Darrell Rooney Interview

In this interview, FT Podcasts producer David Campbell chats with Darrell Rooney. Darrell has worked on a number of high-profile productions including Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Tron and Hotel Transylvania, and directed a number of animated Disney sequels including The Lion King 2. Here, he looks back on his storied career.

DC: Darrell, you’re one of the most enduring animators in the industry, with your body of work dating back to the late 1970’s. Was working as an animator always the dream?

DR: I have been drawing since I was three years old. My siblings and I would sit down together and draw. We had drawing games we played together, and I would even draw my own animals because my Mom wouldn't buy me a bag of toy animals one time. I also remember I could see Olive Oyl in my imagination, so I kept telling my relatives I could draw her. I tried to but couldn't. My hand to eye coordination had not developed yet.

DC: Your earliest credit is as an assistant animator on Animalympics, forty years ago. Tell us about your training as an animator, and do you remember working on this film?

DR: I graduated from Sheridan College's Classical Animation Program in 1978 with High Honours. We learned all phases of production at Sheridan, so I knew how to fill out an exposure sheet, how to time an action with a timing chart, how to animate, do layouts and even paint cells when I graduated. I remember Lisberger Studios and Animalympics very well. I was Roger Allers' assistant animator for the production and we have remained friends ever since.

DC: Your first encounter with the Walt Disney Company was working on Tron as an effect’s animator, a film that really changed the game when it comes to computer generated animation. What was the experience like working on that film? Did you have any idea at the time it would go on to be considered one of the most ground-breaking works in Hollywood history when it comes to special effects?

DR: While I was working at Lisberger's on Animalympics, Steve Lisberger was developing Tron. I actually modelled for Flynn in some concept art and photography for the film. When Steve took the project over to Disney, I eventually followed and joined the Special Effects Animation Team there. My invisible claim to fame is that I added all the light sources in each scene inside the Computer World. The kodalith frames appeared too flat when shot a second time with EFX animation added, so a light source was added to each scene. I was very good at it. So good that it is imperceptible. Tron was so much fun to work on because we were on the Disney lot. That was a dream come true for me. I had wanted to work at Disney for as long as I can remember. I got to know everyone there. Tron was so ground-breaking; we certainly knew it was a very special film at the time. But, spoiler alert: there was as much traditional hand drawn EFX animation as there was computer generated animation in the film. Tron is really a hybrid film.

DC: You are also credited on two of Disney’s biggest films of the early 1990’s: as a pre-production script developer on Beauty and the Beast and as a writer on Aladdin. I was wondering if you could shed some light on your involvement in both of those films, and did you know at the time that you were in the middle of what many people have come to dub the Disney Renaissance?

DR: Beauty and the Beast was so invigorating to work. How did I get hired to develop it? The golden boy of the moment at Disney was director Jerry Rees, and he recommended me. So, they hired me. I had free reign to develop the characters and plotline as I saw fit. There was a script that existed, and they weren't happy with it. I just knew what to do to tap it over into classic Disney storytelling. First thing I did was change the name of the lead character. In the script her name was "Beauty". No character would be comfortable saying that on screen, it would just be awkward. So, I changed her name to "Belle". It means beauty in French, so it was a natural. I brought in my writing partner Rebecca Rees and we invented Gaston Dr Gauche as the villain. We got the Beauty and the Beast characters and storyline developed to a certain point where it was ready to go to script. But the studio did not want to allow us to write the screenplay. Instead they brought in someone of meagre talent to do the assignment.

Aladdin... I still don't know why I have a writing credit on this film since they wouldn't give me that credit on Beauty and the Beast. I had much more input and impact on that film than Aladdin. The film's main problem during the boarding phase was that the character of Aladdin wanted two things; he wanted to make his mother proud of him and he wanted the girl. And in a Disney animated feature the girl is always a princess. It confused Aladdin's goal. It divided his goal and made it hard to grasp his need. What was necessary was to pick one of those goals and toss the other. All the development story artists kept butting their heads against this problem while boarding out their sequences. We just knew we had to lose the mother in the storyline. He had to get the girl. That was the movie. But the directors (who I absolutely love) were in a quandary because songwriter Howard Ashman had written a beautiful song "Proud of Your Boy" that he really wanted in the film.

