Make Your Picks

Opinions on BFI 2022 Sight and Sound Poll

Tools    





BANNED FROM MOVIEGAL'S HEART
Wow I didn't realize it's so important for everyone to agree with you.
Nope, but it's important people don't say ludicrous things.
Is it a film or an experiment? Having a depressed Belgium woman filming another depressed woman peeling potatoes for 20 minutes is that cinema or an modern art installation.
It's cinema. LOL. If anything, one could make a point it's more/purer cinema than modern blockbuster stuff. After all, that was what cinema was born from. From Actuality that was slightly acted at times. I mean, Lumieres would put down their camera and record people leaving the factory. Contemplation is an inherent part of film.
Not every movie is for everyone. I've never really fallen under the spell of Man With a Movie Camera. I'd like to, but it just happened yet, and maybe it never will. I've never actually tried to write about my feelings on it and if I ever did, maybe I have good criticisms against it, or maybe they totally suck. Probably a little of both. But I don't entirely blame myself for not liking it that much. I just let it be, and let others have it if it works for them.
Fair. You're not saying Man With a Movie Camera isn't cinema tho.
And I think a movie like Jean Dielmann really unleashes the insecurity in those who want films to be a very specific thing and want to hit out at it because it changes the established ideas of what they expect to see up on that screen.
It's not even that challenging... I'd understand if they were losing their minds over Dog Star Man or Venom and Eternity but not Jeanne Dielman. It's just a long, contemplative film. I guess it'd be too much for somebody who likes fast-paced films, though.
And Jeanne Dielman is simply way ahead of some people....and not necessarily because it is that good (even though it is). But because some people have simply stopped walking.
Yeah, people usually have a very narrow idea as to what cinema is or could be. I guess I often forget that most film watchers are indeed your average Sunday film enjoyers.
__________________
I'm not nice. I'm mean. Deal with it.



BANNED FROM MOVIEGAL'S HEART
I respect you opinion on this but I don't agree. Your comment on Florida Project I don't understand though. The best movie of the last 20 years is not good enough to be on this list?
The other day I was talking with another cinephile. And he said that Pedro Costa, Wang Bing, Ryusuke Hamaguchi, etc., etc., can't have the title of the best living filmmaker. Why? Because it's too early to tell. Because they can still make a bad film, they can go down into the annals of history as the filmmakers who went astray and started making crap.

But also because most of their films are quite new. What's old is well-established. What's old is well observed and analyzed. What's old has passed the test of the ages. I guess it's a particular kind of anti-recency bias.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
Not every movie is for everyone. I've never really fallen under the spell of Man With a Movie Camera. I'd like to, but it just happened yet, and maybe it never will. I've never actually tried to write about my feelings on it and if I ever did, maybe I have good criticisms against it, or maybe they totally suck. Probably a little of both. But I don't entirely blame myself for not liking it that much. I just let it be, and let others have it if it works for them.
I felt similarly lukewarm when I saw it. The biggest praise I could muster is that it was something new and interesting for the time, but didn't find myself all that enthralled. There are definitely silent movies from the era I find more entertaining and fascinating.



A system of cells interlinked
I've seen it. I watched it right. I understand what its about and it does that exceptionally well.

But movies can do their thing exceptionally well and not be something that should even be considered as top 100 of all time. Like........it just isn't there. And that's not a fault. Almost no movie is at that level. The notion that all of cinema has toiled away for over a hundred years, and painstakingly come by each of its revelations, and....Get Out is one of them?

Get the **** out of town.

Sometimes just being a really good movie isn't enough.

I think Florida Project is probably the best movie of the last twenty years. Or at least it is definitely my personal favorite. But if it showed up on this list I'd pull my hair out.

Being good isn't good enough.
I normally jump into the deep end of the subjectivity pool when deciding what finally makes it when it comes to lists like the Best of MoFo decades etc., but for a sight and sound poll, I think I tend to agree with Crumbs here. I like both Get Out and The Florida Project, but I think I would try my best to try to stay objective on a short list of the best of all time in cinema, even if just to make sure that films that pushed the artform forward in some way get extra weight etc.

