Reply to Topic
k
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Opinions on BFI 2022 Sight and Sound Poll
Sorry to revive this thread again, but here's the full list of 4,000+ films. It shows the exact amount of points each films received:
https://letterboxd.com/csmithchicago...-sound/detail/
According to my Letterboxd stats, I've seen 1,184/4,198.
https://letterboxd.com/csmithchicago...-sound/detail/
According to my Letterboxd stats, I've seen 1,184/4,198.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Here's my review of the new no. 1 voted film in perhaps the most prestigious film poll. In case anyone is curious to know why I think so highly of Jeanne Dielman, here is my review on letterboxd - https://letterboxd.com/wu_yong/film/...080-bruxelles/
The singular event that erupts at the end has often been characterized as a brief, momentary (re-)assertion of one's autonomy from the oppressive mundanity of labour - an emancipatory albeit destructive act. There is however a sense that Seyrig feels most at ease when she is precisely going through her chores inattentively, whereas the few moments that punctuate - those scenes where she literally does "nothing"/being out-of-sync with her mundane routines - are also those where she appears to be at her most tense (a testament to how far capitalist ideology has cultivated a sense of freedom through endless work). This alters the meaning of the ending to be far bleaker than one which can be calculated in terms of repercussions. Instead of a triumphant break-out from the cycle of domestic servitude, the after-effect of the act dissipates further highlighting that Seyrig can never manage to escape from both her geo-spatial & mental patterns of behavior.
More instructively, I think the film draws to our attention that mood & emotions are not something that reside internally within us but take on their existence via the affection of objects around us. No matter how close the camera invades Seyrig's private space, or how long the static frame attempts to confine her, it can never capture the existence of her feelings. Their implied existence do not come prior to their expression through the minutiae changes in habit and orientation of said objects. Expression, explication, habit, disposition, attunement - these are the key features of existence which come prior to any sort of cognitive reflection that retrospectively imputes a mental state of affairs. In this regard, Dielman is more like a dance than a film by foregrounding the embodied-ness of Seyrig and the audience.
Besides presenting to the viewer an externalist view of the psyche, the film also broaches an ontological issue related to the Heideggerian concept of "un-ready-to-hand" which describes our fundamental encounter of the world as being perpetually mediated by the mode of familiarity/unfamiliarity. There is a parallel between Seyrig becoming unattuned to her familiar world of habitual dispositions and the audience noticing Seyrig's unheimlichkeit. For Seyrig, heretofore familiar objects oppose and resist her grasp, unconcealing their presence to her. For the audience, a series of seemingly ordinary routines becomes transformed by a singular event, which then forces a re-evaluation of the entire preceding sequence that used to pass by unnoticed - a veritable analogy for the history of all forms of oppression, and also of life in general.
What is truly disquieting is this: by objectifying Seyrig as a domestic subject to be studied, she actually disappears into the mis-en-scene/background like a cog in the wheel of domesticity. The revelation of the extent of her entrapment becomes apparent through the very same mis-en-scene that enables her emergence from it, like a being that flickers into and out of existence. The phenomenologist Merleau-Ponty calls this site of encounter the reversibility of Flesh, where in-betweenness is not something derived secondarily from pre-given fully-formed objects but is the original plane of encounter with the world that has yet to be constituted as "things"/"objects".
No other film in the history of cinema thus far has choreographed the unveiling of life's undercurrents which resonate in intensity and manifest themselves as changes in a person's disposition, insisting that human knowledge is always already a step too late, and that the ascription of emotions is only done retrospectively. This is because the film sunders motive from consequence, demonstrating that what we attribute as "cause" is always (and can only be) retrospective. What is really novel, a theme Hong Sang-Soo would later obsessively pursue, is to take the Kuleshov effect to its limits by pushing out the reference frame (one we associate with cause) altogether. What we are left with is a series of main frames (eg. Day 1, Day 2, Day 3) with no discernible causal structure, since there is no reference frame that is itself not just another effect.
