Every ten years the British Film Institute (BFI) announces two lists of “The greatest films of all time.” This has been going on for sixty years, since 1952, and the latest results were just announced in Sight and Sound, the BFI’s magazine (the link goes to Slate‘s summary of the poll).
As my nephew Steven, the film buff, notes, “The poll was first conducted in 1952, and has taken on an academic legitimacy shared by no other such rankings.” There are actually two polls. As Slate says, the famous one is this:
The Sight & Sound poll was compiled from the top-ten lists of 846 critics, programmers, academics and other movie-lovers, who together nominated more than 2,000 different films. Sight & Sound determines no criteria for “greatest,” suggesting only that “You might choose the ten films you feel are most important to film history, or the ten that represent the aesthetic pinnacles of achievement, or indeed the ten films that have had the biggest impact on your own view of cinema.” The poll is generally considered to be the most respected and the best barometer of changes to the canon over time. Roger Ebert wrote in 2002, “it is by far the most respected of the countless polls of great movies—the only one most serious movie people take seriously.”
So what are this decade’s results? Here are the top ten films:
Critics’ Top 10 Films of All Time
- Vertigo
- Citizen Kane
- Tokyo Story
- La Règle du Jeu (The Rules of the Game)
- Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
- 2001: A Space Odyssey
- The Searchers
- Man With a Movie Camera
- The Passion of Joan of Arc
- 8½
Of these I’ve seen #1-3, 7, 9, and 10. I haven’t even heard of #5 (a study of an American farming town, made in 1927, and characterized by Rotten Tomatoes as “considered by many to be the finest silent film ever made by a Hollywood studio”),or #8 (a Russian experimental film on the day in the life of a city, made in 1929), but you can read about them at the links. And I’ll be sure to see both of them soon.
I like “Vertigo”, but not sure I’d put it on my own list (fourteen months ago I posted my own list of best films). “Citizen Kane” would be at the top of anyone’s list, but I didn’t put it on mine simply because it stands apart from the others in a way that prevents me from rating it. But “Tokyo Story”, as I noted in my earlier post, clearly belongs on top. It, and several other films by Ozu, are unrecognized masterpieces. By all means see them.
I am ashamed to admit that I’ve never seen “2001,” and while “The Searchers,” the only Western on the list, is good, I wouldn’t consider it a masterpiece. “The Passion of Joan of Arc,” on the other hand, clearly is, with Maria Falconetti giving the best silent performance I’ve ever seen. I can’t recommend that one too strongly.
And clearly missing on this list are my two favorite American films, “Chinatown” and, especially, “The Last Picture Show” (one of the two or three best American movies ever made), as well as the second best (after “Tokyo Story”) foreign film of all time, “Ikiru“, by Kurosawa. All three of these movies get a rare 100% rating from the critics at Rotten Tomatoes.
Finally, Sight and Sound also published a list of the top ten films selected by directors themselves. Here’s the list:
1. Tokyo Story
t2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
t2. Citizen Kane
4. 8 ½
5. Taxi Driver
6. Apocalypse Now
t7. The Godfather
t7. Vertigo
9. Mirror
10. Bicycle Thieves
“Tokyo Story” now occupies its proper spot, but where is “Ikiru”?
Also this year, the BFI put up a list of the 50 greatest films of all time. It’s well worth perusing if you’re renting stuff on Netflix. The top ten (same as in first list above) give summaries of the movies, and the rest have links to BFI summaries. It’s a respectable list, but really, “Mulholland Drive” and “Some Like it Hot”? Those are good films, but in my opinion hardly influential classics.
You know what to do now: weigh in below with agreements, disagreements, or your own list. Remember, we’re looking here for great films, not ones that are just entertainment.
I watched “2001” when it was brand-new and was available in Cinerama (a predecessor to IMAX). It was breathtaking, and the space scenes were vertiginous. The ending was confusing, but the ride getting there was spectacular. HAL 9000 was a delightfully sinister character, with his affectless voice and all-seeing eyes. Unforgettable.
2001 is doubtless a must-see.
I used to work with a woman whose husband was in involved with the editing of ‘2001’; she mentioned this most days.
Really? I always felt that while it was a great movie, it would have been three times as good if it had been half as long.
Without giving too much away, 2001 is all about the evolution of humanity, from our apelike ancestors to a future of transcendent, cosmic consciousness. It’s really shocking that you haven’t seen it, since it seems right up your alley.
When you finally do see it be sure to do so with a decent audio setup. Watching spaceships seemingly waltz in near-earth orbit in time to Strauss is just mesmerizing, and Ligeti’s “Lux Aeterna” sets a suitably eerie mood as the USS Discovery One approaches the mysteries that await near Jupiter.
In a way I’m jealous of you that you get to have the experience of watching this for the first time.
Views of the celluloid purists aside, watching movies on a modern home theater setup is, imo, no great deprivation. But there are a few exceptions – and 2001 would be one of them. In this case, “form” is most definitely melded to “content.” Alas, a theatrical screening of the original 70mm version isn’t too likely. So “virgins” have to make do with home video.
So true about the need for image size with 2001.
I was watching 2001 in Blu-Ray HD recently on my over 10 foot wide CinemaScope-shaped screen (via projector). It was like you could fall into the picture and luxuriate in every frame.
Not a full 70m experience, but sure helps ease the pain 🙂
Vaal
Ah, yes! It’s vertigilosity – I’d all but forgotten. I’ll move it up a couple of slots to #15. Thanks for triggering the old memory bank.
Here (in Auckland NZ) the Cinerama cinema had a curving screen, and if you sat in the cheap seats down at the front of the balcony you were right at the centre of curvature. So when the ‘through the monolith’ sequence (or whatever it was called, of lights rushing towards you at staggering speed), came up, the effect was indeed breathtaking. You really did have to physically hang on to your seat.
Huh. A film-buff friend of mine gave me “The Rules of the Game” on Blu-Ray for my birthday this year. I’d never heard of it and it’s been sitting in my apartment, unopened, for a few months. Perhaps I should make the time for it.
The audience at it’s premiere tried to set fire to the cinema, if that helps . . .
I still can see all the fuss for “Vertigo.” I’m with Pauline Kael, who dismissed it as trash.
That’s can’t see.
Trash? No. Best film ever? Also no. I can’t rank Vertigo so highly because it isn’t much better than Hitch’s other films of the 50s and early 50s. But well worth seeing for the plot twist that at least I didn’t see coming.
I watched it for the first time this weekend. I found it somewhat stilted and too languorous to be really engaging.
