Sight & Sound

[rde]

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.

It's not a shtick. I'm not trolling. I'm not the only person who thinks that recent politics have had a heavy influence over the changes from last list. Sausage said the lists are always political.

And what else is there to talk about besides the changes? Most of the films on the list have been there for decades.

But I think the politicization is a matter of degrees, and less is better than more.

Battleship Potemkin is an out-and-out propaganda film. And it's a good movie that deserves to be there. That's a 'political' movie with an apolitical consensus in support of it.

And nobody thinks that, I don't know, the General is a 'politicized' choice. So there's clearly a spectrum of more or less politically motivated choices.

We all know when a choice is more or less political, and he talked about the struggle over that choice as having interested him. But apparently it does not interest him when someone who does not share his politics (what I assume to be his politics, anyway) talks about it. But I'm not trying to be rude.

[hearthesilence]

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 have (though to be fair I guess we don't know each other IRL). It's definitely less accessible these days - IIRC I saw a 35mm screening at Lincoln Center several years ago, and I think it's really the only time I've been able to see it in excellent quality. Loved it, I think it's a great and wonderful film - Terrence Malick fans should definitely see it - but even if it was more widely available, I can't say I'd expect it to remain in the poll's top 100. All the merits (and for that matter, its few drawbacks - it was commissioned by an oil company) have not diminished, but a lot of great films have been released in the 70 years since the 1952 poll.

Upthread there was a list of what fell off the top 100 and what was new, and honestly except for a few selections, I thought nearly every one of those films was a truly great film deserving recognition. Again 100 films is NOT a lot of films. When Rolling Stone held their "best" album polls, with few exceptions they generally didn't stretch past 1965, which isn't that long ago - for a while the poll results were cut off at 100 albums, but by the 21st century they expanded it to 500, which is probably a wee bit excessive, but at the same time, the majority of those selected were great albums. I actually make a running tally of personal favorites that I'd argue for their greatness, just for my own reference, and I think that list is now roughly a thousand. Even if you went all-in on auteurs and focused on just great directors, it's pretty easy to go past 100 films - it's pretty easy to come up with at least three masterpieces from three dozen great directors.

Again, I know these things get evaluated like sports rankings, but I think the best way to approach these polls is to ignore all that. No poll can ever be definitive, it's inherently ridiculous to rank works of art as if you can apply sabermetrics to them, but such polls can be edifying in other ways. A lot of very intelligent people I know have never seen Jeanne Dielman, and the fact that it hit #1 sticks out for them - not as an argument for whether it's truly "the greatest" but simply for the value it has for the people who voted for it. This applies to past polls too - when it was originally released, The Searchers was viewed as a pot boiler to a lot of American moviegoers, but when it starts inching into the top ten, I'm guessing a lot of people gave it a look, thinking there was a lot more to it than they realized, and what it has to say really says a lot about Westerns that probably didn't get enough attention back then.

[Peacock]

Ultimately I think we can all agree though that the only reason La Flor isn’t in the Top 100 is due to swo not putting enough effort in to convince Grasshopper to release it.

[diamonds]

Ultimately I think we can all agree though that the only reason La Flor isn’t in the Top 100 is due to swo not putting enough effort in to convince Grasshopper to release it.

Spoiler

(via)

When all the ballots are released I'd be curious to see whether it got any votes (surely it must have) and if those votes skewed toward German critics even slightly given the German Blu release. If so it would conform to the overall availability trend noted earlier.

[spectre]

There are plenty of worthy contenders from 2000–2009 (many of which made the list).

While there are a few from 2000 and 2001 and another handful from 2016 to 2019, the real story here is that only one film from 2002–2015 (2004's Tropical Malady) made it. That's a pretty major period of cinema – with directors at their peak including Haneke, von Trier, Reygadas, Lee Chang-dong, the Dardenne brothers, PTA, among many others – that seemingly hasn't stuck much with critics. Will be interesting to see if some of those films and filmmakers re-emerge in the 2032 poll; you'd think they'd have to.

[Noiretirc]

I sort of get where rde is coming from. (I know....I know....the band is playing, perhaps for both of us?)

I've insisted in this thread that politics IS a part of this process, whenever any organization compiles a list of Greatest Ever Art. Unlike rde, I believe that this is unavoidable. It's human nature. I cannot and will not complain about it. It is what it is. Now, this can be bad for some of us, depending on what list we are dealing with. But in this/my case, I like the politics of S+S. I love what they do, who they want to associate with, and their values/mission. And even though I see baffling omissions, I'm still very happy overall with what they have done here - especially with the #1 spot.

