Welcome to the ICM Forum.
Check out our Magazine

If you notice any issues please post in the Q&A thread. Email issue should be fixed. If you encounter this issue, contact PeacefulAnarchy
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 66 released Dec 30th: Is Hype Overhyped?)
Podcast: Talking Images (Special Episode released Jan 8th: The Experiments of Michael Snow)
iCinema Magazine: WE ARE LIVE! (We just need more content)
ICMForum Film Festival 2022 Nov 14 - Dec 12
World Cup - Season 5: Round 1 Schedule, Match 1B (Feb 5th), Match 1C (Feb 26th)
Polls: 1992 (Results), Directors (Results), Sweden (Results), China (Feb 7th), 1931 (Feb 25th)
Challenges: Academy Awards, France, New Releases
About: Welcome All New Members, Terms of Use, Q&A

Sight & Sound 2022 Poll - Predictions

Post Reply
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 8500
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#281

Post by Fergenaprido »

To put things in perspective, a reminder that the 1952 poll had 7 films from the 1940s in the Top 23, including the #1 film Bicycle Thieves (1948).

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/ ... -time/1952
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/sigh ... poll/pitn/
Cinematic Omnivore 🧚‍♂️🦫
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 5163
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#282

Post by Ebbywebby »

Some changes between 2012 and 2022:

Jeanne Dielman: up 50 slots
Cleo 5 to 7: up 276 slots
Beau Travail: up 71 slots
Meshes of the Afternoon: up 130
Do the Right Thing: up 111
Daisies: up 292
Killer of Sheep: up 215
Wanda: up 213
The Piano: up 176
News From Home: not in the 2012 top 1000, so at least 949 slots gained
Daughters of the Dust: not in the 2012 top 1000, so at least 941 slots gained
Touki Bouki: up 36
The Gleaners & I: up 522
Imitation of Life: up 41
Black Girl: up 239

In addition to the list's posturing woke-ness, the results also suggest the statistical dodginess of calculating a top 100 based on unranked top 10s.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 15523
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#283

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

OldAle1 wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 1:50 am
St. Gloede wrote: December 1st, 2022, 8:05 pm
Dielman, shitting on the canon, too artsy? seriously too cinephilic for the plebs, etc
I agree with most of the extended post of which the above is just a brief but not 100% inaccurate digest.

I happen to love Jeanne Dielman, have seen it three times in the cinema back in the 90s; for a long time it was essentially tied with India Song as both my favorite film from a female director and favorite film from 1975. Don't know where I'd put it now, it's been a while since I've seen it and I've seen many more films from women directors in particular since - it's still top 10 in that category for sure, at least. But I have to say that one of those times I saw the largest walkout I've ever seen for a narrative film - this was at the University of Chicago's DOC films, where you'd get 20-30 people to show up for absolutely ANYTHING, even on a sub-zero (Fahrenheit - that's cold, folks) February weeknight when it was snowing. I think the walkout rate was above 50% - the only thing that beat it was the same venue's showing of Michael Snow's La region centrale. Make of that what you will, but the larger point is - yeah, this is very much an avant-garde choice, a weird thing to be on a list that is (theoretically) the cineaste's bible. Unless "cineaste" is now even further removed from mainstream "person who likes movies and is willing to occasionally watch a classic" than it used to be. I think in literary terms it's as if Alain Robbe-Grillet's "Jealousy" or William S. Burroughs' "Naked Lunch" were tapped as the Greatest Novel Ever, or if Rolling Stone voted Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" as the greatest pop/rock album. It's just so far outside of the mainstream that it's kind of flabbergasting. The other films that have ranked at the very top or in the top few slots are all relatively commercial, conventional narratives, with the arguable exception of 2001 - but that had the virtue of being a big box-office success and very widely seen despite any difficulties it has. Not so Akerman's film which I suspect remains seen only by the hardcore obsessive types who have actually heard of "The Criterion Collection". I don't think it ever had a commercial release in the USA at all, which of course means EVERYTHING. Yes that's snarky but I don't think it's entirely off point. So... bold, to say the least. And I really wonder how those outside of the critical community will see it.
Well said!