Of Hitchcock’s films, surely Psycho or The Birds have had a greater legacy?
/@
I have argued this previously on this blog but I consider Rear Window a better flic then Vertigo. The reason is that IMHO, Jimmy Stewart gave a better performance in Rear Window, Grace Kelly gave a better performance then Kim Novak, and Thelma Ritter gave a better performance then Barbara Bel Geddes. I strongly suspect that the performances of Kelly and Ritter were, in part, responsible for the better performance of Stewart.
Obviously, because much of Vertigo took place out of doors, while Rear Window took place on one set, the camera work was more challenging in the former. However, IMHO, camera work is overrated in motion pictures compared with acting.
Yes, it’s torpidity was stifling!
The whole movie MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA can be watched here:
Nobody should watch these films here and eat up Ceiling Cat’s bandwidth!
/@
No worries there, mate: not Ceiling Cat’s bandwidth at all.
(It’s Youtube’s and they’ve got plenty of bandwidth at their disposal)
😉
I was going by Jerry’s rule (in “A note on courtesy and posting behavior”):
/@
If I click on the imbedded movie above (don’t worry, I hit ‘Stop Download’ smartly) it does actually play ‘in’ this page, and when I stop it, I’m still in this page.
So I’d guess the content of an imbedded movie is being redirected from Youtube through Jerry’s page so it is eating his bandwidth.
I think a link, in contrast, would leave me in Youtube when stopped.
Murnau’s SUNRISE: A SONG OF TWO HUMANS can be watched here:
I saw 2001 before I really appreciated SF. I’ll bet today’s technology would make it even better. I have read Arthur C Clarke’s 3001 several times. It could make a fine movie.
I’ve been following the Sight and Sound critics’ lists since 1982, and I am pleased that many of my favorites (especially 2001, Tokyo Story, The Searchers, and Sunrise)have stayed on these lists.
Sunrise is definitely worth seeing and worthy of the list; one of the most beautiful-looking and moving films of the silent era, and the best of F. W. Murnau’s pictures.
Although I love Citizen Kane, I’ve always felt that it, like Vertigo, is a great but overrated film. Among Welles’s films, I actually prefer Touch of Evil and Welles’s truncated masterpiece, The Magnificent Ambersons, which was cut down from more than 120 minutes to 88 minutes by editor Robert Wise on the orders of RKO, while Welles was away in Brazil, wasting time on his documentary project. What is left of Ambersons is still a marvelous movie, rich in nostalgia and regret, with terrific narration spoken by Welles and adapted from Tarkington’s own text.
In my view, Murnau’s silent feature DER LETZTE MANN from 1924 is greater than SUNRISE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Laugh
Here’s the whole movie:
I can beat Jerry hands down for ignorance, I’ve only ever heard of, and seen, 3 of them (#1,2,6). All overrated IMHO.
Indeed in a list of “World’s Most Overrated Things” I would put Citizen Kane joint top alongside Zinedine Zidane.
Not a complete list, but here are a few that I would include:
* Life Of Brian, because of its accidental profundity.
* Brainstorm (Chris Walken, Louise Fletcher, Natalie Wood) because of its very daring.
* Matrix, because it inspired a volte-face on people’s perception of reality. “I took the red pill” has entered mainstream consciousness.
* Bridget Jones’s Diary, because nobody had ever done this sort of thing before – not like that.
I’d go on, but I doubt I have the appropriate level of suffistikaytion to be allowed to contribute towards a conversation which is clearly limited to people of an arsitisticke tendency.
Yeah, no.
Blade Runner (Director’s Cut and the Final Cut, not the voice-over version. The visual cues, dialogue, multi-layers and subtlety require your interpretation and participation to determine who is a replicant). The vision of our future painted in this film noir masterpiece is haunting, because it is becoming true (acquiring rare real animals as status symbols, the dystopian portrayal of polluted cities, etc.). This merciless completely immersive baby has Vangelis’s Blade Runner Blues as its soundtrack ffs.
Agreed re: Blade Runner. I would add ‘Children of Men’ to the list for many of the same reasons.
Right you are.
I would mention Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. Paths of Glory by Kubrick. Buster Keaton’s The General. Charles Chaplin’s Modern Times. Laurel and Hardy’s short film The Music Box. Fellini’s Amarcord. AFI’s list of best 100 is thoughtful.
Regards,
John J. Fitzgerald
Hooray for Laurel&Hardy! 🙂
While no single film of Laurel and Hardy’s
is a masterpiece (with the possible exception of “The Music Box”), the films they did for the Hal Roach studios in the 20’s and 30’s are still belly-laugh inducingly funny. I love a lot of the comics of that era, but nobody makes me laugh like Laurel and Hardy!
For a while, they refilmed many of their shorts in Spanish, French, and German. They didn’t just dub in the languages; they actually refilmed the shorts, sometimes with different cast members and additional scenes. Some of those films are available on a new 10 disc set, and it’s worth it to see them, not only for the additional footage, which is frequently hilarious, but also to see how well planned and choreographed, yet naturally acted, many of their seemingly casual slapstick scenes are, which becomes evident when you see them performed in multiple versions.
ALL of those are great. In fact, I would rank Amarcord and a few of Fellini’s earlier films as better than 8 1/2, which gets a boost for its novelty and unconventionality at the time (along with the insights into Fellini’s brain), but is not nearly as entertaining as the others.
All these lists are “genre” deficient, notably horror and comedy. My recommendations to the list of great movies.
Ghost Busters
Caddyshack
Planes, Trains and Automobiles
The Big Lebowski
Borat
Clerks
Friday
The ‘Burbs
This is Spinal Tap
The Exorcist
Scream
The Blair Witch Project
Suspiria
Night of the living Dead
The Ring
The Shining
Silence of the Lambs
Jaws
Psycho
Alien
Argh – how did I miss This Is Spinal Tap? An absolute dyed-in-the-wool classic.
You also missed “John Carpenter’s The Thing”.
Re: The Thing. You’re right of course. The Thing at least as well as Alien updated the monster subgenre from the old frankenstein cliche.
I also left out, Last House on the Left which is credited with ushering in the slasher flick era.
Damn! So did I. Imagine it’s in my comment below.
/@
There are quite a few on that list that IMO are nowhere near best-of quality — but your general point is very apt. The Big Lebowski should be a serious contender for any best-of list, but it tends to get excluded because it’s a comedy.
I’ve always been partial to Chaplin’s Modern Times and the Great Dictator. Great comedy and poignant social commentary. Two truly great films (IMHO).
Link to “Ikuru” needs to be fixed.
