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

[titch]

Jeanne Dielman is one of only two films directed by women, along with Beau Travail, among the 100 on the list. Jeanne Dielman changed film history. The film created overnight a new way of making films a new way of telling stories, a new way of telling time.

Lists are always fun to debate - that is one reason why they are so popular. No problem with disagreeing with any list or "Number One ranking". Your own personal taste and pleasure is what's important to you. But you can broaden your horizons, if you seek out films, which have landed high up on a list, which you haven't previously seen. So congratulations to Tony D. for taking the plunge and investing time and effort to see Jeanne Dielman!

The reason the list from Sight & Sound is regarded as an authoritative canon, is that it surveyed more than 1600 critics, scholars, distributors, curators, archivists and others. New arrivals always mean some notable demotions: long-heralded landmarks, including Lawrence of Arabia, The Wild Bunch and Chinatown were pushed out.

Current critics I always enjoy reading:

- Anthony Lane in The New Yorker - very witty.
- Former editor of Premiere magazine, Glenn Kenny in Roger Ebert.com or The New New Times, or his blog: https://somecamerunning.typepad.com...s-from-an-unfinished-br4k-consumer-guide.html. He does some great commentaries for home video too.
- Tim Brayton on his website: https://www.alternateending.com/

They all have a huge scope in both American, foreign movies and classic cinema. It's quite rare that I disagree completely with them. And I will always seek out a film, which they've given a top recommendation.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Lists are always fun to debate - that is one reason why they are so popular. No problem with disagreeing with any list or "Number One ranking". Your own personal taste and pleasure is what's important to you. But you can broaden your horizons, if you seek out films, which have landed high up on a list, which you haven't previously seen. So congratulations to Tony D. for taking the plunge and investing time and effort to see Jeanne Dielman!

How about giving me a cookie. I watched that 201 minutes long movie when this list first came out. Unlike Tony, who watched the movie in several increments, it only took me a second sitting to watch the entire movie. After watching the first 30 minutes one day to pique my interest, a few days later, I watched the remaining three hours of the movie in one sitting. Furthermore, that same day I even watched the bonus material that Criterion supplied for the movie that included featurettes involving the cinematographer, director and lead actress of the movie.

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co...reatest-films-of-all-time.377828/post-5184757

 

[Polbroth]

His take on this poll:

Sight & Sound Poll Results: The End of Popular Cinema | National Review

Jeanne Dielman, a dull Marxist-feminist token, tops the list, thanks to the woke hive mind dominating film culture.

www.nationalreview.com

Wow.

The article didn't come up in any browser I tried, but then I noticed the one sentence included in the link, and feel I missed absolutely nothing. Utterly pathetic.

 

[Nick*Z]

Whomever that is.


Anyway I f9nally if she the movie after a half dozen attempts.

The last 10 minutes of the movie are her sitting at the kitchen table with blood on her hands.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

For those unaware, Bosley Crowther was a journalist/critic for the NY Times for almost 30 years.
His running commentary has been accredited with molding the career trajectories of many actors, directors and screenwriters. But his reviews were also often perceived as unnecessarily mean. Personally, I think Pauline Kael holds the torch on that one!

But back to Crowther, a staunch advocate for foreign-language films and a prolific writer, whose authorship has since been viewed as more scholastic than feather-weight. Crowther also opposed Sen. Joe McCarthy and his anti-commi witch hunts that devastated Hollywood's artistic community in the mid-50's. He was anti-censorship/pro-social content. Did he always hit his mark? That depends on one's viewpoint. While he championed Gone With The Wind, Citizen Kane, The Lost Weekend and High Noon, he absolutely abhorred Shane and Lawrence of Arabia (two personal favs), calling the latter a 'camel-opera'.

What I admire most about Crowther is that he was always willing to reconsider his initial reactions and publicly admit he had a change of heart. For a critic, that's a bold move, as in Crowther's initial assessment of Hitchcock's Psycho as a 'blot on an otherwise honorable career', at year's end, Crowther thought better of this snap analysis and called the picture 'a bold psychological mystery'.

