For the year 2021, I have set a goal to watch #52FilmsByWomen. I found 2020 to be an exceptionally incredible year for women filmmakers, amid the crazy global pandemic their films were often pushed to the front of the line without big theater blockbusters taking all the limelight. I will watch one film per week made by a woman, all films I have never seen before, both old and a few fairly recent releases sprinkled in, as well. I look forward to expanding my knowledge of women filmmakers and their work and hopefully bring a new light and following to a severely under-appreciated part of cinema.

It continues to baffle me that it took this long to make a cinematic story about the brave Harriet Tubman’s life and legacy (now can we please honor her and put her on the twenty-dollar bill?). The story and her name are iconic as can be, a story and a person who is not only a huge part of Black history but American history. The incredibly strong performance of Cynthia Erivo as Harriet is what completely holds the overall film together. Kasi Lemmons’ direction is somewhat cookie-cutter and basic, giving us a simple story of heroism and bravery in the face of adversity and evilness.

The film opens on the eastern shore of Maryland in 1849–Harriet, then known as “Minty” lying in a grass field, awoken by her husband,  (did you know she had narcolepsy? I never remember learning about this in school). The story takes no time before it sets off–in less than 15 minutes into the film, our leading lady is planning her first escape. Harriet/Minty’s husband, John (Zackary Momoh) a barely-free man, and her wish to start a family, the family that owns her and the rest of her family forbid it. The son of the slave owner, Gideon, played hauntingly by Joe Alwyn, is Minty’s owner, and he values his ownership over her more than anything. When she first escapes, he immediately starts to hunt her down to bring her back. He values not her life, but the value her life gives to his family’s worth, as their Black lives act as currency.

The remainder of the film seems to be just that a back and forth of running and bringing slaves out of freedom–Harriet makes her way to Philadelphia where she meets William Still (Leslie Odom Jr.) and he is astounded that she took the journey to freedom alone. She decides to take her mother’s name, and that is when she becomes who we know now as Harriet Tubman. Although freedom is all Harriet has longed for, after a year of being free but without her loved ones, she is lonely and still feels that so much is missing from her life. She decides to go back to help bring her family, and then other slaves to freedom. Her bold, fearless mindset and her faith are what guides her. 

Overall, Lemmons’ direction does not lessen the famous story. Although a few things struggle, the pacing, the establishment of time and space felt unknown at times, and the score felt a little misplaced, I still found myself moved–it is almost impossible to not feel that way. Harriet’s self-sacrificing nature and tenacity are inspiring. The disgusting, racist, slave-owning family will make you cringe, but Harriet will restore your faith and her successes will make you proud. This is not ground-breaking, but it is a must watch if for nothing else than to honor Harriet Tubman’s legacy and witness the Oscar-nominated performance from Cynthia Erivo.

Grade: B-

While we wait, wait, and wait for some for the perpetual release date of No Time to Die, let’s look back and the highs and lows of Daniel Craig’s tenure as the man himself 007 James Bond.

Casino Royale

After achieving his license to kill, 007 pursues Mads Mikkelsen (Hannibal) with help from MI6 accountant Eva Green (Penny Dreadful) and CIA agent Jeffrey Wright (Westworld) in the 2006 debut of our blonde Bond, and I have a love/hate relationship with this updated adaptation of Ian Fleming’s first novel thanks to high stakes Texas Hold ‘Em, dated technology, and intrusive Sony product placement. While the on form Judi Dench (Mrs. Brown) returning as M goes unexplained against 007’s fountain of youth and the absence of Q and Moneypenny is understandable, all the things that make Bond, well, Bond aren’t here. Try hard action and the bulked up Craig replace the over the top lifestyle, British innuendo, and outrageous gadgets, and the lack of 007 theme music dampens chases more Bourne than Bond. Airport sequences are superb, and the train conversation with Vesper Lynd deliciously pegs Bond so right, cutting to this reboot’s roots with excellent characterizations. However promising Madagascar intrigue, Montenegro card games, sweet vehicle escapades, and suspenseful fight scenes go downhill thanks to an almost comical torture scene, deus ex machina escapes, and tacked on Venice charm with obvious fates in the last half hour. Casino Royale had the unenviable position of saving a forty year old franchise while luring a jaded modern generation anew. If this was an anonymous action movie about any other spy making mistakes and learning the ropes of his profession, I’d love everything here. It’s one of the more entertaining Bond pictures appealing to fans looking for something fresh and casual audiences alike, yet it’s often too far from what makes Bond Bond for me.

