Which Sight & Sound all-time top 10 list is the best?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (119 of them)

1982

Hating the Searchers is O_o

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'd pick Late Spring if I had my druthers, but that's why consensus sucks.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

see, i sorta need 8 1/2 on my list (but no other Fellini anywhere near it), but im just weird that way.

ryan, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:04 (5 years ago) Permalink

honestly, most of these films I wouldn't sit down and watch with pleasure. The exceptions: Renoir, Welles, Ozu, The General. The rest remind me of homework assignments.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:05 (5 years ago) Permalink

One screening of Potemkin and Joan of Arc is fine.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

You'd watch Tokyo Story for pleasure but not Singin' in the Rain?!

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

Le plasir can be a tad overrated in movies, when it comes to stuff like this, tho.

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

see what i did there

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

oh, I missed SITR.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

my days of forcing myself to sit through 4 hour classics of silent cinema are over, but im also liable to enjoy a Tarkovsky or Dreyer film once in a while....for that matter, where's Andrei Rublev or Stalker? wtf Sight and Sound.

ryan, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

82, i guess. film canon lists are pretty dull

velko, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

my days of forcing myself to sit through 4 hour classics of silent cinema are over

cinephilia is like catholicism; right now I'm lapsed, but I'm never not going to be a cinephile.

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

yes. I wonder how likely something like Killer of Sheep will be on the 2012 list. I think that and Apocalypse Now are likely to make big showings.

I voted 1982, that list makes me the happiest when I look at it.

ryan, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:20 (5 years ago) Permalink

is Tokyo Story still seen as the obligatory Ozu?

Poll I probably should've done: best of auteurs' "runner up" films on the latest S&S list, i.e.

Touch of Evil
Psycho
Grand Illusion
Barry Lyndon
Ivan the Terrible
La dolce vita
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Rashomon
Ordet
Contempt
The 400 Blows (!)
Ugetsu (!!)

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

It seems that Mizoguchi has for some reason been forgotten from the list of great directors, which is a real pity, so I gotta go for the 62 or 72 list for still including Ugetsu.

(x-post)

Tuomas, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

wasnt Rashomon ahead of Seven Samurai? I think i remember being pissed off by that. (i love SS)

ryan, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:23 (5 years ago) Permalink

Comparing the best in film across eras doesn't work any better than it does for baseball players.

It's easy to be "forgotten" when there's only room for ten!

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:23 (5 years ago) Permalink

I love mizoguchi, but i dont think the future lists will be kind to him, especially as stuff like The Godfather starts appearing.

ryan, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

where will the shawshank redemption place in '12?

omar little, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

It seems that Mizoguchi has for some reason been forgotten from the list of great directors, which is a real pity, so I gotta go for the 62 or 72 list for still including Ugetsu.

Yeah, I almost voted for 1972 for that reason.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:25 (5 years ago) Permalink

Well, yeah, but in general I don't see Mizoguchi getting nearly as many mentions as Kurosawa or Ozu when talking about the greatest directors of all time, and it seems like he was held in higher regard in the 60s and 70s.

(x-post Morbius)

Tuomas, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:25 (5 years ago) Permalink

Which placing in the 2012 top twenty will Knocked Up land, Morbs?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:26 (5 years ago) Permalink

"getting nearly as many mentions today"

Tuomas, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:26 (5 years ago) Permalink

re: Shawshank ... Only Anurag Mehta knows for sure.

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:26 (5 years ago) Permalink

Mizoguchi >>> Kurosawa

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

Mizoguchi has the same "problem" as Buñuel does in this format: too many masterpieces.

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

I dont even have much use for Kurosawa or Fellini apart from Seven Samurai and 8 1/2. it's kind of strange really.

ryan, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:28 (5 years ago) Permalink

lol shit i think a friend of mine works with anurag, or has. terrible list.

omar little, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:28 (5 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, it's amazing how Buñuel's the only Old Master who didn't once place a film.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

I mean, really, is it possible to single one out? If it weren't for Vertigo's gothic gravitas, Hitchcock would almost assuredly be in the same position.

