Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Poll Re-positioning: Analysing Sight and Sound's greatest films of all time poll | BFI
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 12. 2022
- The 2022 edition of Sight and Sound's once-a-decade Greatest Films of All Time poll was published on 1 December. Topped by Chantal Akerman's Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, the poll's results suggest significant changes in the way films are being seen and appreciated.
In this video Sight and Sound's managing editor, Isabel Stevens, highlights the changes since the 2012 poll - which was topped by Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo - and welcomes the inclusion of many more films directed by women, ethnically diverse directors and LGBTIQ+ filmmakers.
- Read about the Greatest Films of All Time here: www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-soun...
do the alleged cinephiles in the comment section not know how the list is compiled? this is not based on the opinions of the editors of sight & sound, but rather on about 1600 critics, who were asked to list their 10 favorite films. of course, if about half of those critics were female (which they probably weren't in prior polls), i guess a high percentage of them had jeanne dielman in their top 10s because of its political relevance today. i suppose lots and lots of the male critics also picked it for the same reason. that is, however, not to say that all of these critics considered it the #1 greatest film of all time. to be honest, i think quite few of them did... it's likely only 10% of them, just like with all the ones that picked kane or vertigo the prior years. when you look at the rankings of the list, it reflects the critical popularity of the films more than anything.
anyway, i think people should just ignore critics and only regard the director's poll, because the rankings on that one appeal a lot more to me personally. 2001 is in many ways the most perfect film ever made (even though it is not my personal favorite), and persona and mirror are now in their rightful place alongside vertigo, 8½ and tokyo story - not forgetting the eternally classic citizen kane and the godfather. of the newer picks, i get close-up because of how uniquely and miraculously it stands out in the modern canon, but i don't think i can get behind in the mood for love. if a newer film had to replace it, my vote would definitely be on satantango, werckmeister harmoniak, a brighter summer day, yi yi or maybe mulholland drive.
bela tarr and edward yang definitely need their masterpieces higher on the list!
Well said..re Satantango is in the top ,either 100 or more..I agree ; Bela Tarr needs more of his work to be highlighted
Thanks Sight and Sound, for notifying me that you are not worth paying attention to anymore.
I understand the desire to put more female directed movies on the list, but do we only care about female directors and not there other roles? If you are using this logic how is Raging Bull not on the list? Thelma Schoonmaker's editing in this movie is arguably the greatest ever.
👏👏👏👏
Excelente apreciación, una lista sin sentido
Well said. I agree: Schoonmaker's editing on Raging Bull is the greatest ever.
they included two women in the top 10 and yall lost ur shit
Well said, would love your opinion on our take of the 2022 poll results😁
@@imarriedafilmsnob First off thanks for the props. I just finished watching your video and I loved it! I will be subscribing. Thanks for the recommendations to. I will be checking out Killer of Sheep, La Cienaga and Mishima. Keep up the great work. Another thing I thought if we are recognizing female contributions where is A Woman Under The Influence? That is about a good a performance by Gene Rowlands male or female ever.
I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.
A list like this tells you (almost) nothing about the relative quality of the films included (and excluded - no Bunuel? Really?) but everything about fashions in criticism, something that only critics care about. People who love to watch films rather than pontificate about them know better; they aren't making many "significant changes" in the ways they're watching and appreciating films, thank goodness.
Agree with you entirely but the mere fact that we're here having this debate shows that even those of us who understand what's going on with such lists care about the pronouncements of this self-elected elite. We care because they have an influence on those inclined to defer to cultural elites.
Buñuel seems to have eluded our current taste. Which is bad for all of us because his ideas are more relevant now than ever.
@@postmodernrecycler i really need to watch more of his films, ive only seen un chien andalou and viridiana and loved them both
I'm late to this discussion, and I'm confused by this, because _Un Chien Andalou_ is on the list.
I have never even considered what gender the director of a film was, what does it ultimately matter? Putting such a focus on that these directors were women seems to me like they don't expect women to have as much the ability to create a great film as men, so they have to highlight it every time it happens, and that is why i find this decades list so counteractive to their point.
Couldn't have said it better! We appreciate the inclusivity of the list, but the fact that the diversity has to be highlighted at all is a bit contradictory.
Let's be honest here. A bunch of people probably took a look at their list and decided to replace Chinatown with a film directed by a female for, um... reasons.
'Citizen Kane' represented a dominant, capitalist, patriarchal ideology?! 😂 Orson Welles was routinely called a 'pinko', and this film was shunned by everyone especially because of William Randolph Hearst and his machinery. Case in point, it did not top the list in 1952.
I can understand if something like 'The Godfather' brought on this kind of a comment, because, while it claims to comment on capitalism in USA, it also celebrates the mob lifestyle especially in terms of its 'family' values, and is often an influence on and inspiration for patriarchal men.
'Citizen Kane' literally caricatures a rich White guy, and no one (except Donald Trump) actually got inspired by Kane.
This video reeks of BS, of course... When the need to enforce our own ideology on everything takes front seat, common sense is pushed down the drain.
Maya Deren, Vera Chytilova and Agnieszka Holland (her masterpiece 'Angry Harvest' is not even in the Top 100) are exceptional directors. So is Leni Reifenstahl, who of course, won't get included here even for her 'Olympia'. These are great filmmakers who happen to be women. Their films need not be put in the same bracket as the arbitrary 'films by female directors' to push a certain narrative and be spoken along with lesser films just because they were made by women.
Akira Kurosawa, Kenji Mizoguchi, Yazujiro Ozu, Hiroshi Teshigahara, Satyajit Ray, Ritwik Ghatak, Wong Kar Wai, Spike Lee, Zhang Yimo, Abbas Kiarostami, Majid Majidi, etc. have been celebrated for decades, and it is silly to bunch them along with 'directors of colour' just to suit our narrative, and say their films and something like 'Get Out' are on the same level.
Also, when we are talking about gender fluidity and multiple genders, the phrase 'male eye' is toxic in and of itself. Is the first 'Matrix' a product of male eyes, while the 4th part is the product of female eyes, even though they were directed by the same people?
Do all men look at something the same way? Are the 'eyes' of Rainer Werner Fassbinder and John Ford interchangeable?
By the way, all of this (unfortunately) is only about the list made by 'critics'. And by and large, the list is not that different, except for the fact that it looks like they have shoved in some films just to fulfill some sort of a quota.
The directors' list seems more authentic. And in my mind, that is better.
I have no issues if someone has a list of 10 films which are only romantic comedies made by Nora Ephron and Nancy Myers. Or fratboy comedies directed by Kevin Smith and Judd Appatow. As long as that is what they appreciate, that is what they should list. (You don't need to include 'Citizen Kane' if you don't like it.) But it is useful if people are authentic to their own tastes, rather than try to serve some narrative they want to push.
