Sight and Sound 2022 Poll Results - Movies & TV

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

As of today the once-per-decade results are in!

And the critics poll features a rather shocking #1 (among many other surprising entries)

(I guess more shocking in a "representational" sense of the cinematic art, not so shocking in relation to the "political/ideological" climate we are in currently)

Critics List: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/...s-all-time

Directors List: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/...s-all-time

Thoughts?

Do you think the new #1 (on the Critics List) marks a new staple for the Sight and Sound list? Or is it more a one-off that caught the voters of the poll at a perfect time and in a semi-organized push to move it as high as possible (that it likely wont enjoy in the 2032 poll)?

Do you think the new #1 will cause a "backlash" the likes of which we haven't seen towards a film of its stature, due to how experimental and "anti-cinematic" it is? Or, will it actually produce an opposite effect, with many new filmgoers discovering the wonders of slow cinema, more female directors, and so on?

What do you think will take #1 "overall" when the vote counts are shared and when one combines the results of both polls: Jeanne Dielman? 2001? Vertigo? Citizen Kane?

Which results do you agree with more: the directors or the critics poll?

What would be your own top 10?

And if you made any S & S top 10 predictions beforehand: How did you do with your predictions this time? XD
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

MadhattanJack
I mean, metal is okay, but...

Gender: Male

AfterHours wrote:

And the critics poll features a rather shocking #1 (among many other surprising entries)

(I guess more shocking in a "representational" sense of the cinematic art, not so shocking in relation to the "political/ideological" climate we are in currently)

It's shocking in both senses, and frankly, it delegitimizes and maybe-even invalidates the rest of the list. Anyone who's actually seen that movie all the way through would never rank it that highly, unless maybe there was some sort of financial conflict-of-interest involved. I'm not saying it's "total crap" or anything like that, and I guess it's fine for people who have degenerate paternalist fantasies about French housewives, but it doesn't even belong in the Top 1,000.

The smart thing for that website to do at this point would be to put a big "JUST KIDDING!" meme image in it's place, and/or move 2001: A Space Odyssey up into the top spot.

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

MadhattanJack wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

And the critics poll features a rather shocking #1 (among many other surprising entries)

(I guess more shocking in a "representational" sense of the cinematic art, not so shocking in relation to the "political/ideological" climate we are in currently)

It's shocking in both senses, and frankly, it delegitimizes and maybe-even invalidates the rest of the list. Anyone who's actually seen that movie all the way through would never rank it that highly, unless maybe there was some sort of financial conflict-of-interest involved. I'm not saying it's "total crap" or anything like that, and I guess it's fine for people who have degenerate paternalist fantasies about French housewives, but it doesn't even belong in the Top 1,000.

The smart thing for that website to do at this point would be to put a big "JUST KIDDING!" meme image in it's place, and/or move 2001: A Space Odyssey up into the top spot.

I'm not sure if I would go as far to say as it "de-legitimizes" and/or invalidates the rest of the list, but it certainly does seem like a pretty awkward #1, and maybe the Sight and Sound list will start to be seen in a somewhat similar light as the recent Pitchfork and Rolling Stone and other "Greatest Albums" lists that seem to want to force-feed an idea of equality among selections (or at least it seems somewhat forced to me that these mags all "suddenly" changed their opinions to match the political/ideological climate of our times ... of course, I have nothing personally against equality of rights and opportunity between men/women/minorities/anyone). At least in those (even though I think their respective lists are probably weaker on the whole), there is enough of a split between female and male music artists and black artists (particularly through jazz, hip hop, r and b), that it isn't as far fetched (numerically, percentage-wise) to suggest there should be much more of an equalization among the selections (again, even if I don't find their results that accurate). So in that sense, there may be quite a bit of truth to what you're saying. I hope it doesn't fall too far in esteem. It is actually the 1992 Sight and Sound list that (in 1996) began introducing me to the greatest films, moving me out of the muck and mire of my childhood favorites and mainstream cinema in general, and I used it quite a bit to make my way through the greats of film history during that time. So I have a soft spot for it I suppose. Though I have (for about a decade now) viewed the TSPDT top 1000 as probably the ultimate list of its kind, and I think Kane and Vertigo will probably hold their top 2 positions when the next update is released at the beginning of 2023.

