otherwise are getting along great in the next scene. It's in this way that relationships are shown to be entirely predictable. Allen assumes that the audience will follow the movie and understand the ups and downs of the couple. I enjoy a director who respects the audience enough to challenge them and not treat them as mindless sheep. The reason that some scenes pack such an emotional kick though is due to the use of long takes. Scenes just go on for a matter of minutes forcing the viewer to get involved in the conversation and situation. Take for example this next scene:



That's a sad one isn't it. If you were to watch the whole movie it has an even greater effect. That's why (as in all of the other movies on this blog) I am recommending this movie to you! Relationships can be very sad affairs. But as Allen's knack for comedy shows, they can also be quite funny. Ultimately he is a bit of a fatalist though so they are mostly depressing. At the same time though, Allen's great at putting things in perspective. One of the things which I appreciate about all of his movies as how after your finished watching them, you feel as if you've been given a new lease on life. Annie Hall has this effect too. You see life in a new way and you feel as if you have the opportunity to start over again.

For being one of the greatest movies about relationships in the history of the world, in my opinion Annie Hall is the 6th greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#7
Dog Day Afternoon

1975

Directed by: Sidney Lumet
Written by: Frank Pierson
Cinematography: Victor J. Kemper
Starring: Al Pacino, John Cazale, Charles Durning, and Chris Sarandon

This has long been one of my favourite movies. Dog Day Afternoon is based on a true story about a Brooklyn bank robbery that was so unbelievable it sounded like it came from a movie. Naturally then, it was made into a movie. Two men rob a bank, well three initially. They are Sonny Wortzik (Al Pacino) and his friend Sal (John Cazale). They cops come to the scene and it goes from a bank robbery to a hostage situation. As the movie proceeds it becomes more eccentric. It turns out that Sonny was robbing the bank mainly to get the funds to pay for his husband's (Chris Sarandon) sex change operation. This aspect is also handled in a very respectful way, which is rare for movies of this time period. Another thing I love about this movie. Anyway, from the beginning every thing goes wrong. The results are both comedic and tragicat the same time. This is one of those rare movies that can pull that off. It's always an incredible feeling to want to laugh and cry at the same time. It's the characters in this movie as well as the actors who portray them which make this possible. Take a look at the opening scene of the robbery and you'll see what I mean:



I laugh so hard at this scene, it's the tiny detail which make it work. The frustration Sonny shows at how difficult it is to get his gun out, him and Sal trying to find each other through the pillars in the bank, and Sonny's pleading at the failed bank robber Stevie to take the subway home and not the car. Great stuff. It's still hard to believe that this is based on a true story.

Al Pacino is often called the greatest actor of his generation (it's either him or De Niro anyway). I think this is him at his best too. Watching him really makes you wish he would stop making such crap and wish that he didn't ruin his vocal range with the cigarettes. He's so intense as Sonny and really has the character down perfectly. John Cazale is also amazing in his supporting role as the introvert, pitiful psychotic Sal. This following scene is one of the most famous from the movie and shows Sonny taunting the police officers trying to negotiate the hostages release. It shows just how great the acting is I think:



He certainly shouts 'Attica' a lot. For those of you who are unaware (I was before I saw this movie) 'Attica' was a prison where there was a riot in the early 70s. The prison was taken over by the prisoners who were demanding better living conditions and the removal of the cruel superintendent. In the end, the police were sent in with 39 causalities suffered in taking back the prison. Ten of these people were workers at the prison and other civilian employees. Sonny's yelling this to get the crowd on his side. He constantly warns in the movie that this could be another Attica. It works as you can see, he become a sort of hero to the crowd.

