I'm honored and thrilled to now be part of The Urbanist, a site dedicated to examining urban policy and expand our thinking on public transportation and numerous related subjects. 

Some time ago I posted a massive post detailing what a day on the 7 is like. As the 358 winds down to a permanent close, it's time for some similarly massive thoughts on Seattle's most notorious route.

--

I was at Central Base once when I overheard two other operators talking about me. 
"This guy only drives the 3 and the 4. And guess what, last shakeup- he drove the 358. For fun!"
"What?"
"Yeah. He's insane. He went all the way to North Base to pick the 358... On purpose!"

Why did I choose to pick what some call "The Disease Wagon" again? Why was I so adamant about snagging "Jerry Springer" one last time before its deletion, to the point that I took a hour and a half cut in pay simply to get my grubby hands on it? The obvious answer is because I love the route... but why?

By way of more clearly describing what the route is, I offer a few excerpts from the route's Yelp page. The fact that it even has a Yelp page (not to mention songs based on it, and celebrations and condemnations in numerous publications) gives you a notion of the route's continued cultural presence. I can't help but share some excerpted alternative opinions: 

• "The Smell.... Why shouldn't it smell that way? What's more natural than the scent of mildew, urine, and armpits? The odor of the 358 is like the aroma of open pasture contained in a mobile urban capsule - really well-used open pasture. The sooner you realize that the better.... This bus is known for its liberal use of free speech, generally at unorthodox decibel levels and peppered with colorful language." -Wandering M
  

• "This bus will be driven by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse on that fateful day when fire rains down and the seas rise up to swallow this ungrateful earth. As we can never be certain when that day will come, I recommend boarding backward (so as not to cast eyes upon demons) and prominently displaying a crucifix.... This will at least keep the other crazy fuckers at bay." -Victoria T
  

• "It wasn't until after witnessing a third number two incident on the 358 that I actually moved residences just so I could take a different bus downtown to work every day." -Cami G

• "[A]lways entertaining, sometimes frightening, and with the most hardass-but-full-of-grace-and-humor drivers. If I'm on this line, I generally need to be. Also turns into a dive bar when persons bring their tallboys of fortified whatever into the back and chug en masse until they slump over on the other disaffected passengers." -Chris W.
  

• "I've yet to ride this route without there being some sort of smelly person/alcoholic/nut job or combo of the 3 riding it there with me. A smattering of the type people you might meet: A man who smells strongly of tequila and a hamster cage...A middle aged gentleman sobbing loudly and uncontrollably next to you...A woman screaming about how both judges and bus drivers are poisoning our children and how they are the same a**holes who shut off her phone and let OJ Simpson walk...A young man trying to convince his GF the woman she just heard in the background is NOT someone he is sleeping with... A Mickey Rourke look-a-like who is so drunk he can't be understood when screaming at the people entering/exiting the bus..." -Kate S

• "I don't care what anyone else says, the 358 is the best dang experience Seattle has to offer. Want a rotating restaurant with a view? Skip the Space Needle - just hop aboard, grab a free half-eaten burger, and watch the city go by. No need to go as far as Pike Place Market for the smell of fish - if you're lucky, you may even get one thrown at you. And if you're searching for the Fremont Troll, you can get your picture taken on the bus with plenty-a-prototype. If you could fit Seattle in a box and put it on wheels, the 358 would be it." -Wandering M
  

• "I vote for the 358. You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy," writes Hernandez, commenting on a 2009 poll in the Stranger for "crappiest metro route."
  

We even have a 358 haiku, offered by Jonathan S.: 

• "What the hell's that smell?! 

         Good Lord - Long drive and packed full.
         Honestly - who reeks?!"

In counter to these memories, I offer an ode published in Seattle Weekly, when it was named best bus route in 2013:

• "Oh, route 358, you poor, maligned thing. You course through the troubled water that is Aurora Avenue, serving Fremont frat boys and hard-up motel dwellers alike, packing ’em in and getting ’em home or downtown or anywhere but here. Between 7 and 8 a.m., nine of your green-and-yellow carriages will bear south, each one fuller than the next as you take them 12 and a half miles from Shoreline to the courthouse, Bitterlake to Belltown. And what do you get for it all? Entire Reddit threads, Tumblr accounts, and Twitter feeds about how “sketchy” you are, how “sex acts are common,” and how one guy saw a lady get kicked off for huffing paint while in transit. Listen not, 358. Let coddled Route 26, that conveyor of Wallingfordites and Green Lakers, keep the grime from beneath its manicured fingernails. Yours is to toil for the working man, and you do it mightily."
  

A 8 x 10 blow-up of the above is hung on the wall at North Base. Some drivers are planning a party at North to celebrate the route's demise and welcome a new era wherein they'll never have to deal with the route again. In the same breath, a number of operators are planning to ride the last 358 trip, to glory in the last hurrah of a cultural institution that will breath its last breath in the waning hours of this coming Valentine's Day. You can guess which group I'm in!

Nowhere else will you encounter such a group of souls as those I have the pleasure of spending time with on this route. Yes, they swagger on with all manner of questionable and dangerous items peeking out from under their jackets. They hobble around with stuffed garbage bags and needles. Beer cans and condom wrappers share space on the floor, along with strange powders, leaves and pills that defy my understanding. Once, on the same bus, I found a collection of the following: bras, surgical masks, gummy worms, and board games! Materials for quite the weekend in Vegas! 

You don't just see increased police activity here; Aurora Avenue is where police cars drive past each other in opposite directions because they're going to separate incidents. The people are cloaked in smells I've never experienced and can't begin to describe. I helped a woman with directions, and as she assaulted me with her astounding breath I was more bewildered than displeased, as in: how did this train wreck of a fragrance come into being? How many ingredients and lab experiments would it take to replicate it?