Quantum of Solace

Although I was eager to give Daniel Craig’s second 007 picture a chance, this depressing entry strays even further from the franchise hallmarks as James Bond tracks environmental schemes to Bolivia and beyond alongside the tormented Olga Kurylenko (Centurion), a wasted Gemma Arterton (Byzantium) as Strawberry Fields, and drudgery that won’t let anybody shine. Felix Leiter also exits too soon, and the reset between our new Bond and the vintage M creates confusion and distrust. We don’t know on whom we can rely as Bond becomes unlikable, flying by the seat of his pants with no Brit wit, dry humor, or winking subtleties. 007 gets beat up a lot, contrary to his suave past and laying the heavy action for action’s sake on thick. Once again, intricate and complex set pieces don’t have triumphant Bond cues to make them really cool, and the main titles, theme song, and hi-tech MI6 interfaces are sweet but now very dated. Quantum of Solace does have several visual and action proud points thanks to delightful less than pretty sides of Italy, Panama, and Chile with multiple chases by foot, car, boat, and plane. Unfortunately, geeky villains, uninteresting politics, and boring social commentaries take themselves too serious, hampering what could have been an intriguing introduction to the Quantum organization with environmentalism MacGuffins, obvious symbolism, and ridiculously over done deaths. Despite a short run time and some fine action, this feeling long and loud headache never strives for more than brooding blandness.

Skyfall

It’s easy to eat harsh words about Daniel Craig’s first two installments because this third 2012 outing finally gets it right! 007 is presumed dead – unfit and recuperating with wine and women until cyber threats and physical attacks on the Intelligence Service itself force Bond to confront his orphaned Scottish roots in explosive fashion. Humor, sexuality, and returning characters add much needed brevity as glib and charismatic Craig dons the tuxedo with a combination of slick Connery and tongue in cheek Moore. Fast-paced excitement and swift wit accentuate the meaty topics and unfolding character dramas, making us wonder why the franchise ever did the gritty, angry reboot thing. Judi Dench has the finest turn as M yet, and Ralph Fiennes (The English Patient) begrudgingly embodies the bureaucratic red tape. Naomie Harris (Moonlight) as Moneypenny is both believable as a sassy field agent and intimate with the fireworks innuendo while Ben Whishaw’s (Paddington) nerdy Q adds cranky, reverse generational banter to the 50th anniversary subtle. Computer intricacies keep the technology contemporary, yet the gadgets aren’t steeped in the fantastic or product placement. London locales, crowded subway scenes, and intense tunnel action are violent, juicy, and dangerous – pushing the PG-13 rating with revealing babes and nail-biting deaths. For some, the homemade siege may be an overlong out-of-place turn for 007, but we’re unsure how Bond will save the day thanks to intense voiceovers, one-step behind trails, and potential agent on the inside twists. This charming, spirited step in the right direction reins in all the brooding, a reset with room to maneuver. I held my breath, laughed, cried, and happily sighed.

