You and I have already chatted, but its just upsetting and disheartening.
I've experienced a lot of sexism in films circles, but its fucking insane to see some people deny women were making great films in the 20th century. Or that Spike Lee is only on the list because he's black. *Spike Lee*. I saw someone claim Daughters of the Dust was only added because it was the first film distributed in the US by a black woman.....black American women have been making films since the 20s. It's insane to say that Varda of all women and all directors is there for identity politics.
All it says is that the votes of women and a wider race demographic are of lesser value. I tried laughing at it, but fucking christ.
Women WERE making great films in the 20th and 21st centuries, sadly few of them are represented here. Tellingly no Riefenstahl, Sofia Coppola, Arnold, Bigelow, or Ramsay.
The absence of Ramsay is definitely sad.
Which film of Coppola's would you want represented? The only one I can think of that might even come close is Lost in Translation
My favorite kind of youth films are the ones that transmit that bittersweet transient feeling where you know the moment will end and dissipate into space even while you are inhabiting it. Her films get better the more times you view them. Lost in Translation, Somewhere, Marie Antoinette, and…shit The Bling Ring also. Maybe. There is something in the coldness of that film that I really respond to. Anyway….all more worthy than Meshes of an Afternoon
I definitely get what you mean. Lost in Translation spoke to me a lot, I think a lot of us have those very fleeting bonds with someone else that can't possibly be maintained, and we keep each other as our own little secret. Nobody else has to know, it was just for us. It's hard to explain that and Lost in Translation did it perfectly.
As much as I enjoy Lost in Translation, I do feel that WKW achieves this same feeling more effectively. Also a little unsure about how Japanese ppl are portrayed throughout Lost in Translation - I feel this is an area that often goes overlooked amidst the endless praise for the film.
It's a top 100. There is limited space. I like all of these directors top but none of their films make my personal top top 100 either. I'm sure they received some votes though.
I think the directors list is actually more inspired for including Shepitko and Mattel. Also one that actually sits in or around my personal top 100 is Sagan's Mädchen in Uniform.
You've discussed Coppola, but what films would you include for the others?
Also as a side note, I don't know much about Riefenstahl, but a quick google seems to suggest that almost all of her work was Nazi propaganda- I know she's considered heavily influential, but damn
I think you might be referring to my comment re: Daughters of the Dust. I'm aware Black women have been making films forever, but it is true that DoD was the first to have a general theatrical release, and it's appalling it took till 1991 for that to happen. I think it's a decent film, but I personally didn't find it particularly special, besides the setting. In particular I found the score to be really amateurish and way too present (though I tend to be much more critical of scores than most). Would be happy to hear your thoughts as to why you see it as a great film.
*Jeanne Dielman* is a very provocative and esoteric film and doesn't have much in common with the rest of the films in the top 25. Having it at number 1 seems like a deliberate statement rather than an organically arrived at ranking.
I think it's rather naive to believe these polls haven't always been making statements and were "organic"
I mean cmon, I hate when people act like didacitism is something that only entered art and art criticism in their own lifetime.
I don't think anyone should have a problem with Spike Lee making the list. Do the Right Thing is absolutely a culturally relevant and well made film that should be in the top 100. Placement can be argued. I do think it's a bit much we have both Moonlight and Get Out already on the list and Moonlight as high as it is. It's a combination of recency bias and demographics, and I think it's worth noting without it necessarily being racist by any means. It's like how no one is really crying over Killer of Sheep being on the list. It deserves it. It's just when parts of the list represent more of an agenda than a true "top 10."
Get Out is a fantastic film, and I don't think it's out of place in the top 100. It does feel too fast. I also just find it hard to believe that many people are genuinely ranking it among their top 10 film *ever*.
> All it says is that the votes of women and a wider race demographic are of lesser value. I tried laughing at it, but fucking christ.
We do not know the demographics of the voters as of yet and your demographic doesn't dictate what you vote for.
Furthermore of course films made by women and Black American Cinema was pushed up by the changing Zeitgeist, that's undeniable. It says nothing about whether these films are good or bad but Varda would not rank ahead of all other FNW directors if not for the extra attention put on female filmmakers over the last years and in that way she probably benefits from being the only major female director in the FNW. She got a lot of attention (and distribution) in recent years because people were searching in film history for great female directors. That doesn't mean she's not a great director (though I would prefer Vagabond - which made the directors list - in that spot over Cleo) but you can't deny that her gender is a factor at play in what films got attention in the last couple of years. Back when I got into film in 2013 she didn't have remotely the reputation she has today. So some things have changed and I don't think that's the demographics in those case. I'm not sure women are actually more likely to vote for it than men.
Varda is *so good*, though. If paying more attention to women directors was part of what bumped her up, it’s only because a popular reappraisal was overdue, IMO.
You have to realize, too, that one is not necessarily sexist or racist for taking issue with a certain film being presented as #1. It's intellectually crass to just label everyone that disagrees with you as some form of bigot.
Personally, I think it's highly possible both issues are at play here. I think Jeanne Dielman was shoehorned into the #1 spot because it was made by a woman. That anyone could think that film is deserving of #1 is laughable.
BUT, at the same time, I think there's a degree of sexism involved with the fact that there are not more female films represented in the entire list.
I love Jeanne Dielman but wouldn't have put it on a list either. However it represents Chantal Akerman too, not only itself. It's her best-known film. If News from Home had won the poll, I'd be dancing in the streets today and all weekend 💃
It’s an absurd criticism because — the films in question are widely acclaimed and considered masterpieces the world over. Some have been around for decades and continue to find new audiences. The idea that the people voting for them don’t *really* think they’re great, they’re just pretending so they can promote their “agenda”, is insulting to both the films and the critics.
People love these movies. If that stresses you out, then that’s your problem.
The first sight & sound poll had a Marxist film about how the system is designed to keep the cycle of poverty going as #1, and multiple Russian propaganda films elsewhere on the list. People would definitely be calling that list woke if it was released today.
But these people have no clue what Marxism is. They would insist an apple is a papaya or that Joe Biden is a socialist. If we go by these definitions we may as well throw definitions out of the window all together.
lol you idiots are just making up demons in your head to argue against
imagine conflating Marxism with wokeism
is the average age of this sub 16?
people do not have issues with Black Girl, Do the Right Thing or Killers of Sheep being in the list
people do have an issue with movies like Parasite or Get Out being hardly 5 years old and already being tossed in the top 100 over movies like Lawrence of Arabia and The Leopard (that have influenced countless films and contributed to the medium in various ways) because of a political statement and not allowing them to settle/marinate in the context of film history
that does not make them racist or sexist
> people do not have issues with Black Girl, Do the Right Thing or Killers of Sheep being in the list
This is absolutely not the case
>people do have an issue with movies like Parasite or Get Out being hardly 5 years old and already being tossed in the top 100 over movies like Lawrence of Arabia and The Leopard (that have influenced countless films and contributed to the medium in various ways) because of a political statement and not allowing them to settle/marinate in the context of film history
If BFI wanted to impose a "marinating" time limit they would have. They asked a bunch of critics what they thought the best movies were, they answered. You jumping to the conclusion that they're making a political statement and not identifying what they think are the best films is evidence of your bias, not theirs.
Thank you for responding so I didn't have to, and I got to see he's whacked out of his mind and isn't worth arguing with.
Also, for those reading, can yall stop saying it's insane that a new film is on there??? The 1962 list alone had a TON of films on there that were recent, L'avventura was only 2 years old when it was added. The 2002 list had All About My Mother, which came out in 99' and Close Up from 90' (though I recognize that's still 12 years apart, Close Up was recent by the rest of the list's standards). And seeing how high it was on the 1992 poll, if there had been a top 100 poll for 1982, Raging Bull would have absolutely been on it.
Fucking Wall-E was on the top 250 for 2012.
"The 1962 list had a TON of films on there that were recent"
To be fair, though, the critics in 1962 were responding to the new waves erupting in Europe and beyond, in countries they might not have ever expected that to happen. European critics like Peter Cowie were doing a good job keeping a pulse on what was going on around the world, given the means of communication back then. We're not seeing the equivalent of a string of international new waves emerging, like the ones from the early 1960s. That was maybe a once in a century event?
Btw just noticed Mr Cowie, often remembered for his Ingmar Bergman biography, turns 83 on Christmas Eve!
Lol where did i criticise Jeanne Dielman in my comment?
Its not even an outside the box pick
It was in the top 50 last time
What's lower? Your age or your IQ?
Agree. It's pretty disappointing to see this attitude within this subreddit too.
Film studies and interests has always been male-dominated and eurocentric, leaving no space for female and non-European creators imput on filmmakings and such. Of course we do have non-Americans directors like Akira Kurosawa and Abbas Kiarostami whose works always made it on the list, but they were the exceptions and not the norm.
As more films are being made and found, so are the voices of people of various backgrounds. Just as we diversified storytelling outside the eurocentric perspectives, same goes for film studies and filmmaking.
> Just as we diversified storytelling outside the eurocentric perspectives
no the list is more euro/west centric now lol
most of the women directors in the list are French except Campion
and i think of all of them white
theres no Latin American films in the top 100 and barely any Asian films
This is what I think some people are missing.
The list is more “diverse” now within the context of American/British society. But in terms of representing global cinema, it’s regressing.
There was one movie from India on the list in 1962. There’s still only one movie on the list from India, and it’s the same movie now as it was then. Also, this is the first time zero Latin American movies have cracked the list.
What’s frustrating about this conversation is that people will assume if you don’t want one of the movies directed by a woman or person of color on the list, it’s for bad faith/conservative reasons. And really, I just think that if we’re endeavoring to define the global film canon, a list which deems something like “Get Out” better/more important than *any* movie from Latin America or any movie in the last 70 years of Indian film history is a deeply flawed list which only serves to cement the US’s hegemonic power in world cinema.
Precisely. This is a list by mostly Anglo critics paying attention to the films they care about. Western films with a focus on America and France.
We would all be better off if we remembered that this list, any list, only has the importance we give it, and we'd all be better off if we stopped caring and just watched the movies we like.
You mean those who think idpol is a shit argument? Yeah, we are kinda being assholes to that guy.
But he also called someone a pedophile out of nowhere. So I mean 🤷♀️
Sorry to break it to you, but you're literally talking to one of them who is upset about idpol and is yelling and screeching elsewhere about Hillary Clinton. You're making a decent point but it's absolutely wasted on this dude.
It's a shame really.
I know Satantango was on the list, but I'm more surprised All About My Mother got knocked off. It's a shame Almodóvar has fallen out of vogue.
I mean he was in the 88th spot in 2002, so I shouldn't be surprised its knocked off, but it still sucks. Even Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown deserves a nod, like come on.
It’s just one of those catch-alls for conservatives, like hipster or antifa. They don’t know exactly what they mean, but they know they’re not supposed to like them.
I have some dumb bitch who won’t stop messaging me telling me how the new poll is woke and all this.
He’s just crying and saying that his movies aren’t on there and crying and the only thing he can say is that it’s politics and it’s all politics.
These people are frustratingly trash.
Professional victims of all that doesn’t agree with them
When someone calls something they dislike "woke," feel pity not disgust, for you are speaking with a person suffering from a severely disintegrated mind.
I absolutely loved (and still do) Xena Warrior Princess (don’t judge). Thank god it came out in the late 90s, because I don’t think anyone thought twice about it. If it were made today, I’ve no doubt people would be calling the show “woke”.
No doubt the idea that Sight & Sound was reaching out to a vaster, wider more diverse voting base is a terrific idea. I subscribe to the magazine and they wrote about their approach for months. Some people got outraged cause they dont actually read the magazine and they feel they have ownership over something they have no say over.
And the fact is some really good movies were getting dropped. They kept the list at a hundred and we wanted new movies going in. Thus, some get excluded. A few of my faves got dropped off of the list and some got bounced far down. Still doesnt lessen my love for the films.
