b**** & moan time: Total Film Top 100 films (1 Viewer)

[andrew markworthy]

Adam, the official S and S list is the one I have referenced. I think the list you are citing includes absolutely every film that was cited somewhere in the returned responses (i.e. even if a film got just one vote it was included). However, that isn't the list that is usually taken as being the official one - the last time I checked, people generally cited the stuff on the S and S chart, not the thread on HTF. The official list, by removing movies that maybe only one or two people voted for, tries to be a little more representative of the consensus of opinion. Happy to be corrected if you know better, but the sources I cited are from the official S&S home page, which I think can be taken to represent the official list.

 

[Haggai]

To clear things up, since I remember figuring this out when George did a screenshot contest of S&S films last year: the list in the HTF thread consists of movies that at least two people voted for in the most recent BFI S&S poll of critics and directors. Movies that only one person voted for are not on the HTF list.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I was going on a guess that the 100 greatest films ever made would be classics. Either way, as Eric pointed out, how many "great" films of the 1990s are out there but already forgotten? I remember Mr. Gump being hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread but now it seems PULP FICTION, THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and even ED WOOD jumped over that film for what's considered the best. Even DANCES WITH WOLVES has all been forgotten and it was originally called one of the greatest epics ever made. We can even do that with past Oscars. HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY over CITIZEN KANE. Back in the day I'm sure that was the right selection but time has stated otherwise. 1931's best picture winner is all but forgotten but FRANKENSTEIN is still remembered.

That was my point to the list and having new films on there.

 

[Adam_S]

The HTF list compiled the critics and directors votes into one list, as was said we didn't use the films that only got one vote. but there are about one hundred films that got two votes. George would probably be more familiar with the list we use here than the official split list. I've reposted the list in a readable format.


Performance - 2 votes
The Birth of a Nation - 2 votes
Written on the Wind - 3 votes
The Piano - 3 votes
Cries & Whispers - 4 votes
Don't Look Now - 5 votes

 

[george kaplan]

I'm not sure both aren't correct. "Far fewer" is certainly correct, but if I'm talking about something with 4 things compared to something with 100 things, then 4 is certainly "far less" than 100, and I think it also be correct to say that the first one has "far less" of whatever we're talking about. I'm not really interested in a semantics debate (and given the differences between 'correct' English in England vs. the U.S., I think it would be rather futile), but when you didn't champion all of those films I listed, it left me with nothing else to "put up a fight" about as per your request.

 

[Brook K]

Andrew, I could have warned you about getting into film debates with George but I'm too late it seems.

The list is ok for what it is I suppose, I would expect it to be far too US-centric. But it contains too many newer pop-tripe cult films. Jaws, Goodfellas, Empire, LOTR & Fight Club in the top 10 is absolutely ludicrous.

I don't know whether I'm more shocked that this list doesn't include a single Kurosawa film or that it has Tokyo Story in the top 10 given the other kinds of films that are in the top 10.

 

[Armin Jager]

Frankly this list is ****. The most obvious problem is the huge number of recent films while there are only the most essential classics, I guess the person who made the list has a very limited knowledge of older films and has merely picked from a book the most famous ones. And no really serious list can include trash like STAR WARS or many other recent hits which will be forgotten in twenty years.
Stick with the Sight and Sound list. It's more balanced and mostly put together by people who know her stuff though it also suffers from an "essential classics" syndrome which leads me to suspect that many of the voters haven't a wide enough knowledge of film history.

 

[Adam_S]

The list is not shit simply because it has recent films. It looks as though they have a pretty good knowledge of older films, perhaps they just don't appreciate obscure and unentertaining junk like Godard or Antonioni, or perhaps they think those particular emperors are naked. I find this list to be more balanced than the S&S list which has a much more extreme bias: against recent films, especially recent American films. And the S&S is put together by people who have a stake in establishing canon and their own critical cachet. This list seems to be put together by people who love being entertained by films, rather than being instructed and schooled.

I have no problem with the top ten. I understand the appeal of all of those films as well as why they're great and I happen to think that all of them are great as well. I wouldn't order the list like this, but overall it's pretty damn good.

 

[Bob Turnbull]

Why not use S&S, AFI and this list? They all have great films as well as some that don't appeal to us.

Though I think calling Star Wars trash is a bit excessive, it's certainly your opinion. I don't think you can deny it's huge influence though, which certainly makes it at least "important".

The only list I've seen that does a great job encompassing most genres, etc. is the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. And that's mostly because it doesn't order them and details why they were included (there's enough to argue about for sure, but it's given me so many great avenues to explore).

