23 thoughts on “Sight and Sound’s 2022 All-Time Greatest Movie List”

1. Films from the list I haven’t seen

   Both Akerman films–Jeanne Dielman and News from Home
   Touki Bouki
   Journey to Italy
   A Matter of Life and Death
   Histoire(s) du Cinema
   Parasite
   Black Girl
   Get Out

   From the directors’ lists: L’Argent and Ascent

   I don’t understand why these films are rated so high…

   Vertigo
   Man with a Movie Camera
   Rules of the Game
   Andrei Rublev

   …and I don’t understand these films, period

   Beau Travail
   Sans Soleill
   Contempt
   Celine and Julie Go Boating

   (Not surprising that these are all French films! Also, add any film by Godard, except Breathless.)

   Alternate films by the directors, whose films made it on the list

   • Werckmeister Harmonies or The Turin Horse over Satantango
   • Double Indemnity over the other Wilder films that made the list
   • El Sur over Spirit of the Beehive
   • Syndromes and a Century over Tropical Malady

   Omissions–films

   Godfather II (Is the first film really a stand alone? I feel like you need both. The third film is not necessary, however.)
   Raging Bull
   Act of Killing (maybe not a significant omission)
   It’s Such a Beautiful Day (2012) Dir. Don Hertzfeldt

   If Maya Deren’s Meshes of the Afternoon gets in, I feel like Peter Tscherkassky’s Outerspace (1999) should get in. Same with Park chan Wook’s Night Fishing (2011) or Shinya Tsukamoto’s Tetsuo: the Iron Man (1989)

   Nashville
   The Color of Pomegranates
   Mishima: a Life in Four Chapters
   Days of Heaven
   Tampopo
   The White Balloon
   Gabbeh
   The Children of Paradise (When did this film fall out of favor?)
   Gummo
   Trash Humpers

   Omissions–directors

   Capra, Tarantino, Spielberg, Cassavetes, Malick, Wiseman, Robert Altman, Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson, Woody Allen. (My opinion of Malick’s films have diminished somewhat, but to not to have any of his films seems like a significant oversight.)

   Non-English speaking directors seem to get short-shrift. To say it another way, there’s bias towards English-speaking directors. I feel like there should be more non-English speaking films on this list.

   Nuri Bilge Ceylan…

   Reply

2. To what extent has this list been based on a perspective and biases that stem from maleness? If the majority of voters were women, would the list dramatically change? The current list has raised these questions.

   The idea that one’s sex/gender would have a significant influence in this process is something I don’t care for. Same with one’s nationality or ethnicity. I recognize that one can’t completely eliminate the influence of these factors, but great works of art should transcend, not be highly dependent upon them.

   And yet the current list makes me wonder if a male biases heavily influenced previous lists. Or, are current political factors having a stronger influence on the selection? If so, is that necessarily a bad thing? Generally, this does seem like a bad thing–the list shouldn’t be a political expression.

   On the other hand, aspects of a film will resonate or not based on one’s gender. To use a stereotypical example, films about ambitious male characters, taking on a great task, may resonate more than films about raising a family and the challenges involved with this. Additionally, some male voters may have a higher tolerance for sexism. Ultimately, I think the greatness of a film shouldn’t be selected because of these factors, but I’m wondering if they have been.

   (I also wonder to what degree these factors influence my aesthetic judgments.)

   Reply

3. I don’t think you can disregard the affect of a voter’s sex on the final list. It’s especially important to allow for even representation on the panel (or voting pool, however this was done) since there’s inherent bias in the production of the films — I was going to say for most of film’s history, but it’s probably true even today. Just the fact that the MASSIVE majority of films were written, produced, and directed by men means a slant in the films themselves and differences in the way male and female audiences will receive them.

   If a film were supposedly about Hawaii but clearly misrepresented Hawaii’s people or history or culture, however artistically excellent the film was, you would probably respond to it negatively, while someone unaware of the inaccuracies or misinterpretations might respond positively.

   Similarly, a film with women characters that somehow doesn’t represent women accurately from a woman’s perspective must be rated differently from how a man would rate it.

   Reply

4. That gender/sex influences the making of films and the way moviegoers experience and perceive them is a given, but to what extent would this influence one’s adjudication of great art? That’s what I’m getting at. If an all-male critics’ list dramatically differed from an all-female critics’ list–particularly if the differences seemed to be based on gender–I think that would disappoint me. I don’t think one’s gender/sex should heavily influence this type of judgment. (Picking one’s favorite movie is another matter. There, anything goes.)

   If a film were supposedly about Hawaii but clearly misrepresented Hawaii’s people or history or culture, however artistically excellent the film was, you would probably respond to it negatively, while someone unaware of the inaccuracies or misinterpretations might respond positively.