Personally I have no problem with the new #1, but I’m very curious what effect this will have on starting cinephiles and a regular Joe who occasionally likes a classic. I understand this is a poll and not a collective conscious decision to give it the “best movie ever” title, which is how it will be referred to from now on.
I’m also all for broadening the canon and making it more inclusive and diverse. I just think with this #1 the list shot it self in the foot, and with that the general reputation of film critics.
Last edited by Lonewolf2003 on December 3rd, 2022, 2:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 27128
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#284

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

mjf314 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 1:40 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 1:29 am
mjf314 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 1:16 am

Isn't it an anti-recency bias? There are 8 films from the 1990s, 7 from the 2000s, and only 4 from the 2010s. I don't think cinema got that much worse from one decade to the next. I'm not sure if I agree with the specific films that they chose, but I think at least Parasite deserves its spot.
I just don't feel comfortable judging recent films in a historical context. It's not necessarily that they don't deserve to be in the top 100, just that I think some time needs to pass to judge them.
You've had plenty of time. 2019 films are already 3 years old. Does it really take that long to decide whether or not a film is one of your favorites?
Personal favourite, no. But "all time best" yes, because some films I like because they speak to a moment but don't stand up.
Fergenaprido wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 1:48 am To put things in perspective, a reminder that the 1952 poll had 7 films from the 1940s in the Top 23, including the #1 film Bicycle Thieves (1948).

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/ ... -time/1952
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/sigh ... poll/pitn/
That bothers me too, honestly. That list was very flawed.
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12440
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#285

Post by mjf314 »

Fergenaprido wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 12:33 am I also don't understand the point system comment. I'm most interested in that.

Also, I didn't see anyone else put the lists up yet, so here are the critics and directors top 100 placeholder lists:

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/sigh ... genaprido/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/sigh ... genaprido/
I think you missed The Night of the Hunter on the critic list.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 6584
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#286

Post by Torgo »

Ebbywebby wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 1:54 am Some changes between 2012 and 2022:

Jeanne Dielman: up 50 slots
Cleo 5 to 7: up 276 slots
Beau Travail: up 71 slots
Meshes of the Afternoon: up 130
Do the Right Thing: up 111
Daisies: up 292
Killer of Sheep: up 215
Wanda: up 213
The Piano: up 176
News From Home: not in the 2012 top 1000, so at least 949 slots gained
Daughters of the Dust: not in the 2012 top 1000, so at least 941 slots gained
Touki Bouki: up 36
The Gleaners & I: up 522
Imitation of Life: up 41
Black Girl: up 239

In addition to the list's posturing woke-ness, the results also suggest the statistical dodginess of calculating a top 100 based on unranked top 10s.
Has the word "overcompensation" ever been spelled out as loud as this?
Lonewolf2003 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 2:11 am I understand this is a poll and not a collective conscious decision to give it the “best movie ever” title, which is how it will be referred to from now on.
I’m also all for broadening the canon and making it more inclusive and diverse. I just think with this #1 the list shot it self in the foot, and with that the general reputation of film critics.
100% this. It's giving arthouse a bad name, might people scare away from classics, is unnecessarily bulky for a top spot and further away from a consensus than anything that has been at the top of this list. A sore PR stunt to get people at Twitter and Reddit talking. But at what price?
Fergenaprido wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 1:48 am To put things in perspective, a reminder that the 1952 poll had 7 films from the 1940s in the Top 23, including the #1 film Bicycle Thieves (1948).
That's pretty bad for perspective. Sight & Sound at that time wasn't the institution it has become after that. How could it have with film history not nearly half as long as now.
Having old films appear out of nothing at #50 for reasons or bogus #1 films is something entirely different for a canon which had mostly been established now for decades.
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 1:03 am Also disappointed Sans toit ni loi is missing from the Varda love
This surprised me too, as I apparently overestimated the importance of this film in the Vardanaissance we're experiencing. I thought Vagabond would be one of the go-to female-directed top films if you encourage people forcing them into the canon voting for them, I'm mistaken as it seems.


I wanted to stop responding to this thread, but it keeps attracting me. Just scroll past my posts if my talking points start boring you.
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 3714
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Contact:

#287

Post by kongs_speech »

Fergenaprido wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 1:48 am To put things in perspective, a reminder that the 1952 poll had 7 films from the 1940s in the Top 23, including the #1 film Bicycle Thieves (1948).

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/ ... -time/1952
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/sigh ... poll/pitn/
People keep saying "but what about Bicycle Thieves and L'Avventura?" It's such a blatant false equivalency, for the reason Torgo described.
🏳️‍⚧️ (she/her)
JLG wrote: Photography is truth ... and cinema is truth 24 times a second.
First to check CODA (2021)
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12440
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#288

Post by mjf314 »

From now on, whenever I talk to a new cinephile who wants to watch critically acclaimed films, I'll have to pretend that S&S doesn't exist. The 2023 version of TSPDT probably won't be much better.

