Sight & Sound

[MV88]

Yes, and once you accept that there is no such thing as a definitive, objective list of greatest films, all the different reasons for the outrage expressed seem quite silly in that even if those criticisms were “corrected,” an equal amount of criticism would be leveled from the opposite direction. “It’s too obscure/challenging” would become “it’s too obvious/safe” if they had gone with Citizen Kane or The Godfather. “They deliberately selected younger/more diverse voters ” would become “they deliberately selected older/less diverse voters.” No matter what criticism one could make, the opposite criticism would be made if the reverse were true. The only way to NOT find fault in the list is to accept that these are the results based on Sight & Sound’s own vision of where film studies should be focused right now, not an all-encompassing, objective, definitive measurement of the the greatest films ever made.

I think it would also help to rephrase it from “critics voted Jeanne Dielman the best film of all time” to “more of the critics chosen for this specific poll recommended Jeanne Dielman than any other film they had the opportunity to cite,” because after all, aren’t the ballots really just opportunities given to a select group of people to recommend 10 films to other people who pay attention to this poll? The votes aren’t really even tabulated using a ranked ballot, so it’s totally possible that very few voters actually consider it the single greatest film ever made. It got to #1 because more of them had it in their list of 10 than any other film, which really only means that, when asked the question “Which 10 films do you think serious cinephiles should study?” (which is more accurately the purpose of the poll), more people *this time* decided Jeanne Dielman should be included in that list than any other film. Not that it’s better than any other film, just that in 2022, this is the film that the most of them agreed should be included in that conversation.

[Maltic]

If you look beyond the top spot (which is simply the effect of all of the most acclaimed women-directed films moving up a notch), the criticism that this list is more obscure/challenging is odd: The 2010s films that entered were three box office hits / Oscar winners and a sumptious period film that was also an arthouse hit. Furthermore, Antonioni, Renoir and Intolerance moved down and/or out, while North by Northwest, Casablanca and Some Like It Hot moved up.

[FrauBlucher]

Anyone surprised not one of arguably the three biggest and revered filmmakers of the last 25 years that all started in the 1990s do not have one film on the list... PT Anderson, Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino? For me this is really the biggest disappointment with this list. You can probably throw in the Coen Brothers.

[Noiretirc]

Those 2010s films might prove to be the most volatile when the 2032 list arrives. The lens of film history is rather short and foggy for those entries, and critical opinion might swing wildly.

I need to study this, but I wonder if any film that was ever in the top 10 is no longer on the 100-list. ie Which films have had the most serious critical backlash? (ie A reverse JD, if you will.)

[colinr0380]

The Bergman films seemingly.

[Saturnome]

One day Clair's Le Million will come back in the top 10.

[Mr Sausage]

Yes, and once you accept that there is no such thing as a definitive, objective list of greatest films, all the different reasons for the outrage expressed seem quite silly in that even if those criticisms were “corrected,” an equal amount of criticism would be leveled from the opposite direction. “It’s too obscure/challenging” would become “it’s too obvious/safe” if they had gone with Citizen Kane or The Godfather. “They deliberately selected younger/more diverse voters ” would become “they deliberately selected older/less diverse voters.” No matter what criticism one could make, the opposite criticism would be made if the reverse were true. The only way to NOT find fault in the list is to accept that these are the results based on Sight & Sound’s own vision of where film studies should be focused right now, not an all-encompassing, objective, definitive measurement of the the greatest films ever made.

I think it would also help to rephrase it from “critics voted Jeanne Dielman the best film of all time” to “more of the critics chosen for this specific poll recommended Jeanne Dielman than any other film they had the opportunity to cite,” because after all, aren’t the ballots really just opportunities given to a select group of people to recommend 10 films to other people who pay attention to this poll? The votes aren’t really even tabulated using a ranked ballot, so it’s totally possible that very few voters actually consider it the single greatest film ever made. It got to #1 because more of them had it in their list of 10 than any other film, which really only means that, when asked the question “Which 10 films do you think serious cinephiles should study?” (which is more accurately the purpose of the poll), more people *this time* decided Jeanne Dielman should be included in that list than any other film. Not that it’s better than any other film, just that in 2022, this is the film that the most of them agreed should be included in that conversation.