I'm probably going to lean into a Hitchcock film vs Get Out, for instance. I just rewatched Get Out last night, as I continue to prepare my ballot for the MoFo countdown - it's a great film, but I am not sure it is making my 25 of the decade (it may, but I am still not sure), so considering it for this list just wasn't in the cards. Not that submitted a list here, so I am just shooting the breeze, and I wanted to say Hi to Viddy.

Hi VIddy!
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



BANNED FROM MOVIEGAL'S HEART
There are definitely silent movies from the era I find more entertaining and fascinating.
What are they? I have some in mind, but I'm interested in your opinion.

Man with a Movie Camera is revolutionary. Masterful editing (better than anything made today), amazing ideas, incredible aesthetics, avant-garde chops, etc., etc. Soviet Montage is a thing to behold. And they would achieve this kind of editing with a hand montage that was a pain in the neck because you had to cut it all by hand using a cumbersome machine. Nowadays they have fancy computers and they do boring montages etc., etc. Of course, good editing doesn't necessarily mean super-fast cuts and whatnot, but it could.

But yeah, if you say any Eisenstein film, I'm not surprised. The Kino Eye vs. Kino Fist fight is real. I mean, Eisenstein would go with metric, rhythmic, tonal, overtonal, and intellectual montage in something like Strike or Battleship Potemkin. Who can match this?



But also because most of their films are quite new. What's old is well-established. What's old is well observed and analyzed. What's old has passed the test of the ages. I guess it's a particular kind of anti-recency bias.
In other words, your cinephile friends are afraid to form their own opinions and need to wait for an authoritative consensus to emerge. Oh, how I adore your cinematically wise friends
__________________



BANNED FROM MOVIEGAL'S HEART
In other words, your cinephile friends are afraid to form their own opinions and need to wait for an authoritative consensus to emerge. Oh, how I adore your cinematically wise friends
Actually, the opposite is true. For what it's worth, most of my cinephile friends are very opinionated and often go against the authoritative consensus, whatever that might be.

Publicly stating something like "the best living filmmakers" or "the 100 greatest films of all-time" goes with a certain level of responsibility. It's not a "favorite", it's "best", so there are many more factors that come into the equation when deciding that.

Recency bias is an exciting thing. But it can overpower you so much that you might end up overrating a film because of it. Maybe in ten years, you will think the film isn't that great. But the best movies stand the test of time. They are monuments. They are as great as they were back when they were released. In that way, they are universal, never embedded within a particular timeframe, but timeless. And it's not just themes we're talking about, but also style.

The question is, which one of the following is more credible:
a) A film that was released 3 years ago and got a huge hype following made it to the Top 100 Best Films Ever List.
b) A film that was released 70 years ago and was recognized, analyzed, continuously rediscovered, and is still as relevant as ever made it to the Top 100 Best Films Ever List.

Some things are meant to change slowly and gradually for a reason.



I respect you opinion on this but I don't agree. Your comment on Florida Project I don't understand though. The best movie of the last 20 years is not good enough to be on this list?

A movie that is my favorite movie of recent memory doesn't get a pass of all time greatness because it happens to be my favorite. I also think it is one of the best as well, but all time best? Nope, probably not. Not when we are talking about the kind of films that would be sharing its company. It would look absurd, and I think it wouldn't do the film any favors. Its a movie that is best served by being an underdog that sneaks up on you.



And that's not to say at no point should it be there. Maybe as more and more critics discover it, and talk about it, and tease more and more out of why it is a great film, and what it adds to the discussion of what cinema is and can be, then maybe enough light will be provided to lead it to such a list. But for the present moment, when it comes to hard core critical discussion and analysis, there really hasn't been a lot out there to put it at such lofty heights. And my love of it doesn't blind me to the fact that my strong feelings shouldn't be enough to put it in a place where we are trying to find a consensus on what is the best. Other people also have their ideas of what matters when it comes to cinema.



