Watching Raiders as a film student, I was struck for the first time by the skillful use of color filters, and how Spielberg painted with shadow as effectively as he paints with light. Part of the fun on this viewing was to try to catch which shots are Harrison Ford, and which shots are Stunt Guy.

One new discovery: I don’t think there are actually any live snakes in the proximity of Harrison Ford. There are so many shots that establish the snakes in the pit, that we take it for granted that the snakes are real, and are focused on Harrison Ford. There are snakes that look like they’re models, being pulled by strings from outside the shot. But…I challenge you. Look closely. I don’t think there are ever any live snakes in the proximity of Harrison Ford.

I don’t know that there is any other film besides “Star Wars” that has had so many different scenes in the same film parodied throughout pop culture. The score, another John Williams creation, is one of the most recognized and best in film history. My husband and I used it as the recessional at our wedding. The best man threw him The Fedora, and we ran down the aisle.

I remember reading something funny once about the scene where there’s a big bad guy swirling swords in the marketplace, and Ford just pulls a gun and shoots him. Apparently, the heat had been terrible that day, Ford had a serious case of intestinal distress, and was frustrated by the length of the shoot. He improvised as a joke, Spielberg howled, and kept it. I wonder how the scene was originally supposed to go.

There’s something a little sad about the fact that my youngest child knows the plot line of Raiders from his LEGO video game, without ever seeing the original film. I will have to schedule an Indiana Jones marathon around here, post haste.

Does this film belong on the AFI list? Yes. But at least in the top half of said list.

“Unforgiven” is as close to perfect as a film can get. So much so that I have to confess, when I watched it for filmic elements, I went into it deliberately being overpicky, to try to find the flaws. There are places where the ADR is the teensiest, tiniest bit off, which regular audiences probably wouldn’t pick up…but that’s seriously all I could find.

The SFX are right on, down to the splashes in the stream corresponding to the individual hooves on the horses. I never used to think about that stuff before, but now that I do, it’s something beautiful when it’s done really well.

What I thought of Eastwood before is that his strength was simplicity. I still agree with that, though, am now marveling at how often and how well he puts natural light to work for him. I don’t know what technology was available yet in 1993, so don’t know whether shadows of the crew got digitally removed from some shots, or, where the heck the crew could safely be in that shot given the direction of the sun and what they needed to capture. The level of precise timing, in terms of shooting at a specific point in the day for sunlight and the direction thereof, must have made determining the production schedule interesting.

When I remember the 1993 Oscars, when this took Best Picture, Best Director, Best Editing and a very well-deserved Best Supporting Actor for Gene Hackman, I remember being disappointed that it hadn’t also won for screenwriting and cinematography. Nearly 20 years later, I still find this one of the most quotable films I’ve ever seen.

I did find myself feeling sorry for Clint Eastwood because he falls down A LOT in this one, and I could not see that he was using a stunt person in any of those cases. This was the perfect vehicle for an aging western actor, playing the unwilling hero whose past antics haunt him. I don’t know that he can ever make a film I love more than this one, and after “Hereafter,” I’m concerned that he’s lost his mojo altogether. Time will tell, but, the guy is 80 years old now.

Does “Unforgiven” belong on the AFI Best list? Definitely.

I have since sought out Spike Lee’s work on other occasions, in and outside the classroom. I’ve seen several examples of both his narrative and his documentary work, and was surprised to learn that he directed the pilot episode of TV’s “Shark,” starring James Woods.

“Do the Right Thing,” from 1989, is one of Lee’s films I’ve seen before. According to IMDB, it’s been his most critically-acclaimed narrative, though I found “Bamboozled” a lot more upsetting and my favorite of his films is “Get On The Bus” because of its wide emotional range. Since 1989, Lee has learned to use rage alongside hope, compassion, and sadness, (ie. “When the Levees Broke”) and it has made him a better filmmaker.

Despite the fact that he is to blame for introducing Rosie Perez, Lee occupies an important place in the national conversation about directors who have made a difference to the movies. If Tyler Perry makes movies for black people, then Spike Lee makes movies about them, in a manner that gives voice to the racial rift in the United States.

In “Do the Right Thing,” it is as interesting to see a young Martin Lawrence, and an unusually subdued, non-vulgarian Samuel L. Jackson, as it is bittersweet to see late husband and wife acting team Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee. Lee doesn’t mince his transitions, as it’s always a cut; but the thing I hadn’t paid enough attention to on my first viewing is his camera angles, which he uses to emphasize points when characters are at cross purposes.

