The Young Turk's Top 100 Films - Revised

→ in
Tools    





Registered User
nice list but i think some classic movies are missing in your list



1. Hitchcock did not show flawed women, he flawed the women.
When you make statements like that, it would be more productive to substantiate them with arguments and specific examples, so we can understand better what your true issue with Hitchcock's films (not his persona) are.

Von Trier's films are definitely "feminist". I don't disagree with you there and I'm also a fan of the director.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019



1. Hitchcock did not show flawed women, he flawed the women.
Based on what? They're all fictional, so any flaws shown are things each director chose to instill or emphasize in them.



Feminism isn't about flawed women being 'anti-feminist'. The fact that Hitchcock shows flawed women isn't the problem. It's the context behind his flawed women. The stories of the characters in Hitchcock's films are nowhere near deep enough to justify the kind of 'flaws' we are talking about here and instead reveal the issues of the director. Now most art involves the conflation of self and product but it is also the right of any viewer to criticise the product. The feminist view of Hitchcock does this, and the attitude I'm getting from a lot of these comments is that most film buffs are quite happy to allow films to maintain a sexist derogatory view instead of growing further as an art form.
__________________
p e a c e a n d l o v e : - )



I am not a woman so I don't pretend to know when they should and shouldn't be offended by their depiction in a film. I can tell you that I can't think of a single woman I know who wouldn't be more offended on the way they are depicted in Nymphomaniac than Vertigo.

For the record I think Hitchcock writes very strong female characters. Almosy every one of his movies I can think of has a strong female character. Including Novak in Vertigo.
__________________
Letterboxd



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
I think you can definitely identify some misogynistic traits in some of Hitchcock's work, but this wouldn't lead me to dismiss his entire filmography out of hand. In defence of Hitchcock, I think the uncomfortable voyeuristic element you describe is one of the things that puts the creepy into some of his creepy films, I wouldn't have assumed it was necessarily endorsed.



Nymphomaniac is literally just about a woman that enjoys sex. There is no problem there. The character is NOT flawed because of her sexual exploits and every woman I've spoken to about this believes that Vertigo is more dismissive and therefore offensive than Nymphomaniac.



I thought the characterisation in Nymphomaniac was terrible and shallow, he tried to make us care with a series of cliched incidents meant to give the character depth, but ultimately the film was a poor exercise in self indulgent, what does he achieve by showing us the sexual images in such graphic detail, is that needed? I think for a film itself to be misogynistic you have to consider the way woman are treated in the production of it, and for this reason I don't think you can argue that Hitchcock was (with the exception of The Birds, which has some complaints). I know Ebert was deeply offended by how Isabella Rosselini was used in Blue Velvet, and he found the naked scene to be unnecessary and exploitative, without purpose, however I think it works within the context of the film. I think making women appear in a degrading manner needs to be justified. Never are women in Hitchcock films belittled or degraded to the point where they are uncomfortable .



Feminism isn't about flawed women being 'anti-feminist'. The fact that Hitchcock shows flawed women isn't the problem. It's the context behind his flawed women. The stories of the characters in Hitchcock's films are nowhere near deep enough to justify the kind of 'flaws' we are talking about here and instead reveal the issues of the director. Now most art involves the conflation of self and product but it is also the right of any viewer to criticise the product.
Nobody has, at any point, suggested you don't have the right to criticize any film, or that you don't have the right to put whatever you want on your list. They've simply been disagreeing with your reasons for do so. They're exercising the same right to criticize that you enjoy. And as you said earlier, disagreements like this make film interesting.

The feminist view of Hitchcock does this, and the attitude I'm getting from a lot of these comments is that most film buffs are quite happy to allow films to maintain a sexist derogatory view instead of growing further as an art form.
Not at all; most film buffs here are disputing the premise that it's sexist in the first place. And they're also encouraging you to make a distinction between things you reject for artistic reasons and things you object for ethical ones. I have zero problem with you rejecting a director because of personal objections to their behavior. That's totally reasonable. But it's not reasonable to present this as a reflection on their work, or acting as if it diminishes their influence.

Saying you won't watch Woody Allen films because you think he's done awful things is a legitimate decision for a person to make. But saying his dialogue is crappy because he did awful things is a total non-sequitur. The same logic applies to Hitchcock.



Let the night air cool you off
Nymphomania is a movie that will waste your time and money.

There are many porno scenes in this movie.

You will be shocked to see Joe the 10 year old child working in a movie that is rated X.

No story,just boring storytelling.

No drama,just too much porno!.

A waste of time because a nymphomaniac is a sex slave here who needs a psychiatric.

