Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 12/14/2022 1:57 am | #41 |
I have to admit. I still have a sour taste in my mouth about all of this. And it's only exacerbated by the pre-cooked responses for why I'm not supposed to. In our polarized, tribalized times, criticizing a list like this, pointing out that calling Jeanne Dielman the greatest film of all time smacks of an exercise of absurdist protest more than objective assessment (as much as I appreciate absurdity as a form of protest) - puts me into an ideological box with other anti-wokeists. It becomes a shibboleth, 'ally-ship' becomes submission rather than sympathy. I mean, let's not pretend that Don Hertzfeld's experience on Twitter was an isolated incident. After awhile, it does become coercive. Some people don't feel the same obligation to justify a film like Get Out that others are expected to justify a film like 8 1/2.
Not saying that it's proof of endemic corruption by Sight & Sound, but it rubs it in a bit to learn that the periodical hired as one of their poll consultants someone named Girish Shambu who had publicly vowed to "set on fire" what he called the "straight white male canon". I'm not saying that I'm offended by this as a straight white male. I'm offended as an artist that this type of demographic criteria is being confused as a form of aesthetic appreciation. Worse, it isn't going to help in the long run. This is a pendulum swinging, and in future lists, the choice of Jeanne Dielman as #1 will be seen for what it is, a corrective stunt. Jeanne Dielman will still be a classic, highly regarded piece of avant garde cinema, but it will suffer the equivalent of the Oscar-winning backlash, only exponentially. Ultimately, the overreach will only entrench its critics and alienate the novices who, rather than appreciating the film on its own artistic terms, will judge it based on a supremacy that it can't fulfill. If Rolling Stone were to name Yoko Ono as the greatest singer of all time, it would have a similar effect. Most people would simply not take it seriously, and a cadre of people on Twitter would accuse most people of being close-minded sexist racists. And most people would stop listening to Yoko Ono in a good faith attempt to appreciate her as a singular artist. After all, there are multiple forms of fetishization.
I wouldn't go so far as a crank like Armond White in calling this new S&S poll a triumph of "Marxist/Feminists". Again, Jeanne Dielman has plenty of merit on its own terms. But it's also a statistical fact that Jeanne Dielman did not appear on that many participant's top ten list at #1. Going by that standard, many other films did receive more #1 slots on more lists. Since S&S asked its participants to try and include at least one film from a female director, Jeanne Dielman became the most commonly cited female-directed film, and thus ended up on more lists, technically, than several other otherwise higher ranked films. And it is a question as to the degree that such "voting consultants" massaged the results. I'm not going to claim conspiracy exactly, but there was some form of 'interested confirmation' from some who may have wanted to see a more radical canon this time.
Part of the recurring criticism that I had about the virtual curriculum of The Story of Film series is that its host and curator, Mark Cousins, was fairly unabashed about employing Marxist theory in his assessments and critiques, leading to some vague overtures about "capital" and "the West" that were never defined in artistic context because they're already well understood by his students. The dogma is that oppressions like racism and patriarchy are products of Western civilization and capitalism. (They're less interested in why civil rights and sufferage movements have been less successful elsewhere in the world.) But all of that is neither here nor there. A lot of films have distinct political and sociological significance. A lot of films, as well, are less interested in sociopolitics than the more esoteric intimacy of personal being and intimate expression. True liberation can be defined as transcending demographics. The problem with consulting Marx as a metric for appreciating the arts is that Marx was not particularly appreciative of the arts himself. Art he saw as a bourgeois indulgence, utterly irrelvant to the "common" man. Mao, similarly, saw little use for the arts as anything other than propaganda in service of the cause, and persecuted those artists that were deemed insufficiently supportive. A strict materialist is incapable of understanding the undefined sublime light of the inner mind. Simply, in my estimation, Marxism makes for a pretty inept method for artistic appreciation, the kind of intangible and intimate expression that a Marxist would loathingly call "spiritual". And Marxists share a rather pejorative definition of individualism, which they confuse with solipsism.
