Next Level Magazine

ISSUE 8 • JUNE 2019

NEXT LEVEL LIFE STARTS NOW

THE NOUVEAU CLASSICS

WHAT 21ST CENTURY FILMS WILL BE REMEMBERED AS CLASSICS?

ALAMO DROUGHTHOUSE AN AUSTIN EDITOR DISCUSSES THE FLEETING FILM INDUSTRY OF TEXAS

INSIDE: Dive deep into Chuck Klosterman's hilarious 2003 profile on Britney Spears for Esquire

WHO SAID YOU HAD TO BE OLD TO BE WISE?

WHO SAID THE WISE COULDN'T HAVE FUN?

WELCOME TO THE NEXT LEVEL

BY NICO CAMPBELL

You hold in your hands the magazine for the young profresh-onal. As a young adults beginning your journey as an ambitious, capable, passionate citizen of the world, Next Level gives you the content you deserve. Generation Y's and Millennials have grown up. It's time you were treated accordingly.

The newly initiated members of the "real world" have fresh intelligent minds ready to be put to work. We demand your cultural literacy, urbanity, and intellectual prowess.

I would say we're empowering you, but the power is already in your hands.

NICO CAMPBELL Author

Nico Campbell is a digital media professional with aspirations to join the motion picture entertainment business some day. He is a writer and performer of comedy, former Creative Director of the St. Edward's University humor magazine BHooved, and improv performer at The New Movement in Austin, Texas. An all-knowing film buff, he will take on any challenge to movie trivia.

06

STRAIGHTENING OUT "BENDING SPOONS WITH BRITNEY SPEARS." A deep-dive literary analysis into Chuck Klosterman's 2003 profile on Britney Spears for Esquire.

18

JAMES CROUCH: ST. ED’S, THE FILM INDUSTRY, AND HOW TO GET IN (IF IT’S NOT COMPLETELY DESTROYED).

St. Ed's alum James Crouch discusses the film incentive program budget cuts and his break into film editing.

25

THE NOUVEAU CLASSICS The top 10 films made in the 21st Century that will be remembered as must-see classics for generations to come.

25

ETHICALITY An ethical column discussing your every day dilemmas.

Straightening out "Bending Spoons with Britney Spears" Analyzing the comic genius of Chuck Klosterman, and perhaps the real genius of Britney Spears

“Esquire is quintessentially a study in style, from the sparkle of its prose to the cosmopolitan cool of the way it looks. It is a thinking man’s guide for the curious, confident, and cultured.”

This a statement in the Esquire media kit quoted by the editor-in-chief Jay Fielden. Normally when you see a magazine cover of Britney Spears modeled as a Marilyn Monroe look-alike pulling a virgin white sweater down over her un-panted nether region, and only half way over her buttocks, you expect the corresponding article to be one of drooling-from-the-mouth hottie worship. But this is Esquire, a “thinking man’s guide.” You’ll get no teenage boy-like praise from Chuck Klosterman, the cultural essayist and featured writer of “Bending Spoons with Britney Spears.”

In fact, this article hardly has any praise for Ms. Spears at all; but it doesn’t really have any criticisms either. There is no applauding biographical recount of her childhood and rise to fame, and no mention of her shortcomings either. Instead, Klosterman just lets Britney speak for herself, and we get to decide what to think of her, which turns out to be rather conflicting. Klosterman’s 2003 profile “Bending Spoons with Britney Spears” is about how hot Britney Spears is (was), but not in the US Weekly sort of way. It’s more about what she makes of that, not us mouth-watering mortals. The article is hilarious, but not because Klosterman tries to be. There are no witty quips or sarcastic sneers.

Klosterman is someone who has no idea what to make of what just happened, and he is sharing his puzzlement with the reader.

Chuck Klosterman’s voice for this feature is just that: puzzled. This article sounds like it was written by an author who had no idea what he got himself into. He maybe had a plan and an idea of how this interview would go, but then all of that went out the window as soon as he started talking to her. Klosterman was genuinely perplexed by Britney Spears.

This is the voice of a guy that says “I just…I don’t even know, man,” and tries his hardest to make sense of it all. He is stuck between thinking, “Are you fucking kidding me,” and “Oh, that’s actually brilliant,” but mostly in line with the former. The hilarious outcome of this interview with Britney Spears is that he ends up understanding her less than he began with.

He first sets this tone at the very beginning when he paints the picture of himself out of his element: a photoshoot where America’s latest sexual icon, a girl ten years younger and ten times hotter, is not wearing any pants. We get the image of a slightly nerdy man respectfully twiddling his thumbs in the waiting area, waiting for Britney to finish her shoot and put some pants on. He is contemplating how the only people who have seen Britney Spears without pants are Justin Timberlake, another heartthrob that completely outranks his social caliber, this photographer, and apparently Fred Durst, the dude-bro Limp Bizkit singer.

I think Klosterman may be writing some subtext here. He is anticipating the possibility that he might also see Britney Spears pantless this day, “rushing the semipathetic frat.” If you lined up Justin Timberlake, the accomplished photographer, Fred Durst, and Chuck, you might think one of these things does not match the other. Initially, you might think it’s Durst. But it’s probably Chuck, and he knows it. Klosterman doesn’t feel like he belongs here.

