1975 movie Jeanne Dielman is chosen by critics as the best movie ever made

[Edmilson 7,433]

Wait, is it my impression or there isn't a single John Williams-scored film among the so called "Best Movies ever Made"?

 

No list of anything cinema-related best stuff is complete without JW.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

48 minutes ago, Not Mr. Big said:

Kinda bullshit that there's no Spielberg Malick.  Just gonna say it.  

 

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

27 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

 

Tree of Life is better than most of the shitty films on this list

[filmmusic 1,826]

I see some silents there. I could never warm up to silents.

I have the steelbook of Metropolis, but I think I'm gonna sell it.

[A24 4,331]

10 hours ago, filmmusic said:

I see some silents there. I could never warm up to silents.

I have the steelbook of Metropolis, but I think I'm gonna sell it.

 

I switched off Metropolis. Yes, the famous exterior shots look great but everything else is just dated. People acted weird in the silent age.

 

 

14 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Wait, is it my impression or there isn't a single John Williams-scored film among the so called "Best Movies ever Made"?

 

No list of anything cinema-related best stuff is complete without JW.

 

Vangelis, that other populist, did make it to the list. 

[King Mark 3,631]

It's about time they updated this title and got rid of that Citizen Kane piece of trash directed my a male director. 

 

Single mom victim of sexism in every instance of her daily life...sounds like the appropriate 2022 choice to me

 

(cynical post)

[JohnTheBaptist 57]

Don't you have a book burning to get to?

[King Mark 3,631]

 

7 minutes ago, JohnTheBaptist said:

Don't you have a book burning to get to?

 I updated my post to make my position clearer

[King Mark 3,631]

16 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

That said, if the complaint about changes in rankings is that the group of voters has become too diverse, what does that say about the supposedly incontestable greatness of the previous lists which were created by a much less diverse group? Either their qualities don't stand out as universally as they thought - or only a very specific, elite (i.e. mainly heterosexual white men) are allowed to judge the greatness of films?

Take down the Patriarchy! We'll fix that sexist best movie list for you.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,514]

"Movie news, now, and in a surprise turn of events, Sight And Sound's 2032's "100 Best Films" list has a new champion. Apparently the "greatest film ever made" is TRIUMPH OF THE WILL.

How's that for woke?".

[Glóin the Dark 1,220]

21 hours ago, AC1 said:

By expanding the voting community and the point system this year's S&S poll...

 

Anyone know what Schrader means by "the point system"?

 

On 02/12/2022 at 2:23 PM, Thor said:

...I've just written a long article about [Pather Panchali] for an upcoming magazine.

 

In Norwegian?

[Thor 7,493]

1 minute ago, Glóin the Dark said:

In Norwegian?

 

Alas, yes.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

On 02/12/2022 at 7:36 AM, Disco Stu said:

Anyone who can sit through Jeanne Dielman, especially more than once, it's only through a lack of self-regard.

 

If you think Vertigo is corny I can't help you.  It's riveting and perfect.  It's not sacrilege to dislike it, just lack of taste.

You have to realize, the purpose of this list isn't to list the most basic popular choices, it's to uplift obscure movies that wouldn't otherwise be seen because they're not as good

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

8 hours ago, King Mark said:

On 03/12/2022 at 1:37 AM, Marian Schedenig said:

That said, if the complaint about changes in rankings is that the group of voters has become too diverse, what does that say about the supposedly incontestable greatness of the previous lists which were created by a much less diverse group? Either their qualities don't stand out as universally as they thought - or only a very specific, elite (i.e. mainly heterosexual white men) are allowed to judge the greatness of films?

Take down the Patriarchy! We'll fix that sexist best movie list for you.

 

I'm not sure which of my two options you're arguing (against):

 

a) The previous voters group mostly restricted to white males isn't necessarily representative

or

b) Non-white males in larger numbers cannot be trusted to vote on best movies lists?

[A24 4,331]

In all fairness, if the critics are 'woke', the same goes for directors, for Jeanne Dielman is 4th on the director's list. Please consider that nothing is etched in stone. Tastes change.

 

Please respect our female directors, even if they are born in Belgium.

 

That is all.

 

[Glóin the Dark 1,220]

I think the primary reason behind the big changes to the profile of the list this year is pretty simple, and doesn't require any kind of shennanigans on the BFI's part (or even the more diverse electorate) to explain it.

