Which of These 10 Films is Best? - Movies & TV

Wombi

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

My serious tone may cause delusions but I'm just expressing my opinion (believe me, this stuff isn't my main concern in my life Laughing

, I get this alot of times tho; I guess people are not used to talking). Subjectivity dies when most charts have Beatles and Casablanca on them. There's a fine distinction between positive freedom and negative freedom. In this case one might say people have positive freedom when they choose Beatles because they listen to stuff and like Beatles and put it on their list. But they don't have negative freedom, which is freedom from external constraints. When people simple-mindedly dismiss criticism of cliche as an attack on subjectivity, they don't understand that there are million things that shape that subjectivity and most of them are out of your control and people's ignorance or carelessness about them doesn't make them immune to criticism. If people think they put Beatles on their albums because they like em most, I juts think they're preprogrammed to like Beatles because their sources and social group and many other things are constrained. If they acknowledged these constraints and said "Dude, I get that there are constraints, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to challenge them and I'm happy with what I like", then that's fine but it irks me when people talk of "best of all-time", "best of world" and in the process ignore 90% of population of that world and think acknowledging the existence of 90% of world is elitism. For more elitism see the list of my favorite movies (beware it includes Horrible Bosses): http://www.imdb.com/list/ls057337180/

I wanna thank you for taking the high road despite my childish insult but I think the idealistic removal of conditioning you're talking about is impossible to attain. To exist outside your environmental circumstances and influence to the extent where everything you see and hear is free of the weight previously held values from others brings would be to live in a bubble where you don't interact with people. This forum wouldn't even exist if it weren't the case. We look at what other people like and listen to (and watch) things based off of that - otherwise art (especially these days) is a bottomless ocean you could spend forever swimming and not find what you really like. I guess some might say that's the way it should be and that way it's more of an exploration which is important with art (and I agree it is) but we're aware we have the constraints of mortality upon us and hundreds of years of culture produced by millions of humans to take in so this is the way we give ourselves the best chance at consuming what might have the best chance of being the percent of that culture we enjoy. So English speaking citizens will more likely gravitate towards art which is in the English language because it's much more immediate and easy for us to get into and to relate with - I don't think that's an unreasonable choice - and because we're surrounded by other English language speaking people who would be consuming the same art and because non-English language art is usually harder to get hold of (much more so with music than film but still happens in both). And language is just one barrier (I use it as an example because it is one of the biggest barriers and also because it's one of the most commonly brought up from people unhappy that consumers don't explore more). It's a big expectation to think that those individuals will break out of that and go in search of more "difficult" - both in terms of the language its in and in terms of its level of acclaim. It is much harder to locate something like L'Avventura than to locate something like The Wizard Of Oz (random examples I know but I think you understand where I'm coming from) somewhat due to availability but mostly to do with the the fact that you're more likely to be exposed to the latter. But to act like an individual being a product of circumstance is their fault and makes them lesser than those who are more likely to explore is where I start to use terms like 'elitist cunt'. I say all this despite the fact that I am very very much for exploration in art and not just consuming what's put in front of you on a daily basis.

However if your complaint is solely that they shouldn't use 'Best Of All Time' or 'In The World' there's a few issues with that. Firstly I think most people assume that anyone that uses those terms hasn't watched/listened to every single thing that art form has to and ever has had to offer since that is, I think you'll agree, completely impossible. It's one of those phrases people use that we all know has an invisible asterisk following that reads something like *that I have seen/heard. But it doesn't say that because it'd be completely redundant. We're aware of the fact that no individual could possibly have seen/heard everything and is now in a position to finally deign what is the greatest of all time. When people say 'best of' it's clearly the best that has affected their world and their experience and I don't see an issue like that. Would Christopher Nolan have 6 films in IMDb's top 100 if voters had to have a minimum number of films watched before voting? Fuck, no - but that's the way these things work unless you want to exclude and marginalise people but to me that's the complete opposite of what art is about and why I get really angry when I see what I perceive as elitism being spouted.

Finally, how can you even tell the difference? What if someone hears all the music in the world and another person hears only what their Dad plays in the car and both have The Beatles as their favourite band? That's surely possible. Now Nezzle is a great example because we all know he's someone who makes a concerted effort to explore as much as he can and to expand his horizons as often as he can but his favourite film is still Casablanca...how could that possibly be an incorrect choice? The fact that it's one of the most commonly cited favourites in the world doesn't invalidate an individuals love for it. Same with music. He has Black Sabbath in his top 20 on his chart, now if someone else had that we might assume they haven't done much exploring but we know Nezzle listens to a huge amount of new music (sorry to keep using you as an example Neil :p) so that choice is based on a large base of knowledge. So at that point how can we just dismiss people's choices because 2 people may have the same favourites but different backgrounds? The best course of action is to not make baseless assumptions, would you not agree? Or to have a checklist of filmmakers you want to see or not see in a collated favorites list to be able to be satisfied that the people who voted on it have explored satisfactorily enough for you.