Armond White is no stranger to infusing his critiques with sociopolitical readings, sometimes in exciting and revealing ways, but more recently, and frequently, devolving into the kind of pedantic polemics that make similar leftist critics so insufferable by comparison. I think taking the sociopolitical and historical factors of a film into account are completely essential, but hardly sufficient. Eventually, what we mean by humanism has to transcend representation into respiration, inspiration, aspiration and all of the other spiritual manifestations and the kind of emotional and creative wealth that cannot be measured in sweat and wages. I do have a strong suspicion that such an aversion to spiritual concerns and expressions may be the reason why people like Bresson and Malick are overlooked. But thankfully, Dreyer and Tarkovsky are still fashionable, at least for the moment.
Posted by Rock ![]() 12/14/2022 9:09 am | #42 |
I should give The Story of Film a look at some point. I read reviews on Letterboxd with halfassed Marxist analysis (by people who obviously have no background in economics) with those buzzwords with some amount of regularity (usually a good indicator of when to not follow somebody). Would be interesting to see the OG at work.
Posted by Rock ![]() 12/14/2022 11:05 am | #43 |
I guess the OG is actually Marx, but guessing he didn’t review too many movies.
Posted by Rock ![]() 12/14/2022 11:42 am | #44 |
Jinnistan wrote:
Not saying that it's proof of endemic corruption by Sight & Sound, but it rubs it in a bit to learn that the periodical hired as one of their poll consultants someone named Girish Shambu who had publicly vowed to "set on fire" what he called the "straight white male canon".
I remember butting up against this sentiment in the last decade, particularly during that push a few years ago to increase interest in films directed by women. I think turning our attention to underappreciated films and underrepresented creative talent is a worthwhile goal, but so often I would see it paired with a conscious disinterest in established classics and movements and traditions, usually accompanied by some social justice adjacent indignation. Like it or not, those movies are key to our understanding of the artform, and downplaying their importance or flat out refusing to see them is not actually going to help your goal of film appreciation (or any actual social justice goals you claim to have). I hate to sound like the anti-wokesters, but it seems like a pretty lazy way to feel good about yourselves without doing anything.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 12/14/2022 11:03 pm | #45 |
Rock wrote:
I should give The Story of Film a look at some point. I read reviews on Letterboxd with halfassed Marxist analysis (by people who obviously have no background in economics) with those buzzwords with some amount of regularity (usually a good indicator of when to not follow somebody). Would be interesting to see the OG at work.
The series is pretty good actually, as far as a general overview of cinema. Even the Marxism isn't quite as irritating as Cousins' lilt, not his Irish brogue but his habit of speaking in that inflection as if he's always asking a question when he's not. But it's a treasure of film clips from all over the place, dozens of obscurities and unknowns. That was even more true at the time (2012) before a number of the films got official releases, like the Criterion World Cinema box sets. Also, TCM, which aired the series in the US, also aired a lot of the films for the first time, and was the first time I was able to see a number of them. Maybe Jeanne Dielman was one of them, but definitely things like Daisies, Touki Bouki and Black Girl which ended up on the new list. The number of such films new to the list, and those which advanced on it considerably, tells me that this series had a huge influence on younger critics. It makes a different kind of recency bias. It's similar to my temptation to add films like Belladonna of Sadness, Valerie and Her Week of Wonders or Zeman's Baron Munchausen on my top film list, because they're all rediscovered recently re-released classics, making them fresher favorites which come easier to mind than something like Ashes and Diamonds which I saw 30 years ago.
Rock wrote:
I remember butting up against this sentiment in the last decade, particularly during that push a few years ago to increase interest in films directed by women. I think turning our attention to underappreciated films and underrepresented creative talent is a worthwhile goal, but so often I would see it paired with a conscious disinterest in established classics and movements and traditions, usually accompanied by some social justice adjacent indignation. Like it or not, those movies are key to our understanding of the artform, and downplaying their importance or flat out refusing to see them is not actually going to help your goal of film appreciation (or any actual social justice goals you claim to have). I hate to sound like the anti-wokesters, but it seems like a pretty lazy way to feel good about yourselves without doing anything.
