Sight & Sound Top Ten (2002)

[DrDetroit]

Arguably the movie list, the Sight & Sound comes out every ten years.

The Critics' Top Ten:

1. Citizen Kane
2. Vertigo
3. La Regle du Jeu
4. The Godfather Parts I & II
5. Tokyo Story
6. 2001 A Space Odyssey
7. Battleship Potemkin
7. Sunrise
9. 8 1/2
10. Singin' in the Rain

The Directors' Top Ten:

1. Citizen Kane
2. The Godfather Parts I & II
3. 8 1/2
4. Lawrence of Arabia
5. Dr. Strangelove
6. Bicycle Thieves
6. Raging Bull
6. Vertigo
9. Rashomon
9. La Regle du jeu
9. Seven Samurai

Here's the detailed list: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/

So what do you think? Just another bloated critics' list or something of worth? I think it's interesting to know what some of the foremost directors have to say are the best films. In any case, this is a great movies-to-see list.

[Riedenschneider]

Orsen Welles both directors' and critic's top director? Well the only film beside Citizen Kane (which is of course is rightly the top film ever) that stood the test of time for me is Touch of Evil. Hitchcock, Kubrick, Scorsese and Kurosawa all have made far more influental masterpieces (in quantity that is). Welles' being #1 is surely the result of him being the lowest common dominator. I think most directors and critics would agree that one of the 4 mentioned would be more deserving of that top spot.

As to the film list, it is interesting to see that the Godfather is going up and up (It's also the IMDb top film). Even more interesting is that they choose to make one film out of the first two parts, since many people have veeery different opinions about these two... (but everyone has the same about part III )

[hamholio]

I was disappointed at first, mainly because of the appearance of The Godfather on the list. Probably because I can think of a hundred silent and foreign films , not to mention American ones, that are better than the Godfather. And then seeing Coppola's name on the top directors list. Double . Complain about Welles not having many movies that last. . . Coppola has. . .what, three? None which touch the brilliance of Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil (the only two Welles films I've seen.)

I guess I'm disappointed because as the critics and filmmakers get born later and later, the films on the list become newer and newer, and the older films that are on the list. . . appear to be the ones taught to them at film school. . potemkin or kane. . . I'd much rather see City Lights on there than potemkin. . .

oh well, the official top ten list isn't as good as the list of films Roger Ebert voted for , and infinitely better than the list Tarantino voted for (you can see the lists of individual voters if you dink around the site a bit. )

[Riedenschneider]

Originally posted by hamholio
much rather see City Lights on there than potemkin. . .

WHOOOOAAA! Now that you mention it, I realise who is really missing. I just watched all the Essanay, Mutual and First National films of Chaplin again. These are without a doubt the most important short films that led to some of the most important feature films. Chaplin is one of the top 5 directors of all time. Anyone who says different don't knows shit and should be shot. The Great Dictator is THE most ballsy masterpiece ever. I mean EVER!

[SolidSnakeASS]

I don't mind the list, but they should have pooled a great group of filmmakers and reviews. Welles deserves his accolades for Kane, Touch of Evil, and Ambersons for sure; and Coppola made 4 masterpeices including the first two Godfathers, the Conversation, and Apocalypse Now.

[Marq]

I actually thought they did a great job of polling so many directors and critics.

While I of course don't agree with the lists 100%, I find them to be a nice guide. Certainly better than any piece of shit list put out by the AFI.

I morso enjoyed reading each driector's personal lists of Top 10s!!! - found here: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/...rtype=director
For example:
Quentin Tarantino:

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Leone)
Rio Bravo (Hawks)
Taxi Driver (Scorsese)
His Girl Friday (Hawks)
Rolling Thunder (Flynn)
They All Laughed (Bogdanovich)
The Great Escape (J. Sturges)
Carrie (De Palma)
Coffy (Hill)
Dazed and Confused (Linklater)
Five Fingers of Death (Chang)
Hi Diddle Diddle (Stone)

or
Bernardo Bertolucci:

La Règle du jeu (Renoir)
Sansho Dayu (Mizoguchi)
Germany Year Zero (Rossellini)
À bout de souffle (Godard)
Stagecoach (Ford)
Blue Velvet (Lynch)
City Lights (Chaplin)
Marnie (Hitchcock)
Accattone (Pasolini)
Touch of Evil (Welles)

or
George A. Romero:

The Brothers Karamazov (Brooks)
Casablanca (Curtiz)
Dr. Strangelove (Kubrick)
High Noon (Zinnemann)
King Solomon's Mines (Bennett)
North by Northwest (Hitchcock)
The Quiet Man (Ford)
Repulsion (Polanski)
Touch of Evil (Welles)
The Tales of Hoffmann (Powell, Pressburger)

etc etc etc. I do wish ALL major living directors could have participated (who knows if they weren't asked or if they never replied???? - but I would like to see Wes anderson's list, or David Fincher, or PT Anderson, or David Lynch, or Spike Lee, or David Cronenberg, etc etc).

