Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time

johnny_ultimate

Another greatest films list - woo. But this one is slightly more prestigious and grander in scale than most. The BFI poll happens but once a decade. With 850 critics / academics / professionals having voted, the latest list is due to be published tonight: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/polls-surveys/greatest-films-all-time-2012

This is the 2002 list:

01. Citizen Kane
02. Vertigo
03. La Règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game)
04. The Godfather and The Godfather Part II
05. Tokyo Story
06. 2001: A Space Odyssey
07. The Battleship Potemkin
07. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
09. 8½
10. Singin' in the Rain

Should be interesting to see if there have been any shifts subsequently - and definitely curious to see if any newer films make the cut.

delbertgrady

There has been much discussion in the last week or so as to whether Citizen Kane can hold on to the number one position for this latest poll. Personally, I always found the published lists of some of the voters to be more interesting, as you'd often find films that were clearly personal favourites in among titles that would be far more predictable inclusions.

johnny_ultimate

Yeah I'm looking forward to seeing the vast amounts of data S&S are promising to publish over the next month or so. Such make for some curious reading

Kinski

Pointless exercise.

Sad Professor

I'll be shocked if Citizen Kane doesn't hold the top spot. Vertigo will probably drop a bit - it's more divisive film than its previous placement would suggest. It's my favourite film of all time, though, so if they want to give it number 1 that's fine with me.

I love the S&S lists, especially, as already mentioned, the individual lists. It's also interesting to see how opinion toward certain films change over time. Bergman once occupied several places in the top 10, now he barely registers at all.

johnny_ultimate

I'm particularly fond of the 2001 - Tokyo Story - Potemkin - Sunrise area of the list Don't get me wrong, all the other films are wonderful (well, haven't seen Rules of the Game or - shame on me - Singin' in the Rain), but those four are particularly powerful for me.

QikBax

I've been waiting for this as well.

If the critics want to add a film from the last ten years they have to take out one of their previous choices. Ebert has added Tree of Life and taken out Dekalog.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/04/the_greatest_films_of_all_time.html

johnny_ultimate

Well, Vertigo isn't as divisive as expected! Hot off twitter:

1. Vertigo
2. Citizen Kane
3. Tokyo Story
4. Rules of the Game
5. Sunrise
6. 2001
7. The Searchers
8. Man with a Movie Camera
9. The Passion of Joan of Ark
10. 8 1/2

Battleship Potemkin is the most notable absence this time around. And splitting the Godfather into two separate votes obviously damaged its chances.

And the top 50: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

FishBowel

I've seen Jeanne Dielman!

Technocentral

WTF wheres Charlie Casanova in that top ten?

e_e

Technocentral wrote: »

WTF wheres Charlie Casanova in that top ten?

Whoops time for the director to write more vitriolic hate mail toward the critical establishment.

Sad Professor

Wow! So Citizen Kane's 50 year reign is over. I'm delighted to see Vertigo take the top spot. I greatly admire Kane as a technical achievement, but emotionally it always left me cold. Vertigo is a much deeper and more profound film. Dreamlike and intoxicating, there's so many layers to it. One of the film's biggest fans, Chris Marker, only died a few days ago. His film La Jetée (which was later used as the basis for Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys) was inspired by Vertigo and is number 50 on the list.

It's sad to see The Godfather get knocked off the top 10, but separating them was the right decision. And honestly, anyone faced with a choice between The Godfather and its sequel should always choose the first film. The sequel is great, but it wouldn't exist if not for the original.

I haven't seen The Rules of the Game and never even heard of Man with a Movie Camera.

homerun_homer

It's understandable that most of the movies in this list are gonna be old films and classics but does anyone feel anything a bit more modern deserves to be in there or is this how the list will look again when they next survey?

johnny_ultimate

homerun_homer wrote: »

It's understandable that most of the movies in this list are gonna be old films and classics but does anyone feel anything a bit more modern deserves to be in there or is this how the list will look again when they next survey?

