Showing posts with label Manohla Dargis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Manohla Dargis. Show all posts

Thursday, January 30, 2020



The meaning of Brad Pitt — as actor, star and supreme visual fetish — can be traced to the moment in the 1991 film “Thelma & Louise” when the camera pans up from his bare chest to his face like a caress. William Bradley Pitt was born in 1963, but Brad Pitt sprung forth in that 13-second ode to eroticized male beauty, initiating a closely watched career and life, dozens of movies, and libraries of delirious exaltations, drooling gossip and porny magazine layouts.

The delirium has resumed with Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood,” in which Pitt plays the Pitt-perfect role of Cliff Booth, a seasoned stunt man and coolest of cats. Everything about Cliff looks so good, so effortlessly smooth, whether he’s behind the wheel of a Coupe de Ville or strolling across a dusty wasteland. The novelist Walter Kirn once wrote that Robert Redford “stands for the [movie] industry itself, somehow, in all its California dreaminess.” In “Once Upon a Time,” Tarantino recasts that idea-ideal with Cliff, exploiting Pitt’s looks and charm to create another sun-kissed, golden and very white California dream.

So of course Tarantino being Tarantino has Cliff-Pitt doff his shirt, in a scene that both nods to the actor’s foundational “Thelma & Louise” display and offers another effusive paean to masculine beauty. It’s a hot day; Cliff is scarcely working. So he grabs his tools and a beer and scrambles on a roof to fix an antenna, wearing pretty much what Pitt first wears in “Thelma & Louise.” Then Cliff strips off his Hawaiian shirt and the Champion tee underneath it and once again, Brad Pitt stands bare-chested, soaring above both Hollywood and our gaze, the already porous line between actor and character blurring delectably further.

On Feb. 9, Oscar night, our gaze will again fix on Pitt, who has been nominated for best supporting actor for his role in “Once Upon a Time.” It’s nice that his peers bothered because they’ve been reluctant to honor him in the past. Despite his years of service and critically praised roles, Pitt has won just one Oscar: a best picture statuette for helping produce “12 Years a Slave.” As an actor, he has been nominated three previous times: once for supporting (“12 Monkeys”) and twice for lead (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” and “Moneyball”). As a reminder, Rami Malek, Eddie Redmayne and Roberto Benigni have all won best actor.

The academy hasn’t been alone in undervaluing Pitt. Beauty can be a trap as much as a benediction, including for men. Some of his earlier choices didn’t help, like “Legends of the Fall,” a risible dud that turns him into a golden sex pony. And neither did hyperventilating journalists: “A body like a Bruce Weber pinup,” one cooed in 1991. Four years later, panting tongue presumably in cheek, People wrote that “you wanted to ride bareback down the slopes of his hair.” Pitt himself fed the slavering by posing for outlets that eagerly indulged their soft-core reveries, like his 1994 Rolling Stone cover for “Interview With the Vampire,” where he stares at the camera like a Fabio-ed Kurt Cobain.

Critics could be unkind (guilty), but as the bad movies gave way to good, the notices improved. Soon, it became a favorite cliché to write that he was a character actor trapped in the body of a star (guilty again). Some of this, I think, stems from a suspicion of beauty, that it can’t be trusted, is “merely” superficial and silly, which makes the beautiful one also superficial and maybe even worthy of contempt that can lurk under obsession. There’s nothing new about how we punish beauty. The history of movies is filled with the victims of this malignant love-to-love and love-to-hate dynamic, not all of them women.

Once established, though, the star persona can become a received idea, not just a mask, and tough to dislodge. Pitt’s early success was often framed as a fairy tale about a Missouri kid who “for no apparent reason,” as one writer put it, came to Hollywood and fast became the next big thing. (Cue the James Dean comparisons, of which there were many.) Pitt studied acting in Los Angeles, including with the well-regarded Roy London, but the labor of performing isn’t sexy. It also doesn’t fit with the canard that stars can’t act. But there’s more to acting than the Method, telegraphed anguish and dropping (or adding) pounds, and while Pitt can go big — he’s played Achilles and a serial killer — he has a gift for understatement.

Pitt should have been nominated this year for best actor for his delicate, deep work in James Gray’s “Ad Astra,” a meditation on the unbearable weight of masculinity set largely in outer space. The film was praised as was Pitt’s turn, but neither found awards momentum. The performance was too good and certainly too subtle and interiorized for the academy. It has a historic weakness for showboating — the more suffering the better — which is why Joaquin Phoenix (often otherwise worthy) and his jutting rib cage in “Joker” seem like a lock. But Pitt has time. It took seven nominations for Paul Newman to win best actor; Redford has been nominated only once for acting (he lost).

Like Newman and Redford, Pitt has always seemed born to the screen, a natural. He has a palpable physical ease about him that seems inseparable from his looks, that silkiness that seems, at least in part, to come from waking up every day and going through life as a beautiful person. This isn’t to say that good-looking people don’t have the same issues, the neuroses and awkwardness that plague us mortals. But Pitt has always moved with the absolute surety you see in some beautiful people (and dancers), the casualness of movement that expresses more than mere confidence, but a sublime lack of self-consciousness and self-doubt about taking up space, something not everyone shares. This isn’t swagger; this is flow.

How actors walk, strut, slink and just stand signifies, though perhaps not as much as it once did, before filmmakers started focusing more on talking heads, which scale down better on the small screen. Sean Connery’s predatory prowl helped define James Bond. Sidney Poitier’s perfect posture, how he held his head and moved alongside white actors, announced a profound shift in the cinematic representation of race. Pitt spends a lot of time behind the wheel in “Once Upon a Time,” but he’s a great walker (even while wearing Cliff’s moccasins) and when Cliff realizes that it’s time to leave the dangerous Spahn ranch, the actor’s ramrod carriage, purposeful stride and tensed swing of his arms convey a man prepared for battle.

Over his three-decade career, Pitt has played a range of roles: soldier, sailor, rich man, poor man, vampire, thief. Among the most indelible is the phantasmagoric street fighter Tyler Durden — another great mover, with another of Pitt’s career-defining torsos — from David Fincher’s “Fight Club” (1999). The film turns on warring halves, a presumptive beta (Edward Norton) and his alpha twin (Pitt), who confront consumerism, postmodern anomie and that cult known as masculinity. Whether its critique lands has been much debated (that’s a no), but what remains beyond doubt is how Pitt, with his bloodied face and sculpted physique, became an emblem of contemporary masculinity and its contradictions.

In the years since “Fight Club,” the film has been embraced without irony and apparently without humor by men’s rights partisans. I wonder if they think Tyler is hot, and what exactly they see when they look at his body. Movies have always banked on the audience’s love of male violence. Throughout their history, they have exploited male beauty, tapping the passion it inspires. “Everybody wants to be Cary Grant. Even I want to be Cary Grant,” said, well, Cary Grant.

But the beautiful man can make us nervous, partly because he complicates gender norms. George Clooney is more than a pretty face, more than one writer has insisted. Yes, but he is also pretty. Some of this anxiety reeks of gay panic and misogyny.