Any suggestions? What's the best list to recommend to a new cinephile (preferably a ranked list that was updated within the last few years)?
User avatar
jal90
Posts: 251
Joined: May 19th, 2019, 1:39 pm
Contact:

#289

Post by jal90 »

The fact that people are agreeing with a text by Paul Schrader that uses the term "distorted woke reappraisal" should be far more concerning than the result of this poll.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 15523
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#290

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

mjf314 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 3:24 am From now on, whenever I talk to a new cinephile who wants to watch critically acclaimed films, I'll have to pretend that S&S doesn't exist. The 2023 version of TSPDT probably won't be much better.

Any suggestions? What's the best list to recommend to a new cinephile (preferably a ranked list that was updated within the last few years)?
Our own Top 1001.

And I’m only half joking. I think a new cinephile is better of using a users generated list as a first stepping stone than a critics list, cause a user list most probably will be closer to their taste trough the nature of the list.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 6584
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#291

Post by Torgo »

jal90 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 3:32 am The fact that people are agreeing with a text by Paul Schrader that uses the term "distorted woke reappraisal" should be far more concerning than the result of this poll.
Let me cite Ron Barth Jr's comment on Schrader:
I don't disagree with your premise, but that "woke" sobriquet rankles, Paul.
.. which was elegantly said. I hope that's a stance people here can live with.
It was also the first reaction from a film maker / critic / business celebrity I got sent, so I thought it was perfect to share. I don't always agree with each and every word(ing) I find postworthy and this particular phrase was tough to swallow, yet I still can agree with the core message and it's Paul Schrader after all. Should fuel the discussion.

If you - the community - find other statements from noteworthy names, feel free to share them too. New input for us so not to go incircles.
They can also be more praising than mine. :P
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 6584
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#292

Post by Torgo »

Lonewolf2003 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 3:48 am
mjf314 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 3:24 am From now on, whenever I talk to a new cinephile who wants to watch critically acclaimed films, I'll have to pretend that S&S doesn't exist. The 2023 version of TSPDT probably won't be much better.

Any suggestions? What's the best list to recommend to a new cinephile (preferably a ranked list that was updated within the last few years)?
Our own Top 1001.

And I’m only half joking. I think a new cinephile is better of using a users generated list as a first stepping stone than a critics list, cause a user list most probably will be closer to their taste trough the nature of the list.
It's true :shrug:
Our 1001 is great.
The 2022 TSPDT Top 1000 is closer to what I imagined a new S&S would look like.
And in between those, Letterboxd and the IMDb Top 250 is of course the TSPDT user poll. The Top 100 shares many of the new S&S titles, even the controversial comet risers, but has a smoother ranking and doesn't feel as contrived for me.
Man, that wasn't bad, at all.
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12440
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#293

Post by mjf314 »

jal90 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 3:32 am The fact that people are agreeing with a text by Paul Schrader that uses the term "distorted woke reappraisal" should be far more concerning than the result of this poll.
I don't think I would call it a "woke reappraisal" (I'm not even sure what he means by that), but I do think it's overcompensation. People want to see more woman-directed and black-directed films on the list, so they force themselves to include a few in their top 10, even if those films aren't in their true top 10.
User avatar
jal90
Posts: 251
Joined: May 19th, 2019, 1:39 pm
Contact:

#294

Post by jal90 »

Torgo wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 3:57 am
jal90 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 3:32 am The fact that people are agreeing with a text by Paul Schrader that uses the term "distorted woke reappraisal" should be far more concerning than the result of this poll.
Let me cite Ron Barth Jr's comment on Schrader:
I don't disagree with your premise, but that "woke" sobriquet rankles, Paul.
.. which was elegantly said. I hope that's a stance people here can live with.
It was also the first reaction from a film maker / critic / business celebrity I got sent, so I thought it was perfect to share. I don't always agree with each and every word(ing) I find postworthy and this particular phrase was tough to swallow, yet I still can agree with the core message and it's Paul Schrader after all. Should fuel the discussion.

If you - the community - find other statements from noteworthy names, feel free to share them too. New input for us so not to go incircles.
They can also be more praising than mine. :P
I mean, I do disagree with Schrader's take but there's a reasonable element of perplexity in his reaction to the list, because after all a lot has changed. I disagree because I think it's an easy way out of actually talking about these results in depth or offer a proper sociocultural analysis. Better assume that there is a driving agenda than assume that the filmgoing community has transformed (in size and diversity of voices) and talk about why this happened and what does this new S&S canon say as a representative sample of that.