The singular event that erupts at the end has often been characterized as a brief, momentary (re-)assertion of one's autonomy from the oppressive mundanity of labour - an emancipatory albeit destructive act. There is however a sense that Seyrig feels most at ease when she is precisely going through her chores inattentively, whereas the few moments that punctuate - those scenes where she literally does "nothing"/being out-of-sync with her mundane routines - are also those where she appears to be at her most tense (a testament to how far capitalist ideology has cultivated a sense of freedom through endless work). This alters the meaning of the ending to be far bleaker than one which can be calculated in terms of repercussions. Instead of a triumphant break-out from the cycle of domestic servitude, the after-effect of the act dissipates further highlighting that Seyrig can never manage to escape from both her geo-spatial & mental patterns of behavior.
More instructively, I think the film draws to our attention that mood & emotions are not something that reside internally within us but take on their existence via the affection of objects around us. No matter how close the camera invades Seyrig's private space, or how long the static frame attempts to confine her, it can never capture the existence of her feelings. Their implied existence do not come prior to their expression through the minutiae changes in habit and orientation of said objects. Expression, explication, habit, disposition, attunement - these are the key features of existence which come prior to any sort of cognitive reflection that retrospectively imputes a mental state of affairs. In this regard, Dielman is more like a dance than a film by foregrounding the embodied-ness of Seyrig and the audience.
Besides presenting to the viewer an externalist view of the psyche, the film also broaches an ontological issue related to the Heideggerian concept of "un-ready-to-hand" which describes our fundamental encounter of the world as being perpetually mediated by the mode of familiarity/unfamiliarity. There is a parallel between Seyrig becoming unattuned to her familiar world of habitual dispositions and the audience noticing Seyrig's unheimlichkeit. For Seyrig, heretofore familiar objects oppose and resist her grasp, unconcealing their presence to her. For the audience, a series of seemingly ordinary routines becomes transformed by a singular event, which then forces a re-evaluation of the entire preceding sequence that used to pass by unnoticed - a veritable analogy for the history of all forms of oppression, and also of life in general.
What is truly disquieting is this: by objectifying Seyrig as a domestic subject to be studied, she actually disappears into the mis-en-scene/background like a cog in the wheel of domesticity. The revelation of the extent of her entrapment becomes apparent through the very same mis-en-scene that enables her emergence from it, like a being that flickers into and out of existence. The phenomenologist Merleau-Ponty calls this site of encounter the reversibility of Flesh, where in-betweenness is not something derived secondarily from pre-given fully-formed objects but is the original plane of encounter with the world that has yet to be constituted as "things"/"objects".
No other film in the history of cinema thus far has choreographed the unveiling of life's undercurrents which resonate in intensity and manifest themselves as changes in a person's disposition, insisting that human knowledge is always already a step too late, and that the ascription of emotions is only done retrospectively. This is because the film sunders motive from consequence, demonstrating that what we attribute as "cause" is always (and can only be) retrospective. What is really novel, a theme Hong Sang-Soo would later obsessively pursue, is to take the Kuleshov effect to its limits by pushing out the reference frame (one we associate with cause) altogether. What we are left with is a series of main frames (eg. Day 1, Day 2, Day 3) with no discernible causal structure, since there is no reference frame that is itself not just another effect.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Sorry to revive this thread again, but here's the full list of 4,000+ films. It shows the exact amount of points each films received:
https://letterboxd.com/csmithchicago...-sound/detail/
According to my Letterboxd stats, I've seen 1,184/4,198.
https://letterboxd.com/csmithchicago...-sound/detail/
According to my Letterboxd stats, I've seen 1,184/4,198.
X
User Lists
Kudos to whoever it was who voted for Kung Fu Panda as one of the greatest movies of all time.
I would've voted for it if the character development for the Furious Five was stronger. Did you know it's one of the most beloved and watched movies in China because it horors traditional Chinese storytelling so well?