Pitt has alternately rejected and embraced the dreamboat role, though he seems consistently game when asked to play that part in photo spreads; maybe because he knows it so well, he is also adept at sending it up. Part of what works in “Fight Club” is the aggressively performative quality that he brings to Tyler Durden, who from his strut to his red leather jacket and blood-colored sunglasses conveys both a swaggering masculine ideal and its absurd lad-magazine excesses. He’s a dreamboat for guys. Because while Tyler has a female lover-antagonist (Helena Bonham Carter), his main relationships are with other men, including his doppelgänger and the dudes who flock to the fight club, hysterical and shouting.

“Fight Club” demonstrated Pitt’s talents as a wingman, an ability to smoothly fall in step with a male co-star or trail in the other man’s shadow, which he does in “Once Upon a Time” as well as the three “Ocean’s” movies, playing Rosalind Russell to Clooney’s Cary Grant. Unlike some of his male peers, Pitt has always seemed equally comfortable sharing the screen with leading women, including former life partners, Juliette Lewis (in “Kalifornia”) and Angelina Jolie (“By the Sea”); he is also one of the few contemporary male stars whose persona has been, at least in part, constituted by the famous women in his life.

In an American cinema that has been dominated for decades by male characters who roam in packs or walk mean streets alone, it seems worth underscoring just how female-friendly Pitt reads onscreen and off. This goes back to his breakout role in “Thelma & Louise,” in which he plays a very intentional object of female desire called J.D. It was Geena Davis, who plays Thelma, who advocated that he be cast (over Clooney, among others), though the director, Ridley Scott, soon understood what Pitt was bringing to his brief yet pivotal role: For Thelma and J.D.’s sex scene, Scott, a visual perfectionist with an enduring love of glistening wet surfaces, sprayed Evian water on Pitt’s chest to give it sheen.

Pitt’s big scene takes place on a quiet night midway through the film. Coming in from the rain, J.D. knocks on Thelma’s motel door, brags about robbing stores and pleasures her in bed. (Later, he steals her and Louise’s bankroll.) The next morning, a still-disheveled Thelma tells Louise about her night with J.D., “I finally understand what all the fuss is about” — her face lit with a wild smile — “it’s just like a whole ’nother ballgame!” One of the things that the film’s detractors never grasped is that “Thelma & Louise” isn’t about female deviance or women ostensibly acting like men, but female pleasure and the liberation of body and soul. J.D. rips off Thelma and pushes her toward criminality. He also helps free her.

Soon before they have sex, J.D. (bare-chested, as he should be) takes out the portable hair dryer that he’s tucked into his waistband and waves it around like a gun, giving outlaw pointers to Thelma. The mixture of messages — the feminized dryer, the phallic gun — creates a seemingly dissonant pileup of signification that mixes male and female, desire and danger, laughter and heartache. This dissonance is crucial to the film and to the persona Pitt would develop, partly because it tempers beauty, making it approachable, funny, human. “That scene, right there,” Scott said later, “is the beginning of Brad Pitt! Bingo!” Scott was wrong; Pitt’s entire performance was the beginning — and the camera’s love, the jackpot.


Manohla Dargis has been the co-chief film critic since 2004. She started writing about movies professionally in 1987 while earning her M.A. in cinema studies at New York University, and her work has been anthologized in several books. @ManohlaDargis

Wednesday, May 22, 2019





Rolling up both sleeves to show off his tattoo and new Breitling watch.



And doing his best to make sure he shows off the tattoo clearly and repeatedly.   Brad has never been known to have the mannerism of repeatedly holding his chin or posing to ponder simple and obvious questions some of which were already answered in earlier interviews.

At the photo call, he made sure to pose with his left arm clearly visible to show off the Breitling.  For junket interviews, he changed his shirt (Leo stayed with the same blue suit), rolled up both sleeves, and made sure his right arm was angled towards the fixed camera to show off his tattoo.





When the May 30 Order leaked, they said the leak was "misleading" and gives an "inaccurate and unfair picture of what is really happening."  Because they agreed to stay within the framework of a dissolution case as a safeguard for the children, they must choose from a set of associated legal filings what they can use to help them achieve reconciliation, reinstatement, and reunification between Brad and the kids.  Those filings -- the May 30 Order and the sealed judgement on status -- are merely tools to nudge the children to improve their relationship with Brad.  The filings thus provide a misleading and inaccurate picture of what is really happening.

Their message is: watch them and the clear signs they are giving for the true picture, not the petition which they never wanted and only agreed to keep at the urging of childcare professionals because they "are focused on what’s best for the kids."   They have held tight, weathered the storm, and worked things through TOGETHER.  As the new Miraval website makes clear, Brad and Angelina are ONE formidable force.  They are PARTNERS since 2005United, undivided, stronger and closer, and partners for LIFE








Looking a bit tired after a long day.







By Manohla Dargis May 22, 2019
CANNES, France — On Tuesday, Quentin Tarantino returned with a bang and much critical love to the Cannes Film Festival with “Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood,” his finest in years. A dream of a movie, it follows a handful of Hollywood types living in smoggy, starry Los Angeles in 1969, the year the Manson family went on a frenzied murder spree. Among the victims was the actress Sharon Tate, then married to Roman Polanski. In Tarantino’s Hollywoodland, Tate and Polanski live next door to Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a struggling, self-doubting TV actor. His best friend is Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), a stuntman whose glory days are probably behind him. Rick could be another Clint Eastwood; Cliff should have been another Steve McQueen.
On Wednesday afternoon, I sat down for a brief chat with Pitt and DiCaprio in a suite at the Carlton Hotel, one of the grand hotels overlooking the Mediterranean. The two were in the midst of a massive publicity operation that day, giving interview after interview. Presenting a movie at Cannes can be big business and the army of Sony Pictures employees handling this offensive had the air of people worried about fumbling the most delicate of rarities. Their famous charges, by contrast, seemed wholly relaxed. Each man was affable, direct and seemed happy to talk, but, then, they have been in the business a long time. They know how to do this.<
[Read our critic’s take on “Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood.”]
Here are excerpts from the conversation.

MANOHLA DARGIS Did Tarantino show you movies to prepare for your roles?
BRAD PITT [to DiCaprio] More you than me.
LEONARDO DICAPRIO We had a screening of a multitude of B films that I had never heard of, a lot of 1960s television with actors like Ralph Meeker and Ty Hardin. These guys could have been McQueen-esque, but didn’t make the transition from black and white television, especially westerns, to career-makers like “The Great Escape.” So it was almost like a love story to them. Did they get that one opportunity? No, that may have passed them by. So let’s start talking about your character, what he might have been, what he’s struggling with as a working-class guy in the industry who has been playing the heavy from television show to television show. What that does to his psyche and his confidence?
PITT I [remember] a lot of that television. In fact [Tarantino] reminded me of much of it that I had forgotten. We did watch “Billy Jack,” some Tom Laughlin, just for fun. We were pretty much weaned on the same television and film. We talked a lot about the stuntman-actor relationship. I got to meet Bud Ekens, who was Steve McQueen’s. This was a legendary relationship. He did the jump for “The Great Escape,” got Steve McQueen into motorcycles. And, then, Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham. We got to talk to Burt. Originally he was going to play George Spahn. We had rehearsals before he passed. I was surprised what a joy that was and how giving he was, and I was really moved by it. But then I realized that so much of my childhood was watching Burt Reynolds — he was the biggest thing around in the late 1970s.

