Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 1, 2022 23:36:33 GMT
what's more likely: reputable film rag polls more women (and more people in general) than ever before and films by women over the last ten years gaining traction among greater film trends, or said reputable film rag somehow convinces hundreds of established critics (and directors!) to vote for a nearly 50 year old movie that was already hugely acclaimed in those circles as-is?
|
|
hilderic
Junior Member
Posts: 307
Likes: 132
|
Post by hilderic on Dec 1, 2022 23:41:04 GMT
The Seventh Seal AND Wild Strawberries AND Fanny and Alexander drop off the main list.
Heartbreaking.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 1, 2022 23:42:56 GMT
Jeanne Dielmann is nigh unwatchable. Portrait of a Lady on Fire over a Godfather Part II or Pulp Fiction or Annie Hall? A list like this espouses utter contempt for the artform. The absence of Lawrence of Arabia and Raging Bull also is kind of shocking - those 2 films have been written about so eloquently by many film scholars as the best works of their 2 canonical filmmakers - and to drop out entirely when Portrait of a Lady on Fire - which I liked - made my top 10 iirc but the 30th best film of all-time - nah........and I'm in touch with my inner lesbian thank you very much........ I don't know that the list shows contempt for the artform overall - but it shows some contempt for works like those - rigourous, defined, classical arcs, male-centric, formalism...... Tess would fit in on this list if not for its director ........sigh
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 1, 2022 23:43:59 GMT
Raging Bull is a poor man's This Sporting Life. Glad it's off the list and it never should've been there in the first place.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 4,372
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Dec 1, 2022 23:58:50 GMT
Raging Bull is a poor man's This Sporting Life. Glad it's off the list and it never should've been there in the first place. We really need a dislike button here.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 2, 2022 0:11:10 GMT
Can't fit everything into a 100 but zero films from....... Altman, Lumet, Woody, Coens, De Palma, Wyler, Huston, Cassavetes, Clint, Hawks, Kazan, Elaine May, Spielberg! (*Note: Directors' List had Jaws and A Woman Under the Influence) Oof! No Malick either which is more of a shock to me - Polanski, Allen, Cassavetes are "likely" politically motivated on some level (sex offender, toxic male (or whatever) misogynist (to some) - also Peckinpah (see Cassavetes) ........maybe - it's hard to say about that.....but Malick is a guy who would fit in this list and Tree of Life could easily have Portrait of Lady On Fire's spot and I wouldn't blink twice although I don't care for the Malick and like the Sciamma........of the lists "rationale" seems arbitrary rather than coherent but like I said......things change...... Tree of Life is the biggest "miss" here for me from my predictions I think......
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,390
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Dec 2, 2022 0:17:42 GMT
Like most things in life you have to do with what you have. Jeanna Dielman as no.1 is both a funny and triggering joke to those who say “The Godfather, Citizen Kane and Vertigo doesn’t have what it takes” but also it is clearly a highly concious move from voters, as pointed out above you don’t rise triumphant so easily, very mixed feelings about it despite being such a fantastic film. Scrolling through the list is better to see which director got in as there would never be an agreement on represation of their work, imo the wrong Denis, Wong and Ozu are in the top 10.
I’d have to look more carefully to that list but the amount of names left out also come off as agenda driven. Is there a Polanski in there, by any chance ? No Buñuel is straight up crime.
And, of all the films that came out the last decade, that’s the one that ranks higher ? a shocking joke. Once again, serving the “of the moment” nature of the poll.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 2, 2022 0:27:43 GMT
SEISMIC SHIFT 1. Never thought I'd see the day where a movie directed by a hot female (talking about 1974) is the #1 film of all time. 2. HA! No Malick on either lists. Didn't think I'd see that day either. I was calling him a hack as early as 2004/2005. I've since learned to appreciate him a little bit more through the years, but still he's not anywhere near the cream of the crop for me. So I'd say good riddance this guy is old news now. Him being replaced by Jordan Pele, Bong Joon-Ho, and Barry Jenkins who would've thought that day would come. As for the rest of the list.......well.... ya know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I have my way of looking at things, they have theirs. I'm an Akerman guy, and I praised News From Home long before anyone said a damn word about it. Before Marker started making these lists, he was my favorite director already and they just be stealing my thunder not once but a bunch of times. As an Akerman guy, I prefer 3 movies at the very least (possibly 4) of her movies to Jeanne Dielmann. If I could reorder the Top 3.... it's Vertigo, Jeanne Dielman, Citizen Kane.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Dec 2, 2022 0:38:32 GMT
what's more likely: reputable film rag polls more women (and more people in general) than ever before and films by women over the last ten years gaining traction among greater film trends, or said reputable film rag somehow convinces hundreds of established critics (and directors!) to vote for a nearly 50 year old movie that was already hugely acclaimed in those circles as-is? While of course the fact that more women and people in general voting was a factor, just strikes me as DEEPLY unlikely we go from zero movies by female ever coming CLOSE to make the top 10 to one TOPPING the list and several others making the top 10 or very close. And come on, while it's not like Chantal Akerman or Claire Denis or Celine Sciamma were unpopular or unknown among critics and cinephiles, it's also very clear and undeniable that they didn't had the prestige or acclaim or a Hitchcock, Welles or Kubrick, among both male and female critics.
