Sight & Sound 2022 Poll - Predictions

[zhangalan]

I can accept that the tastes of the new gen critics are different from the older ones, but the problem with the new S&S list is that you can easily see how (heavily!) political correctness influence the outcome. Then you suspect one select the films not based on quality, but based on political correctness.
Also, what if someone bears the mindset of "I have to include one female-directed film. I should also include one film by black director." Then they are not selecting top 10 anymore, because there are only 8 slots . Sorry for my poor English, I hope you understand my meaning.

Is choosing to promote women and black directors political correctness? What then is choosing to promote classic Hollywood, Silents, Welles, Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, etc.?

To use your logic, if someone is of the mindset that they must promote 1 film by Welles and then 1 film by Hitchcock they are not selecting a top 10 anymore, because there are only 8 slots



If the voters are selecting films by women or black directors they don't love or count amongst their favourite films, that is deeply disappointing and frustrating, but then these kinds of people have always affected the results. For instance, many people have expressed a near moral obligation to vote for Birth of a Nation despite hating portions of it, just because of how important and influential it is.

I'll quote myself from earlier:

I'll certainly grant that it certainly seems a set of the voters have purposefully chosen to highlight films directed by women, but is using that as one of the filters when narrowing down your list of favourite films of all-time to 10 really that different from the old days/present when many try to ensure to get one film by Ford, one by Hawks, one by Welles, etc. in to be representative. (Or more modern equivilants of trying to fit 1 film from each of your top directors).

A large part of the voters have always openly tried to be representative, be it of film movements, innovations, decades, countries, key names from x country/niche, etc.

I'm not sure if voters also considering the gender of the directors and trying to, for instance, place at least one woman director in their list is any different from trying to place at least one silent, at least one film from the last 10 years, etc.

You frequently hear voters talk about representing cinema history, their tastes, even their cinematic journey, and when we had our thread on how we would vote most forum users also had to find limitations to manage to get their list down to 10.

And we're list obsessed maniacs.

Speaking for myself I'm only really comfortable with the top 5 or so spots and everything else that I may place in a top 10 is part of a 30-40 tie and this is after a lifetime of rankings and lists. I assume most people here are in a similar situation.

In circles less inclined to obsessive list making the practice may even be worse. S&S keeps qoating the feedback they got in 1952 which even then held that limiting cinema down to 10 films was impossible, cruel and a long list of adjectives expressing utter pain.

I think we all need filters when we only have 10 slots to try to represent and highlight our favourite films. Especially in an era where women and minority directors are on the agenda and activiley spoken and written about, with many hoping to highlight cinematic achievements that in their minds were undervalued, such filters make even more sense before, but I'm sure it has been a filter that has often been in consideration, just not to the same extent as wishing to highlight each Hollywood great, the French New Wave, etc.

I don't think such filters are suddenly dirty or something to complain about just because some of the considerations change and I would not at all call it "political correctness" as that speaks to a kind of policing or norms of what people can or cannot say. I doubt people felt forced to vote for women. Most of the ballots I have seen so far had no films by women filmmakers on them. Even Scorsese who is quoted as saying "Varda is art", did not vote for a Varda film, but that again just comes down to how few slates are available.

At the end of the day, what 10 films (or in some elite cases 15) the voters wish to highlight comes down to their personal considerations, be that what they think is "objectively great", deep personal favourites, hidden gems, a patchwork of their tastes, etc. etc. etc. and to repeat myself I don't think voting for films by women directors in part because they are women is any different from voting for films in part because they are French, Japanese, Indian, Classic Hollywood, etc. and I have yet to see anyone explain why this is any more problematic.

-

I do see some people hear thinking that the identity of the filmmakers suddenly matters more than the quality of the films or that people have something against men or white male directors - which is absurd. Ok, I'm sure there is someone like that out there, but accusing our resident overtly old white man, so overt that he calls himself OldAle, rather than say OldSake, of hating old white men feels like a bizarre stretch. I'll have to add that essentially everyone voting for Jeanne Dielman that have had their votes revealed so far also voted for films by old white men. It feels like a kind of weird political language is coming in here that seems out of place.

I will grant Torgo's point that the majority of filmmakers working, even now, are men, and that it is perfectly reasonable that the supermajority of films on top lists are by men as a result. I think everyone here will agree with that, OldAle agreed with that too. In the case of S&S I believe we are now talking about 11/100 being made by women. I would not have minded if the number had been much smaller, even if it was arbitrarily 0 that would have been fine, though at that point it would have been very odd given the number of respected films by women and I am quite happy with the added exposure this time around.

Does that mean Touch of Evil will be eligible for DtC? Probably no time soon. Can't see that one dropping out of TSPDT any time the next century, provided the list continues to exist.

And no, a few select highly regarded films by women getting votes should not be seen as an attack on men. No one thinks or feels that way (except perhaps a weird, irrelevant minority). I can only speak of the 115 ballots I've seen so far, but EVERYONE mainly voted for the films of old white men, including those with women on the ballot.

I have Le bonheur as my 2nd favourite film, would hate to be suspected of bias or of hating my own gender just because the film was directed by a woman.

I was just kidding with the DTC one. Of course that is an extreme case and very unlikely to happen.