One of Crowther's final reviews was for Bonnie and Clyde. He was decidedly NOT a fan of the picture and received a lot of flack for saying so, with some branding him as 'out of touch' merely for exercising his opinion running counterintuitive to what was considered 'the general consensus'.

Aside: I laugh at this, because whenever someone doesn't swim upstream with the rest of the fish he is immediately branded and then discounted as being 'out of touch' with the times. It should be pointed out that visionaries are often misperceived this way. Gone with the Wind was supposed to be Selznick's folly. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - Walt's folly. Orson Welles was virtually ousted from power for making Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons - two of the greatest movies of all time.

When Crowther left film criticism he went to work as an exec/consultant for Columbia. He also wrote the first ever history of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer: The Lion's Share: The Story of an Entertainment Empire (1957), as well as the first bio on Louis B. Mayer: Hollywood Rajah: The Life and Times of Louis B. Mayer (1960).

I think mskaye's comparison of my comment with something Crowther in his prime might have written was meant as a compliment. And anyway, that's the way I intend to take it, as Bosley Crowther was one hell of a guy.

Finally, having now sat through 'Jeanne Dielman' 3 times in one lifetime, trying to find something clever, or even remotely sustainable to make its hefty runtime pass without either falling asleep, suffering multiple fanny-twitches, or just generally losing interest, at least for me, is about as easy as peeling a turtle. (I'll leave those keen on quotes to surmise from whence my latter references cometh)!

​

 

[titch]

How about giving me a cookie. I watched that 201 minutes long movie when this list first came out. Unlike Tony, who watched the movie in several increments, it only took me a second sitting to watch the entire movie. After watching the first 30 minutes one day to pique my interest, a few days later, I watched the remaining three hours of the movie in one sitting. Furthermore, that same day I even watched the bonus material that Criterion supplied for the movie that included featurettes involving the cinematographer, director and lead actress of the movie.

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co...reatest-films-of-all-time.377828/post-5184757

Robert - you are far and away the person on this forum who watches and purchases the most films! As well as being an alert and valuable moderator! Respect is due to anyone who took the plunge to watch a three and a half hour French movie, based on its number one placement on this poll. So, of course you deserve a cookie!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Robert - you are far and away the person on this forum who watches and purchases the most films! As well as being an alert and valuable moderator! Respect is due to anyone who took the plunge to watch a three and a half hour French movie, based on its number one placement on this poll. So, of course you deserve a cookie!

Thank you for the kind words, but I was just joking with my facetious post. In a more serious manner, my main criticism of the movie is 201 minutes runtime is a bit much.

 

[titch]

All lists like this are arbitrary and capricious, and I’d rather see a synthesis of a dozen such polls and see how much overlap is left than lend much credence in any one poll. Particularly annoying was the thumb on the scale to urge voters to eschew conventional choices and think outside whatever imagined box they may perceive. I would posit any such list’s greatest value is to cause people to seek out the more obscure titles or international films that one might otherwise not make the effort to watch. But such lists are personal and I’ve yet to see one that I agreed with more than about half the time. The S&S list overlap was less than that, and I can’t put much credence in any poll that omits LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, NASHVILLE, or internationally LA GRANDE ILLUSION, LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS. Without these, the allusion to the “greatest” anything becomes discombobulated.

Even on aggregated polls, Lawrence Of Arabia and Grand Illusion don't register amongst the top 100. And Metacritc's list fluctuates all the time. Tokyo Story is now in first place, having been number five last year.

Best Movies of All Time

See how well critics are rating the Best Movies of All Time

www.metacritic.com

 

[Polbroth]

Even on aggregated polls, Lawrence Of Arabia and Grand Illusion don't register amongst the top 100. And Metacritc's list fluctuates all the time. Tokyo Story is now in first place, having been number five last year.

Best Movies of All Time

See how well critics are rating the Best Movies of All Time

www.metacritic.com

LOA now has the "White savior" label attached that also caused backlash against Avatar.

Grand Illusion is problematic for modern audiences for a number of vaguer reasons, but any poll not bursting with Renoir's work makes me very suspicious; it's like a best rock albums list with little to no Stones on it...

