Opinions on BFI 2022 Sight and Sound Poll

Tools    





I wonder if it’s possible for Jeanne Dielman to be a great movie and for the voters to put their thumb on the scale a bit at the same time. I think we all agree that more diversity in our art is a good thing and change rarely comes without a bit of a boost. Hopefully in ten years we have forgotten the “controversy” and more women and minorities are given a chance to direct.

Our culture has a very frustrating inability to hold two truths in tension of one another.
__________________
Letterboxd



Victim of The Night
Great films don't change every ten years...fashion and fads do. The fact that the BFI wanted female and POC filmmakers so they manipulated the poll to get the result they wanted. By doing so they violated the integrity of the poll.
This is so wrong.
Films don't change. But lists absolutely change. Another ten years has passed. During that time, thousands more films were made, some of them very good. Also during that time, numerous films became more accessible to the viewing public and got really considered for the first time, got considered by a lot more people, or got reconsidered as it was easier to view them. And there was simply another ten years for people to see more movies and, ya know, change their own lists, which they then submitted. Additionally, more people were added to the list to reflect the opinion of more people and not just the same small group of people who did not really reflect film-viewers as a whole.
So the list changed. And not really all that much. There are only a few films on there that aren't just consensus masterpieces. And if you look at how the lists are built, with no ranking just people putting in ten films, things could and should easily be shaken up each time. What's interesting to me is that now that the body of voters actually reflects the film community, we have a list that actually reflects the film community. When you look at the individual lists, and a lot of them have been posted on social media, it turns out a helluva lotta of people who were not given the opportunity to vote before (women, ahem), as well as many who did (which is why it was on the list last time), had it in their top-10 films. Because it was important to them. Because to a bunch of people who were simply excluded in the past, it is an incredibly powerful film that matters.
The "fact" that they "wanted female and POC filmmakers so they manipulated the poll to get the result they wanted" is not a fact, it's a theory, in fact, it's two theories, neither of which are fact (or at least we do not know they are).
The only "fact" is that they wanted the votership to actually better reflect the overall film community. So they included more of the film community. And that is the final piece in the list changing.
If there has been any conspiracy regarding the list it is how long the list didn't really represent most of the people in the world. Then it was rigged. Now, it's been fixed.



Victim of The Night
Please present some sort of evidence that I, or Speling, or Takoma, or Mr Minio or many other admirers of this films have said that this is absolutely the greatest film of all time. Our arguments have been more about it being worthy of the discussion as being AMONG the best, which isn’t the same thing.

Our defense of the film isn’t meant to provoke, Siddon, nor meant to troll. You’re simply just dismissing any discussion towards the films merits, in our eyes, and Crumbs has pointed this out already, without acknowledging that it may have resonated with the voters, or even us.

Please do not presume to have some sort of insight as to what was going through my head during my recent viewing of this.

As evidence,I submit I watched this with a fellow MoFo (won’t name who out of respect they may not wish to be named), and this person could attest to my astonishment at this film as it unfolded before my yes. The last scene? My jaw literally dropped.
I literally exclaimed “What?!”

It left me speechless.

Please do not question my motivations behind this film.
This is a point I've been thinking a lot about.
In part because people don't order the list so every movie on every list of 10 sent in to BFI is equally weighted. (And, in a separate point for later, this makes sense to me since I simply don't believe there is one best film of all time. Or even ten of them, for that matter.) So it is merely the number of times a movie is selected. Which I actually really like. What are the films that are, as you say, AMONG the best? Because all of those have to be in consideration for "the best".
What I started wondering was, given that Vertigo frankly surprised the hell out of me 10 years ago, feeling that it was odd that it had been at No.2 before that and that that was some kind of error (within normal limits) of the polling, that some other films made major leaps on polls current and past, that some films once again debuted in the top-100 just a couple/few years after they debuted period, and that some films that were considered "AMONG the best" slipped from the list all together (purely due to the limit of 100), what films from the list would I absolutely disagree with being called No.1?
I mean, first of all, I have to throw out all the movies I haven't seen, I cannot have an opinion on them. So then, let's say I have 70 movies left that I have to start saying some of these simply cannot be in the conversation for No.1? Even though every single one of them appeared on at least multiple ballots of other cinephile's (ones that had been vetted by the British Film Institute) Top-10.
So what would they be?