Regarding the issue with political correctness, I think the problem lies with the voting system. There are only 10 slots, and now people must include one female-directed film or something else in their list. Ok, let's see what happen. There are many male-directed films one can vote and there are many famous male directors (at least with most people's knowledge). But what happens with female-directed films? Yeah, Jeanne Dielman is critically acclaimed, so let's pick it. This is how it becomes the new no.1. And this is how we get The Piano, Meshes of the Afternoon, News from Home, Get Out, Moonlight etc in the top 100. I don't think this is fair to other types of films, and I don't see it as respect to female and black directors either, because this is strategic voting rather than true respect.
I think when you truly respect their works, you will consider them as equal with other films. But now I feel that the voters are forcibly including films made by women and black directors etc. But of course, this is what happens when you want diversity but with only 10 slots.
And then there is also the problem of the knowledge of the voters. Why Get Out? Why Moonlight? Are they better than Xala or Sambizanga? There are actually much more films to choose, but I don't think the voters have seen enough before they include one black-director's work in their ballot. If this is the case, why should they forcibly include one if they only have limited choices to pick?

[St. Gloede]

Many people explicitly holds such an opinion in this thread. They think representation and diversity is important (fair enough), thus the canon is at least moving in the right direction. Since the critics share this view it leads to a somewhat artificial result, at least partially, it would seem at first glance.

Completely false, I have not seen a single person hold such an opinion here.

Thinking representation is important is not the same as believing that we MUST have certain minorities represented in the list, especially if it is not aligned with quality.

Similarly, wanting representation in the list is not the same as thinking that we MUST have certain minorities represented in the list, especially if it is not aligned with quality.

I would say the list would be much weaker if there were no French or Japanese films on it, or if there were no films made before 1970, does that mean that I value "identity" over quality?

Does it not occur to you that many want X represented because it adds quality?

Semantics deployed to deny reality. Everybody else can read what e.g. OldAle1 is writing and judge for themselves.

Regarding your hypotethical. Yes that means you value identity over quality!

I can't even comprehend how you could come to such a conclusion.

I read OldAle's posts and found no trace of this, however, if you believe that wanting an S&S list with French or Japanese films on it, and finding it lacking if this was not the case, means you value quality below identity I don't think it is possible to have a discussion as words either don't mean the same or we have too different views on how language, the world, etc. works, so I can only agree to disagree then.

[zhangalan]

Those are all in the TSPDT list, so ineligible. Everything what isn’t in those list are eligible. I don’t understand your point

I think the suggestion is that in 2033, they won't be on the TSPDT list. That seems unlikely but who knows. Rio Bravo I never really liked, Sight and Sound didn't even bother reviewing it on release back in the day. Touch of Evil has Charlton Heston covered in makeup as a pretend Mexican so new generations are likely to have a problem with that. That said today's young filmmakers won't be voting until 2042.

Out of interest does anyone know of any films where someone has been "whited up", like a Japanese film where someone pretends to be a white character for example. I'm interested to know what it feels like from that perspective.

Okay, I understand. If some movies fall of the canon because the canon been made more diverse, it’s natural that those movies would be eligible for a project meant to broaden and look beyond that canon. I still don’t get the problem. Now the TSPDT list is this and with DtC we say one should also look at these movies, in the future the list will be that, and DtC will point to other movies not on that list.

Regarding your second question I think there are some Chinese movies that done that, tho can’t remember specific examples now. But that feels different, saying this as a white man, because there is not the weight of historical oppression behind that.

Sorry, I realize my DTC joke is a bad one.
I don't mean that films in DTC are subpar. On the contrary, I favor some of them over some of the TSPDT entrants.
I just want to use it to point out how the tastes of the critics change but (personally speaking) in a disappointing direction. But it's fine people view it the other way round.

[Onderhond]

I think we all need filters when we only have 10 slots to try to represent and highlight our favourite films.

Why though, unless someone is ill at ease with his own taste and preferences, no filters are needed. Just pick your 10 most beloved films?
If your top 10 holds two or more films from the same director ... it is what it is?

[St. Gloede]

Regarding the issue with political correctness, I think the problem lies with the voting system. There are only 10 slots, and now people must include one female-directed film or something else in their list.

No one has to, many, possibly most, did not and those who did may easily have voted for the film regardless of whether or not the director was a woman, just as manu may have voted for Vertigo regardless of whether or not it was directed by Hitchcock or Sunrise regardless of whether or not it is a silent.

I agree that having to compress your favourite films down to 10 is a massive issue, though it is also a feature rather than a bug for S&S. It would be nice if expanded to 20, 30, 50, 100 or if someone ran such a project on the same scale.

Ok, let's see what happen. There are many male-directed films one can vote and there are many famous male directors (at least with most people's knowledge). But what happens with female-directed films? Yeah, Jeanne Dielman is critically acclaimed, so let's pick it. This is how it becomes the new no.1. And this is how we get The Piano, Meshes of the Afternoon, News from Home, Get Out, Moonlight etc in the top 100. I don't think this is fair to other types of films, and I don't see it as respect to female and black directors either, because this is strategic voting rather than true respect.

I mean this is arguably how every film becomes number 1 or even enters the top echelon though. Vertigo would likely never have been number 1 if it was directed by someone not named Hitchcock and The Searchers would not have been in the top 10 until recently if not directed by Ford. If The Searchers had been made by, IDK Delmer Daves, it would likely have been Stagecoach or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance that would have been resting towards the top decade after decade, or perhaps the western fans would have embraced Rio Bravo or The Treasure of the Sierra Madre as their top pick instead.

How much is strategic voting/hedging your bets is always up for grabs, and I am honestly not sure if the majority of people voted for Jeanne Dielman specifically made this choice because it is by a female director - it would be disrespectful to believe or assume so - but we know it happens.