Spectre

The seemingly obsolete 00 program is eliminated and Bond goes rogue with doctor Lea Seydoux (Blue is the Warmest Colour) on the trail of shadowy Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds) as Ernst Stavro Blofeld and his mysterious Spectre organization in this derivative 2015 twenty-fourth Eon outing. Skeleton disguises, parades, and extended tracking shot trickery escalate with helicopter perils and building disasters as sunkissed interiors and golden patinas accent international locales. Changing of the guard plot points and parallel dossiers lead to underground lairs, secret passages, and surveillance while mirrors layer Bond’s duality – good and bad, for his country and apart from it. Craig is up to snuff with wry quips, however, the ‘going through the motions’ pace is not up to par. Abundant CGI, digital grading, and omnipresent cyan schemes permeate chases proceeding from A to B just because they should, and the predictable torture, escape, rinse, repeat gets redundant fast. Unnecessary girls, superfluous set pieces, corruption, and uneven villains compound the awkward attempt to both connect Spectre to Quantum of Solace yet retcon such ties with broad storytelling and heavy-handed scripting. MI6 takes care of the business at home without the globe trotting Bond, leaving us to wonder why M, Q, and Moneypenny don’t have a streaming series between Bond films. Here the charming ensemble is both overused and undercooked as Blofeld conveniently tells all his secrets and the titular subterfuge rushes toward an Austin Powers “Daddy Wasn’t There” resolution. Despite great individual character moments, action scenes, and Bondian treats, Spectre wastes time waiting for something that never happens, making for frustrating repeat viewings while we hold out for No Time to Die. 

Stanley Kubrick was known for his perfectionism where he forced a ridiculous amount of takes to his actors and sought to make his sets as authentic as possible. By living in London, he was allowed to go on independently without studio interference. Before his time, another director had this reputation but was stuck in the Hollywood system. His name was Erich von Stroheim and his reputation in the 1920s was seen as dictatorial, ruthless, and reckless. Actors were made to go to extreme lengths for every shot he wanted, making them suffer in the heat and play up roles that enticed them to become violent, sexual beings to the cringes of the studios. After being discarded as a director, after his death, critics looked back upon his work and recognized his genius, being ahead of his time. After the definition of auteur was made, some have considered von Stroheim the first auteur in Hollywood.

Erich von Stroheim was born in 1885 in Vienna, Austria. At 24, he moved to the United States and was a traveling salesman when he made his way to Los Angeles. He quickly got hired, first as a stuntman, then as a small-time actor where, in 1915, he received his first credit in Old Heidelberg alongside stars Wallace Reid and Lillian Gish. When the U.S. entered the First World War, Stroheim was the go-to on the accuracy of German culture and as the German villain in various films. He was so convincing, fans would see von Stroheim would try to attack him for events that occurred on the screen; people actually thought he threw a live baby out of a window in The Heart of Humanity. 

In 1919, the war was over and von Stroheim turned to write and directing movies, starting with Blind Husbands. In 1922, his third film, Foolish Wives, would carve out his infamous reputation. A budget of $250,000 was set, ballooned to three times that much when principal photography finished, and after post-production and advertising, the final cost was $1.2 million, the first Hollywood film to surpass that mark. To the horror of Universal Studios, Stroheim’s cut was 384 minutes, or 6 hours and 24 minutes. They took over the editing and made it under 2 hours; the current restored release is 2 hours and 22 minutes. More difficult was the fact the story featured sexual overtones and censors either made the cuts or banned the film outright. His next film, Merry-Go-Round, was overseen tightly by producer Irving Thalberg, who already fought von Stroheim over the previous film. But his overspent ideas forced Thalberg’s hand and he fired von Stroheim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bKa6v1PJIE

The next project he went to would be the one declared his magnum opus by critics and film historians: Greed. Based on the novel McTeague by Frank Norris, it tells the story of a married couple’s marriage dwindling into violence over $5000 won in a lotto. With producer Samuel Goldwyn backing him and giving him the artistic freedom he wanted, von Stroheim went to shoot his ten-hour masterpiece that he cut to six to please Goldwyn. With Goldwyn’s permission, the movie was shot on location in San Francisco and the film’s climax in Death Valley, one of the hottest places in the world. To von Stroheim, he saw it as a Greek tragedy and said that the movie was the only one from him that was fully realized.