The term used is just ugly and intended or not a dogwhistle for the more reactionary crowds. But if I trust Schrader's intent, and I do, it still appears close-minded to me.

Also don't take my phrase there too seriously, of course I don't agree with Schrader and that phrasing was awful but I just wanted to spice it up a bit for fun. Nothing wrong with agreeing with Schrader's opinion of course.

On the other hand @mjf314, I do understand the "overcompensation" aspect but I don't think it is as apparent as you make it look just by showing the results. It's not like this is something completely made up for the purposes of the list. Through the last decade and this one so far, directors like Varda and Akerman have gained traction, they have met a growing audience and have been frequently revisited and programmed in various places. There's also been a more diverse pool among directors, critics and academics than perhaps ever before. If we don't take into account that in broad terms the film and cinephile community are different we can't talk about overcompensation so leniently. There's a lot of contextual analysis we can make before reaching conclusions about an obscure or untold intent behind a "best films" poll.
Last edited by jal90 on December 3rd, 2022, 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 6584
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#295

Post by Torgo »

Then what do you call that?
russa03 wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 4:34 am Critic Maria San Filippo's list shows how a lot people probably voted:

Image
Natural progression in taste? Female arthouse directors gaining a bit more traction? Linear evolution of the S&S base?
If this isn't overcompensation and righting wrongs of ye olde days, I don't know what it is.
User avatar
jal90
Posts: 251
Joined: May 19th, 2019, 1:39 pm
Contact:

#296

Post by jal90 »

Torgo wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 4:35 am Then what do you call that?
russa03 wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 4:34 am Critic Maria San Filippo's list shows how a lot people probably voted:

Image
Natural progression in taste? Female arthouse directors gaining a bit more traction? Linear evolution of the S&S base?
If this isn't overcompensation and righting wrongs of ye olde days, I don't know what it is.
It can be natural progression, for the sole reason that this list is released every 10 years. That's a big amount of time for the community to transform and shift its discourse. And with the immediacy of social media and accelerated consumption habits, I'd argue that it can be even faster. After all, the old canon is still there prominently.

Oh, and I don't know what does showing a critic's personal choices intends to demonstrate. The point is that she is not sincere because she picked female directed films?
Last edited by jal90 on December 3rd, 2022, 4:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 6584
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#297

Post by Torgo »

re: Starting points for emerging cinephiles
I'm trying to imagine an above-average interested person, who's accustomed to parts of the IMDb Top 250 and not Fast&Furious-dumb, trying to venture into TRUE FILM by these freshly canonized / pushed Top 100 picks: #1 Jeanne Dielman, #49 Wanda, #53 News from Home
Good luck ever winning that person back for film again .. :ph43r:
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 8500
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#298

Post by Fergenaprido »

mjf314 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 2:50 am
Fergenaprido wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 12:33 am I also don't understand the point system comment. I'm most interested in that.

Also, I didn't see anyone else put the lists up yet, so here are the critics and directors top 100 placeholder lists:

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/sigh ... genaprido/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/sigh ... genaprido/
I think you missed The Night of the Hunter on the critic list.
Thanks, fixed. Must not have stuck when I added it the first time. :thumbsup:

And to whoever commented on Varda's Vagabond, it made the director's list so probably will be in the Top 250 of the critics list once that's revealed.

Some of the responses here make me giggle. You almost inspire me to join the ranks of active trolls. :lol: :whistling:

I don't really care about these results beyond their interest as a snapshot of critical and directorial consensus in 2022. I've never been a fan of S&S and don't take their opinion as gospel, nor do I think that a single publication's once-a-decade poll defines what is and is not "canon" - "4 a: an accepted principle or rule b: a criterion or standard of judgment c: a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms". If there's any single list that could be considered canon, it's probably TSPDT, since that looks to aggregate the opinions displayed in a wide variety of lists and sources.

