Best Ever Albums

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

CA Dreamin — Thu, 2 Mar 2023 14:53:23 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 03/02/2023 19:53

Complete list of everyone who voted and their ballots

The March update. The truth is out. There is no extended Directors List up to 250. However, someone with a lot of time and dedication can do it themselves now that every individual critic and director list is published, wouldn't be shocked if someone already has. I'm interested in many of these individual lists, starting looking through them but it's gonna take a long time. I'm noticing several world-famous directors who did not participate, and I can't help but wonder why. Were they not invited? Or were they invited, but declined? Does anybody know?

The best thing about these individual lists is the comment sections, where critics and directors leave little write-ups about the movies they selected. Not everyone did, but I appreciate the ones who took the time to do so. Even though I can't stand his films, I loved reading through Ari Aster's ballot and I totally gained respect for him. Adam McKay's ballot is also a joy. He voted for both Jeanne Dielman and Office Space...now there's a guy with eclectic taste! And the director of Tropical Malady and Uncle Boonmee voted for Mad Max: Fury Road!

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

CA Dreamin — Tue, 28 Feb 2023 12:48:57 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 02/28/2023 17:48

AfterHours wrote:

Thanks CA, I was rapidly losing interest so it is nice to see that they finally published an update. Apparently it will be early March before the gamut of individual voter lists. I understand it's a big task with the increase in voters but it seems like it could be a bit quicker in this technological day and age... Perhaps part of it is trying to milk their results across 3 issues and maybe the editor trying to figure out how to present and explain all those in the industry they allowed a vote (seems like a percentage of them could require some justification relative to more "official" or "respected" critics). I don't have any inside info to support that, I'm just wondering if they had to gather themselves a little after this iteration received a lot more negative push back than past ones it seems.

Some individual voter lists have been published, but they are taking their time with it, probably for the reasons mentioned here. It'll be March tomorrow, so maybe we'll see the expanded director's list soon. I would be curious to see that.

Anyway, I watched Jeanne Dielman a few days ago. I don't know where to begin. In a nutshell, I'd say the film is much more intriguing to think about and discuss with others than it is to sit through. Of course, one cannot have those thoughts and discussions if the film didn't exist in the first place. So does that make it a masterpiece? According to the body of Sight and Sound critics, it absolutely does. I'm not so sure, though, because Jeanne Dielman is missing rewatch value. It doesn't seem like Dielman requires multiple viewings to 'get it.' And well, it goes without saying watching the film is a tedious struggle. However, I understand that is exactly the point. The bore that we feel as viewers demonstrates the boring life our titular character leads. Jeanne is a widowed single mother, whose son is in his awkward teen phase and they barely talk to each other. While he's at school during the day, Jeanne is mostly alone. Her day-to-day existence comprises of doing chores around the house, going to the market and the bank, which we watch in real time. In such a routine, the most notable things that happen are when her neighbor drops off her baby for a few minutes, or when she overcooks the pasta and potatoes. Even her profession, which is supposed be a stimulating experience, feels utterly lifeless. Well, the scene with her third and final client in the film gets interesting, but no spoilers here.

I could go on for paragraphs about this film, but to stay on topic with the thread, Jeanne Dielman's #1 placement feels like a summation of the shifts in this year's edition. The critics list leans more into film theory this time around. The list feels somewhat agenda-setting. The list is also more open to slow cinema than previous editions. The list saw a leap in women directors. The list emphasized films with historical significance. Jeanne Dielman checks all these boxes. It's Sight and Sound's new #1 film, and congrats to it! It's a film worthy of discussion, and deserves a special place in cinema history for its uniqueness and significance. However, to paraphrase Armond White, I'm not sure anybody actually believes Jeanne Dielman is the greatest movie ever made. If I met some IRL who said that, I would respect it but I would also be skeptical. And to paraphrase Tha1ChiefRocka, if I was at somebody's house for a movie-watching party, and the movie was Jeanne Dielman, I would either play games on my phone most of the time, or I would leave (but I would be tempted to return 3 and half hours later for the post-movie discussion).