Before I started this job, I had a tendency to romanticize the poor. I read Tolstoy and liked Millet and Henry Tanner. Van Gogh wrote of the truth he saw in peasants' eyes, and how he found it nowhere else. Being familiar with these works, and coming from the working-class background that I do, I had certain inklings about the poor I believed to be true. After driving bus for several months, and being in daily, close contact with the lower class, I began to realize there were more sides to the story, that some people behave terribly, and as many make crippling life decisions as are simply wronged by bad fortune. I wondered whether I had been superficially romanticizing, when in fact what was actually going on out here was really just a bunch of...no. 

I had an epiphany. My epiphany, which hit me after driving the bus a few years more, was that my original inkling was in fact true. These are among the best people I know. When those damaged, craggy, beautiful faces get off my bus and say "God bless you," let me tell you, they mean it. People in Bellevue never say stuff like that. They don't treat me like this. My earlier realizations hadn't been overturned so much as reoriented, grounded and firmed up by the unblinking gaze of reality. 

Respect, gratitude, thankfulness, appreciation, empathy- these have incalculable currency out here on the street. I see disabled women getting up to make room for other disabled women. A "hello" from me goes further on Aurora and Rainier than it does elsewhere. It's a simple sound, but with the right tone it's enough to communicate the warm comfort of a judgment-free space. Often you can see what a welcome surprise it is- gestures of kindness are all the more impactful for having occurred in the supposed darker corners of life. 

"Thank you," a teen boy said in what was my last interaction of the night. He'd beseeched me for a free ride, and I'd given him one. I didn't ask why. Does it matter if his circumstances are his fault? He turned to me before stepping into the freezing cold. "It means a lot," he said, in a moment of uncool but beautiful honesty. I knew now by experience what Van Gogh was writing about.

"Anyone who drives the 358 part-time doesn't know about the 358," a veteran report operator grumbled at me not too long ago. It was all he could do but tell me I had no right to be happy. Maybe he was tired of seeing my smiling face around the base.

Comments like this amuse me. Anyone who thinks nothing happens on the 358 in the afternoons... well, let's just say that person really just needs to come out for a ride on my bus. Locals will tell you Aurora's drug transport and prostitution activities take place mostly during the daytime, when things are more easily accomplished using discount hourly motel rates and frequent bus service. More importantly, though, that grumptastic vet simply doesn't know where I'm coming from. He probably doesn't ride the 358 and a host of other routes at all hours on all days, and he certainly doesn't know that I do.* 

Beyond that, he knows nothing of my background. I was speaking with another operator years ago about why it was she and I both liked driving "the rough routes" so much, and the only commonality we could find among ourselves was that we were both from South Central LA. There are things I've experienced- without the authority and recourse to safety that being a bus driver provides- whose sandblasting negativity have absolutely no place on this blog. For me, they function only as healthy reminders that when something as marginal as a man defecating in his pants happens on my bus, I can recognize that it's not a problem. It's an issue. When boys are fighting in the back, it's an issue, but we get through it. I ask them to continue their fight outside, and they do so.  

"Hey, Nathan, I have a question for ya," driver Ted asked me once. We were both doing 358s at the time. 
"Sure, what's up?"
"Well, I always see you driving that 358 smiling, all the time, every single time you're smilin.' How d'you do it? We're driving at the same time, we've got all the same people, and they're cussing me out, they're peeing in the back, I'm gettin' the works. How do you do it, man?"

It's amazing what a difference tone makes. When you ask somebody how their day is, they generally keep their pants zipped. Ninety-nine percent of my day is in my control. In my recent post regarding Carlos, I write that his new construction job and resulting station in life has no catch. Is that really true? We could probably find one if we really wanted to. Maybe he has to take three buses to work instead of two, or he gets paid monthly instead of biweekly. The fact is, I think Carlos is happy because he doesn't think like that. If the catch is negligible, why bother contemplating it? I could choose to think my route is plagued with problems, or I could just embrace it all and get on with the business of being myself.

Standing there at the base listening to the aforementioned grumpster tell me I knew nothing about the 358, I thought about calling him out and gleefully tearing apart his argument. I knew exactly how to do so... but I discovered I couldn't. I lack the necessary apathy. The fact is, I sort of like the poor guy. He may be the polar opposite of me in temperament, but he doesn't deserve a telling off. How would it help? One man's passion (love) is another man's passion (suffering), and nothing will change that.

In conclusion, my love for the 358 can best be described by these two pieces- Ode to the 358, and Ode to Aurora. There is an undeniable elation I feel when I see a mob of street people at an approaching stop. It's a mystery to me. Any interpretation I come up with now would merely a supposition, and would fall short of a full explanation. I can only say I feel it in spades, and that, strangely, this feeling doesn't ever fade.

*A suggestion for my newer bus driver friends: if you don't already, ride the bus. A lot. The best bus drivers are those who also ride the bus. There's no better way to learn about your job. In the same way reading all the time makes you a better writer, and acting makes you a better director of actors, riding the bus makes you much more aware of the type of experience you're giving to the passengers, and quickly shows you what works and what doesn't. You might find yourself surprised.

Why on earth am I using decimal places in my list of films? Because it's been too good of a year! I just saw two more late releases from 2013, and I'd be lying if I didn't include them on this list! What was once a list of ten has ballooned into fifteen!

6.5. Prisoners (Villeneuve)

A man's (Hugh Jackman) daughter and friend go missing. He enlists the help of a detective (Jake Gyllenhaal) to find them. Trailer.

There is a tendency in film criticism- by professionals and amateurs alike- to confuse evaluation with taste. The criteria for evaluating a film has more to do with its craftwork achievements (acting, direction, below-the-line), and what the film intends to accomplish than whether or not it jives with our ethical and entertainment preferences. The next time you dislike a film, ask yourself: was it because the story structure was problematic, or the cinematography was lacklustre, or was it simply because the content was morally offensive or the material wasn't to your interest?

In this respect, there are aspects of whether or not a film is well-made that are not a matter of opinion. There are swaths of gray areas, to be sure, but certain aspects of the filmmaking process can in large part be objectively evaluated. Thelma Schoonmaker's editing cannot be said to be "bad," even if it's not to our taste. We can hardly say that Ridley Scott's painterly directorial eye "sucks," to quote the common parlance; it is too proficient, too rooted in film history and painting theory to be termed incompetent. It's perfectly reasonable to dislike his visuals, but we can't get away with saying he's untalented.

