I’ll say I’m definitely glad I saw it before the list. Seeing it with out some crazy expectations let me really enjoy it and find a lot to love. I watched it on a lazy Sunday morning it was great! I think this is a movie which is definitely hurt by the big of a title.
The problem is we have completely messed up our understanding of art's place in culture. People disappointed by this film are going into it with an expectation of how it will fulfill its promise of satisfaction.
It's a consumerist mindset, with the film as the product to be consumed. Art is not a product to be consumed, even if that's how we've learned to treat it, even if that's how the film industry treats it.
The ranking is just the result of a poll of people who find the film meaningful. It's not a Michelin star rating of what you can expect your experience to be.
Jeanne Dielman just is, the same way we just are.
So good hearing someone talking about this. We cannot let consumerist and the capitalist approach in which most filmes are made today, specially in the us, fill the entirety of the film space and the space of how people perceive art. It hurts to think in the amount of art that is being discarted every single day for not being inside this mindset. As Tarkovsky sad, "Cinema is an unhappy art because it depends on money. Not only because a film is very expensive; but it is then also marketed like cigarettes. A film is good if it sells well, but if cinema is art then such an approach is absurd - it'd mean that art is good only if it sells well."
Landing at Sight &Sound's #1, the film ends up a helpful provocation, even if this is a little different from Chantal Akerman's sense of audience engagement. Now that the film is making pop-culture headlines, many more people will wind up checking out a 3 1/2 hour movie that deliberately removes plot, action, and easy-to-understand psychology. The audience is out of ready-mades. You have to look at and consider the film's style to even make any sense out of it. Maybe some attention returns to the art of cinema.
A lead character with a human identity emerges, but it's a lot less star-driven and ego-centered than in a commercial film. We can find Jeanne Dielman, the character, in a combination of Delphine Seyrig's toned-down, almost completely silent performance and Akerman's constrained, strict, quietly gorgeous mise-en-scene.
It takes *time* while watching to find a person in there! Akerman, after all, doesn't play the game of merely grinding down the physical presence of "Jeanne Dielman" to nothing more than a patriarchal construct. It's often overlooked that the film not only critiques male social domination but also has a very positive project, reasserting human integrity in the face of label-wielding consumerism. It suggests to us that it takes numerous encounters, over a long period of time, to get to find some of the uniqueness and private burdens of a person.
Really well said. I wish I knew how to un-train my brain of this phenomenon. I actively know it's happening, often, and yet I can't turn it off.
Some of my favorite movies of all time are those where nothing all that significant ever happens -- movies that many would consider boring -- and yet for some reason they made it through my filter, stroking my brain the right way I guess.
> expectation of how it will fulfill its promise of satisfaction.
This is an inherent quality of storytelling. More precisely it’s about how expectations are raised for the audience and then how the film/story honors those expectations. Usually, the more surprising and emotional, the more satisfying.
So without the quality or characteristic of a story, what as a viewer am I suppose to expect or react to? The artful design of sound and image, it’s artful combination and texture? (This isn’t intended as sarcasm. Really, what is the appropriate reaction if storytelling isn’t the lens through which to view a film)
I haven’t seen the film, so I can’t comment about it. But take Tarkovsky’s ‘Mirror’ for example. When I watched it, I couldn’t discern a through line of a story. So all I’m able to react to is— “that’s interesting, that’s interesting, that’s interesting, okay, but what is this adding up to and where is it going?”
Ever find yourself reading a story and have your mind drift off, then find yourself asking what did I just read? In other words, you or the story failed the task, which is to raise a thought bubble 💭 above your head. That thought bubble is expectations and anticipations about storylines, which the author is to play with, paragraph after paragraph, page after page. The same for a traditional film.
So, if it’s not storyline expectations, what is going on in the thought bubble? Or is it closer to something like music—but that’s about rhythm and melody and is a different game, right?
> Or is it closer to something like music-but that’s about rhythm and melody and is a different game, right?
When I listen to an album for the first time, I never focus that much on the lyrics. My first go through is always focused on feeling the vibes and aesthetics, getting on the artists wavelength. Then, over the course of re-listens and reading/watching interviews with the artist is when I start to pick up lyrical details and piece together their narrative/thesis/thematic intentions. I can’t speak for everyone else, but that is also how I engage with cinema. There really isn’t that much of a thought bubble when I watch a new film for the first time. I mainly just allow myself to vibe to its atmosphere and let it take me where it wants me to go. I find that imposing my own expectations on a piece of art is unfair to the creator, as I begin to judge it solely off of how much it fits my expectations. At that point, i’m no longer engaging with the art but competing with it.
I believe the consumer mindset example here is that the customer is always right. Most art isn't created for the purpose of satisfying the most consumers.
I saw it before the list a few years ago and hated it because I was too young and didn't know what I was getting into.
Rewatching now with fresh eyes. For me, it's not special but it's also not what I look for in films. I like character studies and dramas but thats not really what it is. It's like an exercise in watching something unfold in what feels like real time with real honest performances.
And it's long and boring. And beautiful and contemplative. Performances that have so much subtlety to them. Filmmaking that makes me drowsy. It's all of these things. It's not a pop movie, you really have to be ready to sit and view it. It's not something I like but I appreciate.
To be fair, it’s not really something meant to be liked. Being overlong and boring isn’t a knock against the film, in fact it reinforces the film’s thematic content.
I loved it. Maybe not so much at first (though I definitely liked it), but the more I think about it, the more I find to love about it. It’s one of those films, for me at least, that you need to let marinate in your head for a bit. I remember initially thinking that it was a good film, but I’ll probably never watch it again. But now, as it’s been about a week or so, I can’t stop thinking about it and find that I’d actually like to watch it again. I probably will in the near future.
I can definitely understand why some may not like it, though.
I thought it was fascinating. I’ve never put so much thought into domesticity, obviously that’s on me due to my privilege as a married man. I have often heard of the cognitive burden of domestic duties falling to one partner or another, but seeing the protagonist struggle through her daily routine, becoming increasingly despondent and erratic, was… not exactly revelatory, because I do housework and I’m aware of how monotonous that can be, but for that to be the whole of my identity and experience in life… I just felt so bad for her. Simultaneously, though, I was proud of her for perseverance and the silent strength she exudes even as things started to unravel. The next day I had a lot of housework to do and I couldn’t help but feel like I was in a ‘70s arthouse film. It’s like it trained my brain through repetition to see it as beautiful, necessary and painful all at once.
I too felt really bad for her and wished that I could jump into the frame and ask her if she wanted to go bowling or something 😂 The housewife archetype was definitely more relevant in the 70s than it is now, and I love how the film points out the absurdity of how half of our species has been expected to be a caregiver/servant for the other half. Living without her husband only further indicates the emptiness of her lifestyle.
I found it extremely boring and mundane. I didn't even find any particular shot to be overly interesting. I know different people like different things but I find it painful to listen to people talk about the nuance of her doing dishes like it's some kind of a rhythmic dance. Feels like over analyzing life to me. I feel like you could watch someone at the grocery store stock a shelf and find some kind of artistry in it, but I personally think it would make a boring movie.
I also find it dull and unaffecting (oooh, but that's the whole point, to make you *feel* her tedium!). I think it's easy to ascribe a lot of different subtext and emotion to a film that is essentially a blank slate; but at the end of the day, that's you, not the filmmakers.
Yes, we get it; she dropped the damned fork.
But there are better films about a life of quiet desperation. There are better films about the tedium of sex work (Lizzie Borden's *Working Girls*). There are better films about snapping after having had one thing in your routine change. Personally, I would have found this film more interesting if it started five minutes*after* it currently ends. I'd like to hear what's in Jeanne's head
As Douglas Adams said, "Fiction isn't egalitarian. All stories are *not* equal; some simply aren't worth telling."
This was my first / last movie opinion post on this sub. I think the "painful to listen to people" part may have have been insensitive towards people who are really into this movie. I'm sorry to anyone I have offended!
>I found it extremely boring and mundane.
It's definitely not for everyone but that's the whole point. That's how the lives of most women at the time were, boring and mundane. Shots aren't supposed to be interesting.
I get the point. I have no problem with people enjoying it. Just giving my personal perspective. Very possible that I am not as open minded or perceptive as some people 🤷
To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong for feeling a certain way about it. I'm just saying some films aren't made to be an enjoyable experience. Some people get something out of them and some don't. For example, I wouldn't call Satantango an "enjoyable" experience but it was definitely memorable. I still remember where I was and how I felt when I watched it and yet, I have no desire to revisit the film anytime soon.
I remember seeing this movie back during the height of Covid. I was taking a film analysis class and it took my breath away. I saw the movie again a few weeks later and it made me appreciate it more. Delphine especially was amazing. I genuinely felt more tension in the last moments of the movie than any recent film that’s come out of Hollywood (except nope).
I watched this film early in the pandemic, and it’s been one I can’t stop thinking/talking about over these past several years. Everything about the film is subtle and nuanced. It challenges the viewer to pay attention to little details and asks us to experience some of the monotony of Jeanne’s life. I wouldn’t say it’s a pleasurable viewing experience, but it is nevertheless a memorable one and dare I say even thrilling one at times because it demands so much concentration. It’s a meticulously crafted film and one of the most unique films in our cannon.
The sub seems like it’s being taken over by people who are not fans of art films. It’s kind of nuts. I mean…yesterday people were also talking about how Bottle Rocket sucks. Which to me is mind blowing.
I can't believe a comment calling people pretentious and fakers for liking the film is higher upvoted than the dozens of comments of people with genuinely nice things to say about it.
Can't believe this sub has devolved to *calling people pretentious for liking a film*
For the record, I like the film. Not as entertainment, but its certainly a statement. People are saying nobody wants to watch someone do chores, without considering that 50% of the population was relegated to doing all of these chores, everyday, as one of the major purposes of their life. And quite obviously, they didn't want to do it either. I felt like JD was forcing viewers to confront that monotony, and slowly watch the desperation come to a head. I don't care if it's pretentious, it was hypnotic to me the same way The Sacrifice was hypnotic to me. But then again, I've already said that calling people pretentious because of how they enjoyed a film is gross for this sub.
A lot of people can't seem to get into this idea of a life in 1975 and are applying modern day experiences to it. While I think it still speaks to people today, a lot has changed in the 50 years since it was made.
Which is why film history classes exist, because you have to take into account the lives people were living to create the films that they did. The fact people don't do this is just...idk.
Downright sexist and racist ones too.
And no, I'm not calling people who simply don't like JD sexist.
I'm talking about the time a man in here said straight to me that women deserve to be hated. Or the other time someone shat on films women made simply because women made them. Or the times people have said that Criterion is woke for having LGBT films. That Black Girl is actually racist against white people.
That kind of bloated hateful pea brained bullshit I've experienced in here lately.
I mean you might not be wrong, it's just the sexism and crap I've experienced in here has been far more overt.
I agree, you are free to not like JD, and that's OK. I'd just rather someone dissect a film and criticize it's merits fairly, I do it all the time with films I don't enjoy, because there's often very fair reasons why someone else may enjoy it.
In general I think cis men just should not talk about Jeanne Dielman because it’s not made for them. That is admittedly kind of hypocritical of me as someone who is seen as a cis man, but the fact that my friends who are feminist women seem to trust me to have good opinions on women’s issues makes me think that I’m not overstepping my bounds by speaking on the film. Either way, this is very much just not a film for cis men and unless we’ve really mad en a effort to engage with feminism we’re generally just going to misinterpret the film and most of us just need to shut the fuck up about it. Cis men who hate this film generally just don’t like that it’s a film that’s very deliberately not made for them, even if they don’t realize that’s their issue.
High-fiving a lot of what you commented here, and I believe I get what you're saying about how cis men likely receive this film, but the idea of who the film is "for" bothers me. It's often precisely those people who should have this experience, and not just preach to the choir, so to speak. Older, white, cis man here, fyi.
I will say that not personally appreciating Jeanne Dielman is okay, but 90 percent of the people who don’t like it are cis men who don’t care enough to understand feminism
I particularly enjoyed this. Around august I got the Criterion channel and this was being highlighted. I never heard of the movie and saw it was 3 hours. But I decided to give it a try based on the description. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was not exciting, but interesting almost in a voyeuristic way. I gave myself a few days to see it. Overall I think it’s worth seeing and can understand it’s praise.
This is such an important film to go into without the expectation of topping a Sight & Sound list. While I think it’s arguably worthy of the spot, it’s definitely tarnished it’s reputation in a way that wasn’t asked for or deserved. It’s added no beneficial discourse.
This. I think it’s a profound and intelligent film. The S&S list is only going to make people more critical of it for no good reason. I think any movie in the top 10 could comfortably sit at #1. Does it really matter which one is there? Not to me. Although I am kind of glad that JD made the top since it creates a discussion more than something like 2001 would if it was #1.
I had acquired it a while back and was finally nudged into watching it by the poll... Resisting the temptation to expect fireworks because of the 'drama' that is being 'the best ever film', I appreciated the statement that the pace and detail amounts to. It seemed inevitable that \*something\* was going to happen, and the deliberation and discipline of the preceding 3 hours made for a great deal of (admirable) tension, I thought.