I love his use of the term “semipathetic frat” when describing the club of pantless-Britney viewers. The word “frat” evokes a very specific image. College fraternities do not house dapper, classy gentlemen, but shlubby, irreverent scumbags. Klosterman does not view seeing Britney without pants as particularly commendable, despite its social significance. He suggests that the men Britney has allowed to see her sans pants are not exactly the cream of the crop.

Nevertheless, Klosterman anticipates rushing the frat and writing about the cultural significance of Britney’s nether-regions. He thinks he has a plan. 24 hours earlier, Britney confessed to the world that she had sex for the first time at age eighteen, after previously spending the last several years actively promoting her claim to virginity. Hearts of Puritan-rooted America were broken everywhere.

And so, naturally, Chuck thinks he is here to take part in this rebranding of Britney. It’s pretty standard procedure. A celebrity makes a grand announcement, has a reinventing photoshoot with a renowned publication, and the writer is there for the profile.

But apparently this was not the case. Instead of coming clean about her sexuality, transitioning her brand into a sexy bad girl, Spears will deny that she was ever aware she was a sexual icon at all.

In the paragraph starting with “Over the next ninety minutes…”

Klosterman warms us up with a little bit of Britney’s absurdity before he finishes us off with the next paragraph. He says she is “purportedly” fully clothed, a small wink at the fact that she just finished a photoshoot with no pants on. It’s an adjective worthy of a light chuckle.

Then, he uses the analogy that interviewing her about her seductiveness is like trying to bust Bill Clinton on his sexual deviance (Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice after denying an extramarital affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky). “Regardless of the evidence, she does not waver.”

The reader understands now that the following conversation will be like talking to a brick wall. In 2003, this tone of voice could have also been playing on the “dumb blonde” characterization that was given to rich golden-haired hotties such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, or Jessica Simpson, another cultural element that has since dwindled (and three careers).

After comparing her to the lying of Bill Clinton, Klosterman immediately jumps into examples of her obtuseness. “’Why do you dress so provocatively?’ I ask. She says she doesn't dress provocatively. ‘But look what you're wearing right now,’ I say, while looking at three inches of her inner thigh, her entire abdomen, and enough cleavage to choke a musk ox. ‘This is just a skirt and a top,’ she responds.”

Either she is really this dense or she is being disingenuous. Like Klosterman, we are puzzled. What’s her deal? Through a long run-on sentence at the end of the paragraph, Klosterman tells us his realization: Britney has never realized that she has been sexualized in the media. She has never even thought about it. Not even once.

It is also worth noting the use of the phrase “…enough cleavage to choke a musk ox.” This is meant to invoke our auditory senses. The combination of the hard consonants in “musk ox” is difficult to pronounce, and even gives the feeling of actually choking. It clutters the throat. It is a subtle but effective way to convey just how much of Britney’s cleavage is showing.

Finally, we get to the meaning of it all: “It is not that Britney Spears denies that she is a sexual icon, or that she disputes that American men are fascinated with the concept of the wet-hot virgin, or that she feels her success says nothing about what our society fantasizes about. She doesn't disagree with any of that stuff, because she swears she has never even thought about it.

Not even once.”

Klosterman’s use of a long run-on sentence followed by a shorter sentence followed by a three-word sentence is a common tool writers use to change the tempo of the reading rhythm, keeping the reader engaged and not dozing off to a repetitive beat. It also builds tension. Beginning the sentence with “It is not that…” gives us the signal that the answer to the question will follow that phrase. It is not that [blank], but [blank]. Making that first sentence extra long makes the reader want to cut to the chase, which Klosterman does with the contrastingly short sentence “Not even once.” It is a humorous pay off to what we’ve been waiting for, the point of the article. The thesis, if you will.

The point or thesis is that Britney Spears has never thought about her sexualization in the media before. Or she is gaslighting him. Or she has actually bought into her own public image built by her publicists, and believes she really is an innocent girl next door. Whatever it is, what she says in this interview does not match the woman who just finished a half-naked Marilyn Monroe shoot. This realization is the lens we will be examining Britney through for the rest of the article. This skepticism is the context in which we will interpret all of her baffling quotes.

The next paragraph is a long quote of Britney acting incredulous to the notion that her celebrity might be partially based on her sexual persona, a “wet-hot virgin.” In the previous paragraph, he set up the stage for Britney to take it away with her ridiculousness. We now get a great quote of her acting like an oblivious school-girl that wouldn’t dare to think of such profaned things: "That's just a weird question," she says. "I don't even want to think about that. That's strange, and I don't think about things like that, and I don't want to think about things like that. Why should I? I don't have to deal with those people. I'm concerned with the kids out there. I'm concerned with the next generation of people. I'm not worried about some guy who's a perv and wants to meet a freaking virgin."

Spears employs a number of redundancies here. “That’s a weird question, I don’t even want to think about that. That’s strange, and I don’t think about things like that, and I don’t want to think about things like that.” We get it, you don’t think about things like that. You said it three times. And you find it weird/strange. It sounds like a nervous ramble, or just bullshit. Probably the latter, as she reverts to her Mickey Mouse club persona expressing her concern for the kids out there.