Wonderfully articulated.
@@jessicaknopp5495 Thank you
Yes, odd point from S&S, though they did say critique/celebration, so that may be in reference to the eye of the beholder and at the very least they are aware of it in the context of critique.
The one thing I would disagree with you is: "This video reeks of BS, of course... When the need to enforce our own ideology on everything takes front seat, common sense is pushed down the drain." - I'm quite certain the 1,600+ voters have differing ideologies. The super-majority of voters have no association with S&S beyond participating in the poll - and as even the examples of possibly punishing directors showed Griffith is still in the top 250. I would not find it out of place to see Reifenstahl. The comments in the video may be limited and possibly based on ideology/viewpoints, but that doesn't cloud the poll.
"Also, when we are talking about gender fluidity and multiple genders, the phrase 'male eye' is toxic in and of itself. Is the first 'Matrix' a product of male eyes, while the 4th part is the product of female eyes, even though they were directed by the same people? "
The way this is generally understood is that they were always women's eyes, just as the eyes of gay filmmakers were always gay even if they were not yet out.
"By the way, all of this (unfortunately) is only about the list made by 'critics'."
Academics and programmers were also included under the critic label as they were in 2012.
"And by and large, the list is not that different, except for the fact that it looks like they have shoved in some films just to fulfill some sort of a quota."
You can't shove in films to fulfill a quota, 1 vote is 1 vote. 1600+ critics, academics and programmers submitted lists of 10 films (they were informed they were free to interpret what "greatest" constituted) and submitted accordingly. Some chose quotas for sure, but for various things, including silents, genre films, etc. Others went with underrated favourites and so on.
"The directors' list seems more authentic. And in my mind, that is better."
I personally prefer the directors' list too, but I don't think it is any more authentic. Wes Anderson for instance (love WA, no hate intended) said he submitted an all-French ballot because he was in France at the time he was asked (...) and many undoubtedly had quotas. Paul Schrader for instance wrote in his intro that he had a quota for 1 silent and 1 comedy, while also purposefully excluding films from the last 25 years and experimental cinema.
"I can understand if something like 'The Godfather' brought on this kind of a comment, because, while it claims to comment on capitalism in USA, it also celebrates the mob lifestyle especially in terms of its 'family' values, and is often an influence on and inspiration for patriarchal men." - Very much agreed, thank you.
Te felicito
Excelentes apreciaciones 👏👏👏🇨🇷
An insanely smug summing up. Must be you be so pleased with yourself, Sight and Sound?
👏👏👏👏
You know Sight and Sound counts the lists, right? They run two polls once every ten years and report the lists based on the top ten lists submitted. They're not taking credit for anything here, because it was those polled who decided on what films got included. They're not being smug, but you're sure being ignorant and condescending.
I would've liked an analysis on why those "newly added films" are great and deserve their position. Btw I'm not suggesting that they don't deserve it, but i would've liked to hear something other than the number of movies directed by women, queer people, etc that have been added.
I think there are brief essays on each film in the top ten, if not the top 100, on the BFI website and in the issue of Sight and Sound the lists are published in. I've read the Jeanne Dielman essay, and it's great.
What a self-satisfied self-congratulatory little video.
A film being christened the 'greatest film of all time,' isn't just about being a good film; it is also about how much of Cinema it has influenced. Jeanne Dielman may be a good film, but it has not influenced a thousandth of the films that Vertigo and Citzien Kane have, and it also just goes to show how much the opinions of critics have deteriorated in the last 10 years when compared to the cultural zeitgeist.
Jeanne Dielman has influenced cinema. When you have some of the most prominent directors of the last 30 years claiming it's influence then how is it not influential. Vertigo isn't even considered by many at Hitchcock's greatest film, as a matter of fact, some even hate it and it flopped initially both commercially and critically.
@@Starkardur Yeah, Vertigo flopped 60 years before. But since then, it gained popularity and became the favorite Hitchcock by critics.
1. This is about what films critics, academics and programmers viewed to be the 10 greatest films of all time - how influential a film has been should not be part of that criteria in my mind, as influential is different from great, though I'm sure some voters balanced personal love with how influential, impactful, accomplished, important, etc. the films were. (IMO, that's a negative)
2. Jeanne Dielman is amongst the most important and influential films of all time and a pillar of slow/contemplative cinema, it is also a film worthy of endless analysis and commentary (hence academic love) and is even more challenging in form than Citizen Kane and Vertigo. I do prefer the latter two somewhat, but this is a very poor reason to dismiss Jeanne Dielman.
3. If anything Jeanne Dielman signals a more serious approach to cinema and cinematic language, as regardless of how great they are, Citizen Kane and Vertigo are commercial Hollywood films, with Vertigo being a Hollywood thriller. Is that the height of cinema as art? In many people's minds, quite possibly, but Jeanne Dielman is certainly a film of far grander dimensions than both in the conversations around cinematic form and artistry.
@@dd1530 Which many of us find inexplicable. And while Kane isnt the GOAT either, the notion that Vertigo could displace it from the top spot is risible. Thankfully, we have a new titleholder, which is refreshing in itself. Not having seen it, I cannot judge it, but I welcome a broadening of the accepted canon in any of the arts.
@@Kraisedion I love Citizen Kane (and Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil & Chimes at Midnite, which should _all_ be in the top 100), but it wasnt exactly a commercial Hollywood film, given its reaction from the public & the studios. I think Vertigo is overrated & not even Hitchcocks best work by any stretch, so its topping the 2012 poll was a travesty; one can argue, as many do (and I concur,) that there have been several greater films made than Kane (Welles thought so himself), but the idea that Vertigo is among them is ludicrous. I havent seen Jeanne Dielman yet, but I am delighted that we have a newcomer in the top spot, even apart from its heralding a long overdue appreciation of female directors. The canon in any of the arts must always be open to revision anyway, and the familiar titles among the Sight & Sound top 10, most especially in the top 5, were becoming a little too moth-eaten.
Those foreign films that were 'introduced' to the list in 2012 had been on the list
In the mood for love is the best one out of all of these top 10
In 2012 three films appeared the other film that appeared was YiYi
For 2032, I hope to see the films of Doris Wishman and Roberta Findlay on the list.
DOUBLE AGENT 73 is one of the all time greats.
@@fritzwalter4660 Don't leave out "Nude on the Moon"!
@@fritzwalter4660 Sorry, not directed by a woman or a minority. Though it does have a woman as the main character- so, not impossible.