DARGIS Did you two hang out so you could develop your flow together?
DICAPRIO You come to Hollywood and you’re basically isolated and left to your own devices. [Rick and Cliff] rely on this friendship for everything. We immediately fell into those shoes. We understood that relationship [laughs] so quickly that on the first day, we were those guys.
PITT It was pretty automatic. We both came on the scene around the same time, we have crossed paths many times, we have the same reference points. I’ve always felt that you don’t understand the deal you’re making when suddenly you’re that lone gazelle on the plain and the herd’s gone, so to speak. And, you know, my friend here [he gestures toward DiCaprio] has been the same. So there’s automatic comfort in having experienced the same thing in that way. That’s not a complaint in any way, I say that merely as fact. We have mutual respect and I know when an actor elevates a scene, so we carry that respect.



DARGIS Obviously Tarantino’s movies are very written and his voice is very strong. Does it take awhile to shake his voice out and fill in yours?
DICAPRIO And hear your own, is that what you’re saying? [Laughs] I suppose so. He is such an absolute powerhouse of a personality, of course, and an artist as well. But, look, he gives you real ownership. [There are] beats that you need to hit. But there are plenty of opportunities where once you get into the groove, there can be a completely improvisational scene. And you’re almost making reference points from his dialogue and his voice and the multitude of talks that you’ve had with him about who this character is and what kind of movie he wants to make. They sort of bloom sometimes, and that’s happened quite a few times.
PITT You know when you have an altercation in public or you put your foot in your mouth, and you’re driving home and you think of that witty thing that you wished you would have said? His dialogue is that witty thing.

DARGIS Rick Dalton is kind of like the Clint Eastwood who doesn’t happen.
DICAPRIO He is the guy who almost got that shot — and that’s what’s torturing my character. I grew up in this industry, I have a lot of friends who are actors, and there’s so much talent out there. But it really boils down to being at the right place at the right time.
PITT We talk about this with streaming. With streaming, we see so much talent that was always there. There are so many more opportunities. We’re seeing this wealth of actors, writers and directors. And it just reminds us how lucky we were to land where we landed.
DICAPRIO Mm-hmm.

DARGIS I worry that so much seems disposable.
PITT It may be. I’ve been really interested in younger generations that cannot just sit in a chair for the length of a movie. They want their information quicker. That may just be the changing of the times. I don’t know.
DICAPRIO I see positives in the fact that things and ideas and story lines that normally studios might not take a chance on, through these new streaming services, will see the light of day. So cream may rise to the top. What were people saying about the transition from silent films to talkies and the advent of television? There were all these changes, but great art is going to be spoken about and, hopefully, we don’t get so inundated that we become confused.

DARGIS I found “Once Upon a Time” surprisingly moving.
PITT Absolutely, you can see it in the script, you can feel it.
DICAPRIO The only thing I’ll say is that I know what the Manson murders sort of represented, being a native of Los Angeles and having parents who are still hippies to this day.

DARGIS Real hippies?
PITT I met his dad on set and said, “How nice, he’s going to be an extra in the film.” And he goes “No, that’s him every day.”
DICAPRIO They talked about this loss of innocence, this real turning point where they had these ideals about what the future could be. And then all of a sudden this one longhaired guy — and how he manipulated these kids to do what they did — it changed the world forever.
PITT I walk away [from the film] with a hopeful reminder of what it can be, what we can be.

DARGIS What was the hopeful part?
PITT Taking care of each other, that’s what I feel at the end. It really endears me to Quentin. I could be projecting, but I see a kid who was home by himself a lot and found his —
DICAPRIO — solace —
PITT — solace and direction in these heroes on the screen, big and small. I find that in his dialogue. I find that in the scenarios. I find this one really endearing. He’s exposing his own self-doubts. [DiCaprio starts mm-hmming.] I just see this real innocent kid who wishes life could be this way. Maybe it’s because I know Quentin I find it hopeful and endearing. I was really, really moved at the end.

DARGIS I find it’s interesting that he’s gone back to the past again.
PITT He’s going back to his childhood.
DICAPRIO Yeah, I agree. What Brad said is very pertinent because cinema and television and all this stuff, it’s in [Tarantino’s] DNA. He puts things in historical context but he also creates a fairy tale. This whole idea of him recreating history — like what he did in “Inglourious Basterds” with Hitler — much like Scorsese, too, where in their childhood, cinema became part of their DNA and their language and their ability to converse with others —
PITT — their spiritual grounding —
DICAPRIO — yeah, it’s embedded in who they are as human beings. You rarely find people like that. Like Brad was saying, this is his homage and his reminiscence of 1969 where everything changed culturally and cinematically. It’s incredibly imaginative.

Friday, October 18, 2013




NYTimes
Movie Review

The Blood and Tears, Not the Magnolias

‘12 Years a Slave’ Holds Nothing Back in Show of Suffering

NYT Critics' Pick
“12 Years a Slave” isn’t the first movie about slavery in the United States — but it may be the one that finally makes it impossible for American cinema to continue to sell the ugly lies it’s been hawking for more than a century. Written by John Ridley and directed by Steve McQueen, it tells the true story of Solomon Northup, an African-American freeman who, in 1841, was snatched off the streets of Washington, and sold. It’s at once a familiar, utterly strange and deeply American story in which the period trappings long beloved by Hollywood — the paternalistic gentry with their pretty plantations, their genteel manners and all the fiddle-dee-dee rest — are the backdrop for an outrage.