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

AfterHours — Tue, 7 Feb 2023 12:54:37 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 02/07/2023 17:54

CA Dreamin wrote:

The critic's list, ranked up through #250, was released last week:

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time

I like the list more now, having seen the #101-#250 choices. The top 100 has some head-scratchers, as we've already covered. But some of their choices further down are more exciting. As Bach mentioned on page 1, the following directors had 0 representation in the top 100...but finally got their spots in the 101-250 range: Buñuel, Malick, Herzog, Pasolini, Cronenberg, Almodovar, Polanski, and Woody Allen. The 101-250 range also includes Spielberg, PTA, Altman, and many other great directors absent from the top 100. Heck, Howard Hawks received four films ranked between 101 and 129! And when I saw The Texas Chainsaw Massacre at #118, I couldn't help but smile; I don't know if the critics had lost their minds, or found them again!

I'm planning to watch Jeanne Dielman by the end of the month. I recently watched Hotel Monterrery and Je, Tu, Il, Elle, my first two Akermans. Going off them, I'm heading into JD with a rather large grain of salt.

I'm hoping to see the director's list expanded to 250 soon.

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

CA Dreamin — Sun, 5 Feb 2023 12:14:41 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 02/05/2023 17:14

The critic's list, ranked up through #250, was released last week:

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time

I like the list more now, having seen the #101-#250 choices. The top 100 has some head-scratchers, as we've already covered. But some of their choices further down are more exciting. As Bach mentioned on page 1, the following directors had 0 representation in the top 100...but finally got their spots in the 101-250 range: Buñuel, Malick, Herzog, Pasolini, Cronenberg, Almodovar, Polanski, and Woody Allen. The 101-250 range also includes Spielberg, PTA, Altman, and many other great directors absent from the top 100. Heck, Howard Hawks received four films ranked between 101 and 129! And when I saw The Texas Chainsaw Massacre at #118, I couldn't help but smile; I don't know if the critics had lost their minds, or found them again!

I'm planning to watch Jeanne Dielman by the end of the month. I recently watched Hotel Monterrery and Je, Tu, Il, Elle, my first two Akermans. Going off them, I'm heading into JD with a rather large grain of salt.

I'm hoping to see the director's list expanded to 250 soon.

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

AfterHours — Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:17:13 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 01/02/2023 18:17

CA Dreamin wrote:

That video was released on the same day as S&S's lists, eh? I didn't watch the entire thing [yet], but good video. Even though I don't entirely agree with some the selections, the work that was put into the video is admirable and the discourse brought to the selections are a great listen.

In regard to S&S, I think their 'authority' or 'authenticity' into what films get canonized is losing some relevance. It's only inevitable, as so many more voices have popped up in the internet era. But I agree S&S's process has a fundamental problem. 10 movies is simply not enough for their participants. And since they're restricted to 10, I can see how check-boxing became part of their selection process, yielding results that were very good but perhaps didn't accurately reflect the collective opinion of all those involved. As opposed to The Cinema Cartography video, which feels completely honest and provides nice in-depth analyses as well.

Thanks CA, I agree with everything you said. The Cinema Cartography is just an excellent channel, always intriguing and insightful.

The directors and critics individual lists should be coming very soon...

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

CA Dreamin — Sun, 1 Jan 2023 22:10:56 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 01/02/2023 03:10

That video was released on the same day as S&S's lists, eh? I didn't watch the entire thing [yet], but good video. Even though I don't entirely agree with some the selections, the work that was put into the video is admirable and the discourse brought to the selections are a great listen.

In regard to S&S, I think their 'authority' or 'authenticity' into what films get canonized is losing some relevance. It's only inevitable, as so many more voices have popped up in the internet era. But I agree S&S's process has a fundamental problem. 10 movies is simply not enough for their participants. And since they're restricted to 10, I can see how check-boxing became part of their selection process, yielding results that were very good but perhaps didn't accurately reflect the collective opinion of all those involved. As opposed to The Cinema Cartography video, which feels completely honest and provides nice in-depth analyses as well.