Why is sam peckinpah amongst Polanski and Griffith as far as their 'controversial' nature is concerned?I dont understand the comparison between a convicted child molester and the director of one of the most racist films in history to peckinpah.I hope you could elaborate on that.Its certainly unfair to the latter.
I guess Peckinpah is considered controversial because his depictions of graphic violence and his rebellious streak of bucking the Hollywood establishment. I think his films are great and seeing The Wild Bunch drop out of the top 100 left me bummed.
merely challenging the representation of violence, which admittedly built the country and flourished in peckinpah's west but is rarely challenged as being the be all end all representation of how things were. of course straw dogs is stylistically bold, relevant and a sharp critique of the then predominant Vietnamese conflict. but there has been a growing consensus that the time was right to expand the focus to also include vision of how we would like society to appear and to work in the place of the endless repercussions and growing g celebration of what peckinpah was criticizing. in this respect, the poll looks at film not only as an artwork but also as a powerful barometer of social change and shifts. I think it's short sighted to discount the latter out of a preference for the former
This was a great explanation to show all my non-movie friends (who are down for it, and have little knowledge). Thank you for this, and brava!!
The result shows that the political content of the films, not their cinematic and artistic originality, was taken into consideration. While these results are in line with the spirit of the times, real cinema will win again in the near future.
to say jeanne dielman had no cinematic or artistic originality is downright wrong
💯 agree! We certainly hope there is a return of real cinema in the next one. This current list seems more interested in appeasing certain audiences versus the actual artistic merits of the films.
@@muhammadsiddiqui9075 For example? If you mean minimalist and slow cinema, Ozu already made it years ago. Moreover, in a much more poetic style.
@@memetgmail7306 ozu and ankerman are both masters of transcendental cinema
but i don't think that's what makes this movie original. the originality comes from its deeper themes and the deeper commentary behind it. ankerman used the medium of film in order to convey the true realities of domestic house life to an audience, infusing it with a deep poetry and social and feminist perspective. that's where the value and originality comes from
@@muhammadsiddiqui9075 If it was really about transcendental cinema, Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Ozu or Bresson would have been number one instead of Akerman. Even if what you say is true, it's not enough to be the greatest of all time. Let's face it, the results are political correctness.
70 years you mean
Pauline Kael said Citizen Kane was more fun to watch than any great film has a right to be.
No danger of 2022's winner being accused of that!
Undoubtedly so, but how many of the worlds acknowledged cinematic masterpieces _are_ as entertaining to the novice viewer as Citizen Kane -- Rules of the Game, Grand illusion, Seven Samurai, Tokyo Story, Persona, 2001, Potemkin, The Passion of Joan of Arc (a truly lighthearted romp, that one), or even Welles' own Magnificent Ambersons (disgracefully fallen off this years list entirely -- arrrg!). If Jeanne Dielman doesnt match Kane in this respect, its in very august company.
@@owlcowl 'Acknowledged masterpieces'- acknowledged by whom? Not the majority of consumers, who will never of heard of most of the films which you invoke as formative of a canon.
As it happens, I admire most of your choices, but I don't kid myself that a lifetime's viewing and thinking about an art form still in its infancy (c. 120 years) aligns me with Gen XYZ folks who assume cinema began with the first Star Wars entry. The S&S poll was confined to critics, academics and industry pros: hardly represebtative of what powers the box office. A film by a Jewish lesbian feminist, child of Holocaust survivors and a suicide, ticks a lot of boxes for those whose ideas of greatness in art are derived from identitarian categories. In years to come their choices may be seen as capitulations to fashion, like the first #1, 'Bicycle Thieves'.
The refusal of the 'experts' to hail much done in the past 40 years- one-third of film's lifetime- is a more telling mark of the disconnect between the cognoscenti and the masses. It was not always so; recent works of Chaplin, Griffith and Disney were as admired by cineastes as by the guy in the 5c seat. Like 'modern' and 'experimental' music, plastic arts and literature, the public has shown a very limited appetite for the products of state-subsidized creators. The gap between 'Top Gun Maverick' and 'Bros' is a chasm.
I think real aficionados connect with "masterpieces" even if not initially entertained. And then are drawn to watch them again. Kael was correct in a sense; but the entertainment value of 'Kane' wears out long before the artistic and philosophical value does.
@@postmodernrecycler I first saw Kane about 50 years ago and it has not yet worn out for me. In fact I rarely catch anything made over the last 40 years, bc I would rather spend my diminishing stock of time revisiting films from the great days and discovering overlooked ones. Given the choice between an old b&w British thriller and the latest $150 million precipitate of the Marvel Cinematic Universe... no contest.
@@esmeephillips5888 Oh, don't misunderstand me. I love 'Kane. It's a rewatch every couple years. I just find the aesthetic value is what is lasting for me. The story is not what brings me back, although the ideas the story invokes are crucial. Also I do like the performances quite a lot.
Why Sunrise dropped at all is a bloody shame. You CAN NOT make a more visually or emotionally perfect film. But with all the young and younger critics voting on the list I might have expected it. Just for the record my favorite films are Dr. Mabuse the Gambler, Sunrise, The Rules of the Game, I Walked With a Zombie, The Flowers of St. Francis, Kiss Me Deadly, Touch of Evil, Vertigo, Demy's Lola, Shoot the Piano Player, Contempt and Goodfellas
This is a valid list.
If you tell all selectors they must pick one female directed picture (due to equal opportunities), and they all pick the same film, then it will win the poll, it doesn't mean it is the greatest film made, its the most selected.
Citizen Kane still remains the Mona Lisa of serious cinema. Mr Bernstein told us a lot more in his short scene about the girl with the white parasol than Jeanne Deilman did in all her three hours of experimental art tedium.
I love citizen Kane but Jeanne Dielman has a great deal more going on within its frames and aggressive duration than mere tedium. and if these polls are to remain relevant and discussed they need to seek out the under represented...how else do we reassess value and relevance but to remain open. I can't personally say my top ten resembles this list's, but this isn't cheering on your favorite sports team, this should require a bit more expanded thinking and discovery. if akkerman's film isn't that film for you, the poll isn't saying you're wrong, it's just illustrating that there are other barometers of quality that some of us may not be as accustomed to. don't forget, citizen Kane and vertigo had their share of detractors in earlier times, but a greater truth emerges decades after the fact for many of these films as their impacts only begin to be acknowledged
@@michaelpierce6385 It has a little more than that going on, but not much.
in my eyes Citizen Kane did not celebrate capitalist society, it showed how shallow and illusionary it is.
Yeah in the era of postmodern idiocy, it is enough to be black, female or gay to be taken seriously as an artist. The fact that NATO has made the topic of postmodern stupidity of identities its slogan should have rung a bell even in the most idiotic anti- capitalist...
