I can't think of anything clever for Five

5. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Directed by Jonathan Demme. Written by Ted Tally.
Starring Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins, Scott Glenn, Ted Levine.
  I am not a horror movie fan. As a result I've never seen a frame of any of the 'Friday the 13th' or 'Nightmare on Elm Street' franchises. Never had any desire to watch 'Scream,' or any of the various torture porn of the last decade or so. You get the point.
  As a result I avoided 'Silence of the Lambs' for at least a year or so after it came out. I finally saw it on VHS after having it recommended to me for the umpteenth time and I really liked it. And over the intervening couple of decades this film kept sneaking up on me. I'd watch it on cable whenever I could, even badly censored for swear words. Eventually I bought it on DVD more of as an afterthought than anything else. Then I'd watch it at least once a year. Then I started a Flickchart account and it shot to #5 fairly rapidly. How often does one of your all-time favorite anythings just tip-toe up on you and nestle into your heart and mind? Not often enough in my book.

Six. Six? Six!

6. L.A. Confidential (1997)
Directed by Curtis Hanson. Written by Brian Helgeland.
Starring Kim Basinger, James Cromwell, Russell Crowe, Danny DeVito, Guy Pearce, Kevin Spacey.
  I have a weakness for long films that aren't afraid to take their time. Ditto for films that have complex plots and loads of characters. That's 'L.A. Confidential' in a nutshell. I think it's because these type of films replicate the literary experience better than others and despite the amount of space I'm dedicating to movies, I am more of a book person. And most of my favorite films that fit this description are book adaptations: this film, The Lord of the Rings, Zodiac, The Green Mile, The Right Stuff etc. And even the ones that aren't adapted from books, such as Almost Famous or Love Actually*, feel literary.

*Yeah, yeah, I know. I've only encountered three romantic comedies that I truly enjoy: Love Actually, Four Weddings and a Funeral and When Harry Met Sally. I'm not apologizing, just explaining that rom-coms aren't usually my taste. But those three I really like.

The 11-11-11 Project Proceeds According to Plan

Well, my damn PC went down and I'm blogging in safe mode. Yeah, safe mode.
So, I'm going around my library selecting--on the fly--the tentative line-up for the 11-11-11 Project. It is composed of books I already own but have not yet read.
1.  Bleak House by Charles Dickens; Classic Literature.
2.  Scientist, Soldier, Statesman, Spy: Count Rumford by G.I. Brown, Historical Biography.
3.  Arthur & George by Julian Barnes, Historical Fiction.
4.  Annals of the Former World by John McPhee, Geology/Travel.
5.  A Dark-Adapted Eye by Barbara Vine, Thriller.
6.  The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil, Science.
7.  The Annotated Innocence of Father Brown by G.K. Chesterton ed. by Martin Gardner, Short Stories.
8.  The Solitary Vice: Against Reading by Mikita Brottman, Current Events.
9.  The Echo Maker by Richard Powers, Contemporary Fiction.
10. Money Mischief by Milton Friedman, Economics.
11. War For the Oaks by Emma Bull, Urban Fantasy.

As we see, I alternated between fiction and non-fiction. Also, only two of these--the Dickens and the McPhee--could be considered doorstoppers, the rest are of moderate length at most. I didn't do this on purpose; I just picked titles that looked interesting. This way I have more time to read all the other books in my collection that I haven't read yet. You don't think I'm only going to read these eleven books do you?
And I suppose you could argue that Dark-Adapted Eye and the Father Brown stories are both mysteries, but from reading Eye's blurb, it really seems that it's more of a suspense story than a whodunit. Besides, finding fiction of different genres was a lot harder than I thought, so I figured that a short story collection from a century ago would differ sufficiently from a psychological thriller from the eighties.
I, of course, reserve the right to alter the line-up if I feel like it.
Should be fun.

A challenge for 2011

While I'm getting off my ass and working on the next movie in the series, I came across this article. The writer, Laura Miller, references the 10/10/10 challenge: 10 books in 10 different categories by 10/10/10. Starting on January 1, I'll take the challenge to the next level and pledge to read 11 books in 11 categories by 11/11/11. My first challenge is to think of 11 distinct genres.
Let's give it a whirl: in fiction we have Mystery, Literary Fiction, Steampunk, Historical Fiction, Hard Science Fiction, Comedy, Young Adult, Sword and Sorcery Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Crime Fiction, Legal Thriller, Horror, Chick Lit, Spy Thriller, Magical Realism, Political Thriller.
In non-fiction: Biography, History, Science, Sports, Religion, Inspiration, Self-Help, Psychology, Philosophy, Humor, Politics, Economics, Finance, Business
I guess it all comes down to how you break down your genres. By January 1, I hope to have the full list of books and the order I'm going to read them. I'm toying with alternating fiction and non-fiction, but we'll see how that goes.

It's Banned Books Week! Yay?

