Popmatters’ 100 Essential Female Performances

The list here.

Second, I wanted to avoid the usual clichés, the performances that people expect to be on a list of “most important” female film performances—but several of those requisite turns actually are so good that they absolutely warrant a blip on every film lover’s radar. This list, then, can also function as a gentle reminder that there are some films and performances that should not be ignored (hint! hint!), no matter how well-known or popular.

So, while the overwhelming critical consensus might dictate that the buxom figure of Bette Davis’ Margot Channing be affixed to the mast of the “Best Actress” ship for her untouchable work in All About Eve, she is included here, instead, for a claws-out tour-de-force that merits more attention: Regina Giddens in The Little Foxes. My intention in a case such as that one is not to be a contrarian, but to highlight some of the excellent work that too often slips through the cracks; work that is equally important in understanding the role of women in film history. So while Vivien Leigh makes the list for her iconic Scarlett O’Hara in Gone with the Wind (and what list of unforgettable female characters can exist without Leigh’s inclusion?), it isn’t out of obligation, its because she deserves to be there for a performance that is so well-put together, it holds up nearly seventy years later.

I love reading lists in which the writer(s) take some time to explain the merit of the inclusion. This list is generally a pleasurable read, so don’t just skim through for recognizable name. There are some sketchy inclusions (Marisa Tomei for The Wrestler, really?), some interesting but head-scratching picks (to me? Margaret Hamilton as the Witch in the Wizard of Oz?), and some unforgivable omissions (Gong Li’s absence is seriously jarring). But what lists wouldn’t have some of those? So forget the complaints, here are a few notable things I love about this particular list:

• No ranking! I like the categories they are organized under, and each actor got  her own due attention. How very laterally thoughtful of them.
• It’s a great reminder that there are so many great female performances that often get swept under the rug in favour of some male acting chops. Really, can you get a much better dramedy performance than Giulietta Masina in Nights of Cabiria?
• They cheated with Wit! It’s technically a television miniseries, innit? Emma Thompson was breathtaking in it though. I don’t know why I love that they cheated with this particular performance? Sneaky, they are.
• Much love for the inclusion of Oksana Akinshina in the little seen Lilya 4-Ever. It’s this kind of small-but-not-forgotten attribute that makes this list a pleasure to go through. And of course, the tribute itself.
• A whole section dedicated to the great Liv Ullman, one of the notable faces intricately tied to Bergman cinema. And there’s also this little gem quoted in the piece: “What I learned from Ingmar is really is if you have a lily, as an actor, you don’t try to make that actor into a rose. You water the lily so it comes to its full bloom.” *heart*

Maybe we can generate a list of our own some time in the near future, when we get our act together. Heh.

Lunar New Year: 12 Asian Film Characters to Celebrate

Excluding Indians, of course, as they don’t celebrate Lunar New Year? To celebrate the Lunar New Year with those who … celebrate it, instead of looking at films from the East, we thought we’d look to the colourful film characters that we’ve seen instead. The list will only include notable characters (as opposed to performances or actors) of the following ethnicity:

Koreans, Mongolians, Nepalese, Bhutanese, Vietnamese, formerly the Japanese before 1873, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand.

(Wikipedia, I love you.)

Let’s get to it, shall we? In no particular order (list compiled by FLEA and Aurelle, based on what we have seen, which, unfortunately, was not everything).

Top row to bottom row:

Wong Fei Hung – Once upon a time in China (HK) / Lai Yiu-fai – Happy Together (HK)

He may not mean much to the North American audience, but Wong Fei Hung is a revered name in Asia, so much so that they made movies after movies based on his supposed legend. This would not be a complete list without the character that inspired legions of fans and made a household name of anyone who played him, most notably Jet Li. More than an ordinary film character, Wong was a folk hero, a doctor, and a martial artist rolled into one. I’d probably compare him to James Bond, without all the womanizing and the gadgets, though that would probably take away the appeal of Bond to the Western (more specifically, North American) culture. He’s the straight face hero who kicks a lot of arse, and looks better than you doing it. That’s important, I think. – Aurelle & FLEA

Lai Yiu Fai, on the other hand, is not as famous a name, even if the actor playing him (Tony Leung) is. This character is as different from Wong Fei Hung as one can be. First of all, he’s gay. Second of all, he cooks and knows nothing of martial arts. Third of all, he’s got a tumultuous affair with a dude who is, in effect, a self-destructive, indecisive playboy. He is no folk hero, but a complex, modern man facing the uncertain complexion of relationships as they are on the brink of structural changes, giving voice to the much maligned gay subculture in the East in the process as well. – Aurelle

What marks a great performance?