We all knew were in the beginning of the Second Golden Age of Animation. It had started with the success of The Little Mermaid and just kept growing. We were all enthralled to be getting our chance to shine. There was a momentum in the air, and it was an exhilarating time to be in animation.

DC: You made your directorial debut on the 1997 Disney short The Three Little Pigs: what was it like sitting in the director’s chair for the first time in your career?

DR: I loved becoming a director. It uses every skill set you have so I found it immensely satisfying. I couldn't wait to get to work every day. Isn't that remarkable. It also pointed out my areas of less skill. Like discussing music, and music cues. I always struggle with that. It doesn't come effortlessly to me like the visual side does.

DC: I really need to ask you about what was easily my favourite film when I was a child, and that is The Lion King 2. When was it that you were first approached to helm this project, and what made you say yes to it? It must have been quite an intimating task considering the monumental success of The Lion King.

DR: I had originally signed on to direct Lady and the Tramp 2: Scamp's Adventure and was thrilled with the idea of telling the next chapter in the story of these characters I loved so much. I felt like I really understood how to protect the integrity of the original film and its franchise. I guess I did a good job because Disney asked me to come in and help on The Lion King 2. It wasn't coming together. So, I looked at it, read the script, and talked to everyone involved to understand what the goal of the film was. I realized that "Simba's Pride" was actually his shadow side - the residual effect of the trauma of his childhood loss unconsciously controlling his adult life. I wanted Pride Rock flipped to the other side to subtly represent that. That was the key to it all for me, and probably the thing I am most proud of about the film. It is the spine that the rest of the movie hangs on. The studio agreed with my approach wholeheartedly. Once I was involved, I became very passionate about the film, so the studio decided to push back the schedule on Lady and the Tramp 2 until I finished The Lion King 2. It was a thrill to work on and the hardest thing I ever did. But I just knew what to do to make it unique and intelligent. I've always thought it was a great companion piece to the first film.

DC: What are you most proud of about that film, and conversely is there anything that you would go back and do differently on it if you had the chance?

DR: I've already said what I'm most proud of about The Lion King 2 - finding the visual metaphor to represent Simba's shadow side. The thing I was most frustrated by were the studio production restrictions of the division I worked in. Sequels were not done at feature animation then. They were done at Disney Toon Studios, where TV animation was, and budgets were managed like a TV schedule. The worst thing was that I was only allowed 10% retakes on all the animation for the entire film. It was truly frustrating, and I was often very disappointed in the final results of certain scenes. For that reason, I don't enjoy watching the film at all. I see how it could be better in almost all scenes. I did the best I could under the restrictions of the division, but I never thought it served the franchise as well as it could have and should have. I'm glad it has fans though.

DC: Two quick fire questions: favourite character and favourite song from The Lion King 2?

DR: Zira. And I adored Suzanne Pleshette. She delivered everything I expected she would. I love all the songs in the film, but I do have a special place in my heart for Zira's villainous "want" song called "My Lullaby". The reason is because it comes closest to being realized on screen as I had imagined it in concept.

DC: You went on to direct Lady and the Tramp 2: Scamp’s Adventure and Mulan 2 for Disney. What was it that kept you coming back to continue these stories for the company?

DR: What kept me coming back was that I loved what I was doing. I was thrilled to be directing at Disney. I was living the dream. It was a sensational time. I always thought there was a logical second story to tell with these amazing Disney animated features.

DC: We’re entering the era of Disney + now and the company needs content Darrell: if asked, what sequel would you want to go and direct nowadays for Disney?

DR: I would have wanted to do the live action Lady and Tramp. I thought it was not "on brand". I could have made it like a live action version of the original film in tone and look. But they didn't ask me. Having said that, wouldn't it be fun to do something with Peter Pan.

DC: You’ve been a storyboard artist on all instalments of the Hotel Transylvania series: for those that don’t know what exactly is the role of the storyboard artist, and what has you experience been like working on this franchise.