I like Aliens vs Predator
In what world is Get Out better than Pulp Fiction (which isn't even featured on this list)? If it weren't against the standards and practices of this here online community, I might be inclined to wish you people servere bodily harm.
Get Out might be the most offensive choice- only someone with a truly limited frame of reference could put that amateurish work in their top ten.
Can we all ask Apple TV to put this back on their catalogue to buy!
Nice to see more recent works, though for me only In the Mood for Love and Moonlight truly belong there of the 21st century picks. Mad Max, Almost Famous, Boyhood, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Nomadland etc., I think would have been better cerainly than Get Out, a strong film but not extraordinary.
Movies like Wanda, Jeanne Dielmann, Daughters of the Dust etc have become more popular in the last few years, more people have seen them, they have become more widely available and that's why they are moving up and appearing on the charts.
Good Joke!
You mean there's a female quota to fill and not exactly a lot to pick from
Viewed 'Jeanne Dielman . . . ' a few months ago for the 1st time--don't know how I missed it. It deserves a high ranking. But hard to recommend to any but the most enthusiastic film lovers.
@@CRM-114 I mean, it's well acted, well shot, and has a story with a lot to say. I don't know why people can't just accept that not all movies can please everybody.
I was letting out a big sigh of satisfaction when she FINALLY TOOK A ZIP OF COFFEE
0:29 - According to this video, Citizen Kane "reflected a dominant capitalist, patriarchal ideology." Well, I hate the current "dominant capitalist, patriarchal ideology" and I still love "Kane." Silly me!
Recognizing the social context in which a film is embedded doesnt mean you cant love it; those are wholly different responses. And Kane actually portrays its protagonist as ultimately corrupted & destroyed by his own wealth & power as a capitalist patriarch. Obviously, that "reflected...." line in the narration is formulaic PC cant, utterly tiresome by now, but its still a good thing that more attention is consciously being given to directors & writers from groups which have been historically underrepresented in the industry and the new list is excitingly more diverse not only by gender and ethnicity but also geographically & chronologically. I look forward to watching as many of the newcomers as I can.
@@owlcowl What bugged me about the narration is that the speaker seemed to be implying that Kane's time had passed and that it *deserved* to be "overthrown," like a senile old king, by a work directed by a younger non-white-male filmmaker. Whereas, as you say, Kane still has much to say to us today about the psychology of power -- perhaps now more than ever.
I'm very much in favor of nonwhite and non-male film artists being recognized and celebrated. But there is much to admire about and learn from those who critiqued the white patriarchal system "from within," as it were.
I think I'd rather sit through the latest Snow White monstrosity that sit through Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles.
Sight&Sounds inclusivity is to be admired, that said it's somewhat self-defeating no matter the zeitgeist.Thankfully most of the films deserve their place,however subjective . Too many to mention but 'Satantango' is astonishing whilst ''The Turin horse ' ,Bela Tarrs final film before retirement, is in a different dimension ..I've not seen anything like it before or since.
Strangely enough, it's really just the top 10 that is dreadful. Mulholland Drive? Beau travail? Jeanne Dielmann at #1? What a fucking joke. The middle part wasn't too bad. Outside of a few unforgivable exclusions (Tarantino, Polanski), I wouldn't have that much of a problem with a lot of films on this list. That said... Moonlight? Portrait of a Lady on Fire? They're not entitled to their places on merit alone. 2022's list is just schizophrenic as fuck.
Why should inclusivity be admired? Films should be admired for their own qualities rather than the gender, race or sexual inclination of the director.
What I like is that this movie is something new . Wih time we had become familiar with what top films were gonna be
I don't think the canon has changed much, if at all really, it is just the position and the names that have changed. As ever, it is overwhelmingly weighted toward art-house, auteur-driven cinema without much appreciation for genre or popular film. In terms of how we consider or construct 'the canon,' it is not a seismic shift at all, just a rearrangement. I reckon this will change as the 'Video Essay' generation comes of age, but I was more disappointed in the types of films that were picked, rather than any particular film placement. Get Out was the only surprising new entry really, not surprising is the predictable torrent of 'it doesn't deserve to be there' comments that I have seen at its inclusion.
the canon must remain art-house and auteur-driven. If critics don't safeguard cinema's patrimony, no one else will (certainly not the Marvel-consuming public)
@@vodkatonyq - Not necessarily, because some of the greatest films are not art-house or auteur-driven. In fact, those categories didn't even exist for the first 60 years or so of cinema. I would think the canon should remain non-ideological in the first place.
@@offbeat65 why are art-house films necessarily ideological?
@@Nonesovile96 Then why not opt for Angelopoulos? Tsai? Hou? Bartas? Sokurov? Mekas? Reygadas? All better 'Slow cinema' directors than Akerman...(Tarkovsky, Weerasethakul and Tarr already made the list). And why two of her movies in the list?
@@vodkatonyq I don't think y'all understand that most popular and "mainstream" movies don't end up making it on these lists because they die out pretty fast and don't have much substance to them. They are mostly extremely surface level movies that are created to satisfy a one-time viewing to make money at the box office. Most of them don't hold up over the course of 1 year yet alone 10 years. I'm sorry, but the batman and spider man movies will never make it on to these lists because they get outdated extremely quickly.
Such an exciting list, full of established classics and surprises. Beautiful video touching on the history of the poll and of film as an art form. Very moving.
Finally a positive comment! :)
'a political agenda on display' I read somewhere..... Paul Schrader thinks the list has lost its credibility and I agree with him.
you and him are snowflakes lmao
Me too 👍🇨🇷
I think film critics are the ones who have changed more than the film makers. There are no more James Agee's or Pauline Kael's. Come on. Look in your heart. There are some true garbage films on this list.
In this cultural climate Mary Cassatt is now a greater artist than Degas and Berthe Morisot is greater than Manet.
Yes today, these awards and lists today are such that white straight men are discriminated against. Compare this same poll to the one just 10 years ago and look at how woke, radicalized, and even more of out touch with even the mass of sophisticated film goers it has become.
Cassatt is and has always been on par with Degas lol. Not so much with Morisot though.
can we all just agree that the director's list is almost perfect - especially the top 10 (if you exclude in the mood for love)
What's wrong with In the Mood for Love?
We agree, BUT we also adore In the Mood for Love and should be in the top 10.
I love this poll too much ❤️
I honestly really loved this new list, because a lot of best films of all time lists were literally starting to feel all the same. And weren't triggering a lot of new conversations about film, just emphasizing the old ones
exactly, i had never even heard of daughters of the dust and the ascent
Jeanne Dielman, 23 at #1 discredits the list lol
these lists will continue to lose their importance and relevence as you DEI them into the ground.
but hey, as long as it's a win for feminism today, right ?
what else could possibly matter ?