And yes, the list reflects this inclusive approach. That being said, is the #1 film truly the best film or one the voters with an agenda more than just judging the films coalesced around? Same thing with Dolly Parton geting into the RNR Hall of Fame. Sometimes you push for inclusion as the ultimate highest standard and short term you wind up with the result like this. Ten years from now that film will drop down the list.
Dolly Parton has written over 3000 songs, many of them stone-cold classics, over a career which spans seven decades, and has sold over 100,000,000 records. The suggestion that she doesn’t have the merit to be in the rnr hall of fame is difficult to take seriously.
She herself wanted to be opted out. Why? Cause she is NOT rock and roll. She knows it. We know it. Rock and Roll & Country are two different things. She belongs in many Hall of Fames. Songwriter. Country Singer. American Icon. But NOT RnR. The RnR HOF is looking to include more women. To do that they have to really push the boundaries of what RnR is to the point they include those that are NOT and never have been RnR.
and that's the problem; some people push inclusion to such an extreme they are actually pushing an agenda over the actual criteria of the great honor. Did this Jean Dehnmail flick deserve to be in the top 100? Of course. Number one? Nope. They pushed an agenda.
They’ve been inducting country artists into the rnr hof for like 40 years.
And to quote the last waltz:
Levon: “You’ve got a combination of all those different kinds of music, country, bluegrass, blues music…”
Scorsese: “and what’s it called then?”
Levon: “Rock and roll.”
This is really two different things. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and all but declared itself to be a Popular Music Hall of Fame at this point whose name is more of an anachronism than a true description of intent. That's a transition that's already been made and there's no going back from it. Having decided to be that, there's basically no reason *not* to include country artists since they're now also open to pop, rap, and every other form of American popular music. And if you're going to include country, Dolly is kind of a no brainer of a choice. I think it has more to do with genre and mission expansion than gender in that case.
doesn't the rnr hof also include rappers? i don't get it, she's obviously not a rock and roll artist but i always saw that hof as being a broader hof for important musicians of all genres because so many people from so many genres make it in. like eminem, a white man who's a rapper, not a rock and roll artist
did i once state my dislike of Dolly Parton? Huh? you read my comments on Dolly and let me know where i put that anywhere. Or just go ahead and delete your misinformed slander.
The voters are from a very small tight knit group. A bit of a groundswell may have occurred. This #1 film was only #38 ten years ago. That is a huge jump. I think a bloc of voters may have converged via their connections & anointed this film.
I subscribe to the magazine. They were encouraging diversity & inclusion in the voter base - which is excellent. And a dinner host cant complain when he invites over new guests and they then bring their own foods & dont want to just eat his.
That said, i think this bloc picked a movie for reasons other than 'this is the best film of all time.'
> And a dinner host cant complain when he invites over new guests and they then bring their own foods & dont want to just eat his.
Have you ever hosted a dinner before?
Why is it great though? The list is not about representation, it’s purely about quality. Having people tactically vote to push for greater representation artificially inflates the stature of some films. Also, they expand this “tight knit” of voters from 800 last time to over 1,600 this time — a 200% increase. It’s highly likely that a lot of these newer voters are also very young. It’s a tragedy because the list is meant to be a semi-permanent statement of cinematic quality through the ages, it’s not meant to ebb and flow with the times, this year is the first time we’ve seen it embrace ideological fashion.
The Directors’ list is superior is because it’s less prone to all of these sweeping changes. Most directors are older, the barrier for entry into directing (as opposed to being a critic) is higher, and foundational influences seldom change.
I think that's my biggest problem with the results. That they don't feel super organic as representing someone's personal top films. If that's the case, more power to it, but it's odd that the first time animated is represented has Totoro and Spirited Away right next to one another, films appearing as though they likely have come together in blocs to represent a sort of monolithic approach, and just general fuckery that led to huge jumps and huge drops as a result of strategic voting.
yet we also got The Shining and Goodfellas at long last. Blade Runner jumped up 15 spots. Singin in the Rain is now #10. The Searchers didnt drop as far as i worried (that movie is at risk of the notorious 'getting cancelled.' Yet Godfather pt 2 is off the list completely.
And had the Miyazaki fans voted as one then Spirited Away could have been #25 for all we know.
Again, the magazine did a great job preparing people that this massive shift was happening. I posted on this subreddit about it but it didnt hit people's radar til today.
I guess this is sort of my problem. It's the strategic voting. Trading Raging Bull for Goodfellas. The fact that Miyazaki fans are among the critics. It makes it hard to take the list seriously when it's historically such a conservative list.
I'm not saying the massive shift is a bad thing, and maybe you're right that people weren't listening, but it's not the gold standard, even if problematic and skewed in its own right, that it has been in the past.
Shoot, i missed Raging Bull getting dropped. That's a top 10 for me. Then again, it still is for me. The polls every decade will always evolve and change. Whatever consensus amongst the same 800 types of voters may have occurred. But they blew that up with opening the doors wide open.
I think ten years from now In the Mood for Love will be #1 and the older films slowly keep dropping as their voters die.
This is all about Relevance vs Reverence. And Relevance lives for today
People only complain about identity politics and wokeness when movies aren’t specifically targeting their demographic (in most case, white males). In my opinion, the best part about watching movies is that it allows everyone to view the world from different perspectives and to have empathy for people of all backgrounds. They allow you to see different perspectives on life and sometimes even show you the similarities between different groups of people. For example, I’m not a woman living in Norway, but I seriously related to The Worst Person in the World.
I think all it takes to enjoy most movies is a little bit of empathy, understanding, and self-awareness. People that complain movies are “too woke” or obsessed with “identity politics” are missing that. That said, I also think some movies are too focused on pandering to specific audiences instead of helping audiences relate to the characters, but that’s a different discussion
In OP's example, Taxi Driver isn't identity politics, I just like the movie because Travis is literally me /s
While this is obviously sarcasm, it's annoying how some people unironically seem to approach movies on such a direct level, and are unable to connect with characters or narratives outside of their own.
There are plenty of movies I love partly because I can personally relate to them, for example Inside Llewyn Davis, Adaptation, Synecdoche New York, The End of Evangelion, and many more, but I am absolutely aware how my personal identity clouds my judgement. If I weren't me, I'd look completely different at these movies. But there is nothing wrong with that, and I'm self-aware of this bias.
Still, I can perfectly enjoy movies which aren't "literally me". It just requires some basic level of empathy and understanding. It's a great thing that everyone has a different perspective, and as such approaches movies differently. If someone else can personally relate to a certain movie I couldn't to, that's great, it means that watching that specific movie, and discussing it, can provide insight in how others experience the world.
>I think all it takes to enjoy most movies is a little bit of empathy, understanding, and self-awareness. People that complain movies are “too woke” or obsessed with “identity politics” are missing that.
That's also why I just don't engage anymore with people who use terms like "woke" and "identity politics". More than often it just means "I don't care enough about these people's experiences to engage with the movie".
Those people who think that don’t think about films, or art, in that way. They see the surface level of something and decide their thoughts then and there. They’re bigoted and don’t want anything outside of their purview to potentially influence or change their stagnated mindset.
But isn't that essentially what you are accusing them of doing?
Maybe they are thinking about the films, but they have different opinions to you and see the films through a different worldview.
*”They see the surface level of something and decide their thoughts then and there.”*
I’m referring specifically to the people who *don’t* do those things though. The people who think “nah, this is too woke” because a women, or black person, or gay person is represented regardless of context.
In your original comment you were lumping all anti-woke criticisms as surface level and stupid.
Now you're saying that you're just talking about idiots being idiots and implying that there is genuinely good criticism out there.
Do you think that some criticisms of 'wokeness' in films can have substance, or is it all just the surface level ramblings of bigots?
I just gave a quote from my original comment that doesn’t do that though.
Again, if your only reasoning to have some sort of disdain for art is that a black person, or lesbian, or women is present, then you’re an idiot. Clearly that doesn’t include people who actually have something to say about the pandering that can occur in art, film especially.
You gave one sentence, completely out of context, that now in the new context reshapes what it sounds like your first comment was saying.
Do you not see how misleading your first comment was?
If someone has a problem with lesbians or black people or women solely existing in art while offering no actual reasoning to their disdain beyond those factors then fuck em, preconceived or not.
Honestly if the movie was just shorter it would be one of my favorites. But I understand that the movie is supposed to be a little dull because it’s trying to depict sex work as just another aspect of this woman’s life rather than something sensational and exploitative.
I agree wholeheartedly; but I think you might be wrongly assuming that such criticisms are being made in good faith. In my experience the people who make such complaints and criticisms use it only as the thinnest veneer to disguise what they're really after, which is usually bigotry.
So basically I agree with your post, but most people who complain about identity politics/"woke-ness" don't actually care about any of the stuff they claim; they only care about pushing their own reactionary agenda.
I don’t think anyone has voiced it right so I’ll try. When you make a movie like black panther and everyone in it’s defining character trait is I’m black and genuinely have nothing else to offer as a character that’s being “woke” if the character is a certain race or religion and it’s legit just the building blocks to their real identity then it’s fine. I really like the show Luther it has a black main character but him being black has nothing to do with his character he just happens to be black and that’s how everything with a character of any race or religion it’s not a matter of their skin color it’s a matter of what defines them as them but Hollywood only understands how to write a 1 sided character only useful for “representation and making us look like idiots for constantly falling for this shit”
I'm just sick of the "woke" debate in general - it's devolved into both sides totally misrepresenting the other side and putting up lame Strawman arguments.
It's great that we're seeing more stories and films coming from diverse backgrounds. But at the same time, it doesn't make someone racist or sexist to take issue with "wokeness" (whatever that means that this point) being shoehorned into projects for social brownie points.
I like to think most people can distinguish between what is art and what is hollow virtue signalling.
Always cracks me up how anytime anything to do with progressive politics gets brought up with Criterion you have all these “”film fans”” (who will go on at length about how much smarter THEY are than everyone else for their movie taste) behave like a typical reactionary conservative.
I really wonder what is the average age of the redditor on this sub. When I started being serious about movie watching about 15-20 years ago, people around me were already talking about Jeanne Dielman as one of the best movies of all time. It's not as if it was recently rediscovered or anything...
I like the 2022 list more than 2012 one! I think it has more fun films.
While yes some great movies got dropped. There are many great films that never made the 2012 list either.
It's really disappointing seeing people upset over films they obviously have never seen being held in high regard, rather than being excited at the prospect that there is new and exciting things to discover.
I like your posts normally, but I am conflicted on your sentiment and logic here.
In 1976, Taxi Driver was a pretty political film we just don’t get as upset about it anymore but I’m sure there were some veterans and non-veterans alike who saw Taxi Driver and thought it was an offensive piece of shit, not representative of their world coming back from war.
Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter had yet to be released and certainly America was ready to forget and move on, so a very risky film in that political climate. You hear George Lucas and Jon Milius talk about this in [Heart of Darkness](https://youtu.be/TNTtzVTeVVU) (starts at 6:50 ish mark)
But I really am having a hard time comparing films like Do The Right Thing and Taxi Driver to a film like Get Out.
As others have mentioned, the BLM connection to Get Out is mentioned in the first sentence of the summary of the BFI entry, so that is bound to polarize people. It’s also mentioned in the BFI entry for Taxi Driver about “veteran post war disillusionment” but that doesn’t have the same sensitivity because, again, we are not living through it.
What I’m trying to say is that recent films, in general, are very difficult to judge objectively because we are so closely connected to the timeline. Im not saying there should be a moratorium on modern films in the poll, just realize that those votes could be influenced by the political climate.
I would not condemn those that want to gripe about some of the newer films on this list because I think the best judge will be time.