DR: The role of a storyboard artist is to be sort of a mini director. Your job is to take a scripted scene and visualize it for the director. It’s kind of like a comic strip, the difference though, is that you define the acting, the visual gags, the camera set ups and moves, and where the cuts are. Then the director adjusts to his liking because your job is to help the director visualize the movie he is in charge of. It’s their movie, you are there to help.

I love the Hotel Transylvania films. Each film has something special about them. The second one was very difficult to work on because Sony had Adam Sandler's Production Company producing the film. They did not see eye to eye with the visionary director Genndy Tartakovsky, so they installed their own "assistant directors" on the film to watch his every move. It was a very unpleasant work experience. The third film was a dream to work on. Genndy did not have to deal with Adam Sandler's production company on this one. The result was he had full expansive reign on the film. The result is evident in the finished film. It is easily the most inventive of the three films.

News flash by the way: Hotel Transylvania 4 is in development right now in 2020. It is going to be sensational. The idea is fresh and brilliant. It could easily stand alone as its own film. It is going to be a very, very special film.

DC: What does the future hold for Darrell Rooney: any projects you could tell us about just now?

DR: I have a project of my own I have been developing for the last few years. It's an animated feature called Watchdogs: Dog versus Squirrel. I have generated a ton of artwork for it and have only just started pitching it around town. I also love Old Hollywood history and co-wrote a book on MGM movie star Jean Harlow called “Harlow in Hollywood" a few years ago. I have it in the back of my head to write a prequel to it called "Harlow Before Hollywood".

Bohemian Rhapsody’s Bisexual Repudiation

Before I begin, I just want to make one thing undisputably clear: for the most part, I really enjoyed Bohemian Rhapsody. I thought Rami Malek’s performance as the late-Queen frontman Freddie Mercury was sensational, masterfully capturing both the singer’s outlandish stage persona and his deceptively insecure private demeanour. Malek brings a gravitas to the role of Mercury that, in the hands of a lesser actor, might have been more akin to an overly enthusiastic and misguided late-night karaoke performance at the local pub and, because of this, I feel that the number of accolades he picked up during award’s season (including the Academy Award for Best Actor) were very much deserved. The film’s extended final scene of the band’s legendary Live Aid set in 1985 is electric and the use of Queen’s back-catalogue throughout makes for an experience that will have you banging your head and singing in your car on the way home Wayne’s World style if nothing else. 

However, there is one area of the film that I do take issue with and that is the way in which Bohemian Rhapsody depicts Freddie’s sexuality. Whilst it has been noted elsewhere in the discourse surrounding this film that Mercury was famously private about his sexuality (he never publicly came out) and that there is no official confirmation of what the singer identified as, his affairs with members of both sexes have led to him being claimed as somewhat of an icon for the bisexual community. Last year I wrote of the need for diversifying the kinds of stories that were being depicted on-screen, particularly when it comes to that of the portrayal of bisexuals, a group that has went drastically under-represented in media for a long time. Furthermore, even in the few instances that bisexuality has been depicted, it has rarely been allowed to exist unchallenged. One particular instance that has stuck with me for years came from the supposedly-progressive late 2000’s series Glee, with the openly-gay character Kurt Hummel lambasting his crush for questioning his sexual-orientation, stating that “bisexual is a term that gay guys in high school use when they want to hold hands with girls and feel like a normal person for a change.” Charming. 

