Thru the "Black Mirror"

A few days ago, I stumbled across a clip on Youtube that I thought was a short film, but turned out to be an episode of a recent British science fiction anthology program called "Black Mirror." And without a doubt, it was the most fascinating piece of science fiction that I've seen in a long time, either in a theater or on television.

The episode is titled "15 Million Merits," and presents a vision of a dystopian future where young adults live in windowless dormitories, surrounded perpetually by video screens. They spend every day peddling on exercise bikes to generate energy and earn merits, which are used to pay for food and other necessities, but mostly end up spent on virtual goods. Most daily interactions and transactions are virtual, carried out with virtual world avatars. To help compensate for the endless drudgery, reality shows play around the clock, including a popular variant of what looks like "The X Factor," called "Hot Shot." Beyond synthesized food and identical clothing, tangible possessions are almost nonexistent for the workers, but the elites glimpsed on the entertainment programs seem to live far better lives.

The rat in this maze of video screens and virtual landscapes is Bing (Daniel Kaluuya), a quiet man who has amassed a small fortune in merits, the fifteen million of the title. He falls in love with a newcomer, Abi (Jessica Brown-Findlay), after hearing her sing, and decides to pay for her entry fees to the "Hot Shot" competition. And then, because this is dystopian science-fiction, Bing learns how dark and twisted his world really is. "Merits" is a stinging attack on the culture of distraction, targeting reality shows, social networking, and virtual reality. It's "Harrison Bergeron," for the digital age and uses its own best tools against it. Initially I thought that the show must have had an incredible budget, but look close and you realize the sets are actually quite small and limited. It's all the graphic blandishment on the video screens that makes everything look bigger and cooler than it really is.

So much of the effectiveness of "Merits" comes from the production design, making great use of already existing virtual world iconography. The virtual avatars look like the "Mii" characters used in the Wii gaming system, and the hand movements that control them are reminiscent of current motion capture gaming technology, just minus the controllers. Food dispensers have low-resolution graphics with displays that could have could have come from 8-bit video games. The graphics are so well designed, full of all the pop and brightness of Facebook games and iPhone apps, it's hard not to stare and marvel. But as the story goes on, it becomes clear that all this dazzling eye candy is a poor substitute for the real world.

The nice effects certainly aren't the only thing to write home about. Daniel Kaluuya's performance as Bing is exceptional, helping to make a story about big ideas very personal and immediate. The writing delivers a lot of good surprises, from a morbid spin on a talent show judges' panel, to the cathartic monologue at the episode's climax, to the final, chilling scene where we learn Bing's fate. I was surprised at how raw and unfiltered the dialogue was, but British television hews to different standards, and I was glad for that here. And at the helm, director Euros Lyn, veteran of many recent "Doctor Who" episodes, expertly juggles a lot of outlandish elements to create a cohesive whole, and brings out all the claustrophobic paranoia and black humor.

I love science fiction, but it is rare to find something as topical, sharp and intelligent as "15 Million Merits." Too often it's all giant robots and laser guns, instead of the social critiques and moral parables that science fiction is so good at, and should be used for more often. The "Black Mirror" anthology specifically singles out recent technological developments for examination and seems keen on really delving into the potential implications of our Internet-fixated society, and illuminating human nature through the fantastic. That makes it closer in spirit to "The Twilight Zone," cited as one of its chief influences, than most of the "Zone" clones I could name.

I have absolutely no idea when "Black Mirror" and "15 Million Merits" is going to make its way to the rest of the globe, if at all, and if there are going to be more episodes beyond the three produced so far. But one thing I'm sure of, is that I want to see more television and more science-fiction like this.
---

Read More

China v. Television

I complain as much as anyone about how too much of current American television stinks, that many channels have been hijacked by cheap reality and talent shows that cater to the lowest common denominator. How I wish we were rid of all the "American Idol" clones and the gosspmongering dating shows and the brainless Kardashians and the cast of "Jersey Shore." But if the government stepped in and mandated that the number of these shows be cut back, I'd be the first to protest.