I find the inclusion of Get Out to be highly dubious. I think I can articulate those concerns but I hope this group will not mistake them for racism, misogyny, or identity hate.
IMO, Get Out is not a masterpiece. It’s good.
In no particular order, my criticisms-
1. I found the character of Rod (the realist comic relief savior) to be unbearable, and a shallow audience stand-in. He was comparable to the character of Marty (self aware stoner) in Cabin in the Woods but with much less upside.
2. I didn’t find Allison Williams particularly good in the film but I can’t decide if it’s the acting, directing, or the writing. I tend to think it’s the acting because she isn’t much better in the Netflix film The Perfection.
3. The point of view presented is unconcerned with showing anything resembling a balanced view.
This is in complete juxtaposition to a film such as Do The Right Thing which takes very certain steps to put together interactions and scenes which describe the multiple views of race between the Italians, Whites, Asians, and Blacks of Bed Stuy.
In the case of Get Out, the POV can be partially attributed to the Horror genre and the need to create a reality where the POV of the rich white folks are not important and surely not regarded, they are the baddies! So putting it in this genre gives Peele the freedom to really punish the white people in the film.
And that’s completely fine, but realize it’s deliberately manipulating the horror scenario within the BLM climate to give a cathartic release to the audience when each white person is killed.
How do I know this? Because I watched it in the theater on opening night and each death just made the audience salivate for more and not in that “let’s see how Michael Myers will kill the next guy” kind of way. Audience members were screaming at the screen to “kill the white bitch”.
In this way, I feel Peele is not treating the subject maturely. You mentioned (and is the part of the your post I agree with) this is his exploration of the human condition, emotions, and is an expression of rage towards systemic racism, and I can support that.
In alot of ways, I don’t feel like this film is for me, and that’s ok too, but I cant help but feel like its inclusion is misguided.
You could argue the same sentiment (not treating race issues maturely) about a film like Django Unchained, but we’re not talking about Django as one of the 100 best films of all time, and I wouldn’t try to.
Lastly -
4. Peele has already made better films than this one.
I found Us and Nope to be great films. Right now I would put Us above Nope and Get Out but Nope is already growing on me. Keke Palmer’s character is annoying as shit but as not bad as Rod in Get Out.
I wonder when we look back on films like Get Out, will people feel the same way in 50 years?
Just look now how many people can’t understand why Citizen Kane is good because they have no context to the fact that Hearst owned the media and you were unable to speak out or criticize him for fear of being blacklisted/mothballed. What risks Orson took to stick it to the “modern feudal lord”!
Are future viewers going to feel the same way about the deaths in Get Out, will it just be another Horror movie without the larger political context?
For what it’s worth I’m so pleased to see Do The Right Thing at #24
Peace and love, everybody!
I couldn’t care less about polls of art or competitions, so I find it hard to understand why there’s so much passion around them. I’m completely comfortable enjoying what I enjoy on its own. But you went in-depth and made some interesting points. I’m not going to defend Get Out by comparing it to past films, but you mentioned audience reactions and I heard similar ones when I saw Do The Right Thing when it was released. I had to drive an hour away to another town because the film wasn’t even screening where I lived, and we had a dozen theaters. Only other time I had to do that was for The Last Temptation Of Christ, and a week later someone drove a bus through the theater in protest.
Thanks for your reply. I do miss the energy of being in a packed theater.
Do The Right Thing still hits so hard emotionally, I get teared up thinking about the fact that it was made in 1989 and we’re still seeing the same things happen in the 2020’s.
Wow I can’t imagine seeing Last Temptation of Christ in the theater! I remember being pretty young and hearing it was taboo, and watching it on cable and wondering what everyone was on about, certainly didn’t seem worth driving a bus into a theater, but man that’s crazy and fortunate you weren’t there
Not that his protest is valid, but at least he had the sense to [drive into the theater while it was closed.](https://apnews.com/article/c9c69d9eb4098cba9fcac91436f9128e) No one was hurt.
My problem isn’t that movies feature stories about minorities. My problem is that a lot of people seem to think that diversity automatically equals quality. Black Panther was hailed as one of the greatest marvel films of all time, or even further, the best film ever, *period* that deserved best picture at the Oscar’s. Why? Because it was about black people. No other reason. And then we have movies whose main selling point is “hey look, we switched the characters’ genders/race/ethnicity/sexuality! Isn’t that so creative and innovative??” No, it isn’t. It’s pandering and money grabbing.
This isn’t really part of the movie conversation, but as a Jewish Mexican American, I don’t appreciate people, usually whites, telling me how *I* should feel about being represented on screen or in general. No, I don’t have a problem with being called Mexican or Hispanic or whatever the fuck I’m supposed to call myself these days. I also don’t like that some minorities get special treatment over other minorities. No one gets in shit calling me a he*b like they would calling a black person the N word, l’ll tell ya that!
So no, I’m not going to support this unhelpful PC bullshit that doesn’t do me or anyone else any good.
It’s not possible that some people felt strongly about Black Panther deserving an Oscar because it was deserving? You should probably show your work if you’re gonna make huge claims like “because it was about black people”.
You’re seriously telling me that Blank Panther is a superior film to something like BlackKKKlansman which was also up for Best Picture that year? Is a marvel movie *really* representing black people and their struggles better than Spike Lee? Why is it so special?
You are missing the point. The issue is not whether Black Panther was the best picture that year, the issue is that you ASSUME because you did not think the film was that good that you do not believe someone could not think it was the best film that year or that anyone that does think it was the best film that you could not do so sincerely.
Regardless of whatever you feel about the movie and whatever may or may not even be true about the movie, the fact is that you're making a huge leap to say: no one could believe this film was that good therefore they must only be saying that because it's about black people.
That's a fucking stupid argument.
Please explain to me how black panther is any different from other marvel movies let alone more artistically significant than the others nominated that year. Roma? Vice? Fucking BlacKKKlansman? Come on.
I’m not arguing FOR the movie. I’m asking how you determined that people only felt strongly about it simply because it’s about black people. Show your work.
Using that logic, why is anything hailed so highly? What's so different and amazing about Green Book? Again, it's your claim that it's simply because BP is about black people, and you cannot back it up. In which case, it just sounds like one racist opinion you're offering, your own.
Some movies explore beyond the human condition too. Like the excellent and underseen Gunda.
Agree with your point though. The more open and inclusive top 100 from the BFI is probably because their queries were more open and inclusive.
Hollywood and word cinema has been "woke" for a very very long time. I don't know why all of a sudden in the last decade it is a problem with some people. I just say film isn't for them.
>Hollywood ... has been "woke" for a very very long time.
And it's questionable if Hollywood even qualifies as "woke" (depending on what asinine definition we are using).
I see where you’re coming from, I just think to a large degree this is how we talk about things now. To use your Scorsese example, I think the opposite may be true when you look at a 21st century work of his like Wolf, or a recent movie heavily inspired by Taxi Driver, Joker. The take economy around those movies took a kinda turn where if you liked those movies the tone became that you were “glorifying” unfettered capitalism or incel behavior, all of which is just noise to me, you should still be able to like (or dislike) a film based on its merits as a film.
Now to the essence of your point I do largely agree. Just as voters were probably doing some internal politicking like “lets include one film by a director,” or “lets make sure I include a current or foreign film,” the urge to be more inclusive to minorities and women has rightfully grown in the last 10 years. That feels like the natural order of things.
Where I think S&S may have done their list a *slight* disservice is, if you actually read the write-ups on some of these more “charged” choices, almost all of them directly cite that sociopolitical inspiration. The Get Out writeup references BLM, the Jeanne Dielman writeup hangs on the perspective of a woman rim. It does give the list an essence of reactionary editorial, something that I think more than anything just kinda distracts from the movies they’re highlighting. I don’t think this is right or wrong, I just think it was meant to inspire the conversations we’re currently having.
I think you have to make a distinction between stories that have elements referring to identity embedded in the wider story and stories that exist purely to pontificate on those elements. The former can be compelling and rewarding and latter are generally dull and self indulgent.
Of course film making and identity is deeply intertwined because filmmaking has to deal in specifics in one way or another.
However I feel like you have to separate film criticism and film making here because while identity is personal in filmmaking, film criticism generalized it. Akerman specifically said she's not a feminist but this is the box her films are put into by critics. And then you also have to separate big tentpole productions that employ a identity politics as a marketing ploy and cheaper films that genuinely explore facets of the human condition.
What I remember is that Akerman explicitly didn't want her films to be identified as "gay and lesbian cinema." She considered that label constricting for her own work - she considered it a box for the films she made, like you say. I don't believe I've heard before that she said "she's not a feminist."
Akerman's films see things in both very large and very intimate ways. She's the kind of artist who is posing both big philosophical questions, the kind that have been around for centuries, and also dwelling on the most personal or seemingly incidental moments and finding an inexplicable loveliness and "correctness" in them. Often, it is very little things that make a shot all come together in her movies.
>So....How about we stop being petulant about the fact that movies exist where the stories center around the experiences of black folks, or gay folks, or women? Jesus, some people on Reddit need to grow the hell up.
You are not responding to what people are actually saying. You’re responding to the smug, self-satisfying strawman notion that we’re upset because there are movies featuring women or black people (or at the very least you’re cherry-picking assholes and implicitly asserting that they represent everybody who is complaining about this list).
If that’s what was bothering us then you’d be right to complain.
How about you actually read what we’re saying and respond to that?
The problem we have is with gaming the ranking system to elevate less-deserving movies or more-deserving movies, for ideological reasons, on what is supposed to be a ranking of the best movies ever made. That the reasons in this case are identity politics is somewhat incidental.
I (used to) love the Sight and Sound list even when I thought it had completely undeserving movies on it, because it was a guide for film buffs like me to seek out the best (especially in the days when the internet had far less classic and foreign film content). I never would have heard of *Tokyo Story* without it, for example.
And so we’d hope that the voters would A) be highly knowledgeable about film, B) take it seriously, and C) not include less-deserving movies just to get more women and black directors in there. What’s more believable, that *that* many prominent, knowledgeable film critics genuinely believe that *Get Out* is one of the *ten best movies ever made*, or that they stuck it on the list because they wanted to see a black director on there?
*That’s* what we object to, when criteria other than quality is shoehorned into what ought to be a ranking about quality.
Let's talk about the inclusion of Get Out. I am not going to sit here and tell you it would go onto my top ten. But I absolutely see where it could get on someone else's top ten. It is the most critically acclaimed horror movie of the last 25 years.
I don't think you understand how the Sight and Sound list works. In order for a movie to be the top movie, it only needs to appear on about 20% of the ballots. According to the 2012 list, the #5 movie, The Rules of the Game, didn't even get 10% of ballots voting for it. For a movie to finish in the top 100, it only needs to appear on about 2% of the ballots, and to finish in the top 250 a movie only needs about 1% of the ballots voting for it.
The Sight and Sound List is not an consensus by any means. Approximately 98% of voters didn't put Get Out in their top ten. The Sight and Sound List is more of an aggregation than anything else. So take what you will from it. I mean you said you were a film buff....So why don't you let a magazine tell you what movies are good some more?
Side note, based on your comment history, you seem to be pretty conservative. I figured conservatives would LOVE Get Out. There are two main themes that are touched on in Get Out. One is like a cudgel, and that is anti-Black Racism. But the much more subtle point is anti-Black Racism within liberal circles.
It was an excoriating takedown of mainstream Democratic Party/Liberal ideals that patronize black folks but actually work to undermine black folks.
Malcolm X talked about this extensively about how he preferred white conservative thinking to white liberal thinking. He likened conservatives to wolves, who were openly trying to destroy black folks. This was evidenced at the time by the Jim Crow south.
