What do you think about critical lists? It is subjective?
 

http://www.theyshootpictures.com/index.htm
https://www.thegreatestfilms.com/Fil...Social-Network
https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/li...vorites-818512

I mean, i just posted some sites that are considered reliable and popular, what do you think about their rankings? I personally see them only to see how a movie is considered, but i don't have to rating every movie or director based on that.

If not, everyone should have Citizen Kane as their favorite film.

I still see films as subjective if i have to be honest.

Re: What do you think about critical lists? It is subjective?
 

I used to read tons of lists when I started watching movies, because I wanted to know where to start in this or that segment of cinema. The only lists I use now are Imdb user lists that include some obscure movies I like, because bigger lists tend to get samey after just a handful.

I barely have a top 5 movies anymore, personally, because all the movies I'd put in are too different to rank.

Bigger lists with tons of participants tend to be the least interesting because they trend towards popularity rather than quality.

Re: What do you think about critical lists? It is subjective?
 

Some of those lists rank best movie of of each but are we talking about best movies of each year starting from last year, or best movies of all time more so?

Best movie of decade, directors and all-time.

How much stock you put in these and how much are they worth?

Agreed, though there are many films that are both popular and high quality.

I prefer unranked lists, to be honest. It seems silly to me to say oh, this film is the #3 film of all time and this film is the #2 film of all time. What I value in films tends to shift as I age and as I have different experiences.

I do think that lists are a great place to find new films, especially ones that are more focused. If you give me a random top 100 or even 200 films list, I have probably seen most of them and have a good reason for not seeing the ones I've skipped. But if you hand me a Top 50 Eastern European Horror films list, or Brazil's Top 100 Films from the 50s, I am much more likely to discover something new.

As for subjectivity/objectivity, well . . . I think that to a degree you can objectively make arguments about films that have influenced cinema, and to a degree you can argue objectively that a certain film resonates with many people who watch it. But I don't think that you can objectively say that one film is the best, or that one film is better than another. You can certainly argue that certain technical aspects of a certain film are superior. Citizen Kane has a lot going for it and I understand its reputation. But I do not own it and I have no strong desire to revisit it. Kung Fu Hustle and Predators do not necessarily have the same technical merits, but when I am sad they make me happy and when I am happy they make me happier. From the lens of someone who turns to art to uplift me and serve as a refuge at times, these films are (subjectively) "better".

What do you mean?

Is listing hopelessly subjective? Is it pointless?

Is it partially subjective, making our conversations more difficult?

Do you mean "subjective" in an ontological or epistemic sense?

If we already knew, in advance, what everyone's answer to a question would be, we wouldn't ask the question. If our critical lists were as objective as merely listing numbers in ascending order, our lists wouldn't be interesting. "Information is surprises." Critical lists allow us to compare notes on our subjective responses. Sometimes our own lists shift in response to the lists of others and the conversations that follow them. If someone can make a "good case" for a film in your eyes, then you can move toward intersubjective agreement.

The value of a list depends on the persuasiveness of the justification that the list-maker can offer and how closely their tastes align with your own.

There is really no end to such a conversation, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not a conversation worth having.

Re: What do you think about critical lists? It is subjective?
 

Definitely a lot of copied/same content on lists but they're a good starting point for things. However, often times it's just way too subjective.

I am a total drongo with this. A disgrace to the auteur community. I put no effort whatsoever into scoping out which movies to watch. Never even go to the cinema ffs.

If I'm flopped on the sofa at home at 7pm and/or 9pm I'll channel surf thru my 5 or so movie channels. If nothing takes my fancy I think nothing of it and flit off elsewhere. I could see the opening intros to "Citizen Kane" (a film I've never even seen before ffs) and if it doesnt look alluring enough in that particular instance, I'll channel surf elsewhere.

Disgraceful!

"Il Disgracio", as they may well say on the continent.

Re: What do you think about critical lists? It is subjective?
 

Of course, lists are subjective. But there are generally objective reasons why certain movies continually show up on them. But who cares, in regards to objectivity vs subjectivity. It's just such a waste of arguing time. The point of these lists isn't to come to some concrete solution as to what is the best of all time, because it's irrelevant. Instead, they are to generate discussion about films. They are to give those people who care about all of the different kinds of voices cinema can give a platform to, a way to start uncovering them. If someone doesn't have much interest in exploring cinema and taking risks with what they watch, and simply wants movies to immediately ring their bell, I can see why they might get hung up on wanting some kind of objective metric. It's easy to get mad at a list for its obvious subjectivity when you feel left in the cold by something it praised. But this is just a bad way to approach lists.They are really just a good tool to help get well versed in all the things films can do.

Oh okay. I think that a movie of movies that critics pick are quite good, but it's always the same ones. Really good movies, but the same ones. It seems that these are the top four that are picked the most often.

The Godfather
Citizen Kane
Gone with the Wind
Casablanca

All pretty good movies, but you do see a lot the same ones picked when it comes to best of all time. But these are all American movies as well, and do non-American critics often pick these ones as well I wonder?