The irony of it all is just too much. Not to mention the three images at the top of the webpage of her in the Marilyn Monroe no-pants outfit, and of her in nothing but underwear and bead necklaces that barely cover the nipples of her otherwise fully exposed breasts. And here she is talking about her concern for the kids. Klosterman doesn’t say anything subjective because he doesn’t have to. Britney just says it all herself. Combine her clueless quotes with the obviously sexual images at the top of the page, the description of her current outfit, and we know that we are dealing with someone who is seriously lost. Britney Spears has no interest in staying in one lane. She wants to be everything to everyone. Both semi-pornographic while also kidfriendly.

Klosterman respects the “thinking man” that is reading this Esquire article and lets him connect the dots himself. To flatly and judgmentally call out Britney’s silliness would make the article less sophisticated and too gossipy. Instead, Klosterman keeps the tone skeptical, suspecting she is gas-lighting him. He writes “[Spears] is not much a person as she is an idea, and the idea is this: You can want everything, so long as you get nothing.” People want what they can’t have. They have an unfulfilled yearning and Britney can fill the blanks in any way they need. Britney Spears is sort of a Swiss Army woman – whether that be pantless-Marilyn for the guys or Mickey Mouse Clubber for the kiddos. Chuck writes, “She is truly all things to all people.”

As Klosterman digs down the rabbit hole, Spears’ quotes only get more outrageous. The more he asks of her, the more she sounds like pre-Harvard Elle Woods. But again, it is because her quotes are nested in the article in a way where he doesn’t have to pass judgment on them because the reader is right there with him in their perplexity.

There begins a pattern where he tees her up for a quote, she says something bizarre, and he does his best to make sense of it. This starts with, “If she had pulled two inches more, Esquire would have become Hustler. But that reality does not affect her reality, which is that these pictures have nothing to do with sex.” After that, he quotes a segment of their conversation where she says she thinks the reason women pose sexily on magazine covers is this: “Well, some people might say it's just to make money and sell magazines. But another reason -- a better reason, and the one I choose -- is that they do it to inspire people.”

At this point, she sounds like she believes in unicorns. Klosterman illustrates his confusion by comparing it to Neo in The Matrix when he was learning that his life was an alternate reality all along. Then he just moves on to the next point and continues the pattern.

We think Britney is being disingenuous, but she doubles down: "The public knows when someone is being honest," she says. "The people know what's real. This might be a weird analogy, but it's like watching Friends. You just get what those people are talking about. It's funny to you, and you're drawn to them."

Friends is a show where friendship is not “honestly” portrayed at all, nor are the characters interactions and conversations. If she is making a case appearing to be genuinely real, honest person, comparing herself to Friends was not quite the right move.

Next, Britney discusses her choices of alternate careers, which are a schoolteacher or entertainment lawyer, two totally unrelated things, and arguably polar opposites. Unlike Friends, you do not “just get what she’s talking about.” Finally, her thoughts on her image as she matures are the nail in the coffin. The thing that proves she is clueless: "Actually, the record label wanted me to do certain kinds of songs, and I was like, 'Look, if you want me to be some kind of sex thing, that's not me.' I will never do that. I'm still doing what I love to do."

“Some kind of sex thing.” As if she has no idea what that is. Her, there wearing nothing but pearls. Didn’t she just announce she did the deed when she was eighteen already? What virgin-image is she still trying sell to people?

And just for some icing on the cake, Klosterman ends with a quote of Spears talking about how as a teenager, she would walk around the house butt-naked in front of her family members because they were “earthy…very free people.” At that point, Klosterman and the reader just do not know what to think anymore. Whatever, Britney Spears. Do your thing.

Chuck Klosterman’s choice of voice, tone, irony, and the strategic nesting of Britney’s quotes in the article are what shaped this reading experience. His insights were the content that made it Esquire-worthy. I will definitely be picking up Chuck Klosterman’s work again. Maybe he can teach me something else about the cultural climate, like why I secretly love The Bachelor so much. - N.

James Crouch St. Ed’s, the film industry, and how to get in (if it’s not completely destroyed).

James Crouch has back and shoulder pain. So much so, that he installed a height adjustable standing desk in his apartment living room (one that I helped move in). His pain comes from spending hours a day at his computer editing video for various freelance projects and his fulltime position as Lead Editor at Austin-based studio Roadwings Entertainment. Hours without breaking concentration.

“Everything else I do, even this conversation, I’m just super ADD about and can’t focus. But when I sit down to edit, ten hours will go by and it will seemlike twenty minutes. It’s something I just get so focused on, and it has to be perfect. I just love putting the puzzle pieces together, and I hate puzzles.”

Well, if he wasn’t paying attention during our conversation, he fooled me. And though his hyper-focus may be feeding his back pain, the only thing that would be more painful is the inability to edit film at all, which is exactly the threat that looms over Texas’s entire film industry.

This year was the 85thTexas Legislature, where three bills were filed all pursuing the same goal: to abolish the Texas Motion Image Industry Incentive Program (TMIIIP).

