The Greatest Movies Ever? -- My Analysis of the 2022 BFI Sight and Sound Polls (Livestream) 

I think something very underrated in these polls is sound, weirdly because it's a Sight and SOUND poll. The way the voters talk, they emphasize sight too much. Welles was a genius with sound, at least in Citizen Kane, and I have to ask how many of these movies have truly excellent soundscapes vs. those left off the list (e.g, Malick, Kobayashi).

@@LearningaboutMovies that’s a fantastic point. George Lucas said that 50 percent of movies is audio and it’s absolutely essential in order to create an authentic environment. Something tangible.

Tree of Life clearly should be on the list as well. Even The Thin Red Line which was unfortunately released right after or very soon to Private Ryan which was obviously going to be the more “viewable” film for the masses.

No shade on Private Ryan. Saw it like 4 times in the theater. Talk about sound design.

@@mainmanmainlining7575 I remember reading Bresson saying that anything he could do purely with sound and show nothing on the screen, he did.

@@ktom5262 I sort of agree, it’s by far my favorite film of 2019, but it’s only three years old. It needs more time to be watched and appreciated before ranking that high.

exactly. it's way up 8 1/2. geez.

I take no pleasure in saying this, but - get used to seeing a whole lot more films by women in these lists in the future. whether they are deserving or not. reasoning - there will be many more female 'film critics' involved in these polls (on that I have no opinion, if it is actually deserving, good luck to them). most of whom will identify as feminist. and as a general rule a feminist anything (in this case film critic) is a feminist first. It's just the way it's gunna be for quite a while yet.

you're welcome. thanks for watching.

We know journalists agree in private to vote for certain things I've heard some are considered critics just by having a blog By pushing so hard their efforts are guaranteed to backfire Instead of convincing me they've invalidated the whole list

thanks. this channel has a Sturges video as well,

For Kieslowski, he's got a film that's not a film, the Dekalog, and then a trilogy that has to be selected from. Malick's Tree of Life seems to have dropped out of favor from 2012.

yes!

thank you.

don't get me wrong, i love this movie. but it's not the greatest film of all time. people watch movies for a lot of reasons but the least reason would be is to learn about film theory and feminism.

Top ten

agree

More people have probably seen it. It was one of the first foreign films I ever saw.

My mom said that at the ages of 3-6, I requested "The Neverending Story" from the VHS rental store in town every time we went into it.

yes, though I am not sure if you can do it with one click. Letterboxd has a feature that tells you have many of the BFI poll films you have seen.

@@LearningaboutMovies Thanks for the response , will look into it. More movies to watch, could be worse :)

excellent, thank you.

Indeed, it an excellent movie. Personally would have done without the ending (the movie delivers its point perfectly well without) but there are reasons given the historical context. I would not include it in my top ten and I have several problems with the 2022 list, yet, the reason why it is here is clear. The list has been criticized for a lack of diversity. Many more have as a result included the quintessential feminist film in their lists. Naturally, it jumps up from34 previously. Buona visione!

well said

Would prefer different polls for many reasons: -One about your 10 personal favorites (should be filled with accessible titles) -Another of the 10 you consider "best" (what would be considered a canon) -10 you think deserve more attention (with both top 250 AND bottom 250) Casual audiences would get a solid guideline into movies that are fun "Kino junkies" would also find obscure titles and demand availability We would be able to celebrate much more cinema together

i would have agreed if it's an agnes varda.

I agree especially with the points about Jeanne dilemma but also think there’s a lot more representation of people with different tastes within the voting bodies. If there are more women voting on a poll like this, isn’t it logical that more women-directed films would be on the list? Not out of social consciousness in this case but rather identifying more strongly with certain films that for years male critics may not have?

@@whybegin1285 It's all speculation.

Breathless is many people favorite Godard movie

I don't think Spike has made a lot of friends with the voters. IMO his magnum opus is Malcolm X, which doesn't get any love with these voters, though it did get a nice Criterion 4k disc recently.

@@LearningaboutMovies I meant it more in the sense that we're in a time where we want to artificially boost works by women/blacks/gays in the name of diversity and representation. No one actually believes Dielman belongs in the top 10. It wins because of the subject matter and the director's gender. They could have done the same with Spike.