Utter claptrap alert
I love when people say, “We have to hold films up by their merits,” but when women and people of color show up in the conversation, the same people are like, “movies shouldn’t have quotas.” Y’all are funny! 😂
Those “same people” seem to live inside your imagination
y'all are not!
I have no problem for Jeanne Dielman taking the 1st spot, but the overall quality is terrible, Get Out in the top 100 film of all time? seriously?
That's the problem with stretching the number of voters and the list is bond to include some clunkers. Don't forget this is a poll or tallying of votes and here's the results. I look forward to reading the individual voters' lists and it's more fun to read.
Get out is a modern classic tho
Get Out is the most over rated film in a LONG time. Anybody see Stepford Wives???
@@amarevanhook7453 Sarcasm? It would have to be unless you're under 35.
This list tells us only that one set of cultural oligarchs has been replaced by another. The one thing that both elites have in common is a notion of their own superiority over the vulgar mob: we, the watchers of films. Why else would they gather every ten years to name 'The Greatest Films of All Time', other than out of an arrogant belief that they alone have they right to tell the rest of us what constitutes Greatest?
We should scorn all who try to tell us not merely what constitutes a great film, but that the only acceptable measure is that of a self-regrading cultural aristocracy. A plague on both your houses.
Sites like IMDB are already there showing the popular opinion. Why is it anger-worthy that they asked the particular opinions of directors and critics, most likely the two groups that know the most about film?
More diversity is good, but quota-centric votes skewed the ranking.
??? Maybe the rankings were heavily skewed previously and the attempt to diversify the voters has rightly diversified the selections.
They still had Citizen Kane and Vertigo up there and returned Singing in the Rain to the top 10.
We don't know to what extent this was the case, and I would not jump to the conclusion that this is the reason the list changed when there was a big change in the voter base and women filmmakers has seen a massive degree of added exposure and availability the last decade. Of course, I'm sure many had quotas of various kinds, but this has always happened. I find it ironic that one of the loudest critics of the results, Paul Schrader, openly wrote about having quotas when presenting his list. (His quotas were 1 silent and 1 comedy (+ he purposefully excluded films from the last 25 years and experimental cinema).
@@dalegarraway9865 Define 'rightly diversified'. Because in reality, they're nothing more than a bunch of close minded academia types pushing their political ideology, and that's it. I don't see that as being 'rightly diversified', i see it for what it is: PC rubbish.
@Mikey Focus Diversity of creative films, not of minor demographics.
@@Kraisedion I don’t think voters should care at all what the directors look like. It’s obvious that Sights and Sounds pushed for more female directors and POC to be in the top 100. Voting should be solely on the merits of the film itself and not what the director looks like. The list is tainted and anyone that cares about the integrity of the list knows it.
Sight and Sound should change their name to Blind and Dumb.
Don’t diss them They just sent out the lists
👏👏👏👏👏
Te felicito
Doubt youve even watched them
@@QueenJneeuQ I've seen all the top 20 and 95 of the top 100.I watched Touki Bouki after it made 2012 list and found it awful.Many people have never heard of JD,will watch it after seeing it No.1 and will be left scratching their head.I personally admire JD ,watched it once 30 years ago but I wouldn't put it in my top thousand (out of 11,000).
I liked that Jaenne Dielman has dethroned Citizen Kane and Vertigo, one cannot imagine a different style of filmmaking.
Not deserving enough to replace something like Vertigo or Citizen Kane tbh
@@dawson6196 perhaps not but art is subjective, even if everyone in the universe votes for the favorite films, the final list isnt objective
"Social servile constructs"? While, for forty-odd years, the man is trapped down a mine or stuck in a saw mill or weighed down by tons of bricks or even wedged behind a desk developing DVT, then retiring only to die a few years later while his wife lives on. My poor heart bleeds for a woman who doesn't have the imagination to use her freedom wisely. S&S is nought but political dickswinging.
Without having any statistics to base this on I believe that there are about 50 male directors for every female director in ALL levels of filmmaking. I’ve gone to film school with women, but usually it’s the men that actually go around class asking people to help them with a project they’re directing. It doesn’t matter, but the fact is that less women are interested in directing (and directing is a hard and stressful job mind you). So if 1 in 50 directors are women, then it makes sense that 2 in 100 should be on this list, or well, in reality it would probably make sense if there was 1/100 or less. Being a woman doesn’t automatically make you a good director. I would personally place Barbie way higher than Jean Dielman, which was also made by a female director. Heck, where is Lost In Translation in this conversation?
It should also be noted that these polls used to inspire discussion and passion for film. Now, it's met with "that's stupid" or "this is a joke." Maybe the worst thing to happen to Sight & Sound isn't the critics and directors, or even the culture and societal norms, but those who have found it. Maybe it's also the fact that fragile egos are being challenged by the shift in what is considered classic. Portrait of a Lady on Fire is the best film to come out in the past few years and I'm thankful it's being recognized. Beau Travail is a near perfect film. Chantal Ackerman's film may not be the greatest film ever, but hey, Citizen Kane isn't Orsen Welles' best film, directing or starring in, and Vertigo isn't in the top 3 of Hitchcock films, and yet there was little to no scrutiny when they were chosen, because what is masterful about them is undeniable, as is Ackerman's classic. One must also remember, each critic and director were only given ten movies to choose from. One person's top 10 choice trumps many who didn't choose it. Of course we all have our own views on the 100, but what if we could only choose ten?
I would argue that people calling the list stupid or a joke ARE passionate about film. People who don't really care about film would have no real opinion about the list.
Maybe people complaining about the list before the changes had fragile egos instead?
Citizen Kane is clearly highly influential and considered good long before many people were born so little scrutiny wouldn't be shocking. Vertigo I havent seen but no motive to usurp Citizen Cane unless critics really thought so, but there is motive to insert more women as much as possible so scrutiny is likely, and I recently watched Jeanne Dielman and think it's laughable as #1. Though, I like In the Mood for Love and question why it's #5 or w/e as well; whole list seems wonky
Thanks for your thoughts;I enjoyed them. I have considered a 'personal top 10' before,very difficult ,however,'Bergman's Winter Light' would be at 3, Bela Tarrs 'Satantango ' second..and top of the lot by a cosmic distance 'The Turin Horse '.
