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
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12440
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#441

Post by mjf314 »

Pretentious Hipster wrote: December 5th, 2022, 3:02 am 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".
Do the critics watch the films because Janus released them, or does Janus release the films because they're critically acclaimed?
User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 21873
Joined: October 24th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#442

Post by Pretentious Hipster »

mjf314 wrote: December 5th, 2022, 2:08 pm
Pretentious Hipster wrote: December 5th, 2022, 3:02 am 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".
Do the critics watch the films because Janus released them, or does Janus release the films because they're critically acclaimed?
Honestly I'd consider more of the former, especially amongst the younger cinephiles (critics may fall into this too, as shown by the amount of Janus Films releases). Every time there's the "ohhhh it's on Criterion so it must be good" mentality that I see again and again. Besides, they're just one distributor. Like I said, the critics don't need to go to KG, especially cause it might just come across as showing off, but come on there's a lot more distributors than that, do some digging. I mean hell, this is literally the purpose of this website and forum!
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#443

Post by St. Gloede »

To be fair, I'm quite certain most of the films made the top 100/250 before Criterion released them (or would have if S&S had tabulated the lists that long), i.e. they make an effort to release highly important and acclaimed films rather than films becoming highly important and acclaimed because they release them - though Criterion releases do go hand in hand with added exposure and availability and there is no doubt in my mind that their release of Dielman has helped it massively.

Criterion will try to release anything significant, and the only thing stopping them from releasing everything in the top 100 is likely only rights.

Are there issues with the degree of focus Criterion gets over other labels focused on releasing great cinema? Yes, and the streaming service give them an even stronger degree of market dominance, but I would say it is earned - and there are also benefits to this - i.e. rediscovery and re-assessment being highly plausible with a criterion release.
User avatar
prodigalgodson
Posts: 1225
Joined: July 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

#444

Post by prodigalgodson »

St. Gloede wrote: December 4th, 2022, 2:16 pm 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 Rio Bravo or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance that would have been resting towards the top decade after decade.
Not that you don't have enough interlocutors here gloede, but there's something tautological about this. Vertigo would not be Vertigo if it hadn't been directed by Hitchcock, and Delmer Daves never had it in him to make The Searchers, or anything that would resemble Ford's version. Two of the greatest filmmakers of all time working at the height of their powers simply made two of the best films of all time; in both cases the stars aligned between filmmaker and content and made for results that (for me and obviously many others) stand clearly head-and-shoulders above the rest of their respective oeuvres. It wouldn't have occurred to me that they were just filling slots for their directors or genres, though I suppose some people vote this way and have historically.
User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 8197
Joined: February 9th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#445

Post by OldAle1 »

prodigalgodson wrote: December 5th, 2022, 4:02 pm
St. Gloede wrote: December 4th, 2022, 2:16 pm 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 Rio Bravo or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance that would have been resting towards the top decade after decade.
Not that you don't have enough interlocutors here gloede, but there's something tautological about this. Vertigo would not be Vertigo if it hadn't been directed by Hitchcock, and Delmer Daves never had it in him to make The Searchers, or anything that would resemble Ford's version. Two of the greatest filmmakers of all time working at the height of their powers simply made two of the best films of all time; in both cases the stars aligned between filmmaker and content and made for results that (for me and obviously many others) stand clearly head-and-shoulders above the rest of their respective oeuvres. It wouldn't have occurred to me that they were just filling slots for their directors or genres, though I suppose some people vote this way and have historically.
But - to play devil's advocate a bit - both The Searchers and Vertigo are based on previously published novels. So it's quite easy to imagine someone else having gotten to make those films instead - as in fact Clouzot had gotten to make Boileua/Narcejac's previous Diabolique, when HItchcock wanted to, thus ensuring that he was going to try extra hard to get the writers' next book which ended up as Vertigo. Hitch and Ford were very powerful directors - but they were still studio directors, in the American studio system, and while they both exerted an unusual amount of authority over the material they had to work with, it's still quite possible to imagine other great filmmakers making films equally, or almost as great, from these particular stories (I should note that I haven't read either novel though I intend to read the Boileua/Narcejac before too long). I mean, they would have been radically different for sure but given that we have other previously published works that have been turned into more than one great film, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility to imagine Delmer Daves' The Searchers as a great film.