[Noiretirc]

And yes, they seriously need to expand to 250 films.

[rde]

I sort of get where rde is coming from. (I know....I know....the band is playing, perhaps for both of us?)

I've insisted in this thread that politics IS a part of this process, whenever any organization compiles a list of Greatest Ever Art. Unlike rde, I believe that this is unavoidable. It's human nature. I cannot and will not complain about it. It is what it is. Now, this can be bad for some of us, depending on what list we are dealing with. But in this/my case, I like the politics of S+S. I love what they do, who they want to associate with, and their values/mission. And even though I see baffling omissions, I'm still very happy overall with what they have done here - especially with the #1 spot.

Well, I appreciate that.

[Maltic]

I'm sure they'll publish the results in total one way or another. The lists floating around from 2012 usually have the top 250.

[rde]

Who prefers the Director's list?

[Orlac]

Well give me time to read it, but what if straight women see the world that way, and are fine with it, and continue to see that way? Are they simply in error because there's a theory that explains all the things that are 'wrong' with seeing that way?

I personally can't stand Marilyn Monroe, lol. It's not my ideal of womanhood (then again, neither is Jeanne Dielmann, and I think most mothers would agree with me). The cinema has a lot of exaggeration in it, and people go to it for that. I mean, hell, I keep seeing young girls wearing Playboy hoodies, of their own free will, and I can't, for the life of me, understand why they would want to do that. Are they being had? Brainwashed? Maybe. But I am acknowledging what a lot of them like, even if it runs contrary to my taste. (I mention Playboy because, well, that was a big deal for Monroe.)

Will report back if I manage to read it.

Probably easier to just read what is arguably the most influential and well-read essay about film ever written rather than continuing to speculate on what it might contain, but okay, keep going

Fair play, domino.

So, what's the essay mean to you? How has it deepened your appreciation of Portrait of a Lady on Fire, or Jeanne Dielmann, or, to go in the other direction, Hitchcock?

Are you sure this is your first time here?

[rde]

Probably easier to just read what is arguably the most influential and well-read essay about film ever written rather than continuing to speculate on what it might contain, but okay, keep going

Fair play, domino.

So, what's the essay mean to you? How has it deepened your appreciation of Portrait of a Lady on Fire, or Jeanne Dielmann, or, to go in the other direction, Hitchcock?

Are you sure this is your first time here?

Yes?

He said it was the most influential essay of all time. So I asked him what he thought about it.

[Noiretirc]

Who prefers the Director's list?

There seems to be much love for it here. It appears to be more relevant to many. I get the feeling that a big part of this is "Ha! Critics? They just sit there in their airmchairs, eating bon bons, firing off verdicts. It must be nice, not having to slog it, busting asses to make something for their omni-important judgement."

But I still love the Critic poll most. I can't help wondering if the Director's poll gets more into the "technical". The Science more than Art. Obviously, Directors strive for great art, but I cannot help wondering if other considerations occupy them more immediately when they are in the thick of actually making the art. It might often be the case that the film is finally brought into the world before we can all, Directors and Critics included, sit back, take a deep breath, and consider what the damn thing actually is. But I wonder if the Directors look at pre-birth angles more. "Wow. Look how she/he shot that, and for how long."

Sorry....I rambled.

[rde]

Who prefers the Director's list?

There seems to be much love for it here. It appears to be more relevant to many. I get the feeling that a big part of this is "Ha! Critics? They just sit there in their airmchairs, eating bon bons, firing off verdicts. It must be nice, not having to slog it, busting asses to make something for their omni-important judgement."

But I still love the Critic poll most. I can't help wondering if the Director's poll gets more into the "technical". The Science more than Art. Obviously, Directors strive for great art, but I cannot help wondering if other considerations occupy them more immediately when they are in the thick of actually making the art. It might often be the case that the film is finally brought into the world before we can all, Directors and Critics included, sit back, take a deep breath, and consider what the damn thing actually is. But I wonder if the Directors look at pre-birth angles more. "Wow. Look how she/he shot that, and for how long."

Sorry....I rambled.

No no, that's interesting. It probably is more hands on and technical and less theoretical for the directors.

It must have a lot to do with what films they're stealing from, the films they have in mind while working on set. The films that act as models for their own work. Which would make their list skew older, also.

But Apichatpong Weerasethakul had Mad Max: Fury Road on his. Lol.

[foggy eyes]

I don't have much to say in reply to the avalanche of posts here except that I was thrilled to see Jeanne Dielman's ascension to #1 and some welcome, turning-of-an-oil-tanker-esque movements (the 'woke' ones, I suppose) in the rest of the poll.