   It really depends on the type of inaccuracies. The inaccuracies could bug me, and even hinder my enjoyment of the film, but it may not prevent me from thinking the film is a great work of art. Think of films that involve a specific profession. When professionals from those fields watch these movies, I’m sure they detect inaccuracies that the layperson does not. I’m pretty sure that they can enjoy and even consider these films to be really good, in spite of these flaws. On the other hand, it’s possible the flaws are just too egregious, and those professionals can’t enjoy the film.

   Reply

   1. My example may be flawed in its specificity, but now poll 1000 Hawaii people about the film and compare their ratings to a general population’s ratings. I’m willing to bet you’ll see a statistically significant difference. Shoot, you pointed out to me that some Native Hawaiians didn’t care for the stereotyping of Native Hawaiians in Lilo & Stitch as untidy, and as far as I know that’s not even a stereotype.

      With sex (I’m removing the gender aspect of it because I don’t know how to talk about it intelligently), we’re talking about half the population watching films made almost exclusively by men. A simple thing like just the number of women in prominent roles might not affect your or my appreciation of a film because (a) we’re used to seeing films made this way and (b) we might not even notice it. But 1000 women might see the same film as a sausagefest and feel there’s something off about the world in which the film is set. And I’m not even talking about being offended by the way women are represented. I’m just saying their reception of the film may feel a bit off, like what is this weird world in which there’s one interesting female character among twenty interesting male characters.

      Reply

   2. but now poll 1000 Hawaii people

      But we’re talking about film critics, not just the general population. My assumption is that critics would a) care about judging films as works of art, and b) they would be better equipped to evaluate films in an objective (i.e., intersubjective) way.

      But 1000 women might see the same film as a sausagefest and feel there’s something off about the world in which the film is set.

      Right, but if the movie is a great work of art, do you think a) the female critics would necessarily find the flaw or incongruence so significant that they would disqualify the film, and b) male critics would likely not find this flaw(s) significant?

      I think it could happen, but I wonder how often. I feel female and male critics are more capable of rising above, so to speak, their sex. But I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. That’s what i’m questioning.

      Reply

5. Musings on criteria for a great an all-time great movie

   I’m pretty sure I wrote about this topic before on this site, but since I can’t find it, I’m going to discuss this again.

   Off the top of my head, here are some of the criteria that would be important to me.

   • The film totally succeeds at what it tried to accomplish. Or, to say it another way, the film totally succeeds on the terms it set for itself.For example, 2001, Star Wars, and Space Balls are very different types of films. They are trying to achieve different things in different ways. If we conclude that each of these films totally succeeded, based on the terms it set for itself, then we could make a case that each film was great.
   • The film is firing on all cylinders. This is the means by which a film has total success. “Firing on all cylinders” means that the different components of filmmaking–such as, the direction, cinematography, acting, writing, score, etc.–are not only excellent, but they coherently work together to achieve what the film set out for itself. I would also add that I would place more weight on the aesthetic effect of all of this. That is, does the filmmaking achieve a magnificent, even sublime, aesthetic impact. 2001 would be a prime example of that in my view.
   • The film stands the test of time.
   • The film has a universal appeal. That is, the film resonates with a diverse audience–i.e., cross cultural, gender, sex, etc. Dealing with profound, fundamental truths about human beings and human existence is likely closely associated with this.
   • The film is an exemplar of a genre.This is perhaps a lesser criterion, but I’m referring the way a film is not only excellent, generally, but serves as a an exemplary example of a particular genre–e.g., Psycho is a great example of a a horror film, slasher horror film to be more precise.
   • The film is highly influential and innovative– having a major influence on the art form and other filmmakers. I recognize this as a valid criterion, but in my assessment this would receive less weight than most of the criteria above.
   • The film is highly original. I would give this less weight as well, which surprises me a little because I would give this a lot more weight in music or other visual arts. I still value this in filmmaking, but I would not “dock points” from a film if it wasn’t highly original in terms of style or even content (at least I don’t think I would).

   Am I missing anything?

   (Note: See David Bordwell’s discussion on the distinction between taste and judgment in the section, “Good, Bad, and Tasty” in this blog post.)

