A couple of things.
I think there is a reason that the same films always pop up in these lists. Yeah, you can blame favoritism or ignorance or whatever but at the end of the day, films like The Godfather and 2001 are really exceptional pieces of work. And I think it’s a mistake (and unfair to these films) to dismiss them because you’re favorite Somalian film gets ignored. So for me, I think it’s boring to poop on Citizen Kane and would rather see people promote whatever their favorite film is (whether it’s from Somalia, Hollywood, or wherever).
I agree with your criteria regarding In a Lonely Place. There are a lot of films that I love and rewatch all the time but I don’t think they deserve to fall into the category of best of all time. There really should be something “extra” to films that get this distinction. For me, Taxi Driver falls into that category. For others, I can see why Mulholland Drive falls into this category.
Speaking of Mulholland Drive, I do wonder if films that we call “best films of all time” should have widespread appeal. I mean, how can a film be the best of all time if not a lot of people like it (or have even seen it). Mulholland Drive would fall into the former category of films not everyone loves while Syndromes and a Century would fall into the latter category of films not everyone has seen. Is this important? I don’t mean to suggest the masses must give the seal of approval for a film to be considered great but I do wonder if a film that is divisive can be considered the best of all time? Isn’t part of what makes Taxi Driver and The Godfather so popular is that it satisfies both hardcore cinephiles and mainstream audiences?
I vote up my favourite movie and vote down my least favourite movies in the top 20 that I’ve seen.
Seems to me that a lot of Mubi users are trying to turn this game into the same game they always play – put the obscure on a pedestal, kill the popular.
“I think there is a reason that the same films always pop up in these lists. Yeah, you can blame favoritism or ignorance or whatever but at the end of the day, films like The Godfather and 2001 are really exceptional pieces of work.”
As are hundreds of other films with less exposure. I agree that it has little to do with favoritism or ignorance, instead it can be atributed to the fact that a great mass of cinephiles has seen these films. The qualities of these films are undeniable, but they’re no exceptional works as some film historians and critics want to make us believe. Due to historical and political reasons these films eclipse a cinematic output from all around the world which in terms of artistic criteria doesn’t need to hide, but can compete in all aspects, at times even being far more relevant works as cultural testimonies. One could as much argue that Western hegemony in terms of music and literature isn’t always for the better since it makes us miss out a lot while sacrificing cultural divergence for homoculturalism. If you’re fine with this and have no problem with an overall ignorance toward non-Western art then it’s ok, but don’t imply that others have to accept such a point of view.
My general strategy is to vote up the films I think deserve to be considered among the greatest of all time, and vote down the ones which are likely to make the list instead.
Here’s the thing about these lists. You poll critics or cinephiles, and the ones that come up the most tend to be the same.
But, when you look at the individual ballots, they might have 2 or 3 in common with the top ten each. These lists are decided by plurality: Not majority, or even consensus. The ones at the top are the ones in the cross-section between ‘great’ and ‘accessible’. They are the greatest films that most cinephiles have seen.
…That is not to say there are not equally great films that are either less accessible or less available. I can see being annoyed at a person who is voting down the popular because they are popular. But, accusing everybody who prefers obscure films to popular ones of hipsterism is kind of defensive. I’ve been voting for The Corridor and A Brighter Summer Day because out of the ones that I believe deserve to make the list, they need the most help. I’ve been voting against Citizen Kane because out of the ones that I believe don’t deserve to make the list, it’s the most likely to.
“What approach and strategy are you using to pick films?”
I’m working my way up from the bottom. The lowest ranked film of my ~100 favorites gets +2, and the lowest ranked films that I dislike get -1 to drive them off the list faster. It seems that there are two types of voting so far: bottom feeders like me and those who are starting at the top and knocking off 2001, etc. Eventually they will meet.
I’m struggling with so many films- wanting to evict (and promote) loads, with only 3 votes available to do so. This must take ages at the rate of evictions, or is it approaching another stage soon?
I think if this were a top 20 long form beer poll the results would be similar. Sam Adams and Heinekin would be way at the top not because they are the best but because drinking them is a formative experience that is better than Coors or something. Many people would promote obscure local beers that are generally among the best beers in the world, and some would promote local beers that have strong sentimental value. Someone would be obsessively voting for Country Club Malt Liquor, just because. And so on.
I’m going to use my pluses to try and save as many unjustly targeted films at the bottom as I can, while using my minuses to make room at the top for better films that may be losing traction.