 

[titch]

LOA now has the "White savior" label attached that also caused backlash against Avatar.

Grand Illusion is problematic for modern audiences for a number of vaguer reasons, but any poll not bursting with Renoir's work makes me very suspicious; it's like a best rock albums list with little to no Stones on it...

Ah, but what one considers "classic" or a "masterpiece", will be brushed aside for newer generations. All has to do with personal experience, demography and politics. As you mentioned rock album lists with Stones, Rolling Stone's Top 100 or 500 list has been very radically altered, from the first list published 20 years ago (four Rolling Stones albums in the top 100), to the one published 2 years ago (one Rolling Stones album).

Rolling Stone – The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (2003)

Though a little outdated (created in 2003) and “weighted toward testosterone-fueled vintage rock,” Rolling Stone Magazine’s list of top 500 albums is a great start in documenting

genius.com

Rolling Stone – The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (2020)

1 | Marvin Gaye | What's Going On | 1971 / 2 | The Beach Boys | Pet Sounds | 1966 / 3 | Joni Mitchell | Blue | 1971 / 4 | Stevie Wonder | Songs in the Key of Life | 1976 / 5 | The

genius.com

In the end, it all boils down to a matter of personal taste and how far you are prepared to venture outside of your comfort zone, in order to discover unfamiliar stuff. Most of my friends my same age, are now much more conservative, than they were 40 years ago, as teenagers. They will only go and see films that they "know" they will like - classic films or new releases.

 

[Robert Crawford]

People are funny and movie lists are even sillier!

 

[Polbroth]

Ah, but what one considers "classic" or a "masterpiece", will be brushed aside for newer generations. All has to do with personal experience, demography and politics. As you mentioned rock album lists with Stones, Rolling Stone's Top 100 or 500 list has been very radically altered, from the first list published 20 years ago (four Rolling Stones albums in the top 100), to the one published 2 years ago (one Rolling Stones album).

Rolling Stone – The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (2003)

Though a little outdated (created in 2003) and “weighted toward testosterone-fueled vintage rock,” Rolling Stone Magazine’s list of top 500 albums is a great start in documenting

genius.com

Rolling Stone – The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (2020)

1 | Marvin Gaye | What's Going On | 1971 / 2 | The Beach Boys | Pet Sounds | 1966 / 3 | Joni Mitchell | Blue | 1971 / 4 | Stevie Wonder | Songs in the Key of Life | 1976 / 5 | The

genius.com

In the end, it all boils down to a matter of personal taste and how far you are prepared to venture outside of your comfort zone, in order to discover unfamiliar stuff. Most of my friends my same age, are now much more conservative, than they were 40 years ago, as teenagers. They will only go and see films that they "know" they will like - classic films or new releases.

Wow - how the mighty Stones have dropped!

Like a rock!

Fickle fashion...

LOA's time will come again, so to the Stones.

Renoir?

He SHOULD transcend time, but for so many, he somehow doesn't.

 

[billO']

I only recently a few weeks ago saw the S&S poll results so I'm kind of late to the party here, and I hate jumping into existing threads, but I only want to post one comment about the #1 film on the list...

JEANNE DIELMANN -- The #1 Film In The Entire History Of Cinema!!!

(let me take a breath here)

There are so many things wrong about this, but before I continue let me state that I have not seen this particular film, but I have read enough about it to get a sense of what it's all about and, more relatedly, I have seen two other Chantal Akerman films so I'm familiar with her style. I'll also add that I didn't seek out those two films to see (i.e., I didn't pay an admission or rental) but they were screened during a film class I took in college. During both films I nodded off to sleep. Neither one made any positive impression on me, and the only thing I remember about one of them is that the end credits were read audibly by the director while the camera panned around the rooftops of Paris (that really was, imo, the most exciting shot in the whole film).

Now, Jeanne Dielmann ("JD") could be diametrically opposed stylistically to the two films I nodded to, it's possible, but based on the descriptions I've heard of JD it sounds pretty similar to those that I saw and was (mostly) awake during. But if not, I have to say that I'd rather undergo the Spanish Inquistion for 3 and 1/2 hours than ever experience another Chantal Akerman film--especially one that was 3 and 1/2 hours long--ever again.