I suppose that's a bit of an anti-auteurist statement, but I do think that we as a group, and cineastes and critics in general often don't pay nearly enough attention to source materials. Filmmakers can sometimes turn dross into gold but even then the dross is usually a significant part of whatever equation was used to make that great film.
It was the truth, vivid and monstrous, that all the while he had waited the wait was itself his portion..
User avatar
Gordon_Gekko
Posts: 456
Joined: March 9th, 2019, 9:49 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

#446

Post by Gordon_Gekko »

OldAle1 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 7:48 pm
Gordon_Gekko wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 7:24 pm @OldAle: to your Nr. 5:
For somebody who preaches tolerance and open minds, with your hate on old white men you sound very racist and intolerant yourself. Personally i don't care what race, skin color, sexuality or gender a director has. One of my favorit films American Psycho was made by a woman and i didn't know it for years cause it's no reason to hate or love a film.
Sorry if it's important for you. But Kamala Harris may be a good vice president. And Jordan Peele may be a good director. But not because of their gender or skin color. It's just talent and personal qualification. People like you saying gender and race should not decide about the quality of something, but there is nobody watching more on gender and race.
There is a saying: If you go far enough to the right, you come out on the left (it's hard to translate).
(...)

And other art forms have often been ahead of cinema in these regards. Virginia Woolf was accepted as a great writer pretty early on, accepted as being roughly on an equal par with contemporaries like James Joyce and Proust. Jimi Hendrix was acclaimed as one of the great revolutionaries in rock and roll within his short lifetime. Etc, etc. Not to say that music or literature or other media have been perfectly open and accepting of minority voices, but many of them have done much better than cinema has. So while I too think Jeanne Dielman is a strange choice, and it wouldn't be mine personally, it makes me happy that the canon is changing and welcoming a wider array of views of what cinema can be and should be. As mentioned by others, it's still radically imperfect - there still isn't enough representation from Latin America, Africa, etc. I'm sure we could do a really deep dive and find lots and lots of other areas in which it lacks. And maybe that question - whether diversity of representation is even important at all - needs to be grappled with better. To me it is, to others, maybe not. But overall, I see this list as a leap forward and at the moment I think that's more valuable, and more needed, than the creeping incremental changes of previous polls.
First thanks for the detailed answer.
I hope my tone was not unfriendly. It's sometimes not easy to participate here if your native language isn't english. ;)

I can understand a lot of your points... and don't want to open pandoras box again. But imo the voting-behavior of some critics make the list - more or less -pointless. If you say "I realy love blue velvet,or tokio story, or 2001 etc." but then you vote only for female directors to make a political statement (like the female critic mentioned in the thread), you distort the result. It may be an interesting list, but it's not the "best films of all time" (it's more "films that need more attention" or so).

Like Onderhond said: If you're asked for your Top10 films, name your top10 films. If all made by female directors, or gay directors etc. alright. But don't make it just because you have to follow the "Zeitgeist".
Greetings!
User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 2984
Joined: February 15th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#447

Post by cinewest »

Gordon_Gekko wrote: December 5th, 2022, 4:27 pm
OldAle1 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 7:48 pm
Gordon_Gekko wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 7:24 pm @OldAle: to your Nr. 5:
For somebody who preaches tolerance and open minds, with your hate on old white men you sound very racist and intolerant yourself. Personally i don't care what race, skin color, sexuality or gender a director has. One of my favorit films American Psycho was made by a woman and i didn't know it for years cause it's no reason to hate or love a film.
Sorry if it's important for you. But Kamala Harris may be a good vice president. And Jordan Peele may be a good director. But not because of their gender or skin color. It's just talent and personal qualification. People like you saying gender and race should not decide about the quality of something, but there is nobody watching more on gender and race.
There is a saying: If you go far enough to the right, you come out on the left (it's hard to translate).
(...)