   1/1/2023

   Prioritizing the criteria

   When applying the intersubjective criteria above do not carry equal weight. Inevitably, individuals will place greater on some, at least to some degree, over others. For me, I give more weight to the following:

   1. Formal excellence, which is a subset of the “firing on all cylinders” criterion. With regard to cinema, form refers to visual elements like cinematography, composition, Mise-en-scene, art direction, special effects, costuming, etc. and sound elements like the score and sound design. Formal excellence evokes a very strong, pleasurable aesthetic feeling, sometimes separate from the content of the film. For example, I like watching Terrence Malick’s films, in spite of unsatisfying stories, characters, and themes. What I’m talking about here is closely related to the power and pleasure one derives from successful works of abstract, visual art, instrumental music, and modern dance. Personally, I really value formal excellence, so I tend to “give more points” to films that have this quality. (When a film succeeds both in terms of form and content, that is something special indeed. Citizen Kane is a prime example of this.
   2. The expression and treatment of profound, universal truths. I give a lot of points to a film that does this. This is the quality that would move a film into the first tier for me.
   3. Great ambition–a film that strives for and succeeds in achieving an ambitious goal, in terms of form and/or content, gets more points. Again, the presence of this quality would elevate a film to first tier status for me.
   4. Originality–a film that is original in terms of content and/or form gets more points. On the other hand, I wouldn’t necessarily penalize a film that lacks this quality. On the other hand, I would use the three preceding criteria to separate very good films from the very best (i.e., from the second tier to the first tier).

   I did want to mention one criterion I didn’t mention initially, and it’s related to being a good representation of a genre. If a film does a good job of capturing the zeitgeist of a particularly time, that seems like a valid criterion to consider, albeit a minor one for me. This might be one of the criteria I would point to when arguing for Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction or maybe Charlie Kaufmann’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

   By the way, I think both films would be at least strong contenders for second tier films. Annie Hall and Linklater’s Before Trilogy are others that came to mind.

   (Note: Write about criteria that should not be used in the next entry.)

   Reply

6. In a recent NYT article, A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis discuss the recent S&S list. Here are some of my reactions/comments.

   What’s the value of these lists?

   They touch on the value of ranked lists, mentioning Chantal Ackerman’s negative feelings towards them, and my sense is that they don’t seem to appreciate the value of these lists.

   To me, the value is clear–namely, they are an important tool to help people narrow down their film-watching options. Rendering aesthetic judgments, especially in some definitive way, is not what makes the list valuable to me. While I do think knowing the consensus among critics and filmmakers is interesting and has some value, ultimately, individuals experiencing films and judging films for themselves seems more important. But individual moviegoers need help in choosing the films they decide to see. Some methods and processes for doing this have more value than others. I think these film polls are a solid tool.

   On the nature of the poll

   …soliciting ballots from more than 1,600 critics, almost twice as many as in 2012. (The directors’ poll is a separate undertaking, in which Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” captured the top spot.)

   Additionally, according to this youtube blogger, the process of creating the final list involves the following:

   1. Participants submit an unranked top 10 list.
   2. The final list is based on the number of times a film appears in the lists.

   This is a highly crude approach in my view (and I’m guessing it’s used for mostly for practical reasons). In my view, availability of the films will skew the results, helping the most popular

   As with some of the recent Oscar victories, you can see evidence of generational and other demographic shifts. There were two films directed by women on the 2012 list, and only one by a Black director. This time around there were nine women — including two films each from Akerman and Agnés Varda — as well as seven by African and African American filmmakers, including Spike Lee, Charles Burnett, Barry Jenkins and Djibril Diop Mambéty.

   I’m curious to know the gender, sex, ethnicity of the new voters. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the lists based on these variables as well.

   Dargis’s top 10 (in order)

   Au Hasard Balthazar” (Robert Bresson), “The Godfather” (Francis Ford Coppola), “Jeanne Dielman,” “Flowers of Shanghai” (Hou Hsiao-Hsien), “The Gleaners and I” (Varda), “Tokyo Story,” “Killer of Sheep,” “Little Stabs at Happiness” (Ken Jacobs), “There Will Be Blood” (Paul Thomas Anderson) and “Shoes” (Lois Weber).

   Scott’s top 10 (chronological order–something “he might have submitted”)

   “The Gold Rush” (Charlie Chaplin); “La Terra Trema” (Luchino Visconti); “What’s Opera, Doc?” (Chuck Jones); “Big Deal on Madonna Street” (Mario Monicelli); “La Dolce Vita” (Federico Fellini); “Cléo From 5 to 7” (Varda); “Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One” (William Greaves); “Do the Right Thing” (Spike Lee); “Paris Is Burning” (Jennie Livingston); “Happy as Lazzaro” (Alice Rohrwacher).

   I haven’t seen all these films, but both lists are kind of disappointing, especially Scott’s.

   Reply

   1. When you’ve seen as many films as they (and you) have, I imagine there’s much more overlap in a top 50 list, but there will — and should — be wide disagreement about a top 10.

      As you know, A.O. Scott’s one of my favorite film critics, so I’ll check out that material.

      Reply

   2. …but there will — and should — be wide disagreement about a top 10.

      I’m curious to hear why you think this. If the list is primarily a list of favorites, then I would agree with you. But if participants primarily rely on intersubjective criteria, I would think there would be greater overlap closer to the top. Or maybe not?

