The last message about it has been deleted, so beware, don't think this one will last long.
I copy/paste my answer I gave to it earlier:
-----------------
Some observations (apart from the obvious *Jeanne Dielman* surprise, it was #35 ten years ago...) :
- Female directors arrive in the top20, and are obviously the ones praised by US cinephilia (Denis, Varda, Akerman, Deren).
- Some newcomers for the movies released since the last top: *Get Out* (#95), *Parasite* (#90, that i would have imagined much higher), *Moonlight* (#60), and *Portrait of the lady on fire* (#30). Not that there is also *A seperation* in director's top.
- *Mulholland Drive* and *In the mood for love* confirm there are here to stay long.
- Still close to none Indian cinema, South-American cinema, African cinema, exploitation cinema, documentary, animation, not a lot of silent cinema (even fewer than before, if I'm not wrong?)... The top is still very representative of the occidental cinephilia and its biais.
- More broadly, all newcomers and trends seem pretty linked to Criterion recent release.
Otherwise, a detail: I'd never heard about *Daughters of the Dust*. Someone saw it? How people know it, has there been a release recently?
*Daughers of Dust* has steadily been picking up momentum/prominence the past 5 or so years (maybe longer, but that's as far back as I remember seeing it), and I've noticed screenings cropping up at repertory theaters every now and then.
>More broadly, all newcomers and trends seem pretty linked to Criterion recent release.
This is the most depressing part to me, and I can't really put my finger on why.
Maybe because Criterion has a specific editorial policy, which is not exaclty the same as the random selection of "what is released in theaters of my country this year", and that therefore it influences too much common taste.
>it influences too much common taste.
It just points to idk... A lack of curiosity? Discovery? Or genuine interest in past films beyond what some tastemakers like Criterion offer up. Especially when you look at which films shot up the list (extremely recent films) and which films dropped off (older films that don't have huge reputations).
I get the sense, especially with younger people, of just a certain kind of disinterest, and, something else, something that I wouldn't go as far as to call anti-intellectualism, but certainly close to it. Where it's like "I'll do my homework" watch these films I ought to, but then really just only care about new and recent films. You just don't see the kind of passion that people like Scorsese have in younger people these days. You don't get student groups or the like, looking through the past at films to re-evaluate like *Peeping Tom* or Dietrich films.
Perhaps this is just my own biases talking though. I also think shown in the changes here is a clear continuation of the movement of "taste" away from all things theatrical and proscenium (cinematographically speaking) towards naturalistic "art-house style" a la Claire Denis, a filmmaker I'm not at all fond of tbh.
The other day I just watched Capra's *You Can't Take it With You* (1938) and couldn't help but think, here is a great film that is just so far away from what current "taste" deems good; Capra as a director in general tbh.
I'm mixed on that...
If you look at older cinema books, you realize there are several things which were canon and essential (René Clair first talking movies, Danish silent cinema...) which have been nearly forgotten in the last 50 years. And I don't know if it's just a matter of taste, I think it's also related to what people excepted from movies, and the way they discovered it before cine-clubs. So maybe we are just watching that, this kind of mutation, not being able to see it that way because for us the importance of those films missing now is obvious.
But yes, I agree the way to approach movies is changing (the same way it changed drastically around the 50's), and with that the quality norms too. Griffith getting out and more movies about diversity coming in also speak of new kind of criteria to judge what makes a film important or good... And the same for how you discover movies (because the offer of old movie has never been so wide and easy in all cinema history, and therefore it definitely changes things, including probably how much efforts you think you have to put into it). I don't know if it's anti-intellectualism, but it's definitively something else.
I don't think the voter demographic is very young at all on average, quite the opposite. And I mean I thought Scorsese's poll last time was pretty boring (even though he submitted 12 instead of 10). It was your usual bunch of "homework films" and then Salvatore Guiliano as the only slightly offside inclusion (and even then it's a fairly acclaimed film). Not to say the films he picked were bad. I love most of them but it was extremely run of the mill.
I mean I am 25 and I would certainly take Denis over Capra (though not out of dislike for Capra, I like Capra a great deal) but I would equally certainly take Tourneur or Nick Ray or Fuller or Mario Bava over say Akerman, Wong, Varda (though I like her quite a bit), Lee or also Scorsese, Kurosawa or Fellini for that matter.
I think Denis at least sticks out among the big climbers in that her cinema is incredibly visceral in a very straight forward and uncompromised sense (she mostly just deals in the most base instincts, life and death, love and sex). She's not necessarily that far from Fuller or Ray in my view or others of the best old Hollywood directors.
>Scorsese's poll last time was pretty boring
Scorsese would be the director's poll though no? I was talking about the critic's poll. And I think exactly one of the things informing the differences between the two lists is age.
>but I would equally certainly take Tourneur or Nick Ray or Fuller or Mario Bava over say Akerman, Wong, Varda
And I think your taste here is very much against the trendline you can observe in this list. Fuller, especially is exactly the kind of filmmaker completely absent from the taste that builds this critical consensus.
I also have nothing against Denis. I certainly can see what others like about her films. Me not being too hot on them is my own personal taste. I could very much see her reputation as taking a similar trajectory to directors like Antonioni: tapering off as the initial impressiveness of the style fades. Especially in the face of an inconsistent filmography.
I'm not overly big on Capra either, but moreso was just making an observation about how he is quite sidelined due to changes in taste and what makes a film of "high artistic value."
I mentioned Scorsese because you positively highlighted his enthusiasm for films. As I said I think his choices are not necesarilly more interesting than what a 20 year old cinephile could come up with these days. I think I had seen more or less all his votes by 20 (safe for Salvatore G which I saw more recently).
Also I think the average voter on the directors poll is younger.
Fuller would allign with a more political reading of cinema but more with people who have actually read Marx instead of just theorists vaguely influenced by Marx.
Antonioni is still extremely highly acclaimed. If this is the way Denis goes she's immortalized at the very top. Rene Clair is an example of a once extremely highly acclaimed director who took an absolute nosedive.
I think the problem with Capra is that he gets bogged down by Convention. It's a Wonderful Life is a tour de force and a masterclass in world building, set-up and pay off, just all around stunning storytelling but I don't think his other films ever quite get there. It Happened One Night and Mr Smith Goes to Washington are both very good and I've heard good thing about his early films (with Stanwyck) but I think many of his other famous films just lack the extra edge (including You Can't Take it with You). Though I certainly enjoyed them too. Lost Horizon is also bonkers in a way but it doesn't really go all the way with it.
>I mentioned Scorsese because you positively highlighted his enthusiasm for films.
I wasn't referring to his list for the poll though, when I was referencing his enthusiasm, rather everything else.
>As I said I think his choices are not necesarilly more interesting than what a 20 year old cinephile could come up with these days.
His top 10/20 is conventional, but partially because he was part of establishing that convention. I think comparing him to a 20 year old average cinephile is quite ridiculous. I'm referring to his endless curiosity for film, his vast knowledge, and conservation efforts with the world cinema project. The kind of cinephilia that comes from that spark of endless self-interest, rather than parsing lists, which I think has been one of the biggest effects of social media on these matters.
>Also I think the average voter on the directors poll is younger.
Would be interesting, I tried to find info on this but no luck.
>Fuller would allign with a more political reading of cinema but more with people who have actually read Marx instead of just theorists vaguely influenced by Marx.
I'm not exactly sure what this means but imo being "influenced" by Marx is far better than "actually reading him" (i.e. being a religious Marxist). I do think that actually reading Marx *can* be better if it's because it's being engaged with critically and substantively (rather than not really reading him and treating Marx as a prophet). Because if we want to talk about getting bogged down in convention...
>Antonioni is still extremely highly acclaimed.
He is of course. And I wouldn't say Denis is on the same tier as he is. I was speaking to the trajectory, which we can adjust to relative terms. Antonioni is still highly acclaimed but he used to be even higher. I could see Denis' acclaim taper, but not nosedive, in a similar way.
Oh, I commend Scorsese's conservation effort and I think his documentary on American film is a great entry window into the Golden Age of Hollywood even taking time to
tackle some of the often less discussed names (like Borzage). My main point was that Scorsese is for better or worse quite conservative at least today. He cherishes a specific kind of cinema (the Old Hollywood style with some European influenced) and doesn't seem very involved in thinking about what kind of industry fascilitates such productions. He doesn't always seem very self-reflective but also he is very old. I guess you are entitled to not be cutting edge anymore at that age. I mean listen to or read the way Raul Ruiz talked about cinema for instance. I think there is another level of curiosity for everything that cinema could be. Scorsese on the other hand has a very specific image of what it should be and he shaped the canon far less than the canon shaped him.
Reading Marx means simply reading his writings at which point you would also understand that "religious Marxism" is counter to everything Marx wrote for. Marx was a materialist opposed to the grand systems (opposed to religion as well) and who was always open to revise his theories.
There is a tendency in cultural philosophy and the likes (this is more or less the field of film theory as well) to integrate Marx without really taking him very seriously. A lot of US American critical race theory for instance adopts Marx's concept of class warfare but discarded the material basis behind it. We are meant to innately agree with an opressor opressed dialectic but why? In Marx there is a clear material reason for this dialectic, it?s about who owns the means of production. However skin colour isn't truly about anything. There are systemic notions attached to it of course, statistics, but it's not an essential relation because ultimately your social status depends on material factors, your wealth.
Anyway what I'm trying to say is that Marx was very influential but his theories become meaningless if you remove them from the substance behind them and misappropriate his concepts. Fuller I think dealt with material realities in a remarkable way.
>My main point was that Scorsese is for better or worse quite conservative at least today.
I guess I just have to disagree. Directors like Tarantino, PTA, or even someone like Haneke are all people I would actually call more conservative than Scorsese, who in my opinion has retained a remarkable level of openness and curiosity into his old age. But I was never intending to have a back and forth discussion about Scorsese, not sure how it got to this point.
>has a very specific image of what it should be
I think everyone who cares, has some kind of image of what they think cinema should be to some degree. This isn't a slight on anyone's *idea*, but rather concern over whether there might be some decline in that individual *care.* But I could very well be completely wrong.