And other art forms have often been ahead of cinema in these regards. Virginia Woolf was accepted as a great writer pretty early on, accepted as being roughly on an equal par with contemporaries like James Joyce and Proust. Jimi Hendrix was acclaimed as one of the great revolutionaries in rock and roll within his short lifetime. Etc, etc. Not to say that music or literature or other media have been perfectly open and accepting of minority voices, but many of them have done much better than cinema has. So while I too think Jeanne Dielman is a strange choice, and it wouldn't be mine personally, it makes me happy that the canon is changing and welcoming a wider array of views of what cinema can be and should be. As mentioned by others, it's still radically imperfect - there still isn't enough representation from Latin America, Africa, etc. I'm sure we could do a really deep dive and find lots and lots of other areas in which it lacks. And maybe that question - whether diversity of representation is even important at all - needs to be grappled with better. To me it is, to others, maybe not. But overall, I see this list as a leap forward and at the moment I think that's more valuable, and more needed, than the creeping incremental changes of previous polls.
First thanks for the detailed answer.
I hope my tone was not unfriendly. It's sometimes not easy to participate here if your native language isn't english. ;)

I can understand a lot of your points... and don't want to open pandoras box again. But imo the voting-behavior of some critics make the list - more or less -pointless. If you say "I realy love blue velvet,or tokio story, or 2001 etc." but then you vote only for female directors to make a political statement (like the female critic mentioned in the thread), you distort the result. It may be an interesting list, but it's not the "best films of all time" (it's more "films that need more attention" or so).

Like Onderhond said: If you're asked for your Top10 films, name your top10 films. If all made by female directors, or gay directors etc. alright. But don't make it just because you have to follow the "Zeitgeist".
Greetings!
It's actually more complex than that, and not an either /or. What goes into people's top ten lists involves a myriad of factors, even when they are just "favorites." What makes it a favorite, anyways? One might argue that there is at least some degree of conditioning at play. If not political, then cultural, etc. Most people simply don't realize how much their taste is determined by factors they are unconscious of, or how gender, education, ethnicity, language, culture, and what values are dominant (at any point in time) influence our desires, and none of these are really all that different from "political values." People are simply not conscious of them because they seem innate.
Last edited by cinewest on December 5th, 2022, 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#448

Post by St. Gloede »

prodigalgodson wrote: December 5th, 2022, 4:02 pm
St. Gloede wrote: December 4th, 2022, 2:16 pm 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 Rio Bravo or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance that would have been resting towards the top decade after decade.
Not that you don't have enough interlocutors here gloede, but there's something tautological about this. Vertigo would not be Vertigo if it hadn't been directed by Hitchcock, and Delmer Daves never had it in him to make The Searchers, or anything that would resemble Ford's version. Two of the greatest filmmakers of all time working at the height of their powers simply made two of the best films of all time; in both cases the stars aligned between filmmaker and content and made for results that (for me and obviously many others) stand clearly head-and-shoulders above the rest of their respective oeuvres. It wouldn't have occurred to me that they were just filling slots for their directors or genres, though I suppose some people vote this way and have historically.
Yes, true, Daves would not have made exactly the same film, even if disregarded auteur theory. I guess we could play the game that neither existed.

In the case of The Searchers, it is not just the Ford vote, there's also the classic western vote (which I somehow edited out of my previous post), so voters may have gone for Rio Bravo or The Treasure of the Sierra Madre instead.

I am not saying that Vertigo and The Searchers are only getting votes because they are made by X director or fit into X category, far from but: but, it helps. While I can't look into voters' hearts I would be shocked if this is not a notable push.

A lot of (especially American) critics have always seen westerns as a cornerstone of filmmaking (and American mythology/iconography) and will want them promoted, which in turn means they must coalesce around key masterpieces, the same is the case for those who believe Ford to be one of the greatest director of all time (if not the greatest), but Ford made so many films often certified as masterpieces (I somehow forgot about The Grapes of Wrath, my own favourite by him, though not a western), The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine, etc. Of course, voters may choose more than 1 Ford, but that's rare, and that's were compromises between favourites and playing the odds are most likely to happen.

One easy example of this is back in 2012 when Tokyo Story won the director poll and Late Spring was nowhere to be seen, while in the critic poll Tokyo Story and Late Spring were both in the top 20, but the former was placed 3rd.