Seriously though, I remember this comment messing me up to an extent as a young guy questioning what I was: if this show that was hailed as universally inclusive didn’t even accept who I thought I was, where did I really fit in? And while it is true that representation of most minorities has increased across the board in the last decade, bisexuals remain one of the least-serviced of all minority groups. I reiterate: even in the few situations where bisexuality has been represented on screen, it is rarely allowed to exist without having its validity questioned. For example, one of the most popular bisexual characters of recent years has been Brooklyn 99’s Rosa Diaz. Diaz is, for the most part, a truly great and realistic depiction of the bisexual existence and her status as a central character on a widely watched sit-com like 99 makes her proclamation of her sexual identity an important step in normalising bisexuality in the mainstream. However, even in her case, Rosa’s “coming out” storyline falls into the same pitfalls and outdated tropes that bisexual characters featured in films and television shows have had to go through before. In the Season 5 episode ‘Game Night’, Rosa comes out to her parents, telling them that she is bisexual over a game of Pictionary (as you do). She soon uncharacteristically tears up and storms out her parents’ house after they dismiss her identity as “just a phase” and claim that there is no such thing as bisexuality. Ten years after hearing my existence challenged for the first time, I am now frustrated at hearing these lines uttered in media. Surely as a society we’ve accepted bisexuality as legitimate? Straight people have never had to watch any film or television show which directly challenges their sexual orientation. So too have gay people rarely heard anyone question the validity of their lifestyle, especially since the dawn of the millennia. So, why is bisexuality constantly put to the test? Even on the rare occasion wherein a bisexual character is permitted to announce their identity without being met with scepticism, their sexual preference is presented as more of a fetish or kink than it is a legitimate identity. Take Toni Topaz from The CW’s Riverdale. While Toni’s status as bi is never disputed on the show, her character is often presented as merely a sex-symbol and her sexuality presented as a quirk (see the character’s performance of ‘Dead Girl Walking’ from the episode ‘BIG FUN’).

My point in outlining all of this is to give context of my attitude going into Bohemian Rhapsody. I felt that this was the opportunity to showcase a bisexual man at the front and centre of a major studio production, to properly tell a story that hadn’t been told on this scale before. And for one brief second when Freddie tells his fiancé Mary Austin (played by the crazily talented Lucy Boynton) that he “thinks he might be bisexual” I was buzzing. I thought that this was it, we were going to see the story of a man trying to come to terms with his sexual identity, an identity that hasn’t been explored to its full potential in mainstream media. But then it happened. 

“You’re gay Freddie”. 

That was Mary’s reply. Freddie doesn’t dispute it. Bisexuality, erased. The word is never mentioned again throughout the entire film. And yeah, I get it. I get that back in the 70’s and 80’s people were not as open-minded about sexual-fluidity as they are now. I get that it’s a film and for the benefit of the story it had to take some liberties. I get that this film was made with the consultation of some of the people who knew him best, so who am I to judge? Here’s the thing though, if you look at the reputation and track-records of the team behind this production, an alarming pattern of personal ego and historic inaccuracy begins to become apparent. 

Take screen-writer Anthony McCarten. Whilst clearly an extremely talented and popular storyteller, his previous efforts The Theory of Everything and Darkest Hour have both been accused of taking major liberties with the way in which they depicted the lives of their subjects. McCarten may be an accomplished writer, but he is clearly not a man who is sensitive to the history he is manipulating. More controversially, let’s look at a man who is surrounded by so much smoke it is quite frankly baffling that no one has been able to locate the fire, and that is this Bohemian Rhapsody’s one-time director Bryan Singer. With difficulty I will set-aside the disgusting rumours of Singer’s private exploits and the fact that he left this production with two weeks left to film: Singer was at the helm of the film for its development and was a huge part of what eventually came to be on-screen. However, therein lies the problem. Singer’s idea of representation can be boiled down to one or two lines in the X-Men franchise that could be said to draw comparisons between homophobia and the prejudice that the mutants face in those films. Maybe. If you squint a bit. Seriously though, if there was a man who I wanted to bring a nuanced story depicting a non-binary form of sexuality to life in a satisfying way, it would most definitely not be Brian Singer. Which brings me to Brian May. No disrespect to May, but maybe if he spent more time making sure that the portrayal of Freddie’s sexual identity wasn’t boiled down to one of two binary constructs instead of making sure that he himself came across as one of the greatest human-beings to walk God’s green Earth then perhaps I wouldn’t be writing this article right now.

I suppose what I’m saying is I shouldn’t really be surprised that I didn’t get what I wanted. While it did end up being what I consider to be a very good film, Bohemian Rhapsody could have been something so much more. It could have been the moment I have been waiting for. It could have been the ground-breaking portrayal of a bisexual icon that young bisexual kids could grow up, watch and say “Hey, this guy’s like me”. Unfortunately, I am still waiting. Unfortunately, once again, bisexuality was erased. 