Consider this the opposite to an Empire poll or the IMDB Top 250 which can often be slightly skewed by gut populist reaction. These are critics / academics who truly know their film, and will likely weigh up their choices slightly obsessively. The films chosen are what a majority of professional cinephiles consider the most influential and important the artform has yet produced. Modern films need to be evaluated carefully and their impacted weighted (opinion can turn quickly), which is why it will take decades of consideration before they'll show up on a S&S poll. You'll probably see the likes of In the Mood for Love or Mullholland Dr. climbing up a bit in 2022 (ugh). There was rumblings that The Tree of Life had a good chance this time around, but it was just outside the top 100 in the end.

Interestingly, the directors' list is a bit more modern - well, if the 1970s could be considered modern. Great to see Tokyo Story owning the top of the list though

01. Tokyo Story
02. 2001: A Space Odyssey
02. Citizen Kane
04. 8½
05. Taxi Driver
06. Apocalypse Now
07. The Godfather
07. Vertigo
09. Mirror
10. Bicycle Thief

krudler

I must give Tokyo Story a watch. Pretty predictable critics list overall, kinda glad to see CK off the top, its boring seeing it top these critics polls all the time.

delbertgrady

I'm sorry to see Singin' in the Rain slip out of the top ten.

Renn

I can never understand why anyone would give a **** what's in a list that other people created based, obviously, on their own criteria of what makes a film good. I love Vertigo but I could never be excited/delighted to see it top some random poll.

Sad Professor

Pleased to see Mulholland Drive on there (no. 28). It seems to be the most recent film on the list.

bullvine

Am I missing something, or are these lists really are a load of rubbish, are mainstream movies ignored for a reason? Did I not read the small print.

No Schindlers List is just an Epic Fail in my opinion!

As is no Sergio Leone!

I do love Citizen Kane and Vertigo though!

krudler

bullvine wrote: »

Am I missing something, or are these lists really are a load of rubbish, are mainstream movies ignored for a reason? Did I not read the small print.

No Schindlers List is just an Epic Fail in my opinion!

As is no Sergio Leone!

I do love Citizen Kane and Vertigo though!

If its not 50 years old and black and white its too popular :pac:

jpm4

It may point people towards some good films I guess but it's largely elitist nonsense - why would anyone care so much that a bunch of film academics have used some criteria to arrive at the conclusion that The Searchers is a better film than say The Good, The Bad and The Ugly?

bullvine

Watched The Searchers once awhile back, I actually thought it was a black comedy it was so unintentionally funny!

snausages

I never place too much stock in 'greatest ever' lists, but these are lists by guys whose whole lives revolve around film so I'm always interested in what they have to say whether I agree with it or not. I've never even heard of Tokyo Story so that's one on my 'to watch' list.

Is this the first time Mulholland Dr. has shown up on the list? Was it there in 2002? I wonder if any films produced in the last ten years will show up in 2022.

Sad Professor

No, Mulholland Drive wasn't on the 2002 list. It only came out in 2001. I think the most recent film on that list may have been Blade Runner, which didn't make the 2012 list at all.

Another recent film that made the list is In the Mood for Love, which came out in 2000.

don ramo

can a MOD ban me if ive only seen probably 2 of the top 50 films on that list:o,

do the people making these list honestly believe that the film industry is so bad that its prime seemed to be 1958 and 99.9% of what it has produced since is utter tripe,

i do respect people opinions and taste in film, but i do find it ridiculous that there are so many films on that list before 1950, ive seen some great films in my life, and have been recommended so many also, but id say ive only heard of 11 of the films on that list,

should i just simply stop watching films at this point, are there no more stories worth my time,

Sad Professor

You have to consider the age of the people making these lists. They are obviously going to pick the films that had the biggest influence on them. Look at the director's list: lots of films from the '60s and '70s, back when most of them were just starting their careers. The academics/critics are understandably going to look further into the past. And rightly so. If not for these lists, some of the films would be forgotten.

bullvine

Good to see Apocalypse Now near the top, its trully a remarkable movie.

krudler

bullvine wrote: »

Good to see Apocalypse Now near the top, its trully a remarkable movie.

or an incoherent overindulgent mess, depending on which version you watch :pac:

Kinski

krudler wrote: »

or an incoherent overindulgent mess, depending on which version you watch :pac:

Redux was one occasion where getting closer to the director's original vision actually spoiled the film for me. Apart from giving Martin Sheen's character getting a few more scenes with the boat's crew (which enhanced the depiction of the relationships on the boat, as itshowed him developing an initial rapport with them which deteriorated as they journeyed downriver) it added nothing worthwhile. The extended "bunnies" and French plantation scenes sucked.