Agreed re the profanity offered by those in disagreement with the polls..whilst I may not agree with every inclusion,it is the most comprehensive online. 'Jeanne Dielman' I feel is much more influential than at first noticeable '..in some ways it carries the torch for aspects of minimalism..Bresson,Bergman,Tarkovsky & Tarr doing the same in their own style.
Re adding many more mainstream films,as suggested many times,this poll is one acknowledged by purists of film,as such is represented so.
@@samirshukir3262 Interesting that you mention Bresson, as two of his movies fall into the category Ackerman's film does. I only liked Au Hasard Balthazer and I disliked Mouchette, but their influence on films that came later is undeniable. Bresson is a master of details, often forgoing acting ability when choosing his stars, because it doesn't matter to him. His technical ability would have me suggesting all of his films, whether i like them or not, and I have no problem with people rating both of those films in the top 100 of all-time.
My best of Bressons is' Pickpocket' but would like to see 'A Man Escaped '..I think it's based on a true story. The 2 you mention are masterful,no doubt.
When political correctness becomes more important than artistic merit you get a list like this. It's worthless.
Take the politically correct bs first choice and toss it out the cinematic window, Vertigo is still number one, again.
Where the heck are Apocalypse Now 1979, Lawrence Of Arabia 1962 and War And Peace 1967, to name a few, sadly and unforgivably absent, again.
Ultimately, it's a subjective process, no matter hard one tries to argue that it isn't. Even the criteria one applies for "greatness" is subjective and even arbitrary. That said, regardless what has been tradition for the Sight and Sound poll, I personally believe "timelessness" is one essential criterion, i.e., a film should stand the test of time to be considered "GREAT." And I don't believe that can be determined in less than a generation. But again, that's just my own subjective OPINION.
No, actually there are criteria against which artistic achievements can be measured. Not everything is boundless relativism. That is a myth perpetuated by the very kind of people who came to dominate this list, in order to justify their incompetence. They are the ones who teach kids at universities, because they were not good enough to create remarkable art themselves, so they instruct them to slap a political blurb on whatever garbage they make, and call it art. A whole new generation of kids is made to believe that Art is nothing more than kitsch with an identity-politics tag.
@@offbeat65 I was referring to "art." More BS right-wing elitism disguised as art criticism. Bugger off!
"Objectivity in art is an elitist notion. What complete and utter bilge.
@@CRM-114 I see. Artistic merit is a matter of consensus. Lordy, how conformist!
Vertigo is not a great film. Very Stacey like most Hitchcock.
where's taxi driver?
Putting films about women and made by women just because they are women, is not at all a good reason to consider them the best films compared to others.
You should watch the video again, because you clearly didn't understand what this year list represents
@@victorruiz3877
It represents the inclusivity emerged in the recent years. Therefore: black cinema, queer cinema and what home video has allowed us to know. Ok if it's just about representing, but it's another thing that the film was really influential, that it really settled. Jeanne Dielman is known by very few, not even all cinephiles, yet he jumped from 36th place to first. For me it's a forcing.
I don't think a film like Touki Bouki is that widely known at all, we can even say it's new.
A completely different story for Miyazaki's films, as well as for Mulholland and In the mood for love.
To say that Bicycle Thieves and The Adventure were placed almost immediately at the top of the rankings, does not justify several choices this year, above all because in those years those films really created a new era: neorealism or the theme of the individual in Antonioni, things didn't exist before. Jeanne Dielman has been around for 50 years and is only now gaining prominence?
@@trasparent Jeanne Dielman had already placed at 36 in the previous poll 10 years ago.
@@vodkatonyq Yes, I wrote 35th, now I'll correct it.
@@trasparent Jeanne dielman has been a known and very influential film for many directors for decades. Obviously not as well known as citizen Kane or vertigo for instance, but it's definitely not as if the film just gained popularity in the past few years or anything.
The Sight & Sound charity list 😂
Lost all credibility. No Lawrence of Arabia? No Chinatown? No Godfather II? Now shoe leather tops it all. SMH.
A lot of comments showing that Akerman was way ahead of her time with her analysis of gender relations
Jeanne Dielman being called the greatest movie of all time is an absolute joke. I might actually cry at how disgraceful that is.
Why? It is one of the most important, influential and celebrated films of all-time. :/
@@Kraisedion I'm not trying to be rude but do you really think that Jeanne Dielman is a better movie than Citizen Kane?
@@brandedtotroll9153 I don't personally think so, but my personal taste is not really relevant in the matter (especially as I'd pick 100+ films above Kane as well). Jeanne Dielman is one of the most respected films of all time and is by no means out of place.
@@Kraisedion - I see some circularity in that argument. Something justifiably called great because it's been called great.
@@offbeat65 I'm not arguing that it is great because it is called great, how great I personally find it is irrelevant. I am arguing that it is not "an absolute joke", "a disgrace" or as many have put it, "uprooting the canon", etc. because it is a film that has been heralded as a masterpiece since release and is seen as one of the key films of cinema. It was already in the top echelon of the canon and higher availability and focus in the last decade made more critics and filmmakers (re)watch it, propelling it to its newfound status.
The question is: Why is it a joke or disgraceful that one of the most acclaimed films of all-time landed on 1?!
We can discuss the film on its merits - though I personally prefer Kane and possibly also Vertigo and besides would not have voted for any of the 3 films myself - but it is the argument that it is somehow a disgrace/joke that this happened that I am interested in getting to the bottom of. Why is that the case?
Rolling Stone name Lou Reed's METAL MACHINE MUSIC best album of all time.
Really shows how woke destroyers everything
Cinema should be viewed cinematically rather than as an agenda of "wokism". Cinema or for that matter any form of art is beyond gender and other "marketable" isms. And that is where you have failed Sight and Sound.
Your selection has turned film into an agenda of propaganda. There is enough discrimination and compartmentilizing in the world today which has divided society. So please refrain from judging art in that "outfocused" light. Cinema is cinema. That's all.
How did they fail here? How has their selection turned film into an agenda of propaganda? (and what propaganda?)
@@CRM-114 "They failed because for them the (female / "feminist") "representation" was clearly more important than art."
Why do you believe that?
" It's actually pretty obvious since "Jeanne Dielman" is not only an attack on art itself, it's not even "slow cinema" but rather deserves its own category which I would call "watching paint dry"."
Jeanne Dielman is one of the most respected, discussed and analysed films of all time. It was 36th in the last poll in 2012, and has enjoyed even more exposure and availability since. It is a brilliant masterwork, and indeed a film that might deserve its own category despite being incredibly influential.
