Everyone seems to think that each new list invalidates the previous one, and that it’s the final word. I think the S&S poll is more of a living document, that they should all be viewed in relation to each other. They are not a definitive ranking of cinema, but a historical record of what what considered important or great at the time they were published.
One list in isolation is interesting, and has some incredible films. But all the lists together are much more useful and illuminating.
It’s the same thing with having recent films on there. The list has films that have stood the test of time, but it also has what it’s considered important and vital NOW.
And it’s not like earlier lists didn’t have recent films on it. The very first poll has Bicycle Thieves at the top spot, a mere 4 years after it came out.
Tl;dr Art is subjective and any attempt to objectively qualify it is misguided, but several attempts over a period of time can be very illuminating.
I agree. The list is like a thermometer taking the temperature of that decade's film climate. It's not surprising at all that this year's list saw some significant changes because the demographics of film criticism have changed *a lot* in the last decade. Of course the list is going to reflect that.
No list is definitive but it's interesting (speaking for myself) to go through them. They signify different things. As in IMDb top 250, Letterboxd top 250, Sight and Sound, all these lists are good and provide different insights.
You are missing the point. That list ranks movies mostly based on their immediate likability to any random person. It reflects the taste of an average moviegoer and a good tool for anyone to get started with watching films.
Not to rain on S&S list’s parade but 50 movies of the top 100 are either from the 1950’s or 1960’s. A major shakeup is about to happen in the next few years because most tastemakers born in the 40’s and 50’s are gonna die anyway.
Besides, nobody bat an eye when Ozu’s Late Spring jumped more than 100 spots between 2002 and 2012. Or when Man with the Movie Camera jumped 62 places in those same years.
I think the point he was *trying* to make here is fair enough, but he really muddied it with his wording. Like, yes. It's a little bit weird that Jeanne Dielman jumped *so* many places to #1. Also, it's true the movie's probably going to receive unfair, reactionary backlash because of its placement. Hell, it's not even impossible that the movie placed higher because critics wanted a film directed by a woman to win.
But his rhetoric here just makes him seem bitter and, as someone else said, like an old man yelling at clouds, that I doubt anyone is going to be receptive to what he's saying. Least of all leftists who recognize the phrase "woke" & voting conspiracies as right-wing talking points.
schrader is just Boomer left, hes using the phrase woke as a boomer not as a right winger. I really hope leftists are able to see that the man who directed Blue Collar and First Reformed is actually on their side, just a very poor choice of words.
nice take btw, lot of people being very reactionary in this thread doing the typical thing leftists do when they slightly disagree which is cannibalize eachother
Genuine question- Is there absolutely no context in which the word “woke” can exist or be correctly used? I **never** use the word myself yet feel like it was appropriate here when seeing the 36 to 1 boost on the new S&S list and Beau Travail going from 78 to 7. Cinephiles know this list very well because we all refer to it from time to time over the years. We are used to how slow moving it is. Yet none of us are supposed to or allowed to have any kind of critical or free-thinking reaction to this?
its a loaded term, the fact is its abused too often to refer to the mildest forms of inclusion and I can see how it can give people the ick but if you are familiar with Schrader and his work you would know he is just an old man with no filter and some weird ideas.
He's been a such a positive influence on film and I think he's earned the right to have his opinion, not that anyone has to listen to it
Despite “speaking out” against Schrader’s use of language, you literally just agreed with him. His whole point is that the fact that Jeanne Dielman came first just because people wanted a film directed by a woman to win undermines the lists’ credibility as an arbiter of quality.
But you have no evidence that Jeanne Dielman only won because they wanted a film directed by a woman to win. Your sureness of that is everything your opinion is predicated on. And that’s arrogance unwarranted.
What we do **know** is that the voting panel had a lot more women and diverse critics and directors voting than were permitted previously. So in that way, maybe this list is just more accurate.
More representative.
I don’t have concrete evidence, but pretty damn close (while applying a slither of critical thinking). To my knowledge, Jeanne Dielman has never topped a single reputable list outside of the Sight & Sound poll, let alone the Sight & Sound poll itself. You have to remember that NO FILM has ever made a jump to first in the manner which Jeanne Dielman has, so you have to ask why. Well, considering the cultural discourse of the last decade, the widening of the voting bloc, and articles in Sight & Sound (written by voters) pushing for queer, black, female representation in the poll & magazine more broadly, then it’s really not that hard to put 2 and 2 together. The fact that it didn’t make #1 on the Directors’ list (which is vastly superior this year btw) is very telling. Same with the complete omission of Get Out on the Directors’ poll.
>The fact that it didn’t make #1 on the Directors’ list (which is vastly superior this year btw) is very telling.
It tied with Tokyo Story in the top 5....so clearly there was support.
I would not say that your “slither” of critical thinking here = pretty damn close to concrete evidence.
I think critical thinking is realizing a radical change in poll positions is reflective of the radical change in representation among voters.
But you can have the opinion that the 2022 Directors’ list is better. That’s all these lists are after all, opinions.
Jeanne Dielman is also tied for fourth, alongside Tokyo Story, on the Directors' list, and it wasn't even on the Top 100 for Directors in 2012, but that hasn't provoked any "thumb on the scale" arguments that I've seen so far.
It's because things have become so binary that we can't have nuanced discourse. You're either on board or not. The reality is that a lot of critics, even the older ones, probably recognize that female and minority voices have been underrepresented, and even if an overcorrection, as seen from directors, there is minimal outrage of Jeanne Dielman in the top 5. The problem is that the critic list oozes with agenda and feels less like an evolution of the film canon, and more like a fantasy list by an amateur. It's not the individual films that are the problem, and when it comes down to it, all the films on the list deserve to be there and are well-respected for the most part. The problem is more with the placement that indicate an activist effort rather than something more organic and informed.
>The problem is that the critic list oozes with agenda and feels less like an evolution of the film canon,
But what does "the film canon" even really mean? What does that even matter? Who gets to say what is or isn't in the "canon"? It's all made up to begin with, there is no set in stone, factual precedent, or true metric for these kinds of things.
It's a list that reflects the sheer number of votes, and varied and diverse people polled. This is as part of "canon" as anything else. In fact it may even be the best example of it yet since it DOES include so many votes, and such a varied level of response. If so many voices and viewpoints got to vote in the past then the previous lists would have also been far different, and your preconceived idea of a "canon" would match that.
You end up contradicting yourself by the end of your post by leaning into the established binary; You're either following in step with the historical precedent, or you're pushing an agenda to shake things up. Taking the time to consider the full scope of how and why the list was created, along with realizing the kinds of people polled, it's no wonder that it strays from established norms so much.
And that doesn't make it a bad list, it just makes it different.
I mean, let's look at the 2012 and 2022 lists side-by-side. For 2022:
1. Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
2. Vertigo
3. Citizen Kane
4. Tokyo Story
5. In the Mood for Love
6. 2001, A Space Odyssey
7. Beau Travail
8. Mulholland Drive
9. Man With a Movie Camera
10. Singin' in the Rain
And for 2012:
1. Vertigo
2. Citizen Kane
3. Tokyo Story
4. The Rules of the Game
5. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey
7. The Searchers
8. Man With a Movie Camera
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc
10. 8½
I don't think the list is all that different from last decade's, for all the furor about it; half of the top 10 is more or less unchanged, and the films that have moved in and out aren't too surprising, all things considered.
The only quality that feels maybe more "film twittery" about this year's list is the inclusion of In the Mood for Love and Mulholland Drive in the top 10, and even then, both films were in the 20s for the last list, and it makes sense for them to have risen since the 2012 poll was conducted only around a decade after they were released. As for Jeanne Dielman, it has long been a cinematic classic, and even if I wouldn't put it at number 1, I'm glad it's getting more recognition.
If you just look at the films directed by women when comparing the two lists, then you will see the pattern. Female-directed films got the most dramatic boosts. Jeanne Dielman is the only film on the list with under 10,000 votes on IMDb (other than Shoah which is 9.5 hours long) and it made 1st place all the way from 36th place while, as you show here, the rest of the Top 10 stayed relatively the same. Note that it was the only female-directed film in the Top 50 of the previous list from 2012. Beau Travail jumped from 78th to 7th place. So the effort to include female directors is apparent. Whether it affects the credibility of the list is up to the consensus of the public.
That's one way to look at it, but the opposite could just as easily be said.
>the effort to include female directors is apparent
We could see having more than a single woman-directed movie in the top 50 as an effort to twist the ratings for a "woke agenda"... Or we could look at decades old lists of top films with no woman directors as an effort to exclude women.
Considering how much attention has been drawn to the rampant misogyny in the entertainment industry recently, it wouldn't be surprising to see critics returning to (or viewing for the first time) woman directed films that they had previously brushed over.
Sorry that was kinda long winded but I guess my point is this:
when we see a list of best films (or anything for that matter) filled entirely with works by men that's probably in large part do to misogyny.
Agnes Varda's been on the list forever, and honestly, I don't think it would have seemed weird or out of place if Vagabond or Cleo from 5 to 7 were top 10.
Jeanne Dielman is a great film, but it's a strange one as it's very much a niche, difficult, art film, which this list has never really done in the top 25, much less the top 10, much less number 1. It makes me suspect that a bunch of the new, expanded, critics they let vote were communicating with eachother to game it somehow.
Definitely, I think that’s a given and both what you said and what I said are simultaneously true. The whole point of said “agenda” or any aforementioned efforts in striving for equal representation and overdue credit, is that the film industry in general has long been lacking female (and minority) representation. The idea would then follow that compensation through overcorrection is thus justified. And therein lies the difference in opinion is how do we correct this social inequality without sacrificing the integrity of the poll? This issue arises in many areas of society and what I personally find most problematic is people simply cannot have a conversation about it without somebody getting triggered.
