criterionforum.org

It's silly to say that people who like a movie you don't like must have ulterior motives for doing so. I understand how unavailability boosts both mythmaking and cheerleading but come on now.

If it makes anyone feel any better, I love Dreyer and Renoir far more than I did ten years ago, but then again, I don’t get to vote!

I do, and I love both, but I doubt either will feature on my list.

But this is such a flawed exercise anyway that does it really matter? It's always had the inherent problem that directors with one single obvious "hit" (Eisenstein, Ozu, Renoir) tend to poll much higher than equally talented filmmakers with a large and very consistent body of work (Bresson, Buñuel) - ironically, Ozu should by rights be in the latter group, but the historical accident of Tokyo Story being singled out for canonisation has given him a disproportionate advantage.

The previous editor of Sight & Sound, who oversaw the 2002 and 2012 polls, cheerfully admitted that the whole exercise is basically a parlour game - it's given weight by the fact that it's the largest such poll of professional critics and it's been going on for seventy years, but it's ultimately no more intrinsically significant than any other random list-piece.

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

kidc wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:31 pm What is it about Dreyer's Gertrud and Ordet that make them less likely to be listed this time around?

They’ll get votes, but I suspect fewer than they did in 2012. I don’t have any social media, but I’m vaguely aware of Film Twitter and Letterboxd culture just through reading what other people report on them here and on other sites, blogs, and boards I follow, and the general impression I get is that the current conversation among younger cinephiles is less focused on Dreyer than it was a decade ago. Which is of course not to suggest that this year’s Sight & Sound poll will be voted on entirely by people who occupy Letterboxd and Film Twitter, but since I’m sure there will be some sort of active effort to include the votes of many younger people who didn’t get a vote in 2012, I think looking to those conversations might be at least somewhat revealing as far as where they want to shift the conversation.

I get the sense that interest in Dreyer — as well as certain other directors like Renoir, Bresson, and maybe Antonioni — peaked in earlier polls, and now that they’re more or less already fully canonized, there may be less incentive for voters to go all in for them this time around. They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They? just did a user poll of the greatest films a few months ago, and I think the results of that are a fairly good representation of where people seem to want to move the conversation. Because ultimately, the Sight & Sound poll is an opportunity to reshape and add to the canon, so while I’m sure some voters will simply choose their favorites regardless of whether or not they’re already canonized, I think even more voters make a conscious attempt to contribute something different to the canon, and in that respect, the “old guard,” for lack of a better term, is at a disadvantage in that merely reiterating the greatness of Dreyer and Renoir will feel like a wasted opportunity for many voters.

Every Sight & Sound poll seems to see a few directors really surge due to a significant influx in contemporary interest in them. Last time you could see Bresson, Ozu, and Dreyer make big strides (maybe Paul Schrader’s book was big at the time? I don’t remember), and especially, 2012 was the poll that seemed to officially induct Tarkovsky into that highest tier.

It’s also cyclical, however, because for a while it seemed like Kurosawa’s presence was diminishing somewhat once more people started discovering his contemporary compatriots that were previously not as widely seen in the West (namely Mizoguchi and Ozu), but now it seems like Kurosawa is very much en vogue again, so to speak (I’m guessing because a new generation of cinephiles is just digging into his filmography). So it’s not to say Dreyer’s place in film history is going to be diminished, just that at this particular moment in time, he may not feature as significantly as he did in decades prior. (The Passion of Joan of Arc will likely be the exception, however.)

As several previous members have commented, there will be a few directors who rise up the ranks this year as voters make that effort to fully induct them into the canon, and I expect those to include Edward Yang, Abbas Kiarostami, Agnes Varda, Wong Kar-wai, and David Lynch. They’ve all featured on previous lists, but I imagine they will HEAVILY feature on this one, because they’re each in their own way representative of where the conversation has shifted over the past decade.

kidc wrote: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.”

One might say Gertrud is so austere that it comes around on the other side of it. Also, the BFI's Blu-ray boxset, which I doubt Criterion could better, just came out in 2015. (Do BFI-favored directors/films tend to have an edge on this BFI-originated poll?)

Matt wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:58 pm

kidc wrote: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.”