Yep. Whenever an established canon is altered or upset in some way, people on the right or centre dismiss it as illegitimate, an attempt to influence the list politically by sliding it leftwards without concern for taste or artistic standards. When an established canon is reaffirmed or reestablished, people on the left claim it is illegitimate, an attempt by the current power structures to assert their hegemony in defiance of the marginal and disadvantaged.

Rightists/centrists assume all change is politically motivated, but that all established canons are not. Leftists assume all established canons are expressions of illegitimate power, but that leftward canon change is organic and reflects modern (ie. proper) thinking.

My temptation is to ignore the question of which side is right or wrong, and instead see both as using lists like this as a proxy in a larger battle over values and norms. Both sides see their outgroup as being secretly in control of norms and culture, and both blame change or the failure to change on that fact.

[GaryC]

Those 2010s films might prove to be the most volatile when the 2032 list arrives. The lens of film history is rather short and foggy for those entries, and critical opinion might swing wildly.

I need to study this, but I wonder if any film that was ever in the top 10 is no longer on the 100-list. ie Which films have had the most serious critical backlash? (ie A reverse JD, if you will.)

Louisiana Story was #6 in 1952 and is no longer in the 100. I don't think much of a backlash has been involved, just that it's slipped into obscurity. I'm in the UK and not only have I not seen it, I don't know anyone who has.

[ianthemovie]

Louisiana Story was #6 in 1952 and is no longer in the 100. I don't think much of a backlash has been involved, just that it's slipped into obscurity. I'm in the UK and not only have I not seen it, I don't know anyone who has.

I managed to track it down a few years ago when I was working my way through the They Shoot Pictures top 1000. Without doing any research on its critical reception I would be hard pressed to explain why/how it broke onto the Sight and Sound poll. I don't even remember much about it other than the score by Virgil Thomson. Like Bicycle Thieves, it was only four years old in 1952. My sense is that Flaherty was a filmmaker who had a much greater reputation back in the day and isn't much talked about now.

[rde]

Yes, and once you accept that there is no such thing as a definitive, objective list of greatest films, all the different reasons for the outrage expressed seem quite silly in that even if those criticisms were “corrected,” an equal amount of criticism would be leveled from the opposite direction. “It’s too obscure/challenging” would become “it’s too obvious/safe” if they had gone with Citizen Kane or The Godfather. “They deliberately selected younger/more diverse voters ” would become “they deliberately selected older/less diverse voters.” No matter what criticism one could make, the opposite criticism would be made if the reverse were true. The only way to NOT find fault in the list is to accept that these are the results based on Sight & Sound’s own vision of where film studies should be focused right now, not an all-encompassing, objective, definitive measurement of the the greatest films ever made.

I think it would also help to rephrase it from “critics voted Jeanne Dielman the best film of all time” to “more of the critics chosen for this specific poll recommended Jeanne Dielman than any other film they had the opportunity to cite,” because after all, aren’t the ballots really just opportunities given to a select group of people to recommend 10 films to other people who pay attention to this poll? The votes aren’t really even tabulated using a ranked ballot, so it’s totally possible that very few voters actually consider it the single greatest film ever made. It got to #1 because more of them had it in their list of 10 than any other film, which really only means that, when asked the question “Which 10 films do you think serious cinephiles should study?” (which is more accurately the purpose of the poll), more people *this time* decided Jeanne Dielman should be included in that list than any other film. Not that it’s better than any other film, just that in 2022, this is the film that the most of them agreed should be included in that conversation.

Yep. Whenever an established canon is altered or upset in some way, people on the right or centre dismiss it as illegitimate, an attempt to influence the list politically by sliding it leftwards without concern for taste or artistic standards. When an established canon is reaffirmed or reestablished, people on the left claim it is illegitimate, an attempt by the current power structures to assert their hegemony in defiance of the marginal and disadvantaged.

Rightists/centrists assume all change is politically motivated, but that all established canons are not. Leftists assume all established canons are expressions of illegitimate power, but that leftward canon change is organic and reflects modern (ie. proper) thinking.