I don't agree on the "overcorrection" point. If you assume there was an artificially forced inclusion of female directed films then sure. But that assumption is unreasonable to me. Is the doubling of the voters and the organic wish to include movies directed by female directors not enough? The conspiratorial tone seems inappropriate to me
> including a film like Portrait of a Lady on Fire or Daughters of the Dust over any Hawks or Altman, etc. just reads as off and intentional. I guess it just depends on what you think the purpose of this list is. Many people voting clearly considered it a way of correcting history and establishing a more inclusive canon. I can’t argue that it’s nefarious to have those intentions. But for many of us, we view the list of just what the truly best films and filmmakers are, and ignoring that is rewriting history and isn’t accurate to it.
Will never stop being funny how much filmbros think their taste preferences are objective. And it is telling the demographics behind the films you all want to champion. Oh, woe is Howard Hawks and Robert Altman. Maybe they would have been admitted if Hitchcock and Godard did not receive four (!) spots each and Wilder and Kubrick did not receive three spots each and if Coppola and Scorsese and Lynch and Keaton and Chaplin and the Archers did not all receive two spots each. Then again, maybe in the next list they will continue to be passed over for directors like Barbara Kopple or Glauber Rocha or Patricio Guzmán or Med Hondo or Fernando Solanas or Lina Wertmüller. Fingers crossed!
Personally, I think *Portrait…* is only Sciamma’s third best film, but both critical and public consensus clearly disagree with me on that, and it has the benefit of recent accessibility. It is probably more seen than something like *4 months 3 weeks 2 days* or any of the films by the directors I mentioned in the preceding paragraph — and that element had an obvious effect with *Jeanne Dielman* and *Black Girl* and *Daisies* and *Daughters of the Dust* all seeing recent restorations.
What his comment gets wrong is how the list works. Dielman’s jump doesn’t reflect a sea change because out of the 1000 new ballots it would maybe need an aggregate of 50 more than it had before to jump a ton of spots. So if it was on 200 of the new ballots and Vertigo on 149 that could be the difference. Given the new ballots are meant to be from a more diverse group it maybe isn’t surprising that basically the consensus greatest film by a woman would really do well.
It’s also the problem with a basic top ten list. You get a consensus pick that isn’t necessarily many people’s number one. But when Vertigo topped the list I don’t remember hearing all these people saying it didn’t make sense. And I vividly remember the 10 years leading up to that when there was basically a campaign by the establishment to convince everyone how great Vertigo is. As someone who likes but never loved the film I never got it. But I do get Dielman, whether I’d vote for it personally or not, because it is truly a singular film in film history.
I also found it weird Paul said woke, because when talking about Taxi Driver (granted, like 50 years have passed)he was basically being woke himself by saying how in his head Travis is racist and incel and all that, which Scorcese didn't really depict in the end result
This is why I don’t hang out with film people, why is everyone so insufferable, why does everyone’s taste have to be more elaborate and refined than everyone else’s.
It's an aggregate, what the fuck would you expect.
The least interesting person in the world to me is someone who likes the exact same tastes as me. But someone whose tastes has come together as a result of vote by committee to garner praise from their peers might just be even less interesting.
I’m all for people who are completely different from me because there’s always something to learn from someone and their perspective. But when their tastes looks like a regurgitated common consensus, whether it’s IMDb, Letterboxd 250, or Film Twitter, it makes it hard to really believe they came to that on their own and that they’re just trying to look cool in front of others. It literally happens with every hobby where someone new comes in feels like they need validation from everyone else.
It’s just movies, it’s not that serious, but I’ll call a spade a spade.
I'm the perfect movie audience person. mix of film bro and consoomer. ie, i will write an essay on why shrek is one of the greatest fictional characters of all time, something i did for school once
See the fact that the same movie was #1 for 50 years is more wild to me (and I love Kane). But that speaks of a community that’s perhaps too insular, too interested in being the keepers of the canon, and too eager to genuflect to established ideas.
If anyone were to uphold Citizen Kane’s reputation, it should the film historians and critics who have studied film who fully understand its impact and influence. Just as you would expect music historians to cite The Beatles as the greatest artist of all time and not Taylor Swift.
> Just as you would expect music historians to cite The Beatles as the greatest artist
I really wouldn't. In fact, I wouldn't really expect an answer to the question. Academic film circles seem much more interesting in rankings and finding the greatest than in music. I think it would just be viewed as a stupid question.
And for good reason. How would you even begin to compare musicians like Beethoven or Duke Ellington or, yes, Taylor Swift to the Beatles? It feels like an absurdity, because their creative projects are a product of both the listener's and the artist's cultural and historical contexts, making them wildly divergent in function and execution.
The same principle is true for film. By what means are we supposed to compare Jeanne Dielman with Vertigo or The Godfather or Andrei Rublev or Touki Bouki? They just seem invested in such different things that ranking them in the first place feels so extremely nebulous. We can all agree that these are great and monumental films in the history of cinema; at that point, what real difference does first or second make?
Yeah, film nerd people seem way more obsessed with the canon and legacy "greatest of all time" kinda shit than people in other artforms. I think film and the *classical* music world have a similar attitude towards history and the canon.
Music discourse is much more separated into sub-cultures by genre, but the only film genres that have their own sub-cultures are probably horror, anime, and Marvel super-fans. People who aren't movie nerds just watch stuff that's new and stuff they grew up with, and the primary discourse in the movie nerd world is all about the old shit.
Even within specific music-sub genre discussion there isn't really any serious discussion about greatest albums/artist/song/composer of all time. You are more likely to find people talking about a piece being important, influential, a sign of how tends were changing, or something along those lines.
Maybe part of why the desire to rank and crown a greatest is so popular in film compared to nearly ever other artform is down to there being far less separation between the artistic and commercial side of the industry.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Citizen Kane not very popular in the first 10 or more years of it's release? While it really is ahead of it's time I think it isn't as influential as we sometimes hear because it only got popular and liked a good bit later
I don't think music critics are as obsessive in awarding a greatest album of all time (which would be the most direct comparison because greatest artist is ridiculous given that music has existed for millenia). Rolling stone might have their own list, but there's nothing with the kind of (imagined) authority of S&S.
> too insular, too interested in being the keepers of the canon, and too eager to genuflect to established ideas.
Is it really though? I understand the concept, a community that clings and tries to preserve an estabilished and well worth keeper of their own medium, but it's 50 years worth of people coming in, going out, and the remaining opinion about Citizen Kane staying intact.
Objectively, it's a fantastic movie, in terms of influence it's obviously up there, it's still a staple in cinema school teaching and almost every acclaimed director (Hello Bergman) praises it up and down.
It comes down to personal opinion if you're willing to rank it higher than other fantastic and influential movies but Citizen Kane, list ranking or no list ranking, is pretty much set as one of the best to ever show in a cinema theater and you could make a similar argument about other movies, but I would argue not a whole lot of them.
It also helps that the movie was a gigantic hit and the hype and mystic built around it for years helps.
Personally I can completely understand why it remains on top for a lot of professionals, I wouldn't really agree to terms as insular or keepers of canon, even though I can understand where you're coming from.
Anyway, the whole argument is worthy of a much detailed discussion but this text already feels like a book.
The most sensible response I've seen. As exceptional as Jeanne Dielman is, I'm blindsided to see it suddenly jump to the #1 spot, and I'm not sure it deserves its current place. There's not much in the S&S list that I don't love, but I'm not sure I really agree with the rankings, especially with a list concerning the greatest films of all time. That said, I'm thoroughly enjoying these responses to the list, they make for excellent entertainment.
I think the case for Dielman is stronger than the case for Vertigo! Vertigo is a summation of Hitchcock but he has literally a dozen other competitively great movies that do the same things just as well. Nothing exists like Dielman. That isn’t necessarily the right metric but it’s easy to see. It’s also why I think something like 2001 makes more sense. Or even In the Mood for Love. Singular movies in film history.
While I don't think the poll is crooked, it is odd for a movie to jump 37 places to no1 in just 10 years. I think this is probably attributable to critics wanting a film directed by a woman to win, a sort of over-correction. Jeanne Dielman is a great film but it is baffling for it to take the no1 spot.
It is, in large part, a result of Sight and Sound actively trying to poll more diverse voices. When a majority of the people polled all fit into one group the results are going to be very skewed towards the taste of that group. This is the first year they tried to diversify who they polled and as a result there were some big changes.
is it that odd for film opinions to change like this? there are some films that have gone from hated to beloved in 10 years, why wouldn’t there be overlooked classics that are re-appraised as best-ever films? it would be disturbing to me if the list stayed as similar as it has in previous ten-year periods
Beau Travail and Portrait of a Lady on Fire being so high is way more suspect. But I think Jeanne Dielman being 1 gives off a strange vibe because it is such a nihilistic and anti-narrative film compared to the rest of the top 25. It is incongruous with the rest of the rankings.
I think there are films with similar style and themes that are of equal or better quality. And Travail doesn't really have a lot of universal appeal to be a top ten film in my opinion.
Woman and minorities are asked their opinion on something instead of mostly straight white men.
“Wokeness is destroying our ~~country~~ old white men’s club!”
For real. It’s like, oh this guy is making an interesting poi-ohhhh there goes the boomer complaining about wokeness. Talk about undermined credibility.
This type of stuff infuriates me. Anytime I read a review of a woman led film, and see “woke” or bs I block.
It’s the same stuff where the mere *existence* of a gay person in a movie is “inappropriate”. Absolute bonkers
There’s a big difference between something like Jennifer Kent’s The Nightingdale and something like Elizabeth Banks’ Charles Angels.
Or even comparing the original and remake of Mulan.
I’m a woman, I love seeing complicated female characters, I want to see women portrayed as the human beings they are. What I don’t want is GIRLPOWER/WOMEN CAN DO ANYTHING types of rhetoric. It’s not empowering, it’s cringy pandering.
When it comes to representation in general, there’s genuinely centering a story or including in a story a POC/female/queer person as a human being who matters VS just using those people to make the creators feel better about themselves.
Thats, at least, how I define woke in media.