All my above criticisms can obviously be regarded as purely subjective on my part--fair point. Maybe this is what some cinemaphiles WANT in their cinema experience... Well, OK, to each their own, whatever floats yer boat I say. However, static shots and a s---l---o--o---w--l--y unfolding story are not what I gravitate towards in a cinematic experience--especially one that last for 3 and 1/2 hours. There is not anything revolutionary about this--Bresson has done this his whole career. And another film that also employs this static technique that I really admire is Jim Jarmusch's Stranger Than Paradise (which, I need to point out, had the wisdom of running just 90 minutes).
But here's what REALLY bugs me about this pick... This film did not make it to the #1 spot because it deserved it. It did so because there was a co-ordinated effort to bump this film upwards in the rating by agreement among a certain bunch of critics that this would be the champion they would get behind and all vote for. And yeah, I'll utter the word that describes that "certain bunch" and will instantly make me a pariah just because I uttered it: feminists.

A film this previously obscure does not just catapult to #1 best of all time--especially among almost 1600 critics--unless there are efforts undertaken to make it reach that spot. Does this break any rules? No, it's just a dumb movie poll, after all. But it does create a disturbing precedent because it displays a group mentality at work instead of individual choice for what is best. It's not dissimilar to the criticism that award shows get when there is obviously a group effort to reward some films whilst ignoring others. And any time it becomes obvious that an agenda is at play rather than individual opinions, the response will usually be another group will form in opposition to the original group. Personally speaking, after seeing this really (imo) average film take the top prize, if I had a vote as a critic in this poll, I'd start conversing with other critics and mutually agree on some picks just so we could take down Jeanne from the top spot. Once a shot is fired by one side, it's nearly impossible not to fire an answering shot in response. If anyone would know, you'd think feminists would that human nature is a bitch.

 

[Polbroth]

I only recently a few weeks ago saw the S&S poll results so I'm kind of late to the party here, and I hate jumping into existing threads, but I only want to post one comment about the #1 film on the list...

JEANNE DIELMANN -- The #1 Film In The Entire History Of Cinema!!!

(let me take a breath here)

There are so many things wrong about this, but before I continue let me state that I have not seen this particular film, but I have read enough about it to get a sense of what it's all about and, more relatedly, I have seen two other Chantal Akerman films so I'm familiar with her style. I'll also add that I didn't seek out those two films to see (i.e., I didn't pay an admission or rental) but they were screened during a film class I took in college. During both films I nodded off to sleep. Neither one made any positive impression on me, and the only thing I remember about one of them is that the end credits were read audibly by the director while the camera panned around the rooftops of Paris (that really was, imo, the most exciting shot in the whole film).

Now, Jeanne Dielmann ("JD") could be diametrically opposed stylistically to the two films I nodded to, it's possible, but based on the descriptions I've heard of JD it sounds pretty similar to those that I saw and was (mostly) awake during. But if not, I have to say that I'd rather undergo the Spanish Inquistion for 3 and 1/2 hours than ever experience another Chantal Akerman film--especially one that was 3 and 1/2 hours long--ever again.

All my above criticisms can obviously be regarded as purely subjective on my part--fair point. Maybe this is what some cinemaphiles WANT in their cinema experience... Well, OK, to each their own, whatever floats yer boat I say. However, static shots and a s---l---o--o---w--l--y unfolding story are not what I gravitate towards in a cinematic experience--especially one that last for 3 and 1/2 hours. There is not anything revolutionary about this--Bresson has done this his whole career. And another film that also employs this static technique that I really admire is Jim Jarmusch's Stranger Than Paradise (which, I need to point out, had the wisdom of running just 90 minutes).
But here's what REALLY bugs me about this pick... This film did not make it to the #1 spot because it deserved it. It did so because there was a co-ordinated effort to bump this film upwards in the rating by agreement among a certain bunch of critics that this would be the champion they would get behind and all vote for. And yeah, I'll utter the word that describes that "certain bunch" and will instantly make me a pariah just because I uttered it: feminists.

