AFI 100 Years for 2007 is.... Movies (again) (1 Viewer)

[Holadem]

I mostly agree with you. I say "mostly" because both movies feature some superficial attempts at female/mother perspective (Sarah's speech about nature of "true creation" annoys the hell out of me). But yeah, by and large, Ripley and Sarah are thinly disguised dudes....

--
H

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I'd argue both films go well beyond superficial, H. That T2 speech sucked (I agree), but no man could have pulled off Sarah Conner's reaction to first seeing the T-800 step out of the elevator. Or her breakdown at the Dyson's.

 

[JohnRice]

There must be a malfunction of the forum today. I clicked on the AFI thread, but got something about which James Cameron movie is best. How do I find the AFI thread?

 

[rich_d]

John, when you're right, you're right ... returning this back to the AFI thread:

 

[Thomas J.]

You're thread crapping. Say something substantial to get the thread back on track if you feel it's veered off course rather than just saying it has done so.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'll say something substantial, let's return this discussion to AFI's 100 years/100 movies list. Thank you.




Crawdaddy

 

[Thomas J.]

Can you guys link to some of these blogs and assorted reaction, because it sounds as if I'd agree with them? Thanks.

My point more or less is that I wish people would take a harder look at the political economy behind the AFI's list. It's not just about which films make the list, but about how the list is compiled and the motives behind it all.

To say that this list does its job simply because it gets people talking about movies is a really simplistic viewpoint, and is one that further proves MY point. By a very large margin, the list is getting people to talk about contemporarily made, Hollywood fiction films, when the list at first glance should seem to comprise much more than that. But if it did, that, in turn, wouldn't support the AFI's motivation for these lists. Thus, in supporing themselves, the AFI is hurting film history which, ironically, they claim to be celebrating. In doing so, they continue to reify the here-and-now approach to film appreciation, which is disheartening to someone with an eye towards appreciating and celebrating all of American film history's greatest films -- which include silents, independents, non-fiction, experimental, orphan films, etc.

What would make me happy? If the AFI would say, "Our lists celebrate the greatest surviving classical Hollywood cinema films. To a large extent, we have chosen to exclude silents, independents, non-fiction, experimental, orphan films, etc. from our lists because they don't support our cause and because we think you, the audience member, would find them boring anyway."

Just be honest, AFI.

 

[rich_d]

Valid points Thomas.

But if we are talking big picture, it seems that the majority of us are happy with 90 of the films on the list and have questions about 10. Admittedly we all don't have questions on the same 10 so double it and say we have issues around 20 of the films. Yes we also disagree about whether a film should be 22 or 82 but the core of the discussion is making the list, somewhere.

So, it would seem the poll is 80 percent on the mark as to what films made the list.

Not too shabby.

 

[Adam_S]

Not AFI, but this list should make you very, very happy.

 

[george kaplan]

Or better yet, check out the S&S list. While it does include quite a few great Hollywood classics, the list is filled with independents, experimental and foreign films, a few of which are great and a great many of which are quite boring

 

[Bob Turnbull]

Well, as I mentioned above, there is a certain reality to putting on a three hour prime time television special. I'd love to see them tackle experimental and genre films, but they would have to take an approach that would tie them back to the familiar in order to at least draw and keep the audience (ie. influences for the Top 100). I think you can still stretch the boundaries a bit and make it palatable for a decent size audience.

But my own biases are showing because that would interest me...I like understanding the history of film, where ideas and techniques came from, etc. The majority of people don't though...That's not to say you cater to that, but you need to accept that as the current state and work on it. You could make a case for the AFI trying to do that with these lists, but I agree that some further context and branching out to less obvious choices would be great.

 

[Jay E]

Good article at http://throughablogdarkly.blogspot.c...got-twice.html about films that were forgotten twice by AFI.

I agree with most of his choices, especially Sweet Smell of Success,
Manhattan, The Conversation, Bride of Frankenstein, Touch of Evil & Night of the Hunter.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You bring up an interesting point from my personal perspective. I consider Night of the Hunter as one of my five favorite films of all-time, I can never get tired of watching this fine film that for many years wasn't really considered as being great until the last 30 years or so. Despite that late recognition, it still wasn't placed on the AFI list. Does that bother me? To be honest, I never really thought about it not making the list until now. I guess I always felt that "Night of the Hunter" was one of the greatest films I have ever watched despite not making the AFI listing. In short, no film needs AFI's blessing to be considered a great film, it only needs a few filmlovers for such an acknowledgement.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

Saw this linked at MovieCityNews. It's a film list voted by female journalists. They included Alien, but no Aliens.

http://awfj.org/2007/06/25/awfjs-top-100-films-list

These kind of AFI lists tend to make me more happy to see a film I love to be on the list than to be sad/angry to see a film I love not to be on the list. When I saw Sunrise showup, I jumped out of my seat. When they choose The General, a Keaton film I like, over Sherlock Jr. or Steamboat Bill Jr., I'm not angry, but glad that Keaton was recognized. If we have films we love excluded from the list, we can still enjoy them. If we have films we love included on the list, many others will seek it out.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Sort of like THE OMEGA MAN!