      Reply

7. Of the 100 films, which ones do I think belong on the list?

   Of the films listed above, I’m going to pick the films that fit the following categories:

   1. First tier–films that belong at the very top; truly great works of art.

   2. First tier contenders: I will list films that I’m unsure about–that is, films that are contenders for the first tier. I will also list contenders that didn’t appear on the list. (Note: These films would definitely belong in the second tier.)

   1st tier

   Citizen Kane
   Seven Samurai
   Tokyo Story
   Godfather I
   Godfather II
   Casablanca
   2001: a Space Odyssey
   Singin’ in the Rain
   L’Avventura

   Contenders:
   Sunrise: a Song of Two Humans; L’Atalante; Passion of Joan of Arc; Rashomon; 8 1/2; Bicycle Thieves; Ordet; The Searchers; Psycho; Killer of Sheep; In the Mood for Love; Mulholland Drive; Close-Up;

   Contenders not listed:
   It’s a Wonderful Life; Double Indemnity; The Earings of Madame de….; Nashville; Jaws; Pink Flamingos; Texas Chainsaw Massacre; Star Wars: a New Hope; Mishima: a Life in Four Chapters; Gummo; Gabbeh; Werckmeister Harmonies; A New World; Yi Yi; Syndromes and a Century; It’s Such a Beautiful Day;

   Reply

8. Criteria or approaches that should NOT be used

   The factors listed below aren’t inherently bad, but they can deleteriously interfere with the evaluation process. Certainly, for me, these often interfere with my appreciation and understanding of a film.

   • Mismatch in expectations–especially when a film fails to meet my expectations. For example, the first time I watched Seven Samurai, I expected an action-packed film with badass sword fights. Because the film didn’t live up to this expectation, my disappointment lowered my opinion of the film. This reaction shouldn’t be the basis for judging a work of art. In a similar way, meeting an expectation shouldn’t be a big factor when evaluating a film. On the other hand, suppose a film far surpasses one’s expectations. I tend to think citing this in favor of a film is appropriate, especially if expectations were high.
   • Mismatch with one’s initial reading of a film During the film, “what is this film about” is a question I’m trying to answer–especially when I struggle to find my bearings. Near the end of the film, I may have a theory about the film, and sometimes, by the end, theory seems wrong. In these situations, I may be confused, to the point where I can’t fairly assess the film. In some cases, I may downgrade a film because of this mismatch. To me, this isn’t an appropriate or fair way to judge the film, and it’s something I try to avoid.
   • Mismatch in mood. There are many instances I haven’t enjoyed a film because the film didn’t match the mood I was in. This, too, is not appropriate way to assess the film as a work of art, and it’s closely related to mismatch in expectations.

   I should say that when the mismatches have occurred I sometimes feel my assessment is suspect. Ideally, in many of these instances, I would want to reassess the film, preferably after re-watching it.

   Here are some other reactions that can interfere with my assessment that are more complex.

   • Over-valuing novelty. I enjoy some mediocre films largely because they’re so different and unconventional. This is particularly true with genre films. This isn’t bad per se, but this is not a good way to assess a film as a work of art in my view. Now, I do think this issue can be closely related to originality.
   • Patting-one’s-self-on-the-back syndrome. Here, I’m talking about a situation where I think highly of a film because I figure it out or discover hidden or obscure details about the film. The process makes me feel smart. Now, the interpretation and insights may be entirely valid; they may even be used to make case for the film. But making me feel smart shouldn’t factor in my assessment of the film.

   Finally, a couple more obvious, less controversial points. One shouldn’t be really tired or distracted when evaluating a film. Ideally, one shouldn’t break up the viewing, but watch it in one sitting.

   Reply

9. #28 Daisies (1966)
   Dir. Vera Chytilova

   After recently re-watching this Czech New Wave film, this ranking seems really high. Having said that, I don’t have a good grasp of the film, although, at this point, I’m a little skeptical that I could arrive at some understanding that would dramatically turn my opinion around.

   The film follow two young females that proceed to behave in a spoiled way, because the world is spoiled. I’m not sure if “spoiled” is a good translation, but they mostly trick older men into paying for a lavish meal. There are some performance art interludes and a lot of low tech effects (e.g., use of different color lens; cuts that allow the characters to almost teleport through space, etc.)

   Reply

10. #25 (tied critics list)/#41 (tied directors list) The Night of the Hunter (1955)
    Dir. Charles Laughton
    Director of photography: Stanley Cortez
    Starring: Robert Mitchum (Rev. Harry Powell), Lililan Gish (Rachel Cooper) Bill Chapin (John Harper), Sally Jane Bruce (Pearl Harper), Shelley Winters (Willa Harper), etc.
    78/100
    (Currently streaming on Amazon prime. The print quality is quite good. By the way #25 seems a bit high, but I don’t object to the film making the top 100.)