X
Favorite Movies
I would've voted for it if the character development for the Furious Five was stronger. Did you know it's one of the most beloved and watched movies in China because it horors traditional Chinese storytelling so well?
X
User Lists
https://letterboxd.com/csmithchicago...-sound/detail/
According to my Letterboxd stats, I've seen 1,184/4,198.
According to my Letterboxd stats, I've seen 1,184/4,198.
__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.
X
User Lists
MoFo All-Time Top 100 > S & S Top 100
https://www.movieforums.com/lists/mo...esh/87556.html
__________________
HEI guys.
HEI guys.
there's a heavy bias in that critics' list for female directors.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Bias or is it perhaps recognition?
The reason why Get Out (or Moonlight or Do the Right Thing or whatever they included) is so high too.
True diversity should come from sincerity and quality.
There are quality films made by women and blacks but few and in between because there are less women and black directors in general. No reason to include them just because. Jeanne should be included cuz it's a masterpiece not cuz Akerman was a woman or cuz the film is feminist.
The best black directors are African. Afro-Americans aren't very good at directing and unless I'm missing somebody obvious there's not a single great one
X
User Lists
As for woman directors they're better than men on average, meaning that more women who direct movies fall on around the mean whereas with men there are more extreme cases of both terrible filmmakers and incredible ones. It's similar with intelligence amongst sexes too.
X
User Lists
Forced recognition in terms of cinematic parity.
The reason why Get Out (or Moonlight or Do the Right Thing or whatever they included) is so high too.
True diversity should come from sincerity and quality.
There are quality films made by women and blacks but few and in between because there are less women and black directors in general. No reason to include them just because. Jeanne should be included cuz it's a masterpiece not cuz Akerman was a woman or cuz the film is feminist.
The best black directors are African. Afro-Americans aren't very good at directing and unless I'm missing somebody obvious there's not a single great one
The reason why Get Out (or Moonlight or Do the Right Thing or whatever they included) is so high too.
True diversity should come from sincerity and quality.
There are quality films made by women and blacks but few and in between because there are less women and black directors in general. No reason to include them just because. Jeanne should be included cuz it's a masterpiece not cuz Akerman was a woman or cuz the film is feminist.
The best black directors are African. Afro-Americans aren't very good at directing and unless I'm missing somebody obvious there's not a single great one
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Bias or is it perhaps recognition?
I think Jeanne Dielman is a bit too slow and artsy to really be considered number 1 without critics, HUMAN critics as there is no other, sticking a known female-directed movie they "appreciated" on the list because feminism in more "in" now than ever thanks to the MeToo movement. Now no one in their right mind would think MeToo is a bad thing, but no one in their right mind should ever consider that good things can't be abused. It's as common to defend something good and use it as an excuse for bad behavior as it is for a human to worry about what others think, so when you gather a mass amount of critics, there will be a few people worried about image.
I doubt, however, that any of them would've considered that Jeanne Dielman would make number 1, and that there were just mass amounts of people who upvoted them to say there were with the times, much like the mass amounts of RYM users who unwittingly secured three Beatles and eventually three Radiohead albums in the top ten albums. Hell, most I've ever given for a single director in my top ten was two: Coppola for the Godfather movies and Gilliam for Monty Python and 12 Monkeys.
For the common man, one could say = Self-induced peer pressure.
For critics = Awareness of times and self-induced necessity to keep with fads.
Obviously not all critics are familiar with this, but in a heavily "social-political" time all about empowerment, one has to accept that no matter which side of the spectrum is more powerful, BELIEFS are going to play an essential role even when the voters don't want to admit it.
This typically stems from a strong concern for what others in the field think. Add this to the idea that most people have difficulty forming "top 25's" and may pick movies they gave five stars that fit the general fad bill because "a five-star is a five-star," which I've heard from various people over the years via various topics, then the end of it is it's only "political bias" because "political bias" was "in" at the time.