Another example is critics often sight 2001: A Space Odyssey, as the best sci-fi movie of all time. It's a pretty good pick but there are other sci-fi movies I would say I like better, but maybe that's just subjective personal taste.

So I would say critics pick good ones, but it's often the same ones, when it comes to best movies of all time.

Yeah, I'd say this is a fair analysis. So we can prefer another director or film who's rated below?

For example: I prefer Cameron and T2 to Scott and BR (really liked both too) even though critics consider BR and Scott to be a bit better overall, i guess.

As your example, i absolutely loathe Blue Velvet and every single thing of it, with all my heart but i respect people who liked it.

It's one of my least favorite movies, EVER and no list will ever change that.

I know you're joking, but i actually really like Citizen Kane but it's not one of my favorites film.

It was just an example, about that you can prefer a movie that is ranked lower in the list, rather than one which is rated higher right?

I love 2001, but T2, Blade Runner and Empire Strikes Back are something i revisit more and my personal favorite sci-fi films.

Anyways, I'd agree with that but The Godfather is one of the GOATs for sure, i think it has some stuff which are just incredibly well-done in terms of writing and acting. Love it.

Re: What do you think about critical lists? It is subjective?
 

I would go to those sci-fi movies more as well. Planet of the Apes I thought was better than 2001 and that came out the same year.

If I were to make a top 5 of all time, it might go something like this, in no particular order:

For A Few Dollars More
The Skin I Live In
Parasite
The Battle of Algiers
Slumdog Millionaire

But you don't see any critics picking those as the best of all time though. For A Few Dollars More is probably the most subjective as their is probably nothing in it, that makes it a great film. There are no big character arcs for example, but I can't help but find it rewatchable.

2001 is great to look but Blade Runner is more enterteining and has a much more ambitious and memorable ending (I know this is unpopular) but i really like the thematic gravity about the replicants and humans.

The ones i got in my top 5, 3 of them can be found in the lists atleast but not close to Godfather or 2001, but who cares tbh...

I love Godfather so much but i enjoy 5 movies more than it apparently XD

Re: What do you think about critical lists? It is subjective?
 

Lists (and movie reviews, or the freakin' Tomatometer) are just guidelines. Like crumbs and others have said, they're not supposed to be the definitive word on anything, but should serve as a starting point for more discussion.

That's what i am leaning too, but can a list be used up to prove that something is objectively better or when someone is hyping something to be much better than what it is?

Re: What do you think about critical lists? It is subjective?
 

Technically? Yes, of course, they're all subjective. What I care about, though, is not that fact, but why someone's pointing it out.

If they're pointing out that all critical opinions are subjective in a way that is conducive to discussion and analysis, like using it to encourage humility or create space to critique a critique, then it's great.

If, on the other hand, they're using it to shut discussion down, by implying people can't or shouldn't disagree with them because art (and opinions about it) are subjective, then I think it's bad. And often (though not always) a get-out-of-thoughtless-opinion-free card.

There are a lot of things like this, I think, where a thing is technically subjective, so we try to form some kind of consensus about what idealized forms look like so we can at least talk somewhat objectively about whether it measures up to that standard. The standard itself is axiomatic and therefore can always be challenged, but by agreeing to certain standards we can talk more seriously about films and how they compare to them.

No. A list is incapable of proving anything. It doesn't override your own personal opinion. Why would it? It's a list.


Generally, there may be very good reasons why a film is on a best of list, and it's worth thinking about if you don't like a film that is considered one of the greats. It might give you reason to revisit something because maybe it deserves a second chance. But it's still just a list. It doesn't end the debate of what's good and what isnt. That is a never ending discussion

Yeah that's fair but I do not think anyone will ever change my opinion on Blue Velvet...

Or Lord Of The Rings who just bore me.

Your thoughts on the one I linked anyways?

I’d say that most of things are debatable, one thing I don’t know is how you can analyze or criticize the directing of guys like Spielberg for example.

I get not liking the film, but even if there is no way to prove it. I am not sure how someone could call Spielberg an "hack"...

Not referring to you, but I am talking about vocal naysayers that exist for any director.

Maybe I'm drawing wrong conclusions from this, but I do disagree with (my subjective understanding of) this. I don't think there can be an idealized form to movies or even to different building blocks of them. Not even to a degree to form a consensus for the so-called objective discussion.

We can, however, break movies (and art in general) apart from the technical point of view. There may not be a way to objectively measure (all of) these technical aspects, but they provide means to discuss and argue our subjective opinions in this more serious way. In other words, the standard, to me, is the terminology and its definitions; not a consensus of an idealized form, but a consensus of how each individual form is built.

It depends on who compiles the list, and the format used. These long lists of movies with no explanations are almost useless. Then you have professional content creators under pressure to create a list for publication by tomorrow. Those are complete garbage.

The most useful lists for me have come from cinnemassacre on youtube. James explains why each movie is on the list, explains how he defines the genre, gives a few still shots or video clips to let you see what he's talking about, and then admits that the ranking is next to useless because even he will change his mind by the time he publishes the video.