During this time, however, Goldwyn’s studio became part of the newly-formed MGM in 1925 and Irving Thalberg was brought over from Universal. The movie was removed from von Stroheim’s control and cut to 2 hours and 20 minutes.  Thalberg brought in June Mathis, a screenwriter-turned-executive, to work on the cutting. Later, a reconstructed version was made that can be seen today and is four hours long. A handful of people, including film critic Harry Carr of the Los Angeles Times, saw the original nine-hour film (85 hours of film was initially shot) and said it was the greatest film ever. But, like many other cut sequences, it fell to the floor, was collected, and destroyed. Those scenes that are missing still are considered the holy grail of cinema but they are lost to history. When the studio version of Greed was released, it was a critical and commercial failure, leading von Stroheim to disown the film publically. It was an event that left him very bitter about the Hollywood system for the rest of his life.

After two commercial films, von Stroheim would get another chance at making his own epic in Queen Kelly starring Gloria Swanson and produced by Joseph Kennedy, father of John, Robert, and Edward Kennedy, future politicians as President, Attorney General, and Senator respectively. The budget, as usual, went over, shooting went very long, and Swanson felt uncomfortable when she realized one of the scenes shot as a dance hall was actually a fancy brothel. Kennedy was called and he fired von Stroheim. With another director, the film was savaged with an alternative ending and was only released in Europe because of the lack of censorship regarding sexual content.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpO3jE-m2Tc

His last film, Walking Down Broadway, went uncredited as von Stroheim was fired and most of the footage was reshot with multiple directors. The rest of his career would be only acting, most famously in Jean Renoir’s La Grande Illusion and Sunset Boulevard from fellow Austrian writer/director Billy Wilder. He would reunite with Gloria Swanson, playing a famous ex-director who is now the butler for his ex-wife and former silent film star. In the film, the movie that is shown on the projector is Queen Kelly. The performance resulted in an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Moving back to France for the rest of his life, his silent career was revisited and widely praised by French critics and historians. He died in 1957, aged 71. While dying and working on his autobiography with another writer, von Stroheim said dying would be easier if Hollywood hadn’t ruined his career.

The characteristics of this legend are simple: big budgets, long films, and total rebellion from the studio system. He was one of the first iconoclasts in the industry, seeking authenticity at any cost to the wrath of the studio and wanting to make movies his way at any length. In directing and in his acting roles, he was the man people loved to hate because his on-set behavior reflected his performances with his grimacing expression and thin hair, providing this menacing figure. As the Hays Code came into effect to curb portrayals of “immorality,” it came into conflict with a vision that dared to be seen through innocent, Roaring 20s America. As a foreigner, von Stroheim had the mindset to be real with his stories rather than follow the factory line studios demanded because of money. But he didn’t see it that way. He was about naturalism and the process of human nature.

Follow me on Twitter: @brian_cine (Cine-A-Man)

For the year 2021, I have set a goal to watch #52FilmsByWomen. I found 2020 to be an exceptionally incredible year for women filmmakers, amid the crazy global pandemic their films were often pushed to the front of the line without big theater blockbusters taking all the limelight. I will watch one film per week made by a woman, all films I have never seen before, both old and a few fairly recent releases sprinkled in, as well. I look forward to expanding my knowledge of women filmmakers and their work, and hopefully bring a new light and following to a severely under-appreciated part of cinema.

Who do you look to for film recommendations? I look to my fellow film critic friends and what they’re reviewing or commenting on, both new and old films. I especially like to pay attention to films I see mentioned that I may have missed in the past. When Obvious Child was mentioned by a friend as one of her 4-favorite woman directed films, via an image of Jenny Slate, I immediately went to look it up and add it to my list. I am a fan of Jenny Slate, and I value the opinion of my women critic friends, so this was all I needed to know before watching this film. 

Jenny Slate channels herself to play the lead character, Donna, a stand-up comedian. Spoiler alert upfront here: Donna becomes pregnant and gets an abortion. I just want to get that out of the way because that is what you think the film is about when in reality it is about an independent, free-spirited woman maturing into herself, accepting who she is, flaws and all. The abortion is part of her story–not the whole story.  The film opens with Donna performing a set where she discusses hiding farts from her boyfriend, and what a woman’s underwear really looks like at the end of a day. To say this made me feel like this is my type of film just within the first few minutes is a complete understatement. I am all in.

Donna uses her real-life experiences, as most comedians do, to center the conversation of her comedy. She talks about her current boyfriend, as it cuts to him the crowd, awkwardly grimacing that their relationship is her go-to subject for content. After said boyfriend dumps her right there in the gritty, graffiti-covered gender-neutral bathroom confessing that he has been sleeping with her friend. Donna is devastated by this news and ends her night in a wine-induced spiral of leaving chain voicemails on his phone. As she navigates being alone post break-up, she finds herself in a situation most women post-break-up can relate to. She stands outside of his house, shivering and drinking coffee, asking herself OCD-induced questions, “if this woman crosses the street on my second sip, I will leave” although she is hoping to unexpectedly see or run into her ex. She clearly does not actually want to run into her ex, but her intrusive thoughts have brought her here. This is funny and relatable and true. She sees her ex leave his home with his new girlfriend, her former friend, and their dog. She cusses, throws her coffee, and runs away. 

Donna also finds herself in a relatable situation most people post-break up do, too: a one night stand. Max (Jake Lacy) is a sweet and thoughtful man that she continues to cross paths with even after their one night together. He finds her at the bookstore she works at and he ends up being one of her mother’s former students. It is clear that he is interested in Donna, as she hides the pregnancy from him, unsure of how to deliver the news. 

Everything comes full circle when Donna invites Max to her show, where she decides to confess her pregnancy and abortion plans to the entire audience. Max has arrived just in time to hear the news, and the ambiance of the scene calls back to the first scene with her ex–however, Max leaves when he becomes overwhelmed by what she is sharing, realizing he is involved. Donna has found herself exactly where she started at the beginning of the film, yet in such a different, more confident place as a woman. Max does not let her down though, as he shows up the next day, with flowers and accompanies her to the procedure. He is just there for her and that’s all he needs to be. There is never a conversation about the abortion or her decision initiated by him, which was refreshing. 

This narrative and characters are sweet, honest, funny. The narrative is not overly dramatized like a lot of Hollywood films before it, where women experience unexpected pregnancies and end up keeping the baby and trying to make it work with the father. This was the inspiration for the director, Gillian Robespierre, who first made this short film of the came name because she was bothered by films like Juno (2007), or Knocked Up (2007). The film normalizes abortion within its other characters as well, Donna’s best friend and mother both have had abortions, and, I would like to think, has pioneered other films to do the same. Donna’s growth over the course of the short runtime is inspiring. She is an adult woman who has found herself feeling supported, respected, and loved at this turning point in her life. 

Grade: A

I will be watching and reviewing all of the films included on AFI’s 100 Years…100 Passions list. The list contains the 100 greatest love stories in American cinema and I plan to consider how our views on romance and social issues have changed over the years as well as judge whether the romances in these films actually made me swoon. As a fan of the romance genre, I expect to love each and every one of the nominees but I also don’t know if I would consider all of them romantic.

I must admit that I have never seen Jean Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast (1946). It is a deep source of shame for me as I know that it is widely considered a masterpiece and Cocteau is widely considered to have created the definitive film version of this story. This means that I don’t have a highly informed opinion when it comes to the history of adaptations of this classic tale but I couldn’t help but feel like this 1991 animated feature was not dark enough. I understand the fact that this was targeted towards children and families but it feels like the writers deliberately tried to avoid examining any of the disturbing subtext lurking within this fairy tale. There are so many movies for kids that were made during the 1990s that are full of thought-provoking material that could leave you feeling troubled by the sexual angst that adolescents experience or the fact that your parents occasionally fantasize about murdering you. Beauty and the Beast (1991) doesn’t go to those places and that means that it isn’t nearly as compelling as Hercules (1997), which is unabashedly wacky.