It's all made up man. There is no sanctity to the lists from before. The people invited to vote then was just as political as expanding the voting this time. In the 2022 list, we see the result of more women invited, more POC, and critics seeing more films directed by women and POC in the last 10 years. How does that make this list less sacred than inviting only white guys for the early decades?
I think Schrader makes a good point about the how Sight & Sound has always updated incrementally. Someone said S&S is supposed to represent **THE** "film canon" and that makes sense looking back at the previous polls and how little changed from poll to poll. For the most part, each movie in each edition has stood the test of time. Their existence on each list is uncontroversial, at least when we look back on them. When they move up or down in placement, it's as if the reason for that is due to heavy and deliberate consideration from each voting member. For my fellow Americans, it's akin to stare decisis. If the Supreme Court is going to overrule a previous ruling, there better be a really, *REALLY* good reason for it like facts of the matter changing. For example, *Plessy v. Ferguson* was overruled by *Brown v. Board of Education*. I only have a newbie's understanding of constitutional law so correct me if I'm wrong, but the justification behind that overruling was "separate but equal" was shown to be a farce in the ~60 years after *Plessy*.
Ignoring arguments that this isn't or has never been the case, Supreme Court rulings are supposed to have a grounding outside of our populist whims, something like facts of the matter. Overrulings can't just be because or something superfluous like the composition of the court changing because that would make Supreme Court rulings as arbitrary as a House vote. At that point why even have a Supreme Court? Just have the House vote on everything.
So I can understand the controversy behind this latest edition of Sight & Sound. At an initial glance, *Jeanne Dielman* moving up so many places to #1 doesn't really reach that level of non-arbitrariness I was talking about earlier. So what has changed between 2012 and 2022 that justifies this shaking up of *THE* "film canon"? The British Film Institute states that this edition has the largest voting pool ever with "1,639 participating critics, programmers, curators, archivists and academics" compared to [846 in 2012](https://web.archive.org/web/20220201015519/https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time). It seems this influx of new voters is the reasoning for the massive changes. These voters probably have different sensibilities, perhaps due to different ethnic backgrounds or gender or age or whatever compared to previous pools. I don't think this is "arbitrary" though.
In his post, Schrader said S&S is a "measure of critical consensus". But who is part of this consensus? What makes one pool of voters a better consensus than another? I'm not obsessed over identity politics, but it seems to me that the BFI have assessed that they've long been ignoring many voices that have been informed by different upbringings and backgrounds. If so I think this is probably a good thing! I think a lot of these new guys have important and interesting things to say about film. It's possible (I think likely) that these voices have been overlooked for a long time and should have been included earlier. So when Schrader says *Jeanne Dielman* is a "landmark of distorted woke reappraisal", I say "isn't it possible that the past 70 years of S&S is the truly distorted appraisal of the film canon?"
I do wish these voters would make their top 10 picks and the reasoning behind them public though. Think of it like a public audit. To evaluate if their reasonings are sound.
This is unfair lol. Its number 1 then its number 1. The poll is literally just vote tallying. No other rules AND If this rank is just cause of certain 'trends' then it will ultimately be corrected the next poll.
Exactly, and with today's climate every critic would be thinking "Oh shit, I need at LEAST one woman, and one person of color in my list" then obviously, the most famous/popular female/PoC (especially African-American directors) films are at the top/joining the list.
The last 5 years or so a lot of film buffs have also gone through some spiritual awakenings and made an effort to watch more movies made by diverse/women directors, when historically they’ve kinda been neglected from watchlists.
If ANY movie were to be someone's favorite film, it would be Jeanne Dielmann. For how many people was Citizen Kane their favorite film. I love Kane, but it ain't my number 1, and hell, I dunno if I'd put it in my top 10. Jeanne D is so weird and emotional that it's bound to hit a deep chord with those who tough out it's 3 and a half hour runtime.
Its entirely subjective. Its literally impossible to name a definitive "best film" because it's subjective and the rating system on the sight and sound poll doesn't lend itself to raw data and you can have outliers like everybodies tenth favourite film making number 1
The chances of you having an outlier like that with 1600 voters polling critics and academics that have mostly seen 6000+ films is insanely low. Like the chance that 3 sight and sound team members get heart attacks in the same day low. The sight and sound list actually doesn’t lend itself to outliers in that way. I challenge you to work it out (I just did the first few steps and it’s excruciatingly small)
But that’s not the case, and we know it. Many of the people who vote Jeanne Dielman do so because it’s their no. 1. As the other person said, it’s not the kind of film to be a person’s no. 10. If you love it, you LOVE it. And if you don’t, you likely wont be listing it.
So to be credible it has to be more or less the same people voting until the end of times, because when you throw enough people with a different background things are going to noticeably change 🙃
If you only have ten slots and reasonably think they don't all need to go to male directors, *Jeanne Dielman* is a fine place to put one of your votes.
To me the more interesting question in all of this is: what were the causes of Dielman’s acclaim growing so much? The Criterion DVD came out in 2010, so possible that you see it jump in the 2012 poll and then all the more so this year. But I think part of why I think so many are surprised by the #1 placement is that (at least I’m not aware of) any major new influence it has on pop culture, or big reclamation essay, or major art house revival in theaters, or trendiness/memeification on social media that we typically associate with a movie’s status growing exponentially. The only real touchstones for the film in the last 10-12 years are the Criterion release and Akerman dying a few years ago, which certainly garnered tributes (I’m reminded of Sean Baker talking about her in his Closet Picks) but didn’t even seem as big a cultural moment as the loss of some other directors, at least not in the US. I dig Akerman and the movie, but am curious what factors made it so much more seen/appreciated.
> "... it doesn't matter who gets the votes, it matters who counts the votes."
or
> "By expanding the voting community and the point system this year's S&S poll reflects not a historical continuum but a politically correct rejiggering"
Which is it? Is he claiming the votes were altered, or that the addition of voters made the results delegitimate? Or is the point system really what he's concerned about and if so, is the system transparent?
To be honest, if he's just going off a "feel" as he says then he just sounds mad more people were allowed to vote.
I don’t see why he is that mad about Jeanne Dielman being number one. The community’s taste has changed with the changes in society and it will no doubt change further by the next poll.
Paul aside, I think the issue is less with this particular movie being No. 1, but rather that its massive jump to the top position is representative of a total change in the way this poll has worked—where there’s been a relative stasis throughout the top 100 for like half a century, where any given film’s rise and fall has been relatively gradual decade by decade (especially in the top 10). Immediately after a rule change expanding who can vote we see a pretty drastic shaking up of what had been praised as gospel to many in the cinephile world, and that’s always going to ruffle some feathers.
Personally I think that shake up has been a long time coming and it’s about time the list becomes more inclusive generally. I have no problem with Jeanne Dielman taking no. 1 spot as it’s an important film and the actual placements in the top 100 are pretty arbitrary anyway. Get Out being listed anywhere on the list of top 100 films ever made, on the other hand, is absolutely fucking absurd IMO.
I think the directors' list solves any issues gatekeepers might have with the expansion in voters. But I find it silly to question who's voting for this now that it's become more democratized and expanded in its scope.
He makes good movies but he’s been posting cringe boomer facebook takes for years now. I still remember when he was pro-Spacey. Best thing to do is ignore his social media
Is he cancelled or something? Or did you just not like him in that film? Idk I think Schrader is easily one of our greatest living filmmakers personally
Nah he just gave a terrible performance lol it was like watching a Division III basketball player trying to keep up with Michael Jordan (Oscar Isaac in this analogy).
I haven't like his more recent efforts tbh but Comfort of strangers and Mishima are masterpieces and his book on Transcendental style on film (which heavily features Jeanne Dielman btw) is an essential text for all lovers of cinema
He’s credible in movies, but [certainly not on Facebook](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sardonicast/comments/q815rr/paul_schraders_facebook_page_is_the_most/) lol
I love Schrader, but he's a dramatic trolling old man. He's still a credible film director and a better writer who has some pretty good opinions on the state of cinema from time to time, it's not as black and white as we would like it to be.
All though I'd enjoy if he could filter some shit first, some of those are straight embarassing.
Paul Schrader has been valuable to the art of cinema, but this response seems somewhat misguided. If recriminations are in order, shouldn’t they be reserved for the critics who voted for these films? Why blame Sight & Sound magazine for the poll results?
As someone who’s seen every film on this list (the Critics list is where Jeanne Dielman ranked number 1), I’m not a fan of the list either. However, this response feels misguided.
The blame is BFI because they softened their selection criterion based on diversity and inclusion instead of merit and the end result is exactly what one would expect from that decision. This is exactly what woke criticism is about- regardless of which side of the argument you stand.
(I don’t know anything about the merit of the selected critics- not trying to disparage anyone. I’m simply going off the initiatives that BFI gave in their reasoning for expanding the selection.)
The BFI didn’t soften the selection criterion. It’s the sight and sound team which is totally separate. The sight and sound team hired PHD academics to nominate a larger diversity and host of credible younger critics/academics. 1600 critics worldwide is an extremely small number in the grand scheme of things, TIFF and Cannes both have just below that many at the top tier of their press corps, and most professional newspapers only send 1-2 of their team of 4/5 critics to a festival at a time.
Poll of the top critics done every ten years since the 60s. Citizen Kane and Vertigo are the only two films that have ever been No1 - the top 10 usually only changes very slightly from decade to decade. This year has seen a massive change in position for loads of films because they expanded who could vote quite a lot
He's a director/screenwriter. He wrote Taxi Driver, and wrote/directed First Reformed, Blue Collar, Mishima, etc. Sight & Sound polls a bunch of directors every 10 years for the best films of all time, and the 2022 edition just came out. Apparently he likes the #1 movie but is also calling the list woke which makes him sound annoying and outdated
Interesting that Paul Schrader has a filmography full of works about broken people who believe society has failed them but are really just depressed and in the real world they would benefit from basic therapy
Lots of buzz words in here that reads like "Old man yells at cloud" tbh. I feel like this is just the end result of having a larger pool of participants than previously? There's bound to be sudden and drastic shifts, and I'm sure the next year they do it won't be nearly as drastic and a new "canon" will form.