Because this is exactly what's going on right now in mainland China. The government recently introduced new programming guidelines that reduced the amount of entertainment programming shown on Chinese television by two thirds, down to 38 hours a week from 126. "Lowbrow" reality, talk, and talent shows are the chief targets, being replaced by more news and informational programs. Recent remarks by Chinese president Hu Jintao indicate that the move is part of a new effort by the Chinese government to rein in the power of Western-style entertainment. He recently remarked, "We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of westernizing and dividing China, and ideological and cultural fields are the focal areas of their long-term infiltration."

Now let's be clear on what we're talking about here. Among the shows sustaining the most criticism are "Super Girl," a popular talent program that was yanked from the airwaves back in September for retooling, and the dating show "If You Are the One," profiled in this revealing New York Times article. They seem harmless enough to Western eyes, but the worry is that these programs place too much emphasis on what the Chinese media watchdogs consider to be frivolous activities, can be too honest about certain social issues for comfort, and build up cults of celebrity and influence that are outside the government's ability to control. Remember that this is the same Chinese government that railed against the use of time travel in drama programs, because they often inluded inaccurate or altered portrayals of history, and regularly frowns on fantasy programming for being too escapist. For them, entertainment is a secondary concern to pushing the "socialist core value system."

Against this lot, is is any wonder that Western programming is making such inroads? The secret of America's cultural power isn't much of a secret. We have an entertainment industry that is devoted to one primary objective: to make money. To that end, it does whatever is necessary to draw in viewers and keep them happy, be it appealing to the lowest common denominator or pumping millions into the development of fancier special effects. Hollywood may have its biases, but there is no real ideology being pushed aside from reflecting the tastes of the audience it wants to attract. If American values tend to crop up a lot in our television, it's because it's being programmed to Americans.

We have our own media watchdogs, and our own television regulations and requirements, such as the Children's Television Act that has full service television stations provide a certain number of hours of education and informational programming. There are content standards enforced by the FCC, but it only acts rarely in extreme cases. So the stations and networks and content producers are free to put shows that people want to watch on the air, in order to deliver more eyeballs to the advertisers who pay the bills. Out of this system comes a lot more crud than quality, but let's not sell ourselves short. American television is in the middle of one of its richest periods in history, turning out lots of quality shows like "Mad Men" and "Louie" that rival anything that came out in a movie theater this year.

Now American television shows don't get much play on Chinese television stations, because of strict regulations on foreign content. However, a recent influx of Western formats for shows have allowed Chinese localizations to be made of everything from Disney's "High School Musical" to "Britain's Got Talent." Nowadays this is a common practice, with many American and British shows spawning multiple versions all across the globe. In China, producers get a leg up by working with the framework of previously established hits, learning how to mount big productions on par with what you see on Western television. But even with most of the content of these shows carefully retooled to fit Chinese sensibilities and anything too Western stripped out, the government gets nervous when they become too popular and successful.

China talks up becoming a new media powerhouse, but they only want to do it on their own terms They don't want to give the Chinese people what they want, but to dictate what they should want from the top down. Even if television programming originates in China, from Chinese creators, and becomes a genuine hit with Chinese audiences totally removed from any Western influences, if it doesn't fit into the nation-glorifying, culturally conservative narrative that the Chinese government wants to promote, it's suspect. The whole spiel about Western cultural hegemony is a smokescreen to continue stifling free expression and creativity, a stance that is often counterproductive to the ends that the government claims to want to achieve. They want to build up Chinese media to compete with those who might become more influential that they are, but not at the expense of the state-controlled propaganda machine.

So the Chinese media may be doomed to plod along in a state of perpetual cultural stagnation, forever scolding the Chinese audiences who would rather watch "Idol" knockoffs than yet another highbrow historical drama that toes the party line.