Prisoners is a film which pulls at this divide harshly. It possesses a brutality in its images and depiction of humanity that is crushingly difficult to stomach. Viewers of Villeneuve's previous work (the Oscar-winning Incendies, one of the best recent films and one of the most troubling) will have an idea of the level of diabolical intensity they are in for. Our theatre was filed with a chatty crowd during the previews, but once the film began, you could hear a flake of popcorn hit the ground. 

Villeneuve's command over his craft, particularly his camera choices and organization of scenes, overwhelmed a typically fickle audience into complete submission. The characters are developed so robustly- the film's two and a half-hour runtime allows for rich psychological detail- and the story events  wound so tightly no one could turn away. That Villeneuve accomplishes this without resorting to shock tactics is an undeniable confirmation of his skills as a director, and the skills of his talented cast- Jackman's performance is a career-best. 

I will admit, however, that despite my tremendous appreciation of the film's skill, it is so disturbing I hesitated as to where to place it on this list. This is a work so powerful as to destroy one's belief in God, or shatter one's perception of a just universe. It makes you not want to have children. 

Film is among the most potent delivery devices for communication we have, if not the most, and Villeneuve and co. take full advantage. Roger Deakins' cinematography, with its slow movement and deep blues and blacks, enforces a level of dread rarely felt. The films has ideas and situations it wants to share with us, and it does so with stunning force. Your concept of the world may not be the same as some of the ideas espoused in this film, but they will doubtless get you to thinking, and that is the point of great art. This has been a year of finely-tuned, focused films of high intensity, and Prisoners is among the best.

7. Her (Jonze)

Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), a lonely writer, develops a relationship with an operating system designed for such. Trailer.

There are lines in Spike Jonze's Her so cutting in their truth you want to write them on walls and consider them as mantras for living by. The plot allows for rich exploration of character and consideration of so many facets of love in the modern age- the pervasive effects of technology, its isolationist tendencies, the ramifications of loss and the hangdog persistence of memory. Most films about relationships are only about the beginnings of relationships. Her explores the full course of Twombly's relationship with sentient computer Samantha, as well as charting the emotional closure of his divorce with Catherine (Rooney Mara). 

Jonze seems to have an uncanny knack for knowing what the associated emotions feel like, and how to communicate them cinematically; the memories of Twombly's former wife surface at unexpected moments in the way that poignant memories do, and tell us all we need to know about how much she continues to dwell in Twombly's mind. We know all we need to know from the look on a face, and from this and so many other emotionally truthful moment sin the picture, there's no denying this is the work of somebody who's been there.

Also notable is Amy Adams' performance in a key supporting role, the production design that suggests a near future without overwhelming us with it, and Hoyte van Hoytema's (Tinker Tailor) stunning cinematography. Deep rich blues and reds, a warm color scheme that maximizes the elegant and unusual production design, and a lot of shallow depth of field. Nearly every shot is onion-skin levels of focus. Like American Hustle, the images here are quite challenging to achieve. Hoyte's focus pullers must have been miserable, but their hard work pays off. A profound and eye-opening emotional experience.

7.5. Fruitvale Station (Coogler)

A dramatization of the final 24 hours of Oscar Grant's life, the young man murdered by police on New Year's Day 2009. Trailer.

Fruitvale stuns with its simple depiction of everyday life. Not unlike the first hour of United 93, another film in which routine actions are shown in great detail prior to a catastrophe, Fruitvale heightens the ordinary to a level of intense fascination. 

Most viewers will be familiar with how the day ended for Oscar Grant. Far from diminishing the film's dramatic value, this only increases the film's effectiveness. The banal and commonplace are heightened by a sensation of impending dread. Mistakes and urges toward goodness resonate all the stronger. 

Aside from its value in the telling of an outrage, director Coogler's film is valuable for its relation of all sides of a typical, contradiction-filled human being. He and actor Michael B. Jordan understand how we are all made of disparate parts, components of our personality with nothing to do with each other save that they all occur within ourselves- and that these seemingly contradicting sides are all equally authentic parts of us. In their hurry to sketch the essence of a character, many a film avoids such complexity. Even if the real-life incident had never happened, Fruitvale would still be a great film for offering such a nuanced portrait- particularly that of an exterior "type" we see so often, and project so much onto. There's much more to that young black boy in the back of the bus than what's piping out of his headphones.

The film is naturally depressing for its unavoidable conclusion, but it's also oddly heartwarming in its deep-rooted belief in the goodness of people. Coogler, who also wrote, takes the time to show Grant's duality of self. He is neither good nor bad, but rather both, all together, all at once. Grant blasts gangsta rap in his car, then pauses it to chat with his mother. He's equally invested in both moments. His desire to give up selling drugs is as strong as his compulsion to do so, and we understand his thought processes on both fronts. He's raring to attack the man intimidating him in jail, and in the next breath crying over a dead dog, or asking his mother for a hug. The film gives its humans the benefit of doubt, as we should all do in life. Such an outlook fills me with positive energy, and makes me excited about humanity- and all the more disappointed in how the events transpired.

In the end, looking at Oscar Grant's broken body on the platform, I couldn't help but think it hardly matters what sort of man he was. Nothing about his quality as a person can deny the egregious and unforgivable assault on humanity that was his death. There were so many chances for the incident to have never happened, but the inexorable passage of time can't be turned back. There was goodness in his soul, and there are those who think this was impossible.

A flashback to my days as a film critic. Here's the first entry with an introduction explaining why there are film reviews on a blog about buses~

8. American Hustle (O'Russell)

Four lives- a con artist, his lover, his wife, and an FBI agent- intertwine as all find themselves involved in the ABSCAM sting operation. With Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, and Jeremy Renner. Trailer.