My temptation is to ignore the question of which side is right or wrong, and instead see both as using lists like this as a proxy in a larger battle over values and norms. Both sides see their outgroup as being secretly in control of norms and culture, and both blame change or the failure to change on that fact.

All the new picks or promotions, in their own words:

'A poster film for Black Lives Matter... white vampirism... racial malaise.'

'...lifts the mask on France's racist post-colonial relationship...'

'...class-war thriller... for our unequal times.'

'...post-colonial fantasies.'

'...Afrocentric aesthetics...Black womanhood...'

'...queer identity...'

'...the gender politics of her era.' [arranged marriages? in modern France?]

'Racial tensions reach a boiling point...'

'...becomes more subject than object...'

'...a feminist perspective...'

Or the film is directed by a woman.


The old joke went something like, 'we're not doing that, and it's a good thing we are!'

I'm not saying these are good or bad films (I like Daisies, Cléo from 9 to 5, Jeanne Dielman). But come now. None of us had to mention which films we meant — as soon as someone dropped the word 'political', everybody knew which. Nobody said 'what's wrong with including the Battle of Algiers? That's a good movie!'

And where's the film included here that attempts to push right wing ideas? Family, nation, church, individualism, etc?

Canons can be better made or worse, and this list (the collective mind that made it) had more things on its mind than just quality. Of course that's always true, but the politicized choices of past eras tend to fall off in subsequent polls, until those left that are 'more' political are also brilliant works of art (like the Battle of Algiers).

But good point about 'these are the films most critics sought to include anywhere on their list' — it's easy to act like each critic was asked to choose a top 100, rather than simply nominate 10 unranked choices. Completely agree. That's a persuasive illusion. You could even put it like this: 'A majority of critics think 'Jeanne Dielman' deserves to be within the top 10 best films ever made'.

[Mr Sausage]

It's remarkable how many words you've expended in this thread in order to say nothing at all.

[Walter Kurtz]

However... a fine imitation of Professor Irwin Corey!

[rde]

It's remarkable how many words you've expended in this thread in order to say nothing at all.

Nobody has a problem with Battleship Potemkin being on there. Nobody thinks 'wow, I know the politics of the people who voted for that!' A bunch of critics with Leninist sympathies? No.

You don't like what you assume are my politics so you're not replying to what I'm saying. I told you you had a point. But I'm not sure why we've all got to collectively pretend that major cinemas, film distributors, film polls, and the rest, are all moving in a certain direction, but hey, nothing to see here. They say the exact reason they're doing it, and then, when someone points it out, they get replies like yours above. I'm literally restating their reasoning.

[rde]

Anyone surprised not one of arguably the three biggest and revered filmmakers of the last 25 years that all started in the 1990s do not have one film on the list... PT Anderson, Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino? For me this is really the biggest disappointment with this list. You can probably throw in the Coen Brothers.

Yea, PTA deserves a spot. That's a weird omission.

[Soothsayer]

It's remarkable how many words you've expended in this thread in order to say nothing at all.

Nobody has a problem with Battleship Potemkin being on there. Nobody thinks 'wow, I know the politics of the people who voted for that!' A bunch of critics with Leninist sympathies? No.

You don't like what you assume are my politics so you're not replying to what I'm saying. I told you you had a point. But I'm not sure why we've all got to collectively pretend that major cinemas, film distributors, film polls, and the rest, are all moving in a certain direction, but hey, nothing to see here.

I’m still waiting for you to stop ignoring earlier names which DIRECTLY show how you’ve just been spinning wheels in this thread. Once and for all, have you seen any Lav Diaz or Wang Bing from the 2010’s? Yes or no, how “popular” they may be or whatever politics you assume are irrelevant.

[Mr Sausage]

It's remarkable how many words you've expended in this thread in order to say nothing at all.

Nobody has a problem with Battleship Potemkin being on there. Nobody thinks 'wow, I know the politics of the people who voted for that!' A bunch of critics with Leninist sympathies? No.