More food for thought (but don't read if you'd rather whine about the S&S results and bemoan that this is the end of the cinematic world and relevant critical thought; this may challenge you too much and make your precious little heads explode :exploding_head: ):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon
https://lwlies.com/articles/alternative ... in-cinema/
https://jezebel.com/rethinking-the-film ... 1844083283

Also, I agree with what jal90 writes, again. :high_five:
Cinematic Omnivore 🧚‍♂️🦫
User avatar
jal90
Posts: 251
Joined: May 19th, 2019, 1:39 pm
Contact:

#299

Post by jal90 »

Torgo wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 4:43 am re: Starting points for emerging cinephiles
I'm trying to imagine an above-average interested person, who's accustomed to parts of the IMDb Top 250 and not Fast&Furious-dumb, trying to venture into TRUE FILM by these freshly canonized / pushed Top 100 picks: #1 Jeanne Dielman, #49 Wanda, #53 News from Home
Good luck ever winning that person back for film again .. :ph43r:
Come on! For a while now the canon has tried to convince people that every best documentary has to be at least 9 hours in length (Shoah, Tie xi qu). THAT is the concerning trend and not the female directed films :P
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12440
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#300

Post by mjf314 »

jal90 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 4:29 am On the other hand @mjf314, I do understand the "overcompensation" aspect but I don't think it is as apparent as you make it look just by showing the results. It's not like this is something completely made up for the purposes of the list. Through the last decade and this one so far, directors like Varda and Akerman have gained traction, they have met a growing audience and have been frequently revisited and programmed in various places. There's also been a more diverse pool among directors, critics and academics than perhaps ever before. If we don't take into account that in broad terms the film and cinephile community are different we can't talk about overcompensation so leniently. There's a lot of contextual analysis we can make before reaching conclusions about an obscure or untold intent behind a "best films" poll.
But there's a big difference between a "growing audience" and #1 of all time. I don't think an increase in diversity can fully explain it, because if you look at "best films of all time" polls from all over the world from many different organizations, Jeanne Dielmann has never made the top 10, so how does it suddenly jump to #1?

It looks like they only focused on a specific type of diversity, but the country diversity is still bad. Judging by the results, it looks like they invited very few Asians and Latin Americans.
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 8500
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#301

Post by Fergenaprido »

mjf314 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 4:50 am
jal90 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 4:29 am On the other hand @mjf314, I do understand the "overcompensation" aspect but I don't think it is as apparent as you make it look just by showing the results. It's not like this is something completely made up for the purposes of the list. Through the last decade and this one so far, directors like Varda and Akerman have gained traction, they have met a growing audience and have been frequently revisited and programmed in various places. There's also been a more diverse pool among directors, critics and academics than perhaps ever before. If we don't take into account that in broad terms the film and cinephile community are different we can't talk about overcompensation so leniently. There's a lot of contextual analysis we can make before reaching conclusions about an obscure or untold intent behind a "best films" poll.
But there's a big difference between a "growing audience" and #1 of all time. I don't think an increase in diversity can fully explain it, because if you look at "best films of all time" polls from all over the world from many different organizations, Jeanne Dielmann has never made the top 10, so how does it suddenly jump to #1?

It looks like they only focused on a specific type of diversity, but the country diversity is still bad. Judging by the results, it looks like they invited very few Asians and Latin Americans.
So Asians and Latin Americans would naturally only vote for Asian and Latin American films, respectively? You're better than lazy assumption, mjf. Wait until the actual ballots are released before trying to come to conclusions.

I, for one, thought that aside from the noted increase in the number of films directed by women and films by/about black people, that there was an increase in the number of films from (East) Asia in the top 100, but I didn't actively compare it to last time. The 4-film run of Chungking Express-Parasite-Yi yi-Ugetsu monogatari caught my eye, in particular.
Cinematic Omnivore 🧚‍♂️🦫
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12440
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#302

Post by mjf314 »

Fergenaprido wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 5:01 am So Asians and Latin Americans would naturally only vote for Asian and Latin American films, respectively? You're better than lazy assumption, mjf. Wait until the actual ballots are released before trying to come to conclusions.
Individual critics, not necessarily. But for example, on average, Chinese critics vote for Chinese films more often than non-Chinese critics vote for Chinese films. If they invited a lot of Chinese critics, A Brighter Summer Day would probably be much higher than #78.

But you're right, we won't know for sure until they release the ballots.
beasterne
Posts: 1455
Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 6:00 am
Contact:

#303

Post by beasterne »

beasterne wrote: February 8th, 2022, 3:27 pm
Lakigigar wrote: February 6th, 2022, 2:59 am The Searchers is a very crazy entry in the top 10 of S&S 2012. It might not just leave the top 10, it might drop out of the top 50 and i'm 90% sure of that. One bet for a new entry in the top 100 is Funeral Parade of Roses. I agree that Agnes Varda will do substantially better than 10 years ago.

Directors like Huston, Ford & Capra likely take a hit probably, especially Ford.
The Searchers has been in or near the top 10 every year since 1982. I don't think there's any way it falls out of the top 20.
So looking back at the earlier posts in this thread I found I only made one prediction—but I was correct! The Searchers landed at 15th place.