I'll be on the lookout for this magazine nonetheless!

[Welles and Ford Fan]

The Great Dictator is THE most ballsy masterpiece ever. I mean EVER!


Hmm...I don't know about that. I am a huge Chaplin fan (though more of a Keaton one), and while I gree that The Great Dictator is ballsy, I don't think it a masterpiece among his films, and I would not single it out for this list. I would've gone with The Gold Rush (my Chaplin fave) or City Lights. I think Keaton's The General has been known to make this list, too.

I personally find Potemkin a tad over-rated, but is always gonna be there (as Kane will be), so don't expect anything to take its place.

As for Welles's other great films-I admire several of his independant films, and strongly recommend Othello, The Trial and Chimes at Midnight.

[thaggas]

I thought the list was interesting. But that's about it. I mean these are the same guys who buried Vanilla Sky the week before the release. So, it's possible that they are full of shit.

I think Citizen Kane is one of the greatest films ever made, but it will be interesting to watch in the next fifty years what happens to this list. It seems right now a lot of people who decide these things (AFI listen, up) are big fans of the seventies. I was four when the 70's wrapped, so it's hard for me to get into films that these people are shouting about. Chinatown, French Connection, Rocky, and to an extent Raging Bull, have been blown out of proportion by a generation of "70's as the golden age" bullshit. All of these movies are great, and I love them, but the 70's were not the cinematic renaissance that a lot people give it credit for. Citizen Kane, 8 1/2, and Rules of the Game lasted because they have stood the test of time, and these same people who wave their 70's banners had these films drilled into them all through film school. And because they have the stage right now, they're going to be heard as the concensus. But we, the silent majority will get our chance. And after decades of tooting the 70's horn, I wouldn't be surprised to see some 1970's backlash.

So as my generation grows up, it's our duty to say, "Hey wait a minute. These films you passed off as trite, actually have something to say." I think the Breakfast Club is one of the greatest scripts ever. I hope that one day it will be appreciated the way Rashomon is. The eighties were a time of youth asking, Who are we? The eighties became lost in its own excess and long after the jelly braclets and torn jeans are thrown away, we'll look back and remember who we were trying to be. TBC captures that.

Another thing, I think something may prevent any film released after 1980, from ever seeing the list: marketing. I believe some truly great films will be lost because some guy in a cube bought too much air on MTV. And that really sucks. Ironic, isn't it? We lost some great films, because the original detriorated beyond restoration. As the AFI shouts that that will never happen again, seven films are released on the same weekend, and on Monday, we'll only talk about one.

So that's what I have to say about the list. It's just a snapshot in time. The list might be different tomorrow. It will definately be different fifty years from now. So, for today, I say, "Hmm. Interesting."

[Riedenschneider]

Originally posted by Marq
I morso enjoyed reading each driector's personal lists of Top 10s!!! - found here: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/...rtype=director

That list is one of the most interesting things I have read in a long time. And you're soo right: "ALL major living directors could have participated"

P.S.: Of course the critics' personal lists is equally interesting!

[Welles and Ford Fan]

thaggas: that was a good read. Thanks.

[DrDetroit]

Originally posted by thaggas
Citizen Kane, 8 1/2, and Rules of the Game lasted because they have stood the test of time, and these same people who wave their 70's banners had these films drilled into them all through film school. And because they have the stage right now, they're going to be heard as the concensus. But we, the silent majority will get our chance. And after decades of tooting the 70's horn, I wouldn't be surprised to see some 1970's backlash.

Well, it has been a number of decades since the 1970's, so I'm inclined to believe that the films from that decade have to a certain extent passed the test of time. After all, Kane wasn't even on the Top Ten of the 1952 list. But ten years later it hit the top.

And the "70s as the Golden age bullshit"... I agree, that title is a bit presumptuous, and reading books like "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" tries very hard to make it seem like more than it was (especially the closing chapters), which was a very good decade for movies.

I think the absence of post-1980 titles has more to do with a backlash towards the Lucas/Spielberg way of making movies that prevailed in the following decades, and which rules today.