You don't like what you assume are my politics so you're not replying to what I'm saying. I told you you had a point. But I'm not sure why we've all got to collectively pretend that major cinemas, film distributors, film polls, and the rest, are all moving in a certain direction, but hey, nothing to see here. They say the exact reason they're doing it, and then, when someone points it out, they get replies like yours above. I'm literally restating their reasoning.

There's nothing to respond to in your posts. They're empty.

[rde]

It's remarkable how many words you've expended in this thread in order to say nothing at all.

Nobody has a problem with Battleship Potemkin being on there. Nobody thinks 'wow, I know the politics of the people who voted for that!' A bunch of critics with Leninist sympathies? No.

You don't like what you assume are my politics so you're not replying to what I'm saying. I told you you had a point. But I'm not sure why we've all got to collectively pretend that major cinemas, film distributors, film polls, and the rest, are all moving in a certain direction, but hey, nothing to see here. They say the exact reason they're doing it, and then, when someone points it out, they get replies like yours above. I'm literally restating their reasoning.

There's nothing to respond to in your posts. They're empty.

So when people say the recent choices have been 'politicized', what do they mean?

You're dodging the argument.

[rde]

It's remarkable how many words you've expended in this thread in order to say nothing at all.

Nobody has a problem with Battleship Potemkin being on there. Nobody thinks 'wow, I know the politics of the people who voted for that!' A bunch of critics with Leninist sympathies? No.

You don't like what you assume are my politics so you're not replying to what I'm saying. I told you you had a point. But I'm not sure why we've all got to collectively pretend that major cinemas, film distributors, film polls, and the rest, are all moving in a certain direction, but hey, nothing to see here.

I’m still waiting for you to stop ignoring earlier names which DIRECTLY show how you’ve just been spinning wheels in this thread. Once and for all, have you seen any Lav Diaz or Wang Bing from the 2010’s? Yes or no, how “popular” they may be or whatever politics you assume are irrelevant.

I already said I haven't seen Lav Diaz. And I haven't seen Bing either. But are they on the list? No? Why not? Because those films aren't in tune with the political currents in American? So if you think they should be included, then your picks are being nudged out for the same political reasons I just described. It's bad canon building, it's not good for anyone.

The spots are few and every choice that's 'reserved' for reasons that are obvious — and openly stated — takes a spot away from films like you described — which means that fewer people will see them. I read critic polls and I see what films get a spot in the theaters and they are not the films you describe. Why is that? We're on the same side, if there must be sides.

[Soothsayer]

Nobody has a problem with Battleship Potemkin being on there. Nobody thinks 'wow, I know the politics of the people who voted for that!' A bunch of critics with Leninist sympathies? No.

You don't like what you assume are my politics so you're not replying to what I'm saying. I told you you had a point. But I'm not sure why we've all got to collectively pretend that major cinemas, film distributors, film polls, and the rest, are all moving in a certain direction, but hey, nothing to see here.

I’m still waiting for you to stop ignoring earlier names which DIRECTLY show how you’ve just been spinning wheels in this thread. Once and for all, have you seen any Lav Diaz or Wang Bing from the 2010’s? Yes or no, how “popular” they may be or whatever politics you assume are irrelevant.

I already said I haven't seen Lav Diaz. And I haven't seen Bing either. But are they on the list? No? Why not? Because those films aren't in tune with the political currents in American? So if you think they should be included, then your picks are being nudged out for the same political reasons I just described. It's bad canon building, it's not good for anyone.

The spots are few and every choice that's 'reserved' for reasons that are obvious — and openly stated — takes a spot away from films like you described — which means that fewer people will see them. I read critic polls and I see what films get a spot in the theaters and they are not the films you describe. Why is that? We're on the same side.

Just because you think those two directors are the best from recent years doesn't mean that a person who hasn't seen them can't have an opinion on the recent years in cinema. How many critics don't have those directors on their list either?

Your insistence on assuming politics as a motivator for why I think a film is great is both baseless and flat out wrong. I am only asking about thise 2 and films they made in the 2010’s because I think your assertion about no films from the 2010’s being on this list is silly.