Almost makes you grateful for Western crap television. I'd rather watch "Downton Abbey" over the Kardashians any day, but I do appreciate having the choice.
---

Read More

Is the New Irene Adler a Problem?

So the BBC version of "Sherlock" is back, and with it a new take on Irene Adler, the only woman who ever bested Sherlock Holmes in the original stories. Played by Lara Pulver, the new Irene is a professional dominatrix, identifies herself as a lesbian, and is positioned very much as a villain in "A Scandal in Belgravia," the first installment of the newest series. The episode has set off a lot of debate over whether the new Irene is better or worse character than the original one, whether her sexuality has been too fetishized, and whether she's ultimately a strong and admirable female character or another one of the problematic portrayals that should be discouraged. There are spoilers everywhere, should you choose to continue reading. Please watch your step.

The main charge against the "Sherlock" version of Irene is that she has become a love interest and adversary for Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch), and loses considerable power and independence because of her portrayal in those roles. She becomes more vulnerable because of her feelings for the detective, ultimately loses the game because he realizes she loves him, and to add insult to injury, he rescues her from certain doom at the end of the episode. She's also apparently in cahoots with Moriarty (Andrew Scott), and takes advice from him on how to handle the Holmes brothers. All of this undercuts the idea that Irene is on equal intellectual footing with Sherlock. Some have taken exception to Irene continuing the widely despised trend of lesbians who are "turned straight" by the love of the male hero. And then there's her profession, which suggests her sexuality rather than her brains are her primary asset.

But when you put her in the context of the rest of the episode, these issues are all mitigated in a number of ways. First, Irene is not the only character who is questioning their sexuality in the story. John Watson (Martin Freeman), who is straight, clearly has a very strong attachment to Sherlock that may go beyond friendship. Gay references have been tossed around since the premiere episode, but here they aren't played for laughs. There's no indication that John or Irene are willing to forgo their current sexual preferences entirely, but Sherlock may be a potential exception for both of them. And then there's Sherlock himself, who is portrayed as asexual, but clearly develops feelings for Irene, feelings that get him in serious trouble. The writers may have softened up Irene with sentiment, but Sherlock gets the same treatment. There are actually scenes of him pining for her. Sherlock Holmes. Pining.

Then there's Irene's job as a dominatrix, which is surely meant to be titillating to the viewers, but it also puts her in a prime position to target one of the major weaknesses of this version of Sherlock Holmes: he clearly doesn't have much experience with romance or sex. Sherlock is initially baffled by her, unable to pick up any of the usual clues he easily gleans from other people. This, more than anything else, is what catches his attention. In place of a traditional courtship, the pair spend most of the episode taking turns outsmarting each other. Irene may not win in the end - as a villain it's just not allowed - but she certainly gets her cerebral blows in. She loses her protection and is forced to go on the run, but not before manipulating Sherlock into helping ruin one of his brother's cleverest plans.

As for Irene being saved from certain doom in the final scenes, this is sheer chauvinistic indulgence - or it would be if Sherlock and John hadn't been saved from Moriarty's clutches by Irene in the opening sequence. We don't know Irene's motives, or if her good timing was simply dumb luck, but Sherlock swooping in at the last minute to rescue her can easily be read as him repaying the favor, and maybe admitting his own feelings in the process. Now, we can talk about the negative Orientalist implications of the certain doom being a menacing terrorist cell that beheads people with big honking scimitars, but that's a post for another time.

In the end, there's lots of material to support the argument that this Irene Adler is a problematic character that enforces certain gender stereotypes. I wish the writers had let her be more self-sufficient and figured out how to express some aspects of her personality differently. However, she's no weakling in the context of the "Sherlock" universe. She gets the better of Sherlock Holmes, both intellectually and emotionally, multiple times in the episode. She gets him to reveal parts of the character we haven't seen before. She continually drives the action, takes the lead, and proves to be a worthy adversary. And yes, she has weaknesses, but all the best characters do. Is the new Irene Adler a good example of an admirable, independent, modern woman? Nope. She's a charismatic miscreant with a penchant for extremes, but then so is this version of Sherlock Holmes.

