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/2022/1...jaiorwfbbc
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
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). _________________ on such a winter's day
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! _________________ on such a winter's day
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