Over at the Guardian, author Lauren Myracle makes an eloquent plea to 'build bridges' with book banners. I have to admire her general reasonableness and willingness to connect with these horrid pinheads. As you'll see below, she's way more generous and turn-the-other-cheeky than I am and I admire her for that.
Where Myralce and I part company is near the end of her article, when she raises an objection to someone calling book-banners "prudish, small-minded, and self-righteous." Isn't this like not wanting to label NBA all-stars as "tall and athletically inclined"? Aren't censors prudish, small-minded and at least a little self-righteous by definition? Are there any would-be book-banners running around who are libertine, cosmopolitan and humble? If you know any--or are one--please let me know.
She concludes her article with:

If you want to join the conversation, do this: read one of the titles on the current list of most frequently-challenged books. Then pass the book along to someone else, whether that someone is an adult or a kid. Then, together, talk about the book openly and with mutual respect for each other's opinions. Do that, and you will have made the world a better place.

I love the idea of sharing books and opinions with our intellectual enemies. After all, it'd be pretty hypocritical to try to shout them down or, worse, force them to abide by civil discourse. Great idea, I just wish I were more optimistic about it.
I disagree, however, with the notion that we have to respect their opinions. I absolutely respect their right to hold their cancerous, life-denying opinions, but the opinion itself? Never. The very idea of "I don't like it, so you can't have it" is toxic and stupid and needs to go the way of "Hey, let's own those guys and make them work our fields" and "My god wants me to be your king."
It's one thing to want to keep your child from certain books. (I'm still not sure that we ever have to protect kids from words and ideas, but as a parent that's absolutely your prerogative.) But the instant you try to tell someone else what they can read you've crossed the line. And that's the line we have to hold because if we give tiny-minded parochial types an atom of power over what we read, they'll try to take it all.

Seven! --What's in the box?!?

7. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Directed by Michel Gondry. Written by Charlie Kauffman.
Starring Jim Carey, Kate Winslet, Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo, Tom Wilkinson, Elijah Wood.
  I can't remember another film that broke my heart as much as this one, yet I had the biggest smile on my face when I left the theater. This is one of the films I break out whenever someone starts saying that they don't make them like they used to, as if it were automatically a bad thing. I don't know if you could have made 'Eternal Sunshine...' in 1955, say, without audiences having infarctions right there in their seats.
  Or I could be full of crap. I think today's average moviegoer is more sophisticated in the sense that we've seen more filmmakers' tricks than our ancestors. Today's filmgoers, however, are probably not better at critical thinking. No worse, maybe, but certainly not better. The question is, apparently, would a film that demands and rewards our attention as 'Eternal Sunshine...' does have been commercially viable 40, 50, 60 years ago? Or am I shortchanging both yesterday's film fans and filmmakers?
  Another thing.... I don't cry at movies because it's not, well, real. I'm sorry, but even the most skillful make-believe just doesn't do it for me. This film, however, is on the short list of ones that might do the trick if I weren't, you know, dead inside.
  Trivia moment: Elijah Wood is one of only two actors to star in two of my top ten films. You've met the other guy and I'll reveal who it is when the time comes.

Eight is not Enough

Sorry, you two. I've been moving and been without intertubes access for a week. I'll try to make up for it with a second post later this week.

8. Vertigo (1958)
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Written by Alec Coppel and Samuel A. Taylor.
Starring Jimmy Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes, Tom Helmore.
  Warning! This post contains spoilers for Vertigo. If neither of you has seen Vertigo, watch it before reading this. Everybody deserves to see Vertigo unspoiled.
  Kim Novak's performance as Madeline/Judy might be the best I've ever seen. For a long time I lamented that Hitchcock couldn't use Grace Kelly, my favorite actress, in the role because she was off princessing (yeah, I just verbed it). But then I realized that while Kelly could play Madeline Elster in her sleep (Regal, icy, self-possessed. Check, check, and check.) I'm less sure about her ability to play Judy Barton (earthy, small-town, easily swayed). And after another, more recent viewing I concluded that Kim Novak was perfect. In the scene at the mission just before Madeline's death, she tells Scottie "it's too late" as she's pulling away from him. We think that Madeline means that the spirit of Carlotta Veldes is compelling her and that it's too late to stop her. As we find out later, that's actually Judy speaking, telling Scottie that despite her burgeoning feelings for him it's too late for her to back out of Gavin Elster's plot. And if you go back and look, you can see Judy peeking out from behind her Madeline mask as she struggles in Scottie's embrace.
  Vertigo is one of many films to receive mixed reviews at the time of release--such as 'The Night of the Hunter' or 'Duck Soup' or 'Bonnie and Clyde'--but has grown into a classic. Why is that? Are some films just so far ahead of their time that they cannot be appreciated fully in their own? Or is something else going on? I wonder if any underappreciated films of the last ten years will be regarded as classics. I think that will be the subject of an upcoming post.