Sight & Sound
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Sight & Sound
And on the subject of "greatest" versus "favourite" films, if I was prioritising the latter, Withnail & I would be a rock-solid shoo-in. But it isn't, because although it's a genuine marvel in terms of script and acting, it's not much cop cinematically (as Bruce Robinson would doubtless be the first to admit; camera operator Bob Smith famously got an unusually prominent opening credit to acknowledge that most of the compositional decisions were his rather than the director's), and it doesn't really break any particularly interesting artistic ground. For me, everything on my list has to both be something that I personally admire hugely and something that I also think is a genuine creative milestone in terms of the cinema as an art form.
- Lighthouse
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 11:12 am
Re: Sight & Sound
Of course ...MichaelB wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:51 amI think quite a lot of people here will disagree with that last sentence quite strongly!Lighthouse wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:41 amAnd then their is the fact that in such lists there is an incredible preference for very old films ...
Of course I can easily understand that new films need their time to make such kind of list, but for me the conservatism of these lists is a bit disappointing.
The most recent film in the latest top 10 is from 1968, and 3 of the films are even from before 1930. I view this as odd, considering how far film has developed and renewed itself since then. I actually think that in any decade since 1960 more great films were made than in all the decades before 1960 together.
... and without wanting to steer an uproar, this is what I call a certain "conservatism in taste". It's the same for music, novels, comics even football (soccer).
Of course they can do, and if they do vote for them. But aren't there also films from this century which can do that?
More generally, I don't think it's the least bit odd, because over the last 50-60 years appreciation of cinema has become far more internationally oriented, far more titles are in contention, far more titles are being voted for, and inevitably the more established ones are going to have a disproportionate advantage purely through familiarity. You say as an individual that "newer films are just more interesting for me", but unless a statistically significant number of people votes for the same films, it's not going to have any real impact.
Anyway, I genuinely do rank The General and L'âge d'or amongst my most breathtaking cinema experiences -
Well my list would also contain older films from a nowadays point of view (there would be a preference of films from the 60s and 70s), and one reason for that is surely that if i have to restrict myself, I would stay by equally fascinating films most likely with the older ones, cause I they are much longer part of my life. I understand why people prefer older films over newer ones, but I'm still surprised that the preference is so strong.
And of course I accept the outcome of these kind of polls, I actually don't expect that they mirror my own taste. I like these kind of lists, they are telling me something, and they are fun to check.
Btw, for which films did you vote in 2012?
- Lighthouse
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 11:12 am
Re: Sight & Sound
Yes, at least there should be only films one admires ...MichaelB wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:57 amAnd on the subject of "greatest" versus "favourite" films, if I was prioritising the latter, Withnail & I would be a rock-solid shoo-in. But it isn't, because although it's a genuine marvel in terms of script and acting, it's not much cop cinematically (as Bruce Robinson would doubtless be the first to admit; camera operator Bob Smith famously got an unusually prominent opening credit to acknowledge that most of the compositional decisions were his rather than the director's), and it doesn't really break any particularly interesting artistic ground. For me, everything on my list has to both be something that I personally admire hugely and something that I also think is a genuine creative milestone in terms of the cinema as an art form.
For me the films I enjoy the most are only films which are also for me cinematically outstanding, cause the entertainment value of a film has for me a lot to do how a film is directed. I think this was already so when I was a child, it was e.g. more important how a shootout in a western was filmed then how it ends.
It is the directing or the storytelling which gives good film the extra kick which transports them to another "dimension". Film which don't impress me with their style cannot reach this point of fascination. A director like Lumet can for me never reach this point, but it is interesting how high he is still estimated.
Last edited by Lighthouse on Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Maltic
- Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:36 am
Re: Sight & Sound
The average director in the poll has likely seen less films than the average critic.Lighthouse wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:41 amI also think that the list of the directors is always less conservative than those of the critics.
Btw, I wouldn't necessarily say Man with a Movie Camera/Sunrise/The Searchers are conservative choices compared to The Godfather/Apocaypse Now/Taxi Driver, even though the former are older films.