If Vertigo had somehow not been made I'm quite certain Psycho and Rear Window would at the very least be a few spots higher (though I could be wrong).
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 9286
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#449

Post by Onderhond »

cinewest wrote: December 5th, 2022, 4:47 pm Most people simply don't realize how much their taste is determined by factors they are unconscious of, or how gender, education, ethnicity, language, culture, and what values dominates at any point in time influence our desires, and none of these are really all that different from "political values."
So maybe if I was born in Japan, I'd love US films better?
User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 2984
Joined: February 15th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#450

Post by cinewest »

Onderhond wrote: December 5th, 2022, 5:26 pm
cinewest wrote: December 5th, 2022, 4:47 pm Most people simply don't realize how much their taste is determined by factors they are unconscious of, or how gender, education, ethnicity, language, culture, and what values dominates at any point in time influence our desires, and none of these are really all that different from "political values."
So maybe if I was born in Japan, I'd love US films better?
Who knows? Like I said, it isn't either / or. "Nature" surely plays a part, though I don't see nature and environment as all that separate. What I was trying bring attention to is how much "context" influences us, even if it's something we're not aware of, if only because most never stand outside of the one they are used to.
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 5163
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#451

Post by Ebbywebby »

I wonder how different the results would have been if the poll simply had asked for "Favorite" rather than "Greatest" films. Asking someone to name the "Greatest" films carries an implication that one should be academically "objective," and this may account for a lot of the resulting calculation/posturing/hypocrisy.

Both in film and music, I've always had difficulty negotiating the gray area between art I love and art I "respect" and "admire" but don't connect with in my heart.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 6584
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#452

Post by Torgo »

Onderhond wrote: December 5th, 2022, 5:26 pm
cinewest wrote: December 5th, 2022, 4:47 pm Most people simply don't realize how much their taste is determined by factors they are unconscious of, or how gender, education, ethnicity, language, culture, and what values dominates at any point in time influence our desires, and none of these are really all that different from "political values."
So maybe if I was born in Japan, I'd love US films better?
I'd love to see the Japanese Onderhond!
User avatar
tobias
Posts: 613
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#453

Post by tobias »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 5:29 pm One could talk about the biases of exclusion (animated films, african films, etc)
[...]
Also, a few people have alluded to this before but I don't think explicitly: The extremeness of a handful of results aren't the result of a bunch of biased ballots, they're the result of precisely the systemic lack of representation that was attempted to be addressed. If a bunch of people have representation on their mind and want to pick a film directed by a woman or black person and have few options altogether, then they're going to coalesce on a handful of already canonized films. Jeanne or Cleo being on the list is not a surprise, only their placement is. And that's a function partly of it being easier to coalesce around those for people wanting to include a film directed by a woman. There's less to pick from and even less that feels like it belongs.
I don't really agree with you here. We have seen 2 anime films enter the list now and there are likewise 2 African films - and considering the relative underdevelopment of African cinema outside of Egypt I don't know how unrepresentative this is (the number of major films produced around Africa is still quite small because they lack the capital for building major film industries). The only thing that bothers me is that one of the 2 films is specifically Smebene's Black Girl, perhaps the film of his that is most about Europe and least about Senegal. Imo it should have been Ceddo or Xala though I would also be contend with Moolade - which I personally like significantly less than the aforementioned two but which still engages in actual contemporary discourse beyond western navel-gazing - which is what the inclusion of Black Girl kinda feels like - it's a fine film ofc but just the wrong one to pick in my view. I haven't seen some of Smebene's other well liked films though I assume they would equally be fair picks. Also Yeelen of course or Waiting for Happiness or Night of Counting the Years could have been interesting and worthwhile inclusions (all better picks than Black Girl). I assume Yeelen did better than last time, not sure about the other 2 sadly (which I both discovered through S&S 2012). In general what sticks out is that the group of critics they've assembled seems to specifically not care much about cinema from the Arab world, Latin America and India (a lot of big Indian classics got MUBI releases over the years, that also doesn't seem to have helped). Overall going by how the list looks on the outside it seems there is an incredible overrepresentation of critics from the USA, UK and France, certainly that seems to be what shapes the discourse. In that regard the list feels very similar to previous iterations. I was hoping for for instance a Zhangke inclusion or something along these lines but the poll sticks to very boring and established picks for most of Asia. The single Iranian and Indian film on the list almost feel like token inclusions in a way (I don't say they are, they just kinda give me a sad feeling). Senegal having as many films as Iran and India combined is indeed also an odd sight.