Elsewhere in those first pages we see Gloede really calling the Varda-lanche. Turns out he could have gone even further with his predictions.
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#304

Post by St. Gloede »

Torgo wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 3:01 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 1:03 am Also disappointed Sans toit ni loi is missing from the Varda love
This surprised me too, as I apparently overestimated the importance of this film in the Vardanaissance we're experiencing. I thought Vagabond would be one of the go-to female-directed top films if you encourage people forcing them into the canon voting for them, I'm mistaken as it seems.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the directors' list. Vagabond is on it.
Torgo wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 3:01 am
Fergenaprido wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 1:48 am To put things in perspective, a reminder that the 1952 poll had 7 films from the 1940s in the Top 23, including the #1 film Bicycle Thieves (1948).
That's pretty bad for perspective. Sight & Sound at that time wasn't the institution it has become after that. How could it have with film history not nearly half as long as now.
Having old films appear out of nothing at #50 for reasons or bogus #1 films is something entirely different for a canon which had mostly been established now for decades.
So just because film history is now twice as long films from the last decade should be excluded or has no place there. I think 7 films in the top 23 to 4 films in the top 100 has to be added to this comparison as well.

I would not have voted for any films from the last decade myself, but this is primarily a coincidence/the 10s not being that strong a period for cinema in my eyes.

In terms of intention I know Williams (the S&S editor) and many critics were actively pushing for more representation of newer films in the list/found issue with the lack of new films, so in terms of intention, excluding newer films is certainly not one of them.
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#305

Post by St. Gloede »

OldAle1 wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 11:41 pm What's that little comment about Jude about? Something he said?
He just voted for 10 films that had no chance whatsoever, but he was trying to highlight lesser seen favourites (pulling an Angel ;)) so he may just have wanted us to see his ballot.
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#306

Post by St. Gloede »

beasterne wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 7:09 am Elsewhere in those first pages we see Gloede really calling the Varda-lanche. Turns out he could have gone even further with his predictions.
Yeah, not even I had expected it to be this good, I even scanned a couple of times to see if I had missed Le bonheur. :lol:
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12440
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#307

Post by mjf314 »

jal90 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 4:41 am Oh, and I don't know what does showing a critic's personal choices intends to demonstrate. The point is that she is not sincere because she picked female directed films?
Here's a list of Maria San Filippo's "Favorite Film-Going Experiences" from her personal website. She describes 2001: A Space Odyssey as "my greatest film-going experience of all time" and "a hard one to beat". Only one film in her top 10 (Portrait of a Lady on Fire) is directed by a woman.

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. The Blair Witch Project
3. Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One
4. Koyaanisqatsi
5. Purple Rain
6. Portrait of a Lady on Fire
8 (tie). Lost Highway; Blue Velvet
9. All the President's Men
10. Jaws

And here's her S&S ballot. All 10 are directed by women.

Daisies
Wanda
Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
Sans toi ni loi
Chocolat
The Piano
The Watermelon Woman
La mujer sin cabeza
Wendy and Lucy
Portrait de la jeune fille en feu

To answer your question, I think it's very likely that she's not being sincere.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 27128
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#308

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

mjf314 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 4:06 am
jal90 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 3:32 am The fact that people are agreeing with a text by Paul Schrader that uses the term "distorted woke reappraisal" should be far more concerning than the result of this poll.
I don't think I would call it a "woke reappraisal" (I'm not even sure what he means by that), but I do think it's overcompensation. People want to see more woman-directed and black-directed films on the list, so they force themselves to include a few in their top 10, even if those films aren't in their true top 10.
I feel like you haven't read voter commentary on previous sight and sound polls. A lot of voters make up all sorts of contrived rules for themselves explicitly, and I suspect a lot more implicitly. One film per director, only films that were (or were not) in previous editions, only films they previously didn't vote for, one film per country, representing different decades or genres or movements, etc. Not to mention the no docs or no animated or no shorts people. And beyond this, most critics blend some form of favourite and "objective greatness," ignoring idiosyncratic favourites that don't stand a chance.

This isn't all voters, there has, and I suspect remains, a contingent of voters who do vote straight favourites, but I don't know that they're the majority.