The film concerns a beautiful young bookworm, Belle, Paige O’Hara, who is ostracized by her fellow townspeople because she does not conform to societal conventions. She is pursued by the conceited Gaston, Richard White, who values her only for her beauty and not her intelligence while callously insulting her inventor father Maurice, Rex Everhart, whom he accuses of being insane. Her father is kidnapped by the Beast, Robby Benson, who was once an arrogant prince who incurred the wrath of an evil witch and was sentenced to be a beast until he found love along with all of his employees who have become home appliances. Belle takes her father’s place as a prisoner but the home appliances try to push Belle and the Beast together and the two end up forging a close romantic relationship that could help the Beast achieve redemption.

I want to note the fact that I don’t dislike this film but I do think that it is incredibly forgettable and I was not strongly impacted by it as I watched it. I was mildly amused but never emotionally moved and I kept wondering when it was going to kick into gear and take some risks. It remains strangely distant from its audience and ends just as it seems to figure out what it wants to say. If I am honest, the high point of the film was the Beast’s transformation into Prince Adam. I know that he is animated but he has to be one of the more handsome leading men that I have discussed so far. He’s easily better looking than Spencer Tracy in Woman of the Year (1942) and his orange locks alone are enough to beat out Joseph Fiennes in Shakespeare in Love (1998). I’m going to sound lascivious as I write this but there was a sharp intake of breath when Adam appeared on screen. His hair is lustrous, his eyebrows are neatly groomed, his bright blue eyes pop against his porcelain skin, his facial features are angular and he is muscular without appearing overbearing. Some animator figured out how to create the perfect man but then they decided to torture the audience by not giving him much screen time. I know that the whole point of this story is that physical appearances don’t matter and it is what’s underneath that is truly important but Adam’s beauty had me forgetting all about the message of this story.

I wanted to see more of Adam and Belle together. It feels like he goes through his transformation and the two of them start dancing straight away before the credits roll. This feels like a common problem with Disney movies based on fairy tales as the happy ending is seen as a given and they don’t feel the need to present us with anything new. You get to hear a reprise of the main theme, see the leading characters smile as they stand in a circle and pose for the camera, and then a final gag that ties back into something that happened earlier in the film. You don’t often get to hear a conversation between the two main characters and usually you are just meant to accept the fact that they are happy because of a shift in the tone of the score. I understand the fact that cinema is a visual form and a lot of directors will try to convey an idea through visuals rather than using dialogue to explain an idea, but the final ball feels very generic. It could have appeared in Cinderella (1950) or a dozen other films about women becoming princesses and I rolled my eyes as I was greeted with images that I had seen a million times before.

In many ways, the Beast ends up feeling like a typical ‘bad boy’ who needs to be tamed by a nice, virginal girl who will tie him down and stop him from engaging in self destructive behavior. This can be a pleasant concept as we all accept the fact that couples are meant to help each other become better people and balance out each other’s flaws but it can feel a tad trite to have one half of the couple being radically transformed by the love of their girlfriend. At least the Beast doesn’t actually say “You make me want to be a better man” but we are meant to believe that all of his flaws, both physical and mental, melt away in the presence of a pretty but bland maiden. The ends justify the means for him as he does a terrible thing, kidnapping a young woman, but gets rewarded for it. I don’t think that we are allowed to question what he does enough and the film is too excited about getting to the point where he becomes perfect and they admit that they are made for one another. This story would be more effective if we got to spend more time on the torturous period of their relationship, in which they can’t communicate and resent one another. I feel like we get to see that section of their relationship for all of five seconds and that makes it more difficult to feel a rush of joy when they do enter into a serious partnership and kiss in the rain.

