This is certainly one of the more eclectic lists I’ve seen published in a well-known publication. I think the list deserves some credit for being more idiosyncratic than most. For example, Jeanne Dielman, which I have not seen by the way, in the top 20. I do plan on watching it at some point. That is a far from obvious choice.
“Well, for many critics Indian cinema means “The Apu Trilogy”.”
This is similar to many countries’ neglected cinema e.g. critics thinking Chahine is the alpha and omega of Egyptian cinema or Bergman Sweden’s ambassador. It’s obvious polls and official lists without a HUGE VARIETY of films around the globe, with an equal share of the pie between major and medium in quantity production of plenty of countries and without a single sexist bias shouldn’t even be popularized so much.
-I’ve been trying to find online the article that went with the publication of the list-
The Voice’s website is a mess since the ownership change. Then again, so is their film criticism.
lists that aren’t created by a handful of editors, but compiled by adding up the votes from multiple voters often have odd things like “Pather…” and “Apu” appearing separately, or no Rohmer- I love Rohmer as a director, would he make my top 10 list of films?… not sure- Would he have shown up in a few more critics top 20 lists? (as opposed to top 10)… I’m pretty sure he would have. The strategy of compiling an overall list from 50 top 10 lists will end up producing some weird results- weird results that somehow aren’t weird enough to be interesting…
speaking of weird- I personally think they should add this rule. You cannot vote for “citizen kane” as number one unless you take away your second, third and fourth place vote as well. Just “mess with their heads” a little… a second rule- you would have the option to place a wild card film this way- If Film X (let’s say “L’aventura”) does not appear ANYWHERE on the list, than you reserve the right to allocate all 10 of your votes for it. again, just to juggle things up…
@Matt Parks – I totally agree with you! Hehe…
@Mastroianni – Jeanne Dielman is definitely a film you’ll need to watch at some point. You may enjoy it! That was an interesting review in which J. Hoberman had to review the film after its release for Village Voice and Sarris who had his review a month after. Hoberman absolutely gushes over the film and says if you see one supposedly “difficult” movie – ach, make that only one movie – this year, see Jeanne Dielman". (1983)
As for those who complain about “Citizen Kane” being voted by “tired critics”, well…considering that the younger critics put their best of that year list online and many on mubi.com tear apart their list, I’m quite confident to say that may it be the tired old critics or the Nolan/Soderbergh/Wes Anderson loving young critics of today, no one is going to be satisfied.
No Jarmusch, No Kaurismaki, No Altman, No PTA, no deal…
Putting The Seventh Seal as Bergman’s best makes no sense to me.
I think its a good list. Trying to be representiive of a bunch of critics over however long the Village Voice has been going. If it was a list by one person then sure, it would be more idiosyncratic. My attitiude is hey , its just a list. It has most of the ones I consider to be good on there. Except for Gun Crazy. I like that film. Good how its got a few B movies on there too. I guess thats what lists are for: going through your own and quibbling with the differences. If you have the time, then quibble on.
All of these lists make me want to delete all of my lists.
Two by Preston Sturges, none by Fellini. Man oh man….
Preston Sturges IS awesome, though, but yeah. Lists are pretty much retarded anyway, imho…
That goes for most, if not all, on this “educated” forum too…
I need to avoid the topic of best/ worst lists in general because it will only get me worked up and no one wants to hear another bell-ringing, wrath-of-God rant around here. So let me simply say that I am not a big fan of lists but anything that exposes a wider cross section of the public to the mere EXISTENCE of works like The Man With a Movie Camera (1929) and Tokyo Story (1953) is a good thing. As to the Village Voice list specifically, I think it did a better job of including a wider range of films that can truly be called timeless examples of the art form than the BFI and certainly the most recent AFI lists did.
I’d much rather take a stab at watching all the movies on this list than other “best of” lists that are out there. I will comment later, but BOOOOOO YAHHHHHHHH (a GOOD thing) that The Village Voice had the balls to put The Texas Chainsaw Massacre on a Top 100 best of list. It truly is one of most visceral film experiences I can choose to expose myself to.
Lists are irresistible imo. Is there really no Fellini on that list? Wow.. just wow.
and no Antonioni either
I think that it is a good list. All of the films have something to offer except Ordet and Suspiria which I did not enjoy
When you look at aggregate critics’ lists, you’re never going to be totally happy. There’s always going to be a few too high, a few strange omissions, etc. Any list that is generally composed of great films, I’m not going to complain about.