I definitely side with the 'both/and' rather than the the 'either/or' perspective on these things, but this only highlights the inherent limitation and somewhat asininity of these kinds of strict linear lists which are exclusive by nature, where you're going to have winners and losers, and qualitative inconsistencies among films that really aren't comparable or compatible. I think most experienced film-watchers approach these lists with this kind of scepticism, it's also easy to see, with this new list especially like some of those twitter responses, the exact kind of political cheerleading which only reinforces the worst aspersions that anti-wokists are accusing.
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 12/15/2022 11:11 am | #46 |
I don't think there is any doubt that there was some encouragement for voters to be more inclusive in their voting. But I don't see it as a bad thing as long as it stays in that lane. A friendly reminder that, hey, have you looked at all of these other movies over here. And since the result puts Dielman, which I think is a better choice than both Vertigo or Bicycle Thieves (both of which I love, but do not view quite with quite the same level of esteem) Im not to bothered by the influence of the suggestion that our voting is better served by inclusiveness.
Now, I clearly don't think it has been without issue. I think it is seemingly true that something like Get Out is not being scrutinized in the same level as 8 1/2, and I do not think it is enough to be 'but it's a Horror about Race!' to qualify it. It doesn't pass the smell test, but I think this is as much about wokeness as just generally bad taste which can't distinguish between the cinematic triumph of a Fellini and a topical but of decent nothing that is Get Out.
My biggest issues though, as much as I support opening up voting (to some extent) the general shaming of individuals who choose not to do this. Turning a simple vote not cast for what you would like to see represented into somehow the person aligning with the enemy, or feeding a racist system, or being apathetic towards representation is the kind of obnoxious dumbo shit that I'll never stand for. Assuming the worst of someone because of their preferences, even if they are born out of their prejudices (and this is just a big If) is the kind of thinking which is not only disgusting in its threat of shame (and people like Vinnie very much should be ashamed) but is exactly the kind of shit Siddon creams his jeans over seeing. The kind of forcible coercion which makes it seem like no one actually likes these movies, they just have to play a part in a political process.
I don't get why more people on the left don't call this shit out. It's so obviously gross and unhelpful no matter how soft words like 'disappointed' may appear to be
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 12/15/2022 11:45 am | #47 |
Story of Film is great. One of the rare modern critical explorations of film that not only introduced different ways for me to think about how movies function and affect us through that function, but also introduced me to a load of films I wasn't aware of, or maybe critically undervalued. All you can ask for.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 12/15/2022 7:33 pm | #48 |
crumbsroom wrote:
I think it is seemingly true that something like Get Out is not being scrutinized in the same level as 8 1/2, and I do not think it is enough to be 'but it's a Horror about Race!' to qualify it.
Missed opportunity to throw some Ganja & Hess love out there.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 12/15/2022 7:48 pm | #49 |
Jodorowsky is another good example. By the time his box set got released (2007?), his cred currency was through the roof. I remember people listing his name alongside Welles and Bergman with no one blinking. That enthusiasm has cooled considerably since then. Although he still has his acolytes, I don't see El Topo and Holy Mountain on as many peoples' top film lists anymore, which wasn't too uncommon to see for a few years there. The pent-up verboten thrill of having to seek out his bootlegs and the sense of discovery had a lot to do with it, and no small amount of being plugged onto something relatively obscure to mainstream audiences (the kind of hipster shit that lovesexy and Minio have both been guilty of to varying degrees). Jodorowsky's films are still great, but their esteem has settled out into something less hyperbolic. This is why the decade-to-decade lists are fascinating to see these peaks and shifts. I just don't think that what's "in favor" is arbitrary.
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 12/15/2022 9:31 pm | #50 |
Jinnistan wrote:
crumbsroom wrote:
I think it is seemingly true that something like Get Out is not being scrutinized in the same level as 8 1/2, and I do not think it is enough to be 'but it's a Horror about Race!' to qualify it.
