Make Your Picks

Opinions on BFI 2022 Sight and Sound Poll

Tools    





i think it's possible that people just really like the movie jeanne dielman and in 2012 it wasn't widely available and now it is
__________________
Most Biblical movies were long If I Recall.
seen A Clockwork Orange. In all honesty, the movie was weird and silly
letterboxd
criticker



Victim of The Night
Angry, old, rich, white man shakes fist at change, implies conspiracy. Film at eleven.



On one hand I get what Schraeder is saying, because of the optics of a film jumping thirty points when that would have been unprecedented before.


But films are so much more accessible now, to acquire, to rewatch multiple times. This is a huge factor. And because of it Jeanne Dielmann has been building serious steam regarding peoples awareness of it the last decade. I know of a few total cinema plebes who have become aware of it. It's strident formalism has also become seemingly embraced more and more by those who aren't simply interested in its politics or its avant garde reputation.


So while I have no doubt that maybe a bit of a thumb slipped onto the scale (but again, who cares as there has always been biases, political and artistic which play into these decisions), but also maybe it's also got a lot to do with how much people have realized they actually love it since the last sight and sound poll.



Like, does Schraeder really think the lists of previous years somehow were born out of an absolutely pure critical appraisal, not shaped by the times they were in? The Bicycle Thief was completely fairly number one for awhile and are we going to pretend its politics didn't appeal to the kind of people who were critics at the time? Like, give me a break



What a bizarre statement.

It simultaneously claims that there was rigging in how the votes were counted, but also bemoans "expanding the voting community", which has weird "letting the wrong people have a say" vibes.

Anyway, does all the pearl-clutching (including from many people who admit they haven't even seen it!) increase my rating for Jeanne Dielman? No. It wouldn't be my #1 film, but then again I'm not sure that any of my top 5 favorite films appear anywhere on that list, so whatever.

Again: I'd love to see the stats, because my guess is that Jeanne Dielman benefitted from a breadth of votes. It's definitely been more on my radar in the last 3 years (I think I watched it for the first time 2 years ago? I admit the runtime and lack of availability meant I'd put it off a while). It would probably make my personal top 50, and would definitely make my personal top 100. It is, like I wrote earlier, and epic of the mundane, and I think that a lot of people can connect to its portrayal of the kind of social isolation experienced by the main character. It is grounded in some very distinctively female experiences--sex work, motherhood--but the slow-grind pain of an unchanging and unappreciated life is something that taps into a more broad emotional note.

Also, like, it's just a list. And I'm not saying lists can't be important, but I think that the best function of a good list is to (1) provide a resource for someone exploring a new topic/area and (2) generate a good conversation. I bet if I went into work tomorrow and said "What did you guys think of the new Sight and Sound poll?" not a one of my co-workers would even know what I was talking about. No one is going to lean against the copy machine and say, "Well, I was going to check out that Lawrence of Arabia, but I see it didn't make the S&S top 100 this year, so I think I'll pass."



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
I do feel some skepticism towards Jeanne Dielmann being at number 1, but it has nothing to do with whatever Schrader is rambling about and more to do with critics always highly praising arthouse cinema, especially the kind that isn't easily accessible.

Get Out shouldn't have made the list. Sure it's a good movie, but it has too many flaws for me to consider it anything great, and I actually prefer Peele's other two films at least by a bit.

Gone With The Wind getting knocked off is unfortunate too. While there are things about it that have aged poorly, what it succeeds at it does at incredible length. The complex character portrayals, performances from Leigh, Gable and Havilland, the beautiful photography and powerful storytelling are legitimate reasons for me to consider it a near-masterpiece.

As someone who is usually adverse to modern inclusions though, I will say there is one choice I feel is 100% deserving. I'm not gonna spoil what it is since the 2010s showdown is coming up soon, but I will actually be upset if that one doesn't show up.



I would submit that a lot of great films by female directors have become more available in the last decade due to streaming services and so a lot more are being considered. I mean, didn't only 14 films by female directors make it despite those females making up literally 50% of the population?
I'm pretty sure this is more attributable to the fact that there weren't very many female directors for the first few decades of filmmaking. The upsurge in female directors is gonna fix that. Hopefully we'll get another Varda soon (and ever since I saw Greta Gerwig's Lady Bird, I've been kinda hoping that the Barbie movie ends up amazing).

I watch Ouran. Gimme a break.

As for my opinions on the list, you're not gonna believe this. I've seen exactly half.

First, the list looks super-typical for critic's choices. I mean, it's bad enough we could all predict 2001 getting in the top 10, but the only two animated movies were Ghibli? No It's Such a Beautiful Day? Do they have a cult that believes the devil has black circular ears? And how come the only two horror movies on the list that I can remember catching are the two most obvious choices ever: The Shining and Get Out?