Calling it an attack on art itself is interesting. I never saw it quite like that, but there is truth to it in how it recalibrates what action is and makes us adjust. Films striking an opposition to conventions are frequently heralded, be it the French New Wave, Dogme movement, Cinema Marginal, etc. "Anti-art"/"Anti-beauty"/"Anti-film" is a really excited road to go down. JLG for instance took this much further in Wind From the East arguing along with Gorin against essentially any form of traditional narrative cinema - and then we have previous examples like the Lettrist movement with wonderful films like Venom and Eternity - but that is not at all the company I would put Dielman in.
@@CRM-114 "If you take a look at all the new entries (especially newer films) and the films that jumped forward a lot, they're almost all directed by women or non-white people. Having a subject about feminism or racism also helps a lot. This is not a coincidence anymore; in fact it's desired and they're pretty open about it too."
Why do you think this is because, as you put it earlier, "representation was clearly more important than art", and not because of the diversified voting group, with (likely) far more women and non-white voters as well as the ongoing and broad discussion about these topics and these films that have been building more and more over the last decade, along with the heightened availability of these films?
To use Dielman as an example, while it was heralded as a masterpiece since release, it's increased popularity and visibility over the last 15 years is quite extreme, complete with the Criterion DVD release in the late 00s, the blu-ray release and streaming, climbing to 36th on the last critic poll and just generally being "everywhere". It was impossible that it would not have a major jump, it already had a huge jump up to 36th last time around.
The same is the case for other films by women and "non-white" directors, with many critics, academics and labels placing them on the forefront of conversation and giving people stronger incentives to see and learn about these films. The canon of films people absolutely should see has changed.
The results seem organic to me.
""Jeanne Dielman" breaks the rules but not in a good way. Its substance would hardly be enough for a short film. When you're forced to watch a woman doing the dishes FOR MANY MINUTES (even several times from behind so you can't even see her face) or just sitting at a ktichen table or in the livingroom for an eternity without doing anything, then there is simply no justification for that. "
No justification?
The film is utterly spellbinding.
Seeing these repetitive movement transform what we consider action and changes how we as viewers, at least in a successful viewing, need to view time in a different way than we normally would, becoming transfixed and spellbound by movements, time and space. Seeing daily chores because integral in character development and suspense.
Using the techniques of slow cinema to build suspense and spellbind us was not unique, we can bring up obvious names such as Antonioni and Tarkovsky, and perhaps most prominent Jacques Becker's exquisite prison escape film Le trou as key examples, but there was a central difference here. Chantal Akerman wanted actions generally not seen to be important, to carry the action and even build suspense. Showing Jeanne Dielman clean cabinets or prepare meals is not the same as seeing prisoners slowly hack through cement. It is not just the mode of filmmaking, though this too was more extreme than her predecessors, but what the form amplified was different.
Cinemagoers would leave their homes and look up at a large screen showing domestic chores, the context of this is almost unfathomable, especially as I have sadly never been able to see the film at the cinema myself. Even in your own home, there is however something different in specifically choosing to watch actions and movements you often prefer not to think about even when doing them yourself.
The form, language and approach Akerman used in the creation of the film itself made these actions come to life, feel integral, and in the final act, where the route is ever so slightly adjusted, fill us with dread and uncertainty. She is fully successful, at least when the film works for us, to slow us down to the film's pace, leave us engrossed by every movement, understanding their importance and through this essentially creates a thriller of epic proportions.
IndieWire went as far as to call Jeanne Dielman an action film a few years ago, and that is a fairly mainstream source. Many herald it as a great thriller. I'd be inclined to agree.
Maybe slow/contemplative cinema is not for you, but master directors like Akerman, Tsai, Tarr, Weerasethakul are not anti-film or anti-art, they are deeply respected artists.
"But to call it one of the most analysed films of all time is simply wrong. What's your source here? Are you just making things up? When it comes to the most analysed films, works such as Citizen Kane, Vertigo, Mulholland Dr., The Shining or 2001 come to mind but certainly not "Jeanne Dielman"."
These films are likely far more frequently thaught and analysed than Dielman, but it has its clear place in academia.
@@CRM-114 "I explained it already. Sight and Sound didn't directly choose these films, yes, but they made sure to let certain "critics" vote that clearly have an agenda."
That's a pretty out-there conspiracy theory. Got any evidence of this?
Stating that specific voters had various agendas, quotas, etc. is one thing, but stating that S&S purposefully included critics, academics, programmers and directors on the basis of their political leanings/agenda is completely different.
They did specifically try to diversify the voter group? Is that what you are referring to? If so, extreme reach.
" Why don't you say, for instance, that it's not boring but rather confronts me with boredom itself and forces me to deconstruct the meaning of the phenomen of boredom? See, I can play this game too but there's no truth in it."
That would have been a decent argument if you were serious actually, it does force us to look and boredom and routine, though it is certainly boring.
Sounds to me that you need narratives/stories and are not a fan of abstract art. Hopefully you will learn to appreciate a broader spectrum of art in the future. Of course, contemplative cinema is not for everyone, but Dielman does tell a story, a story of a woman trapped in a routine, and when the seems break, just a little, everything crumbles. It is a thoroughly powerful work, but of course, that is just a matter of taste and opinion.
It is perfectly fine if you are not into contemplative cinema or enjoy Jeanne Dielman, but it was part of the films singled out as being amongst the 5 greatest films of all time by both critics/academics and directors in separate polls, so in terms of the inner film community there are certainly many, many people who disagree with you.
Even the loudest critics of the results tend to love Dielman. The loudest name of social media has probably been Paul Schrader, calling the results "distorted woke reappraisal", which I strongly disagree with, but even he makes it clear that Dielman is one of his favourite films.
You can laugh at them all you want (I'm not among them, I just think it is a great film, would not place it in my own top 500) or all its fans, but that seems pretty disrespectful.
The commentary is pretty close to someone dismissing thinking Citizen Kane is the greatest film of all time because it is "b/w, old-fashioned and boring" - people have different tastes, all fine and good, but the reaction from so many here is just bizarre.
When you call yourself " Sight and Sound", that should be the fundamental criteria for selection. JD is a masterpiece in its own right and "one" of the greatest films of all times but definitely not "the" greatest. Whether narrative or abstract, it should be viewed purely on the basis on what "cinema" essentially is as an art.
Andrei Rublev for example or for that matter all Tarkovsky films have an abstract narrative as well as narrative abstraction. And on purely cinematic terms its head and shoulder above JD.
I am not denying the greatness of JD, but it's selection as the greatest film of all time is definitely agenda driven.
Lol, watching all the cinephiles getting pissed off for their movies not in the top 100 is funny asf
Terrible terrible list....👎👎👎
Damn... Sight and Sound has become full-on woke... A shame.
Choosing Jeanne Dielman as best film is like choosing chopsticks as the greatest musical composition of all time.