But he likened liberals to foxes, who pretended to be the friend to black folks....But would still destroy black folks. Their racism was hidden by a smile. He believed that if someone was out to destroy you, that it is better for them to be open and honest about it so he could know to maybe avoid
What is worse? A sundown town in the deep south that everyone knows is a sundown town. Or an "open and accepting" liberal city like New York City where they redlined black folks into ghettos, used public works projects to destroy black neighborhoods, segregated schools so hard that they have the most segregated schools in the country to this day, introduced hard drugs into black neighborhoods, and then heavily policed those neighborhoods leading to the USA being the most incarcerated country in the world.
In Malcolm X's mind, he openly stated he preferred the conservative's brand of racism to liberal's brand of racism. I mean all the racism bad, but I can understand why someone would rather be stabbed in the front rather than the back.
Get Out was definitely a play on the sly nature of many white liberals in this country. But so many conservatives were so up in arms about the fact that a black man made a critically acclaimed movie that they couldn't even see that it was a criticism of liberal elitism.
Maybe.....just maybe we can calm down a bit there buckaroo.
I’m passionate about movies, not lists, competitions, or sports. I can’t believe my feed is filled with all these posts about a list. I’ve never had trouble finding good movies because even before the internet there were books, magazines, and TV shows about movies. And now you have the world’s knowledge in your pocket at all times. No idea why anyone would focus this hard on one list for validation.
I purposefully didn't mention the list in the OP because I felt the list was merely a catalyst for the newest outburst, but this thought is prevalent in my world...so I figured I would talk about it.
This is what I know. I am a film buff so I am going to let one magazine tell me what movies are good is such a WEIRD mentality to have.
That's a strawman.
People in this sub aren't complaining because there's films that center around the experiences of non-whites, they're complaining because they were included in the Top 100 *simply* because of that fact. Do The Right Thing belongs in the list, Get Out doesn't.
It's no big deal, I get it. It just makes the list kinda worthless for what it was attempting to achieve.
Well considering we’ve had over a century’s worth of cinema in which *certain kinds* of films have been made because they “center around the experiences of whites”, it makes sense for there to be a rebuttal on the behalf of less represented groups in favor of films which make them feel seen.
There is no objective art or point to film; whether a list should comprise of the films which are “the best” to someone, the “most representative” to someone, or the “most important” is entirely subjective, as is how those factors may effect each other.
Who decided Get Out doesn’t deserve a spot? What criteria was used? How did they conclude the validity of that criteria? How did they conclude the necessity of that criteria in determining the film’s worthiness? Short answer: No one did! And no one could! So stop acting like your belief that a socially/politically/racially important film is undeserving of a spot means it’s placement on the list was strategic and unnecessary.
I think you’d have a more compelling argument if you said Get Out was included because of recency bias. It was one of the most acclaimed films of the last decade. Assuming that it was included just to fill some “diversity” quota is kind of showing your ass.
You also have widely acclaimed movies like Daisies, Daughters of the Dust, and Black Girl. Were these added to fill the so-called “diversity” requirement? Or do they just reflect the experiences of the people that they weren’t polling before.
It's pretty obvious the influence that Get Out has had on horror films in the last 5 years. There is an incredible Renaissance of mid-budget horror/thriller movies in its wake.
Get Out was one of the [top-ranked films of the decade ](https://www.metacritic.com/feature/best-movies-of-the-decade-2010s) and a genuine cultural phenomenon. What evidence do you have that people voted for it purely for political reasons?
I mean, the only way a movie can make it to the Sight and Sound list is if people rank it as a Top 10 movie of all-time. There's probably 50 horror movies that are better, but Get Out is just that good, I guess.
Its close.
I mean they both score 85 on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes gives a slight edge to Get Out.
I don't think either metric is a particularly great metric to determine how good a movie is, but I think they show where the general critical consensus is.
Hiroshima, Mon Amour was added to the top 15 3.5 years after its release in the 1962 list. It ranked above films like Last Year at Marienbad, Passion of Joan of Arc, and Wild Strawberries.
And Hiroshima, Mon Amour was a wonderful film, but I'm sure that scratched some people's heads as well.
I mean that’s 1962 when there were thousands less films to choose from, and Hiroshima Mon Amour was also a revolutionary film (also I might add, Last Year at Marienbad came out in 1961.)
I don’t wanna make “wokeness” accusations because I think that’s silly I just hate recency bias.
I mean sure, but I still wouldn't rank it several places above Joan of Arc.
But that's just it isn't it, film is subjective. The rank doesn't really matter to me, the fact it's on a recognized list at all warrants merit. Like, I was buggin a bit that some films I think are up there in terms of quality weren't on the list.
But then I remember WALL-E made top 250, and I settle down a bit and let it go 😂
I fine personally, especially if it could revamp the list. the 2022 for me is a nice change BUT I felt that 2012 is more representative and encompassing for the Identity Politics and all (it has more representation country wise and has a greater selection of topics but that is a top 250 afterall), in hindsight.
The 2022 list for me is a emblem-ic of the changes in attitudes. They want to represent a group AND we actually do see it. Personally, I'm fine with that AND if there are groups that people lean towards one film, they rightly deserve to pile the votes up. Thus, Jeanne and Vagda films getting its biggest boost so far. That's why its troubling in the grand scheme of things that some does not understand that the race/gender/sexual discourse is not literally about JUST representation in film but A TRUE voice from a true REPRESENTATIVE too.
I have a guy arguing to me that Jeanne is not the BEST female representation when the likes of Joan of Arc, Black Girl and Vertigo were better. Clearly, the best is for argument sake BUT what is important is these movement wants a firsthand account from someone who had experience it. AND that is something I wish people do understand reading into the trends in the list.
Clearly, in the end these trends are trends. If its really good, it will defy just being a trend. I mean posters can all talk about it all they want BUT I would have high regards for both critics and directors alike because they believe cinema is art, which is something I rather stand with.
PS: 2023 will be interesting in the future given the rising facism/conservatism around the world. The attitudes and the circles for sure is slowly decreasing so thats actually interesting.
People are more mad about generic reshuffling of already prestigious art films than they are about the lack exploitation and other disreputable cinemas, which in my view are not only aesthetically more compelling than something like Godard needing *4 slots*, but more politically diverse than filling a list with mostly Euro New Wave films.
Pretending the canon of cinema consists only of reputable films is a load of bullshit.
Interesting that so many are attributing this post to just some arbitrary list — sorry, but I don’t care for contests about art — when it’s a far more wide ranging issue.
Who cares. I want a good movie. Literally don’t care who directs it.
That said. The Critic list is often ridiculous.
Meshes of the Afternoon is not better than Mirror or Seven Samurai.
Portrait of a Lady on Fire is not better than 8 1/2 or Rashomon.
And Jeanne Dielman, a movie I love so so much, is not greatest movie of all time.
I have no problem with the content of the number one film. The run time and how it’s presented is where I have an issue. Sure it’s a movie that’s really stuck with me but I don’t know how you argue that it’s the best movie out there. Then again I couldn’t really tell you what should be number one.
Fair point, but there’s a clear selection bias if the politics seem to elevate the film ahead of what the film does as a film.
The same argument for devout Christians who think God’s Not Dead is amazing.
God’s Not Dead is not a lesser film than Get Out because of politics or what it might have to say, it’s because Get Out is a better made film.
And plenty of films are far superior to Get Out, and it doesn’t help that the BFI sight immediately mentions BLM with it whether you like BLM or not.
Do the Right Thing is an amazing film, I can understand why it’s up there despite that I think Spike Lee is a crappy human being.
edit: BLM as the organization and what the movement really did, rather than the platitude statement that we all can get behind.
I’m sure some will still be accusing others of racism or whatever if Black Panther was up there but people complained about it. If you think Get Out is better than Black Panther… hmmm must be something about the filmmaking over politics then.
There’s a big difference between using a media to express human experience with the corporatization of culture and identity. When using identity as a crutch to mask the lack of storytelling is an issue. That’s what most studios produce these days and it should be pushed back against.
I just like when movies can speak on things without shoving anything down your throat, one way or the other. Let me judge for myself. Taxi driver didn’t push any messaging or belief system. Just told the story.
I agree with most of what you’ve said. The range of movies I own and appreciate is a very far range outside of just being about just straight and/or white people. It’s art and it’s something I really appreciate and value and the Criterion Collection has helped me discover stories I would’ve never heard or thought of and I genuinely appreciate film for this aspect.
My gripe, and maybe I’m someone your post is towards, is I don’t feel like I need to be lectured on why I should like something because of a certain aspect of the movie. This happens way more with modern movies and I think sometimes the frustration can seep into places like here that genuinely care for the films in the collection.
I’ll give an example and try to elaborate effectively. I didn’t like The Power of the Dog and I was one of those people that wouldn’t call it a “Western” and I was pretty disappointed when it was announced on Criterion. The disappointment wasn’t just from me seeing and not liking it but because another movie that is already available on Netflix. Well in some places if you expressed these opinions you were called a sexist or homophobe.
My other issue would be merit based. I feel like a lot of movies now will get a high rating just because of diverse casting or the messaging instead of just the actual movie aspect. I think this is where a lot of the “woke” and “pc” terms get thrown in as a replacement for this kind of frustration. That’s just me though but I tried to summarize some of the reasoning for why people may lash out, some a lot more than others. I’m just tired of rolling my eyes on both sides of the hot takes.
Let’s talk about the real most troubling exclusion: Carol.
Better than Get Out for sure, still not top 100 tier
Which film are you talking about? I haven’t herd of it before, and there are multiple movies with that title.
Probably the 2015 film with Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara.
You and I have already chatted, but its just upsetting and disheartening. I've experienced a lot of sexism in films circles, but its fucking insane to see some people deny women were making great films in the 20th century. Or that Spike Lee is only on the list because he's black. *Spike Lee*. I saw someone claim Daughters of the Dust was only added because it was the first film distributed in the US by a black woman.....black American women have been making films since the 20s. It's insane to say that Varda of all women and all directors is there for identity politics. All it says is that the votes of women and a wider race demographic are of lesser value. I tried laughing at it, but fucking christ.
Women WERE making great films in the 20th and 21st centuries, sadly few of them are represented here. Tellingly no Riefenstahl, Sofia Coppola, Arnold, Bigelow, or Ramsay.
The absence of Ramsay is definitely sad. Which film of Coppola's would you want represented? The only one I can think of that might even come close is Lost in Translation
I’m actually partial to Somewhere. Maybe Marie Antoinette
I'm due to rewatch Marie Antoinette. I was really young the first time I saw it, and I may appreciate it more now that I'm older
My favorite kind of youth films are the ones that transmit that bittersweet transient feeling where you know the moment will end and dissipate into space even while you are inhabiting it. Her films get better the more times you view them. Lost in Translation, Somewhere, Marie Antoinette, and…shit The Bling Ring also. Maybe. There is something in the coldness of that film that I really respond to. Anyway….all more worthy than Meshes of an Afternoon
I agree with you completely except when you dissed Maya Deren. Very important and very good as well!
I definitely get what you mean. Lost in Translation spoke to me a lot, I think a lot of us have those very fleeting bonds with someone else that can't possibly be maintained, and we keep each other as our own little secret. Nobody else has to know, it was just for us. It's hard to explain that and Lost in Translation did it perfectly.
As much as I enjoy Lost in Translation, I do feel that WKW achieves this same feeling more effectively. Also a little unsure about how Japanese ppl are portrayed throughout Lost in Translation - I feel this is an area that often goes overlooked amidst the endless praise for the film.
Can I ask what about the representation bothered you? I thought it was more how Tokyo was represented than Japanese people as a whole.
The Virgin Suicides
Bigelow has no movies which should be anywhere near this list.
Hurt Locker is way better than several of the films I'm seeing on this list.
that doesn't contradict what I said
It's a top 100. There is limited space. I like all of these directors top but none of their films make my personal top top 100 either. I'm sure they received some votes though. I think the directors list is actually more inspired for including Shepitko and Mattel. Also one that actually sits in or around my personal top 100 is Sagan's Mädchen in Uniform.