Missed opportunity to throw some Ganja & Hess love out there.
G&H is considerably more interesting as a film than Get Out (which, while smart and entertaining and well made, doesn't register to me at all as being interesting as a film...almost zero percent)
But I still wouldn't be considering G&H to be anywhere near this list.
It would be fun if it miraculously appeared there one day though
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 12/15/2022 9:35 pm | #51 |
Jinnistan wrote:
Jodorowsky is another good example. By the time his box set got released (2007?), his cred currency was through the roof. I remember people listing his name alongside Welles and Bergman with no one blinking. That enthusiasm has cooled considerably since then. Although he still has his acolytes, I don't see El Topo and Holy Mountain on as many peoples' top film lists anymore, which wasn't too uncommon to see for a few years there. The pent-up verboten thrill of having to seek out his bootlegs and the sense of discovery had a lot to do with it, and no small amount of being plugged onto something relatively obscure to mainstream audiences (the kind of hipster shit that lovesexy and Minio have both been guilty of to varying degrees). Jodorowsky's films are still great, but their esteem has settled out into something less hyperbolic. This is why the decade-to-decade lists are fascinating to see these peaks and shifts. I just don't think that what's "in favor" is arbitrary.
There are always extraneous factors which play into what curries favor with either audiences or critics...and as long as people can justify their opinions beyond some fashionable excuse, I mostly don't care what they pick (even if I inevitably criticise their general taste.
I'd love the see the Get Out rationalizations...but the reality of that pick, and why it's so disagreeable, is because I already know what most of them would say and why they would say it and it would almost never have anything to do with film.
I'm sure there has to be similarly egregious inclusions on previous lists though.
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 12/15/2022 9:42 pm | #52 |
I'll say it...Some Like It Hot has never deserved to be on one of these lists. That is the Get Out of previous decades.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 12/15/2022 11:52 pm | #53 |
crumbsroom wrote:
I'll say it...Some Like It Hot has never deserved to be on one of these lists. That is the Get Out of previous decades.
I don't understand how it always gets placed above Sunset Boulevard or The Apartment. And Fortune Cookie is funnier.
crumbsroom wrote:
I'd love the see the Get Out rationalizations...but the reality of that pick, and why it's so disagreeable, is because I already know what most of them would say and why they would say it and it would almost never have anything to do with film.
I'd like to see someone try to defend that third act. Most reviews just don't mention it. The whole thing collapses into hacky action shots and editing, saved only by a great last line. I haven't seen Peele's other films (unless Keanu counts) but my impression is that they're similar - great concept, which eventually devolves into imitation blockbuster cliche. I would have been more intrigued had that spot gone to Sorry To Bother You. It would still be kind of an absurd choice, but Boots Riley manages to push his concept well over-the-top while keeping his filmmaking style fresh and inventive. Part of Get Out's popular appeal is its accessibilty, and ultimately mainstream filmmaking.
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 12/18/2022 1:15 am | #54 |
I read the initial 1952 list, looking for more Get Outs, and there were more than a couple I have either never seen or barely even heard of.
So the original list might be full of Get Outs.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 12/18/2022 2:33 am | #55 |
On a cursory glance, there's a few I haven't seen - Louisiana Story, Childhood of Maxim Gorky and and ones I haven't seen from Carne, Vigo and Bresson. I guess the latter was brand new in 1952. It makes sense that it's strong on silents, but a curious absence of German expressionism, possibly still in that post-war backlash (although the real classics pre-dated the Nazis). Kazan must have already been persona non grata for his HUAC cooperation. I suppose a lot of this has to do with what was then assessible. Napoleon was probably in tatters, doubtful that very many Japanese films were seeing the light of day on Western screens yet, and it's funny to see Que Viva Mexico because that film was never actually finished, but I guess it must have screened somewhere?
Not sure when the list first expanded to 100, but for the most part the lists seem pretty solid.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 12/18/2022 4:06 am | #56 |
Here's something interesting, the Cahiers du CInema annual top 10 lists.
