Monthly Archives: January 2012

Viewing Diary – Haywire, The Artist, Mulberry St.

Written by . Filed under Reviews, Viewing Diary. Tagged , , , , , , , . No comments.

Haywire (2012)

Dir. Steven Soderbergh

With Haywire, Steven Soderbergh continues to push the boundaries of popular narrative form. He has always been interested in experimenting with how to tell a story, but more recently has really tested just how far he can go with making his films as efficient as possible, oftentimes challenging rules of continuity, while still holding the film together. Soderbergh condenses character development and narrative information, walking a fine line between tightly constructed filmmaking and an almost avant-garde evasion of convention. Many of his stylistic ambitions from Contagion (my favourite of his films) can be found here, but in a different context, and ultimately in a more rigorous exercise—it is often difficult to locate Soderbergh’s interest in content (assuming he has any), and Haywire may be one of his more elusive works. His efficiency does find its match though, in the film’s protagonist Mallory (MMA fighter Gina Carano); She’s smart, quick and nearly devoid of sentimentality (but, like the filmmaker, she may have a tiny soft spot). In all of her one-on-one combat scenes, Carano’s strategy is all about technique, her form is as precise as Soderbergh’s. Mallory is seemingly built up to be an unstoppable weapon, but a point is made to reveal her fallibility. The action sequences feel entirely authentic (the other actors do a marvelous job trying to match Carano’s ability), although their real-world feel may not be sensational enough for the common moviegoer, and indeed people may be turned off by Haywire, as some were with Contagion, as both films feel like Trojan horses when viewed at the multiplex (a special pleasure, from my point-of-view). Soderbergh employs natural sound during these considerably long sequences, which among other things gives the impression of exhaustion as each fight is drawn out. The result is a palpable sense of physicality, an element all but absent from action films.

Speaking of the film’s use of sound, Haywire seems to have two modes. The first is in natural sound, which aside from the fight scenes emphasize real-world ambiance in more mundane moments. One hears the creaks of a wooden floor, the light buzzing of an air conditioner, and in the case of dialogue scenes a sense of the environment’s impact on voices (open vs. closed spaces etc.). The second mode is when the film’s soundtrack completely gives in to its very cool poppy/jazzy musical score by David Holmes. The range of settings is noticeably atypical: a desolate airport, flat boring hallways and rooms, an upper class home in darkness (not unlike The Limey), a villa, and a climactic battle on a sunny beach (where the sounds of waves overpower those of the fight). Soderbergh seems driven to defy the filmmaking status quo as much as possible while delivering a seamlessly told story. Cross-cutting between locations all over the world (as he did in Contagion) within a non-linear structure, he plays with spatial and temporal possibilities more than any other Hollywood director. As this pre-(quasi)-retirement phase of the self-described uninspired filmmaker’s career develops, it is quickly becoming his most fascinating period.

The Artist (2011)

Dir. Michel Hazanavicius

At first glance, The Artist may seem like an ideal companion piece to Hugo—Scorsese’s film integrates history of silent cinema into its story, and even appropriates silent film footage in several sequences, and The Artist is a modern day silent (for the most part) film—but ultimately these two thematically linked works are opposed to one another in how they view cinema. Scorsese emphasizes how movies transcend time as well as their technology and materiality, even sharing his “stage” with Georges Méliès as if to say that films that are worlds apart can stand right next to each other as equals. In Scorsese’s universe, cinema is immortal and of a cyclical design, in which past and future work together. The Artist couldn’t get more linear-minded. It is a film about (it’s a stretch to say it’s really about anything, but I’ll humour it) progress, and evolution. Its final statement (which comes in an awkwardly staged abrupt happy ending) is that as cinema transitions into different technological phases (silent to sound, black/white to colour, film to digital), it will find something new that keeps the art form rejuvenated. This view point doesn’t really revere the past, but rather sees the progress of the medium as a means of survival. Indeed, cinema’s ability to adapt and survive (through the great depression and two world wars, for example) as a strong economic institution is fascinating, but this seems to be The Artist‘s sole message. Boiled down to its essence, The Artist is a film about cinema as a business, and Hugo is about cinema as art. As love letters to the movies, the distinctions are obvious. Hugo‘s means of homage are intricate and deeply felt, The Artist rips off narrative pieces, music, and makes confusing references. Confusing in that it poses as a silent film homage, yet its references are all over the place. Why quote Citizen Kane? There is no contextual reasoning or thematic justification. It’s just easy and obvious. Worse is taking Hermann’s score from Vertigo and borrowing (to put it nicely) its power in the cheapest of ways (and for the sake of shallow, fluffy melodrama?).

