Sight & Sound

[FrauBlucher]

Just a few things...
The best thing about these lists are it gets people talking film.
I would bet good money that a Criterion Forum top 100 would be so, so different than the Sight and Sound list.
How does Keaton's Sherlock Jr get to 54 and The General barely gets into the 100 at 95.

[Glowingwabbit]

How does Keaton's Sherlock Jr get to 54 and The General barely gets into the 100 at 95.

Sherlock Jr is far more beloved these days

edit: most people I know, including myself, prefer it at least

[domino harvey]

I would bet good money that a Criterion Forum top 100 would be so, so different than the Sight and Sound list.

[swo17]

I mean, we did one 5 years ago. The next one is scheduled for 2031 and YOU can be a contributor!

[therewillbeblus]

That’d be a fun collection of stats. 10 films, no time period for deliberation, the likely inclusion of Michel Deville on a best ever list

[swo17]

That’d be a fun collection of stats. 10 films, no time period for deliberation, the likely inclusion of Michel Deville on a best ever list

It only works for S&S to tabulate unrestricted top 10s because they have a much larger pool of participants. We had 43 people submitting restricted lists (i.e. a film had to fare well in the decades lists to be eligible) and if I had counted only the top 10s from all of them, we barely would have even cracked 100 films, with the largest consensus being 9 out of 43 people agreeing on The Apartment and 2001

[Maltic]

Andrew Sarris took a hit tonight, no way around it.

From the PANTHEON you do get Hitchcock (4), Lang (2), Chaplin (2), Keaton (2), Ford, Renoir, Ophuls, Murnau and Welles (no Hawks, Sternberg, Lubitsch, Griffith or Flaherty)

THE FAR SIDE OF PARADISE
Sirk (Imitation of Life)

EXPRESSIVE ESOTERICA
Donen (Singing in the Rain)

FRINGE BENEFITS
Around half of them got some, albeit this time lower down the pecking order (no Buñuel)

LESS THAN MEETS THE EYE
Wilder 3 films (of course Sarris later upgraded him to pantheon status)
Carol Reed (The Third Man)

LIGHTLY LIKEABLE
Curtiz (Casablanca)

STRAINED SERIOUSNESS
Kubrick 3 films

ODDITIES, ONE-SHOTS AND NEWCOMERS
Coppola 2 films
Laughton 1 film (being a one-shot)
No Lupino btw

SUBJECTS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
No films

MAKEWAY FOR THE CLOWNS!
No films

MISCELLANY
No films

[Matt]

Oh, and not a single Terrence Malick film either. Also surprising.

The Film Twitter people gassing up Tree of Life and saying it was going to crack the top ten or even be #1

That reminds me that I need to find my blind predictions from several months ago, particularly my reply to the person who was aghast that I would suggest that the decades-long unavailability of The Mother and the Whore might mean that it would drop off the list entirely.

[oh yeah]

I was a little surprised/saddened by the total lack of not only Malick but also Altman, Nick Ray, PTA, etc. And most of all, Antonioni! Also, since recent critical hits like GET OUT, PARASITE and MOONLIGHT are fair game, I was hoping to see BURNING on there, which is my personal favorite of the past decade+, and I know many others feel the same. But ultimately, it's not a bad list. I do think DIELMAN all the way at #1 is going to discredit the list in the eyes of many, and understandably so... I loved Akerman's film the one time I saw it years ago, but it's awfully niche for a number-one slot. At least flicks like CITIZEN KANE and VERTIGO, even 2001 or L'AVVENTURA, seem to me to have a more palatable balance between art and entertainment.

[yoloswegmaster]

Oh, and of course I'm sure there will also be a ton of people accusing them of only choosing it as #1 for "woke" reasons.

I shudder to even imagine the histrionics going on at the Ruimy/Wells/Stone sites this afternoon

Ruimy just posted his thoughts, which is basically what you would have expected from him:

Honestly speaking, I expected this. Today’s S&S/BFI poll results make sense. We knew that this list would be so much less well versed in film history given the abhorrent freefall of English film criticism over the last decade. It’s the death of film criticism and the upheaval of political readings of films.

Earlier this year, I begged voters not to politicize the Sight and Sound poll. I felt like it was not just a possibility, but a potential inevitable, that voters would blur the lines between politics and cinema history.

I wrote: “A shake up is no doubt about to occur due to how hyperpoliticized things have become these last 10 years […] If there’s one thing I can plea for, with voters of this decade’s edition of the poll, is to please keep the woke politics out of it. No, “Portrait of a Lady on Fire” and “Moonlight.”

Welcome to my nightmare.

I saw this coming a mile away. You see, nowadays, when a film critic is given the task of making a list, they usually make sure to install a quota behind its making: “does it at least have one female director?” “does it have at least one black director?”

[spectre]

I don't get this assumption (or preconception, in Ruimy's case) that Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a "woke" choice. One can debate its merits, sure, but it's as close to a consensus critics' pick as there is for greatest film of the 2010s. Most people in my age demographic I've spoken to who've seen it adore it without reservation; it's not like anyone is feeling like they "have to" like it. So, unlike with some others that do seem to be mostly surfing on hype (yes, looking at you, Get Out), I see no reason to think it won't still be in the top 100 in 2032.