American Hustle can hardly be called a movie, although it's certainly a smashing one. It's more like a wild animal, propulsively covering ground in a mad and disciplined rush, unfettered from the chains of mediocrity and prosaic formulas. I cannot overstate the heady rush of exhileration one experiences when watching David O'Russell's latest. You walks out of the theatre on that cinematic high you typically get in a Scorsese picture.

I wrote last year of Affleck's resurrection as a serious writer-director; O'Russell's renaissance is no less interesting. While he has always been acknowledged as talented, his reputation as an infantile, stubborn tantrum-thrower tended to dominate the conversation before 2005. There was the very public falling out with George Clooney during Three Kings. We remember the alleged head-butt, and the handwritten open letter by Clooney, ever reasonable, as he defended the rights of crew who were being verbally abused on set. Topping that was the infamous moment- caught on video, or we wouldn't believe it- wherein O'Russell chews out Lily Tomlin in 2003 using what NY Times' Sharon Waxman calls "the crudest word(s) imaginable."

Then there was Nailed, which shut down production in 2008 four times and was never finished, due to financial issues. While tantrums were not the cause for these problems, the chatter in the hallways of LA didn't hesitate to point fingers in O'Russell's direction, clucking with a lack of surprise: with him at the helm, did we expect anything else?

At the time it was assumed O'Russell's career was over. Careers can end on one movie, and when the nail is hammered this many times, there's no ambiguity about it (witness former wunderkind M. Night Shyamalan's last five films, in which he dug himself deeper and deeper, each feature progressively worse in some way than the last). Extreme, drawn-out cases like this are unusual.

Which is why O'Russell's resurrection- the overused term really is appropriate here- is all the more staggering. Six years after Huckabees, his last theatrical release, and two years following the Nailed shoot, he came out in winter of 2010 with The Fighter, which opened to excellent reviews, broke $125 million domestic, and landed seven Academy Award nominations including Picture and Director. 

He almost didn't get to make the film. It was shepherded into existence by Mark Wahlberg, who offered it first to Scorsese, who wasn't interested, having just explored the Boston setting with The Departed; next Darren Aranofsky signed on to direct, hired Christian Bale, and then begged off preproduction to do Robocop instead (which he also later dropped out of, favoring Black Swan). Wahlberg and Bale together turned to O'Russell, who then made the entire film in just 33 days on a paltry $11 million budget. When the awards started rolling in, O'Russell made his publicity rounds as the very picture of dignified humility, giving the world the picture of a repentant and disciplined craftsman intent on doing good work. Now, in 2013, more than enough time has gone by that we can see this is no act.

How did this metamorphasis happen? I prefer to let the man speak for himself, as he does in this excellent Huffington Post interview. "I was overthinking things," he says. "My head was up my ass." After a difficult period involving some significant life changes, he found new inspiration and grounding in "a kind of filmmaking about a kind of person....ordinary people living operatic emotions. Lives, predicaments and survival....I stay hungry like it's my first film or my last film. We mean everything in these films from the heart as much as we can."

Indeed, there is a palpable sense of unpretentious excitement in these three latest works of his. The highly mobile camera seems wired into the accelerated pace of the characters' inner lives; it moves as if completely untethered, gliding past faces and singing through rooms. Steadicam operator Geoff Haley deserves praise for making a punishingly difficult task so seamless. There's a high-energy joy to the camerawork not unlike that of Scorsese or '90s Paul Thomas Anderson.

As well, his aforementioned focus on the working class is a particular standout. A great majority of films are either about the very rich, or the very poor. Not everyone is a graphic designer with a condo in Manhattan, or a backwoods alcoholic in West Virginia. Who makes films about people who drive 1995 Honda Civics? 

O'Russell's three newest pictures have in common their interest in the working class, and I find this incredibly refreshing. He invests the films with an energy revealing how real and immediate ordinary lives are. Each of the performances in Hustle (incredibly, all four leads are nominated for their respective roles) is rich with nervous energy and carefully observed details. Note the enthusiasm with which Bale talks about his dry-cleaning business, or the casual brilliance of the intertwining narration when Christian Bale and Amy Adams' characters first meet, letting us in on each person's private thoughts. The film is a positive deluge of such moments of creativity.

Each film expands in scope from its predecessor, and Hustle is the largest yet of O'Russell's new phase, with its multiple relationship dynamics and mechanics of the con. It sets itself apart from- and above- other con movies in being more focused on character than plotting; because of this, the film will hold with time. Most great films are character-based. Don't listen to those who tell you story is everything. When the plot is the focus of a film's text, it loses value on repeat viewings because we already know what will happen. The drama of humans learning, behaving, and misbehaving is endlessly more fascinating. We watch Citizen Kane over and over not because of how much we like the story developments of a newspaper tycoon's business falling apart. Nobody remembers the story progression of Kane. It's the downfall of the character and his tragic transition from childhood to material success that captivates us so. We are people, and are thus fascinated by the lives of other people. American Hustle knows this, and carries it all off with an unaffected aplomb.

9. Before Midnight (Linklater)

The third in a trilogy, following Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, exploring the romance between lovers Jesse and Celine (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy). Each film is set and was filmed nine years apart. Trailer.

In September of 2012 the news broke that Hawke and Linklater were "in the writing stages" of Before Midnight, working out some ideas. "If it works out, we'll film it, and if it doesn't, we won't. It's not really worth talking about. I'm just here developing," Hawke said at the time. Just over a week later they announced that they had actually already finished the film, and were taking it to Toronto! The film has been riding a wave of accolades ever since, and deservedly so.

Before Midnight contains the best special effect you'll see all year- and by that I mean the acting. As with the previous two films in the trilogy, Linklater trains the camera on his actors and lets the film roll, and roll... and roll. He'll use a full magazine (about ten minutes) on one continuous shot of the two leads talking. There's one such scene early on of Delpy and Hawke in a car. The complexity of the dialogue they're performing would be impressive no matter how it was filmed, but to see the actors read it out with no breaks is staggering. 