And any list that says that Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind is a great film is fine with me. I don't need to wait 5 years to know that...

 

[Kain_C]

If it hasn't been forgotten in nearly 30 years, what makes you think it will be forgotten in 20 more? I'm sure you're wrong on that prediction.

I think the list is so-so. LOTR doesn't belong on any top list as far as I'm concerned. I like what is on the list, just not where they appear.

 

[george kaplan]

Extremely funny. Explain something to me. The Sight & Sound list includes Star Wars. Since no serious list can do that, obviously the Sight & Sound list is not a serious list. So, logically, what is the basis for "sticking with the Sight & Sound list"?

I also love the fact that you believe that Star Wars is going to be forgotten in 20 years, while extolling a list that includes any number of films that were forgotten 20 years ago. No one except a handful of film geeks remembers Performance, even though almost everyone still knows who Mick Jagger is.

If you want to champion the Sight & Sound list, fine, but your arguments for it are about as specious as many of the crappy films on the list.

 

[John Bryant]

IMO only about 36 of those films even belong anywhere near a Top 100 of all-time list.

 

[Nathan V]

Three Kings? Salvador? Shouldn't a top 100 films list only have great films in it?
On the other hand, I'm pleased to see some personal favorites on the list (Heat, etc).

Armin, Star Wars was made more than 20 years ago.

Bob Turnbull, you're right, that is an excellent book. It gives each period in cinema equal appreciation, and includes many great films that don't show up on these lists (Thin Red Line, for example). It's funny though, on the first edition of the book, they included "Chicago" as an entry, as well as showcasing it on the spine of the book; in the newer edition, they must've realized their error- the movie is nowhere to be seen. This is a good example of the danger of overpraising a new release.

At the same time, though, I think this issue of corectly evaluating a new film has less to do with whether the film is good or not, and more to do with whether or not the film WILL BE REMEMBERED as a great film by the film-savvy crowd. Is this not the definition of a classic, a film, usually a very good one, that is remembered? I am not sure. I think this is an interesting point. For example, Eternal Sunshine. I've seen it more than once; I know the film is very good. Probably I will continue to think it is very good. The question is, what is "everyone else" going to continue to think? What matters is what people are talking about. Do people still talk about LA Confidential? Sometimes. Do they still talk about The Piano? Hell no. I guess it takes a collective love of a certain film for it to achieve classic status, which is something we can't know at the time of a film's release, since "other people's" opinions have "nothing to do with" whether a film is "great" or not. Of course I'm speaking subjectively.

The problem with these lists is, I think, that they don't outline their goals well enough. This one's called Top 100 films. That means nothing. I still think we (at HTF) can build a really great list of films that a large number of people can agree upon. The key is making sure that list has a concrete outline and purpose, particularly a clarification of why the films are in the order that they're in. For example, "Top 100 films that have advanced cinematic form, listed in chronological order." I think we could go somewhere with that.

Let's hope that's not the Sylvester Stallone "Get Carter" they're talking about.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Kevin M]

What...no Cobra? Well what is this list worth then?

 

[andrew markworthy]

Um ... let's see. My claim that the list I cited is official is based on a simple premise - it's the official list. Your argument is like saying George Bush is the 'official' President, but you and a group of pals voted for the other guy, and amongst your group he's the President. What a sub-group decides to do doesn't alter the cold hard facts.

 

[Armin Jager]

I'm quite sure that STAR WARS won't be forgotten in twenty years. But frankly I don't care. There are thousands of films which were put together with more care and thought than this ordinary piece of trash and it really hurts me to see how unknown many great films are while this run of the mill adventure with its miserable actors, comic book characters and silly plot is the holy grail for many people. I've nothing against a pure, escapist adventure movie, I love THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD. Shall I make a comparison between both films regarding actors, direction, story development and so on? Just because teenagers made it a success, it's not interesting or important at all. Or did I say this already ?

 

[Adam_S]

Quote:



If you put together a serious list time and country of origin should play no role at all. Which is exactly the problem of the list: It's much to much oriented towards recent film and towards USA.






It's compiled by people who speak english as their first language (total film is UK, which is probably why some of those great UK films are on there because an American list wouldn't include them). We should probably also acknowledge the effect that commerce has on the formation of a list like this; the magazine has a responsibility to their audience to make the least at least somewhat accessible. If it were 50% english language films and 50% foreign films people would be very dissatisfied with the list. People want to be able to see that some of their favorite films are on the list and be able to discuss it and argue it. If only half of the films are English, it's likely most people have only seen half of the list and are half as likely to generate discussion about the list that would lead to purchase of the book. There's also the historical dominance of American cinema for so many decades upon decades--it clouds the waters. And it's hard to get the English speaking world interested in the entertainment output of other cultures. Zafon's _Shadow of the Wind_ is the best book I've read in the last four or five years, but it shamefully went unnoticed here in the US.