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

AfterHours — Sat, 31 Dec 2022 16:14:27 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/31/2022 21:14

I thoroughly enjoyed this and thought you all might too. As with any list, there are some selections I don't agree with (every film selected is at least interesting, the disagreement is not that any are "bad" films, but more being "that" high, or being among or above "that" or "those" films, etc). I'm also not sure about the liberty he takes with his #1 but regardless a great, easily understandable choice that isn't hard to justify qualitatively (and would be near the top for me as well, if combined).

In any case, they are all nonetheless fascinating and compelling in their explanations with great accompanying video. Well worth a watch.

Link

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

Hayden — Wed, 21 Dec 2022 16:02:17 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 12/21/2022 21:02

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

If I was over at someone's house, and I said, "hey, why don't we watch a movie?", and they say, "Ok, let's watch Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, then I'm probably going to leave.

I remember this argument coming up when Nomadland was the frontrunner for Best Picture. There was quite a bit of 'is this really a film you'd say "hey, let's all go watch Nomadland!" (particularly when higher-octane pictures like Judas, Trial of the Chicago 7, Sound of Metal and Promising Young Woman were in contention).

I get what you mean.

Put it this way though— not every song is for nightclubs.

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

CA Dreamin — Tue, 13 Dec 2022 21:11:49 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 12/14/2022 02:11

I take some issues with White's article, but he raised something I hadn't known or considered before, concerning how the poll may or may not have been conducted. Diversity is good for cinema, and a list of the "greatest films" should reflect the wide range of film-makers and audiences worldwide. However, hiring voting consultants to toss out the old canon is bad. It's dishonest. It games the system in a particular favor that loses sight of the list's purpose and meaning. I don't know if White's claim has much truth to it. The only evidence I found was from a blog that shared a critic's tweet: https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/12/b9nt3og3xtalyb227h33jaiorwfbbc

It's not much at the moment. It remains to be seen when all the individual critic lists come out (I believe some already have). But I've been thinking. True, the old S&S lists were dominated by white male directors, and more diversity is good. As we know, the number of critics polled jumped from 145 in 2002, to over 800 in 2012, to over 1600 in 2022. I assume a significant number of these new critics participating were non-male, and/or non-white. So far, so good. However, how you widen the scope of great films on a list like this without it appearing as a sociopolitical statement?

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

LedZep — Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:49:58 GMT

Author: LedZep

Posted: 12/13/2022 15:49

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

I will say that I don't agree with the critic list being "woke" or anything like that though.

When someone uses "woke" unironically in 2022, especially in the headline, there's 99.99% chance whatever they've written is not worth reading.

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

Tha1ChiefRocka — Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:34:43 GMT

Author: Tha1ChiefRocka

Posted: 12/13/2022 15:34

I'm obviously not smart enough for this conversation, but I'll put in my two cents anyway.

If I was over at someone's house, and I said, "hey, why don't we watch a movie?", and they say, "Ok, let's watch Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, then I'm probably going to leave.

I will say that I don't agree with the critic list being "woke" or anything like that though. They have The Searchers in the top 20, so either they've never actually watched that film, or they're OK with John Wayne being a former Confederate that hates Native Americans. I would say the sheer fact that film is there in that position is as critical as the number one film.

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

Applerill — Sun, 11 Dec 2022 17:02:33 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 12/11/2022 22:02

Also, I used to like Armond a good bit (Satie even compared me to him once), but that piece is truly disgusting, especially in regards to how he mocks her suicide.

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

Applerill — Sun, 11 Dec 2022 16:50:21 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 12/11/2022 21:50

I dunno, I like that it gives people a lot of options. I feel like the individual ballots (especially from serious cinephiles, critics and filmmakers) are much more interesting than the final list. Like, it was undeniably a BOSS move for Showgirls to be on Mia Hansen Love’s list, and I think more filmmakers should try that.

(I wanted to with something like Step Brothers, but I felt like I didn’t have room at the end of the day, just as I didn’t have room for Akerman or even Godard or Lynch)

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

AfterHours — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 19:13:04 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/11/2022 00:13

MadhattanJack wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

Some (potentially contentious) points made in this article: https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/12/sight-sound-poll-results-the-end-of-popular-cinema/

Thoughts anyone?

