Since we’re here, I’d like to take this opportunity to announce the results of the Best of Steven Greydanus’ Linked-To Best-Of Lists of 2011.  The winner is…

Christianity Today‘s Critics’ Choice list!

While it was a close year (and many may have cause to disagree), our distinguished panel found this list to be just a tad more comprehensive in its scope and more in tune with broad notions of filmic excellence than its competitors.  The only complicating factor was the inclusion of Super 8, which was gravely disappointing in both formal and moral terms, but the rest of the films included are what make this list the list it should be.  In a strong year for lists overall, it comes as a modest surprise to see the genre so perfectly encapsulated at the very last moment in this manner.  Still, those of you who make a habit of studying this field will know that anything is possible.

Congratulations to all who were nominated, and the best of luck in the coming year!

Heh. Thanks, Nick! For those joining us late, let me reiterate that, given my hosting duties, my own top 10 list was, of course, linked out of competition.

The host has both privileges and responsibilities, all satisfactorily observed in this case.

In other news, I finally got to see The Mill & the Cross last night, and on the big screen at that.  It was everything I could have hoped for and more.  In a film saturated in memorable moments both large and small, it’s the slow, silent, heart-stopping ascent to the Olympian heights of the Mill at the end of the pause just prior to the Crucifixion that hit me the hardest.  I don’t think I shall ever forget it.

I’m so glad you got to see it on the big screen, Nick.
 
And yes, that ascent, and the moment when we look down from the heights of God’s eye and see the whole world transfixed (or upheld?) by the cross of the mill’s sails, is one of the most transcendent, revelatory moments I can think of in any film.

It was interesting to see Drive listed on the Christianity Today critics list. Stephen, what did you think of it, and do you think it deserves a slot on the list?

Thomas: Didn’t see it.

I was glad to see Nostalgia for the Light on Overstreet’s list. I think it would be on more “best films” list if more people had seen it. A movie about astronomy and atrocities—it’s hard to believe any one went to see it. But it is a fascinating look at the unified attitude of seeking the truth, and of the human desire that cannot be fulfilled but is still sought in seeking the truth…

Thomas: I’m not Steven, but I did see Drive and I think its place on that list could be justified in terms of artistry if not necessarily for content.  Only the most cautious and discerning adults could safely watch it, I think, but the portrait it paints of the utter futility of sin - even if conveyed in purely secular terms - is compelling and masterfully presented.

It’s also a direct and welcome challenge to the very idea of an “action hero.”  James Bond and Jason Bourne and John McClane spend the bulk of their films wiping out bad guys in all sorts of exotic and entertaining ways, and the audience emerges pretty much satisfied that justice has been served, in whatever sense.  In Drive, though, Driver kills five men by my count, at least four of which in seeming self-defense - all of them absolutely awful, and villainous, and with innocent blood on their hands.  But no viewer of candid intellect and real moral feeling could emerge from that experience thinking it was all just okay.  It was awful, as it would be in real life, and Nicolas Winding Refn pulls no punches in conveying that clearly.  The smooth confidence with which Driver dispatches his enemies isn’t dazzling or attractive - it’s nauseating and monstrous.

As an extended meditation on the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog, as a refined modernist crime movie, as a statement on both the allure and the awfulness of violence, Drive stands among the better films of 2011.  It is absolutely to be avoided by children, families, viewers with sensitive dispositions, viewers who have trouble with custody of the eyes, viewers who object to profanity, viewers who have experienced the trauma of physical violence against their person, and probably a lot of others I can’t remember just now.  For all that, though, it remains amazingly well-made.

“The Tree of Life?” As my friend said when we exited the theater, “I didn’t need to watch a movie about a dysfunctional family; I grew up in one!” My response, “Ditto!” I’d give “Of Gods and Men” the Oscar.

Of Gods and Men was one of the most beautiful movies I’ve ever seen and I see a LOT of movies!

“Drive” is perhaps one of the finest action movies made in years. Roger Ebert once said (and here I admit I’m probably butchering the exact quote), “It’s not what a movie is about, but how it’s about it.” What’s fascinating about Drive is that how it is about what it is about, is actually what’s it about.

That’s admittedly a fairly confusing sentiment, but basically what I’m saying is that “Drive’s” stylized brutality, its sleek, stoic violence, and its slick presentation of gore is exactly the point. Yes, violence can be “cool”, and there might not be a cooler film than the ice-cold “Drive”. But at the end of the day, no matter how impressive the mise-en-scene and cinematography might have been in the famous elevator scene, a man is still dying. No matter how viciously effective the hotel room scene was filmed, human beings are still being murdered. The style and the gore contribute to the overall point, and that point being that you can never, ever anesthetize violence to the point where it is no longer merely violence.

You can put lipstick on a pig, and “Drive” is the one of the most done up movies in years. The film is gorgeous and exotic. But it’s intelligent as well, and refuses to compromise on its understanding of the inherent butchery that is man vs. man.