With Film, however, directors are massively dominated by males (mostly white, followed perhaps by Asian) and the seminal films of history, that made the largest contributions to the form/genres, that advanced, innovated, demonstrated, developed the form are massively dominated by males as well. That's unfortunate I suppose that it was built that way, but it's the way it was and it is still imbalanced by probably 100 to 1 at least. So it gets a bit silly to suggest that we need to make sure to even this out numerically (or at least attempt to) when the numbers are so massively skewed in terms of truly worthy, potential GOAT, selections. The question should be: do you honestly feel a female director has made one of the 10 best films of all time so far? If so, you should of course add that entry or set of entries, and if that's what those voters did, then I'm all for it. But it's hard not to be at least a little skeptical with such a sudden surge (is it really just the increase in voters or was it also the idea of having your list shared in this increasingly hostile climate against those not expressing enough diversity?). Either way, it's an interesting list (and after all, it's just a list! Right? Right? Liar

) ... and I didn't mind the change up. It certainly added suspense to the placements. And it will add a lot more 10 years from now, because now anything can happen.

All the new entries, most notably the #1 of JD, and Beau Travail at #7 (not to mention Mulholland Dr leaping to #8 and In the Mood at #5) certainly make for a less predictable list. But it also opens them to increased scrutiny. A level of scrutiny that, Kane (above all) has endured for decades and reigned for 50 years despite that and is still #2 and #3 (and many others that have been on or around the top 10 for decades that have endured: Rules of the Game, Vertigo, 2001, Tokyo Story...). It will be interesting to see if JD holds up despite no longer being an underdog and the massive increase in scrutiny it will now endure (I think it will probably fall back in the top 10-20 range or so in the next iteration).

I agree with you that you would be very hard pressed to find anyone that would truly choose it as THE greatest ever, and that it is more a result of so many people diversifying their lists and that being the primary choice for that of a female filmmaker. Not to say it's without merit (by any means) and it certainly is important, but I -- again -- do think you would be hard pressed to find many people that if they "had to choose a selection as "the" greatest", that they would still choose that.

You can find solace in 2001 taking #1 the Director's poll though! So even though the Critics poll gets the most hype (for whatever reason...), the Director's one features 2001 in its header and should get similar press imo.

I think Kane might reign supreme when you aggregate both polls # of voters (#3 in the Critics, #2 Directors), though it's probably going to be very close between it, Jeanne Dielman (#1, #4), Vertigo (#2, #6), 2001 (#6, #1). Actually, I think we already know that Vertigo will be at best #2 aggregate for both polls, because it's slightly lower than JD on both counts. Anyway, I think those numbers are supposed to be released soon, in the coming days...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

AfterHours wrote:

Do you think the new #1 (on the Critics List) marks a new staple for the Sight and Sound list? Or is it more a one-off that caught the voters of the poll at a perfect time and in a semi-organized push to move it as high as possible (that it likely wont enjoy in the 2032 poll)?

Do you think the new #1 will cause a "backlash" the likes of which we haven't seen towards a film of its stature, due to how experimental and "anti-cinematic" it is? Or, will it actually produce an opposite effect, with many new filmgoers discovering the wonders of slow cinema, more female directors, and so on?

I haven't seen it. And to be honest, I'm not sure I've heard of it. But if BEA continues with the decade lists, I'm sure I'll see it some time next year. From what I've seen in other corners of the internet (and MadhattanJack's post), there is indeed a backlash against this new #1 choice but I can't comment on what I haven't seen.

AfterHours wrote:

What do you think will take #1 "overall" when the vote counts are shared and when one combines the results of both polls: Jeanne Dielman? 2001? Vertigo? Citizen Kane?

Any of these films mentioned or Tokyo Story.