The story opens with Solomon (Chiwetel Ejiofor) already enslaved and cutting sugar cane on a plantation. A series of flashbacks shifts the story to an earlier time, when Solomon, living in New York with his wife and children, accepts a job from a pair of white men to play violin in a circus. Soon the three are enjoying a civilized night out in Washington, sealing their camaraderie with heaping plates of food, flowing wine and the unstated conviction — if only on Solomon’s part — of a shared humanity, a fiction that evaporates when he wakes the next morning shackled and discovers that he’s been sold. Thereafter, he is passed from master to master.
It’s a desperate path and a story that seizes you almost immediately with a visceral force. But Mr. McQueen keeps everything moving so fluidly and efficiently that you’re too busy worrying about Solomon, following him as he travels from auction house to plantation, to linger long in the emotions and ideas that the movie churns up. Part of this is pragmatic — Mr. McQueen wants to keep you in your seat, not force you out of the theater, sobbing — but there’s something else at work here. This is, he insists, a story about Solomon, who may represent an entire subjugated people and, by extension, the peculiar institution, as well as the American past and present. Yet this is also, emphatically, the story of one individual.
Unlike most of the enslaved people whose fate he shared for a dozen years, the real Northup was born into freedom. (His memoir’s telegraphing subtitle is “Narrative of Solomon Northup, a Citizen of New-York, Kidnapped in Washington City in 1841, and Rescued in 1853, From a Cotton Plantation Near the Red River, in Louisiana.”) That made him an exceptional historical witness, because even while he was inside slavery — physically, psychologically, emotionally — part of him remained intellectually and culturally at a remove, which gives his book a powerful double perspective. In the North, he experienced some of the privileges of whiteness, and while he couldn’t vote, he could enjoy an outing with his family. Even so, he was still a black man in antebellum America.
Mr. McQueen is a British visual artist who made a rough transition to movie directing with his first two features, “Hunger” and “Shame,” both of which were embalmed in self-promoting visuals. “Hunger” is the sort of art film that makes a show of just how perfectly its protagonist, the Irish dissident Bobby Sands (Michael Fassbender), smears his excrement on a prison wall. “Shame,” about a sex addict (Mr. Fassbender again), was little more than glossy surfaces, canned misery and preening directorial virtuosity. For “12 Years a Slave,” by contrast, Mr. McQueen has largely dispensed with the conventions of art cinema to make something close to a classical narrative; in this movie, the emphasis isn’t on visual style but on Solomon and his unmistakable desire for freedom.
There’s nothing ambivalent about Solomon. Mr. Ejiofor has a round, softly inviting face, and he initially plays the character with the stunned bewilderment of a man who, even chained, can’t believe what is happening to him. Not long after he’s kidnapped, Solomon sits huddled with two other prisoners on a slaver’s boat headed south. One man insists that they should fight their crew. A second disagrees, saying, “Survival’s not about certain death, it’s about keeping your head down.” Seated between them, Solomon shakes his head no. Days earlier he was home. “Now,” he says, “you tell me all is lost?” For him, mere survival cannot be enough. “I want to live.”
This is Solomon’s own declaration of independence, and an assertion of his humanity that sustains him. It’s also a seamlessly structured scene that turns a discussion about the choices facing enslaved people — fight, submit, live — into cinema. In large part, “12 Years a Slave” is an argument about American slavery that, in image after image, both reveals it as a system (signified in one scene by the sights and ominous, mechanical sounds of a boat water wheel) and demolishes its canards, myths and cherished symbols. There are no lovable masters here or cheerful slaves. There are also no messages, wagging fingers or final-act summations or sermons. Mr. McQueen’s method is more effective and subversive because of its primarily old-fashioned, Hollywood-style engagement.

It’s a brilliant strategy that recognizes the seductions of movies that draw you wholly into their narratives and that finds Mr. McQueen appropriating the very film language that has been historically used to perpetuate reassuring (to some) fabrications about American history. One of the shocks of “12 Years a Slave” is that it reminds you how infrequently stories about slavery have been told on the big screen, which is why it’s easy to name exceptions, like Richard Fleischer’s demented, at times dazzling 1975 film, “Mandingo.” The greater jolt, though, is that “12 Years a Slave” isn’t about another Scarlett O’Hara, but about a man who could be one of those anonymous, bent-over black bodies hoeing fields in the opening credits of “Gone With the Wind,” a very different “story of the Old South.”
At one point in Northup’s memoir, which was published a year after “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and eight years before the start of the Civil War, he interrupts an account of his own near-lynching to comment on the man largely to blame for the noose around his neck. “But whatever motive may have governed the cowardly and malignant tyrant,” he writes, “it is of no importance.” It doesn’t matter why Northup was strung up in a tree like a dead deer in the summer sun, bathed in sweat, with little water to drink. What matters is what has often been missing among the economic, social and cultural explanations of American slavery and in many of its representations: human suffering. “My wrists and ankles, and the cords of my legs and arms began to swell, burying the rope that bound them into the swollen flesh.”
Part of the significance of Northup’s memoir is its description of everyday life. Mr. McQueen recreates, with texture and sweep, scenes of slavery’s extreme privations and cruelties, but also its work rhythms and routines, sunup to sundown, along with the unsettling intimacies it produced among the owners and the owned. In Louisiana, Solomon is sold by a brutish trader (Paul Giamatti) to an outwardly decent plantation owner, William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch), who, in turn, sells him to a madman and drunk, Edwin Epps (Mr. Fassbender). In his memoir, Northup refers to Ford charitably, doubtless for the benefit of the white readers who were the target of his abolitionist appeal. Freed from that burden, the filmmakers can instead show the hypocrisies of such paternalism.
It’s on Epps’s plantation that “12 Years a Slave” deepens, and then hardens. It’s also where the existential reality of what it meant to be enslaved, hour after hour, decade after decade, generation after generation, is laid bare, at times on the flayed backs of Epps’s human property, including that of his brutalized favorite, Patsey (Lupita Nyong’o). Mr. Fassbender, skittish and weirdly spiderlike, grabs your attention with curdled intensity. He’s so arresting that at first it seems as if the performance will soon slip out of Mr. McQueen’s control, and that the character will become just another irresistibly watchable, flamboyant heavy. Movie villainy is so easy, partly because it allows actors to showboat, but also because a lot of filmmakers can’t resist siding with power.
Mr. McQueen’s sympathies are as unqualified as his control. There is much to admire about “12 Years a Slave,” including the cleareyed, unsentimental quality of its images — this is a place where trees hang with beautiful moss and black bodies — and how Mr. Ejiofor’s restrained, open, translucent performance works as a ballast, something to cling onto, especially during the frenzies of violence. These are rightly hard to watch and bring to mind the startling moment in “Maus,” Art Spiegelman’s cartoon opus about the Holocaust, in which he asks his “shrink” to explain what it felt like to be in Auschwitz. “Boo! It felt like that. But ALWAYS!” The genius of “12 Years a Slave” is its insistence on banal evil, and on terror, that seeped into souls, bound bodies and reaped an enduring, terrible price.
“12 Years a Slave” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Slave-trade violence.



Thursday, March 7, 2013

Dargis



The score so far is : Oz 57% , Jack 52%, Mirror, Mirror 50%, Hansel & Gretel Witch hunters 13%, SWATH 48%,  and Alice 51%.

Even if it doesn't crest above 60%, Oz can claim to be the best-reviewed revisionist live action fairy tale to-date. 

Dargis' opening paragraph is a direct challenge to Team Maleficent to prove they can break out from the rut all previous fairy tale adaptations have fallen into and produce a film up to the standards of Martin Scorcese and James Cameron.


NYTimes
Movie Review

That Man, Before the Curtain, and Before Dorothy, Too

‘Oz the Great and Powerful,’ Starring James Franco


Walt Disney Pictures

James Franco as Oz with Finley the flying monkey, voiced by Zach Braff, in "Oz the Great and Powerful."
Can the major studios still make magic? From the looks of “Oz the Great and Powerful,” a dispiriting, infuriating jumble of big money, small ideas and ugly visuals, the answer seems to be no — unless, perhaps, the man behind the curtain is Martin Scorsese or James Cameron. The Walt Disney Company is the studio lurking behind “Oz,” and, as usual, it is banking that it can leverage this 3-D prehistory of the Wizard of Oz (James Franco) for its wonderful world of cross-promotional marketing and ancillary revenue streams. With so much riding on this “Oz” it’s a surprise that the results are so uninspired — or given Disney’s recent run with the likes of “Alice in Wonderland,” maybe not.

The bigger bummer, though, is that the studio that has enchanted generations with Tinker Bell and at least a few plucky princesses has backed a movie that has such backward ideas about female characters that it makes the 1939 “Wizard of Oz” look like a suffragist classic. Which it was, in its charming way: L. Frank Baum, who wrote the 1900 book “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” and its 13 follow-ups, was the son-in-law of the pioneering feminist Matilda Joslyn Gage, and her influence permeates the Oz books, which take flight with a brave girl who saves her friends and their land. Baum’s second book, “The Marvelous Land of Oz,” even features a parodic take on the suffrage movement, with a female general, Jinjur, leading an all-girl army equipped with knitting needles. 

“Friends, fellow-citizens and girls,” Jinjur declares, “we are about to begin our great Revolt against the men of Oz!” Too bad they didn’t storm Disney next. 

If they had, maybe they could have jabbed some sense into the director Sam Raimi, best known for the first “Spider-Man” movies, and his five male producers, and then used those needles to shred Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire’s script. A little sisterly outrage would have been appropriate because, among other offenses, the filmmakers have thrown over Dorothy — one of the greatest heroines in children’s literature and Hollywood cinema — for prequel about a two-bit magician and Lothario with female troubles. In Baum’s first book and in the 1939 film the witches are powerful forces for good and wickedness in the Land of Oz. In “Oz the Great and Powerful,” a witch not only falls for the man Oz, she also turns green from envy when he cozies up to a pretty blonde. (Yeah, the baddie is a brunette.) 

It starts better than it ends, partly because Mr. Raimi opens by paying tribute to the 1939 film — with black-and-white visuals and a square screen — when he introduces the young wizard, Oscar Diggs, or Oz. Fast talking and promisingly shady, Oz works in a dusty Kansas circus, hustling rubes with doves and peddling sweet nothings to the ladies. One miss, Annie (Michelle Williams), stands out, but — in a worrisome sign — he can’t commit. When another woman’s lover chases him, Oz hops in a hot-air balloon and, after riding out a storm, arrives in a garishly hued, digitally rendered land that brings to mind the (bad) cover of a prog rock album and announces that, while we aren’t in Kansas anymore, neither are we in movie dreamland. 

You know that place: It’s over the rainbow and once upon a time, across a crowded room and in a galaxy far, far away. It’s where dreams come true, and it’s nowhere to be found in “Oz the Great and Powerful.” Instead there is a little romance, some adventure, too much jokey patter, a rainbow coalition of Munchkins and enough digital wizardry effectively to make this an animated movie. Even the troika of witches — Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz) and Glinda (Ms. Williams) — look as if they have received some unnecessary digital facial smoothing. They’re as eerily gleaming and artificial looking as the most the movie’s most visually arresting character, a porcelain doll, China Girl (voiced by Joey King), whom Oz rescues with kindness and glue. 

After a while you may start hoping that Oz will drop China Girl or at least stuff a few silk scarves in her mouth. Both she and Oz’s other sidekick, Finley, an unfunny flying monkey (voiced by Zach Braff), rapidly wear out their welcome with the kind of grating, Billy Crystal-light patter that gurgles through a lot of children’s movies. Although he brings some tangible, real feeling to the scene of Oz mending China Girl, Mr. Franco looks pretty pained in most of his scenes with them, and it’s hard to blame him. Whether embarrassed by the material or just uneasy performing in such a computer-generated atmosphere, he never finds a way to make the wizard pop. (He is, it should be said, feverishly in his element joy riding over a different rainbow in “Spring Breakers,” which opens soon.) 

Mr. Raimi isn’t a memorable visual stylist, but he’s usually better with actors than he is here. It’s startling how much difficulty he has energizing a shot of two people talking in a room, though, as one digital landscape follows another, it’s also easy to imagine that much of his energy was sucked up by the movie’s technical challenges. The same felt true as the “Spider-Man” franchise dragged on, and it’s also true of Ang Lee’s work with the actors in the scenes that bookend “The Life of Pi,” a superior work to this one in every way. What both movies share, however, are directors stumbling as they try to do what cinema has wondrously done from its start — represent human life. 

“Oz the Great and Powerful” is exactly the kind of extravagant misfire that professional pessimists offer as proof that “they” — as in the big studios and that amorphous easy target called Hollywood — don’t make movies like they used to. One of the delightful things about the original “Wizard of Oz” film is that it turns a girl’s reverie, specifically her dream of escape and her own imagination, into a beautiful metaphor for movies. When Dorothy opens her front door onto a Technicolor wonderland, the moment evokes what a 1930s moviegoer might have experienced when watching a color film for the first time. Come into this magical place, the filmmakers and, by extension, Hollywood itself seemed to be telling the audience, and share in this dream — a dream called Oz that we also call the movies. 

The studios sometimes still gamble on fantasies that sweep audiences up and away, though often the biggest-budgeted releases are war movies in superhero drag or cartoons about characters whose adventures, much like that of Oz in this telling, track like therapeutic journeys (follow your dream of self-actualization) instead of transcendent excursions (just dream!). Loaded with special effects, big bangs and generic narrative beats, these movies nonetheless sometimes take you where you’ve never been before. Mostly, though, like “Oz the Great and Powerful,” these fantasies drag you back to the same dreary, heavily trod destination, to the same exhausted formulas, gender stereotypes, general idiocy and a mind-set that values special effects over storytelling. Yes, companies make movies for shareholders; they have for decades. But who is the audience for the numbly mistitled “Oz the Great and Powerful”? 

Baum’s Dorothy is a “simple, sweet and true little girl” who journeys into another world whose existence, its witches and wonders, was partly inspired by a real liberation struggle. The 1939 film turned Dorothy’s adventure into a dream and tacked on a lesson (“there’s no place like home”). Yet crucial to its enduring power is that, in the shadow of the Great Depression, Dorothy’s dreams and imagination (and a clunk on the head) are what transport her. For all their flights of fancy the book and the 1939 film remain tethered to reality and to characters who, because they are a lot like life, allow you to step into their silver shoes and ruby slippers. In these Oz stories the magic is transcendently human. 

“Oz the Great and Powerful” is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested) for scary flying baboons and explosions.


Directed by Sam Raimi; written by Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire, based on a story by Mr. Kapner based on the works of L. Frank Baum; director of photography, Peter Deming; edited by Bob Murawski; music by Danny Elfman; production design by Robert Stromberg; costumes by Gary Jones and Michael Kutsche; visual effects supervisor, Scott Stokdyk; produced by Joe Roth; released by Walt Disney Pictures. Running time: 2 hours 9 minutes.
WITH: James Franco (Oscar Diggs a k a Oz), Mila Kunis (Theodora), Rachel Weisz (Evanora), Michelle Williams (Annie/Glinda), Zach Braff (Frank/Voice of Finley the Monkey), Joey King (Girl in Wheelchair/Voice of China Girl) and Tony Cox (Knuck).

A version of this review appeared in print on March 8, 2013, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: That Man, Before the Curtain, and Before Dorothy, Too .



MCN

By David Poland

Review: Oz The Great & Powerful


From Lord of the Oz: Fellowship Of The Witches

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Top Ten lists



From TOH

TOH! Top Tens of 2012






ANNE THOMPSON:
1. "Life of Pi"
Taiwan-born Ang Lee, more than any director working today, is a filmmaker for the world. His three great love stories -- martial arts romance "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," gay tragedy "Brokeback Mountain" and Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility"-- were accessible to multiple cultures. With "Life of Pi" Lee has fashioned, with screenwriter David Magee ("Finding Neverland") adapting Yann Martel's global bestseller, another love story that transcends borders. In this case, it's between a 17-year-old young man (non-pro Suraj Sharma) from India and a Bengal tiger. But it is also a stunning technological triumph, as the VFX required were impossible until now. Conceived four years ago before the arrival of the 3-D "Avatar," this movie is a live-action/animation hybrid, as major characters like the threatening tiger and sublime phosphorescent Pacific seascapes could only be created by artists in the digital realm.
2. "Beasts of the Southern Wild"
When he won the grand jury and cinematography prizes at Sundance, director Benh Zeitlin, who shot "Beasts" with his ragtag film collective on a constantly flooding delta island below the New Orleans levees with a cast of non-actors, said: "We had more freedom to make this film than any filmmakers in America ever." Zeitlin was able to control the chaos: the end result is a constantly surprising and deeply moving fantastical portrait of where we are, right now.
3. "Zero Dark Thirty"
Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal's incredibly timely movie about the CIA's ten-year pursuit of Osama bin Laden is as relentless as its heroine (Jessica Chastain), laying out the hard facts and details without flinching from its purpose, which is to make real the daily headlines. Bigelow deploys 120 speaking parts from all over the world and three to four roving cameras to catch the unfolding action in wide-ranging locations from India, Egypt and Jordan to London and Washington, D.C. As Bigelow avoids Hollywood narrative conventions, she also gives us the toughest motherfuckin' woman lead since Ripley.

4. "Silver Linings Playbook"
This delicately edited family relationship comedy is both funny and moving. The film's two romantic leads, Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper, are two lost, emotionally damaged yet attractive people who draw comfort and kinship from each other. Writer-director David O. Russell has, dare I say it, Billy Wilder's tough unsentimental approach to romance. Even in this cynical age, we root for these two characters in pain to heal each other, make their families happy, win their dance contest and find true love.

5. "Lincoln"
The thing that hits you on first viewing "Lincoln" is how unconventional it is. It's organic, grown from the seeds in Doris Kearns Goodwin's 800-page Lincoln tome "Team of Rivals," nurtured over five years by playwright Tony Kushner, and shaped by Steven Spielberg and actor Daniel Day-Lewis into something we've never seen before. This alchemy of a torrent of words, well-researched history, and the powerful personality of the world's most popular American president has yielded a magical biopic that is the current front-runner in the Oscar race.
6. "End of Watch"
David Ayer celebrates the work ethic and bravery of two cops, partners on the beat in East Los Angeles, who face an unforgiving world with humor and verbal acuity. Shot on the run, the movie was choreographed with no room for waste or error: Ayer shot 135 hours of footage in 22 days.  Jack Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena were primed and ready and give the best performances of their respective careers.

7. "Argo"
Ben Affleck directs this taut and commercial thriller, his third behind the camera, with screw-tightening efficiency that would make Michael Mann proud. Think "The Insider" on steroids. Affleck gives a solid, naturalistic performance as Tony Mendez, a smart and experienced CIA operative who specializes in pulling people out of tight situations. Affleck, like other actor-directors Clooney and Clint Eastwood, sees the value of staying hands-on with a modest budget. Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto (Oscar-nominated for "Brokeback Mountain") does outstanding work on location in Turkey, Los Angeles and the Ontario airport, while composer Alexandre Desplat ("The King's Speech") could land a fifth Oscar nomination--unless he knocks himself out with "Zero Dark Thirty."
8. "The Sessions"
"The Sessions" starts with a script from Australian filmmaker Ben Lewin, who suffered polio as a youth and still limps with a cane. Helen Hunt and John Hawkes saw rich material in this story about the late great intellectual Mark O'Brien who wanted more from life than lying immobile in an iron lung. He found a sex surrogate to help him find love in his life. While the surrogate came to care deeply for O'Brien--within the confines of a professional relationship--she was able to teach him how to make another woman happy.  Audiences are often uncomfortable with sex in cinema, and this movie embraces moments that are awkward and embarrassing, even humiliating. This intimate sexual souffle is so delicate and sensitive--both actors are literally naked-- that it could easily have gone flat. Instead it is uplifting.



'Moonrise Kingdom"
9. "Moonrise Kingdom" This coming-of-age romance takes place inside an artificial fantasy based on the children's books writer-director Wes Anderson still loves. He builds the movie on the shoulders of two young kids in love. "I love artifice and very emotional movies," he told me in Cannes. The art direction, tone, and acting--one standout is Bruce Willis's sweet buffoonish cop--are all perfectly in tune with Anderson's precise imagination.
10. "Anna Karenina"
The decision not to shoot "Anna Karenina" on location in Russia liberated director Joe Wright. Without changing the Tom Stoppard adaptation of Tolstoy's classic, Wright used an old London theater as a way to completely free himself from the constrictions of period costume drama. "Anna Karenina" is a swirling, mad, exuberant, joyful, passionate celebration of the novel. Anna (Keira Knightley of Wright's "Atonement" and "Pride & Prejudice") is far from your ordinary romantic heroine. She's doomed to meet that train. But there's more to this story than adultery. Tolstoy's counterpart, Levin (Domhall Gleeson), balances out the drama. And Jude Law gives one of his best performances as Anna's cuckolded husband.

BEST FOREIGN FILM
"Barbara," Germany's Oscar entry, is Christian Petzold's fifth collaboration with actress Nina Hoss. She plays an intrepid East Berlin doctor in 1980 who has been sent to the boonies as punishment for wanting to leave the country. Like everyone around her, she lies to survive; she sneaks around in the night to meet her West German lover in the woods. But she's a great doctor who cares for her patients; that bonds her with her fellow doctor (up-and-comer Ronald Zehrfeld). Even though she's surrounded by fear and suspicion and paranoia, she comes to trust him.

BEST DOCUMENTARY
Eugene Jarecki's incisive and incendiary "The House I Live In," which won the U.S. documentary Grand Jury Prize at Sundance and is shortlisted for next year's doc Oscar, will blow your mind. That's because it tackles a subject that you think you know a little about--America's war on drugs--and in excruciating detail shows you how the whole system is broken and dysfunctional.

BEST ANIMATED FILM
"Frankenweenie," Tim Burton filmed his most personal movie since "Edward Scissorhands" in black and white and stop motion. He returns to the Burbank suburbs he has loved to show us ever since the 1984 Disney short on which the movie is based. While the feature was not a box office success, it's an inspiring reminder of what an artist can do when he's not playing to the marketplace.