Last edited by Maltic on Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Maltic
- Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:36 am
Re: Sight & Sound
For a list picked by 800+ mostly boomers, the 2012 Top 10 actually turned out interesting enough and covered a lot of ground. 10 of the major directors, a western, sci-fi, thriller, romance, documentary, Soviet montage, poetic realism, Ozu, German expressionism (via Hollywood), 1960s modernism, the 5-7 major countries (at least until ca. 1968) represented. Not a bad place to start at all.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Sight & Sound
Not for me. At least not so far. In all seriousness, which post-2000s comedy do you think can hold a candle to something like The General?Lighthouse wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:13 amOf course they can do, and if they do vote for them. But aren't there also films from this century which can do that?
I mean, granted, it's worth noting that at least half my list comprises titles that I watched for the first time before I turned eighteen, and so the bar for having the same kind of impact on me now is much, much higher - of everything that I've seen post-2000, only Marketa Lazarová (made in 1967, but pretty much inaccessible in English-friendly form until 2007) has unquestionably had the same kind of mentally game-changing impact on me. And possibly Werckmeister Harmonies, which might yet make my 2022 list, although I suspect it needs a rewatch first. And if Stalker didn't already exist, Hard to Be a God might be in contention, because there's really nothing else quite like it.
In chronological order, La Roue, L'âge d'or, Kind Hearts and Coronets, The Battle of Algiers, Marketa Lazarová, Once Upon a Time in the West, Stalker, L'Argent, Anything Can Happen, In the Mood for Love, with the Buñuel and Bresson titles being the ones that I saw first (in both cases, at least half a dozen others would have been equally worthy of consideration).Btw, for which films did you vote in 2012?
My 2022 list is currently The General, L'âge d'or, The Battle of Algiers, Marketa Lazarová, Once Upon a Time in the West, Performance, Stalker, L'Argent, The Wrong Trousers, In The Mood for Love, although they may undergo tweaking between now and the submission deadline (whenever that is; the forms haven't been sent out yet).
-
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am
Re: Sight & Sound
OT I was telling someone my fave five films today and I realised they all ended with someone or something falling off a high building! - Metropolis, King Kong, Ghostbusters, Batman and the 1991 Beauty and the Beast!
I guess people are surprised I don't care for Vertigo that much!
I guess people are surprised I don't care for Vertigo that much!
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Sight & Sound
Re: films being important vs. favorites, I maintain that it's impossible to vote for something on a top 10 that isn't in some sense your favorite. You might see an established classic on someone else's list that doesn't do much for you personally, but it's an established classic because some/many people absolutely do feel as strongly about it as you do about your very favorite films. Whatever voice inside is telling you that, say, The Seventh Seal is too important for you to leave off of an all-time top 10, the very fact that that one out of 500 other behemoths of film is the one that keeps nagging you in your head to make room for it is the way in which it is your favorite.
I would also generally say that every decade since the 1920s contains about as many great films as any other, though the hurdle a film has to overcome to stand out as among the one or two films from its decade worthy of appearing on an all-time top 10 is so high that it may just take at least 20 years to solidify that way. Like, I keep up on all the new films of note, and compiled a ranked top 50 for our forum's 2010s list project, though at this point all of the top 20-30 are still so close in my estimation that I wouldn't feel satisfied merely plucking out my #1 from that decade and fitting it into an all-time top 10. I don't know if I even feel that way about the 2000s yet
I would also generally say that every decade since the 1920s contains about as many great films as any other, though the hurdle a film has to overcome to stand out as among the one or two films from its decade worthy of appearing on an all-time top 10 is so high that it may just take at least 20 years to solidify that way. Like, I keep up on all the new films of note, and compiled a ranked top 50 for our forum's 2010s list project, though at this point all of the top 20-30 are still so close in my estimation that I wouldn't feel satisfied merely plucking out my #1 from that decade and fitting it into an all-time top 10. I don't know if I even feel that way about the 2000s yet
- Lighthouse
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 11:12 am
Re: Sight & Sound
MichaelB, from your list Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West is definitely in my top 10 too.
But what is Anything Can Happen? I suppose it is not the 1952 Hollywood movie ...
But what is Anything Can Happen? I suppose it is not the 1952 Hollywood movie ...
Last edited by Lighthouse on Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Sight & Sound
Marcel Łoziński, 1995. Dropped from my 2022 list because I repeated it a couple of years later in the Sight & Sound documentary poll (it got three votes, I was delighted to see), and if they have another one it'll be repeated there as well.
- Lighthouse
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 11:12 am
Re: Sight & Sound
Ok, i assumed it was that one. Never heard of it, but I have to admit I have close to zero interest in documentary films of any kind. Matter of time ...