AfterHours wrote:

Which results do you agree with more: the directors or the critics poll?

I've always preferred the directors list, and this 2022 edition is no different.

AfterHours wrote:

What would be your own top 10?

Oh hell, I don't know. That's a tough question. I don't think I've seen enough, and I don't think I've lived long enough to re-watch, reflect, and re-evaulate the movies I have seen. Maybe I can give you an answer in ten years.

AfterHours wrote:

And if you made any S & S top 10 predictions beforehand: How did you do with your predictions this time? XD

The only prediction I had was between a friend and I making bet on whether Moonlight would make the Top 100. I lost that bet. Historically, it takes a long time for movies to crack the list. The 2012 lists barely had any representation from 2002 onwards. But this new list is surprisingly open to movies from within the last ten years. Not only Moonlight, but Parasite, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, and Get Out as well.

It's hard not to say this, but this does feel similar to the sudden change in the Rolling Stone greatest albums list, a list that seemed hopelessly outdated. I wouldn't say the same about SnS's 2012 lists. There were a lot of excellent films on those lists that have stood the test of time well, albeit they felt perhaps overly skewed towards white male directors. It's good to get more variety. There's a lot more women and minority representation here than the last poll. But for some titles, an argument can be made that it's representation for the sake of representation (I don't know about the rest of movie buffs out there, but there's no way Black Girl is one of the 100 greatest movies ever made. Important though? Absolutely.) But hey, if this list sheds light on movies that were previously under-appreciated and if it gets people to broaden their movie horizons, then I say good job. I think it's cool that the new #1 is a movie I knew nothing about until today. Although after reading it up on it, and reading online reactions to its #1 placement, I'm skeptical about how much I'll like it when I see it. Nevertheless, I'll repeat having more women representation is a good thing. Was suddenly putting a female-directed film at #1 going too far? And was Jeanne Dielman the appropriate choice for such a high distinction? Eh, I can't really say. But count me as a fan of seeing Cleo and Portrait getting due respect.
_________________
on such a winter's day

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

CA Dreamin wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

Do you think the new #1 (on the Critics List) marks a new staple for the Sight and Sound list? Or is it more a one-off that caught the voters of the poll at a perfect time and in a semi-organized push to move it as high as possible (that it likely wont enjoy in the 2032 poll)?

Do you think the new #1 will cause a "backlash" the likes of which we haven't seen towards a film of its stature, due to how experimental and "anti-cinematic" it is? Or, will it actually produce an opposite effect, with many new filmgoers discovering the wonders of slow cinema, more female directors, and so on?

I haven't seen it. And to be honest, I'm not sure I've heard of it. But if BEA continues with the decade lists, I'm sure I'll see it some time next year. From what I've seen in other corners of the internet (and MadhattanJack's post), there is indeed a backlash against this new #1 choice but I can't comment on what I haven't seen.

AfterHours wrote:

What do you think will take #1 "overall" when the vote counts are shared and when one combines the results of both polls: Jeanne Dielman? 2001? Vertigo? Citizen Kane?

Any of these films mentioned or Tokyo Story.

AfterHours wrote:

Which results do you agree with more: the directors or the critics poll?

I've always preferred the directors list, and this 2022 edition is no different.

AfterHours wrote:

What would be your own top 10?

Oh hell, I don't know. That's a tough question. I don't think I've seen enough, and I don't think I've lived long enough to re-watch, reflect, and re-evaulate the movies I have seen. Maybe I can give you an answer in ten years.

AfterHours wrote:

And if you made any S & S top 10 predictions beforehand: How did you do with your predictions this time? XD

The only prediction I had was between a friend and I making bet on whether Moonlight would make the Top 100. I lost that bet. Historically, it takes a long time for movies to crack the list. The 2012 lists barely had any representation from 2002 onwards. But this new list is surprisingly open to movies from within the last ten years. Not only Moonlight, but Parasite, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, and Get Out as well.