The Incentive Programoffers up to 20% cash rebate on film production costsfilmed in Texas, attracting bigname filmmakers to bring their industry such as Robert Rodriguez and Richard Linklater.Senate Bill 99

by Sen. Bob Hall,R-Canton; SB 244

by Sen. Konni Burton, R-Ft. Worth, and House Bill 779 by Rep. Matt Shaheen, R-West Plano, all attack the MIIIP because, as Senator Burton states, “It is not the proper role of government to subsidize an industry...we must prioritize our budget and corporate welfare programs should be amongst the first expenses to go” (Brandeis).Rep. Shaheen analogizes the program to taking money from a single mother working multiple jobs and giving it to somebody who doesn’t need it, like Matt Damon or SeanPenn,who have benefitted from the program.

Though the industry creates many jobs, those jobs or mostly part-time, and the money would be better served as tax cuts to the private sector.

“I think the reason they’re [pushing the bills] is for political reasons,” Crouch theorizes.“They don’t want Texas represented in certain ways, and I think in years past, some high-profile people have been represented poorly...I don’t how it would affect a single working woman. That guy is using a drastic response as an excuse for not wanting it here.” Conspiracy theorist-y as it may sound, Crouch has a point on how

lawmakers may want to censor how Texas is represented in the media. Senator Bob Hall, sponsor of SB 99, said he has been “absolutely appalled” by some of the projects awarded incentive funding, naming The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the 13th. Rep.Shaheen criticized Sean Penn for his commentary on religion and government in America, and Matt Damon for producing documentaries that "misrepresented the oil and gas industries.”

Contrary to the concern for unfavorable representation of Texas, Crouch believes “Texas could bring in so much money from film production just because of the beautiful freaking state.

Yeah, the jobs are part-time, but if there were more, and more big productions, they’d end up being full time.” Crouch also brings up the statistic found by the Texas Motion Picture Alliance that there is a $5.55 return on investment for every dollar granted by the Incentive Program.

“It just puts a lot of people to work, not necessarily people in film but local businesses. When people have a big production they need food catering, lights, port-o-potties, you know? It brings all these people to town that wouldn’t normally be here and they spend money in the local economy...All I know is it would help Texas economically, but it would also help my industry which would be non-existent [without the MIIIP]and is my livelihood here in Texas. Not having that would definitely be negative. Down the road, it may forceme, a guy who was born and raised here, to have to leave and work somewhere else.”

The film industry is his livelihood indeed, both professionally andas a consumer. In the same living room ashis adjustable desk is his flat screen and stacks of dozens of DVDs, containing box sets of Game of Thrones and his all-time favorite show TheSopranos. At the time of this interview we are eating lunch in Vietnamese restaurant Hea Café, but if I recall his single-bed apartment correctly from two years ago, there was a Breaking Bad poster hanging up somewhere as well. It was a long time

coming for us to finally catch up since James graduated from St. Edward’s in 2015and I studied abroad in France last Spring.

James just finished using his Film badge at South by Southwest for the past week, where he saw five films (nowhere near his record of 33 in 2016), his favorites being EdgarWright’s Baby Driver, and Michael Showalter’s The Big Sick.

His favorite event of the week was the panel conversation with the cast of Veep, which he described as “non-stop laughter.”

As forthe film industry being his professional livelihood, it’s been that way ever since he transferred to St. Edward’s from Texas State in 2013 and joined Topper TV. He was one of the first recruits, and without yet knowing his specific interest,he agreed to be an editor for his firstproject. Having no experience ever doing this, James went to the library Media Center where Adrian Tapiataught him the basics of editing, and it naturally clicked for him. James also enrolled in Kris Kristofferson’s film

class, where he produced his first short film The Power of Netflix, which won top prize at the 2014 St. Edward’s Film Festival.

Enlivened by his success with his first short, Crouch decided to pursue this new passion further. He applied for several film internships across Austin, and finally Greg Perry,his Social Media Marketing professor no longer at St. Edward’s, hosted guest speaker Andrew Shapter in class.

Shapter spent fifteen years as a fashion photographer in major international markets before transitioning to filmmaking in 2006 when he made his first documentary Before the Music Dies, featuring interviews with Erykah Badu, Eric Clapton, and Questlove among others. In 2009 he made another documentary feature, Happiness Is, containing interviews with the Dalai Lama and Willie Nelson. Now he is the director of Austin-based Roadwings Entertainment. When James learned Shapter would be a guest speaker, he immediately started his homework to impress him when the day came.

“I watched his documentaries and saw that he’d done a lot of music stuff. And I grew up in Austin and spent a lot of times at Antone’s (a historic blues nightclub on 5th street). He interviewed a lot of people that I knew, so that was kind of our first talking point.” True enough, one of the first things I learned about James when we met was that he loved the blues.

His truck was full of Stevie Ray Vaughn CDs and the like. In fact, James is the one that introduced me to Gary Clark Jr., a since-then favorite of mine. James and Shapter’s shared interest in Austin’s music scene lead to a connection strong enough for James to ask for a job, and apparently, that’s all it took. “I was basically like, ‘I’m an editor, do you need any help?’ And he was like, ‘sure,’ and it was that easy. I just asked.” The two of them have worked together ever since; it’s been four years.Together they produced a documentary on the 2015 Austin City Limits music festival for DIRECTV titled Road to ACL,and James acted as an

assistant editor on the latest Roadwings narrative feature The Teller and the Truth. Now, he is Roadwings’ Lead Editor.