It's almost exactly what I expected, as I posted on the previous page of this thread. Granted, this guy does at least consider the selection process, but only as another means of dismissing it. And TBH, if it's true that they stacked the list of respondents with non-critics and "hired a consultant to take the white male canon and set it on fire," then this is probably the follow-on result they wanted — a lot of angry right-wing "movement conservative" types who will probably all go and make their own lists now, helping to further bifurcate the culture.

I'm certainly not saying one should never mix art and politics, because if I really believed that I'd probably have to throw out at least a third of my music collection. But ultimately we'll end up — rather needlessly — with separate left-wing and right-wing cultures in which you can't even weave a basket or knit a scarf without it being seen as a political statement, and outlets that try to stay "above the fray" will suffer, as more and more people silo themselves and stop paying any attention to them. And even that wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't practically guaranteed that the artists and musicians will be the ones most badly screwed over in the process.

Thanks Madhattan, I do totally agree with you that there should be no push whatsover towards any political ideology (right, left or otherwise) with regards influencing the results and the poll should 100% be left completely open to the voter(s) opinions of the film criteria.

And to reiterate a point I touched on earlier, I do think there should be some sort of parameters suggested as to that criteria, so that the voters are more or less aligned in what they're voting for (but still left to their subjective view in relation to said parameters). Something like: "The intention of the vote is to produce a truly accurate view of what you individually, and the voters collectively as aggregate, feel are the greatest the cinematic art has to offer. So please vote carefully and with this in the front of your mind. What, in your honest view, are the 10 greatest films the cinematic art form has ever produced?"

You might even add something in there like: "Greatest could mean many things, whether the most creative or visionary, or the films that have impacted you the most profoundly, or perhaps an ideal combination of each of those factors. We leave this up to your interpretation." The main point being, I do think it would be good to at least suggest a general criteria or at least parameters thereof so there is a better basis for what the voters are voting for. Even if I think many voters have an inherent understanding that this, or something close to it, is or should be the main idea, some clearly seem to use their vote for other reasons/strategies (or whatever you want to call it). Something like this even seemed to happen when there was a growing collective/semi-coordinated effort to push Vertigo over Kane in the last two decades. Even if I think Vertigo is an incredible film and a perfectly worthy choice, and rose towards the top mostly organically, I still don't agree with voters trying to influence others to vote for it as their Hitchcock choice to push Kane from the top ... unless of course they were honestly feeling Vertigo was among their top 10, which again, I tend to agree with as I have it in my own top 10 -- I just don't agree with the poll being conducted that way, whether it be to push one of my all time favorites (Vertigo) to the top, or Jeanne Dielman (even though a very good film imo) to the top in 2022. Though by no means would any of the above "criteria suggestion" could or would guarantee "fool-proof" results, more logic and honesty aligned to a common goal (based only on film quality, assessment thereof), would (probably) prevail in establishing this as a message to the voters at the beginning of the voting process.

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

MadhattanJack — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 18:41:53 GMT

Author: MadhattanJack

Posted: 12/10/2022 23:41

AfterHours wrote:

Some (potentially contentious) points made in this article: https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/12/sight-sound-poll-results-the-end-of-popular-cinema/

Thoughts anyone?

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

AfterHours — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 16:56:10 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/10/2022 21:56

Some (potentially contentious) points made in this article: https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/12/sight-sound-poll-results-the-end-of-popular-cinema/

Thoughts anyone?

NOTE: Me sharing this does not mean I am agreeing with all of it. Some of it, perhaps (or at least "sort of but probably not to the extent he is stating his main points"). He probably overstates some (most?) of his points as (possibly) being more politically motivated than they actually were (but I could be wrong, I don't have enough inside info of the process to be sure one way or the other). I do think the last "Newsflash" point is curious and probably misguided on BFI's part (I don't mean that as a political point leaning one way or the other, just for the sort of process the S & S poll is supposed to be, presumably being entirely about the "greatest" or "best", in line with the quality, creativity, impact of the films as cinematic art, the votes being entirely cast with that sort of criteria in mind?). Though, again, it also depends on the specifics of how the PR of the consultant was carried out and in what way it influenced the voters (which seems probable by deduction by the results) but also which is hard to know precisely without being involved with the PR and any message that may or may not have been given in advance of the polling itself.