I haven’t seen “Ikuru.” It sounds better than Kurosawa’s other movies that are often good but not great.
I would just list 10 of Ozu’s movies and be done with it. I wonder why “Tokyo Story” is thought to stand out from many other Ozu movies, e.g. the various seasons movies or “Good Morning.”
“2001” is boring. Try “Dark Star.”
Both “Citizen Kane” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” are important for how innovative they were with film-technique as well as telling extraordinarily engaging stories. Both did amazing things with camera hardly anyone had done before.
In “Kane” the camera is in constant movement in ways that heavily accentuate the mood of the story, at one point actually passing through a window. It may be Welles’ very lack of film-training (his background was in radio plays) that allowed him to be so audacious.
“2001: A Space Odyssey” had a thoroughly unconventional narrative structure, using only 40 minutes of dialogue, slow pacing and a very enigmatic narrative, yet managed to captivate a lot of mainstream viewers nonetheless. It deals with “Big Questions” without the vested interests of Templeton Foundations or other such institutions. Warning to JAC: It implies “guided” evolution as did the recent movie “Prometheus”.
Disclosure: I wrote roughly 20% of the Wikipedia article on “Space Odyssey”.
Uh, “Prometheus.” What a mess that was. And so disappointing given how good “Alien” was.
Damned straight on that. And it deflates
optimism for Ridley Scott’s Bladerunner sequel to boot.
Vaal
I don’t think it was guided evolution as such. The monoliths’ interventions seemed more cultural, social and even metaphorical. 😉
/@
It seems the most important criterion for these lists is nostalgia.
On a personal note, I’ve never understood the esteem in which people hold 2001. Sure it’s (mostly) good, but it lacks the flair of Dr Strangelove, Lolita and Full Metal Jacket, just considering Kubruck films.
If it’s on the list purely for its technological advances, then the first non-silent film, the first colour film, the first animated film, the first CGI film, the first 3D film, Star Wars and The Matrix should also be there.
Space Odyssey has both technological advances and stylistic ones. The first color film “Becky Sharp” is otherwise fairly pedestrian.
Which is why these “official” lists are so pointless. They all boil down to “a group of people who may or may not share my tastes happen to like the following films for arbitrary reasons with no objective basis”.
I’m not quite sure whether you take the position I’m arguing against, but what makes one stylistic change worthy of mention over the countless others? The Matrix also introduced stylistic advances.
(Just so we don’t get distracted by this point: I don’t have any particular attachment to The Matrix, it’s just the first example that came to mind.)
I’m just observing that no film is praised MERELY for technological advances, but might be if they are used imaginatively and skillfully. Likewise, the first film with a CGI spaceship was “The Last Starfighter”, hardly a classic.
How did I misspell Kubrick? O_O
I wonder if a film better than Citizen Kane will ever be made…
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly should also be here, in my opinion.
2001’s “Dawn of Man” sequence is part of what got me interested in evolution. Technically speaking, it’s probably still the most accurate portrayal (insofar as that’s even possible) of early man ever put on film. Kubrick got mimes who were short in stature to portray the “man apes”, but they were still too big–real austrolopithicines were barely 3 feet tall. Still, a job well done on a subject that’s seldom been handled well on film, to say the least.
The make-up Oscar went to Planet of the Apes. Clarke was miffed: “Did they think we used real apes?” (I paraphrase.)
/@
Are there any intersubjective criteria for cinematic greatness? If yes, what are they?
Oy. No.
I married a film maker, which fact is not here or there, except to say that movies were always called “films”, and that blood was drawn if Citizen Kane, 2001 A Space Odyssey and 8 1/2 weren’t properly celebrated as the best films of all time.
These are awful movies, much overrated, and like cod-liver oil, appreciated best as “good for you”.
Film makers do go on about lighting, and film speeds and temperatures, and steadicams and lenses and other laborious details about making movies, which rightly bore people who like movies. A pox on ’em.
Pardon, I appear to have some baggage.
Film makers actually do have idiosyncratic views on best films, especially if those films had an enormous impact on the industry as a whole more for their sheer uniqueness and boldness than anything else.
I actually do think “Kane” (which I love) has overlooked flaws- its acting style is more appropriate to radio plays than movies, its innovative technique at times borders on the gimmicky- but I still wouldn’t call it “awful”.
Citizen Kane, when not viewed through a filmmaker’s view finder, is awful. People who make “films” have lovely, technical things to say about it, but if you love “movies”, not so much.
Marta, not to pry (or rather, very much to pry), but are you still married to the film maker?
There is just this faint whiff of resentment and incompatibility here… 🙂
No, but we’ve been friends for years.
The film business is very, very tough. You’re either rolling in the deep, or wondering if you can get food stamps. It breaks people.
Like others, I’m kind of amazed that Jerry has never seen 2001. For me, it’s the greatest film ever. The epic themes, the awe-inspiring imagery, the production design, the cinematography, the use of music, the technical accomplishment. It’s all amazing. I first saw 2001 as a child and it made an indelible impression. I’ve probably watched it twenty or thirty times since.
It also contains what I think is the single greatest scene in cinema, where the ape-man, following his encounter with the monolith, picks up a bone and comes to realize he can use it as a tool/weapon. Arthur C. Clarke wrote that watching that sequence never failed to bring tears to his eyes.
You will see I have a comment critical of 2001 a little lower down, but I will agree with you that that scene in particular was one of the most mind-blowing and eerily-moving scenes in cinema. The first however-many minutes of 2001, i.e. the ape-man sequence, leading up to the famous jump cut, is all absolutely incredible.
The thing about 2001 is the way it simply allows you to view, to experience the scenes, without ever talking over your shoulder to guide your experience. In this way it is both an inner and outer “trip” for the viewer – your mind is left to wander through the frame and try to figure out things for yourself.
And that is what was so disappointing about Spielberg taking the reins from Kubrick for the movie A.I.
Spielberg’s approach has always been precisely opposite to Kubrick s: Where Kubrick withholds outright exposition and never tells you how to feel, Spielberg can not help but show you exactly how he wants you to feel in every shot, via “can’t miss it” expository camera moves, music etc.
Not a surprise A.I. underwhelmed.
(Though I have a bit of a soft spot for some of it).
Vaal
And then there are movies that we find repulsive but that one should watch, like «The Birth of a Nation.»
You only need 2 films:
– Blade Runner: The directors cut – what is a human, who is a human?
– Matrix – what is the world, which is the world?
But I’m an “ideas story” fan. I can go with the 3D version of Pandora, because of its visuals. But Fantasia did that well too.