Some odd stuff here. The Big Knife? Good movie. but better than Rear Window or La Strada? Also very little Kurosawa. I guess he wasn't much appreciated by the French in his time. Again, no Kazan. Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter, better than Nights of Cabiria, Wrong Man or 12 Angry Men? Elmer Gantry, Hatari, Wild River, Man's Favorite Sport, Seven Women, Red Line 7000? The French pick the most random American films, they're fine but superlative in their respective years? And The Nutty Professor! Of course! Better than 8 1/2! Family Jewels? Better than Gospel According to St. Matthew! No Dr. Strangelove or Pink Panther though. Let's keep this classy!
I'm not saying that Now About These Women is the worst Ingmar Bergman film, but it's the worst one I've seen. Almost complete absence of any British New Wave, the player-haters. Torn Curtain? Please. Ride in the Whirlwind? If we're going there, just pick The Shooting. "No lists from the 70s". These lazy fucks. Sure, sleep right through that decade, what could you possibly miss?
White Dog and Year of the Dragon are some balls I can get behind. King of Comedy - well, that Jerry Lewis bias has some benefits, but unfortunately Cracking Up is still better than Fanny and Alexander. (Good thing they have no list for the year Hardly Working came out.) Godard's King Lear - haha, alright then. Clint Eastwood's Bird, with the flying cymbal/symbol? The real insult is to choose this over Tavernier's Round Midnight, one of the greatest jazz films. Accidental Tourist? Again, just some random American bullshit. Let's pick that sentimental piece of shit over Broadcast News, Rain Man, Moonstruck, literally any Woody Allen or any of the handful of other mainstream award-winning films of the late 80s. Hell, Throw Momma From the Train would be preferable to Accidental Fucking Tourist.
Godfather pt. 3 - on which Earth? Rhapsody in August - I'm sorry that they ignored Kurosawa for most of his career, but don't start compensating by picking just anything. A Perfect World - I like this movie; best of 1993? Fuck right off. Innocent Blood - again, very enjoyable film, but ranking this above Bad Lieutenent is why we stereotype the classic French habit of farting in public. Bridges of Madison Country - god help me I don't start stabbing right now. In the Mouth of Madness - I just want to point out that Pulp Fiction did not make the list, and neither will any of the superior J-horrors. Face Off - another one where the insult is compacted by ranking it directly over Kar-Wei's Happy Together as well as the fact that they ignored all of the earlier, superior films from both Kar-Wei and John Woo. Scream - I don't believe the French understand how horror films work. Snake Eyes - apparently more compensation now that they've discovered De Palma after ignoring his earlier better films. Titanic - aww, that's just precious. Eastwood's True Crime - What In The Fuck?
Man on the Moon, Mission To Mars, Space Cowboys - None of these are better than Get Out. Ferrera's 'R Xmas - I'm going to make a bold claim that they didn't bother to watch this film. 24 - the TV show - gets on the 2002 list. The Village and Lady in the Water are worse than Get Out. Brown Bunny - emotions vary here, but I call doo doo on the grounds that neither Gummo or Buffalo '66 or basically any John Waters ever made their lists. Last Days and Paranoid Park - I'll give them a pass for picking Gerry (twice!), but these films were junk that no one has since even pretended to care about, and then they tried to sneak Elephant on the decade list like no one was looking. Redacted - political virtue signalling, and they couldn't even bother with Syriana? Cloverfield - flames on the side of my face, rising. Gran Torino, Hurt Locker - these are typical back-handed compliments against ugly Americans. War of the Worlds - correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that this is Spielberg's first appearance. These belles are always late for the ball. Fantastic Mr. Fox - ditto. Social Network - I think they believe that all Americans are just like this.
Super 8 - did I mention how no early Spielberg made any lists? Lincoln - Twixt - I appreciate the effort, but calm down. Spring Breakers, Nymphomaniac - more stale leftover praise. Split - I just can't. The Post, House That Jack Built - I'm sorry I must not have realized they have an award for self-parody. Joker - again, the insult is ranking this right above The Irishman.