[Riedenschneider]

Originally posted by thaggas
have been blown out of proportion by a generation of "70's as the golden age" bullshit. All of these movies are great, and I love them, but the 70's were not the cinematic renaissance that a lot people give it credit for.

70 Five Easy Pieces / Little Big Man / Catch 22
71 A Clockwork Orange / The Beguiled / Two-Lane Blackstop
72 The Godfather / Deliverance / Everything you always... sex
73 Don't Look Now / The Offence / Serpico
74 Chinatown / Bring me the Head of Alfredo Garcia / Young Frankenstein
75 One flew over the cuckoo's nest / Jaws / Dog Day Afternoon
76 Taxi Driver / Grey Gardens / The Outlaw Josey Wales
77 Star Wars / Annie Hall / Slap Shot
78 Fingers / The Deer Hunter / Eraserhead
79 Apocalypse Now / Alien / Manhattan

Please thaggas, make a top three year by year list of the 60's. Compare it to the list above and say that line about the 70's being overrated again...

[Darksim]

with the critics, it seems like "if it's new, it's not classic" im tired of that.
how come all the great movies are movies that are two-three times older than i am, and half of em i never heard of!!
:rar: :rar: :rar: :rar:

[DrDetroit]

Originally posted by Darksim
with the critics, it seems like "if it's new, it's not classic" im tired of that.
how come all the great movies are movies that are two-three times older than i am, and half of em i never heard of!!

That's pretty much the way it works in any "art form".. It is very difficult to know what will and won't be considered a "classic" until ten or twenty years are elapsed. And "greatness" (forgive the overabundance of quotation marks) is determined, among other things, by quality, whether it's aged well or not, and, most principally, its influence.

You shouldn't have the attitude that if it's old, it isn't any good. I suggest tracking some of these films down, so you can try and understand why they are so highly regarded.

[Darksim]

oh, well that's not what i was saying.
I'm sure all the old movies are great,
I was just makin my point...

[caligulathegod]

A Renaissance is a "rebirth". No longer hampered by the production code that demanded films be "decent", films in the 70s (and late 60s) were finally allowed to represent reality. In real life people have sex, lose the big game, get away with a crime, talk dirty. In previous decades, films reflected a fantasy or an ideal. The films of the 70s reflected us, warts and all. Films of the previous decades were products of a studio system. Actors and directors were assigned films like a factory. They were stylized and arch. There were certain rules that always had to be followed. In the 70s, everyone was a "free agent" and all the rules were thrown out and the game changed. This new freedom allowed filmmakers to make a different kind of film than had ever been done before. The 70s were very definitely a "renaissance" that changed the way films were made and the way we relate to them.
While I can understand a person being more entertained by the movies (or music, or sports, or art) to which they were first exposed, I don't understand the attitude that completely dismisses the history and context of that which came before. Personally, I'm not an Elvis fan but I recognize that it was Elvis and his ilk that changed music from "Hit Parade" Rosemary Clooney and Frank Sinatra types to what eventually evolved into the music that I most enjoy. These 80s films that supposedly are about "youth questioning who they are" are only possible because of the films of the 70s questioning who we are as human beings.
You can prefer the glossier films from the 80s but please don't dismiss the renaissance that was the cinema of the 70s that made a "(pre-trite)John Hughes" possible.

[Riedenschneider]

@caligulathegod

Nicely said

[thaggas]

I have nothing but respect for the films of the 70's. It was a great decade because like you said the Hayes code had been dropped and allowed reality back into films. Yes, this helped films immensely. And looking back, the 70's were one of the best decades for film because of this. Also, I thank the 70's for taking reality on, it was ballsy. And the result are some of the best films of all time.

However, I think the people (critics, directors, & scholars) have become very narrow-minded. They feel that their films might be forgotten, so they pound them into us. We understand that these films defined a generation, but theirs is not the only generation. Yah, times were tough in the 70's (Vietnam, the economy) but just because you had to sludge the crap (and I'm very proud of them for doing so) doesn't mean that our films have anything less to say.

The 70's were a wonderful time for cinema. For thirty years filmmakers hands were tied and then they got to say whatever they wanted. And the result was unlike anything seen in film before. And now, the people who grew up with those films don't want us to forget it. How can we? They've tacked up their films on every damn list that's come out, even Riedenschneider's there. I'm just asking for a little open-mindness, that's all.