The unbroken take is one of the last proofs of actuality in cinema. When Buster Keaton did all those physical feats of derring-do he was so adept at, we looked on in shock and awe, since we know that's really him on top of that train. This feeling of being stunned by cinema's ability to document has waned, and is today all but gone. We assume technical wizardry is involved whenever confronted with amazing imagery onscreen. 

Have you ever seen a sunset in life so beautiful that, were you to see it in a film, you'd be convinced it was a fake? During the filming of the climax of Tony Scott's Man on Fire, which involves a man walking from one side a bridge to the other, a volcano some distance behind the actors suddenly erupted. Initially Scott was thrilled- what could possibly be more dramatic? But upon looking over the rushes, Scott saw that he could never put that footage in the final film because, in his words, "it looked like a damn Disney movie." It was real, but our belief in the veracity of the film image has largely evaporated. Nobody would've believed it.

However. The unbroken take is a very hard thing to replicate using digital effects without being very obvious. We know, watching the opening of Touch of Evil, or The Player, or the climactic nine-minute shot in Children of Men, that what we are seeing is undeniably continuous. We can see, in the famous seventeen-minute dialogue shot in Steve McQueen's Hunger (what is now simply called The Scene, which contains 28 pages of dialogue with no cuts; the camera was adapted to hold a longer film reel), that we really are looking at two people talking for seventeen minutes. It stands in contemporary cinema as one of the last hallmarks of truth-telling- there are no cuts to hide behind. While it's possible to blend shots together in post (Spielberg's minivan shot in War of the Worlds does this), such instances are rare. The whole point of a continuous take is to show that something is real. 

All the Before films contain plenty of long-running shots, and they're a joy to behold. Many have said acting is the best special effect, and that truism is on full dsplay here. 

Of course, viewers of Sunrise and Sunset will not be surprised by this. Midnight is shot and performed in the same impeccable manner as the previous films, once again using dialogue written- not improvised- by the actors. What can we say about this latest entry that sets it apart?

Before Sunrise contained the budding excitement of burgeoning romantic youth. Sunset found the couple nine years later, and showed the complexities and challenges that live alongside the beauty of love. Midnight, set a further nine years later, follows the arc of this trajectory, throwing us full-force into the mire of unhappiness relationships can become. Whereas unhappiness was but a faint glimmer in the first film, here it is happiness which is so relegated. Midnight is a sobering experience, but a truthful one. It pulls no punches in its depiction of the aching experience of collapse. I hesitate to reveal more except to say that with the exception of Bergman's Scenes From a Marriage, there is no more thoroughly studied and complete cinematic depiction of the full course of a human relationship than what is offered in this trilogy. I can't recommend it enough.

10. Dallas Buyers Club (Vallee)

True story of Ron Woodruff, an electrician, hustler and rodeo man who in 1985 contracted AIDS and, through illegal means, helped thousands of AIDS victims get the medication they needed. Costarring Jared Leto. Trailer.

McConaughey is a revelation here. The story allows for many moments of juicy scenery-chewing, not least of which is the moment when Woodruff discovers he has AIDS, and McConaughey makes the most of the role in a performance at once subtle, brash, and thoroughly lived in. His natural charisma melds well with the character's wily, high-energy self, and the resulting vitality centers the film and propels it forward. McConaughey himself was instrumental in the long and arduous journey of getting the film made, and his passion for the project is more than apparent in the performance.

Jared Leto, as a flamboyant cross-dressing man who ends up befriending the notoriously homophobic Woodruff, is also magnetic, most of all in a scene in which Leto's character confronts his father. We expect Leto to be great, however. The world is still acclimating to the thought of McConaughey as one of the best working actors. After this film and his other performances this year, there can be no doubt on the matter.

As well, Jean-Marc Vallee's (The Young Victoria) direction is as much of a surprise. It isn't simply competent, as many actor-centric awards pieces are (Beautiful Mind, The Queen), but noticeably and effectively creative. To be frank, I wasn't expecting this. Many fourth-quarter dramas find themselves overpraised critically because the language for critiquing acting and writing is well-worn, since those disciplines have origins in other art forms. Film critics often hail from journalism or literature backgrounds, and are primed to analyze these components. They're thrilled when something is strong on themes, dialogue and performance. 

Much less often do they have experience with the filmmaking process, or an understanding of direction, cinematography, and editing- those elements which truly set film apart, and are every bit as important. When the (stellar) reviews became coming in for Dallas, a film by a little-known director, I was expecting something strong on narrative and performance, but not much else. I was wrong.

This is more than an acting showcase. Vallee manages to get away with transforming important subject matter into a wild, entertaining ride. His aesthetic sensibility is rich and propulsive. He uses the 2.35 frame well, making the film seem larger with strong, muscular compositions. The images are drenched in soft pastels and muted warm tones, evoking a time period without over-relying on costumes and cars to remind us where we are. He'll use color to set a mood, allowing the dialogue the freedom to explore other concerns. Some of the film's best moments are the brief occasions of silence in a loud, chaotic life- Woodruff alone in his car crying, hiding behind sunglasses and bravado. Vallee centers him in the composition here; usually Woodruff is careening around in the frame, or pushed to one side. His placement in the frame is linked to how he feels  at that moment in the story- confident, exposed, nervous. Great films do a lot of their communicating visually, and Vallee's directorial choices are no exception. The spare use of music is commendable in its own right, and all the more compelling when used.

There is a vigor in this film that is undeniable. When a man can overcome his prejudices and open up his worldview, while also doing good for others- really, what could be more rejuvenating to witness? It's not surprising in the end that Dallas is deeply affecting. What's surprising is how utterly entertaining it is as well.

I don't know what it was about this interaction that stilled me so. The words hit me and I sighed with contented longing, as one does when reading great poetry or watching a sublime musical performance. Their conversation was slight, but contained a soul-baring honesty, the lowering of an emotional shield in the course of a few lines. I reproduce the words here, that they might offer something akin to what I felt in the moment:

I heard only their voices, somewhere just behind me. From the sounds of it they were strangers. I seem to recall their presences appearing at different stops. The woman, with a large white dog, was soft-spoken and elderly. The man's voice was that of one in early middle age, a world-weary resignation stemming from a being still too young for such things. The disenchantment in his tone was colored with hopes not dashed, but subdued.