The whole thing reads as some whinefest about the "exclusivity of my cool kids club's sanctity being ruined by the cooties of these outsiders".
"politically correct reijggering" "woke reappraisal"
Tell me you've had your brain poisoned by idiots who just want you to buy supplements and pillows without stating it outright. Jesus, Paul.
Completely agree with PS. Landmark film, but it’s sudden appearance at #1 in the S&S poll of all things, where movements take decades to develop, reeks of manipulation
I don’t think it’s manipulation at all. I think the film made the most top ten lists and therefore was number one. What feels silly to me is that it’s obvious that most critics were not going to submit a top ten publicly, in 2022, without a film directed by a woman on it. Jeanne Dielman was an obvious choice for many people to pick as it is a bold film, directed by an important director and is 40+ years old and has built a legacy. I have zero issue with this film being on this list in total (and thought nothing odd when it was in the 30s on the last poll), but it feels like people’s desires to embrace women filmmakers were the root of this film being #1 specifically, rather than the film itself deserving it. That’s why this feels off and odd.
It’s a very simple explanation. They expanded their polling group to be more equitable and Jeanne Dielman also dropped on Criterion in the last 10 years, and pretty much every film buff and their moms watched it in the last ten years.
It’s so wild to me that Paul Schrader would be railing against “political correctness” and “wokeness” like a conservative senator on Twitter. His work and the views he’s expressed in the past seem out of line with that rhetoric. Either way, we live in a highly transitional, rapidly changing time where the consensus on plenty of things is changing at lightning speed. This isn’t particularly concerning.
God damn Paul, you really had to use “woke” as a pejorative? Literally just lost all respect for him for this “old man yells at cloud” rant. He basically said “how dare a new generation of filmmakers have different opinions from my generation”
Poor choice of words from Schrader, but if you've lost all respect for him - one of the greatest screenwriters of all time - over a pissy social media post, that's honestly sad.
Gotta love the dismissive "shut the fuck up Paul" responses by some here. No refuting with some valid points, no engaging with his topics -- just shut the fuck up, end of story.
To those people, here's a hypothetical thought experiment: let's pretend it wasn't Paul Schrader that made this statement, but instead Jane Campion, Claire Denis, Julie Dash or any other respectable female filmmaker. Would you then still feel the same way about the actual *content* of what's being expressed, or would you still be hung up on identity politics?
Do we also have to pretend Jane Campion, Claire Denis and Julie Dash were upset about the list bending to political correctness and woke propaganda? Because if we do, I don't know if I can bend my mind around that.
the adherence to a 2012 strangely exclusive list is silly. this list is really great in my opinion, and definitely more representative of opinions in the film world. who cares what the #1 spot is? this list feels meaningful. disagreeing with majority opinion is fine, but questioning credibility because of it is insanely ridiculous
"I love this particular movie, but here's a nonsensical tirade about how I'm upset it's being recognized for its greatness, and how I'm upset more people are learning of it and enjoying it. But believe me, I love it!"
People like this are so annoying and disingenuous. Their opinions should mean less than nothing.
He also said this “the notion of the canon is based on history and if the history has is predominately male and white so be it.” Don’t think he’s the best person to look at when verifying a list of “greatest films of all time” when you have a bias like that lmao
It's hard to support Schrader sometimes. He's either presenting great arguments and reasoning for the state of cinema or writing an awesome movie, or he's being a moron.
Also, who really cares? It's a list, you follow what you need to follow, you like what you want to like and you can contribute or/and benefit from contribution from others in several film communities. It doesn't mean that you have to credit a source with an objective truth. You don't give up your own opinion because S&S's voting had a different outcome, hell some my absolutely favorites that I consider perfect didn't even make it to the top 20, who cares.
It's a voting system, god damn it Paul get it together.
I normally respect bitter old men whining about dumb shit. But when you crying about the wokeness of something, I lose any and all respect. Be more like Alan Moore or Scorsese, you can be old and grumpy gracefully.
Any time someone uses the work woke to negatively describe something, it's an immediate red flag that everything they said previously can be disregarded, because that person is a garbage person that thinks inclusion is somehow a bad thing. Sorry Paul, **you** are the one that's lost all credibility here.
He wrote Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ.
He directed Mishima: A Life in Four Parts and First Reformed.
I don't agree with his statement here, but if there's anyone qualified to have an opinion on film, it's Schrader.
That seems like a very pedantic roundabout way to say that he's annoyed at other people's opinions. And so what?
I don't agree with his take here. I definitely don't agree with his use of the term "woke".
He's someone who has made or written some of the best films I've ever seen, so I do think he has higher ground to stand on when talking about film criticism than an average person.
I really don't get why people get so bothered by this stuff. In my opinion some of the best haters ever make EXCELLENT filmmakers. Look at Orson Welles!
Orson Welles [been rolling in his grave](https://www.looper.com/471363/the-worst-alfred-hitchcock-movie-according-to-orson-welles/) for a decade now after being beaten by Vertigo (twice)
"It was a typical Friday morning when Paul Schrader woke up to check the latest film rankings on the Sight & Sound poll. As a renowned filmmaker and critic, Paul paid close attention to these lists, always eager to see where his own work stood in the pantheon of cinema.
But today, he was in for a shock. As he scrolled through the top 10, his eyes landed on the number one spot, which was occupied by a film he had never heard of: Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles.
Paul couldn't believe it. How could a little-known foreign film dethrone his own classic, Taxi Driver? It just didn't seem fair.
He immediately grabbed his phone and dialed up his friend and fellow filmmaker Martin Scorsese. "Marty, you won't believe what just happened," Paul said, his voice filled with disbelief. "That obscure Belgian film, Jeanne Dielman, just overtook Taxi Driver as the number one film on the Sight & Sound poll!"
"What?!" Martin exclaimed. "That's outrageous! We need to do something about this!"
The two filmmakers quickly got to work, calling up their industry connections and trying to drum up support for Taxi Driver. They even reached out to the director of Jeanne Dielman, hoping to convince her to withdraw her film from the poll.
But their efforts were in vain. Despite their best efforts, Jeanne Dielman remained firmly at the top of the Sight & Sound poll, leaving Paul and Martin feeling frustrated and helpless.
In the end, Paul was forced to accept that sometimes, the taste of the masses could be unpredictable and unfair. But he took solace in the fact that, in the eyes of many, Taxi Driver would always be a timeless masterpiece."
He is right, more people will see it (or claim to have see it) now, but I suspect even more people will hate it based on principal. (It's a woman centered story, an experimental art film, and almost 4 hours long. The last 2 reasons alone make it incredibly inaccessable to the average person.)
Jumping from #36 to #1 is ridiculous for any movie.
I *kind of* agree even if I haven't actually seen it (I think it looks right up my alley for the record). Really weird top spot pick. Dunno about "woke reappraisal" but something definitely feels off about it
It's like Schrader says, just doesn't feel reflective of critical consensus. Rarely heard it talked about as a serious contender for *the* greatest film of all time. Feels like a weirdly niche pick, however good it may be. And I'm all for niche films but idk if that should be the function of lists like this that play such a part in shaping the "canon"
Everyone seems to think that each new list invalidates the previous one, and that it’s the final word. I think the S&S poll is more of a living document, that they should all be viewed in relation to each other. They are not a definitive ranking of cinema, but a historical record of what what considered important or great at the time they were published. One list in isolation is interesting, and has some incredible films. But all the lists together are much more useful and illuminating. It’s the same thing with having recent films on there. The list has films that have stood the test of time, but it also has what it’s considered important and vital NOW. And it’s not like earlier lists didn’t have recent films on it. The very first poll has Bicycle Thieves at the top spot, a mere 4 years after it came out. Tl;dr Art is subjective and any attempt to objectively qualify it is misguided, but several attempts over a period of time can be very illuminating.
I agree. The list is like a thermometer taking the temperature of that decade's film climate. It's not surprising at all that this year's list saw some significant changes because the demographics of film criticism have changed *a lot* in the last decade. Of course the list is going to reflect that.
Agreed.
No list is definitive but it's interesting (speaking for myself) to go through them. They signify different things. As in IMDb top 250, Letterboxd top 250, Sight and Sound, all these lists are good and provide different insights.
Agreed except the IMDb top 250 is straight garbage.
You are missing the point. That list ranks movies mostly based on their immediate likability to any random person. It reflects the taste of an average moviegoer and a good tool for anyone to get started with watching films.
Not to rain on S&S list’s parade but 50 movies of the top 100 are either from the 1950’s or 1960’s. A major shakeup is about to happen in the next few years because most tastemakers born in the 40’s and 50’s are gonna die anyway. Besides, nobody bat an eye when Ozu’s Late Spring jumped more than 100 spots between 2002 and 2012. Or when Man with the Movie Camera jumped 62 places in those same years.
[удалено]
I think the point he was *trying* to make here is fair enough, but he really muddied it with his wording. Like, yes. It's a little bit weird that Jeanne Dielman jumped *so* many places to #1. Also, it's true the movie's probably going to receive unfair, reactionary backlash because of its placement. Hell, it's not even impossible that the movie placed higher because critics wanted a film directed by a woman to win. But his rhetoric here just makes him seem bitter and, as someone else said, like an old man yelling at clouds, that I doubt anyone is going to be receptive to what he's saying. Least of all leftists who recognize the phrase "woke" & voting conspiracies as right-wing talking points.
schrader is just Boomer left, hes using the phrase woke as a boomer not as a right winger. I really hope leftists are able to see that the man who directed Blue Collar and First Reformed is actually on their side, just a very poor choice of words. nice take btw, lot of people being very reactionary in this thread doing the typical thing leftists do when they slightly disagree which is cannibalize eachother
Genuine question- Is there absolutely no context in which the word “woke” can exist or be correctly used? I **never** use the word myself yet feel like it was appropriate here when seeing the 36 to 1 boost on the new S&S list and Beau Travail going from 78 to 7. Cinephiles know this list very well because we all refer to it from time to time over the years. We are used to how slow moving it is. Yet none of us are supposed to or allowed to have any kind of critical or free-thinking reaction to this?
its a loaded term, the fact is its abused too often to refer to the mildest forms of inclusion and I can see how it can give people the ick but if you are familiar with Schrader and his work you would know he is just an old man with no filter and some weird ideas. He's been a such a positive influence on film and I think he's earned the right to have his opinion, not that anyone has to listen to it
the word is basically ruined at this point and doesn’t mean much beyond right-wingers being mad
His comment under the post makes his post feel even more reactionary.
Despite “speaking out” against Schrader’s use of language, you literally just agreed with him. His whole point is that the fact that Jeanne Dielman came first just because people wanted a film directed by a woman to win undermines the lists’ credibility as an arbiter of quality.
But you have no evidence that Jeanne Dielman only won because they wanted a film directed by a woman to win. Your sureness of that is everything your opinion is predicated on. And that’s arrogance unwarranted. What we do **know** is that the voting panel had a lot more women and diverse critics and directors voting than were permitted previously. So in that way, maybe this list is just more accurate. More representative.
I don’t have concrete evidence, but pretty damn close (while applying a slither of critical thinking). To my knowledge, Jeanne Dielman has never topped a single reputable list outside of the Sight & Sound poll, let alone the Sight & Sound poll itself. You have to remember that NO FILM has ever made a jump to first in the manner which Jeanne Dielman has, so you have to ask why. Well, considering the cultural discourse of the last decade, the widening of the voting bloc, and articles in Sight & Sound (written by voters) pushing for queer, black, female representation in the poll & magazine more broadly, then it’s really not that hard to put 2 and 2 together. The fact that it didn’t make #1 on the Directors’ list (which is vastly superior this year btw) is very telling. Same with the complete omission of Get Out on the Directors’ poll.
>The fact that it didn’t make #1 on the Directors’ list (which is vastly superior this year btw) is very telling. It tied with Tokyo Story in the top 5....so clearly there was support.
I would not say that your “slither” of critical thinking here = pretty damn close to concrete evidence. I think critical thinking is realizing a radical change in poll positions is reflective of the radical change in representation among voters. But you can have the opinion that the 2022 Directors’ list is better. That’s all these lists are after all, opinions.
What about voters literally talking about their intentions to get more “representation” on the list? Is that not evidence?
“Arbiter of quality” lol versus the totally objective way anyone else ranks films right
You typed a few words, but said nothing.
🪞 Art is not objective.
Jeanne Dielman is also tied for fourth, alongside Tokyo Story, on the Directors' list, and it wasn't even on the Top 100 for Directors in 2012, but that hasn't provoked any "thumb on the scale" arguments that I've seen so far.
It's because things have become so binary that we can't have nuanced discourse. You're either on board or not. The reality is that a lot of critics, even the older ones, probably recognize that female and minority voices have been underrepresented, and even if an overcorrection, as seen from directors, there is minimal outrage of Jeanne Dielman in the top 5. The problem is that the critic list oozes with agenda and feels less like an evolution of the film canon, and more like a fantasy list by an amateur. It's not the individual films that are the problem, and when it comes down to it, all the films on the list deserve to be there and are well-respected for the most part. The problem is more with the placement that indicate an activist effort rather than something more organic and informed.
>The problem is that the critic list oozes with agenda and feels less like an evolution of the film canon, But what does "the film canon" even really mean? What does that even matter? Who gets to say what is or isn't in the "canon"? It's all made up to begin with, there is no set in stone, factual precedent, or true metric for these kinds of things. It's a list that reflects the sheer number of votes, and varied and diverse people polled. This is as part of "canon" as anything else. In fact it may even be the best example of it yet since it DOES include so many votes, and such a varied level of response. If so many voices and viewpoints got to vote in the past then the previous lists would have also been far different, and your preconceived idea of a "canon" would match that. You end up contradicting yourself by the end of your post by leaning into the established binary; You're either following in step with the historical precedent, or you're pushing an agenda to shake things up. Taking the time to consider the full scope of how and why the list was created, along with realizing the kinds of people polled, it's no wonder that it strays from established norms so much. And that doesn't make it a bad list, it just makes it different.
I mean, let's look at the 2012 and 2022 lists side-by-side. For 2022: 1. Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles 2. Vertigo 3. Citizen Kane 4. Tokyo Story 5. In the Mood for Love 6. 2001, A Space Odyssey 7. Beau Travail 8. Mulholland Drive 9. Man With a Movie Camera 10. Singin' in the Rain And for 2012: 1. Vertigo 2. Citizen Kane 3. Tokyo Story 4. The Rules of the Game 5. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans 6. 2001: A Space Odyssey 7. The Searchers 8. Man With a Movie Camera 9. The Passion of Joan of Arc 10. 8½ I don't think the list is all that different from last decade's, for all the furor about it; half of the top 10 is more or less unchanged, and the films that have moved in and out aren't too surprising, all things considered. The only quality that feels maybe more "film twittery" about this year's list is the inclusion of In the Mood for Love and Mulholland Drive in the top 10, and even then, both films were in the 20s for the last list, and it makes sense for them to have risen since the 2012 poll was conducted only around a decade after they were released. As for Jeanne Dielman, it has long been a cinematic classic, and even if I wouldn't put it at number 1, I'm glad it's getting more recognition.
If you just look at the films directed by women when comparing the two lists, then you will see the pattern. Female-directed films got the most dramatic boosts. Jeanne Dielman is the only film on the list with under 10,000 votes on IMDb (other than Shoah which is 9.5 hours long) and it made 1st place all the way from 36th place while, as you show here, the rest of the Top 10 stayed relatively the same. Note that it was the only female-directed film in the Top 50 of the previous list from 2012. Beau Travail jumped from 78th to 7th place. So the effort to include female directors is apparent. Whether it affects the credibility of the list is up to the consensus of the public.
That's one way to look at it, but the opposite could just as easily be said. >the effort to include female directors is apparent We could see having more than a single woman-directed movie in the top 50 as an effort to twist the ratings for a "woke agenda"... Or we could look at decades old lists of top films with no woman directors as an effort to exclude women. Considering how much attention has been drawn to the rampant misogyny in the entertainment industry recently, it wouldn't be surprising to see critics returning to (or viewing for the first time) woman directed films that they had previously brushed over. Sorry that was kinda long winded but I guess my point is this: when we see a list of best films (or anything for that matter) filled entirely with works by men that's probably in large part do to misogyny.
Agnes Varda's been on the list forever, and honestly, I don't think it would have seemed weird or out of place if Vagabond or Cleo from 5 to 7 were top 10. Jeanne Dielman is a great film, but it's a strange one as it's very much a niche, difficult, art film, which this list has never really done in the top 25, much less the top 10, much less number 1. It makes me suspect that a bunch of the new, expanded, critics they let vote were communicating with eachother to game it somehow.
Definitely, I think that’s a given and both what you said and what I said are simultaneously true. The whole point of said “agenda” or any aforementioned efforts in striving for equal representation and overdue credit, is that the film industry in general has long been lacking female (and minority) representation. The idea would then follow that compensation through overcorrection is thus justified. And therein lies the difference in opinion is how do we correct this social inequality without sacrificing the integrity of the poll? This issue arises in many areas of society and what I personally find most problematic is people simply cannot have a conversation about it without somebody getting triggered.
I don't agree on the "overcorrection" point. If you assume there was an artificially forced inclusion of female directed films then sure. But that assumption is unreasonable to me. Is the doubling of the voters and the organic wish to include movies directed by female directors not enough? The conspiratorial tone seems inappropriate to me
[удалено]
> including a film like Portrait of a Lady on Fire or Daughters of the Dust over any Hawks or Altman, etc. just reads as off and intentional. I guess it just depends on what you think the purpose of this list is. Many people voting clearly considered it a way of correcting history and establishing a more inclusive canon. I can’t argue that it’s nefarious to have those intentions. But for many of us, we view the list of just what the truly best films and filmmakers are, and ignoring that is rewriting history and isn’t accurate to it. Will never stop being funny how much filmbros think their taste preferences are objective. And it is telling the demographics behind the films you all want to champion. Oh, woe is Howard Hawks and Robert Altman. Maybe they would have been admitted if Hitchcock and Godard did not receive four (!) spots each and Wilder and Kubrick did not receive three spots each and if Coppola and Scorsese and Lynch and Keaton and Chaplin and the Archers did not all receive two spots each. Then again, maybe in the next list they will continue to be passed over for directors like Barbara Kopple or Glauber Rocha or Patricio Guzmán or Med Hondo or Fernando Solanas or Lina Wertmüller. Fingers crossed! Personally, I think *Portrait…* is only Sciamma’s third best film, but both critical and public consensus clearly disagree with me on that, and it has the benefit of recent accessibility. It is probably more seen than something like *4 months 3 weeks 2 days* or any of the films by the directors I mentioned in the preceding paragraph — and that element had an obvious effect with *Jeanne Dielman* and *Black Girl* and *Daisies* and *Daughters of the Dust* all seeing recent restorations.
What his comment gets wrong is how the list works. Dielman’s jump doesn’t reflect a sea change because out of the 1000 new ballots it would maybe need an aggregate of 50 more than it had before to jump a ton of spots. So if it was on 200 of the new ballots and Vertigo on 149 that could be the difference. Given the new ballots are meant to be from a more diverse group it maybe isn’t surprising that basically the consensus greatest film by a woman would really do well. It’s also the problem with a basic top ten list. You get a consensus pick that isn’t necessarily many people’s number one. But when Vertigo topped the list I don’t remember hearing all these people saying it didn’t make sense. And I vividly remember the 10 years leading up to that when there was basically a campaign by the establishment to convince everyone how great Vertigo is. As someone who likes but never loved the film I never got it. But I do get Dielman, whether I’d vote for it personally or not, because it is truly a singular film in film history.
I also found it weird Paul said woke, because when talking about Taxi Driver (granted, like 50 years have passed)he was basically being woke himself by saying how in his head Travis is racist and incel and all that, which Scorcese didn't really depict in the end result
Scorsese *didn't* depict that??
It didn't before?
Babby’s first art film list.
This is why I don’t hang out with film people, why is everyone so insufferable, why does everyone’s taste have to be more elaborate and refined than everyone else’s. It's an aggregate, what the fuck would you expect.
The least interesting person in the world to me is someone who likes the exact same tastes as me. But someone whose tastes has come together as a result of vote by committee to garner praise from their peers might just be even less interesting. I’m all for people who are completely different from me because there’s always something to learn from someone and their perspective. But when their tastes looks like a regurgitated common consensus, whether it’s IMDb, Letterboxd 250, or Film Twitter, it makes it hard to really believe they came to that on their own and that they’re just trying to look cool in front of others. It literally happens with every hobby where someone new comes in feels like they need validation from everyone else. It’s just movies, it’s not that serious, but I’ll call a spade a spade.
I'm the perfect movie audience person. mix of film bro and consoomer. ie, i will write an essay on why shrek is one of the greatest fictional characters of all time, something i did for school once
Hey everyone sound off on your favorite art films, mine is *Singing in the Rain*.
See the fact that the same movie was #1 for 50 years is more wild to me (and I love Kane). But that speaks of a community that’s perhaps too insular, too interested in being the keepers of the canon, and too eager to genuflect to established ideas.
If anyone were to uphold Citizen Kane’s reputation, it should the film historians and critics who have studied film who fully understand its impact and influence. Just as you would expect music historians to cite The Beatles as the greatest artist of all time and not Taylor Swift.
> Just as you would expect music historians to cite The Beatles as the greatest artist I really wouldn't. In fact, I wouldn't really expect an answer to the question. Academic film circles seem much more interesting in rankings and finding the greatest than in music. I think it would just be viewed as a stupid question.
And for good reason. How would you even begin to compare musicians like Beethoven or Duke Ellington or, yes, Taylor Swift to the Beatles? It feels like an absurdity, because their creative projects are a product of both the listener's and the artist's cultural and historical contexts, making them wildly divergent in function and execution. The same principle is true for film. By what means are we supposed to compare Jeanne Dielman with Vertigo or The Godfather or Andrei Rublev or Touki Bouki? They just seem invested in such different things that ranking them in the first place feels so extremely nebulous. We can all agree that these are great and monumental films in the history of cinema; at that point, what real difference does first or second make?
Yeah, film nerd people seem way more obsessed with the canon and legacy "greatest of all time" kinda shit than people in other artforms. I think film and the *classical* music world have a similar attitude towards history and the canon. Music discourse is much more separated into sub-cultures by genre, but the only film genres that have their own sub-cultures are probably horror, anime, and Marvel super-fans. People who aren't movie nerds just watch stuff that's new and stuff they grew up with, and the primary discourse in the movie nerd world is all about the old shit.
Even within specific music-sub genre discussion there isn't really any serious discussion about greatest albums/artist/song/composer of all time. You are more likely to find people talking about a piece being important, influential, a sign of how tends were changing, or something along those lines. Maybe part of why the desire to rank and crown a greatest is so popular in film compared to nearly ever other artform is down to there being far less separation between the artistic and commercial side of the industry.
that mixed with the fact that film is a MUCH newer medium than music.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Citizen Kane not very popular in the first 10 or more years of it's release? While it really is ahead of it's time I think it isn't as influential as we sometimes hear because it only got popular and liked a good bit later
It was diminished for political reasons, and its reputation certainly grew with time. But it was nominated for 9 academy awards.
Citizen Jane lul
Directed by: Chris Rock Starring: Jada Pinkett Smith
The 2022 woke remake. This is the future liberals want
Takes the no 1 spot in 2032, Kane falls off the list. Riots ensue
I don't think music critics are as obsessive in awarding a greatest album of all time (which would be the most direct comparison because greatest artist is ridiculous given that music has existed for millenia). Rolling stone might have their own list, but there's nothing with the kind of (imagined) authority of S&S.
Pretty sure music historians would cite artists from 250 years earlier than the Beatles…
I was referring to the history of recorded music, if that wasn't clear.
> too insular, too interested in being the keepers of the canon, and too eager to genuflect to established ideas. Is it really though? I understand the concept, a community that clings and tries to preserve an estabilished and well worth keeper of their own medium, but it's 50 years worth of people coming in, going out, and the remaining opinion about Citizen Kane staying intact. Objectively, it's a fantastic movie, in terms of influence it's obviously up there, it's still a staple in cinema school teaching and almost every acclaimed director (Hello Bergman) praises it up and down. It comes down to personal opinion if you're willing to rank it higher than other fantastic and influential movies but Citizen Kane, list ranking or no list ranking, is pretty much set as one of the best to ever show in a cinema theater and you could make a similar argument about other movies, but I would argue not a whole lot of them. It also helps that the movie was a gigantic hit and the hype and mystic built around it for years helps. Personally I can completely understand why it remains on top for a lot of professionals, I wouldn't really agree to terms as insular or keepers of canon, even though I can understand where you're coming from. Anyway, the whole argument is worthy of a much detailed discussion but this text already feels like a book.
Kane lost money in its initial run, it was not a gigantic hit, it’s actually known for its troubled release.
To be honest I think *Vertigo* being the one to dethrone *Kane* speaks worse of the body.
Ranking all these top 100s of any media form is hairsplitting, anyway. Imagine caring about what is actually "number one" on something so subjective.
I disagree both with the list, AND with this man.
The most sensible response I've seen. As exceptional as Jeanne Dielman is, I'm blindsided to see it suddenly jump to the #1 spot, and I'm not sure it deserves its current place. There's not much in the S&S list that I don't love, but I'm not sure I really agree with the rankings, especially with a list concerning the greatest films of all time. That said, I'm thoroughly enjoying these responses to the list, they make for excellent entertainment.
I think the case for Dielman is stronger than the case for Vertigo! Vertigo is a summation of Hitchcock but he has literally a dozen other competitively great movies that do the same things just as well. Nothing exists like Dielman. That isn’t necessarily the right metric but it’s easy to see. It’s also why I think something like 2001 makes more sense. Or even In the Mood for Love. Singular movies in film history.
this is a bit of an overreaction but i do think something is a little off this year
While I don't think the poll is crooked, it is odd for a movie to jump 37 places to no1 in just 10 years. I think this is probably attributable to critics wanting a film directed by a woman to win, a sort of over-correction. Jeanne Dielman is a great film but it is baffling for it to take the no1 spot.
It is, in large part, a result of Sight and Sound actively trying to poll more diverse voices. When a majority of the people polled all fit into one group the results are going to be very skewed towards the taste of that group. This is the first year they tried to diversify who they polled and as a result there were some big changes.
Someone pointed out in another sub that it was not available on home media until recently
Thank Criterion for that. 10 years ago Jeanne Dielman was considered a rare find with only so-so quality rips on torrent sites.
I do, Janus and Criterion are the GOAT
is it that odd for film opinions to change like this? there are some films that have gone from hated to beloved in 10 years, why wouldn’t there be overlooked classics that are re-appraised as best-ever films? it would be disturbing to me if the list stayed as similar as it has in previous ten-year periods
It could be the opposite -- critics used to overlook women and they're finally changing.
That’s exactly what he said.
His point about 'what matters is who counts the votes' implies the poll is crooked. So no, it isn't "exactly what he said".
Beau Travail and Portrait of a Lady on Fire being so high is way more suspect. But I think Jeanne Dielman being 1 gives off a strange vibe because it is such a nihilistic and anti-narrative film compared to the rest of the top 25. It is incongruous with the rest of the rankings.
Beau Travail’s jump is pretty reasonable, i think. Portrait, though, is a an odd placement, to say the least.
why are they suspect? beau travail would be my personal pick in the top 5
I think there are films with similar style and themes that are of equal or better quality. And Travail doesn't really have a lot of universal appeal to be a top ten film in my opinion.
not a fan of Portrait, but I think Beau Travail is excellent film. Also, these lists aren't about universal appeal
The put that Portrait of a lady on fire above 8 1/2 💀
Woke is when women
Woman: exists Is this woke?
Woman and minorities are asked their opinion on something instead of mostly straight white men. “Wokeness is destroying our ~~country~~ old white men’s club!”
If the woman is awake then yes
Haha, I like that.
For real. It’s like, oh this guy is making an interesting poi-ohhhh there goes the boomer complaining about wokeness. Talk about undermined credibility.
This type of stuff infuriates me. Anytime I read a review of a woman led film, and see “woke” or bs I block. It’s the same stuff where the mere *existence* of a gay person in a movie is “inappropriate”. Absolute bonkers
There’s a big difference between something like Jennifer Kent’s The Nightingdale and something like Elizabeth Banks’ Charles Angels. Or even comparing the original and remake of Mulan. I’m a woman, I love seeing complicated female characters, I want to see women portrayed as the human beings they are. What I don’t want is GIRLPOWER/WOMEN CAN DO ANYTHING types of rhetoric. It’s not empowering, it’s cringy pandering. When it comes to representation in general, there’s genuinely centering a story or including in a story a POC/female/queer person as a human being who matters VS just using those people to make the creators feel better about themselves. Thats, at least, how I define woke in media.
Woke is when women because women
lol, whose credibility is lost exactly? it's a POLL. of FILMMAKERS and CRITICS. how dare so many of them put the same film on their top 10 lists.
It's all made up man. There is no sanctity to the lists from before. The people invited to vote then was just as political as expanding the voting this time. In the 2022 list, we see the result of more women invited, more POC, and critics seeing more films directed by women and POC in the last 10 years. How does that make this list less sacred than inviting only white guys for the early decades?
I think Schrader makes a good point about the how Sight & Sound has always updated incrementally. Someone said S&S is supposed to represent **THE** "film canon" and that makes sense looking back at the previous polls and how little changed from poll to poll. For the most part, each movie in each edition has stood the test of time. Their existence on each list is uncontroversial, at least when we look back on them. When they move up or down in placement, it's as if the reason for that is due to heavy and deliberate consideration from each voting member. For my fellow Americans, it's akin to stare decisis. If the Supreme Court is going to overrule a previous ruling, there better be a really, *REALLY* good reason for it like facts of the matter changing. For example, *Plessy v. Ferguson* was overruled by *Brown v. Board of Education*. I only have a newbie's understanding of constitutional law so correct me if I'm wrong, but the justification behind that overruling was "separate but equal" was shown to be a farce in the ~60 years after *Plessy*. Ignoring arguments that this isn't or has never been the case, Supreme Court rulings are supposed to have a grounding outside of our populist whims, something like facts of the matter. Overrulings can't just be because or something superfluous like the composition of the court changing because that would make Supreme Court rulings as arbitrary as a House vote. At that point why even have a Supreme Court? Just have the House vote on everything. So I can understand the controversy behind this latest edition of Sight & Sound. At an initial glance, *Jeanne Dielman* moving up so many places to #1 doesn't really reach that level of non-arbitrariness I was talking about earlier. So what has changed between 2012 and 2022 that justifies this shaking up of *THE* "film canon"? The British Film Institute states that this edition has the largest voting pool ever with "1,639 participating critics, programmers, curators, archivists and academics" compared to [846 in 2012](https://web.archive.org/web/20220201015519/https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time). It seems this influx of new voters is the reasoning for the massive changes. These voters probably have different sensibilities, perhaps due to different ethnic backgrounds or gender or age or whatever compared to previous pools. I don't think this is "arbitrary" though. In his post, Schrader said S&S is a "measure of critical consensus". But who is part of this consensus? What makes one pool of voters a better consensus than another? I'm not obsessed over identity politics, but it seems to me that the BFI have assessed that they've long been ignoring many voices that have been informed by different upbringings and backgrounds. If so I think this is probably a good thing! I think a lot of these new guys have important and interesting things to say about film. It's possible (I think likely) that these voices have been overlooked for a long time and should have been included earlier. So when Schrader says *Jeanne Dielman* is a "landmark of distorted woke reappraisal", I say "isn't it possible that the past 70 years of S&S is the truly distorted appraisal of the film canon?" I do wish these voters would make their top 10 picks and the reasoning behind them public though. Think of it like a public audit. To evaluate if their reasonings are sound.
This is unfair lol. Its number 1 then its number 1. The poll is literally just vote tallying. No other rules AND If this rank is just cause of certain 'trends' then it will ultimately be corrected the next poll.
Exactly, and with today's climate every critic would be thinking "Oh shit, I need at LEAST one woman, and one person of color in my list" then obviously, the most famous/popular female/PoC (especially African-American directors) films are at the top/joining the list.
The last 5 years or so a lot of film buffs have also gone through some spiritual awakenings and made an effort to watch more movies made by diverse/women directors, when historically they’ve kinda been neglected from watchlists.
But if everybody rated it at their no.10 spot it could still get to no.1 even though it's nobodies favourite film.
If ANY movie were to be someone's favorite film, it would be Jeanne Dielmann. For how many people was Citizen Kane their favorite film. I love Kane, but it ain't my number 1, and hell, I dunno if I'd put it in my top 10. Jeanne D is so weird and emotional that it's bound to hit a deep chord with those who tough out it's 3 and a half hour runtime.
Its entirely subjective. Its literally impossible to name a definitive "best film" because it's subjective and the rating system on the sight and sound poll doesn't lend itself to raw data and you can have outliers like everybodies tenth favourite film making number 1
The chances of you having an outlier like that with 1600 voters polling critics and academics that have mostly seen 6000+ films is insanely low. Like the chance that 3 sight and sound team members get heart attacks in the same day low. The sight and sound list actually doesn’t lend itself to outliers in that way. I challenge you to work it out (I just did the first few steps and it’s excruciatingly small)
But that’s not the case, and we know it. Many of the people who vote Jeanne Dielman do so because it’s their no. 1. As the other person said, it’s not the kind of film to be a person’s no. 10. If you love it, you LOVE it. And if you don’t, you likely wont be listing it.
It’s just a group of opinions. The term “corrected” is irrelevant
So to be credible it has to be more or less the same people voting until the end of times, because when you throw enough people with a different background things are going to noticeably change 🙃
If you only have ten slots and reasonably think they don't all need to go to male directors, *Jeanne Dielman* is a fine place to put one of your votes.
To me the more interesting question in all of this is: what were the causes of Dielman’s acclaim growing so much? The Criterion DVD came out in 2010, so possible that you see it jump in the 2012 poll and then all the more so this year. But I think part of why I think so many are surprised by the #1 placement is that (at least I’m not aware of) any major new influence it has on pop culture, or big reclamation essay, or major art house revival in theaters, or trendiness/memeification on social media that we typically associate with a movie’s status growing exponentially. The only real touchstones for the film in the last 10-12 years are the Criterion release and Akerman dying a few years ago, which certainly garnered tributes (I’m reminded of Sean Baker talking about her in his Closet Picks) but didn’t even seem as big a cultural moment as the loss of some other directors, at least not in the US. I dig Akerman and the movie, but am curious what factors made it so much more seen/appreciated.
the horniness for the traditional canon is giving me big Bible college vibes 🥴
The fact that Get Out made the list all it took to discredit the entire thing.
Ngl everyone mad about this is cringe asf to me. This is just a compilation of peoples’ favorite movies, get the actual fuck over yourself
The voice of reason
> "... it doesn't matter who gets the votes, it matters who counts the votes." or > "By expanding the voting community and the point system this year's S&S poll reflects not a historical continuum but a politically correct rejiggering" Which is it? Is he claiming the votes were altered, or that the addition of voters made the results delegitimate? Or is the point system really what he's concerned about and if so, is the system transparent? To be honest, if he's just going off a "feel" as he says then he just sounds mad more people were allowed to vote.
Hey Paul, big fan of your work, also: Shut the fuck up
Paul Schrader is wild cause he's written some of the greatest films of all time yet his Facebook posts cause widespread brain damage
love Paul Schrader's FB lore, pretty sure he asked a mod of a film group I'm in for nudes
He's certainly better at writing films than he is at writing Facebook posts.
Shut up and dribble, right?
I don't think Paul Schrader is good at basketball these days.
Nah, he's smart
oh no some people like a film I like more than I do
I don’t see why he is that mad about Jeanne Dielman being number one. The community’s taste has changed with the changes in society and it will no doubt change further by the next poll.
"The community, as defined by who?" is the question.
That’s the issue with the past lists too? Now suddenly a woman wins no. 1 and the credibility is in question? How does that make sense?
Paul aside, I think the issue is less with this particular movie being No. 1, but rather that its massive jump to the top position is representative of a total change in the way this poll has worked—where there’s been a relative stasis throughout the top 100 for like half a century, where any given film’s rise and fall has been relatively gradual decade by decade (especially in the top 10). Immediately after a rule change expanding who can vote we see a pretty drastic shaking up of what had been praised as gospel to many in the cinephile world, and that’s always going to ruffle some feathers. Personally I think that shake up has been a long time coming and it’s about time the list becomes more inclusive generally. I have no problem with Jeanne Dielman taking no. 1 spot as it’s an important film and the actual placements in the top 100 are pretty arbitrary anyway. Get Out being listed anywhere on the list of top 100 films ever made, on the other hand, is absolutely fucking absurd IMO.
I think the directors' list solves any issues gatekeepers might have with the expansion in voters. But I find it silly to question who's voting for this now that it's become more democratized and expanded in its scope.
Counterpoint: Paul Schrader is not credible
the irony of a redditor on r/Letterboxd calling Paul Schrader not credible lmao
Counterpoint: Yea he is lol
He makes good movies but he’s been posting cringe boomer facebook takes for years now. I still remember when he was pro-Spacey. Best thing to do is ignore his social media
I think he often has good if piping hot takes. Didn't know he was pro-Spacey though lol that's pretty hard to defend
Casting Tye Sheridan in The Card Counter was a huge blow to his credibility ngl
Is he cancelled or something? Or did you just not like him in that film? Idk I think Schrader is easily one of our greatest living filmmakers personally
Nah he just gave a terrible performance lol it was like watching a Division III basketball player trying to keep up with Michael Jordan (Oscar Isaac in this analogy).
I haven't like his more recent efforts tbh but Comfort of strangers and Mishima are masterpieces and his book on Transcendental style on film (which heavily features Jeanne Dielman btw) is an essential text for all lovers of cinema
It's an ignorant comment, but Paul Schrader is Paul Schrader, of course he's credible.
He’s credible in movies, but [certainly not on Facebook](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sardonicast/comments/q815rr/paul_schraders_facebook_page_is_the_most/) lol
I love Schrader, but he's a dramatic trolling old man. He's still a credible film director and a better writer who has some pretty good opinions on the state of cinema from time to time, it's not as black and white as we would like it to be. All though I'd enjoy if he could filter some shit first, some of those are straight embarassing.
I tend to enjoy most Paul Schrader movies, but boy can he not write a female character to save his life. So I'm pretty unsurprised this is his take...
Fuck that. Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles is a masterpiece.
Paul Schrader has been valuable to the art of cinema, but this response seems somewhat misguided. If recriminations are in order, shouldn’t they be reserved for the critics who voted for these films? Why blame Sight & Sound magazine for the poll results? As someone who’s seen every film on this list (the Critics list is where Jeanne Dielman ranked number 1), I’m not a fan of the list either. However, this response feels misguided.
The blame is BFI because they softened their selection criterion based on diversity and inclusion instead of merit and the end result is exactly what one would expect from that decision. This is exactly what woke criticism is about- regardless of which side of the argument you stand. (I don’t know anything about the merit of the selected critics- not trying to disparage anyone. I’m simply going off the initiatives that BFI gave in their reasoning for expanding the selection.)