Actually, I'm just gonna go ahead and ask all of you, for fun, and given only the rule that you must have actually seen the films, name three films from anywhere on the S&S 100 list that you think absolutely could not be considered for No.1. (And why you feel that way.)

Thanks!



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
Maybe the problem is not the film but the watcher?

Entertainment is required to be the best film ever?
Sorry, I've been meaning to respond to this, just haven't found the time to, but anyway, here goes:

1. Possibly. I'll give it a second watch... maybe.

2. For the best film ever... I would said yes entertainment is a requirement or a factor. Let's say for instance if a person was going to grade a film on some 100 point rubric with maybe 10 categories. For instance:

10 points - Script, dialogue
10 points - Cinematography/Beauty of image
10 points - Music/Sound
10 points - Legacy of the film in the film cannon i.e. classics, etc.
10 points - Pushing the boundaries of film in terms of technique and experimental ideas/language of film.
10 points - Acting
10 points - Behind the scenes stuff (think Apocalypse Now, etc)
10 points - Impact on other filmmakers
10 points - Personal impact on YOU and "reader response" type of thing. What emotions does it specific draw out on the individual watching the film or "me" - these are the bias points (ex - a film like Amelie and Breakfast at Tiffany's scores 10/10 for me on this.

And finally...

10 points - Entertainment.

So while entertaining isn't the only thing that matters, it is A thing that matters.

Now entertainment is subjective. For instance I love the driving scene in Solaris (Tarkovsky) as the story, mystery, etc has been set into motion and I can appreciate how it progresses toward the goal and gives ther viewer a sense of movement or journeying - there's a psychological entertainment to this. Similar to the opening scenes of 2001 or the landscapes in an Antonioni film, etc. With Jeanne Dielman, it felt manipulative and the purpose of a "scene" of watching her bathe herself for 5 minutes or bake a cake for 10 minutes was indulgent and not entertaining for me, even if from a exploratory/avante garde view it was to create a sense of routine or monotony in the viewer. I get it, but it's not something I necessarily feel the need to watch again or enjoyed at the time I was watching it.

That being said, it IS an interesting film, a daring film, and all of that, however in order for what I would consider to be the best film of all time, there should be some entertainment value. Moreover this vote seems like a vote to appeal to a post-woke, post-Trump, post-#metoo era, where there's an overemphasis on an element of the film, be it feminism, or to say that the best film of all time was directed by a woman. If a person advocates for that, it's perfectly fine, but to pretend those weren't criteria, seems to be denying the reality of how it got intersectional votes.
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right

10 points - Script, dialogue
10 points - Cinematography/Beauty of image
10 points - Music/Sound
10 points - Legacy of the film in the film cannon i.e. classics, etc.
10 points - Pushing the boundaries of film in terms of technique and experimental ideas/language of film.
10 points - Acting
10 points - Behind the scenes stuff (think Apocalypse Now, etc)
10 points - Impact on other filmmakers
10 points - Personal impact on YOU and "reader response" type of thing. What emotions does it specific draw out on the individual watching the film or "me" - these are the bias points (ex - a film like Amelie and Breakfast at Tiffany's scores 10/10 for me on this.

And finally...

10 points - Entertainment.
That's a very problematic way of rating films. It completely falls apart even when trying to gauge mainstream cinema, not to mention avant-garde/experimental/abstract film. There are films that have no people in them at all. There are films with no music or sound. There are films with no dialogue. There are movies with no information about any behind-the-scenes stuff, etc.

