Sight & Sound

[rrenault]

As for commercial Hollywood films from the past half century that could be “reconsidered” as artistically significant, I’d say Mann’s Heat and De Palma’s Blow Out (Body Double too perhaps) have already gotten there just to name two examples. And of course there’s the whole vulgar auteurism push of the early to mid 2010s.

[MichaelB]

There's a point when it comes to precisely those two titles (and conversely perhaps the relegation of The Mother and the Whore), but I don't see availability as a major factor overall tbh? Other new entries include Blue Velvet, The Shining, The Apartment, Get Out, etc.

Those films have been pretty much permanently available - and the same is true of the overwhelming majority of mainstream American films, a category that all of your examples comfortably fit into.

My point, though, was that as far as non-anglophone film cultures are concerned (and sometimes independent anglophone ones; Wanda undoubtedly owes its top 100 nod at least in part to being pretty easy to get hold of now, which was by no means the case in the past), distribution and availability - in other words, gatekeeping by a fairly small number of individuals with generally pretty complementary tastes - has played a significant role in dictating the shape of these polls, which has only really started to fissure in the 2012 and 2022 ones as people have far greater opportunities to range further afield.

Tokyo Story is the perennial example, but it's an excellent one. Ditto Pather Panchali. Are they really the best films by their respective directors (indeed, would Ozu and Ray agree?), or the ones statistically more likely to appear in polls like this because they've historically been much easier to see? And I'd be surprised if Miklós Jancsó's recurring absence from these polls was completely unrelated to the near-total unavailability of his films between the mid-70s and the mid-2000s (and unavailability in Blu-ray editions that do him full justice well into the 2010s) - had The Round-Up, say, been as visible as Tokyo Story over the last half-century, who knows how it might have done?

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

I've been looking at the director's ballots and noticed an error in Apichatpong's that produces an ambiguity: one of his picks is listed as The Nose or the Conspiracy of Mavericks, credited to "Alexeieff & Parker." Alexeieff and Parker did an adaptation of "The Nose" in 1963, but it was just called The Nose; The Nose or the Conspiracy of Mavericks is an Andrei Khrzhanovsky film from 2020. Both are great movies and Apichatpong's taste is such that I'm not confident guessing which one he meant, though I'm leaning towards the '63 film.

[Maltic]

There's a point when it comes to precisely those two titles (and conversely perhaps the relegation of The Mother and the Whore), but I don't see availability as a major factor overall tbh? Other new entries include Blue Velvet, The Shining, The Apartment, Get Out, etc.

Those films have been pretty much permanently available - and the same is true of the overwhelming majority of mainstream American films, a category that all of your examples comfortably fit into.

My point, though, was that as far as non-anglophone film cultures are concerned (and sometimes independent anglophone ones; Wanda undoubtedly owes its top 100 nod at least in part to being pretty easy to get hold of now, which was by no means the case in the past), distribution and availability - in other words, gatekeeping by a fairly small number of individuals with generally pretty complementary tastes - has played a significant role in dictating the shape of these polls, which has only really started to fissure in the 2012 and 2022 ones as people have far greater opportunities to range further afield.

Tokyo Story is the perennial example, but it's an excellent one. Ditto Pather Panchali. Are they really the best films by their respective directors (indeed, would Ozu and Ray agree?), or the ones statistically more likely to appear in polls like this because they've historically been much easier to see? And I'd be surprised if Miklós Jancsó's recurring absence from these polls was completely unrelated to the near-total unavailability of his films between the mid-70s and the mid-2000s (and unavailability in Blu-ray editions that do him full justice well into the 2010s) - had The Round-Up, say, been as visible as Tokyo Story over the last half-century, who knows how it might have done?

All good points. I was considering the changes from 2012 to 2022 in the S&S top 100, though. You said "now there's more competition" due to more films being available, but I don't really see that expressed in the 2022 list vs the 2012 one.

[Michael Kerpan]

MichaelB -- I think Ozu's Late Spring and Early Summer were probably as widely available as Tokyo Story, but for whatever reason Tokyo Story is the one that got singled out most often.