It's hard not to say this, but this does feel similar to the sudden change in the Rolling Stone greatest albums list, a list that seemed hopelessly outdated. I wouldn't say the same about SnS's 2012 lists. There were a lot of excellent films on those lists that have stood the test of time well, albeit they felt perhaps overly skewed towards white male directors. It's good to get more variety. There's a lot more women and minority representation here than the last poll. But for some titles, an argument can be made that it's representation for the sake of representation (I don't know about the rest of movie buffs out there, but there's no way Black Girl is one of the 100 greatest movies ever made. Important though? Absolutely.) But hey, if this list sheds light on movies that were previously under-appreciated and if it gets people to broaden their movie horizons, then I say good job. I think it's cool that the new #1 is a movie I knew nothing about until today. Although after reading it up on it, and reading online reactions to its #1 placement, I'm skeptical about how much I'll like it when I see it. Nevertheless, I'll repeat having more women representation is a good thing. Was suddenly putting a female-directed film at #1 going too far? And was Jeanne Dielman the appropriate choice for such a high distinction? Eh, I can't really say. But count me as a fan of seeing Cleo and Portrait getting due respect.

Thanks for all your answers CA, you reminded me to mention that I did really like that films that were newer are "allowed" onto the list now (peaking with 2019's Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which I haven't seen). Although I would say that it is easier to judge a film (or any art work's) importance, stature or what-have-you over longer period's of time and revisits and comparisons (etc) I have never agreed with automatically inhibiting newer selections. And there are plenty of albums, films, etc, that I knew were among the greatest right away or rather quickly and would have voted them into a top 100 of their respective forms. So that is one thing I liked the most about the newest list (even if I found the overall results more disagreeable than previous incarnations), is that it is cool to see critics allowing the Mulholland Drive's, In the Mood for Love's and Portrait of a Lady's (and others) a more free flowing rise towards the top (even if I disagree with their placements being so high) instead of having to wait until 2050 to finally see the light of day.

My predictions (posted on RYM poll in September) were:

1. Vertigo
2. Citizen Kane
3. 2001
4. Tokyo Story
5. The Rules of the Game
6. Sunrise
7. 8 1/2
8. Apocalypse Now
9. The Searchers
10. The Passion of Joan of Arc

I did expect female directed films to do much better than usual, but I didn't expect the leap to be as dramatic as it was. I thought JD would be the highest selection, somewhere between 11 and 20.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Hayden

Location: CDMX

1. Both lists are great. At the end of the day, they're remarkably similar. Not sure I have a favourite of the two.

2. Rewatched The Ascent last night— glad to see it pop up on the directors' list.

3. Beau Travail appearing that high on both is kinda interesting.

4. That surprise film that's in both top 5s is... suspiciously placed. Unless there was this massive surge of popularity within film circles.

5. If I had a bigger budget, our lists would look like this Mr. Green

6. Gotta watch Daughters of the Dust.

Regardless, don't think there's any film here I say doesn't belong. Some glaring omissions though— (Harakiri? Pulp Fiction? 12 Angry Men? City of God? There Will Be Blood? I mean... no way The Good, the Bad and the Ugly should be missing from both). (I understand not every film can be squeezed into 100, but still—)

Thanks for sharing AfterHours. I'm revisiting the 70s over the next while, and I'll definitely be picking some re-watches from this. Got around to Touki Bouki again last weekend— found a copy that surpassed any quality of it I'd seen before, really made the textures/colours pop.

Hayden

Location: CDMX

AfterHours wrote:

I'm not sure if I would go as far to say as it "de-legitimizes" and/or invalidates the rest of the list, but it certainly does seem like a pretty awkward #1,

Not gonna lie— reading your comments first, I was kinda hoping it was Paddington 2.

Bach

Gender: Male
Location: Italy

The directors top 100 is way better than the critics list.

In the critics list there is nothing from Bunuel, Malick, Herzog, Pasolini, Cronenberg, Almodovar... and of course nothing from Polanski and Woody Allen. And only one film from Bergman, Antonioni and Welles.
But we have Jordan Peele and Celine Sciamma! A big meh.
_________________
"De gustibus non disputandum est"

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

Among modern movies, I thought There Will Blood and Tree of Life had a reasonable chances. They're both highly respected among critics and directors.