We're on a site called Best Ever Albums but the amount of people who have charts on here is (I don't know the actual number here just guessing based on a number I think I saw somewhere) is in the tens of thousands and of those people how many have done major exploration? 'Best Ever' is a phrase that doesn't have the meaning its words necessarily denote (mainly because as I've stated above that's an impossibility).

So all of this is to basically explain why I think your complaints are borderline elitist and unreasonable. Great film list by the way, a lot of my favourites and a lot I haven't seen - I have some exploring to do.

Wombi

Also anyone else shocked there's no Kubrick here? You'da thought 2001 would make a list like this given its widely respected status.

Facetious

Gender: Male
Age: 24
Location: Somewhere you've never been

Jhereko wrote:

Also anyone else shocked there's no Kubrick here? You'da thought 2001 would make a list like this given its widely respected status.

I'm actually surprised that 2001 is as popular as it is: certainly I can see why it's well-respected, but I'd have thought most people would be turned off by it. Then again, it's among my favourites so I guess it's not really all that surprising.

Hayden

Location: CDMX

Jhereko wrote:

Also anyone else shocked there's no Kubrick here? You'da thought 2001 would make a list like this given its widely respected status.

2001 is better than all of these movies in my opinion (out of the ones I've seen).

Skinny
birdman_handrub.gif

The Shining is my favourite Kubrick, and it's not even remotely close. I have mad respect for 2001, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, parts of Full Metal Jacket, but The Shining is the only Kubrick film that would make my Top 100, and it would be pretty high up too.
_________________
2021 in full effect. Come drop me some recs. Y'all know what I like.

Muslim-Bigfoot

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Jhereko wrote:

I wanna thank you for taking the high road despite my childish insult but I think the idealistic removal of conditioning you're talking about is impossible to attain.

If we see it as an absolute ideal, it is impossible. We can however not see it as that. More on this later

Jhereko wrote:

To exist outside your environmental circumstances and influence to the extent where everything you see and hear is free of the weight previously held values from others brings would be to live in a bubble where you don't interact with people.

Here you're just making it into an absolute case. I'm pretty sure seeing some Italian or French movie isn't really that hard, esp. when you decide you're gonna make an all-time best list about movies. Also there's a misunderstanding in both this post and the former one; a big misunderstanding and something I see a lot. What I did was, as I've said, criticize this list as a list of all-time movies regardless of its origins. That's kind of an absolute criticism but I didn't see any better alternative. I mean what can I say about an aggregation of favorite movies by some random people? Here is where I think many people think I'm being elitist or objectivist or sth because they confuse description with prescription. I was trying to make sense of a list of 10 that included 9 Hollywood movies (although I named some foreign directors but I forgot to mention that there are no independent movies from America, Britain or Australia here, so that would answer your English-speaking point to some extent; I'm pretty sure if you're going to make a list of movies you're not held in shackles and prevented from seeing independent English-language movies). This is a description; moreover it's a socio-cultural pondering that tries to account for the reasons of close-mindedness of this list. When I say that the choices are somewhat determined by critics, that doesn't give me any kind of right to accuse any individual of copying critics. I can't just tell Skinny that his love of Casablanca is not genuine. I have no right or basis to put my finger on any individual. I'm not questioning people's tastes. This is a confusion that people are susceptible to; to derive ought from is. I'm not saying you should watch Bresson or Truffaut because this list ignores them. That's the conclusion you made; I just said the list ignores them.

Jhereko wrote:

This forum wouldn't even exist if it weren't the case. We look at what other people like and listen to (and watch) things based off of that - otherwise art (especially these days) is a bottomless ocean you could spend forever swimming and not find what you really like. I guess some might say that's the way it should be and that way it's more of an exploration which is important with art (and I agree it is) but we're aware we have the constraints of mortality upon us and hundreds of years of culture produced by millions of humans to take in so this is the way we give ourselves the best chance at consuming what might have the best chance of being the percent of that culture we enjoy.

Here still there's the confusion. You're making judgment calls out of my opinions. I didn't do that. If I said our list here on BEA is ridiculous because it's just western pop music canon that ignores everything else (even many of genres that are in that popular music), would that be wrong? You may think that yes it would be because I'm not taking into account that "art (especially these days) is a bottomless ocean you could spend forever swimming and not find what you really like" or that everyone is mortal or we're conditioned by our environment and we have no chance of overcoming it. But in your answer you'd be assuming that when I say the list is ridiculous I'm putting some kind of burden on everyone to go and make this list not ridiculous. No, simply this list is ridiculous and that statement has no bearing on any individual whatsoever. Probably it being ridiculous is inevitable. I think this would be the reason for not accepting that the list is ridiculous; because how else it can be? Well I can imagine other possibilities.

