Review of the Decade 2000 - 2009

The Noughties, as they inevitably came to known were something of a disappointment in the greater schemes of cinema history. As the new millennium began hopes were obviously very high for fans of cinema. The hi-def revolution was kicking off, and the battle for home entertainment would be resolved, at least for now. With Blu-Ray, audiences where once again offered something at home which couldn’t be experienced in a cinema. But perhaps more importantly the technological developments which came over the decade promised to once again reinvent cinema in similar ways both sound and colour, as well as Cinerama promised to do. For the most part though technologies such as motion capture, hi-def and 3D never took off in the way audiences and film fans hoped for. Yes some of these movies made buckets full of money, and convinced the studios that these new technologies were the way forward, but in years to come, few will look back on The Polar Express, Monsters vs. Aliens, My Bloody Valentine, Beowulf or any number of other films which embraced the revolutions with anything than mild curiosity. It may be that these films were merely teething problems, which is also inevitable with any new development and that the revolution won’t completely kick in until the following decade. And yet this was not the only area to fall down under the weight of expectation.
The noughties, now they’re coming to an end feel like a stop gap between the past and the future. There are multiple reasons for this. Firstly Hollywood, in all its power and magnitude has embraced franchise filmmaking and existing audiences to continually break box office records and ensure their own survival. Batman, Spiderman, X-Men and a slew of comic book movies have been adapted for the big screen with almost every kind of niche being catered for. Some have made massive amounts of money, others have failed miserably. Toys, board games and TV shows have also been mined to ensure return on investment on continually growing budgets. Transformers and its sequel for example are two of the highest grossing movies of all time, and with Pirates of the Caribbean, Disney have managed to rake in $1,066,179,725 worldwide, and there is another instalment of the franchise due. Perhaps the most successful source of material for Hollywood though has been literature. Franchises which immediately spring to mind are the Bourne film, another of which is in development, Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia and of course Harry Potter which has become the highest grossing film franchise in cinematic history, and we’re yet to see the two parts of The Deathly Hallows. If this trend continues and audiences continue to lap up cinematic versions of their favourite book, comic, children's toy, cartoon, TV show or even social network site (David Fincher’s film about Facebook – due out within the next few years) then it doesn’t bode well for cinema. Part of the problem, and ironically one of the keys to the success lie in Hollywood learning that if they really want their marquee films to bring in big box office, then an established, quality director can go a long way. So we have had 3 Sam Raimi Spiderman's, two Bryan Singer X-Men’s, A Bryan Singer Superman, two Christopher Nolan Batmans, An Ang Lee Hulk, Peter Jackson directed the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Paul Greengrass the final two Bourne films. If anything this means some of the most talented filmmakers of recent years have been busy churning out Hollywood product instead of personal projects, and yet the biggest paradox seems to be the filmmakers desire to work in this field.
Franchises have not only been borne in the past 10 years either. Rocky, Rambo, Indiana Jones and Die Hard to name the most iconic have all seen rebirths and the audiences seem to crave them so much there is already word on a further Indiana Jones and Rambo film. The quality of these films is mixed, and the obvious danger in destroying a franchise may have hindered further retreads. Remakes have also been clogging up our multiplexes, not only of foreign fare, what with the America’s reluctance to read subtitles but also with old classics; The Wicker Man, 3:10 To Yuma, 13 Going on 30, Alfie, The Amityville Horror, Halloween, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Assault on Precinct 13, Ocean’s Eleven, Solaris, Dark Water, The Grudge, The Ring, Dawn of the Dead, The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Departed, Friday the 13th, Gone in 60 Seconds, House of Wax, Insomnia, The Italian Job, Get Carter, King Kong, The Ladykillers and The Manchurian Candidate to name but a few. The slate for upcoming remakes also reads like a film fans worst nightmare.
The other main problem with cinema this past year and it ineffectual development has lay in the gap which exists between established masters and young pretenders. Looking at the highlights of directors such as Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, Oliver Stone, Clint Eastwood, Brian De Palma, Michael Mann and Spike Lee, none have once managed to equal the highs of their earlier career. This is not uncommon and the deficit to cinema cannot be solely laid at their feet. Instead the bulk of the blame lies with both those filmmakers who have drifted toward more commercial enterprises, with both good and bad effects and the failure of new up and coming filmmakers to establish themselves in the same way the 70’s generation of filmmakers did. Wes Anderson, Michel Gondry, Alexander Payne, Michael Winterbottom, Andrew Dominik, Richard Kelly and Darren Aronofsky have all emerged as potential great filmmakers and some have even hinted they can take the torch from the old masters and carry it forward, pushing the boundaries and definitions of cinema to new, previously unexplored territories. However, despite some great works of cinema, none of these filmmakers have embraced the challenge head on, and those that have attempted have either scene their trajectory slide, or have merely sought to imitate and borrow from their major influences. This is not uncommon, but where previous generations have been inspired and taken cinema in a new direction, most of the current crops, despite having incredibly unique talents seem content to work with the parameters laid down by their forebears.