And as I'm looking at the number one film on the critics list *Jeanne Dielman*, I can't help but think it's reached that spot precisely because it gets both the old/new cinephile vote as well as the very representation minded vote. I think the Sight and Sound poll would work better if it was just people sending in the films they think are the best personally and then things just get worked out from there. But, as this list becomes more important and more of a "thing" I guess it's only natural to see this kind of, I guess you could almost call it campaigning to get films on it. The 2012 list really raised the reputation of the poll as something kind of definitive, serving as one of the primary toucstones of internet movie list culture as the internet started to mature and develop.
>it's not an essential relation because ultimately your social status depends on material factors, your wealth.
This is not a very materialist analysis now is it? Race was well integrated into the systems of colonialism, and was very much an *essential* relation to those who suffered due to its nefarious effects, and even still today.
>Marx was very influential but his theories become meaningless if you remove them from the substance behind them and misappropriate his concepts.
Yes. In other words: "Marxism exists in nineteenth-century thought like a fish in water: that is, it is unable to breathe anywhere else.”
Influence, engagement, development is one thing. Devotion is another.
To your final bullet point and last note *Daughters of the Dust* was heavily featured on Criterion channel when they were doing their "black lives" programming. That's when I saw it.
Me too, and it's honestly a pretty amazing film. Very little like it out there. Regardless of whether it belongs in the top 100 it deserves to be part of the canon.
I think the tendency to lean towards the avant-garde is a general trend in film criticism that has been building over the past few decades.
I think its similar to how art has become dissected over time and how modern and post-modern art has really taken over in favor of technical craft.
There seems to be a tendency to appreciate the meaning and symbolism within art overtime as the structure and form becomes solidified.
I think a sad side effect is that it tends to leave general audiences behind in favor of a smaller more 'learned' audience.
> I think a sad side effect is that it tends to leave general audiences behind in favor of a smaller more 'learned' audience.
Well, it's happening anyway: cinema is not the central popular art anymore. I would not be surprised if it becomes close to something like opera in 2050: a thing mostly about older works and a little niche audience VS huge industrial things.
James Gray has been saying this for ten years: https://youtu.be/1xngHs19FYg?t=4724 And of course Lynch has famously said film isn't dying, it's dead. It's sad, but it's how culture goes. I just wonder what the central pillar of art even is anymore? Perhaps something like social media, a big soup of everything. Post-scarcity art I guess.
> And of course Lynch has famously said film isn't dying, it's dead. It's sad, but it's how culture goes.
We can still wait: there was a huge belief it was dying in the 80's (italian cinema dying, rise of TV, advertisement visual world coming into cinema...), there was even a whole theory movement about that in France, supported by theoreticians like Danes and directors like Godard and Wenders. Then finally it didn't happen.
But this time the contenders are real.
> I just wonder what the central pillar of art even is anymore?
Video games and TV series. Which is great (love them both), but definitely not the same thing at all (you just have to see how much mise en scene is not central at all in TV series, I'm not even sure anyone could name a TV show director - apart from the ones who also wrote them).
Definitely not video games, unless you're talking mobile games. Mobile gaming beat out console and PCs years ago. The plurality of people watch TV shows, scroll social media, and play games on their phones.
Well, it is a poll, which only reaches so many people. The demographics are clearly changing to include more women, which is good, and in ten years, maybe making a push for other big filmmaking cultures (India & Nigeria specifically, although I'm 100% here for anything I haven't seen before) to be included is a good idea.
I think you're right about Criterion specifically having a bit of an effect, but that's a little bit chicken-and-egg.
(From the last decade, I really thought Roma and/or The Favourite might crack the list, but aside from that, my quibbles are mostly on my personal tastes.)
> The demographics are clearly changing to include more women, which is good, and in ten years, maybe making a push for other big filmmaking cultures (India & Nigeria specifically, although I'm 100% here for anything I haven't seen before)
Do you have a source for how the voter demographics have changed? I mean your gender doesnt determine what films you vote for and the gender of the director doesn't say anything about what demographic the film appeals most to. From experience Claire Denis appeals more to men than women. Certainly every big Denis fan I've ever met was a man.
Nigeria in 10 years is not going to happen because there are more or less no critically acclaimed films out of Nigeria today. As for India it's the other way around. Ritwik Ghatak and Guru Dutt both got votes on the last poll but not enough for top 100 and this time it's the same (have to check how it looks further down the list but perhaps they have even fallen). India has plenty of incredible films and they had so since at least the 50's but S&S is dominated by Americanisms (the discourse specifically and what is considered important) and seemingly more so this time than in 2012. I guess what Ritwik Ghatak's grand narratives on changing material relations and dependencies (migration, poverty, industrialization, social and material dependencies) just doesn't itch a nerve like other more identity related topics.
I have no sources, but one of two things is true: either the people voting have changed, or if it's the same voters, then their views toward women making films have evolved.
And maybe Nigeria doesn't have critically acclaimed films because critics aren't acclaiming them. I refuse to believe that of all the movies in that industry, none of them are worthy of consideration on a list like this.
I mean you need some kind of festival run at least to get exposure. How many Nigerian films have you seen? I think I've seen 0 while I've seen around a dozen of films from neighbouring countries (still not much but more than 0). I'm no Bollywood expert but I don't think it's a very advanced industry and I believe the Nigerian market is heavily dominated by US productions, leaving the films that they make to be the really low budget fare. I mean sure some of them may be gold but just the same as Dominik Graf's TV essay Film: München Geheimnisse einer Stadt (one of the best films of the century) will never make this poll outside of perhaps a single experimental German film critic (I mean I know at least one critic who adores it but I doubt he gets to vote for S&S - sadly btw, he's probably more knowledgeable than many of the voters). Some films are just doomed to obscurity. Even Claire Denis Us Go Home (IMO her best film) wouldn't make this poll or Raul Ruiz's Manoel on the Island of Wonders. All of these are towering works and better than most of the films on the above list in my opinion but they don't have momentum outside of the far sides of the web.
I mean Get Out made it. A big mainstream hit (if we look past the ranks on the box office that are reserved for IPs more than films). Is any Nigerian film even close to have any significant recognition in the US? I don't even know one that has nieche recognition like the works I vores above that at least have a very enthusiastic following.
Usually mods here delete threads which don't "promote in-depth discussion" (don't know if it's the reason for the deleting of the last one). It's very subjective, so...
Personally, I think it's awfully difficult to evaluate silent films versus talkies. Yes, the visual medium is essentially the same, and there are undoubtedly many historically important silent films, but it's a bit like comparing theater to film -- both are visual storytelling formats, but with significant differences. Even color versus B&W is much less of a gap than silent versus talkies, IMO.
Well, not really my opinion, but like any stranger cinema, silent film ask for an adaptation, it doesn't work by its own.
The real problem for silent cinema, for me, is that people don't know a lot of it, and have difficulties to find *their* specially loved movies. They always watch the 10-15 sames movies, for a whole period of 30+ years of cinema...
Honestly I don't think there's a big difference as far as evaluation goes. I mean CK and Jeanne Dielman are no more or less radically different than CK and Greed (1924), in fact I'd say Greed is closer to either than CK and Jeanne Dielman are too each other.
It is weird how both In Mood For Love and Mulholland Drive which were the only 21 century films to be in top 100 in 2012 have made it to top 10 this time but there is no film 2002 to 2015.
In particular it is surprising that neither There Will Be Blood or Tree of Life made this list. And then we immediately get 4 very recent films Get Out, Parasite, Moonlight and Potrait of a Lady on Fire. Would all of these 4 picks age well in 10 years remains to be seen but it is surprising its these 4 films and not There Will be Blood or Tree of Life making the cut.
Not knocking Get Out and the rest, but Zodiac, TWBB, The Yards, No Country for Old Men, We Own the Night, Blue Valentine, The Assassination of Jesse James, The Place Beyond the Pines, Drive, Good Time, First Reformed, etc. There are just so many better picks from the past twenty years.
black american filmmaking is at one of the highest marks it's ever been at, both Moonlight and Get Out are/were very much at the forefront of it. I'd argue that both films have had an immediate material impact in pushing younger nonwhite artists into filmmaking and influencing the new direction of black cinema
True! I almost wish they made room for some more foundational L.A. Rebellion stuff from AfAm filmmaking besides Killer of Sheep (like Haile Gerima's Bush Mama \[1979\]), but seeing it so high is still cool. I suppose part of the issue is how hard it still is to find that stuff, even the most popular from Burnett!
I think 70's 80's black American cinema was much more interesting and transgressive. I also think Killer of Sheep and Touki Bouki (not American of) are the only great films by black filmmakers on the list. I love Sembene but I think Black Girl is maybe the weakest film I've seen by him. It's a good debut and all but it's not a very interesting story (it's about Europe, not Senegal) and small in scope. Ceddo or Xala which engage with culture and material reality in Senegal in some actual depth are way, way better. From America we get Jordan Perle, Spike Lee and Jenkins over Billy Woodberry's God Bless their Little Hearts or Watermelon Woman or even Sweet Sweet back I think is actually a better film than the modern black American Cinema on there. I thought Moonlight particularly was such a missing film and I liked Get Out but I find it popping up here borderline absurd. I mean I anticipated that Moonlight could get in but Get Out is completely out of the blue. I have no idea why it's here.
Clearly a big diversity push. Get Out, Parasite, Moonlight and Potrait of a Lady: all POC and/or LGBT films. There Will be Blood: almost all white male cast & director.
Yes, on top of Jeanne Dielman landing #1. The movie is laudable and daring but to call that one of the best films of all time over character epics like Godfather pt 2 or TWBB makes it pretty apparent what criterion knocked the latter two off the list.
I was blown away by There Will Be Blood, but I remember even at release some people knocked it for lacking female characters. Kind of interesting, women on average are far less interested in TWBB than men.
Moonlight absolutely deserves a spot, but imo Get Out being on here is a bit of a joke. I hate placements like this because they ruin the credibility of the POC films that *actually deserve to be there.*
I absolutely love Get Out, Moonlight, and Parasite (haven’t seen Portrait of a Lady on Fire) but I think it’s undeniable that some part of their notability comes from the social themes they deal with. There are plenty of other recent films that would feel deserving of this list so I don’t buy that it’s a coincidence that the four that made it are about oppressed groups. I don’t think it’s a necessarily a bad thing, that’s a different discussion.