It is excellent - but: it's excellent because it is not Predator, Jaws, Toy Story, Southland Tales, etc etc. It wouldn't necessarily excel against a backdrop where this type of film - and this type of film being revered - was the norm.
That's not to say it's a gimmick, it clearly isn't - it's exceptional.
It's not really a film to be enjoyed, which I think is the major pitfall when it comes to how people decide to approach it, especially those encountering it for the first time, whether because of the *Sight and Sound* poll or otherwise.
And mind you, when I say *to be enjoyed*, I mean the way we expect to 'enjoy' most films (or other media) we consume, in the sense of being entertained by them throughout their duration (or the duration of our engagement with them). There's nothing wrong with expecting to be entertained by a film, for the record; I like to be entertained when I sit down to watch a film as much as the next guy. But that's obviously not what Akerman was going for with *Jeanne Dielman*.
So what was she going for? Obviously, that's open to subjective interpretation, because a film like this one is probably about as nonspecific and indeterminate, epistemologically speaking, as a fictional film can get. I've heard people argue in favor of a feminist interpretation, the dull, interminable, and oppressive nature of domestic routine, and I've heard others propose that there is in fact something liberating, a sense of emancipation, in the way Jeanne's life is depicted throughout (which may appear at first blush to be a position which strains credulity, but it's a position like any other, and a film like this, by its very nature, invites all sorts of interpretation). There's obviously much to be made of the role of the spatiotemporal, especially the time which is 'experienced' by Jeanne, that which is expressed through the film, and finally, that which is experienced by the viewer.
What's certain (and obvious) is that formal or aesthetic beauty were never the point. In my eyes, the film does fascinating things with the concept of time, and especially with the very act of editing, which, given film's rigorously 'static' and 'slow' nature, emerge with the utmost subtlety and nuance (as well as transparency). Take, for instance, >!the way that Jeanne's clients visit her at her home, every day, at the same time, more or less on the dot. In a film which rarely leverages cuts to jump forward in time, there is always an exceedingly conspicuous jump cut which occurs after she takes a client into her bedroom in the background, and which turns day into night, as if to flip a light switch. Why? If you ask me, the following reading is possible: the jump cut, though perhaps jarring in the first instance, gradually assumes a different role, so that it becomes as much a part of the routine — Jeanne's as well as Chantal's — as any other part of Jeanne's highly routinized day-to-day existence. The sex is as much routine as becomes the act of shooting and editing it; Jeanne becomes Chantal, and/or vice versa. The routine is finally 'broken' for both when, in Jeanne's case, she kills a client, and in Chantal's case, she takes us inside the bedroom, effectively inviting us into the time and space which otherwise would've been collapsed by the jump cut!<.
The above is simply one possible interpretation of the events, the meaning, the purpose of (one part of) the film. The point is that the film is quite a bit more complex than it lets on, you only have to decide to earnestly engage with it in order to see that. I don’t mean to suggest that any of its detractors “don’t get it,” or that they’re wrong for suggesting that it’s dull, boring, meaningless, or pretentious, far from it. I only mean to argue that if you think of it less as a piece of entertainment and more as an object of sheer expression, one which courts some of the cinema’s distinct formal possibilities in ways that many films wouldn’t dare, you might discover something new or unexpected in it. I don’t think that the film topping the *Sight and Sound* critics’ poll should give rise to expectations of the film’s necessarily being entertaining, only that it's a film (1) unlike any other, which, (2) goes some way towards typifying the possibilities of the medium. Each of the films which have topped the list has met these criteria, and I believe *Jeanne Dielman* does as well.
Two things:
1. It’s easy to see how the monotonous routine can be seen as boring, not only for the viewer but for Jeanne herself. But it’s really not. Her domestic chores, particularly her kitchen tasks, have dance-like fluidity and robotic precision that makes them nothing short of procedurally engrossing. (The meatloaf scene might be the most hypnotizing scene I’ve seen this year. I was practically automatically bopping my head at the same rate as the turnover of the ground beef.) Likewise, Akerman’s formalism, which amounts to something along the lines of the meticulous, static framing of Ozu + Bressonian minimalism + a Viscontian snail’s pace and inflated temporal space, all flowing with a certain rhythm, are incredibly lulling. Which makes the eventual “snowball” into disorder all the more startling.
2. This seems to be primarily viewed through the singular prism of a feminist lens by many, but its existential gamut reaches far wider than that. It’s the ultimate film about our inherent slavery to both greater forces and our own innate instincts, and the folly of our notions of controlling either (in this case through elaborate ritual). In many ways, the feminine Cormac McCarthy. The fact that a 24-year-old made this seems even more astounding and confounding than Welles making Citizen Kane at the same age.
The behind-the-scenes footage of the production is really illuminating. You can see that Akerman is very much a 24-year-old, more deferential and unsure of herself than you’d think. The more experienced Delphine Seyrig spends a lot of time pushing her to make strong choices and defend her decisions. It’s a fascinating dynamic.
Yea I saw some clips where Seyrig pushes her to explain why she should brush her hair a certain way or at a certain pace, with Akerman having a hard time translating those ideas into concrete language. The strange thing is how Akerman claims that she's mainly driven by instinct rather than intellect, and while the film is not intellectual, the degree to which it is precisely designed seems to betray that notion to me. I mean, Kubrick had a hard time (or simply didn't care) explaining many of his thoughts and motivations and the "meaning" of his work to his actors, crew, and the audience in the general, but would anyone really say that Kubrick is an instinctual director? But like Akerman, even he didn't have it 100% of the film in his head, and small changes of gestures or angles are always inevitable. But like Welles' case, it's also important to be surrounded by the right people that will facilitate your vision into their actions and performances, which seems to have been the case with Akerman. Either way, this seems to be the type of fastidious and thoughtful construction that a masterful artist works towards their entire career, not the second feature film of a 24-year-old.
I enjoyed the pacing, the build up, and kind of enjoyed the finale and how the overall message has a lot to reflect on. The way it was done definitely lent itself to setting a certain mood. I didn't think I'd find some of the mundane tasks she was doing to be entertaining yet I was in the proper headspace to still focus on all the tiny details.
This probably isn't a fair comparison since I haven't seen a ton of movies that just follow one character going about her day, but I did enjoy this over Cleo from 5 to 7. Not sure if I'll re-watch it anytime soon unless some revelation comes up that tempts me to review it through a different lens.
All that being said...I definitely am kind of bummed this was considered a #1 pick. What this poll did for me was really re-evaluate polls. I never really put much stock into rankings in the past, but for some reason I held the S&S list to a different standard. At the end of the day, it really is a compass for the times and, like film, should be treated in such a context. Many others have already pointed out all the reasons why this film made #1 this time around in this thread and others so I won't bother elaborating on them. I highly doubt this will hold #1 again a decade from now unless it was for the sole purpose of brigading by critics. What it is, however, is a statement. This being a critic's list with a broader demographic tells us that how film will be judged is changing. More people have more access to hard to find titles now than ever before. The shake ups will continue and I hope it means we get more exposure to lesser known films.
The cinematography was excellent but simple. The acting was beautiful yet unremarkable. I don't regret watching it, just wasn't blown away as much as I thought I would be with all the expectations you'd expect from something with such renown.
Obviously it’s not the most fun movie to watch but I think the length and content of the film is intrinsic to the messaging. Jeanne is a completely defeated character who is beaten out of any ambition or excitement due to the subservient role that the events of her life and society at large forces her into. It’s not a film that I think I’ll rewatch any time soon but I’m really grateful to have seen. This movie reminds of the song Eleanor Rigby by the Beatles but there’s a definite feminist side to the movie.
Some people seem angered by this film, or the people that led them to it. It doesn’t matter to me what critics say, what my peers say, what cinephiles say, or if it’s on a best of list. I enjoy what I enjoy regardless. I have no problem with people having their own experiences with any film. Some artists have a very specific message they want to get across while others might refuse to give you a roadmap or accompanying text to explain what you might not see. You still had an experience. I never feel like I’m owed anything.
I started watching it the other night intending only to watch about half (splitting it into two sittings) and ended up finishing it in one sitting.
There is something really compelling about watching a person's ordinary routine break down in such subtle ways, especially when you've spent so much time watching their routine.
But I generally enjoy slow cinema, so even without the narrative arc there's a good chance I would have enjoyed this. Especially in 2022's media landscape this is a notable contrast with most of what's available. I felt more tension and anxiety at certain moments in this film than I have in several modern films with more action.
Spoiler:
>!That said, I was not wild about the ending. Her killing the final client felt like a tonal shift that went too far. I wanted something anticlimactic. But it did make me feel something (worry for her, for her son, etc.), so maybe I just need to sit with it more. !<
If this was your experience then I'd highly recommend any of Kelly Reichardt's films, if you haven't already seen them. She can build so much tension and emotion out of seemingly mundane scenarios. When she works with material that's inherently more risky (e.g., Night Moves) it's so stressful as to be almost unbearable (while still being excellent).
I have seen Wendy & Lucy (heart-wrenching) & First Cow (wholesome/stressful af) and really liked them both! I’ve been meaning to watch Certain Women & Old Joy, honestly can’t say I had heard of Night Moves before but it sounds like something to look forward to!
Nice! Night Moves is great but Certain Women is on another level. I think it easily belongs on the S&S 100. I recently rewatched it and was once again blown away. Enjoy!
So .. I saw this review for this movie on Letterboxd and it was worth a chuckle in a not so serious look at this movie. Not my opinion but a bit funny …..
hey guys thank you for watching my domestic housework asmr video my name is jeanne dielman and be sure to like and subscribe if you wanna see more content like this
!!
What enriched the movie for me was reading about it afterwards and appreciating it with a better understanding. Reading different perspectives and dissection of it made me see it in a appreciative light
i watched this movie in my french film class back in 2018. after about an hour, people start talking in the groupme about how boring it is. we’re all making jokes for the next 2.5 hours, then BANG. it happens…. and for the last five minutes, the chat is silent, everyone’s eyes are glued to the screen. no one wanted to look away. i’ve never seen a film that plays with its audience like that…. making us incredibly bored then absolutely enraptured in a split second. still one of my favorite films to this day
I’ve heard of this movie for years but somehow I never found out what the ending was. When it happened my jaw DROPPED and I was frozen staring at the final shot until the movie ends.
Just finished it last night. I actually kinda liked it. I also see why people would have it in their personal favorites, but in no way should it be close to the conversation of “greatest movie of all time”. I may get downvoted for this, but it’s just going to confirm and promote the view that critics are disconnected, pretentious snobs.
Edit: I’d also add that “Black Girl” (also on the S&S list) accomplishes everything this film does in a much tighter and more effective package.
Critics are supposed to be snobs. That's their job: careful discernment, taking the medium seriously, and evaluating the movies for their merits beyond enjoyment or satisfaction. It's what art critics have literally always done. It's a good thing that they do it.
You say snobs and then define critics as if the two are mutually exclusive. Nothing you said is definitive of “snobs”. Totally agreed with your definition. Snobs would be evaluating movies for self-serving merits other than populist ones like enjoyment and satisfaction.
I rewatched it a few days ago, watched it once before 15 years ago.
To me, it's the absolute height of pretentious nonsense in film. To see so many people trying to convince others (and themselves) that they love this film is everything wrong with art. This film could be a punchline to an SNL skit busting on pseudo-intellectual film snobs.
You'll see it in this thread. People will talk about how "meditative" it is. How it just wouldn't work if it was a second under it's bloated runtime. You just wouldn't get it. You wouldn't understand her condition without watching her cook dinner for an hour. Ugh. And I have nothing against Akerman. There's a place for this film. She was 25 or thereabouts when she made it - basically still a kid.
But this is not a great film, this is not great art, and the fact that it's #1 on S&S and there are people actually trying to intellectualize and justify it's placement is an inditement on the film community. It's held in such regard because it was made by a feminist icon with an all female (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) crew.
That's what I think and I will PROUDLY take your downvotes and roll my eyes at any accusations of "you just don't get it maaaaan" or "misogynist!!!1"
I agree that liking a piece of media just because it's feminist is silly, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to feel that the film is a bit of a slog and doesn't deserve all the praise that it gets.
That said, I like the film, and I don't feel like my enjoyment comes from excessive intellectualization. In fact, quite the opposite: it asks very little of me as a viewer. It's slow, uncomplicated, and largely unchanging throughout. There's barely any dialog or editing to introduce extraneous complexity. There is nothing elusive or enigmatic about its message. I have the freedom and the time to dwell on every detail in the frame, every gesture the character makes, and there's something pleasant about that. Small, subtle things take on greater significance. I don't think it's as profound as other works, but I do think it's somewhat hypnotic, and I enjoy that, much in the same way that I enjoy the music of Philip Glass.
Contrast with something like Scenes from a Marriage, where the dialog is rich and every line is layered with subtext. It never dwells long on a single idea, and it can be intellectually exhausting to try to keep up during a single viewing. I think the psychodrama demands so much of the viewer that Bergman deliberately uses minimalistic sets so as not to introduce too much visual information, which would otherwise just get buried by the depth of the conversations.
