2001: The Year that British People Sat and Did Nothing for Over Two Hours and French People Were Awesome

Based on my title, this year is all screwy. And by screwy, I mean awesome. Except for that one movie which was pretty useless. Ordinarily after sentences like that, many would put something like, "in my opinion" or as our culture has shortened it to: "IMO" or even worse "IMHO." The H is for "humble," a word I find almost as useless as its meaning. Because if you say something it's obviously in your opinion. It's really just something to tag on to make sure people don't get mad. Forget that crap, I hope people do get mad at stuff I say sometimes. Because as much as I like to dream about a society where everyone is me, then I wouldn't be awesome anymore. I'd be some dude. That's not cool. So let's rip on those British people.

The movie is entitled Gosford Park. Even its title annoys me because it's almost impossible to come up with a clever alternate title that describes my dislike of the film. Well, one that's not a huge stretch anyway. The movie is essentially about a bunch of British people sitting around and talking about nothing. And not awesome "Tarantino nothing" dialogue either. Boring dialogue to the point that I wished the cameraman would've left the dinner party and gone and filmed literally anything else. Croque in back of the bed and breakfast? Sounds great. Spider spinning a web in the attic? That's the miracle of nature right there. View of the night sky in wait of the one or two shooting stars that might go by? Sign me up. Because the movie is supposed to be making fun of British high society sitting around and being pompous and annoying. And they do this by having a bunch of British people sitting around and being pompous and annoying for 2 hours and 17 minutes. Now see, The Boondock Saints kind of makes fun of ridiculous action movies by being a ridiculous action movie. So it makes its point, and you can still enjoy mobsters getting shot in slow motion. If pompous British people are so enjoyable to be around then their whole empire probably wouldn't have revolted like it did (just a thought). Plus, it's a bit pointless to satire a phenomenon that is almost entirely gone (not the pompousness, just the empire). The highlight of the movie is easily the opening credits, because it's where you say: "hey! Look at all of the great actors that are in this!" Too bad none of them have anything to do. Kind of like how Lost in Translation begins with a close-up shot of scantily clad Scarlett Johansson, and the movie is downhill from there. There are of course plot developments along the way, someone is someone else's long lost son, someone gets killed, someone is pregnant, yadda yadda. I don't remember who the killer was, and I watched it last night. Did they even say conclusively who it was? Not sure. Because I don't care. And I zoned out during the movie. And not only was it nominated for Best Picture, it won for Best Screenplay. Absurd. And, by the way, in the credits it said it was based on "an idea" by so-and-so. Well, A) a "hey wouldn't this be neat?" idea doesn't constitute making a whole movie and B) he probably got this idea while watching Pride and Prejudice and playing Clue. Very creative. Really.

Know what movie I thought was going to be a Rom-Com and ended up being a fascinating study in human nature? No, not Win a Date With Tad Hamilton. Nice guess though. It's actually In the Bedroom, and the movie is classically well done. It centers around a college-bound boy who has become involved with a mother of two in the middle of a divorce (her divorce, not his). And then something happens that made me glad I literally read nothing about it beforehand (and why you should stop reading if you care. Actually don't, because my blog is a more important addition to American pop culture than the movie). The son is murdered by the husband during an altercation, and the rest of the film is about the effect that this has on the boy's parents. Unlike the movie I previously mentioned, this movie is largely about some people sitting around talking but it's fascinating. There is also the brilliant scene near the beginning from which the movie takes its title. The scene describes the part of a net used to catch lobsters that is called "the bedroom." And when there are more than 2 people (oops, I mean lobsters) in the bedroom at a time, they turn on each other. The scene foreshadows the events of the film without throwing it in your face. Very nicely done. The last half an hour or so of the movie depicts the father capturing his son's murderer and killing him. The whole movie leads up to this decision in a way that makes it very believable without being so blatant that he had no other choice in the matter. So in other words, it's not like the culprit was running around killing other people and no one would stop him. The father makes a very human, "somewhat understandable and somewhat not" decision. The only reason I put quotes there is it looks sloppy otherwise, it's not a quote from the movie. That'd be dumb. But anyway, the acting, writing, directing, and everything in this movie is really good. I'm not sure if I'd have given it the award or not, but it is definitely deserving of the nomination.

All right then, I think we all know my feelings toward The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. I won't even waste your time by repeating what I already said. Bottom line: if you haven't seen it, there's something wrong with you. If you've seen it and you don't like it: do yourself a favor and don't inform me of this. The only interesting thing of note about this one that can't be said of the others is that it's the only film in the trilogy to have an actor nominated (Ian McKellen). And surprisingly, I'm glad he didn't win, but only because everyone in the movie does an equally excellent job and it's almost silly to single out just one person. Unless it's Andy Serkis in 2002 and 2003, because he had no one to act off of and thus his accomplishments were more amazing. And if he'd won in 2003 the movie would have more awards than anybody. Sigh...okay I can't take it, I'll say it again: in a perfect world all three would've won. Just like how The Sopranos won a bunch of years, because it's probably the greatest television show of all time. On a personal note, I still remember seeing this movie and thinking to myself: this is the greatest movie I've ever seen. I was only 13, but every time I've seen any of the films since, I think the same thing to myself. My tastes have changed, my abilities to analyze film have heightened, and every time I watch one I'm afraid I won't like it. But they just keep getting better as I get older. And I've seen them about a million times and they still deeply move me more than most movies do on a first viewing. So even though Time magazine might not think so, these are the best movies of the decade, and some of the best of all time. And that's how we'll remember them culturally, and they'll live on. Suck on that James Cameron.