No, I don’t know the truth about who Freddie Mercury was, nor would I pretend to. But the fact of the matter is this: in the years since his death, Freddie has been held up as an icon of the bisexual community. Even if those who made this film are absolutely adamant that the man behind the story was a homosexual, to have bisexuality dismissed in such a haphazard way in nothing less than a slap in the face. Once again, I hope a day comes when I don’t need to continue writing articles like this, but as long as bisexuality continues to be dismissed in such a way in front of millions and millions of paying audience members, I do not see myself stopping any time soon. 

Top 10 Favourite Films of All-Time

Recently at First Time Films we asked all the men and women who have appeared on our show to submit a list of their Top 20 Favourite Films ever made. After collating this information, we have put together our debut feature on this new look blog: The FTF Top 10. Before we begin, this list is by no means definitive. It is merely the collective opinion of our panel, and as such is reflective of the relatively young group of people we have on the show. More than this, most of them are not fans of the finished list at all (to hear this, listen to our Pitch Battle show). With that in mind, be sure to leave your opinion of the list in the comments below. So, without further ado…

10) Whiplash (2014)

A rather surprising entry, the fact that this is the most recent entry on our list is a testament to the way this film has immediately ingrained itself into film culture. Despite the fact that his subsequent efforts La La Land and First Man have not quite managed to garner the universal love of his debut, Whiplash immediately announced Damien Chazelle as a force to be reckoned with in the mainstream and also established him as a “name-brand” writer/director (even though this was not actually his feature-film debut, having released Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench in 2009). What is truly impressive about this effort is the way it is able to defy any notion of genre: it is a sports movie without a ball in sight, it is a musical with no singing, and it is a warped love story that is completely toxic and platonic. Miles Teller certainly proves himself here as a leading man, but the real star of this show is J.K. Simmons as Terence Fletcher, the ruthless drumming instructor who demands perfection from his students. What is most interesting about Simmons is how he presents elements of true humanity in Fletcher’s character. Watching this I was consistently wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, hoping for some sort of redemption arc or character changing moment for the music teacher. Instead, I came to realise that it is Fletcher’s natural charisma and powerful influence that is part of his monstrosity: he is a villain who is perhaps even more relevant today than he was five years ago. Terence Fletcher is perhaps the most realistic depiction of a true monster that has ever been put to screen, and that is part of the reason why this film is most definitely on “our tempo”.

9) Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977)

George Lucas wanted to make a Flash Gordon movie. Think about that for a second. Think how different pop-culture would be if Lucas had managed to acquire the rights to this (let’s be honest) lesser property and never ended up making the film that not only spanned a countless number of sequels and spin-offs (as well as a glorious looking Disney theme-park), but also inspired an entire generation of storytellers and filmmakers in the process. The original Star Wars is not a perfect movie, and indeed its original theatrical cut is more than likely lost to time forever due to the countless changes that Lucas has made to his creation since its initial release. However, it was a film that captured its audience’s imagination, introducing them to heroes and villains that have become immortalised in the cultural zeitgeist forever: Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Darth Vader. I could go on and on, but I think the reason that the original Star Wars film makes our list is not only because it is a exceptionally well-done version of the popular “hero’s journey” format, but also because of its iconography and what this iconography has come to represent to a certain subsect of people. It is a film that is more than just that: it is a galaxy far far away that has become a place generation after generation has been able to escape to and share with those they love.

8) Life of Brian (1979)

The only out-and-out comedy on this list, Life of Brian is one of the most controversial films ever made, having been banned in multiple countries across the world (the comedy was marketed in Sweden as "The film so funny that it was banned in Norway"). And while FT Football’s Conor McCann may begrudge the presence of this Monty Python fronted flick, the fact that it can either elicit a feeling appreciation or hatred from its audience is only further confirmation that it is doing something right. It is made to both shock and entertain and manages this to great effect consistently throughout. Iconic moments such as the stoning and the crucifixion (two words that don’t immediately scream laugh out loud comedy) have made this film endure over the course of the last forty years, encouraging not only to “always look on the bright side of life”, but also to truly question “what have the Romans ever done for us?” The answer is probably more than you would first think. 

