The Prestigious Sight & Sound Poll (2022) The 100 Greatest Films Of All Time (1 Viewer)

[Angelo Colombus]

I did like the extras on the Criterion release of Jeanne Dielman including the hour documentary on the making of the film and the friction between the director and Delphine Seyring.

 

[jayembee]

So, I wonder about this. Is he referring to the diversity of films or the diversity of the people that made them. I don't think the list is incredibly diverse in terms of the types of films. You could categorize it as a list of art house pictures. It is not really a list that shoots for diversity of types of pictures in a lot of ways. I guess, yes, it does have a diversity of types of people that made the films, but in truth when you watch a picture, any picture, you don't sit there staring at the director nor do you, or at least I, sit there wondering about the color or sex of the director.

You watch to be swept up in the film itself. So, a comment about "diversity and inclusion" seems somewhat odd in relation to a great films list. Are you selecting pictures for how great they are or are you selecting pictures based on the color or sex of the people in them or that made them?

That seems to me a distinction without a difference. I think "diversity of types of people that made the films" can and do affect the diversity of the film itself. I don't think, for example, that Daughters of the Dust could've been made by someone who wasn't an African-American woman.

Certain societal issues we've been facing over recent decades seems to have hardened people into a very specific idea of what "diversity" means. Diversity in films (as opposed to filmmakers) isn't just a matter of westerns vs. comedies, crime pictures vs. family dramas, and so on. It can be diversity in approach, diversity in style, and so forth.

That said, even in an historical view of cinema, it seems reasonable to say that the majority of films that have been made, or at least (a) have survived and (b) have entered the cultural zeitgeist, have been made by white men. So, in that context, it shouldn't be statistically surprising if the bulk of "best films ever made" were made by white men. Speaking for myself, I don't have that much of a problem if the goal of such a list looks toward not so much a list of the "best" but a list of what has made a significant contribution to the art of cinema (by whatever the voters deem that to entail).

I mean, the world is not lacking in lists of bests. As I said in another thread recently, it's in our nature as human beings to argue about what's "best". There's no significant difference between the Sight & Sound poll, and a thread in HTF arguing about which actor is the best James Bond or ranking the MCU films.

On the other hand, we also have prizes that don't necessarily attempt to judge something "the best", but just to award something or someone who made an invaluable contribution in a given field, such as the Nobel Prizes. If the Sight & Sound poll is trying to emulate that, that might be a good thing.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I did like the extras on the Criterion release of Jeanne Dielman including the hour documentary on the making of the film and the friction between the director and Delphine Seyring.

Last night, I did watch most of those extras that were on the Criterion Channel. I haven't finished that hour long documentary yet, but will do so in the near future. Watching those extras did help me to appreciate the length of the film more so than before I started to watch the movie.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

That seems to me a distinction without a difference. I think "diversity of types of people that made the films" can and do affect the diversity of the film itself. I don't think, for example, that Daughters of the Dust could've been made by someone who wasn't an African-American woman.

Certain societal issues we've been facing over recent decades seems to have hardened people into a very specific idea of what "diversity" means. Diversity in films (as opposed to filmmakers) isn't just a matter of westerns vs. comedies, crime pictures vs. family dramas, and so on. It can be diversity in approach, diversity in style, and so forth.

That said, even in an historical view of cinema, it seems reasonable to say that the majority of films that have been made, or at least (a) have survived and (b) have entered the cultural zeitgeist, have been made by white men. So, in that context, it shouldn't be statistically surprising if the bulk of "best films ever made" were made by white men. Speaking for myself, I don't have that much of a problem if the goal of such a list looks toward not so much a list of the "best" but a list of what has made a significant contribution to the art of cinema (by whatever the voters deem that to entail).

I mean, the world is not lacking in lists of bests. As I said in another thread recently, it's in our nature as human beings to argue about what's "best". There's no significant difference between the Sight & Sound poll, and a thread in HTF arguing about which actor is the best James Bond or ranking the MCU films.

On the other hand, we also have prizes that don't necessarily attempt to judge something "the best", but just to award something or someone who made an invaluable contribution in a given field, such as the Nobel Prizes. If the Sight & Sound poll is trying to emulate that, that might be a good thing.

Yes, there is a valid argument that there are plenty of lists so making this list about promoting diversity, promoting female filmmakers, promoting people of various ethnicities, makes this list a more important statement than lists that just are about the quality of the pictures themselves.