James said early on that St. Edward’s was “the reason” he worked in film. He credits much of his career path to his experience with Topper TV and his class with Greg Perry. Reflecting on his time earning his Digital Media Management degree, Crouch said he enjoyed the campus’s ethnic diversity, which mirrored the diversity he loved about his alma mater McCallum High School, a member of the Austin Independent School District.“When I came to St. Ed’s, it was the same way but in an international sense.

There were kids from Mexico, the Middle East, France, everywhere. I really enjoyed that.I met a lot of interesting people there. I met the guy I work with there, I met a collaborator there that I work with today in a class.”James also enjoyed the school’s small class sizes where you could get to know your professors and classmates personally.

“But,” Crouch interrupts himself, “I did not like all the writing. ”As someone who aspires to work in the film industry one day, I couldn’t help but ask him for any advice to young filmmakers. “Don’t be afraid to send an email,to anybody.Or ask them out to coffee. That’s how I got in touch with Andrew. I asked if he needed help, he said yes, I sent him an email soon afterwards, and I’ve been working with him ever since.”James was quite confident in the possibility of scheduling a coffee-outing with a professional you admire. “Nine times out of ten, people will respond and go have coffee with you. And there are some people who are just too busy, but that’s the cool thing aboutAustin, the community is so small and people are willing to help each other and go have coffee with somebody they don’t know and make that connection.”

After all, even though we’d met before, this was exactly what was happening with this interview.

Unfortunately, finding filmmakers in Austin for a coffee-meetup may get a lot more difficult. Though the bills are not yet passed, many filmmakers have threatened to leave the state if the Incentive Program is not supported. HBO’s The Leftovers, AMC’s AmericanCrime, and Robert Rodriguez’s From Dusk Till Dawn: The Series have all left Austin without any new shows taking their place. Filmmakers are going where the grass is greener in states like Georgia and Kentucky, who offer excellent incentive programs. Even Roadwings Entertainment is shooting their next narrative feature in Louisiana, a story that takes place in Texas. As for James Crouch, he’s not going anywhere, no matter how low the MIIIP budget gets. “Being born and raised here, I wouldn’t want to go anywhere else.”

I certainly hope not. I’d like to keepmy contact in the film businesswho is willing to meet for coffee. - N

THE NOUVEAU CLASSICS What 21st Century Films Will be Remembered as Some of the Greats 99% of the time you research the greatest films ever made, most of the Top 10 lists consists of movies made before 1980 (only 19 movies in the AFI Top 100 were post-1979, 4 of which were in the Top 50), and each list shares some combination of Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather, and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

These are indeed incredible films that deserve their reverence, but the “Top 10 Movies” discussion has become dull.

Picking Citizen Kane or The Godfather is too easy, and though I’ve tried to watch them, I don’t think black-and-white movies hold up as well as purist film critics think they do. When my grandfather sentimentally told me he’d seen Casablanca over 30 times, affected by the remembrance of his war-time childhood, I didn’t have the heart to tell him I couldn’t make it through the first 30 minutes. The language of film has changed, special effects have come far, and actors have embraced realism over dramatic exaggeration and Transatlantic accents.

As much as the average 94% white, 76% male, 63-year-old average aged Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences member may not want to admit it, we can move on. We know what the classics are of today, but what are the classics of tomorrow? What recent films will go down in history as part of the “classic” canon? These are the top 10 films made in the 21st Century that will be remembered and discussed for years to come.

Comedy The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

A nerdy man who has never gone “all the way” is goaded by his friends to find a mate. The pressure builds when he meets a single mother who he thinks could be his soul-mate instead.

Judd Apatow is Generation Y’s comedic patriarch, and the ApatowRogen-Goldberg Trifecta has created a brand of irreverent buddycomedies that are instantly lovable and memorable. Apatow’s skill and penchant for comedy is no-better showcased than in his breakthrough feature The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

Packed with one-liners, this movie has some of the 21stCentury’s wittiest and raunchiest dialogue, often seeming improvised. The film is crude, as it is about a middle-aged virgin and his friends’ quest to end the drought, but is also more than that. The jokes are far more insightful than they are cheap, exploring masculinity, dating, and the culture of men as they hang out playing cards and talk about women.

The cast is wonderful; the four-person buddy group has perfect chemistry, as do Andy and his love interest Trish (played by Steve Carrell and Catherine Keener). A movie this quotable will not soon be forgotten, and man’s insecurity with not getting laid will not soon go away. And so, this raunchy but witty buddy-comedy will not soon go away either.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

A man decides to turn his disappointing life back around by winning back his ex-girlfriend and reestablishing his relationship with his mother...all while surviving the newly arrived zombie apocalypse.

Horror-tropes will likely always be recognizable, and therefore so will Shaun of the Dead’s satirization of them. Prolific zombie author Jonathan Maberry describes the zombie horror-genre as a “neverending blank canvas� that can act as a stand-in for anything we fear, be that racism, disease, or societal change. As new societal fears emerge, so will new purposes for zombies. Shaun of the Deadhas so much fun with this genre poking fun at nearly every trope. Edgar Wright uses the technical aspects of film to their full comedic potential. His unique brand of visual comedy is executed through edits, lighting cues, timing of sound effects, and interesting ways that objects move in and out of frame. He is a master at showing rather than telling. Shaun of the Dead will be the horror-comedy of tomorrow as Evil Dead II is of today.