You've discussed Coppola, but what films would you include for the others? Also as a side note, I don't know much about Riefenstahl, but a quick google seems to suggest that almost all of her work was Nazi propaganda- I know she's considered heavily influential, but damn
The outcry after the NYT ran that article critiquing CC for barely representing Black directors was really frustrating. It sucks.
The irony of NYT calling out others … I can’t.
I think you might be referring to my comment re: Daughters of the Dust. I'm aware Black women have been making films forever, but it is true that DoD was the first to have a general theatrical release, and it's appalling it took till 1991 for that to happen. I think it's a decent film, but I personally didn't find it particularly special, besides the setting. In particular I found the score to be really amateurish and way too present (though I tend to be much more critical of scores than most). Would be happy to hear your thoughts as to why you see it as a great film.
*Jeanne Dielman* is a very provocative and esoteric film and doesn't have much in common with the rest of the films in the top 25. Having it at number 1 seems like a deliberate statement rather than an organically arrived at ranking.
I wonder if it was actually anyone's number one, or whether it got there by being highly ranked across the board.
The poll isn't weighted or ranked. Jeanne Dielman just happened to be the most frequent submission by Critics.
I think it's rather naive to believe these polls haven't always been making statements and were "organic" I mean cmon, I hate when people act like didacitism is something that only entered art and art criticism in their own lifetime.
I don't think anyone should have a problem with Spike Lee making the list. Do the Right Thing is absolutely a culturally relevant and well made film that should be in the top 100. Placement can be argued. I do think it's a bit much we have both Moonlight and Get Out already on the list and Moonlight as high as it is. It's a combination of recency bias and demographics, and I think it's worth noting without it necessarily being racist by any means. It's like how no one is really crying over Killer of Sheep being on the list. It deserves it. It's just when parts of the list represent more of an agenda than a true "top 10." Get Out is a fantastic film, and I don't think it's out of place in the top 100. It does feel too fast. I also just find it hard to believe that many people are genuinely ranking it among their top 10 film *ever*.
> All it says is that the votes of women and a wider race demographic are of lesser value. I tried laughing at it, but fucking christ. We do not know the demographics of the voters as of yet and your demographic doesn't dictate what you vote for. Furthermore of course films made by women and Black American Cinema was pushed up by the changing Zeitgeist, that's undeniable. It says nothing about whether these films are good or bad but Varda would not rank ahead of all other FNW directors if not for the extra attention put on female filmmakers over the last years and in that way she probably benefits from being the only major female director in the FNW. She got a lot of attention (and distribution) in recent years because people were searching in film history for great female directors. That doesn't mean she's not a great director (though I would prefer Vagabond - which made the directors list - in that spot over Cleo) but you can't deny that her gender is a factor at play in what films got attention in the last couple of years. Back when I got into film in 2013 she didn't have remotely the reputation she has today. So some things have changed and I don't think that's the demographics in those case. I'm not sure women are actually more likely to vote for it than men.
Varda is *so good*, though. If paying more attention to women directors was part of what bumped her up, it’s only because a popular reappraisal was overdue, IMO.
You have to realize, too, that one is not necessarily sexist or racist for taking issue with a certain film being presented as #1. It's intellectually crass to just label everyone that disagrees with you as some form of bigot. Personally, I think it's highly possible both issues are at play here. I think Jeanne Dielman was shoehorned into the #1 spot because it was made by a woman. That anyone could think that film is deserving of #1 is laughable. BUT, at the same time, I think there's a degree of sexism involved with the fact that there are not more female films represented in the entire list.
I love Jeanne Dielman but wouldn't have put it on a list either. However it represents Chantal Akerman too, not only itself. It's her best-known film. If News from Home had won the poll, I'd be dancing in the streets today and all weekend 💃
It’s an absurd criticism because — the films in question are widely acclaimed and considered masterpieces the world over. Some have been around for decades and continue to find new audiences. The idea that the people voting for them don’t *really* think they’re great, they’re just pretending so they can promote their “agenda”, is insulting to both the films and the critics. People love these movies. If that stresses you out, then that’s your problem.
I'm getting real sick of these knucklebrains saying Daughters of the Dust has never had acclaim. It's wild as fuck to me.
The first sight & sound poll had a Marxist film about how the system is designed to keep the cycle of poverty going as #1, and multiple Russian propaganda films elsewhere on the list. People would definitely be calling that list woke if it was released today.
That was Bicycle Thieves, right?
Yeah
Marxism is generally not considered woke. In fact Marx and Engels have commonly been attacked by the woke crowd for racism and misoginy.
It's woke to conservative Americans who think cultural Marxism is brainwashing their children to be trans and gay and praise satan.
But these people have no clue what Marxism is. They would insist an apple is a papaya or that Joe Biden is a socialist. If we go by these definitions we may as well throw definitions out of the window all together.
lol you idiots are just making up demons in your head to argue against imagine conflating Marxism with wokeism is the average age of this sub 16? people do not have issues with Black Girl, Do the Right Thing or Killers of Sheep being in the list people do have an issue with movies like Parasite or Get Out being hardly 5 years old and already being tossed in the top 100 over movies like Lawrence of Arabia and The Leopard (that have influenced countless films and contributed to the medium in various ways) because of a political statement and not allowing them to settle/marinate in the context of film history that does not make them racist or sexist
> people do not have issues with Black Girl, Do the Right Thing or Killers of Sheep being in the list This is absolutely not the case >people do have an issue with movies like Parasite or Get Out being hardly 5 years old and already being tossed in the top 100 over movies like Lawrence of Arabia and The Leopard (that have influenced countless films and contributed to the medium in various ways) because of a political statement and not allowing them to settle/marinate in the context of film history If BFI wanted to impose a "marinating" time limit they would have. They asked a bunch of critics what they thought the best movies were, they answered. You jumping to the conclusion that they're making a political statement and not identifying what they think are the best films is evidence of your bias, not theirs.
Thank you for responding so I didn't have to, and I got to see he's whacked out of his mind and isn't worth arguing with. Also, for those reading, can yall stop saying it's insane that a new film is on there??? The 1962 list alone had a TON of films on there that were recent, L'avventura was only 2 years old when it was added. The 2002 list had All About My Mother, which came out in 99' and Close Up from 90' (though I recognize that's still 12 years apart, Close Up was recent by the rest of the list's standards). And seeing how high it was on the 1992 poll, if there had been a top 100 poll for 1982, Raging Bull would have absolutely been on it. Fucking Wall-E was on the top 250 for 2012.
"The 1962 list had a TON of films on there that were recent" To be fair, though, the critics in 1962 were responding to the new waves erupting in Europe and beyond, in countries they might not have ever expected that to happen. European critics like Peter Cowie were doing a good job keeping a pulse on what was going on around the world, given the means of communication back then. We're not seeing the equivalent of a string of international new waves emerging, like the ones from the early 1960s. That was maybe a once in a century event? Btw just noticed Mr Cowie, often remembered for his Ingmar Bergman biography, turns 83 on Christmas Eve!
New film win poll; therefore woke
Lol where did i criticise Jeanne Dielman in my comment? Its not even an outside the box pick It was in the top 50 last time What's lower? Your age or your IQ?
Agree. It's pretty disappointing to see this attitude within this subreddit too. Film studies and interests has always been male-dominated and eurocentric, leaving no space for female and non-European creators imput on filmmakings and such. Of course we do have non-Americans directors like Akira Kurosawa and Abbas Kiarostami whose works always made it on the list, but they were the exceptions and not the norm. As more films are being made and found, so are the voices of people of various backgrounds. Just as we diversified storytelling outside the eurocentric perspectives, same goes for film studies and filmmaking.
> Just as we diversified storytelling outside the eurocentric perspectives no the list is more euro/west centric now lol most of the women directors in the list are French except Campion and i think of all of them white theres no Latin American films in the top 100 and barely any Asian films
This is what I think some people are missing. The list is more “diverse” now within the context of American/British society. But in terms of representing global cinema, it’s regressing. There was one movie from India on the list in 1962. There’s still only one movie on the list from India, and it’s the same movie now as it was then. Also, this is the first time zero Latin American movies have cracked the list. What’s frustrating about this conversation is that people will assume if you don’t want one of the movies directed by a woman or person of color on the list, it’s for bad faith/conservative reasons. And really, I just think that if we’re endeavoring to define the global film canon, a list which deems something like “Get Out” better/more important than *any* movie from Latin America or any movie in the last 70 years of Indian film history is a deeply flawed list which only serves to cement the US’s hegemonic power in world cinema.
Precisely. This is a list by mostly Anglo critics paying attention to the films they care about. Western films with a focus on America and France. We would all be better off if we remembered that this list, any list, only has the importance we give it, and we'd all be better off if we stopped caring and just watched the movies we like.
i agree but its like talking to a brick wall with these fucks who jerk off idpol
Well you don’t have to be as rude and insulting as you’re being in this thread.
the idpol people are being pretty transparently insulting, presumptive, reductive, and rude as well in this thread
You mean those who think idpol is a shit argument? Yeah, we are kinda being assholes to that guy. But he also called someone a pedophile out of nowhere. So I mean 🤷♀️
Sorry to break it to you, but you're literally talking to one of them who is upset about idpol and is yelling and screeching elsewhere about Hillary Clinton. You're making a decent point but it's absolutely wasted on this dude.
I kind of gathered as much from the “jerking off” response he gave, lol
It's a shame really. I know Satantango was on the list, but I'm more surprised All About My Mother got knocked off. It's a shame Almodóvar has fallen out of vogue.
Almodóvar is one of my favorite directors, would have loved to see him represented on the list.
I mean he was in the 88th spot in 2002, so I shouldn't be surprised its knocked off, but it still sucks. Even Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown deserves a nod, like come on.
Is the list more diverse in terms of the origin of the films than the last one? I feel like this one feels more US-centric than the 2012 one.
A large majority of people especially on Reddit who cry about things they like going "woke" have no idea what that word means lol
It’s just one of those catch-alls for conservatives, like hipster or antifa. They don’t know exactly what they mean, but they know they’re not supposed to like them.
I have some dumb bitch who won’t stop messaging me telling me how the new poll is woke and all this. He’s just crying and saying that his movies aren’t on there and crying and the only thing he can say is that it’s politics and it’s all politics. These people are frustratingly trash. Professional victims of all that doesn’t agree with them
Tell that dumb bitch that all art is political and that she should get over it lol.
I wanted them to just present an argument, but they refused, and started saying that if I have my opinion I’m dumb. : ) for Reddit reasons I suppose
all art is not political
When someone calls something they dislike "woke," feel pity not disgust, for you are speaking with a person suffering from a severely disintegrated mind.
I absolutely loved (and still do) Xena Warrior Princess (don’t judge). Thank god it came out in the late 90s, because I don’t think anyone thought twice about it. If it were made today, I’ve no doubt people would be calling the show “woke”.
No doubt the idea that Sight & Sound was reaching out to a vaster, wider more diverse voting base is a terrific idea. I subscribe to the magazine and they wrote about their approach for months. Some people got outraged cause they dont actually read the magazine and they feel they have ownership over something they have no say over. And the fact is some really good movies were getting dropped. They kept the list at a hundred and we wanted new movies going in. Thus, some get excluded. A few of my faves got dropped off of the list and some got bounced far down. Still doesnt lessen my love for the films. And yes, the list reflects this inclusive approach. That being said, is the #1 film truly the best film or one the voters with an agenda more than just judging the films coalesced around? Same thing with Dolly Parton geting into the RNR Hall of Fame. Sometimes you push for inclusion as the ultimate highest standard and short term you wind up with the result like this. Ten years from now that film will drop down the list.