Apparently not, although I'm a bit surprised it received so many votes (31) compared to Day of Wrath (9) and Vampyr (11) (and J Rosenbaum not even among them):

Adriano Aprà
Robert Beeson
Ronald Bergan
Richard Brody
Noël Burch
Dan Callahan
Bernard Eisenschitz
Tag Gallagher
Fernando Ganzo
Catherine Gautier
Sonia Genaitay
Fritz Göttler
Evgeny Gusyatinskiy
Carlos F. Heredero
Shanay Jhaveri
Daniel Kasman
Hiroshi Komatsu
Michel Lipkes
Dario Marchiori
Peter Matthews
Boris Nelepo
Jaime Pena
David Phelps
James Quandt
José Luis Rebordinos
Jon Robertson
Michael Sicinski
Iain Sinclair
Chung Sung-ill
Koen van Daele
Un-Seong Yoo

One pantheon director who did poorly was Sternberg: His highscorers Shanghai Express, Morocco, The Docks of New York, The Scarlet Empress, and Anatahan received just 2 votes each.

Of course, he's had neat BD-sets released on both sides of the Atlantic in the meantime + there's the Dietrich connection which might help.

I think the biggest change is going to be inclusion and representational on most ballots. I think there will be hundreds of participants who (for the first time) will give themselves an additional rule like "must include one film by a female director," and / or "must include one film by a BIPOC director" and there will also be dozens of participants who (for the first time) will have rules like "must be only films by female directors" and / or "must be only films by BIPOC directors".

Considering last time about 90% of lists (rough guess and potentially faulty memory from hours of perusal in 2012/13) were exclusively male directors and / or exclusively white American, European and Japanese directors, those sorts of rules being more widely adopted will be good, and will also hugely benefit someone like Akerman with a singular masterpiece already singled out. Varda, Campion, and Denis have more widely celebrated bodies of work and I think they will chart many more films in this poll but I doubt they will threaten the top twenty. I would be shocked if Jeanne Dielman charts below 15 and I expect it to make the top ten.

And there's nothing wrong with those sorts of rules, they're exactly like other rules already widely and disparately used as individuals so wish.

For instance, remember in the past (2002 list I think), folks like Ebert talking about the various tricks and rules they imposed on themselves for each list, Ebert insisted on including one film from the last ten years each time the voting came around, for example. Innumerable voters in 2012 imposed a "one film per director rule" whilst others do a "one film per decade" rule. And it doesn't stop there, others do a "one film per country rule" still others do "only films from my country/region" rule, or a "must include one silent film" rule, or a "must have watched all ten of my choices at least once in the last ten years" rule (okay I haven't heard of anyone doing this, but this is my personal rule whenever I make a top ten, hah).

All of which are of course equally valid approaches to the absurdity of limiting to a top ten.

But don't worry, the integrity of the list in excluding/ignoring the greatest and most important hollywood films of the 1980s will not be threatened this or anytime ever, so everyone will be comforted in knowing it's truly art because we kept the riffraff out. (sarcasm! I think this list is absurd, fun, important but not sacred with definite hostile blindspots for populism from the last forty years)

swo17 wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:18 pm One might say Gertrud is so austere that it comes around on the other side of it. Also, the BFI's Blu-ray boxset, which I doubt Criterion could better, just came out in 2015. (Do BFI-favored directors/films tend to have an edge on this BFI-originated poll?)

No.

I think there will also be more films that fall under the cult umbrella represented this time, as cult films are taken much more seriously in cinephile/academic circles than they were a decade ago (partly, I think, because of labels like Arrow and Vinegar Syndrome giving them a lot of care and attention). It may have even transcended its “cult” label by now, but I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to see Suspiria in a pretty high position, for instance (especially on the director’s poll).

So I agree with the previous assessments that a broader range of filmmaker diversity and inclusivity will be a point for many voters to make this year, but I think we’ll also see a lot more diversity in the types of films represented as well. I expect a fairly esoteric mix of arthouse and grindhouse (the larger point being that the distinction between the two is becoming increasingly blurred in contemporary film discourse), and we’ll definitely see more countries represented than ever before as well as a lot more films made by female and/or BIPOC directors. I have very little doubt it will be the most diverse Sight & Sound list ever, in several different ways.

As far as films that could break into the top 10 for the first time, I think Jeanne Dielman, In the Mood for Love, Mulholland Dr., Apocalypse Now, and maybe Taxi Driver all stand a chance. A few that seem a bit less likely but still possible would be Beau travail, A Brighter Summer Day, Barry Lyndon, or a Tarkovsky film (although the lack of consensus for the latter is probably what will prevent any from ranking quite that high). I also think there’s a more than decent chance that Persona makes it back to the top 10 for the first time since the 1972 poll given it’s become a pretty solid consensus pick for Bergman as of late. In any case, I think every film I just mentioned will probably at least be in the top 20, or top 30 at the lowest.