There are things to like in The Artist, and it is “well-made” (whatever that means). Jean Dujardin is very good as the protagonist, he has the right physicality and gestural range. He resembles Gene Kelly, and evokes Douglas Fairbanks rather effectively. The film is fun at first, with moments of whimsy and charm, but it quickly throws that out in favour of dull (over-serious, even) melodrama. The last two-thirds of the film are needlessly whiny and somber. Singin’ in the Rain‘s spin on the coming of the sound era was a joyous celebration of modern cinematic technology that didn’t pretend to lament the silent era’s demise. The presence of Uggie the dog in the film, the protagonist’s talented, adorable companion, is symbolic of the film’s attitude towards old movies, which can be summed up with the phrase: “isn’t it cute?” Such reactions were certainly had by my fellow audience members, who chuckled mildly (no real laughs are to be had at this surprisingly “straight-up” film) at The Artist‘s demonstration of silent-silliness. The Artist adopts silent aesthetics, but its referential style is a superficial demonstration of cinephilia. A film like Hugo says infinitely more about silent cinema (and cinema in general). Hugo is tribute; The Artist is parody, and it’s not quite clever enough to realize it.

Mulberry St. (2010)

Dir. Abel Ferrara

Everyone is welcome on camera in Abel Ferrara’s Mulberry St., a documentary that explicitly reveals the warmth behind the underrated auteur’s gritty, crude exterior. The film has no guiding narrative. It drifts from encounter to encounter with different personalities, many eccentric, in New York’s Little Italy during the Feast of San Gennaro. Not since Martin Scorsese’s Italianamerican has there been such an intimate portrayal of the Italian New Yorker experience, and together in a double bill the films complete one another. Scorsese’s film is about history and family while Ferrara’s gives you a sense of the streets, the people—both cover the food.

Mulberry St.’s free-flowing feel is its most endearing quality; like Ferrara himself, there‘s something chaotic and disorganized about the film, but that’s just in his/its nature. We often see the initial exchange between Ferrara and his subjects and occasionally witness as he asks for permission to film (something most any other filmmaker would cut, but tidiness is not one of Ferrara’s concerns). The peak of the film’s nonchalance comes when Ferrara actually begins to review footage he shot earlier in the doc—and complains about how it fails to capture the colour of his girlfriend’s (Shanyn Leigh) red hair. The richness of the film comes from the people we get to meet: vendors, restaurant owners, China Girl bit-part cast members, random people on the street, and genuine locals (we also get to meet Abel and Shanyn’s three cats!). There are also some “celebrity” cameos, including chance encounters with Matthew Modine and Danny Aiello (Sal from Do the Right Thing). Modine comically enters the film via segway like Gob in Arrested Development. Shanyn takes a spin, and then Ferrara attempts to give it a shot before being stopped by his girlfriend, while Modine nervously says “I’m afraid the wheel’s coming off”. Aiello talks acting with Ferrara, and shares a nice anecdote about working with Spike Lee, who he says allowed him to rewrite his own lines.