Ridley made Blade Runner & Alien. So Ridley.

Thanks, I plan to do it this month.

Nobody is squeezing movies in. People gave a list of 10 movies and in the end it gets ordered by number of mentions. And there's more chances for having great women directors in the future if great movies by women get some light and inspire young women now.

what are you responding to?

here you go: discord.gg/Dnsqfs2yfg

I have to strongly disagree there. In terms of narrative it is not until the 3rd act that we see what happens when Jeanne has even a moment to think or reflect and the routines are slightly pushed off until she reaches a tipping point. The final act is also thoroughly intense. I think the messaging ties in with this, and explores the world of women who replace "life" with routine and have nothing else. In terms of the set-up, I was never personally bored. Granted, I'm generally a fan of contemplative cinema and tastes differ. With contemplative cinema you get "lost" within / focus on the frame and fill it with thoughts and observation. Basic movements can quickly become almost hypnotic and drivers of action/interest and this film is no exception, but has even more under the hood than most. I do actually prefer the work of Tsai, for instance, Goodbye, Dragon Inn, but that is, ironically, flashier, Jeanne Dielman has far more meat on the bone and is also more bare. It is a singular film in so many ways and it is easy to see why a subset of critics, academics, programmers and archivists chose to highlight it on their top 10 lists. While both are great films, I am far more happy with this choice than Vertigo and find it a very fitting number 1, even though I would not have voted for it myself. (The same goes for Kane).

@@Kraisedion What Kane and Vertigo display that Jeanne Dielman does not, is incredible craft and filmmaking ability. Vertigo and Citizen Kane are a joy to watch for anyone that loves cinematography. Or editing, or music and sound. Or acting or plot etc... These are the building blocks of film and Vertigo/Citizen Kane show true mastery over these elements. But Jeanne Dielman? There's nothing to enjoy with the editing. There's no music. The acting is sterile. The cinematography is bland. No dollys, zooms, pans to enjoy. I'm not saying a film has to excel in all of these areas. But Jeanne Dielman excels in none. There's nothing to enjoy from a filmmaking perspective. So what are we left with? A message. A very clear and simple message. The film has precisely one thing to say and only one way to say it. You will understand EXACTLY what the film is trying to say about 20 minutes in. If all you want from films is a single, overly simplistic message executed with zero filmmaking skill then Jeanne Dielman is great. But for me, I want more from my films.

@@filmsaboutfilms6964 That's a stunning reaction to Jeanne Dielman. You say it has a simplistic message? What is it? At least to me, Jeanne Dielman is a far more daring film in terms of form than Citizen Kane and Vertigo. It is a film driven by form, a form that transforms your perspective of time and challenges what you view as action. It is a film that manages to make house chores entrancing and use thrm to drive the narrative and build suspense. The stripped down cinematic language is very much a part of its power and why it succeeds. And narrative is the bedrock of cinema? Cinema needs no narratives. Are we going to brush off Stan Brakhage or James Benning? Jeanne Dielman does have a narrative however, and is an incredible character study, or even a character type study, looking at women who replace "life" with routine and have nothing else, to the point that if they allow themselves to actually sit and think everything may come crumbling apart. What Dielman has is transformative, transcendental cinema magic. You are absolutely right that Citizen Kane and Vertigo are easier to enjoy for regular audiences, and Marvel films are easier still, so what? This list is not for your regular Joe or Jane, it is a poll of film experts (critics, academics, archivist and programmers) asking them to vote for 10 films (the greatest of all time, leaving the criteria to the voters), and if you were not aware fans of experimental, contemplative, arthouse, etc. cinema is a pretty large part of cinephilia. I do prefer Citizen Kane to Jeanne Dielman personally, Vertigo is about on par, but I think Dielman is a far more exciting pick and one that pushes the medium harder. Without indenting any disrespect to the two last number 1s, they are the kinds of films that get you into cinephilia, while Dielman is the kind of film you (read: many) will discover and come to love when they fall through the rabbit hole. It is certainly a more divisive film, but that also opens up for a lot of added great discussion and introspection that Kane and Vertigo did not offer.