And again, it's not the first time there's a campaign- in 2012 there was a clear push by Sight & Sound to end Citizen Kane's dominance to attract more attention to the list.
Plus, we see "serious critics" clearly rigging votes every year in these critic awards that try to be Oscar predictors. You can take every critic of the group list of best movies of the year, see how the group votes, and clearly doesn't match.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 2, 2022 0:54:28 GMT
what's more likely: reputable film rag polls more women (and more people in general) than ever before and films by women over the last ten years gaining traction among greater film trends, or said reputable film rag somehow convinces hundreds of established critics (and directors!) to vote for a nearly 50 year old movie that was already hugely acclaimed in those circles as-is? While of course the fact that more women and people in general voting was a factor, just strikes me as DEEPLY unlikely we go from zero movies by female ever coming CLOSE to make the top 10 to one TOPPING the list and several others making the top 10 or very close. And come on, while it's not like Chantal Akerman or Claire Denis or Celine Sciamma were unpopular or unknown among critics and cinephiles, it's also very clear and undeniable that they didn't had the prestige or acclaim or a Hitchcock, Welles or Kubrick, among both male and female critics.
And again, it's not the first time there's a campaign- in 2012 there was a clear push by Sight & Sound to end Citizen Kane's dominance to attract more attention to the list.
Plus, we see "serious critics" clearly rigging votes every year in these critic awards that try to be Oscar predictors. You can take every critic of the group list of best movies of the year, see how the group votes, and clearly doesn't match.
things like this happen every decade or so and it is ludicrous to think that s&s was influencing this directly more than, say, distributors or outside critical trends (which, if you want to make that argument, i would probably agree with you). in 2012 bela tarr went from an outsider figure to someone fighting for the title of the best modern director, and you saw similar things happening with weerasethakul. dw griffith's downturn in the last 20 years has been something that would have been completely unprecedented to a 20th century critic. godard had significantly more acclaim in 2012 than he ever did before and lang became a two or three hit director when he had previously been considered of having a bergman's worth of masterpieces. "akerman and varda dying, their films being more widely available, and greater presence of women in the industry led to their films being significantly more acclaimed" is something which entirely makes sense to me. in 2012 it made waves that CK was not the highest ranked film. in the 10 years since then i have never heard the claim that S&S intentionally "pushed" or "campaigned" for people not to vote for it. it being a headline once the votes were tallied and it being pushed to potential voters is obviously a completely different issue. i have no idea what your last bit is talking about
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Dec 2, 2022 1:02:18 GMT
There hasn't been a shift like this ever. Even Citizen Kane jumping from not being on the list in 1952 to topping in 1962 isn't the same because it was only one vote away from not entering the top 10, and Hearst dying made it easier for the film to become more widely seen. Jeanne Dielman was #35, Beau Travail #78 in 2012, Cleo didn't even made the top 100. Portrait of a Lady on Fire was nowhere near as acclaimed as, say, Parasite, and that was only 3 years ago.