I’m picking films that are in my top 50 favourites and that are nearer the bottom of the list and giving them my 2 points each round. There are a few to choose from for me, but I usually end up allocating my +2 to Anthony Asquith’s The Browning Version, as most of the others I feel will be picked up by more people. For my negative votes I try to concentrate on targetting films from the top 50 on the list that I dislike. To be honest there aren’t very many of them I really dislike, so every round so far I’ve voted down Pierrot le Fou which I hate, but I’m getting bored voting down the same films…interesting game, and great fun if you don’t take it too seriously. I’m wondering what DiB has up his sleeve for the later rounds. I’m thinking it’s something to speed the process up because at this rate it’s going to take til next Christmas to complete ;)
@Santino
I think there is a reason that the same films always pop up in these lists. Yeah, you can blame favoritism or ignorance or whatever but at the end of the day, films like The Godfather and 2001 are really exceptional pieces of work.
I agree with you about those films, but here’s the question I have: do these films get to the top strictly based on quality or because they are also the most widely seen? My sense is that they latter is just as important as the former. I’d like to find a way to resolve that.
For me, Taxi Driver falls into that category.
What is the “extra” for you? (I think TD is a really good movie, but I think I might choose Raging Bull—just because the filmmaking is really terrific.)
Speaking of Mulholland Drive, I do wonder if films that we call “best films of all time” should have widespread appeal.
I have a good friend who makes this argument. If you can create great art that appeals to a lot of people, isn’t that a sign of greatness—or even a sign that the art is superior to work that only a small audience can appreciate? I think one can make a claim for that, but I don’t find this compelling. Certain artists choose to work in a style or deal with subject matter that will be less accessible to a wide audience—not matter how excellent the work is otherwise. I don’t think those films should be penalized.
@Apu
I agree that it has little to do with favoritism or ignorance, instead it can be atributed to the fact that a great mass of cinephiles has seen these films. The qualities of these films are undeniable, but they’re no exceptional works as some film historians and critics want to make us believe. Due to historical and political reasons these films eclipse a cinematic output from all around the world…
I agree the number of people seeing the films contributed heavily into which films reach the top, but I don’t agree that “…there are no exceptional works…” How did you arrive at that claim?
When you mention “historical and political reasons eclipsing cinematic output from around the world,” what do you mean by this? Do you mean that viewers have a bias agains these films? Cultural, political differences make appreciating these films difficult? the distribution of these films suffer because of political and historical reasons? Or all of the above?
One could as much argue that Western hegemony in terms of music and literature isn’t always for the better since it makes us miss out a lot while sacrificing cultural divergence for homoculturalism.
FWIW, I care more about excellence than cultural diversity. If the films from “other countries” are truly as great as those that reguarly appear in the film canon, I really want to see those films. However, if the films weren’t exceptional, I wouldn’t want to include them in the top tier just for the sake of diversity.
“If you can create great art that appeals to a lot of people, isn’t that a sign of greatness—or even a sign that the art is superior to work that only a small audience can appreciate?”
I think this is an interesting question. I don’t really know what the answer is. Obviously, most cinephiles would say no, that almost by definition if a lot of people like something it must not be great. But I find this to be simpleminded. I think there definitely is something to the idea that if you can create something that satisfies both constituent, you must be doing something right.
On the other hand, I don’t dismiss artists whose work only appeals to a select few.
Proof that I struggle with this idea is evident in looking at my two favorite films – The Godfather (which has mass appeal from both critics and mainstream audiences) and A Woman Under the Influence (which has only critical and cinephile appeal).
“do these films get to the top strictly based on quality or because they are also the most widely seen?”
I think it’s both. They get to the top because they’re quality films AND because a lot of people have seen them.
@Santino
Obviously, most cinephiles would say no, that almost by definition if a lot of people like something it must not be great.
I’m NOT in this camp, either. Great artists can have widespread appeal. But does this make them “greater” than an artist whose work is less accessible. That’s the question. I guess if we had two films that were equal in every way, except one was more accessible, we could say that the more accessible one was a greater work of art. But I think that’s rarely the case.
On the other hand, I don’t dismiss artists whose work only appeals to a select few.
I think this depends on the film. Experimental filmmakers will almost always have a small audience, given the nature of the film. This doesn’t mean the film is bad. On the other hand, suppose you had a mainstream film that only appeald to specialists—say editors. Let’s say the film had terrific editing, and so people who love and understand editing loved the film. I’m not sure I’d say the film was great—at least it’s greatness would have been be based on more than just the editing.
I think it’s both. They get to the top because they’re quality films AND because a lot of people have seen them.
Well, I sort of agree with this, but how do you know that the films that aren’t widely seen wouldn’t push out some of the more widely seen ones?
@Brad
I’m going to use my pluses to try and save as many unjustly targeted films at the bottom as I can, while using my minuses to make room at the top for better films that may be losing traction.
I’m curious to hear how you’re defining “better,” Brad.
Not surprisingly, i’m with Apursansar. Over half the top 20 after the first round were from the US. Not over half of all films are from the US. That is the problem- irrespective of the quality of the top American films and personal taste, which will always be subjective (some would say such a canon is inter-subjective), so many films from neglected countries with the potential to be placed high in a more international canon barely get a look in.
