They Shoot Pictures, Don't They - 2013

There's 2 or 3 I wouldn't put in the top 10.

Presumably the Sunrise they're referring to is the 1928 silent that used impressive innovative camera work? Surprising 94 minute length. It's on YouTube.

Same, although Sunrise is a great film and I think it can easily fit within a respectable top 10 films of all time list. It wouldn't be in my top 10, but it is in my top 100 films of all time, of which there's probably only a handful of silent films... among them... City Lights, Greed, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Steamboat Bill Jr., and Sunrise. There are sooo many silent films I still have yet to see though. I do appreciate and respect any top 10 list of greatest films of all time that would at least acknowledge that 20 year era of filmmaking which has produced some of cinema's earliest and most powerful images.

Here's their 2024 list:

1. Citizen Kane (1)
2. Vertigo (2)
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey (3)
4. Tokyo Story (4)
5. The Rules of the Game (5)
6. The Godfather (6)
7. 8˝ (7)
8. Sunrise (8)
9. The Searchers (9)
10. The Seven Samurai (10)


While it's not my own top 10... see my profile for that, I can easily get behind this list. No one is ever going to entirely agree with a top 10 list... especially not one compiled as TSPDT's list which itself is from so many other greatest films lists. I'm not sure how they weighted their list either. I always enjoyed the AFI lists, Sight and Sound lists, MUBI lists, and the Criterion Collection's individual contributors lists from anyone and everyone involved in film... from the greatest directors down to the cinematographers and customer designers. Cool Stuff.

Of that list I would leave off Tokyo Story, Rules of the Game, Vertigo, and Seven Samurai. I would replace Seven Samurai with RAN. I would replace Rules of the Game with L'avventura. I would replace Vertigo with North by Northwest. Finally, I would replace Tokyo Story with Ugetusu.

The rest I think are fine. Certainly a critic and popular favorite like The Godfather should be there and even though I'm partial to arguments of Shane (my vote), Red River, and Once Upon a Time in the West as gunning it out for the greatest western of all time... The Searchers DOES belong and IS welcome in a respectable top 10 film list of all time.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

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

Oh in any event. It's very good to see a top 10 list that doesn't include the slumberfest and exercise in shamless self indulgence that is Jeanne Dielman on it. I put it up there with a film like Russian Ark or Empire. Sure, they are cool exercises and interesting avante garde ideas... concepts more than films, really, but if narrative and storytelling is a fundamental aspect of film... then they fail. Tarkovsky and Antonioni are two great directors that push the boundaries of narrative storytelling without crossing the line into excess and experimentation for the sake of experimentation by sacrificing the nature of film itself.

I mean... Jeanne Dielman... really? I go ahead and edit and film security camera footage, but that don't make it cinema. This actually could lead to an interesting discussion... what exactly is cinema?

Here is the moviewise analysis of Jeanne Dielman. moviewise is, for my money, probably the best film analysis channel on youtube or certainly it's one of them.

With all due respect, I don't consider narrative and storytelling to be necessary for a film to be called film. These are, alongside cinematography and performance, elements that are sufficient to make up a film but they are not fundamental in the sense that they have to be there if not a film can no longer be categorized as such. As a matter of fact, I don't believe that we should talk about categories to delineate what film is from what it is NOT, contra other forms of art. Perhaps it's more important to consider the effects of what film can do - how can it transform the aesthetic domain, and subsequently affect the ideas, thoughts and emotions of men? Indulgence is a subjective reaction towards traits of a film, rather than an objective expression of the film's power over the artistic realm. Clearly, as evinced by the favorable reviews of many viewers/critics, Jeanne Dielman has exuded a considerable power. In order to prompt some rather divisive reactions, it must have created something remarkable. From my perspective, Tarkovsky and Antonioni's films such as The Mirror and The Passenger are also as non-narrative driven as JD and are as experimental. I've written a review about JD in my thread "Thinking About Film". You should check it out as it does explicate certain concepts which were previously not explored or taken to the limits by previous films.

Honestly I'm very intrigued and baffled by your choices to replace the aforementioned films with the ones you are suggesting. Because right off the bat, I'm not seeing how Ran is a more significant or influential film than Seven Samurai, or North by Northwest over Vertigo, or Ugetsu with Tokyo Story?

Exactly this.


Also as a push back against two criticisms frequently levelled at Jeanne Dielman


1) Even if one considers narrative essential to film (they shouldn't, but let's entertain that for one millisecond) Jeanne Dielman is very clearly storytelling. Not conventionally told, sure, but just because it pays more attention to the mundane details that surround the narrative, a narrative it is. And just because some have levelled similar accusations towards L'Avventura, Mulholland Drive, 2001, Passion of Joan of Arc, Weekend and all sorts of movies that are obviously narratives, and also deserving of their canonical status, doesn't mean we should be making the same swipes at Dielman simply because of the extra challenge it extends to the audience.



2) To equate Akerman's style in JD to security camera footage is pretty absurd as it's not paying any sufficient attention to its precise editing, sound design, image composition, blocking. It's an immaculately made film, up there with 2001 in the precision of its presentation. One of the few films which always makes sense when it appears in a top 10 list (not that I think it must be there, but it's way more egregious than all sorts of other fluff that sometimes appear on these things)



For me, it's easily one of the most riveting cinematic experiences I've ever seen. It's profoundly moving. It's revolutionary. It's a wonderful provocation. And it's always a fantastic topic of conversation (as long as no one stumbles into the 'it's not even a movie' territory). And while I get while people struggle with it, and maybe even understand how some might distrust it to a degree, the hostility it so frequently receives is baffling to me when it comes from anyone with a seemingly wide understanding of film history.


Sadly, I get why so many who don't gel with it would never rewatch it (it's a commitment, it's probably a horrendous slog for anyone who isn't open to its many charms), but, seriously, more people should. The film plays like music the more one becomes familiar with its rhythms. And once it draws you in, it locks you inside with this emotionally crushing existence of hers she seems to eternally sleepwalk through. Sublime and terrifying. Perfect.

Well, that was pretty lame.

Do check out my updated review of it: https://www.movieforums.com/communit...33#post2399433

Sleepwalking is certainly the apt term used to describe this film, as it is a conceptual film in which its main concerns are centred around the genesis of consciousness. I've never seen a film released prior or after that utilizes the filmic medium to express the philosophy of Phenomenology at its core.