My take, for what's it worth, is that the benefit of exploring a 'foreign' film is not - for those of us who cannot follow the language on its own merits (i.e. need subtitles/translation) - is to get a broadening of horizons from finding out how other countries do plot, pacing and everything else.

For that reason, I can't see any reason not to count it as a foreign language. Indeed, I would be tempted to say that "Silent" counts as its own foreign language - the styles and pacing and whatnot are as 'foreign' as anything else: "the past is another country.." as they say.

I haven't seen all of his filmography yet, but here are my present rankings on Flickchart of the ones I have seen:

1. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
2. Hotel Chevalier
3. The Royal Tenenbaums
4. Rushmore
5. The Darjeeling Limited

In truth, I only loved Life Aquatic. Hotel Chevalier was an excellent short film, but there's something about the sound mixing that interfered with my ability to really get into it. I'd have to think it over some, but I think Rushmore ought to be ahead of The Royal Tenenbaums on this list. Like you, I really liked Murray and Williams in it.

Of two of my friends, one would pick Rushmore as his fave Anderson and the other would pick Tenenbaums. Both would count his favorite among his all-time favorite movies, period, but I don't think either would include any other Anderson films in that top tier despite enjoying his filmography overall.

I think of the three of us, there's a consensus against The Darjeeling Limited, but I don't know that any of us hate it so much we'd call it "unwatchable". My problem with it is that it simply feels like it's trying way too hard. There's something about it that feels like Anderson was in some state of mind where he felt he had to hit certain beats, shoot certain scenes a certain way and choose certain songs to play over certain montages all just to make sure everyone could tell that it was one of his films. It just doesn't feel like organic storytelling to me. It tested my patience pretty much from the first ten minutes, but once I watched the three brothers, dressed in white and running in slow motion out of the tent with that acoustic-sounding song playing, I was taken completely out of the movie and never got back into it.

The one thing that I appreciate most about Anderson is the consistency of his cast and crew. I like that kind of continuity in general, in part because I think it creates a feeling of following a stage troupe. It's one of the things I appreciate about Ingmar Bergman's filmography. No matter how much time may pass between my fits of gorging on his movies several at a time, as soon as I start one I'm instantly back in the frame of mind to get into the film at hand.

I watched my second Bresson, PICKPOCKET (1959). It's a very meticulous film about a subject I didn't care about. I just wanted to see the whiny little thieving creep locked up.

I guess I'm not a Bresson fan. I figure if it was in the cards for me to be one, I would have seen some of his films by this point in my life. Somebody would have recommended one to me or shown it in class when I attended film school, first in the '70s, then at graduate school in the '90s. But no one did. I still have one more Bresson to view in my collection: AU HASARD BALTHAZAR. After that, it's back to Ozu...

Remorques (1941) is a fairly standard melodrama (Note: Just realized that I have been using the word “potboiler” wrong for years.) about a French boat captain who has been married for ten years to a longsuffering blonde woman who frets about her husband’s perilous job. The Captain rescues a woman during a storm, and they start developing feeling for each other. It’s pairing of a plot points and ruminations we’ve seen hundreds of times before, but the film never feels tired and derivative. The cast is excellent, particularly Michèle Morgan as Catherine, the enigmatic woman saved from the storm. She becomes a personification of the tumultuous sea and the Captain’s work and provides a nice contrast to Madeleine Renaud’s simpering wife, the only aspect that did not work for me. The wife starts out well enough, but she quickly becomes whiny and moody and is further saddled with a tedious “is-she-sick-or-isn’t-she” subplot. All-in-all, it was a mediocre plot raised by a spectacular cast and some truly nice cinematography, which include wonderful tracking shots through tossing ships.