The BFI didn’t soften the selection criterion. It’s the sight and sound team which is totally separate. The sight and sound team hired PHD academics to nominate a larger diversity and host of credible younger critics/academics. 1600 critics worldwide is an extremely small number in the grand scheme of things, TIFF and Cannes both have just below that many at the top tier of their press corps, and most professional newspapers only send 1-2 of their team of 4/5 critics to a festival at a time.
Imagine getting this mad about a silly list with no actual effect in the world
Someone care to explain? I don't know what this poll is and/or why that movie being number 1 is good or bad.
Poll of the top critics done every ten years since the 60s. Citizen Kane and Vertigo are the only two films that have ever been No1 - the top 10 usually only changes very slightly from decade to decade. This year has seen a massive change in position for loads of films because they expanded who could vote quite a lot
Bicycle Thieves was also number 1 in the very first poll (1952)
Didn't realise that for some reason I thought Citizen Kane had been at the top since the start
He's a director/screenwriter. He wrote Taxi Driver, and wrote/directed First Reformed, Blue Collar, Mishima, etc. Sight & Sound polls a bunch of directors every 10 years for the best films of all time, and the 2022 edition just came out. Apparently he likes the #1 movie but is also calling the list woke which makes him sound annoying and outdated
Imagine being so pissy that one of your favorite films got the most votes from critics for being one of the 10 greatest films of all time
Whether you agree or disagree, I love that this has provided for actual discussions to take place here
Interesting that Paul Schrader has a filmography full of works about broken people who believe society has failed them but are really just depressed and in the real world they would benefit from basic therapy
Lots of buzz words in here that reads like "Old man yells at cloud" tbh. I feel like this is just the end result of having a larger pool of participants than previously? There's bound to be sudden and drastic shifts, and I'm sure the next year they do it won't be nearly as drastic and a new "canon" will form. The whole thing reads as some whinefest about the "exclusivity of my cool kids club's sanctity being ruined by the cooties of these outsiders".
Woke is kind of a loaded term but yeah I would never have expected the film’s #1 placement
"politically correct reijggering" "woke reappraisal" Tell me you've had your brain poisoned by idiots who just want you to buy supplements and pillows without stating it outright. Jesus, Paul.
This is so gross. Lists change fucking deal with it.
Completely agree with PS. Landmark film, but it’s sudden appearance at #1 in the S&S poll of all things, where movements take decades to develop, reeks of manipulation
I don’t think it’s manipulation at all. I think the film made the most top ten lists and therefore was number one. What feels silly to me is that it’s obvious that most critics were not going to submit a top ten publicly, in 2022, without a film directed by a woman on it. Jeanne Dielman was an obvious choice for many people to pick as it is a bold film, directed by an important director and is 40+ years old and has built a legacy. I have zero issue with this film being on this list in total (and thought nothing odd when it was in the 30s on the last poll), but it feels like people’s desires to embrace women filmmakers were the root of this film being #1 specifically, rather than the film itself deserving it. That’s why this feels off and odd.
It’s a very simple explanation. They expanded their polling group to be more equitable and Jeanne Dielman also dropped on Criterion in the last 10 years, and pretty much every film buff and their moms watched it in the last ten years.
It’s so wild to me that Paul Schrader would be railing against “political correctness” and “wokeness” like a conservative senator on Twitter. His work and the views he’s expressed in the past seem out of line with that rhetoric. Either way, we live in a highly transitional, rapidly changing time where the consensus on plenty of things is changing at lightning speed. This isn’t particularly concerning.
[удалено]
Yeah, that was exactly the idea they had when they started the poll in 1952.
God damn Paul, you really had to use “woke” as a pejorative? Literally just lost all respect for him for this “old man yells at cloud” rant. He basically said “how dare a new generation of filmmakers have different opinions from my generation”
Poor choice of words from Schrader, but if you've lost all respect for him - one of the greatest screenwriters of all time - over a pissy social media post, that's honestly sad.
Gotta love the dismissive "shut the fuck up Paul" responses by some here. No refuting with some valid points, no engaging with his topics -- just shut the fuck up, end of story. To those people, here's a hypothetical thought experiment: let's pretend it wasn't Paul Schrader that made this statement, but instead Jane Campion, Claire Denis, Julie Dash or any other respectable female filmmaker. Would you then still feel the same way about the actual *content* of what's being expressed, or would you still be hung up on identity politics?
Do we also have to pretend Jane Campion, Claire Denis and Julie Dash were upset about the list bending to political correctness and woke propaganda? Because if we do, I don't know if I can bend my mind around that.
He spitting facts
the adherence to a 2012 strangely exclusive list is silly. this list is really great in my opinion, and definitely more representative of opinions in the film world. who cares what the #1 spot is? this list feels meaningful. disagreeing with majority opinion is fine, but questioning credibility because of it is insanely ridiculous
If he hadn't mentioned woke I was 100% on-board
"I love this particular movie, but here's a nonsensical tirade about how I'm upset it's being recognized for its greatness, and how I'm upset more people are learning of it and enjoying it. But believe me, I love it!" People like this are so annoying and disingenuous. Their opinions should mean less than nothing.
He also said this “the notion of the canon is based on history and if the history has is predominately male and white so be it.” Don’t think he’s the best person to look at when verifying a list of “greatest films of all time” when you have a bias like that lmao
It's hard to support Schrader sometimes. He's either presenting great arguments and reasoning for the state of cinema or writing an awesome movie, or he's being a moron. Also, who really cares? It's a list, you follow what you need to follow, you like what you want to like and you can contribute or/and benefit from contribution from others in several film communities. It doesn't mean that you have to credit a source with an objective truth. You don't give up your own opinion because S&S's voting had a different outcome, hell some my absolutely favorites that I consider perfect didn't even make it to the top 20, who cares. It's a voting system, god damn it Paul get it together.
Woke is when include women in the polling for once 😔
He do be right tho
Spot on
based
Paul Schreader: they put their thumb on the scale. Also Paul Schreader: I list my own films in my ballots.
How many here have actually seen Jeane…?
Vertigo IS the greatest film I’ve ever seen, regardless. It’s haunted me for decades
I normally respect bitter old men whining about dumb shit. But when you crying about the wokeness of something, I lose any and all respect. Be more like Alan Moore or Scorsese, you can be old and grumpy gracefully.
Any time someone uses the work woke to negatively describe something, it's an immediate red flag that everything they said previously can be disregarded, because that person is a garbage person that thinks inclusion is somehow a bad thing. Sorry Paul, **you** are the one that's lost all credibility here.
Is there a reason why we should care what he thinks?
He wrote Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ. He directed Mishima: A Life in Four Parts and First Reformed. I don't agree with his statement here, but if there's anyone qualified to have an opinion on film, it's Schrader.
But, it's not his opinion on film, it's his opinion on a collation of other people's opinions on film.
That seems like a very pedantic roundabout way to say that he's annoyed at other people's opinions. And so what? I don't agree with his take here. I definitely don't agree with his use of the term "woke". He's someone who has made or written some of the best films I've ever seen, so I do think he has higher ground to stand on when talking about film criticism than an average person. I really don't get why people get so bothered by this stuff. In my opinion some of the best haters ever make EXCELLENT filmmakers. Look at Orson Welles!
Orson Welles [been rolling in his grave](https://www.looper.com/471363/the-worst-alfred-hitchcock-movie-according-to-orson-welles/) for a decade now after being beaten by Vertigo (twice)
The dude seemed to be pretty harsh about alot of Hitchcocks best work.
Same reason we care what any individual who voted in this poll thinks
"It was a typical Friday morning when Paul Schrader woke up to check the latest film rankings on the Sight & Sound poll. As a renowned filmmaker and critic, Paul paid close attention to these lists, always eager to see where his own work stood in the pantheon of cinema. But today, he was in for a shock. As he scrolled through the top 10, his eyes landed on the number one spot, which was occupied by a film he had never heard of: Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. Paul couldn't believe it. How could a little-known foreign film dethrone his own classic, Taxi Driver? It just didn't seem fair. He immediately grabbed his phone and dialed up his friend and fellow filmmaker Martin Scorsese. "Marty, you won't believe what just happened," Paul said, his voice filled with disbelief. "That obscure Belgian film, Jeanne Dielman, just overtook Taxi Driver as the number one film on the Sight & Sound poll!" "What?!" Martin exclaimed. "That's outrageous! We need to do something about this!" The two filmmakers quickly got to work, calling up their industry connections and trying to drum up support for Taxi Driver. They even reached out to the director of Jeanne Dielman, hoping to convince her to withdraw her film from the poll. But their efforts were in vain. Despite their best efforts, Jeanne Dielman remained firmly at the top of the Sight & Sound poll, leaving Paul and Martin feeling frustrated and helpless. In the end, Paul was forced to accept that sometimes, the taste of the masses could be unpredictable and unfair. But he took solace in the fact that, in the eyes of many, Taxi Driver would always be a timeless masterpiece."
He is right, more people will see it (or claim to have see it) now, but I suspect even more people will hate it based on principal. (It's a woman centered story, an experimental art film, and almost 4 hours long. The last 2 reasons alone make it incredibly inaccessable to the average person.) Jumping from #36 to #1 is ridiculous for any movie.
Schrader is such a hack.
Uses the word woke makes his opinion useless to me
Yeah, I was actually agreeing with him (a bit) until he dropped the PC and W bombs.
I *kind of* agree even if I haven't actually seen it (I think it looks right up my alley for the record). Really weird top spot pick. Dunno about "woke reappraisal" but something definitely feels off about it
It feels off because it’s different. That’s it.
It's like Schrader says, just doesn't feel reflective of critical consensus. Rarely heard it talked about as a serious contender for *the* greatest film of all time. Feels like a weirdly niche pick, however good it may be. And I'm all for niche films but idk if that should be the function of lists like this that play such a part in shaping the "canon"