Second, while I promote female directors, the plot of Jeanne Dielman gives off the vibe that the critics were thinking more politically than usual. Hell, the ratings between Imdb and RT prove this all the time. I probably wouldn't have said anything had it been a less blatantly obvious choice in that regard like Cleo from 5 to 7.

Of course, I rarely trust newspaper lists like these with honest opinions. After Rolling Stone, I have difficulty with most of them. This is why I prefer personal user lists.



Why can't he just be a person with an opinion?
When a six year old wins at chess you don't tell the six year old that you let them win. BFI decided that they wanted a diverse group so they manipulated the game to get the results they wanted. What they actually did was piss away fifty years of credibility pushing lies. This list is like ranking Jane Austen over Shakespeare but because Jane Austen doesn't exist in cinema they decided to prop up Danielle Steel.

Jeanne Dielmann is not a masterpiece it is an exercise in masturbation. It's a stunt, a fraud, and a trick meant to embolden and pander to the lowest aspect of us all. It exists to feed an ego, to puff up chests and mock those of us that care about art and film history. The headlines tell you all you need to know...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63829976
Jeanne Dielman: Film directed by woman picked as best ever


It's a movie by a lady so even though it's 50 years old and has never been considered a classic that 95% of the people have never even heard about it's a lady movie so it's the best ever and shut up about it and don't think.



Picking something that most of the "unlearned," or "unlicensed" shall I say, would seem like the smart choice in the long run because any critic can say that those who don;t like the movie just aren't in tune with "art" as them. But that argument discounts that we have brains, and that we not only CAN use them, but we have the right to use them and voice the results.



The trick is not minding
No Cassavetes is absurd.
I’ve had trouble….I guess connecting is the word….with his few films I’ve seen so far. Woman under the Inlfuence, Killing of a Chinese Bookie for example.
I feel like I need to rewatch the latter because it was well over a decade ago and it’s possible I may not have been ready for his style?
Woman under the influence was more recent and I wasn’t a fan of Rowland’s acting.



I don't know, I don;t hate the half I've seen so far, but I can see why it would be a really easy movie to hate without finishing. Me, I finish almost everything I watch, so I rarely run into this problem. As such, one could attribute high ratings with the fact that this is a movie that haters of the first half-hour wouldn't typically finish.

I know they didn't have Imdb or such back then, but if Akelman planned it that way to keep the high critical ratings, that would actually be genius.



I don't know, I don;t hate the half I've seen so far, but I can see why it would be a really easy movie to hate without finishing. Me, I finish almost everything I watch, so I rarely run into this problem. As such, one could attribute high ratings with the fact that this is a movie that haters of the first half-hour wouldn't typically finish.

I know they didn't have Imdb or such back then, but if Akelman planned it that way to keep the high critical ratings, that would actually be genius.
I think you are underestimating the number of people who freely rate movies they haven't seen at all, much less only watched the first half of.



I think you are underestimating the number of people who freely rate movies they haven't seen at all, much less only watched the first half of.
I can see a wide range of typical human beings doing it, but but would most critics actually do that if they had to write reviews? If that's the case, we can more safely assume dishonesty in the ratings, not to mention scripture mentality based on past critics; decisions, as well as social-philosophical bias. In the event of the former, it would explain the high number of arthouse and experimental films present in the list, as well as the notion that BFI told them what type of movies to vote for. In the event of the latter, I wouldn't be surprised if Gone With the Wind was knocked off for its portrayal of African Americans, and that Get Out was put on for being a pioneering movie about racial tension from the perspective of an African American.

Now I haven;t seen Get Out, but even though I gave GwtW a five-star, it's nothing compared to Fleming's other 1939 film, The Wizard of Oz, which has been in my top 20 for a couple years.



I can see a wide range of typical human beings doing it, but but would most critics actually do that if they had to write reviews?
Not critics, no. Sorry, I misread and thought you were talking more about IMDb.

I think that the runtime of the film is integral to what it's trying to portray. It is important to feel the minutes ticking by and to understand that this is the merest fraction of this woman's everyday life. I suppose in a cynical way you can say it's a gimmick, but so are things like the first person point of view in Dark Passage. I think that if something is done with genuine purpose that aligns with the heart of the film it's disingenuous to dismiss it as being superficial provocation. I think that the film is provocative in its own way, but not superficially so.


EDIT: I just want to be clear that people can dislike Jeanne Dielman and even specifically dislike its length and feel like it's a slog and think it's a style choice that really doesn't work.

But I think there's a difference between disliking a film or finding it boring and accusing it of being a ploy or assuming the director is not being genuine in their intentions.



10 Foreign Language movies to go
I just want to say hurrah for Close-Up and Portrait of a Lady On Fire - only seen 64 out of the 100, with many surprise "Why have I never heard of that?" entries. Seems like an incredibly atypical list with surprise entries everywhere.

(Seen 70/100 of the directors poll)
__________________
My movie ratings often go up or down a point or two after more reflection, research and rewatches.