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Sight & Sound
What about documentaries that are made more for artistic purposes than informational ones?
- Lighthouse
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 11:12 am
Re: Sight & Sound
I haven't said that all older films are conservative, but in general it is my view.Maltic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:38 amThe average director in the poll has likely seen less films than the average critic.Lighthouse wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:41 amI also think that the list of the directors is always less conservative than those of the critics.
Btw, I wouldn't necessarily say Man with a Movie Camera/Sunrise/The Searchers are conservative choices compared to The Godfather/Apocaypse Now/Taxi Driver, even though the former are older films.
Actually of these 3 films I think that The Searchers (and all other Ford films) are indeed quite conservative, and are compared to the 3 newer films you named. But I like all 6 very much.
I also think that filmmakers haven't seen as much films as critics, but my impression is that they all have watched their share of the usual classics, but that (apart from Scorsese and Tarantino ) they often stopped watching films when they started making their own films, cause they simply often don't find the time anymore.
- Lighthouse
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 11:12 am
Re: Sight & Sound
I'm just not interested, I can't watch everything, and I watch films from all genres, all countries, all decades, but there is more I would like to watch and re-watch as I will ever accomplish.
I also don't read that much novels nowadays compared to 20 years ago, it is just too much, and I have no idea how I did find all the time to watch all these films I have already watched ...
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Sight & Sound
I swear I'm not making this up - and you are of course welcome to check - but right now Vertigo, Citizen Kane and The Wrong Trousers have the same IMDB score of 8.3/10.
- DarkImbecile
- Ask me about my visible cat breasts
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Re: Sight & Sound
I think it's certainly true that anyone well-versed in film history can't help but give more weight, even subconsciously, to something that either advanced the form or has creative elements that have been incorporated into dozens or hundreds of films that followed — which definitely biases one toward the only films that have been given the time have that kind of influence. That said — and maybe this is a corollary to that first point — when going decade by decade, I conversely find it much easier to pinpoint those films that work for me as the greatest of the 21st century than the preceding decades because that extra layer of historical consideration isn't as present, and my estimation of a given film in 2021 is a bit more pure and unfiltered now in a way that diminishes with every passing year as social and cultural influence unavoidably bleeds into my subjective evaluation.swo17 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:45 amRe: films being important vs. favorites, I maintain that it's impossible to vote for something on a top 10 that isn't in some sense your favorite. You might see an established classic on someone else's list that doesn't do much for you personally, but it's an established classic because some/many people absolutely do feel as strongly about it as you do about your very favorite films. Whatever voice inside is telling you that, say, The Seventh Seal is too important for you to leave off of an all-time top 10, the very fact that that one out of 500 other behemoths of film is the one that keeps nagging you in your head to make room for it is the way in which it is your favorite.
I would also generally say that every decade since the 1920s contains about as many great films as any other, though the hurdle a film has to overcome to stand out as among the one or two films from its decade worthy of appearing on an all-time top 10 is so high that it may just take at least 20 years to solidify that way. Like, I keep up on all the new films of note, and compiled a ranked top 50 for our forum's 2010s list project, though at this point all of the top 20-30 are still so close in my estimation that I wouldn't feel satisfied merely plucking out my #1 from that decade and fitting it into an all-time top 10. I don't know if I even feel that way about the 2000s yet
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Sight & Sound
Isn't that...kind of a conservative approach to film viewing?Lighthouse wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:26 pmI'm just not interested, I can't watch everything, and I watch films from all genres, all countries, all decades, but there is more I would like to watch and re-watch as I will ever accomplish.
I also don't read that much novels nowadays compared to 20 years ago, it is just too much, and I have no idea how I did find all the time to watch all these films I have already watched ...
- Maltic
- Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:36 am
Re: Sight & Sound
... and yet you say the critics have a more conservative (i.e. conformist, stale, narrow?) view of cinema.Lighthouse wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:21 pmI haven't said that all older films are conservative, but in general it is my view.
Actually of these 3 films I think that The Searchers (and all other Ford films) are indeed quite conservative, and are compared to the 3 newer films you named. But I like all 6 very much.
I also think that filmmakers haven't seen as much films as critics, but my impression is that they all have watched their share of the usual classics, but that (apart from Scorsese and Tarantino ) they often stopped watching films when they started making their own films, cause they simply often don't find the time anymore.
