From: "cblitid@xxxxxxxx" <cblitid@xxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 24 July 2012, 8:37 Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: What a day! On 24-Jul-12, at 9:05 AM, I wrote: List members might be interested to learn what other movies (25 in all) were on the United States National Film Registry's inaugural list of "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" films. In alphabetical order, with year of release: Best Years of Our Lives, The 1946 Casablanca 1942 Citizen Kane 1941 Crowd, The 1928 Doctor Strangelove 1964 General, The 1927 Gone With the Wind 1939 Grapes of Wrath, The 1940 High Noon 1952 Intolerance 1916 Learning Tree, The 1969 Maltese Falcon, The 1941 Modern Times 1936 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 1939 Nanook of the North 1922 On the Waterfront 1954 Searchers, The 1956 Singin’ in the Rain 1952 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 1937 Some Like It Hot 1959 Star Wars 1977 Sunrise 1927 Sunset Boulevard 1950 Vertigo 1958 Wizard of Oz, The 1939 Chris Bruce, ever interested in what's "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant", in Kiel, Germany> Also the agenda-setting in such lists. It seems to me almost unarguable that 'The Godfather Parts I and II' are not of greater significance than many on this list [certainly than the over-rated 'Vertigo' (which is not a patch on 'Psycho', and not as significant either)]: yet 'TGF' and 'Psycho' are perhaps not films we might want to send to aliens hoping them to look fondly on us, nor do they reflect what America might want to see in the mirror of its cinema. 'TGF' suggests an unholy alliance between the legitimate world the underworld, and that corruption and self-interest undermine the most cherished institutions from 'the family' to the state, and in Michael Corleone it tells a most un-American fable of 'what shall it profit a man to gain the world, yet lose his soul?' And that is only to skim its surface. But instead we are given the romantic fantasy of 'Mr. Smith' which is only signficant because it tells us something of how America would like to see itself, not how it is. 'Star Wars' is just cowboys in space and its main significance was its success in presenting 'kids-stuff': so that, as William Goldman explains in 'Adventures in the Screen Trade', it had a deleterious effect on movies since - as with the blockbuster format, notably the superhero one - it showed that a mass market and relevant franchising was best exploited using concepts that would not tax the mind of a ten year old. It is a much less significant film, aside from its negative effect on the business of movies, than 'E.T' where the fable of a figure that is human-like but not human, that comes not of this earth, that dies and is resurrected, that preaches 'Be good' and heals the sick, that touches the heart of children where the adult heart has hardened, is given a spin where the Christ-figure is an 'alien'. No one objects because this is very much in the spirit of the Christian message [properly understood*]. Donal *Anyone who is affronted because this suggests they have not properly understood the Christian message, please see me after.