Throughout the film, we get personal moments with Ferrara, as he recounts filming 9 Lives of a Wet Pussy (his porno), complains about lawsuits and the failed distribution of Go Go Tales, shares artwork that interests him (“Ever seen this Van Gogh painting? Check it out”), and, as it seems to be getting increasingly difficult to catch him without a guitar, we also see him perform. He is often seen with a beer in his hand (in one moment his manager Frankie Cee reveals that Ferrara is drinking upwards of 30 bottles of beer a day), but, notably, has since gone sober. We see that, like his cinema, Ferrara is rough but artful. The camera intuitively weaves through hallways, stairways and up and down Mulberry St., guided by its search for anything interesting to film, which for Ferrara is just about anyone. Show me another documentary so filled to the brim with life—I doubt there are many out there.

Viewing Diary – A Dangerous Method, Fallen Angels, Gamer

Written by . Filed under Reviews, Viewing Diary. Tagged , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments.

A Dangerous Method (2011)

Dir. David Cronenberg

It’s no wonder that A Dangerous Method has divided critics; the film is alternately obvious and subtle. Moreover, it could be said to represent a sort of culmination of David Cronenberg’s increasingly mainstream period (A History of Violence, Eastern Promises), which is characterized by a more traditional approach to narrative, and a less explicit (but still explicit) investigation of his usual themes. This partly has to do with the fact that Cronenberg hasn’t written his own screenplay since 1999′s eXistenZ (although this is to change with his next film, Cosmopolis, scheduled to be released later this year). In abandoning Cronenberg’s “arthouse” and “b-movie” sensibility, he has subsequently been abandoned by some fans and critics alike, who see this embrace of more widely appealing material as selling out. But Cronenberg has not abandoned his obsessions, and even if we can no longer look forward to grotesque animatronics and wound-fucking, the dark pleasures of his cinema remain intact, and (don’t shoot me) is it not possible that perhaps this a legitimate maturation, and one which sees Cronenberg more concerned with form than ever before? Surely A Dangerous Method is a testament to this—it is easily one of his greatest formal accomplishments—as was Eastern Promises, which contrary to popular opinion, is one of his better films. In the past, his films could be too clinical and didactic, and were always best when they retained a mystery (Crash, his indisputable masterwork) rather than feeling like a purely psychological exercise. A Dangerous Method achieves this balancing act, and the film’s more veiled intents are difficult to uncover. Towards the end, it becomes clear that in addition to its interest in establishing the film’s historical figures as confused obsessives with their own limited perspectives, Cronenberg is concerned with Jewish/Aryan relations (Cronenberg, it should be noted, is Jewish) and illustrating a larger portrayal of European consciousness before the dawn of World War. The film’s post-script, clearly tongue-in-cheek, points out that Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), both Jewish, were victimized by Nazism—Freud fled the Nazis and died of cancer, Spielrein was shot by Nazis in a synagogue—while the Aryan Jung “lived peacefully” until his death in 1961. Cronenberg portrays Jung sympathetically, as he butts heads with Freud and struggles with his desires, but at the same time takes great pleasure in defining his flaws and ambiguities. Ultimately, Freud is not really examined in comparison, shown as a stubborn but mild man, mostly restricted to his office, alone, and shown in vulnerable moments, collapsing at one point in humiliating fashion in front of his rival. Jung’s quest to further psychoanalysis comes from an ambition to better the human being, an all-too Aryan idea. The birth of modern psychology is articulated as a time of self-investigation and uncertainty, and in its two primary figures, Cronenberg finds a self-destructive quality in the European consciousness as the turbulent first half of the 20th century approaches.