@@Kraisedion you've taken what I said and deliberately misinterpreted it. I didn't say narrative was the bedrock of cinema. I mentioned narrative alongside half a dozen other film techniques (see original post). Jeanne Dielman succeeds in none of these. There is no filmmaking prowess on display at all in Jeanne Dielman. Also the Citizen Kane to Marvel argument is an enormous stretch. My point was that films like Vertigo and Citizen Kane demonstrate exceptional filmmaking ability in multiple areas. Jeanne Dielman strips away all filmic techniques in favour of pushing a very obvious and one note message. That message being: the female domestic life is meaningless. There's nothing wrong with a film making a point. But far better films have managed to make a point whilst also being entertaining and/or demonstrating exceptional skill of the craft. As far as I'm concerned, Jeanne Dielman is anti-cinema. It's a film that isn't interested in engaging with ANY of the disperate elements that make up the medium. It's just a socio-political statement film. Which for me is the least interesting thing that film can do. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

@@filmsaboutfilms6964 I'm very sorry you feel I'm deliberately missing your point, perhaps we simply appreciate cinema in such different ways I'm missing it, but the idea that Dielman is anti-cinema because it does not use flashy techniques really is akin to criticising Citizen Kane for not being in colour or having "cool CGI effects" to me. Jeanne Dielman is one of the greatest cinematic achievements in history in large part because of its simple techniques. This is one of the key appeals of minimalist filmmaking. You can strip so much away, and still, or rather because of this, deliver something raw and powerful. Jeanne Dielman is great because it is pure cinema magic. It is perfectly fine to dislike the film, but if you believe people are appreciating the film because of the message rather than the art, you are dead wrong. The love of Jeanne Dielman is about the form and the cinematic language. The way it changes our perspective of time, changes how we see and experience every day chores and slowly becomes an unnerving thriller. That is unique cinematic prowess, thrilling us with minute details and carrying the suspense until the faithful conclusion and beyond. I also completely disagree with your interpretation that it is saying "female domestic life is meaningless". Anyways, agreeing to disagree is fine (would like for you to not misrepresent its fans though), but regardless, merry Christmas.

Wow they can’t have every good movie on a top 100?

@@kraterkrate2014 well, that’s true, but how about good movies that people have actually watched?

"Hollywood movies are dead" -- I have learned, particularly from investing, that whenever I have a thought like this, the opposite is probably true. Most of us are pretty bad at seeing big-picture trends. I will say that one of the best movies ever was released this year. There were a bunch of good ones. Science fiction films did pretty well, and I am not thinking of any blockbusters when I say that. We'll also see how Glass Onion, Bardo, Banshees of Inisherin, White Noise, and a few others turn out. (I haven't seen these yet.)

@@LearningaboutMovies Did you invest in small cap stocks 🙂 I'm not denying your general point about prediction. Or even the quality of the movies you saw. The question is audience size and whether Hollywood makes quality mass entertainment that the masses go to see. That is popular entertainment. Are you familiar with Mamet's distinction between drama and melodrama? Drama is complicated, for adults. Questions are open, the audience doesn't know who to root for or how to solve the human dilemma. Melodrama is good versus evil. Back in the day it was possible to blend them and make great art. Today, there's too much virtue signaling. I was thinking about Philadelphia and The Silence of the Lambs. It occurred to me that who would root against a guy dying of AIDS. Yet Hannibal Lecter is a way more complicated figure. Is he the protagonist? In theory Clarice is. And the antagonist we barely see. Lecter is by far the most interesting. Omar in the Wire and Bonnie and Clyde might be other examples. Can you make adult movies anymore that aren't for kids? I don't know the data, but some argue that without DVD revenue, no. Are people going to theaters or streaming at home? Partly this addresses whether film is a communal event, or a niche obsession. Not that I am immune from niche behavior. At least I was aware of the S&S Number 1 film. That said, Scarlett Johansson is the number one box office star. Someone, unlike John Wayne or Clint Eastwood or even Cary Grant, with zero cultural relevance. That can't be good.