Of course 100 films for around 130 years isn't much and it'll be interesting to see if some of the more exciting jumps lure in the 100-200 range or even further down but considering the relatively radical changes I'm kinda bored. I also disagree with you that you don't have much too pick from with female directors. The directors list already has two of the more exciting inclusions with The Ascent and La Cienaga. Mädchen in Uniform is unfortunately still absent (I think it got less than 3 votes last time, it's an acclaimed film and made TSPDT at some point but seemingly nothing for S&S). Germaine Dulac (who kinda deserves this more than Maya Deren in my view even though I do admit to liking Deren more) is also absent as is Maren Ade, Valeska Grisebach, Daniele Huilet (Straub and Huilet had many films that ranked on a similar level as News from Home last time), Marguerite Duras, Ulrike Ottinger, Margrethe von Trotta, Ida Lupino, Kelly Reichardt, etc. I don't like everyone equally much of course but I still think there is a fair wealth of options and outside of Denis and maybe Varda (who I think had massive momentum building up over years) I'm a bit surprised by the most highly ranking female directors and how high they rank. It does feel a bit like voters felt they were lacking options but that raises questions about how well they know their film history. If I had a rule about picking at least 2 films made by female directors I would struggle because there are so many good ones. I mean they only vote for 10 films, not 200.

Furthermore I also think there are more things to consider. A film is made by more than 1 person. Over the past years Louise Weber has achieved a lot more exposure but should we necessarily evaluate her contributions over those of say Asta Nielsen (in Afgrunden) or Musidora (in Les Vampires)? Louis Weber made conservative films (like pro-life films) but the films with Asta Nielsen and Musidora are way ahead of their time and portray women in roles that completely transgress gender conventions at the time and with a new kind of agency (though Les Vampires is up to how exactly you read Irma Vep and how subversive you think the film is, you can also read her just as a trophy wife but I think there is significantly more at play). Overall the theme of diversity seems to be approached in a somewhat narrowminded sense.

Of course as I said a top 100 is bound to make many more exclusions than inclusions but with many of the new inclusions they seem to paint a less broad image of cinema than you could. Two inclusions that I'll commend are Killer of Sheep and Wanda which are incredible portraits of working class struggle but some of the other inclusions (also of 2010's films) I find kinda conservative and navel-gazing. Mad Max for instance would look more diverse among that bunch of films than Get Out or Portrait of a Lady on Fire (is there a single action film on there?) or hell even Point Break as an odd genre fix - not that it has to be either of these but that kind of cinema seems largely absent and Godard or Eisenstein I guess is some of the closer things we get to that. Indeed the number of films which specifically tackle issues of Black American Identity (which represent around 10 % in the USA and way below 1 % on the world) in a top 100 (it's around 5 films isn't it?) is a bit baffling to me as a European. Now I'm straight of course but If can't understand how Moonlight lands above Tropical Malady for instance (which made a smaller jump than I thought). Same deal when comparing Tropical Malady to Portrait of a Lady on Fire (which I do think is way better than Moonlight though at least).
Last edited by tobias on December 5th, 2022, 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tobias
Posts: 613
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#454

Post by tobias »

Also on a note of personal banter: WKW just annoys me these days. How are there two WKW films and 0 HHH, Hong Sangsoo or Jia Zhangke?

Rant over.
User avatar
Angel Glez
Posts: 2590
Joined: April 2nd, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Spain
Contact:

#455

Post by Angel Glez »

tobias wrote: December 5th, 2022, 9:30 pm Afgrunden
C'mon, half of the voters don't know what you're talking about. :P

If I remember well it was voted once by the late Pierre Rissient. :rip:
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 6584
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#456

Post by Torgo »

tobias wrote: December 5th, 2022, 9:30 pm but some of the other inclusions (also of 2010's films) I find kinda conservative and navel-gazing. Mad Max for instance would look more diverse among that bunch of films than Get Out or Portrait of a Lady on Fire (is there a single action film on there?)
Oh, there are plenty. Going by IMDb's genre tags, action buffs will be excited to learn that no fewer than 3 titles made the list, which is the triarchy of The General (1926), Seven Samurai (1954) and North by Northwest (1959). (I honestly expected Wages of Fear, apparently to crummy a film for an S&S Top 300).
For the horror crowd, there are even more to creep out on: Psycho (1960), The Shining (1980), 2017's Get Out and of course Persona (1966), a staple for a Halloween video night with your friends.
There also 2 westerns (The Searchers & Leone's Once Upon a Time) present, 2 animated films (both which are anime, from the same guy, both Ghibli and really fricking CUTE!) and a whole 1 (one) musical, the one in the rain.
Opposed to that, Sight & Sound's final 100 include only - checks second screen - 78 films tagged with drama! If my numbers add up, that's just 78% of the results.

