‘Should these films be judged based on their quality and not based on the things we remember feeling about them decades ago.’
I don’t think that’s the point. Quality of most films can’t be determined correctly when you’re still overwhelmed by the film and the feeling of excitement it gives you because of it’s plot or acting or cinematography.
The point of a film aging well, isn’t the memory you have of it, still being the same or even better in ten years time. It’s in watching the film every year or every few month for 10 years, and still being able to find the same power and brilliance in every aspect of it without some aspect of it aging and becoming old or less effective.
I’m not saying you have to necessarily, kill yourself watching the same movies over and over, but if you don’t want to watch it again, than I don’t think it’s a good movie. And if a film becomes repetitive too easily, than there is a good chance it’s not a well-made one.
I mean even “Citizen Kane” was voted number 1 in the 1962 S&S poll, so what’s the argument, you have to be at least 20 years old or it’s “too soon”?
If Kane can be number 1 with 20 years, why can’t a film like Mulholland crack the top ten with 10 years under its belt? Doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.
Certainly there is a lot to be said for waiting and getting in some extra viewings, and letting time separate the men from the boys, ect. ect… but on the other hand some films are that powerful, it is clear they transcend, ala Mulholland Drive and Synecdoche, NY… among others.
I agree you can’t really judge a film’s quality before you can view it from outside the cultural currents which produced it. I just think the maturation period is way shorter than you.
TSPDT just promoted its first film from this millennium to the top 200, and its first from the 90s into the top 100. Do you mean to tell me that cinema as a whole produced 99 great films in 70 years then only one in the next 20? Give me a break. Surely at some point between walking out of the theatre and a full two decades later, you can say with confidence you’ve witnessed a great film.
And I think this bias has less to do with maturation and more to do with canon entrenchment. The longer a communal opinion exists, the less willing people are to contradict it.
And I think this bias has less to do with maturation and more to do with canon entrenchment. The longer a communal opinion exists, the less willing people are to contradict it.
‘Canon entrenchment’ – I think that is very apt – and it’s why I always distrust these ‘consensus’ polls. It’s very hard for any film of any period – especially a more recent film – to ever unseat a film that has already been canonized. If you watch one of these highly-rated films and don’t immediately fall head over heels for it – based on its critical clout – then you are liable to question your own judgment – not the consensus judgment. Also, so many of these films have so much critical history and stuff written about them by film critics and scholars, if you decide you don’t like the film, it’s like taking on an army single-handedly. It’s then your word against the word(s) of many.
I am sick and tired of having the same films show up again and again – as if nothing new was ever under the sun. It’s like having a houseful of old, stinky relatives just hanging around, mouthing off about the ‘good ol’ days’ and never giving a younger person (ie, more recent film in this stretched analogy) a hearing or a break. If we already know the canon, and it’s written in stone, what’s the use of just seeing which film stock has gone up or down a point or two in the next poll?
Just so my own bias is clear (for the sake of argument – it is all opinion anyway): I would never put The Godfather, Tokyo Story, or The Ruling Class anywhere near my top ten. Not saying these aren’t well-made films, but I think there are many other films I have seen that I would rate higher. We all have our own list. So many of these films have had lots of good hype, so that challenging the common consensus is almost impossible.
Surely at some point between walking out of the theatre and a full two decades later, you can say with confidence you’ve witnessed a great film.
As for how long we should wait before deciding whether a film should be nominated as a ‘great’ film: I think if we have seen enough of the ‘great films, been exposed to many types of film for long enough to have an informed opinion, I don’t see why we can’t judge a new film we have seen just the same way as a so-called canon film we are seeing for the first time.
In my own way of thinking, many films at the top of the currently contructed film canon are not films I personally would promote. I have films from the last decade or two that I think are as good or better. For example, I would put Malick’s Tree of Life against many of the current contenders. I don’t need to wait 20 years to do this, either. I felt when seeing this film in the theatre, then rewatching it later, that I had seen a ‘great’ film (imho). It was the same feeling I got when I first saw 2001, Vertigo, Rashomon, or Stalker – now well within the canon (although Stalker needs to move up). You only see so many ‘great’ films in your life – that give you that certain tingle, that frisson of recognition of something beyond the ordinary. That is why it is not hard to recognize one when you see it.
To conclude: Until The Third Man breaks into the current S&S Top 10 (it has been around long enough – ha!), I’m not paying much attention to the poll.
In my last post I say: I would never put The Godfather, Tokyo Story, or The Ruling Class anywhere near my top ten. So, as not to offend those who love these films, I would nominate as better films from those same three directors: Apocalypse Now, Ugetsu, and The Rules of the Game.
Just saying that there is much room for an informed argument about which films really belong in any canon of ‘greatest’ films. It is the debate that interests me – and the possibilities each person would choose. Choice by person is unique and individual. Choice by a group is more like decision by committee. I’ve never trusted committees or group-think – even among knowledgeable film types. I’ll go with my own gut feeling anytime. But that’s just me. I don’t like hanging out with the ‘in’ crowd, even the Sight & Sound ‘in’ crowd…
In my last post I say: I would never put The Godfather, Tokyo Story, or The Ruling Class anywhere near my top ten. So, as not to offend those who love these films, I would nominate as better films from those same three directors: Apocalypse Now, Ugetsu, and The Rules of the Game.
