Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Jessica Kiang’s Favorite Films Of 2012

Features
by Jessica Kiang
January 4, 2013 1:56 PM
11 Comments
  • |

5. “Death Row”
Werner Herzog’s 4-part miniseries of interviews with death row inmates is simply gripping documentary filmmaking on every level, that reminds us over again of Herzog’s native intelligence and unerring instincts as a filmmaker (here's the Berlin review). Perhaps my appreciation of his skills had become somewhat dulled of late. I was mildly interested in, but didn’t love “Cave of Forgotten Dreams,” and there is something so seductive in the parody version of Herzog’s gloomy death-obsessed Teutonic voiceovers, and of the man himself as the lunatic who gets shot at during interviews and makes “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans,” that it’s easy to think of him as a guy who gets cast as the baddie in Tom Cruise action pics and not as an artist of singular intelligence and sensitivity (any more). These death row portraits explode any those slowly forming misconceptions and show Herzog at his most restrained and even-handed, with an uncanny knack for eliciting the most devastating of stories and reminiscences from his chilling subjects, and then getting swiftly out of the way. 

4. "Moonrise Kingdom"
I’m not sure which backlash, or backlash-against-the-backlash (frontlash?) we’re up to on this one yet, because trying to keep up was threatening to give me whiplash. All I can say is that Wes Anderson’s latest (review here) was one of the most truly gorgeous, lovable times I had at the cinema this year, and when I left it wasn’t so much that the film stayed with me as that it felt like it had always been there. There is a formal precision to Anderson’s aesthetic that of course can become twee if it is not underpinned by real emotions, but here, as fetishized as the art direction is throughout, what you really come away with is the warmth of the film’s heart, and the odd accuracy of the memory of childhood’s glories and mortifications. Holding Anderson accountable for the slew of second-rate imitators of his style is wrongheaded anyway, but if you allow the copycats to put you off the original, then you’re denying yourself a real, heartfelt treat.

3. "The Attack"
A formally thrilling and thematically daring film detailing the terrible personal toll that a Tel Aviv suicide bombing takes on one good man, with "The Attack" (reviewed here), Lebanese director Ziad Doueiri pulls off the task of taking an utterly poisonous political subject and making a brilliantly compelling film that doesn’t feel like it panders to any particular notions of political correctness, but never feels like propaganda either. Based on the novel of the same name by Yasmina Khadra, “The Attack” is ultimately a personal story but it never trivializes the dreadfulness of the act at its centre, nor the injustices that fuelled it. And if it doesn’t offer any answers, perhaps, in bringing us, so skilfully, deep into the belly of the beast, it makes us understand the questions just a little bit better. 

2. "The Hunt"
Anchored by Mads Mikkelsen’s Cannes Best Actor-winning central performance, Thomas Vinterberg’s brilliant but harrowing “The Hunt,” is a scorchingly tense return to form (and to early themes) for the “Festen” director (reviewed here). An account of the witchhunt that ensues after a false accusation of paedophilia among a tight-knit group of friends, some critics have complained about the central, innocent man’s passivity in the face of his increasing pariah status within the community. To them I say, respectfully, whaaa? He is not passive, he’s paralysed with incredulity, the knowledge of his innocence, and the belief that his friends must come to their senses. So while he is victimised physically and emotionally by others, the real drama of the film is internal -- it is not about proving his innocence, it is about not believing for a second that anyone could actually need proof. And finally it is him, simply having to say the words, that ends the misery but it’s also a defeat -- an acknowledgement that the friendships he believed in were not what he had thought. For me, that the protagonist’s terrible predicament is partly the result of this trapped, circular thinking is the film’s greatest strength, and it makes the man’s situation almost unbearably relatable: if this were to happen to me I would simply be waiting for the madness to end too. Terrifying, chilly and ruthlessly logical, I’m not sure the film needed its final slightly gimmicky twist, but otherwise nothing had me as far on the edge of my seat all year as this did.