Quote:



But this doesn't mean that 91 out of 100 films can be from the USA while every other country gets one film. As I did in the thread about the 30s, I can only tell that it's ... well poverly patriotic, to put it mildly.






Or it's not consciously patriotic but reflective of the historical dominance of American cinema for much of film's 110 year history. Most people are most familiar with American cinema and have very little access to the scope of other international cinema. Only a limited chunk of any country's films are available internationally, Only American cinema, it seems to me, has a significant percentage of it's film output available in most of the world.


Quote:



Trust me the persons who compiled this list have almost no real knowledge of film outside USA. The list is completely forgettable and it's depressing to think that anybody would take it serious.






What constitutes real knowledge of film outside the USA? Does it mean reading about various national cinemas and their histories? Does it mean seeing films from all those cinemas and eras? Does it mean seeing a majority percentage of films released by a country? Most video retailers in the USA stock a dozen or so french films, fewer German films (Das Boot and Run Lola Run most often), a scattering of criterion films and a full section of anime (dozens to hundred+ titles). Rental places stock a small percentage of these foreign films. How exactly is one supposed to develop a real knowledge of film if it's not even available to them outside of a book. You presented a thorough list of 1930s German cinema, but most of those films are virtually impossible to watch outside of Germany. It's not patriotism, it's the realities of the film and video marketplace.




Quote:



I know Adam, I know, the scholars and students are a bunch of intellectual assholes who enjoy to put together lists with confusing intellectual films which we watch bored in pure misery in order to feel as intellectuals.
That's what you think more or less, isn't it?





Clearly you know nothing about my opinons. I don't think scholars and students (I belong to both groups) are intellectual assholes. I don't think intellectual films are all confusing (some are deliberately so for a legitimate purpose and some are deliberately so to demonstrate artistic credibility, I tend to dislike the latter [e.g. the Conversation, imo]). I don't think the people who enjoy intellectual films are bored or in misery while watching them. I would say that some people do get pleasure out of enhancing their status by watching a lot of certain types of films and championing those particular films, but that's just as true of Antonioni's defenders as it is of Lucas' or schlock horror fans. Humans define themselves via communities, and the tendency of a community of intellectual film lovers is to dismiss many films outside their realm (Disney, for example), just as the tendency of a community of horror film lovers is to dismiss many films outside their realm (Disney, for example).

I'm not going to praise a film simply because it has 'significant form,' nor am I going to praise a film because it rejects all tenets of classical 'significant form.'



Quote:



Look I think you're right if you react violently against art films with a capital A for art, they are boring, pointlessly and overly depressing and finally terribly unsubtle.





I don't react violently to all these types of artwork. "Wit " for example, fits those criteria (except perhaps the boring bit, it's only half-boring) but is still a powerful and engaging piece of work, either as film or as a play. There is value and worth in this work, even if it is Art with a capital A, overly depressing and one of the most unsubtle works one can come across.


Quote:



On the other hand to be mostly interested in recent American films isn't anything better.




I'm not interested in recent American films only, I'm not arguing that point. but I keep up with recent cinema to stay apace of the field and be on the lookout for new films that engage my entire being.



Quote:



Good films were made in any time and everywhere.





Agreed

Quote:



A balanced list would include the Russian THE CRANES ARE FLYING from 1957, Lubitsch's DIE PUPPE from 1919, Polanski's THE PIANIST from 1999, Renoir's UNE PARTIE DE CAMPAGNE from 1936, Wyler's THE COLLECTOR from 1965, Scola's UNA GIORNATA PARTICOLARE and Tourneur's CANYON PASSAGE from 1947 and so on. That would be a list which has no bias towards countries towards times and towards the official classical status of some films.





According to your opinion. I've not seen all those films so I can't comment on them all. I've seen the Pianist and Day in the Country from that list. I greatly dislike Day in the country (could have been the very poor quality copy I watched, but I don't think so) the Pianist is wonderful, but I'd rather watch Eternal Sunshine, Spirited Away, or Whale Rider. I learn more about the human condition from the latter films; I'd learn more about anarchy, violence, fascism and human nature in modern society from Fight Club than from the Pianist.