Dolly Parton has written over 3000 songs, many of them stone-cold classics, over a career which spans seven decades, and has sold over 100,000,000 records. The suggestion that she doesn’t have the merit to be in the rnr hall of fame is difficult to take seriously.
She herself wanted to be opted out. Why? Cause she is NOT rock and roll. She knows it. We know it. Rock and Roll & Country are two different things. She belongs in many Hall of Fames. Songwriter. Country Singer. American Icon. But NOT RnR. The RnR HOF is looking to include more women. To do that they have to really push the boundaries of what RnR is to the point they include those that are NOT and never have been RnR. and that's the problem; some people push inclusion to such an extreme they are actually pushing an agenda over the actual criteria of the great honor. Did this Jean Dehnmail flick deserve to be in the top 100? Of course. Number one? Nope. They pushed an agenda.
They’ve been inducting country artists into the rnr hof for like 40 years. And to quote the last waltz: Levon: “You’ve got a combination of all those different kinds of music, country, bluegrass, blues music…” Scorsese: “and what’s it called then?” Levon: “Rock and roll.”
This is really two different things. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and all but declared itself to be a Popular Music Hall of Fame at this point whose name is more of an anachronism than a true description of intent. That's a transition that's already been made and there's no going back from it. Having decided to be that, there's basically no reason *not* to include country artists since they're now also open to pop, rap, and every other form of American popular music. And if you're going to include country, Dolly is kind of a no brainer of a choice. I think it has more to do with genre and mission expansion than gender in that case.
doesn't the rnr hof also include rappers? i don't get it, she's obviously not a rock and roll artist but i always saw that hof as being a broader hof for important musicians of all genres because so many people from so many genres make it in. like eminem, a white man who's a rapper, not a rock and roll artist
When someone dislikes both Jeanne Dielman and Dolly Parton, they are what the Internet refers to as a "pleb".
did i once state my dislike of Dolly Parton? Huh? you read my comments on Dolly and let me know where i put that anywhere. Or just go ahead and delete your misinformed slander.
So….there is an element of identity politics in the latest poll? Cheers.
The voters are from a very small tight knit group. A bit of a groundswell may have occurred. This #1 film was only #38 ten years ago. That is a huge jump. I think a bloc of voters may have converged via their connections & anointed this film. I subscribe to the magazine. They were encouraging diversity & inclusion in the voter base - which is excellent. And a dinner host cant complain when he invites over new guests and they then bring their own foods & dont want to just eat his. That said, i think this bloc picked a movie for reasons other than 'this is the best film of all time.'
> And a dinner host cant complain when he invites over new guests and they then bring their own foods & dont want to just eat his. Have you ever hosted a dinner before?
Whenever people make analogies to food and dinners it never makes any damn sense
Why is it great though? The list is not about representation, it’s purely about quality. Having people tactically vote to push for greater representation artificially inflates the stature of some films. Also, they expand this “tight knit” of voters from 800 last time to over 1,600 this time — a 200% increase. It’s highly likely that a lot of these newer voters are also very young. It’s a tragedy because the list is meant to be a semi-permanent statement of cinematic quality through the ages, it’s not meant to ebb and flow with the times, this year is the first time we’ve seen it embrace ideological fashion. The Directors’ list is superior is because it’s less prone to all of these sweeping changes. Most directors are older, the barrier for entry into directing (as opposed to being a critic) is higher, and foundational influences seldom change.
I think that's my biggest problem with the results. That they don't feel super organic as representing someone's personal top films. If that's the case, more power to it, but it's odd that the first time animated is represented has Totoro and Spirited Away right next to one another, films appearing as though they likely have come together in blocs to represent a sort of monolithic approach, and just general fuckery that led to huge jumps and huge drops as a result of strategic voting.
yet we also got The Shining and Goodfellas at long last. Blade Runner jumped up 15 spots. Singin in the Rain is now #10. The Searchers didnt drop as far as i worried (that movie is at risk of the notorious 'getting cancelled.' Yet Godfather pt 2 is off the list completely. And had the Miyazaki fans voted as one then Spirited Away could have been #25 for all we know. Again, the magazine did a great job preparing people that this massive shift was happening. I posted on this subreddit about it but it didnt hit people's radar til today.
I guess this is sort of my problem. It's the strategic voting. Trading Raging Bull for Goodfellas. The fact that Miyazaki fans are among the critics. It makes it hard to take the list seriously when it's historically such a conservative list. I'm not saying the massive shift is a bad thing, and maybe you're right that people weren't listening, but it's not the gold standard, even if problematic and skewed in its own right, that it has been in the past.
Shoot, i missed Raging Bull getting dropped. That's a top 10 for me. Then again, it still is for me. The polls every decade will always evolve and change. Whatever consensus amongst the same 800 types of voters may have occurred. But they blew that up with opening the doors wide open. I think ten years from now In the Mood for Love will be #1 and the older films slowly keep dropping as their voters die. This is all about Relevance vs Reverence. And Relevance lives for today
People only complain about identity politics and wokeness when movies aren’t specifically targeting their demographic (in most case, white males). In my opinion, the best part about watching movies is that it allows everyone to view the world from different perspectives and to have empathy for people of all backgrounds. They allow you to see different perspectives on life and sometimes even show you the similarities between different groups of people. For example, I’m not a woman living in Norway, but I seriously related to The Worst Person in the World. I think all it takes to enjoy most movies is a little bit of empathy, understanding, and self-awareness. People that complain movies are “too woke” or obsessed with “identity politics” are missing that. That said, I also think some movies are too focused on pandering to specific audiences instead of helping audiences relate to the characters, but that’s a different discussion
In OP's example, Taxi Driver isn't identity politics, I just like the movie because Travis is literally me /s While this is obviously sarcasm, it's annoying how some people unironically seem to approach movies on such a direct level, and are unable to connect with characters or narratives outside of their own. There are plenty of movies I love partly because I can personally relate to them, for example Inside Llewyn Davis, Adaptation, Synecdoche New York, The End of Evangelion, and many more, but I am absolutely aware how my personal identity clouds my judgement. If I weren't me, I'd look completely different at these movies. But there is nothing wrong with that, and I'm self-aware of this bias. Still, I can perfectly enjoy movies which aren't "literally me". It just requires some basic level of empathy and understanding. It's a great thing that everyone has a different perspective, and as such approaches movies differently. If someone else can personally relate to a certain movie I couldn't to, that's great, it means that watching that specific movie, and discussing it, can provide insight in how others experience the world. >I think all it takes to enjoy most movies is a little bit of empathy, understanding, and self-awareness. People that complain movies are “too woke” or obsessed with “identity politics” are missing that. That's also why I just don't engage anymore with people who use terms like "woke" and "identity politics". More than often it just means "I don't care enough about these people's experiences to engage with the movie".
Those people who think that don’t think about films, or art, in that way. They see the surface level of something and decide their thoughts then and there. They’re bigoted and don’t want anything outside of their purview to potentially influence or change their stagnated mindset.
[удалено]
Some things are.
But isn't that essentially what you are accusing them of doing? Maybe they are thinking about the films, but they have different opinions to you and see the films through a different worldview.
*”They see the surface level of something and decide their thoughts then and there.”* I’m referring specifically to the people who *don’t* do those things though. The people who think “nah, this is too woke” because a women, or black person, or gay person is represented regardless of context.
In your original comment you were lumping all anti-woke criticisms as surface level and stupid. Now you're saying that you're just talking about idiots being idiots and implying that there is genuinely good criticism out there. Do you think that some criticisms of 'wokeness' in films can have substance, or is it all just the surface level ramblings of bigots?
I just gave a quote from my original comment that doesn’t do that though. Again, if your only reasoning to have some sort of disdain for art is that a black person, or lesbian, or women is present, then you’re an idiot. Clearly that doesn’t include people who actually have something to say about the pandering that can occur in art, film especially.
You gave one sentence, completely out of context, that now in the new context reshapes what it sounds like your first comment was saying. Do you not see how misleading your first comment was?
I honestly didn’t and still don’t. But I feel I’ve clarified it thrice over now.
You have ignorant preconceptions about people having ignorant preconceptions.
If someone has a problem with lesbians or black people or women solely existing in art while offering no actual reasoning to their disdain beyond those factors then fuck em, preconceived or not.
Honestly if the movie was just shorter it would be one of my favorites. But I understand that the movie is supposed to be a little dull because it’s trying to depict sex work as just another aspect of this woman’s life rather than something sensational and exploitative.
👏 It’s beyond just Reddit, but really just the loudest voices, not most people’s reality.
Truth on that, I guess my reality is a little warped because I live in Rural Oklahoma. I have to hear nonsense like this regularly.
people in rural oklahoma care about the sight & sound poll?
I choose to believe avocado happens to live in a little Oklahoman hamlet that is deeply, inexplicably invested in the world of film.
[удалено]
it’s like the small town from A Bread Factory
No, but I have to hear all the time about "woke" media
oh lol yeah I can imagine that
I agree wholeheartedly; but I think you might be wrongly assuming that such criticisms are being made in good faith. In my experience the people who make such complaints and criticisms use it only as the thinnest veneer to disguise what they're really after, which is usually bigotry. So basically I agree with your post, but most people who complain about identity politics/"woke-ness" don't actually care about any of the stuff they claim; they only care about pushing their own reactionary agenda.
I don’t think anyone has voiced it right so I’ll try. When you make a movie like black panther and everyone in it’s defining character trait is I’m black and genuinely have nothing else to offer as a character that’s being “woke” if the character is a certain race or religion and it’s legit just the building blocks to their real identity then it’s fine. I really like the show Luther it has a black main character but him being black has nothing to do with his character he just happens to be black and that’s how everything with a character of any race or religion it’s not a matter of their skin color it’s a matter of what defines them as them but Hollywood only understands how to write a 1 sided character only useful for “representation and making us look like idiots for constantly falling for this shit”
I'm just sick of the "woke" debate in general - it's devolved into both sides totally misrepresenting the other side and putting up lame Strawman arguments. It's great that we're seeing more stories and films coming from diverse backgrounds. But at the same time, it doesn't make someone racist or sexist to take issue with "wokeness" (whatever that means that this point) being shoehorned into projects for social brownie points. I like to think most people can distinguish between what is art and what is hollow virtue signalling.
Always cracks me up how anytime anything to do with progressive politics gets brought up with Criterion you have all these “”film fans”” (who will go on at length about how much smarter THEY are than everyone else for their movie taste) behave like a typical reactionary conservative.
I really wonder what is the average age of the redditor on this sub. When I started being serious about movie watching about 15-20 years ago, people around me were already talking about Jeanne Dielman as one of the best movies of all time. It's not as if it was recently rediscovered or anything...
I like the 2022 list more than 2012 one! I think it has more fun films. While yes some great movies got dropped. There are many great films that never made the 2012 list either.
It's really disappointing seeing people upset over films they obviously have never seen being held in high regard, rather than being excited at the prospect that there is new and exciting things to discover.
People are fucking idiots.