 From NYTimes

25 Favorites From a Year When 10 Aren’t Enough


Weinstein Company
Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix in “The Master.” More Photos »
IF you spent a lot of time this year reading and writing about movies — as opposed to watching them, which is more fun — you might have detected recurrent notes of anxiety, trepidation, even dread. Television is better than movies; audience levels are in a state of permanent decline; the Hollywood studios have given up on grown-ups; and digital, a force so powerful that it is both adjective and noun, is destroying cinema as we know it. These are among the tenets of a pessimistic conventional wisdom.
They may well all be true, but the movies themselves answered this hand wringing with a defiant “So what?” Over the past decade series television has certainly (at last) begun to unlock its potential to deliver complex, long-form narrative, but there are still feats of scale, intimacy and visual ambition that cannot be doled out in episodic small-screen doses.
And people still like to go to the movies! The big studios, after the usual summer of superheroes and sequels, crowded the fourth quarter of the year with solid stories about adult matters, some of which — “Argo,” “Flight,” “Lincoln” — brought in pretty good box office. And some of the best films of the year were actually, in the old-fashioned literal sense, films, brought to us by the chemical transformation of strips of stuff rather than the mathematical manipulation of strings of code.
Digital cinema is a mighty force, still emerging, and it continued to extend its reach in 2012. Not only did computer-hatched effects help us see superheroes, Hobbits and Pixar creatures; they also added the tiger to “Life of Pi” and subtracted Marion Cotillard’s legs from “Rust and Bone.” Digital, because it lowers costs and increases access to the tools of filmmaking, is also partly responsible for the current boom in documentaries, which were so various and powerful this year that they demanded their own list.
But I’m struck, surveying my own favorites, by how many films relied on old-fashioned methods and materials: the grainy 16-millimeter of “Beasts of the Southern Wild”; the lustrous 65-millimeter of “The Master”; the burnished chiaroscuro of “Lincoln”; the meticulous framing and cutting of “Amour.” Maybe this is coincidence, or fuddy-duddyism on my part. Or maybe technological means are, finally, less important than artistic ends.
The annual ritual of narrowing down hundreds of titles — and thousands of hours of rapture and reverie — to just 10 is a cruel torment, but also, perhaps, a necessary discipline. Although, as usual, I’ve found it necessary to cheat a bit, and extend the 10 to 25. These lists are never meant to be permanent historical judgments, graven in stone. They are ephemeral and subjective, made up of hunches and desires, and they record, in my case, the impressions that I could not shake and the pictures I’m eager to see again, in some cases for the fourth or fifth time.
Top 10 Films
1. AMOUR (Michael Haneke) With ruthless clarity, but also with tact and compassion, Mr. Haneke invites us to look at the arrival of death at the end of a Parisian couple’s long marriage, and shows, almost as if for the first time, how the saddest and most intractable facts of life can be transformed into art. Months after its debut at Cannes this film already feels permanent.
2. LINCOLN (Steven Spielberg) A great, flawed movie about a great, flawed president of a great, flawed nation. Argue about the flaws, but allow yourself to be moved by the grand, noble sentiments that swirl through Tony Kushner’s eloquent script and Daniel Day-Lewis’s sly performance.
3. BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD (Benh Zeitlin) A thousand years from now scientists will know that there was a Hushpuppy, who lived in the Bathtub with her daddy.
4. FOOTNOTE (Joseph Cedar) This Israeli film takes what might have been a trivial anecdote — a committee accidentally awards a prize to the wrong scholar — and turns it into a tragicomic opera with a great deal to say about Zionism, academia, family life and the way language functions as a bridge between the sacred and the profane.
5. THE MASTER (Paul Thomas Anderson) Troubling and enigmatic, this movie — suggested by the early career of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology — seems designed to be misunderstood. It tells the story of a damaged soul (Joaquin Phoenix) who seeks healing from a charismatic fraud and finds what he is looking for.
6. ZERO DARK THIRTY (Kathryn Bigelow) A milestone in post-Sept. 11 cinema, and an attempt to grapple honestly with the moral complexities of the war on terror. Jessica Chastain’s tough, quiet performance as a C.I.A. officer involved in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden synthesizes much of the collective emotion of the past decade — grief, fear, frustration and fatigue — within a narrative that also works as a tense and brutal geopolitical thriller.
7. DJANGO UNCHAINED (Quentin Tarantino) Mr. Tarantino follows “Inglourious Basterds,” his action-cartoon about the Holocaust, with an even bolder provocation: a blaxploitation spaghetti western about American slavery. More than any other director he tests and extends the power of pop-culture fantasy to engage the painful atrocities of history.
8. GOODBYE, FIRST LOVE (Mia Hansen-Love) The tired phrase “coming-of-age story” hardly does justice to this sensitive, observant chronicle of a young woman’s discovery of passion, disappointment and her own resourcefulness as she moves from adolescence into her early 20s. With her third feature Ms. Hansen-Love confirms her status as one of the freshest, bravest voices in French movies.
9. NEIGHBORING SOUNDS (Kleber Mendonça Filho) In his first feature Mr. Mendonça, a former film critic, chronicles the daily rhythms of life in an affluent apartment complex in the Brazilian coastal city of Recife. What emerges is a subtle portrait of a society in the throes of rapid social transformation, still haunted by the cruelties of its feudal past.
10. THE GREY (Joe Carnahan) A pack of dudes. A pack of wolves. Liam Neeson leads the fight for survival, and Mr. Carnahan conducts a clinic in muscular action-movie technique that is also a somber, moving meditation on life, death and the line between the human and the wild.
HONORABLE MENTION “Argo” (Ben Affleck); “Barbara” (Christian Petzold); “Brave” (Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman); “Consuming Spirits” (Chris Sullivan); “The Deep Blue Sea” (Terence Davies); “Moonrise Kingdom” (Wes Anderson); “Pitch Perfect” (Jason Moore); “Rust and Bone” (Jacques Audiard); “Take This Waltz” (Sarah Polley); “The Turin Horse” (Bela Tarr).
Top Five Documentaries
1. THE GATEKEEPERS (Dror Moreh) The post-1967 history of Israel, public and secret, as told by six former leaders of Shin Bet, the country’s clandestine security service. Essential, eye-opening viewing if you think you understand the Middle East.
2. THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES (Lauren Greenfield) How the other 1 percent lives: just like the rest of us, but with a lot more money.
3. HOW TO SURVIVE A PLAGUE (David France) A remarkable story of loss, love and activism during the worst years of the AIDS epidemic.
4. THIS IS NOT A FILM (Jafar Panahi) Mr. Panahi, forbidden by the Iranian authorities from practicing as a filmmaker, responded with this brave and witty video diary, an essay on the struggle between political tyranny and the creative imagination.
5. THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE (Ken Burns, Sarah Burns and David McMahon) A notorious crime — the rape of a jogger in Central Park in 1989 — is revisited in this painful, angry, scrupulously reported story of race, injustice and media frenzy. 