This is Kate Winslet’s year. Having won the Globes for both best supporting and lead actress, and coming off a supporting win for The Reader at the SAG, she’s set to win the Oscars for her performance in The Reader (but in a different category). She is the youngest actress to have the number of Oscars nominations she does. So she’s pretty impressive, acting wise, yeah? Here’s the thing: I don’t think Kate Winslet is all that great. Not to be the contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian or some shock value, having seen Kate Winslet in many of the roles that she’s acclaimed for and won the adoration of fans the world over, I can safely say that none of them has been great, to me. There have been some good ones: she was serviceable in Sense and sensibility, for example. While no actor is without a disbeliever, the fact that she’s got such a huge fan base (presumably because of her acclaimed performances) prompts me to ask: what marks a great performance? I mean, not just good performances, but great ones. I looked far and deep to bring you this very scientific break down:

1. S/he  (33.33%)
2. The role as written & directed (33.33%)
3. Me (33.33%)

All characters are necessarily, to be authentic in some ways, born from some part of the actor’s self. I think it’s important that there’s a fit between the role and the actor (or his/her persona, if s/he’s famous). Or, if there is no obvious fit, the actor should transform him/herself in a way that makes him/herself ‘disappear’ into the role, physically and emotionally. Actors are more successful at this with some roles than others, depending on the fit they find. Keira Knightley’s pouty looks and angly demeanour, for example, in my opinion, were soften more drastically (and therefore worked better) for Pride and Prejudice, but not so much for the role of The Duchess (and therefore less successfully), even though both were period pieces that required her to look a certain way. In Kate Winslet’s case, I’ve always felt like she was Kate Winslet acting in different roles, even with the different ways that she transformed her looks. Admittedly, it is harder for more famous actors to just simply become characters, but it’s not impossible (with or without the help of disguises; Charlize Theron gave a great performance in Monster, albeit with the help of make-up).

Absolving some sins…

I’ve been a terrible patron of this blog, and Aurelle’s sad faces are making it worse I don’t want to abandon this project, and in an effort to redeem myself, I’m promising that my list of 100 Best Films about the lives of women will be exclusive to Chicks on Fire. The project, an attempt to create a “canon” for films about the lives and perspective of women is still a ways away. I’m sometimes afraid that I’ll never reach a point where I’ve seen enough that I feel satisfied, and the list will never be shown as a result, but a few days ago I was struck with a good idea! I won’t create a “definite” final list, but an entirely malleable, and evolving one that I’ll update on a bi-monthly basis. So I’m happy to announce, as of January 5th 2009, the first edition of the list will be unveiled.

For those who are unaware of the project, let me give some background. I was first inspired to do the list after reading the “Alliance for Women Film Journalists” top 100 films list. Their list was not meant as a collection of films about or for women, but rather the reflection of the taste of women journalists. It made for some offbeat selections that one doesn’t usually find on such lists, like An Angel at my Table, Being Julia and Dance, Girl, Dance, but it also included many of the perennial favourites of male dominated cinema (Kane, Chinatown, The Graduate, etc.). I’m not advocating leaving behind many of the “classics” of film history and popular tastes because they are somehow wrong for exploring the life and psyche of men, I’m simply offering an alternative that I see should exist.

It’s no surprise most films are made for men and about men, as those who make films are predominantly male. Even among the few women filmmakers out there, most still buy into the gender roles established by the “male rules”, offering little added insight into the female mind and perspective. More often than not, the greatest works exploring femininity and womanhood, are therefore born by men. I’m interested in showcasing films directed by women, but I’m admitting off the bat that the list will still be dominated by men, at least in the first incarnation.