    

    I can’t think of many films that leave me with a rather lukewarm reaction–in spite of some cool looking black and white images–for the first half, but then dramatically change my opinion by the end. This is one of those films. (The first time I saw this, I still felt disappointed at the end, but I think that’s because it thwarted some of the expectations I had going into the film. On this viewing I had less and lower expectations.) I’ll explain the reason for the turnaround, but first a few things about the visuals, and a quick plot descriptions.

    I did like the black-and-white cinematography and scenes alluding to German Expressionism. Some of the cinematography actually made me think of graphic novels influenced by wood-block printing and someone like Frank Miller, perhaps. I especially like the more darker images surrounded by silvery outlines, and the river boat journey was one of my favorite moments in the film. (An Example of Frank Miller below. Note:

    

    This next example (from the graphic novel, Flood!) is a different aesthetic from the film, but it’s the type of thing I thought of. Also, more of this approach would have been interesting.

    
    (Laughton reportedly reviewed older silent films and wanted to “restore the power of the slient films.” In the boat journey, I wished it was shot without sound.) Still, none of this alone was sufficient for the film to win me over. After the plot description below, I’ll explain my reasons for this.

    Here’s a quick plot description: A psychopathic, “preacher” goes around the countryside killing (and robbing) women, thinking they are a kind of evil, partly because of the lust they evoke in men. At some point, he is captured and sent to prison. While there he learns about hidden money from one of the inmates, who left behind a wife and two children. When the “preacher” seeks out the family to get the money.

    I have some other descriptions, but I feel viewers should not know about them prior to the film, giving them to discover these aspects on their own. However, I will talk about them in the next section, for those who don’t care about knowing them before hand.

    ***
    (spoilers)
    From wikipedia entry about this film, I learned that Laughton described this as a “Mother Goose nightmare.” That certainly comes through, although I thought of a Grimm fairy tale like Hansel and Gretel. The idea is an interesting one, but as I alluded to earlier, the execution wasn’t quite working for me in the first half.

    I think the problem stemmed primarily from the acting–specifically, Winters, the kids, and a little of Mitchum. Maybe this I’m being churlish, but the child acting wasn’t very good in my view, although they had the right look for the parts. (Mitchum certainly had the right look and voice.) With Winters, the problem might have been more with the writing and conception of the character. Specifically, her character seems to buy into Powell’s (the preacher) conception of women, and her earnest desire to be cleansed and redeemed, not only making her seem hysterical, but the acting wasn’t convincing. (Actually, the film has a sexist and even misogynistic depiction of women that is problematic, and I’ll touch on that more later.)

    One could argue that the acting wasn’t meant to be realistic–that the cartoonish quality (including Mitchum’s acting) was appropriate for a kind of modern fairy tale–but I don’t find that argument compelling. If the acting gave the film a fairy tale quality that would be a compelling argument, but it didn’t. (By the way, audiences at the time may have found the acting acceptable, so maybe the acting is just dated, particularly since we’ve seen many excellent performances of psychopathic killers since then.)

    On a related note, I do think shooting the whole film on a film stage or movie lot, creating a more artificial feel–and also tilting away from realistic looking scenes to more stylized scenes (e.g., German Expressionism)–would have enhanced the film. Indeed, some scenes seem shot on a sound stage, and they feel like some of the most effective moments of the film. Ultimately, if the film felt less realistic, with more obvious artifice and even adding fantastical elements (think of Cocteau’s filmmking in his Beauty and the Beast) it might have been more effective, and maybe the acting would have worked better. (I also like the idea of redoing the film as a graphic novel or motion comic.)

    Now, what turned the movie around for me was Lilian Gish’s character and performance. I’m not sure if she received an Oscar nomination or won for her role, but her performance warranted both. She was a breath of fresh air–not just her spunk and compassion, making her likable–but her acting as well. To me it seemed less over-the-top, and she seemed more believable.

    What I found interesting, and a bit surprising, is that her character, Rachel Cooper, seems to have a similar sexist view as Powell–she views women as weak and foolish. However, she believes the right response is compassion and assistance, not revulsion and destruction. She essentially represents love, while Powell represents hate–in line with Powell’s story about love and hate. (Ironically, in Powell’s telling, love wins.) Had the film depcited both men and women as weak and foolish I would have liked the film more.

    One part of the film I haven’t quite put my finger on: When the police arrest Powell, the scene is similar to the arrest of John and Pearl’s father. John breaks down, and returns the money. As I write this, I realize that perhaps the scenes reminds him not only of his father’s fate, but the reasons for this–namely, the father’s robbery. So John’s emotional outburst and returning the money expresses his sorrow and regret at the damage the stolen money has caused. That is, John doesn’t feel pain for Powell, but the scene makes him think of his father and the reason his father is no longer there.

    (Another example of black and white graphic novel art by Jim Steranko.)