Go rent or buy an adult DVD If you enjoy porno and don't waste your time in watching a movie without a result at all!.
Off-topic, but I love this review of Nymphomaniac on imdb.



I better hurry THE F**K OUT of this thread before I kill somebody...

Hitchcock and Tarantino not being influential and that they only make movies that are purely entertaining. What. The. F**k.



You've been hit with the artsy fartsy syndrome my friend, and it looks like there's no cure for you...



I am interested in his adaptation of Oedipus Rex mostly, and of course I need to see Salo. Maybe his intense left-wing approach will draw me over to the hippy side and we can all read women's lib pamphlets while we smoke the marijuana.
Salo was s**t. Literally. (Sorry MovieGal).

Hating a filmmaker solely because of differences of personal politics is silly to me. Now I can understand not caring for a filmmaker or actor if they did something horrible (looking at you Hanoi Jane) but just because someone has a different political opinion is no way to dismiss their influence or even to like a movie or other work.

I am on the more libertarian and conservative ends of the political spectrum. But one of my favorite authors is Hunter S Thompson. Though his politics are the polar opposite of mine (though we both dislike Nixon), he has written one of my favorite books of all time Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. And his work was adapted by another left winger Terry Gilliam, and that is one of my top 10 favorite movies. If the art is good enough, then politics should not matter.

As for Tarantino, I don't like his work either. But what I can't say is that he has not been influential. As for Hicthcock the man was a genius.

Now if you will excuse my I am going to can food in my bomb shelter and oil my guns while watching Red Dawn.



To be frank I don't care if you all disagree with me, the fact of the matter is that I believe Alfred Hitchcock and his films are misogynistic, Elia Kazan is a right wing pig, and Quentin Tarantino is an entertainer not an artist. If you don't believe this then that is wonderful and magical, if you hate Nymphomaniac then that's great, but I don't, and I'm not going to debate anymore because I made this post to try and put up my list. Now I'm going to put it up again, without the comment, so that the post focuses on what I meant to be the focus of the post.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
11. Blow Up (1963) – Michelangelo Antonioni
29. Black Narcissus (1947) – Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
33. Taxi Driver (1976) – Martin Scorsese
35. Wings of Desire (1987) – Wim Wenders
39. La Regle du Jeu (1939) – Jean Renoir
49. The Third Man (1949) – Carol Reed
52. Fear Eats the Soul (1974) – Rainer Werner Fassbinder
53. Some Like It Hot (1955) – Billy Wilder
62. The Godfather part II (1974) – Francis Ford Coppola
64. The Godfather (1972) – Francis Ford Coppola
67. If… (1968) – Lindsay Anderson
70. The Conversation (1974) – Francis Ford Coppola
72. Paris, Texas (1984) – Wim Wenders
75. La Grande Illusion (1937) – Jean Renoir
77. Vampyr (1932) – Carl Theodor Dreyer
78. Peeping Tom (1960) – Michael Powell
for all of these.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Your list is pure textbook, and except for your omissions, it doesn't seem very personal to me. But I'm sure it will grow and evolve as you do. I wouldn't go down the political road too far though because it means that you'll eventually run out of those worthy. Besides it hints at artistic fascism. Better to find those you love personally and enjoy film than to be a misguided watchdog.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



To be frank I don't care if you all disagree with me, the fact of the matter is that I believe Alfred Hitchcock and his films are misogynistic, Elia Kazan is a right wing pig, and Quentin Tarantino is an entertainer not an artist. If you don't believe this then that is wonderful and magical, if you hate Nymphomaniac then that's great, but I don't, and I'm not going to debate anymore because I made this post to try and put up my list. Now I'm going to put it up again, without the comment, so that the post focuses on what I meant to be the focus of the post.
So you're basically saying that you can back up the things you 'believe' and that you're not open for discussion.

Then I believe you are willingly ignorant.



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
13. Sacrifice (1987) – Andrei Tarkovsky
17. Sunrise (1927) – FW Murnau
23. Tokyo Story (1953) – Yasujiro Ozu
28. Sunset Blvd. (1950) – Billy Wilder
31. Casablanca (1942) – Michael Curtiz
32. Apocalypse Now (1979) – Francis Ford Coppola
33. Taxi Driver (1976) – Martin Scorsese
34. Citizen Kane (1941) – Orson Welles
46. Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) – Sergio Leone
53. Some Like It Hot (1955) – Billy Wilder
56. Goodfellas (1990) – Martin Scorsese
79. Double Indemnity (1944) – Billy Wilder
84. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966) – Sergio Leone
Hitchcock and Tarantino arguments aside, these are all excellent choices.