Furthermore, my list is hardly exclusive to the celebration of female “strength” and accomplishments. That would make for an uninteresting and one-sided list. Humanity is flawed, and to fail to acknowledge that would be ignorant and close-minded. My first few drafts of the list though, did include a very high amount of horror films that I’ve since tried to trim down. It was an interesting phenomena, and begs the question why so many horror films have female protagonists. I think in part, it’s playing into sexual stereotypes and roles of weakness. While also being a rather blatant acknowledgement that women are the “other”, as the horror explored often reflects in some way “frightening” aspects of the female identity. It’s actually quite interesting, and maybe next October, when hopefully I will no longer be burned out on horror, I might write about it in more depth.

For those interested in a sneak peek, here are five films that you can expect to see on the list;

I’m still welcoming recommendations, but I probably won’t get to all of them within the next month, so don’t be too expectant.

All About Eve (1950)

Rosemary’s Baby (1968)
Black Narcissus (1948)

Cries and Whispers (1972)

The New World (2005)

Zack and Miri make a porno: sit com, with nudity

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

Let us fuck. No? Okay now that I’ve used up the one effective and funny catch phrase from Zack and Miri Make A Porno (Smith, 2008), let’s just talk about sex. After all, this was what the film set out to do – to state a case for meaningful sex, in the age of seemingly frivolous humpings, and have it set against an industry made exclusively to entertain sex acts and the idea thereof.

Zack Brown (Seth Rogen), in trying to convince Miri Linky (Elizabeth Banks) that porn was their best option available for some quick cash, claimed that pornography was already present in the mainstream culture. In some ways, its creator waged the success of the film on this notion. To this end, yes, Mr. Smith, porno has gone mainstream. Or, at least as mainstream as it could be. I knew it was so when bottomless parties were the rage in a seemingly innocuous buddy film, Harold and Kumar part deux. Of course, there was also that well circulated sex tape that made Paris Hilton the queen of the tabloid and other news media alike. Point well taken – and demonstrated within the film. At times, Zack and Miri seemed to bathe in gold tint, the same one that encapsulated sitcoms and other mainstream feel-good shows on your smaller tube. It also had the same quirky sheen of other feel-good indie flicks over the past few years. The stage was an innocent, vanilla coffee shop. The cast was, save for all the nudity, Friends-ish. Perhaps this was its one clever move, cinematically, making a case for the notion of porn making its presence well known in the mainstream culture.

The film also featured the same scenario we have seen from the recent Judd Apatow films: ordinary, if not slightly dowdy, guys beating their heart on their sleeves, and in the procress, melt some awestruck pretty girl’s heart (why must the supposed ‘girl next door’ be always so clearly not dowdy?). Clearly, it was meant for the people who went because the title had “porno” in it, as well as people who would not admit to going to see the film for the same reason. It was also made for Kevin Smith fans (which, apparently, included the Weinstein Bros.?), as it featured excessive geeky talk and everything. Oh yes, there was a Star Wars spoof.

But, was there something else to the film? Something about sex changing everything? On this front, the film presented a half-hearted argument at best. The unfortunate part about the quirky, loveable cast was the way it was pit against the humanity of its two main characters. It was like pitching cardboard particles against real pine. It’s not much of an argument if the side of meaningful sex got some warm body to enact it, and in the other corner, cartoonish sex machines being over-the-top silly, or dumb, or sometimes both.

In a way, the porn industry was used in the film the same way Zack and Miri envisioned it: a fantasy dreaming of real human connections. As far as fantasy goes, none of these sideshow characters was given a fair chance – they were barely shown to be human beings, just jokes and dicks. Sex is, of course, meaningless if there’s no human involved. To be fair, the film was not about the porn industry, so one should not expect a fair exploration of the individuals involved. You could argue that Zack and Miri were part of the show, so perhaps they could represent some parts of it. The problem was, they stopped when the going got real. I suppose this could be the portrait of the modern amateurs, but it still did not make a convincing case for sex chaning everything, beyond the obvious “well, duh, of course sex could change existing relationships! Surprise!” Casual, meaningless sex could still exist between breathing human beings. What was this movie about again? Oh, right, sweet human relationships. With nudity. And dangling balls, yes. But you can still take your platonic buddy-or-not friend to it. It won’t change anything, promise.