I think when you truly respect their works, you will consider them as equal with other films.

I don't think most voters would disagree with you there, and honestly, I don't think they are being treated differently.

For the voters who do filter their lists by type as a helpful way of getting to 10 films, looking at gender seems just as reasonable as looking at movement, decade/period, country, favourite director, genre, etc. as man/women have (and still do have) different social roles, meaning there is a reason to be interested specifically in cinema made by women, just as there is a reason to be specifically interested in the cinema of Japan or China, and that interest may either mean that you are exposed to more, and thus have more favourites, or, when choosing to compress your favourites, it sticks out as an area of cinema you want to put extra eyes on - just as say Tarantino tends to do with voting for grindhouse films. Does Tarantino adding grindhouse films to his lists or this time Jude voting for a set of underappreciated films, mean they don't see X type of film as equal?

But now I feel that the voters are forcibly including films made by women and black directors etc. But of course, this is what happens when you want diversity but with only 10 films to choose.

If people are voting for films by women or minority directors because they have to rather than loving the films in question, that's just really sad and frustrating and not something that should be respected. I am however not sure if anyone did this, and if it did occur it was likely very few individuals as that kind of thinking is just bizarre.

And then there is also the problem of the knowledge of the voters. Why Get Out? Why Moonlight? Are they better than Xala or Sambizanga? There are actually much more films to choose, but I don't think the voters have seen enough before they include one black-director's work in their ballot. If this is the case, why should they include one if they only have limited choices to pick?

I don't care much for Get Out but it is on of the films of a generation and seems larger than life at the moment. It makes complete sense that this film received many overlaps. You'll have to ask the individual voters for their reasoning, though I can certainly see why Get Out and Moonlight has more appeal than Xala or Sambizanga (two films I also don't care for at all personally, but would be up for rewatching and reassessing).

[St. Gloede]

I think we all need filters when we only have 10 slots to try to represent and highlight our favourite films.

Why though, unless someone is ill at ease with his own taste and preferences, no filters are needed. Just pick your 10 most beloved films?
If your top 10 holds two or more films from the same director ... it is what it is?

I explained why: Because I (maybe I'm in a minority) do not have 10 most beloved films.

When creating a top 10 there are 3-5 films that may be more beloved than the others, but beyond that there is a big cluster of films that whenever I submit a ranked list is ranked by entirely arbitrary measurements with any of my say top 40-50 being just as loved as the others.

I assume this is the case for most people. Would be pretty odd if people have exactly 10 films that happen to be their most beloved, though not impossible. Kudos to you if you actually have a top 10 that is distinguishable from the rest of your favourite films in how much you love them.

[matthewscott8]

I think some of the tension here is that some people see a great movie as a maximalist effort, someone got a big budget and had an army of people working around them, think Gone With The Wind. By that definition it's really hard to have women in a canon, because they haven't really had those opportunities. When I think of directors who maybe have had a bit more to go with, Kathryn Bigelow and Jane Campion spring to mind, and then there are a few others whose work I'm not really familiar with, this article has a god list of women-helmed efforts that had large budgets https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/we ... ed%20film. Note that the Wachowskis already achieved fame when they were perceived to be men. I don't like any of these movies that I've actually seen, and mostly don't have any interest in seeing the rest.

But for me short films by Marguerite Duras, Maya Deren and Margaret Tait are just as important as maximalist films. So when I see Maya Deren on the list it doesn't feel at all like a sneak entry, but to maximalists it probably does. When I look down my list of beloved films made by women, I'm thinking Coppola's Marie Antoinette is really the only one that can be considered maximalist. I don't really think anyone believes that lesser-quality efforts by women should be snuck in. My own top 100 has 8 films by women, I didn't sneak any of them in, and if I was trying to force representation it would be 50:50 not 8:92.

[Lonewolf2003]

I think we all need filters when we only have 10 slots to try to represent and highlight our favourite films.

Why though, unless someone is ill at ease with his own taste and preferences, no filters are needed. Just pick your 10 most beloved films?
If your top 10 holds two or more films from the same director ... it is what it is?

Sure, if that someone has a clear top 10 that the person vastly prefers over any other movies. But not everyone had a clear top 10 favorite movies. Someone could have a group of f..e 50 movies they love in equal measure, 10 of which are by the same director, that person could chose to make their list a bit more diverse than just picking those 10 by the same director from that group of 50.

So what the Saint said above and before

[matthewscott8]

I think we all need filters when we only have 10 slots to try to represent and highlight our favourite films.

Why though, unless someone is ill at ease with his own taste and preferences, no filters are needed. Just pick your 10 most beloved films?
If your top 10 holds two or more films from the same director ... it is what it is?

Sure, if that someone has a clear top 10 that the person vastly prefers over any other movies. But not everyone had a clear top 10 favorite movies. Someone could have a group of f..e 50 movies they love in equal measure, 10 of which are by the same director, that person could chose to make their list a bit more diverse than just picking those 10 by the same director from that group of 50.

So what the Saint said above and before

Yeah tbh this is me. Top 50 are of similar belovedness. If I had to do a top 10 for a ballot it would be a bit of a head scratcher and I would probably have to go for representative entries.

I think maybe part of the issue is that they think they will get more participation asking busy celebrities for top 10s than if they asked for much longer lists.

[Dolwphin]

Completely false, I have not seen a single person hold such an opinion here.

Thinking representation is important is not the same as believing that we MUST have certain minorities represented in the list, especially if it is not aligned with quality.

