Why do I find this summary of the last ten years faintly draining? By glibly focusing on the catchiest and most superficially noteworthy events, it's mainly a reminder of how devoted the headline-driven news business is to perpetrating its own mythology. The Facebook, YouTube and Twitter revolutions are the only developments that seem to have moved the game along, to go by this rundown. The rest (even Barack Obama's election, in hindsight) seems to have been about smoke.
I'd like to see a similar-type review of where the best films have taken us -- a review of the great themes, personalities, "movie moments." The rise of the studio dependents and the gradual abandonment of the smart, upper-middle-class movie by the studios, the fall of print critics (along with print in general) and the rise of online punditry, and collapse of indie financing over the last twelve months.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on December 6, 2009 at 4:24 AM
comment #1
lipranzer
says ...
I'm working on an essay about the decade in movies, and the instinct is always to cast your net as wide as you possibly can - after all, each decade is always more complex than such labels as the "Me Decade" and "Greed Decade", for example, suggest - and yet, paradoxically, you end up sounding very superficial. It's a tricky balance.
Posted by lipranzer
at December 6, 2009 6:30 AM
comment #2
Sabina E
says ...
I will always associate the 2000s with Prez Bush II, Parisite Hilton, Myspace, and big budget popcorn flicks, remakes, sequels, prequels, and even more goddamned remakes.
Seriously, does anyone think the 2000s has been one of the worst decades for American cinema?
Posted by Sabina E
at December 6, 2009 9:06 AM
comment #3
taikwan
says ...
According to Ellen Goodman, who used to work there - Newsweek no longer covers the news. I suppose this is an example.
Posted by taikwan
at December 6, 2009 10:51 AM
comment #4
THE MovieBob
says ...
"Seriously, does anyone think the 2000s has been one of the worst decades for American cinema?"
I've got three LOTR films and Clint Eastwood's second (third? FOURTH?) wind saying otherwise, and that's just in the U.S....
Posted by THE MovieBob
at December 6, 2009 12:11 PM
comment #5
DeeZee
says ...
DeafBrown: "Seriously, does anyone think the 2000s has been one of the worst decades for American cinema?"
Not after having to sit through all the pretentious bullshit of the 90s, nope. At least the 2000s put one-hit hacks like Diablo Cody and those Blair Witch people in their place. If it were the 90s, they'd get talk show deals and be on E! long after their last follow-up(s) flopped. Thank gawd the internet killed network and cable tv.
Posted by DeeZee
at December 6, 2009 2:34 PM
comment #6
reverent and free
says ...
As far as movies:
*Bad decade for Sci-Fi, with few exceptional films like Eternal Sunshine, Minority Report, and Moon. Deja Vu had a great idea, but didn't do enough with it.
*Good decade for Jane Austen adaptations on big and small screen. Lousy decade for any other classic literature adaptations.
* Good decade for Alec Baldwin, finally having found his way as a character actor in supporting roles, something that he was obviously better at than his leading man parts in the 1980s and 90s.
*Jack Nicholson seems to be in semi-retirement. Other than The Pledge and About Schmidt, he had no serious acting roles.
*Good decade for Johnny Depp, George Clooney, Helen Mirren, Cate Blanchett, Judi Dench, Bill Nighy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Naomi Watts. For obvious reasons.
*Nicole Kidman never quite steered her career on a clear course.
*Surprisingly weak decade for Anthony Hopkins outside of the Hannibal sequels, other than The World's Fastest Indian.
* Good second half of the decade for Tommy Lee Jones after his aging stopped him from appearing in action thrillers.
* Sad loss of Roger Ebert's health, silencing him from TV forever.
* M. Night Shyamalan goes from being "the next Spielberg" to a punchline.
* What happened to Donald Sutherland? I'd like to think he has another Oscar nomination in him,
* It's nice that indies have moved away from guns and cigarettes and into comedies. But I miss the middle brow comedies of the 1980s and 90s.
Posted by reverent and free
at December 6, 2009 6:20 PM
comment #7
Gordon27
says ...
"What happened to Donald Sutherland? I'd like to think he has another Oscar nomination in him,"
Another? Name one movie Donald Sutherland was ever nominated for an Oscar for.
Posted by Gordon27
at December 6, 2009 7:45 PM
comment #8
Deathtongue_Groupie
says ...
I'm with you Deaf, the 90's went out with a bang ('99, the last great year of cinema) and the "oughts" are appropriately going out with ALVIN AND THE CHIPMONKS sequel.
Yes, there's a few standouts here and there, but most is seriously overpraised stuff like LOTR and Eastwood's breaking winds which to my mind shows just how starved we've all gotten for great films that what used to pass for just "good" as been elevated to "great."
Reminds me of the old joke about the two guys starving in the desert until they find a maggot-infused carcass which one eats. When he barfs it up, the other one consumes it and says "Damn, knew if I waited long enough I could get a hot meal..."
The 2000's films, in a nutshell.
Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie
at December 6, 2009 7:53 PM
comment #9
reverent and free
says ...
Gordon27, check that. I got it in my head that he was nominated for Without Limits, but it was just a Golden Globe.
Posted by reverent and free
at December 6, 2009 8:21 PM
comment #10
DeeZee
says ...
Deathtongue: '99 was overrated, and most of the flicks of that year will be forgotten. The 2000s weren't the best ever, but they had a lot more variety than the decade which preceded it, as reverent himself notes near the end.
Posted by DeeZee
at December 6, 2009 11:18 PM
comment #11
Gordon27
says ...
Donald Sutherland is the best actor to never get nominated for an Oscar, that's all I'm saying. He apparently pissed off a lot of people at some point, because, around the time of 'Ordinary People', he said, "I know the group of people in that body [the Academy], and I did not expect a nomination."
Posted by Gordon27
at December 7, 2009 12:45 AM
comment #12
mbt walking shoes
says ...
MBT shoes sale is a term that now appears more and more. Great news for those using it should be noted that all newspapers and magazines with dignity. This is not really a shoe, more like anti-shoes, most experts explain the cheap MBT shoes. In the case of soft and uneven nature is not fixed, which imitate the physical construction of MBT tembea sals cheap barefoot in our way, and thus activate the body a little muscle grouping. Physiological footwear sales in the United States as per the majority of women color matching shape the role and needs to buy womens MBT walking shoes.
Posted by mbt walking shoes
at June 7, 2010 9:11 AM