"... were responsible for more than a third of what the respondents considered the greatest films of all time.... But when this year’s Sight and Sound list was unveiled on Dec. 1, the list featured surprises galore. Nearly half of the elite Top 10 were newcomers, including No. 1 — a title that very few people saw coming …Chantal Akerman’s 'Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles.'... And she’s not alone. Claire Denis’s 'Beau Travail' is joining her.... Akerman and Denis, the first women to ever appear on the list, made it into the Top 100 in 2012 …"
This is an excellent graphic depiction of the history of the poll.
I quoted the part that goes along with the hypothesis I faintly sketched in yesterday's post about the poll "It’s a list of something. The question is what":
... I don't need these critics trying to make up for all their past decades of boosting the work of male film directors... if that's what's going on here.
Posts
28 comments:
Today, lists like this no longer reflect on quality but rather the political or social agenda of those being queried. Same with mainstream critics. When The Last Jedi is deemed a work of excellence you know it’s something other than the movie they are commenting on.
Why--it's like ranking law schools.
Now let's do brownie recipes.
Attention campers: A reshuffling of the status musical chairs has occurred. That is all.
"What Makes a Movie the Greatest of All Time has changed over time, sometimes radically"
As in, The movies USED TO BE movies that people would go see... And think were Great?
Maybe the poll doesn't reflect "what is valued onscreen" so much as what critics and reviewers feel they have to say and feel and like.
Sight and Sound has always been a leftist mag and they made no secret of it. Like other leftist outlets they used to take a broader interest in culture for its own sake, or on its own terms; that's what made it readable. They always gave their political slant on films as part of their coverage, which a reader could quarrel with as you ought to quarrel with anything a critic opines.
At the same time, many (not all) of their writers always injected an element of critical dishonesty: they boosted mediocre films that suited their views. With this there can be no quarreling, it must be simply rejected.
As the left achieved dominance everywhere in the cultural publicity racket, the ratio at Sight and Sound shifted: less broad coverage, more dishonesty.
As usually happens in cliques, its members reinforce one another, and egg each other on. By now most Sight and Soundians probably really do believe Akerman is a great director. They've already believed things no less silly -- maybe they're inured to it.
_____________________
If you want to know the best films of all time, the only list that finally counts is one you make for yourself.
It changes with literature too. The great 19th century English novel used to be Vanity Fair. I believe it's now something by George Eliot, probably Middlemarch. Anyway, they're both great novels that nobody reads anymore.....Re male directors: A lot of them were in love with their leading ladies and gave those ladies their greatest roles. Male directors were empowering for the women they were in love with. I wonder if any female director has ever given any of her male stars a roles than enhances and captures their charisma.
the list "shows that what is valued onscreen has changed over time, sometimes radically" No, what shows what is valued is box office or some variation thereof (as a seasonal example, both A Christmas Story and It's a Wonderful Life didn't set the box office on fire when first released but have become two of the most watched movies every year). The only other alternative is what Baceseras says: the list you make yourself. In my experience the least useful guide to movies is what the critics think.
William, not quite nobody, I read both Vanity Fair and Middlemarch in the last two years, FWIW, I liked Vanity Fair more.
Old white (OW) writers, OW directors, OW founding fathers (FATHERS!) begone. You have done naught but taint our culture.
But the real question is where are the lists built around the trans/lesbian/handicapped.....
Sigh. It's all so subjective. It's all so transparent.
Vanity Fair is definitely the most enjoyable 19th century novel to read. This doesn't make it the greatest, but my guess is that it gets read far more often than Middlemarch. I've read it a couple of times. Once is enough for Middlemarch....I've seen GWTW, Star Wars, The Godfather (I & II), It's A Wonderful Life, North by Northwest and a few others repeatedly. Ingmar Bergman is indisputably great, but I've never felt any great need to rewatch any of his movies.
I'm glad they made Akerman's film No.1 because then its obvious they're playing politics. Everyone can just go "Oh, its just a bunch of SJW's trying to get you to watch an obscure movie because it has a woman director".
Its as if theater critics all got together and voted Lillian Hellman's "Another part of the Forest" the greatest American play. Or voted Susan Sontag's "Death Kit" the greatest American novel.
Getting rid of most of the Ford, Bergman and Welles films while keeping the Goddard trash is another oddity of the new poll. its not just politics at play, its a complete lack of taste and intelligence.
But then who cares about film critics anymore? I don't read them. I used to read Kauffman, Kael, and Simon, (and watch siskel and Ebert) & would eagarly read/watch their reviews after I saw a film. But that was almost 35 years ago. I can remember Ebert/Siskel arguing with John Simon about Star wars Empire strikes back - that was on network TV. Who would do that today?
When men get inspired by a muse, their muse is most likely a pretty woman or a left wing cause. Creative women seem to be more inspired by their resentment of men than by their attraction to them. I guess they're into left wing causes to about the same extent as men. Maybe something good will come of it, but, offhand, I can't think of any great feminist film.
I wonder if any female director has ever given any of her male stars a roles than enhances and captures their charisma.
Kathryn Bigelow's Hurt Locker made a star out of Jeremy Renner, perhaps the most charisma-free leading actor of our time.
William at 9:16 asked: I wonder if any female director has ever given any of her male stars a role that enhances and captures their charisma.
Leno Riefenstahl sure did. And that raises a puzzling question. Can it be true that no Sight and Sound poll has ever included either Olympiad or Triumph of the Will in its top hundred?