    

    Reply

11. Journey to Italy (1953)(tied for #72)
    Dir. Roberto Rosselini
    Starring: Ingrid Bergman (Katherine Joyce), George Sanders (Alex Joyce),
    65/100

    I’ve seen a few of Rossellini’s films, and I don’t remember much about them, except that the films really didn’t grab me. I liked Journey to Italy a lot more, but I don’t think it’s a strong candidate for an all-time great movie. I’ll explain the reason I feel this well, as well as point out one aspect of the film I liked.

    But first a short description. An older English couple (Sanders and Bergman) take a trip to Italy to sell a property as well as take a short vacation. Away from work, they have a lot of time alone together. In a way, the film reminded me a lot of Richard Linklater’s Before Midnight, except imagine if Linklater didn’t make the preceding two films.

    In the next section, I’ll explain the reasons I didn’t think highly of the film.

    ***
    Ultimately, the film–or specifically the characters–felt emotionally hollow to me. I didn’t feel like they had any real, substantive feelings for each other, and I think the performances were a big reason for this, although I thought Bergman’s was better than Sanders’s.

    I did partly like the structure of the film–specifically, the way the art and artifacts of Italy reflect and comment on the marriage. At times, it’s a bit too on the nose (as in the buried couple near the end), but overall, this was one of the more interesting aspects of the film.

    By the way, here’s a good breakdown of the film by Martin Scorsese. It’s helpful, and while I agree with some of his points, I didn’t find it persuasive, for reasons I mentioned above. (Note: It should seen after the film.)

    Reply

12. #16 Meshes of the Afternoon (1943)
    Dir. Maya Deren and Alexander Hammid
    14 minutes, 47 seconds

    I’ve seen this film before, and I watched it two more times recently. It’s a good film, but I’m uncertain if it deserves the #16 ranking. On the directors’ list the film is tied for #62 with five other films, and that seems more defensible to me. I will say that the limited resources makes the film even more impressive. Imagine making a film at home, mostly with whatever is on hand, and that’s basically what Deren and Hammid did.

    I will say this: There have been many filmmakers who have attempted to make a film as if it were dream. This is one of those films and it stands up quite well.

    Reply

13. Vertigo (1958) #2 and tied for #6 on the directors’ list
    Dir. Alfred Hitchcock

    This film deserves a separate thread, but I’ll just make brief comments, particularly relating to the list. I never understood the high ranking, even after several viewings. But I also don’t think I fully understood the film. The thing is, I never felt motivated to dig deeper, and I also felt my opinion wouldn’t significantly change if I did understand the film.

    After watching the film two more times recently, as well as going back and watching scenes, reading passages of the script–and crucially–reading comments from critics and movie fans–I’ve gained a much greater understanding of the film. However, I don’t think I can say I fully understand the film. Specifically, I couldn’t articulate what is at the heart of the film (although I feel like I’m getting there; although another part of me wonders if this may not be possible). While the analysis I’ve encountered has been helpful, everyone has felt incomplete, fragmentary. None fully captured the film, getting to its heart in my view.

    I won’t discuss my current understanding of what this film is about here and now, but I hope to do so later in a thread dedicated to the film. But I will say this: I now understand the film’s very high ranking, especially among critics and directors, and I want to mention to reasons for this.

    First, there are many layers to this film–not just in terms of themes and ideas, but the way the film expresses this with the different components of filmmaking (e.g., the music, editing, writing, use of color, etc.) It could be the most layered film of all time.

    Second, I do think a big part of the film involves insights and commentary on filmmaking and Hollywood specifically. My sense is that because the voters love cinema, they’re going to respond more strongly and more favorably to movies that are about movies–more so than the average moviegoer.

    My sense is that both of these qualities are reasons the film is near the top of the list. It’s similar to Citizen Kane, there is so much to plumb, in terms of the filmmaking. Having said that, CK’s filmmaking impresses me a lot more, and at this point the theme resonates a bit more with me.

    But I’m still not satisfied with my understanding of Vertigo, and given how much my understanding and opinion of the film has changed, it wouldn’t surprise me if I eventually think it’s as good if not better than CK.

    One last thing I forgot to mention. While I understand the high ranking, at this point, I don’t think I’d rank it as the second best film of all time. I’d probably put it in the top 20 or even the top 10. I do think it’s a first tier film for sure.

    Reply

14. Apocalypse Now: Redux (2001)
    Dir. Francis Ford Coppola

    I originally watched Redux at Waikiki Theater, and while I’ve never seen the original film, I’ve read about the scenes that were added, and I suspect the original might be superior.

    I really can’t add much to this viewing–I feel somewhat underwhelmed, as I did when I first saw this. To be fair, I don’t think I have a good grasp of the film. My understanding is that the film is loosely based, or inspired by, Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. My understanding of the book was that it was an allegory about human nature–or the evil within human beings. I viewed the film the same way.