I agree with the broad definition of entertainment that includes intellectual stimulation, among others. And I think that the hypnotizing power of Jeanne Dielmann definitely fits this broad definition of entertainment.

I do agree there was agenda behind selecting Jeanne Dielmann as number one or at least behind so many people including it on their ballots. But it doesn't necessarily defeat Jeanne Dielmann's value as a film. All that being said, I think we both agree that Jeanne Dielmann should not be the number-one film. The list is shaped so that it more or less aligns with the critical thought of the contemporary Western world. And this is true whether it was specifically manipulated or not.
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
That's a very problematic way of rating films. It completely falls apart even when trying to gauge mainstream cinema, not to mention avant-garde/experimental/abstract film. There are films that have no people in them at all. There are films with no music or sound. There are films with no dialogue. There are movies with no information about any behind-the-scenes stuff, etc.

I agree with the broad definition of entertainment that includes intellectual stimulation, among others. And I think that the hypnotizing power of Jeanne Dielmann definitely fits this broad definition of entertainment.

I do agree there was agenda behind selecting Jeanne Dielmann as number one or at least behind so many people including it on their ballots. But it doesn't necessarily defeat Jeanne Dielmann's value as a film. All that being said, I think we both agree that Jeanne Dielmann should not be the number-one film. The list is shaped so that it more or less aligns with the critical thought of the contemporary Western world. And this is true whether it was specifically manipulated or not.
I would say it's A way of rating films, certainly not the only way or even best way, but it is A way of reviewing and gauging the quality of films. Certainly not all that criteria would apply to every film and each category could be weighed differently and a person could have different categories altogether and more of them or fewer of them. And of course I don't actually write out the categories and then mark points in each category when I want to give a serious assessment of a film, however it is something that I'm informally doing in my mind. For instance a film like North by Northwest would score a 10 on nearly everything. It has artistic merit, endlessly entertaining, the acting is great, and Ernie Lehman's script is top notch and Bernard Herrmann can't be beat, so something like North by Northwest checks all the boxes and in addition there's a certain universality to it wherein it wouldn't take someone who is devoutly obsessed with films to appreciate it. Almost anyone with an open mind and willingness to watch an old film could give it a chance and get very involved in it.

To me, Jeanne Dielman works as an idea or concept for a film as an experiment, but it's limited by its own objectives like Empire or something to that effect. I get there are people who are going to admire it for what it was doing, but if I'm making a list of greatest films, I would think - for me anyway, there's going to be some element of "I can share this film with someone else and enjoy it with them or offer it up to them with some value in it that doesn't necessitate that person to be a huge, huge film buff." On my top 10, probably the least entertaining in the traditional sense would be Breathless or maybe Aguirre the Wrath of God, but even those have narratives while doing things that are not conventional for most films and experimental.

To me, seeing Jeanne Deilman on that list, just looks like someone was stuffing the ballot box or checking something off a list. It seems like a very forced and very agenda driven number one.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
"I can share this film with someone else and enjoy it with them or offer it up to them with some value in it that doesn't necessitate that person to be a huge, huge film buff."
I always recommend people movies I love. I don't care if you need to be a "film buff" to like them. I wasn't back when I was starting and they got me into cinema, so maybe they'll have the same effect on somebody else.
We both have Aguirre on our top 10!
It dropped out of my top 10 a long time ago. But I'm too lazy to change my top.



To me, seeing Jeanne Deilman on that list, just looks like someone was stuffing the ballot box or checking something off a list. It seems like a very forced and very agenda driven number one.
I think having only 10 spots on a ballot means there isn't room for stuffing a ballot. A good number of people find Jeanne Dielman riveting as a film that rises in tension - you know, the emotion some people experience when watching, say, Rear Window. And proponents use phrases like, "it really resets your metabolism," a descriptor similar to something I'd say when saying why I love 2001. And in terms of subject matter, IDK, it seems like Virginia Woolfe being part of the literary canon makes the small domestic matters of women just as important as war and the exploration of men (or at least, that's my recollection of people talking about her books. I'm a philistine who barely reads and only read two of her books 20 years ago.)