“Avatar” is the movie title, natch; “Pandora” id the locale.
Completely agree.
Hello Mr. Coyne and fellow commenters. I just thought you might like to know that The University of Chicago’s own Doc Films will be showing the new No. 8 film on Sight and Sound’s list–Man with a Movie Camera–next Wednesday, August 8 at 7:00. I can’t vouch for the quality of the print, and you should know that it is a silent, experimental documentary, and so may not be to everyone’s tastes, but it is quite extraordinary, especially on the big screen. If you happen to be in the area, and especially if you’re at all interested in film form or technique, I hope to see you there!
(I’m not in any way affiliated with Doc Films; I’m just a local simian cinephile. Cheers!)
Ack! That should be “Dr. Coyne”–my apologies!
I am floored to hear Doc Films is still happening. I saw my first avant garde films at Doc Films events in the late fifties. How exciting to hear they’re still going strong.
A Man With a Camera is a fantastic movie. After my wife and I saw it the first time, we looked at each other and said, simultaneously, “That’s my favorite movie ever.”
I second the nomination for a Keaton film.
But Jerry, do yourself a favor and watch “Sunrise”- it’s not a study of a farming town, it’s a story of a rural couple rediscovering their love in a city. Its very much in the expressionist vein in terms of acting (the actor put lead weight in his boots in one scene to get an appropriately heavy, downtrodden walk)and amazingly moving. The plot is just a wisp, but it is as deeply affecting a movie as I have seen. Like “City /lights,” it was released after the advent of sound, so there is a musical track married to the film. Gorgeous photography. I think Sunrise, together with Passion of Joan of Arc, stand as a testament to the unique magic of silent films, and a tonic to those who think of the form as primitive. While I enjoyed “The Artist”, it can’t hold a candle to the filmmaking of a Murnau or a Dreyer. Seriously Jerry- based on your affection for “Make Way for Tomorrow” and “Tokyo Story” and “Ikiru” I can guarantee you will be won over by this one.
I rented “Ikiru” on the strength of your recommendation and while it certainly had its moments I found it bloody depressing overall.
“The Searchers” is one of my favorite films, and one of the Duke’s finest performances, but it is certainly a product of its time. Speaking of which, I’d recommend John Ford’s 1939 “Stagecoach” not only for the movie itself, which is very exciting with *amazing* stunts even by today’s standards, but for the fascinating performances by the actors. Fascinating because they were all used to doing silent movies and this is a “talkie” and you can see a sort of transition or acclimitization in the way the actors emote.
Jerry, you must see “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Excellent story, the special effects hold up *very* well, and it’s fun to see where the production designer got some predictions about technology right and some wrong.
There must be something hopelessly broken about me, because I wouldn’t even rank 2001 as Kubrick’s best film. In fact, I’d put at least three other Kubrick films above it.
None of the other movies on this list which I have seen have impressed me to that level either. I enjoyed Citizen Kane immensely, but it would not even make my top ten list, I don’t think.
One problem, I think, is that these movies are being judged in their historical context, and I’m not sure that is entirely fair. “Most influential”, perhaps, but “best”? Is a rudimentary steam engine “better” than a Wankel rotary engine?
2001 in particular has not aged well. Parts that were spectacular and immersive in 1968 now just seem drawn out and boring, at least to me. The waltz of the various space vehicles immediately after the (deservedly) famous jump cut, I could have done with that scene being about a tenth as long and not felt like I missed anything.
2001 plays particularly poorly on a small screen. Still pretty good in Cinerama or 70 mm film though.
I saw somebody else make a similar comment further up. I must confess I have only seen it on the small screen, so kindly take my commentary in that light.
Oh, and with that caveat in place, I now remember there are at least four Kubrick movies I’d rate above 2001: I somehow forgot about Dr. Strangelove.
Heresy!
Have you seen Tokyo Story? If you don’t like that, then you’re hopeless!
No, but you have me interested. From the descriptions I have read here, I imagine I will probably feel the same way about it as I do about Citizen Kane, i.e. I will probably like it a lot but won’t put it in my top ten. But you never know; until I see it, it’s possibly it may change the way I look at cinema forever, and it’s possible I’ll hate it! 🙂
I confess TS is the only film on the director’s list that I haven’t seen. Now it’s up on my list of ones to see
I can agree that Strangelove is probably Kubrick’s best movie, but 2001 is my favorite movie of his (and of all time, incidentally), if that makes any sense.
Ran is my favorite Kurosawa.
The first is certainly funnier: “Gentelmen! No fighting in the War Room!”
But put that against: “My God! It’s full of stars!” No competition.
/@
PS. Also Ran.
*Gentlemen!
Why does autocorrect not when you want it too? Templeton?!
While the famous quote “My God! It’s full of stars!” is included in the novelization of 2001, it is not actually in the picture. It does open the sequel, 2010.
A great line, in any case.
I feel so ashamed!
I just watched the “Star Gate” sequence on YuoTube, and it struck me, whatever Arthur C. Clarke’s intentions, 2001 is Kubrick’s Fantasia with sf tropes.
/@
Now watch it again while playing Pink Floyd’s Echoes!
And while we’re at it, the correct line from “Dr Strangelove” is:
Also, in “Casablanca” no one actually says “Play it again, Sam.” The last line of “Chinatown” is another one that is frequently misstated.
I agree, James Sweet, and I saw 2001 on big screen. The opening scene is fantastic, but the rest ….. too many gimmicks, not enough substance.
Compare the minimalistic and still way more effective The Killing – one of the best film noirs ever.
I have seen recently two silent era – classics in their fully restored form and the musical score played by a full symphony orchestra, namely, Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis” and Eisenstein’s “Battleship Potemkin”.
Lang’s “Metropolis” had its fine moments, but the unconvincing story line and some other problems make me unwilling to include it in the hall of immortal films.
It was very different with Eisenstein’s “Potemkin”. It had preserved every bit of its revolutionary punch, no matter in which sense one uses “revolutionary” here. I cannot imagine any list of the most influential and impressive films that does not include Eisenstein’s “Potemkin”, although he himself soon realized that people want to see on the screen stories that highlight the lives of individuals. From that point of view, Ozu’s and Kurosawa’s best films are near-perfect. But for the sheer mastery of telling the story of a failed revolution Eisenstein’s film is amazing. Eisenstein’s evident political bias in telling that story does not take anything away from the brilliance of “Potemkin”.
I”m surprised that nobody has mentioned “Casablanca”.
The singing of the Marseillaise in Rick’s Bar is simply the best anti-fascist scene I know in any movie.