I picked two of my favorite directors (Ghatak and Shimizu) and one film by each of them (The Cloud-Capped Star and Ornamental Hairpin) that I think has a good chance of being widely seen and liked by a reasonable number of forum users here (the former due to the Cup, and the latter because it is a Criterion/Eclipse title). My first aim is to steer them close to the top, and then check out films some of the forum users whose tastes interests me the most are voting for.
I don’t have any strategy for the minuses. As boring as it would be to see 2001, Taxi Driver, Seven Samurai or Vertigo on the final list, all those films are very dear to me, and I currently seem unable to vote against them, so I’m voting for the higher ranked films that I really don’t like (Good, Bad and Ugly, and North by Northwest) or only mildly like (Annie Hall). When I do decide to vote against the big guns, it would probably be the Godfathers (which I also like a lot, just not as much as the others I mentioned).
And I don’t think I’ve spent a single second of my life thinking about which films belong at the very top.
I think if this were a top 20 long form beer poll the results would be similar. Sam Adams and Heinekin would be way at the top not because they are the best but because drinking them is a formative experience that is better than Coors or something. Many people would promote obscure local beers that are generally among the best beers in the world, and some would promote local beers that have strong sentimental value. Someone would be obsessively voting for Country Club Malt Liquor, just because. And so on.
yay! i don’t drink :P but i’ve always wanted an excuse to post the term ‘satirical opticians’….
A man believed that the human eye was like some sort of battery that the sun alone could recharge. Avoiding the dangerous glare of the day, he took to watching summer sunsets in the hope that his sight would thus be much improved for the winter. He persuaded his friends to watch with him, and soon, in various parts of the country, groups of people sat out of doors in the evening, looking westwards.
Before very long, rival societies sprang up to watch the dawn. Sun-watching to recharge sight became endemic.
Controversy arose: the rift between those who looked east in the morning and those who looked west in the evening led to argument and abuse, and ultimately to blows. Cynical observers began to look west in the morning and east in the evening, and a group of of satirical opticians began to look north and south in the middle of the night. – Peter Greenaway
@Kenji
Do you think that if more people saw these overlooked films, that the results would dramatically change—suppose just as many people saw the films of Sembene (or fill in the blank) as 2001 and Citizen Kane, for example?
I find this possibility really intriguing—which is why I asked you for recommendations and why I plan to watch some of them.
With so many films, i would like us to have more votes each- it’s awkward sifting through so many films for just 3
“but I don’t agree that “…there are no exceptional works…”
In fact I wrote “they’re no exceptional works”, by that I don’t mean that I disregard the quality of films such as “The Godfather” or “Taxi Driver”, in fact I think of both films as tense and brilliant dramas marked by outstanding acting performances and great camera work. These qualities don’t make them exceptions in film history though which outshine everything else that has been produced throughout the world in the past 120 years, and I can think of countless works that would deserve just as much recognition for these very qualities.
By “historical and political reasons eclipsing cinematic output from around the world” I refer to the worldwide dominance of Hollywood productions and ruthless export trade since the 1910s which literally scrunched the national film productions of (mostly third world) cinemas from which those countries never fully recovered. Many outstanding works of the third world have been filmed in a clandestine manner with little production values and no chances to be distributed on an international market, but this didn’t determine the artistic quality or entertainment value of the films, it just meant that few people got to watch them. The outcome of the Second World War also gave Hollywood the chance to pocket and further oppress afore potent film industries like Germany and expand its own control of the global market which is proceeding till today.
@Jirin
…and vote down the ones which are likely to make the list instead.
In other words, films that, in your opinion, aren’t great, but will make the list. I’m curious to know which films these are.
But, accusing everybody who prefers obscure films to popular ones of hipsterism is kind of defensive.
People pushing obscure films to the top because they actually believe it deserves to be at the top is a good thing—just as pushing popular films out that they feel don’t belong is a good thing. But I don’t care for the idea of pushing up obscure films just for sake of diversity or giving some films more exposure—when the films aren’t the best of the best.
Having said that, I would love to see an alternate list—one that excludes the usual suspects—and then compare them.
I don’t like the idea that exposure is a key reason films are getting to the top (even if the films that get to the top are really excellent).
I guess the more you discover cinema from different countries, the more you realize that some of those films that usually make it to the top of popular lists are simply not so great. That’s why you have people voting for the less popular ones and bringing down the more popular ones. And if I may say so, we have a pretty erudite crowd on MUBI when it comes to movies so its not surprising.
@Apu
OK. So you’re saying that specific films like Godfather and Taxi Driver aren’t very exceptional. Many, many films are equally as good, right? I can’t think of “countless” numbers of other films that are just as good, but I think other films are in the same class.