"Love," he said. "Love is overrated. Girlfriends are overrated."
"I don't know about that," she said quietly. 
"Having a personal dog as a friend is not overrated." Here he paused, and they shared a mutual silence.
Then he continued:  "Marriage... I could go into a whole list of stuff that's overrated. I'm overrated."
"Possibly."
"Perhaps."

I looked ahead at the glistening nighttime pavement streaking by, deep reds and blues reflected in the wet surfaces, giving life to the inky indigo blackness all around. The many tiny sounds that together collected to form his voice seemed borne from years of disappointed loss. He made the statements as if testing their veracity, disillusioned but unable to commit to such a broken worldview. Hope is hard to quell, and has an detectable ring even when it's faint. 

Her responses were those of someone who listens, who doesn't explicitly disagree if she can help it. Their shared silences felt like small victories, agreements between two very different souls. The space after his "perhaps" was an opening floodgate. He wasn't dispirited anymore. He had let his guard down, no longer lashing out, daring to look in a mirror, somehow feeling easier. I heard them chuckle lightly. The seed of a tremendous new thought can grow from the most unexceptional of circumstances. 

The two strangers kept talking after that, but I forget the words. All I heard was a gentle rising in the man's tone. The face I finally looked at when he got up to leave was not one of chagrin. He was feeling lighter already, on his way to somewhere new. 

It's that time of year again. The nominations are out, the awards circuit is humming, and the reviews and awards are stacking up. My great love of film compels me to share with you my list of the year's top ten films (actually, fourteen films) on a blog that simply has nothing doing with such matter. I've often wondered at how my intense love of public transit fits in with my passion for the arts. What could those two worlds possibly have to do with each other?

A fascination and love for humanity, thats what. In that respect film has everything to do with the frame of mind through which I observe the people. Great films are meaningful, truthful considerations of human nature, where ideas are presented with a high level of craft. In that spirit I see every reason to include these writeups alongside the bus stories, and I hope you enjoy them.

Starting with the bottom of the list first, here are the final four entries, plus some thoughts on a film that didn't make the list. Refer here for my thoughts on film in 2012.

11. Captain Phillips (dir. Paul Greengrass)

True story of the 2009 American cargo ship hijacking, the first such event in two hundred years: Somali pirate Muse (Barkhad Abdi) and his cohorts overtake Captain Richard Phillips' (Tom Hanks) ship, the Maersk Alabama. Trailer.

Phillips' greatest conceit is to consider the above story a two-hander between American ship captain (Tom Hanks) and Somali pirate (Barkhad Abdi). This is not a film about The Other invading the world of The American Hero. Rather, it's about two men doing their respective jobs as they clash violently. Both are attempting to bring home a day's worth of bread to support themselves and their families. We begin with the home lives of both men, which could hardly be any more different, and watch as each is made aware of the similarities extant in the other. Mr. Greengrass' work, especially outside of the Bourne series, is intensely mature, in the traditional sense of the word; all the characters are intelligent people with disciplined skill sets and focused concerns. There are no kids, comic relief characters, or romantic subplots here.

Greengrass' technique remains unparalleled. He has practically devised his own genre of handheld verismilitude; cinematographers know there are many ways to shoot handheld, and his is intentionally chaotic, with the edits designed to keep the eyes moving. Shots follow shots in ways that violate any sense of where the eye anticipates the next point of interest to be. 

Note how easily Rule of Thirds is violated, and the anachronistic sensibility of haphazard compositions being forced in to the rigorous Scope aspect ratio. The camera operator seems entirely unaware of how the action will unfold, and as such it all feels immediate and real- the camera never leads the action. At the same time there is a cinematic quality as well: nobody shoots documentaries in 2.35:1.

An outstanding, full-blooded piece of cinema, timely, probing, and concerned with reality. A triumph of technique and humanity- the final moments contain an emotional power as strong as anything on screen this year. Those last three or so minutes are undoubtedly the best acting Hanks has ever done, and the film is a success for getting us to see a pirate and a captain as equals, and to feel for both by the film's end. 

12. Mud (dir. Jeff Nichols)

Two boys find themselves helping a runaway fugitive (Matthew McConaughey) in the backwoods of the Arkansas Delta. Trailer.

Mud contains more than mere echoes of Mark Twain. It evokes Mr. Clemens' canonical works in a deeply satisfying way, while also bringing the unique voice of Jeff Nichols (Take Shelter), who wrote as well as directed. A richly textured piece about adults as seen through the eyes of children, replete with the authenticity of a director who has lived in the world he's depicting. 

McConaughey knocks it out of the park with a carefully modulated performance blowing away anything previously seen in his entire career; in mid-2013 that was a surprise, but now, at the end of the year, with three other appearances on this top ten list alone, his prodigious talent is eagerly expected. 

The film is also curious in its multiple definitions of what it means to be a man. Different adult characters harbor contrasting views on masculinity, and the film does an excellent job of portraying how bewildering the options are for young boys. 

13. Blue is the Warmest Color (dir. Abdellatif Kechiche)

Charts the full course of a relationship between two young girls. Trailer.

Director Abdellatif Kechiche (Secret of the Grain) has a nigh-exploitative gaze in this film, and I'm not speaking only about those sex scenes. I don't recall his other work being so eager to enter into characters' personal space. Kechiche's camera ventures close to the actor's faces regardless of their emotional state, offering lingering closeups of things we rarely see in films (people chewing with their mouths open) or things we thought we saw a lot, but really just had no idea (crying, crying, and more crying). I feel like I saw more tears shed in this film than the last decade of cinema. It's an exhausting experience.