Like several others, I can’t understand why 2001 is held in such high regard. I found it boring and less than intelligible. Kubrick should be on the list for “Dr Strangelove”.
casablanca must be on any list. agreed. it is the perfect screenplay, coupled with perfect casting and performances. the epitome of the hollywood studio system. and never grows old.
But what if Ronald Reagan had played Rick, as intended (iirc)?!!
/@
In my opinion, Jacques Tati’s PLAY TIME (1967) deserves to be included in the list of the 50 greatest movies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_Time
Oops! I just saw that it has actually been included (#42): http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time
Play Time is awesome, but like 2001, needs to be seen on the big screen to be fully appreciated. And I think it helps to prepare yourself for a film with 0 plot whatsoever, literally none. Its like Kubrick made a wordless comedy about modern architecture. And its freakin’ hilarious, especially if you see it with an audience. Its a film about public spaces and is served best by viewing it in public.
My God, PLaytime, yes.
The “2001” of comedies, as it has sometimes been described. It’s truly a unique viewing experience, so layered, so immaculately designed and staged. The type of film that can only come from the hands of the obsessed who would work hard enough to pull something like that off.
I’ve watched it twice this year (the Blu-Ray is GORGEOUS, especially on a really big screen), and to my surprise my picky 14 year old son totally got into it.
By the end you feel you’ve spent a night on the town in Tati’s odd corner of Paris, much like Fellini’s La Dolce Vita.
A must see…(and few films reward repeat viewings like Playtime, given there are multiple story lines going on at once in any shot).
Vaal
Myron and Vaal–Absolutely! I first saw Play Time in college on an 11-inch screen, and even so I was flabbergasted. There was always so much happening in every frame, I didn’t know where to look! And what an eccentric use of sound! It was like discovering a whole new magical kind of movie-making. Like the best of Buster Keaton, Play Time is so ingenious and so beautiful that I often forget to laugh. I’m still pining for a 70mm print to visit Chicago.
Some of my favorite movies, in no particular order (it’s not about their influence, but about the joy of watching):
Some Like it Hot
81/2
The Godfather I and II
The Passenger (Profession: Reporter)
Ana and the Wolves
The Phantom of Liberty
2001: A Space Odyssey
Zelig
September (in my view, the most underrated Woody Allen film)
Crimes and Misdemeanors
Antonia’s Line (a little known Dutch movie)
Blade Runner
Silence of the Lambs
Pulp Fiction
A Single Man
Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy (2011)
Am I really that young and uncultured or are the rest of you old snobs? Probably a little of each, because even though I haven’t seen many old movies (I’m 26), I have a hard time believing nothing done since 1980 isn’t in the top 10.
It seems to me that judging a movie’s quality is extremely subjective and relies a bunch on others approval. This is probably why older movies have such an advantage…there are less of them and as the years go by, we forget all the movies that were also good back then, thus boosting the perceived significance of the remembered
and re-watched classics.
This is like people who say the present USA basketball team wouldn’t have a chance
against the original DreamTeam. Everyone and their moms recognizes names like Jordan, Magic and Bird, so a concensus forms and all counterargument are thus void.
So, I’d be curious to know people’s top 10 since 1990…or top 10 comedies. And then ask yourself why any of those movies should even be compared to an old silent movie.
Times change and thus context…all time lists always are silly in my opinion.
Probably a little of each, because even though I haven’t seen many old movies (I’m 26), I have a hard time believing nothing done since 1980 isn’t in the top 10.
What post-1980 movies would you include? I have nothing against newer pictures. I generally find them much more enjoyable than older films. But it’s hard to think of many that compare to the best of the 70s and before.
Roger Ebert added last year’s “The Tree of Life” to his most recent top 10 list. His older lists had included the “Up” documentaries, a series of films that began in the 1960s and is still on-going (a new one is made every 7 years).
I don’t know how to properly judge a movie, other than assuming the ones which I enjoy watching over and over again must be quality movies. The movie has to make you think novel thoughts, bring out emotions you don’t normally feel, force you to relate emotionally with the characters in profound ways or simply make you laugh a lot. This automatically disqualifies action movies and any horror movie which doesn’t play on psychological concepts. This also makes comedies hard to compare to other genre of films.
And so…excluding comedies, here are some quality movies:
Sleepers, American History X, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 12 Monkeys, Being John Malkovich, The Matrix(the first only), Schindler’s List, Good Will Hunting
That’s off the top of my head…I’m sure I’m missing a bunch.
In terms of comedy, I believe it becomes even more subjective, but here it goes:
The Big Lebowski, Team America, Borat, Life of Brian, Zoolander, The Anchorman…
I just realized how hard it is to find a comedy that’s head and shoulders above the rest… I think Team America is the only comedy I can watch over and over again and never get bored. I believe the soundtrack allows it to maintain it’s longterm appeal.
But yeah, I find this all very subjective and hard to judge with a straight face…but fun nonetheless.
Out of curiosity, have any of you taken a liking to watching BAD movies? If I’m in the mood to laugh, I’ll actually watch a terrible movie more often than a comedy to get my fix. Steven Seagal’s Out For Justice is a classic. Cabin Fever is also pretty bad. Gigli is hilariously horrible! But the worst most enjoyable movie of all time has to be Tommy Wiseau’s The Room. This, of course, is only fun if you watch with other cynical friends.
I’d call all of the movies on your first list good. Some of them are very good. But the only one I’d consider a serious candidate for a spot among my all-time top 10 films is “Schindler’s List.”
For enjoyable bad films, nothing beats virtually everything by Ed Wood, especially “Plan 9 from Outer Space”
Pandora’s Box
Metropolis
The General
Bicycle Thieves
The Big Sleep
Some Like It Hot
Once Upon A Time In the West
Psycho
Cinema Paradiso
and yes, Citizen Kane above all.
I saw Blade Runner recently (I’m introducing my 15-year-old son to the classics), and it hasn’t held up well. I was very disappointed.
Someone above mentioned comedies, and any top-ten list would have to include Blazing Saddles and Shrek.
“Big Trouble in Little China.” It’s good to see John Carpenter trying something different, even if it didn’t work out so well.
Fascinating.
If there is a single movie I could nominate as holding up well…maybe even improving with time… it might be Blade Runner (or Alien).
A huge number of people feel that way, so it’s interesting to see other opinions.
Vaal
I would be much more interested in a list of the Top Ten Movies people have watched the most often. These are the films that we retreat to for solace, for escape in the privacy of our own homes without need of justification.
Citizen Kane might be a great movie, but 99 times out of 100 I would rather watch something a lot more prosaic.