[tenia]

Distribution and availability are - and always have been - absolutely crucial factors. Not definitive ones (Vertigo first cracked the top ten in 1982, when it had been legally unavailable for years), but Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock and Welles had significant advantages over a great many other major filmmakers when it came to earlier polls. But now there's much more competition.

That's why I see such lists as sociological studies of their times, possibly doubling as an egg-and-chicken story : the earlier canons (say, in the present case, the S&S polls from 52 to 82 for instance) probably have shaped for many years the movies pushed forward as must-see, thus driving up both their availabilities (they have to be seen so they need to be shown) and then the amount of people having seen then... and then recommanding them in their lists.
On the contrary, it's likely that at the same time, if it weren't for asking people closer to those other movies, stuff like Indian, Mexican, East-European etc movies weren't recommanded, weren't seen as much and thus less chased to make them available.

In many ways, and despite what arguably remain marginal changes, most of the list do feel like a Western-oriented one, and it says as much by what's in it than by what isn't. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that part of the changes are coming from asking outside the usual pool of pollsters (thus allowing people with different proximities to different type of movies to submit lists), but also from re-releases. For instance : Beau travail has the biggest bump within the top 100 and, well, possibly because many people discovered it 2 years ago through its Criterion release. Jeanne Dielman also was upgraded to BD by Criterion in 2017 : could it be that it pushed the number of pollsters who saw it ?

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

MichaelB -- I think Ozu's Late Spring and Early Summer were probably as widely available as Tokyo Story, but for whatever reason Tokyo Story is the one that got singled out most often.

Tokyo Story was definitely the most accessible of Ozu's films among participants in the '62 and '72 balloting. It was the lone Ozu film in the 15-film Japanese cinema series held at the National Film Theatre in 1957–58, was shown again in the NFT's 1963 Ozu/Mizoguchi season, and received a commercial run in 1965 at London's Academy Club. AFAICT the only other Ozu film to get a UK commercial release during this period was An Autumn Afternoon in 1966. Late Spring was in the '63 NFT series, but I'm not sure Early Summer was screened in the UK at all until the NFT's "Late Ozu" series in 1976. The situation in the U.S. was a bit more complicated and Ozu barely makes an appearance on any U.S.-based critics' ballots before 1982: just Stanley Kaufmann with Tokyo Story and Paul Schrader with An Autumn Afternoon, both for the 1972 poll. But while Tokyo Story was one of many Ozu films to get a U.S. release in the '70s, it was pretty quick to become the consensus favorite, and from all indications was the most widely shown and frequently revived. David Bordwell has recalled watching it on PBS in 1974 as his introduction to Ozu!

[hearthesilence]

Tokyo Story was definitely the most accessible of Ozu's films among participants in the '62 and '72 balloting. It was the lone Ozu film in the 15-film Japanese cinema series held at the National Film Theatre in 1957–58, was shown again in the NFT's 1963 Ozu/Mizoguchi season, and received a commercial run in 1965 at London's Academy Club. AFAICT the only other Ozu film to get a UK commercial release during this period was An Autumn Afternoon in 1966. Late Spring was in the '63 NFT series, but I'm not sure Early Summer was screened in the UK at all until the NFT's "Late Ozu" series in 1976. The situation in the U.S. was a bit more complicated and Ozu barely makes an appearance on any U.S.-based critics' ballots before 1982: just Stanley Kaufmann with Tokyo Story and Paul Schrader with An Autumn Afternoon, both for the 1972 poll. But while Tokyo Story was one of many Ozu films to get a U.S. release in the '70s, it was pretty quick to become the consensus favorite, and from all indications was the most widely shown and frequently revived. David Bordwell has recalled watching it on PBS in 1974 as his introduction to Ozu!

FWIW, Tokyo Story came up IRL when I was having an argument with some non-cinephiles. One of them was making the point that parents weren't supposed to visit their children in Asian families, that it was supposed to be the other way around. I immediately called bullshit, saying "look at Tokyo Story (which they knew)! Hell, it's the entire plot of the movie!"