1. "Rock of Ages"
Kidding! Just kidding! My number one is "Holy Motors," like nearly every other critic's, sorry. You’re probably as sick as I am of seeing Leos Carax’s rollercoaster mindfuck tour de force on the top of year-end lists, but though every contrarian impulse in my body is screaming against it, it deserves its spot here for me too, and by quite some distance. A lot’s been said about 2012 being a great year for movies and I’d tentatively agree in that I think there have been a lot of generally pretty decent films, and the base level has seemed, to generalise wildly, slightly higher -- perhaps as a result of having some of our better-performing blockbusters also be the sort of films that don’t make your brain cry. But at the same time there were very few total standouts for me personally, except for "Holy Motors," which truly towered head and shoulders above anything else I saw in terms of verve and nerve and scope and audacity. It is also the best value film I saw all year comprising pretty much ten or eleven films rolled into one that run from horror to drama to comedy to thriller, and in almost all cases, are absorbing, sometimes lovely, sometimes spooky, sometimes sad stories in their own right. And that’s before we even start talking about the meta-story, which is the biggest puzzle of them all.

I was not a fan of Carax’s “Lovers on the Bridge” at all, in fact I loathed it and remember it as pretentious and really very dull. So what surprised me here was just how entertained I was by "Holy Motors" which did everything that every other film on this list did, in one glorious jumbly messy brilliant soup, and also gave me my longest, heartiest, least expected laugh of the year (chimps). And really that’s the crux of it. A riddle wrapped in a drama wrapped in a comedy wrapped in a thriller wrapped in an enigma, "Holy Motors" isn’t just my favorite film of the year -- it’s all of my favorite films of the year, and quite a few other films besides.

Honorable mentions:
“Anna Karenina” was the first film from Joe Wright that I’ve been really impressed by, though many of my esteemed colleagues are long-time fans (our review is here). It’s a beautiful, imaginative movie, particularly in its first third, where I almost got tired of having my breath taken away. Still, while Keira Knightly didn’t jaw-act this time, which I have accused her of previously (it was all about the clavicles here), her characterisation of the petulant Anna might have been brave in its unlikability, but it did make her ultimate tragic fate kind of not-so-tragic. Nonetheless, had it been about 15 minutes shorter, it probably would have made my list proper, just for the conviction Wright brought to doing something truly new and different with the fustiest of genres. 

Another literary adaptation, Andrea Arnold’s “Wuthering Heights” (review) was the most incredible evocation of mood I saw all year -- the dripping muddy moors, the mists and rains and scabs and whipping hair all made for some of the most seemingly unaestheticized and yet beautiful shots I'd seen. But I just didn’t get caught up in the human story of Cathy and Heathcliff, as good as all the actors (particualrly the younger set, I thought) were. It’s a story about ungovernable, passionate love, but it felt like the dampness stifled the fire. 

And finally “Killing Them Softly” (reviewed here) boasted some terrific performances, especially from Scoot McNairy and the appalling duo of Ben Mendelsohn and James Gandolfini, and I wanted to love the film as much as I loved “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” (which is probably in my top ten of the decade). But the elegiac sadness of ‘Assassination’ is absent here and replaced by nothing but what felt to me like easy cynicism. Plus I started to think about how much more interesting it would have been had Brad Pitt and Richard Jenkins switched roles, and then I couldn’t get that out my head. 

Worst Films:
Runner up: “The Cold Light of Day” is remarkable only (and I mean only) for having Sigourney Weaver turn up in exactly the same role she played in 2011 Worst Film candidate “Abduction,” wearing what I’m pretty sure is the exact same ill-fitting trouser suit. 

The absolute pits: “This Means War” gets special dishonour for taking three principals I actively like and making all three mince around like idiots serving a plot that isn’t just silly, it’s patently offensive on every level.