And for the record, I think Mulholland Drive is an absolutely terrific film. (Lynch is something else. Read the wiki on the movie, and be prepared to be blown away by what you missed!)
I also loved Synecdoche, NY – blew me away.
Got a soft spot for others, too:
Babette’s Feast
Truly, Madly, Deeply (always cry at the end of this one)
The Good, the Bad, the Ugly
Open Range (almost perfect Western)
Everything by the Coen brothers
Red Rock West (early Nicolas Cage thriller)
Kill Bill 1,2
Kalifornia (Brad Pitt never better)
never met a big-screen sci-fi/fantasy/monster special-effects movie I could not find some redeeming quality in!
Any list that fails to include The Wizard of Oz is a bad list, in my opinion.
I completely failed to get 2001 the first time I saw it (in 1968 when it was new, on the big Cinerama screen) and subsequent viewings have only softened my opinion. It’s big and sometimes beautiful and smart, but overrated.
Recency and impact must distort my perceptions, but I think Farewell My Queen could appear on future lists, and on top 25 or top 50, Cloudburst.
On the question of what criteria these 846 critics are using for “greatness”: I’m one of these nutty movie lovers who every ten years delves deep into the ballots (they have not yet released 2012’s full list of nominated movies and critics’ ballots, but they should soon). When I looked at the 2002 ballots, and indeed when I look at the final list of 50 compiled from those ballots, it was clear to me that there was something like a “zeitgeist” (sorry for that word) criteria most critics were using (the directors, on the other hand, generally seemed to make more “personal” choices).
Speaking extremely generally, my opinion is that the critics have historically seemed to regard “greatness” as this: Those movies that have had the most dramatic and lasting impact on how the worldwide community of filmmakers makes films… In other words, “greatness” has to do with the power of a particular movie to break new ground, or inspire a new era of filmmaking. If the criteria given to critics would have been “What movies are your personal favorites?” then I think we’d get a different final list. This is just my impression, but I think it’s why we see movies like Sunrise and Man with a Movie Camera in the top ten. In terms of sheer enjoyment to be had in a movie theater, most working movie critics probably enjoy The Godfather: Part II more than anything Murnau ever made, but as appreciators of film history they are compelled to recognize how revolutionary Murnau’s movie was at the time. If, for example, you asked those same critics for their “favorite” Kubrick movie, there’s no guarantee that 2001 would be named more than, say, Strangelove or Barry Lyndon. Ditto Welles and Hitchcock, since many critics will tell you they prefer The Magnificent Ambersons to Kane and Psycho to Vertigo.
The main thing, I think, is that the final list of 50 is not a listing of movies the critics have enjoyed the most (which is why most of us turn to critics—to tell us which films we are likely to enjoy or not). If it were about sheer enjoyment, you’d see more documentaries and more genre movies in the final list. Frankly, I think that poll would be more interesting.
So the technical criteria are novelty and seminality relative to the cultural environment at the time when the respective films were made.(?)
Probably some of the critics thought of it as something along those lines, but I doubt many considered the impact at the time the movie was made and released. Citizen Kane wasn’t seen for its full importance for some years after its theatrical release, for example. And that’s common. Similarly, it’s an international poll, remember, and some of these older movies were not seen internationally until years later. The critics are likely to value years of hindsight more than the directors, who often seem to name the films that most impacted them personally. The critics’ poll seems to be a listing of the movies that most shaped the way movies at large are made and even the way they’re thought about. Hence the longtime dominance of Kane.
Sometimes people forget that these are polls of prominent critics and directors, not assertions of what the public’s—or any one person’s—aesthetic standards “should” be. If someone doesn’t agree that Vertigo is the “greatest film of all time,” whatever that means, it doesn’t mean that person is an idiot. We didn’t need a formal poll to tell us that the sensibilities of established critics are different from the general moviegoing public, you know?
A possible list (just my favourites; what might be “significant” films in bold):
• 2001: A Space Odyssey
• Aliens
• The Avengers (2012; Marvel Avengers Assemble)
• Batman Begins
• The Big Sleep
• Carry On Cleo * §
• The Dark Knight
• Die Hard *
• The Fifth Element
• Forbidden Planet * §
• Gladiator
• The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
• Iron Man
• The Italian Job (1969)
• El laberinto del fauno (Pan’s Labyrinth)
• The Lavender Hill Mob
• Léon (The Professional)
• The Lord of the Rings (trilogy)
• The Maltese Falcon
• Metropolis
• Monty Python’s Life of Brian
• The Name of the Rose *
• π
• The Princess Bride *
• Quatermass and the Pit
• Ran §
• Shi mian mai fu (House of Flying Daggers)
• Shichinin no samurai (Seven Samurai)
• Stargate
• Tremors *
• Twelve Monkeys
• V for Vendetta
• Yojimbo
• Young Frankenstein
* Probably the ones I’ve watched most often; all are very easy to get drawn into again and again and again.
§ “Based on an idea by Shakespeare.”
/@
* Oh, to be clear: The Maltese Falcon (1941)
I like you list …
No Children of Paradise?
Just a few that come to mind, in random order:
– Amacord
– Der Blaue Engel
– Cabaret
– Blade Runner
– Casablanca
– The Great Dictator
– Papillon
– The Longest Day
– Bridge over the river Kwai
– Dr. Strangelove
– Deerhunter
– Taxi driver
I think what’s great is largely subjective, and is going to vary from person to person based on what they’ve actually seen (or claim to have seen) and what impressed them most. (Others also have different measures for greatness, substituting historical or cultural significance or technical achievement or novelty.) I tend to lean toward documentaries, so they dominate my list of top films, with recent additions being The Cove, and Vito. In fiction I might include things such as “C’est pas moi, je le jure!”, Torch Song Trilogy, World Trade Center, The History Boys, and American Psycho. That’s not a complete list. But I do agree that of the films that made their list, Tokyo Story deserves top ranking.
If I were to claim that War and Peace is boring, that The Great Gatsby is overrated, or that Ulysses is just plain awful, might that say more about my abilities as a reader than about the quality of the novels?
I have noted that War and Peace generates divided reactions. Everyone I know who’s tried to read eat either finds it magnificent or something to slog through (like JAC and the Bible.) One of its detractors I’m acquainted with said he “got lost in a drawing-room somewhere”.
It ‘might’, but not necessarily. Some people are completely capable of ‘getting’ the author’s points and all the subtleties and technical skill in their writing, and still not find a story particularly ‘exciting’ or ‘great’, or even ‘particularly good’.