Now here we're coming up on another movie that changed as I got older. Not from "amazing" to "fricking amazing" but instead from "weird looking" to "immensely entertaining and quite well done." The movie is Moulin Rouge! and don't even think about forgetting the exclamation point. Because remember: the musical isn't Oklahoma...I guess...it's Oklahoma! When this movie first came out I saw commercials and thought to myself, "that looks really strange." So for all of these years that was kind of the image in my mind. Then when it came time to watch it for my escapade, I thought, "well maybe I can think of something good to say about it, it might not be so bad." Well, the film begins with a stage curtain pulling back to reveal the 20th Century Fox logo and the conductor in front of the stage is conducting the stage band as they play the 20th Century Fox fanfare. At this point I said, "crap...this is going to be awesome." But I love being wrong when this happens (actually only when it results in this happening). The movie is visually incredible, and the songs are outstanding. Oddly enough, they sing a ton of modern songs and it takes place in the late 19th century. Apparently the director wanted Ewan McGregor's character to be like the character Orpheus in Greek mythology, who had access to secret musical knowledge that no one had yet heard. This is why they have him singing songs that haven't been written yet. The director also explained that he chose to have the production level and visual nature of the singing and dancing at the Moulin Rouge more comparable to a modern show for a specific reason. He explained that a far less exciting show would've given audiences of the day an adrenaline rush, but not today. So he was basically adjusting the excitement for inflation. But here's where I come down on musicals: anything ridiculous or slightly ridiculous that happens is fine. Because the fact that everyone in the movie is singing and dancing tells you the absurdity of the situation and that it clearly isn't taking place in real life. So as long as they establish early in the musical what kind of tone it will have, I'm cool with it. So if the phantom of the opera broke out with Bon Jovi's "It's My Life," before he snatches Christine, it'd be a bit ridiculous because the show doesn't have that tone (it'd be kind of badass though). But this movie can do what it wants, did do what it wanted, and I loved every minute of it. And are you watching this, The Hours? Do you see how Nicole Kidman should look? She should look like the gorgeous woman that she is, not the little-known wicked witch of the Mid-West. All of that being said, the story itself is fairly ordinary, but the delivery is excellent and I even got choked up a bit at the end (something I usually reserve for movies with more intense conflicts). So, well done Baz Luhrmann. Well done sir. Whether or not I'd have given it the award is unknown, I actually might have. But I also really like the winner, so it's a tough call.

And the winner for this year is A Beautiful Mind. Quite an excellent film. I think Russell Crowe was robbed of the Oscar that year. He had won the previous year for that movie about the gladiator, which he was good but not great in. Denzel Washington won in this year because he had been screwed in 1999 for that movie where he plays that boxer they call the hurricane. See how often awards are carried over because they weren't given when they should have been? How does the Academy keep track of all the mistakes they need to set right? It'd be impressive if not for the fact that it's their own fault for being stupid. But anyway, this film is one of Ron Howard's finest pieces of work and that's saying something. He's quite a talented, and somewhat overlooked, director. He could've made an excellent Alamo movie, and wanted to, but stupid Disney didn't like his ideas (they must've said: "people might actually go see this movie and it might actually be good so we don't want it"). But anyway, this film that I was originally talking about centers on the real-life brilliant mathematician John Nash. It focuses on his isolation in college, his eventual work with the government, and his struggles with schizophrenia. This addresses something I find quite fascinating in that it's almost comic book esque but it happens in real life: intelligence comes with a price. If you're really smart, you likely have other issues. Because quite honestly, the people you spend your life with aren't as smart as you and it does things to your brain. This very personal story is powerfully acted, funny at times, tragic at others, but ultimately uplifting. Because even John Nash was no match for his own mind when it turned against him, but the love of his wife kept him sane. This could very easily become cheesy but it never does. Because they don't tell you that particular plot point, they show it to you. And that's always more powerful than a bunch of exposition. The film would be good enough on its own, but James Horner's excellent music really gives it that extra something it needs to become worthy of the Oscar. The movie might not have held its ground in a more competitive year of nominees (wouldn't have had a shot in 2003 or 2004) but as compared to the films it was up against, it earns its place at the top.

So overall 2001 was a pretty great year. There was that one token hiccup of course, but almost every year has one. 2000 has one that I really can't stand, haven't seen for a long time, and should probably rewatch. But I refuse. My time is precious and I have important things to do. The people of Hyrule need me. Revolver Ocelot is on the loose. Bowser captured Princess Peach again. Should be good times. So tune in next time for my very first R-rated movie, more delightful French people (becoming a frightening trend), and Catherine Zeta-Jones going Vader on some unfortunate people.