Fallen Angels (1995)

Dir. Wong Kar-Wai

I like most of Wong Kar-Wai’s films, but since being introduced to the popular auteur, I have had a bit of a “so what?” attitude towards him. At first I surrendered to the beauty of In the Mood For Love (I now think it to be overrated), and the ambition of 2046 (even more-so), but an indifference has been growing inside me. In the last while, however, I finally got around to seeing Happy Together, and more recently, Fallen Angels, and I may be changing my tune. The latter is now my favourite of his films, and I would argue, his most complete (incompleteness being an unfortunate quality attached to much of his work). In articulating the urban alienation of Hong Kong living, Wong’s most dominant theme, he has, as many filmmakers do, restated the same idea in different ways. In the Mood For Love‘s careful, ornate approach is to hone in on the tragic inability to connect with another person, and the impossibility of romance to exist as anything but a silent wish. Fallen Angels isn’t so ostentatious, opting to use fast-paced, overtly fun framing and editing to articulate this serious syndrome that In the Mood For Love essentially turns into a fetish. The film is divided into two stories, which overlap quite subtly. In one story, that of a hit-man and his female “partner” whom he never works with directly, two characters are, in a sense, living the same life simultaneously, separately but co-dependently. Both are completely alienated from society, existing in their own outsider world of canted angles and jump cuts. Their process is detailed by Wong in poppy fashion, but there is tragedy in how his characters revolve around one another. Through these characters we imagine a Hong Kong full of the detached and lonely whose perfect matches are just around the corner, but always out of reach. In the other story, a mute, also resigned to a life of relative solitude, is detached from society but exists in a distorted version of its system of living, compensating by working in random shops he breaks into after hours, forcing unwilling customers to participate in his comical fantasy. When the mute’s life intersects with the hit-man’s, it is brief and anti-climactic. Wong’s characters are magnets who expose to each other the wrong side, repelling, not attaching. The energy of the filmmaking makes for an interesting contrast with the themes, perhaps increasing the poignancy of this vision of a world defined by its recurring image of a dark tunnel with a single guiding light, in which one is either alone, or not—and how rarely the latter is the case.

Gamer (2009)

Dir. Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor

 The manic brilliance of Neveldine/Taylor reached its highest point (so far) with Gamer, which, if not as fun as Crank: High Voltage, is more cohesive and focused. The confusing satiric notes of the Crank films make it difficult to affirm just what, if anything, Neveldine/Taylor want to say, but that’s part of their appeal—meticulously crafted, vulgar “trash”, that puts other contemporary action films and filmmakers to shame with few exceptions. Gamer is also less funny, dishing out its spoonfuls of sugar with equal components vinegar and cyanide, but it finds the duo at their most articulate. Its seemingly most obvious target is that of the vicarious violence of video games, but Neveldine/Taylor aren’t cynical here—they clearly love sensationalistic violence and often celebrate it (they love it the same way Verhoeven loves SFX, an almost purely technical admiration). Instead, their focus is on the avatarism of 21st century life, or, the disassociation of realities from living. The universe of Gamer is one where cyberspace and physical space have collided so as to be difficult to distinguish, and where ignorance and immorality are the dominant forces. Everyone lives at the expense of others—as, essentially, people must do in a consumerist society—and control is capital. Some amazing sci-fi touches outdo most middle/highbrow films, such as a bedroom/digital interface in which Simon (the young man who controls Gerard Butler’s character) contently relaxes amidst a cyber-abyss. Another clever moment features a shot/reverse shot between Michael C. Hall’s villainous Ken Castle and a news program, both shots featuring digital backgrounds, the presence of reality completely eradicated between the forces of media and technology. The unification between Neveldine/Taylor’s form and content is at its most comfortable in Gamer. I can’t think of other filmmakers more concerned with NOW, amongst the mainstream or amongst festival approved auteurs, and these guys are a great deal better at articulating it, anyhow.

Crossing Boundaries: The Movie Event of the Year

Written by . Filed under Best of the Year, Essays, Guest Contributions. Tagged , , . No comments.

Note from the editor: Mike wrote on The Tree of Life last year for Cinémezzo, this piece acts as a sort of sequel

2011 was a great year for new movies. As a fortunate Vancouverite−i.e. someone with access to one of the world’s best film fests, the Vancouver International Film Festival−I usually have good years for new movies, albeit ones with the manna packed into a frenzied, exhausting compact of three weeks. I see great films every year at VIFF, many of them radical art films from Europe and Asia never to be seen again in North American theatres. The dream of an uncompromising crossover art cinema that animated the late 60s and 70s often seems gone; commercial and mainstream-critical conformism have created a rarefied ghetto for international art cinema, with only the odd Weinstein-backed mediocrity breaking through the walls. VIFF packs the houses for films by Jia Zhangke, Jafar Panahi and others, but they rarely show up at local commercial theatres.