Similarly, wanting representation in the list is not the same as thinking that we MUST have certain minorities represented in the list, especially if it is not aligned with quality.

I would say the list would be much weaker if there were no French or Japanese films on it, or if there were no films made before 1970, does that mean that I value "identity" over quality?

Does it not occur to you that many want X represented because it adds quality?

Semantics deployed to deny reality. Everybody else can read what e.g. OldAle1 is writing and judge for themselves.

Regarding your hypotethical. Yes that means you value identity over quality!

I can't even comprehend how you could come to such a conclusion.

I read OldAle's posts and found no trace of this, however, if you believe that wanting an S&S list with French or Japanese films on it, and finding it lacking if this was not the case, means you value quality below identity I don't think it is possible to have a discussion as words either don't mean the same or we have too different views on how language, the world, etc. works, so I can only agree to disagree then.

I have this controversial opinion: The Greatest Films of All Time list should consist of the greatest films of all-time. Critics should not care about country/language/gender/race/sexuality/decade/ (etc.) because there is no connection between identity and quality. I know this type of thinking is completely alien in the Western world today.

[Onderhond]

Would be pretty odd if people have exactly 10 films that happen to be their most beloved

Well sure, but you don't need "exactly 10", you only need "10 or more" to make this exercise precise. I have about 60-75 films that are pretty tightly ranked, so making a top 10 is just taking that first 10.

I'm sure there are others in your camp (as seen above), I just thought it a little weird saying that everybody needs filters. If you're a confident ranker, the only reason to apply filters is to make yourself look like something you are not.

[St. Gloede]

Semantics deployed to deny reality. Everybody else can read what e.g. OldAle1 is writing and judge for themselves.

Regarding your hypotethical. Yes that means you value identity over quality!

I can't even comprehend how you could come to such a conclusion.

I read OldAle's posts and found no trace of this, however, if you believe that wanting an S&S list with French or Japanese films on it, and finding it lacking if this was not the case, means you value quality below identity I don't think it is possible to have a discussion as words either don't mean the same or we have too different views on how language, the world, etc. works, so I can only agree to disagree then.

I have this controversial opinion: The Greatest Films of All Time list should consist of the greatest films of all-time. Critics should not care about country/language/gender/race/sexuality/decade/ (etc.) because there is no connection between identity and quality. I know this type of thinking is completely alien in the Western world today.

I don't understand how this post relates to what I wrote, hence why we are speaking two different languages. (I can see similarities in the words used, but still impossible for me to decipher how you interpreted what I wrote).

I fully agree, and I would assume everyone agrees, that there is no connection between identity and quality.

However, if you are attempting to make a list of the greatest films of all time, and you somehow don't have a single French film on it, or a single Japanese film on it - then it, at least to me, could not be a list of the greatest films of all time. It would be "impossible".

As a personal list, all fine and good, fill it up with Indian musicals, American comedies or whatever strikes your fancy, in this case it is the opinion of one individual - and the individual voters should vote exactly how they feel like (and preferably only for their favourite films - anything else feels dirty indeed) but when the purpose of a list is to display the greatest films of all-time and you don't list the greatest films of all time, but only a specific, lacking subset, then it is flawed in my view - or at least less authoritative/interesting - a bit like lists from forums/facebook groups with limited knowledge of cinema where almost every entry will be from the last 20 years.

The more representative of the greatest cinema has to offer a list is, the more key tastes, niches, preferences, etc. it represents, the more "accurate"/better it is as a list of the greatest films of all-time.

[lineuphere]

- The tendency to define a movie solely by the race/gender of the director
- The tendency to define a movie solely by the director

It's a team enterprise, folks.

As someone working in show business, this point is well taken and discussed A LOT by the many genders, non-genders, and races working within the machine of any production. This trend of a work's structure, story, artistic content and personnel being solely attributed to the race or gender of its director can be maddening. (In theatre, they have these same discussions about the writers). Yes, there are many directors who are basically one-(wo)man-bands and the credit seems to line up appropriately, but there are plenty of directors who shine as a result of the (inclusive) staff the producer(s) hired.

[St. Gloede]

Would be pretty odd if people have exactly 10 films that happen to be their most beloved

Well sure, but you don't need "exactly 10", you only need "10 or more" to make this exercise precise. I have about 60-75 films that are pretty tightly ranked, so making a top 10 is just taking that first 10.

I'm sure there are others in your camp (as seen above), I just thought it a little weird saying that everybody needs filters. If you're a confident ranker, the only reason to apply filters is to make yourself look like something you are not.

That just sounds like pre-filtering - i.e. you filtered when you ranked them to begin with (if indeed those 60-75 films mean the same to you). If you love them equally, then various reasons entered into your mind when you ranked them that left this particular order.

[Onderhond]

That just sounds like pre-filtering - i.e. you filtered when you ranked them to begin with (if indeed those 60-75 films mean the same to you). If you love them equally, then various reasons entered into your mind when you ranked them that left this particular order.

1 is better than 2, 2 is better than 3, 3 is better than 4 ... that's what ranking means to me. All the way down to ~75. They don't mean the same to me, none of them rank at the same level. Not sure how else I could put it

[Torgo]

fyi (for those who didn't know already, like me), an excerpt from the mail that was sent out to the people who could enter a ballot:

"...
a once-a-decade poll of the world’s most respected critics, programmers, academics and curators, asking them each for their top ten films of all time.
...
We are not setting parameters as to how ‘film’ is defined. As for what is meant by ‘greatest’, we leave that open to your interpretation too."