The most obvious example of this is Quentin Tarantino. It feels a long time since Reservoir Dogs seemed to single-handedly change the face of modern cinema, and Tarantino’s follow up Pulp Fiction is simply one of the great works of cinema ever committed to celluloid. This decade, after a notable seven year absence, Tarantino returned, and the films he delivered serve as the most defining example of the noughties inability to move the art form forward. No one could have expected Tarantino to top Pulp Fiction, but with four films Tarantino’s films have intrigued, astonished, angered, annoyed and mesmerised in equal measure. But none of his films feel like defining monuments to modern cinema, and none have shown the stylish wit, absolute genius or maturity of his Nineties output.
Another example of American cinemas inability to reshape cinema can be found in its preoccupation with War films about both the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the subsequent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But beyond Kathryn Bieglow’s The Hurt Locker, Paul Greengrass’ United 93 and still unreleased in the UK Grace is Gone, none of the films have come close to the great War films made over previous decades. Part of this may be to do with the lack of distance, our perception of the conflicts and the images given to us daily through the news. But those few films which have stood out demonstrate that this could have been a golden age of cinema, had filmmakers and producers managed to navigate the shifting cinematic climate more successfully. It fell in the end to the small screen’s Generation Kill to artistically capture the conflicts we have lived through this past decade.
Its interesting looking back over the history of cinema and highlighting those decades, or periods which seem the most artistically vibrant and creatively fertile. The 1930’s developed and adjusted to the arrival of both sound and colour to produce some of the finest works of cinema to grace the screen. Similarly, the 1950’s, which had the competition of television with which to deal, managed also to evolve the technology and the artistic vision to great another period consistently outstanding cinema. Although the sixties may be the period where the biggest shift in what cinema could portray it wasn’t until the 70’s that an emerging group of filmmakers, lessoned on the old styles and structures but able to explore similar themes in much more confrontational and artistic ways moved cinema on into its next stage of evolution. In the noughties though the shift in the political shape of the world, the new, challenging technological developments both in home entertainment and theatrical cinema and the upsurge in the internet’s role in modern cinema have yet to be navigated to their fullest potential. It may be that the teens of the new millennium will be were filmmakers truly grasp, embrace and define the next era. The possibilities provided filmmakers are unlike ever before and the lack of strictures may go some way to explain the last decade. What is true is that the changes will continue and the thought of were cinema could be in ten years is both exciting and frightening.
There are a few directors however who have, over the past ten years established themselves not merely as unique voices but as creators of some of the most progressive and interesting cinema ever. Pedro Almodovar is fast becoming one of European cinemas leading lights, Michael Haneke is using cinema to provoke thoughts and realities which are as shocking as they are brilliant, Wong Kar Wai continues to offer film lovers the beauty and grace of the art form, Ang Lee dabbled with Hollywood blockbusters, monuments of cinema, native gems and lighted-heart comedy, Steven Soderbergh may be the closest thing we have to a Jean-Luc Godard, his films constantly redefining notions of cinema, whilst constantly challenging our definition of the art – he also manages to what Hollywood does best, better than anyone else , Abbas Kiarostami may be the finest exponent of art cinema, and continues to push to envelope of not only narrative, but also audience engagement, Pixar Studios are the new Disney, and the great modern studio, their work constantly evolving and reshaping audiences perception of animation by creating taut, perfectly structured, adorable films, Florian Henckel von Donnersmack has made a single film in the past year, yet it’s such a brilliant introduction to of a new talent, one can only imagine where he can go if he can surpass his debut, Lukas Moodysson has revived Swedish cinema with touching, provocative, tender, and evocative masterpieces and Lars von Trier, the self declared greatest filmmaker alive had caused perhaps more outrage, conflict and discussion than all the other filmmakers together. He is the quintessential agent provocateur, and with Dancer in the Dark, Dogville and Antichrist he distorted the vision of cinema and storytelling in indulgent, seminal, pretentious yet someone deeply affecting, life changing ways. David Lynch also arguably created his finest works of cinema. Mulholland Drive and INLAND EMPIRE both took us to very dark places and saw Lynch not only embrace new technology but also saw him penetrate his beguiling, terrifying, hypnotic psyche perhaps more honestly and committed than any filmmaker ever has. Peter Jackson emerged as the great storyteller of English language cinema and propelled his reputation to equal Steven Spielberg and George Lucas with The Lord of The Rings (perhaps one of the few defining films of our generation), King Kong, his reinvention and love letter to a classic from Hollywood’s heyday. Guillermo Del Toro defined the one-for-them one-for-me mentality, but managed to maintain his artistic voice. The Coen Brothers went from O Brother Where Art Thou to A Serious Man. With one exception, they have created the most artistically entertaining films of the past ten years; Park Chan-wook emerged with four films to stand up as the finest example of the new wave of Asian cinema. His films contain the influence of American cinema but viewed through a kaleidoscopic oriental vision. New waves have emerged elsewhere in South America, where most of the proponents have emigrated to American of British films, in search, you would imagine of wider audiences. Eastern Europe’s new wave filmmakers haven’t been so lucky, but have made a sizeable impact on art cinema. What these filmmakers do next though could define art cinema for years to come.