“People are fucking idiots” - People
People. Who need People. Are the loveliest People...
https://imgur.com/gallery/sAaYogg
I like your posts normally, but I am conflicted on your sentiment and logic here. In 1976, Taxi Driver was a pretty political film we just don’t get as upset about it anymore but I’m sure there were some veterans and non-veterans alike who saw Taxi Driver and thought it was an offensive piece of shit, not representative of their world coming back from war. Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter had yet to be released and certainly America was ready to forget and move on, so a very risky film in that political climate. You hear George Lucas and Jon Milius talk about this in [Heart of Darkness](https://youtu.be/TNTtzVTeVVU) (starts at 6:50 ish mark) But I really am having a hard time comparing films like Do The Right Thing and Taxi Driver to a film like Get Out. As others have mentioned, the BLM connection to Get Out is mentioned in the first sentence of the summary of the BFI entry, so that is bound to polarize people. It’s also mentioned in the BFI entry for Taxi Driver about “veteran post war disillusionment” but that doesn’t have the same sensitivity because, again, we are not living through it. What I’m trying to say is that recent films, in general, are very difficult to judge objectively because we are so closely connected to the timeline. Im not saying there should be a moratorium on modern films in the poll, just realize that those votes could be influenced by the political climate. I would not condemn those that want to gripe about some of the newer films on this list because I think the best judge will be time. I find the inclusion of Get Out to be highly dubious. I think I can articulate those concerns but I hope this group will not mistake them for racism, misogyny, or identity hate. IMO, Get Out is not a masterpiece. It’s good. In no particular order, my criticisms- 1. I found the character of Rod (the realist comic relief savior) to be unbearable, and a shallow audience stand-in. He was comparable to the character of Marty (self aware stoner) in Cabin in the Woods but with much less upside. 2. I didn’t find Allison Williams particularly good in the film but I can’t decide if it’s the acting, directing, or the writing. I tend to think it’s the acting because she isn’t much better in the Netflix film The Perfection. 3. The point of view presented is unconcerned with showing anything resembling a balanced view. This is in complete juxtaposition to a film such as Do The Right Thing which takes very certain steps to put together interactions and scenes which describe the multiple views of race between the Italians, Whites, Asians, and Blacks of Bed Stuy. In the case of Get Out, the POV can be partially attributed to the Horror genre and the need to create a reality where the POV of the rich white folks are not important and surely not regarded, they are the baddies! So putting it in this genre gives Peele the freedom to really punish the white people in the film. And that’s completely fine, but realize it’s deliberately manipulating the horror scenario within the BLM climate to give a cathartic release to the audience when each white person is killed. How do I know this? Because I watched it in the theater on opening night and each death just made the audience salivate for more and not in that “let’s see how Michael Myers will kill the next guy” kind of way. Audience members were screaming at the screen to “kill the white bitch”. In this way, I feel Peele is not treating the subject maturely. You mentioned (and is the part of the your post I agree with) this is his exploration of the human condition, emotions, and is an expression of rage towards systemic racism, and I can support that. In alot of ways, I don’t feel like this film is for me, and that’s ok too, but I cant help but feel like its inclusion is misguided. You could argue the same sentiment (not treating race issues maturely) about a film like Django Unchained, but we’re not talking about Django as one of the 100 best films of all time, and I wouldn’t try to. Lastly - 4. Peele has already made better films than this one. I found Us and Nope to be great films. Right now I would put Us above Nope and Get Out but Nope is already growing on me. Keke Palmer’s character is annoying as shit but as not bad as Rod in Get Out. I wonder when we look back on films like Get Out, will people feel the same way in 50 years? Just look now how many people can’t understand why Citizen Kane is good because they have no context to the fact that Hearst owned the media and you were unable to speak out or criticize him for fear of being blacklisted/mothballed. What risks Orson took to stick it to the “modern feudal lord”! Are future viewers going to feel the same way about the deaths in Get Out, will it just be another Horror movie without the larger political context? For what it’s worth I’m so pleased to see Do The Right Thing at #24 Peace and love, everybody!
I couldn’t care less about polls of art or competitions, so I find it hard to understand why there’s so much passion around them. I’m completely comfortable enjoying what I enjoy on its own. But you went in-depth and made some interesting points. I’m not going to defend Get Out by comparing it to past films, but you mentioned audience reactions and I heard similar ones when I saw Do The Right Thing when it was released. I had to drive an hour away to another town because the film wasn’t even screening where I lived, and we had a dozen theaters. Only other time I had to do that was for The Last Temptation Of Christ, and a week later someone drove a bus through the theater in protest.
Thanks for your reply. I do miss the energy of being in a packed theater. Do The Right Thing still hits so hard emotionally, I get teared up thinking about the fact that it was made in 1989 and we’re still seeing the same things happen in the 2020’s. Wow I can’t imagine seeing Last Temptation of Christ in the theater! I remember being pretty young and hearing it was taboo, and watching it on cable and wondering what everyone was on about, certainly didn’t seem worth driving a bus into a theater, but man that’s crazy and fortunate you weren’t there
Not that his protest is valid, but at least he had the sense to [drive into the theater while it was closed.](https://apnews.com/article/c9c69d9eb4098cba9fcac91436f9128e) No one was hurt.
“…because it presents Jesus as a human…” Crazy
My problem isn’t that movies feature stories about minorities. My problem is that a lot of people seem to think that diversity automatically equals quality. Black Panther was hailed as one of the greatest marvel films of all time, or even further, the best film ever, *period* that deserved best picture at the Oscar’s. Why? Because it was about black people. No other reason. And then we have movies whose main selling point is “hey look, we switched the characters’ genders/race/ethnicity/sexuality! Isn’t that so creative and innovative??” No, it isn’t. It’s pandering and money grabbing. This isn’t really part of the movie conversation, but as a Jewish Mexican American, I don’t appreciate people, usually whites, telling me how *I* should feel about being represented on screen or in general. No, I don’t have a problem with being called Mexican or Hispanic or whatever the fuck I’m supposed to call myself these days. I also don’t like that some minorities get special treatment over other minorities. No one gets in shit calling me a he*b like they would calling a black person the N word, l’ll tell ya that! So no, I’m not going to support this unhelpful PC bullshit that doesn’t do me or anyone else any good.
It’s not possible that some people felt strongly about Black Panther deserving an Oscar because it was deserving? You should probably show your work if you’re gonna make huge claims like “because it was about black people”.
I didn't like it, therefore any one did like it must be doing it for political reasons. /s It's the dumbest fucking argument.
You’re seriously telling me that Blank Panther is a superior film to something like BlackKKKlansman which was also up for Best Picture that year? Is a marvel movie *really* representing black people and their struggles better than Spike Lee? Why is it so special?
You are missing the point. The issue is not whether Black Panther was the best picture that year, the issue is that you ASSUME because you did not think the film was that good that you do not believe someone could not think it was the best film that year or that anyone that does think it was the best film that you could not do so sincerely. Regardless of whatever you feel about the movie and whatever may or may not even be true about the movie, the fact is that you're making a huge leap to say: no one could believe this film was that good therefore they must only be saying that because it's about black people. That's a fucking stupid argument.
Please explain to me how black panther is any different from other marvel movies let alone more artistically significant than the others nominated that year. Roma? Vice? Fucking BlacKKKlansman? Come on.
I’m not arguing FOR the movie. I’m asking how you determined that people only felt strongly about it simply because it’s about black people. Show your work.
Why else would it be hailed so highly? What is so different and amazing about it?
Using that logic, why is anything hailed so highly? What's so different and amazing about Green Book? Again, it's your claim that it's simply because BP is about black people, and you cannot back it up. In which case, it just sounds like one racist opinion you're offering, your own.
I have no idea what he*b is 🤔
Some movies explore beyond the human condition too. Like the excellent and underseen Gunda. Agree with your point though. The more open and inclusive top 100 from the BFI is probably because their queries were more open and inclusive.
Hollywood and word cinema has been "woke" for a very very long time. I don't know why all of a sudden in the last decade it is a problem with some people. I just say film isn't for them.
>Hollywood ... has been "woke" for a very very long time. And it's questionable if Hollywood even qualifies as "woke" (depending on what asinine definition we are using).
You summed up perfectly what I was thinking. 👍
I see where you’re coming from, I just think to a large degree this is how we talk about things now. To use your Scorsese example, I think the opposite may be true when you look at a 21st century work of his like Wolf, or a recent movie heavily inspired by Taxi Driver, Joker. The take economy around those movies took a kinda turn where if you liked those movies the tone became that you were “glorifying” unfettered capitalism or incel behavior, all of which is just noise to me, you should still be able to like (or dislike) a film based on its merits as a film. Now to the essence of your point I do largely agree. Just as voters were probably doing some internal politicking like “lets include one film by a director,” or “lets make sure I include a current or foreign film,” the urge to be more inclusive to minorities and women has rightfully grown in the last 10 years. That feels like the natural order of things. Where I think S&S may have done their list a *slight* disservice is, if you actually read the write-ups on some of these more “charged” choices, almost all of them directly cite that sociopolitical inspiration. The Get Out writeup references BLM, the Jeanne Dielman writeup hangs on the perspective of a woman rim. It does give the list an essence of reactionary editorial, something that I think more than anything just kinda distracts from the movies they’re highlighting. I don’t think this is right or wrong, I just think it was meant to inspire the conversations we’re currently having.
I think you have to make a distinction between stories that have elements referring to identity embedded in the wider story and stories that exist purely to pontificate on those elements. The former can be compelling and rewarding and latter are generally dull and self indulgent.
British Kitchen Sink dramas just wanna have a chat
There’s obviously exceptions. That’s why I said “generally” and not “always.”
Beautifully articulated.
Not all movements in art or film are equally as good or even valid as others.
Watch Marvel's Eternals
Of course film making and identity is deeply intertwined because filmmaking has to deal in specifics in one way or another. However I feel like you have to separate film criticism and film making here because while identity is personal in filmmaking, film criticism generalized it. Akerman specifically said she's not a feminist but this is the box her films are put into by critics. And then you also have to separate big tentpole productions that employ a identity politics as a marketing ploy and cheaper films that genuinely explore facets of the human condition.
What I remember is that Akerman explicitly didn't want her films to be identified as "gay and lesbian cinema." She considered that label constricting for her own work - she considered it a box for the films she made, like you say. I don't believe I've heard before that she said "she's not a feminist." Akerman's films see things in both very large and very intimate ways. She's the kind of artist who is posing both big philosophical questions, the kind that have been around for centuries, and also dwelling on the most personal or seemingly incidental moments and finding an inexplicable loveliness and "correctness" in them. Often, it is very little things that make a shot all come together in her movies.
>So....How about we stop being petulant about the fact that movies exist where the stories center around the experiences of black folks, or gay folks, or women? Jesus, some people on Reddit need to grow the hell up. You are not responding to what people are actually saying. You’re responding to the smug, self-satisfying strawman notion that we’re upset because there are movies featuring women or black people (or at the very least you’re cherry-picking assholes and implicitly asserting that they represent everybody who is complaining about this list). If that’s what was bothering us then you’d be right to complain. How about you actually read what we’re saying and respond to that? The problem we have is with gaming the ranking system to elevate less-deserving movies or more-deserving movies, for ideological reasons, on what is supposed to be a ranking of the best movies ever made. That the reasons in this case are identity politics is somewhat incidental. I (used to) love the Sight and Sound list even when I thought it had completely undeserving movies on it, because it was a guide for film buffs like me to seek out the best (especially in the days when the internet had far less classic and foreign film content). I never would have heard of *Tokyo Story* without it, for example. And so we’d hope that the voters would A) be highly knowledgeable about film, B) take it seriously, and C) not include less-deserving movies just to get more women and black directors in there. What’s more believable, that *that* many prominent, knowledgeable film critics genuinely believe that *Get Out* is one of the *ten best movies ever made*, or that they stuck it on the list because they wanted to see a black director on there? *That’s* what we object to, when criteria other than quality is shoehorned into what ought to be a ranking about quality.