So yeah, you'll have people mixing "personal favorites" and "canon-worthy films" and all of that is then condensed into a single list.

Thanks for making sure that everyone partaking in the discussion is aware of this - because I, for example, wasn't!

There's a whole lot happening on here, again, in ICM's most heated-up debate of the year.
I'm listening and agreeing + disagreeing a lot. For now, you do this without me.

[matthewscott8]

That just sounds like pre-filtering - i.e. you filtered when you ranked them to begin with (if indeed those 60-75 films mean the same to you). If you love them equally, then various reasons entered into your mind when you ranked them that left this particular order.

1 is better than 2, 2 is better than 3, 3 is better than 4 ... that's what ranking means to me. All the way down to ~75. They don't mean the same to me, none of them rank at the same level. Not sure how else I could put it

Leaving aside the political aspect, picking 10 for me would mean for example that there would be no representation of the horror movie, or westerns or Asia. I agree that it's possible to go through a brute force process of choosing which one of a pair you'd take on a desert island, and indeed, I do actually do that.

[Dolwphin]

I can't even comprehend how you could come to such a conclusion.

I read OldAle's posts and found no trace of this, however, if you believe that wanting an S&S list with French or Japanese films on it, and finding it lacking if this was not the case, means you value quality below identity I don't think it is possible to have a discussion as words either don't mean the same or we have too different views on how language, the world, etc. works, so I can only agree to disagree then.

I have this controversial opinion: The Greatest Films of All Time list should consist of the greatest films of all-time. Critics should not care about country/language/gender/race/sexuality/decade/ (etc.) because there is no connection between identity and quality. I know this type of thinking is completely alien in the Western world today.

I don't understand how this post relates to what I wrote, hence why we are speaking two different languages. (I can see similarities in the words used, but still impossible for me to decipher how you interpreted what I wrote).

I fully agree, and I would assume everyone agrees, that there is no connection between identity and quality.

However, if you are attempting to make a list of the greatest films of all time, and you somehow don't have a single French film on it, or a single Japanese film on it - then it, at least to me, could not be a list of the greatest films of all time. It would be "impossible".

As a personal list, all fine and good, fill it up with Indian musicals, American comedies or whatever strikes your fancy, in this case it is the opinion of one individual - and the individual voters should vote exactly how they feel like (and preferably only for their favourite films - anything else feels dirty indeed) but when the purpose of a list is to display the greatest films of all-time and you don't list the greatest films of all time, but only a specific, lacking subset, then it is flawed in my view - or at least less authoritative/interesting - a bit like lists from forums/facebook groups with limited knowledge of cinema where almost every entry will be from the last 20 years.

The more representative of the greatest cinema has to offer a list is, the more key tastes, niches, preferences, etc. it represents, the more "accurate"/better it is as a list of the greatest films of all-time.

Yes there is no connection between identity and quality. Yes individual critics should vote for what they think are the greatest films. If this results in various genres/countries/movements (etc.) being represented in the Canon that is perfectly fine. (This is already the case) But if people is pushing an ideological agenda, e.g. listing ten films by woman directors, that indeed feels dirty.

[matthewscott8]

I have this controversial opinion: The Greatest Films of All Time list should consist of the greatest films of all-time. Critics should not care about country/language/gender/race/sexuality/decade/ (etc.) because there is no connection between identity and quality. I know this type of thinking is completely alien in the Western world today.

I don't understand how this post relates to what I wrote, hence why we are speaking two different languages. (I can see similarities in the words used, but still impossible for me to decipher how you interpreted what I wrote).

I fully agree, and I would assume everyone agrees, that there is no connection between identity and quality.

However, if you are attempting to make a list of the greatest films of all time, and you somehow don't have a single French film on it, or a single Japanese film on it - then it, at least to me, could not be a list of the greatest films of all time. It would be "impossible".

As a personal list, all fine and good, fill it up with Indian musicals, American comedies or whatever strikes your fancy, in this case it is the opinion of one individual - and the individual voters should vote exactly how they feel like (and preferably only for their favourite films - anything else feels dirty indeed) but when the purpose of a list is to display the greatest films of all-time and you don't list the greatest films of all time, but only a specific, lacking subset, then it is flawed in my view - or at least less authoritative/interesting - a bit like lists from forums/facebook groups with limited knowledge of cinema where almost every entry will be from the last 20 years.

The more representative of the greatest cinema has to offer a list is, the more key tastes, niches, preferences, etc. it represents, the more "accurate"/better it is as a list of the greatest films of all-time.

Yes there is no connection between identity and quality. Yes individual critics should vote for what they think are the greatest films. If this results in various genres/countries/movements (etc.) being represented in the Canon that is perfectly fine. (This is already the case) But if people is pushing an ideological agenda, e.g. listing ten films by woman directors, that indeed feels dirty.

As with many fights, the question of "who started it" arises and can never be agreed on. For my ballot on the Directors poll on this forum I went all women when I noticed just how many ballots completely excluded them. The people at the top of prevailing power structures tend to regard themselves as "non ideological", so they would see me as having fired the first shot.

[OldAle1]

Well one thing this new poll/list accomplished, if nothing else, was to generate discussion here and (I presume - haven't looked that much) in other forums, Facebook, etc. I can't imagine that if the new #1 had been, say, Taxi Driver, and Parasite had been the only 2010s film added, and the number of films by women entering/moving up were half what it is, that we'd be having such a vigorous debate over what the list should be, how people should vote, etc. Incremental changes are a lot less exciting.