Don’t See What The Fuss Is About:
Argo” was fine, but a little flat, and ultimately a bit forgettable, except for Scoot McNairy’s glasses which I liked a lot. I just like saying Scoot McNairy. Scoot McNairy. 

Silver Linings Playbook” was a nicely played romantic comedy that was billed as something transgressive or progressive or whatever, but was actually hugely conventional, right down to the “the dance finals are on the same day as the Big Game” trope which I’m almost certain is the climax of at least three “Step Up” movies. 

And “Beasts of the Southern Wild” made me generally uncomfortable, but I’m not sure if that’s because of my ancient wariness of magic realism as a genre, or because there really was something exploitative about the “wonder in squalor” aspect of it. For magic realism to work at all for me (and I stress it rarely does), the realism has to earn the magic, and vice versa -- a really difficult, symbiotic balance has to be struck if it’s not going to end up simply a fantasy that borrows relevance and interest from real events, or a ‘real’ story that escapes into unrelated fantasy when it can’t think of exactly what it’s trying to say. And when you feel alienated from this kind of narrative, that's when empathy crosses over into condescension. So while I believe the intentions of all concerned were good, and Quvenzhane Wallis is endearing to watch, ultimately I feel the film takes more from the discourse around Katrina, and general disenfranchisement, than it gives back to it. Hence: discomfort.

Biggest Disappointment:
Prometheus” crushed my hopes for Ridley Scott’s return to the Alien universe as surely as Charlize Theron was crushed beneath that big rolling thing that she didn’t think to simply move out of the way of.  A mess of unresolved subplots, baffling character 180s and Dramatic Things That Happen and then are Never Mentioned Again, I may have seen worse films this year, but none hurt quite so much.

Let’s never speak of it again.

Happy New Year, everybody, thanks for reading. 

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

11 Comments

  • RP | January 5, 2013 1:35 PMReply

    Jess, I felt EXACTLY the same about Looper. However, your thoughts are exactly why I was disappointed by it and it never kinda came close to making my list. I love the 2nd half (or is it really just the last 30-ish minutes). The humanism as you say, is incredible. But for me, as good as it was, it came a little too late for me to give the whole a great grade.

  • Edward | January 5, 2013 9:51 AMReply

    Alan is so insufferable.

  • Alan B | January 5, 2013 9:48 PM

    Good one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Alan B | January 5, 2013 12:41 AMReply

    "Nonetheless, had it been about 15 minutes shorter". A non-criticism criticism. This is something that we parody movie execs for saying, but apparently film critics get off free for making this nonsense assertion. The novel is long and has a very complicated story, which involve multiple character arcs. If you cut out a great deal of the material (i.e. do what a studio exec want, which is to cut scenes that do not involve the main character), you will still get the bare bones of the story, but you'll also lose the other characters' motivations, which need to change and develop over the course of the story. Any film can be cut down, no matter what the length, so your assertion that - because this complicated story also happens to be long - it should be cut down is nonsense. Here's a question: what would YOU have cut? What scene do YOU think could have been left on the cutting room floor, keeping in mind that the scene's deletion shouldn't detract from the film's thematic concerns, character development etc.

  • Jess | January 6, 2013 6:51 AM

    Oh dear. Well, more fool me for engaging, I suppose. Won't happen again.