The reason that a bank robber so easily becomes a hero of this crowd speaks to the hard times. The United States was in the grips of a recession. This had largely been brought about by the Oil Crisis of 1973. What happened was the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) had placed an oil embargo on the US in response for their military support of Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Basically they restricted output and raised prices. This sent shockwaves through the economy. Oil supplies shrank, transport was halted, products could not be manufactured, factories closed down, and people lost their jobs in massive numbers. The Stock Market collapsed later that same year. It was the official end of the post-WWII economic boom. Until that, the west had largely experience prolonged economic growth. We still see the effect of this today in our government policies.

Sonny was a victim of this recession. He explains in the movie his trouble at finding a job with decent pay. Most likely, those in the crowd and watching on TV are experiencing the exact same thing. There is massive discontent with the economy on the brink of near collapse. Sonny exploits this anti-establishment feeling perfectly.

There is even more to this previous scene. The last shot shows a point of view from a TV News helicopter. This type of occurrence was being broadcast a massive scale. At the time the media was becoming far more pervasive. This is shown humorlessly in this next scene:



I love how excited Sonny gets seeing himself on TV. The fact is that people were watching a lot more news, and were being fed more information. The media could even somehow obtain that close-up shot of Sonny in the bank. Information like this would not have been known to the wider public eighty years prior to this. Yet people were aware of the bank robbery and Sonny. The tragedy at Attica was well known and became a rallying point for the crowd in the earlier scene. And just as likely, the effects of the recession and its causes were being shown every night on the news. Information is power. And this story takes place way back in 1973. Advances in communications technology allows us to now receive information from all over the world. The movie forecasts the role that access to information would play in future social movements as it is now. Sonny got the crowd going and it's now possible to do this on a much wider scale.

But the fact remains that Dog Day Afternoon is also great just based on it's entertainment value. It's a great story, has great direction and incredible acting. It's funny and tragic. Without giving away too much I will just say that the ending is not consistent with the rest of the film's tone. Above all though, it's a movie that I think appeals to everyone. This is a movie that everyone will like.

For capturing the hardship faced by many during the end of the post-war economic boom, and showing it as both humourless and tragic, Dog Day Afternoon is in my opinion the 7th greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#8
The Long Good Friday

1979

Directed by: John Mackenzie
Written by: Barrie Keeffe
Music by: Francis Monkman
Starring: Bob Hoskins, Helen Mirren, Derek Thompson, and Eddie Constantine

British Gangster movies are some of the best out there and The Long Good Friday might just be the best one. The story centres on London underground mobster Harold Shand (an amazing Bob Hoskins) as he tries to make the move from mobster king to legitimate businessman. The 1988 Olympics were forecast to be in London and he is attempting to get a piece of the construction rights. Unfortunately for him, his enterprises become the victim of mysterious bombings which he cannot trace. As the film progresses it becomes clear that the Irish Republican Army (IRA) are behind it due to a mix up involving his right hand man Jeff (Derek Thompson). Of course a staple of the gangster movie genre is that the protagonist is a stubborn bastard who believes that he is untouchable. This always leads to his downfall, and The Long Good Friday is no different in this respect.

What makes this movie special is how it presents Britain in the late 1970s. It was made in 1979, the year that Margaret Thatcher came to power. Britain had been in perpetual decline as a world power since the end of WWII. Harold however was having none of this. It's his strong belief that Britain is still the greatest power the world has ever seen and his belief in his country is matched only by his belief in himself. The opening scene goes a long way to showing this:



It's a short clip, but I think it's a great one to show his confidence. The British Airways jet flies by and cut to a shot of him strolling through the airport, perfect. In the clip he was just returning from a trip to the United States where he was setting up a joint venture deal with the American Mafia to help him with his rebuilding project in London. The next clip is another one of my favourites. It's a sort of pitch to the visiting Americans about his vision for Britain's future and his obsession with Britain's past. The only clip I could find was an extra long one so feel free to cut the clip at the end of his short speech:



The setting is perfect with the iconic image of London's Tower Bridge in the background while he's making his speech. As he said, he's a businessman with a sense of history. His speech clearly shows the ambition that he has for London and he sees himself as the only one who can mastermind the 'New London'. It is in this way that he resembles a large segment of the country at this time. People were eager for a change. People had an intense nostalgic feeling for the days when the sun never set on the British Empire and London was the most important city in the world. It was this feeling that Thatcher capitalized on to win her first term and then again her second term through the patriotic feeling generated by the Falklands War.