@@mikem668 You may as well have said "I have huge nostalgia bias and won't allow the quality of movies today stand in my way of proclaiming Hollywood as dead". Would have saved you a lot of time.

@@benzo9059 I always enjoy these kinds of comments. I can imagine you sitting in Florence in the 1690s arguing that Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael, and Donatello were just nostalgia bias. Art has peaks and valleys. Some forms go extinct. Some greatness is before its time and goes unrecognized. Your bias, and most of the young have or had it, is to think that their art matters, that it's equal to the past, because it's theirs. Sometimes it is, often it's not. Which is not to say that great art isn't lurking somewhere out of the mass public's eye. If I have nostalgia bias, you're defending the "new" or the hip or the marketed or liked. Since your snarky comment tells me nothing about how much you know, perhaps what you label nostalgia and bias can be more accurately called the result of your own ignorance. The problem is that results of ignorance is not symmetric. Think of it as Signal (quality) to Noise. I'm not arguing High versus Low. Time allows for quality to be recognized, often in strange ways. Which is why their are canons. We live in a time of short attention spans, information and marketing overload, and massive changes in technology and even social behavior (video on your phone, work at home). The idea that any of us know what's really great today isn't likely. Finally, whenever I meet younger artists and art lovers, I always ask them for recommendations. We trade them. The problem with your comment is that it's more or less name-calling. It's not completely worthless, because it's typical, but raises an interesting question.

thanks, and welcome.

not only that, but the movie celebrates a Confederate victory. I would think this movie is already banned in some places.

Raging Bull is also not there

@@Hritik9000 Yes and that's a disgraceful omission as well!

But is in the Directors poll.

@@MG-fh4ed Yes that is a much better list IMO

Yes, how come they can vote for 1 of the first 2 Godfathers and not the other? If anything, the sequel is even richer even without Brando.

Strongly disagree with that idea. The people polled are cinema experts who have likely seen tens of thousands of films. The difference between 1 and 10 (if they can rank them) should be indistinguishable or of no real relevance - and valuing the 10th spot to just 1 point would be insane. Even stripping it down to 10 as S&S asks their voters to do is harsh and extreme. Personally I have a 30-50 film tie on top and I have only seen around 11k films.

I think about the choice of games vs. movies all the time. There's enough great games from the last 30 years that you can get on Steam that could last you a couple of decades of playtime.

They did a top ten critics and directors list back in 2002

Nor of Bert I Gordon. Travesty!

Vertigo is very watchable, but the plot just asks too much : that you accept that Scotty can't see the obvious when he spots Judy and doesn't immediately realise it's Madelaine with brown hair. It's all too far fetched to be considered great. Rear Window just managed to stay within the realms of plausibility and is a much better film. An improbable film should have its tongue firmly in its cheek which also makes North By Northwest a better Hitchcock.

Mulholland Drive is the kind of film where you either get it or you don't, I felt a way I hadn't ever felt watching a film after I watched it for the first time. Hard to explain, not saying someone who doesn't feel the way I did couldn't still think it was a great film, but anyone who felt the way I did, and there'll be plenty, won't see any issue with it being very high on a list like this. It regularly finishes high up on other lists anyway, about time it got some more love on this one in particular. I used to feel the same way you do about Vertigo after my first watch, certainly considered Rear Window in particular much better, second time round I watched it however it Vertigo became a top 10 for me, along with Mulholland Drive, it's just got something about it that Hitchcock's other films don't, the cinematography and the use of colours were mesmerising on the second watch.

@@tonybennett4159 Think you're being a nit picky there, why would he, even if he was totally in his right mind which he wasn't by that point, think with any certainty it was the same woman when he thinks she's dead? She acted completely different, had a convincing back story on the spot when he quizzed her and the hair did make her look a lot different even to someone watching the movie.

What’s was your top ten for 1958?

They were not omitted, other movies just got more mentions. The effect of lack of representation means votes for "women movies" or "black movies" don't get spread across thousands of options. It's not really overcorrection, more a statistical phenomenon where less options to pull from leads to more votes.

I have a hard time believing that critics like Get Out more than Godfather II, Lawrence of Arabia, Raging Bull and many of the other films dropped out of the top 100.

WW3 event.