Some people dismiss Spike Lee as an angry black man who makes angry black films. If he were truly the “angry black man” some white film enthusiasts would paint him as, he would not have handled Danny Aiello’s character at all like an honorable man who simply has a really bad day. To my way of thinking, if you think Spike Lee is just an angry black man, you 1) don’t know much about American history and 2) haven’t seen enough of his work.

Does “Do the Right Thing” belong on the AFI list? Yes. But they should do the right thing and make it higher than number 96.

Having nothing to compare it to, I can’t say whether I agree with the popular notion that “Duck Soup” is the best Marx Brothers film. That is an exercise for another day. I don’t know for sure whether Mel Brooks ever cited the Marx Brothers as influences, but I am betting they are. Much of the gags reminded me stylistically of various things done by Mel Brooks, who I believe to be one of the funniest filmmakers in history and ought to have at least one of his own titles in the “Best” list. (I would vote for “Blazing Saddles.”)

The Marx Brothers developed their schtick and signature looks on vaudeville (plastic nose and glasses sets became famous because of Groucho), then transferred them easily to the screen. “Duck Soup” was seen at the time as genius in both comedy (it still is) and political satire. When Groucho Marx was asked about the political satire, he answered that they were just “four Jewish guys trying to get a laugh.” Because they never commented publicly about their intentions toward political satire, the subject has been much discussed among film historians. Mussolini reportedly banned the film in Italy.

Film is of course primarily a visual medium, but the Marx Brothers didn’t let all their gags be sight gags. They took full advantage of the dialogue, too. “I wanted to get a writ of habeas corpus, but I should have gotten a-rid of you, instead!” Honestly, Groucho is so quick with most of these that I had to pause and go back and make sure he’d actually said what I thought I’d heard. The Marx Brothers, in 1933, were funnier than most television sitcoms on TV are in 2011.

As far as whether I agree with “Duck Soup” being on the AFI list: Yes. I am not convinced it should be as low on the pole as 60, but then at this point, I’ve still only seen a handful of these titles to be able to think about re-ranking them.

Re-visiting “JAWS” as a film student is an unexpectedly fascinating exercise. The editing is mind-blowingly good. Once you’re watching the film for other than enjoyment, you can tell by looking closely which scenes were done in a pool, and which in a bay, and which actually out in the ocean. I couldn’t wait to see the list of “filmed at” locations in the credits, only to be disappointed because in 1975, they didn’t do the kind of long, specific credits we’re used to these days.

Some of the shots, obviously, had to be taken while on a boat, and considering that Spielberg would have been shooting this on 16mm, it’s pretty impressive to think about some dude up on the poop deck of a boat with a 35mm camera. Those things are huge and heavy, and, it’s awfully windy in a place like that. You can tell by watching closely which shots happened from another boat, as opposed to on a stationery dock with a boat close by. This is a film I’d love to see the shot list and production schedule for.

It occurred to me that one scene had to have constituted either one of the most fun, or the most aggravating, shoots ever. “OK, I’m gonna wait another minute for all of you to get situated and play in the water. When I blow this whistle, I need everyone to scream, run out of the water, and act like there’s a shark chasing you.”

My first college class in film taught that “you should always cut during action.” Spielberg, I noticed, doesn’t do that in “JAWS.” Spielberg allows the main action to take place and the actors to leave the frame, continuing in conversation, as the shot lingers on items of note. I thought it worked well. Spielberg helmed “JAWS,” his second major feature which is considered the first summer blockbuster, 20 years before going back and getting his degree in film. I will now need to go watch something he made after 1995 to see whether he changed this convention or not.

So, again to our final question: Does “JAWS” belong on the AFI list? Absofrickinlutely. And probably higher than #56.

I had never seen a Charlie Chaplin film all the way through, and I’m really glad I decided to watch this one. What Chaplin accomplishes here in terms of special effects, choreographed shots, and body language, for 1925, is monumental. He manages a story with humor and heart, without us hearing a single word. To give you an idea of how ahead of his time he was, he uses guyliner 75 years — a full lifetime — before guyliner became cool.