Moderation is a good thing, but if we handicap the best in favor of 'balance' we're only going to end up with a list that is as problematic as American education. If world cinema had a level playing field to begin with, then people could view and evaluate 'fairly' but it's not the responsibility of listmakers to fix the system for us. I'm content to leave the agendas to the critics, but I don't require my lists to have agendas to balance the unavoidable injustices of cinematic history.


Quote:



GoodFellas is good, but a classical example of the recent high rating of Scorsese who is considered to be some kind of god, apparently because the American cinema has sharply declined since 1980.





I've only seen goodfellas once, a long time ago, so I've no real comment on it. I saw it because one of my best friends has held it as his greatest film of all time for probably 8 or 9 years. And it's not that American cinema declined sharply in the 1980s, it entered a different style and era of filmmaking, that does not appeal as much to some demographics of filmgoers. The American eighties was a remarkable period for comedy and children's films but relatively unremarkable in terms of seventies art film or political drama/thriller.


Quote:



Jaws is a well made suspense film with thin characterizations and apparent cliches, it doesn't belong in a TOP 1000 list.





I'm going to hazard a guess that you've never seen it on 35mm with an audience. Regardless of the enhanced impact this film has in the dark on the big screen, I disagree strongly with your dismissal and evaluation of the film.


Quote:



Fight Club is again one example of a recent cult film. Let's see what is left from Fincher's annoyingly and forcedly oppressive films in twenty years.





It's a great example of a recent cult film, and it has a strong appeal to the young male audience that for the last generation or two has been actively hurt by the particular form of Hindu/Prussian-style schooling we use in this country that stratifies and enforces a relentless consumer society. It's as interesting a piece of reactionary cinema as anything from the seventies and I find it terribly funny and ironic that so many people love the film but are weighed down by immense consumerist commitments (DVD collecting anyone?). I'm somewhat amused it ranked so highly, but it's a very important film to many people in the current male generation of 14-34.


Quote:



The Godfather Part II is a overlong movie which tells us the oh s sad story of a ruthless murderer and the idyllic beginnings of the mafia. Francesco Rosi who fighted in his films against the mafia and got death threats complained that this sentimental portrait is the worst way to portray the mafia who was pleased with Coppolas film. This alone should give you reason to rethink your high opinion of the film.





I'm not going to dismiss one of the most powerful filmic treatments of the human heart in conflict with itself simply because the mafia also liked the film.


Quote:



The Empire Strikes Back is shit. It consits of heavyhanded pseudophilosophic talk which lets Godard's films look good. Lucas is a mediocre director, the actors are third rate and the story is painfully silly. Just because teenagers love it and make it a success, it isn't good or important at all.





People may quote Yoda, but few actually subscribe to him as serious philosophy. The point of science-fiction and fantasy is not that it presents philosphy (but it often does and offers an open form to explore philosophic constructs and theory), it's that it presents a viable venue to re-engage the elements that have sustained human storytelling for thousands of years. The genre medium permits them to do this outside of heavy drama dripping with importance and instead smuggle it into an exciting story of icons and familiarity. Exactly like the Aenied, Ovid's Metamophoses, Orlando Furioso, Paradise Lost, Shakespeare, Twain or Tolkien did. What people take out of the film is the pain of sacrifice and the sustaining power of love. The problems of trying to do that right thing and being unable to accomplish it even with the best of intentions.


Quote:



The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy. Just because teenagers love it and make it a success, it isn't good or important at all. Yes it's visually impressive, that's all. Again you lack any historical perspective and are merely overwhelmed by recent success.





No I'm not overwhelmed by recent success, I genuinely love these films and find them worthwhile and powerful. It is much more than visually impressive. They're some of a very few recent films to treat heroism, sacrifice, friendship, redemption, forgiveness, hope, and the divine in a manner that was not condescending, sarcastic, cynical or dismissive. It's no wonder the films are successful because those powerful elements--so integral to the story--resonate very powerfully with all peoples, the international gross is quite clear about that. You are coming off as unfairly biased against speculative fiction, and that's unfortunate, because it's the most enduring of all mediums if we look in terms of millenia.


Quote:



His Girl Friday is not Hawks's best film. It's too frenetic and hectic like BRINGING UP BABY. I share the conviction of his biographer Todd McCarthy that his best films are the half serious and half comical ones like ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS, TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT and RIO BRAVO.





Well I disagree. I find those two films are his best because of the frenetic qualities as well as the script, performances, humor and story. Only Angels have Wings is an outstanding but uneven film. Rio Bravo drags at times and To Have and Have not is more memorable for the sparks jumping off Bogart and Bacall and its transparent imitation of Casablanca than standing on its own (keep in mind I really like or love all three of these films, but His Girl Friday and Bringing up Baby are better).