Yi Yi (2000) transfixed me, and I want to share the film with everyone I know (unfortunately, a majority do not “do” subtitles). The film follows a middle-class Taiwanese family dealing with a litany of circumstances and feelings. I’ve read several reviews that compare the film to those of Robert Altman (one of my favorite filmmakers), but to me it feels entirely different. Everything is much more deliberately framed and set-up. Altman excelled at finding those candid and natural moments between characters and building them into a chaotic web of interconnections and coincidence. Edward Yang’s film also builds up these types of connections but delicately balances and builds them into a tapestry of life experiences and familial relations. We see the little sacrifices and demands we make on others.

One of my favorite scenes happened fairly early in the film: young Yang-Yang doesn’t want to eat the food at his uncle’s wedding reception, so he and his father end up at MacDonald’s. NJ’s boredom is palpable as his son scarfs down his burger, and you know that the put-upon dad cannot believe that his son wants this crap food and that he capitulated. (I imagine my parents were equally incredulous when I wanted sneakers with lights in them… and they bought them for me.) It’s little moments like this that make this film so brilliant.

I checked Wes Anderson’s filmography, and with the exception of three shorts, I’ve seen everything he’s directed and actually own all of his films minus Moonrise Kingdom. Like your friends, I would put my favorite Anderson film (Tenenbaums) up there with my all-time favorite films. (In fact I was bored earlier this year and attempted to compile a list of my favorite 500 films, and Anderson’s opus to dysfunctional families was in the top ten.)

I like your rankings, but they are vastly different from mine. I would actually place The Life Aquatic toward the end of my list. It threw me when I read your “Criterion for Noobs” list and you called it “accessible” (I believe, too lazy to verify!). I feel the opposite – to me that film aggressively keeps its audience at arm’s length and often feels like an exercise in filmmaking. Which is not to say that I didn’t like it, because I really did.

The Darjeeling Limited disappointed me when I first saw it in the theater. I suppose I wanted more from Anderson, and at the time it felt like more of the same. However, I bought the film during a Criterion sale and found myself sucked into the story of these ridiculous and endearing brothers upon rewatching it. I absolutely see your points about the Anderson “shtick”, and his style sometimes gets ahead of the film’s storytelling, but I still enjoy it.

I suppose my quibbling over how I would rank his films is a fairly moot point since I actually quite enjoy them all. You should check out Moonrise Kingdom which was one of my favorite films of last year. It introduces a few new players into Anderson’s world, and this casting is inspired. Edward Norton, Frances McDormand, and Bob Balaban fit so well into the style, and I hope they will be in future Anderson films.

I don't know if it was my wireless connection acting up, or Hulu was acting up, but I went to look at Hulu's Criterion's movies last night, and got an error every time I tried to look at what Criterion's were available.

That sucks! I hate it when a single site won't work for me.

FYI: You can see a list of all the Hulu films offered on Criterion's website. You can also manipulate the list to see what is only offered on Hulu and not on Criterion DVD or BD.

My argument for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou as a starting point film, and why I called it "accessible", is that of Anderson's films in The Criterion Collection that I've seen, its plot is the most easily processed by casual viewers. "Bill Murray plays a Jacques Cousteau-like guy who becomes obsessed with hunting down and killing a rare fish after it kills his friend." Bam. We get it. The names of Murray and Cousteau are each a shorthand for the kind of film (Murray) and character (Cousteau) that instantly put the lay viewer on track for the story. Good luck being so concise at explaining the other Anderson films!

I don't quite know what you mean about Anderson keeping the audience away from that film. None of his films are strictly "intimate", focusing more on exaggerations than actual people, but I feel that the characters in Life Aquatic are the most recognizable as actual people.

One key element that benefits the film - especially in the context of making it accessible to viewers unfamiliar with Anderson's storytelling - is Jane Winslett-Richardson, the journalist played by Cate Blanchett. Her interviews allow for exposition to be more organic and explicit than is typical of an Anderson film. She's our point of view character, giving us a tour of Team Zissou. None of the other Anderson films that I've seen have such a character, or any other such convention, to guide audiences.

I meant to catch it during its theatrical run, but my aforementioned friends saw it without me and I just kind of lost track of it since it opened at a time when I was caught up catching screenings of classic films instead of paying much attention to any new releases.