In all honesty, had they put any of the other pictures in the top 20 at number 1 there would likely be only mild debate about this list. Putting Jeanne Dielman at number 1, will cause people to debate the list. It will cause more people to watch the film. This probably is more important than one more list of great films.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I am suspicious of its position at the top and feel that this was the result of collaboration.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I am suspicious of its position at the top and feel that this was the result of collaboration.

Honestly, when I saw this list was coming I just thought we were going to see mostly the same pictures at the top of it that we have seen on past lists about great films. There are Vertigo and Kane at 2 and 3. So I was surprised when I read the list and the top film was Jeanne Dielman. I mean, they could have listed many other films as the top film and I would have likely just shrugged because I have seen so many arguments for "greatest film ever" and they pretty much always revolve around the same titles. So, something passing Vertigo or Kane would not be shocking.

I just have never read nor seen anybody making an argument that Jeanne Dielman is the greatest film ever. I have seen it mentioned as a wonderful picture. I have seen it called unique. I have seen people say that Jeanne Dielman is really an action film, it's not they are just being cute with that. Never though in probably thousands of film discussions I have read or seen or participated in has anybody no matter their sex nor ethnicity, ever said "You want to know what the greatest film ever is? It's Jeanne Dielman."

I don't think that attitudes have changed such that the world is now a place where this picture is now thought to be the greatest ever. As I said, it is on lists, 85 on the They Shoot Pictures list. I have no issue with it being on a list of great pictures but weird that it surpassed so many other films now to top this list.

I mean, yes, lists are a list of people's opinions. So, the 1600 people that took part in this list, most of these people had Jeanne Dielman in their top ten films ever? Really? I've read I don't know how many top tens over the years from all kinds of critics and filmmakers and people that love film, men, women, people of different backgrounds, and I can honestly say Jeanne Dielman to the best of my recollection never was on one of them. Top 100 lists? Sure. Lists of great films? Yes. Normally somewhere middle of the pack or much lower.

Now, I get it. A whole bunch of people based on this list are now trumpeting that the greatest film of all time was made by a woman, about a woman, showing the daily struggle of being a woman. I can also say every film to somebody is the greatest film ever. So, I am sure there are some people that do really feel this is the best film they have ever seen, no doubt about it.

OK, great. I have no issue if that was the intent and also I have had the film on a list to watch for, well, years, and never got to it and this list caused me to get to it. So, that's a win.

I would say the same thing about this film that I would probably say about almost every film on the list, which is that while I enjoyed it, probably most people today would not. It is a picture for people with a lot of patience and that love to sit and ponder something. It is certainly not a film for today's audiences.

Sure, it is a film for filmmakers, critics, students, film buffs...not sure there is such a thing as a diversity buff, but if there were, maybe this is a picture for them too. Bottom line is though, I think some film buffs will probably watch this due to the place it holds on this list. Maybe some film students will watch it due to the place it holds on this list. They aren't going to be showing it down at the multiplex though because it topped this list.

 

[Thomas T]

Bottom line is though, I think some film buffs will probably watch this due to the place it holds on this list. Maybe some film students will watch it due to the place it holds on this list. They aren't going to be showing it down at the multiplex though because it topped this list.

I think there's a split between movie lovers/buffs and movie cineastes and the conversation around the 2022 S&S list accents the difference. Some are upset that movies like Star Wars, Jaws, Wizard Of Oz or Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs are not on the list while obscure films like Jeanne Dielman did make the cut. While beloved films, one could make the argument that they haven't moved the "Art" of cinema forward and this is clearly a film list by film critics, not movie audiences, not the ones who go to the multiplex (or have home theatres to show off their big screens and sound systems).

I've enjoyed Star Wars since I saw it on opening day in 1977. But honestly, I'd never put it in one of the 100 greatest films of all time. One of the 100 most entertaining films of all time, yes (maybe) but greatest? Clearly this is not a list of popular movies and it was never set up to be. I'll concede that it could be referred to as an elitist list by film snobs but as someone who enjoys both popular Hollywood film making and so called "art" films, I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Thomas T]

And I suspect if we here at the HTF undertook our own 100 greatest movies ever made poll, it would be Hollywood (or at least English language) and male centric and more mainstream.

 

[Steve Y]

The main "critics" list reflects discussions that have happened in the past decade. In that context, Jeanne Dielman as #1 makes perfect sense.

Akerman passed away in 2015, and not long after, social movements caught fire that propelled gender to the center of critical discussions about film. Formalist film criticism is passé; films are less frequently watched (or appraised) in a vacuum. Films are assessed as sociopolitical vehicles, with formal and technical considerations important but not primary. I think a LOT of critics, old and new, ended up watching "JD" for the first time, or returned to it after an absence. So when they voted, it came up again and again.

It wouldn't be my #1, probably not even in my top 10, but I found it more arresting than I expected. Despite the sedate framing, there's so much going on in each scene (small movements, meditative repetitions). That's what people mean when they say "action movie." Even the still(er) sequences have a lot of psychological undercurrents. Like when she returns to the cafe and gets irritated that a woman has taken "her" seat. Or the scene with, as Michael Philips from the Chicago Tribune writes, "the spoon drop heard 'round the world." It's not an easy watch in this age of constant movement and visual information, but it pulled me into a slower, thoughtful, more focused place. And even if that had that been the extent of its ambitions, I would have loved it.

I also prefer Akerman's Letters from Home, which I watched as part of Criterion's New York marathon a few years ago. It serves as a heartbreaking prelude to Jeanne Dielman.

These lists never make me irritated. They only excite me by reminding me of movies I still need to watch. Every list, and every critic who contributes to a list, is going to have a different set of standards by which "best" is defined, so with the S&S list in particular it feels impossible to set any kind of objective standard. In other words, this isn't an objective list, and can never be one.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think there's a split between movie lovers/buffs and movie cineastes and the conversation around the 2022 S&S list accents the difference. Some are upset that movies like Star Wars, Jaws, Wizard Of Oz or Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs are not on the list while obscure films like Jeanne Dielman did make the cut. While beloved films, one could make the argument that they haven't moved the "Art" of cinema forward and this is clearly a film list by film critics, not movie audiences, not the ones who go to the multiplex (or have home theatres to show off their big screens and sound systems).

I've enjoyed Star Wars since I saw it on opening day in 1977. But honestly, I'd never put it in one of the 100 greatest films of all time. One of the 100 most entertaining films of all time, yes (maybe) but greatest? Clearly this is not a list of popular movies and it was never set up to be. I'll concede that it could be referred to as an elitist list by film snobs but as someone who enjoys both popular Hollywood film making and so called "art" films, I don't have a problem with it.

I think those four films you named had a significant influence on the Art of Cinema.

 

[mskaye]

And I suspect if we here at the HTF undertook our own 100 greatest movies ever made poll, it would be Hollywood (or at least English language) and male centric and more mainstream.

Based on what I read on this forum lately, there may be as many as ten MGM musicals in the HTF Top 100.

 

[Thomas T]

Based on what I read on this forum lately, there may be as many as ten MGM musicals in the HTF Top 100.

I love MGM musicals and while I can see Singin' In The Rain and The Band Wagon on the list and maybe Meet Me In St. Louis, one shudders at the thought of Nancy Goes To Rio, The Belle Of New York, Lady Be Good or Babes On Broadway making a 100 greatest films list.

 

[Lord Dalek]

The really remarkable thing about this is it has brought Jeanne Dielman a lot more attention on Social Media for far far worse than it probably deserves. I'm not sure what Sight & Sound was trying to achieve but if it involved this degree of backlash they may have screwed up.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The really remarkable thing about this is it has brought Jeanne Dielman a lot more attention on Social Media for far far worse than it probably deserves. I'm not sure what Sight & Sound was trying to achieve but if it involved this degree of backlash they may have screwed up.

Not really, they got me to watch this movie which isn’t something that I’m actively hoping to watch.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think there's a split between movie lovers/buffs and movie cineastes and the conversation around the 2022 S&S list accents the difference. Some are upset that movies like Star Wars, Jaws, Wizard Of Oz or Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs are not on the list while obscure films like Jeanne Dielman did make the cut. While beloved films, one could make the argument that they haven't moved the "Art" of cinema forward and this is clearly a film list by film critics, not movie audiences, not the ones who go to the multiplex (or have home theatres to show off their big screens and sound systems).

