i don’t know what’s worse….the even more conventional list than the one by TIFF or the childish comments by users made on the link above…..
Those comments are wonderful examples of uninformed people being pretentious.
I mean, Dimitris, you have somewhat of a “right” to be pretentious, considering you will be complaining about the omission of some film from Kosovo or Uganda. However it is just too funny to see people whining about Crash not being on there!
It’s illogical for everyone to get what they want out of a ranking list. I think Mulholland Dr. is one of the most interesting films in recent memory.
I agree fully. I actually really like their top 10 (the rest of the list I haven’t really examined).
I just think its funny that the people commenting on the site, and most people commenting on this site will both dislike it, for the exact opposite reasons!
“It’s illogical for everyone to get what they want out of a ranking list”
true but i find it even more irrational when Werckmeister Harmonies is always sitting in the front row when Tarr’s 80’s work would never go in an official top 50,top 100 or whatever list…
does that mean Werckmeister is better through this?no…it means that conventionalism is alive and kicking.
will anyone dare to place Dumont or Erdem so high on lists like these?no…does that mean Lynch and Jia and other usual suspects are better than the former ones?of course not!
but somehow…these lists bring the proper attention and popularity for (truly) worthwhile auteurs however,they tend to minuscule the quantity of film-makers out there….and i definitely don’t mean mainstream film-makers!
it is funny whining about Crash alright,still…this whining (if you notice) is addressed to a majority of U.S. films on that list,and hell,on any list to be honest!
this isn’t as funny come to think of it,it sounds more of selectiveness to me than variety.
I have to laugh when people on this site look down on the opinions of others; the very same people who advocate “making your own mind up”, “taste is subjective” etc. I’ll own up, and say that I didn’t like Crash – or a few more of the bete noires coming in for some stick on this site – but I can see why even an “informed” person might put it in a Top 50 list. What do I have to do to become “informed”? And who will help me with this “informing”? And I wouldn’t call a fan of the film a “whiner”, either. This “whining” seems to be a lot louder on the Auteurs’ side of things. One of you should sit down, with pen and paper, plagiarise a well-known Monty Python song, and come up with “I’m An Iconoclast, And I’m Okay”; then we might laugh with you, rather that at you.
Just don’t stop, is all I ask. Best damn discourse from Timbuktu to Portland, Maine – or Portland, Oregon for that matter.
kewl, Claire Denis made the top 10….
Yeah, you gotta love her…
Well, at least they resisted the urge to include MILLION DOLLAR BABY. But anyone including DOGVILLE isn’t thinking hard enough.
…or so I’m told. I saw Beau Travail a couple of weeks ago – I think it is my first Denis, but I’m not entirely sure – and I have to say it was impressive (and unique, which is a rare thing in cinema).
dp.
“and I have to say it was impressive (and unique, which is a rare thing in cinema).”
a rare thing?
don’t make me start compiling lists now!
Go! Diego/Dimitris, GO!
Maybe I shouldn’t think “out loud” anymore…Will all of the films on your list be unique? A big fat collection of unique films, eh? All different in their own unique little way. And half of ’em from Burkina Faso… (I am bored!)
Neil McCauley’s Cooler Brother must see: L’intrus
true but i find it even more irrational when Werckmeister Harmonies is always sitting in the front row when Tarr’s 80’s work would never go in an official top 50,top 100 or whatever list…
But what if Werckmeister Harmonies is better than his 80’s work…?
Just throwing it out there.
Werckmeister harmóniák = literally cinematically illiterate
And there is always subjectivity.
“But subjectivity is objective.
Cinematic notions imply attributes to substances which exist only in relational duality.
Not as an essential extension of ontological existence.
Can we not talk about sex so much?”
:D
Wheat, Apursansar. Wheat.
“Literally cinematically illiterate”: nice one, centurion, nice one. Is Drew a fan of Kind Hearts and Coronets by the way? I get an Alec Guinness vibe from him lately.
I haven’t seen it, but now I want to.
[Should I formally apologize for any harm my levels of exhaustion have caused discussion?]
No apologising on an internet forum – we are all hiding behind personae anyway.
Stop the lists, indeed. Or: why most film critics should have their eyes (and brains)shoved up their asses.
I am not really cooler than my brother – I would give it, hmm, maybe 60 seconds before walking out on anything if I feel the heat around the corner. Although it would have taken me ten seconds to drop Brenneman; Diane Venora, now that’s a horse of a different colour.
“Werckmeister harmóniák = literally cinematically illiterate”
Drew,by seeing comments (and criticisms) like the one above,i’ll start believing you that Werckmeister IS better than EVERY single Tarr ever made!
We’re always gonna get childish comments when these lists come around. Both of these are pretty decent considering – fairly eclectic at least, and to me that is what counts.
User de Faux-Fuyants
Since someone posted the TIFF list I thought I would post this as a nice comparison. It’s obviously a more mainstream list with some nice inclusions and some odd snubs. Overall I prefer the other list though.
The TONY top 50 movies of the decade
1. MULHOLLAND DR. (2001, David Lynch)
2. THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007, Paul Thomas Anderson)
3. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004, Michel Gondry)
4. THE NEW WORLD (2005, Terrence Malick)
5. IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE (2000, Wong-Kar Wai)
6. YI YI (A ONE AND A TWO…) (2000, Edward Yang)
7. DOGVILLE (2003, Lars von Trier)
8. ZODIAC (2007, David Fincher)
9. A CHRISTMAS TALE (2008, Arnaud Desplechin)
10.FRIDAY NIGHT (2002, Claire Denis)