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:31 (5 years ago) Permalink

1972, Wild Strawberries

I know, right?, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:31 (5 years ago) Permalink

so what you will about boring canons, a lot of these movies are just fucking miracles to me.

ryan, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:32 (5 years ago) Permalink

wtf Searchers, explain yourself!

-- I know, right?, Wednesday, August 6, 2008 4:58 PM (32 minutes ago)

I know, right?, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:32 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think one problem with Mizoguchi is that he isn't nearly as "Western" as Kurosawa; his late career movies especially lack clear-cut moralities and are more ambivalent and open-ended than most Western movies of the era. This isn't to say that Kurosawa is any worse than Mizoguchi, though (I love them both), just that Mizoguchi probably isn't as easy to digest in the West.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:33 (5 years ago) Permalink

David Thomson's beef with Kurosawa rests on this premise.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:35 (5 years ago) Permalink

Anurag's list has a certain integrity until Jerry Maguire shows up!

ryan, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:35 (5 years ago) Permalink

In retrospect, I should've also included, as a poll option, Paul Schrader, if only as a joke. But that article ended up being the furor that never happened, in the end.

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

But you look at the lists from "non-Western" critics and you're more likely to see, if anything, an even more pronounced taste for Western movie values.

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:37 (5 years ago) Permalink

when will films from Iran/China/HK/Taiwan show up on S&S lists? Never, that's when.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

Schrader reminds me: no Bresson on any of these lists.

(the mizoguchi/ozu vs kurosawa thing always struck me as a bit of a western "orientalist" bias)

ryan, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

xps are directed at you btw Soto

I know, right?, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

C'mon – Kiarostami will show up soon.

(xxpost)

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

In the category of "small victories," Close-Up managed something like four votes.

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:40 (5 years ago) Permalink

I bet something like Flowers of Shanghai will show up next time. maybe not top ten though.

ryan, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 17:40 (5 years ago) Permalink

Wong Kar Wai is in the process of dismantling any chance he once had of showing up on these lists isn't he.

I know, right?, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 18:04 (5 years ago) Permalink

Flowers of Shanghai's best chance was surely in '02, right? It had all the "greatest masterwork of the 1990s" hype still running fairly hot at that point. I rarely see much chatter about it these days.

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 21:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

yeah, you're probably right.

I like to check on the Senses of Cinema list once in a while, though I wish they made it longer than 10.

1. Vertigo(Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane(Orson Welles, 1941)
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey(Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
4. 8½(Federico Fellini, 1963)
5. La Règle du jeu(Jean Renoir, 1939)
6. Tokyo Story(Yasujiro Ozu, 1953)
7. Sunrise(F. W. Murnau, 1927)
8. Au Hasard, Balthazar(Robert Bresson, 1966)
9. Taxi Driver(Martin Scorsese, 1976)
10. La Passion de Jeanne D'Arc(Carl Dreyer, 1928

ryan, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 21:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

i am a bigger french new wave fan than most, but i am totally stunned by the lack of any godard or 400 blows, or resnais.

I am going with 72, for the silents and the inclusion of Persona. (even though i still would rather not have any fellini on a top ten list)

t0dd swiss, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 21:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

I really have to hope that Bresson will escape the Buñuel/Mizoguchi trap, and that enough consensus will settle on Balthazar, but my guess is not ... too many others will go for Pickpocket or A Man Escaped instead.

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 21:33 (5 years ago) Permalink

The only thing keeping me from wholly endorsing 1962 and that then-two-years-old movie landing at #2 is the presence of two Eisensteins (even if one, Ivan, is by far my favorite of his).

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 21:34 (5 years ago) Permalink

it's also in the last few decades come to stand in for the 1960s en toto

because of all the sex, drugs and rock & roll?

gabbneb, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 23:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

"i wonder what the first post-1980 film to make one of these top 10s will be. and when."

Judging by the top 50 thing it'll be Fanny and Alexander.

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 23:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

And "Topsy Turvy" ? Really ?

i love that movie so much.

tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 23:23 (5 years ago) Permalink

It's a good movie. Leigh's best?