I'm sure it's obvious, but: how and where? I looked for something like that a week ago and couldn't find it.

Meanwhile, Amazon (computer) is currently showing 8 1/2 as Prime eligible and free; Amazon Instant Video player disagrees...

Your "lay" viewer has heard of Cousteau..?!

Surely Ahab is a better and more accessible descriptor in that context.

American viewers of a certain age (the type who would gravitate to Anderson) remember Cousteau from numerous TV specials back in the day.

I have yet to see a Wes Anderson film myself. I have RUSHMORE on tape. I bought a used VHS of ROYAL TENENBAUMS once that proved to be unwatchable (tape damage). I once taped LIFE AQUATIC on cable, but I re-used an old tape and the soundtrack from what was originally on it was still on over the image of LIFE AQUATIC. Not much luck here.

Here is the link: http://www.criterion.com/hulu

If you want to find it, but do not have the link. You go to Criterion's website, click on "Films" at the top of the page, and then scroll down. There is a box marked "Criterion on Hulu".

Initially, I was going to say that it doesn't count, but I think a general rule to stick with is what Criterion has listed. On their site it shows the language as Danish, so I think you would be OK there despite the fact that no language is spoken.

Really, it's your list, so I think that's up for your interpretation. Travis brought up a good point about "Watch every part of a disc." You could watch a trailer and a film and complete that. I don't think that's in the spirit of the checkmark, but the checklist is there to challenge each individual. I plan to watch Haxan as well (last night, perhaps?), so I hadn't really thought about it. I'm a hands off host and think each person can determine those judgment calls (within reason) for themselves. I think you're still in the spirit of the checklist by checking it for Danish.

I think anyone trying to make the argument that City Lights is a foreign language film would have a much tougher time making their case...or that it's somehow different than an English language film.

As an aside, I've been absent from the forum for a few days because I've been sick, feeling better now, so I watched Rome, Open City this afternoon. A really solid postwar film, surprised it took me this long to see it.

I haven't conducted any research studies to gather empirical data, but my high school class watched a Cousteau documentary every now and again in school and his name would come up in the occasional biology class. Ahab is known for his obsession, but my reflexive reaction would be that Cousteau is a clearer shorthand for Zissou as a character than is Ahab, if only because Ahab has been appropriated for any kind of obsession. Cousteau, however, specifically evokes dedicated underwater research and documentarian work.

And, to be honest, I think Ahab and Moby Dick exist more as things that are in the public consciousness for the lay viewer the way that the Kardashians are celebrities. What are they actually famous for? Apparently, they're famous for being...famous. Even my undergrad classic lit professor confessed to hating actually reading Moby Dick. There hasn't been a well established film version in our collective consciousness, either, so I think that Ahab/Moby Dick are increasingly distant from the average person. Cousteau, however, still finds his way into the classroom.

Interestingly enough, when I revisited the film a couple of years ago, I realized that it's essentially The Wrath of Khan at sea. And, of course, TWOK borrowed heavily from Moby Dick, so I laughed when I realized I hadn't actually thought of Moby Dick prior to the TWOK realization. No one who ever taught me an English class would be surprised to learn I respond more strongly to Star Trek than to classic literature, though.

I gotta know, what kinda crap did this guy like?

I finally read Moby Dick a couple years back (I'd read the Classic Comics version, seen the movies, etc.), and I thought it was great.

Ha! She loved the literature of that era, even a lot of other Melville works (I have her to thank for introducing me to "Bartleby, the Scrivener"). As I recall, she liked the narrative overall, but she found it tedious to slog through the numerous passages dedicated to thorough accounts of the whaling business.

Thanks for getting back to me, but at this point, I found another film that worked. I had one more spot to fill for language and ended up with La Cage aux Folles, for French. But, it is good to have a ruling for the future. I think I wouldn't have considered Haxan for it, except it had numerous title cards which were in Dutch so I kind of felt that was in the spirit of things; a language to be translated from a foreign film.