But other than that, pretty good lists.
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 12/18/2022 11:44 am | #57 |
Definitely a lot of head scratchers there, but they certainly peak my curiosity over what some of them would say about a few of the weirder selections. When you embed such wonkier choices amidst (what I assume) is predominantly sensible ones, it always adds a nice flavor. Unlike Get Out whose problem I think is just how blandly obvious a choice it is for blandly obvious critics.
And Paranoid Park is one of Van Sant's best. Last Days though is shit.
And I also prefer Brown Bunny pretty substantially to Buffalo 66
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 12/18/2022 12:50 pm | #58 |
crumbsroom wrote:
And Paranoid Park is one of Van Sant's best.
I prefer Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, tbch.
crumbsroom wrote:
And I also prefer Brown Bunny pretty substantially to Buffalo 66
You know those people who refuse to watch Last Tango in Paris because of its ethical deficits? I like Last Tango. I cannot abide by what he did to Chloe Sevigny. And I'm saying that without even considering the lack of a Ben Gazzara torch song.
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 12/18/2022 5:24 pm | #59 |
Jinnistan wrote:
crumbsroom wrote:
And Paranoid Park is one of Van Sant's best.
I prefer Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, tbch.
crumbsroom wrote:
And I also prefer Brown Bunny pretty substantially to Buffalo 66
You know those people who refuse to watch Last Tango in Paris because of its ethical deficits? I like Last Tango. I cannot abide by what he did to Chloe Sevigny. And I'm saying that without even considering the lack of a Ben Gazzara torch song.
I don't know if I've seen Cowgirls. Probably have, but likely just a very passive watch, before I had any notion of who had made it. I was no great fan of the book though. And, honestly, Van Sant is just generally more miss than hit with me. I like Paranoid Park. I like Elephant. Gerry is alright. Um...I'm sure there is something else but nothing is coming to mind (I do actually like Good Will Hunting, but this admission is in parentheses and should be treated as not really having been said)
I know Gallo is a real piece of shit, but I know nothing about his dynamics with Sevigny. Being ignorant towards whatever creepy or coersive things he did though,the famous scene gets a lot of flack for being exploitative, and I don't see it that way. At least not if I look at exclusively what is in film and nothing else. It's the only tender and loving moment in a movie composed of almost complete emotional dead air. It's a fantastic scene, removed from whatever BJ trickery he may have been up to behind the scenes
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 12/18/2022 6:13 pm | #60 |
crumbsroom wrote:
I was no great fan of the book though.
I don't think I've read a Tom Robbins I didn't like.
crumbsroom wrote:
Um...I'm sure there is something else but nothing is coming to mind
Drugstore Cowboy, dude.
crumbsroom wrote:
I know Gallo is a real piece of shit, but I know nothing about his dynamics with Sevigny. Being ignorant towards whatever creepy or coersive things he did though,the famous scene gets a lot of flack for being exploitative, and I don't see it that way. At least not if I look at exclusively what is in film and nothing else. It's the only tender and loving moment in a movie composed of almost complete emotional dead air. It's a fantastic scene, removed from whatever BJ trickery he may have been up to behind the scenes
I admit that I'm not entirely sure what's rumor and what's fact, but there were a lot of rumors around this at the time. One rumor has been pretty thoroughly debunked, which is that she wasn't aware they were rolling, which may have been based on the fact that he used remote cameras in the scene, but she's strongly denied this. There's also a rumor that Gallo got her really fucked up beforehand to get her to agree to do the scene. She hasn't denied this exactly. Another rumor is that he gave her herpes, which, as far as I know, she's never even addressed, but there's several other stories from other women that he gave them herpes, so it's not out of the question.
Sevigny has praised the film however, because she's an angel, and summed up the experience with a mildly revealing "I try to forgive and forget, otherwise I'd just become a bitter old lady." So something happened that required forgiving and forgetting.