And like a few others here have already expressed, I’d also be a little surprised if Vertigo stayed at #1. I think it’s even possible it ends up in the bottom half of the top 10 (though it would definitely be surprising to see it not even make the top 10, and I’d have to chalk it up to backlash against it being #1 last time in the unlikely event that does happen). Citizen Kane may well reclaim the top spot, or if there’s a brand new #1, I could see it being either 2001 or Tokyo Story.

movielocke wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:18 pmFor instance, remember in the past (2002 list I think), folks like Ebert talking about the various tricks and rules they imposed on themselves for each list, Ebert insisted on including one film from the last ten years each time the voting came around, for example. Innumerable voters in 2012 imposed a "one film per director rule" whilst others do a "one film per decade" rule. And it doesn't stop there, others do a "one film per country rule" still others do "only films from my country/region" rule, or a "must include one silent film" rule, or a "must have watched all ten of my choices at least once in the last ten years" rule (okay I haven't heard of anyone doing this, but this is my personal rule whenever I make a top ten, hah).

As I said above, it's a parlour game - the whole idea of nominating the ten greatest films of all time is intrinsically absurd, so there's nothing wrong with drawing up ground rules. I basically had two: that none of my selection made the top ten in any previous Sight & Sound poll, and every single one of my choices had to have had a profound impact on me personally, regardless of canonical reputation - hence the inclusion of films like Stalker and L'Argent that I saw on their original release when I was still in my teens, ditto Once Upon a Time in the West, which I caught in the first UK run of the full version (1982, Empire Leicester Square, absolutely unforgettable) and for similar reasons I had to have a Buñuel (I plumped for L'âge d'or, but it honestly could have been a random selection from at least half a dozen), and something British (Kind Hearts and Coronets, although in retrospect I really should have gone for something by Nicolas Roeg).

I also very much wanted to throw in something unconventional, hence Marcel Łoziński's 40-minute Anything Can Happen, a quite extraordinary film whose extreme simplicity - a curious, garrulous six-year-old accosts various elderly people in a park and starts quizzing them about their life experience - belies its overwhelming impact, and it also confirms that genuinely great cinema doesn't have to consist of a fictional narrative running between 80 and 120 minutes. The film on my 2012 list that I saw for the first time most recently was Marketa Lazarová (made 1967, watched in 2007), and the one that was most recently made was In the Mood for Love (2000, original release).

MichaelB wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:14 pm As I said above, it's a parlour game - the whole idea of nominating the ten greatest films of all time is intrinsically absurd, so there's nothing wrong with drawing up ground rules.

Exactly. I think Jonathan Rosenbaum, in his alternate AFI 100 series, talked about a book from the seventies that was sort of an anti-sight and sound list, "overlooked and mis-appreciated" films and the rules were the participants could submit a list of however many films they wanted that fit the criteria as they saw fit. I think I then found the book on ILL and it was an interesting perusal, but I've long since forgotten what it was actually called. The ten-spot rule of Sight and sound is both it's genius and its stupidity all at the same--as it is with pretty much all lists.

I like your rule about personal impact. I think if I were voting, that would be my primary criteria. Back during the initial Covid Lockdown of 2020, my wife and I revisited a bunch of movies we'd never watched together or since we were teenagers, like Back to the Future and Indiana Jones, and I was a little thunderstruck at the time watching Back to the Future again and realizing what a profound impact that movie had on me from a young age and all through my growing up years. The first movie that had a major impact on me. And while I'd have never have included it in a top ten before, it's pretty much been in my top ten since, and there it will stay, because the impact was and is significant.

I've always enjoyed the Sight and Sound lists, because while I got into movies around 17-18 and watched a bunch of the Godfather/Hitchcock/Scorsese vein of American film history, I got into Cinema around 19-20, and started watching the AFI 100 films. When I was about half-way through that list, the Sight and Sound 2002 list came out, and I began alternating AFI and S&S movies for the next several years.

I found some letterboxd lists of prior polls

Sight and Sound 1992 List

Sight and Sound 2002 List

Sight and Sound 2012 List

Matt wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:32 amAlso, 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.

It would be on my top ten list, and I'm in my early thirties (speaking of which, what bar do you have to clear to participate in this poll? Is it something you can apply for, or is it more of a don't-call-us-we'll-call-you situation?)