Quote:



Because the S&S list is the only one which reminds you that there are important films made outside of the USA and it's compiled by the most competent people. The other lists are notb even worth talking about.





As someone else pointed out, 1001 Movies you have to see Before you Die is more balanced and thorough than the S&S list and it is compiled by a group of highly competent people. It's also too big to grasp in one bite, the other lists of 100 or so are comprehensible.


Quote:



I'm quite sure that STAR WARS won't be forgotten in twenty years. But frankly I don't care. There are thousands of films which were put together with more care and thought than this ordinary piece of trash and it really hurts me to see how unknown many great films are while this run of the mill adventure with its miserable actors, comic book characters and silly plot is the holy grail for many people. I've nothing against a pure, escapist adventure movie, I love THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD. Shall I make a comparison between both films regarding actors, direction, story development and so on? Just because teenagers made it a success, it's not interesting or important at all. Or did I say this already ?





For many people Star Wars is not a pure, escapist adventure movie because it works on a deeper level for them than that. And teenagers alone didn't make it a success, frankly, the ad hominem and appeal to authority arguments are getting tiring.

 

[george kaplan]

Andrew,

You seem to be missing the point. One last try.

You may be right about the 'official' list. I'm not saying you're not, but since I haven't dug into it, I'm not going to say that you are. But not saying you're right, isn't the same thing as saying you're wrong. I'm just being careful about my facts, as you chastised me about earlier.

But whether the list used here on HTF is 'official' or not is besides the point. The point is, that here, where we are, on the HTF board, in the Movies forum of the HTF board, 99.999999999% of the time when members discuss the "Sight & Sound List", they are talking about the "2002 Sight & Sound List as being referenced in the S&S Challenge Thread", and not the "2002 Official Sight & Sound List", nor the "1992 Unofficial Sight & Sound List", nor the "2012 not yet released, but it'll be official when it gets released list".

Around here, the shortcut of "S&S list", or "Sight & Sound list", is used to refer to one version of the list, and the fact that you are in a tiny minority (in this forum at least), that mean something else when you say "Sight & Sound List", doesn't mean that the rest of us are incorrect. We are using the shortcut to mean one thing, and you are using the shortcut to mean something else.

If you still don't understand that (and you were the one that attacked me for supposedly not checking my facts, when I was using the term in what is the common (and so common as to be 'correct') way around here), then I give up.

Armin,

You still haven't told us why we should give any stock to the Sight & Sound list since it includes Star Wars, which by your criterion is automatic disqualification for any list.

 

[TheLongshot]

Armin,

It sounds like you subscribe to the belief that if it is popular, it much suck. At least, that's what it sounds like, since it seems in every case, you'd rather see one of your obscure films rather than the more popular ones that most of us enjoy.

I understand the thinking. It is nice to have those little gems that you went out and discovered for yourself. It feels special when you find them, and you'd like to share them with the rest of the world.

Problem is, you also have to realise that popular films also have something to offer, and there is a reason why such films were popular in the first place. Now, they may not be high art, or the best of their type, but they do have worth.

I understand because I am a music elitist. I listen to a lot of bands that not many have heard of. At the same time, tho, I also realise that while there is a lot of crap in the popular realm, there are also gems out there as well that are worth listening to. Your view is about as closed minded as what you claim our view is.

As for lists, I tend to agree that it is really hard to cover great films in a Top 100 list, unless you really break it down. Every genre, every country, every director. There are tons of movies out there, and most of us have seen only a fraction of them.

I'd like to see that 1001 list....

Jason

 

[Haggai]

This is a bit much, Armin. You can click on my YMDB Top 20 and see Empire Strikes Back, Return of the King, and Goodfellas all firmly in there. But, as you also know from other threads, I love lots of different movies from all different countries and time periods, and that I also enjoy seeking out less famous (at least in America) films that I know little or nothing about, as when I took your recommendation to see Der Untertan and enjoyed it very much, which might very well make me the only other person on HTF who's ever seen it, aside from yourself. Naturally, you're entitled to your opinion on Star Wars or any other film, but it doesn't mean that people who disagree with you about such movies are ignorant of film history, or lack historical perspective, or whatever.

And saying that Star Wars will actually be forgotten in twenty years really is quite absurd--again, regardless of your opinion of it, it's clear that it's an enormously influential and beloved film that's as deeply ingrained in popular culture as pretty much any other movie ever made, which in and of itself is enough to ensure that it's never going to be forgotten. To claim otherwise is to allow your own (perfectly valid) dislike of it to cloud your historical perspective.