Your assessment of overall ‘quality’ of any creative work will differ from mine, simply because we assign different weights to different (aesthetic, technical, emotional, etc.) characteristics of that work.
Wonderfully well said, thank you.
Agreed. And this is why, when discussing quality in art, we should strive to be clear about our values and specific in our arguments, always citing evidence in the text, movie, or sonata to support them. Tossed-off judgments of “boring” or “overrated” are not just subjective, but meaningless as criticism. They say more about the critic than the artwork. What what one person finds boring, another finds thrilling. What do you think?
Me thinks subjectivity should be celebrated re: greatest movies. How can it be anything else? Of course there are folks with technical knowledge of cinematography, etc. that can argue all the aspects of said artistic expresion. However, that discussion often evolves into an intellectual masturbation (I hate wasting masturbation on intellect, don’t you?) that is emotionless and dull. The joy of selecting the greatest films is risking revealing that which has moved you, and that which reveals you? With that in mind, I do hereby risk (no particular order):
To Kill A Mockingbird
On the Waterfront
Raging Bull
Godfather 1 & 2
Ordinary People
12 Angry Men
Sounder
Lady & the Tramp (animated)
Carnal Knowledge
Last Picture Show
Five Easy Pieces
Born on the 4th of July
Jacknife
Bang the Drum Slowly
Rear Window
Last Tango in Paris
Full Metal Jacket
Easy Rider
King of Comedy
Deer Hunter
Mash
The Pawnbroker
ET
Midnight Cowboy
Judgement @ Nuremburg
Thanks to all that produced these, and so many others!
Hello, and thanks for the response. I don’t mean to imply that complete objectivity is preferable, or indeed, even possible when making such lists. In fact, I agree that subjectivity will always play a role in any kind of evaluation. Nevertheless, there is a difference (though perhaps with a fine line) between liking something and that thing being qualitatively good. I’m sure we can all think of works that we like, but that we would hesitate to defend as masterpieces of their form. I may enjoy reading Rex Stout more than I enjoy reading James Joyce, but I would never claim the former was more talented, let alone more profound, writer of fiction than the latter. [“Where would you put Mr. James Joyce?”] This of course raises the question of value criterion, how to measure quality, etc., answers to which are best left to someone smarter than I.
And while I don’t want to discount emotional responses, relying solely on them is limiting. Analysis has its pleasures too! And they’re related. So, I don’t think we should discourage thinking critically about art. I mean to say, is it intellectual masturbation to discuss meter, diction, and imagery in a poem, where a shift in rhythm, or a difference in single word or punctuation mark can completely alter the meaning and emotional reaction it creates? It’s like what Feynman said about analyzing a flower–it doesn’t diminish your appreciation of it, it can only augment it.
On a side note, I too love Rear Window. I can’t even read the title without thinking of two particular shots, both so ominous and chilling my hair never fails to stand on end.
I was surprised to see Mulholland Drive on the top 50. It would be interesting to see whether or not it’s still on the list in 10/20/30 years when other films from the last few decades start making it on there.
I’ve recently started trying to familiarise myself with “the classics”. Last week, watched classics like The Maltese Falcon, Rear Window, and Annie Hall. This week it will be Vertigo and Pygmalion.
The Maltese Falcon, Rear Window, and Vertigo are available in High Definition/Blu-Ray. Especially Rear Window is absolutely gorgeous in HD.
A comment on why lists are bad….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/02/best-of-lists-good-for-nothing
The three reasons the writer gives for her position amount to an argument against film criticism altogether, not just this sideshow business of list-making. I can’t tell just how much she is jesting.
To some extent the public takes this all far more seriously than those critics who cast the actual ballots. Most of them probably regard this as a harmless parlor game. But the poll is in at least a small way useful (to people interested in movies, anyway)in that it’s a window into how mainstream critical sensibilities change over time with respect to the worldwide film canon. It’s not curing cancer, okay, but one can see why a magazine by-and-for ardent movie lovers might think it a worthwhile and interesting project.
Which is exactly why an auteurist (I am one, committed and unrepentant) might object to it.
A solid case could be made (has been made, extensively; in America by, among others, the late Andrew Sarris) for the oeuvre and against cherry-picking. There are essential auteurs and oeuvres, and there are contingent ones.
Thus, I could easily compile a list of the 22 best full-feature films by Truffaut, the best thriller directed by Charles Laughton, or the 17 best non-documentary films by Aleksandr Sokurov. This does not imply indiscriminate appreciation. Take, for instance, Mozart’s operas: on one hand, there is Idomeneo, La Clemenza di Tito, the da Ponte operas in between; on the other hand, there is the truly dismal Magic Flute, which I wouldn’t mind seeing sucked up by a black hole. But I can’t excise it from the oeuvre, and the oeuvre is essential. Take, for instance, Wagner: whoever wants him can have him. For good. Wholesale. And good riddance.
It’s a tribute to Sarris that auteurism, generally construed, ended up being as accepted as it is today: many film courses are taught—without controversy—using more or less the approach Truffaut originally proposed. We’re all auteurists to some degree, even Pauline Kael, who loudly touted the work of certain directors she adored even as she mocked Sarris’ ideas. As Richard Corliss noted shortly after Sarris’ death, auteurism has become orthodoxy.
It’s not clear to me how acceptance of auteurism precludes this kind of Sight & Sound-style cherry-picking. Few were as prodigious a list-maker/cherry-picker as Sarris: Andy published his own yearly top-ten lists
for most of his career and presented his personal “pantheon” of U.S.-based directors (I recall he listed around a dozen or something like that)in one of his best books. More to the point, staunch auteurism apparently didn’t prevent Sarris from participating
in the Sight & Sound poll. Furthermore, some of his finest work in book form was devoted to reassessing the canon (which is essentially one big-ass list), rating and ranking and organizing movies and their directors into categories of his own making, declaring which was better than which and why. Did Sarris or someone associated with the founding of auteurism (Truffaut, Bazin) assert that such runs counter to the theory?
Not that I know.
And frankly, I wouldn’t care: “la politique des auteurs” is not an “-ism”, not a theory. It is — was — a practice, a pledge, and, for those few who could act on it, a policy.
My main objection was directed at ranking based on polls, rather than individual critics’ lists.
As for reassessing the canon, like Sarris did, I don’t mind the rating, but I do mind the ranking.
Perhaps it’s a cultural thing: “Top Ten” seems very much an American obsession (which has taken root on my side of the Atlantic, too, thank you very much).