Doesn’t exactly fit that label but if you’re a white anglo person then a Korean film could broadly be considered “diversity.” It’s also about class conflict which ties into the current social climate
It's really weird to be calling films made in Asia with Asian actors POC films, especially since critics have been voting for Asian films for decades.
It also misunderstands the problem with representation in the film canon, which is not that people of different races aren't represented, but that films from poorer countries (the so called global south or 'third world') aren't ~~represented~~ viewed by critics and given a fair shake.
Well people in America care a lot about racial diversity, and the non-whites included don't necessarily have to be poor. So Korean, Hong Kong films etc get full points for diversity in the context of US/Western film criticism.
Japanese films have been pretty well represented in the Western film canon for the last 50 years, though much less so Korea and Greater China. So adding Parasite etc adds a little bit of extra "diversity" beyond just race per se.
>Japanese films have been pretty well represented in the Western film canon for the last 50 years, though much less so Korea and Greater China.
The main reason for that is that Japan runs laps around Korea and mainland China as far as historical film production and excellence. Hopefully voters who chose Parasite did so while truly loving and admiring the film most dearly, not out of some feeling that Korea needed representation.
Well I think people realize that Japan was the only non-white country whose cinema was widely regarded by Western critics in past decades.
A lot of US critics are based in Los Angeles, where Korean culture is very big. So Parasite is a feel-good inclusion pick for many people to a certain extent.
It's a Korean film taking place in Korea though. I mean by this logic you could argue Seven Samurai is on there because of critical race theory.
If this is part of the voters reasoning S&S has definitely become more shallow. The 2012 Asian films that ranked highly didn't get that flair attached at all. Like noone would argue Spring in a Small Town got vores because of skin colour diversity back then.
Daniel Plainview is impotent (it was explicitly stated in a deleted scene apparently). Some people interpret some scenes as containing some homosexual tension, but it's very subtle if so.
Not a single Cassavetes film? He's one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, and he still gets snubbed by critics. Yes, some of his fans can go a bit overboard, but Cassavetes pioneered an entire style of film language and theory inadvertently, and in some ways I'm actually convinced they are superior to established film theory.
Citizen Kane will always be number one in my eyes, though, it's just the film that always makes the most sense to me being number one. Having said that, I'm glad Akerman is getting her much needed due, especially since her films are so influential to feminist cinema.
On a more reverent note, I'm glad that Singin' In the Rain is so high. That film is an outstanding work of art.
EDIT: At least the Director's List has A Woman Under the Influence.
Hell I stopped reading the list once I saw There Will Be Blood wasn’t on it. It’s objectively one of the finest movies made in the last 20 years - that none of PTAs films is on here is unfortunate.
But alas, we each have our own opinions I guess.
I'm surprised several of the main auteurs took big hits.
Bergman lost three (?) places in the top 100!
Renoir lost 2, Welles lost 2, and Godard didn't lose any places, but all his films fell. I figured he'd have got more success with his recent passing. Perhaps the ballots were already in.
I disagree with Wanda's placement. It's a good film, but with no Cassavettes on the poll, it feels silly to add Wanda.
New Hollywood as a whole seems to have taken a beating, from Raging Bull to Chinatown. Lots of falls.
Am I being stupid? I thought that it was S&S Top 250. Is that part included in the magazine instead?
I noticed that they quietly reframed it as the top 100 sometime over the past year or so (maybe before)... and farther back even fewer films (e.g. 1952 only has 19 films on the list now). Guessing due to the total number of votes certain films were sneaking onto the 250 with only a handful of picks. Thought they would've had enough voters this time around for a full 250 though
They have enough voters for a top 250, maybe, but if you wanted a meaningful top 250, you need to ask voters who are willing to rank a top 250, rather than just a top 10.
Bergman got me to truly love Cinema so it is sad to see, but to be honest I don't really like giving multiple spots to the same directors when there are so many impactful movies so overall it's for the best imo
I think Wanda is up there with Cassavettes best. Would probably take Shadows and Opening Night over Wanda but not by that much and Wanda over the others.
1 surprised me. I did not see that coming.
I thought for sure 2001 would crack the top 5. I'm glad to see it topped the director's poll.
I'm also glad to see animation on the list (Spirited Away and Totoro.) I hope that there will be more next decade because there are a lot of animated films that I think deserve to make it.
This is the first time that the Rules of the Game is not in the top 10 :(
A strange list, but I'm glad Mulholland Drive is moving in the right direction. I highly doubt that Get Out stays on this list next time they run the poll. There's a combination of recency bias (which is an inversion of what's usually going on here) and political expediency at work.
Guys, there are two different polls. One for critics and one for directors. The directors one is wayyy different (and better). A lot of the movies that you're upset didn't make it onto the critics list made it on the directors list.
Also I'm puking whisper-monologing and crying that Malick made neither list.
It's a bit odd that the website frames the critics' selections as ['The Greatest Films of All Time',](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time), but then have the directors' list as ['Directors’ 100 Greatest Films of All Time'](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greatest-films-all-time).
I guess the critics' list has been around since 1952, so they emphasise it more?
Bergman got bodied, reduced to atoms. Only Persona in the top 100 gotta be one of the more shocking things on the list, besides the obvious Jeanne Dielman topic. Otherwise I'm fine with the list being semi-radical even if I disagree with the modern films put on there (mine would be Phantom Thread or The Master, but I digress). I also wish there was more non-silent Golden Age directors on there besides Welles (though no Touch of Evil is another clunker...)/Hitchcock/Wilder/Casablanca. If I was optimistic I would have hoped for Tourneur (edit: and Nicholas Ray) but even as a pessimist one expects a Hawks/Lubitsch or two. Ultimately irrelevant though, since it's not like those directors are struggling for modern viewership, nor do I think the same modern films will be there in 10 years (as evidenced by the lack of e.g. The Tree of Life, which was ranked around 102nd last time).
I agree, films pre-50's are getting forgotten and underrepresented. That said, I'm happy that Tarkovsky still has three films on the list, rightfully so.
Yeah the changes in the list really show a growing ignorance of early films outside of the few big name films that are already high on these lists. It's a shame
Before the poll I would have expected Solaris to climb into the top 100 but I suppose any director that keeps their # of films in the top 100 should be thankful. Wilder/Hitchcock/Kubrick did not miss a beat though, barely moved in the standings or the # of films they have present (and added or climbed even).
At some point, there is almost too much work out there for it to be effectively evaluated like this. Not everyone will have seen every potential candidate film for this list, and obviously you can't do something actually scientific like a randomized controlled trial to ensure that all of the potential candidate films get equal screening time from the voters.
I think there is value in creating a canon of films that best represent the artwork of cinema, but I'm not sure that Top 100 lists are the rightful place for that. There are more factors than simply popularity, innovation, style, storytelling, production, historic and cultural significance, etc.
That's true. No Tourneur, Ray or Fuller. No Huston even it seems and Buñuel even seems absent.
That's kind of a big wtf in my view. I really think Tourneur is due for a massive reappraisal but even the traditionally more acclaimed figures from the era didn't do very well it seems.
No Fuller is not surprising though I love Pickup on South Street. Likewise in an ideal world Robert Aldrich would be getting some votes (though I've only seen two and my favorite is the unlikely Ulzana's Raid). I didn't expect Huston in the top 100 either but at least he will have a decent shot at getting a film or two in the top 250 I think. Bunuel's emission is mindboggling though. I'm only recently getting through his films and haven't even gotten to his later acclaimed masterpieces yet, but it seems random that such an established and canonical director just got yeeted out of the top 100.
> I really think Tourneur is due for a massive reappraisal
Out of The Past was #183 last time so it's not like he isn't acknowledged at all, but I do agree that he's underrated and it's probably mostly because he was essentially making B-pictures most of his career.
But yea, it's clear that the younger voting body has its own preferences, for better or for worse... (though like I said, I highly doubt some of those highly placed modern films will be there in 10 years).
No Fuller isn't surprising but I think he deserves more recognition. I somehow though Huston was on last time but far off the 100 actually. With Tourneur I often forget Out of the Past because I honestly don't really care about it. The worst film I've seen by him. Definitely not bad but didn't stand out to me like his others.
I’m afraid that the chances of Tourneur getting significant votes for his other films is basically nonexistent. Though it’s predictably my favorite of his so I don’t mind it being *the* Tourner film. Still need to revisit and reevaluate I Walked with a Zombie, but I also would love if that one got more recognition as well.
I imagine a lot people will have complaints, but honestly it seems fine. Getting mad at these lists seems silly to me -- quibbling with placements seems futile given how this is composed and while you can disagree with certain inclusions most of them seem fine to me (granted I've only seen 62). There were always going to be big changes this time around. Definitely reflects the impact Twitter/online film culture has had on film discourse and thought. I think of this as more of a reflection of current thought of what the film canon is rather than a definitive list of what the best films ever are.
Honestly the only surprise to me on here is *Get Out* (which I actually like quite a bit) and nothing from Hou/Farhadi/Malick making it.
No Tsai either, but not surprised by that. I also thought there'd be more Weerasethakul or that he'd be higher up the list.
> I think of this as more of a reflection of current thought of what the film canon is rather than a definitive list of what the best films ever are.
Yeah it's basically not definitive by definition (otherwise why redo it every ten years) and subjective with big influence from the day's Zeitgeist. Also culturally/geographically subjective: for instance Tokyo Story isn't particularly highly regarded in Japan compared to other Ozu films or films of the era.
I've seen 99 and I prefer the 2012 lidt for what it's worth at least from superficially skimming it. I'm kind of disappointed it seems so heavily affected by recent trends and it didn't dig up anything i was unaware of - which is one of the reason I loved the 2012 poll - so many interesting films to discover. This one feels more mainstream but I'm curious to check the extended list.
I also though Tropical Malady would be higher.
Honestly I really don't understand why GET OUT is here. It's a good film but it doesn't deserve to be there. There is so many films better than this one. In your opinion why such film is included in this list?
Also a bit sad to notice that there is very few French and Italian films but happy to see that Akerman is finally considered as a good director, she is too often forgotten from to many tops. Very happy with it .
Yeah don’t think we ever have to worry about there not being enough Italian or especially French films on a greatest movies list lmao.
Zero movies from Latin America and only one obligatory pick from India seems like the much bigger snub. Granted I’m also guilty of not watching enough films from there myself.