The newest Irene Adler may not be the best portrayal of the character, but she's a perfectly appropriate one for "Sherlock."
---

Read More

Four Actors in Search of Some "Carnage"

Sometimes you just look at a film and wonder how on earth it all managed to come together. "Carnage," based on the play "God of Carnage," gathers four of the most accomplished actors working in movies today, situates them in a single apartment set, and just lets them go at it with each other for eighty minutes of biting, dialogue-driven black comedy. The credits reveal that "Carnage," despite being in English and set in New York, is a co-production of several European companies. But then, that makes sense with Roman Polanski in the director's chair. The budget has been reported as $25 million, which seems a little high for a film with only four actors and a few interiors, until you realize the level of the talent involved.

The fun starts with a playground fight between two boys, Zachary and Ethan, which ends in Zachary hitting Ethan in the face with a stick, breaking a few teeth. Zachary's parents, Alan (Christoph Waltz) and Nancy (Kate Winslet) meet with Ethan's parents, Michael (John C. Reilly) and Penelope (Jodie Foster) at their apartment to talk things out. The conversation starts out civilly enough, but the situation unravels as the couples verbally spar and find more and more reasons to hate each others' guts. "Carnage" is a quick watch, running only eighty minutes, but it seems longer. Time and again the couples try to end the conversation, with Alan and Nancy on the brink of leaving, but they never quite make it to the elevator to escape the apartment. No one wants to keep arguing, but the situation keeps escalating, and small slights become big ones. Alan, a corporate attorney, keeps taking calls from the office. Penelope keeps using loaded language to describe Zachary, insinuating more than she probably should. Nancy has an upset stomach. Michael is terrible at playing peacemaker. No one is really at fault, but there's a lot of blame to go around.

In spite of Polanski's best efforts, "Carnage" always feels more like a stage play than a proper film. I suspect this has a lot to do with the temporal and physical limitations of the whole concept. Aside from the two title sequences, the whole movie takes place in the confines of the apartment. No fancy visuals are offered to provide any distraction. There aren't even any establishing shots to help set the scene, though plenty of background information on the two couples and their lives is offered through the dialogue. The focus is entirely on the actors' performances, and the film's saving grace is that all of them are wonderful. Foster, Waltz, Winslet, and Reilly are extraordinary actors, and it's a lot of fun to see them just let loose and act with each other, without the usual bounds and excesses that come with being in a major motion picture.

The tone of the film borders on farcical and the characters are a little over-the-top, but not so much that a viewer has to suspend much disbelief. It helps that they're all extensions of very recognizable, common personality types. Penelope has built her self-image around being very socially conscious, but she's too stubborn to give an inch on what she feels she's entitled to, and ends up being the least open minded of the four. You may want to throttle Jodie Foster by the end of the movie, and I mean that in a good way. Alan is her polar opposite, who doesn't feel the least bit guilty about being less involved with his family and less morally upright. Waltz reveals some good comedic chops that I hope he gets to bring them out more often. John C. Reilly is essentially playing the usual good-guy schlub, with a few dark edges, but holds his own against the others just fine. As for Kate Winslet, I can't remember the last time she had a role so high energy that lets her be funny to boot.

I do wish that the material had been a little stronger, especially the ending. I don't think it's spoiling much to say that the four characters become less and less civil with each other as time goes on, and the writers get the point across that underneath all the layers of self-delusion and social conditioning, modern man and modern woman are as savage as they always were. However, there is still a distinct lack of resolution, or a final punchline, or anything to give the characters a little closure and drive the final message home. The point where Polanski chose to stop left me hanging, and perhaps that was the intention, but I found myself wanting a little more out of "Carnage" than I think it had to give.