Anyway, to Bach's point about so many highly-regarded directors not getting a single film, but we have Jordan Peele and Celine Sciamma...

Peele and Sciamma have a consensus pick. And they provide greater women and minority representation, which was the goal with this edition. As for Bunuel, Malick, Herzog, Pasolini, Cronenberg, Almodovar, Polanski and Woody Allen...if you asked a sample of critics and directors their favorites by these filmmakers, you may get several different answers. It's important to remember the critics and directors are only allowed to submit a Top 10, so I reckon there aren't consensus choices for these directors to crack enough Top 10s. However that also means a fair number of participants put Get Out and Portrait of a Lady on Fire in their all-time Top 10s.

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

Hayden wrote:

1. Both lists are great. At the end of the day, they're remarkably similar. Not sure I have a favourite of the two.

I prefer the Director's list but there are lots of selections on the Critic's one that are intriguing regardless of how much I agree/disagree with the order. JD is a fascinating film, even if #1 is awkward. So (for me at least) not worrying too much about the order and rankings, and just taking the collection of films as a "100 films to see", it's a pretty fascinating group of selections. Both lists of course. The Director's leans somewhat more "traditional canon" but both have their quirks, and female directors made huge leaps on either.

Hayden wrote:

2. Rewatched The Ascent last night— glad to see it pop up on the directors' list.

Nice, haven't seen that one.

Hayden wrote:

3. Beau Travail appearing that high on both is kinda interesting.

Yeah, it's one I haven't seen before so it intrigues me too.

Hayden wrote:

4. That surprise film that's in both top 5s is... suspiciously placed. Unless there was this massive surge of popularity within film circles.

Agreed, though it has inspired be to give it a revisit soon, I think. I've never rated or ranked it before, now I think I'm going to have to make a conclusion of some sort (even if it's a challenging film to do so with). Solid chance it will make one of the lower echelons of my own "Greatest" list though.

Hayden wrote:

5. If I had a bigger budget, our lists would look like this Mr. Green

I might actually like yours a little more in terms of the pics, though I do like all the quotes S and S provides, and I'm glad to see many new ones this time (for old stalwarts like Kane and Vertigo for instance).

Hayden wrote:

6. Gotta watch Daughters of the Dust.

Yep, me too

Hayden wrote:

Regardless, don't think there's any film here I say doesn't belong. Some glaring omissions though— (Harakiri? Pulp Fiction? 12 Angry Men? City of God? There Will Be Blood? I mean... no way The Good, the Bad and the Ugly should be missing from both). (I understand not every film can be squeezed into 100, but still—)

I'm not too big on 12 Angry Men like so many are, but I agree with the general sentiment. Pulp Fiction not making either top 100 while many other newer ones did, seems a bit odd. If there were virtually no newer films, it would be more understandable, but it's hard to argue that Pulp Fiction isn't the most significant film of the last 30 years. I know that's not all that goes into a selection, but it makes its omission among so many others a bit odd. Perhaps, in this climate, there were too many feeling some backlash towards QT for the rampant "n-word" usage in his films? I dunno -- personally, I think that sort of backlash against writing and the content of the characters from a movie is almost always a little off... Or, maybe his perceived association (his perceived lack of responsibility beforehand, real or not) to Weinstein's acts? Who knows, but its omission is a bit odd with so many others making it, like Get Out, etc. Get Out's superb and all, but Pulp Fiction should certainly be above it in any "Greatest" rankings, I would think?

Hayden wrote:

Thanks for sharing AfterHours. I'm revisiting the 70s over the next while, and I'll definitely be picking some re-watches from this. Got around to Touki Bouki again last weekend— found a copy that surpassed any quality of it I'd seen before, really made the textures/colours pop.

For sure! Nice, I'll consider checking it out myself! Are you doing a 70's poll soon-ish then?
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings