Opinions on BFI 2022 Sight and Sound Poll

It's easy to understand why some audience members are only going to think about peeling potatoes or meatloaf or making beds. I'm sympathetic to the boredom. I'm even sympathetic to some of the skepticism.


But it's enraging when you or myself or Takoma or lots of other people can explain why the film works for us and there isn't the slightest engagement beyond calling such people pretentious or phonies or having agendas that have nothing to do with film.


Is it too much to ask, if someone wants to make the claim that a movie absolutely cannot be considered good, that is in fact totally worthless, that they show some basic understanding of what is happening in the film. Be at least vaguely humble to the possibility that they may have missed something? Or that some people simply like different things then them?


I think superhero movies are shit. But I at least don't claim people are pretending to like them. I can at least understand why they do like them. And if I do either of the above, I will take my critical punches because I would deserve them.

Pretty much. It’s like how I feel towards Fulci, Verhoeven, and Cassavetes, or towards Spaghetti Westerns in general. Neither works that well for me, but that doesn’t mean I can’t see any merit in why others would. I’ll also keep watching from both Fulci, Verhoeven, Cassavetes and more Spaghetti Westerns because there is still so much to see from them. And maybe something might come along that I overlooked.

People might be baffled why I’d continue to do so, but in the words of Mark F,it’s simply because they exist.

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.

On this subject, I'd like to add that if an agenda is to be incorporated into a list, then it must use pre-existing praise for a film to make the addition feel more realistic. In other words, if BFI is indeed being feminist about this, they'd have to use the previously limitied praise for Jeanne Dielman and justify cheating with the previously limited praise by emphasizing the theme that goes hand-in-hand with modern popular politics. It's also easy to throw sexism accusations to skeptics who understand how the process works.

Having said that, I am not denying that Jeanne Dielman has touched hearts. The film must be especially painful for any female critics who had gone through such a lifestyle before finally becoming a voice in the magazines, meaning the movie represents a cruel reminder for females who have already proven themselves. Thus, we have a proper reason to appreciate the art of the film.

Having said that, not only is the artfilm such an acquired taste, but the theme itself isn't exactly the most marketable one. When you include popularity into the mix, even among critics, there is at least cause for skepticism towards the amount of votes in lieu of hard evidence. But to get angry about it doesn't necessarily help the accusation to take form. In the end, it's circumstantial evidence and nothing more, which means there's the possibility that these people are being completely honest. However, they ARE technically journalists...

Now my personal stance is simple. I don't discount the possibility that the critics were told what types of films to vote for. Having said that, I accept the list as it is because I can't change anything. But I take the list as easily as I take most other magazine lists: with a grain of salt. Rolling Stone's bull pretty much cemented that, so we got what we got, and the most I can do is work my way through the list for the sake of forum conversation, because in the end, all that really matters to me is what my fellow MoFo's say.

Making nasty comments about other posters seems a lot easier to you than actually defending a film where a woman peels potatoes for 20 minutes. It's pretentious and emboldens people like you to act like it's great cinema when in reality it's just a modern art installation that if it were directed by a man wouldn't be on the list. The editors wanted females and POC on the lists so they lied and cheated to get the results they wanted.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean "in lieu of evidence." The BFI is eventually going to release all of the ballots and everyone will be able to see how many and who voted for what.

The editors of S&S didn't cast ballots themselves, I believe.

The main thing S&S did was expand the voting pool (doubled it from the past decade), which is, yes, actually rather dramatic, but it isn't some great conspiracy that Siddon seems to be thinking it is.

And I don't know why you keep citing the Rolling Stone list. I don't think anyone ever really looked at that one and placed any great weight on it as any type of canonical list* (well, I mean, I'd guess the They Shoot Pictures top 1000 probably includes it into its aggregate, but that's kind of an interesting wisdom of the crowds approach to creating a best of list - of which the S&S poll has one of the greatest weights on (though, not just the current one, but all of the past ones get aggregated into that as well. At least that's what somebody told me)).

The video Siddon linked to actually isn't a bad take (IMO) on the list, though it doesn't really prove anything he's claiming.

*: I should probably put canonical in quotes since no list of 100 movies could be a complete film-canon.

But it's enraging when you or myself or Takoma or lots of other people can explain why the film works for us and there isn't the slightest engagement beyond calling such people pretentious or phonies or having agendas that have nothing to do with film.

I'm glad to see Dielman at number one. It not only is one of the few films that deserves such a placing, but it should make some people scream in protest, which is always fun (it should still be 2001 though but...whatever...if they haven't gotten that one right by this point they never will)

So just so I get this straight you want me to care about your feelings of this "film"...but you admit that you enjoy people being upset about it's selection.


Simply put I don't believe you, I don't think people who like this movie actually like this movie. Going through this list I believe the editors decided to put on airs. You want me to articulate why the film is bad...I'd argue it's not even a film. It's a gimmick that is being pushed at a time when we aren't judging the art but rather the artist.


It was pushed out there for self promotion. For all we know James Cameron is going to write BFI nice big check and surprise Avatar is number #1.

Bird Bod

If you're going to refuse to believe that anyone loves the film, regardless of what any of us say about it, I don't really see the discussion going anywhere. Like, you're welcome to believe whatever you want. That's just the kind of argument which puts the entire discussion at a standstill.

Am I supposed to believe the review or the motivation behind the review and the resulting posts?


Causation might not mean correlation but in this case it seems like it does. I don't know if it's trolling or pretentiousness but it seems like it at the end of the day you aren't just simply defending this as a good movie but you are defending this as the greatest film of all-time.

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.

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.

Also I'm not sure how a film that's three hours of housework can than have the response from it's "fans" that it's not pretentious. I don't get the thin skinned nature of that response.

Why is it that me believing that you actual like this film a big deal? Why is it such a big deal that you are okay with essentially bullying for not believing you.