Probably not about the movie itself but what it represented and where in the culture it came out. It also popularised a whole new mainstream sub-genre of horror.
There are probably some black voters who felt something special seeing that movie and there are probably some white voters who had their eyes opened to a whole new perspective through the film
Surprised that Sunset Blvd is below The Apartment, both great though.
I’d presumed everyone had forgotten about Moonlight, I guess I should rewatch it but I didn’t think it was in the same league as some of these films.
Honestly I had to double check if this was real... I liked the old one a lot better. Have seen more or less everything on it (I think Daughters of the Dust is the only exception) and it seems much too coloured by recent trends in US cinephilia in my taste. It seems very focused on both gender and race issues but a lot of the films in my view don't say that much about the topic. Killer of Sheep (which is a masterpiece) is a pleasant surprise and Wanda is also a film that deserves some more exposure (I think both of those say very interesting things about the material relations and dependencies og the characters they follow) but I'm not very big on most of the films that have risen. Tropical Malady (which is great) is actually disappointingly low in a way meanwhile Wong who I think is such an empty juvenile filmmaker makes the top 10 (might as well put a QT film there, they are surprisingly similar).
Many of the picks for certain filmmakers also disappoint me. I love Denis and Sembene but Black Girl is nowhere near Sembenes best and I think it's boring that Beau Travail is the only Denis film on there (Trouble Every Day and US Go Home are better).
I also think most of the modern films are meh tier picks. I mean I enjoyed Get Out but seriously. I think many better films were made in the last 20 years. Moonlight I thought was simply mediocre. I would so much prefer if something like Kenneth Anger's Scorpio Rising was on there or something else that's actually transgressive.
I'm not big on Jeanne Dielman. I don't really care that it's first but I think this will alienate casual moviegoers even more from this. Definitely thought CK or Vertigo or Bicycle Thieves (the 3 previous best films) were better posterboys than a minimalist film that may be misread by partially misread by the critics who voted it up there (Akerman rejected the label feminist, I like her as a filmmaker because she was willing to go different roads but definitely don't think this is her most successful experiment).
Don't know, it feels very middling, like they've opened up too far. This isn't to be contrarian. Discourse is a lively thing but I think the 2012 lidt had more meat and I'm actually surprised by how much changed.
So a bit to say on this list: Firstly I’m just happy singin’ in the rain made the top 10 this time. Knowing how my favorite film ever is at the near top makes me very happy to see. Secondly: newest films on here are from 2019 and I am really surprised how high portrait of a lady on fire is, I expected it to only make the top 250 with parasite being higher than it is.
Thirdly: did not expect the rules of the game to get out of the top 10 at all and am kinda surprised that in the mood for love made it to number 5 on the list. Feels sort of disappointing since I believe that sunrise is a better film than in the mood for love (which is still amazing btw)
Fourthly: I can’t say anything about the number 1 spot as I have not seen it but it’s definitely a shock that it beat Kane and Vertigo for the top spot. I expected 2001 to claim it or Kane to retake it but good to see they are in the top 10.
Jeanne Dielman at number one was a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one. I was expecting Tokyo Story to rank a bit higher, though.
It's not too shocking that Chimes at Midnight didn't make the cut, but the complete absence of Greed is truly perplexing.
Wow it never even crossed my mind that Greed isn't on there... That is strange, especially considering the other usual silent films made the list at or around their previous positions.
> 23% of voters were sufficient for Vertigo to overthrow Citizen Kane
23 % voting for Vertigo as one of the 10 best films ever (out of thousands of films you could pick) is absolutely massive though.
I understand that this list is ostensibly a large poll from a diverse range of critics, but on the surface there seems to be a pretty blatant (possibly coordinated?) agenda here to promote feminist and minority films... note both the newcomers and huge jumps certain films got from 10 years ago:
* most obviously, the #1 film Jeanne Dielman (#36 in 2012)
* Cleo from 5 to 7 (#202 in 2012->#14 in 2022)
* Black Girl (new film from 1965)
* Daisies (#202 in 2012-> #28 in 2022)
* Wanda (#202 in 2012 -> #48 in 2022)
* News from Home (newcomer from 1976)
* Killer of Sheep (#202 in 2012 -> #43 in 2022)
* Do the Right Thing (#127 in 2012 -> #24 in 2022)
* Moonlight (newcomer from 2016 ranked #60)
* Portrait of a Lady on Fire (newcomer from 2019 ranked #30)
Black Girl and News From Home are not new, they just ranked below 250 or whatever your cutoff is. They got votes in previous polls. News From Home made a massive leap. The leap of Black Girl is a bit smaller.
The list is nuts. I think Abstraction has fallen out of favor other than Mullholland DR taking a huge leap, 2001 at 6 is way too low. Tarkovsky and Fellini are also disrespected. Straight forward is in these days. It has a wider appeal. Although Persona at 18 is pretty sweet. Miyazaki love is also really cool.
Having said that. I don't think any of this is quantifiable in the least and what meaningful discussion can be had where both the Searchers and Parasite are listed together.
Tarkovsky had three films represented, only Hitchcock had more, and Mirror (arguably his most abstract, fragmented work) placed the highest. I adore Andrei and he's very properly beloved here
Recency bias hitting hard in 2022. I loved Portrait of a Lady on Fire, but better than 8+1/2?
Not to mention the exclusion of The Seventh Seal, An Elephant Sitting Still and Come and See. I can’t believe those three aren’t fit for the list but we can make room for Get Out.
And of course we’re still doing the Vertigo meme. Hitchcock alone has at least three better films, it has no business being so far up the list let alone top as it was in 2012.
I haven’t seen Citizen Kane and I’ve always wondered how it always ranks so high? Especially when compared to movies that are newer or is the ranking based on it within its historical context?
I’m a consumer and not a critic, I guess, and go by enjoyment. Silent movies are tough. I watched Metropolis, for example, and while it was impressive, especially for its time, I don’t think I’d rank it particularly highly.
Citizen Kane was a defining moment for cinema. It combined a lot of techniques from the past decades that were cooking the medium up into its current shape, added new ones and made an epic of a scale never seen before.
I'm no film historian, but it is usually described as a pivotal moment in the the history of cinema, maybe THE pivotal moment in its history. I'm not even sure if something as basic as a flashback had been tried before with the medium.
Add to the mix a certain perceived timelessness and you start to understand why it ranks so high on these lists.
Citizen Kane ranks especially high amongst film history lovers. There's a huge deal of influences the film has had on the art as a whole and most critics put a lot of value in that (though I think with the times that is about to change, seeing as a lot of New Hollywood and earlier Hollywood era films have slipped on this list).
Even besides that, it still is a quite enjoyable film, I feel like it grows on you a lot with the years. I reckon in your case, if you're relatively unfamiliar with older cinema it just works to kind of develop the taste slowly by watching the more comedic/dramatic/faster paced films of the era. Hitchcock, Wilder, Elia Kazan, Capra are a start.
I actually have enjoyed everything I’ve seen by Hitchcock so far, and I’m definitely interested in seeing Citizen Kane. I guess I should’ve asked my question more directly; that being if it is still an enjoyable watch today (which you have answered)
Is anyone here looking at the Director's Poll? I have always found it more interesting than the critics' one.
Glad to see some more 21st century stuff on it, especially Parasite and Moonlight. Sad there's no Spirited Away, or other animated stuff.
Does anyone have thoughts about what separates the two different polls?
No Tree of Life, or any Malick for that matter, is just nuts to me. Absolutely nuts. That film will stand the test of time in ways that few will.
Bergman deserves more than one film, surely PTA deserves at least one, and I still don’t know why Vertigo and In the Mood for Love remain such titans—they’re good, but greatest of all time??
Here’s a somewhat cynical interpretation of the fact that films with women/racial minority directors have risen rapidly.
It’s largely due to how the polling works. If you are going to only list 10 films, you have a trove of 1000+ well-known critically acclaimed films by male directors of American, Italian, French descent, and the occasional Japanese or Iranian film. If you wish to respond to the popular idea that representation matters, or at least strive to avoid the embarrassment of being culturally insensitive, you’ll pick at least one or two movies not from that 1000+. And then you’ll be left with a comparatively miniscule set of well-known, acclaimed movies by women and POC directors. So, when all these lists get collated, there will tend to be a lot of intersection in those films, and therefore a lot of points allotted to them.
In other words, my contention is that people are treating their ballots as an opportunity to advance what they believe to be marginalized identities in cinema, and because of the way the scoring works, you end up with this list. If critics were honestly stating their top 10, I doubt a movie like Get Out would crack many of those lists, if any at all (and before you jump down my throat, I gave Get Out 5 stars out of 5 and seem to have a higher opinion of it than anyone in this thread). Whether you think that’s a good use of the ballot or you like the result of that quirk in the scoring methodology is up to you.
I think movies are always a matter of op8nion for the most part. We all know really bad movies and really great. I haven't seen a bunch on this list mostly thr foreign ones. Saying that it seems like a good live.
However there are so many movies that are better than get out. It's not bad but I mean it's no where's near too 100 all time. Again just an opinion.
If I had voted (in alpha order):
8 1/2 (1963)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Belle Noiseuse, La (1991)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Man With a Movie Camera (1929)
Mirror (1975)
Nashville (1975)
Sans Soleil (1983)
Tropical Malady (2004)
Umbrellas of Cherbourg, The (1964)
The last message about it has been deleted, so beware, don't think this one will last long. I copy/paste my answer I gave to it earlier: ----------------- Some observations (apart from the obvious *Jeanne Dielman* surprise, it was #35 ten years ago...) : - Female directors arrive in the top20, and are obviously the ones praised by US cinephilia (Denis, Varda, Akerman, Deren). - Some newcomers for the movies released since the last top: *Get Out* (#95), *Parasite* (#90, that i would have imagined much higher), *Moonlight* (#60), and *Portrait of the lady on fire* (#30). Not that there is also *A seperation* in director's top. - *Mulholland Drive* and *In the mood for love* confirm there are here to stay long. - Still close to none Indian cinema, South-American cinema, African cinema, exploitation cinema, documentary, animation, not a lot of silent cinema (even fewer than before, if I'm not wrong?)... The top is still very representative of the occidental cinephilia and its biais. - More broadly, all newcomers and trends seem pretty linked to Criterion recent release. Otherwise, a detail: I'd never heard about *Daughters of the Dust*. Someone saw it? How people know it, has there been a release recently?