Please let's not make it about individuals when people criticize some aspect of a culture. You may not believe me and think what I'm doing here is probably some kind of collective accusing. Well yes it is. I'm also included in that accusation though. It's kind of a large-scale impeachment; showing bearings of Hegemony. Showing it though, doesn't mean I have some kind of right to accuse individuals for not surpassing it. Do I even know what it means to "surpass" it? Is it even possible? It isn't to some extent. But I think showing hegemony the little first step? These are all very idealistic I know; being idealistic doesn't make you elitist though. It also doesn't mean you're judging people or you have any kind of right to. I'm making this point repeatedly but I think this happens a lot in society when people confuse having a right in regard to individuals (judging them, parentalist elitist attitude toward people) with a fundamental questioning.

Jhereko wrote:

So English speaking citizens will more likely gravitate towards art which is in the English language because it's much more immediate and easy for us to get into and to relate with - I don't think that's an unreasonable choice - and because we're surrounded by other English language speaking people who would be consuming the same art and because non-English language art is usually harder to get hold of (much more so with music than film but still happens in both). And language is just one barrier (I use it as an example because it is one of the biggest barriers and also because it's one of the most commonly brought up from people unhappy that consumers don't explore more). It's a big expectation to think that those individuals will break out of that and go in search of more "difficult" - both in terms of the language its in and in terms of its level of acclaim. It is much harder to locate something like L'Avventura than to locate something like The Wizard Of Oz (random examples I know but I think you understand where I'm coming from) somewhat due to availability but mostly to do with the the fact that you're more likely to be exposed to the latter.

I don't know about the demographic but there were no independent movies in the list too (I know people reading these stuff are assuming I'm like angry at this list or I'm on some kind of rant; but actually the movies on this list are all amazing movies. Also I'm not on a rant. When people talk and argue face to face about something not personal, they have body language, they interrupt each other and think while the other person is talking so it seems like an activity for both parties and they feel engaged; on the internet though there's a big chunk of text in front of you that seems like some kind sermon and this creates either fandom of the text or antagonism.) Also I have no expectations of anyone. But I don't think the expectation you mention is that big (esp. for people who passionately watch movies and make lists about them). I think this is an extreme case though; the thing that has amazed me has been the fact that this list is just Hollywood movies. I'm like how is that even possible? Laughing

Like in a world that Academy Award goes to Inarritu (the same academy awards that went to the likes of Inception, Slumdog Millionaire and Argo ffs), how is this list possible?

Jhereko wrote:

But to act like an individual being a product of circumstance is their fault and makes them lesser than those who are more likely to explore is where I start to use terms like 'elitist cunt'. I say all this despite the fact that I am very very much for exploration in art and not just consuming what's put in front of you on a daily basis.

Is their fault!? Makes them lesser? Didn't I give you my list? Laughing

Jhereko wrote:

However if your complaint is solely that they shouldn't use 'Best Of All Time' or 'In The World' there's a few issues with that. Firstly I think most people assume that anyone that uses those terms hasn't watched/listened to every single thing that art form has to and ever has had to offer since that is, I think you'll agree, completely impossible. It's one of those phrases people use that we all know has an invisible asterisk following that reads something like *that I have seen/heard. But it doesn't say that because it'd be completely redundant. We're aware of the fact that no individual could possibly have seen/heard everything and is now in a position to finally deign what is the greatest of all time. When people say 'best of' it's clearly the best that has affected their world and their experience and I don't see an issue like that. Would Christopher Nolan have 6 films in IMDb's top 100 if voters had to have a minimum number of films watched before voting? Fuck, no - but that's the way these things work unless you want to exclude and marginalise people but to me that's the complete opposite of what art is about and why I get really angry when I see what I perceive as elitism being spouted.

I don't like implicit stuff; I don't trust them. Laughing

(alleviation mechanism) I also don't think most people who use those words don't mean them literally. I think they do. I might be wrong though. I think someone who says Dumb and Dumber is the best movie ever, to the question "What about Casablanca?" they'd answer "What the fuck is that?"

Jhereko wrote:

Finally, how can you even tell the difference? What if someone hears all the music in the world and another person hears only what their Dad plays in the car and both have The Beatles as their favourite band? That's surely possible. Now Nezzle is a great example because we all know he's someone who makes a concerted effort to explore as much as he can and to expand his horizons as often as he can but his favourite film is still Casablanca...how could that possibly be an incorrect choice? The fact that it's one of the most commonly cited favourites in the world doesn't invalidate an individuals love for it. Same with music. He has Black Sabbath in his top 20 on his chart, now if someone else had that we might assume they haven't done much exploring but we know Nezzle listens to a huge amount of new music (sorry to keep using you as an example Neil :p) so that choice is based on a large base of knowledge. So at that point how can we just dismiss people's choices because 2 people may have the same favourites but different backgrounds?