Rieden, I'm thrilled that you came up with that list (How could you forget "Hearts and Minds"?) but that's the point. In the 80's we looked at film and said, "Well, I guess they (the 70's) covered just about everything. The economy's good and the war is over. Let's have some fun." And it seems like that's held against us. Thank you for (trying to) stamp out tyrany in southeast Asia. We are all in awe of you. And will watch Apocolypse Now over and over. But for crying out loud, the seventies are over. Elvis is dead. It's time to give someone else the mic.

And the Lucas/Spielberg way of making(and marketing) films is what I was referring to. When the cash rolled in for Star Wars and Jaws, studio heads drooled and promptly killed movie-making as we know it. (Enter 80's, stage-right) At that point there came two types of movies. Movies to bring in awards, and movies to bring in cash. Rare is the film that can do both.

(Lastly, I'm not a big fan of grouping films into neat neat little decades but it serves its purpose. So please don't post about how life isn't one decade after the next. I know that, but that's not what we're talking about. Thanks!)

[theta]

Why even bother with a ranked list at this point? There are too many great films, even if you're the most anal-retentive "artiste" on the planet, to cram into a top ten (and, frankly, if I were running things, "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgioisie" is light years ahead of "8 1/2" in terms of surrealism and general craft.)

[Riedenschneider]

Originally posted by thaggas
...looking back, the 70's were one of the best decades for film because of this. Also, I thank the 70's for taking reality on, it was ballsy. And the result are some of the best films of all time.

However, I think the people (critics, directors, & scholars) have become very narrow-minded. They feel that their films might be forgotten, so they pound them into us.

I don't know what you mean with "they pound them into us." If you look at the Sight & Sound polls, the ONLY film from the 70's making the top ten is the Godfather.
All critics, directors, & scholars can pound like they want and still, the average moviegoing audience under 30 wouldn't and probably doesn't know half the films I listed above. I myself wouldn't knew about the brilliant docu. Hearts and Minds if Criterion hadn't released another 70's film.
There is hardly any broad (tireing) discussion of 70's going on. The current broad discussions among the DVD-generation centers almost exclusively around films of "our" time: Memento, Fight Club, Star Wars, LotR, Tarantino & Co. (I don't think there will be an sticky threads to future DVD releases of Fingers, Saturday Night Fever ...)

But all that said, I have to agree with you that the post 70's films are even more brilliant. The 80's and 90's have produced timeless films and timeless filmmakers. But it will take of course time for these films to take their place in filmhistory.

[thaggas]

Well said. As far as the pounding thing...I'm a little miffed about the original AFI list and reading film texts, it just gets overwhelming sometimes. I have to say that 1999, was probably the best year in my lifetime for films, so far. (Fingers crossed)

[theta]

I don't know if you guys are familiar with this concept but there are about twenty-five to fifty movies that are on literally every film curriculum in the United States of America. I don't remember where I saw this list or most of it off the top of my head, but most of that top ten is DEFINITELY in there.

I would agree that there are some films that are pounded into us. I hate "Breathless" and I've had to sit through that fucking abortion of a film TWICE. It nearly turned me off French film for good until I discovered that some of it does indeed have actual craft and not just pretentiousness (Godard is, in general, a pretty weak director, I think; his films I've seen are more interested in facile goofing off than they are in communication of any sort.) And we'll keep hearing about Welles, Coppola, Kurosawa, etc. because those are the big guns.
It's up to us to find the more obscure stuff and bring it to light, even in the major directors' filmographies. Everybody's seen Bunuel's "Discreet Charm of the Bourgioisie", but what about "Diary of a Chambermaid", "That Obscure Object of Desire", "The Fall of the House of Usher" (a co-directorial effort), "The Golden Age"? Or Kurosawa's "High and Low"?
This is leaving aside all the flicks that aren't necessarily film school endorsed but are well worth watching nonetheless.

[thaggas]

What great threading...

Okay, so do you think in thirty years our kids willbe on here (or some similair board) posting threads that say, "Fuckin' Spielberg, if I see one more of his films I'm gonna puke"? Will we be as forceful with our films?

[Marq]

An interesting take by Harry Knowles on the list (basically explaining why he didn't [participate) : http://aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=12978

Coverage on the list by Roger Ebert:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-fe...s-ebert11.html

[thaggas]

Originally posted by Marq
An interesting take by Harry Knowles

Snubbed? Sorry, perhaps they snubbed him because tends to be full of shit. I'm going to take his column with an itsy-bitsy grain of salt.

[SolidSnakeASS]

Yeah, they snubbed his ass because he is a fucking dolt.