Not one Luis Bunuel film in the Top 150? Not even The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie - one of if not the greatest comedy of manners ever made? A film still relevant to this day for its genius depiction of how social brainwashing and in-grouping can lead even the strongest minds to decay? I think the number one choice is a brave and necessary shift in critical thought of what even constitutes "great film-making", but Bunuel's oeuvre is no less radical for the way it constantly critiqued and downright mocked Conservative power structures and thought.
If Bunuel was a woman, one of his would be in the top ten for sure.
Embarrassing.
Great to see all the diversity in this new list as well as the move away from the rankings being a meritocracy.
And this lady sounds like a liberal leftist. And no problem with a lot of these new movies on this new list is that the movies? Don’t feel like there as good as the older films. Sure Parasite, Get Out, & Moonlight were fantastic in my opinion, but there to reset for them to be in this movie, instead of letting them marinate for a decade. Now I do love Mulholland Drive definitely in my top five but I think portrait of a Lady on fire shouldn’t be in the top 100 even in the 2032 list. In the 1999 movie Beau Travail is good but not great, no, it was on the list in 2012, but I think it should stay in the same spot it was in 2012. Now Jeanne Deilman being #1 is absolutely insane, I think it shouldn’t even be in the top 100 in my opinion. But shocks me or films that are not on the list like Lawrence of Arabia, 12 angry men, and Schindler’s list. Flawless masterpieces
Yeah it's a good start, but bring on 2032 Indeed. By then, hopefully all of the white male directed films will have been pushed out of the top 100, bringing true diversity closer.
Oh for heaven's sakes... Anyone who thinks this movie is somehow better than The Bicycle Thieves, Citizen Kane, or Vertigo doesn't know anything about the art of cinema. Those three films are genuine classics which reveal a great deal about human nature even as they tell compelling stories masterfully. Jeanne Dielman is a 3 1/2 hour death march. The inclusion of this gigantic turd anywhere on a list of great movies is a splendid example of how the pathology of ideological possession can enslave the gullible.
This list (and this godawful video) has everything to do with mindless identity politics and exactly nothing to do with art.
@@dseanmat - Indeed. It gives credibility to the ridicule about wokeism.
Jeanne Dielman is a far more challenging film than any of the 3 films you mentioned. Yes, I do prefer all 3, but I know many (including one loudly "anti-woke" person) who holds it amongst their all-time favourites. Even Paul Schrader, who called the placement of Jeanne Dielman a distorted woke reappraisal also called it one of his favourite films.
It is time to realize that a large portion of hardcore cinephiles are into contemplative cinema, experimental cinema, etc. See the fandom of Tsai, Tarr, Diaz, Rivette and indeed Akerman. Jeanne Dielman is one of the standouts here, and it makes perfect sense that when you gather groups of people who live and breathe cinema that you will get a large number of voters loving just this.
You can also see Satantango on the top 100, and many will proclaim this to be far superior to Citizen Kane, Vertigo and The Bicycle Thieves as well (and it was directed by a man).
@@Kraisedion Why is the gender of the filmmakers relevant, any more than the color of their hair is relevant? The movie's the thing.
@@dseanmat I never said it was, so I'm not sure why you are asking me.
Though to answer your question seriously, we should not separate art and artist. Perspective matters, and knowing about their intent, views, background, etc. can add a lot to a film.
For instance, knowing that The Last Stage (1948) was directed by an actual concentration camp survivor is likely to at least in part change how you interact with it.
In the case of Akerman and Jeanne Dielman, a part of what makes the film great is Akerman's focus on what was at the time considered women's chores, activities not given added importance, and elevating them with the power of cinema.
The fact that she was a woman will not be important to everyone, but it is based on how people engage with cinema it is likely to have some impact on how they see and experience the work.
Speaking more broadly, one of the things that is the most fascinating to many cinephiles is changing perspectives, styles, culture, norms, etc. It is a part of why we watch films from all around the world, and a part of why many, for instance, give an extra focus to Japanese cinema, French cinema, Indian cinema, etc.
Due to the different gender roles, gender expressions, etc. etc. women and men often have different forms of being, expressing themselves, etc. and this can be just as interesting to explore as the differences between cinema from different countries or different subcultures. That's not to say men make similar films to eachother, that women do or that, for example, Japanese directors do, American directors do, etc. but it is part of a lense many use and may have some impact on their experience of the work and what they read into it.
Of course, many may have no such interests, proclaim death of the author, etc. and that's a perfectly fair approach as well. Personally I think films can and should be read many ways and that the more you know about a director, a writer, an actor, the backstory of a film, etc. the more layers you have to dig into and while it is usually not really a key factor for me, gender, sexuality, can also play a role.
That is one of the worst movies I ever watch. No even in my top 100000. If anything is in my list of the worst movies of all time.
booooooooring!
And in the thumbnail the worst film of all times?
There is an objective standard to judge art (all art) that has little to do with subjective opinion. That is dead now.
No, the aesthetic standards are changing. That happens over the course of history. No single art work is going to remain on top forever. An art form doesn't die because there is a shift in taste, an art form dies if opinions remain static and no one is allowed to question what is 'best'.
@@dylanmcdermott1110 the aesthetic standards aren't even changing. Jeanne Dielman is just as formally and aesthetically radical as Vertigo or Citizen Kane.
@@vodkatonyq At this point, one can only repeat that Jeanne Dielman is a rip-off of Fassbinder's "Warum läuft Herr R. Amok?" (1970). Of course ideology is at work here. And the video commentary makes little effort to disguise that.
@@henningbackhaus6268 Ideology is at work everywhere. Considering that some so-called objectivity in art is superior than diversity is ideology.
@@TucoRope2Tight This is window dressing. The quality of a work of art is measured by the unity of content and form. The ideology of "diversity" is often enough the defence of a monoculture, which is based on superficial, unchanging characteristics. That has nothing to do with art.
Okay, narrator, you're woke. Now go back to sleep.
What a pretentious list. No action movies, no pure comedies? BS!
Some Like a Hot, Sherlock Jr, The Apartment, Modern Times, etc. are comedies.
@@vodkatonyq LOL. Im talking about modern comedies, not slow "comedies" from the 50s. Where is Anchorman, Borat and Super Bad to name a few? Not pretentious enough?
@@joecoe4416 Maybe IMDb 250 could be a list you are looking for
@@joecoe4416 sorry but I love all those movies you mentioned but they don’t fit in here. They’re not even participating in the language of cinema which is why I suspect they’re omitted
Of the four examples of comedies, Tony mentioned, only one is from the 50s. None of them would be considered "slow". Nor pretentious.