No one can. No one even should try. It's the same old confusion again Laughing

To the last question; it's a big step from calling a list "stupid" to dismissing choices of those individuals who made the list. In the case of a list that's just one person's list, it's very different. I'd be like "I don't like your picks", and maybe I even added that "it's very limited in scope". They can answer "fuck off".

Jhereko wrote:

The best course of action is to not make baseless assumptions, would you not agree? Or to have a checklist of filmmakers you want to see or not see in a collated favorites list to be able to be satisfied that the people who voted on it have explored satisfactorily enough for you.

The list was just to show how the list is very limited and doesn't acknowledge any of those people who are no lower in acclaim than those who are included. Like if you collected a list of favorites from directors of the 10 movies on this list, it'd certainly have movies from those directors.

Jhereko wrote:

We're on a site called Best Ever Albums but the amount of people who have charts on here is (I don't know the actual number here just guessing based on a number I think I saw somewhere) is in the tens of thousands and of those people how many have done major exploration? 'Best Ever' is a phrase that doesn't have the meaning its words necessarily denote (mainly because as I've stated above that's an impossibility).

"What is the greatest music album of all time? If you ask a hundred different people to name the best album of all time, the chances are that you will not get a unanimous answer!

This web site's purpose is to achieve a means of establishing the greatest music albums of all time by using legitimate critical sources and calculating a ranking based on the rank and number of times an album has appeared in a 'greatest album' chart and then ranking the albums according to their aggregate performance."

tl'dr don't read. Why did you make such a big post man. Don't do this to me.
_________________
"I feel like for the last two years there’s been sort of a sonic evolution happening and I’ve been experimenting more and more."

Muslim-Bigfoot

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

The list of directors was just to show how this list is very limited and doesn't acknowledge any of those people who are no lower in acclaim than those who are included. Like if you collected a list of favorites from directors of the 10 movies on this list, it'd certainly have movies from those directors.

That was actually an interesting thought; so I gathered some of them and will post here. Although these guys are older than most people I mentioned so they weren't around for movies by those directors but still interesting stuff. I couldn't find all of them tho.

Orson Welles top 10:

City Lights (Charlie Chaplin)
Greed (Erich von Stroheim, 1924)
Intolerance (D.W. Griffith, 1916)
Nanook of the North (Robert Flaherty, 1992)
Shoe Shine (Vittorio De Sica, 1946)
The Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925)
La Femme du Boulanger (Marcel Pagnol, 1938)
Grand Illusion (Jean Renoir, 1937)
Stagecoach (John Ford, 1939)
Our Daily Bread (King Vidor, 1934)

Billy Wilder's top 10:

The Best Years of Our Lives (William Wyler, 1946)
Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica, 1948)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (David Lean, 1957)
The Conformist (Bernardo Bertolucci, 1970)
Diabolique (Henri-Georges Clouzot, 1955)
La Dolce Vita (Federico Fellini, 1960)
42nd Street (Lloyd Bacon, 1933)
Grand Illusion (Jean Renoir, 1937)
Seduced and Abandoned (Pietro Germi, 1964)
The Shop Around the Corner (Ernst Lubitsch, 1940)

Francis Ford Coppola's top 10:

Ashes And Diamonds (1958, dir. Andrzej Wajda)
The Best Years Of Our Lives" (1946, dir William Wyler)
I Vitelloni (1953, dir. Federico Fellini)
The Bad Sleep Well (1960, dir. Akira Kurosawa)
Yojimbo (1961, dir. Akira Kurosawa)
Singin' In The Rain (1952, dir. Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly)
The King Of Comedy (1983, dir Martin Scorsese)
Raging Bull (1980, dir. Martin Scorsese)
The Apartment (1960s, dir. Billy Wilder)
Sunrise (1927, dir. F.W. Murnau)

Martin Scorsese's Top 10:

8 1/2 (1963, dir. Federico Fellini)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Ashes And Diamonds (1958, dir. Andrzej Wajda)
Citizen Kane (1941, dir. Orson Welles)
The Leopard (1963, dir. Luchino Visconti)
Paisan (1946, dir. Roberto Rossellini)
The Red Shoes (1948, dir. Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger)
The River (1951, dir. Jean Renoir)
Salvatore Giuliano (1962, dir. Francesco Rosi)
The Searchers (1956, dir. John Ford)
Ugetsu Monogatari (1953, dir. Kenji Mizoguchi)
Vertigo (1958, dir. Alfred Hitchcock)

Hitchcock's two favorite movies that I could find about on the net are:

Der müde Tod by Fritz Lang
Diabolique by Henri-Georges Clouzot
_________________
"I feel like for the last two years there’s been sort of a sonic evolution happening and I’ve been experimenting more and more."