Personally, the only film off the top of my head that I can see maybe should be on this list is Oppenheimers "Act of Killing".Or maybe something by PT Anderson. Both which appear to have been neglected (which is also okay, because not everything is going to make the cut...such is the nature of these things)



I've also have no doubt there are some that I haven't seen that should be in discussion. Probably a whole load. There is a universe of modern film out there that I haven't even grazed from. And their are probably dozens upon dozens that are significantly more important, and maybe even better than Florida Project and certainly Get Out.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
What are they? I have some in mind, but I'm interested in your opinion.
Dante's Inferno (1911)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
Der Golem (1920)
Dr. Caligari (1920)
The Phantom Carriage (1921)
Nosferatu (1922)
Häxan: Witchcraft Through The Ages (1922)
Battleship Potemkin (1925)
The Phantom Of The Opera (1925)
Metropolis (1927)
Show People (1928)
Modern Times (1936)
__________________



Victim of The Night
The other day I was talking with another cinephile. And he said that Pedro Costa, Wang Bing, Ryusuke Hamaguchi, etc., etc., can't have the title of the best living filmmaker. Why? Because it's too early to tell. Because they can still make a bad film, they can go down into the annals of history as the filmmakers who went astray and started making crap.

But also because most of their films are quite new. What's old is well-established. What's old is well observed and analyzed. What's old has passed the test of the ages. I guess it's a particular kind of anti-recency bias.
Yeah, I guess I feel that it doesn't necessarily matter. As I pointed out elsewhere, L'Avventura debuted at No.2 when it was just 2 years old and it has remained in the conversation 60 years later. Hiroshima, Mon Amor was 3 when it debuted at 11 and LYaMarienbad (No.26) had been out just over a year. And they're all still in the conversation.
So, last 20 years doesn't seem to recent to me and those 3 films tell me that it wasn't too soon for Lady On Fire either. We'll know in a decade whether it was, though, I guess. I actually listened to a podcast with the critic from The Wrap and he had PoaLoF in his Top-10 and was pretty giddy (and shocked) that enough other people also saw it and just said, "Instant Classic". Which happens.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Personally, I'm shocked that this list, compiled from submissions from different critics, has not turned out to be the definitive list of the best movies of all time and at the same time align exactly with my personal tastes.

It's outrageous that when compiling their individual lists of ten films, these people did not take into account what other people would vote for to ensure the list was in the correct order according to me.

No film has any business being on this list if it isn't objectively regarded as a classic by everyone. At the same time I can't believe how boring and obvious the choices are. And some of these films are downright terrible, especially the ones I haven't seen.

I can think of at least a hundred films that should also have been on this list, I can't believe they couldn't find room for them.

It makes me so cross to see one of my favourite films of all time is on this list, when it is only my favourite film and not objectively the best film.

The fact that other people have different opinions means this list lacks all credibility.



Victim of The Night
I normally jump into the deep end of the subjectivity pool when deciding what finally makes it when it comes to lists like the Best of MoFo decades etc., but for a sight and sound poll, I think I tend to agree with Crumbs here. I like both Get Out and The Florida Project, but I think I would try my best to try to stay objective on a short list of the best of all time in cinema, even if just to make sure that films that pushed the artform forward in some way get extra weight etc.

I'm probably going to lean into a Hitchcock film vs Get Out, for instance. I just rewatched Get Out last night, as I continue to prepare my ballot for the MoFo countdown - it's a great film, but I am not sure it is making my 25 of the decade (it may, but I am still not sure), so considering it for this list just wasn't in the cards. Not that submitted a list here, so I am just shooting the breeze, and I wanted to say Hi to Viddy.

Hi VIddy!
So, no one is wrong here, I guess that's part of my point, because all these lists are subjective. I'm obviously a lot higher on Get Out than you guys, and that is compared to the best films ever made. And, on the one hand, enough people also felt the way I do for it to make the list but enough other people probably felt like you guys that it came in (tied for) last place. So, because it's ultimately almost all subjective once you get past a certain point (and I don't really wanna argue what that point is), I think both sides of that position can be true. But obviously a lot of people felt it was good enough.



The trick is not minding
I’ll be finally watching Jeanne Dielman this weekend.


Going over the list, I think the only film I *may* not have heard of before is Touki Bouki, but even that may have been mentioned before because there’s something familiar about it’s title.