    But if this approach is appropriate, I feel disappointed by the film–the evil or any insights into human beings seems hollow to me, especially if I compare them to a writer like Dostoevsky.

    ***
    The famous helicopter attack, accompanied by Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries”, didn’t really hold up for me, partly because glamorized depictions of war don’t appeal to me as they used to. I also assume that Colonel Kigore (Duvall) and his enthusiasm for surfing was supposed to be satirical, a la Catch-22. Satirical or not, the scene felt flat and dull to me.

    My favorite part of the movie is the opening sequence, with overlapping images of Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) in his hotel room and the napalm bombing.

    Reply

15. Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975)
    Dir. Chantal Ackerman
    cast: Delphine Seyrig, etc.

    I saw this at the Doris Duke Theater yesterday, and I want to jot down a few quick thoughts.

    Is this deserving of the #1 slot, or even the top 10? I haven’t fully processed the film yet, but the thought would not have occurred to me to place this in the number 1 slot, or even the top 10 or 20. Perhaps with more time and thought, I might change this opinion.

    I do think it was worth watching.

    ***
    Notes

    • The first half of the film–i.e., that actual half way point in terms of time–establishes the daily routine of the Dielman. The next two days are variations of this first day, where the film reveals the character’s attitude towards her life.
    • I don’t know if Ackerman has mentioned being influenced by Ozu, or if she’s even seen his films, but the influence seems pronounced–stylistically and in terms of content. The camera is largely static and she seems to like shooting rooms, including empty rooms and spaces. Domestic life, as well as offering commentary on domestic life, are a concern for both as well. On the other hand, Ackerman seems to take Ozu much further–focusing on an individual domestic actor, her mundane actions, and lingering on these actions to a fairly extreme degree. Where Ozu may be concerned with people, Ackerman might be focused on an individual–specifically, an widow living in the modern world.
    • Is the long takes on mundane tasks justified? What purpose do these serve? First, I found these moments strangely interesting, and I do not think they were pointless. For one thing, they viewers an opportunity to understand the internal state of the character. Second, my understanding is that Dielman feels trapped in an drab routines (also captured by the presence of faded greens and browns, and drab streets and buildings, devoid of bright colors). The audience experiences this during these long takes. Finally, I do think the long takes do create a kind of suspense, because I expected something more dramatic would occur at some point (i.e., I knew she would react strongly against this).
    • Right now, here’s my current understanding of the film. The film seems to critique the traditional role for women, which not only traps women into a soul-crushing, monotonous life, but also forces single women to debase themselves (in this case prostitution). If this reading is accurate, the film is a bit disappointing to me. On some level this critique seems too general and simplistic. Surely some women, especially during the time of the film, had similar experiences to the main character, but would a large majority view the traditional role in such a way? I guess if the film were specifically attacking the rigid application of gender roles, I think the film would be more effective.
    • I do think the filmmaking, including Seyrig’s acting, makes the movie good and worth watching.

    3/31/2023

    I had a class discussion about this film yesterday. Two of the participants provided an interesting reading of the film. (spoilers) To them, Dielman’s routines represented the level of control she had over her life. However, with the last man, she experiences an orgasm and loses control. This leads to her stabbing the man.

    Reply

16. News from Home (1977)
    Dir. Chantal Ackerman

    More like a documentary. There are two components to the film: footage of NYC (I assume when Ackerman was living there) and voice over of letters from Ackerman’s mother (who was writing from Belgium, I assume). The letters are pretty mundane and somewhat repetitive. The footage of NYC seem lonely, depressing, particularly the footage without people. (70’s NYC was really a dump.) The footage with people also create a lonely, alienating feeling.

    I would never have thought this was a contender for all-time great movie. Then again, I’m not sure I have a good grasp of the film at this point.

    Reply

17. The Searchers (1956)
    Dir. John Ford
    Starring: John Wayne, etc.

    I noticed that I listed this as a contender for a first tier film. After watching it recently, it would not be a contender for me. I liked this movie when I first saw it. Back then I liked action films a lot more than I do now, and I probably still like John Wayne as a heroic character. I’m guessing, I was more accepting of derogatory and racist depictions of Native Americans as well. Because of this, I didn’t really enjoy the film–at least the parts that were meant to be entertaining.

    Still, there’s one thing that makes the film worth seeing, and that’s the Ethan Edwards character. I can’t think of a depiction of an angry, violent racist character–who is also the ostensible hero in the film–at least there are elements of the character that would likely appeal to fans of Westerns–e.g., the lone-wolf gunslinger; the tough guy persona, captured in the lines, “That’ll be the day.” But this mixture of a good and bad makes the character so interesting. To me, there are Americans like Edwards, now and in the past. They are someone’s uncle or father–and they can be appealing people outside of these darker elements. I don’t think we’ve seen this type of character very often, not played by a star like John Wayne.