7) The Godfather (1972)

Despite his extensive filmography, the name Marlon Brando will forever be synonymous with Don Vito Corleone, with Premiere magazine naming the character the greatest in the history of cinema. While Robert Di Niro’s version of the character in the sequel was also taken into account on that particular list, it is Brando’s iteration of the Don that is remembered most fondly because of his very unique and incredibly enigmatic performance (of course, its originality may be lost to a new generation because of the number of times it has been parodied. See the opening of Rugrats in Paris.) However, The Godfather is not really Vito’s story. Francis Ford Coppola adapts Mario Puzo’s novel in way that is both incredibly patient and inexplicably gripping, presenting the typical “hero’s journey” in reverse as Vito’s son Michael descends further and further into the darkness he so definitively and idealistically rejected in his initial conversation with Kay at his sister’s wedding. By the time the door closes in the film’s striking final shot Michael is a changed man and unrecognisable to both Kay and the audience, no longer the war-hero who once told her “that’s my family Kay, that’s not me”. And also, Nino Rota’s score is simply sensational. For more on this film, please check out our show from the start of this year on iTunes and Spotify.

6) Toy Story (1995)

Has there ever been a film that combined a tightly-written script and memorable characters together with ground-breaking technology in the way Toy Story did in 1995? At the time Pixar’s debut effort came out, 3D computer animation was far from the norm, with the success of Disney’s Renaissance Era of the 90’s (which I would consider to begin with The Little Mermaid and end with Tarzan) leading many to believe that there was no need to update the way of doing things. Toy Story changed everything, with the work Pixar done on that film shaping the dominant animation style that we still see in cinemas today. More than this however, this film is possibly one of the best scripts I’ve ever read structurally. Every character is masterfully written and has opportunity to shine and show off their unique personalities (seriously, the memorable supporting characters in this thing are countless), and the film’s two main protagonists (Woody and Buzz) both experience meaningful character development throughout the course of a film which is fantastically entertaining from start to finish. Also, Randy Newman penned “You’ve Got a Friend in Me” for this film, earning him an Oscar nomination for Best Original Song (it lost to “Colours of the Wind” from Pocahontas) and introducing the world to one of the best feel-good songs of all-time.

5) Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Our Star Wars bias is showing, with this being the second film of the franchise to manage to make its way onto our Top 10. But can you blame us? The Empire Strikes Back has cemented its status as the perhaps the greatest sequel in cinema history, so much so that the phrase “this will be the Empire of the series” pops up every time a slightly darker than anticipated trailer for a follow-up is released. Whilst it is remembered by the public at large for it’s shocking finale, this film is so much more than its twist, taking the heroes that you loved from the first movie in new creative directions and fleshing out the relationships between each of them. Han and Leia’s relationship is firmly established here (it’s also the first appearance of their fantastic love-theme by John Williams, who I can’t believe I’m only just mentioning) and it is also the first appearance of Frank Oz’s Yoda, who has arguably went on to become one of the most important characters to the franchise. While the 1977 original introduced Star Wars to the world, The Empire Strikes Back remains the benchmark for the heights that the brand (and indeed sequels in general) should inspire to reach.

4) Pulp Fiction (1994)

Innovative in its structure, stylistic in its presentation, and pitch-perfect in casting, there is a reason that Pulp Fiction seems to consistently come up in any discussion of the greatest films ever made. Tarantino succeeds here in crafting a film which is simultaneously bold and accessible, utilising his trade-mark dialogue and ridiculously good utilisation of soundtrack in a way that has completely captured the attention of (mostly) everyone who has been lucky enough to see it since its release. All-in-all, its just a bloody good time and is insanely quotable (never has a Bible passage been so popular outside of a place of worship). Samuel L Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman and Bruce Willis all put in career-defining turns, as do many other members of the supporting cast. One of the reasons that 1994 is widely considered one of the greatest years in the history of cinema, Pulp Fiction captures the escapist fun and “pulpy” entertainment that many of us go to the movies to experience.