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 23:25 (5 years ago) Permalink

i seem to remember Topsy Turvy got one vote at number 1 on someone's list?

jed_, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 23:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

no, 2 votes, no number ones.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/voted.php?film=Topsy-Turvy%20(Leigh)

jed_, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 23:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

Not the SDR&R, but rather the elliptical storytelling methods of Antonioni, Resnais, et al that have been all but eradicated from the S&S top 10 canon since 1972.

Eric H., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 23:37 (5 years ago) Permalink

honestly, most of these films I wouldn't sit down and watch with pleasure. The exceptions: Renoir, Welles, Ozu, The General. The rest remind me of homework assignments.

that's just silly. none of these would be my top 10 list either, but the chaplin, vigo, fellini, bergman, kelly/donen. ford, kurosawa and mizoguchi choices are hardly a chore to sit through.

J.D., Wednesday, 6 August 2008 23:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

I omitted lots of things from that original comment.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 23:50 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'm very glad that Dutt's "Pyaasa" and "Kaagaz ke Phool" (both at 157) - and in particular Kamal Amrohi's stunning "Pakeezah" at 226 - all got the recognition that they did. There is much more to Indian cinema than the tokenist championing of Ray, Ray, Ray all the time (sigh, I view him as a European director)

Vichitravirya_XI, Thursday, 7 August 2008 00:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

It also makes me happy to note that "The Magnificent Ambersons" got so much love in the 70s & 80s despite the ultimate supremacy of Kane. It would be nice to see it regain popularity but like Ugetsu the peak of its attention is probably long gone, never to return again

Vichitravirya_XI, Thursday, 7 August 2008 00:17 (5 years ago) Permalink

2001 is a genre movie? Moreso if you slice off the CaveApes and Bowman's Hotel Room, yes? I think it's "top-ten material," but I feel that way about whichever of four Kubricks I've seen most recently.

The oddity about the silent-era tokenism is the way Eisenstein has outlasted Chaplin, who along with Griffith popularized cinema. The Great God Montage.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 7 August 2008 16:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Xala" literally put me to sleep, but the ending was memorable in its sickening way. I'd see it again as a curiosity

A few meandering bits, maybe, but what's wrong with "Xala"?! Apart from the points the narrative tries to make its very funny!

xyzzzz__, Friday, 8 August 2008 21:25 (5 years ago) Permalink

I read an interesting article somewhere describing Mizoguchi's works & aesthetic as being more classically feminine or concerned with the feminine, as opposed to the obsession-with-the-masculine that Kurosawa exhibited, that has resonated with (mostly male) film critics.

I'm not sure what a "feminine aesthetic" means, but his films definitely have feminist qualities, insofar as the majority of them have women as protagonists, and he is highly critical of their position in Japanese society. Also, his movies have more rounded, three-dimensional female characters than almost any other director of the era. I really love Ugetsu, but I think it might be telling that his best-known film is also one of his few major works with male protagonists.

Tuomas, Friday, 8 August 2008 21:40 (5 years ago) Permalink

i have a bit of a problem with the mizoguchi >>> kurosawa fad, tho the only kurosawa i'm really in love with is seven samurai (haven't seen ikiru yet, shameful i know) -- something about it just reeks of automatic contrarianism to me. the fact that there's more than one great japanese director (imagine that!) seems like poor grounds to denigrate kurosawa.

J.D., Friday, 8 August 2008 22:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

Most of the reaction against Kurosawa stems from years of overexposure, while Ozu, Mizoguchi, and Naruse's barely got a release in the West. Kurosawa could certainly essay genres that the others couldn't. He failed more massively than the others because he was far more ambitious. He's the Tolstoy of Japanese cinema, I suppose.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 8 August 2008 22:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

kurosawa's liberal-huamanist sensibility and hotcha action also just goes down easier with western audiences i think. not that ozu or mizoguchi lack a liberal humanist sensibility, but it feels a little more specifically japanese where kurosawa felt like he was always going for broad appeal (hence all the western literary adaptations). i love kurosawa and wouldn't denigrate him at all. but i can definitely see a case for the greater rigor and depth of some of his contemporaries.

tipsy mothra, Friday, 8 August 2008 23:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