I'd have completely accepted another female-directed film that feels less suspicious. Take a look through the MoFo Top 100 Films Directed By Women and tell me you don't find a few that might make a reasonable #1. In communities like this, Kathryn Bigelow is an all-too familiar name, and Sofia Coppola just may get either The Virgin Suicides or Lost in Translation to be ahead of all her father's films at some point. So much less suspicious than a three-hour slow cinema movie where the point is to explore the literal boredom of life by filming that boredom. On our own list, Jeanne Dielman didn't even break top 50.
As far as personal opinion goes, I'm going to say that I understood and at least appreciated the point and technique of the film, but not only do I think exploring boredom via everyday action too easily recreates that idea to enjoy even critically, but the movie that cemented all the essentials of slow cinema filmmaking is Satantango, so I compare every slow cinema movie I watch to that one movie. In the end, I gave JD a 68/100. As far as female directors go, my current favorite is Agnes Varda. I've given two of her movies 100's, as well as two other five stars (minimum 95). I also greatly appreciate Kathryn Bigelow, although I haven't given her any 100's.
X
Favorite Movies
The best black directors are African. Afro-Americans aren't very good at directing and unless I'm missing somebody obvious there's not a single great one
You're missing Spike Lee. And I stand by that.
X
Favorite Movies
This is all my opinions on the subject.
I think Jeanne Dielman is a bit too slow and artsy to really be considered number 1 without critics, HUMAN critics as there is no other, sticking a known female-directed movie they "appreciated" on the list because feminism in more "in" now than ever thanks to the MeToo movement. Now no one in their right mind would think MeToo is a bad thing, but no one in their right mind should ever consider that good things can't be abused. It's as common to defend something good and use it as an excuse for bad behavior as it is for a human to worry about what others think, so when you gather a mass amount of critics, there will be a few people worried about image.
I doubt, however, that any of them would've considered that Jeanne Dielman would make number 1, and that there were just mass amounts of people who upvoted them to say there were with the times, much like the mass amounts of RYM users who unwittingly secured three Beatles and eventually three Radiohead albums in the top ten albums. Hell, most I've ever given for a single director in my top ten was two: Coppola for the Godfather movies and Gilliam for Monty Python and 12 Monkeys.
For the common man, one could say = Self-induced peer pressure.
For critics = Awareness of times and self-induced necessity to keep with fads.
Obviously not all critics are familiar with this, but in a heavily "social-political" time all about empowerment, one has to accept that no matter which side of the spectrum is more powerful, BELIEFS are going to play an essential role even when the voters don't want to admit it.
This typically stems from a strong concern for what others in the field think. Add this to the idea that most people have difficulty forming "top 25's" and may pick movies they gave five stars that fit the general fad bill because "a five-star is a five-star," which I've heard from various people over the years via various topics, then the end of it is it's only "political bias" because "political bias" was "in" at the time.
I'd have completely accepted another female-directed film that feels less suspicious. Take a look through the MoFo Top 100 Films Directed By Women and tell me you don't find a few that might make a reasonable #1. In communities like this, Kathryn Bigelow is an all-too familiar name, and Sofia Coppola just may get either The Virgin Suicides or Lost in Translation to be ahead of all her father's films at some point. So much less suspicious than a three-hour slow cinema movie where the point is to explore the literal boredom of life by filming that boredom. On our own list, Jeanne Dielman didn't even break top 50.
As far as personal opinion goes, I'm going to say that I understood and at least appreciated the point and technique of the film, but not only do I think exploring boredom via everyday action too easily recreates that idea to enjoy even critically, but the movie that cemented all the essentials of slow cinema filmmaking is Satantango, so I compare every slow cinema movie I watch to that one movie. In the end, I gave JD a 68/100. As far as female directors go, my current favorite is Agnes Varda. I've given two of her movies 100's, as well as two other five stars (minimum 95). I also greatly appreciate Kathryn Bigelow, although I haven't given her any 100's.