Drama The Departed (2006)

A cop goes undercover in an Irish gang to find out who the mole in the police academy is, and the mole in the police academy attempts to identify the undercover cop.

Drama is a broad, crowded genre. For one, the vast majority of Best Picture nominations are dramas, but nearly every film including screwball comedies have elements of drama in them. Dramas are taken more seriously than any other genre so whenever there is a great drama, people immediately call it a must-see, making these the most arbitrary picks for future classics. Still, there is one in particular that I will force my teenagers to turn off their phones and watch with me when the time is right.

Though Martin Scorsese is already a veteran to “classic movie” lists, I think he reached the absolute top of his game with his 2007 Best Picture winner The Departed. The cast is stacked, the stakes are high, and the editing is intriguing. William Monahan proved that dialogue and drama can be just as exhilarating as any explosive action sequence with his Best Adapted Screenplay winner. Though there is little action in the film, you still leave feeling pumped up and ready to start a bar fight.

Two defining actors of our generation go head to head here.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon are at the height of their careers, both of whom will be remembered by our descendants the way we remember Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart. And though we thought Jack Nicholson’s prime was well before the new millennium, he assertively reestablished himself as one of the best living actors. He just chews up the scenery, you can’t take your eyes off him. And film lovers won’t take their eyes off The Departed any time soon either.

Boyhood (2014)

The story of an American boy’s childhood, adolescence, and departure off to college. Filmed over the course of twelve years.

Can we really leave out the coming-of-age movie that filmed the same actors over twelve years to tell one linear story? Twelve years.

And it wasn’t because of studio complications or difficultywith funding, they did it on purpose. The film’s famous gimmick alone makes it a must-see, but Boyhoodis also a great film on its own. It is an honest, realistic depiction of growing up. Unlike most coming-of-age films where the protagonist learns their lesson from one pivotal event, Boyhood shows it as a gradual process. Life just moves from one moment to the next, always teaching us lessons. The film’s final piece of dialogue sums up its central theme eloquently: “You know how they say, ‘Seize the moment?’ I think it’s the other way around. Like, the moment seizes us.”

“Yeah, I know...it’s constant, the moments. It’s like it’s always right now, you know?”

Action The Dark Knight (2008)

Batman faces off against the Joker as he wreaks havoc across Gotham, testing his psychological limits, and walking the line between heroism and vigilantism.

You can’t not consider any of the superhero movies of the past decade as soon-to-be classic action films. Marvel has found a way to make it socially unacceptable to not see their cinematic universe movies coming out three times a year. Superhero movies have returned to our culture with a vengeance and show no signs of slowing down. When the millennials have kids of their own, those kids will have lots of homework to do (at least three Marvel phases worth). But the true nouveau classic superhero film will not be one of the dozens of Avengers stories, it will be the one that started the movement in the first place. Making superhero movies cool again before they were cool again was Christopher Nolan’s film noir action crime drama The Dark Knight. The darkest, least comic-booky Batman depiction to date, this film examines themes like moral ambiguity, good versus evil, order versus chaos, free will, and justice. The story is richly dense; there is something new to catch every time you watch.

Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker is now that of mythos. If you haven’t seen the film, you’ve still probably heard of how his deep inhabitation of the character lead him toward his accidental overdose of prescription drugs, making the already gloomy picture feel haunted. His character was chilling and diabolical, but charismatic and droll. This is a superhero action film that never gives in to comic book escapism, maintaining its heart of film noir crime drama throughout. Dark Knight will be considered the ultimate Batman picture for years to come (sorry, Zack Snyder).

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Drifter Max Rockatansky gets caught up in a woman’s quest to save five female slaves from a tyrannical ruler and escape to the Green Place.

This movie will be a classic simply for its sheer freaking awesomeness, and I mean that word literally –you will watch it in awe.

We already had films with great stunts, action, and production design, but then Mad Max: Fury Road came in and dunked on them like Lebron dunking on Kevin Hart.

In a world where James Cameron and Michael Bay could film entire pictures using motion capture and CGI, George Miller gave them the finger and actually flipped 30-ton tanker. Intense action blockbusters are released in bulk every summer, but Fury Road plowed through the saturated ether with its astounding practical effects, powerful female characters, production design, and subtle world-building. Charlize Theron gave us a much-needed female action hero who was unsexualized and had no romantic interests.

She was a brave, resourceful, hardened survivor carrying out a dangerous mission to save four women from an oppressive warlord, what’s cooler than that? Plus, she had mad driving skills. The world this film builds is as rich as its action set pieces. The war boys follow a fanatic cultish culture that is shaped by their apparent leukemia, irradiated desert habitat, and obsession with cars and warfare. There is little dialogue in the film; we are shown rather than told how this world works. One example of this world-building is how the war boys spray their mouths with chrome paint and yell “Witness me!” when they enthusiastically decide to sacrifice themselves to advance their effort, earning their place in Valhalla (after a fiery violent death). It is a brilliant touch that shows us just how crazed and fanatic their society really is.