I understand there are all kinds of definitions of greatness, and a list of great films made by averaging out a survey inevitably produces odd rankings. But neither of Riefenstahl's great films ever squeaking under the wire of a hundred, that's weird.
Does anyone agree with me that Jackie Brown was one of Tarantinos better movies? I think it's better than Pulp Fiction. Better developed.
It's amazing how few female film directors there were. (and are) I don't know the reason for this, but it is a fact. So it stands to reason that if men totally dominate the world of film directors that men would be making the best films. When I go to see a film, I have no idea what the gender of the director is. I just care if it's a good film.
That being said, the only major studio movie I ever walked out of was The Hurt Locker. (directed by Kathryn Bigelow) I didn't leave because it was a "bad" film. I had to leave because all the weird "handheld" camera motion gave me motion sickness. (And I wasn't the only one.)
I take your point about Leni Riefenstahl. She did for Hitler what Bergman did for Liv Ulmann. But the problem is she did it for Hitler. There are not that many great female movie directors, and one of them used her talents to burnish Hitler's image. I can understand why she's not allowed entry to the Hall of Greats....By the same token, I can't understand why Eisenstein is still allowed an honored spot. He used his talents to celebrate the rise of Bolshevism. The early Bolsheviks had a higher body count than the early Nazis. What is there to celebrate in the storming of the Winter Palace? I understand more people were injured during the filming of that scene than in the actual storming. In one of his later films, he dramatized the story of that Russian boy who denounced his father. (Stalin didn't release it. Too much religious imagery.).....I wonder if any director has ever lost favor because his political leanings were too far left. DW Griffith wasn't right wing or even especially racist for his era, but he doesn't even have an honored place in the ashcan.
Female director / male star -- Nancy Savoca directed River Phoenix in Dogfight, I think the best use of that tragic young man's talent in his brief career.
Savoca is a better director than Akerman and Denis put together. It's too limiting to only compare her to other "women directors" as if that were a separate species: not in her case it ain't: she's up there among the best underemployed directors, male or female, of the late-last-century and early-this. Hasn't directed a feature film since 2011's Union Square. (Has one in the works now.)
She also directed Ron Eldard in True Love. Eldard (arguably) the greatest screen actor in America this period -- anyway the greatest unacclaimed actor.
Her film Household Saints might count as a "feminist film," if that means anything, and it's first-rate. So there's one.
Leni Riefenstahl - definitly should be in Top 100. Eisenstein was a stalinist, and made films glorifying the USSR, Lenin, and Stalin. Yet, he's always on these top 100 lists. I don't know about Sight and sound, but other Top 100 lists have had Riefenstahl's films on their lists.
Lina Wertmüller is another one who should be on the list. Swept Away, 7 Beauties, Seduction of Mimi, etc,
Yes Rusty, I agree. I rate Jackie Brown as his 2nd best movie, only behind Reservoir Dogs.
I'm going to try to watch Jeanne Dielman today, as it's suddenly available on HBOMax. I'm hoping it's the best movie ever made...about a woman doing chores for 3 hours.
Yes Rusty, I agree. I rate Jackie Brown as his 2nd best movie, only behind Reservoir Dogs.
I'm going to try to watch Jeanne Dielman today, as it's suddenly available on HBOMax. I'm hoping it's the best movie ever made...about a woman doing chores for 3 hours.
Jackie Brown is definitely underrated. Hands down De Niro's greatest performance of all time. All the actors were completely believable except Sam Jackson whom was over the top by a couple scintilla.
Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Reservoir Dogs, OUATIH and Inglorious Basterds. It reasonable to make these in any order of preference. The rest are not worth a second viewing.
Joe Bob says check it out.
Rusty, Tarantino slightly disagrees. He considers JB his very best.
Since we've derailed to QT let me say that my favorite QT movie is "Jackie Brown". Its his best because QT had a good NOVEL to work off. RD is probably in 2nd place. Pulp fiction has its moments but most of it is just cartoonish and silly. It blew people's minds in 1993, but looking back there was too much pulp in that fiction.
Reminds me of the embezzlement script they came up with in Office Space. Supposed to imperceptibly change account balances by a penny here or there, but they screw up and it steals $300K the first day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnPBSy5FsOc
Same principle, but for movie polls.
The ideal format for a Top 100 list is that it should push people to be a bit more adventuresome, but should still try to meet the audience where it is.
The very top is for things that you would definitely like if you had a little bit better taste and were more adventuresome ("Citizen Kane", "2001 A Space Odyssey"), plus a couple of things on the highbrow side of what normies like ("The Godfather Part II"). Movies that are really popular like "Star Wars" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark" are good for the 10-30 range, but top 10 is pandering. The IMDB list is useless in this respect, because all the top spots are massively popular films that all the readers have already seen.
The bottom half is a mix of things most people have seen and liked ("The Departed"), things they haven't seen but probably would like if they were a bit more adventuresome ("In the Mood For Love"), and things they haven't seen, probably wouldn't like, but are undeniably great ("Solaris"), plus a few wild cards.
I haven't seen the movie, but "slow paced 3+ hour 1975 feminist movie" sounds like more of a wild card pick. Put it at #57 and you're provoking people to explore a little bit. Put it at #1 and people are going to decide the list isn't made for them.
I never put any credence in a critic's take on a movie.
Maybe the reason all those films made by men were on the list was because all those films made by men were the best. No one "hid" female directors' films from the list. They were shit. Adding female directors' to the list and replacing the ones that were on there is merely Woke signaling and should be ignored.
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
Post a Comment