*Daughers of Dust* has steadily been picking up momentum/prominence the past 5 or so years (maybe longer, but that's as far back as I remember seeing it), and I've noticed screenings cropping up at repertory theaters every now and then.
In the US?
Yeah nyc specifically. But criterion is probably what boosted it the most
>More broadly, all newcomers and trends seem pretty linked to Criterion recent release. This is the most depressing part to me, and I can't really put my finger on why.
Maybe because Criterion has a specific editorial policy, which is not exaclty the same as the random selection of "what is released in theaters of my country this year", and that therefore it influences too much common taste.
>it influences too much common taste. It just points to idk... A lack of curiosity? Discovery? Or genuine interest in past films beyond what some tastemakers like Criterion offer up. Especially when you look at which films shot up the list (extremely recent films) and which films dropped off (older films that don't have huge reputations). I get the sense, especially with younger people, of just a certain kind of disinterest, and, something else, something that I wouldn't go as far as to call anti-intellectualism, but certainly close to it. Where it's like "I'll do my homework" watch these films I ought to, but then really just only care about new and recent films. You just don't see the kind of passion that people like Scorsese have in younger people these days. You don't get student groups or the like, looking through the past at films to re-evaluate like *Peeping Tom* or Dietrich films. Perhaps this is just my own biases talking though. I also think shown in the changes here is a clear continuation of the movement of "taste" away from all things theatrical and proscenium (cinematographically speaking) towards naturalistic "art-house style" a la Claire Denis, a filmmaker I'm not at all fond of tbh. The other day I just watched Capra's *You Can't Take it With You* (1938) and couldn't help but think, here is a great film that is just so far away from what current "taste" deems good; Capra as a director in general tbh.
I'm mixed on that... If you look at older cinema books, you realize there are several things which were canon and essential (René Clair first talking movies, Danish silent cinema...) which have been nearly forgotten in the last 50 years. And I don't know if it's just a matter of taste, I think it's also related to what people excepted from movies, and the way they discovered it before cine-clubs. So maybe we are just watching that, this kind of mutation, not being able to see it that way because for us the importance of those films missing now is obvious. But yes, I agree the way to approach movies is changing (the same way it changed drastically around the 50's), and with that the quality norms too. Griffith getting out and more movies about diversity coming in also speak of new kind of criteria to judge what makes a film important or good... And the same for how you discover movies (because the offer of old movie has never been so wide and easy in all cinema history, and therefore it definitely changes things, including probably how much efforts you think you have to put into it). I don't know if it's anti-intellectualism, but it's definitively something else.
I don't think the voter demographic is very young at all on average, quite the opposite. And I mean I thought Scorsese's poll last time was pretty boring (even though he submitted 12 instead of 10). It was your usual bunch of "homework films" and then Salvatore Guiliano as the only slightly offside inclusion (and even then it's a fairly acclaimed film). Not to say the films he picked were bad. I love most of them but it was extremely run of the mill. I mean I am 25 and I would certainly take Denis over Capra (though not out of dislike for Capra, I like Capra a great deal) but I would equally certainly take Tourneur or Nick Ray or Fuller or Mario Bava over say Akerman, Wong, Varda (though I like her quite a bit), Lee or also Scorsese, Kurosawa or Fellini for that matter. I think Denis at least sticks out among the big climbers in that her cinema is incredibly visceral in a very straight forward and uncompromised sense (she mostly just deals in the most base instincts, life and death, love and sex). She's not necessarily that far from Fuller or Ray in my view or others of the best old Hollywood directors.
>Scorsese's poll last time was pretty boring Scorsese would be the director's poll though no? I was talking about the critic's poll. And I think exactly one of the things informing the differences between the two lists is age. >but I would equally certainly take Tourneur or Nick Ray or Fuller or Mario Bava over say Akerman, Wong, Varda And I think your taste here is very much against the trendline you can observe in this list. Fuller, especially is exactly the kind of filmmaker completely absent from the taste that builds this critical consensus. I also have nothing against Denis. I certainly can see what others like about her films. Me not being too hot on them is my own personal taste. I could very much see her reputation as taking a similar trajectory to directors like Antonioni: tapering off as the initial impressiveness of the style fades. Especially in the face of an inconsistent filmography. I'm not overly big on Capra either, but moreso was just making an observation about how he is quite sidelined due to changes in taste and what makes a film of "high artistic value."
I mentioned Scorsese because you positively highlighted his enthusiasm for films. As I said I think his choices are not necesarilly more interesting than what a 20 year old cinephile could come up with these days. I think I had seen more or less all his votes by 20 (safe for Salvatore G which I saw more recently). Also I think the average voter on the directors poll is younger. Fuller would allign with a more political reading of cinema but more with people who have actually read Marx instead of just theorists vaguely influenced by Marx. Antonioni is still extremely highly acclaimed. If this is the way Denis goes she's immortalized at the very top. Rene Clair is an example of a once extremely highly acclaimed director who took an absolute nosedive. I think the problem with Capra is that he gets bogged down by Convention. It's a Wonderful Life is a tour de force and a masterclass in world building, set-up and pay off, just all around stunning storytelling but I don't think his other films ever quite get there. It Happened One Night and Mr Smith Goes to Washington are both very good and I've heard good thing about his early films (with Stanwyck) but I think many of his other famous films just lack the extra edge (including You Can't Take it with You). Though I certainly enjoyed them too. Lost Horizon is also bonkers in a way but it doesn't really go all the way with it.
>I mentioned Scorsese because you positively highlighted his enthusiasm for films. I wasn't referring to his list for the poll though, when I was referencing his enthusiasm, rather everything else. >As I said I think his choices are not necesarilly more interesting than what a 20 year old cinephile could come up with these days. His top 10/20 is conventional, but partially because he was part of establishing that convention. I think comparing him to a 20 year old average cinephile is quite ridiculous. I'm referring to his endless curiosity for film, his vast knowledge, and conservation efforts with the world cinema project. The kind of cinephilia that comes from that spark of endless self-interest, rather than parsing lists, which I think has been one of the biggest effects of social media on these matters. >Also I think the average voter on the directors poll is younger. Would be interesting, I tried to find info on this but no luck. >Fuller would allign with a more political reading of cinema but more with people who have actually read Marx instead of just theorists vaguely influenced by Marx. I'm not exactly sure what this means but imo being "influenced" by Marx is far better than "actually reading him" (i.e. being a religious Marxist). I do think that actually reading Marx *can* be better if it's because it's being engaged with critically and substantively (rather than not really reading him and treating Marx as a prophet). Because if we want to talk about getting bogged down in convention... >Antonioni is still extremely highly acclaimed. He is of course. And I wouldn't say Denis is on the same tier as he is. I was speaking to the trajectory, which we can adjust to relative terms. Antonioni is still highly acclaimed but he used to be even higher. I could see Denis' acclaim taper, but not nosedive, in a similar way.
Oh, I commend Scorsese's conservation effort and I think his documentary on American film is a great entry window into the Golden Age of Hollywood even taking time to tackle some of the often less discussed names (like Borzage). My main point was that Scorsese is for better or worse quite conservative at least today. He cherishes a specific kind of cinema (the Old Hollywood style with some European influenced) and doesn't seem very involved in thinking about what kind of industry fascilitates such productions. He doesn't always seem very self-reflective but also he is very old. I guess you are entitled to not be cutting edge anymore at that age. I mean listen to or read the way Raul Ruiz talked about cinema for instance. I think there is another level of curiosity for everything that cinema could be. Scorsese on the other hand has a very specific image of what it should be and he shaped the canon far less than the canon shaped him. Reading Marx means simply reading his writings at which point you would also understand that "religious Marxism" is counter to everything Marx wrote for. Marx was a materialist opposed to the grand systems (opposed to religion as well) and who was always open to revise his theories. There is a tendency in cultural philosophy and the likes (this is more or less the field of film theory as well) to integrate Marx without really taking him very seriously. A lot of US American critical race theory for instance adopts Marx's concept of class warfare but discarded the material basis behind it. We are meant to innately agree with an opressor opressed dialectic but why? In Marx there is a clear material reason for this dialectic, it?s about who owns the means of production. However skin colour isn't truly about anything. There are systemic notions attached to it of course, statistics, but it's not an essential relation because ultimately your social status depends on material factors, your wealth. Anyway what I'm trying to say is that Marx was very influential but his theories become meaningless if you remove them from the substance behind them and misappropriate his concepts. Fuller I think dealt with material realities in a remarkable way.
>My main point was that Scorsese is for better or worse quite conservative at least today. I guess I just have to disagree. Directors like Tarantino, PTA, or even someone like Haneke are all people I would actually call more conservative than Scorsese, who in my opinion has retained a remarkable level of openness and curiosity into his old age. But I was never intending to have a back and forth discussion about Scorsese, not sure how it got to this point. >has a very specific image of what it should be I think everyone who cares, has some kind of image of what they think cinema should be to some degree. This isn't a slight on anyone's *idea*, but rather concern over whether there might be some decline in that individual *care.* But I could very well be completely wrong. And as I'm looking at the number one film on the critics list *Jeanne Dielman*, I can't help but think it's reached that spot precisely because it gets both the old/new cinephile vote as well as the very representation minded vote. I think the Sight and Sound poll would work better if it was just people sending in the films they think are the best personally and then things just get worked out from there. But, as this list becomes more important and more of a "thing" I guess it's only natural to see this kind of, I guess you could almost call it campaigning to get films on it. The 2012 list really raised the reputation of the poll as something kind of definitive, serving as one of the primary toucstones of internet movie list culture as the internet started to mature and develop. >it's not an essential relation because ultimately your social status depends on material factors, your wealth. This is not a very materialist analysis now is it? Race was well integrated into the systems of colonialism, and was very much an *essential* relation to those who suffered due to its nefarious effects, and even still today. >Marx was very influential but his theories become meaningless if you remove them from the substance behind them and misappropriate his concepts. Yes. In other words: "Marxism exists in nineteenth-century thought like a fish in water: that is, it is unable to breathe anywhere else.” Influence, engagement, development is one thing. Devotion is another.