A film this previously obscure does not just catapult to #1 best of all time--especially among almost 1600 critics--unless there are efforts undertaken to make it reach that spot. Does this break any rules? No, it's just a dumb movie poll, after all. But it does create a disturbing precedent because it displays a group mentality at work instead of individual choice for what is best. It's not dissimilar to the criticism that award shows get when there is obviously a group effort to reward some films whilst ignoring others. And any time it becomes obvious that an agenda is at play rather than individual opinions, the response will usually be another group will form in opposition to the original group. Personally speaking, after seeing this really (imo) average film take the top prize, if I had a vote as a critic in this poll, I'd start conversing with other critics and mutually agree on some picks just so we could take down Jeanne from the top spot. Once a shot is fired by one side, it's nearly impossible not to fire an answering shot in response. If anyone would know, you'd think feminists would that human nature is a bitch.

For me, JD23 is leaps and bounds ahead of the director's other work, and must be judged on its own merits, which are considerable.

While there were clearly politics at work to an unprecedented degree in the construction of the SSP this time around, JD23 is nonetheless a masterpiece, and worth the riveting watch despite its startling climactic oddity.

While films like Vertigo, Kane and the Godfathers are arguably more comprehensive in their scope and scale, JD23 is still one of the few dozen greatest films I've ever seen, and SOMETHING has to rank first, so...

For me, it might be a Renoir or Dreyer flick - or Vertigo - but as we know, politics.

JD23 is certainly a much less flawed film than 2001, and a deeper exercise in character than Kane.

I was surprised, but not troubled, by the placement, and can only suggest seeing the film to assess for yourself its merits.

And remember - 10 years from now, it'll be a different flick.

 

[compson]

Jeanne Dielman is one of only two films directed by women, along with Beau Travail, among the 100 on the list. Jeanne Dielman changed film history. The film created overnight a new way of making films a new way of telling stories, a new way of telling time.

Lists are always fun to debate - that is one reason why they are so popular. No problem with disagreeing with any list or "Number One ranking". Your own personal taste and pleasure is what's important to you. But you can broaden your horizons, if you seek out films, which have landed high up on a list, which you haven't previously seen. So congratulations to Tony D. for taking the plunge and investing time and effort to see Jeanne Dielman!

The reason the list from Sight & Sound is regarded as an authoritative canon, is that it surveyed more than 1600 critics, scholars, distributors, curators, archivists and others. New arrivals always mean some notable demotions: long-heralded landmarks, including Lawrence of Arabia, The Wild Bunch and Chinatown were pushed out.

Current critics I always enjoy reading:

- Anthony Lane in The New Yorker - very witty.
- Former editor of Premiere magazine, Glenn Kenny in Roger Ebert.com or The New New Times, or his blog: https://somecamerunning.typepad.com...s-from-an-unfinished-br4k-consumer-guide.html. He does some great commentaries for home video too.
- Tim Brayton on his website: https://www.alternateending.com/

They all have a huge scope in both American, foreign movies and classic cinema. It's quite rare that I disagree completely with them. And I will always seek out a film, which they've given a top recommendation.

I enjoyed Jeanne Dielman (then again, I loved Gus Van Sant’s Last Days), but if “greatest” means most significant for the movie industry, where is Bonnie and Clyde, and why is Pulp Fiction so low on the list?

Anthony Lane is witty, but he seems more interested in a clever turn of phrase than in the movie he’s reviewing. Just my opinion, obviously.

 

[Bob Cashill]

My list: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time/all-voters/robert-cashill

 

[Thomas T]

His take on this poll:

Sight & Sound Poll Results: The End of Popular Cinema | National Review

Jeanne Dielman, a dull Marxist-feminist token, tops the list, thanks to the woke hive mind dominating film culture.

www.nationalreview.com

Seriously? "Marxist feminist token"? "Woke hive mind dominating"? Why would a left wing commie like me be remotely interested in reading something like that?

 

[mskaye]

For me, JD23 is leaps and bounds ahead of the director's other work, and must be judged on its own merits, which are considerable.

While there were clearly politics at work to an unprecedented degree in the construction of the SSP this time around, JD23 is nonetheless a masterpiece, and worth the riveting watch despite its startling climactic oddity.