[DarkImbecile]

2022: The Year Politics Became a Factor in Evaluating Art

[Matt]

That reminds me that I need to find my blind predictions from several months ago, particularly my reply to the person who was aghast that I would suggest that the decades-long unavailability of The Mother and the Whore might mean that it would drop off the list entirely.

Also, the easy availability of films always influences lists like this. So no one under 50 is going to vote for La maman et la putain because no one in the last 30 years has been able to see it. And the work of home video labels like MoC, Second Run, Arrow, Criterion, and many other newer labels in making previously obscure works widely available will have a huge impact. I wouldn’t be surprised to see something like Daisies [#28] or Valerie and Her Week of Wonders []crack the list. But 1930s-1950s films by arty, white, male, western European, old-guard filmmakers? They’ll sink like stones. Out of all the films in the world to vote for in 2022, who would vote for something like Gertrud?

[diamonds]

I don't get this assumption (or preconception, in Ruimy's case) that Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a "woke" choice. One can debate its merits, sure, but it's as close to a consensus pick as there is for greatest film of the 2010s. Unlike some others (yes, looking at you, Get Out), I see no reason to think it won't still be in the top 100 in 2032.

Surely it's not that surprising given that a fiery strain of feminism is embedded in the rhetoric of the film, is it not? The characters make an explicit point of deriding/rejecting the male art canon which excludes them, and the film itself is consciously about superseding the male gaze (a foundation of canons like this) and constructing a feminine utopia apart from what is seen as an oppressive patriarchy. It's a period piece that is pretty carefully calibrated to appeal to modern sensibilities (unlike say Ammonite, which is more interested in the details of the time and place it's depicting, in my opinion).

[spectre]

I think there's a significant difference between liking a film because it's politically radical – indeed, the qualities you describe are all things that contribute to making the film good and interesting – and liking it because it superficially "ticks diversity boxes" or nods to some social issue du jour, or some such (which is what I think people tend to mean when they talk about "woke politics", "virtue signalling", or whatever).

2022: The Year Politics Became a Factor in Evaluating Art

Well played.

[bdsweeney]

I like Jeanne Dielman, but there's no denying it's an idiosyncratic #1. How much that matters is up to you, I suppose. I'd prefer something a LITTLE more crowd-pleasing, honestly, but then I think the worst part of the list is the dearth of musicals.

Ultimately, I think the real statement that seems to have been made by choosing Jeanne Dielman as the greatest film ever made probably won’t be interpreted as one of inclusion or diversification by most, but rather, to your point, as a critical rejection of populism. This is the “artsiest” list Sight & Sound has ever produced, with by FAR the least accessible choice for #1 they’ve ever made. To think there was a time when Citizen Kane was considered by many (casual moviegoers, not cinephiles) to be the ultimate “boring art film” largely because of Sight & Sound repeatedly naming it #1 now seems pretty laughable, especially now that it’s actually become one of the most accessible films in the top 10.

While I’m sure much will be said in some circles about how “woke” the list is, I think the bigger statement being made this time around may be that the critics who participated completely and thoroughly rejected any notion that a list of greatest films should make an effort to appeal even somewhat to casual moviegoers. Maybe it’s a just reaction to the current state of mainstream cinema, but yeah, there’s no way this list is going to be warmly received by anyone other than the sort of cinephiles who occupy spaces like this, as naming Jeanne Dielman the greatest film of all time might as well be a giant middle finger to anyone who insists a film should even be accessible to non-cinephiles, let alone enjoyable.

To be clear, I’m firmly in the pro-Jeanne Dielman camp and I adore Akerman in general, but I don’t know, considering the kind of publicity these lists get, it almost feels aggressive towards 99% of the people who will be looking at the results.

This is the best articulation I’ve read so far for the cons associated with the new #1.
The list is a consensus from a broad range of people, so the fact that the list has ended up as it is… is just what it is.
But with the general (I think) view that the list represents a fun game and is of most value as a tool to introduce people to films they not have encountered before or got around to seeing yet, there’s a good chance that viewing Dielman because it’s first on the list and not enjoying it may stop people in their tracks from watching any more of the films. That said, there will also be a smaller group of first-time viewers for whom the film resonates greatly.

[Maltic]

Also, the easy availability of films always influences lists like this. So no one under 50 is going to vote for La maman et la putain because no one in the last 30 years has been able to see it. And the work of home video labels like MoC, Second Run, Arrow, Criterion, and many other newer labels in making previously obscure works widely available will have a huge impact. I wouldn’t be surprised to see something like Daisies [#28] or Valerie and Her Week of Wonders []crack the list. But 1930s-1950s films by arty, white, male, western European, old-guard filmmakers? They’ll sink like stones. Out of all the films in the world to vote for in 2022, who would vote for something like Gertrud?

Gertrud is not from that period.

[Saturnome]

I've seen 100% of the new list while I was missing a dozen or so in the previous one. Guess I'll just continue using the old one as a guide!