The options. The possibilities. The diversity. The richness of cinematic experiences: they are finally all represented thanks to our improved pool.

:$
User avatar
tobias
Posts: 613
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#457

Post by tobias »

Also worth noting the differences to older polls. The 1972 poll had 3 Latin American films in the top 52 and another one in the top 90 and 3 Indian films in the top 52 and another one in the top 154 (all Ray though). Also Straub Huilet in the top 100. In 2002 you have 2 different Guru Dutt films and Pakeezah in a tie with Do the Right Thing (all top 225). That's not something you see anymore today I guess. HHH was of course also in the top 100 before but is no more. Glauber Rocha was top 100 multiple times. The older polls were wilder in a way (though admittedly more of a sausage party).

Makes me feel like finally watching the Childhood of Maxim Gorky and stuff as right now as I won't have to do much catch up on the new list so far (only Daughters of the Dusk).
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 3714
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Contact:

#458

Post by kongs_speech »

Where are the expanded versions of the old lists? I'd love to take a look at those.
🏳️‍⚧️ (she/her)
JLG wrote: Photography is truth ... and cinema is truth 24 times a second.
First to check CODA (2021)
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 27128
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#459

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

kongs_speech wrote: December 6th, 2022, 12:13 am Where are the expanded versions of the old lists? I'd love to take a look at those.
2002 https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/sigh ... ulanarchy/
I don't think I ever bothered to make the others. They're much shorter.

Here's someone's alpha ordered version of 1992: https://www.mistdriven.com/mutants/sight/1992_3.html

I have the sources for all of them somewhere.
blocho
Donator
Posts: 7236
Joined: July 20th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#460

Post by blocho »

OldAle1 wrote: December 5th, 2022, 4:22 pm I suppose that's a bit of an anti-auteurist statement, but I do think that we as a group, and cineastes and critics in general often don't pay nearly enough attention to source materials.
Yes! A hundred times yes.

Anti-auteurism for the win.
User avatar
Lakigigar
Posts: 3435
Joined: October 31st, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

#461

Post by Lakigigar »

Given political correctness, some might be necessary because otherwise you get a list dominated by white males, there is a radio top 2000 contest and on a certain forum i notice ballots people sent and you have 35 nominations and some people literally nominated 35 white male songs.

Some variation in these top lists isn't bad, and sometimes give increased coverage for another film. Vertigo and Citizen Kane have been named a 1000 times as best film, i mean everyone who wants to see it could've seen it while for Jeanne Dielman maybe not everyone has seen it, it could help spread the film even more, although for films like Daisies it would also help. There are a lot of films that don't appear in those lists that also would benefit from increased coverage, i'm sure women have made plenty of good films, not just 1-2 films and a few directors like Claire Denis cinephiles know. Unfortunately in the past, they haven't gotten the chances they deserve.
User avatar
tobias
Posts: 613
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#462

Post by tobias »

kongs_speech wrote: December 6th, 2022, 12:13 am Where are the expanded versions of the old lists? I'd love to take a look at those.
You can find all of them here. Might be some small mistakes but overall it's very comprehensive: https://boxd.it/f9G3U
User avatar
erde
Posts: 493
Joined: January 2nd, 2019, 9:13 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

#463

Post by erde »

tobias wrote: December 6th, 2022, 8:44 am
kongs_speech wrote: December 6th, 2022, 12:13 am Where are the expanded versions of the old lists? I'd love to take a look at those.
You can find all of them here. Might be some small mistakes but overall it's very comprehensive: https://boxd.it/f9G3U
Wonderful! Thank you, tobias!

EDIT: I can start making ICM lists from the ones that are missing from te site, starting from the oldest.
Image
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#464

Post by St. Gloede »

Amazing overview, can't wait to dive into these!
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#465

Post by St. Gloede »

Wait, Tokyo Story would have been 32nd already in 1962? That's shocking. The official "story" says Ozu was not properly assessed in the west until the 70s - though maybe that's the US and they forgot about the UK?
User avatar
tobias
Posts: 613
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#466

Post by tobias »

Lakigigar wrote: December 6th, 2022, 8:29 am Given political correctness, some might be necessary because otherwise you get a list dominated by white males, there is a radio top 2000 contest and on a certain forum i notice ballots people sent and you have 35 nominations and some people literally nominated 35 white male songs.
The 2002 list has some interesting inclusions with Palcy and Tlatli - who are both coloured Women from respectively French West Indies and Tunisia - both in the top 225 also in a tie with Lee's Do The Right Thing and many other famous films. In a way they would fit the profile but If assume the problem is that they don't relate that well to current debates in the USA which is what a lot of this seems to be about for me. Sambizanga didn't make it either. I mean they could still be no 101 and 102 but I doubt that they'll rank ahead of their 2002 placement.