If you had to choose one or two that were more exceptional than either which would they be, and what makes you choose those films over Godfather and TD?
By “historical and political reasons eclipsing cinematic output from around the world” I refer to the worldwide dominance of Hollywood productions and ruthless export trade…
So are you saying that “other countries” haven’t produced films of equal quality because of Hollywood? (Given what you said prior, I don’t think that’s what you mean, but that’s what it sounds like you’re saying.)
@Jazzaloha: i think there would be gradual change towards greater diversity in the canon- i don’t think many obscure films would suddenly replace the most famous and admired ones. There are a range of reasons why certain usual suspects keep showing up and dominating; including received wisdom, confidence in films’ standing and excellence, also conditioning, cultural familiarity vs ability to appreciate strengths beyond an accustomed norm
@Rohit
I guess the more you discover cinema from different countries, the more you realize that some of those films that usually make it to the top of popular lists are simply not so great. That’s why you have people voting for the less popular ones and bringing down the more popular ones.
If this is what is going, this is what should happen.
I don’t want this to sound like a challenge or attack, but I’d be interested in hearing you compare a film from a different country and with one from the canon. Talk specifically about why you feel the former is better than the latter.@Kenji
i think there would be gradual change towards greater diversity in the canon…
So, in your opinion, there are several films from “other countries” that are superior works of art—then those that exist in the canon right now, right? I really want to investigate this and see for myself. I actually think we should make this a project on mubi. I know you had a hard time choosing a few films when I asked you before, but if you can think of a few that you predict would replace some of the accepted greats, please let me know.
“Do you think that if more people saw these overlooked films, that the results would dramatically change—suppose just as many people saw the films of Sembene (or fill in the blank) as 2001 and Citizen Kane, for example?”
I have a pretty cynical answer to this question. My suspicion, especially after visiting this forum for three years, is that the answer would be “no.” I’ve gotten the impression that even if a smaller filmmaker makes it big and people see their work, they immediately get dismissed by the cinephile community. It’s like some people think these lesser known filmmakers are their own personal discoveries and once other people discover them they become uninterested. I’m thinking about people like Haneke – I feel like you hear people opine for the days when he was making films like Benny’s Video or The Seventh Continent and dismissing a movie like Cache. I personally just think this is dumb and petty; people continually make an argument around here that “this movie” (which no one has seen and therefore can’t argue against) is so much better than “that movie” (a film many people have seen). You know what I mean? This becomes even more apparent when you eventually do this “this movie” and it ain’t that great to begin with.
Sorry, I went off an a rambling tangent. Bottom line – people are upset that Hollywood and Western films dominate and they hold that against them, which I find immature.
“But I don’t care for the idea of pushing up obscure films just for sake of diversity or giving some films more exposure—when the films aren’t the best of the best.”
This is definitely a Mubian problem. I’ve discovered some real gems talking to people on this site but I’ve also come across some real stinkers that many hailed as “masterpieces” simply because they were made by people who’s names I can’t pronounce.
Jazzaloha
One of our esteeemed members, PolarisDiB has started a project that essentially a variation of a film canon. (If you haven’t heard about it, check out the OP in this thread.) Currently, DiB has closed submissions for movies and we’re not in the process of voting for the films. As I looked over the list, many questions ran through my mind—what movies belong in the top twenty? What critiera will I use to determine this? Should I choose films that are my favorites or films that I think are great? Should I just try to knock out the perennial favorites? etc. In this thread, I’d like to explore these questions and allow how people are making their choices.
Here are some thoughts and questions to kick off the thread:
>In thinking about what belongs at the very top, imo, something has to distinguish the film from just being a very good film or a film a really like. I think that involves several things for me. First, I think the filmmaking and the content have to be really good. For example, I love In a Lonely Place, and I think it’s a very good film. But I’m not sure it’s a great film as in top twenty film of all time. Why? My first initial response is to say the filmmaking (specifically, the visual and auditory elements of the film) aren’t extraordinary. What would make the content or filmmaking extraordinary for me? I’d look at some of the following—exceptional technical skill; a strongly unified film; original style and personal vision; timelessness. A film like 2001 have almost all of these. Godfather I and II and Citizen Kane may not be really original, but they have all the other qualities. Syndromes and a Century or Mullholland Drive are very original and strongly unified, etc. How are others distinguishing very good films from the very best films of all time?
>*Do any of the results baffle you?* Here’s one for me: Pierrot le Fou in eleventh place with 30 points. Admittedly, I don’t really understand that movie, but that seems like a rather high voting. (I’d love a thread with fans of the film explaining and defending this pick.)
>*What approach and strategy are you using to pick films?* A part of me considered trying to knock out the films that always in the top twenty, just to force us to pick other films, but I’m not sure if I liked that approach.