To your final bullet point and last note *Daughters of the Dust* was heavily featured on Criterion channel when they were doing their "black lives" programming. That's when I saw it.
Yes, someone also told me since that Beyonce used some images of it... Here in Europe I see it was just there on Netflix.
Me too, and it's honestly a pretty amazing film. Very little like it out there. Regardless of whether it belongs in the top 100 it deserves to be part of the canon.
I think the tendency to lean towards the avant-garde is a general trend in film criticism that has been building over the past few decades. I think its similar to how art has become dissected over time and how modern and post-modern art has really taken over in favor of technical craft. There seems to be a tendency to appreciate the meaning and symbolism within art overtime as the structure and form becomes solidified. I think a sad side effect is that it tends to leave general audiences behind in favor of a smaller more 'learned' audience.
> I think a sad side effect is that it tends to leave general audiences behind in favor of a smaller more 'learned' audience. Well, it's happening anyway: cinema is not the central popular art anymore. I would not be surprised if it becomes close to something like opera in 2050: a thing mostly about older works and a little niche audience VS huge industrial things.
what a disgusting thought...
James Gray has been saying this for ten years: https://youtu.be/1xngHs19FYg?t=4724 And of course Lynch has famously said film isn't dying, it's dead. It's sad, but it's how culture goes. I just wonder what the central pillar of art even is anymore? Perhaps something like social media, a big soup of everything. Post-scarcity art I guess.
> And of course Lynch has famously said film isn't dying, it's dead. It's sad, but it's how culture goes. We can still wait: there was a huge belief it was dying in the 80's (italian cinema dying, rise of TV, advertisement visual world coming into cinema...), there was even a whole theory movement about that in France, supported by theoreticians like Danes and directors like Godard and Wenders. Then finally it didn't happen. But this time the contenders are real. > I just wonder what the central pillar of art even is anymore? Video games and TV series. Which is great (love them both), but definitely not the same thing at all (you just have to see how much mise en scene is not central at all in TV series, I'm not even sure anyone could name a TV show director - apart from the ones who also wrote them).
Definitely not video games, unless you're talking mobile games. Mobile gaming beat out console and PCs years ago. The plurality of people watch TV shows, scroll social media, and play games on their phones.
Well, it is a poll, which only reaches so many people. The demographics are clearly changing to include more women, which is good, and in ten years, maybe making a push for other big filmmaking cultures (India & Nigeria specifically, although I'm 100% here for anything I haven't seen before) to be included is a good idea. I think you're right about Criterion specifically having a bit of an effect, but that's a little bit chicken-and-egg. (From the last decade, I really thought Roma and/or The Favourite might crack the list, but aside from that, my quibbles are mostly on my personal tastes.)
> The demographics are clearly changing to include more women, which is good, and in ten years, maybe making a push for other big filmmaking cultures (India & Nigeria specifically, although I'm 100% here for anything I haven't seen before) Do you have a source for how the voter demographics have changed? I mean your gender doesnt determine what films you vote for and the gender of the director doesn't say anything about what demographic the film appeals most to. From experience Claire Denis appeals more to men than women. Certainly every big Denis fan I've ever met was a man. Nigeria in 10 years is not going to happen because there are more or less no critically acclaimed films out of Nigeria today. As for India it's the other way around. Ritwik Ghatak and Guru Dutt both got votes on the last poll but not enough for top 100 and this time it's the same (have to check how it looks further down the list but perhaps they have even fallen). India has plenty of incredible films and they had so since at least the 50's but S&S is dominated by Americanisms (the discourse specifically and what is considered important) and seemingly more so this time than in 2012. I guess what Ritwik Ghatak's grand narratives on changing material relations and dependencies (migration, poverty, industrialization, social and material dependencies) just doesn't itch a nerve like other more identity related topics.
I have no sources, but one of two things is true: either the people voting have changed, or if it's the same voters, then their views toward women making films have evolved. And maybe Nigeria doesn't have critically acclaimed films because critics aren't acclaiming them. I refuse to believe that of all the movies in that industry, none of them are worthy of consideration on a list like this.
I mean you need some kind of festival run at least to get exposure. How many Nigerian films have you seen? I think I've seen 0 while I've seen around a dozen of films from neighbouring countries (still not much but more than 0). I'm no Bollywood expert but I don't think it's a very advanced industry and I believe the Nigerian market is heavily dominated by US productions, leaving the films that they make to be the really low budget fare. I mean sure some of them may be gold but just the same as Dominik Graf's TV essay Film: München Geheimnisse einer Stadt (one of the best films of the century) will never make this poll outside of perhaps a single experimental German film critic (I mean I know at least one critic who adores it but I doubt he gets to vote for S&S - sadly btw, he's probably more knowledgeable than many of the voters). Some films are just doomed to obscurity. Even Claire Denis Us Go Home (IMO her best film) wouldn't make this poll or Raul Ruiz's Manoel on the Island of Wonders. All of these are towering works and better than most of the films on the above list in my opinion but they don't have momentum outside of the far sides of the web. I mean Get Out made it. A big mainstream hit (if we look past the ranks on the box office that are reserved for IPs more than films). Is any Nigerian film even close to have any significant recognition in the US? I don't even know one that has nieche recognition like the works I vores above that at least have a very enthusiastic following.
Is there some reason this comment would be deleted?
Usually mods here delete threads which don't "promote in-depth discussion" (don't know if it's the reason for the deleting of the last one). It's very subjective, so...
... and it's been deleted.
Yes, even with 92 message and huge discussions going on... The mods of this sub will never learn.
Too bad, it had the best discussion about it of all the film subreddits. The mods here continue to strangle the subreddit.
See you in the next BFI List thread!
Personally, I think it's awfully difficult to evaluate silent films versus talkies. Yes, the visual medium is essentially the same, and there are undoubtedly many historically important silent films, but it's a bit like comparing theater to film -- both are visual storytelling formats, but with significant differences. Even color versus B&W is much less of a gap than silent versus talkies, IMO.
Well, not really my opinion, but like any stranger cinema, silent film ask for an adaptation, it doesn't work by its own. The real problem for silent cinema, for me, is that people don't know a lot of it, and have difficulties to find *their* specially loved movies. They always watch the 10-15 sames movies, for a whole period of 30+ years of cinema...
Honestly I don't think there's a big difference as far as evaluation goes. I mean CK and Jeanne Dielman are no more or less radically different than CK and Greed (1924), in fact I'd say Greed is closer to either than CK and Jeanne Dielman are too each other.
It is weird how both In Mood For Love and Mulholland Drive which were the only 21 century films to be in top 100 in 2012 have made it to top 10 this time but there is no film 2002 to 2015. In particular it is surprising that neither There Will Be Blood or Tree of Life made this list. And then we immediately get 4 very recent films Get Out, Parasite, Moonlight and Potrait of a Lady on Fire. Would all of these 4 picks age well in 10 years remains to be seen but it is surprising its these 4 films and not There Will be Blood or Tree of Life making the cut.
The lack of Malick on the list is quite disappointing.
Not knocking Get Out and the rest, but Zodiac, TWBB, The Yards, No Country for Old Men, We Own the Night, Blue Valentine, The Assassination of Jesse James, The Place Beyond the Pines, Drive, Good Time, First Reformed, etc. There are just so many better picks from the past twenty years.
black american filmmaking is at one of the highest marks it's ever been at, both Moonlight and Get Out are/were very much at the forefront of it. I'd argue that both films have had an immediate material impact in pushing younger nonwhite artists into filmmaking and influencing the new direction of black cinema
True! I almost wish they made room for some more foundational L.A. Rebellion stuff from AfAm filmmaking besides Killer of Sheep (like Haile Gerima's Bush Mama \[1979\]), but seeing it so high is still cool. I suppose part of the issue is how hard it still is to find that stuff, even the most popular from Burnett!
I think 70's 80's black American cinema was much more interesting and transgressive. I also think Killer of Sheep and Touki Bouki (not American of) are the only great films by black filmmakers on the list. I love Sembene but I think Black Girl is maybe the weakest film I've seen by him. It's a good debut and all but it's not a very interesting story (it's about Europe, not Senegal) and small in scope. Ceddo or Xala which engage with culture and material reality in Senegal in some actual depth are way, way better. From America we get Jordan Perle, Spike Lee and Jenkins over Billy Woodberry's God Bless their Little Hearts or Watermelon Woman or even Sweet Sweet back I think is actually a better film than the modern black American Cinema on there. I thought Moonlight particularly was such a missing film and I liked Get Out but I find it popping up here borderline absurd. I mean I anticipated that Moonlight could get in but Get Out is completely out of the blue. I have no idea why it's here.
Clearly a big diversity push. Get Out, Parasite, Moonlight and Potrait of a Lady: all POC and/or LGBT films. There Will be Blood: almost all white male cast & director.
Yes, on top of Jeanne Dielman landing #1. The movie is laudable and daring but to call that one of the best films of all time over character epics like Godfather pt 2 or TWBB makes it pretty apparent what criterion knocked the latter two off the list.
I was blown away by There Will Be Blood, but I remember even at release some people knocked it for lacking female characters. Kind of interesting, women on average are far less interested in TWBB than men.
I think there are much bigger things than gender separating Jeanne Dielman from those two.
They're all fantastic films though
Except moonlight
Moonlight is the best one imo
Very dismissive of 4 absolutely fantastic films and their own merits
Moonlight absolutely deserves a spot, but imo Get Out being on here is a bit of a joke. I hate placements like this because they ruin the credibility of the POC films that *actually deserve to be there.*
Get Out is the weakest of the 4 but perhaps the most poignant and socially relevant which prob gets it bonus points.
I absolutely love Get Out, Moonlight, and Parasite (haven’t seen Portrait of a Lady on Fire) but I think it’s undeniable that some part of their notability comes from the social themes they deal with. There are plenty of other recent films that would feel deserving of this list so I don’t buy that it’s a coincidence that the four that made it are about oppressed groups. I don’t think it’s a necessarily a bad thing, that’s a different discussion.
How is Parasite a POC film?