snausages

I've only watched Redux and I wouldn't call it incoherent at all. Definitely could have done without that excess bloat in the French plantation though.

johnny_ultimate

don ramo wrote: »

can a MOD ban me if ive only seen probably 2 of the top 50 films on that list:o,

i do respect people opinions and taste in film, but i do find it ridiculous that there are so many films on that list before 1950, ive seen some great films in my life, and have been recommended so many also, but id say ive only heard of 11 of the films on that list,

But if you've only seen or indeed heard of a fraction of the titles, than can you be in a position to comment that it's ridiculous? The majority of the people who have contributed to this survey know more about film than you or I. And they feel that these films are the ones that are most influential in the development of cinema as an artform. All these films have withstood the test of time for a large amount of people, and the repercussions of their innovations and successes can be felt in almost every contemporary film. The problem with more public polls is that your average cinema-goer has only seen a limited selection of what cinema has to offer. This acts as a counterpoint to that. The most interesting thing about the S&S poll is that it's compiled by the most knowledgeable people in the field, and their consensus holds some sort of basic weight. Elitism isn't always a bad thing.

There is, of course, only so much weight one should place in a simple list, and of course it isn't going to gel with every individual. It's a simple curiosity: a brief and general overview of the films that have particularly inspired film-making and film criticism. There's no value in getting annoyed or excited about it. But it is a semi-valuable measure of the films' enduring popularity and influence. All of the films listed have proven their worth over a prolonged period, and the voters are right not to impulsively select films that are currently fashionable.

If you haven't seen many of the films, the best thing this list has to offer you is the opportunity to watch them. I know I'm eager to check out some of the ones that have passed me by. From what I've seen, each and every one is worthy of any viewers' time: they're all interesting, worthwhile choices that can help inform one's knowledge of cinema history and practice. Of course everyone will have their own individual favourites - likely ones that would struggle to place anywhere on a survey of this sort. An existence of a list such as this in no way negatively impacts upon that.

Again, it is just a list, and arguably a futile activity. But it's something to have a curious glance at once every decade, and it's not stopping any of us moving on with life and film watching. If it does inspire us to check out some of the best cinema has had to offer since its inception, well then at the very least it does one thing right.

krudler

lack of Robocop on that list.

FishBowel

This is some Films forum when most posters haven't seen a fraction of that list

jaykhunter

I don't agree that "important" and "influential" is the same thing as "Greatest". If they want to make a "Most influential" list that's more than fine. Is there not a list that simply takes the best writing, acting, cinematography and music into account; i.e. a legitimate best film list?

FishBowel

The best films were made before we were born!

Sad Professor

jaykhunter wrote: »

I don't agree that "important" and "influential" is the same thing as "Greatest". If they want to make a "Most influential" list that's more than fine. Is there not a list that simply takes the best writing, acting, cinematography and music into account; i.e. a legitimate best film list?

Best, favourite, influential, important, it's all the same thing, at least when it comes to making lists like this. S&S leave it up to voters to decide. That's what makes their list (especally their director's list) more interesting than say the AFI's one - and of course the fact that it isn't restricted to American films.

Anyway, the various components that make up a film don't in themselves don't make a great film. A truly great film is greater than the sum of its parts. Critics and academics may choose to deconstruct it, but it's the film taken as a whole that people remember or not. If certain films didn't get a look-in on this list, then it was down to tastes of the people polled rather that any particular criteria they were using.

johnny_ultimate

jaykhunter wrote: »

I don't agree that "important" and "influential" is the same thing as "Greatest". If they want to make a "Most influential" list that's more than fine. Is there not a list that simply takes the best writing, acting, cinematography and music into account; i.e. a legitimate best film list?

S&S purposefully loosely define the criteria, for better or worse. Some will vote for their favourites, some will vote for what are they perceive to be the most influential. It's a combination of various factors. Perhaps 'greatest' is the wrong terminology, but I think we can safely assume these are the films that the voters actually really, really like and think are the pinnacle of the artform.

