Watching Again: An Open Letter to A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis

I am enjoying the new series in the New York Times in which you invite the public to watch movies with you during a weekend and then provide your own and your viewers’ thoughts about the movie the next week. Already you have persuaded me to take another look at “Top Gun” Lacking an email address to which I might send you condolence for the dearth of new movies to review during this time of plague as well as my own advice on what else you might do during this hiatus, I’ll try to get your attention this way. Too, this might contain suggestions helpful to some of your Constant Readers.
​

Surely every critic, especially ones like you two who have recently been through the pre-Oscar release rush, needs some time away. Games with the children? That book you’ve been meaning to read? How’s the new “Westworld”?

But after a while your thoughts return to movies. Herewith, a few of my own suggestions for things you might wish to revisit:

​The Tree of Life.  The new Criterion edition has a beautiful version of the original movie plus a 50-minute longer version that includes lots of extra footage. If you haven’t seen that longer version, you really must.  Terrence Malick says that the original release cut is the definitive one, and I totally agree. The longer version explicates somewhat more some of the mysteries of the original, but the mysteries are part of what make it great. That being said, the footage itself is breathtaking, and it is wonderful to have a chance to see it. You might wish to follow your viewing by “The Thin Red Line,” which is a companion-piece of sorts. Ms. Dargis, I know you didn’t like “The Tree of Life” all that much, and I tend to agree with Mr. Scott on this one. Would love to see your joint discussion of it now that the dust has settled.

​War and Peace. No, not Hollywood’s version but the 8-hour 1966 Russian version directed by Sergei Bondarchuk. I had seen the American release version in the movie house back then, with some of the worst dubbing I’ve ever experienced in a film and poor color. I was not impressed. On a whim I bought the recent Criterion edition, and I found that a revelation. A wonderful movie.

​Lord of the Rings. I consider that one movie, not a trilogy. Mr. Scott, you liked it, but have you seen the extended version? Far superior, I believe, and I loved the theatrical cut. Somewhat more than an hour and a half of added material improves both character development and pace. And be sure to watch the commentary by the three writers that accompanies the first one. It really made me appreciate Fran Walsh.

​The Hobbit. I recall you didn’t like that, Mr. Scott. Again, the extended versions have much better pace and character development and come across less frenetic than the theatrical release. I have always enjoyed how Peter Jackson and his fellow writers re-thought Tolkien to make this prequel more congruent with the later work. Liberties are taken, but the novel, in my opinion, needs to have liberties taken.

​David Fincher Film Festival. I watched them all in order last summer, beginning with “Alien 3.” I’ve always loved Fincher. This experience made me love him more. I know he disowns “Alien 3.” Watching it now, one is amazed at how much it foreshadows his later work. And you really should watch the longer cut of that one as well, which, I gather, is closer to what Fincher originally attended. By the way, every one of his movies grows in my esteem upon repeated viewings. This was particularly true with “Zodiac” and “Gone Girl”

​Alien Quadrilogy. Sigourney Weaver’s performance throughout is brilliant, and it is fascinating to watch her age and her character grow throughout. For me the first and third are the greatest. The second is a thrilling placeholder, and the fourth a (dare I say) charming coda. And while we’re on the subject, Ridley Scott’s two more recent “Alien” adventures are well worth a second look (as is almost anything by Scott, for that matter: he is one of the greatest movie stylists since Hitchcock).

The Long Day Closes. Terence Davies’ finest. One of the finest movies ever about a boy and his mother. About family life. About the young years of someone destined to be gay. About the effects of erosion. And on top of that, for my taste the greatest movie musical ever made. I watch it at least once a year, more often than not during the Christmas season. Fun puzzle: 

does it take place during one day or a year? Or both? And once you’ve watched it again, re-watch the companion “Distant Voices, Still Lives.” Oh, and don’t forget “Of Time and the City.” Oh heck, just watch everything he has done. (If I taught a film course I’d assign “The Long Day Closes” and “The Tree of Life” to the class for a compare and contrast essay.)

​Aleksandr Sokurov’s Family Movies: Mother and Son & Father and Son. Strange, moody, oddly erotic (especially the one dealing with the father). I don’t like everything by Sokurov, but these two haunt me. Their poetic distortion is breathtaking. I find that I must return to them from time to time.

​Martin Scorsese’s Spiritual Trilogy: The Last Temptation of Christ, Kundun, & Silence. So many people consider these outside the mainstream of Scorsese, but for me they are central. In his own way Scorsese is as religious as, say, Malick, something apparent throughout his work. In my old age I have grown tired of gangsters: after the Godfather movies and “The Sopranos” and the collected works of Scorsese and all those Japanese gangster movies I feel I’ve had it with gangsters and find it hard to revisit them now. But these three I find it rewarding to revisit. Actually you might add “Hugo” to that list, another later Scorsese that I love to revisit, but here he is bowing to a quite different god.

Some of these might be suitable for your children as well, depending on your children, but possibly not the Fincher and Sokurov movies. Of course, you may have come up with your own list of movies or directors to revisit, like the collected works of Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino: what does a new visit do for your opinion? And there’s always Hitchcock. And Kubrick, of course.

For if you are like me, your opinions can change. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. Not at all. It enriches one.