As for my last part, my point is that these "serious critics" rig polls like this all the time, it's certainly not implausible they would do this again. And yes, in 2012 it was clear Sight & Sound wanted something else to replace Citizen Kane, and was commented on around the time.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 2, 2022 1:11:36 GMT
There hasn't been a shift like this ever. Even Citizen Kane jumping from not being on the list in 1952 to topping in 1962 isn't the same because it was only one vote away from not entering the top 10, and Hearst dying made it easier for the film to become more widely seen. Jeanne Dielman was #35, Beau Travail #78 in 2012, Cleo didn't even made the top 100. Portrait of a Lady on Fire was nowhere near as acclaimed as, say, Parasite, and that was only 3 years ago. As for my last part, my point is that these "serious critics" rig polls like this all the time, it's certainly not implausible they would do this again. And yes, in 2012 it was clear Sight & Sound wanted something else to replace Citizen Kane, and was commented on around the time. The number of voters have doubled since 2012, going from over 800 to over 1600. And while everyone has their own individual agendas to their list (i.e. people voting for Kane out of a sense of obligation or leaving it off as a statement), I highly doubt Sight & Sound itself had some kind of agenda. Jeanne Dielman is the most acclaimed woman-directed film and if critics wanted to ensure some female representation in their list, it makes sense as the prime candidate. Add those to the people who do genuinely adore the film, rediscovered or elevated it following Akerman's passing, and the inclusion of significantly more diverse voting body and it makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 2, 2022 1:12:58 GMT
Raging Bull is a poor man's This Sporting Life. Glad it's off the list and it never should've been there in the first place. We really need a dislike button here. with you 100%. Perfect for the takes in here complaining about a list featuring 12 female-directed films out of 100 having too many female directors.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 2, 2022 1:13:33 GMT
Not exactly sure how they could have even attempted to rig this considering they publicly release every individual ballot.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 2, 2022 1:24:28 GMT
There hasn't been a shift like this ever. Even Citizen Kane jumping from not being on the list in 1952 to topping in 1962 isn't the same because it was only one vote away from not entering the top 10, and Hearst dying made it easier for the film to become more widely seen. Jeanne Dielman was #35, Beau Travail #78 in 2012, Cleo didn't even made the top 100. Portrait of a Lady on Fire was nowhere near as acclaimed as, say, Parasite, and that was only 3 years ago. As for my last part, my point is that these "serious critics" rig polls like this all the time, it's certainly not implausible they would do this again. And yes, in 2012 it was clear Sight & Sound wanted something else to replace Citizen Kane, and was commented on around the time. L'avventura came in 2nd place in 1962 a mere 2 years after it came out. did antonioni pay off the S&S staff? Persona also featured in the 1972 top 10 only 6 years after its premiere. Battleship Potemkin has been a shoe-in for top 10 in every poll up until 2012. did a rich investor pay them off, seeing as how it was quite high in every single poll up until then? why was it ranked lower than Man With a Movie Camera as the soviet silent of choice when up until then it had been the obvious favorite? what's also worth noting is that, as far as S&S specifically goes, polls prior to 2012 had somewhere between 25-50 people picking the #1 pick for that year. in 2012 that number went up to 191 (which saw several majors shifts as a result), and who knows what it ended up being for 2022. the fact that there was relatively few changes in prior years can be attributed to the fact that they were generally polling similar numbers of people and, likely, the same critics and crowds poll to poll. please give a citation on "serious critics rigging polls," and then give a shred of evidence that the 2012 or 2022 polls were rigged beyond "S&S wanted a different winner" when it is quite obvious that it is the voters in both who "wanted a different winner" (which is, of course, totally within their right - they were the ones called to vote).
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 2, 2022 1:28:13 GMT
Funny I claimed the previous election was rigged and the same guys claiming this poll is rigged jumped on me.
|
|
|
Post by ThisIsNotAnID on Dec 2, 2022 1:41:48 GMT
Curiously awaiting the full 250 to see if some of the missing names mentioned here will make it. Still, I guess I don't understand the complaints. I don't take griping about individual films or directors (except if there seems to be a trend) seriously because everyone will have one of those. Again, you cannot complain about more recent films since previous S&S polls have also ranked recent releases quite high. I saw on other parts of the internet plenty of complaints about the younger critics who were invited to vote which seems silly since even plenty of them are knowledgeable about cinema in ways comparable to critics of previous generations. I guess what I find frustrating is the idea that one way is objective and neutral, and the other is tainted and flawed. Of course it's different - not by much by the way, as out of the 24 new entrants in the top 100, only 8 were new and the rest came from within the previous top 250.
Anyway, my biggest problem with the S&S list is that it fails to build consensus. For example, 23% of the participants in the 2012 poll were sufficient for Vertigo to overthrow Citizen Kane. If you are going to create a poll of the greatest films of all time, at least have a majority of your voters agree, rather than a meager plurality.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Dec 2, 2022 1:42:58 GMT
A list like this espouses utter contempt for the artform. none of yall have anywhere near good enough taste to say something like this lmao I don't have taste. I have absolute discernment!
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 2, 2022 1:50:57 GMT
People saying it's agenda driven is not the same thing as complainiing there are too many female directors in the poll - I may have missed it but literally no one said that did they?.......if anything they are just arguing that relatively obscure films in film history are too high in the top 30 at least and it works against a canon list Arguable but no more arguable than saying Raging Bull - which I think is overrated myself - somehow going from 53rd to off the list to make room for The Gleaners and I (which I like) ffs is perfectly logical Come on....... all those complaints are perfectly valid .....keeping in mind differing tastes.......
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 2, 2022 2:09:52 GMT
what's more likely: reputable film rag polls more women (and more people in general) than ever before and films by women over the last ten years gaining traction among greater film trends, or said reputable film rag somehow convinces hundreds of established critics (and directors!) to vote for a nearly 50 year old movie that was already hugely acclaimed in those circles as-is? Plus, we see "serious critics" clearly rigging votes every year in these critic awards that try to be Oscar predictors. You can take every critic of the group list of best movies of the year, see how the group votes, and clearly doesn't match.