First

Red0510 — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 15:54:28 GMT

Author: Red0510

Posted: 12/10/2022 20:54

First SnS poll where directors seem more sober than critics.
The match for the title of the Weirdest First Line with the Rolling Stone team ended in a draw.

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

Hayden — Wed, 7 Dec 2022 19:43:44 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 12/08/2022 00:43

AfterHours wrote:

Apparently, S & S is about a month away from revealing all the individual lists of the critics and directors that voted.

Fortunately, some have been shared on twitter and elsewhere by some of the voters wanting to reveal for themselves which films they voted for. And someone with a lot of time on their hands tracked a bunch of those down and posted them in one place here:

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/12/8ac360v6wlga1zf2dfozjfs5r7oihc

Btw, I just realized that this is also consistently being updated into the present. There are a number of new additions since I last commented just a few posts above... so is a very good source, all in one place, of most/all revealed voter's lists so far, until S & S unveils the lot of 'em (around early Jan 2023).

Awesome. Going to go over this on the weekend 😄
(I know most of the films by the looks of it, but I'm interested in who picked what)

Quote:

On a separate film note... I'm also super intrigued by Sátántangó but I'm daunted by the 7+ hour run time. For those who have seen it, can anyone recommend how to partition it? I've read that it's essentially in 12 "installments" but I don't know if it's appropriate to watch it in ~30 minute chunks. Does three 2.5 hr "installments" make more sense? Or should it really be seen in one sitting?

First time around (I've only ever watched it twice) was in two sittings. Think I spilt it around the 5h mark... and... erm... went to bed.

Also, read the book.
(It takes about the same amount of time :lol:)

All that aside, Jeanne Dielman isn't my favourite Akerman. (Think I rate it with a 4/5). I'd take News from Home, Toute une nuit, or The Meetings of Anna over it. The Captive and Je, Tu, Il, Elle are kinda on the same plain. No Home Movie is a bit hard t categorize/rank. (I don't have a lot of love for Hotel Monterey or Night and Day). No matter what, it's still a slightly odd 'communal best film of all time' 😐

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

EyeKanFly — Wed, 7 Dec 2022 19:34:56 GMT

Author: EyeKanFly

Posted: 12/08/2022 00:34

Applerill wrote:

Someone very close to me IRL once panned Satantango by saying it's "a bunch of guys trying to remake Tarkovsky Be Kind Rewind style"

Ok but that actually sounds awesome haha

Applerill wrote:

(Also, Satantango has 12 chapter markers, and I think going through 2 a night is pretty manageable. I also recommend having a "Satantango party" where you invite friends over)

Excellent, thanks for the suggestion!

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results

Applerill — Wed, 7 Dec 2022 17:57:07 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 12/07/2022 22:57

Let me try to make the most utilitarian case for Jeanne Dielman I can: It takes a lot of the structuralism of Michael Snow and puts it in the frame of a chamber drama. A lot of people find that combination extremely engaging. On the Criterion Channel, for instance, you can find clips featuring artists ranging from Sofia Coppola to Karyn Kusama to Jhumpa Lahiri discussing how amazing VISCERAL it is. But I think that it's harder to understand that if you frame it JUST in terms of contemporary slow cinema and ignore how it was so influenced by the New American Cinema and other 60s experimental film artists.

ANYWAY, RE: Satantango, I think Tarr is actually trying to do something very different than Akerman. I know this sounds like a shitpost, but I genuinely think that, of all the major "slow cinema" auteurs, Tarr is the closest thing to Spielberg (though Angelopoulos might be a close second). Someone very close to me IRL once panned Satantango by saying it's "a bunch of guys trying to remake Tarkovsky Be Kind Rewind style", but I think that's missing the point. Tarr wants to bring out almost a sentimentality of cynicism towards you, and uses basically and extended version of the "Spielberg oner" to bring that upon you. As Rosenbaum put it, he and Kiarostami "use the tools of Hollywood to beat them at their own game".

(Also, Satantango has 12 chapter markers, and I think going through 2 a night is pretty manageable. I also recommend having a "Satantango party" where you invite friends over)