One of my favorite Johnny Depp movies is “Benny and Joon.” Something Depp’s Sam does throughout the film is to re-create various Charlie Chaplin gags. I knew that the “Oceanic Roll” bit Depp does with forks and bread rolls was something from a Chaplin film, but getting to see it in its original context, by Chaplin, was a treat I did not expect.

I was expecting the visual gags to be corny. What I did not expect was to find myself laughing out loud more than once. I tried to think about who Chaplin’s successors are, in terms of slapstick film stars. Steve Martin? Jim Carrey? Both are really good, but neither have a specific image enduring enough that it can be called truly iconic.

There are places where the film drags. I can’t decide whether that is because in 2011 we are used to more fast-paced films, or whether it’s owing to the limited technology of the day. Taken in conjunction with everything that was ahead of its time in terms of effects (the tilting cabin!) and choreographed slapstick (the bear!), I can’t really fault Chaplin for that.

Here is a case where I got turned on to something cool I hadn’t been exposed to before. I hope there are a lot more like that.

I can’t help but be struck by the number of similarities between these films. Bank robber falls for girl and drags her into his life of crime, which becomes romanticized. Shoot-outs and bank robbings, punctuated by some dead friends, and ultimately, at least one treacherous friend. The public, in the throes of the Great Depression, helps and even idolizes the criminals; and in both cases, robbers are shown letting regular folks keep their own money during bank robberies. Both cases end in death.

It will surprise nobody to hear that I prefer watching Johnny Depp. Warren keeps this cheesy car salesman grin on his face a lot of the time, despite a similar unspoken understanding that things can only end badly. Both women involved (Bonnie is Faye Dunaway with perfect hair and her counterpart, Billie, is Marion Cotillard, with haunting eyes) have grim prospects as compared to being on the lam with sexy robbers. In Bonnie’s case, she might have found a rich man to pluck her from poverty, because of her beauty; Billie’s case was more complicated because of her ethnic background. Bonnie has more to lose, but Billie has fewer options. Both women are loved unquestioningly, and for each, this becomes more important than the paltry fact that her lover is a robber and a killer.

As a musician and scorer myself, I always notice the music and pay particular attention to it in my own work. Both scores have a lot of bluegrass banjo in them, but in the end, I prefer the score to “Enemies” because it also mixed in some slide guitar. Slide guitar is sexy, and did more to accompany the seduction of a life of crime, than the constant banjo during “Bonnie and Clyde.” (I kept waiting for the dueling banjos.)

Both films show a stalwart lawman, trying to get his man. In “Enemies,” there’s a lot more to understand about the pursuer and his motivations. In “Bonnie and Clyde,” Denver Pyle (yep, that would be Uncle Jesse from “Dukes of Hazzard”) follows up more from a sense of personal outrage than anything else.

As for filming style, both films make use of the wide expanses of the midwest, and cramped, dark hiding places; “Enemies” can at points make you motion sick owing to the HD-handheld camera style during action sequences. Would Arthur Penn have used that technology in “Bonnie and Clyde” had it been available to him? We can’t ask, as he died in September. It is an interesting question.

Does “Bonnie and Clyde” deserve to be on the AFI list? I don’t think so. I see it as pretty close to the same film as “Public Enemies,” and while I did enjoy “Public Enemies,” would not describe it as among the Best Ever (nor did the Academy, or most professional critics).

For argument’s sake, though, I will provide an alternate title which I believe should have been on the AFI list, instead. I will at least try to keep my replacements in similar genres. Seeing “Bonnie and Clyde” as a 1930′s crime drama, I’d replace it on the AFI list with 1987′s “The Untouchables,” starring Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, and Robert DeNiro.

I had never seen “The Graduate,” incredible as that sounds. I have seen the iconic end scene, as well as references to it in pop culture, but had never actually seen the film.

Filmically speaking, I understand completely why it’s on the list of 100 Best. The shot composition and camera work is stellar, something I would not have noticed before film school. The use of underwater shots does a lot to create the lead character’s aimlessness, confusion, solitude and frustration.

I suddenly came to understand why casting Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise as brothers in “Rain Man” was such an inspired idea; young Dustin does remind me at points of Tom. Hoffman does bring the “aimless and awkward” well. This is the first time I’d seen anything with Anne Bancroft in it where she plays anything other than an old woman. I like her performance without completely understanding her character’s motivation.