Victim of The Night
And that's not to say at no point should it be there. Maybe as more and more critics discover it, and talk about it, and tease more and more out of why it is a great film, and what it adds to the discussion of what cinema is and can be, then maybe enough light will be provided to lead it to such a list. But for the present moment, when it comes to hard core critical discussion and analysis, there really hasn't been a lot out there to put it at such lofty heights. And my love of it doesn't blind me to the fact that my strong feelings shouldn't be enough to put it in a place where we are trying to find a consensus on what is the best. Other people also have their ideas of what matters when it comes to cinema.
Here is a place where we will diverge. I don't think films get better with time and appraisal.
Citizen Kane is the exact same film now as the day it was released. As is Jeanne Dielman, 2001, Beau Travail, what have you. I don't think that the films need light to lead them to such a list, I think, obviously, it's the viewers that need the light to see it. If it takes a film 20 or 30 or 50 years to work its way to being considered a great film, it is not the film that did any work, the film hasn't done anything since the day it was printed. It is the audience that has worked its way to appreciating the film.



Victim of The Night
Personally, I'm shocked that this list, compiled from submissions from different critics, has not turned out to be the definitive list of the best movies of all time and at the same time align exactly with my personal tastes.

It's outrageous that when compiling their individual lists of ten films, these people did not take into account what other people would vote for to ensure the list was in the correct order according to me.

No film has any business being on this list if it isn't objectively regarded as a classic by everyone. At the same time I can't believe how boring and obvious the choices are. And some of these films are downright terrible, especially the ones I haven't seen.

I can think of at least a hundred films that should also have been on this list, I can't believe they couldn't find room for them.

It makes me so cross to see one of my favourite films of all time is on this list, when it is only my favourite film and not objectively the best film.

The fact that other people have different opinions means this list lacks all credibility.
Actually pretty funny.



BANNED FROM MOVIEGAL'S HEART
Dante's Inferno (1911)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
Der Golem (1920)
Dr. Caligari (1920)
The Phantom Carriage (1921)
Nosferatu (1922)
Häxan: Witchcraft Through The Ages (1922)
Battleship Potemkin (1925)
The Phantom Of The Opera (1925)
Metropolis (1927)
Show People (1928)
Modern Times (1936)
All good to great. And all inferior to Man With a Movie Camera in that they are not quite as seminal, daring, experimental, avant-garde, etc., etc. but hey, some of them are close to Vertov's masterpiece!

I could break 'em all down because I've seen all, but let's take just a few.

Dante's Inferno (1911)
I've been a sort of advertiser for this film for some time because most of my cinephile friends think it's only good. I think it's exceptional; the special effects, the scope, and the hellish imagery all add up to quite an experience. In that regard, I can definitely see why you think it's both entertaining and fascinating. But I have a hard time seeing it among the best silents ever. Maybe if we want to go year by year, it's undoubtedly the best film of 1911. But does it really have the qualities of a groundbreaking work? I wonder.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
A very good film. Pretty brutal, how Hyde murders the guy and all. But again, special effects, a little bit of mood. That's it.

The Phantom Carriage (1921)
At this point I remembered that you actually meant these films as more entertaining and fascinating than The Man With a Movie Camera, and I'm sure how it aligns with what I was coming from originally, which was, presumably, that Vertov's film was a masterpiece for the ages. Either way, The Phantom Carriage is a seminal piece, though, in a different category, I believe. It's one of the greatest, most humane silents out there.

Is this your favorite Chaplin? I wonder which one is my favorite. I never loved Chaplin as much as other well-regarded filmmakers of the time. But it's funny how Modern Times, kind of like Ozu's I Was Born But... is both timeless and anachronic. I mean, 1936 (and even 1932) is long past the emergence of talkies. But Chaplin's stubbornness as to keep his films silent for as long as possible gives them a sort of timeless charm. I think The Kid and The Gold Rush are my favorites of his but I sure have to rewatch City Lights and a few others.

So yeah, great list. Some absolute masterpieces there. And not a single bad film, what's most important.