In any case, I don't think this particular example holds up – under-50s are generally quite adept at using "the internet", and I dare say that any Gen Y cinephile who wanted to see this film has seen it by now. But this comes back to my question above about who's being surveyed; yes, a poll of Letterboxd users would likely skew towards Criterion releases at the expense of titles that haven't received that seal of approval, but this poll is primarily for professional film critics, right? These are people who not only have access to the same resources as the rest of us, but also get around to international festivals where films like Eustache's do get screened from time to time. So all up, I'd wager that more or less the same proportion of that cohort would have seen La maman et la putain as would have seen any of the (long commercially available on home video) major works by, say, Rohmer or Rivette, and I don't think there's going to be any particular generational skew on that.

I’m obviously using hyperbole to make some of my points here and would love for the poll to prove me wrong on these points.

MV88 wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:30 pm As several previous members have commented, there will be a few directors who rise up the ranks this year as voters make that effort to fully induct them into the canon, and I expect those to include Edward Yang, Abbas Kiarostami, Agnes Varda, Wong Kar-wai, and David Lynch.

Those are pretty spot on. Add Come and See to that list, five years ago it was a somewhat well known film in my mind but not more than that, now it seems to be considered one of the best films of all time by the internet. Sheptiko's The Ascent too, maybe there's something about soviet war films for the 2020s generation.

The Wheels on the Lists go Round and Round (I hope this doesn't cause the threads to be merged) 8-[

That's the CF discussion thread preceding and responding to the 2012 Sight and Sound list. And my my, we are saying all the same things again: wondering how high Jeanne Dielman would climb, worrying that Renoir and Dreyer and the mid-century European art cinema would be snubbed (Renoir stayed in the top ten and Gertrud had a dazzling debut entering the top fifty for the first time and Dielman rocketed into the top fifty as well) and asserting that exotic rarity conferred value on certain films, which may be devalued if they're no longer rare.

Out1 will be happy to hear that in 2010 we assumed that Dielman becoming available before the 2012 list and viewers now free to discover it was long and difficult would mean it's reputation might falter, but that didn't come to pass.

I'd forgotten that Silent films made a gargantuan comeback in the top of the 2012 list, charting three films in the top ten.

Also the comparison to the 2002 poll swo did is instructive in some of the debates we've been having, and what films may continue to climb (looking at the numbers below, I'd say that Mirror, Late Spring, Persona, In the Mood for Love, Mulholland Dr, Stalker and Dielman all have good shots at cracking the top ten, but a trend can just as easily reverse).

swo17 wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:55 pm Here are some geeky comparisons with the 2002 poll:

FILMS THAT CHANGED POSITION

19 Mirror +26
24 Ordet +21
08 Man with a Movie Camera +19
29 Shoah +16
33 Bicycle Thieves +12
26 Andrei Rublev +9
09 The Passion of Joan of Arc +5
07 The Searchers +4
31 Taxi Driver +4
12 L'Atalante +3
16 Au hasard Balthazar +3
42 Pierrot le fou +3
03 Tokyo Story +2
05 Sunrise +2
13 Breathless +2
01 Vertigo +1
21 Le Mépris +1
06 2001: A Space Odyssey
35 Psycho
02 Citizen Kane -1
04 La Règle du jeu -1
10 8½ -1
21 L'avventura -2
11 Battleship Potemkin -4
39 The 400 Blows -4
50 City Lights -5
17 Seven Samurai -6
35 Metropolis -8
20 Singin' in the Rain -10
26 Rashomon -13
39 La dolce vita -15
42 Some Like It Hot -15
21 The Godfather -17
34 The General -19
42 Pather Panchali -20
50 Ugetsu monogatari -23
31 The Godfather Part II -27

NEW TO THE 2012 POLL'S TOP 50

14 Apocalypse Now
15 Late Spring
17 Persona
24 In the Mood for Love
28 Mulholland Dr.
29 Stalker
35 Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles
35 Sátántangó
41 Journey to Italy
42 Close-Up
42 Gertrud
42 Play Time
48 The Battle of Algiers
48 Histoire(s) du cinéma
50 La Jetée

DROPPED OFF FROM THE 2002 POLL'S TOP 50

15 Touch of Evil
19 Jules et Jim
24 M
24 The Story of the Last Chrysanthemums
27 Barry Lyndon
27 Les Enfants du paradis
27 Ivan the Terrible
27 Wild Strawberries
35 Fanny and Alexander
35 La Grande Illusion
35 The Magnificent Ambersons
45 The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
35 Modern Times
35 The Seventh Seal
35 The Third Man
45 Blade Runner
45 Greed
45 Intolerance
45 Lawrence of Arabia
45 Letter from an Unknown Woman
45 Rio Bravo
45 Sansho dayu
45 The Travelling Players
45 Two or Three Things I Know About Her

What a kook

I feel slightly guilty about The General, which I undoubtedly would have voted for if I hadn't had a self-imposed "no films that previously made the top ten" rule. So I might waive that this time round, as I genuinely think that Buster Keaton is the single most all-round talented individual ever to work in film.

