Opinions on BFI 2022 Sight and Sound Poll

The film is very hypnotizing, indeed. That's why I love it!

__________________
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.

Nah, I'm good. We don't have to relitigate that. Everyone is welcome to use their own criteria for making a list like this, even if I think their method is stupid.

Okay then. FTR, I don't think I'd convince you but I think I could probably get you to think it isn't ridiculous, at least.

Either way, though.

As supposedly difficult and polarizing as it is (at least on paper), I honestly can barely understand how someone can resist becoming hooked into it in its opening 15 minutes.


The editing. The sound design. The composition. The woman herself. That house. But, yeah, sure, I guess you could say she's just making beds. If those are the kind of eyes your stuck with.

I never did use Hulu so I missed that. But I guess the Criterion having a movie and the movie being "well known" are two very different things. I just looked at Criterion the other day and they have lots of movies that are probably good that I've never heard of.
People are countering what I'm saying with "no, it (Dielman and Cleo) was always around, this is rigged", but I tell ya, I have been on movie forums for 16 years as of October-passed, and maybe I saw Varda's name mixed in late with some other French directors of the 60s, and sure, maybe there was a thread once a long time ago on a lost-to-time forum about Cleo, and who knows, maybe someone had even mentioned Dielman somewhere in all that, but most of the movies on previous lists have been talked about ad nauseam, way past the point where there is anything left to say. Portrait Of A Lady On Fire? Obviously good enough to get a shit-ton of people to vote for it so why was there almost no talk about it anywhere? Especially when everyone I know personally who did see it (on my recommendation), reported back that it was "amazing"? I don't think it's because it wasn't a good movie. If there is a conspiracy afoot at Sight & Sound, I think it is probably that the breadth of voices heard was far too narrow for far too long, not that including more voices was the conspiracy to woke-up their list. (Oh shit, I said what everyone's been dancing around to keep Yoda at bay!) If anything, including more voices creates less (perceived) collusion, not more.

What I'm hearing, and I'm talking about me, through my ears, just the way it sounds to me, is that a lot of people just don't like change. I mean, Vertigo moving from 2 to 1 a decade ago was this huge freaking deal. So yeah, more voices included in the process resulting in a film by a woman about a woman that a lot of men may be bored with if they can't focus on the artistry of the film shooting up to No.1 can feel like too much change for some people, I get it. But that's what it sounds like to me. People angry about too much change and looking for a boogeyman to blame it on, in this case, poor Jeanne Dielman.

One other thing. The recency of films has never mattered in this poll, so it shouldn't matter now. L'Avventura debuted as the No.2 film of all-time when it was just 2 years old. Hiroshima, Mon Amour was 3 years old when it debuted on the list at No.11 all time. Marienbad had been out just over a year when it debuted at 26.
So there is no conversation to be had about recency and that I really don't want to hear.

Finally, I do think Get Out deserves to be on the list, low, sure, but on the list (I wouldn't be mad if it was 110 or 120 either) and I honestly feel like people who can't see that haven't watched the film honestly or need to re-watch it or maybe make sure that their television works right or something. It's an amazing film.

All of that was just about your first paragraph.
No, I'm kidding I'm really just responding to the general tenor I'm hearing around here, which I had really hoped would not be what I heard when I came here, but I knew it was possible and it is what it is. It's disappointing, but then again, I expect if the list was all old films that were all pre-approved by the cork-sniffingest of our constituency here, there would still be outrage and argument over the order or how could such and such possibly be left off or whatever. That's just the way the cookie crumbles I suppose.

On Pather Panchali, the one thing I will say about that is that that is a film that has been talked about nearly to death. And has been for a long time. I don't know shit about Indian cinema either but I've heard that movie talked about practically as much as any non-Hollywood film, it has been championed by really famous people very loudly (Scorsese never shuts up about it and claims that he watches it every time he gets ready to make a film to remind him how to make a film) and I've even seen a short documentary about Ray's filmmaking and another about Pather Panchali specifically. So I don't think it's a great example of an obscure film that turned out to be a masterpiece and the foil for Jeanne.

All this debate over it’s worthiness of being #1 just makes me want to watch it even more than before.

Went over the list and I’m at 50/100 which means I have a lot of masterpieces to watch, which is always a good thing.

Now that I have criterion (!) they have a special collection of the list available To watch them, so i guess I’ll be busy in the coming months.

@Wooley I have seen Get Out and liked it. Still (out of the ones I've checked out) think it's by far the least deserving film on the list. I can name countless horror movies even from the last few years I not only found scarier, but better made as well. That's not to negate the things it does right, but I don't relate to the masterpiece stamp a lot of audiences and critics have put on it.

__________________

Amen to that. I had Dielman somewhere on my radar, it getting named No.1 made it kind of a must-see, but all the blowback about it being No.1 makes me feel like it's freaking Star Wars and I should stand in line to see it.

Well, while it is, I really wasn't thinking of Get Out as a Horror movie and comparing how scary it was to other Horror movies. I think about Get Out as a drama/thriller/metaphor-film about some of the worst ills that still exist in our society, which completely transcends its genre. I mean, I know a lot of people who don't like Horror movies and think Get Out is great.
Considering Bride Of Frankenstein was, for decades, considered to be the best Horror movie ever made, I'm not sure how scary something is matters. As for better made, maybe there are some, but the sum of Get Out's parts makes it leap off of any list of Horror movies I can imagine as one that is too good to be on such a list and belongs on a list of Great Movies period.
I think it was on my second viewing (I have seen it thrice now and that number will be going up) that I did, unlike you, say to myself, "Wait. Is this some kind of a sneaky masterpiece? Hmmm..." I get that it didn't give you that feeling, and that's ok, right, I mean, everyone has different tastes. I assure you, I have never been convinced that Vertigo was the best movie ever made or the second best movie ever made. And that's ok too, we're all really just expressing our personal opinions and we should, in my opinion, embrace the diversity of our opinions. I can't always do it either, but I'm trying.

Yeah, the silly dismissive attitude towards it is rather telling by some, as it’s attacked for some sort of “woke” agenda as a result of its placement, rather than for its own merits.

I have no idea how I’ll respond to it, but I don’t think I’m going to rail about it’s spot regardless of how I feel about the film itself.

I agree. It doesn't make any sense. Of course you can talk about the technical elements to analyze how a movie pulls off what it sets out to do, but even then it's still technically subjective to claim one is the best at utilizing them. Just think about how many movies there are. Not to mention movies largely deal in emotions. Kubrick unfairly gets criticized sometimes as being a "cold" director, even though his films can make you feel tons of things. The visual look and preciseness of the shots still evoke emotion. Even if that emotion is one of admiration, that still counts doesn't it? Plus he still cares a great deal about story and character, which only makes that criticism even more bizarre.

So if you can't prove that one single movie is the best technical achievement of all time, then why should we act ourselves like we are scientists? "This movie has been selected by experts to be the best out of the ones I've seen, but according to my faith I have to go with this movie as my favorite instead".

Sometimes even objectivity isn't entirely objective. Besides talking about how certain works incluenced others (Which is unavoidable) art is overall too freespirited and moldable to state that one movie is the best "because fact".

Yeah, same.

Per my earlier comment about some people perhaps thinking lists are sometimes for the very purposes critics are upset about, it's also possible they're sort of for just generating discussion, under the "no such thing as bad press" principle. And that likelihood/incentive goes up the more people tune out lists and awards, I think.

The tricky thing for me will be trying to figure out if the film is going to land differently now that I've essentially been told what it's about and why it's supposed to be powerful. I honestly don't know if that makes me more or less likely to appreciate it, though.

i actually have not lol, it's been on my watchlist for about as long as i've been a cinephile. but i have read a lot about it and follow the writing of many of the critics who submitted lists and they've legitimately loved this movie for years. it was already pretty high on the 2012 list, so if you throw in a criterion release and the death of the filmmaker in the intervening years, it's not at all hard for me to see how it gets reassessed and builds the following to top the list. not to mention the expansion of the voting body to younger and more online people, which is where i've seen most of the love for this movie over the years.

now i'm more responding to the thread as a whole, but i think people may be underestimating the type of film critic asked to submit a list for these things. it's not just the critics off rotten tomatoes or whatever, these are largely people who earnestly love filmmakers like chantal akerman and most of the lists i saw included films even more difficult or obscure than jeanne dielman. you don't have to respect these people if you don't want to (god knows they're annoying sometimes), but it's safe to say they appreciate cinema differently (not necessarily better!) than the average mofo or flickchart user and this list is a pretty accurate reflection of that. if you don't agree with this particular voting base then there are many, many other lists out there with citizen kane at #1 for you to look at to calm yourself down.

of course there are always gonna be outside considerations when making your own list, but that's the same with literally any other list and not a symbol of wokeness finally coming for the british film institute or whatever. i'm sure citizen kane fell for much the same reason it came in at #3 on our 40s list. people think it doesn't need their help and will leave it off for something they see as more interesting. conversely, however, movies like citizen kane will always benefit from the fact that 1. everybody's seen it and 2. it's canonization is so agreed upon that surely there are people who feel that "well no list is complete without citizen kane, the movie we all know is the best," so they might include it when they otherwise wouldn't. personally, i detest strategic voting because i think of lists purely as an exercise in the honest expression of one's taste and neither as a way to show off your uniqueness nor to simply reinforce the preexisting canon, but i understand not everyone feels that way and i've also been guilty of both because i can't help it. everyone has to make their own calculations, and those calculations are themselves reflective of taste. i just don't see how you can point at a certain movie and say "well this one obviously benefits from strategic voting while this other movie didn't." citizen kane and vertigo are both masterpieces that i think more or less deserve their placements, but if you wiped every voters memory of previous lists and what are already considered the "best" films, they may very well not place as high! all canons are conditional and messy, that's why the only fair way to look at it without going insane is to take it as a given that this is the movie they like more than the other movies.

__________________
letterboxd
criticker

I don't wanna derail the discussion too much, so I'll just link this post from a while back as a brief explanation for why the two terms benefit from being distinct. It's eight years old and I'd probably make the case slightly different now, but the basic idea would be the same.

I would have to disagree with you. And we don't have to start the whole debate over again necessarily, but look, I enjoy the hell out of Smokey and The Bandit. Just love it. Super-fun movie. And I think it is a good movie because I don't think it could pull that off if it wasn't. So should I compare it to Stalker? Or Battleship Potemkin? Does that make any sense? Of course not. It is two different things. On the other hand, in its weird way, Paris, Texas (I know, I never shut up about this movie) also gives me great joy. So...
In some ways, I think Smokey and The Bandit and Paris, Texas belong on the same list, if I'm listing my favorite films. But would I put Bandit on a list of what I think are the best films ever made? I would not. Unless it was long. But Potemkin might make my list of films I think are the best ever made even though it would have zero chance at making a list of my favorite films.
I don't know if that will make sense to you or not. I've been a part of this conversation in the past and I think some people just see it the way I do and some people see it the other way and that's all there is to it. I hope my explanation at least helps you understand why I feel the way I do even if it doesn't sway you at all. But I'd have to disagree that I'm not giving my "true opinion" when I say this. Because I will give both opinions and both opinions are true.

guess i need to actually watch Dielman sometime soon, it does look like my exact type of film. stoked that Celine and Julie Go Boating got some love

I solved the Jeanne Dielman debate.
Tilda Swinton voted for it. And, since Tilda Swinton can do no wrong, Jeanne Dielman obviously at least belongs in the Top-10, and since once you get to the Top-10 you're basically parsing microns, any of them could be No.1, so Jeanne Dielman can be, therefore the debate is over. There is nothing to see here.

I agree. I don't see any other plausible way to define "good" and "best" in art than personal experience or, in other words, one's favorites. In my opinion, the opposing view is mixing "best" with things like "most influential" or "most skilled technically" that, to me, are not the same.

I suppose I could accept that this is just something involuntary, like those dresses that look different colors to different people. Our brains are wired one way, and it's impossible to trick the mind to see the other way.

__________________

There actually is a way. Take Good Burger. It's a desert island movie for me because it's so nostalgic. But I'm aware of some key flaws when it comes to the actual "art" or "skill" of moviemaking.



1. Ed gets most of the humor, leaving a lot of characters without development.
2. Predictable at times.
3. Kind of hokey plot.


So while I'd watch it many times over, I can't really say that I consider the movie a "work of art." Having said that, many "works of art" don't really work if attempting to be too artsy.



As long as you have your own personal ideals as to what qualify as art, you can have a personal opinion regarding that art, even if it doesn't match up with your most personal favorites.

Your perspective does make sense to me. It sounds like you define 'favorite' as what you like most and 'best' as what you appreciate most. Since I have the same definition for both, my two lists would be exactly the same. I wouldn't dismiss my love of cheesy action movies and replace them with culturally significant dramas. I think you can understand why, to me, trying to take personal taste out of the equation comes off as a little less honest. For that reason, I enjoy reading 'favorite' film lists more than 'best'. Like I said earlier, we all have our different criteria for these silly lists and that's okay.