I've enjoyed Star Wars since I saw it on opening day in 1977. But honestly, I'd never put it in one of the 100 greatest films of all time. One of the 100 most entertaining films of all time, yes (maybe) but greatest? Clearly this is not a list of popular movies and it was never set up to be. I'll concede that it could be referred to as an elitist list by film snobs but as someone who enjoys both popular Hollywood film making and so called "art" films, I don't have a problem with it.

Agreed, and I am a big fan of a lot of the pictures on this list. I enjoy challenging cinema and pictures that attempt to do something different than what may be thought of as mainstream/multi[plex entertainments. I mean there is a place for both and when you make a list you generally start with criteria for that list. I enjoy the They Shoot Pictures list and I will go through that on a regular basis. I think the way they have compiled that list really works to direct people toward great cinema.

I should point out too that Jeanne Dielman was not the only surprise for me on this list. Honestly, I was surprised where they listed David Lynch's Mullholland Dr. as that is in the top 10 and for me is not even Lynch's best film. I was also surprised that Get Out was on the list as that seems to be not the kind of pictures they were trending toward. That sticks out and that is not even my favorite Peele film. So, to me the list has some surprises. I like surprises and don't expect to agree with every choice or where they placed it.

I am fine with what they listed but likely won't use this list as a reference. I will probably stick with the They Shoot Pictures listing as the primary "greatest films" list I look at or point people toward.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

On Star Wars, Jaws, Wizard, and Snow White...no matter where or how people would rank them, I do think they are very influential pictures that could certainly appear on a greatest films of all time list. They all had a fairly large impact on what came after them. They are not as "serious" as much of what is on this list, but in terms of cinema, I don't think you always have to be so serious.

 

[Thomas T]

I was discussing the S&S list with a friend who lives in Chicago and he sent me this e-mail:

"A lot of critics embrace what they consider the antithesis to the post-70s Hollywood output. So they promote slow cinema (which can be great). One critic once applauded a film for putting him to sleep. But anyway I think that’s the interesting thing about lists like the S & S poll. Change whom you ask and the results will have major differences. Some films will appear no matter what. Like The Godfather. The uproar over this list though: people need to keep perspective. It’s what this particular group of people chose using personal ballots at this particular time. It doesn’t mean The Wizard of Oz or Jaws are no longer great films. I do think that many voters were trying to think outside the box though. Invite some unsung titles to the table.

As you know a lot of Criterion releases made the S & S poll. Criterion has a series of videos with famous artsy film folks going through the Criterion “closet” and talking about their favorite Criterion releases. Cate Blanchett and Todd Field appear in one of these videos. So I’m guessing Tar will receive a Criterion release. And this will increase its chances of making a future S & S list. It’s going to be viewed as Important."

I have to agree Tar, a film I have mixed feelings about, sounds like perfect fodder for the 2032 S&S poll.

 

[Lord Dalek]

On Star Wars, Jaws, Wizard, and Snow White...no matter where or how people would rank them, I do think they are very influential pictures that could certainly appear on a greatest films of all time list. They all had a fairly large impact on what came after them. They are not as "serious" as much of what is on this list, but in terms of cinema, I don't think you always have to be so serious.

And this is why I'll always prefer the AFI List even if it hasn't been updated in 15 years and is made up entirely of English language films. Its still less pretentious than this direction of smug highbrow trolling that Sight and Sound is going all in on.

 

[Robert Crawford]

There are various lists for every person. Whether a person gets trolled is kind of up to them.

 

[Thomas T]

And this is why I'll always prefer the AFI List even if it hasn't been updated in 15 years and is made up entirely of English language films. Its still less pretentious than this direction of smug highbrow trolling that Sight and Sound is going all in on.

Wow! I guess that makes me a pretentious smug highbrow troll then because I find the S&S list infinitely more fascinating than the middle class collection that the AFI lists. Raiders Of The Ark, Rocky, Forrest Gump, The Sixth Sense, The Graduate, It's A Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, The Sound Of Music, Lord Of The Rings, Gone With The Wind etc. the greatest films of all time? The mind reels ... well, at least my mind

That being said, even though the AFI list doesn't interest me, it is every bit as valid as the S&S list. It just doesn't reflect my cinematic sensibilities anymore than the S&S list reflects yours. Your hostility toward those who have a different view than you of what constitutes "great" is ..... well, mystifying.