It seems to me the critics' top 10 is more challenging for your casual movie-goer precisely because it doesn't have the 1970s films (though I have nothing against these).
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Sight & Sound
I view "important" and "favorite" as very different -- though I would feel uncomfortable about being made to rate things based on "importance" and have no qualms about listing "favorites" (within reason). Glad I have no obligation to make lists except little ad hoc ones for specific purposes. It seems too much like "work" -- even for favorites (if one is talking about a long general list). I guess I feel inhibited because there are so many wonderful films that I have roughly equivalent "treasurability". I'm glad to leave the task to others -- and will stick to promoting films on a film-by-film (and director-by-director" basis -- as circumstances warrant.
- Lighthouse
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 11:12 am
Re: Sight & Sound
I have no idea why a top 10 with only more recent films should be less challenging for your casual movie-goer?Maltic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:01 pm
... and yet you say the critics have a more conservative (i.e. conformist, stale, narrow?) view of cinema.
It seems to me the critics' top 10 is more challenging for your casual movie-goer precisely because it doesn't have the 1970s films (though I have nothing against these).
And more conservative, yes, but without these negative connotations.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Sight & Sound
If it only consisted of more recent films, that would make me instinctively suspicious about the extent of their grasp of film history. And the whole point of this particular poll is that it involves people who by definition should have a pretty good grasp of it.Lighthouse wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:37 amI have no idea why a top 10 with only more recent films should be less challenging for your casual movie-goer?
Of course, if such a list was accompanied by a convincing and evidence-backed argument as to why these films are considered greater than anything from the cinema's first century, that's fair enough - but I note that neither you nor anybody else rose to the challenge of naming a post-2000 comedy that unquestionably rivals The General.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Sight & Sound
I feel half tempted to be cheeky on that challenge, but only because I don’t particularly like The General (nor Steamboat nor Navigator which I guess shows a pattern) despite Keaton being a top ten director for me.
- Lighthouse
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 11:12 am
Re: Sight & Sound
Actually such a list would make me also pretty suspicious ...MichaelB wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:54 amIf it only consisted of more recent films, that would make me instinctively suspicious about the extent of their grasp of film history. And the whole point of this particular poll is that it involves people who by definition should have a pretty good grasp of it.Lighthouse wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:37 amI have no idea why a top 10 with only more recent films should be less challenging for your casual movie-goer?
... but what I meant was only that such a list (or a at least one list with some newer films) would then be not less challenging than the one from 2012.
He he, yes that's a good one, and not easy to answer.but I note that neither you nor anybody else rose to the challenge of naming a post-2000 comedy that unquestionably rivals The General.
Something I always noted was that several comedies, which are very funny (and actually making a really funny film is already a kind of art for itself), are not that interesting in the directing department. And this goes for Chaplin, Marx Bros, De Funes, Mel Brooks, early Woody Allen, Monty Pythons, Zucker/Abrahms/Zucker and others. For this reason alone it is a bit more difficult to compare comedies with all other kind of films.
But I have also to admit that The General is not an unquestionably great film for me, I prefer for Keaton The Navigator, and it made never such an impact on me than on you (or other films did on me), and at least there are some modern comedies which are much more funny for me (e.g. OSS 117: Lost in Rio), and at least I think that some newer Woody Allen comedies like Vicky Christina Barcelona are for me more impressive than The General.
But if we put comedies aside, and the silent film was indeed a great time for slapstick, I could easily name you a lot of modern films, and even easier a lot of films from 1960 to 2000, which are for me far better than many of these old classics, and (apart from some) most of these are good and entertaining films for me. I easily understand why most of them (not all) still can fascinate modern film lovers, I'm only wondering while they are in these lists too much preferred to similar great films of the last 50 or 60 years.
Well, if you look at the first S&S poll, one sees that it already started incredibly bad, not a single film made after 1960 was named ...
Last edited by Lighthouse on Mon Nov 28, 2022 12:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Sight & Sound
I might put one of Roy Andersson's 2000s "comedies" close to being up there with The General, though that's obviously a very high bar. Despite the gags being delivered at a more lethargic pace, there's a similar focus on well-constructed set pieces, a certain shared austerity befitting their greater societal concerns, and of course, plenty of "stone faces"