[Orlac]

I defiently get Tokyo Story now that I have experienced a similar situation in real life. I'm not sure why it is singled out for greatness though as cinematically I find it rather inert. I much prefer Good Morning and the earlier The Only Son.

[Michael Kerpan]

Tokyo Story is my "honorary favorite" film because of its personal relevance and (non-cinematic) impact. I know I could never pick a "greatest" Ozu film -- and doubt I could even single out just one "favorite". Too much competition. And the same applies to the films of almost every director whose films I love. Which is why I have a problem with consensus lists, perhaps.

I wasn't watching much (if any) television in 1974 (being away at college/grad school) -- thus I missed the airing of Tokyo Story (and it would be 26 years until that was remedied).

[tenia]

I discovered Ozu pretty much with Tokyo Story, since it was its most often singled out movies in lists like S&S.
I love it, but grew a bit tired of it, prefered An Autumn Afternoon for quite some time, and now Early Summer.

[colinr0380]

There's a point when it comes to precisely those two titles (and conversely perhaps the relegation of The Mother and the Whore), but I don't see availability as a major factor overall tbh? Other new entries include Blue Velvet, The Shining, The Apartment, Get Out, etc.

Those films have been pretty much permanently available - and the same is true of the overwhelming majority of mainstream American films, a category that all of your examples comfortably fit into.

My point, though, was that as far as non-anglophone film cultures are concerned (and sometimes independent anglophone ones; Wanda undoubtedly owes its top 100 nod at least in part to being pretty easy to get hold of now, which was by no means the case in the past), distribution and availability - in other words, gatekeeping by a fairly small number of individuals with generally pretty complementary tastes - has played a significant role in dictating the shape of these polls, which has only really started to fissure in the 2012 and 2022 ones as people have far greater opportunities to range further afield.

Tokyo Story is the perennial example, but it's an excellent one. Ditto Pather Panchali. Are they really the best films by their respective directors (indeed, would Ozu and Ray agree?), or the ones statistically more likely to appear in polls like this because they've historically been much easier to see? And I'd be surprised if Miklós Jancsó's recurring absence from these polls was completely unrelated to the near-total unavailability of his films between the mid-70s and the mid-2000s (and unavailability in Blu-ray editions that do him full justice well into the 2010s) - had The Round-Up, say, been as visible as Tokyo Story over the last half-century, who knows how it might have done?

To paraphrase/add to that I'd also suggest perhaps previous polls were more directly tied in to things like big theatrical film seasons taking place at organisations such as the NFT. Where even an obscure film would have a big boost amongst the cognoscenti by being the focal point of some kind of festival scene, which was presumably dreadfully important to raising its profile at the time (and may even be why Sight & Sound began the poll). And now, as you say, with various home video labels, streaming and access to a lot of cinema (although not all), that leads to a lot more films in the running rather than a group of fifteen or twenty over the previous decade that were enormously elevated and which perhaps became prominent in the memory of those polled, having presumably also had to have been written about (or even programmed) by the critics involved in the seasons who then themselves were polled (as well as just being a general nudge towards others of what 'should' be considered a 'great film') because of that.

[MichaelB]

It's worth emphasising how small the original polls were - I was really quite startled to find that the 1952 original involved just 85 contributors. Even by 2002 it was only up to 145.

It wasn't until 2012 that serious efforts were made to broaden the range (which up to then had been overwhelmingly white, male and middle-aged, with a corresponding bias in favour of English as a native language), and that poll's 846 contributors was doubled to 1,639 in 2022.

[Altair]

The wider reach of this year’s edition more or less guaranteed that the hundred films on the list would represent a wider range of world cinema; the surprise isn’t that this year’s list is different, but that, for the most part, it’s so similar to that of 2012.

Richard Brody in The New Yorker on the Sight and Sound list

[ballmouse]

I've just returned from a few days vacation. I looked at the list and searched this thread. Am I going to be the first one to ask what is "Daughters of the Dust"? This is the one feature film on the list I have never heard of anywhere.