Britain was one of the newest members of the European Economic Community (the predecessor of the European Union) at this time too and there was a feeling in the country that due to its prestige it should be one of the leading members of it. Harold mentions London as the gateway to Europe in speech, so he certainly believes that things are looking up for Britain. Membership in the European Economic Community comes with perks for some segments of the population as well as responsibilities which cannot be neglected. If you want to be a part of Europe, you must also accept it's joint decision-making mechanisms and be willing to make concessions. Anti-European Union sentiment is probably the highest in Britain though and concessions are often seen as unacceptable. Much like the stubbornness of good old Harold.

The violence and chaos that follows this speech in the movie though was a warning to the people who thought that Britain could regain it's world renowned status without serious soul searching. As the film shows, there were serious matters that could not be covered up or forgotten. Chief among these were 'the Troubles' that were plaguing Northern Ireland. It had pretty much been in a state of war since 1970. All of this within the United Kingdom itself. The IRA gets involved and Harold wrongfully thinks that he can brush them aside without too much trouble. With this confidence he only angers the powerful IRA which leads to his downfall. In addition to this his deal with the Americans falls apart. Both of these come to a head in the final scene of the movie. A great one, but possibly a spoiler so watch the next clip with caution:



Harold's prestige took a hit in this clip when the mafia lawyer referred to Britain as a 'Banana Republic'. From here his rant is great and sums up pretty much everything I've been talking about. His confidence in himself and in his country turned out to be his downfall. Released the same year as Thatcher's election, this movie is a warning that progress can only happen with addressing fully the nation's problems. That long-shot of Harold's face in the car with the gun pointed at him is a perfect ending too. What was going on inside his head when a young Pierce Brosnan was pointing his gun at him? Fear, anger, acceptance or maybe admiration? And that theme song, incredible stuff. Classic gangster film.

For being showing perfectly how uncomfortable the state of affairs were in 1979 Britain, The Long Good Friday is in my opinion the 8th best movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#9
Husbands

1970

Written and Directed by: John Cassavetes
Starring: John Cassavetes, Ben Gazzara, and Peter Falk

John Cassavetes is the master of cinéma vérité style. Now for those of you who do not speak good French or are not a movie buff, it translates into truthful cinema. Overlooking the somewhat pretentious name of the genre, it is the kind of movie which is shot in a documentary like way. So in a feature film this would include long takes, a great deal of improvisation of dialogue, and characters directly addressing the camera and audience. In this way, the movie just comes off as more realistic and 'truthful'. Husbands is a great example of the use of this style, and is a movie where it is employed to the greatest possible use. In the end it is this technique which makes you identify with the characters and story so much. Just take a look at the opening scene:



It may be just the splicing together of home photos and a killer bass-line but it starts the movie on the right track and sets the mood. From it we learn that here are four typical, suburban husbands doing things that suburban families do on nice summer weekends. Of course this is posing in front of the camera and flexing to impress their wives. Typical of the cinéma vérité style it's simple but effective.

So the movie tells the story of a quartet of friends which has recently become a triforce (don't think that's the right word, but it sounds nice). From the funeral of their friend the three remaining friends Gus (John Cassavetes), Harry (Ben Gazarra) and Archie (Peter Falk) go on a two day bender of drinking, sleeping on subways, playing basketball, and basically talk about where they are in their lives and where they wish they were. From their they have some more mid-life crises talks which leads them to strange places. It's these discussions, largely improvised, that makes you connect with the characters and all of their faults. In one of the best scenes of the movie, the three of them are in a bar judging an impromptu singing contest and not holding back at all:



Congratulations if you made it through that entire clip. It's a long one but you would have been rewarded. It's not the easiest movie to watch at times. The way the three of them hound that one girl for her plasticity is embarrassing to watch. But that's what a Cassavetes movie is like and what makes them special. He has been called one of the pioneers of American independent cinema. He may have been a successful actor in the Hollywood system but his movies were anything but successful. Husbands in particular was panned by American critics upon its release. It's unlikely that Cassavettes would have cared though. In this clip, the ridiculing of that poor singer might have been Cassavetes taking out his grievances on the whole American movie industry. Harry yells at the woman that she is 'terrible', 'un-real' and has 'no passion'. This was at a time that the industry was pumping out love stories starring the likes of Robert Redford and Ryan O'Neal too. Husbands is a refreshingly real and honest movie and so deserves to be called one of the most important movies ever made. It's possible that independent cinema wouldn't be the same if it were not for Cassavetes and this movie in particular.

The movie has been criticized severely for only showing the masculine viewpoint and not properly representing women. From that clip we see how they tore apart that one woman. In another scene Harry gets into a violent fight with his wife before all of them take off to London for a weekend of debauchery. This movie even influenced the feminist electro-pop band Le Tigre to write a song entitled 'What's Your Take on Cassavetes'. The way I see it though, Cassavetes is not to blame for this. He is merely trying to show us his idea of a honest picture of male suburban life. Later films of his (especially A Woman Under the Influence) can even be called empowering and a warning to misogynists. The fact is that Husbands, because it's aim is 'truthful' cinema is likely to offend many people. Whenever someone claims they are representing the truth, they are always controversial. The artistic merits of this movie speak for itself though. In the end, the characters are terrible people, but you can't help but connect with them and this is the source of the movies great emotional impact. This film's got feeling.

For it's huge contribution to American independent cinema, in my opinion Husbands is the 9th greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#10
Monty Python and the Holy Grail

1975

Directed by: Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones
Written by and starring: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Pahlin.

Of course I had to put Monty Python and the Holy Grail on my list. The story follows the quest of mythical English King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table on their quest to seek the holy grail in the name of God. It's one of the funniest movies of all time. Every scene is a gem and can be quoted at length by one hundred percent of the British population, sixty percent of the Canadian population and thirty percent of the American population. Monty Python have a knack for absurd dialogue and situations.

One of the things that makes them so unique and ahead of their time is their self-reflexive style. They're masters of breaking the fourth wall, which is when the audience is addressed directly or something else happens on stage which intentionally breaks the viewer's suspension of disbelief and makes them realize they are only watching something fictional. This can be done in a serious way to make the viewer question why he is watching something for their entertainment but it can also lead to great laughs and it's used for this latter purpose several times in the movie. The next scene is a great example of this:



There were funding issues during the production of the movie and so they could not afford to hire horses for some of the scenes. All for the better though as it creates one of best gags of the movie! I love how it's embellished so much in this scene, stressing how cheap the production really was.

Their absurdest style is also put to use perfectly to satirize the legend of King Arthur. Taking on and deconstructing one of the most treasured myths in the English psyche is, in a way, also an assault on national myths in general. These myths are central to the founding of national communities and help unite people and trick them into believing that they share more common traits with other members of their community than they do with those outside of it. The King Arthur myth creates an 'imagined community', in the words of Benedict Anderson. Arguably, these myths most often lead to feelings of nationalism and into conflict with other nations.