    By the way, I discussed this film with others, and most of them never saw a John Wayne picture–i.e., this was their first Wayne film. I think most haven’t watched a lot of Westerns. All this is unfortunate because the effect of the film would be greater had they watched a lot of Westerns, with John Wayne (or even Wayne’s war movies) prior to this film. For one’s first Western, this is not a good choice.

    In any event, most of them didn’t like the film. I don’t blame them. I think if you didn’t grow up watching Westerns, it would be hard to enjoy the film–given some of the dated qualities that could often be offensive. (As an action film, it’s not that great either.)

    One last thing. The reason, or the absence of one, Ethan doesn’t kill Debbie bothered me more than it did the first time. I’ve heard some explanations that are somewhat satisfying.

    Here’s the first:

    To summarize (for those who don’t want to watch it), door frames signal a dividing line between civilization and the wilderness or jungle. At one point, when Ethan is chasing Debbie, Ford shoots the scene from in a cave, pointing the camera outward–a shot similar to the opening and closing scenes with the camera looking out of a door. When Ethan catches Debbie, they’re both in the cave–that is, they’re both in civilization, where there are rules that even Ethan must obey.

    In the last scene, everyone enters the house (civilization), but Ethan can’t–because he’s stuck in his ways–ways closer to the laws of the jungle. Or this is what the maker of the video claims. I also think that Ethan can’t enter because of his racism and hatred. In the film, no one is a racist as Ethan–that is clear. Martin, is 1/8 Native American, and he is adopted by a white family and consider part of the family. Laurie Jorgensen wants to marry Martin, and her family has no problem with this. But Ethan refuses to acknowledge Martin as part of the family–prohibiting Martin from calling him uncle. Additionally, Ethan is the only one who views Debbie as tainted, by living with the Comanche. I’d like to think Ethan can enter the house (civilization) because of his intense racism.

    Reply

18. Black Girl (1966)
    Dir. Ousmane Sembene
    70/100

    I haven’t analyzed this film completely, but just after my initial viewing, I would not think of it as candidate for an all-time great film. It was a bit difficult to watch as well (which is not necessarily a criticism).

    Here’s a synopsis: In Senegal, a French married couple hire a young Senegalese woman, Diouana, as a caregiver of their children. The family moves back to France, and they bring the Senegalese woman along, where we see her treating in degrading ways. To give a generous reading to the French couple (mostly the wife), there may be some misunderstanding in the arrangement and expectations may not have been communicated well. The wife expects a servile maid, whereas the Senegalese woman expects to simply watch the children. (This was not entirely unreasonable because in Senegal, the French family had another servant who did the cooking and presumably other tasks.)

    Still, even with this more charitable reading, the wife seems unreasonably demanding and impatient. Moreover, the wife does seem to have deep-seated racist views. For example, one of the wife’s guests, at one point, gets up from the dinner table and says he wants to kiss Douana, as he’s never kissed a black person (translated as “negress”). He does so, humiliating Diouana in front of everyone, with no defense from the wife or husband.

    ***
    Off the top of my head, exposing the racism and mistreatment of Africans by the French seems to be the point of the film. Or perhaps more specifically the current actions at the time (e.g., giving employment to Africans) to make amends for the past wrongs are far from satisfactory and that these past wrongs will continue to haunt the French and maybe Europe more broadly. (This last point can be seen when Diouana’s brother chasing after the husband with the mask.)

    Reply

19. A Matter of Life and Death (1946)
    (Tied for 78th)
    Dir. Emeric Pressburger and Michael Powell
    Starring: David Niven, etc.
    48/100

    I could never get a hold of this film, so I was excited when I saw this on the Criterion Channel. The film is about a WWII pilot who dies in a plane crash and is supposed to go to the afterlife. However, the entity in charge of moving his soul fails to do so and in the pilot falls in love.

    The movie is about a British pilot trying to make a case that he should not be taken to the afterlife because he has found love.

    ***
    Visually, I really liked the movie, especially in the beginning. But two things ruined the film for me.

    First, with these movies that portrayal the after life and spiritual beings, if the movie doesn’t align with my sense of God and higher powers–particularly in a way that I can’t take seriously–then that will really hurt the movie for me (at least if the audience needs to take it seriously, to some degree, if the film is to work).

    Second, and a bigger problem: In this film there is a “prosecutor” who argues against the pilots request. That’s fine and potentially interesting. However, the prosecutor is an American who fought in the American Revolution. He is extremely prejudiced against Brits and derives from this premise–a rather silly one for me. (I find the argument of finding love rather silly or unpersuasive, in the context of this film, as well, but I could have went along with this.)

    Personally, I don’t think this film should have made the list.

    Reply