2011 year-end wrap-up part VI: The 'Best' films of the year.

Here is the sixth (and probably final) essay detailing the year in film.  This time, it's the best of the best.  Of course 'best' is a subjective term, so you might want to consider these my 'favorites'.  Despite what everyone likes to whine about at the end of every year, 2011 was in fact one of the better years in a good long time.  Maybe it was the effects of the 2007 WGA strike wearing off, maybe it was just dumb luck, but on the whole, movies, especially mainstream movies, were pretty on-spot more often than they weren't.  But just as important, most of the year-end Oscar bait was actually quite good, so this is a year where I don't have to half-heartedly apologize for having a list filled with movies nobody saw and mainstream pictures that no one admits to liking. Even if it took 1/3 of the year to really get cooking, 2011 was an uncommonly solid year for all forms of cinematic entertainment.  And of course, there are at least a few films that might have made the cut if they hadn't come out so close to the end of the year (mainly A Separation, Shame, and Pariah).  But they merely become contenders for the 2012 Black Book award (IE - great films that you saw too late to include in your best-of list, named after  Paul Verhoeven's fantastic 2006 World War II thriller that I saw in mid-2007).  And thus, without further ado, here are the very 'best' films of 2011.  As always, the list will be alphabetical order, with a final paragraph at the end for my very favorite film.

Weekend Box Office (12/18/11): Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows and Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked underwhelm compared to predecessors while Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol sizzles in IMAX debut.

This was a weekend where two films gave the strongest evidence yet that there may be some kind of 'slump' in domestic box office while a third stood as a firm 'It's the movie, stupid!' rebuttal.  The two main wide releases, heavily marketed sequels to exceptionally popular originals, opened at levels far below their predecessors.  The top film of the weekend was Sherlock Homes: A Game of Shadows (review), which debuted with a seemingly solid $40 million.  But the sequel opened 36% lower than the first Sherlock Holmes opened with over Christmas weekend two years ago ($62 million).  That's a pretty big drop, especially when it wasn't exactly contending with the $75 million-grossing second weekend of Avatar this time around.  I've long been of the opinion that the pre-Christmas weekend is among the strongest to open a film, as you can parlay your opening weekend into two full weeks of 'school vacation' time and get some occasionally incredible legs (essay).  The film cost $125 million, which is a touch more than the $90 million original, but still not a case of overspending on a sequel.  It remains to see whether this frankly shockingly depressed opening is a case of moviegoers not having an interest in the continuing adventures of this variation on Sherlock Holmes or whether it's merely a case of it not being appointment viewing.  Also not helping matters was the blogosphere obsessing about a seven-minute Dark Knight Rises prologue (which actually kinda stunk) that was playing in 40 IMAX theaters showing Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol while ignoring the actual Dark Knight Rises trailer (which is officially offline until I presume Monday morning) that was attached to all prints of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

Weekend Box Office (12/11/11) New Year's Eve and The Sitter open weak while Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Young Adult open huge in limited release.

In what one might call 'the calm before the storm', two middling wide releases debuted to relatively middling numbers.  Next week sees a flurry of major wide releases over the last two weeks of the year, so this frame was a bit of a breather.  The top film was New Year's Eve, which debuted with $13.8 million.  That's one of the weakest #1 debuts of the year, and about $1 million less than Valentine's Day grossed on its first day back in February 2010.  That film scored the record for a romantic comedy debut with $56 million over Fri-Sun.  Of course, that film had romantic comedy heavyweights like Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Queen Latifah, and Jennifer Garner.  This film had a slightly lower-wattage cast, with only Katherine Heigl and Zac Efron qualifying as box office draws.  The newbies this time around (Michelle Pfeiffer, Robert De Niro, Hillary Swank, Jon Bon Jovi, Halle Berry, Lea Michele, etc) are names, but not actual 'bring them to the theater' movie stars.

Scott Mendelson: MEDIOCRE INTERVIEWER! - Diablo Cody on Young Adult.

I don't do interviews, so you'll pardon the messy edges.  But I was lucky enough to attend a screening of Young Adult (review) two weeks ago where writer Diablo Cody and actor Patton Oswalt were in attendance.  Long story short, I ended up getting some phone time with Ms. Cody, in what was supposed to tie in with that rambling essay I wrote on Wednesday.  Anyway, thanks to a slightly curtailed time and my desire to talk about the movie itself, the questions below mainly deal with Young Adult.  Point being, I asked her half-a-dozen questions and got half-a-dozen worthwhile answers, all of which are paraphrased to the best of my ability unless there are actual quotes.  Just don't look for a pattern or any narrative coherence.  My fault, not hers, and if I do this again I'll be sure to get a phone recorder that actually works.  But here we go...

He's complex. She's a bitch. The implicit double-standard of 'unsympathetic' female characters.

I've long discussed, usually in the context of another topic, about how female film characters are judged on a far harsher sliding morality scale than their male counterparts.  The upcoming release of Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody's Young Adult, which basically plays like a classic anti-hero Oscar-bait dramedy except for the fact that the anti-hero is female, will be an interesting test case.  Had the film starred a popular male star, its quality would likely place it among the current Oscar front-runners.  But two days before release, it has been more-or-less absent from the Oscar talk. Male characters get to be selfish oafs, immature man-children, and all manner of criminals, but as long as they learn a lesson in the end and/or are doing their misdeeds for a noble cause (usually a pretty girl, a kid, or an animal), they are let off the moral hook.  But female characters are rarely allowed to be villains, and almost never allowed to be complex antagonists.  Moreover, in mainstream films, all a female character has to do to earn the wrath of critics (and audiences?) and/or be declared a villain is basically have a three-dimensional personality. And more often than not, the actresses themselves are often judged not entirely on the quality of their performance, but also on the relative morality of the character they are portraying.   

Review: Young Adult (2011)

Young Adult
2011
95 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

I have often written about what I feel is a distinct double-standard when it comes to the relative morality of female protagonists (or even major female supporting characters) compared to their male counterparts.  Put simply, a male character can be a murderous criminal or a duplicitous emotional con-man and still be considered an 'anti-hero' if not a hero if he's doing it for a (pick one) hot girl, child, and/or animal.  But female characters are often judged as 'unworthy' (read - 'bitches') if they exhibit the slightest bit of selfish impulse and/or self-interest, and/or if they show the slight amount of characteristics which may be classified as 'unsympathetic'.  Male characters of this nature are considered 'complex', while female characters are considered 'unsympathetic' or 'unable to connect with audiences'.  Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody's Young Adult will be an interesting test case.  Aside from its other merits, it represents a star vehicle for a major actress (Charlize Theron) whose primary character does not bravely overcome adversity but rather openly causes adversity to those around her.

Male-driven dramas are Oscar-bait, female-driven dramas are Lifetime movies? Are male-driven melodramas given more weight than female-driven ones?

I'd like to toss out a random thought for discussion... I really liked The Descendants.  It's a very good drama with fine performances all-around.  It arguably deserves its status as an Oscar front-runner.  But let's discuss something for a moment.  If the film revolved around an aging woman who grapples with bonding with her daughters after her unfaithful husband goes into a coma, would we still be talking about its likely Oscar victories? Would it be considered an automatic Oscar contender or would it have to fight perceptions that it was a glorified Lifetime movie?  If the film centered not around George Clooney's husband/father, but rather Shailene Woodley's suffering older daughter, would the film still be considered 'prestigious' enough to be crowned an Oscar contender before most critics/press even saw it?