And an excellent one. The result of this invasive camera is that we are drawn closely into the private worlds of these two characters in ways we are not accustomed. After seeing the film, one finds oneself wondering what the characters will do next, temporarily forgetting they are fictional. An intimacy is established in the language of the camera and also in the substantial runtime (179 minutes), allowing room for the scenes to breathe, and for complex emotions to be delineated. In a teenager's life, everything happening right now is the most important thing, and this urgency is well communicated in the high-impact approach. 

The actors augment this with two searing, devastating performances which, though staggeringly effective, were had at a high price (witness this now-famous Cannes interview, wherein the two leads describe the ordeal of the film, calling it by far the worst professional experience they've ever had). The moment where the two leads first converse, as well as the scene in which they break up, alternately engross and stun the viewer in their communication of pure, unadulterated emotion.

Blue is also unique in its anticipation of criticisms. The film's text addresses criticism we might have, from within the film itself. The film's opening lines discuss digressions, fitting for a three-hour film; elsewhere, characters argue over what right males (such as Blue's director) have to depict female pleasure (such as the protagonists), and what validity there is in their attempts. It is a remarkably self-contained piece, incredibly focused and pulsing with the contemporary immediacy of young love, watching intently as the characters stumble, dance, and crash through their relationship, reaching out for that elusive and tenuous catharsis we find in the journey from self-absorbed to self-aware.

14. Inside Llewyn Davis (dir. Coen Brothers)

Based on the life of Dave Van Ronk, follows a week in the life of a young singer (Oscar Isaac) as he attempts to negotiate the Greenwich Village folk music scene. Costarring Carey Mulligan. Trailer.

The traditional narrative arc has conditioned us to expect a number of things when going into a film, no matter how avant-garde. The conceit of using film as a storytelling medium automatically repurposes it as a device best suited for exploring the lives of one, or perhaps two, protagonists. Film is an exterior medium, and the act of developing the internal states of the characters in a way that's relatable to the audience takes time. Too much more and the piece starts to collapse. Large-scale casts in the tradition of Altman or P.T. Anderson still operate on this conceit, simply expanding their scope to consider a larger number of individuals. Within their intercutting narratives, they are still exploring characters in the way more traditional single-protagonist narratives do, albeit with less time spent on each character. Only a few films truly seek to communicate the human experience in a manner other than through the perspective of a limited number of individuals. Malick's The Thin Red Line conceives of humanity as a collective; Ken Lonergan's Margaret incorporates the city of New York into his story, in an effort to remind the audience how insignificant the protagonist's concerns, or that of any individual person, ultimately are.

This tradition has led to other expectations as well. There are fundamental principles we are used to, such as a series of representational scenes intended to be considered in relation with each other, usually as a linear sequence; and, less abstractly, an expectation that the protagonist in question will learn or experience something of value at the film's climax. As humans watching human characters we care about, we expect closure in narrative, usually in the form of a success for the character. I don't care how avant-garde you are. We respond to catharsis, period. 

The easiest way to provide catharsis is through a happy ending that also feels earned. We've all sat through generations of sports films, and experienced the rush- or the boredom- of success in the final game. Peter Berg's film Friday Night Lights is admirably refreshing for how it subverts this expectation while still providing catharsis. Inside Llewyn Davis is similar.

We know from Dave Van Ronk's real-life story that he never made it as a musician. It's no spoiler to say that the Coen's film follows Ronk's trajectory truthfully. But is his life any less worth exploring? We've been conditioned by the onslaught of movies about impossible true successes to imagine they happen all the time. We forget how many millions more try for material success, throw their whole lives into it, without ever finding it. Nevermind that they distract themselves out of ever considering whether that success would bring them any actual happiness.

Inside is a bittersweet picture, with a lot to chew on. Like Wolf of Wall Street, one of several pictures made this year about characters looking for success in all the wrong places, it asks the audience to provide the sort of solutions usually offered by the film itself. Both pictures present a persistent real-life problem and leave it unsolved at the film's conclusion, forcing us to do some mental weightlifting as we determine where we stand on such issues. I'd say more, but I don't want to spoil things. A sobering but worthwhile piece.

Photographic enthusiasts might ask why this is the first Coens film in decades to be made without ace cinematographer Roger Deakins; on the record it's because Deakins was busy with Skyfall. But with Deakins now saying he won't shoot on film again, I can only wonder whether the Coens, film purists that they are, will continue their collaboration with him. Inside, shot by the talented Bruno Delbonnel, has a very filmlike image, rich in tonal range and muted blues and grays. There seems to be hardly any direct sunlight, somehow befitting the Greenwich Village scene as well as the frustrated mind of the protagonist.


Not on the Top Ten list, or anywhere near it: Nebraska (dir. Alexander Payne)

An aging father incorrectly believes he has won a million dollars, and sets off through the midwest with his adult son to claim it. Trailer.

At the risk of completely discrediting myself in your eyes, I'm obliged by my strong feelings to share with you how intensely I disliked this film. I hated it, and I never use the word hate. I don't hate anything- except perhaps Nebraska. The film has multiple nominations including Best Picture, excellent reviews (86 Metacritic, 91/96 Rotten Tomatoes), and a number of awards and festival wins, most notably Best Actor for Bruce Dern at Cannes- in essence, a unanimously rapturous reception from the critical community and the less-discerning Academy.

I hated it. 

I saw the film when it opened in LA, before it received the nominations it has, but I still knew at the time of its excellent reviews. Additionally, I'd never seen an Alexander Payne movie I didn't like. Francois Truffaut famously said "there are no bad films, just bad directors," and I agree; what he meant was that a good director won't make a bad film, but an interesting one. Look at the lesser efforts of the great directors; they're never terrible. They're flawed but fascinating, often with moments of greatness.

Which is why, upon walking out of Nebraska, I was more confused than disappointed. Mr. Truffaut's rule just doesn't hold here. Could Mr. Payne, director of the excellent The Descendants, and Sideways, really have turned out such a misfire? Dustin Hoffman recently said that acting has gotten to a general level of quality that if a film is bad, it's rarely because of the acting. But here, even the acting is lacklustre; only Dern holds the frame, and he's hampered by the script. Will Forte seems to be phoning it in, and June Squibb's lauded performance is in my mind one-note, its appeal having more to do with the writing than what she brings to the table. 