The best counterexample can be found in Truffaut’s “The Films in My Life”: a personal work of love, and the very opposite of a canon, let alone a Top Ten list. This is the kind of advocacy that I prefer. More importantly, from the point of view of the film maker and the industry, this is the kind of advocacy that can persuade me to shell out my shekels and go see a movie.
It may well be a cultural thing that is relished most by Americans, but the most well-known and perhaps longest standing ranking poll—one of the only ones that ever makes news—is the brainchild of a British publication, right? This sort of list-making doesn’t seem so uniquely American to me, but if it is it would stand as one of the lesser moral offenses my nation has been guilty of (the foremost being Jack and Jill, sorry about that).
I honestly didn’t know what you meant by your comment before last. You said you were an auteurist, and then you said “A solid case could be made (has been made, extensively; in America by, among others, the late Andrew Sarris) for the oeuvre and against cherry-picking.” I didn’t know what that meant or to what it’s referring. You’ve clarified now that “cherry-picking” is being used to mean something like ranking movies based on quality or “rankings based on polls,” right? And Sarris wrote/said that he was against this in favor of “the oeuvre“? Do you happen to know where he discussed that? I’m not snarking, seriously, I just adored him and want to read what his points were and what year he made them (again, I don’t doubt what you’ve asserted: Sarris always changed his mind on stuff and wrote/spoke quite a lot, but I’ve read all his books but one and didn’t associate that specific sentiment with him, though apparently he argued it extensively).
Also, why you don’t think the cataloguing Truffaut does in “The Films of My Life” counts as canon-making? Even if we define “canon” more narrowly as “the fixed conventional wisdom about which movies are essential,'” doesn’t the fact that it’s the great Truffaut (who was highly reagrded as a critic and a director) and not Joe-Schmo mean that his selections actually do help shape that conventional wisdom? That’s the thing about The Canon—people like Truffaut contribute to its shaping whether they’re trying to or not, whether their efforts are a labor of love of not. Jonathan Rosenbaum, who wrote Essential Cinema: On the Necessity of Canons and often commented on canon-making before his retirement, might regard it as both personal canon and a contribution to the shaping of the larger, capital-“C” Canon.
I can’t imagine Dr.Zhivago not being on any top ten…Also Casablanca.
Some movies usually left out on lists because they are too foreign:
De Vierde Man (Dutch), the only good movie by Paul Verhoeven;
Autumn Sonata (Swedish) by Ingmar Bergman, possibly the best movie with Ingrid Bergman;
Lola (German) by Fassbinder, if you know something about post-war German history the funniest movie ever;
Preparez vous Mouchoir (French), the other funniest movie ever, especially if you like amoral jokes;
Memory of a Killer (Belgium), with the most sickening intro ever (and no, no gore involved), an excellent scenario and fabulous acting by veteran Jan Decleir.
Those Americans who are aware that there are movies made in Europe too: enjoy!
Gotta go with African Queen and Pulp Fiction
My top 5 or 10 greatest films must include Team America: World Police. On one level, it’s about the U.S. playing the role of the world’s policeman, as Noam Chomsky noted 30 years ago, so this is a great theme. And the satire skewers everybody, not just “punching up” versus “punching down”. And the special effects will hold up forever, if “holding up” means nobody will surpass their technique — who would bother?
I thought the underlying theme was good, but it was a platform for comedy, nothing more. It was clearly a critique, but the south park guys have had some episodes with more depth and message.
But I think I can say, no movie has consistently made me crack up every time I see it. There’s something to be said for a movie that can still be funny with the audio or video on their own.
My films:
1. Neopan Acros 100
2. Tri-X 400
3. Fujichrome Velvia 50
4. Kodachrome 25*
5. Neopan 1600*
6. Ektar 100
7. Neopan Acros 400
8. T-Max 400
9. Agfachrome 50*
10. Kodak Recording 2475*
*discontinued
Everybody on this thread has been enthusing about exposed film. Let us dream, briefly, of the creative potential latent in unexposed material.
Tri-X-Pan
Kodachrome 64
There are/were others???!!
Damn. This brings back memories of my darkroom days- that great fragrance of Microdol-X, stop bath and fixer. Sigh.
Yes, Tri-X-Pan in Microdol X 3:1, at 75°F, 30-second interval agitations (I can’t remember the total development time …) Great stuff. Gave a really linear density curve with very small toe and shoulder areas.
13 1/2 minutes.
Try XTOL.
Lots of vitamin C, great antiscorbutic, if you don’t mind a little 4-Hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidone, Diethylenetriaminepentaacetate and Sodium metabisulfite on the side.
Get a dark room, guys! 😉
/@
I think I’d put Agfachrome above Kodachrome as a personal preference. The saturation was a bit more subtle an natural looking.
So would I, but I’m scanning old slides, and the Agfachromes are faded like hell. Kodachromes seem to be keeping like forever.
I used to be a devotee of film, I had plastic boxes of unexposed rolls in my fridge, for example (though I gave up trying to process my own quite early in the piece).
I have to admit I have now been seduced by the ease and convenience (and affordability!) of digital, I wonder, do aficionados argue about the colour saturation or grey-scale accuracy of various models of CCD sensor? Doesn’t seem to carry quite the same mystique, somehow.
Just see this at Mike Johnston’s The Online Photographer:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/08/handling-memory-cards.html
🙂
Not sure about CCD sensors, but I know that every now and then someone comes up with a Photoshop “filter” or grayscale index that tries to simulate the original.
Occasionally, I hear my old 4×5 view camera calling me from the closet, saying, “please take me out tonight.” But just as I open the case, it continues, “…and pick me up a digital back while you’re at it.” It’s then that I close the case and return it to the closet.
Ah, but you must define “great.”
The BFI question/sugestion is pretty good, I think: “You might choose the ten films you feel are most important to film history, or the ten that represent the aesthetic pinnacles of achievement, or indeed the ten films that have had the biggest impact on your own view of cinema.”
That’s different from: Which films did you like the most?
Films I like, in no order:
Godfather
2001
Laurence of Arabia
Dr. Zhivago
Out of Africa
Sweet Land
The Sound of Music
Koyaanisqatsi (sp?)
Three Kings
The Bourne Identity
Michael Clayton
The Witness
A River Runs Through It
The Last Waltz
Jean de Florette + Manon de Sources
The Deer Hunter
Memento
Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
Blues Brothers
Pride and Prejudice (2006)
Schindler’s List
My Life As a Dog
Young Einstein (no, I did not misspell!)
Richard III (Ian McKellen, 1995)
Henry V (Branagh, 1989)
Master and Commander
OK, I’m tired now …
Here’s a pretty fun short film