  • Alan B | January 5, 2013 10:56 PM

    Firstly, did you really just try to make a joke out of my name? Really? Hell, you can call me whatever you want, but please don't make that joke(?) again. Ever. Secondly, do you feel that other should not weigh in on criticism? That it's a sacred art-form that shouldn't be challenged in any way? I just did what critics do (provoke, challenge, attempt to understand), but they throw a hissy fit whenever you confront their thinking in any serious way. (Another critic sent me a unwittingly hilarious email accusing me of hypocrisy when I challenged his assertion that people who didn't enjoy 'Prometheus' need to "challenge" their thinking). So, it's nice to see that those who dish it out can't take it. Thirdly, I didn't ask you for a 3000 word essay. I wanted to understand what sequences didn't feel needed in your eyes: what sequences didn't contribute to the film's themes, story, subtext etc. Would it really take you 3000 words to write that? Fourthly, I get that no critic is a blank slate, but I also believe that there is a big difference between being a blank slate and having an open mind. I'm sorry, but being wary of an ENTIRE GENRE isn't a sign of open-mindedness. Lastly, in no way is the other reviews on the site "formally arranged, objective criticism". Not even close. A formal piece would criticize the film with a clear, precise methodology, for instance the auteur theory. No theory is perfect, but a formal approach will try to understand the film through the patterns of its approach (e.g. feminism, genre etc.). The other reviews on the site aren't formal: they're just someone else's opinion, which is fine, when it is informed ... Look Jess (can I call you Jess? Or is that just a dumb gag?), I appreciate that you have responded to the post, but I would recommend that you don't post a response next time if the response if a lot of: 'hey, Al, I could write a 3,000 word response to your complaints, but we're not in a relationship.' Huh? What the hell does that even mean, anyway? I assume you were trying to be funny, but it just comes off weird ...

  • Jess | January 5, 2013 6:39 AM

    @alan b

    Well, Al, (can I call you Al? No?) thanks for weighing in on precisely what you think a critic should and shouldn't do. AK, which as I say I admired a great deal, suffered for me from poor pacing towards the end of the film, and therefore felt overlong. By an approximate 15 mins. I am not quite sure why that's a nonsense assertion, it was my actual experience with the film. And yes, I could write 3,000 word post on precisely which scenes, or shots, I think they could have excised but I'm guessing you would be its only reader and I just don't think we're at that stage of our relationship yet.

    And as to BOTSW, perhaps I did not make myself clear. I am wary of Magic Realism, not dismissive of it: in fact, I class Pan's Labyrinth, for example, as magic realism, and it's one of my favourite films of all time, because it so skilfully avoids the pitfalls of this tricky genre. I believe most of us here go into every film with as open a mind as possible, but any critic who claims to bring a total blank slate is lying -- we are people, not reformattable hard drives, and some vestigial memories, thoughts and yes, preferences, are going to colour our views. However AFTER watching BOTSW, I found that the issues I had with it were similar to the issues I have had historically with other films of the same genre, and so, not wanting to be disingenuous, I mentioned that.

    These end of year pieces are written from a highly subjective, personal point of view, and as such they are honest and opinionated. If you found that intrusive, and would prefer to read more formally arranged, objective criticism, read the full reviews we ran of these various films.

  • Alan B | January 5, 2013 12:44 AM

    "And “Beasts of the Southern Wild” made me generally uncomfortable, but I’m not sure if that’s because of my ancient wariness of magic realism as a genre" Oh, and what the hell is this? Why should a critic have a 'wariness' to a genre? That's like a food critic saying, "You know, I don't do tomatoes" or something. A critic should be open to new experiences, not so closed-minded that he or she is willing to outwardly dismiss a genre as a whole. Pauline Kael had a 'do as I say, not as a I do' attitude to film criticism, but she was right when she said a film critic should be as open as possible: how else can you not appreciate something new? (I didn't much care for 'Beasts', either, but it sure wasn't because I told myself from the outset, "You know, I don't really care for this genre. I'll watch it, though, I guess ...").

  • Christopher Bell | January 4, 2013 3:18 PMReply

    I wish you wrote more, and I'm not just saying that because we both managed to avoid the manipulative claws of "Beasts."

  • TheoC | January 4, 2013 2:29 PMReply

    Great list, I completely agree with your take on the unnecessary backlashes for Moonrise Kingdom and yes Rock of Ages was the movie of the year and Russell Brand was born for the big screen.

  • MongooseCmr | January 4, 2013 2:27 PMReply

    Nice to see some Side by Side love. Really great doc, though some call it one sided

Email Updates