I would like to say this film has been influential to action movies, but truthfully, I haven’t seen anybody able to emulate it since. Mad Max: Fury Roadraised the bar for action films forever.

Sci-fi & Fantasy The Matrix Trilogy (1999, 2003, 2003)

A computer hacker learns that his reality is a mere computer program made by sentient robots that rule the Earth. He and a group of rebels go on a journey to defeat the robots and relieve humans from the “dream world.”

Yes, I know. The first Matrix movie came out in 1999. But come on, what science fiction franchise is more essential to view than this? For its breathtaking action and richly dense sci-fi elements, The Matrix has earned an additional grace period.

Though the effects may look video-gamey now, in the early 2000’s they were unbelievable (Academy Award winning, at that). And as far as action goes, they still hold up. But action and effects aside, these films have some of the deepest, richest sci-fi ever produced.

There are so many themes, motifs, symbols, and philosophical inquiries that the trilogy has its own SparkNotes page. Among those themes are free will and determinism, the blurred line between reality and perceived reality, man and machine, and several biblical references to top it off.

These films will quench any sci-fi geek’s thirst for high concepts and philosophical mind-benders. By many, The Matrix trilogy is already considered classic. In the sci-fi Pantheon, along with Blade Runner, 2001, and Star Wars, The Matrix shall remain for generations to come.

Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001, 2002, 2003)

The fate of humanity lies in The One Ring, which holds a dark unstoppable power. When it falls in the hands of a young hobbit, he and a group of friends and warriors are tasked with journeying to Mordor where the ring can be destroyed once and for al. Meanwhile, dark forces hunt them down to stop them.

Behold, the most epic epics of all epicry. The sets, the characters, the names, the creatures, the mythos, all of it is done to perfection. These films are masterclasses in fantasy-epic filmmaking. After watching Peter Jackson’s interpretation, you can’t imagine the stories being told any other way.

Each installment was nominated for Best Picture, the concluding Return of the King finally winning. All three films have a running time of over three and a half hours, but you wouldn’t have it any other way because you just cannot get enough. In Fellowship of the Ring,after spending nearly 30 minutes of running time traveling through the Mines of Moria, fighting off an orc army, cave troll, and a freaking Balrog (ancient fire demon), we realize that that’s not even the climax!There’s still another hour left where the Fellowship finally faces the Uruk-hai army that’s been hunting them. It is such a deliciously long yarn that exhausts your every emotion, it is what epic filmmaking is all about.

Also, one of its best attributes is its incredible use of practical effects.

Imagine this, a medieval fantasy world that is shot on real New Zealand locations, terrifying creatures made by real costumes and makeup, and sets made with real miniatures. It has everything that The Hobbit doesn’t, which by God looks so much worse. If every film was made with the love and care that Peter Jackson put into LOTR, they would all be classics.

Thriller & Horror Saw (2004)

Two men wake up in a small room with no recollection of how they got there. They soon realize they are pawns in a sadistic escape game orchestrated by a notorious serial killer.

You know how a lot of horror films seem to be made with really low budgets, employing a small cast, simple effects, and few locations?

Some even just use a camcorder? Well the camcorder thing can be credited to The Blair Witch Project, but the low-budget gritty claustrophobia all started with Saw. In the past decade, the premise of a serial killer kidnapping you and placing you in a sadistic escape-game has reappeared in video games, escape room attractions, haunted houses, and more horror-films, but it all started with James Wan’s Saw. The origin of the genre “torture porn” is often credited to Saw, however most of the violence in the film is actually off-screen. The film’s grittiness only makes you think you are seeing something much more graphic. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) has a similar effect; both films have a preceding reputation for being gratuitously gory. Ironically, the genre’s reputation for gore is upheld by the dozens of horror filmmakers that have copied Saw’s aesthetic and premise, but seem to take pleasure in the snuff-like violence that James Wan did not. No matter how gratuitous and poorly written the genre’s films get, they can all be traced back to Wan and Blumhouse Productions, the studio that did it first and best.

Get Out (2017)

A young black man visits his white girlfriend’s estate, meeting her parents for the first time. The trip is not what he bargained for.

This film is only two months old and yes, I do think it will be a thriller classic. It is the first horror/thriller (I don’t even know what genre it fits in) to deal explicitly with racism. Implicitly, zombie movies and the like could be read as metaphors for racism, but in Get Out, the fetishization of black bodies is what threatens our protagonist literally. We may not live in the Jim Crow Era anymore, but it is hardly post-racial. Get Out articulates our current state of 21st Century racial tension in a way that everybody can identify with, making for an interesting conversation after viewing. Not everybody knows what it’s like to be black in America, but everybody can agree that having your body be commodified is scary.

The film has its funny moments; it can’t help but to poke fun at traditional horror tropes and the social unawareness of white elites.

After all, Get Out was written and directed by Jordan Peele, half of the Comedy Central sketch-comedy duo Key & Peele. This unique, fresh picture keeps you at the edge of your seat with its wonderfully paced plot development, all the way through its pulse-pounding payoff ending.