 

In the 2012 poll, three silent films made it into the top ten. If you pick a random voter from that poll, there's a very good chance that you'll find one silent film on their ballot. Presumably this is because voters recognise the importance of the silent era in film history and want to be seen as acknowledging this in their selection. However, the range of silent films receiving votes is very narrow; maybe a couple of dozen appearing with any notable frequency, and only a fraction of them getting enough attention to break into the higher ranks. Commentators at the time remarked on the voters' enthusiasm for the silent era, but the poll was more likely demonstrating the opposite: the average voter didn't know very many films from the silent era. Consequently, their (quite sincere, I'm sure) desire to give representation to the period, combined with the small number of targets for that representation, was greatly benefitting those targets, propellingThe Battleship Potemkin, Man with a Movie Camera, Sunrise and The Passion of Joan of Arc up to the top of the list, and the latter three into the widely published top ten.

 

In 2022 - following a long-developing trend, but particularly in reaction to events of the last five years - typical voters don't want to be seen as cheerleaders for the historical white male hegemony. Most of them wouldn't have trouble finding films that they could, with sincerity, include on their ballots to give at least some representation to, for example, female film-makers. But the pool of well-known films by female film-makers from the 20th century is a comparatively narrow one, and so the prime candidates for selection (Jeanne Dielman, Cléo from 5 to 7, Beau travail...) stand to benefit disproportionately from the increased attention.

 

The same phenomenon is likely at work behind the appearance of many very recent films in the top hundred (Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Moonlight, Get Out) reflecting the fact that the modern era offers more candidates for representation by female and non-white directors than the 20th century does.

 

These effects would likely have been apparent - perhaps to a lesser degree but still, I think, to a significant one - even if the electorate had not been expanded to become more diverse.

 

Paul Schrader refers to Jeanne Dielman's victory as "sudden". It isn't really - the poll is taken once every ten years, so it isn't possible for anything to happen suddenly in it. The appearance of sudden change comes from the fact that the underlying movement hasn't been measured during the intervening decade.

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

On 02/12/2022 at 7:37 PM, Marian Schedenig said:

That said, if the complaint about changes in rankings is that the group of voters has become too diverse, what does that say about the supposedly incontestable greatness of the previous lists which were created by a much less diverse group?

 

"Incontestable greatness"?

 

Hmmmm. I don't think there are many cinema aficionados that have regarded any such list has having "incontestable greatness". In fact any such ranking of films I've ever seen has caused a great deal of controversy from film fans. I mean, that's what movie buffs do, argue about movie rankings. 

 

 

[Sweeping Strings 2,352]

On 02/12/2022 at 10:16 AM, AC1 said:

 

But then people here probably said it was due to political correctness, right?

 

The running time of Jeanne Dielman is 200 minutes. That's too long for me these days. 

 

 

The film ranked 4 on the director's list.

Is it a time-travel flick? It's 1975, and yet she's clearly about to take a selfie with her smartphone here. lol. 

[TolkienSS 407]

Make a list of the Top 50 movies nobody has ever watched, crack your knuckles and blindly pick one - and you'll have the same praise by "experts" who think the more obscure a movie is the hipper you are for knowing or acknowledging it.

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,514]

PHASE IV 

THE DAY THE EARTH CAUGHT FIRE 

SEVEN DAYS TILL NOON 

WENT THE DAY WELL 

I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING 

THE GHOUL 

NIGHTWING 

THE PLOUGHMAN'S LUNCH 

TURTLE DIARY 

RUNAWAYS 

 

There's ten to be going on with.

 

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

Wow no one's seen Jeanne Dielman.

 

It is a total total total total total masterpiece and a worthy pick to be the greatest film ever made. I mean something like Citizen Kane will also be a better more all-encompassing choice. But Jeanne Dielman is no slouch.

 

The film has the most uncanny of all effects. You can never truly live the life of someone else. Never. You can empathize. You can imagine. But yet, you cannot really ever see the eyes through someone's eyeballs.

 

I would imagine most of here are men. This movie for the first time showed me the world through a woman's eyes.

 

And it is an eye-opening, mind-opening, horizon-shattering perspective.

 

It is also enormously accomplished in formal terms.

 

Maybe not for everyone, but a peerless film. Its reputation has been rising steadily. It's one of the most singular works of art ever made.