Bob Nelson's script contains moments of humor but hardly any moments of compelling human interaction; what glimmers there are are shot down by the non-starter of a premise. From the first scene we know there is no million-dollar reward. That's fine, but instead there needs to be some sort of drama in the interaction between Father and Son, some kind of growth or catharsis or revelation- but no, there are only superficial victories. No character is deeply developed- the supporting characters are cardboard cutouts, and Dern, prodigious talent that he is, is forced into scene after scene of stumbling around in bars and provoking others. I don't mind if a film's characters don't learn anything (See Scorsese's work), but the audience needs to feel justified for sitting through two hours of unlikable characters. 

Then there are the visuals. In my mind, few things are uglier or more noticeable than digital black and white. Payne has never been strong on visuals, the strengths in his work normally being the writing and performances; here where those two are oddly lacking, the banal nature of the cinematography is doubly apparent. I'm convinced the only reason this film is up for  Cinematography is because it's in black and white. Had the film been in color, I'm convinced the Meta and RT scores would be twenty points lower than they are. Compositionally, the shots go nowhere, never venturing beyond the most boilerplate mise-en-scene. Capable lenser Phedon Papamichael's lighting is flattened, hindered by Payne's decision to go digital B&W. 

Film's beauty in part results from its grain structure, which gives the impression of a "living," organic, breathing image; it is also unique in its tremendously wide latitude between light and dark, and its vast tonal range. Digital lacks all of these elements, and on digital black and white images, the reduced range of tones flattens the image, and in a moving image, the lack of grain is especially noticeable. Compare Frances Ha (digital) with any of the New Wave films it draws from- from Cleo From 5 to 7 to Vivre sa Vie. Compare Nebraska with Night of the Hunter, La Notte- anything shot on B&W film, really, from low-budget work like 
Ladri di biciclette (Bicycle Thieves) to much older work (L'Atalante), which still looks better. There's no comparison. Faithful readers know how much I adore film, and while I admit digital has its values, it has no place being used to shoot moving images in black and white. 

Why am I ragging on a film with obviously good intentions? Somebody has to. We all have that film which everyone else loves, and which we are mystified by. Not only does Nebraska have stellar reviews, it has, incredibly, no negative reviews by any major publication. I must do my part as the lone wolf in the wilderness. Please, feel free to love Nebraska. Everyone else does. But if you have a nagging feeling about it, well, I guess that's why I'm here.

We're just outside Ingraham High, on Aurora. This boy's fumbling in his wallet, searching for the right combination of bills and coins. A flat-billed hat sits precariously atop his rich, full head of frizzy hair. Elsewhere he's clad in basketball shoes and an unbuttoned down vest- not for warmth, you understand, but for fashion. 

Certain youngsters that age really excel at being glum. You know the type. It's a studied look, and it's hard work, this sullen hipness. You're in your prime, lithe, attractive, likely much more intelligent then you let on, filled with possiblities, and yet you have to pretend to be having a terrible day. You're doing your level best to convince everyone around you that you don't care about anything. Those poor cool kids. What a tough task they have. 

Speaking for myself, I'm not into it.

I glance in his wallet and quip, "oh, you can jus' gimme that twenty."
He's silent for a moment. I can see his brain ticking; he comprehended my words, of course, but the idea of making light of anything needed an extra moment to seep in. Clearly not what he was expecting.

Then he chuckles.

He retreats from sight, and after a while comes forward, putting a bill in the slot.
"We'll call it good at one," I say, referring to the number of dollars. "It's cool." Sometimes you work off of instinct. There are instances where you can sense that cutting someone a break is going to send a bigger message than extorting all their change. 
"Hey, thank you," he responds in his mellow voice, but with emphasis, and eye contact.
"Sure thing!"

I speak in jest regarding the perfected science of teenage sullenness, but not with respect to how hard they have it. We don't know what it's like to grow up in a world overrun with technology and information, and instant returns. In literal terms the youth of any generation always seems to have it easier than those generations preceding them, but we mustn't forget that youngsters today are pummeled with challenges still too nebulous to define. 

There was a time, very recently, before computers, when the world was still tactile. Cause and effect relationships were easy to see. You worked for something in order to get it. There was time to think. None of these aspects are the case anymore. Now, there is simply The Overload- of information, misinformation, choices good and bad, with nary a moment to consider it all. 

To quote Tony Kaye, how are you to imagine anything, when the imagery is always provided for you?

It is all happening much too fast, and because we, today's adults, did not experience the same accelerating whirlwind in our formative years, we don't know how to address the issue. All we have are suppositions. It is so vital to relay the value of what we do know, and what no one is telling them: 

An easier life does not mean a better life.  Speeding things up makes life more complicated, not simpler. Actions in the real world have consequences that cannot be undone. Direct contact with life, without the distancing intermediator of technology, matters.

We remember these precepts from when they were more obviously true, but they are no less vital now. The surfaces keep shifting, but the core fundamentals remain the same. I find this comforting. People still respond to the personal touch. We smile, we know reciprocity, we fear and love. Human life may have ramped up, but the pace of nature is ever constant. Actions continue to have ramifications. The truisms listed above, though they may be hazier now in today's complex world, are still undeniable to the discerning eyes of anyone, young or old. In the end, there is perhaps no one better equipped to negotiate the current world then the youngsters of today. Who are we, in our arrogance, to think we know better, when we are not them? 

All of us possess vulnerabilities and insecurities. We develop certain strategies of dealing with them- confronting them, hiding them, acting out, masking them with facades and barriers. This young boy's strategy right now is to hide behind a wall. Each of us has done a variation of that. I hope this moment is a nudge in the right direction, one of a hundred, or a thousand, or a dozen moments suggesting to him there is more. It was a pleasure to see the awakening spark in his eyes as he thanked me. 

There are untold joys to be had when you let your guard down.