[rde]

I’m still waiting for you to stop ignoring earlier names which DIRECTLY show how you’ve just been spinning wheels in this thread. Once and for all, have you seen any Lav Diaz or Wang Bing from the 2010’s? Yes or no, how “popular” they may be or whatever politics you assume are irrelevant.

I already said I haven't seen Lav Diaz. And I haven't seen Bing either. But are they on the list? No? Why not? Because those films aren't in tune with the political currents in American? So if you think they should be included, then your picks are being nudged out for the same political reasons I just described. It's bad canon building, it's not good for anyone.

The spots are few and every choice that's 'reserved' for reasons that are obvious — and openly stated — takes a spot away from films like you described — which means that fewer people will see them. I read critic polls and I see what films get a spot in the theaters and they are not the films you describe. Why is that? We're on the same side.

Just because you think those two directors are the best from recent years doesn't mean that a person who hasn't seen them can't have an opinion on the recent years in cinema. How many critics don't have those directors on their list either?

Your insistence on assuming politics as a motivator for why I think a film is great is both baseless and flat out wrong. I am only asking about thise 2 and films they made in the 2010’s because I think your assertion about no films from the 2010’s being on this list is silly.

You misunderstand me. I meant that political priorities were the reason why films by Diaz and Bing are not being included on lists like this, and if they are worthy, then that's a shame. They are ignored because they have little/nothing to do with contemporary politics (in America or Europe). Choosing them would serve no outside goal.

I didn't say, and didn't mean to say, that politics were your reason for choosing them. The opposite, man! They look like fine movies, but I had never heard of them. I was speculating why. And the films that have been pushed forward in their place aren't very good, and they often fulfill some political objective. I don't think this is a coincidence.

There are better films from before 2009 than the ones they (and lots of critics) chose. Is Get Out better than the Cameraman? Why was Get Out chosen? Especially when there are so many choices — and I'll take your word on Diaz and Bing — that are worthy.

[Mr Sausage]

Nobody has a problem with Battleship Potemkin being on there. Nobody thinks 'wow, I know the politics of the people who voted for that!' A bunch of critics with Leninist sympathies? No.

You don't like what you assume are my politics so you're not replying to what I'm saying. I told you you had a point. But I'm not sure why we've all got to collectively pretend that major cinemas, film distributors, film polls, and the rest, are all moving in a certain direction, but hey, nothing to see here. They say the exact reason they're doing it, and then, when someone points it out, they get replies like yours above. I'm literally restating their reasoning.

There's nothing to respond to in your posts. They're empty.

So when people say the recent choices have been 'politicized', what do they mean?

You're dodging the argument.

No, I’m just not engaging with you. Which is all you want. For your words to be important enough to be argued with or railed against. But they’re not. Over and over again, you say nothing at all. Please stop posting. You’re just cluttering the thread.

[rde]

There's nothing to respond to in your posts. They're empty.

So when people say the recent choices have been 'politicized', what do they mean?

You're dodging the argument.

No, I’m just not engaging with you. Which is all you want. For your words to be important enough to be argued with or railed against. But they’re not. Over and over again, you say nothing at all. Please stop posting. You’re just cluttering the thread.

You think I'm trying to engage in bad faith? Everybody who posts on a board wants to be engaged with, so that's a little odd to say. If you think I'm doing it for trollish reasons, I can tell you I'm not.

I don't like politics intruding into art. That's why I'm saying what I said. I'm not trying to get into a political brawl. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm saying nothing. And surely there are plenty of people who had the thought 'erhmm, I think I know why they picked that one', but apparently I'm a troll or something for saying it out loud.

I think Akerman and Varda and Chytilová are great directors. But the culture is getting radical (as in politics must be a main motivating factor in everything) and that's not a good thing. It's a legitimate conversation to have.

You could tell me why you think those were the right selections?

[Mr Sausage]

This is tiresome. Please stop posting.

[rde]

This is tiresome. Please stop posting.

I haven't been rude to you.

[Walter Kurtz]

rde... when Professor Corey was on the Tonight Show he was allotted five minutes for his schtick and then when done, on cue, the band would start playing. I think what Sausage is saying is that the band has started playing.