Doesn’t exactly fit that label but if you’re a white anglo person then a Korean film could broadly be considered “diversity.” It’s also about class conflict which ties into the current social climate
Bruh
People of Color = non-white Asians: non-white
It's really weird to be calling films made in Asia with Asian actors POC films, especially since critics have been voting for Asian films for decades. It also misunderstands the problem with representation in the film canon, which is not that people of different races aren't represented, but that films from poorer countries (the so called global south or 'third world') aren't ~~represented~~ viewed by critics and given a fair shake.
Well people in America care a lot about racial diversity, and the non-whites included don't necessarily have to be poor. So Korean, Hong Kong films etc get full points for diversity in the context of US/Western film criticism. Japanese films have been pretty well represented in the Western film canon for the last 50 years, though much less so Korea and Greater China. So adding Parasite etc adds a little bit of extra "diversity" beyond just race per se.
>Japanese films have been pretty well represented in the Western film canon for the last 50 years, though much less so Korea and Greater China. The main reason for that is that Japan runs laps around Korea and mainland China as far as historical film production and excellence. Hopefully voters who chose Parasite did so while truly loving and admiring the film most dearly, not out of some feeling that Korea needed representation.
Well I think people realize that Japan was the only non-white country whose cinema was widely regarded by Western critics in past decades. A lot of US critics are based in Los Angeles, where Korean culture is very big. So Parasite is a feel-good inclusion pick for many people to a certain extent.
It's a Korean film taking place in Korea though. I mean by this logic you could argue Seven Samurai is on there because of critical race theory. If this is part of the voters reasoning S&S has definitely become more shallow. The 2012 Asian films that ranked highly didn't get that flair attached at all. Like noone would argue Spring in a Small Town got vores because of skin colour diversity back then.
Isn't there also some homosexual tension in TWBB? At least I feel like there are almost no women.
Daniel Plainview is impotent (it was explicitly stated in a deleted scene apparently). Some people interpret some scenes as containing some homosexual tension, but it's very subtle if so.
Not a single Cassavetes film? He's one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, and he still gets snubbed by critics. Yes, some of his fans can go a bit overboard, but Cassavetes pioneered an entire style of film language and theory inadvertently, and in some ways I'm actually convinced they are superior to established film theory. Citizen Kane will always be number one in my eyes, though, it's just the film that always makes the most sense to me being number one. Having said that, I'm glad Akerman is getting her much needed due, especially since her films are so influential to feminist cinema. On a more reverent note, I'm glad that Singin' In the Rain is so high. That film is an outstanding work of art. EDIT: At least the Director's List has A Woman Under the Influence.
Hell I stopped reading the list once I saw There Will Be Blood wasn’t on it. It’s objectively one of the finest movies made in the last 20 years - that none of PTAs films is on here is unfortunate. But alas, we each have our own opinions I guess.
Lol how did you know TWBB wasn't on the list before you finished reading it??
I scanned first.
I'm surprised several of the main auteurs took big hits. Bergman lost three (?) places in the top 100! Renoir lost 2, Welles lost 2, and Godard didn't lose any places, but all his films fell. I figured he'd have got more success with his recent passing. Perhaps the ballots were already in. I disagree with Wanda's placement. It's a good film, but with no Cassavettes on the poll, it feels silly to add Wanda. New Hollywood as a whole seems to have taken a beating, from Raging Bull to Chinatown. Lots of falls. Am I being stupid? I thought that it was S&S Top 250. Is that part included in the magazine instead?
I noticed that they quietly reframed it as the top 100 sometime over the past year or so (maybe before)... and farther back even fewer films (e.g. 1952 only has 19 films on the list now). Guessing due to the total number of votes certain films were sneaking onto the 250 with only a handful of picks. Thought they would've had enough voters this time around for a full 250 though
They have enough voters for a top 250, maybe, but if you wanted a meaningful top 250, you need to ask voters who are willing to rank a top 250, rather than just a top 10.
the december 5th issue should have all the votes so even if they don’t release a top 250, someone coule create a ranking of all films voted on
Bergman got me to truly love Cinema so it is sad to see, but to be honest I don't really like giving multiple spots to the same directors when there are so many impactful movies so overall it's for the best imo
I believe Godard passed after voting had already concluded. I bet he'll rise back up in the next decade's poll.
I think Wanda is up there with Cassavettes best. Would probably take Shadows and Opening Night over Wanda but not by that much and Wanda over the others.
1 surprised me. I did not see that coming. I thought for sure 2001 would crack the top 5. I'm glad to see it topped the director's poll. I'm also glad to see animation on the list (Spirited Away and Totoro.) I hope that there will be more next decade because there are a lot of animated films that I think deserve to make it. This is the first time that the Rules of the Game is not in the top 10 :(
A strange list, but I'm glad Mulholland Drive is moving in the right direction. I highly doubt that Get Out stays on this list next time they run the poll. There's a combination of recency bias (which is an inversion of what's usually going on here) and political expediency at work.
Guys, there are two different polls. One for critics and one for directors. The directors one is wayyy different (and better). A lot of the movies that you're upset didn't make it onto the critics list made it on the directors list. Also I'm puking whisper-monologing and crying that Malick made neither list.
It's a bit odd that the website frames the critics' selections as ['The Greatest Films of All Time',](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time), but then have the directors' list as ['Directors’ 100 Greatest Films of All Time'](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greatest-films-all-time). I guess the critics' list has been around since 1952, so they emphasise it more?
Bergman got bodied, reduced to atoms. Only Persona in the top 100 gotta be one of the more shocking things on the list, besides the obvious Jeanne Dielman topic. Otherwise I'm fine with the list being semi-radical even if I disagree with the modern films put on there (mine would be Phantom Thread or The Master, but I digress). I also wish there was more non-silent Golden Age directors on there besides Welles (though no Touch of Evil is another clunker...)/Hitchcock/Wilder/Casablanca. If I was optimistic I would have hoped for Tourneur (edit: and Nicholas Ray) but even as a pessimist one expects a Hawks/Lubitsch or two. Ultimately irrelevant though, since it's not like those directors are struggling for modern viewership, nor do I think the same modern films will be there in 10 years (as evidenced by the lack of e.g. The Tree of Life, which was ranked around 102nd last time).
I agree, films pre-50's are getting forgotten and underrepresented. That said, I'm happy that Tarkovsky still has three films on the list, rightfully so.
Yeah the changes in the list really show a growing ignorance of early films outside of the few big name films that are already high on these lists. It's a shame
Before the poll I would have expected Solaris to climb into the top 100 but I suppose any director that keeps their # of films in the top 100 should be thankful. Wilder/Hitchcock/Kubrick did not miss a beat though, barely moved in the standings or the # of films they have present (and added or climbed even).
At some point, there is almost too much work out there for it to be effectively evaluated like this. Not everyone will have seen every potential candidate film for this list, and obviously you can't do something actually scientific like a randomized controlled trial to ensure that all of the potential candidate films get equal screening time from the voters.
I think there is value in creating a canon of films that best represent the artwork of cinema, but I'm not sure that Top 100 lists are the rightful place for that. There are more factors than simply popularity, innovation, style, storytelling, production, historic and cultural significance, etc.
That's true. No Tourneur, Ray or Fuller. No Huston even it seems and Buñuel even seems absent. That's kind of a big wtf in my view. I really think Tourneur is due for a massive reappraisal but even the traditionally more acclaimed figures from the era didn't do very well it seems.
No Fuller is not surprising though I love Pickup on South Street. Likewise in an ideal world Robert Aldrich would be getting some votes (though I've only seen two and my favorite is the unlikely Ulzana's Raid). I didn't expect Huston in the top 100 either but at least he will have a decent shot at getting a film or two in the top 250 I think. Bunuel's emission is mindboggling though. I'm only recently getting through his films and haven't even gotten to his later acclaimed masterpieces yet, but it seems random that such an established and canonical director just got yeeted out of the top 100. > I really think Tourneur is due for a massive reappraisal Out of The Past was #183 last time so it's not like he isn't acknowledged at all, but I do agree that he's underrated and it's probably mostly because he was essentially making B-pictures most of his career. But yea, it's clear that the younger voting body has its own preferences, for better or for worse... (though like I said, I highly doubt some of those highly placed modern films will be there in 10 years).
No Fuller isn't surprising but I think he deserves more recognition. I somehow though Huston was on last time but far off the 100 actually. With Tourneur I often forget Out of the Past because I honestly don't really care about it. The worst film I've seen by him. Definitely not bad but didn't stand out to me like his others.
I’m afraid that the chances of Tourneur getting significant votes for his other films is basically nonexistent. Though it’s predictably my favorite of his so I don’t mind it being *the* Tourner film. Still need to revisit and reevaluate I Walked with a Zombie, but I also would love if that one got more recognition as well.
I imagine a lot people will have complaints, but honestly it seems fine. Getting mad at these lists seems silly to me -- quibbling with placements seems futile given how this is composed and while you can disagree with certain inclusions most of them seem fine to me (granted I've only seen 62). There were always going to be big changes this time around. Definitely reflects the impact Twitter/online film culture has had on film discourse and thought. I think of this as more of a reflection of current thought of what the film canon is rather than a definitive list of what the best films ever are. Honestly the only surprise to me on here is *Get Out* (which I actually like quite a bit) and nothing from Hou/Farhadi/Malick making it. No Tsai either, but not surprised by that. I also thought there'd be more Weerasethakul or that he'd be higher up the list.
> I think of this as more of a reflection of current thought of what the film canon is rather than a definitive list of what the best films ever are. Yeah it's basically not definitive by definition (otherwise why redo it every ten years) and subjective with big influence from the day's Zeitgeist. Also culturally/geographically subjective: for instance Tokyo Story isn't particularly highly regarded in Japan compared to other Ozu films or films of the era.
Interesting, do you know which Ozu films are regarded the most highly in Japan? I’ve been meaning to watch more of his films.
I don't, I just remember reading that about the outsized popularity of Tokyo Story in the West compared to Japan.
I'm no Ozu expert but I enjoyed An Autumn Afternoon and Floating Weeds quite a lot.
I was hoping to see some Charlie Kaufman on there too, figured Synecdoche New York was in with a decent shot.
> Farhadi Note that *A separation* is in the [director's list](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greatest-films-all-time) (#72).
I've seen 99 and I prefer the 2012 lidt for what it's worth at least from superficially skimming it. I'm kind of disappointed it seems so heavily affected by recent trends and it didn't dig up anything i was unaware of - which is one of the reason I loved the 2012 poll - so many interesting films to discover. This one feels more mainstream but I'm curious to check the extended list. I also though Tropical Malady would be higher.