What’s up with that? Is the interest so minor that in can be crammed into a few screenings once a year? Should we blame the media-industrial complex exclusively? Were the 60s and 70s a lucky anomaly that we should get over already? Is the majority-white audience in North America too parochial? I think about this stuff every time I watch a Bergman, Fellini (not often these days), Antonioni or 60s Godard film; every time I read Davids Denby and Thomson, every time I come out of a masterpiece like Syndromes and a Century and it occurs to me that only a sliver of an audience will have- take?- the chance of seeing it. I can’t stop believing in the dream of Uncompromising Crossover Art Cinema (why not coin a phrase? UCAC hereafter), and it’s this dream that made the mainstream-critical and relative commercial success of Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life the movie event of 2011 for me.

I still can’t believe that Hollywood backed a film so antithetical to its conventional practice. TTOL is as arty (that’s not a term of abuse for me!) as it gets: massively pretentious, unashamedly poetic, radically associative and discontinuous. It’s not just anomalous in relation to the mainstream, though: TTOL is also an exception to the contemporary arthouse standard of anti-dramatic stasis. It’s as excessive as any tentpole blockbuster and as emotional as any melodrama; Malick deserves a Nobel Prize for folding those elements into one of the most unconventional films ever made. This movie is as cerebral as it is moving, as generous as it is mysterious, as viscerally pungent as it is abstract.

Getting back to parochialism for a second, I have to concede that the film’s ethnic makeup and thematics, its relatively high marketing budget (trailers in multiplexes, etc.), and its Pitt-power (star and co-producer) probably have more than a little to do with its success. But I also want to stress that in no way do those things entail compromise. Malick was able to live the dream of millions: making a deeply radical narrative film with generous commercial backing and distribution. The cinema(s) of static sensual indulgence practiced by Joe, Kiarostami, Hou, Jia and all their compatriots and clones is often wonderful, but what’s missing from the festival circuit styles is something that would push them beyond the…festival circuit. Exuberance, interiority, lyricism, excess, speed, emotionalism, verbosity−by and large, these have been missing from art cinema for decades (exceptions like Wong Kar-Wai prove the rule), and I think that does relate to its commercial marginalization. (Obviously this isn’t the filmmakers’ fault, or even responsibility, and there are other, more significant, cultural and economic factors at work. But still…) TTOL is as intellectually and formally challenging as almost any work of narrative cinema, and it’s also powerfully emotional and spectacular: Malick’s combination of intense drama and formal radicalism is rarer than it should be. I don’t think every radical cineaste should aim to break into the multiplex. I don’t think that popularity is legitimacy. But it’s surely a sign of health and hope for culture when a film like TTOL can barge into the multiplex without dumbing down for what that audience is supposed to want. Sure, there were boos and walkouts, but there were also people I turned onto the film that responded with awe, rapture, tears. Surely that matters more. The last thing I’d want to do is hold up Malick’s achievement as a standard. But a standard and an inspiration are two different things, and it’s not too much to hope that this example of UCAC will give similarly ambitious filmmakers hope.

The film has a lot of detractors. On the one hand, there are the intelligent and principled demurrals of cinephiles like Robert Koehler and Dave Kehr. On the other hand, there are the people who walked out twenty minutes into the movie at the first of three multiplex screenings I attended, and the guy who muttered “What the fuck was that?” at the end of same showing. Some non-cinephiles presumably felt suckered, thinking that the presence of Brad Pitt on the poster and the film’s presence in a multiplex augured a more conventional experience; all I can say is, let’s give them more films this radical and change their expectations! Some people dislike the Christian thematics of the film, but to me they’re tinged with agnosticism (the for-many-disappointing beach finale of the film registers to me as totally hypothetical−the none-too-original dream of an unexceptional man). Some people dislike the rapid, discontinuous editing and the lack of narrative clarity, but to me it’s just part and parcel of the film’s oneiric, memory-evoking vibe. Some people dislike the way it mixes intimate particularization with the creation of the universe, but I see the mixture as a way of humbling the human situations as much as inflating them.