It is best I think to consider the whole thing as Gina Telaroli put it: "The purpose of a massive Greatest Films Poll is going to be different for different folks & ultimately is only a document of this moment in Film Culture." It's a very useful bellwether in that sense, reminding us that the old guard does remain sturdy, but there are some notable changes afoot.

I voted for Jeanne Dielman in 2012 and again this time; back in 2002 only four critics and no directors voted for it. Huge moves. Feels like an unexpected, un-asked-for small victory for anyone to whom this film has meant an awful lot over the years, and as a bonus its pole positioning appears to be annoying a lot of annoying people. It was using this forum that led to me order the Eng-subtitled Belgian Cinéart set from Tony at XploitedCinema dot com (remember them?) back in 2007, when it was only just becoming a slightly easier film to track down, and I was able to see it for the first time. So thanks for that.

The rest of the list, despite its over-promotions, geographic omissions (everyone will have their own beefs) and challenging inclusions, nevertheless forms a very solid canon for people about to head deeper into cinephilia. It will never be perfect, it just has to be good enough!

[Noiretirc]

I don't have much to say in reply to the avalanche of posts here except that I was thrilled to see Jeanne Dielman's ascension to #1 and some welcome, turning-of-an-oil-tanker-esque movements (the 'woke' ones, I suppose) in the rest of the poll.

It is best I think to consider the whole thing as Gina Telaroli put it: "The purpose of a massive Greatest Films Poll is going to be different for different folks & ultimately is only a document of this moment in Film Culture." It's a very useful bellwether in that sense, reminding us that the old guard does remain sturdy, but there are some notable changes afoot.

I voted for Jeanne Dielman in 2012 and again this time; back in 2002 only four critics and no directors voted for it. Huge moves. Feels like an unexpected, un-asked-for small victory for anyone to whom this film has meant an awful lot over the years, and as a bonus its pole positioning appears to be annoying a lot of annoying people. It was using this forum that led to me order the Eng-subtitled Belgian Cinéart set from Tony at XploitedCinema dot com (remember them?) back in 2007, when it was only just becoming a slightly easier film to track down, and I was able to see it for the first time. So thanks for that.

The rest of the list, despite its over-promotions, geographic omissions (everyone will have their own beefs) and challenging inclusions, nevertheless forms a very solid canon for people about to head deeper into cinephilia. It will never be perfect, it just has to be good enough!

I love this. Thanks!

Edit: I especially love : "... and as a bonus its pole positioning appears to be annoying a lot of annoying people."

[Walter Kurtz]

I grew up in a family of nine. Two parents, six siblings and me. We all had our chores to do. I had to clean the bathrooms. I hate cleaning bathrooms. I detest cleaning bathrooms. Five of my siblings were brothers. With poor aim. Did I say I fucking hate cleaning bathrooms?

For me…watching three hours of household chores in Akerman’s opus was like Malcom McDowell going thru aversion torture in Clockwork Orange.

Thank god for the invention of:

a----The remote control
b----The fast forward button

Akerman’s point could have been made in a 20-minute short film without insulting the audience’s intelligence through boring repetition. (Oh... but you have to endure it over a bunch of hours… that's the point!) No thanks. I’ve got much better things to do in my life.

But it’s easy to pick on Akerman without offering a corrective action. Thus I hereby nominate GRIFF THE INVISBILE to replace Akerman's atrocity at the top of the list.

Ten Reasons Why Griff the Invisible Should Replace Jeanne Dielman

1--- Has there ever been a more heartwarming dissertation on the difference between classical and quantum physics?

2--- Has there ever been a more cogent visualization of the difference between the pre-Bohrian conception of the atom and the fundamental truths of quantum electrodynamics (e.g. the relativistic quantum theory of electrodynamics)?

3---Has there ever been a better scene than Maeve Dermody trying to slip through a wall because she thinks the atom is mostly empty space when, in fact, particles do not even exist… they are, in fact, merely excitations in fields, and fields permeate all of space?

4---Did I mention Maeve Dermody?

5---The way she looks at Griff?

6---In close-up. Her eyes? With love and a touch of madness? Isn’t love in its rawest form a state of madness?

7---Has there ever been a better or more poetic statement about love in the history of cinema?

8---A ruuner up. The ending of Sciamma’s Portrait.

9---But Dermody, in Griff, does not accept her circumstance. She attempts to transcend the laws of physics through her will to love and her passion for life itself.

