I’m just wondering if a movie like Todd Haynes’ SAFE would be less interesting to you personally, because it goes against any possible concept of “COMMUNITY.” The same question could be applied to Altman’s IMAGES.

AWARENESS: I love films that are alive to different angles on the world, even if those angles might not necessarily be sewn directly into the fabric of the film’s main themes. There are many kinds of awareness you could conceivably encounter in any one film– cinematic, political, social, storytelling, religious, awareness of environment, awareness of the frame, etc. One or more of these levels of awareness are often present in any given film by Robert Altman, which is probably why he ranks so high for me, but I appreciate movies by, say, the Farrelly Brothers, Walter Hill, Richard Linklater, Brian De Palma and Anthony Mann for the some of the same reasons.

FEARLESS: No fear of failure, or the unknown, or the untested, or the ambiguous. I played a little game of word association with myself just now with “fearless”, and the movie that came to mind first was David Cronenberg’s The Brood. But I also think of Barbara Kopple’s Harlan County U.S.A., the documentaries of Werner Herzog, and Jackie Chan’s Project A Part 2.

COMMUNITY: A sensibility that exists within the story, and one that encourages community or a sense of fellowship with the audience. Obviously, Nashville is the template here, but A Prairie Home Companion, Magnolia or Only Angels Have Wings are also superb examples for me.

HUMOR: Wicked, jolly, absurd, reflective, humor that comments on the action, grotesque, black comedy. I love a good laugh: The Lady Eve, Nacho Libre, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, The Big Lebowski, Stuck on You, Blazing Saddles, jackass: the movie, Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, The Abominable Dr. Phibes– I could go on, but I won’t. I won’t. The hell I won’t! John Wayne in McLintock!, or what about Ruggles of Red Gap, To Be or Not To Be, Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (Okay, I’ll stop now.)

PATIENCE: Particularly in editing, but also in how the exposition of important information is encoded in and imparted by the visuals, writing and performances. Implied in this directorial/editorial patience is the assumption that the film will find an audience that is equally patient and will respond to and with the film on its own terms. My renewed appreciation, over the past 10-15 years, for movies made before 1980, particularly from the 1930s through the 1960s, certainly reflects this aspect of my taste. But I’ve also come to love the new Asian cinema (those elements of it that I’ve been lucky enough to be exposed to, anyway) that is characterized by this patience and quality of observation that I really respond to. Favorites include Three Times, Flowers of Shanghai, Tropical Malady and, perhaps my favorite of all so far, Goodbye, Dragon Inn.

2. VERISIIMILITUDE – I appreciate realism. Or, in the cases of many directors I admire, artistically attenuated realism. I could use Kubrick as an example, or Van Sant – their films aren’t necessarily realistic, but they create a sort of of explcitly staged realism within their misce-en-scene which creates and undeniable sense of verisimilitude without approximating the look and feel of a documentary.

3. LENGTH – I love filmmakers who know how to let things last as long as they need to. Again, Van Sant and Kubrick – but moreso, Tsai Ming Liang, Hou Hsiao Hsien and many of their Asian contemporaries. These are filmmakers understand the temporal properties of cinema – they know how a seemingly unextraordinary act or image or scene can be transformed, simply by being sustained. The final shot of Liang’s Goodbye, Dragon Inn is one of my favorite examples. Actually, every shot in that film might qualify as an excellent example. On the flip side, however, I need to mention that ‘length’ does not necessarily refer to running time.

4. RHYTHMIC – As an editor, this is impotant to me. Rhythm is related to the length of shots and takes and the manner in which they’re cut, certainly, but it is far more inclusive than that. It includes the speed of a dolly shot, an actor’s gait, the dialogue — pretty much everything. A good sense of the rhythm of a film will be instilled by the director on the set, and it will inform the editing process, and be amplified (although not to any overt level, necessarily) by it. It will be, in a sense, the backbone of a film.

5. QUIET – I put this hear with the intention that its sibling, ‘loud,’ be included so inference. I”m speaking here of the dynamics of sound, one of the most important and most underrated aspects of cinema. There’s nothing quite like a sustained and enveloping cinematic silence – except perhaps for a crescendo of cacophony to wake you from your reverie. One of the best uses of sound ever is Paul Thomas Anderson’s Punch Drunk Love (Gary Rydstrom did the honors) – if you haven’t ever noticed it, pop the DVD in and turn the volume up.

“What’s your name?”
“Fuck you. That’s my name.”

2. EDITING. And when the camera gets to its prey, nothing thrills me more than a masterful series of edits, be they a leisurely paced back and forth between two people, or rapid montages of varying images. I like the sense of a director’s eye behind the camera and an editor’s touch in the editing room coming together to create a feeling I couldn’t have anticipated.

3. STURGES. Let’s just use that as a catchall phrase for witty and/or clever writing. Zingers, one-liners, soliloquies of soul and humor that make your ears perk up and let you know that you’re in the hands of somebody who values the melodicism of language. I agree that film is a visual medium, but a great line of dialogue can excuse a lot. Plus, it tends to live in your head for a lifetime. Just ask your friends who are truly tired of your ability to quote THE BIG LEBOWSKI in any situation.

4. INTIMACY. It goes along with sensuality, rapture. In any film I truly, truly love, there is some form of romantic gesture at its heart, and often it’s a love story defined not by words, but by glances and movements and the magic acting that occurs at eye level. Not that I have any objection to a little thigh and torso action, either.

5. CONCLUSION. The best films, in my opinion, must have a strong conclusion, even if it’s no conclusion at all. Think of that feeling you get when the end credits come up and a story has been successfully put across and you say to yourself, “That was a good movie!” Or you walk out thinking about its intent. Nine times out of 10, you won’t feel that way unless you felt satisfied or intrigued at the conclusion. Even if, as in CACHE, you’re not sure what the conclusion is until you go on the Internet and discover that you have to look very carefully at the bottom left portion of the frame.

Keith: You clever boy. But I will only allow that once!

Bob: That’s as thoughtful a reply as a humble blogger like me could possibly wish for. And those words are so very YOU!

ADVENTURE – Not necessarily high physical action; but the thrill of discovery and daring. The human heart is filled with adventure.

SURPRISE – Show me something I don’t expect. Better still, show me something I’ve never seen before. And not just in the realms of sex and violence (though certainly those) but also in the arenas of wit, vision, insight, and ideas.

GRACE – What happens, the way it happens, the way it’s shot, and the way it’s put together all have a certain rightness that speaks truth. Not documentary truth, but the timeless truth of nature, of myth, of human behavior and human feeling.

UNDERSTANDING – No stark oversimplifications, no one-sided approach to complex issues, no knocking down straw men. Understand the characters as characters, both good and bad. Find something of value in each of them and in each act. Redeem them where possible. If you have to damn them, have good reasons. Don’t take easy ways out. Earn your outcome.

THE PLEASURE OF THE TEXT