All fifty films are a ****load better than the frickin' Shawshank Redemption anyway

FishBowel

The sad fact that is that almost everything had been done before 1970. The best directors are gone now. Anyone who thinks Shawshank is a classic movie should watch something in black and white like Brute force. The S&S list shows that modern cinema isn't up to much.

krudler

FishBowel wrote: »

The sad fact that is that almost everything had been done before 1970. The best directors are gone now. Anyone who thinks Shawshank is a classic movie should watch something in black and white like Brute force. The S&S list shows that modern cinema isn't up to much.

if The Shawshank Redemption had stayed in its little know pre-vhs release state it'd probably be in there. Its a great film but just suffers from being overliked. Its the Citizen Kane of populist polls :pac:

Seans_Username

FishBowel wrote: »

The sad fact that is that almost everything had been done before 1970. The best directors are gone now. Anyone who thinks Shawshank is a classic movie should watch something in black and white like Brute force. The S&S list shows that modern cinema isn't up to much.

No offence, but that's quite a foolish thing to say. It's like saying "all music is awful since Nirvana". Scorsese is still wanderin about and Goodfellas was made after 1970 (a good 20 years after that). And the Coen brothers aren't that bad either.

krudler wrote: »

if The Shawshank Redemption had stayed in its little know pre-vhs release state it'd probably be in there. Its a great film but just suffers from being overliked. Its the Citizen Kane of populist polls :pac:

That's actually a decent point. Based on what you've said (pisstake or not), I'd nearly call that list a hipster list. I've heard of less than half of them and very few of them are past the 1970's. And there are plenty of good mainstream films made after the 70's.

Before you all decide to attack me, let me say this: I know that they know a lot more about film than me. That's obvious. I'm just a fan of films. That's the bottom line here. Maybe the films in this list are better than the ones I think are the best, in fact, it's more than probable that they are.

But surely a lot more films made after 1970 should have been in this list? I mean One Flew... (1975), Silence of the Lambs (1991), City of God (2002), Goodfellas (1990)...
And I'd agree with previous posts that 'influence' is not necessarily 'great'. If it's influential movies then why not stick in Fight Club? Aside from actual fight clubs being formed, it's had a pretty big influence in the lives of middle aged men working white-collar jobs.

I'm expecting a shítload of replies from certain people who think i'm a right eejit but this is just my opinion and I will gladly listen to any differing opinion. I don't want to come off as some sort of cúnt here

Sad Professor

Seans_Username wrote: »

No offence, but that's quite a foolish thing to say. It's like saying "all music is awful since Nirvana". Scorsese is still wanderin about and Goodfellas was made after 1970 (a good 20 years after that). And the Coen brothers aren't that bad either.

FishBowel hates Scorsese and the Coen brothers.

krudler

lists like the Empire and imdb ones are full of popular stuff sure, but surely a film that resonates with an audience is just as influential or worthy as something something from 80 years ago.

That's actually a decent point. Based on what you've said (pisstake or not), I'd nearly call that list a hipster list. I've heard of less than half of them and very few of them are past the 1970's. And there are plenty of good mainstream films made after the 70's.

I saw Shawshank in a local cinema about a year after it came and went on its original run, think i was around 16 at the time, loved it and have ever since, its one of those movies that grew in popularity over the years and is now considered "overrated".

e_e

FishBowel wrote: »

The sad fact that is that almost everything had been done before 1970. The best directors are gone now. Anyone who thinks Shawshank is a classic movie should watch something in black and white like Brute force. The S&S list shows that modern cinema isn't up to much.

Could you kindly direct me to the pre 1970s equivalent to Werner Herzog, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Paul Thomas Anderson, Michael Haneke, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Bela Tarr, David Cronenberg, Christopher Nolan, Richard Linklater, Hayao Miyazaki, Wong Kar Wai, Park Chan-Wook, Guillermo Del Toro, Takashi Miike, Jim Jarmusch, Guy Maddin, Terrence Malick, Takeshi Kitano, Lee Chang-Dong, Ridley Scott, Gaspar Noé, Charlie Kaufman, Andrei Tarkovsky, Sion Sono and Wes Anderson? Thanks. :pac:

johnny_ultimate

To counter accusations of 'hipsterdom', it should be pointed out that the majority of the films listed remain hugely entertaining and engaging, more so than 99% of more recent films. Sunrise: A Tale of Two Humans is a delightful, impressive and genuinely funny film from beginning to end. Tokyo Story is as beautiful and considered as it ever was. Vertigo remains subversive, unsettling and masterful. 2001 is... well it's 2001. If in some bizarre hypotethical situation I had to rank films, there'd only be a handful of more modern films that could hold a candle to them. The only film on the grander list I'd strongly disagree with is Pierrot Le Fou, which I thought was mostly pretentious nonsense (especially after seeing it the same day as Sunrise). But hey! Academics love their Godard.