Though the complete Fellini snub is a bit odd. I’ve never seen a list that has been voted on by professional critics and does not have 8 1/2 in the top 20.
I don’t get SHADOW OF A DOUBT being #99. It should be well ahead of PSYCHO, which is #20. They should’a switched those two.
I was quite shocked to see Wavelength on this list.
Never cared for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Surprised if they were going to go that route that Romero didn’t make the list, but then again these lists are more interesting for their anomalies than for their obvious choices.
Where the fuck is Weekend At Bernie’s?
It’s okay if people do not like the list, but why do people dismiss the list on the grounds that it consists of canonical criterion releases. Not every CC release is well known even among film buffs. Having a CC release does not necessarily mean its been lifted from obscurity (i.e. A Nos Amours, Dillinger is Dead, L’Enfance Nue). If someone put any one of those films on their list of favorites, it would surely be a sign of true eclecticism in my opinion. My point being that a list should not be dismissed as lacking originality simply because it contains too many criterion releases.
I have seen 30 of the films on this list, and I’ve got to say that I only found three of the ratings unsatisfactory. The biggest is that The Searchers was, in my opinion, rated waaaaaaaaaa…..(ad infinitum)…aaaay too high at No. 4. I believe Bride of Frankenstein should be in the Top 20, and Mean Streets has no business on this list with Raging Bull being left off.
I was really happy to see M, The Earrings of Madame De… and Chinatown rated so highly.
I had a bigger problem with the omissions, namely Once Upon A Time In The West, Paths of Glory, and Sansho The Bailiff having been left off this list. I would say A Clockwork Orange as well, but that’d be a Kubrick saturation, and I think Paths of Glory is equally as worthy and significantly less polarizing.
Once Upon A Time In The West is a whole lot better movie than The Searchers, and Sansho The Bailiff is one and a pair along with Ugetsu. Ya just can’t have one of those Mizoguchi films without eventually getting to the other one, in my opinion.
Anyhoo, on to different things.
Django:
But such a list doesn’t expose anybody to anything, because no normal person has an “in” to that list. They just look at it, go “Whuh???” and then move on with their business. The list looks far more like an insular exercise than an instructional tool for the public. The question it asks is not What is the best? but rather How precisely, and in ‘the right way,’ can we piece this together? It’s a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle for snooty critics.
Nearly every pick feels predictable. And that’s silly. I’d rather that critics spent their time looking for the superior b-sides of cinema than repeatedly regurgitating the absolute value of the a-side cuts.
You’re telling me having Two or Three Things I know about her on a top 100 list is predictable or Jeanne Dielman?
I think a lot of you don’t understand the math behind an aggregated list. Each of theses critics probably have some unique picks on their individual lists, but they won’t appear in the final tally because they’re, well, unique.
These lists are valuable because they offer an insight into consensus. I think it’s extremely interesting that Fellini is absent. I never cared for him much and it appears his critical reputation has fallen for whatever reason.
IMO, any list with The Golden Coach in the top 100 is worth its salt.
A ‘best’ list is usually going to be consensus picks. Sounds like Bolo wants an ‘Underrated Films’ List which is a different thing to me. I also disagree with yer comment about a person not having an f’in’ to the list and going ‘whuh" and getting on with their business…These kinds of lists were big resons I got into watching more film all those years ago. They do work as ’instructional tools’. (Although I’m not sure they are meant as thet) Personally if there is something on these lists I havent heard of or am not sure about or keep see coming up but don’t know much about, then I I’ll investigate more thoroughly and eventually I might be tempted to watch it. In fact thats what I seem to spend a lot of my waking hours doing. Going from finding out about one film I don’t know much about to another. Watching films. And eating. And sleeping. Sometimes talking to my family.
Doing my job.
Driving to the shops.
Toileting.
It is actually kind of bizarre (in a way) to have so many predictable choices and yet, as has been mentioned, so many total snubs of some of the first directors you’d expect to see represented…
apursansar
Well, for many critics Indian cinema means “The Apu Trilogy”. I think the double spot and exclusion of everything else by Ray, Ghatak, Sen or Benegal speaks for the overall quality of that list.