[hearthesilence]

The wider reach of this year’s edition more or less guaranteed that the hundred films on the list would represent a wider range of world cinema; the surprise isn’t that this year’s list is different, but that, for the most part, it’s so similar to that of 2012.

Richard Brody in The New Yorker on the Sight and Sound list

I agree with this and I think I posted this earlier in the thread - I was expected a lot more non-Western films. To be fair the 2012 poll did a good job of introducing a lot of new films like Abbas Kiarostami's Close Up (a likely candidate for my ballot if I had one).

[brundlefly]

I've just returned from a few days vacation. I looked at the list and searched this thread. Am I going to be the first one to ask what is "Daughters of the Dust"? This is the one feature film on the list I have never heard of anywhere.

Beyoncé's reach must be slipping.

The best thing about any of these sorts of lists is hearing about things you haven't, before. So congratulations and enjoy.

[colinr0380]

I've just returned from a few days vacation. I looked at the list and searched this thread. Am I going to be the first one to ask what is "Daughters of the Dust"? This is the one feature film on the list I have never heard of anywhere.

Here's the BFI thread for the disc of that film. It came back into prominence in recent years because Beyonce's Lemonade videos were apparently influenced by the film.

[brundlefly]

And if you're in the U.S., Kino has the Cohen blu in their current sale @ $9.99.

[zedz]

I've just returned from a few days vacation. I looked at the list and searched this thread. Am I going to be the first one to ask what is "Daughters of the Dust"? This is the one feature film on the list I have never heard of anywhere.

This is a good example of the availability issue that Michael B was talking about. It's a great (and historically significant) American film (with a lousy soundtrack - but you can't have everything) that disappeared after release and has been unavailable to see until very recently. It probably had a steely core of supporters from its brief initial run (raises hand), but no doubt enough people saw it afresh in the last few years and were impressed enough to put it on their list. Killer of Sheep is in the same category, though it resurfaced a bit earlier and has an advantage in that regard.

[swo17]

With all the foreign critics that were approached, I'm maybe a little surprised that there weren't even more left-field choices. Not only are all of these films available on Blu-ray or DVD, I own all but one of them!

[zedz]

With all the foreign critics that were approached, I'm maybe a little surprised that there weren't even more left-field choices. Not only are all of these films available on Blu-ray or DVD, I own all but one of them!

Though as you and I know from the lists project, the more people that contribute, the more conventional / consensus / availability-driven the final list will be. A handful of passionate top ten votes for a brilliant obscurity will quickly be swamped by lots of people ranking an inoffensive standard at number 45. Which is why the claim that Sight and Sound were gaming the system by opening up the vote to hundreds more people from more diverse backgrounds is ridiculous. That's not how you rig a vote.

[swo17]

True, though perhaps other countries have their own "safe picks" that are nonetheless obscure to the rest of us, and that would rise to the top if you polled enough of those people.

In any case, it's certainly handy that anyone that might want to explore films from this list can easily find them

[colinr0380]

With all the foreign critics that were approached, I'm maybe a little surprised that there weren't even more left-field choices. Not only are all of these films available on Blu-ray or DVD, I own all but one of them!

Though as you and I know from the lists project, the more people that contribute, the more conventional / consensus / availability-driven the final list will be. A handful of passionate top ten votes for a brilliant obscurity will quickly be swamped by lots of people ranking an inoffensive standard at number 45. Which is why the claim that Sight and Sound were gaming the system by opening up the vote to hundreds more people from more diverse backgrounds is ridiculous. That's not how you rig a vote.

That makes me think that perhaps to increase the wild cards of film instead of increasing the voter base (though that's fine), the more important thing would be to up the number of films each voter is allowed to nominate, maybe from ten to fifteen or twenty. Then there would be more space for people to vote for the things they feel 'should' be there, plus devote an extra five slots to their favourites that only they may champion, which might lead to more left field films garnering a surprising amount of support.

[Orlac]

This is tiresome. Please stop posting.

Hopefully this suspiciously familiar individual has stopped now...whether or not of their own free will.