Huh? Those aren’t from the same 3 directors. Racist much? (Just kidding)
I suppose the canon does have a tougher time shifting the longer it exists. Nevertheless, I find it a bit sad when in 1962, for example, L’Avventura can be declared the second greatest film ever made only two years after its release, but in 2002 not a single film from the previous quarter century can crack the top ten (and I doubt that will change this time around). Cinema is a very young art form, just over a hundred years old, so I don’t see what’s wrong about including a film from the past 20 years among the ten greatest of all time.
Well Ebert made the same point and mentioned that he was planning on voting for Tree of Life.
I know from personal experience it’s really, really hard for me to change my top ten. It seems about a decade ago I figured these were the ten greatest films and it isn’t that I haven’t seen anything that deserves to be in the top ten since, it’s the thought that I haven’t been able to decide what to take out. Perhaps this cultural opinion has manifested itself with other critics as well. This is also another reason why I find a top ten poll to be extremely limiting and doesn’t even come close to reflecting the century plus of great cinema we’ve had.
Ironically enough now that they won’t count votes for The Godfather and Godfather 2 as one film, the lists most “Contemporary” film might be 2001: A Space Odyssey this time around, which would honestly make me laugh.
The cream eventually rises to the top people, chillout. Sure it’s slow at times (agree with above comments for Stalker and The Third Man). I don’t know why people have such a problem with these lists favoring established classics – it seems self-evident to me that heralding a modern film as one of the best ever is a bit foolish. Will Tree of Life be considered one of the greatest ever in 50 years time? Maybe (though I’d wager it won’t), and if that’s the case, it can join the list then. As they say, hindsight vision is 20-20, and greatness for me implies that element of withstanding the test of time.
Obviously, a film withstanding the test of time should be given some leverage over a film that hasn’t yet, but that doesn’t mean recent films should be shut out of the top ten completely. I don’t think anyone is arguing that THE greatest film is one made in the past decade or two, but I definitely think that it’s unfair to ignore all contemporary cinema and not give it some kind of representation on the list.
I’m curious – how do Sight And Sound decide who gets to contribute their list, and who doesn’t?
When is the list gonna be released anyway? Its supposed to be available by the end of April.
I’m calling it Crash (not Cronenberg’s) number 1 easily
I’m surprised that Schindler’s List isn’t getting more consideration. Been almost 20 years, too. Not that I love the film. Just that it has that “cannon entrenchment;” far more so than any film of the past 20 years, too.
I thought that too, for awhile. But it seems like Schindler’s List only does well on AFI type lists, and not so much on others.
I think the list is published in September.
Anyone see/have reactions to the (probably fake) leaked top 10 that Ebert posted on his blog? http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/rumored-new-sight-sound-best-f.html
Everyone wants a shake-up, but this is a little TOO shooken up to be true. Yes, I could buy that Kane gets ousted from the top spot – that would be news enough.
And yes, I could believe that something more recent could finally make an appearance like The Tree of Life…
But #9? That would be a mind melter…
1. Vertigo
2. Rules of the Game
3. Citizen Kane
4. 2001
5. Godfather
6. Potemkin
7. Apocalypse Now
8. Tokyo Story
9. Pulp Fiction
10. Tree of Life
Tree of Life and Pulp Fiction, no Mulholland? I’m calling FAKE!
I see 10 badass films that are as good as any (although I am a wee skeptical about the authenticity, a little too good to be true IMO).
I’m more interested in the critic’s individual lists… I hope the Sight & Sound went as in-depth as they did last time.
Yeah, I agree. Fake or NOT. Bring on the actual full poll.
I think I’d be even more annoyed by the inclusion of Tree of Life than by Pulp Fiction’s. Ebert wrote he suspects the list is fake, and took it down his blog.
Was just confirmed as a fake by sight & sound’s twitter… not that there was too much doubt.
Tomorrow is the big day! Any final thoughts?
There’s talk of Kane losing the top spot this year.
@Bobby Wise
+
@Scampi
No way!
I think it will. There’s a whole new generation of critics from different parts of the world, plus a lot of talk about new additions to the canon. I think people are preparing themselves to vote very esoterically. The interesting question for me is not if Kane will lose the top spot, but what unexpected film (and director) will make it into the top 10.
Is it being published tomorrow? I thought the issue came out around the tenth of the month.
As far as I know, it is being announced tomorrow evening by live tweeting.
TOMORROW?? I can’t wait :D
Bobby Wise
We need to wait because everything can feel great the moment you walk out of a theater. Why the rush? How many times have you revisited a film you originally thought was great, only to realize it was average at best. I’d wager more often than your thought about a great film being confirmed some time later. For me Mulholland Drive is actually a case in point. I found it to be very clunky after a recent viewing. Though to be fair, I didn’t think it was one of the greatest films of all time when I first saw it. Not even the greatest Lynch. I don’t feel comfortable calling any film the greatest of all-time if that film hasn’t even reached the age of a teenager.