[Torgo]

Well one thing this new poll/list accomplished, if nothing else, was to generate discussion here and (I presume - haven't looked that much) in other forums, Facebook, etc. I can't imagine that if the new #1 had been, say, Taxi Driver, and Parasite had been the only 2010s film added, and the number of films by women entering/moving up were half what it is, that we'd be having such a vigorous debate over what the list should be, how people should vote, etc. Incremental changes are a lot less exciting.

Of course I thought about the same - I will boldly claim that if there had been no completely new #1 at all (so either Vertigo or Citizen Kane) with Jeanne Dielman anywhere in the Top 10 and the rest of the female entries literally at the same positions, we'd have at least 50% less discussions on the internet and 70% less media outlets mentioning the poll at all.

Not that something like this would have played any role for the institute, would it.

For my ballot on the Directors poll on this forum I went all women when I noticed just how many ballots completely excluded them. The people at the top of prevailing power structures tend to regard themselves as "non ideological", so they would see me as having fired the first shot.

You mean complete dickheads like me who reactionarily just vote for their favorite directors in such polls when asked? Instructions unclear - went unconsciously full-ideological, oops.

[St. Gloede]

That just sounds like pre-filtering - i.e. you filtered when you ranked them to begin with (if indeed those 60-75 films mean the same to you). If you love them equally, then various reasons entered into your mind when you ranked them that left this particular order.

1 is better than 2, 2 is better than 3, 3 is better than 4 ... that's what ranking means to me. All the way down to ~75. They don't mean the same to me, none of them rank at the same level. Not sure how else I could put it

Ah, misunderstood then. If that is possible for you, amazing.

[matthewscott8]

I tend not to use words like dickhead because they either let me off the hook (dickhead=I'm angry you told me the truth) or let them off the hook (dickhead=I'm angry you stole my medicine). However I can tell you that I did feel a visceral sense of unfairness when I read your's and others' ballots.

[kongs_speech]

Yes there is no connection between identity and quality. Yes individual critics should vote for what they think are the greatest films. If this results in various genres/countries/movements (etc.) being represented in the Canon that is perfectly fine. (This is already the case) But if people is pushing an ideological agenda, e.g. listing ten films by woman directors, that indeed feels dirty.

I actually do agree, for the most part. Daisies isn't in my top 10 because Vera Chytilova is female. It's there because I think it's one of the ten best films I've ever seen. I consider myself an ardent feminist, but I don't believe in filling quotas just for the sake of it. Increased diversity is wonderful, but obligatory, insincere diversity isn't really progress. I agree that that critic's ballot is an overreaction.

I tend not to use words like dickhead because they either let me off the hook (dickhead=I'm angry you told me the truth) or let them off the hook (dickhead=I'm angry you stole my medicine). However I can tell you that I did feel a visceral sense of unfairness when I read your's and others' ballots.

Good god almighty. This is a completely unofficial Internet forum about movies. Literally nothing here is important enough to have a "visceral sense of unfairness." Please apply some perspective to the situation. Frankly, right now you're embarrassing those of us who want female filmmakers to get a fair shot.

[St. Gloede]

Yes there is no connection between identity and quality. Yes individual critics should vote for what they think are the greatest films. If this results in various genres/countries/movements (etc.) being represented in the Canon that is perfectly fine. (This is already the case) But if people is pushing an ideological agenda, e.g. listing ten films by woman directors, that indeed feels dirty.

Yeah, that sounds pretty close to an agreement actually.

The only possible disagreement left is that I would not be so quick to call the critic/lecturer who highlighted 10 films by women was necessarily doing something dirty. If it is ideology over quality I'm right there with you, but if it is 10 films she sincerely believes should be in the canon of the greatest film of all time, that's her prerogative, despite not being a fan of this kind of extreme strategic voting.

To reframe it a little, if a silent film lecturer submitted a list of all silent films(perhaps because they were frustrated silents were slipping out of a canon they should be central to - i.e. ideology - or perhaps because they wanted to share the best within their field of experise), I don't think many people would have been annoyed - or at least not as annoyed. The same goes for a lecturer on avant-garde cinema doing the same. People would likely get furious at The Art of Vision getting onto TSPDT again though.

[St. Gloede]

As with many fights, the question of "who started it" arises and can never be agreed on. For my ballot on the Directors poll on this forum I went all women when I noticed just how many ballots completely excluded them. The people at the top of prevailing power structures tend to regard themselves as "non ideological", so they would see me as having fired the first shot.

That is a good point, though I think this is an issue of consumption and promotion rather than the ideology of the voters. One of the reasons the films of women directors rose the way they did in this last poll is most likely because so many women directors have been actively discussed and promoted over the last decade, with many seeing their films for the first time, and certain films oddly not part of the key canon before now being so. Having Cleo From 5 to 7 in the same conversation as Breathless and The 400 Blows (as discussed in the IMDb v Letterboxd thread) and how the votes are different on Letterboxd with younger audiences is an example of how this shift is playing out and tricking down in the cinephile community, and it makes a big difference.

I tend not to use words like dickhead because they either let me off the hook (dickhead=I'm angry you told me the truth) or let them off the hook (dickhead=I'm angry you stole my medicine). However I can tell you that I did feel a visceral sense of unfairness when I read your's and others' ballots.