Jordan Peele described his film as a “social thriller.” I anticipate more social thrillers to come, made by inspired filmmakers who realized that social issues can be discussed much more explicitly than they thought.

No more zombies or vampires acting as placeholder metaphors. It is time to look at our issues head on, to see them as the literal threats that they are.

Honorable Mentions Harry Potter Series (2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011) Yes, yes, of course. If the books will be forever read, surely the films will be forever watched. This is perhaps the most culturally pervasive film series since Star Wars, and the books are perhaps the most ever (in the book world).

Inglourious Basterds (2009) On top of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, add this to your Tarantino homework. This WWII action-comedy-war-western is the work of a writer-director that is totally in the zone, completely fluent in his own unique language.

Borat (2006) Probably the most audacious, irreverent, and hilarious political commentary ever put on film. The sheer effrontery that Sacha Baron Cohen has as he violates every American cultural norm in existence makes you incredulous. In the future, they won’t make comedies like Baron Cohen did in 2006. Upon rewatching, I’ll lift my cane and exclaim, “This is when comedians had balls!”

The Avengers (2012) By the time I have grandchildren, the Capitol Building will probably be called the Disney-Dome. Marvel is making the largest cinematic universe in history, and by design, it is socially unacceptable to not see them. The Avengers is not the first film in the Marvel-verse, but it was the first that brought the main heroes together. If my kids are going to wear Avengers pajamas, drink Avengers water, and go to Avengers school, they should probably see the first Avengers movie.

Inside Out (2015) Perhaps not the most essential Pixar film, but Toy Story was made just shy of the 21st Century (1995). Anyway, pretty much every Pixar film is a classic. They just have storytelling down to a science (and an art).

And though Up and Toy Story 3 both received Best Picture nominations, I still have to give it to Inside Out. It is bold and so imaginative, a high concept children’s movie for adults. This sort of risktaking is what makes Pixar so great. - N

The Ethicist For the good samaritan Sharing Your Child’s Sorrow to Save Others’ I was stuck in a click-hole the other day, mindlessly watching videos on Facebook one after the other. One came up of two women, a man, and his child son sitting at a bench in what looked like a public park.The video is being filmed by another attendant.

The father is sitting opposite his son and says, “I need to tell you something. Mommy died last night.”The video captures the shock and heartbreak of the little boy (face unblurred). “What? How?!” he shrieks. The father answers, “From drugs.” The boy begins bawling and buries himself into the arms of the woman next to him. We watch for over two minutes as the boy grieves. The video is captioned by the father: “This is for any and every addict with children. Today I had to tell my 8 year old son that his mommy died from a drug overdose last night. This is the realization and reality of our disease. Don't let this disease have to make someone tell your child that you're dead because of drugs.”

Mike, Pheonix Videos chronicling pain and suffering as a means of producing pathos for a cause are released all the time.

This is why videos of Syrian victims of bombing circulateon Facebook, either for the sake of growingawareness or calling for donations.

Do the bloodied victims shown in these videos have a right to privacy, or does the potential positive effect of releasing this footage outweigh that? These videos often contain footage of children as well.

Now, of course, videos of victims of bombing and videos of children learning their mother is dead are not quite the same. Footage of attacks or disaster sites are often filmed by reporters or witnesses at the scene, beginning as a reaction to an unanticipated event, and usually just contains the aftermath. Reporters and witnesses do not plan devastation and then prepare the perfect way to capture it.

This is ostensibly what the father did fort his video. He knew his son’s reaction would be sorrowful, and so he used that as an opportunity to capture an emotional video

that would generate lots of pathos and clicks.He had the camera ready for the boy’s heartbreaking reaction, instead of beginning filming after the fact (which would still be questionable in this case).

The father’s actions here area little different fromNowThis or AJ+ sharing footage of disaster aftermath.Though they may be using graphic emotional footage to generate clicks and awareness, they did not set up the whole situation as the father did.It is not his fault that the mother overdosed, but it is his fault that the camera was rolling while he broke the news to his 8year-old son, and then shared it on social media.

The father’s intention to turn this situation into a positive by raising awareness for drug addiction is somewhatadmirable. You could argue it was brave of him to share this vulnerable moment for the greater good.

Whether that was a noble enough reason to share the video of his son’s heartbreak is a moral question, not quite an ethical one.It is a matter of the values of the individual.

Personally, I would keep the moment private with my son.

Anticipating someone’s emotional anguish and preparing to use it as an opportunity for social media is something I find objectionable, especially involving an 8-year-old.

I did some research and read that the father claims he gained his son’s permission to share the video on social media beforehand. But he is the adult here. An 8-year-old does not have the knowledge to understand the implications of going viral on social media.

His appreciation for personal privacy is not yet matured, still of the age where it is acceptable to run around the house naked.

Who is an 8-year-old to mistrust his father’s guidance during the most vulnerable moment of his short, inexperienced life?

Don’t share videos of your children in the middle of emotional heartbreaks. Your child’s most difficult moment in life is now on display for everybody to see.The Internet is permanent. This boy had a right to privacy in that moment, but instead it was shared with thousands.In this case, the video was even shared by the likes of CNN. Your child is to whom you owe the greatest duty. No social cause should come before them.

-N