I think Jeanne Dielman is a bit too slow and artsy to really be considered number 1 without critics, HUMAN critics as there is no other, sticking a known female-directed movie they "appreciated" on the list because feminism in more "in" now than ever thanks to the MeToo movement. Now no one in their right mind would think MeToo is a bad thing, but no one in their right mind should ever consider that good things can't be abused. It's as common to defend something good and use it as an excuse for bad behavior as it is for a human to worry about what others think, so when you gather a mass amount of critics, there will be a few people worried about image.
I doubt, however, that any of them would've considered that Jeanne Dielman would make number 1, and that there were just mass amounts of people who upvoted them to say there were with the times, much like the mass amounts of RYM users who unwittingly secured three Beatles and eventually three Radiohead albums in the top ten albums. Hell, most I've ever given for a single director in my top ten was two: Coppola for the Godfather movies and Gilliam for Monty Python and 12 Monkeys.
For the common man, one could say = Self-induced peer pressure.
For critics = Awareness of times and self-induced necessity to keep with fads.
Obviously not all critics are familiar with this, but in a heavily "social-political" time all about empowerment, one has to accept that no matter which side of the spectrum is more powerful, BELIEFS are going to play an essential role even when the voters don't want to admit it.
This typically stems from a strong concern for what others in the field think. Add this to the idea that most people have difficulty forming "top 25's" and may pick movies they gave five stars that fit the general fad bill because "a five-star is a five-star," which I've heard from various people over the years via various topics, then the end of it is it's only "political bias" because "political bias" was "in" at the time.
I'd have completely accepted another female-directed film that feels less suspicious. Take a look through the MoFo Top 100 Films Directed By Women and tell me you don't find a few that might make a reasonable #1. In communities like this, Kathryn Bigelow is an all-too familiar name, and Sofia Coppola just may get either The Virgin Suicides or Lost in Translation to be ahead of all her father's films at some point. So much less suspicious than a three-hour slow cinema movie where the point is to explore the literal boredom of life by filming that boredom. On our own list, Jeanne Dielman didn't even break top 50.
As far as personal opinion goes, I'm going to say that I understood and at least appreciated the point and technique of the film, but not only do I think exploring boredom via everyday action too easily recreates that idea to enjoy even critically, but the movie that cemented all the essentials of slow cinema filmmaking is Satantango, so I compare every slow cinema movie I watch to that one movie. In the end, I gave JD a 68/100. As far as female directors go, my current favorite is Agnes Varda. I've given two of her movies 100's, as well as two other five stars (minimum 95). I also greatly appreciate Kathryn Bigelow, although I haven't given her any 100's.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
It’s supposed to be slow. That’s the point. And perhaps it being artsy is why it was so well received?and I doubt it had much of anything to do with the Metoo movement, to be honest.
Like I said, Satantango cemented my idea of what slow cinema should be, and I'm not convinced that a movie that recreates something that people are desperate to get away from for two or even three hours is the best idea. It didn't utilize it's slowness as well as it could've. Once you get the idea of what's happening, a good portion of the movie becomes unoriginal, leaving the fun of it to be little slight hints toward the ending that are about as exciting as finding a hidden object in a Cluefinders game. Satantango did so much more to comment on humanity.
And I said before, but will expand, that if they had chosen a movie popular with people and critics, such as Lost in Translation or The Virgin Suicides, or maybe even The Hurt Locker, I'd be much less suspicious and say, "Why does it have to be feminist? These movies are extremely relevant today and popular with both sides."
You gotta admit, feminism was on a huge popularity rise for a while because of MeToo. Everyone knows that, no need for a lecture. And critics? They're JOURNALISTS. They're essentially treating themselves as public figures. As long as they can say they gave the movie five-stars, why not choose movies that'll make them look good? It seems like a perfectly natural thing for a group of human beings to do, even if they accidentally do it as a group instead of getting together intentionally.
X
Favorite Movies
|
|