I suspect this version of "Carnage" may have worked better as a traditional stage production, but to see these four actors together, all at the top of their game, I'll take what I can get.
---

Read More

This Might Be the Best "Mission" Yet

The first "Mission: Impossible" film directed by Brian DePalma is remembered for impressive action scenes and an overly convoluted plot. The second directed by John Woo was an overly stylized mess. The third, with J.J. Abrams, was serviceable, but really nothing special. I don't think anyone would have complained if the series had just ended there, or if the studio had waited a few years and rebooted the whole franchise. But now along comes the fourth "Mission: Impossible" film with Tom Cruise, directed by PIXAR alum Brad Bird, and it makes me glad that Cruise didn't throw in the towel just yet.

"Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol," is easily the best installment since the first, and the most fun. A lot of this has to do with the supporting cast members, who get way more time and attention than they have in any of the other films. Tom Cruise is still playing Ethan Hunt, the super-proficient IMF agent who has a yen for daredevil stunts and aerial acrobatics. However, this time the team he leads is composed of actual characters like Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), who played a funny techie in a previous film and has been promoted to full agent, Jane Carter (Paula Patton) who has a personal beef with one of their targets, and an analyst named William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) who is keeping a lot of secrets.

"Ghost Protocol" has a different feel to it than any of the other "Mission: Impossible" films, offering the least convoluted plot, lots of humor, and the best use of its ensemble. It has totally given up any pretense of being a proper spy film grounded in any kind of reality, and instead has embraced being more of an out-and-out adventure spectacle. I think it's a change for the better. Grittiness and moral ambiguity have been left to the Bonds and Bournes, while the IMF team goes off to perform elaborately staged missions in picture-perfect exotic locales, backed by a rousing score from Michael Giacchino. Ethan Hunt gets to climb around on the side of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the tallest building in the world. And he gets to infiltrate the Kremlin with help of a couple of fancy gadgets that couldn't possibly exist with the current technology. And crash a party in Mumbai with a very cool car. It's pure spy fantasy, and fantastically well done.

The villains are shallow and uncomplicated in their villainy, and include an extremist (Michael Nyqvist) looking for Russian nukes, a femme fatale assassin (Lea Seydoux) who insists on being paid in diamonds, and most amusingly, an Indian media mogul (Anil Kapoor). This is not to say that the movie ever feels dumbed down from the previous "Mission: Impossible" films, but it has definitely shifted in tone to be lighter and less emotionally fraught. There's plenty of personal drama at hand, but in moderation. It was a pleasant surprise to realize that "Ghost Protocol" is probably the only "Mission: Impossible" that is not about Ethan Hunt, but about the actual mission that his team is trying to carry out.

And so I'm glad to report that you get real, full, memorable performances from Paula Patton, Jeremy Renner, and Simon Pegg, to complement Tom Cruise. Their characters get full story arcs, instead of filling out the background like some of their predecessors. Pegg is easily the least annoying comic sidekick I've run across all year, and the movie would have been worse off without him. Patton gets more to do as the female lead than the usual winsome romantic interests with twice the screen time. And if the "Mission: Impossible" franchise does decide to elevate Jeremy Renner to the leading man position, it's in good hands.

As for Tom Cruise, what can you say? He's as good at playing Ethan Hunt as he always was. He sells the unbelievable stunts, still cleans up good, and remains in desperate need of a haircut. He'll deliver ludicrous dialogue with perfect conviction, and I still buy it in spite of myself. I don't know much longer he can play the action hero like this, but his age isn't showing yet, and he certainly isn't slowing down.