While I understand that Simon and Garfunkel were popular at the time and therefore probably appropriately used at the time, I found them cloying. Musically speaking, there were certain moments I found myself missing a traditional musical score, and other times I longed for something other than Paul Simon.

To me, the film speaks to a generation of people coming of age who were having to choose between tradition and new ways, what their parents wanted for them versus the ability to decide for themselves. Through that lens, Hoffman’s character does take a growth step, even if he’s still aimless at the end.

I was bothered by the representation of women in this film. Ben’s mother is all but invisible, Mrs. Robinson predatory and vindictive, and Elaine doesn’t seem to have a single redeeming quality that would inspire such rash behavior on Ben’s part. Maybe that’s a generational thing, as back in the 60′s, it was more common for a girl to go to college, only to meet a guy, drop out, and marry him. That part of the story line, I believe, would no longer fly in an age where female college graduates outnumber males.

The main question then: Does “The Graduate” belong on the AFI list? Yes. For filmic composition reasons, for the themes it explored at the time it explored them, and for at least two of the more memorable movie scenes ever. Whether I believe it belongs as high as #17 remains to be seen.

Some of the films on this list that I haven’t seen are going to surprise people, because they’re ones you’d think I as a movie-watcher would have seen. In some cases, like “Apocalypse Now,” I can recognize the iconic moments and references to it in pop culture, without ever actually having watched the entire film. There are a lot of films on the list I haven’t seen only because of my age, and the act of reporting on them, I hope, will not just improve my film criticism but also act as a service to those my age and younger who for whatever reason have not gotten around to seeing these.

Each time, I’ll tell you why I believe the film was placed on the list, and whether I agree.  If I do not agree, I will attempt to offer a title I feel should be there instead. In cases where I’ve already seen the film, I’ll watch it again, now having had the benefit of a year of film school through which to newly interpret the film.

I may not go in order because that might prove difficult. Dreaming Ant only has so many copies of older films. At first glance, I find it dubious that so many of these films contain Humphrey Bogart, and that so many of them are Westerns. I have to remind myself that this is the AMERICAN Film Institute and that Westerns are probably a uniquely American genre (with or without spaghetti). But…I don’t get the Humphrey Bogart thing. That’s one of the things I hope to understand, because, unbelievably, I have never actually seen a film with him in it.

Some films (think, “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Toy Story,” “Titanic,” etc.) I already have in my DVD library and will be all too happy to see again. Others, like “Sophie’s Choice,” I am not looking forward to watching again. I think I could have withstood that one a lot easier before becoming a mother, but unfortunately, I saw it just as I’d become a young mother with a little girl and a little boy, and it gave me nightmares. For years.

Anyhow…off to the AFI’s Top 100 movies, hope you’ll come with me!

Toy Story 3, nominated for Best Animated Feature.

Only in an alternate universe with Toy Story fail to win its Oscar. I preferred How to Train Your Dragon. But the Academy is not going to miss its last chance to award a franchise that changed the history of animated films forever. As you may recall, the original Toy Story came out in 1995, and its sequel in 1997, before they even had the Best Animated Feature category (that arrived in 2001).

I found several scenes, like the one where Ken models clothes, to be unnecessary. The whole concept of “bitter, non-played-with toy as villain” is a recycle from Stinky Pete, the Prospector. This film took less care with subplots, scoring, and background details than the other two, which is a shame and not fair to the original. One scene involving an incinerator moved me to tears, but not because of what was happening onscreen; I was terribly upset, picturing all the little kids sitting in movie theaters around the world getting traumatized. Had I taken my 6-year-old to this, he’s have woken up with nightmares about his toys burning up. The film had moments, certainly. But it wasn’t a worthy successor.

The Kids Are All Right, nominated for Best Picture

A few people have suggested that Annette Bening might pull an upset over Natalie Portman for Best Actress this year. Bening turned in a solid performance, but mostly, the character is Carolyn Burnham as a lesbian. It’s not that big of a stretch. The best moments of this film came from Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore, who are both nominated for Support Categories they won’t win.

The writing in the film is exactly the type I admire most…honesty, with humor and heart (that’s my motto, in fact). There is both humor and heartbreak. There is perfection in imperfection. These characters and their motivations are believable. In America, people don’t seem to get as offended by lesbians as they do gay men, for some reason…a reason why this film has gotten the level of attention it has. However, thinking back to Milk and Brokeback Mountain, those films both won other awards, but NOT Best Picture. I wonder when America will be ready for a gay Best Picture. It won’t be this year, and that’s too bad, because this was a special film.