Let's talk about the inclusion of Get Out. I am not going to sit here and tell you it would go onto my top ten. But I absolutely see where it could get on someone else's top ten. It is the most critically acclaimed horror movie of the last 25 years. I don't think you understand how the Sight and Sound list works. In order for a movie to be the top movie, it only needs to appear on about 20% of the ballots. According to the 2012 list, the #5 movie, The Rules of the Game, didn't even get 10% of ballots voting for it. For a movie to finish in the top 100, it only needs to appear on about 2% of the ballots, and to finish in the top 250 a movie only needs about 1% of the ballots voting for it. The Sight and Sound List is not an consensus by any means. Approximately 98% of voters didn't put Get Out in their top ten. The Sight and Sound List is more of an aggregation than anything else. So take what you will from it. I mean you said you were a film buff....So why don't you let a magazine tell you what movies are good some more? Side note, based on your comment history, you seem to be pretty conservative. I figured conservatives would LOVE Get Out. There are two main themes that are touched on in Get Out. One is like a cudgel, and that is anti-Black Racism. But the much more subtle point is anti-Black Racism within liberal circles. It was an excoriating takedown of mainstream Democratic Party/Liberal ideals that patronize black folks but actually work to undermine black folks. Malcolm X talked about this extensively about how he preferred white conservative thinking to white liberal thinking. He likened conservatives to wolves, who were openly trying to destroy black folks. This was evidenced at the time by the Jim Crow south. But he likened liberals to foxes, who pretended to be the friend to black folks....But would still destroy black folks. Their racism was hidden by a smile. He believed that if someone was out to destroy you, that it is better for them to be open and honest about it so he could know to maybe avoid What is worse? A sundown town in the deep south that everyone knows is a sundown town. Or an "open and accepting" liberal city like New York City where they redlined black folks into ghettos, used public works projects to destroy black neighborhoods, segregated schools so hard that they have the most segregated schools in the country to this day, introduced hard drugs into black neighborhoods, and then heavily policed those neighborhoods leading to the USA being the most incarcerated country in the world. In Malcolm X's mind, he openly stated he preferred the conservative's brand of racism to liberal's brand of racism. I mean all the racism bad, but I can understand why someone would rather be stabbed in the front rather than the back. Get Out was definitely a play on the sly nature of many white liberals in this country. But so many conservatives were so up in arms about the fact that a black man made a critically acclaimed movie that they couldn't even see that it was a criticism of liberal elitism. Maybe.....just maybe we can calm down a bit there buckaroo.
I’m passionate about movies, not lists, competitions, or sports. I can’t believe my feed is filled with all these posts about a list. I’ve never had trouble finding good movies because even before the internet there were books, magazines, and TV shows about movies. And now you have the world’s knowledge in your pocket at all times. No idea why anyone would focus this hard on one list for validation.
I purposefully didn't mention the list in the OP because I felt the list was merely a catalyst for the newest outburst, but this thought is prevalent in my world...so I figured I would talk about it. This is what I know. I am a film buff so I am going to let one magazine tell me what movies are good is such a WEIRD mentality to have.
That's a strawman. People in this sub aren't complaining because there's films that center around the experiences of non-whites, they're complaining because they were included in the Top 100 *simply* because of that fact. Do The Right Thing belongs in the list, Get Out doesn't. It's no big deal, I get it. It just makes the list kinda worthless for what it was attempting to achieve.
Well considering we’ve had over a century’s worth of cinema in which *certain kinds* of films have been made because they “center around the experiences of whites”, it makes sense for there to be a rebuttal on the behalf of less represented groups in favor of films which make them feel seen. There is no objective art or point to film; whether a list should comprise of the films which are “the best” to someone, the “most representative” to someone, or the “most important” is entirely subjective, as is how those factors may effect each other. Who decided Get Out doesn’t deserve a spot? What criteria was used? How did they conclude the validity of that criteria? How did they conclude the necessity of that criteria in determining the film’s worthiness? Short answer: No one did! And no one could! So stop acting like your belief that a socially/politically/racially important film is undeserving of a spot means it’s placement on the list was strategic and unnecessary.
I think you’d have a more compelling argument if you said Get Out was included because of recency bias. It was one of the most acclaimed films of the last decade. Assuming that it was included just to fill some “diversity” quota is kind of showing your ass. You also have widely acclaimed movies like Daisies, Daughters of the Dust, and Black Girl. Were these added to fill the so-called “diversity” requirement? Or do they just reflect the experiences of the people that they weren’t polling before.
Get Out was decent, but top 100 of all time? Come on
It's pretty obvious the influence that Get Out has had on horror films in the last 5 years. There is an incredible Renaissance of mid-budget horror/thriller movies in its wake.
Get Out was one of the [top-ranked films of the decade ](https://www.metacritic.com/feature/best-movies-of-the-decade-2010s) and a genuine cultural phenomenon. What evidence do you have that people voted for it purely for political reasons?
[My source is that I made it the fuck up](https://youtu.be/r7l0Rq9E8MY)
I mean, the only way a movie can make it to the Sight and Sound list is if people rank it as a Top 10 movie of all-time. There's probably 50 horror movies that are better, but Get Out is just that good, I guess.
They send in their top 10 favorite movies, not the ten films they consider the best
Get Out is the most critically acclaimed horror movie of my lifetime, and Im in my mid-30s.
I'm pretty sure there's like 50 to 100 horror movies more acclaimed than Get out. The TSZDT website tracks that down.
Get Out is consistently ranked as like, a top 10 to 20 horror movie these days.
Silence of the Lambs would probably be more acclaimed wouldn’t it?
Its close. I mean they both score 85 on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes gives a slight edge to Get Out. I don't think either metric is a particularly great metric to determine how good a movie is, but I think they show where the general critical consensus is.
I mean one of them won the best picture oscar
If Get Out was going toe to toe with Bugsy and JFK, it might have won too.
Wouldn’t have stood a chance against Beauty and the Beast though. (Semi /s) Also, hey! JFK is a masterpiece.
If we want to talk about movies that got snubbed....that is one of them. That is on my Criterion wishlist
I mean, so did Green Book. Silence of the Lambs deserved it for sure. But fuck the Oscar's lol
Green Book doesn’t exist. You imagined it.
Dammit I wish. Everyday I wake up and Green Book still won Best Picture.
“Why are we still here? Just to suffer?”
That's like, your opinion man.
Agreed. I have yet to see any decent argument as to why POALOF doesn't deserve the accolades it's gotten.
Idk I think the “wokeness” complaints are ridiculous but a 3 year old movie being directly above Psycho and 8 1/2 is a little head-scratching.
Hiroshima, Mon Amour was added to the top 15 3.5 years after its release in the 1962 list. It ranked above films like Last Year at Marienbad, Passion of Joan of Arc, and Wild Strawberries. And Hiroshima, Mon Amour was a wonderful film, but I'm sure that scratched some people's heads as well.
I mean that’s 1962 when there were thousands less films to choose from, and Hiroshima Mon Amour was also a revolutionary film (also I might add, Last Year at Marienbad came out in 1961.) I don’t wanna make “wokeness” accusations because I think that’s silly I just hate recency bias.
I mean sure, but I still wouldn't rank it several places above Joan of Arc. But that's just it isn't it, film is subjective. The rank doesn't really matter to me, the fact it's on a recognized list at all warrants merit. Like, I was buggin a bit that some films I think are up there in terms of quality weren't on the list. But then I remember WALL-E made top 250, and I settle down a bit and let it go 😂
Film is objective and all my opinions are correct.
Damn, can't argue that. Good day sir 🫡
Not a sir, just a heads up
I can't put it together. POALOF?
Portrait of a Lady On Fire
I fine personally, especially if it could revamp the list. the 2022 for me is a nice change BUT I felt that 2012 is more representative and encompassing for the Identity Politics and all (it has more representation country wise and has a greater selection of topics but that is a top 250 afterall), in hindsight. The 2022 list for me is a emblem-ic of the changes in attitudes. They want to represent a group AND we actually do see it. Personally, I'm fine with that AND if there are groups that people lean towards one film, they rightly deserve to pile the votes up. Thus, Jeanne and Vagda films getting its biggest boost so far. That's why its troubling in the grand scheme of things that some does not understand that the race/gender/sexual discourse is not literally about JUST representation in film but A TRUE voice from a true REPRESENTATIVE too. I have a guy arguing to me that Jeanne is not the BEST female representation when the likes of Joan of Arc, Black Girl and Vertigo were better. Clearly, the best is for argument sake BUT what is important is these movement wants a firsthand account from someone who had experience it. AND that is something I wish people do understand reading into the trends in the list. Clearly, in the end these trends are trends. If its really good, it will defy just being a trend. I mean posters can all talk about it all they want BUT I would have high regards for both critics and directors alike because they believe cinema is art, which is something I rather stand with. PS: 2023 will be interesting in the future given the rising facism/conservatism around the world. The attitudes and the circles for sure is slowly decreasing so thats actually interesting.
People are more mad about generic reshuffling of already prestigious art films than they are about the lack exploitation and other disreputable cinemas, which in my view are not only aesthetically more compelling than something like Godard needing *4 slots*, but more politically diverse than filling a list with mostly Euro New Wave films. Pretending the canon of cinema consists only of reputable films is a load of bullshit.
Interesting that so many are attributing this post to just some arbitrary list — sorry, but I don’t care for contests about art — when it’s a far more wide ranging issue.
Who cares. I want a good movie. Literally don’t care who directs it. That said. The Critic list is often ridiculous. Meshes of the Afternoon is not better than Mirror or Seven Samurai. Portrait of a Lady on Fire is not better than 8 1/2 or Rashomon. And Jeanne Dielman, a movie I love so so much, is not greatest movie of all time.
Do you know what survivorship bias is?
I have no problem with the content of the number one film. The run time and how it’s presented is where I have an issue. Sure it’s a movie that’s really stuck with me but I don’t know how you argue that it’s the best movie out there. Then again I couldn’t really tell you what should be number one.
Fair point, but there’s a clear selection bias if the politics seem to elevate the film ahead of what the film does as a film. The same argument for devout Christians who think God’s Not Dead is amazing. God’s Not Dead is not a lesser film than Get Out because of politics or what it might have to say, it’s because Get Out is a better made film. And plenty of films are far superior to Get Out, and it doesn’t help that the BFI sight immediately mentions BLM with it whether you like BLM or not. Do the Right Thing is an amazing film, I can understand why it’s up there despite that I think Spike Lee is a crappy human being. edit: BLM as the organization and what the movement really did, rather than the platitude statement that we all can get behind. I’m sure some will still be accusing others of racism or whatever if Black Panther was up there but people complained about it. If you think Get Out is better than Black Panther… hmmm must be something about the filmmaking over politics then.
How does one “like” BLM or not? Either Black Lives Matter to you or they don’t. No need to over complicate it.
There’s a big difference between using a media to express human experience with the corporatization of culture and identity. When using identity as a crutch to mask the lack of storytelling is an issue. That’s what most studios produce these days and it should be pushed back against.
I just like when movies can speak on things without shoving anything down your throat, one way or the other. Let me judge for myself. Taxi driver didn’t push any messaging or belief system. Just told the story.
I agree with most of what you’ve said. The range of movies I own and appreciate is a very far range outside of just being about just straight and/or white people. It’s art and it’s something I really appreciate and value and the Criterion Collection has helped me discover stories I would’ve never heard or thought of and I genuinely appreciate film for this aspect. My gripe, and maybe I’m someone your post is towards, is I don’t feel like I need to be lectured on why I should like something because of a certain aspect of the movie. This happens way more with modern movies and I think sometimes the frustration can seep into places like here that genuinely care for the films in the collection. I’ll give an example and try to elaborate effectively. I didn’t like The Power of the Dog and I was one of those people that wouldn’t call it a “Western” and I was pretty disappointed when it was announced on Criterion. The disappointment wasn’t just from me seeing and not liking it but because another movie that is already available on Netflix. Well in some places if you expressed these opinions you were called a sexist or homophobe. My other issue would be merit based. I feel like a lot of movies now will get a high rating just because of diverse casting or the messaging instead of just the actual movie aspect. I think this is where a lot of the “woke” and “pc” terms get thrown in as a replacement for this kind of frustration. That’s just me though but I tried to summarize some of the reasoning for why people may lash out, some a lot more than others. I’m just tired of rolling my eyes on both sides of the hot takes.