e_e wrote: »

Could you kindly direct me to the pre 1970s equivalent to Werner Herzog, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Paul Thomas Anderson, Michael Haneke, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Bela Tarr, David Cronenberg, Christopher Nolan, Richard Linklater, Hayao Miyazaki, Wong Kar Wai, Park Chan-Wook, Guillermo Del Toro, Takashi Miike, Jim Jarmusch, Guy Maddin, Terrence Malick, Takeshi Kitano, Lee Chang-Dong, Ridley Scott, Gaspar Noé, Charlie Kaufman, Andrei Tarkovsky, Sion Sono and Wes Anderson? Thanks. :pac:

There's no use even trying... it's not even worth it

marienbad

e_e wrote: »

Could you kindly direct me to the pre 1970s equivalent to Werner Herzog, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Paul Thomas Anderson, Michael Haneke, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Bela Tarr, David Cronenberg, Christopher Nolan, Richard Linklater, Hayao Miyazaki, Wong Kar Wai, Park Chan-Wook, Guillermo Del Toro, Takashi Miike, Jim Jarmusch, Guy Maddin, Terrence Malick, Takeshi Kitano, Lee Chang-Dong, Ridley Scott, Gaspar Noé, Charlie Kaufman, Andrei Tarkovsky, Sion Sono and Wes Anderson? Thanks. :pac:

I could do it no problem , but what would be the point ? that is the beauty of 10 year polls - a film has to have stood the test of at least some passage of time. To be honest I am amazed Terence Malick is in it so soon , way too early to judge the effect of a film.

This is the problem with all the other pop type polls - no perspective .

Sad Professor

A good summary of what changed since the 2002 poll:

http://deadspin.com/5931297/a-very-obsessive-guide-to-sight--sounds-greatest-films-poll

bullvine

Lets be honest, the lack of the The Good, The Bad and The Ugly or Once Upon a time in the West from the Top 50, makes it a little lame. I wonder did some of these so called experts see either of those films.

krudler

marienbad wrote: »

I could do it no problem , but what would be the point ? that is the beauty of 10 year polls - a film has to have stood the test of at least some passage of time. To be honest I am amazed Terence Malick is in it so soon , way too early to judge the effect of a film.

This is the problem with all the other pop type polls - no perspective .

but by that logic nothing made in the last few decades will ever get on it, how can something be considered influential if an entire generation of people have never even heard of it, never mind seen it? you can argue that something like Star Wars or Blade Runner is as influential as anything on that list, if not moreso.

Sad Professor

bullvine wrote: »

Lets be honest, the lack of the The Good, The Bad and The Ugly or Once Upon a time in the West from the Top 50, makes it a little lame. I wonder did some of these so called experts see either of those films.

One or both if them should make the directors' list.

snausages

I don't understand why so many people take issue with the list if they've only seen a fraction of the films. I mean, I'm not saying that my opinion is any less uninformed, having only watched 12 films out of 50, but I'm at least going to try and watch most of the top 10 before I decide if it's a good list or not.

MakeEmLaugh

These lists are always interesting, if a bit dismissive towards post-1960s cinema.

As a child of the 1980s, I find my cinematic tastes tend to reflect the decades immediately surrounding my childhood. As such, I am woefully unfamiliar with cinema pre-1960.

Don't get me wrong, I love early Hitchcock, from The 39 Steps to North by Northwest (the sheer number of films in Hitchock's directorial canon has delayed me familiarising myself with all of them).

I've seen all of the 2012 Critics' Top Ten, bar Sunrise, 8½, Man With A Movie Camera and The Passion of Joan of Ark.

What I'd really like to know is, are there examples of films from the 1950s, or earlier, which pioneered the techniques that became commonplace in the 1970s onwards? Apart from the most obvious choice, Citizen Kane!