The mixture of grandiosity and intimate subjectivity in TTOL is entirely winning for me; each puts the other in perspective. Malick’s film is about confronting, and trying to bridge, the fundamental contradictions of human existence, including contradictions of scale: between the personal and cosmic, a gap which−tragically, as Malick surely acknowledges−can’t be either ignored or fully bridged. It’s a movie that defies the restrictive adage, cited by Koehler, about finding the universal in the particular. Malick is brave enough to start from the universal; the miracle of the film is that he’s able to establish this priority without diminishing the human element in the slightest. Brad Pitt, Hunter McCracken and Laramie Eppler are some of the most powerful presences I’ve ever seen and heard onscreen; they share the stage with dinosaurs, space vapour and a hypothetical God, and Malick has room for all of them.

Like many American films these days, Malick’s film is slowly paced and rapidly cut. What separates it from the pack−okay, one of several dozen things−is the combination of familiarly propulsive editing and non-narrative film strategy. TTOL pretty much rejects conventional storytelling−it’s as close to an avant-garde film as has ever been made with a 30 million dollar budget. Things are arranged with a rough consequential logic in the largest, middle section of the film, but in terms of regular cause-and-effect film plotting we get very little for our time. The film is intensely focused, at the expense of narrative progression, while also having a scatterbrained wealth of incident. The minimum of cause-oriented story progression evokes stasis, while the rapid cutting registers a sense of impermanence and plenitude. The film’s memory-like quality comes from its vividness, its breaks in sequence, and its lack of suspense. There’s a sense of foreclosure that registers from the very beginning and contrasts with the prolific imagery in fascinating ways.

Malick creates a near-equalization of things that usually contrast in most films: past and present, material and spiritual, individual and universal. He seems to be trying to triangulate extremes, except there’s no definitive third element that comes from it. Every paradox in the film goes unresolved. People scoff at the dichotomy of “the way of nature” and “the way of grace” outlined in Sean Penn’s voiceover narration. I’d have scoffed too if Malick had left it at that, but he didn’t. The film clearly shows Brad Pitt’s character, the obvious representative of “nature,” as having many of the traits that the voiceover groups under “grace”; the same could even be said of the now-infamous dinosaurs- clearly a part of “nature.” The dichotomy is complicated through dozens of incidents, and Malick’s style—in which the rapid cutting violates continuity while uniting contrasts in a blurry, stream-like proliferation—speaks to the slippery give and take between unity and contrast. It’s this give and take that defines Jack’s struggle within the film and Malick’s struggle in making it.

In Stanley Fish’s wonderful little book How To Write a Sentence: And How to Read One, he talks about Gertrude Stein’s strategy of dropping punctuation to create a continuous flow: “[L]ikeness and difference, the basic constituents of a discourse that anatomizes and ranks, change places, go in opposite directions, come together again, are in the end made one. By insisting on the alikeness in value of every word, Stein also insists on the difference or uniqueness of every word.” It seems to me like Malick is doing something similar with his lack of continuity in regards to storytelling, editing and imagery. TTOL is disjunctive and fluid at the same time, each in different ways. The montage is often radical, but it’s so steadily−and, eventually, predictably−prolific that the impact of each shot becomes equal while the visual content is often radically contrasted. The relentless pace of quick cutting turns it into a flowing stream of different colours; equality and difference come as close to merging as is possible. It’s like Malick wants to achieve the ultimate reconciliation, and is smart enough to know that he can’t. He hasn’t discovered a language that will express a unified sense of the world, probably because one doesn’t exist and can’t exist. TTOL is the record of a struggle to build a whole out of fractures, and the failures and successes of that struggle. That’s the reason I balk at my temptation to use the word “hubris” in relation to this movie: it’s ambitious as hell, but it deliberately incorporates a sense of incompleteness. That’s what makes it an agnostic film for me. Think of the grand-scale classics of the cinema: how many of them project anything near this level of uncertainty and irresolution?