Do you mean unfairness to existing women directors or just general unfairness that there have not been more through history? Given the relatively small amount of women that have been able to amass notable filmographies (and how few of them are actively promoted to see same extent as men, especially until recently) I'm not sure how unfair it really is to existing filmmakers. There are so few key women directors and as discussed earlier, most of the biggest names are from the arthouse, experimental and documentary scenes, so people mainly drawn to the big studio machine, etc. (maximalists as I believe you called them) will struggle to find someone to love that is in their wheelhouse. Even amongst the arthouse crowd, if you don't quite connect to a few key names, you'll struggle.

Luckily the number of key names is building up, both because younger directors are building up impressive ouvres, while the focus on women directors through history are bringing some very impressive names to the forefront, and that will likely affect the results here as well, though it will take time. I am surprised Muratova does not seem to get that much buzz though. She was a huge festival darling while alive. Finally caught up with all her available work this year and she entered by top 100, but despite her traditional status she's rarely brought up in the same way Varda, Akerman, Denis, Duras, etc. are (something smells French-ish). Even Chytilová seems to be mainly praised for Daisies as opposed to her absolutely brilliant career.

[matthewscott8]

Even Chytilová seems to be mainly praised for Daisies as opposed to her absolutely brilliant career.

According to this forum, Guy Ritchie is the more accomplished director. I think the lack of promotion is why I wouldn't argue about this with my real-life acquaintances, they only have a passing interest in film. For people consuming films by the thousands as their main deal in life, I didn't know about all these women, rings a rather hollow excuse. Also in terms of body of cinema, Charles Laughton got enough votes here with his one directorial credit to beat Margarethe von Trotta with her 40 prizes and 27 directing credits.

[kongs_speech]

Even Chytilová seems to be mainly praised for Daisies as opposed to her absolutely brilliant career.

According to this forum, Guy Ritchie is the more accomplished director. I think the lack of promotion is why I wouldn't argue about this with my real-life acquaintances, they only have a passing interest in film. For people consuming films by the thousands as their main deal in life, I didn't know about all these women, rings a rather hollow excuse. Also in terms of body of cinema, Charles Laughton got enough votes here with his one directorial credit to beat Margarethe von Trotta with her 40 prizes and 27 directing credits.

If you add up every Margarethe von Trotta film, they do not matter a quarter as much as The Night of the Hunter, so that's an invalid argument. That isn't misogyny, it's the fact that Laughton's "one directorial credit" is one of the consensus greatest films of all time. Why does the quantity of a director's filmography matter?

[OldAle1]

Even Chytilová seems to be mainly praised for Daisies as opposed to her absolutely brilliant career.

According to this forum, Guy Ritchie is the more accomplished director. I think the lack of promotion is why I wouldn't argue about this with my real-life acquaintances, they only have a passing interest in film. For people consuming films by the thousands as their main deal in life, I didn't know about all these women, rings a rather hollow excuse. Also in terms of body of cinema, Charles Laughton got enough votes here with his one directorial credit to beat Margarethe von Trotta with her 40 prizes and 27 directing credits.

If you add up every Margarethe von Trotta film, they do not matter a quarter as much as The Night of the Hunter, so that's an invalid argument. That isn't misogyny, it's the fact that Laughton's "one directorial credit" is one of the consensus greatest films of all time. Why does the quantity of a director's filmography matter?

I wouldn't say "they do not matter xxx as much" - but they are clearly not, in aggregate, even remotely as well known or as often seen. I haven't seen any of her films myself - and I have plenty of films directed by women on my favorites list, and plenty of women on my favorite directors list, including one tied for #1. Can't see everything; von Trotta is certainly a "name" but not nearly as famous as many of her peers in the German film industry, nor many other female directors of her generation. I think a couple of her films may have played briefly in Chicago when I lived there but I missed them - like I missed a lot of other things.

And as far as this forum goes - well, we are not, as a whole, perhaps as adventurous as matthew or some of the rest (including me, I suppose) would like. We tend to be followers, not explorers. And because of the emphasis for many on icm lists, von Trotta - who only has one film that's on more than 2 official lists - just isn't that likely to make much headway. At least not without a lot of effort on the part of her supporters, and luck.

[St. Gloede]

Even Chytilová seems to be mainly praised for Daisies as opposed to her absolutely brilliant career.

According to this forum, Guy Ritchie is the more accomplished director. I think the lack of promotion is why I wouldn't argue about this with my real-life acquaintances, they only have a passing interest in film. For people consuming films by the thousands as their main deal in life, I didn't know about all these women, rings a rather hollow excuse. Also in terms of body of cinema, Charles Laughton got enough votes here with his one directorial credit to beat Margarethe von Trotta with her 40 prizes and 27 directing credits.

I'm quite certain most posters here will have heard of von Trotta, the question is rather, using her as a stand-in, how many of her films have they seen (and how many did they love)?

I'll have to strongly disagree that lack of promotion and acclaim is a bad reason for this phenomenon. Unless you make seeking out the films of women directors a specific priority, you can easily see thousands upon thousands of films without touching on more than a few films made by women, especially if you are into classic cinema or more general "commercial/bigger budget cinema".

Hell, looking at ICM, which I'm sure many will use as a reference point in choosing what to see, von Trotta has 5 films on official lists, with the top film being on 6 lists, the 2nd of 2 and the rest only on 1. Compare that to a random genre director like my previous example of Delmer Daves, he has 8 films on official toplists, with the biggest film being on 7 lists.