This is what a canon is, a critical conversation writ large, with a whole bunch of implicit and explicit biases, where the idea is that some form of consensus arises from the mess. Is it an overcorrection to some degree, yeah. But the issues people are pointing out have always existed in the canon making process, it's just that the process is now more inclusive and the shift (which isn't actually that dramatic) makes these issues stand out.
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12440
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#309

Post by mjf314 »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 8:19 am I feel like you haven't read voter commentary on previous sight and sound polls. A lot of voters make up all sorts of contrived rules for themselves explicitly, and I suspect a lot more implicitly. One film per director, only films that were (or were not) in previous editions, only films they previously didn't vote for, one film per country, representing different decades or genres or movements, etc. Not to mention the no docs or no animated or no shorts people. And beyond this, most critics blend some form of favourite and "objective greatness," ignoring idiosyncratic favourites that don't stand a chance.

This isn't all voters, there has, and I suspect remains, a contingent of voters who do vote straight favourites, but I don't know that they're the majority.

This is what a canon is, a critical conversation writ large, with a whole bunch of implicit and explicit biases, where the idea is that some form of consensus arises from the mess. Is it an overcorrection to some degree, yeah. But the issues people are pointing out have always existed in the canon making process, it's just that the process is now more inclusive and the shift (which isn't actually that dramatic) makes these issues stand out.
I have read comments like that before, but it seems to affect this new poll more than the previous polls. Usually different voters have different contrived rules and different biases, but this time there seems to be a lot of voters with the same biases.
User avatar
matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 3450
Joined: May 13th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#310

Post by matthewscott8 »

brokenface wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 7:30 am Feels like there's a critical shift towards a form of auteurism where the demographics of the director are of primary importance to the rating of the film.
Image
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#311

Post by St. Gloede »

Torgo wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 4:35 am Then what do you call that?
russa03 wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 4:34 am Critic Maria San Filippo's list shows how a lot people probably voted:

Image
Natural progression in taste? Female arthouse directors gaining a bit more traction? Linear evolution of the S&S base?
If this isn't overcompensation and righting wrongs of ye olde days, I don't know what it is.
I am quite certain we will see a few more ballots of all-women directors and that this was an effort to "correct" the Canon, but:

1. We need to wait and see how widespread it was. I doubt this had a significant impact on Dielman winning the critics' poll and coming in 5th is the directors' poll. Most of the ballots currently published 115 director ballots) had Dielman as the sole film by a woman or one of 2. The most women director I have seen on a ballot (beyond this one) was 4. Furthermore, the majority of the lists I saw seemed to have no women directors in them at all.

1.1. Let's not jump the gun and assume this kind of (likely) vote stuffing for a specific niche or cause was the norm.

2. There has always been voters actively pushing agendas/preferences/corrections, as well as voters who's vision is quite extraordinarily singular.

If Tokyo Story had won, or Seven Samurai/Rashomon did a huge jump, and we saw one or a few all Japanese/Asian lists, would we have jumped to similar conclusions?

3. Looking up Maria San Filippo: https://emerson.edu/faculty-staff-direc ... an-filippo
Maria San Filippo’s teaching and scholarship center on screen media’s intersections with gender and sexuality, focusing on feminist and queer works of contemporary film and television.
With that context an all women ballot makes a lot of sense, a bit like how you would not be shocked someone teaching horror cinema or writing for a horror magazine would put 10 horror films on their list.

That horror buff may think 2001 is better than The Shining, but to promote their field of expertise/interest or just to counter the anti-horror bias they feel is preveland they vote for the latter.

Voters understand the purpose of the poll differently. Many have always seem likely to have abandoned their personal favourite films in favour of "objectivity", historical importance or various other criteria.

Many specifically vote for films they believe are underexposed, not talked about enough, etc. Or they specifically choose to vote for Citizen Kane rather than the Wells they may prefer, to keep it at number 1. This kind of "dishonesty" always happens.
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12440
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#312

Post by mjf314 »

St. Gloede wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 8:51 am Most of the ballots currently published 115 director ballots) had Dielman as the sole film by a woman or one of 2. The most women director I have seen on a ballot (beyond this one) was 4. Furthermore, the majority of the lists I saw seemed to have no women directors in them at all.
Where did you find those 115 ballots?
User avatar
matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 3450
Joined: May 13th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#313

Post by matthewscott8 »

It's just very nice to see Meshes of the Afternoon make both the critics' and directors' poll top 100s for the first time. It was one of the movies that made me fall in love with cinema. From frame one I was transfixed and astonished. Unfortunately, you can only see a film for the first time once.

There are too many films with actual animal torture and murder in them in these lists. Feels a bit of a bummer that I won't see the 2122 list which won't have these.