Kurosawa's films are so manly in comparison

But to be honest, I just love Ugetsu. I didn't care much for either Life of Oharu or The Geisha; still need to see Sansho the Bailiff

"-- something about it just reeks of automatic contrarianism to me. "

I wonder if that might've played a part in why some French New Wavers were so rah-rah-Mizoguchi in such a stentorian manner

Vichitravirya_XI, Saturday, 9 August 2008 13:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

Kurosawa and Mizoguchi are both among my favourite directors, I see no reason why you can't love them both. I was only noting the sad fact that Mizoguchi seems to be rather forgotten in the West these days, whereas Kurosawa is still a household name.

Tuomas, Saturday, 9 August 2008 15:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

ILX System, Thursday, 28 August 2008 23:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

wow so who suddenly decided KANE was great and why wasn't it considered *as* great in the 50s?

piscesx, Thursday, 28 August 2008 23:17 (5 years ago) Permalink

No one had seen it yet.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 28 August 2008 23:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

Manny Farber convincingly traces the influence of fifties on "serious" Hollywood film of the mid to late fifties.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 28 August 2008 23:20 (5 years ago) Permalink

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

ILX System, Friday, 29 August 2008 23:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think the right year won.

Alex in SF, Friday, 29 August 2008 23:05 (5 years ago) Permalink

off track but the s and sound get smart review was pretty funny

I know, right?, Friday, 29 August 2008 23:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

I saw it, In the cinema. like, paid money

I know, right?, Friday, 29 August 2008 23:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

booooooooooooo

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 30 August 2008 17:48 (5 years ago) Permalink

jeez, sorry to offend your sensibilities morbs

I know, right?, Saturday, 30 August 2008 17:51 (5 years ago) Permalink

3 years pass...

i can't remember whether i voted in this thread but it's weird to look at the 1952 list and see how many of those selections basically disappeared from consideration by the next list -- no more chaplin, griffith, carne, flaherty, clair, even von stroheim. like a glimpse into a lost world.

it's also fascinating how FAST l'avventura jumped onto the 1962 list. i can't imagine any movie making it onto the list at all, let alone at no. 2, within two years of its release nowadays.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 21 March 2012 00:21 (2 years ago) Permalink

surely the answer is 1992

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 March 2012 10:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

i can't imagine any movie making it onto the list at all, let alone at no. 2, within two years

make it four and prepare to be knocked for a loop by The Dark Knight

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 21 March 2012 14:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

When I look at the six lists together (especially the last five), it's like looking at one of those 3D pictures where things come into focus gradually, if at all--they all blur together for me.

The '72 list had a huge effect on me: saw it in the Book of Lists in the late '70s, and it was so mysterious to me, all these films like Persona and L'Avventura that I'd never heard of--pre-internet, pre-video, pre-everything if you lived in a small town--I know it played a part in my decision to enroll in film at university, rather than math. One of the dumbest decisions of my life. Thanks Sight & Sound!

clemenza, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 14:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

cinephilia is like catholicism; right now I'm lapsed, but I'm never not going to be a cinephile.

Haha. Um.

Eric H., Wednesday, 21 March 2012 15:13 (2 years ago) Permalink

The durability of Potemkin amazes me. Even allowing for the fact that it's not my kind of film, it just doesn't strike me as something that would be on every list across six decades (and never lower than seventh).

clemenza, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 15:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Roger Ebert has picked just one new film to replace one old one on his 2002 Top 10 list http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/04/the_greatest_films_of_all_time.html

piscesx, Monday, 30 April 2012 12:24 (1 year ago) Permalink

A movie that was only his 3rd best movie of his year-end list for 2011.

jungleous butterflies strange birds (Eric H.), Monday, 30 April 2012 12:26 (1 year ago) Permalink

I like that he almost went for Synecdoche, New York.

And I have been called "The Appetite" (DL), Monday, 30 April 2012 12:41 (1 year ago) Permalink

On another blog, he floated the horrifying possibility that JUNO was on the shortlist for that slot.

jungleous butterflies strange birds (Eric H.), Monday, 30 April 2012 12:56 (1 year ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.