I think with this representation thing you're sort of shooting yourself in the foot, namely because many of the past lists represented things that the current one doesn't seem to and with this implies mission statement you're putting yourself even more on the line for what's absent (and there is a lot that is absent). I think with more voters the S&S poll goes in the direction of an amalgative list like Letterboxd top 250 or something (which isn't a bad list but we have it already). And it's strength was actually always the tight curation. The films between around 100 and 225 on the 2002 list just have 2 votes but that makes room to discover films you maybe wouldn't have found otherwise. The more voters they add, the more this factor will vanish and the more boring this list will become.
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#467

Post by St. Gloede »

In 1962 34/100 were released between 1953 and 1962, and that number of films from the last decade goes up to 38 if we include 1952. There are even 8 from 1960-1961.
User avatar
tobias
Posts: 613
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#468

Post by tobias »

St. Gloede wrote: December 6th, 2022, 9:00 am Wait, Tokyo Story would have been 32nd already in 1962? That's shocking. The official "story" says Ozu was not properly assessed in the west until the 70s - though maybe that's the US and they forgot about the UK?
It was on 6 lists but then again same as Night and Fog, Intolerance, Wild Strawberries and so.

So yeah the official story isn't entirely correct and some of the old lists were kinda avant garde in some ways (much more than the 2 last ones with more voters). I think the reason for this misframing is that "proper reassessment" somehow entails a film placing in the top 10 or something which in my view is bullshit. Vertigo has a similar myth. I mean it's become much more acclaimed since of course but it's actually still top 50 on the 1962 list, the highest ranking Hitchcock even then, and was beloved by at least some major critics instantly (notably it was on Rohmer's list). The way people sometimes speak about it you would think it just bubbled under completely.
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#469

Post by St. Gloede »

Films released in the last decade (1962-1971) in the 1972 poll: 26/100 - with 2 films from 1970-1971.

There must be an error (or some form of bizarre voting) going on here though as Nostalghia (1983) is on the list, a full 11 years before release. :blink:
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#470

Post by St. Gloede »

tobias wrote: December 6th, 2022, 9:11 am
St. Gloede wrote: December 6th, 2022, 9:00 am Wait, Tokyo Story would have been 32nd already in 1962? That's shocking. The official "story" says Ozu was not properly assessed in the west until the 70s - though maybe that's the US and they forgot about the UK?
It was on 6 lists but then again same as Night and Fog, Intolerance, Wild Strawberries and so.

So yeah the official story isn't entirely correct and some of the old lists were kinda avant garde in some ways (much more than the 2 last ones with more voters). I think the reason for this misframing is that "proper reassessment" somehow entails a film placing in the top 10 or something which in my view is bullshit. Vertigo has a similar myth. I mean it's become much more acclaimed since of course but it's actually still top 50 on the 1962 list, the highest ranking Hitchcock even then, and was beloved by at least some major critics instantly (notably it was on Rohmer's list). The way people sometimes speak about it you would think it just bubbled under completely.
Yeah, that's pretty incredible.

That said, I think it was almost exclusively British critics voting so the results may have been different in the US. I think a lot of "official" history is likely written from their perspective.
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 8500
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#471

Post by Fergenaprido »

St. Gloede wrote: December 6th, 2022, 9:14 am Films released in the last decade (1962-1971) in the 1972 poll: 26/100 - with 2 films from 1970-1971.

There must be an error (or some form of bizarre voting) going on here though as Nostalghia (1983) is on the list, a full 11 years before release. :blink:
Comment on the LB list about that: "You have got the wrong "Nostalgia" movie. It should be "Hapax Legomena I: (nostalgia)""
Cinematic Omnivore 🧚‍♂️🦫
User avatar
tobias
Posts: 613
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#472

Post by tobias »

St. Gloede wrote: December 6th, 2022, 9:16 am
tobias wrote: December 6th, 2022, 9:11 am
St. Gloede wrote: December 6th, 2022, 9:00 am Wait, Tokyo Story would have been 32nd already in 1962? That's shocking. The official "story" says Ozu was not properly assessed in the west until the 70s - though maybe that's the US and they forgot about the UK?
It was on 6 lists but then again same as Night and Fog, Intolerance, Wild Strawberries and so.