If religion is the opiate of the masses, then nationalism can be thought of as the stimulant of the masses. People can be riled up to do anything if they are tricked into believing its for the national good. Hence we see people march off to war after being lied to and told their way of life is in danger. Hence we see people accept deteriorating living conditions and social services because supposedly their country's economic health equals their nation's power and it can only come from sacrificing those at the bottom of the social-economic ladder. Hence we do not see the common international bonds that unite us due to an intense patriotic blindness. It is difficult to argue however that a woman making minimum wage and feeding her kids through social assistance shares a common bond with some guy from the highest income bracket. This is idea is brought up cleverly and hilariously in one of my favourite scenes from the movie:



"Who are the Britons?" the old woman asks. "We all are, we are all Britons and I am your king," replies King Arthur. Some people no how to play the nationalist card to their advantage and that has been a major block to humankind's progress. What I love about Monty Python though is how they can address serious issues like this without getting bogged down in the serious implications of the discussion. What they do instead as point out the utter absurdity of the way things tend to be. This in turn causes us to think harder about it. The members of Monty Python are brilliant and enjoy making references to philosophers to stress (and possibly to show off) their level of education. I'll finish this post with this next scene, which is another great one from the movie and a great epistemological study.

For being one of most absurd movies ever made, and also one of the funniest, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is in my opinion the 10th greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1960s

#1
La Dolce Vita

1960

Written and Directed by: Federico Fellini
Music by: Nino Rota
Starring: Marcello Mastroianni, Anita Ekberg and Anouk Aimée

Translated from Italian La Dolce Vita means "The Sweet Life". This is exactly what the movie is about. It follows tabloid reporter Marcello (Marcello Mastroianni) throughout a week in Rome as he chases various women and fills the public need for gossip about the rich and famous. Sounds like all fun and games but its appeal is wearing thin for Marcello. He is beginning to abhor the lifestyle he lives, and the film is really a series of loosely connected episodes which lead to his epiphany that he is wasting his life.

Things start out great for Marcello though. The opening scene of the movie shows a helicopter carrying a giant statue of Jesus for delivery to the Vatican. Trailing behind it in an equally godlike manner are Marcello and his photographers covering the story. They get distracted by a group of women sunbathing on a roof though and loose the story. It's a great introduction which I would love to show, but have been unable to find it on youtube. Anyway, it's the highpoint of Marcello in the movie, and his life dips from then on. One of the most memorable of his encounters is Swedish actress Sylvia (Anita Ekberg) whom is there to interview. Marcello becomes enthralled with her and becomes helpless:



After this episode Marcello begins to question whether he is actually living 'the sweet life'. This is a point driven home with a surprise visit from his father. Having not seen him in years and with his father eager to see what Marcello's life is like in Rome he takes him out on the town. An act they witness at a nightclub however shows Marcello's inner feelings of sadness and hopelessness, even as his Dad enjoys himself with his excessive drinking and flirting:



What I love about this scene is true of what I love about all Fellini movies: there's a vaudevillian feel to it. Scenes such as this one show comical characters with tragic faces. Another similarity of most Fellini films is their setting. It has been said that all Fellini films take place at night. It's also true that most of them take place in Italy (usually Rome) as well. La Dolce Vita is a great example of this as it showcases Rome's nightlight vividly. To me, that is where much of the appeal comes from in the movie and is why it's one of my all time favourite movies. At night as when the most interesting characters come out. At night is when the best stories are formed. Night though must always come to an end. Marcello discovers this after one particularly wild party in a friend's house. Exhausted from the lifestyle that he is beginning to dread, him and the other party goers discover a dying beached whale on the coast. He is called to by a beautiful, innocent, young woman who he met earlier in the week. He is unable (or unwilling) to hear her though and returns to his crew and thus refuses to listen to his inner questioning of his lifestyle:



The movie shows perfectly what life was like in urban Italy at that time. It was finally getting over the post-war crash and experiencing a kind of economic boom. Hence the rise of mass-consumerism which gives Marcello a job printing trash tabloids of news nobody needs to know. In questioning the morality of his own lifestyle, Marcello is also questioning the morality of the wider Italian society. A society which is beginning to care less and less about their fellow man and starting to worship false gods. This is most true in the capital and richest city of Rome. There is possibly no movie which shows a city better and more true than La Dolce Vita for Rome. But as I stressed, what it was showing just as much was the time period and the massive transition that Italy and Rome were experiencing.

Now I felt it necessary to give a bit of technical explanation as to why I picked this movie as my favourite of the 1960s but it's difficult. With most of the scenes taking place at night, the lighting is of course top notch as is the cinematography. But there is something which the film seamlessly conveys which just can't be described. Following Marcello through his existential realization is of his own worthlessness is such an incredible journey.

For showing the rampant moral decay prevalent in mass-consumerist societies, La Dolce Vita is in my opinion the greatest movie of the 1960s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1960s

#2
2001: A Space Odyssey

1968

Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
Written by: Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke (Based on his Novel)
Starring: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, and William Sylvester

There is so much to discuss with 2001: A Space Odyssey that I have been overwhelmed for the past month and unable to post anything. Due to the difficulty I have decided to admit from the start that I won't be able to provide a decent whole exploration of the movie's themes but just a simple gloss over of why it is so great. That's what this list is meant to do after all, discuss why some films are so great. This gem by Stanley Kubrick is consistently praised as the greatest science fiction film of all time if not the greatest film of all time. It's groundbreaking in not only its special effects but its storytelling.

At its core, 2001: A Space Odyssey is about the 'progress' of mankind. The first scene titled 'Dawn of Man' shows a tribe of apes in a desert who are victimized by other tribes, animals as well as nature itself. However, things change when one ape of the victimized tribe makes a giant leap when he learns how to manipulate his hands to hold a bone and use it as a weapon. With this power, he is able to tame nature and defeat the other tribes paving the way for man's evolutionary project. These apes are shown as our ancient ancestors. A point shown brilliantly in a gigantic jump cut which spans hundreds of thousands of years. As he throws the bone up in the air and it spins the scene changes to a space ship floating in space showing how far humankind has progressed.



But are we really that special? The giant black monolith seen at the beginning of the last scene appears several times in the movie and it is suggested that it was planted on Earth and another one was planted on the moon by other intelligent life in the universe. Kubrick has said that at the time he was making this movie he wa obssessed with his belief that there was other intelligent life in the universe thus this idea is addressed here. Humans may have advanced far enough to explore the immediate space around our planet but as the monolith on the Moon and the mission to Jupiter show, we are still at the mercy of more intelligent beings. With all the stars in the universe and the chances of other life supporting solar systems Kubrick crushes the idea that humankind is something special in the universe. The 'dawn of man' sequence may give some people the feeling that we are special beings chosen by God or nature to explore and conquer but the movie explains that we are just victims of circumstance. Great achievements made sure, but there is nothing innately special about our progress.

Is all of our progress positive? This is another important question posed by the movie. The idea that our progress emanated from the discovery of weaponery immediately suggests that not all of our progress may have been sound. This question is answered by the character of the supercomputer HAL 9000 though. The latest advancement in supercomputers runs all aspects of the Jupiter mission ship. It was created to mimic the human personality as closely as possible and this is why it became such a threat. After its first malfunction in a long series of HAL 9000 computers it exercises human like vanity and greed. Rather than being responsible for tainting the computer system's perfect record it sabtages the whole mission. The scene where Dave (Keir Dullea) disconnects HAL is amazingly tense:



So it's brilliant storytelling and philosophical musings are just one aspect of this movie. The reason that it is a classic is found in its amazing special effects and style. 2001: A Space Odyssey is proof that you can make something look more realistic with models than you can when an inflated CGI special effects budget. The movie came out in 1968 and in my opinion has yet to be outdone in its ability to show was future space exploration might look like. Its so realistic, but also beautiful. The soundtrack was also extremely innovative for its time. There are large memorable scenes of the movie which consist only of the beauty of Kubrick's direction as well as the beauty of the classical music score. The panoramic widecreen allows an even large canvas for Kubrick to paint his masterpiece. Enjoy the master at work, this scene here is one of my personal favourites:

For being the best science fiction movie of all time and influencing all others to come, 2001: A Space Odyssey is in my opinion the 2nd greatest movie of the 1960s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1960s

#3
Through A Glass Darkly

1961

Written and Directed by: Ingmar Bergman
Cinematography by: Sven Nykvist
Starring: Harriet Andersson, Max von Sydow, Gunnar Björnstrand and Lars Passgård

I'm always awestruck after watching an Ingmar Bergman movie. They are so complex and the writing is so brilliant that they require multiple viewings to pick up on the subtexts and underlying themes. In many movies I feel this can lead to nowhere and is only a clever hoax to appear more complex. But for Bergman, his films are always provocative and deal with questions essential to human nature in an unassuming way. This is what can upset people. Watching Bergman leaves you more confused than before the movie started as he is rarely straightforward nor does he end his movies with a definite conclusion. For me this requires serious soul searching though and is the heart of its brilliance.

Through A Glass Darkly is perhaps the best example of what I just tried to explain. Described as a 'chamber film', because it takes place throughout a single day on the secluded Fårö Island in Sweden and involves only four characters, is quite slow paced. The plot centers on Karin (Harriet Andersson) who suffers from an increasingly de-habilitating schizophrenia. She takes a brief vacation with her husband (Max von Sydow) who she is growing distant from, her father (Gunnar Björnstrand) who has neglected her due to his inability to come to terms with her condition, and her brother (Lars Passgård) a sexually/socially frustrated teenager. With characters like this, the story pretty much writes itself.

You can basically distinguish three different types of Bergman films: those about God, those about relationships, and those about both. Through A Glass Darkly belongs to the final category. Throughout the movie, Karin suffers from increasingly severe episodes of schizophrenia. In these episodes she becomes convinced that God is talking to her and guiding her. She retreats to the attic and stares at the wall blankly in a trance. At first this gives her comfort as she appears in her daze to believe she has found her purpose. But she is destroyed when God is finally revealed to her. The title Through A Glass Darkly is taken from Chapter 13 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians in the New Testament. It explains that our view of God is like that of looking through a dark glass, window or a mirror in some translations. We won’t truly understand God until we die. This was not the case for Karin though obviously.

Most of the other major Bergman movies which discussed God (The Seventh Seal, Winter Light) deal with mankind's frustration with the inability to understand or believe in God. The characters in these films feel unfairly tested when they are forced to put up with God's silence. They want to believe but feel cheated when they have doubt, which according to religious dogma was given to them by the creator itself. Through The Glass Darkly on the other hand deals with the opposite scenario: conquering certainty. Karin appears content in the early episodes of her disease. Her belief in a higher power is like an opiate, soothing her nerves. The allusion to Marx’s statement that religion is the ‘opiate of the masses’ is unavoidable. It was a belief likely accepted by Bergman as this point in his life. In the latter stages of her illness God is revealed to Karin and, unfortunately, the reality is far too much for her to handle and she goes mad. For Bergman, it appears that God was not the benevolent creator that he is considered by most to be. Instead he is the source of our discontent. Or perhaps what was revealed was that our lives are nothing more than chaos and hopes of an afterlife are misguided. That is open to interpretation I suppose. As this clip puts it perfectly though, the idea of ‘God’ penetrates us our whole lives as a spider would:

What you will also notice after the clip is the brilliant cinematography by long-time Bergman collaborator Sven Nykvist. His brilliant work with light is perfect for films such as this which deal with darkness and light as a theme. The shots in the attic, especially the opening of the door revealing God are perfectly constructed. I wish I could get more technical about the matter but I can’t. As I’ve been trying to explain though, that’s the thing with Bergman; it may take a while to pick up on things and work it out but you’re instantly aware that you’re taking in a brilliant work of art.

For making a solid argument against living an unexamined life, in my opinion Through A Glass Darkly is the 3rd greatest movie of the 1960s.