MichaelB wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:14 pm

movielocke wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:18 pmFor instance, remember in the past (2002 list I think), folks like Ebert talking about the various tricks and rules they imposed on themselves for each list, Ebert insisted on including one film from the last ten years each time the voting came around, for example. Innumerable voters in 2012 imposed a "one film per director rule" whilst others do a "one film per decade" rule. And it doesn't stop there, others do a "one film per country rule" still others do "only films from my country/region" rule, or a "must include one silent film" rule, or a "must have watched all ten of my choices at least once in the last ten years" rule (okay I haven't heard of anyone doing this, but this is my personal rule whenever I make a top ten, hah).

As I said above, it's a parlour game - the whole idea of nominating the ten greatest films of all time is intrinsically absurd, so there's nothing wrong with drawing up ground rules. I basically had two: that none of my selection made the top ten in any previous Sight & Sound poll, and every single one of my choices had to have had a profound impact on me personally, regardless of canonical reputation -

And I think this is wrong.
There shouldn't be any rules or restrictions. Nothing like "only one film per director/country/ decade", nothing like "this or that classic must be in it", nothing like "it should be unusual" etc.

Contributors should just name their 10 favourite films,those they enjoy the most, they watch the most, those they would keep if they had to keep only 10 for the rest of their life, or in other words: the island films. And if e.g. one likes westerns more than any other films, well, than he should name 10 westerns. Or 10 films by one director or one actor or whatever.

Contributors should make their list personal (there is no objectivity anyway, especially not in art),they should not vote for the films of which they think are the greatest or most important, but for those they love the most.

No rules, only admiration ...

They can do whatever they want, which is the whole point.

The only real difference between this poll and countless others is that everyone who's invited to contribute is a professional critic who's achieved a certain reputation, so there's a core expectation that that all contributors will have a good grasp of film history and international cinema. Other than that, it's the same old parlour game as seen everywhere else.

And then their is the fact that in such lists there is an incredible preference for very old films ...

Of course I can easily understand that new films need their time to make such kind of list, but for me the conservatism of these lists is a bit disappointing.
The most recent film in the latest top 10 is from 1968, and 3 of the films are even from before 1930. I view this as odd, considering how far film has developed and renewed itself since then. I actually think that in any decade since 1960 more great films were made than in all the decades before 1960 together. And to avoid misunderstandings, I really can enjoy films from before 1960, I was raised with them, and I know a lot of them, but newer films are just more interesting for me. The Rules of the Game is e.g. a wonderful film, but never in a personal top 100. A personal top 100 would include some older films, but only some, but would also include films from the last decade.

I also think that the list of the directors is always less conservative than those of the critics.

MichaelB wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:39 pm They can do whatever they want, which is the whole point.

Of course, but S&S should not ask for the "greatest films" but for the "favourite films". For me this would btw be the same, not because my opinion is more worth than others, but because I can only view art from my subjective point of view.

To make it more clear, if asked for the greatest films too many feel obliged to name some of the usual suspects, for the only reason that some (or many?) think some of them must be included. I know this kind of thinking from other polls.

Lighthouse wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:41 pm And then their is the fact that in such lists there is an incredible preference for very old films ...

Of course I can easily understand that new films need their time to make such kind of list, but for me the conservatism of these lists is a bit disappointing.
The most recent film in the latest top 10 is from 1968, and 3 of the films are even from before 1930. I view this as odd, considering how far film has developed and renewed itself since then. I actually think that in any decade since 1960 more great films were made than in all the decades before 1960 together.

I think quite a lot of people here will disagree with that last sentence quite strongly!

More generally, I don't think it's the least bit odd, because over the last 50-60 years appreciation of cinema has become far more internationally oriented, far more titles are in contention, far more titles are being voted for, and inevitably the more established ones are going to have a disproportionate advantage purely through familiarity. You say as an individual that "newer films are just more interesting for me", but unless a statistically significant number of people votes for the same films, it's not going to have any real impact.

Anyway, I genuinely do rank The General and L'âge d'or amongst my most breathtaking cinema experiences - I saw both on the big screen in my mid-teens and the latter in particular had a properly seismic impact on my understanding of what film as an art form could do. In fact, I could easily put together a list of ten pre-1930s titles that are every bit as important to me as the titles that end up on my final list.