Yeah, I guess I feel that it doesn't necessarily matter. As I pointed out elsewhere, L'Avventura debuted at No.2 when it was just 2 years old and it has remained in the conversation 60 years later. Hiroshima, Mon Amor was 3 when it debuted at 11 and LYaMarienbad (No.26) had been out just over a year. And they're all still in the conversation.
Yeah, but firstly, the fact they've been doing it years ago, too, doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.

And secondly, all three of these are shattering masterpieces. L'Avventura was booed at Cannes (but then again, every second film was) and it was doing the Psycho thing the same year as Psycho while being a much more accomplished film, artistically. L'Eclisse is still better, though, and all.

But the point is, LYaMarienbad is one of the best films ever made and it was groundbreaking when it was released. It was something new, incredible, something that you looked at and could right away say it's worthwhile the title. And while they should have waited a little bit before including it, it doesn't hurt too much that they didn't. Now, something like Get Out or PoaLoF has nothing of the monumental masterpiece about it. These are films like any others. Like hundreds of other films.

Personally, I'm shocked that this list, compiled from submissions from different critics, has not turned out to be the definitive list of the best movies of all time and at the same time align exactly with my personal tastes.
Joking aside, it's both desirable and impossible to have a list agglomerated from so many other lists be so good. I mean, the list is pretty good so the weird inclusions of new and ill-fitted films seem even more so jarring.



Victim of The Night
...Now, something like Get Out or PoaLoF has nothing of the monumental masterpiece about it. These are films like any others. Like hundreds of other films.
Says you.
Which is alright.



It's not a "favorite", it's "best", so there are many more factors that come into the equation when deciding that.
So, again, it boils down to this. I strongly disagree with you and @crumbsroom because "favorite" and "best" are the same to me. Also, the "best" is not a constant but something born out of the experience, and as the person experiencing changes, so does the experience. We don't need years of debate and research to have a feeling about a movie.

Exchange "the best" for "the most influential," and I'd agree.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
#1, lol - how typical. How trendy. If someone were to tell me their favorite movie was Jeanne Dielmann, I either wouldn't believe them, or I'd avoid them.



Here is a place where we will diverge. I don't think films get better with time and appraisal.
Citizen Kane is the exact same film now as the day it was released. As is Jeanne Dielman, 2001, Beau Travail, what have you. I don't think that the films need light to lead them to such a list, I think, obviously, it's the viewers that need the light to see it. If it takes a film 20 or 30 or 50 years to work its way to being considered a great film, it is not the film that did any work, the film hasn't done anything since the day it was printed. It is the audience that has worked its way to appreciating the film.

Minio already outlined this when talking about something standing the test of time. That matters. That means something. And very few films stay relevant decade after decade. And its good to set those films that do apart from the many many films that have been loved for a few years, or sometimes even a few decades, and then forgotten.



Of course the actual hard copy of the film stays the same. People are what change. Which is why lists change. Why some films fall in favour and fall out of favour. What matters is the discussion of the film and how we interact with it. And that changes over time, even when the film stays exactly the same. We change. The world changes. And if the film still retains that something special, then we are getting down to business. Otherwise, we are just talking about what our favorites are. And that, as already discussed, is very different from 'best'.



To argue otherwise is to say movies, or any art, are born great. But they aren't. They require audience and critical interaction to imbue them with meaning. Talking about films after we watch them is what makes us find their value. Something beyond our simple lizard brain response to them while we are watching them. And films on a S&S poll should, at least ideally, demand more.


It's why if the next Citizen Kane was released later this afternoon, and in time became a film that would completely reinvent cinema in its own image, it shouldn't suddenly be considered the greatest of all time by dinnertime. Even if it is ultimately deemed to be the greatest, we need to wait a little. Pump the breaks, for god's sake because we can only truly figure these things out as we talk with eachother. Agree upon the terms of what makes it important. Great. Better than almost everything else. Any other evaluation would just be an emotional impulse, and frankly, what value do these have to something that is supposed to be born of consensus. Gut feelings are essential to what our favorite movies are...but when we talk about best films, we are moving the film out from our personal experience and trying to articulate why it should also matter to others. Or to the art form itself. And, how this gets done properly without time to let our ideas and thoughts and feelings and intellectual responses marinate on it, is beyond me.