3) Trainspotting (1996)

Truth be told, I didn’t like Trainspotting the first time I watched it. I thought it just wasn’t for me, seemingly glorifying a heroine-addict lifestyle without a second thought for the implications of such a portrayal. Upon watching it again, I came to realise that it is not doing that at all, instead telling the story of a group in society that (up until that point anyway) hadn’t really had their story told before. It’s a story about mental health. It’s a story about class. It’s a story about addiction. It’s a story about friendship and loyalty. Really, Danny Boyle directs a film that is very stylistic but doesn’t pull any punches, with the death of a young child about half-way through the movie serving as a truly powerful and sobering moment. We’re not necessarily meant to like Renton, Sick-Boy, Begbie and Spud, but we are meant to recognise that they are a product of the environment they come from, forced to confront the fact that for many their trials and experiences are far from fiction. The “Choose Life” speech is a stark reminder of just how shitty the human experience can truly be at times and is part of the reason that Trainspotting is a film that truly packs a punch and has remained relevant more than 20 years after its release.

2) Inglourious Basterds (2009)

This is one of the best opening scenes in the history of cinema. No question. From the moment that Christoph Waltz’ Hans Landa walks onto the screen, you can tell you are watching something that is truly special. Only an immensely talented actor could make drinking a glass of milk look so menacing. However, Basterds is far more than just Waltz’ Oscar winning performance. This is (in my humble opinion) Tarantino’s most beautiful film. From the grand scale of the theatre burning down at the film’s climax, to the arrival of the Bear Jew, to the POV shot of the Basterds looking down at a now branded Landa as the film concludes, Inglorious Basterds is the film wherein Tarantino finally stopped paying homage to the film’s he loved and finally embraced his own individual voice. There is one scene in particular though that demonstrates Tarantino’s immense skill as a writer though and that is the pub scene (you know, the one with the “German three” and all that jazz) which comes in the film’s second act. It is incredibly well-paced, slowly and surely building tension which eventually comes to a head in true Tarantino fashion (as course there’s a shoot-out). We have this so far up our list because it is not only incredibly cathartic (it’s history-bending plot is so satisfying) but it also signalled a new era for Quentin Tarantino, showing a man who no longer felt he had to live in the shadows of those who had come before him and finally establishing his own visual stamp that would continue on in Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight.

1) The Dark Knight (2008)

In the summer of 2008, The Dark Knight was the coolest thing in the world. Word of Heath Ledger’s legendary portrayal of The Joker seemed to spread like wildfire, and I can honestly say that this is the first time I truly became aware of how culturally important films could be. Nolan takes the world that he established in Batman Begins and improves on it immensely, taking the dark and gritty Gotham he introduced in 2005 and filling it with a much more interesting plot and two of the most well-written antagonists of all-time. Nolan and his cinematographer Wally Pfister (who later worked with again on Inception) craft shots that show the Batman character for what he is acknowledged to be in the film’s final sequence: a symbol. Yes, we also get to know Bruce Wayne up close and personal, but the images that we remember of Batman in this film are when he is perched on a rooftop looking over Hong Kong, or when he storms into a club, tearing his way through bodies of men in order to get to mobster Sal Maroni. They completely capture what makes the Batman character work and that is when he is in the suit he should no longer a man but a force of nature, a status that is most evidently challenged by The Joker in this movie’s iconic interrogation scene. I can’t say anything about Ledger’s performance that hasn’t already been written, so I want to end by pointing out what a think are the two most over-looked elements of this film. First of all, The Dark Knight doesn’t work without Hans Zimmer’s score and the fact that it didn’t even get nominated at the Academy Awards that year is quite frankly a disgrace. Secondly, Aaron Eckhart’s performance as Harvey Dent sadly gets overlooked because of the fact that he was sharing the screen with Ledger, but his Two-Face is easily the second-best Batman villain that’s ever been put to screen. The Nolan’s use Dent as Batman and Joker’s metaphorical battlefield: a man torn between two competing ideologies, one trying to break him and the other trying to save him. Eckhart shows dynamic range, taking Dent from a charismatic politician who you wouldn’t mind sharing a beer with, to a monster whose whole world has been brought crashing down around him. Whilst many will point to the Batman/Joker dichotomy as the key relationship in this film, I would suggest that the comparison between Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent is more important: Dent could have been Gotham’s White Knight, but he has instead become what Wayne himself could have turned into if he had embraced his hatred of a world that may not be worth saving.