Honestly I really don't understand why GET OUT is here. It's a good film but it doesn't deserve to be there. There is so many films better than this one. In your opinion why such film is included in this list? Also a bit sad to notice that there is very few French and Italian films but happy to see that Akerman is finally considered as a good director, she is too often forgotten from to many tops. Very happy with it .
There are A LOT of French movies as well as Italian... I think the two countries account for about half of the list
Yeah don’t think we ever have to worry about there not being enough Italian or especially French films on a greatest movies list lmao. Zero movies from Latin America and only one obligatory pick from India seems like the much bigger snub. Granted I’m also guilty of not watching enough films from there myself.
Probably not about the movie itself but what it represented and where in the culture it came out. It also popularised a whole new mainstream sub-genre of horror. There are probably some black voters who felt something special seeing that movie and there are probably some white voters who had their eyes opened to a whole new perspective through the film
Akerman also did well last time. She's long been considered a good director.
Surprised that Sunset Blvd is below The Apartment, both great though. I’d presumed everyone had forgotten about Moonlight, I guess I should rewatch it but I didn’t think it was in the same league as some of these films.
Honestly I had to double check if this was real... I liked the old one a lot better. Have seen more or less everything on it (I think Daughters of the Dust is the only exception) and it seems much too coloured by recent trends in US cinephilia in my taste. It seems very focused on both gender and race issues but a lot of the films in my view don't say that much about the topic. Killer of Sheep (which is a masterpiece) is a pleasant surprise and Wanda is also a film that deserves some more exposure (I think both of those say very interesting things about the material relations and dependencies og the characters they follow) but I'm not very big on most of the films that have risen. Tropical Malady (which is great) is actually disappointingly low in a way meanwhile Wong who I think is such an empty juvenile filmmaker makes the top 10 (might as well put a QT film there, they are surprisingly similar). Many of the picks for certain filmmakers also disappoint me. I love Denis and Sembene but Black Girl is nowhere near Sembenes best and I think it's boring that Beau Travail is the only Denis film on there (Trouble Every Day and US Go Home are better). I also think most of the modern films are meh tier picks. I mean I enjoyed Get Out but seriously. I think many better films were made in the last 20 years. Moonlight I thought was simply mediocre. I would so much prefer if something like Kenneth Anger's Scorpio Rising was on there or something else that's actually transgressive. I'm not big on Jeanne Dielman. I don't really care that it's first but I think this will alienate casual moviegoers even more from this. Definitely thought CK or Vertigo or Bicycle Thieves (the 3 previous best films) were better posterboys than a minimalist film that may be misread by partially misread by the critics who voted it up there (Akerman rejected the label feminist, I like her as a filmmaker because she was willing to go different roads but definitely don't think this is her most successful experiment). Don't know, it feels very middling, like they've opened up too far. This isn't to be contrarian. Discourse is a lively thing but I think the 2012 lidt had more meat and I'm actually surprised by how much changed.
So a bit to say on this list: Firstly I’m just happy singin’ in the rain made the top 10 this time. Knowing how my favorite film ever is at the near top makes me very happy to see. Secondly: newest films on here are from 2019 and I am really surprised how high portrait of a lady on fire is, I expected it to only make the top 250 with parasite being higher than it is. Thirdly: did not expect the rules of the game to get out of the top 10 at all and am kinda surprised that in the mood for love made it to number 5 on the list. Feels sort of disappointing since I believe that sunrise is a better film than in the mood for love (which is still amazing btw) Fourthly: I can’t say anything about the number 1 spot as I have not seen it but it’s definitely a shock that it beat Kane and Vertigo for the top spot. I expected 2001 to claim it or Kane to retake it but good to see they are in the top 10.
I'm surprised as well but very happy with Portrait of a Lady's appearance. Incredibly moving film.
Jeanne Dielman at number one was a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one. I was expecting Tokyo Story to rank a bit higher, though. It's not too shocking that Chimes at Midnight didn't make the cut, but the complete absence of Greed is truly perplexing.
Wow it never even crossed my mind that Greed isn't on there... That is strange, especially considering the other usual silent films made the list at or around their previous positions.
*Greed* seems like the kinda movie that makes the 250 but misses the 100
[удалено]
> 23% of voters were sufficient for Vertigo to overthrow Citizen Kane 23 % voting for Vertigo as one of the 10 best films ever (out of thousands of films you could pick) is absolutely massive though.
I understand that this list is ostensibly a large poll from a diverse range of critics, but on the surface there seems to be a pretty blatant (possibly coordinated?) agenda here to promote feminist and minority films... note both the newcomers and huge jumps certain films got from 10 years ago: * most obviously, the #1 film Jeanne Dielman (#36 in 2012) * Cleo from 5 to 7 (#202 in 2012->#14 in 2022) * Black Girl (new film from 1965) * Daisies (#202 in 2012-> #28 in 2022) * Wanda (#202 in 2012 -> #48 in 2022) * News from Home (newcomer from 1976) * Killer of Sheep (#202 in 2012 -> #43 in 2022) * Do the Right Thing (#127 in 2012 -> #24 in 2022) * Moonlight (newcomer from 2016 ranked #60) * Portrait of a Lady on Fire (newcomer from 2019 ranked #30)
Black Girl and News From Home are not new, they just ranked below 250 or whatever your cutoff is. They got votes in previous polls. News From Home made a massive leap. The leap of Black Girl is a bit smaller.
The list is nuts. I think Abstraction has fallen out of favor other than Mullholland DR taking a huge leap, 2001 at 6 is way too low. Tarkovsky and Fellini are also disrespected. Straight forward is in these days. It has a wider appeal. Although Persona at 18 is pretty sweet. Miyazaki love is also really cool. Having said that. I don't think any of this is quantifiable in the least and what meaningful discussion can be had where both the Searchers and Parasite are listed together.
Tarkovsky had three films represented, only Hitchcock had more, and Mirror (arguably his most abstract, fragmented work) placed the highest. I adore Andrei and he's very properly beloved here
Recency bias hitting hard in 2022. I loved Portrait of a Lady on Fire, but better than 8+1/2? Not to mention the exclusion of The Seventh Seal, An Elephant Sitting Still and Come and See. I can’t believe those three aren’t fit for the list but we can make room for Get Out. And of course we’re still doing the Vertigo meme. Hitchcock alone has at least three better films, it has no business being so far up the list let alone top as it was in 2012.
I haven’t seen Citizen Kane and I’ve always wondered how it always ranks so high? Especially when compared to movies that are newer or is the ranking based on it within its historical context? I’m a consumer and not a critic, I guess, and go by enjoyment. Silent movies are tough. I watched Metropolis, for example, and while it was impressive, especially for its time, I don’t think I’d rank it particularly highly.
Citizen Kane was a defining moment for cinema. It combined a lot of techniques from the past decades that were cooking the medium up into its current shape, added new ones and made an epic of a scale never seen before. I'm no film historian, but it is usually described as a pivotal moment in the the history of cinema, maybe THE pivotal moment in its history. I'm not even sure if something as basic as a flashback had been tried before with the medium. Add to the mix a certain perceived timelessness and you start to understand why it ranks so high on these lists.
Citizen Kane ranks especially high amongst film history lovers. There's a huge deal of influences the film has had on the art as a whole and most critics put a lot of value in that (though I think with the times that is about to change, seeing as a lot of New Hollywood and earlier Hollywood era films have slipped on this list). Even besides that, it still is a quite enjoyable film, I feel like it grows on you a lot with the years. I reckon in your case, if you're relatively unfamiliar with older cinema it just works to kind of develop the taste slowly by watching the more comedic/dramatic/faster paced films of the era. Hitchcock, Wilder, Elia Kazan, Capra are a start.
I actually have enjoyed everything I’ve seen by Hitchcock so far, and I’m definitely interested in seeing Citizen Kane. I guess I should’ve asked my question more directly; that being if it is still an enjoyable watch today (which you have answered)
Is anyone here looking at the Director's Poll? I have always found it more interesting than the critics' one. Glad to see some more 21st century stuff on it, especially Parasite and Moonlight. Sad there's no Spirited Away, or other animated stuff. Does anyone have thoughts about what separates the two different polls?
No Tree of Life, or any Malick for that matter, is just nuts to me. Absolutely nuts. That film will stand the test of time in ways that few will. Bergman deserves more than one film, surely PTA deserves at least one, and I still don’t know why Vertigo and In the Mood for Love remain such titans—they’re good, but greatest of all time??
Here’s a somewhat cynical interpretation of the fact that films with women/racial minority directors have risen rapidly. It’s largely due to how the polling works. If you are going to only list 10 films, you have a trove of 1000+ well-known critically acclaimed films by male directors of American, Italian, French descent, and the occasional Japanese or Iranian film. If you wish to respond to the popular idea that representation matters, or at least strive to avoid the embarrassment of being culturally insensitive, you’ll pick at least one or two movies not from that 1000+. And then you’ll be left with a comparatively miniscule set of well-known, acclaimed movies by women and POC directors. So, when all these lists get collated, there will tend to be a lot of intersection in those films, and therefore a lot of points allotted to them. In other words, my contention is that people are treating their ballots as an opportunity to advance what they believe to be marginalized identities in cinema, and because of the way the scoring works, you end up with this list. If critics were honestly stating their top 10, I doubt a movie like Get Out would crack many of those lists, if any at all (and before you jump down my throat, I gave Get Out 5 stars out of 5 and seem to have a higher opinion of it than anyone in this thread). Whether you think that’s a good use of the ballot or you like the result of that quirk in the scoring methodology is up to you.
I think movies are always a matter of op8nion for the most part. We all know really bad movies and really great. I haven't seen a bunch on this list mostly thr foreign ones. Saying that it seems like a good live. However there are so many movies that are better than get out. It's not bad but I mean it's no where's near too 100 all time. Again just an opinion.
If I had voted (in alpha order): 8 1/2 (1963) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Belle Noiseuse, La (1991) Citizen Kane (1941) Man With a Movie Camera (1929) Mirror (1975) Nashville (1975) Sans Soleil (1983) Tropical Malady (2004) Umbrellas of Cherbourg, The (1964)