@@LearningaboutMovies I guess I thought that was too close to the realm of possibility, even before the movie was made, to count. : /

it is politically motivated obviously. most of the voters are feminists who were trying to make a statement. although i love this film, quite frankly it's not the greatest of all time. the movie wasn't ranked based on artistic value but only because of these pathetic "woke" politics.

Yes

I read this in John Turturro’s voice

I don't usually tolerate pronunciation reply-guys. In this case, I looked it up in several places and what I got was what I said. So, you need to take your beef up with Google. In my world (lots of Dutch names), that name is pronounced multiple ways by different people.

@@LearningaboutMovies I shall escalate my outrage! Thanks for replying, and keep up the good work. Love your channel! :)

I usually don't comment on pronunciation either, but I think you'll find that the French woman's name Jeanne is not pronounced like the French man's name Jean. Jean is, indeed like Jon except the n is barely enunciated, it sort of ends up in the nose. Jeanne is more like zjan, as in Jeanne Moreau, that fantastic actress.

Jeanne Dielmann is better than Jules et Jim.

Get Out is easily 95. No one knew what was going on in that movie. Most movies nowadays are basically remakes of older movies and you can figure them out.

thank you!

Fellowship and especially Gattaca will never make a list like this

I mean, thousands of great films will be missing regardless, it is just a list of 100 films, the 100 that got the most votes. There will be top 250s presented for both the directors poll and critic poll in January, and at least some of the films you mentioned will likely make the extended cut, but thousands of great movies will still not be present.

I don't see much Leigh love in the voting. Maybe they haven't settled on which of his films? But he's an ace director -- covered on this channel. There's a Mike Leigh video here somewhere if you search for it.

@@LearningaboutMovies I''l check it out, thanks! I wish he got more love.

It influenced Gus Van Saint

Yes, and no Tarantino movie. Why?

Exactly what I said!

a head scratcher. jeanne dielman is number 1 and portrait of a lady on fire is number 30, but no tarantino.

@@postmodernrecycler I hate to break it to you, kiddo, but everything belongs to a genre. That includes every single film on this list. Dark corners, broad daylight? Who cares? It's made. It's there. It deserves appreciation.

good comment. I intend to cover the "what is good" question on this channel this year, likely later in the year.

It's sEppuku.

I think that was there in the previous poll -- almost would bet on it.

@@LearningaboutMovies it’s the first time it’s appeared on the poll

Why is Jeanne Dielman landing on the top spot an "overreaction" rather than being about the art? It was simply on the most top 10 lists. Which position do you think it should have so we can contact specific voters and ask them not to vote for it next time? Pardon the snark there, but this idea that people are voting for the film due to the identity of the filmmaker rather than the craft is pretty ridiculous, at least if it is meant to be in contrast to how voters tend to cast their ballots. There are always voters that try to balance their list and represent cinema, be that highlighting films from different decades, periods, genres, countries, perspectives, etc. Yes, I have seen that infamous all woman ballot, but I have also seen all-French, all-American and even an all-noir ballot. People have different interests, value different segments of cinema or think X key part of cinema they value is underrepresented. Very common. If Akerman being a woman had an impact on some voters adding it to their film that is no different from voters hoping to include 1 silent film, or hell, 1 film by Hitchcock. It doesn't mean the art is not key for it being chosen, and, more importantly, we don't even know how many Dielman voters had any such considerations making an impact their vote(s). I really wouldn't want to make assumptions here. It is quite disrespectful to the voters.

@@Kraisedion I think it is a great piece of art in cinema and worthy of its place in the top 100. What I'm interested in is what has changed for it to go to no.1. S&S stated they were changing things this vote to break some barriers. The poll needed changes and the critics list is unquestionably refreshing. My central issue is that objectively I can't see how someone could argue that JD is greatest film ever, technically or expressively. I have the right to question the results if I believe voting has been reflective of a revisionist over correction. When we see the detailed votes and contrast them against previous years we may be able to better see how the changes have occurred. I don't want to see this to confirm suspicions of a plot to infiltrate the poll with moral liberalism. I just think its interesting to see how culture and attitudes change over time and why that change occurs. I don't personally like Vertigo. I find it a cold and technical exercise in filmmaking. However I respect the impression it has made to the progression in cinema and its influence on other filmmakers.

@@matthewcharlton9649 Hi Matthew, apologies for the late reply, I had written a rather long one, but it seems it did not get through, quite frustrating, so I will therefore start by frustrating you, because what better way to start a friendly conversation - equal frustration: "I think it is a great piece of art in cinema and worthy of its place in the top 100." "My central issue is that objectively I can't see how someone could argue that JD is greatest film ever, technically or expressively." So, to open up on a pedantic note, these two sentences, at least in my mind, contradict each other. If you believe it is worthy of being in the top 100, you believe many voters have valid reasons in including it in their unranked top 10s, and at least to me, any distinctions between films in the top 10 of a film expert is likely to be insignificant to non-existent. As such you should see why someone would claim it to be the greatest of all time - your issue would more likely be the number of people claiming it is (one of) the greatest films of all time. Personally, I have a very easy time seeing why Jeanne Dielman would be held up as one of the 10 greatest films of all-time, if not the greatest. As I'm sure you have seen across the Internet, many are stating the film to be an anti-thesis of previous winners (or even what they believe cinema to be/want it to be) - that's a pretty lofty accomplishment, and as you are likely aware, there are large streams of cinephiles drawn to experimental, contemplative/transcendental and just general arthouse cinema where cinematic form/art, engagement with the medium, etc. can be valued above all else or at least seen as a key factor - and in this sphere Dielman is not only one of the largest films, both in size and accomplishment, but a rather singular film, without much competition. What Dielman accomplishes through its filmmaking is rather remarkable, and almost unique in scope, in that it makes everyday chores the driver of the action and the suspense. It transforms your perspective of time and manages to get you to notice the most minute details within a routine. The way it used said routine to then build an image of a woman - and IMO an archetype of women that bury themselves in routine to keep busy, completely unused to and possibly even scared of being alone with their own thoughts - is remarkable - and offers a broader degree of cultural/social examination elevating the "text" from its already unique exercise in form - which again also opens it up for an even broader fanbase. In terms of cinema as an artform and beyond personal taste, this also opens the film to being selected by those who go by importance, feats in form, etc. i.e. the people who indeed believe in a sense of objectivity, while others will be transfixed by JD throughout and have it as an unadulterated favourite. "I have the right to question the results if I believe voting has been reflective of a revisionist over correction." You certainly do, and depending on what you mean I think it is very possible that a portion of voters, when filtering down their lists of favourites to 10, made various choices, including many seeking to highlight films by women - and this was likely more pervasive this year due to the changes in the cultural conversation. Just to be clear, this always happens, i.e. people wish to highlight the scope of cinema/value strains within cinema that matters to them - this includes silent cinema, classic Hollywood, westerns, the French New Wave, French cinema in general, samurai films, film noir, exploitation, every genre under the sun, and so on. It is quite likely Vertigo, for instance, gained a lot of votes as a representative of Hitchcock's oeuvre, as well as people preferring Hitch/Vertigo to Welles/Kane, while a film like say, The Searchers, could easily be coasting on voters wishing to promote westerns. Meanwhile, Citizen Kane is likely getting many votes due to its perceived importance in film history as well as being seen as a worthy number 1, rather than actually being in the voter's real top 10s (if they have one, many don't). I can't say to what extent these other factors affected each film, but we know many voters think this way and it has been spoken about and addressed within S&S' columns as well. So the question is really, "what is an over-correction" and how do we reach that conclusion. I would certainly be disappointed to find out that many voted for Jeanne Dielman due to some kind of liberal moralism - that should be heavily discouraged and would be tasteless and disrespectful - though I'm not sure if this is at all the case (and if it is, likely a quite small fraction). I'm also not sure if JD is a liberal film, but then liberalism means a lot of different things to different people. Personally, I think the climb can be explained through organic reasons. Over the last decade, the profile of Jeanne Dielman has risen drastically, moving it from a film on the longer list of "should sees" to a short list of "must-sees", the same is the case for most of the films by women that have entered the list. Alongside entering near the top of the S&S list last decade, and getting write-ups (multiple) in key popular publications, JD also enjoyed a large blu-ray release, before becoming available for streaming on Criterion. This is a rather extreme event for a film as "niche" as JD, and the number of voters who had seen it likely grew exponentially, with many also likely rewatching and reassessing it. On top of that more women voted than ever before, and while no group is a monolith, and I'm sure most of the women voters did not vote for JD (it was on 13.1% of the ballots overall) I would however not be surprised if women, overall, had a higher degree of connection to films by women filmmakers than men - just a hunch - could be wrong. Speaking for myself I have a very stereotypically "made" brain, in that I prefer the cold and calculated within cinema. My favourite film is Last Year at Marienbad, and this is in large part due to its "infinite" nature, i.e. the film and the events in it can be read in so many different ways and it can almost be a new film on every viewing. (i.e. who's telling the truth, is the story told out of synch/are we seeing different encounters, are they "dead"/"in purgatory - and in that case who is the purgatory for, etc.) - but these points of interests have no connection with the real world - it is almost about math and form. It is the same that can draw me to Vertigo (a cold film as you say), or the films by Kubrick, Haneke, Tsai, etc. I am appreciating warmth more than I did in my youth, and the same goes for more emotion-driven filmmaking, but my very top films are still mostly cold. Hell, my top choice for Varda is Le bonheur. Obviously, everyone is wired differently, and I know a large number of men with completely opposing preferences - but fitting the stereotype myself, I'm sure the same must be the case for many others, both women and men, and that the more intimate and less flashy/cold could get a push from women voters - again, overall. But yeah, let's wait until the votes are out.

@@Kraisedion No frustrations my end - were just chatting about films. Regarding the contradiction: I can differentiate between something being "great" and the gulf to "greatest" Regarding Dielman, beyond its unquestionable perspective and style it is prosaic and too long for what it has to say. By reducing itself to observation it opens itself up to analysis and also overanalyses. This is a symptomatic of great art but I think in film it also has a responsibility to entertain which is one of the films weaknesses. It works better in reflection than in situ. I don't think it pushed the film forward or is anything new on the subject of female repression within its minimalist framing. You could argue Ozu had been doing it a long time before without coming to a violent conclusion. I think the new poll reflects a fundamental change in the way we look and talk about film. Were starting to hold historical works of art to contemporary standards and that not a bad thing as its stimulating conversations about film that wont happen if we have Vertigo, Kane & 2001 at 1 2 3 again and again

thank you for this. I would like to think well of letterboxd and its users. But the vast majority of them use it for cute one-liners to garner likes, or to read cute-one-liners that they then "like." I can't say, therefore, that it's really any better than any other site. It just has a different demographic, probably, interested in different kinds of films.

@@LearningaboutMoviesI do know what you mean I’ve had to block those accounts so I can get to the actual reviews. Often those type of films that are highly rated on release often within months disappear from the top 250 lists once a larger audience accesses the film. Usually just on release there are some ridiculous praise for films I think are undeserving to be on there “Everything , Everywhere, Spider-Man etc” but within a few weeks those high ratings dwindle and often the films moves quite far down, so still keeping the “essentials” you could say in the main top 10 or so. The range is quite good in the letterboxd list having a wide variety of films from difffent movements in different countries in different years. Supposedly there’s Kurosawa appearing in there the most, then bergman , then Tarkovsky etc. So definitely not just the punchy one liner reviews although that is how the app can come across.

yeah, it really has to be a top 1000 list at this point.

It's an example of statistics rather. If 20 people want to vote for a black movie and there's 2 black movies, and 1000 people want to vote for a blue movie and there's 500 blue movies, there's a good chance a black movie wins.

It is very likely that a portion of the voters specifically wanted to vote for at least 1 film by a woman, but quotas/agendas are always a thing. Paul Schrader, who called the results a distorted woke-reappraisal, specifically wrote about how he has a quota to include 1 silent and 1 comedy and I don't find taking perspective into consideration when trimming down your favourite films to 20 any more odd/off than genre, period, or additionally movement, country, etc. And no, that doesn't mean there is a political agenda, only that they think it better represents what they want the Canon to look like. However, assuming Dielman coming out 1st or that the increase in women directors, is the result of quotas is highly speculative. It quite possibly had an impact, but looking at Dielman it was already 35, and was finally fully available, even on streaming and became a film everyone felt like they had to see, as opposed to only more hardcore cinephiles, or people specifically interested in contemplative/slow cinema. The same goes for the other films, where there has been a big increase of availability, reappraisal and specific focus on how overlooked many women filmmakers have been through the years - with their films now on the agenda. Adding to that, from what I understand, more women voted than ever before and the difference was not incremental. While no group is a monolith, it makes sense that on average there will be films that women are more drawn to than men and vice versa, and that women may connect more with the perspectives of women overall is, at least to me, possible to likely and would sway the results further. In my opinion, the changes are broadly speaking organic and reflective of the films valued in cinephile circles, and Dielman is a fitting top pick, even if it would be far from being my own.

I do think Ozu represents a peak or pinnacle of civilization.

So tired of the crying and complaining about “woke” culture. Every movie should not be from just one cultural perspective. It’s almost 2023- every movie can’t and won’t be from the perspective that gave us “ The Birth of a Nation”

but Dielmann was in the top 10 of the director's poll as well.

Look at it this way, by making Jeanne Dielman #1... They're indirectly making Bresson the true winner here I haven't watched JD yet, but heard it's very Bressonian

@@ikant312 just woke

Sight And Sound isn’t invalid

@@vodkatonyq I also thought the same. That's why I don't treat this list literally, I'm just grateful that I even have an access to such a list and can watch films that I never even heard about. Even if I won't like some of them, I probably still could appreciate them from an artistic standpoint. You could of course debate on a validity of such a list, but if it results in you getting angry and dismissing the whole list, then I don't think that it's helpful either.

Just curious, how many of these films have you seen?

If a list of the greatest films of all time was not representative it would not be a very good list and generally the aim of any such list is to be representative. The question is what kind of representation we are talking about. Is it periods/decades, genres/movements/types of films, key industries/countries, cultures/sub-cultures/perspectives, etc. And of course: How is this representation accomplished. Is it simply by having voters with different tastes and interests, as well as coming from different disciplines, with different areas of expertise? Or is it perhaps the individual voters attempting themselves to make their lists more representative? I think the latter has always been in play with S&S and it is talked about loudly. A fun example (given his reaction to the results) is Paul Schader having quotas to include 1 silent film and 1 comedy - but these kinds of restrictions, limitations, etc. are up to each individual voter. Personally I think the big shift in representation this year is due to 1) the doubling of the voter base with a more diverse mix than ever before, meaning films valued more by groups who previously had lower representation getting a push 2) changes to the zeitgeist and availability pushing films into the limelight that were not previously must-sees. Jeanne Dielman being available for streaming while pushed as one of the key films of all time, along with the overall focus on women directors, have likely ensured that a much higher percentage of the voters had seen it than before. Did tactical voting play a role, quite likely, it always does, especially when you must limit yourself to 10 titles, but the results are just as valid as those in the previous polls (if not more given the larger voter base).

Nonsense- that’s one of the best movies without a doubt. I rarely watch movies that I have absolute no idea of what’s going on- that movie was Hitchcockian.

@@ikant312 Great comment 🤣 you don't know what's going on? It wasnt a patch on the worst Hitchcock movie. What exactly was so great about it?

@@shamrockballs1066 The story and suspense- the screenwriting was exceptional. Maybe that’s why the director won the best screenwriter Oscar.

@@ikant312 I'm not interested in lopsided Oscar fan fair. What was so good about the story, suspense and screenwriting? I am being sincere as I did not see anything what so ever that hadn't been done before and done better in better horror films.

@@ikant312 GET OUT is obviously a rip-off of THE STEPFORD WIVES.

Good- we need more “woke” in cinema.

@@ikant312 Go woke,go broke.Look at the latest Disney flop.

@@jlg5967 what - Wakanda Forever? I don’t think that’s “going broke.”

@@ikant312 This film may be woke but the audience struggles to stay awake.

@@penguinegg01 says who? I was wide awake.