While films like Vertigo, Kane and the Godfathers are arguably more comprehensive in their scope and scale, JD23 is still one of the few dozen greatest films I've ever seen, and SOMETHING has to rank first, so...

For me, it might be a Renoir or Dreyer flick - or Vertigo - but as we know, politics.

JD23 is certainly a much less flawed film than 2001, and a deeper exercise in character than Kane.

I was surprised, but not troubled, by the placement, and can only suggest seeing the film to assess for yourself its merits.

And remember - 10 years from now, it'll be a different flick.

Politics has nothing to do with it. Unless it is "politics" for a female director's film be considered the greatest film of all time. It couldn't possibly be merit could it? I realize that this film will not be for everyone, but seeing it recently again, it's a masterpiece. It has haunted my thoughts like the best films I have ever seen. Like Persona, 2001, Apocalypse Now, M, Sunrise, Kane. Like those films, it is ALSO singular and unique and stylistically unlike anything I have ever seen. It is long but those that complain about its lack of action are missing the point. There is enough "emotional action" in this film than 100 Hollywood imitations of life put together. Its a profound emotional jorney. It is borderline experimental but that doesn't take away from it's greatness. 2001 is borderline experimental too. I will also state that most of the "complaints" on this forum have not been from any female contributors (and like, how many are there?) There is a reason this film occupies such a lofty position in the mind of many critics and people who are deeply passionate about what the film means. If anyone has not seen this film, you're missing a masterwork. Is it the greatest film of all time ? Of course not, this is a list and it is impossible to crown something so subjective with such a title. But is it up there with the greatest? Absolutely. And it's from 1975! Like the other great films, it's prophetic thematically and stylistically ahead of its time in structure, form and style.

 

[Polbroth]

Politics has nothing to do with it. Unless it is "politics" for a female director's film be considered the greatest film of all time. It couldn't possibly be merit could it? I realize that this film will not be for everyone, but seeing it recently again, it's a masterpiece. It has haunted my thoughts like the best films I have ever seen. Like Persona, 2001, Apocalypse Now, M, Sunrise, Kane. Like those films, it is ALSO singular and unique and stylistically unlike anything I have ever seen. It is long but those that complain about its lack of action are missing the point. There is enough "emotional action" in this film than 100 Hollywood imitations of life put together. Its a profound emotional jorney. It is borderline experimental but that doesn't take away from it's greatness. 2001 is borderline experimental too. I will also state that most of the "complaints" on this forum have not been from any female contributors (and like, how many are there?) There is a reason this film occupies such a lofty position in the mind of many critics and people who are deeply passionate about what the film means. If anyone has not seen this film, you're missing a masterwork. Is it the greatest film of all time ? Of course not, this is a list and it is impossible to crown something so subjective with such a title. But is it up there with the greatest? Absolutely. And it's from 1975! Like the other great films, it's prophetic thematically and stylistically ahead of its time in structure, form and style.

It appears you randomly clicked on my post & responded to it having read neither the post you responded to, nor anything else I've said about the poll or this film.

Take care.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I watched JD after seeing the poll. It is a mystery how so many voted for it to enable it to poll so high and although I have seen many (often obscure) foreign films, it didn't do anything for me. However, it might be considered ahead of its time as you can now watch many people doing ordinary things in real time on YouTube. The internet has facilitated this type of 'slow cinema' where nothing much happens. A few years ago the BBC ran a series of films with no narration, there was a tour of the National Gallery (London), a canal boat, and my favourite, following a reindeer sleigh in Norway. Very relaxing!

 

[Polbroth]

Cinema verite!

Pure filmmaking returned to its earliest roots.

There was a guy in New York City who ran a cable show consisting of people walking by his window, though he would edit it so that it mostly featured attractive young women.

No one knew they were being filmed, though when they saw themselves, some would call the *auteur* in question and scream obscenities and threats at him.

This was known because the guy would then edit together the angriest calls and play them over the footage of people walking their dogs, picking their noses, looking at their reflections in windows and so forth.

Absolutely fascinating, though the guy was, of course, a total creep/weirdo.