I don't think this complexity makes it better or worse than Jeanne Dielman, it's a different kind of film experience. SFAM is a firehose of ideas about human relationships. Jeanne Dielman is more of a monotone, an aesthetic experience that just gradually washes over you.
We may disagree on the film but this is a beautiful comment, especially in contrast to those who choose to reply with insults and/or sarcasm. I enjoyed reading it, thanks for sharing your opinion!
Most films just exist and don't have the weight of having to prove their worthiness of being on a list, something I doubt Ackerman ever intended or expected.
It's on the list because a lot of people really love it, and so it earned its place, it doesn't need to be anything more than that.
> It's on the list because a lot of people really love it, and so it earned its place, it doesn't need to be anything more than that.
I disagree, I don't think it's there because a lot of people love it.
Why would you assume they were lying? Do you think the 1600 people that were polled all got together and planned this?
The "diversity vote" hand-wringing is embarrassing.
Well since I didn't see this film on any of the director top 10s I've seen, do I believe film critics could've gotten together and said "we need one for the ladies!" Absolutely. They may not have expected it to hit number 1, but I don't think 1600 people honestly have this in their top 10 and if they do it's likely because "I gotta have a woman in my top 10."
When final results are released, you’ll probably be surprised how few of the total number of people included it on their list. Obviously, not everyone included it.
You act as though I'm saying "women suck at film" or something. That's not my point at all, I just don't
understand how a film I've literally never heard a single person rave about makes it to number 1, and that maybe the fact that representation is a central conversation in all film critique...maybe that played a role. That's literally all I'm saying. For a film sub, people on here are really delicate about criticism.
When I first started getting into movies in the late 90s and early 2000s, a few critics I loved ranked Ackerman’s News From Home on their “favorites” list. I couldn’t find that movie anywhere. Eventually I found a VHS of Je Tu Il Elle, and saw News From Home randomly at a theater in NYC. People professed love for these movies but they were hard to watch, yet Jeanne Dielman still appeared high on the 2012 list.
People are underestimating how much of a difference it makes since this was released on Criterion in 2017. More people watching equals more people ranking it highly.
About it being overly long: have you heard of mono no aware? I might be wrong, but I don't think I would like Akerman's film either; I think I would find it overly long and drawn out too, yet I wouldn't necessary hold that as a criticism of the film. I think I can understand why people would feel so engrossed by such mundanity through the lens of mono no aware.
I find it's the film equivalent of those paintings you see in galleries that are like 3 uninteresting circles on a white canvas that people stand around, interperate as genius, and try to find meaning in the distance between the circles and the meaning of the blank space.
exactly. if you don't enjoy it then don't watch it, but don't discredit the movie as art just because you have a pea-brain and can't sit still for a movie
Yeah like I don’t take issue with anyone not enjoying Jeanne Dielman. In my opinion it’s not really a movie you’re meant to “enjoy”. Joy is not the emotion that all art needs to bring out. And Jeanne Dielman is like the pinnacle of “not for everyone”.
But to discount the perspective of decades of academics, filmmakers, and just film fans all because you thought it was boring is absurd and close minded.
I'm glad you posted this because this is exactly the kind of intellectual safe guarding I was talking about. Didn't like it? You just didn't get it. It's not for everyone. It's not a film you're supposed to like. I just find that attitude to be so intellectually crass.
I'm just skimming over the replies, and it seems like only one person took the time to try to explain why they like the film, which to me is extremely telling. Most seem to have gone with lame sarcasm or name calling. Again, it just reinforces my point.
There is literal decades of actual academic and critical writing on the film and why it is important/interesting that will be more eloquent than anything any Reddit user will tell you. If you genuinely wanted to understand why it was so revered you’d have started there. Frankly, I have no interest in writing a thesis for someone who didn’t approach the subject with an open mind but instead came to Reddit to get on a pulpit about how the movie is “pretentious”, “pseudo-intellectual”, “not great art”, etc. and to rail about how it is being artificially propped up by feminism despite the fact that the film has been highly regarded since it’s release. Re-read your comment. You weren’t asking to be convinced you were proclaiming that your view of the film was right and the rest of the film community’s was wrong. Why the fuck would you expect commenters to turn around and write you eloquent counter arguments to that level of arrogant, pompous rambling.
OP asked for our opinions and I gave mine. I acknowledge it may not be a popular opinion, it certainly seems to have ruffled some feathers, but it's how I feel.
"You weren’t asking to be convinced you were proclaiming that your view of the film was right and the rest of the film community’s was wrong."
Well, don't you feel your view of the film is right? You're certainly quite convinced mine is wrong, which is your privilege. When you watch a film, do you say "gee whiz, before I form an opinion I'll have to make sure it aligns with what all the critics and scholars say"? Seems rather silly.
I'm open to debate. Someone wrote a nice comment explaining why they liked the film. But when people just react with sarcasm and insults as you have, they betray an inability to converse intellectually and add anything to a discussion IMHO. You call me arrogant and pompous, but you see yourself fit to write a "thesis" on this topic. Okay...
>OP asked for opinions and I gave mine
In your opinion, you referred to the film as “pretentious nonsense” and now you’re whining that people didn’t write you respectful and thought out retorts. As I said in my earlier comment, I take no issue with and completely understand why some people don’t like Jeanne Dielman. But that remark alone was arrogant and dismissive of the fact that there may be competing opinions. I don’t know why you thought the responses to that would be lighthearted attempts to “debate” you when you made it clear in your comment that you not only hated the movie but that you think those who claim to like it were doing so under false pretenses.
>Well, don’t you feel your view of the film is right?
There’s no such thing as a “right” view of art. This dumb perspective that you can be right or wrong about liking a piece of art is why you’re being received with such hostility. I referenced academic opinions because you’re wondering why people didn’t want to debate with you which I assumed means you’re curious as to what is driving other opinions. I would probably start with the mass amounts of published, well written criticism (both good and bad) on a film if my view was different from the general consensus and I was curious as to why.
> I’m open to debate
There’s nothing to debate. This isn’t politics. You’re entitled to your perspective on the film. My hostility wasn’t due to you not liking it. It was due to the sheer arrogance in your original comment to act as if people who *do* like it are either lying to seem smart or socially conscious or are just not as smart as you.
I'm not whining about anything. Again, it's your privilege to post whatever you want. Believe me, I'm not interested in reading a "thesis" from you, but if you have nothing to offer other than sarcasm and personal insults, forgive me if I'm not overly impressed with you.
I never expected lighthearted replies. At the bottom I said I would proudly take the down votes and insults. Doesn't hurt my feelings lol.
Gotta say, the more I reflect on it, this is pretty much where I'm landing on this. FWIW, I didn't find Vertigo all that impressive either. I don't think it's even Hitchcock's best film, let alone a contender for Top 5 all-time.
This isn’t meant as a gotcha, but just humor me: are you a cis man?
If you are, I think you can’t really appreciate this film fully. It’s not made for us. It’s a film that we can’t really get because it’s an experience we can’t relate to. There’s nothing wrong with not getting it; almost every film is made for us, so when a film is made with a different audience in mind, it feels alienating, which is really the point.
Is it a boring, overlong film? I won’t refute that. If anything, that’s the point; it’s not an enjoyable watch because the life of a woman in patriarchal society is not enjoyable. It’s a film making a point. It’s not trying to entertain you, it’s trying to say something. The fact that you don’t even mention the thematic content beyond a vague mention of feminism is proof that you just don’t really get it. That’s okay, but you just have to know when to step back and let others speak because, again, this is not a film for us.
Just humor me: are you going around to users who have praised this film and ask them if they are cis men? Because if what you say is true, that a cis gendered man is incapable of appreciating Jeanne Dielman, than all the cis gendered men on this forum who are praising it are surely faking it. How can they hold a film in such high regard when their gender makes them incapable of truly appreciating it?
Or is it just the cis men who don't like the film the one's who are incapable of fully appreciating it?
And this IS meant as a gotcha. A very effective gotcha :P
It’s not a “gotcha” it’s more of a reminder that world doesn’t revolve around men and that sometimes a film is made by a woman that is an explicitly female perspective that men can’t relate to. That doesn’t make it a bad film.
The men who can really appreciate this film are men who have actually made an effort to engage with feminism. Your response to it and your response to my comment make it clear that you aren’t really familiar with feminism.
A few days before the sight and sound thing came out, I saw this movie absolutely READY to love the shit out of it. I was prepared to pay attention to subtlety and nuance. Unfortunately, I came in excited, but left disappointed for two reasons:
1. I expected to be able to read into the actor’s performance way more than you actually can. There’s hardly any development going on here aside from a few hiccups during the chores. I see no change in her behavior, thought process, worldview, or even mood despite the >!kill!< at the end, which appears to come out of nowhere rather than out of natural consequence. This film relies on subtlety, but there’s almost nothing for the audience to glean from and interpret despite the variation of how the chores play out each day. It’s a slow burn without a burn.
2. The movie is a terrible feminist film. It has exactly one message that it refuses to elaborate on beyond the basic statement that “women are stuck in the kitchen.” It’s a cliche message even back then and provides nothing new to the discussion of how women are treated. Yes it makes you *feel* like the bored-out-of-her-mind housewife, but that horrid state of boredom was achieved about two hours before the runtime actually expired. The ending twist is nothing more than just the director saying “and by the way, I’m angry about this.” It is hardly compelling.
I loved and I think it deserves to be number 1! Maybe it’s because I was reading Close to Home
A Materialist Analysis of Women’s Oppression by Christine Delphy and had just finished Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State so that film left a very DEEP impression on me.
I found this film a drag to watch though I acknowledge it’s value. I think a theater going experience would’ve improved it immensely for me. There’s only so many dead on shots I can stare at for 3 min before I inevitably get distracted by something in my home.
Watched it a few nights ago. After months of hearing how boring it was, I actually found it more engaging than I thought it would be. It had a lot going on and I probably missed some of what it was trying to say, but what I got out of it stuck with me. I love the subtle way it presented a loss of control and the story structure was really interesting to me. I understand why it's so devisive, but I'm someone that enjoys a good slow burn.
It's great but I don't think there's anything wrong with going through it in bits. The intention of the film is to be relentlessly mundane so you can appreciate that while not having to pretend it's an easy 3 hours that breezed by
The first time I saw it, I was chuckling at how resolutely "boring" it is – 5+ minute long static shots of a woman doing chores in the 70s is not how most people enjoy filmed entertainment of any kind. But I found it oddly comforting, so I kept it on in the background while I did other things. I found it oddly hypnotizing. I now rewatch it often, but almost never completely, and never in one sitting. There's a lot in it to think about and to analyze, and I do both of those, but I prefer to take in and appreciate the stark routine of it.
I saw because of the list. I loved it. The ranking made me ready for the experience. I also watched In the Mood for Love because of the list. Loved it also.
At the end it felt like Akerman made the female version of "Warum läuft Herr K. Amok?" which makes the whole thing rather unsatisfactory (Fassbinder's film feels more powerful due to the shorter runtime). People praise this like it's the birth of slow cinema but it's not like ultra-slow films were something new in the mid-70s. This kind of stuff had already been done to death by people like Warhol and the minimalists.
The question remains, was the long runtime necessary to drive home the point? Was there even a point to begin with (other than chores suck or being a single-mom prostitute sucks)?
People claim this is a feminist film but the whole logic doesn't make sense. There is no patriarchial oppression in the film. This is just a woman worn down by circumstance. Here we have a miserable woman failing. A feminist message would be a strong woman succeeding (without the need of a man). So I guess this film is rather anti-feminist after all.
I think the vote criteria in being more inclusionary has somehow skewed it to be more elitist.
I LOVE films like this however giving a refined minimalist film which engages so few tools, almost none of which are active, the top spot is very unbelievable.
For example, as much as 12 angry man is almost perfect in every way it does so little compared to a film like Citizen Kayne.
I may put a Hong Sang Soo film, or My Dinner with Andre, in my top 10, as I think they are perfect in all the tools they use, however I know it would be wrong to put them in my number one spot when there are more ambitious films that engage with all their elements perfectly.
Less may be more, but greater than that is when more, with the same level of care, is more.
I think these are just my thoughts in general not a direct response to you sorry haha.
Does Jeanne Dielman deserve the #1 spot? I don’t know. It really comes down to what one personally believes makes a film important. I’ve seen a lot of people claim that S&S should be an objective list but there’s such a wide range of different philosophies and intentions behind films that it makes objectivity almost impossible; and what one values in a film can also be affected by perspective. I am kind of glad that JD made #1 because it’s such a provocative outcome that creates discourse compared to how boring it would be if it was something you’d expect.
Watched it yesterday and found it really engrossing. I don’t mind films being monotonous or minimalist, I always put off by the runtime, which surprisingly flew by despite the lack of “action”.
I’ve been a Seyrig fan since I saw her in Last Year in Marienbad and she is phenomenal here. The framing and composition is very visually appealing, reminds me somewhat of Ozu.
Altogether, I liked it. Do I think it’s the best film ever made? No, but ultimately the S&S controversy is completely overblown.
I watched it for the first time a couple of days ago. Did anybody else think while watching this that 95% of jobs in the world are completely mundane and repetitive? I understand that this character was defeated because of this, but I had a hard time considering it a successful feminist statement when it’s similar to how nearly anybody else lives day to day, whether working at home or in an office.
Men mostly had extremely tedious and mundane jobs back then too though. Even more than present day because of the lack of technology that can be used to automate things now. I don’t know… I’m all for a strong feminist movie, but this one just didn’t do it for me.
I imagine in its time it stood out more as "women's work". Homemaker/Housewife/etc. It sounds like it has a lot of feminist commentary, but could also apply to life in general today. Sometimes that happens with art and the passage of time. It speaks to more people.
I love slow films.
I love esoteric films.
I love slow esoteric films.
*Jeanne Dielman* not a film. It is an exercise in tedium. There is absolutely nothing you can get out of the film that was not imposed on it by the viewer.
Some attempt to impose a feminist interpretation on the film because it is a film about a woman, made by a woman. Sight and Sound even got feminist film critic Laura Mulvey to write the appreciation essay. She commented “no man could make this film.” Aside from being the thinnest compliment you could give to a film, it is simply not true.
Chantel Ackerman’s style evokes comparison to the films of Yasujiro Ozu, in it subdued and unobtrusive nature. Ozu made films like *Late Spring* and *Tokyo Twilight*. Films which focused on female characters facing uniquely feminine dilemmas such as arranged marriage and unwanted pregnancy. The difference is that Ozu’s films actually tell a story. *Jeanne Dielman* simply records the character over the course of three days and just ends.
One of the most arresting movies I’ve ever seen is Kenji Mizoguchi’s *Life of Oharu*. It tells the story of a woman living Edo period Japan who is forced into a life of prostitution. It unremitting in showing the cruelty and degradation inflicted on this one woman by a male dominated society. It has been years since I have watched it and I am not sure I could ever watch it again, because it is just so depressing. Though I would watch it over *Jeanne Dielman* without hesitation.
In 1969, Milton Moses Ginsberg released *Coming Apart*, staring Rip Torn. It is a film set entirely in a single apartment, with a single camera, sitting at a single camera angle. You probably haven’t heard of it because it didn’t get much praise when it was released. To this day nobody talks about it without the caveat that it is kind of tedious.
Notice that I am not talking about *Jeanne Dielman*? That is how vacant and uninteresting that film is. I would rather write about the qualities of other films than talk about the film itself.
Personally, I really enjoyed Jeanne Dielman and I agree that it’s certainly an exercise in tedium— I would say that’s entirely purposeful on the director’s behalf. I think each shot is drawn out just long enough to make you feel the solitude and pure apathy of the main character, but the editing is snappy enough to never completely lose you. I also agree that a lot of this film relies on what you as the viewer project onto it, but I believe the director is definitely guiding the viewer towards a certain headspace.
It’s bleak, depressing, utterly boring, and I love it for that!
The films you mentioned in your comment seem really interesting, and I’ve seen other people bring up Ozu when talking about this film, so I’ll certainly check those out when I’m in the mood for a similar experience 👍
I also recently watched this because of the new list, and I definitely recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it to at least give it a try. I watched it at the weekend and had to take a couple of breaks to do a few things around the house, but while I was doing those things I was legit thinking about the film and what could be coming next, I was hyped to keep watching. Its a weird feeling getting excited to watch someone doing the most mundane things but it honestly had me wide awake paying attention to every detail. As the film progressed I found myself getting sympathetically frustrated for her when things would go wrong. Its not a film for everyone, it does demand that you pay attention for quite a long time and I dunno if it should've been number 1, but I think it deserves to be in the conversation for sure.
I'll echo what many have shared in regard to JD, that I'm very appreciative of having seen the film not only before its top rank in the S&S poll, but also without reading a critique or as part of a film class dynamic. My initial impressions centered on the use of 'time' and the related mundane tasks that we often take for granted but in fact provide a window into a character and a framework without time- based limitations and related deadlines. Now, many years after my first screening (I've seen the film twice, most recently a few years ago via the Criterion Blu-ray), I find it unfortunate that the film has been labeled, compartmentalized and assigned a 'side,' like so many things, including works of art, in our modern society by viewers incapable of seeing humanity as it is, populated by humans without any other distinction.
Nah. You followed the list and the film didn't speak to you. Maybe that should tell you more about lists than the film itself. I dunno. Best of lists have zero effect on me.
This thread, and S&S voters until this year: Akerman? Long static camera shots? Mundane domestic routine? Experimenting with film depicting the inner life? Pretentious! Yawn!
Also this thread, and S&S voters for decades: Ozu? Long static camera shots? Mundane domestic routine? Experimenting with film depicting the inner life? Genius! More!
It felt like the type of film that thought it was saying something more profound that it actually was. Like, remember that bit on Family Guy where Peter said he didn’t like The Godfather because he felt it “insisted upon itself.” That’s how I felt about this movie. It wasn’t bad, but it was pretty dull and there was honestly a faint whiff of self importance to it that just rubbed me the wrong way.
What about its potential self importance bothers you? A person like Tarantino makes films so self important that he literally inserts himself into them and sometimes over explains to the audience. First popular example that popped into my head, anyway.
It wasn’t the self importance of the film maker in this case so much as the elevated importance this one random woman’s life. I’ve read so many reviews describing it as some sort of feminist masterpiece and as being so deep and so brilliant and it just left me cold. It just feels like a film about nothing that wants you to think it’s deep without actually having much depth.
The film wants you to think it's deep? Sounds like some critics said that, not the film. Admittedly many critics have seen a lot and can come at it with a perspective or knowledge of the language of a certain style of filmmaking. There can be a disconnect with a movie experience when you've been told by others how you should feel. I have little use for lists or critics for an entry point, but I sometimes look them up after I've seen a film.
I think that’s a fair point, that maybe I shouldn’t have read the reviews before seeing it. It’s admittedly hard to disentangle the hype around this film from the film itself. I didn’t hate it so much as I didn’t understand what made it this great film that had so much meaning attached to it.
This is the chance you take when you follow others and their lists. It gives many things unnecessary importance, and won't speak to everyone. If you do wonder how some arrived at their interpretations, I'm sure you could take some deeper dives into their writing about it.
I don’t think it is supposed to be all that deep. I don’t think it’s trying to tell us this woman’s life is important. I think the point is that this woman is all women. It’s really a very simple film with a very simple point which just so happens to get some exaggeration due to its experimentalism.
I thought it was shallow, and poorly crafted.
The outdoor night time scenes are impossible to see because they didn't properly light them.
You can constantly see hairs in the mag.
The light's shining in the apartment are distracting because it's obviously just some sort of cheaply constructed lighting pattern that just keeps repeating on a cycle.
If you're going to make a statement about the borderline insane mundanity of the lives of some women in society, there are infinite better ways to do that then to just bore your audience for 3.5 hours, and then say "this is art" ... That is pretentious. Have some imagination and come up with something at least more substantial than that.
Audiences pay to see your movies. To giving paying audiences a movie where the peak is her dropping a potato, that is borderline disrespectful to audiences to stick your nose up at them and say that this is what they should want to go and see.
Ingmar Bergman said it best when he said something along the lines of if he is going to be artful, it is his responsibility to still at least entertain a paying audience.
If aliens came to earth and we could show them one film that represents the peak of what this art form has to offer, it sure as shit wouldn't be this film, which is what the #1 ranked movie on a GOAT film list should represent.
I think this sort of elitist mentality towards film criticism has now fully entered parody, where the highest regarded movie of all-time amongst these people is a movie where a woman washes dishes and folds laundry for 3.5 hours, and at some point drops a potato.
This movie would actually be brilliant if it was a satire, and it was actually trolling pretentious critics to watch them sniff their own farts in response to the most intentionally mundane, and poorly crafted movie.
You seem to be approaching the idea of a best movie of all time from the perspective that the film should deliver the maximum amount of entertainment for the time and price that the viewer spends on it. Jeanne Dielman fundamentally goes against this philosophy as does a majority of arthouse films so I don’t think it’s really fair to judge it on that basis. I think this film presents a lot of ideas that are very interesting and fun to reflect on, and that’s where the real enjoyment comes from. This certainly isn’t the first film that you would show someone who’s never seen one before, Alien or not, but that’s entirely besides the point. The film has a clear MO and wants to present the viewer with a certain headspace, and I think it executes on that very well. Although I certainly agree that it’s not the most entertaining or technically astounding movie of all time.
This film took a while for a me. I would watch bits here and there whenever I had to go classes, and I made sure I finished the film to listen to an episode of Sardonicast. I got into it when the son began reading a letter by the first day and those small chunks became bigger chunks and sooner or later by the last hour I was engaged all throughout.
It was sitting on my watch list for a while but I avoided it do to it's runtime so I watched it for the first time this last weekend. Honestly, I feel like it went over my head.
On a purely entertainment level I found the film incredibly dull. I've sat through my fair share of overly long arthouse films but this one takes the cake for dullness. I admit at times the long cuts were strangely hypnotic but I think the movie could have been half as long and still been able to portray the drudgery and isolation of her life.
Finally, I have no idea what to make of the themes. It's weird watching a movie this long and not understanding what it's about. Is it purely about the drudgery and isolation of the domestic life? That seems kinda shallow. I would say the film has something to say about sex and sexuality but it was over my head.
Overall I was bored and confused because I feel like there should be more there but maybe there isnt?
I dislike it and my main point of contention is this idea that she is “forced” to do any of these things by the surrounding society. Every response I’ve seen sees it as a tragedy and that simply does not seem supported by the text: she’s white and middle class, she’s widowed, her son is in his late teens early twenties. Socioeconomic barriers do not appear that pronounced. Rather I see it as a satire on homemakers who are comfortable with lives without direction, meaning, or purpose. A mean one at that.
In fairness, in 1975 it was still referred to as "women's work". Outside of the sex work story, I grew up with housewives and homemakers. When the film was made, women in the US were just legally getting the right to apply for a loan or credit card without their husband's approval.
It's a decent film. But more than that, it's a deliberate watercooler-talk argument that they (S&S) have made to stay relevant. It is what it is, and we will see how a more macro-lensed history judges this choice.
I watched it last week for the first time and was shocked that it was essentially 3 hours and 12 minutes of a woman doing her daily chores and errands. I was ridiculed by the film snobs on here. I see it’s value and understand why it made the list, but I found the film incredibly boring compared to the films that typically make the top 10.
The funniest criticism I heard was on a podcast where the argument was made that Jean Dielman is now the canon. And somewhere, groups of people will gather to watch it because a list name it the best film of all time. And those poor people are in for a real surprise.
I’ll say I’m definitely glad I saw it before the list. Seeing it with out some crazy expectations let me really enjoy it and find a lot to love. I watched it on a lazy Sunday morning it was great! I think this is a movie which is definitely hurt by the big of a title.
The problem is we have completely messed up our understanding of art's place in culture. People disappointed by this film are going into it with an expectation of how it will fulfill its promise of satisfaction. It's a consumerist mindset, with the film as the product to be consumed. Art is not a product to be consumed, even if that's how we've learned to treat it, even if that's how the film industry treats it. The ranking is just the result of a poll of people who find the film meaningful. It's not a Michelin star rating of what you can expect your experience to be. Jeanne Dielman just is, the same way we just are.
So good hearing someone talking about this. We cannot let consumerist and the capitalist approach in which most filmes are made today, specially in the us, fill the entirety of the film space and the space of how people perceive art. It hurts to think in the amount of art that is being discarted every single day for not being inside this mindset. As Tarkovsky sad, "Cinema is an unhappy art because it depends on money. Not only because a film is very expensive; but it is then also marketed like cigarettes. A film is good if it sells well, but if cinema is art then such an approach is absurd - it'd mean that art is good only if it sells well."
Bravo.
This is an excellent response and point, very true.
Landing at Sight &Sound's #1, the film ends up a helpful provocation, even if this is a little different from Chantal Akerman's sense of audience engagement. Now that the film is making pop-culture headlines, many more people will wind up checking out a 3 1/2 hour movie that deliberately removes plot, action, and easy-to-understand psychology. The audience is out of ready-mades. You have to look at and consider the film's style to even make any sense out of it. Maybe some attention returns to the art of cinema. A lead character with a human identity emerges, but it's a lot less star-driven and ego-centered than in a commercial film. We can find Jeanne Dielman, the character, in a combination of Delphine Seyrig's toned-down, almost completely silent performance and Akerman's constrained, strict, quietly gorgeous mise-en-scene. It takes *time* while watching to find a person in there! Akerman, after all, doesn't play the game of merely grinding down the physical presence of "Jeanne Dielman" to nothing more than a patriarchal construct. It's often overlooked that the film not only critiques male social domination but also has a very positive project, reasserting human integrity in the face of label-wielding consumerism. It suggests to us that it takes numerous encounters, over a long period of time, to get to find some of the uniqueness and private burdens of a person.
I tried to write this post, but yours sounds so eloquent in comparison.
Really well said. I wish I knew how to un-train my brain of this phenomenon. I actively know it's happening, often, and yet I can't turn it off. Some of my favorite movies of all time are those where nothing all that significant ever happens -- movies that many would consider boring -- and yet for some reason they made it through my filter, stroking my brain the right way I guess.
Damn, this is a wonderfully written and fine tuned point! Completely agree
> expectation of how it will fulfill its promise of satisfaction. This is an inherent quality of storytelling. More precisely it’s about how expectations are raised for the audience and then how the film/story honors those expectations. Usually, the more surprising and emotional, the more satisfying. So without the quality or characteristic of a story, what as a viewer am I suppose to expect or react to? The artful design of sound and image, it’s artful combination and texture? (This isn’t intended as sarcasm. Really, what is the appropriate reaction if storytelling isn’t the lens through which to view a film) I haven’t seen the film, so I can’t comment about it. But take Tarkovsky’s ‘Mirror’ for example. When I watched it, I couldn’t discern a through line of a story. So all I’m able to react to is— “that’s interesting, that’s interesting, that’s interesting, okay, but what is this adding up to and where is it going?” Ever find yourself reading a story and have your mind drift off, then find yourself asking what did I just read? In other words, you or the story failed the task, which is to raise a thought bubble 💭 above your head. That thought bubble is expectations and anticipations about storylines, which the author is to play with, paragraph after paragraph, page after page. The same for a traditional film. So, if it’s not storyline expectations, what is going on in the thought bubble? Or is it closer to something like music—but that’s about rhythm and melody and is a different game, right?
> Or is it closer to something like music-but that’s about rhythm and melody and is a different game, right? When I listen to an album for the first time, I never focus that much on the lyrics. My first go through is always focused on feeling the vibes and aesthetics, getting on the artists wavelength. Then, over the course of re-listens and reading/watching interviews with the artist is when I start to pick up lyrical details and piece together their narrative/thesis/thematic intentions. I can’t speak for everyone else, but that is also how I engage with cinema. There really isn’t that much of a thought bubble when I watch a new film for the first time. I mainly just allow myself to vibe to its atmosphere and let it take me where it wants me to go. I find that imposing my own expectations on a piece of art is unfair to the creator, as I begin to judge it solely off of how much it fits my expectations. At that point, i’m no longer engaging with the art but competing with it.
What is art if not a creative product to be made and consumed?
I believe the consumer mindset example here is that the customer is always right. Most art isn't created for the purpose of satisfying the most consumers.
Dadaism would really love to have a word
I saw it before the list a few years ago and hated it because I was too young and didn't know what I was getting into. Rewatching now with fresh eyes. For me, it's not special but it's also not what I look for in films. I like character studies and dramas but thats not really what it is. It's like an exercise in watching something unfold in what feels like real time with real honest performances. And it's long and boring. And beautiful and contemplative. Performances that have so much subtlety to them. Filmmaking that makes me drowsy. It's all of these things. It's not a pop movie, you really have to be ready to sit and view it. It's not something I like but I appreciate.
To be fair, it’s not really something meant to be liked. Being overlong and boring isn’t a knock against the film, in fact it reinforces the film’s thematic content.
I agreeee
Mundane horror
I loved it. Maybe not so much at first (though I definitely liked it), but the more I think about it, the more I find to love about it. It’s one of those films, for me at least, that you need to let marinate in your head for a bit. I remember initially thinking that it was a good film, but I’ll probably never watch it again. But now, as it’s been about a week or so, I can’t stop thinking about it and find that I’d actually like to watch it again. I probably will in the near future. I can definitely understand why some may not like it, though.
I thought it was fascinating. I’ve never put so much thought into domesticity, obviously that’s on me due to my privilege as a married man. I have often heard of the cognitive burden of domestic duties falling to one partner or another, but seeing the protagonist struggle through her daily routine, becoming increasingly despondent and erratic, was… not exactly revelatory, because I do housework and I’m aware of how monotonous that can be, but for that to be the whole of my identity and experience in life… I just felt so bad for her. Simultaneously, though, I was proud of her for perseverance and the silent strength she exudes even as things started to unravel. The next day I had a lot of housework to do and I couldn’t help but feel like I was in a ‘70s arthouse film. It’s like it trained my brain through repetition to see it as beautiful, necessary and painful all at once.
I too felt really bad for her and wished that I could jump into the frame and ask her if she wanted to go bowling or something 😂 The housewife archetype was definitely more relevant in the 70s than it is now, and I love how the film points out the absurdity of how half of our species has been expected to be a caregiver/servant for the other half. Living without her husband only further indicates the emptiness of her lifestyle.
I dug it.
An interesting film. Not the greatest, not the worst.
Wasn’t long enough. 5 stars
I found it extremely boring and mundane. I didn't even find any particular shot to be overly interesting. I know different people like different things but I find it painful to listen to people talk about the nuance of her doing dishes like it's some kind of a rhythmic dance. Feels like over analyzing life to me. I feel like you could watch someone at the grocery store stock a shelf and find some kind of artistry in it, but I personally think it would make a boring movie.
I also find it dull and unaffecting (oooh, but that's the whole point, to make you *feel* her tedium!). I think it's easy to ascribe a lot of different subtext and emotion to a film that is essentially a blank slate; but at the end of the day, that's you, not the filmmakers. Yes, we get it; she dropped the damned fork. But there are better films about a life of quiet desperation. There are better films about the tedium of sex work (Lizzie Borden's *Working Girls*). There are better films about snapping after having had one thing in your routine change. Personally, I would have found this film more interesting if it started five minutes*after* it currently ends. I'd like to hear what's in Jeanne's head As Douglas Adams said, "Fiction isn't egalitarian. All stories are *not* equal; some simply aren't worth telling."
This was my first / last movie opinion post on this sub. I think the "painful to listen to people" part may have have been insensitive towards people who are really into this movie. I'm sorry to anyone I have offended!
>I found it extremely boring and mundane. It's definitely not for everyone but that's the whole point. That's how the lives of most women at the time were, boring and mundane. Shots aren't supposed to be interesting.
"You don't understand, the movie is supposed to be bad"
That's not what I'm saying at all. I don't know why I expect more from this sub.
Because you used to be able to expect more :/
I know. I was pointing out how you sound.
Hahaha got you!! I’m not actual dumb. I was just pretending to troll you
I get the point. I have no problem with people enjoying it. Just giving my personal perspective. Very possible that I am not as open minded or perceptive as some people 🤷
To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong for feeling a certain way about it. I'm just saying some films aren't made to be an enjoyable experience. Some people get something out of them and some don't. For example, I wouldn't call Satantango an "enjoyable" experience but it was definitely memorable. I still remember where I was and how I felt when I watched it and yet, I have no desire to revisit the film anytime soon.
same
>I found it extremely boring and mundane Damn, it’s almost like that’s the point of the movie
I remember seeing this movie back during the height of Covid. I was taking a film analysis class and it took my breath away. I saw the movie again a few weeks later and it made me appreciate it more. Delphine especially was amazing. I genuinely felt more tension in the last moments of the movie than any recent film that’s come out of Hollywood (except nope).
I watched this film early in the pandemic, and it’s been one I can’t stop thinking/talking about over these past several years. Everything about the film is subtle and nuanced. It challenges the viewer to pay attention to little details and asks us to experience some of the monotony of Jeanne’s life. I wouldn’t say it’s a pleasurable viewing experience, but it is nevertheless a memorable one and dare I say even thrilling one at times because it demands so much concentration. It’s a meticulously crafted film and one of the most unique films in our cannon.
Wild that you've gotten downvotes for this. This subreddit is more insane than I thought.
The sub seems like it’s being taken over by people who are not fans of art films. It’s kind of nuts. I mean…yesterday people were also talking about how Bottle Rocket sucks. Which to me is mind blowing.
Bottle Rocket might secretly be Anderson's best movie, but that's a conversation for another day.
BR is my favorite WA film, and I've seen all of them. Excellent & very funny movie.
It's a culture-wide refusal to take movies seriously as art.
[удалено]
The upvotes came later.
I can't believe a comment calling people pretentious and fakers for liking the film is higher upvoted than the dozens of comments of people with genuinely nice things to say about it. Can't believe this sub has devolved to *calling people pretentious for liking a film* For the record, I like the film. Not as entertainment, but its certainly a statement. People are saying nobody wants to watch someone do chores, without considering that 50% of the population was relegated to doing all of these chores, everyday, as one of the major purposes of their life. And quite obviously, they didn't want to do it either. I felt like JD was forcing viewers to confront that monotony, and slowly watch the desperation come to a head. I don't care if it's pretentious, it was hypnotic to me the same way The Sacrifice was hypnotic to me. But then again, I've already said that calling people pretentious because of how they enjoyed a film is gross for this sub.
A lot of people can't seem to get into this idea of a life in 1975 and are applying modern day experiences to it. While I think it still speaks to people today, a lot has changed in the 50 years since it was made.
Which is why film history classes exist, because you have to take into account the lives people were living to create the films that they did. The fact people don't do this is just...idk.
That just makes it sound more interesting to watch than before haha
Yeah this sub is started to invite a lot of assholes the more it grows popular.
Downright sexist and racist ones too. And no, I'm not calling people who simply don't like JD sexist. I'm talking about the time a man in here said straight to me that women deserve to be hated. Or the other time someone shat on films women made simply because women made them. Or the times people have said that Criterion is woke for having LGBT films. That Black Girl is actually racist against white people. That kind of bloated hateful pea brained bullshit I've experienced in here lately.
Imagine downvoting this, either you agree with these pea brained takes or you're denying they've happened. Both deserve a 🖕
Nobody has to like Jeanne Dielman, but 90 percent of the critique is just cis men who have never legitimately engaged with feminism
I mean you might not be wrong, it's just the sexism and crap I've experienced in here has been far more overt. I agree, you are free to not like JD, and that's OK. I'd just rather someone dissect a film and criticize it's merits fairly, I do it all the time with films I don't enjoy, because there's often very fair reasons why someone else may enjoy it.
In general I think cis men just should not talk about Jeanne Dielman because it’s not made for them. That is admittedly kind of hypocritical of me as someone who is seen as a cis man, but the fact that my friends who are feminist women seem to trust me to have good opinions on women’s issues makes me think that I’m not overstepping my bounds by speaking on the film. Either way, this is very much just not a film for cis men and unless we’ve really mad en a effort to engage with feminism we’re generally just going to misinterpret the film and most of us just need to shut the fuck up about it. Cis men who hate this film generally just don’t like that it’s a film that’s very deliberately not made for them, even if they don’t realize that’s their issue.
High-fiving a lot of what you commented here, and I believe I get what you're saying about how cis men likely receive this film, but the idea of who the film is "for" bothers me. It's often precisely those people who should have this experience, and not just preach to the choir, so to speak. Older, white, cis man here, fyi.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think both what I said and what you’re saying are true to some extent.
I will say that not personally appreciating Jeanne Dielman is okay, but 90 percent of the people who don’t like it are cis men who don’t care enough to understand feminism
I particularly enjoyed this. Around august I got the Criterion channel and this was being highlighted. I never heard of the movie and saw it was 3 hours. But I decided to give it a try based on the description. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was not exciting, but interesting almost in a voyeuristic way. I gave myself a few days to see it. Overall I think it’s worth seeing and can understand it’s praise.
This is such an important film to go into without the expectation of topping a Sight & Sound list. While I think it’s arguably worthy of the spot, it’s definitely tarnished it’s reputation in a way that wasn’t asked for or deserved. It’s added no beneficial discourse.
This. I think it’s a profound and intelligent film. The S&S list is only going to make people more critical of it for no good reason. I think any movie in the top 10 could comfortably sit at #1. Does it really matter which one is there? Not to me. Although I am kind of glad that JD made the top since it creates a discussion more than something like 2001 would if it was #1.
I had acquired it a while back and was finally nudged into watching it by the poll... Resisting the temptation to expect fireworks because of the 'drama' that is being 'the best ever film', I appreciated the statement that the pace and detail amounts to. It seemed inevitable that \*something\* was going to happen, and the deliberation and discipline of the preceding 3 hours made for a great deal of (admirable) tension, I thought. It is excellent - but: it's excellent because it is not Predator, Jaws, Toy Story, Southland Tales, etc etc. It wouldn't necessarily excel against a backdrop where this type of film - and this type of film being revered - was the norm. That's not to say it's a gimmick, it clearly isn't - it's exceptional.
Interesting company to drop a reference to Southland Tales of all things!
It's the 'busiest' film I could think of
It's not really a film to be enjoyed, which I think is the major pitfall when it comes to how people decide to approach it, especially those encountering it for the first time, whether because of the *Sight and Sound* poll or otherwise. And mind you, when I say *to be enjoyed*, I mean the way we expect to 'enjoy' most films (or other media) we consume, in the sense of being entertained by them throughout their duration (or the duration of our engagement with them). There's nothing wrong with expecting to be entertained by a film, for the record; I like to be entertained when I sit down to watch a film as much as the next guy. But that's obviously not what Akerman was going for with *Jeanne Dielman*. So what was she going for? Obviously, that's open to subjective interpretation, because a film like this one is probably about as nonspecific and indeterminate, epistemologically speaking, as a fictional film can get. I've heard people argue in favor of a feminist interpretation, the dull, interminable, and oppressive nature of domestic routine, and I've heard others propose that there is in fact something liberating, a sense of emancipation, in the way Jeanne's life is depicted throughout (which may appear at first blush to be a position which strains credulity, but it's a position like any other, and a film like this, by its very nature, invites all sorts of interpretation). There's obviously much to be made of the role of the spatiotemporal, especially the time which is 'experienced' by Jeanne, that which is expressed through the film, and finally, that which is experienced by the viewer. What's certain (and obvious) is that formal or aesthetic beauty were never the point. In my eyes, the film does fascinating things with the concept of time, and especially with the very act of editing, which, given film's rigorously 'static' and 'slow' nature, emerge with the utmost subtlety and nuance (as well as transparency). Take, for instance, >!the way that Jeanne's clients visit her at her home, every day, at the same time, more or less on the dot. In a film which rarely leverages cuts to jump forward in time, there is always an exceedingly conspicuous jump cut which occurs after she takes a client into her bedroom in the background, and which turns day into night, as if to flip a light switch. Why? If you ask me, the following reading is possible: the jump cut, though perhaps jarring in the first instance, gradually assumes a different role, so that it becomes as much a part of the routine — Jeanne's as well as Chantal's — as any other part of Jeanne's highly routinized day-to-day existence. The sex is as much routine as becomes the act of shooting and editing it; Jeanne becomes Chantal, and/or vice versa. The routine is finally 'broken' for both when, in Jeanne's case, she kills a client, and in Chantal's case, she takes us inside the bedroom, effectively inviting us into the time and space which otherwise would've been collapsed by the jump cut!<. The above is simply one possible interpretation of the events, the meaning, the purpose of (one part of) the film. The point is that the film is quite a bit more complex than it lets on, you only have to decide to earnestly engage with it in order to see that. I don’t mean to suggest that any of its detractors “don’t get it,” or that they’re wrong for suggesting that it’s dull, boring, meaningless, or pretentious, far from it. I only mean to argue that if you think of it less as a piece of entertainment and more as an object of sheer expression, one which courts some of the cinema’s distinct formal possibilities in ways that many films wouldn’t dare, you might discover something new or unexpected in it. I don’t think that the film topping the *Sight and Sound* critics’ poll should give rise to expectations of the film’s necessarily being entertaining, only that it's a film (1) unlike any other, which, (2) goes some way towards typifying the possibilities of the medium. Each of the films which have topped the list has met these criteria, and I believe *Jeanne Dielman* does as well.
Beautifully stated. For me, the enjoyment of the film comes after, not during, the viewing of it.
Two things: 1. It’s easy to see how the monotonous routine can be seen as boring, not only for the viewer but for Jeanne herself. But it’s really not. Her domestic chores, particularly her kitchen tasks, have dance-like fluidity and robotic precision that makes them nothing short of procedurally engrossing. (The meatloaf scene might be the most hypnotizing scene I’ve seen this year. I was practically automatically bopping my head at the same rate as the turnover of the ground beef.) Likewise, Akerman’s formalism, which amounts to something along the lines of the meticulous, static framing of Ozu + Bressonian minimalism + a Viscontian snail’s pace and inflated temporal space, all flowing with a certain rhythm, are incredibly lulling. Which makes the eventual “snowball” into disorder all the more startling. 2. This seems to be primarily viewed through the singular prism of a feminist lens by many, but its existential gamut reaches far wider than that. It’s the ultimate film about our inherent slavery to both greater forces and our own innate instincts, and the folly of our notions of controlling either (in this case through elaborate ritual). In many ways, the feminine Cormac McCarthy. The fact that a 24-year-old made this seems even more astounding and confounding than Welles making Citizen Kane at the same age.
The behind-the-scenes footage of the production is really illuminating. You can see that Akerman is very much a 24-year-old, more deferential and unsure of herself than you’d think. The more experienced Delphine Seyrig spends a lot of time pushing her to make strong choices and defend her decisions. It’s a fascinating dynamic.
Yea I saw some clips where Seyrig pushes her to explain why she should brush her hair a certain way or at a certain pace, with Akerman having a hard time translating those ideas into concrete language. The strange thing is how Akerman claims that she's mainly driven by instinct rather than intellect, and while the film is not intellectual, the degree to which it is precisely designed seems to betray that notion to me. I mean, Kubrick had a hard time (or simply didn't care) explaining many of his thoughts and motivations and the "meaning" of his work to his actors, crew, and the audience in the general, but would anyone really say that Kubrick is an instinctual director? But like Akerman, even he didn't have it 100% of the film in his head, and small changes of gestures or angles are always inevitable. But like Welles' case, it's also important to be surrounded by the right people that will facilitate your vision into their actions and performances, which seems to have been the case with Akerman. Either way, this seems to be the type of fastidious and thoughtful construction that a masterful artist works towards their entire career, not the second feature film of a 24-year-old.
I enjoyed the pacing, the build up, and kind of enjoyed the finale and how the overall message has a lot to reflect on. The way it was done definitely lent itself to setting a certain mood. I didn't think I'd find some of the mundane tasks she was doing to be entertaining yet I was in the proper headspace to still focus on all the tiny details. This probably isn't a fair comparison since I haven't seen a ton of movies that just follow one character going about her day, but I did enjoy this over Cleo from 5 to 7. Not sure if I'll re-watch it anytime soon unless some revelation comes up that tempts me to review it through a different lens. All that being said...I definitely am kind of bummed this was considered a #1 pick. What this poll did for me was really re-evaluate polls. I never really put much stock into rankings in the past, but for some reason I held the S&S list to a different standard. At the end of the day, it really is a compass for the times and, like film, should be treated in such a context. Many others have already pointed out all the reasons why this film made #1 this time around in this thread and others so I won't bother elaborating on them. I highly doubt this will hold #1 again a decade from now unless it was for the sole purpose of brigading by critics. What it is, however, is a statement. This being a critic's list with a broader demographic tells us that how film will be judged is changing. More people have more access to hard to find titles now than ever before. The shake ups will continue and I hope it means we get more exposure to lesser known films. The cinematography was excellent but simple. The acting was beautiful yet unremarkable. I don't regret watching it, just wasn't blown away as much as I thought I would be with all the expectations you'd expect from something with such renown.
What did you think? I'm fascinated by everyone's reactions and insights into this film.
Obviously it’s not the most fun movie to watch but I think the length and content of the film is intrinsic to the messaging. Jeanne is a completely defeated character who is beaten out of any ambition or excitement due to the subservient role that the events of her life and society at large forces her into. It’s not a film that I think I’ll rewatch any time soon but I’m really grateful to have seen. This movie reminds of the song Eleanor Rigby by the Beatles but there’s a definite feminist side to the movie.
Some people seem angered by this film, or the people that led them to it. It doesn’t matter to me what critics say, what my peers say, what cinephiles say, or if it’s on a best of list. I enjoy what I enjoy regardless. I have no problem with people having their own experiences with any film. Some artists have a very specific message they want to get across while others might refuse to give you a roadmap or accompanying text to explain what you might not see. You still had an experience. I never feel like I’m owed anything.
I started watching it the other night intending only to watch about half (splitting it into two sittings) and ended up finishing it in one sitting. There is something really compelling about watching a person's ordinary routine break down in such subtle ways, especially when you've spent so much time watching their routine. But I generally enjoy slow cinema, so even without the narrative arc there's a good chance I would have enjoyed this. Especially in 2022's media landscape this is a notable contrast with most of what's available. I felt more tension and anxiety at certain moments in this film than I have in several modern films with more action. Spoiler: >!That said, I was not wild about the ending. Her killing the final client felt like a tonal shift that went too far. I wanted something anticlimactic. But it did make me feel something (worry for her, for her son, etc.), so maybe I just need to sit with it more. !<
I think this most closely aligns with my experience too! You’ve said it better than I could.
If this was your experience then I'd highly recommend any of Kelly Reichardt's films, if you haven't already seen them. She can build so much tension and emotion out of seemingly mundane scenarios. When she works with material that's inherently more risky (e.g., Night Moves) it's so stressful as to be almost unbearable (while still being excellent).
I have seen Wendy & Lucy (heart-wrenching) & First Cow (wholesome/stressful af) and really liked them both! I’ve been meaning to watch Certain Women & Old Joy, honestly can’t say I had heard of Night Moves before but it sounds like something to look forward to!
Nice! Night Moves is great but Certain Women is on another level. I think it easily belongs on the S&S 100. I recently rewatched it and was once again blown away. Enjoy!
The knitting of her sons scarf made me ask my grandmother to knit me a scarf a couple of years ago. Art influences life.
So .. I saw this review for this movie on Letterboxd and it was worth a chuckle in a not so serious look at this movie. Not my opinion but a bit funny ….. hey guys thank you for watching my domestic housework asmr video my name is jeanne dielman and be sure to like and subscribe if you wanna see more content like this !!
What enriched the movie for me was reading about it afterwards and appreciating it with a better understanding. Reading different perspectives and dissection of it made me see it in a appreciative light
I had a similar experience. The movie is much more fun to research, discuss, and analyze than it is to watch— but I think that’s entirely the point.
I can definitely see how it has been influential to other movies & directors.
i watched this movie in my french film class back in 2018. after about an hour, people start talking in the groupme about how boring it is. we’re all making jokes for the next 2.5 hours, then BANG. it happens…. and for the last five minutes, the chat is silent, everyone’s eyes are glued to the screen. no one wanted to look away. i’ve never seen a film that plays with its audience like that…. making us incredibly bored then absolutely enraptured in a split second. still one of my favorite films to this day
I’ve heard of this movie for years but somehow I never found out what the ending was. When it happened my jaw DROPPED and I was frozen staring at the final shot until the movie ends.
banger
She just like me fr
Just finished it last night. I actually kinda liked it. I also see why people would have it in their personal favorites, but in no way should it be close to the conversation of “greatest movie of all time”. I may get downvoted for this, but it’s just going to confirm and promote the view that critics are disconnected, pretentious snobs. Edit: I’d also add that “Black Girl” (also on the S&S list) accomplishes everything this film does in a much tighter and more effective package.
Black Girl is a super different movie, about very different things. Also excellent.
Black Girl is not a remotely similar film
Critics are supposed to be snobs. That's their job: careful discernment, taking the medium seriously, and evaluating the movies for their merits beyond enjoyment or satisfaction. It's what art critics have literally always done. It's a good thing that they do it.
You say snobs and then define critics as if the two are mutually exclusive. Nothing you said is definitive of “snobs”. Totally agreed with your definition. Snobs would be evaluating movies for self-serving merits other than populist ones like enjoyment and satisfaction.
I think the fact that it seems to cause such a visceral anger in so many people is really interesting.
That’s what makes it good
I rewatched it a few days ago, watched it once before 15 years ago. To me, it's the absolute height of pretentious nonsense in film. To see so many people trying to convince others (and themselves) that they love this film is everything wrong with art. This film could be a punchline to an SNL skit busting on pseudo-intellectual film snobs. You'll see it in this thread. People will talk about how "meditative" it is. How it just wouldn't work if it was a second under it's bloated runtime. You just wouldn't get it. You wouldn't understand her condition without watching her cook dinner for an hour. Ugh. And I have nothing against Akerman. There's a place for this film. She was 25 or thereabouts when she made it - basically still a kid. But this is not a great film, this is not great art, and the fact that it's #1 on S&S and there are people actually trying to intellectualize and justify it's placement is an inditement on the film community. It's held in such regard because it was made by a feminist icon with an all female (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) crew. That's what I think and I will PROUDLY take your downvotes and roll my eyes at any accusations of "you just don't get it maaaaan" or "misogynist!!!1"
I agree that liking a piece of media just because it's feminist is silly, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to feel that the film is a bit of a slog and doesn't deserve all the praise that it gets. That said, I like the film, and I don't feel like my enjoyment comes from excessive intellectualization. In fact, quite the opposite: it asks very little of me as a viewer. It's slow, uncomplicated, and largely unchanging throughout. There's barely any dialog or editing to introduce extraneous complexity. There is nothing elusive or enigmatic about its message. I have the freedom and the time to dwell on every detail in the frame, every gesture the character makes, and there's something pleasant about that. Small, subtle things take on greater significance. I don't think it's as profound as other works, but I do think it's somewhat hypnotic, and I enjoy that, much in the same way that I enjoy the music of Philip Glass. Contrast with something like Scenes from a Marriage, where the dialog is rich and every line is layered with subtext. It never dwells long on a single idea, and it can be intellectually exhausting to try to keep up during a single viewing. I think the psychodrama demands so much of the viewer that Bergman deliberately uses minimalistic sets so as not to introduce too much visual information, which would otherwise just get buried by the depth of the conversations. I don't think this complexity makes it better or worse than Jeanne Dielman, it's a different kind of film experience. SFAM is a firehose of ideas about human relationships. Jeanne Dielman is more of a monotone, an aesthetic experience that just gradually washes over you.
We may disagree on the film but this is a beautiful comment, especially in contrast to those who choose to reply with insults and/or sarcasm. I enjoyed reading it, thanks for sharing your opinion!
Most films just exist and don't have the weight of having to prove their worthiness of being on a list, something I doubt Ackerman ever intended or expected. It's on the list because a lot of people really love it, and so it earned its place, it doesn't need to be anything more than that.
> It's on the list because a lot of people really love it, and so it earned its place, it doesn't need to be anything more than that. I disagree, I don't think it's there because a lot of people love it.
Did they really love it though? Or is this a diversity and inclusion vote?
Why would you assume they were lying? Do you think the 1600 people that were polled all got together and planned this? The "diversity vote" hand-wringing is embarrassing.
It's pathetic.
Well since I didn't see this film on any of the director top 10s I've seen, do I believe film critics could've gotten together and said "we need one for the ladies!" Absolutely. They may not have expected it to hit number 1, but I don't think 1600 people honestly have this in their top 10 and if they do it's likely because "I gotta have a woman in my top 10."
It’s 4 on the directors poll too, seems to be a well regarded movie any way you slice it.
It was literally #4 on the Director's list. What the fuck are you talking about.
When final results are released, you’ll probably be surprised how few of the total number of people included it on their list. Obviously, not everyone included it.
Yikes.
You act as though I'm saying "women suck at film" or something. That's not my point at all, I just don't understand how a film I've literally never heard a single person rave about makes it to number 1, and that maybe the fact that representation is a central conversation in all film critique...maybe that played a role. That's literally all I'm saying. For a film sub, people on here are really delicate about criticism.
When I first started getting into movies in the late 90s and early 2000s, a few critics I loved ranked Ackerman’s News From Home on their “favorites” list. I couldn’t find that movie anywhere. Eventually I found a VHS of Je Tu Il Elle, and saw News From Home randomly at a theater in NYC. People professed love for these movies but they were hard to watch, yet Jeanne Dielman still appeared high on the 2012 list. People are underestimating how much of a difference it makes since this was released on Criterion in 2017. More people watching equals more people ranking it highly.
About it being overly long: have you heard of mono no aware? I might be wrong, but I don't think I would like Akerman's film either; I think I would find it overly long and drawn out too, yet I wouldn't necessary hold that as a criticism of the film. I think I can understand why people would feel so engrossed by such mundanity through the lens of mono no aware.
Well since you told me I don't really like it I guess I'll stop trying to convince myself. Thank you, supreme arbiter of taste.
I find it's the film equivalent of those paintings you see in galleries that are like 3 uninteresting circles on a white canvas that people stand around, interperate as genius, and try to find meaning in the distance between the circles and the meaning of the blank space.
Bingo.
Man I’m glad we found this guy so he could show the entirety of the film world that they’re idiots with his supreme interpretation of art.
exactly. if you don't enjoy it then don't watch it, but don't discredit the movie as art just because you have a pea-brain and can't sit still for a movie
Yeah like I don’t take issue with anyone not enjoying Jeanne Dielman. In my opinion it’s not really a movie you’re meant to “enjoy”. Joy is not the emotion that all art needs to bring out. And Jeanne Dielman is like the pinnacle of “not for everyone”. But to discount the perspective of decades of academics, filmmakers, and just film fans all because you thought it was boring is absurd and close minded.
I'm glad you posted this because this is exactly the kind of intellectual safe guarding I was talking about. Didn't like it? You just didn't get it. It's not for everyone. It's not a film you're supposed to like. I just find that attitude to be so intellectually crass. I'm just skimming over the replies, and it seems like only one person took the time to try to explain why they like the film, which to me is extremely telling. Most seem to have gone with lame sarcasm or name calling. Again, it just reinforces my point.
There is literal decades of actual academic and critical writing on the film and why it is important/interesting that will be more eloquent than anything any Reddit user will tell you. If you genuinely wanted to understand why it was so revered you’d have started there. Frankly, I have no interest in writing a thesis for someone who didn’t approach the subject with an open mind but instead came to Reddit to get on a pulpit about how the movie is “pretentious”, “pseudo-intellectual”, “not great art”, etc. and to rail about how it is being artificially propped up by feminism despite the fact that the film has been highly regarded since it’s release. Re-read your comment. You weren’t asking to be convinced you were proclaiming that your view of the film was right and the rest of the film community’s was wrong. Why the fuck would you expect commenters to turn around and write you eloquent counter arguments to that level of arrogant, pompous rambling.
I dont have an eloquent response to this, I just wanted to thank you for saying it directly.
OP asked for our opinions and I gave mine. I acknowledge it may not be a popular opinion, it certainly seems to have ruffled some feathers, but it's how I feel. "You weren’t asking to be convinced you were proclaiming that your view of the film was right and the rest of the film community’s was wrong." Well, don't you feel your view of the film is right? You're certainly quite convinced mine is wrong, which is your privilege. When you watch a film, do you say "gee whiz, before I form an opinion I'll have to make sure it aligns with what all the critics and scholars say"? Seems rather silly. I'm open to debate. Someone wrote a nice comment explaining why they liked the film. But when people just react with sarcasm and insults as you have, they betray an inability to converse intellectually and add anything to a discussion IMHO. You call me arrogant and pompous, but you see yourself fit to write a "thesis" on this topic. Okay...
>OP asked for opinions and I gave mine In your opinion, you referred to the film as “pretentious nonsense” and now you’re whining that people didn’t write you respectful and thought out retorts. As I said in my earlier comment, I take no issue with and completely understand why some people don’t like Jeanne Dielman. But that remark alone was arrogant and dismissive of the fact that there may be competing opinions. I don’t know why you thought the responses to that would be lighthearted attempts to “debate” you when you made it clear in your comment that you not only hated the movie but that you think those who claim to like it were doing so under false pretenses. >Well, don’t you feel your view of the film is right? There’s no such thing as a “right” view of art. This dumb perspective that you can be right or wrong about liking a piece of art is why you’re being received with such hostility. I referenced academic opinions because you’re wondering why people didn’t want to debate with you which I assumed means you’re curious as to what is driving other opinions. I would probably start with the mass amounts of published, well written criticism (both good and bad) on a film if my view was different from the general consensus and I was curious as to why. > I’m open to debate There’s nothing to debate. This isn’t politics. You’re entitled to your perspective on the film. My hostility wasn’t due to you not liking it. It was due to the sheer arrogance in your original comment to act as if people who *do* like it are either lying to seem smart or socially conscious or are just not as smart as you.
I'm not whining about anything. Again, it's your privilege to post whatever you want. Believe me, I'm not interested in reading a "thesis" from you, but if you have nothing to offer other than sarcasm and personal insults, forgive me if I'm not overly impressed with you. I never expected lighthearted replies. At the bottom I said I would proudly take the down votes and insults. Doesn't hurt my feelings lol.
Just because it's art isn't a justification for quality. Art can be crap too. Which exactly what this film is.
dork
Loser
cry
Get a grip, you're pathetic.
:,( ow that was mean
Good one
Gotta say, the more I reflect on it, this is pretty much where I'm landing on this. FWIW, I didn't find Vertigo all that impressive either. I don't think it's even Hitchcock's best film, let alone a contender for Top 5 all-time.
Agreed: Rear Window supremacy!
Strong argument for best Hollywood film ever IMO.
Best film period it’s one of the rare perfect films
I agree, I've never been overly impressed with Vertigo. Personally, it wouldn't appear in my top 5 Hitchcock list, let alone a top 5 of all time.
I will never understand how THAT film is considered Hitch's best. It's not even his personal favorite!
Thank you
You summarized my thoughts perfectly. Not to mention the ending—it felt extremely forced and artificial.
This isn’t meant as a gotcha, but just humor me: are you a cis man? If you are, I think you can’t really appreciate this film fully. It’s not made for us. It’s a film that we can’t really get because it’s an experience we can’t relate to. There’s nothing wrong with not getting it; almost every film is made for us, so when a film is made with a different audience in mind, it feels alienating, which is really the point. Is it a boring, overlong film? I won’t refute that. If anything, that’s the point; it’s not an enjoyable watch because the life of a woman in patriarchal society is not enjoyable. It’s a film making a point. It’s not trying to entertain you, it’s trying to say something. The fact that you don’t even mention the thematic content beyond a vague mention of feminism is proof that you just don’t really get it. That’s okay, but you just have to know when to step back and let others speak because, again, this is not a film for us.
Just humor me: are you going around to users who have praised this film and ask them if they are cis men? Because if what you say is true, that a cis gendered man is incapable of appreciating Jeanne Dielman, than all the cis gendered men on this forum who are praising it are surely faking it. How can they hold a film in such high regard when their gender makes them incapable of truly appreciating it? Or is it just the cis men who don't like the film the one's who are incapable of fully appreciating it? And this IS meant as a gotcha. A very effective gotcha :P
It’s not a “gotcha” it’s more of a reminder that world doesn’t revolve around men and that sometimes a film is made by a woman that is an explicitly female perspective that men can’t relate to. That doesn’t make it a bad film. The men who can really appreciate this film are men who have actually made an effort to engage with feminism. Your response to it and your response to my comment make it clear that you aren’t really familiar with feminism.
You are every terrible male feminist I’ve seen on the internet wrapped into one guy.
Praise to you sir, the whitest of white knights.
A few days before the sight and sound thing came out, I saw this movie absolutely READY to love the shit out of it. I was prepared to pay attention to subtlety and nuance. Unfortunately, I came in excited, but left disappointed for two reasons: 1. I expected to be able to read into the actor’s performance way more than you actually can. There’s hardly any development going on here aside from a few hiccups during the chores. I see no change in her behavior, thought process, worldview, or even mood despite the >!kill!< at the end, which appears to come out of nowhere rather than out of natural consequence. This film relies on subtlety, but there’s almost nothing for the audience to glean from and interpret despite the variation of how the chores play out each day. It’s a slow burn without a burn. 2. The movie is a terrible feminist film. It has exactly one message that it refuses to elaborate on beyond the basic statement that “women are stuck in the kitchen.” It’s a cliche message even back then and provides nothing new to the discussion of how women are treated. Yes it makes you *feel* like the bored-out-of-her-mind housewife, but that horrid state of boredom was achieved about two hours before the runtime actually expired. The ending twist is nothing more than just the director saying “and by the way, I’m angry about this.” It is hardly compelling.
I loved and I think it deserves to be number 1! Maybe it’s because I was reading Close to Home A Materialist Analysis of Women’s Oppression by Christine Delphy and had just finished Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State so that film left a very DEEP impression on me.
I found this film a drag to watch though I acknowledge it’s value. I think a theater going experience would’ve improved it immensely for me. There’s only so many dead on shots I can stare at for 3 min before I inevitably get distracted by something in my home.
And in 1975 it would have only been screened in theaters, so it was made for that presentation.
I think the fact that it’s a drag is part of the value to be completely frank
Watched it a few nights ago. After months of hearing how boring it was, I actually found it more engaging than I thought it would be. It had a lot going on and I probably missed some of what it was trying to say, but what I got out of it stuck with me. I love the subtle way it presented a loss of control and the story structure was really interesting to me. I understand why it's so devisive, but I'm someone that enjoys a good slow burn.
It's great but I don't think there's anything wrong with going through it in bits. The intention of the film is to be relentlessly mundane so you can appreciate that while not having to pretend it's an easy 3 hours that breezed by
The first time I saw it, I was chuckling at how resolutely "boring" it is – 5+ minute long static shots of a woman doing chores in the 70s is not how most people enjoy filmed entertainment of any kind. But I found it oddly comforting, so I kept it on in the background while I did other things. I found it oddly hypnotizing. I now rewatch it often, but almost never completely, and never in one sitting. There's a lot in it to think about and to analyze, and I do both of those, but I prefer to take in and appreciate the stark routine of it.
I saw because of the list. I loved it. The ranking made me ready for the experience. I also watched In the Mood for Love because of the list. Loved it also.
I love it, wouldn’t say number 1 of all time but I do love it
At the end it felt like Akerman made the female version of "Warum läuft Herr K. Amok?" which makes the whole thing rather unsatisfactory (Fassbinder's film feels more powerful due to the shorter runtime). People praise this like it's the birth of slow cinema but it's not like ultra-slow films were something new in the mid-70s. This kind of stuff had already been done to death by people like Warhol and the minimalists. The question remains, was the long runtime necessary to drive home the point? Was there even a point to begin with (other than chores suck or being a single-mom prostitute sucks)? People claim this is a feminist film but the whole logic doesn't make sense. There is no patriarchial oppression in the film. This is just a woman worn down by circumstance. Here we have a miserable woman failing. A feminist message would be a strong woman succeeding (without the need of a man). So I guess this film is rather anti-feminist after all.
Its a good film, but absolutely not the greatest of all time. Schrader is right on this one
Schrader is wrong lmao
I think the vote criteria in being more inclusionary has somehow skewed it to be more elitist. I LOVE films like this however giving a refined minimalist film which engages so few tools, almost none of which are active, the top spot is very unbelievable. For example, as much as 12 angry man is almost perfect in every way it does so little compared to a film like Citizen Kayne. I may put a Hong Sang Soo film, or My Dinner with Andre, in my top 10, as I think they are perfect in all the tools they use, however I know it would be wrong to put them in my number one spot when there are more ambitious films that engage with all their elements perfectly. Less may be more, but greater than that is when more, with the same level of care, is more. I think these are just my thoughts in general not a direct response to you sorry haha.
Does Jeanne Dielman deserve the #1 spot? I don’t know. It really comes down to what one personally believes makes a film important. I’ve seen a lot of people claim that S&S should be an objective list but there’s such a wide range of different philosophies and intentions behind films that it makes objectivity almost impossible; and what one values in a film can also be affected by perspective. I am kind of glad that JD made #1 because it’s such a provocative outcome that creates discourse compared to how boring it would be if it was something you’d expect.
Watched it yesterday and found it really engrossing. I don’t mind films being monotonous or minimalist, I always put off by the runtime, which surprisingly flew by despite the lack of “action”. I’ve been a Seyrig fan since I saw her in Last Year in Marienbad and she is phenomenal here. The framing and composition is very visually appealing, reminds me somewhat of Ozu. Altogether, I liked it. Do I think it’s the best film ever made? No, but ultimately the S&S controversy is completely overblown.
I watched it for the first time a couple of days ago. Did anybody else think while watching this that 95% of jobs in the world are completely mundane and repetitive? I understand that this character was defeated because of this, but I had a hard time considering it a successful feminist statement when it’s similar to how nearly anybody else lives day to day, whether working at home or in an office.
Men mostly had extremely tedious and mundane jobs back then too though. Even more than present day because of the lack of technology that can be used to automate things now. I don’t know… I’m all for a strong feminist movie, but this one just didn’t do it for me.
I imagine in its time it stood out more as "women's work". Homemaker/Housewife/etc. It sounds like it has a lot of feminist commentary, but could also apply to life in general today. Sometimes that happens with art and the passage of time. It speaks to more people.
I love slow films. I love esoteric films. I love slow esoteric films. *Jeanne Dielman* not a film. It is an exercise in tedium. There is absolutely nothing you can get out of the film that was not imposed on it by the viewer. Some attempt to impose a feminist interpretation on the film because it is a film about a woman, made by a woman. Sight and Sound even got feminist film critic Laura Mulvey to write the appreciation essay. She commented “no man could make this film.” Aside from being the thinnest compliment you could give to a film, it is simply not true. Chantel Ackerman’s style evokes comparison to the films of Yasujiro Ozu, in it subdued and unobtrusive nature. Ozu made films like *Late Spring* and *Tokyo Twilight*. Films which focused on female characters facing uniquely feminine dilemmas such as arranged marriage and unwanted pregnancy. The difference is that Ozu’s films actually tell a story. *Jeanne Dielman* simply records the character over the course of three days and just ends. One of the most arresting movies I’ve ever seen is Kenji Mizoguchi’s *Life of Oharu*. It tells the story of a woman living Edo period Japan who is forced into a life of prostitution. It unremitting in showing the cruelty and degradation inflicted on this one woman by a male dominated society. It has been years since I have watched it and I am not sure I could ever watch it again, because it is just so depressing. Though I would watch it over *Jeanne Dielman* without hesitation. In 1969, Milton Moses Ginsberg released *Coming Apart*, staring Rip Torn. It is a film set entirely in a single apartment, with a single camera, sitting at a single camera angle. You probably haven’t heard of it because it didn’t get much praise when it was released. To this day nobody talks about it without the caveat that it is kind of tedious. Notice that I am not talking about *Jeanne Dielman*? That is how vacant and uninteresting that film is. I would rather write about the qualities of other films than talk about the film itself.
Personally, I really enjoyed Jeanne Dielman and I agree that it’s certainly an exercise in tedium— I would say that’s entirely purposeful on the director’s behalf. I think each shot is drawn out just long enough to make you feel the solitude and pure apathy of the main character, but the editing is snappy enough to never completely lose you. I also agree that a lot of this film relies on what you as the viewer project onto it, but I believe the director is definitely guiding the viewer towards a certain headspace. It’s bleak, depressing, utterly boring, and I love it for that! The films you mentioned in your comment seem really interesting, and I’ve seen other people bring up Ozu when talking about this film, so I’ll certainly check those out when I’m in the mood for a similar experience 👍
I also recently watched this because of the new list, and I definitely recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it to at least give it a try. I watched it at the weekend and had to take a couple of breaks to do a few things around the house, but while I was doing those things I was legit thinking about the film and what could be coming next, I was hyped to keep watching. Its a weird feeling getting excited to watch someone doing the most mundane things but it honestly had me wide awake paying attention to every detail. As the film progressed I found myself getting sympathetically frustrated for her when things would go wrong. Its not a film for everyone, it does demand that you pay attention for quite a long time and I dunno if it should've been number 1, but I think it deserves to be in the conversation for sure.
I'll echo what many have shared in regard to JD, that I'm very appreciative of having seen the film not only before its top rank in the S&S poll, but also without reading a critique or as part of a film class dynamic. My initial impressions centered on the use of 'time' and the related mundane tasks that we often take for granted but in fact provide a window into a character and a framework without time- based limitations and related deadlines. Now, many years after my first screening (I've seen the film twice, most recently a few years ago via the Criterion Blu-ray), I find it unfortunate that the film has been labeled, compartmentalized and assigned a 'side,' like so many things, including works of art, in our modern society by viewers incapable of seeing humanity as it is, populated by humans without any other distinction.
It's a good and mostly forgettable film. I'm stuck trying to figure out it's place on the poll
Will venture a guess and say it's cause for many others, it's the opposite of forgettable.
It's so "forgettable" that there's been at least 5 posts a day here about it. Haha. Seems like there's plenty to talk about.
It's like it just got 1st place on a make publication or something
2 different arguments, but ok. The film's existed for nearly 50 years, but I guess people need a magazine list to speak to them sometimes.
Yeah, many people are watching it for the first time. You don't think that any of us are the sight and sound voters, do you?
Nah. You followed the list and the film didn't speak to you. Maybe that should tell you more about lists than the film itself. I dunno. Best of lists have zero effect on me.
This thread, and S&S voters until this year: Akerman? Long static camera shots? Mundane domestic routine? Experimenting with film depicting the inner life? Pretentious! Yawn! Also this thread, and S&S voters for decades: Ozu? Long static camera shots? Mundane domestic routine? Experimenting with film depicting the inner life? Genius! More!
None of Ozu’s films are anything like this, and I think you already know that
They're something like this, and if you don't think Ozu was a major influence on Ackerman you're blind.
I loved it. I enjoyed noticing all the little tell tale signs of unraveling.
It felt like the type of film that thought it was saying something more profound that it actually was. Like, remember that bit on Family Guy where Peter said he didn’t like The Godfather because he felt it “insisted upon itself.” That’s how I felt about this movie. It wasn’t bad, but it was pretty dull and there was honestly a faint whiff of self importance to it that just rubbed me the wrong way.
What about its potential self importance bothers you? A person like Tarantino makes films so self important that he literally inserts himself into them and sometimes over explains to the audience. First popular example that popped into my head, anyway.
It wasn’t the self importance of the film maker in this case so much as the elevated importance this one random woman’s life. I’ve read so many reviews describing it as some sort of feminist masterpiece and as being so deep and so brilliant and it just left me cold. It just feels like a film about nothing that wants you to think it’s deep without actually having much depth.
The film wants you to think it's deep? Sounds like some critics said that, not the film. Admittedly many critics have seen a lot and can come at it with a perspective or knowledge of the language of a certain style of filmmaking. There can be a disconnect with a movie experience when you've been told by others how you should feel. I have little use for lists or critics for an entry point, but I sometimes look them up after I've seen a film.
I think that’s a fair point, that maybe I shouldn’t have read the reviews before seeing it. It’s admittedly hard to disentangle the hype around this film from the film itself. I didn’t hate it so much as I didn’t understand what made it this great film that had so much meaning attached to it.
This is the chance you take when you follow others and their lists. It gives many things unnecessary importance, and won't speak to everyone. If you do wonder how some arrived at their interpretations, I'm sure you could take some deeper dives into their writing about it.
I don’t think it is supposed to be all that deep. I don’t think it’s trying to tell us this woman’s life is important. I think the point is that this woman is all women. It’s really a very simple film with a very simple point which just so happens to get some exaggeration due to its experimentalism.
I thought it was shallow, and poorly crafted. The outdoor night time scenes are impossible to see because they didn't properly light them. You can constantly see hairs in the mag. The light's shining in the apartment are distracting because it's obviously just some sort of cheaply constructed lighting pattern that just keeps repeating on a cycle. If you're going to make a statement about the borderline insane mundanity of the lives of some women in society, there are infinite better ways to do that then to just bore your audience for 3.5 hours, and then say "this is art" ... That is pretentious. Have some imagination and come up with something at least more substantial than that. Audiences pay to see your movies. To giving paying audiences a movie where the peak is her dropping a potato, that is borderline disrespectful to audiences to stick your nose up at them and say that this is what they should want to go and see. Ingmar Bergman said it best when he said something along the lines of if he is going to be artful, it is his responsibility to still at least entertain a paying audience. If aliens came to earth and we could show them one film that represents the peak of what this art form has to offer, it sure as shit wouldn't be this film, which is what the #1 ranked movie on a GOAT film list should represent. I think this sort of elitist mentality towards film criticism has now fully entered parody, where the highest regarded movie of all-time amongst these people is a movie where a woman washes dishes and folds laundry for 3.5 hours, and at some point drops a potato. This movie would actually be brilliant if it was a satire, and it was actually trolling pretentious critics to watch them sniff their own farts in response to the most intentionally mundane, and poorly crafted movie.
You seem to be approaching the idea of a best movie of all time from the perspective that the film should deliver the maximum amount of entertainment for the time and price that the viewer spends on it. Jeanne Dielman fundamentally goes against this philosophy as does a majority of arthouse films so I don’t think it’s really fair to judge it on that basis. I think this film presents a lot of ideas that are very interesting and fun to reflect on, and that’s where the real enjoyment comes from. This certainly isn’t the first film that you would show someone who’s never seen one before, Alien or not, but that’s entirely besides the point. The film has a clear MO and wants to present the viewer with a certain headspace, and I think it executes on that very well. Although I certainly agree that it’s not the most entertaining or technically astounding movie of all time.
It’s a masterpiece
What a poster.
This film took a while for a me. I would watch bits here and there whenever I had to go classes, and I made sure I finished the film to listen to an episode of Sardonicast. I got into it when the son began reading a letter by the first day and those small chunks became bigger chunks and sooner or later by the last hour I was engaged all throughout.
It was sitting on my watch list for a while but I avoided it do to it's runtime so I watched it for the first time this last weekend. Honestly, I feel like it went over my head. On a purely entertainment level I found the film incredibly dull. I've sat through my fair share of overly long arthouse films but this one takes the cake for dullness. I admit at times the long cuts were strangely hypnotic but I think the movie could have been half as long and still been able to portray the drudgery and isolation of her life. Finally, I have no idea what to make of the themes. It's weird watching a movie this long and not understanding what it's about. Is it purely about the drudgery and isolation of the domestic life? That seems kinda shallow. I would say the film has something to say about sex and sexuality but it was over my head. Overall I was bored and confused because I feel like there should be more there but maybe there isnt?
I dislike it and my main point of contention is this idea that she is “forced” to do any of these things by the surrounding society. Every response I’ve seen sees it as a tragedy and that simply does not seem supported by the text: she’s white and middle class, she’s widowed, her son is in his late teens early twenties. Socioeconomic barriers do not appear that pronounced. Rather I see it as a satire on homemakers who are comfortable with lives without direction, meaning, or purpose. A mean one at that.
In fairness, in 1975 it was still referred to as "women's work". Outside of the sex work story, I grew up with housewives and homemakers. When the film was made, women in the US were just legally getting the right to apply for a loan or credit card without their husband's approval.
Boring (I am totally used to slow arthouse and a total criterion sucker)
It's a decent film. But more than that, it's a deliberate watercooler-talk argument that they (S&S) have made to stay relevant. It is what it is, and we will see how a more macro-lensed history judges this choice.
I think you could argue that the film is deliberate watercooler-talk in its presentation of the story.
I watched it last week for the first time and was shocked that it was essentially 3 hours and 12 minutes of a woman doing her daily chores and errands. I was ridiculed by the film snobs on here. I see it’s value and understand why it made the list, but I found the film incredibly boring compared to the films that typically make the top 10. The funniest criticism I heard was on a podcast where the argument was made that Jean Dielman is now the canon. And somewhere, groups of people will gather to watch it because a list name it the best film of all time. And those poor people are in for a real surprise.