[spectre]

Further on Ruimy wailing about the "politicisation" of the Sight & Sound list, I wonder how he feels about some of the placements on the 1952 one: say, Battleship Potemkin (#4), The Rules of the Game (#10), Grand Illusion (#11) or even the top selection itself. And I'm sure there couldn't be any other reason why Intolerance is in the top ten but not Birth of a Nation, etc. All just celebrations of pure aesthetics, of course, no politics in sight ...

[Matt]

Gertrud is not from that period.

My quote is clearly taken out of its broader conversational context (which is all in this same thread).

What is it about Dreyer's Gertrud and Ordet that make them less likely to be listed this time around?

My point in bringing up Gertrud as an example of what’s out of fashion is that it represents the sort of buttoned-up, internalized, western European, theatrical-style drama that most people just can’t relate to anymore. It’s also one of Dreyer’s least-loved films. But mostly, the Dreyer box that was one of Criterion’s earliest box sets made a huge splash and brought Dreyer to the attention of a lot of new viewers, but that was more than 20 years ago. How often does Gertrud get mentioned here or on Twitter or on Letterboxd now? I think it’s just no longer in the conversation of “world’s greatest films.”

For further reference, Gertrud was #43 on the 2012 critics' list (31 votes) and #59 on the 2012 directors' list (10 votes).

Let's have the generosity of spirit here to assume that people referencing Gertrud know in which decade it was made. If I made an egregious error that deserves pointing out, it's that I wasn't broad enough in including the 1960s-1970s in the passé filmmakers era. I'm utterly shocked at Altman's complete absence from both 2022 lists.

[domino harvey]

I’m working on a thinkpiece: If Hitchcock hadn’t forgotten about Midge in the last 30 minutes, Vertigo would still be number 1

[Jack Phillips]

I’m working on a thinkpiece: If Hitchcock hadn’t forgotten about Midge in the last 30 minutes, Vertigo would still be number 1

She wasn't exactly forgotten. She is present in the unused coda (which we all know of now). OK, OK, I'm not really joining you in the spirit of your comment . . .

[therewillbeblus]

As participants appropriately had few hang ups about including recent films that have aged well since the last round, I’m surprised no Wes Anderson made it. There’s seemed to be a highly critical reappraisal of stuff like The Royal Tenenbaums, which was loved by audiences but not exactly swooned over by critics upon release, and yet has become iconic over the last decade-plus

[MV88]

I'm utterly shocked at Altman's complete absence from both 2022 lists.

Altman is still quite popular, I think, but my guess as to why none of his films placed is the same reason I’d assume for Buñuel and a few other greats, which is that for better or worse there’s no real consensus choice. I suppose Nashville has historically been regarded as the closest to a consensus pick for Altman, but lately I’ve noticed a lot more people opting for McCabe & Mrs. Miller, The Long Goodbye, 3 Women, or Short Cuts, so it would make sense if vote splitting was to blame for him not being represented in the top 100. When they release the full list, I’m sure he’ll have quite a few votes but distributed somewhat evenly across a several of his films.

[rde]

Re: furbicide on Portrait of a Lady on Fire being the best of the 2010's: I don't think any film from the 2010's deserves to be in the top 100 films ever made. At least not necessarily. Put it high on the best since 2000 list, sure. But this is excessive.

Otherwise, I love Akerman, but there's just no way this is how people actually feel. I suspect that quite a few of the people who voted for it did so out of a feeling of obligation, based on some hokey idea like 'good art must be difficult', or because they just wanted to see the list change. And surely some of them have not sat through the whole thing. I got to see it play in theaters, and the feeling in the room is no where near 'best film ever made'. And the audience at that theater generally has very good taste.

And now this will probably blow hoot my credibility, but does anyone else agree that Kane is still ranked far too high? I like Welles a lot, but I have never understood that choice. It seems far more historical than anything (ie, for how important Kane was in its time, rather than Kane versus all that has come since). It was a 'watershed', an 'important' film, as they say, but it's been surpassed many times since. Even if his subsequent films were mangled by studios or roughly finished, I prefer a lot of them to Kane. There's something slightly phony or over-rehearsed about Kane.

Anyway, scattershot: the placement of Beau Travail is baffling to me. Like, it's not bad, but it's not even great. Do the Right Thing is also massively overrated. It can't compete with a third-tier Godard. Cléo from 9 to 5 is good, really good at moments, but not that good. In the Mood for Love (also excellent) seems to be ranked too high, too, out of a desire to have more recent films crack the top 10, I think. But movies have been going downhill for decades now. And I have never understood, not even slightly, why the one Bresson that gets boosted is Au hasard Balthazar. He made so many brilliant films, and plenty better than that one. Mouchette, Le diable probablement, A Man Escaped, Pickpocket, for sure; hell, I even like L'Argent more.

But they get Tarkovsky right, more or less. Breathless slipping down the list in a shame.

The Director's list is better than the Critic's list, and closer, I think, to what most filmgoers actually prefer. The critics' list ossified a long time ago, and settled on a strange bunch of very good but not always greatest films — and now they're trying to inject it with new life, and failing badly, in my opinion anyway. Yea, the Director's list is way, way closer to the mark.