Against the Odds, Smart Films Thrive at the Box Office


Focus Features
Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman in Wes Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom." More Photos »
SEEN any good movies lately? How could you not? This has been a bumper year for movies big and small, imported and domestic, some made for hundreds of millions of dollars and others made for about the price of a grande soy latte. As has been the case in recent years, the top box office movies in America were mostly formulaic corporate entertainments, including the superhero comic-book fantasies like “Marvel’s The Avengers” that make some critics despair. Even amid the usual selection of big-screen cartoons and testosterone, though, it was nice to see female-driven stories like “The Hunger Games” — and all the female viewers its box office represents — muscling into the mix.
Look past the Top 20 on boxofficemojo.com, and things become more interesting. The 21st domestic top grosser of the year was the little male stripper movie that could and did, all while flashing its viewers: “Magic Mike,” directed by that cinematic chameleon Steven Soderbergh, was one of the unexpectedly enjoyable movies of the year and one of the most surprisingly profitable. Made on the cheap, the independently bankrolled production was bought by Warner Brothers for about $7 million and scooped up $113 million in the United States. It’s a shining, sweat-kissed example of how the studios could diversify their offerings and maybe their audiences by doing more than remaking the same movies over again, as Sony Pictures did with the perfectly adequate if misleadingly titled “Amazing Spider-Man.”
The next 20 box office domestic grossers included solid thinking-adult entertainments like “Argo,” “Flight” and “Lincoln,” each of which has raked in more than two of the most heavily promoted corporate-cinema bombs of the year, “Battleship” and “John Carter.” Does this mean that there is a sea change, and that the studios will start filling their slates with outrageous international exploits, constitutional fights and gravely flawed, complex protagonists? Your guess is as good as mine, because, really, every year the studios release good, bad, indifferent work, the best of which invariably end up on my Top 10. Last year Mr. Soderbergh made one of those, “Contagion.” He better not retire, as he has threatened to do, or I will be short one studio-ready director whom I can generally count on.
There are other dependable American directors, filmmakers who are as good as any working anywhere today — and as good and sometimes better as many who worked in the old studio system. Two that come to mind are Paul Thomas Anderson (“The Master”) and Wes Anderson (“Moonrise Kingdom”). “Moonrise Kingdom” has earned $46 million, more than movies as different as “The Three Stooges” and “Resident Evil: Retribution,” both of which played on more than twice as many screens. “The Master” has brought in far less money ($15 million), but it’s pretty thrilling that this brilliant, uncompromising film was the 109th most popular at the box office, ahead of cynical dreck like “Dredd,” a reboot that flooded theaters and came with built-in brand recognition.
Talking about money may seem polluting, and I loathe the Monday box office reports, which, like the endless awards season, dominate so much of entertainment media chatter. But just like the larger shifts that certain Oscar wins underscore, the box office numbers are reassuring proof that the state of our movie culture is not as dire as some insist. Movies like “Dredd” can be dispiriting, but only if you base your arguments on the worst the movies have to offer. Today’s corporate cinema is reflective of its moment, but so are movies like “The Master,” which speaks to a fundamental human yearning for meaning in a story that is specifically American. I love old Hollywood, but Louis B. Mayer would never have made “The Master,” and neither would any other studio boss of his era.
The sheer existence of “The Master” is reflective of the aesthetic expansiveness of American movies, which contain multitudes — along with, you know, garbage. Independents like Mr. Anderson usually have to scrounge for money, true, but it is the price they pay for making the films they want, the way that they want. That seems unfair, but playing with large sums of other people’s money usually comes with strings attached. It’s worth remembering that, just as it’s worth remembering all the Hollywood hires who were forced to champ at the bit once upon a studio time. In 1935 the great screenwriter Ben Hecht wrote a hilarious, wildly filthy poem mocking the demands of his Hollywood masters: “My heroine must be so nice,” he wrote, in one smut-free bit, “This Venus of cliché and slop/Must nary imbecile affront.”
Heroines and heroes still must be nice. (Get ready for complaints that Jessica Chastain’s character in Kathryn Bigelow’s “Zero Dark Thirty” isn’t nice or “relatable”; to the movie’s credit, she isn’t.) But there is also more variety on screen than ever before, both in work from across the globe and even from within America. (Is it necessary to point out that this diversity means that our cinematic choices are no longer almost entirely the creative domain of white men?) This increasing diversity defines contemporary movie culture as much as corporate cinema does. And while old Hollywood movies helped teach us how to be, and dream as, Americans, movies today can impart other truths, including how to listen to other voices and to dream with other cultures that aren’t back-lot simulacrums.
There is, in other words, much to appreciate about contemporary movies this year. In 1960 the great poet, essayist, critic and filmmaker Jonas Mekas wrote: “Films will soon be made as easily as written poems, and almost as cheaply. They will be made everywhere and by everybody. The empires of professionalism and big budgets are crumbling.” More than a half-century later Mr. Mekas’s Utopian vision appears to have come true in some respects, as do-it-themselves filmmakers from North Hollywood and digital cinema masters from Turkey prove. I have reservations about all the images that are here in theaters today and streaming on iTunes tomorrow. But Mr. Mekas, who turns 90 Dec. 24, and his stubborn faith in art and artists are a restorative tonic. Here’s to him! 

Top 10, alphabetical order: “Amour” (Michael Haneke); “The Deep Blue Sea” (Terence Davies); “The Gatekeepers” (Dror Moreh); “Holy Motors” (Leos Carax); “The Master” (Paul Thomas Anderson); “Moonrise Kingdom” (Wes Anderson); “Once Upon a Time in Anatolia” (Nuri Bilge Ceylan); “Searching for Sugar Man” (Malik Bendjelloul); “Silver Linings Playbook” (David O. Russell); “Zero Dark Thirty” (Kathryn Bigelow). 

The rest of the best, alphabetically: “Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry” (Alison Klayman); “Argo” (Ben Affleck); “August and After” (Nathaniel Dorsky); “Auto-Collider XV” (Ernie Gehr); “Barbara” (Christian Petzold); “Beasts of the Southern Wild” (Benh Zeitlin); “Bernie” (Richard Linklater); “Brooklyn Castle” (Katie Dellamaggiore); “The Dark Knight Rises” (Christopher Nolan); “Departure” (Mr. Gehr); “Footnote” (Joseph Cedar); “The House I Live In” (Eugene Jarecki); “The Kid With a Bike” (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne); “Life of Pi” — only at sea (Ang Lee); “Magic Mike” (Steven Soderbergh); “A Man Vanishes” (Shohei Imamura); “Middle of Nowhere” (Ava DuVernay); “Miss Bala” (Gerardo Naranjo); “Napoleon” (Abel Gance, restored by Kevin Brownlow); “Oslo, August 31st” (Joachim Trier); “The Pirates! Band of Misfits” (Peter Lord); “Rust and Bone” (Jacques Audiard); “Skyfall” (Sam Mendes); “Starlet” (Sean Baker); “This Is Not a Film” (Jafar Panahi and Mojtaba Mirtahmasb); “The Turin Horse” (Bela Tarr); “View From the Acropolis” (Lonnie van Brummelen and Siebren de Haan).