So yeah the official story isn't entirely correct and some of the old lists were kinda avant garde in some ways (much more than the 2 last ones with more voters). I think the reason for this misframing is that "proper reassessment" somehow entails a film placing in the top 10 or something which in my view is bullshit. Vertigo has a similar myth. I mean it's become much more acclaimed since of course but it's actually still top 50 on the 1962 list, the highest ranking Hitchcock even then, and was beloved by at least some major critics instantly (notably it was on Rohmer's list). The way people sometimes speak about it you would think it just bubbled under completely.
Yeah, that's pretty incredible.

That said, I think it was almost exclusively British critics voting so the results may have been different in the US. I think a lot of "official" history is likely written from their perspective.
A lot of French ones as well. I think Rohmer, Rivette, Godard, Truffaut and Chabrol all got to vote and even more Frenchmen as far as I know - I think Astruc too for example. I also assume Lotte Eisner and Siegfried Kracauer (both Germans) as well as Henri Langlois voted again after having voted in 1952 (Bazin unfortunately passed but got to vote in 1952 as well). Jonas Mekas also got to vote in 1962 and I believe there are people from allover Europe (at least Western Europe). I know Lindsay Anderson voted (in both I believe) but I'm actually not aware of many Brits who voted. You may still be right that they are the majority but it's hardly as exclusively British as you make it sound. There are certainly also many Frenchmen for one.

All votes for Vertigo were French for instance.
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#473

Post by St. Gloede »

Good to know :thumbsup:
All votes for Vertigo were French for instance.
:lol:
User avatar
monclivie
Posts: 508
Joined: September 13th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

#474

Post by monclivie »

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Image
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 3714
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Contact:

#475

Post by kongs_speech »

monclivie wrote: December 6th, 2022, 4:09 pm :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Image
What a moron. God help us if this is how large swaths of the younger generations actually think.
🏳️‍⚧️ (she/her)
JLG wrote: Photography is truth ... and cinema is truth 24 times a second.
First to check CODA (2021)
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 14806
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#476

Post by St. Gloede »

Yikes, yes, people should lie about what they love.
beasterne
Posts: 1455
Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 6:00 am
Contact:

#477

Post by beasterne »

Hard to be too inclusive when you only have 10 slots. The poll is exclusive by its very nature.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 9286
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#478

Post by Onderhond »

It's one reaction of one person on the internet, is what it is :)
User avatar
matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 3450
Joined: May 13th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#479

Post by matthewscott8 »

St. Gloede wrote: December 6th, 2022, 4:40 pm Yikes, yes, people should lie about what they love.
I don't think anyone should lie about what they love, or what "hit them over the head" in this case (I doubt he "loved" the Oppenheimer film). It's more a question of them not being able to love something they haven't seen. For sure if you never saw a movie with queer themes, a movie with queer themes will never make it to your top 10. There are lingering questions about how widely watched all the participants are. And so many commentators unable to say much specifically about Jeanne Dielman's inclusion, because they never saw the movie (tbh I have not either, the bluray has been staring at me for some time from my coffee table).

For me I like to have some sort of confidence that ballots are coming from people who are widely watched. If it's meant to be some sort of poll of cognoscenti. Filmmakers don't necessarily meet these requirements, James Benning and Werner Herzog spring to mind as people who, yes made a lot of amazing movies, but who famously aren't highly influenced by film history or watching other filmmakers.

To me the takeaways for S&S are to let ballots be greater than 10 films, and make sure the geography, gender and ages of people voting are more diverse. I think it's now such an event that they can probably get away with telling some of the current group to sit the next one out, they don't need to have the same problems AMPAS do.
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 3714
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Contact:

#480

Post by kongs_speech »

matthewscott8 wrote: December 6th, 2022, 6:03 pm (I doubt he "loved" the Oppenheimer film)
:lol: What a host of silly presumptions about Don Hertzfeldt.
🏳️‍⚧️ (she/her)
JLG wrote: Photography is truth ... and cinema is truth 24 times a second.
First to check CODA (2021)
Post Reply