The issue here is that she is not exactly amongst the most known or acclaimed German director or even of the German New Wave, which in turn is usually not the most popular of the big waves, with the exception of the 3 that rose to the top: Fassbinder, Herzog and Wenders. If you are getting into German cinema and aim to see the 100, 200, 300 most important films from the country, you can probably get by with just watching 1-3 by von Trotta, and if you are trying to get into "New German Cinema" she will not be the place to start, and maybe not even the first place to continue.

Similar issues plague most other women filmmakers.

I have only seen 7 films by von Trotta myself, and I do aim to see more of her later work. She is clearly a good to great director, though from what I have seen so far she is not someone I would place in my top 100. Of the women of the New German Cinema movement I much prefer Sanders-Brahms (with Under the Pavement Lies the Strand and My Heart Is Mine Alone being favourites of mine) but she does also not have an ouvre of consistently great-brilliant films to the point that I would include her in my list of favourite filmmakers either.

[Angel Glez]

Lowest rating at Letterboxd is not low at all: Daughters of the Dust - 3.77

So the critics' top 100 is politcally correct, Criterion-approved and Letterboxd-approved.

[Torgo]

Lowest rating at Letterboxd is not low at all: Daughters of the Dust - 3.77

So the critics' top 100 is politcally correct, Criterion-approved and Letterboxd-approved.

Wow, can't believe I didn't check that earlier. I really must have got lost in our discussion.

Over there at the internet's symposium of masculinity, superheroic emptiness and unreflected patriarchal domination, a few of the numbers look worse:
IMDb S&S 2022 sorted by rating
Curiously, also there Daughters of the Dust ranks the lowest at only 6.7. No other films land below 7.0, although it is noteworthy that almost all which follow are new to the list, such as Wanda, Tropical Malady, Killer of Sheep, Daisies and Celine et Julie with ratings of 7.1-7.3 - not terrible scores there, not great either. If you look at the other lower rated titles which also were present in 2012, which are in ascending order of IMDb, there are Touki-Bouki and Beau Travail. It's clear to the viewer that they must be somehow different to the leaving grandtitles of the list, such as The Godfather II, Raging Bull or Touch of Evil, which have some of the best ratings in the history of the whole site.

BONUS METRIC: Jeanne Dielman already dropped from 7.7 to 7.6 since the list's release - it should be stated that the earlier 7.7 and also the current 7.6 rating are far from BAD in the site's context, considering we're talking about super-slow avant-garde cinema from the 70s.

[erde]

Now, since this is originally a prediction thread, what new entries do you predict to see in the new big combined list? After having seen the top 100, I'm thinking at least much more Akerman, Campion, Denis, Deren, Martel and Varda. Bigelow will also have multiple films on the list (e.g. Zero Dark Thirty, Point Break and Strange Days in addition to the Hurt Locker that's there now). The Ascent from Shepitko, The House is Black from Farrokhzad and Portrait of Jason from Clarke will probably make a big rise. Possibly American Psycho, The Babadook, Fish Tank, Toni Erdmann, Meek's Cutoff, Paris is Burning and maybe Wadjda will enter quite high? Maybe Ratcatcher or Morvern Callar from Ramsay there too.

[St. Gloede]

Given how high Cleo rose up I'm hoping to see Le bonheur crack the top 250.

[Torgo]

A lot of erde's guesses seem very likely. While things like The Ascent, Toni Erdmann and Ratcatcher seem to be perfect contenders, I reaally don't think of Point break and even less Strange Days as a S&S type of film.
But we live in strange times, who knows.

Now, since this is originally a prediction thread, what new entries do you predict to see in the new big combined list? After having seen the top 100, I'm thinking at least much more Akerman, Campion, Denis, Deren, Martel and Varda. Bigelow will also have multiple films on the list (e.g. Zero Dark Thirty, Point Break and Strange Days in addition to the Hurt Locker that's there now). The Ascent from Shepitko, The House is Black from Farrokhzad and Portrait of Jason from Clarke will probably make a big rise. Possibly American Psycho, The Babadook, Fish Tank, Toni Erdmann, Meek's Cutoff, Paris is Burning and maybe Wadjda will enter quite high? Maybe Ratcatcher or Morvern Callar from Ramsay there too.

[Fergenaprido]

I think The Ascent will make the Critics' Top 250 considering it showed up on the Directors' Top 100.

[Dolwphin]

Maya Deren with Meshes, despite having made less minutes of film in her career than Laughton, beats him in the poll!

The list is full with Varda, but they excluded her greatest film Le Bonheur from the list. I guess it a blue/red/white type of situation.

[Pretentious Hipster]

I think the bigger issue is that 48 films in the top 100 are all available by the same distributor: Janus Films. It goes with my beef with them and their company The Criterion Collection. It's the cinephiles "seal of approval".

[matthewscott8]

I think the bigger issue is that 48 films in the top 100 are all available by the same distributor: Janus Films. It goes with my beef with them and their company The Criterion Collection. It's the cinephiles "seal of approval".

What changes would you like to see at Criterion?

[Pretentious Hipster]

I think the bigger issue is that 48 films in the top 100 are all available by the same distributor: Janus Films. It goes with my beef with them and their company The Criterion Collection. It's the cinephiles "seal of approval".

What changes would you like to see at Criterion?

Criterion itself is not the problem. No offense to the critics, but if it's their job to watch movies then they should do more than just going through one streaming/bluray service and whatever is new. I'm not talking KG level, but if anyone would have access to the deeper cuts, especially in an area they would wanna excel in, then it would be critics.