Maybe I would have had a different response to this if I had been a young girl in 1991 and this had been a part of my childhood. I might have built up nostalgia for it and I may have been able to sing along to all of the songs on the soundtrack. I did not have that experience with this film as I spent most of my youth casually watching Bee Movie (2007) and developing in-jokes with my cousin about having sex with a bee. I saw Beauty and the Beast for the first time when I had already become a cynical, jaded critic and that meant that I wasn’t as susceptible to its charms as an innocent child who was just looking to be entertained for 90 minutes. I watched it because it was a Best Picture nominee in 1991 and I found myself comparing it to films like JFK (1991), which meant that it ended up looking fluffy and insignificant. Maybe I am being too harsh on it because it clearly satisfied the needs of nine-year-olds everywhere but I feel like the critical acclaim that it received set me up to expect something with more depth.

I could not identify with Belle because she was written as such a blank slate. Presumably, this was done so young girls could project their own personality traits onto the character and imagine being conventionally attractive in that Disney way. Belle has doe eyes, tawny hair, satiny smooth skin, and a Gal Gadot-esque smirk. It’s all a bit much and you end up wondering how she won the genetic lottery when her father doesn’t appear to be pulchritudinous. They don’t give her one terrible ‘flaw’ that would serve to make her more relatable and I am thankful for that. Often they give their heroines a mole or a miniscule scar which is meant to make them unique as well as turning them into a target of bullying over their looks. Usually, these minor imperfections only serve to make the animated figure look more beautiful and it is annoying when the film tries its hardest to convince us that the protagonist is ‘just like us’ when they clearly aren’t. Belle is too pretty to be an ordinary girl but she also isn’t as stroppy as your average young woman would be if she had been placed in this situation. Belle is so polite about this whole ordeal and acquiesces to the wishes of her captor at a scarily fast rate. I understand the fact that teenagers don’t want to acknowledge the fact that they are bratty but Belle would have been justifiably surly in this case.

Belle is meant to be feisty and intelligent because she reads books. They mention this fact about a million times and then use this to unite her and the Beast. It could have been a nice touch but it ends up feeling perfunctory and you just want her to stop waving around her leather-bound volumes of classic literature around. The script never goes that far into what her taste in literature is like and I was reminded of a scene in They Came Together (2014) in which Amy Poehler and Paul Rudd fall in love because of their shared passion for fiction books. In this scene they both act like they have never met somebody who enjoys fiction books before and this serves as a spot on criticism of romantic comedies. In their efforts to appeal to a wider audience they end up dumbing down scripts that might have had some specificity to them so that nobody in the audience will feel left out. I’m not so dumb that I can’t relate to people who have personalities that are very different to mine and I would have taken more interest in Belle if she had been a petulant, sour chit.

Despite those complaints, I will admit that there were a few more things to appreciate about Beauty and the Beast. It is full of vibrant colors and there are times when you can just lose yourself in the imagery. There is the iconic image of Belle and the Beast dancing together and there is always a little endorphin rush when you can match up the image in your mind with what is being shown on screen. These were not massive details but my lizard brain was drawn to the bright red hues of the curtains and I was able to turn my brain off and look favorably upon the details that I might have missed the first time I watched this.

I can’t understand why anybody would consider this film for the list. Yes, it does fit the definition of a romance but nothing about it is very captivating, and other than featuring an unusually handsome love interest, it is not any different to other animated films from this period. Maybe it was the Best Picture nomination that it sealed the deal or maybe AFI voters had been forced to sit through it with their children and they were brainwashed into thinking that it was a masterpiece. For some befuddling reason it ended up on the list and was ranked at an unreasonably high position. They placed it above classics like The Apartment (1960) and Double Indemnity (1944) and you can only throw your hands up in the air. I prefer this to dreck like Love Story (1970) but I also feel like the voters could have made a more inspired choice.