When I try to articulate the sense of miraculous in a film I love, I usually come down to the same thing: the instructive commingling of opposites. The opposites here are massive-scale ambition and intense personal interiority. If there’s any didacticism in this film, it’s not to be found in Penn’s highfalutin voiceover, which is really a mere starting point; it’s in the lesson that the microscopic and the massive, the spectacular and the intimate, can belong together onscreen, even if they’re fighting an endless battle with each other. Malick’s fusion of scales, and of industrial contexts, is, if not sui generis, at least a history-making transgression. I can only hope that it’s quickly outstripped. Fingers crossed.

Music, 2011

Written by . Filed under Best of the Year, Lists, Music, Off Topic. Tagged . No comments.

The ten best albums of the year–

1. Coin Coin Chapter One: Gens de couleur libres by Matana Roberts

2. Let England Shake by PJ Harvey

3. Giles Corey by Giles Corey

4. New History Warfare Vol.2: Judges by Colin Stetson

5. Bon Iver by Bon Iver

6. Take Care by Drake

7. Tha Carter IV by Lil Wayne

8. 50 Words For Snow by Kate Bush

9. Bad As Me by Tom Waits

10. The King of Limbs by Radiohead

Honourable mentions–

Goblin by Tyler the Creator

The Weeknd’s Mixtape Trilogy: House of Balloons, Thursday, and, especially, Echoes of Silence

Albums you should probably listen to–

All Eternals Deck by The Mountain Goats, Biophilia by Bjork, Black Up by Shabazz Palaces, Darkbloom by Grimes, Eye Contact by Gang Gang Dance, Ghosts by Peter Evans Quintet, Helplessness Blues by Fleet Foxes, James Blake by James Blake, Kaputt by Destroyer, Lights of Endangered Species by Matthew Good, Looping State of Mind by The Field, Metals by Feist, Nostalgia/Ultra by Frank Ocean, Oneirology by CunninLynguists, Ravedeath, 1972 by Tim Hecker, Section.80 by Kendrick Lamaar, Sorry 4 the Wait by Lil Wayne, Space is Only Noise by Nicolas Jaar, Undun by The Roots, Watch the Throne by Jay-Z & Kanye West, The Whole Love by Wilco, Wildlife by La Dispute, A Winged Victory for the Sullen by A Winged Victory for the Sullen

Twenty-five best songs–

-click to listen-

1. Libation for Mr. Brown: Bid Em In by Matana Roberts

2. Lotus Flower by Radiohead

3. The Haunting Presence by Giles Corey

4. Yonkers by Tyler the Creator

5. Judges by Colin Stetson

6. Michicant by Bon Iver

7. Holocene by Bon Iver

8. England by PJ Harvey

9. Take Care by Drake feat. Rihanna

10. Wicked Games by The Weeknd

11. Abortion by Lil Wayne

12. Misty by Kate Bush

13. No One is Ever Going to Want Me by Giles Corey

14. A Commotion by Feist

15. All and Everyone by PJ Harvey

16. Marvin’s Room/Buried Alive by Drake

17. Hell Broke Luce by Tom Waits

18. Vanessa by Grimes

19. Niggas in Paris by Jay-Z & Kanye West

20. Wilhem’s Scream by James Blake

21. Non Populus by Matthew Good

22. Words I Never Said by Lupe Fiasco

23. WWJD He’d Prolly LOL Like WTF!!! by Lupe Fiasco

24. Nightcall by Kavinsky & Lovefoxxx

25. Estate Sale Sign by The Mountain Goats