So "Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol" is a good time. It's well made light entertainment created by people who understand that they're making light entertainment. The lines are corny, but the writing also had a streak of self-awareness I was surprised and pleased to see. Brad Bird is as good creating live action spectacle as he is creating the animated kind, and I hope he'll go on to make more of both.
---

Read More

My Least Anticipated Movies of 2012

Happy New Year folks. Now there are going to be some highly anticipated, possibly great movies coming out in 2012, but before anyone gets too carried away hyping up the year as one of the best ever, that's going to turn it all around for Hollywood, let's temper expectations a bit. Along with "Dark Knight" and "Avengers," there's going to be plenty of the same old uninspired filler, needless sequels, and cash grabs that plagued us in 2011. Since I don't write this blog for money, I have no intention of subjecting myself to most of this crap, but sometimes these things are beyond my control. So I present to you, a run-down of the 2012 movies that I am most definitely not looking forward to in the coming year. And hopefully, this will be the last time you see mention of any of them in this blog:

More 3D Conversions - "The Lion King" in 3D was a surprise hit a few months ago, so Disney is sending out "Beauty and the Beast 3D" in a few weeks and "Finding Nemo 3D" in September. We can also look forward to "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" and "Titanic" returning to the screen in three dimensions. Oh, and a pair of new remakes of old horror films, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D," and "Halloween 3D."

Die, Franchise, Die - After the gorgeous, if brainless "Immortals," I don't see how anyone can work up any enthusiasm for "Wrath of the Titans," which looks as ugly and misshapen as the first "Titans" film. And you know that the profit margins on the original films was the determining factor that got "Journey 2: The Mysterious Island," "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance," and "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" greenlighted. I can't see the fourth "Bourne" movie they're making without Matt Damon as anything but a mistake, even if I like Jeremy Renner – is this another stealth reboot in disguise? And I really disliked "Taken," and so have no urge whatsoever to see "Taken 2."

Movie Stars as Warning Klaxons - The simple presence of some actors in a film raises giant red flags. So unless the reviews say otherwise, I feel confident in writing off "Here Comes the Boom" with Kevin James, "I Hate You Dad" with Adam Sandler, "One for the Money" with Katherine Heigl, and "21 Jump Street" with Jonah Hill. Words cannot describe my feelings toward the trailer for "21 Jump Street." Right on the edge are "A Thousand Words" with Eddie Murphy and "The Lucky One" with Zac Efron, based on the book by Nicholas Sparks. I don't mind Efron so much, but I have serious beef with Nicholas Sparks.

It's Still Too Soon - The films in this category and the ones I really, really want to be wrong about. But nothing I've heard about the new "Amazing Spider-Man" inspires much hope, and I continue to think that Marvel is committing a serious tactical error trying to bring the franchise back this soon after the Sam Raimis films. Meanwhile, the "Red Dawn" remake was delayed by several years by the MGM bankruptcy, but I doubt anyone was actively rooting for its release. It has a premise that was outdated and ridiculous back in the 80s and is even moreso today. The Farrelly Brothers' new take on "The Three Stooges" also looks like a disaster, but I'm trying not to put too much stock in the trailer.

The Dregs - I can't even find the energy to be disdainful of stuff like "Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted," " Ice Age: Continental Drift," "Step Up 4," "Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days," "Resident Evil: Retribution," Underworld: Awakening," or "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2" anymore. I'm just glad for the fact that a lot of these high-numbered sequels look like they're finally going to be the last ones in their series, or at least the last ones to be released theatrically. I expect that "Resident Evil" and "Underworld" will eventually join all the other direct-to-DVD horror franchises still churning out tie-ins year after year, that are much easier to ignore.

And here I reiterate my final caveat, the same as last year - I really hope I'm wrong about all of these titles. Much as I enjoy schadenfreude, I know nobody sets out to make a bad movie. However, looking at some of these titles, I can't help thinking that the deck is being stacked against us again.

Happy watching, I hope.
---

Read More

One More Year End List

And to keep it all in context, here are my top ten favorite films that I watched in 2011, not made in 2011 or 2010.

A Zed and Two Noughts (1985) - Twin zoologists, recently bereaved, take up a study of death and decay. This spurs them to kill a series of black and white animals, and romance a one-legged car accident victim. "Zed" is one of the best examples of Peter Greenaway's artful obsession with whatever subject he chooses to explore, and his willingness to go to extremes to bring about his singular, fascinating vision.