Personally, Jeanne Dielman never reset my metabolism neither time I watched it and it'd never be on my ballot unless my personal experience on rewatching it changes. But the film podcasts I listen to had heard people coming to it for the first time and loving it over the past decade (and fwiw, it showed up on the list last decade as well) - like just thinking it's a stone-cold masterpiece.

While there is a tension between movies you think are great vs movies that personally connect with you (sometimes also referred to as personal favorites, IMO), I think your criteria of, "putting stuff on my list based on how I think other unnamed people would enjoy it," seems like it'd be the worst. It'd eliminate 2001 (a movie that I've heard receive the same type of complaints over my lite time as I'm hearing about Jeanne Dielman) and Mulholland Drive from any list I'd create.

Also, I'm not a big fan of North by Northwest. I often don't find myself that entertained by action-adventure movies. Of all the Hitchcock movies on the list, it's the one that if it came on, I'd be the most likely to change the channel.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
Sight & Sound posted their top 250 for the 2022 poll (263 films due to ties). Figured I'd share it here:

https://www.listchallenges.com/sight...250-films-2022

232/263 seen.

I haven't even heard of a lot of those movies, but I've seen 110 of 263 of them.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
I've seen 183. Although there were a few that I couldn't remember whether I had seen them so I didn't count those.



According to letterboxd stats, I've seen 182 of them. I did have two movies on the list on top for the next couple as a matter of coincidence.



Sight & Sound posted their top 250 for the 2022 poll (263 films due to ties). Figured I'd share it here:

https://www.listchallenges.com/sight...250-films-2022

232/263 seen.
Thanks for this. I've seen 165

I've never heard of Gertrud, Sambizanga or Los Olivados. So will put them on my watchlist.

I still think it's nuts how Get Out and Parasite are so high in that list, and how many better films they beat.



Also does anyone know where I can track down 'The Intruder' (2004) by Claire Denis ? Doesn't look like it had a blu ray release.

Only place I'm currently seeing it (via JustWatch) is by joining the Metrograph. I've never looked into the process of doing that (IDK if that's simply signing up for their subscription service or not, which I'd imagine wouldn't be an option if you're in the UK, but maybe it would be).
I haven't yet tried looking through the various Amazon specific sites in Europe, but I imagine you'd be hitting those before me.


In situations like these, I usually try going through other movies on the list first and hope that there's a re-release in the next few years.



Only place I'm currently seeing it (via JustWatch) is by joining the Metrograph. I've never looked into the process of doing that (IDK if that's simply signing up for their subscription service or not, which I'd imagine wouldn't be an option if you're in the UK, but maybe it would be).
I haven't yet tried looking through the various Amazon specific sites in Europe, but I imagine you'd be hitting those before me.


In situations like these, I usually try going through other movies on the list first and hope that there's a re-release in the next few years.
Thanks, but yeah Metrograph is only for US customers.



To me it is less looking at what movies it 'beats', then having to even consider it as being one of the hundred greatest movies of all time. Wizard of Oz should be deserving of this list, but it would be impossible to really compare its greatness to any of the above films because they are so different in their intentions. But Get Out just shouldn't be there in the first place. Like, at all. And I'd hope most fans would agree with this, at least if they aren't completely insane.



Like, I don't want to be an art fascist, but I appeal to have it forcibly removed.
Surely by wanting it removed, you're asking for all other films on the list to 'beat' it. We're splitting hairs now though.

The critics rate it and put it there. They undoubtedly know more about film than me. So [shrug].



Ridiculous, woke, box ticking nonsense.

The likes of Moonlight and Get Out in there at the expense of Lawrence of Arabia and Raging Bull just makes this list farcical.

The Sight and Sound list just has zero credibility anymore, where it used to at least have a little bit in the past.