I'm the same age as Travis (30ish) and know immediately who Cousteau is. I know I've watched the occasional special/heard him referred to as the water expert any number of times. Maybe younger than us haven't heard of him? Not sure.

As for Moby Dick, I hated it. After 5 pages of describing a cobblestone street by going stone by stone, it got a little rough to get through. And I love to read. Never been a Melville fan, but I've read a great deal of Twain, of Victor Huge (who is also very long winded!). So it wasn't the language or anything like that, just too wordy for me!

After reading Moby Dick, I immediately wanted to read more Melville, but I haven't gotten around to it, yet. "Bartleby" is a short story, right? I'll scrounge up a copy since I'm between books right now (I hope I have it in an actual book).
I'd heard that there were long passages in the book about sailing & whaling, and that it was best to skim over those, but I had no problems with any of it and found it really interesting, not tedious at all.

Did you read it in school, or on your own? I can see how I might've felt differently about it if I'd been told to read it, and had to take tests or write papers about the themes, etc., instead of reading it for pleasure.

We never read "Moby Dick" in high school, so I only know the story from the various movie adaptations. We did however read "Bartleby the Scrivener", a couple different years, and I remember enjoying the story and the discussion of the story afterwards.

Whoops, saw I made a typo-should be "Hugo" not "Huge." But to answer your question, nope, I read it on my own. I picked up a greatest collection of his, or something like that. I know it had "Moby Dick" and a few other books/stories, but as I didn't like that one, I didn't read more. Maybe I should go back and re-read, it's been quite awhile since I tried. Maybe my tastes have changed?

Finished On the Waterfront tonight and enjoyed it. I thought Brando's performance was spot on. I think the set itself is awesome. I love the cover, the booklet, how it was made. They have 3 versions of the film plus interviews and other bonus materials. It's one that I think does the name "Criterion" proud.

Never seen that particular movie, but I have to say that I have yet to see a Brando movie that I did not like.

It was probably my first. I don't think I've watched anything with him in it...that I remember at least.

Brando/recommended titles:

THE MEN
A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE
THE WILD ONE
THE FUGITIVE KIND
ONE-EYED JACKS
THE GODFATHER
APOCALYPSE NOW

STREETCAR is his most iconic role and the mustest must-see on this list.

I see your point and want to watch the film again soon. It has been at least five years since I've last seen the film, and my assessment may have changed. My own assessment of the film as "keeping its distance" has to do with the genre-blending that Anderson utilizes as well as the diversity of odd (even for him) stylistic choices. The camera and style is (I thought at the time) more erratic and extreme than in his previous films. I remember telling a friend that it felt like Anderson was chugging Red Bulls while making parts of the film.

I am not sure when or how I learned of Cousteau. I probably came into contact with him due to my obsession with PBS and the History Channel as a kid. Or perhaps from cartoons. During last month's challenge, I watched quite a few cartoon shows I watched as a child and realized that the 90s were the era of the referential cartoon. They are stuffed with so many pop culture references, and I'm sure that Cousteau popped up at some point on Animaniacs or some such show.

As for Moby Dick, I gave it the ol' college try several times and never got through it. I do not have a taste for Melville and have managed to avoid him. I have a friend who is a bit obsessed (as a whale necklace and several paintings of whaling ships in action) and listening to her rhapsodize about Melville is fun and edifying. However, her experience was totally opposite of mine; though I will say that I quite liked the passage where they eat clam chowder.

What an excellent list! I will confess that I've never seen One-Eyed Jacks. I would definitely add Julius Caesar and possibly Reflections in a Golden Eye which is weird by worth seeing.

Man, all this hatred for Moby Dick. Buncha uncultured Philistines...

I found my copy of Billy Budd and Other Tales by Melville and read "Billy Budd," "The Piazza," and "Bartleby." I liked "Bartleby" a lot (thanks for mentioning it, Travis). Maybe after I read the rest of this book, and watch a few borrowed flicks I need to return, I'll watch The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (which I've owned for years, but never seen) so I can post about something on topic.