10---Isn’t this the ultimate in heroism? Susan B. Anthony tried to change the laws of voting. Maeve Dermody tries to change the laws of physics! Why isn’t Maeve Dermody on a coin instead of Susan B. Anthony? Why aren't my fellow feminists extolling the virtues of this transcendent film?

Ask yourself this. You are on a desert island for one year and have to watch the same film every day for 365 days. What would you choose? Dielman’s Detergent? Or The Eyes of Maeve Dermody?

I rest my case.

[Noiretirc]

Well, that's a funny/entertaining position. And I thank you for the work you obviously put into it. But I stand by my previous post where I quote foggy eyes.

Dude, I discovered JD a year ago, and it blew me away. (I didn't comment on the dedicated thread for fear of not even comprehending my reaction to it.) I very quickly replayed it not just once, but twice. This film is absolutely genius - I found myself not being able to take my eyes off the completely mundane proceedings for even 1 second. How can any Director do this to me? This is fucked up!! But somehow Akerman did this to me. Rhythm, pacing, angles, lighting....I don't know how the fuck she did it. But she did it.

[spectre]

Akerman’s point could have been made in a 20-minute short film without insulting the audience’s intelligence through boring repetition. (Oh... but you have to endure it over a bunch of hours… that's the point!) No thanks. I’ve got much better things to do in my life.

But it’s easy to pick on Akerman without offering a corrective action. Thus I hereby nominate GRIFF THE INVISBILE to replace Akerman's atrocity at the top of the list [...]

Poe's Law once again emerges victorious.

[Noiretirc]

Oh.

"Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture saying that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied."

I think I get it now. If I've been trolled (or Poed?) then 10/10 for you.

Hey, I learned something!!

Edit: Fuckit. I'm done posting in this thread.

[domino harvey]

Just getting caught up with this thread and regretting it immensely

[hearthesilence]

Anyone catch what Daniel Kremer posted on Facebook regarding S&S's use of a consultant? Would be curious as to the validity of his claim.

[tenia]

Anyone catch what Daniel Kremer posted on Facebook regarding S&S's use of a consultant? Would be curious as to the validity of his claim.

I read the post multiple times now and still don't understand what this consultant's mission would have been. The only thing I can gather from this is that S&S might have consciously tried to have a more diverse list of participants.

[Walter Kurtz]

I just read Kremer’s post and agree with 90-plus percent of it. He describes himself as a “center-left Democrat" and I'd describe myself as a Mid-Left Dadaist... and obviously not a hive-thinker. BTW I was being sincere in my fondness for Griff… but wrote it in Poe-ese because I also sincerely detest Dielman. Or maybe I have a sincere crush on Dermody? Either way… if I would have known Dielman would land at #1 in the critic’s poll I would have voted for Griff in the Director's poll... and promise to do so ten years from now.

If the consultant weights me at 100X maybe Griff will end up Number One.

[spectre]

Link to the post in question here:

https://www.facebook.com/daniel.kremer. ... XcPVqNeUBl

I think he's got his wires crossed on both fronts. Firstly, the form he mentions was sent separately after entries were submitted; it's a totally optional contributor survey and had nothing to do with who was selected to participate (indeed, I never got around to filling it out). Nobody's contribution was "weighted". Here's the relevant text from the email I received:

Thank you for voting in Sight and Sound’s Greatest Films of All Time poll. Your votes have been added and we will announce the results in due course.

We are committed to ensuring that Sight and Sound’s Greatest Films of All Time poll is as inclusive and representative as possible. If you have not yet completed our anonymous voter information form, we would be grateful if you could now at:
https://bfiforms.formstack.com/forms/si ... nformation

To ensure anonymity, none of this information will be stored against individual voting records. Its purpose is to paint a picture of who took part in the 2022 vote.

Secondly, I don't know exactly what the role of Girish Shambu – the author of the Tweet in question, and a respected film critic in his own right – was in voter selection, but my anecdotal impression is that he was most likely just one of a number of international critics asked to submit lists of new potential invitees from various geographical regions. If he and others took that directive as a mission to reach out to people from less represented backgrounds, then ... isn't that part of the point, and entirely legitimate?

The notion that this constituted some kind of a "kamikaze mission", as Kremer puts it, is ridiculous. It's not as if Shambu was able to choose what his recommended invitees submitted (and good lord, what kind of "woke", canon-smashing, kamikaze mission ends up with Vertigo, Citizen Kane and Tokyo Story in spots two through four!?). Expanding the franchise to a more diverse group of people was both the explicit (and entirely justifiable) aim of this year's expansion, and one consultant's personal feelings about wishing to upend the canon in no way suggests that anyone was putting a thumb on the scale.