British cinema similarly has spent much of the decade trying to emerge from the 90s. Richard Curtis continued to make under par follow ups to Four Weddings and Funeral. Billy Elliot seems a film of the 90s rather than the millennium but the future does like bright. Artists in the shape of Sam Taylor-Wood and Steve McQueen could give British cinema an influx are avant-garde sensibility. The industry also saw the emerging talent of Neil Marshall and a host of strong horror films (and one magnificent Rom-Zom-Com) and comedy in particular seems to have flourished. The continuing fruition of Shane Meadows as perhaps British strongest talent has been fascinating. Michael Winterbottom continued to make thought provoking accomplished cinema. He must be commended for maintaining his individuality and originality. The past decade has also seen a reinvention of James Bond and the monumental success of Harry Potter, although, unfortunately and somewhat predictably most of the profit lines the pockets of US studios. Mike Leigh and Ken Loach, as well as Terence Davies continued to make enjoyable, thought provoking cinema, but rarely attained the previous heights of their artistic success. The big story of British cinema in the past decade is Danny Boyle. Reinventing the zombie film for the new millennium, bringing science fiction cinema to our screens and the Oscar haul of Slumdog Millionaire have seen Boyle transform into Britain’s most acclaimed filmmaker. Boyle may not have made any films comparable to Shallow Grave or Trainspotting but he is the first genuinely big (in terms of box office, critics and awards) filmmaker to remain working in this country and the success of Slumdog should allow him even greater freedom to build the British Film Industry. Other notable filmmakers of the past decade who can’t not be mentioned include Christopher Nolan and Paul Greengrass, but both were lured early in their career to the US and have made some of the most unique, original and engaging films since departing. This says more about the state of our industry than it does about them as filmmakers. The hope for the coming decade will be not just the stability of the British Industry but a growth in filmic styles, voices and audiences.

So the past decade has been eventful, memorable and exciting, but there remains a sense of apathy to it all. There have been moments, flourishes and glimmers of what could have become defining films of our generation but cinematic milestones remain on hiatus. At best there may be ten films which deserve to stand close scrutiny against the great works of cinema. Those ten films make up the final pages of this review of the decade. My motivations for doing this are out of a personal obsession with the unfolding history of cinema, a need to contextualise both historically and artistically this period of cinema, but also the decades shape on me as a person. The noughties feel like they will be the most defining and formative years of my life. From 16 to 26, feels like a much bigger leap than any decade in my life to come. This could be where the routes of my apathy stem. Where previous generations have been looked upon with the goggles of history, reputation and buzz, the noughties for me have been the years I’ve had to define my understanding of cinema, and as imperfect as it still remains, it has been influenced mainly through the cinematic experience. Regardless of how many times you watch a film on DVD, film is by its very definition meant to be viewed in a cinema. The sound and picture become entirely immersive and the past ten years of sitting in the dark gazing up at the possibilities have felt like less of an impact than the DVD experiences which have provided my education. For this reason I have opted to begin my review of the decade with a list of the Top Ten Reissues of the past ten years. Although I have seen only a grain of sands worth of all the reissues it is noteworthy that the cinematic experiences I remember most vividly are the reissues which have enabled me to experience old classics in the way they were designed. What follows is entirely subjective and victim to my inability to watch every film released. I hope to inspire thought, debate, anger, annoyance and contemplation.

And so, over the next however many pages, my review of all things cinematic. Here’s to the next ten years....