Exit Through the Gift Shop, nominated for Best Documentary Feature

Thierry Guetta, a French expatriate in Los Angeles who ought to be on Ritalin, was obsessed with his camcorder for several years, and because he captured everything he could for several years, he stumbled onto the underworld of illegal street art. Guetta befriends the likes of Sheperd Fairey and Banksy, and follows them around, helping to document their art process and the reaction to that art. If only that’s solely what this film had been about.

Responding to a half-serious challenge from Banksy, Guetta mortgages his business, rents an art studio, buys printing equipment, and hires a staff to mass-produce the kind of street art Fairey and Bansky made famous. Guetta then puts together an art show, using quotes from those two artists to promote the show. Guetta’s show nets him a million dollars in art sales. The whole thing made me sick because this guy commodified art on purpose, and got away with it. He didn’t even do his work, personally. My 13-year-old son, also horrified by what he was seeing, exclaimed, “But…he’s cheating!” Even though there aren’t technically rules associated with art, I agree that there was something sleazy about this. Loved the first half, was upset by the second, and I wish the film had chosen either one or the other to be completely about.

Dogtooth, nominated for Best Foreign Feature

A Greek executive rules tyrannically using psychological and physical abuse, over his wife and three adult children, who live in a walled-off compound far away from civilization. This is a home school from Hell. Incest (very graphic) is condoned, the “children” spend all day in their underwear but dress in infantile-looking formalwear for dinner, and the three have been brought up, deliberately being taught fallacies about their language and their world. It is disturbing from beginning to end, and has a lot of sex and nudity in it, which isn’t done with any camera trickery or body doubles.

What the hell are the Greeks smoking these days? I’ve heard a few people claim that this film is really a protest against oppressive governments. I have no idea whether that’s true or not, because I didn’t read it that way at all. If it was the intention to have it be such a protest, then it was badly, and offensively handled. Not only will I not recommend that anyone see this, but I will actively campaign against anyone seeing it.

I Am Love, nominated for Best Foreign Feature

This is a film that proves I’m not enough of a film snob yet. It won the Golden Globe, and has gotten tons of glowing reviews about its depth. I pride myself on reading several levels of depth in films, to the extent that I’m asked to share my notes a lot at film school now that I’m there. However…I found it mostly boring because of its very slow pace. It took about half an hour before I even understood what the film was about, and because I don’t speak Italian, I missed a key point. Tilda Swinton’s character is Russian, and speaks Italian with a Russian accent. Good luck understanding that facet without reading any reviews, or just reading subtitles, grrrrr.

While others have written that this film is about a woman who is an outsider in her own family, who discovers and follows her own needs, that isn’t what I got from it. I found it to be a statement about old business that valued quality products and people, versus the new corporate mantra that only the bottom line matters. Grandfather Eduardo leaves the company to his son and grandson (also named Eduardo), stating that he wishes his old-fashioned business philosophy to continue; before the grandfather’s body is even cold, his son is making arrangements to sell to an American corporation. Young Eduardo clearly espouses his grandfather’s position, and protests loudly. Disillusioned, he argues with his mother, falls by accident into a swimming pool, hits his head and dies. His death is necessary because it represents the death of the old ways. I found that aspect of the film to be its most compelling. Overall, so far, between this and Dogtooth, this wins. But that’s not saying much because Dogtooth is actually Dogpoop.

Restrepo, nominated for Best Documentary Feature

I haven’t walked out on many movies in my lifetime. I think the only one I can ever remember actually walking out on is Adam Sandler’s Waterboy, because as the parent of a child with autism I found it offensive. I have great respect for the men and women in uniform who are deployed in Afghanistan, but I am ashamed to say, I lasted only twelve minutes and forty-three seconds into this film before I got seriously motion-sick and had to turn it off. It’s possible I may go back and try to see more, but…it’s even worse than the one that’s made me sickest of all (Children of Men), which I sat through all they way only because it contained Clive Owen. Maybe I’ll pretend the Army captain is Clive Owen. I do feel an obligation to finish this film. It’s the least I can do to honor the troops who have placed themselves in harm’s way, in my place. But I think I’ll need one of those motion sickness patches first.