The films haven’t played in Madison yet; in fact, all four haven’t been shown on the same program together anywhere. We’re trying to make this happen at the Wisconsin Film Festival in April, however. Meg Hamel, the Festival Director, is looking at the films now. Hopefully everything comes together and Madison can host the first complete screening. In the meantime, however, Phil posts excerpts from the films on his website, http://www.philsolomon.com.

Because these films are both firmly committed to the exploration of the peculiar aesthetic character of digital video and to the rich legacy of American experimental filmmaking, they suggest that there are still exciting possibilities for avant-garde filmmakers as 16mm dies right before our eyes. For this reason, I nominate them as the films of the decade.

DIGITAL CINEMA: The totality of digital visions by David Fincher (ZODIAC, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON), Michael Mann (MIAMI VICE, PUBLIC ENEMIES), Jia Zhang-ke (STILL LIFE, 24 CITY), David Lynch (INLAND EMPIRE), Pedro Costa (IN VANDA’S ROOM, COLOSSAL YOUTH) and Steven Soderbergh (BUBBLE, CHE, THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) sought to bring out the “digital-ness” of their imagery, thereby accepting and developing the (unfortunately) inevitable move away from celluloid.

GLOBALIZATION: Fewer filmmakers exhibited a deeper comprehension of 21st-Century global capitalism better than Oliver Assayas (demonlover, CLEAN, BOARDING GATE, SUMMER HOURS) or Jia Zhang-ke (PLATFORM, UNKNOWN PLEASURES, THE WORLD, STILL LIFE, DONG, USELESS, 24 CITY).

NARRATIVE: Apichatpong Weerasethakul is king. The Thai master made five nearly flawless features (MYSTERIOUS OBJECT AT NOON, BLISSFULLY YOURS, THE ADVENTURES OF IRON PUSSY, TROPICAL MALADY, SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY), all of which experimented with what kinds of stories should be told, and how they could be told. Narrative bifurcation was his trademark, but as his career progressed, that trope became more and more organic and strange. Much still needs to be said about how Apichatpong does what he does, but for my money, nobody was more thrilling this decade.

THE OLD MASTERS: Several filmmakers who exploded in the 1980s and 90s–Wong Kar Wai (IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, 2046), Claire Denis (TROUBLE EVERY DAY, FRIDAY NIGHT, THE INTRUDER, 35 SHOTS OF RUM, WHITE MATERIAL), Jean-Pierre & Luc Dardenne (THE SON, THE CHILD, LORNA’S SILENCE), Hou Hsiao-hsien (MILLENIUM MAMBO, CAFE LUMIERE, FLIGHT OF THE RED BALLOON), Tsai Ming-liang (WHAT TIME IS IT THERE, GOODBYE DRAGON INN, THE WAYWARD CLOUD, FACE), Edward Yang (YI YI), Ousmane Sembene (FAAT KINE, MOODLAADE), and Terrence Malick (THE NEW WORLD) continued to make superlative work, refining and crystallizing their styles.

NATIONAL CINEMAS: China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, and France continued to stay vital. Three discoveries brought about major changes on the international cinema landscape: South Korea, Argentina, and Romania. Interesting filmmakers are far too numerous to name, especially given how freewheeling this entry has already become.

As you may notice from the above-mentioned films and filmmakers, they skew heavily toward the favorites of film festivals like Berlin, Cannes, Venice, Toronto and New York. This unfortunately ignores the interesting stylistic developments in American independent & experimental cinema and other sectors of global filmmaking where great advances are being made. But it is important to recognize that these films tend to lack influence on mainstream American filmmaking. (Darren Aronofsky’s aping of the Dardenne style in THE WRESTLER is an interesting exception.) This should not preclude their influence on internationl filmmaking, however. The above films and filmmakers had a significant impact on how film form and style is discussed in the 21st Century, as well as how film festivals are used as a marketing tool inside and outside America. Now there’s a dissertation topic.

And as for the ending, I think it would have been perfectly fine if they faded to something other than black. Which sounds really bizarre when I type it out, but I actually do think it would have alleviated the concerns of those who kept mentally thinking it was over, thus taking them out of the film.

[Oh, and I’d probably pick The Two Towers: I think it proved that the story could maintain momentum despite being fractured, and I think it sell both talking trees and the Battle of Helm’s Deep in a way that I had never expected them to. Fellowship felt like Tolkien’s Middle-Earth being adapted to the screen, but I thought Two Towers felt like that world coming to life, and Return of the King’s success was able to build from that as a result. Might not be the best film, but I’d say it was the most important in terms of “solving” the adaptation.]