Werckmeister Harmonies (2000) - Bela Tarr's imagery is so powerful, so distinct, that his mysterious narrative about a strange circus that brings ill tidings to a small town still manages to connect on a deep emotional level. The long, single take that captures the senseless attack on the hospital is one of the most beautiful and moving things I've ever seen in cinema, and I still don't know quite how to explain why that is.

A Nous A Liberte (1931) - It's strange to think that director Rene Clair disliked the use of sound in film, because he was one of the most innovative of the early sound filmmakers. "Liberte" is his masterpiece, a predecessor to Chaplin's "Modern Times." He pokes fun at modern, mechanized society, depicted by Clair as a world of cogs and conveyor belts and too many cops. Fortunately his comic heroes are there to upend it.

Hoop Dreams (1994) - A documentary about two Chicago high school basketball players aiming for the NBA, which contains more drama, more suspense, and more twists and turns than any fictional sports movie I could name. Director Steve James devotes as much time to the social difficulties the kids face as to the intricacies of the recruitment system they navigate, and the context makes all the difference.

Marty (1955) - Paddy Chayefsky set out to write a love story for the little guy, the regular joe. His hero is Marty, played by Ernest Borgnine, a humble butcher who still lives at home with his mother. And maybe that's why the story rings so true and why Marty is still fondly remembered as such a relatable, inspirational figure. "Marty" is a no frills, no fuss, and a good reminder of what screen romances should be more often.

The King of Comedy (1983) - Rupert Pupkin is a wannabe comedian who will not take no for an answer. He is a man so obsessed with fame that he may be capable of doing something horrible to his idol, a late night host who he stalks mercilessly. Scorsese is known for films about gangsters and tough guys, but I think Pupkin is one of his most dangerous characters, living in a warped fantasy world it's often difficult to tell apart from our own.

Jean de Florette (1986) – This is such a lovely, picturesque film. Set in the countryside of Provence, you get a wonderful feel for the land and its native inhabitants, which is appropriate given that the story chiefly concerns a pair of ambitious farmers, played by Daniel Autueil and Yves Montand, trying to wrest a piece of property away from its inexperienced new owners, led by Gerard Depardieu in one of his most delightful performances.

Hour of the Wolf (1967) - One of Ingmar Bergman's most unsettling masterpieces, that straddles the line between psychological thriller and out-and-out horror. We follow the journey of a troubled man who suffers from paranoia, and is perhaps going mad. Watching the final monologue delivered by the man's wife, who is played by Liv Ullman peering out uncertainly from the darkness, is a haunting, lingering experience.

The Music Room (1958) - The names of the characters may not roll off the tongue so easily, but Satyajit Ray's tale of a man's who is brought to ruin by music and pride has universal resonance. Ray thought his examination of Indian class and social issues wouldn't translate, but the classical Indian music and dance performances are entrancing, the settings are rich, and the characters and their motivations are easily understood.

Dancer in the Dark (2000) - Lars von Trier made a musical film starring the Icelandic singer Bjork, a strange and audacious combination that yielded one of the darkest, most affecting song-and-dance pictures ever made. Whether you love it or hate it and whatever you think of the director, it is impossible not to have a reaction to this film. It certainly left its impact on me, as I was unable to stop thinking about the story, or stop humming the songs, for weeks.

Honorable mentions: El Norte (1983), Forbidden Games (1951), Hearts and Minds (1974), Irreversible (2002), Le Bonheur (1965), Le Trou (1959), Nil By Mouth (1997), Senso (1954), Shoeshine (1946), The Color of Pomegranates (1968), The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover (1989), The Double Life of Veronique (1991), The Human Condition (1959-1961), The Importance of Being Earnest (1952), The Italian Job (1969), The Long Good Friday (1980), The Tree of Wooden Clogs (1978), The Wind (1928), This is England (2006), Topsy Turvy (1999), Underground (1995), Wait Until Dark (1967), Where is the Friend's Home? (1987), and Woman of the Dunes (1964),
---

Read More