Well that's because critics in their respective groups usually get together and vote like the Cannes jury so there's a bunch of deal-making or splits between films that lead to a compromise pick. Sight & Sound just takes in ballots, though, and those ballots are publicly released. Rigging votes on such a large scale would be insanely difficult to keep under wraps, you'd essentially need to get hundreds of critics in a room together or on some group chat with the agreed-upon agenda of "let's submit in enough votes to get Jeanne Dielman in as #1 but still keep Vertigo and Citizen Kane in the top 3 to avoid suspicion."
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 2, 2022 2:26:15 GMT
People saying it's agenda driven is not the same thing as complainiing there are too many female directors in the poll - I may have missed it but literally no one said that did they?.......if anything they are just arguing that relatively obscure films in film history are too high in the top 30 at least and it works against a canon list the dude i am arguing with has said twice that he believes this poll and the 2012 poll were directly rigged by sight and sound. that's not disagreeing with critical shifts - which yes, sure, subjective - that's calling the results invalid due to a conspiracy theory with no evidence behind it.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 2, 2022 10:59:11 GMT
There hasn't been a shift like this ever. Even Citizen Kane jumping from not being on the list in 1952 to topping in 1962 isn't the same because it was only one vote away from not entering the top 10, and Hearst dying made it easier for the film to become more widely seen. Jeanne Dielman was #35, Beau Travail #78 in 2012, Cleo didn't even made the top 100. Portrait of a Lady on Fire was nowhere near as acclaimed as, say, Parasite, and that was only 3 years ago. As for my last part, my point is that these "serious critics" rig polls like this all the time, it's certainly not implausible they would do this again. And yes, in 2012 it was clear Sight & Sound wanted something else to replace Citizen Kane, and was commented on around the time. The number of voters have doubled since 2012, going from over 800 to over 1600. And while everyone has their own individual agendas to their list (i.e. people voting for Kane out of a sense of obligation or leaving it off as a statement), I highly doubt Sight & Sound itself had some kind of agenda. Jeanne Dielman is the most acclaimed woman-directed film and if critics wanted to ensure some female representation in their list, it makes sense as the prime candidate. Add those to the people who do genuinely adore the film, rediscovered or elevated it following Akerman's passing, and the inclusion of significantly more diverse voting body and it makes sense to me. The assumption is not based on Jeanne Dielman and its ranking though - it's rather deeper - that obvious "problematic" males - Allen, Cassavetes, Peckinpah (no Wild Bunch? Bah!), Polanski - are all missing from the top 100.......and that many works about "problematic" males like Raging Bull are too - that dropped 47 places (or more) off the list - Portrait of a Lady on Fire - is not only "above" Raging Bull but 60 places above Parasite - from the same year........... It's not so hard to tilt the poll anyway - in fact it's rather easy - not that it is particularly nefarious - it's a bunch of people emailing each other - and forming tribes - its fine - I can assure us all there'll be tilting at NY & LA Film Critics - but instead of yelling and shouting in some room - it's emails and editing and whittling down.......and people really (way too much) liking Portrait of a Lady on Fire AND Citizen Kane - not so much "rigging" the poll but shaping it with an agenda....that's how it goes Also - a lot of this looks like MY MAR lists - where I don't vote for a movie because I assume you all are and to advocate for a smaller fave - and that ends up missing - because others assumed the same thing............ I am quite sure (some) people are (slightly) embarrassed by their own lists from Sight & Sound and felt like Lawrence of Arabia for example was "guaranteed" a spot......but it wasn't...... It's a mix of things - agenda, passion for the films, age, sex, race, filmmakers perceived importance / status, socio-political cultural trends - but saying there was no agenda at all seems ......unlikely ..........to me anyway......
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Dec 2, 2022 12:39:48 GMT
I guess these are coming out now!
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 2, 2022 13:01:58 GMT
I guess these are coming out now! Ew, no Jordan Peele? No women? Looks like someone's due for another Cate Blanchett scolding!
|
|
|
Post by ingmarhepburn on Dec 2, 2022 13:48:54 GMT
I was rooting for 2001: A Space Odyssey because, of all those that had a chance to top the list (or those I thought had a chance), this was definitely my favorite. Glad it topped the Directors List (at least). Jeanne Dielman is certainly a surprise.
The list is odd when you think of all the huge names that missed, but I think it's far from being offensive. Most of the usual suspects are there. Let's wait for the top 250 to be known (it will be known, right?). Only then I'll be able to say if I prefer 2012's list to this one. So far, I can't complain.
|
|