I haven't actually seen Jeanne Dielman, so can't comment. I am a huge Delphine Seyrig fan and have got the film sat on a table by the tv though, maybe today is the day. I have to watch my last juror obligated movie from ICMFF first.
User avatar
matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 3450
Joined: May 13th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#314

Post by matthewscott8 »

Trying to make two points with 1 image. None of the films on the list are better than Les Enfants du Paradis, which has been dropped, and the below is an image from it:

Also, forumites be staring at Chantal Akerman like, what da fuck you doin' all over our (not our) list:

Image
User avatar
matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 3450
Joined: May 13th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#315

Post by matthewscott8 »

Torgo wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 4:43 am re: Starting points for emerging cinephiles
I'm trying to imagine an above-average interested person, who's accustomed to parts of the IMDb Top 250 and not Fast&Furious-dumb, trying to venture into TRUE FILM by these freshly canonized / pushed Top 100 picks: #1 Jeanne Dielman, #49 Wanda, #53 News from Home
Good luck ever winning that person back for film again .. :ph43r:
Maybe girls and young women would be inspired to venture further into true film by looking at your list of top 60 directors. 60/60 of the greatest directors are male according to you. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls055577708/
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#316

Post by St. Gloede »

mjf314 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 8:59 am
St. Gloede wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 8:51 am Most of the ballots currently published 115 director ballots) had Dielman as the sole film by a woman or one of 2. The most women director I have seen on a ballot (beyond this one) was 4. Furthermore, the majority of the lists I saw seemed to have no women directors in them at all.
Where did you find those 115 ballots?
In the Magazine. It is out in the app. It is only focusing on the directors' poll though.
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#317

Post by St. Gloede »

matthewscott8 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 9:09 am Trying to make two points with 1 image. None of the films on the list are better than Les Enfants du Paradis, which has been dropped, and the below is an image from it:

Also, forumites be staring at Chantal Akerman like, what da fuck you doin' all over our (not our) list:

Image
Haha, well put.
User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4951
Joined: July 10th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#318

Post by Dolwphin »

pitchorneirda wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 4:02 pm
Dolwphin wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 3:26 pm My affinity with the S&S canon is currently at 31 %
You mean the number of films that are both in your own top 100 and S&S Top 100? That's a lot.

Out of 94/100 seen, I'm only at between 4 and 15% (I have four 9/10 which would automatically be in my top 100, and eleven 8/10 which might be in my top 100 but I don't know since I don't officially have one)
However, 2001 is the only film on both my own and the S&S top 10. So I still have some contrarian street cred. B)

Leviathan for instance (despite being directed by a Womxn) did not even make the list. Feminist Mafia must have cancelled the pescetarian caucus. :down:
Last edited by Dolwphin on December 3rd, 2022, 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top 100 | Canon

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

ImageImage
User avatar
airdolll
Posts: 212
Joined: July 15th, 2022, 11:01 pm
Contact:

#319

Post by airdolll »

Jeanne Dielman at #1! Would have never seen this coming, but I embrace it. I don't think this will mean a threat to cinephilia or discourage new film enthusiasts by any means, we've been living with Shoah, Satantango, West of the Tracks, Norte, etc, populating top lists and doing fine.
I like the directors' top 10 more, and I'm mostly unhappy about the most recent additions. Portrait of a Lady on Fire entering so high really makes me scratch my head. On the other side of the coin, Celine and Julie is my fave new additon.

To summerize first impressions, I agree with jal's and Fergenaprido's overview; these lists have always been a summary of trends and popular films after all.
I think this article is particularly good for the conversation. If people want to talk about certain films being "forced" to them or "forced diversity", what about "forcing" mysoginy and racism because of the historical relevance of a film (which was decided by... you guessed it) to people that don't wish to engage in that type of content?

Gloede just summarized pretty well my thoughts on strategic voting/people pursuing a certain agenda/etc too. I expect that type of bias to happen, and I also expect every voter to have a very different approach and have their own desired outcome from the list.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 9286
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#320

Post by Onderhond »

I think I've asked this before, but does anyone know the specific question that was asked to people providing a ballot?

Also, (looking for crumbs), I guess I do like the new entries quite a bit better than the ones that dropped off from the Top 100. 2 Ghiblies is a bit much (I'd drop Spirited Away in a heartbeat) but at least there's some anime representation now. And films like Daisies and Cléo are worthwhile classics. A lot better that some of the blander, scruffier, more narrative-focused classics that dropped off. Don't care much for the 2010 entries though. Very boring picks.
Post Reply